Trucker refuses to cooperate at Border Patrol checkpoint

[bones_708]

Reasonable intrusion= it fits an agenda, so we will allow it, and not bother with that pesky document.
Yes, SCOTUS has the last word acording to the Constitution. They ain't doing what they are supposed and have not for some time.
TS is right, debsteing a LEO on the side of the road is not a go
od way to get it done. Unless you have lots of money and time.And no, in a legal arguement I would lose. But just because someone says it's the law and legal, don't make it right.
Because I did not quote case law, I am wrong and illogical. Need to quit looking at so many books and look at the real world. If people let them, the government will take what it can, little by little. They will justify it any way they can. Until there is nothing left.

from an idgit coffeeholic

Look it's obvious you just want to rant and rail against something. So be it. The ruling that allowed these checkpoints also restricted the govt. In fact a good portion of the cases are the Court telling the Govt what it can't do or if they can still do it then the manner in which they have to do it. By ruling that these checkpoints were legal because of the limited intrusion they actually keep people from being made to answer questions like this truck driver. It set guidelines and framework to what before was purely at the discretion of the agency.

 

[bones_708]

Well now, if one infringement did not lead to another, just how
exactly do you explain the degradation in freedoms?


from an idgit coffeeholic

Hey I can carry a gun in public now. I couldn't 20 years ago. So at least in one area the infringement lessened. That busts your all or nothing statement.

 

[Whistler]

You said there were two different opinions. The one I mentioned wasn't one of those two and you failed to address my point at all. That's fine don't respond if you don't wish to do so but please don't fake respond. People here respond to comments with just insults or what they believe is a snappy response while dodging any point that may have been made. If one doesn't feel like addressing a counter point then how about just not responding.

That's not what I said. I'd recommend you read it again but doubt it would aid your comprehension. I addressed your reply specifically, there's nothing "snappy" or "fake" about it. You appear incapable of simply responding without insult or attack and have the audacity to accuse others of your behavior? I gave you benefit of the doubt and simply disagreed with your point of view. In the post you are referencing I didn't mention you at all, is this narcissism we're revealing? You've shown yourself to be a troll and are on the verge of overcoming my better nature. If you can't simply discuss opposing viewpoints how about take your own advice and just not respond? No need to be an ass.

 

[jrbfishn]

Hey I can carry a gun in public now. I couldn't 20 years ago. So at least in one area the infringement lessened. That busts your all or nothing statement.

Do you really think I am that simple minded?

Pssst, little secret hear brains, that was a STATE thing, NOT a Scotus thing.

Come on man, you're getting lost somewhere in your own arguments.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[bones_708]

That's not what I said. I'd recommend you read it again but doubt it would aid your comprehension. I addressed your reply specifically, there's nothing "snappy" or "fake" about it. You appear incapable of simply responding without insult or attack and have the audacity to accuse others of your behavior? I gave you benefit of the doubt and simply disagreed with your point of view. In the post you are referencing I didn't mention you at all, is this narcissism we're revealing? You've shown yourself to be a troll and are on the verge of overcoming my better nature. If you can't simply discuss opposing viewpoints how about take your own advice and just not respond? No need to be an ass.

Who is insulting who now. Those coments weren't totally directed at you but they do seem to fit.

That's not what I said.

You said there were two different opinions. What did I get wrong? Lets look

Seems to come down to two basic positions; those that think it's worth condemning and those that think it best to capitulate. To be fair there are a couple who approve based on their perception of the greater good.

It does seem to be what you said

I addressed your reply specifically,

You addressed it to me but rather ignored my statement. "You seem to ignore those who think it's not capitulation to comply with a reasonable law. It's like saying stopping at a traffic light is capitulating."
Now I don't think saying

No I didn't ignore that.....
And
........"Reasonable" is merely an opinion.

Is addressing my argument. You were saying people were either condemning or capitulating, which by that words definition would mean surrendering to something you were against in this context, with just a few willing to trade off their freedoms voluntarily. I disagreed that there were only the only options and you said

No I didn't ignore that.....
And
........"Reasonable" is merely an opinion.

That to me ignores that there are some people who disagree with your evaluation and many of us would consider the Feeds making a non intrusive immigration check inside the border eminently reasonable and as such we would neither be giving anything up nor surrendering anything. So I don't consider you comment to address that at all.

In the post you are referencing I didn't mention you at all, is this narcissism we're revealing?

Since you quoted me I find this a bit hard to respond to. I wouldn't think that assuming your response pertains to the post you quote to be a sign of narcissism.

You've shown yourself to be a troll and are on the verge of overcoming my better nature.

I'm not just name calling or making smart responses here I am quite willing to have discussions so the Troll comment just doesn't fit.

If you can't simply discuss opposing viewpoints how about take your own advice and just not respond? No need to be an ass.

I'm discussing. You guys are the one that seem to take issue.

 

[bones_708]

Do you really think I am that simple minded?

Pssst, little secret hear brains, that was a STATE thing, NOT a Scotus thing.

Come on man, you're getting lost somewhere in your own arguments.

from an idgit coffeeholic

One last time but anymore child like insults and I'm done with you. You didn't specify infringements as a State thing or a SCOTUS thing but either way there have been many rulings from the courts, both SCOTUS and others that have increased people ability to carry and own firearms. And there are developments as we speak with cases against to PO and The COE. And those are just 2nd amendment cases. Now if you can respond without insult I will continue. Can you?

 

[Whistler]

This gotten too damn silly to stomach. You conveniently ignore I stated twice "To be fair there are a couple who approve based on their perception of the greater good." A third position by any definition.

Not directed at me? You quoted me, how could you claim it wasn't directed at me? Disingenuous at best, I'd recommend you go back and actually read what occurred rather than create a strawman.

You said "You seem to ignore those who think it's not capitulation to comply with a reasonable law." to which I replied "reasonable is merely an opinion" directly addressing your argument, obviously not everyone considers it reasonable. Including, it would appear, the truck driver.

The post you were responding to that started this pointless pissing contest was #228, you aren't mentioned in that post and you weren't quoted.

I'll agree my last post was mildly insulting however claiming you are "discussing and not insulting" when you brought the words "bile" and "idiot" into this discussion just as a couple examples. Your tone has been dismissive, insulting and demeaning from the start, I'm incredulous you could in good conscience state the contrary.

I wouldn't bother to respond but I've never been one to be intimidated or bullied and felt compelled to respond to the gross mischaracterization. This thread is beyond salvage, you win the internet, happy?

 

[Younggun]

There are better ways to deal with drugs trafficking and immigration. Politicians don't want to take those better routes because it would probably cost them votes in certain areas.

I don't like the check points. I understand that people are ok with them "for the greater good" but I don't really know how much "greater good" comes from them. Yes, they catch a lot there, but I think there are better ways to deal with it, mainly in dealing with the root problem instead of a never ending battle with the symptom. Again, something politicians would fear.

As far as this thread....trench warfare now. No one will win. Insults flying from both sides, no high ground left to take. I don't believe arguing that "SCOTUS says it's ok" makes it right, or OK. Just legal.

I bet this conversation would have gone much differently over a pot of coffee. Or maybe somebody would have gotten 3rd degree burns.


I'll go back to spectating now.

 

[TheDan]

There are better ways to deal with drugs trafficking and immigration.

These are just symptoms of the post progressive era. Ending prohibition, the welfare system, progressive income tax, and political social engineering would make all these "problems" vanish.

 

[jrbfishn]

One last time but anymore child like insults and I'm done with you. You didn't specify infringements as a State thing or a SCOTUS thing but either way there have been many rulings from the courts, both SCOTUS and others that have increased people ability to carry and own firearms. And there are developments as we speak with cases against to PO and The COE. And those are just 2nd amendment cases. Now if you can respond without insult I will continue. Can you?

Ok, supposed to hurt my feelings? It don't.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[SmokeyWhisper]

10 years with a CDL here and I have personally passed plenty of border check points. I couldn't watch the video as it was set to private. Responding only from the pictures and description, in my opinion, this incident was inconsistant with what is legal.

CDL holders are subject to different laws regarding interstate commerce. A truck can be stopped at any time for any reason by qualified agencies where as a private car cannot. The officer would need a warrant, reasonable suspicion, probable cause... or for you to just be speeding in order to do so. Unless the Border Patrol has reasonable suspicion, they cannot stop a truck or a car. They are a Federal Agency and are subject to the laws thereof. Highways and interstate commerce (such that this trucker was engaged in) are governed by the respective state. In this case, the Texas Highway Patrol.

Now, at a check point, Americans are protected by the 4th amendment which limits searches an seizure so you do not have to even engage Border Patrol agents much less respond. The Border Patrol has no highway authority and arguably cannot legally stop you. They do however set up stop signs at which point you have to stop, but at no point do you have to roll down your window to answer any questions. This is clearly protected by yhe 5th Amendment as you may not be deprived of liberty. Def-the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority.

The only argument that the Border Patrol has is in regards to the safety of their officers. Anyone on the road driving is not subject to their juristiction and no American has to answer any of their questions unless that person decides to wave their 4th Amendment rights.

Somebody at the Border Patrol screwed the pooch when they took the driver out of his truck like that. Regardless of what ever that driver did, there was no reason to use force.

 

[bones_708]

This gotten too damn silly to stomach. You conveniently ignore I stated twice "To be fair there are a couple who approve based on their perception of the greater good." A third position by any definition.

Not directed at me? You quoted me, how could you claim it wasn't directed at me? Disingenuous at best, I'd recommend you go back and actually read what occurred rather than create a strawman.

You said "You seem to ignore those who think it's not capitulation to comply with a reasonable law." to which I replied "reasonable is merely an opinion" directly addressing your argument, obviously not everyone considers it reasonable. Including, it would appear, the truck driver.

The post you were responding to that started this pointless pissing contest was #228, you aren't mentioned in that post and you weren't quoted.

I'll agree my last post was mildly insulting however claiming you are "discussing and not insulting" when you brought the words "bile" and "idiot" into this discussion just as a couple examples. Your tone has been dismissive, insulting and demeaning from the start, I'm incredulous you could in good conscience state the contrary.

I wouldn't bother to respond but I've never been one to be intimidated or bullied and felt compelled to respond to the gross mischaracterization. This thread is beyond salvage, you win the internet, happy?

It's funny because part of the reason I even bothered to comment was some of the posts were people compared BP to Nazi's filling cattle cars. That is when I entered this thread and I felt others were trying to denigrate and bully those who held different opinions.

When I said that comment was not totally directed at you, and you seem to have skipped over that totally part. I said " People here respond to comments with just insults or what they believe is a snappy response while dodging any point that may have been made." I have to be honest I assumed that when I wrote "People" that readers would understand that to mean more than just one person n you because, well, that word means more than one person. That is why I could and did say that it wasn't totally about you.

"reasonable is merely an opinion" addresses nothing. It is a smart ass throw off. Pretend all you want but it ignores the discussion.

I get what you mean now about the post I was referencing but come on guy that was several posts before. I assumed you meant the post that I quoted right before. #228 was what 2 or 3 quotes before?

Honestly "tone" is a bit hard to hear with the written word. Most of us here are not noted writers able to evoke clear emotions with our words. Some of what you believe is most likely in your head. People fill in with their imagination what they believe the other person means because they don't have visual and audio input that they would normally have during a face to face conversations. Of course there have been a lot of just bad arguments and it is depressingly difficult to say that without sounding a bit condescending at the least.

By the way at least one of the idiots I used was about the comparison of BP agents to Nazis filling cattle cars. I'm ok with that one. I also called someones comment gibberish when they just started trolling. The bile comment wasn't addressing any one post but rather the curent nazi flavored trend that was so prevelent in this thread back then.

Hey I'm all for people being part of the process. But BS if that was what I was responding to here. Where was it said this guy was protesting? Nowhere instead there where claims of constitutionality, legality, and general bile vomited out about any authority. Grow the F up I say. Want to change it, I might even agree. Call the officers Nazi's and compare what this was to loading cattle cars. Then I think you're juvenile and ignorant as well as seriously lacking in taste.

I think it's clear that certain kinds of post because I even referenced the Nazi posts in that comment!!!
You also left out my favorite.

Here is another "Germans said that" idiot. Because it take a special kind of $#@! to compare a Nazi solder committing war crimes to a Federal agent doing his job.

 

[bones_708]

Somebody at the Border Patrol screwed the pooch when they took the driver out of his truck like that. Regardless of what ever that driver did, there was no reason to use force.

That actually isn't the law. A person does not have to answer or respond to the BP at a checkpoint, BUT, the BP can require someone to pull over for inspection at a checkpoint and stop someone from leaving until an inspection is completed. If you don't pull over then the BP can arrest you for interference with completing said inspection or they can have locals arrest you for blocking a roadway. If you try to leave when told to stop the BP can also arrest you. I would also note that the truck driver here was directed to a secondary inspection spot, was already slated for a full inspection, before he started his refusal routine.