You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Border Patrol Writes Letter to Military Officer's Commander - Conduct Unbecoming?
- Thread starter VAPA
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The only thing we agree on is your unalterable belief in the absolute righteousness of the actions of driver in the video you posted and the agenda your organization is pursuing with respect to that incident.
Oh, you had to change the subject. No hard feelings. It's a learning process. A wise man once told me:
It is okay for you to disagree with the finding in Mimms...
Of course, between us, this same wise man also told me:
And you would be wrong. Mimms is very clear about the question of being ordered out of a vehicle
As to my belief concerning the driver, it is alterable. Please present some legal citations to alter my belief in his rightness (but please read them before posting this time). My organization's agenda is to defend the Constitution of the United States by advocating for citizen use of technology to bring the sunshine of accountability into their interactions with LEO. We are comprised of veterans who have taken the oath to do exactly that. We want to make sure there is video evidence at all times (from LEO and from citizens), so that when a citizen does the crime, the evidence is there to make them do the time and protect the LEO from BS claims. Likewise, if the criminal is the LEO, we want to ensure they get punished. Do you disagree with this agenda? If you do, perhaps we could start a new thread. You could perhaps post this news story link to get the discussion started: http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2011-01-27/news/cops-vs-cameras-filming-cops-illegal/ as I'm sure it would make for a good discussion.
But back on topic here, the driver in this particular incident conducted himself legally. He was certainly no activist like other videos that are out there concerning the Border Patrol stops (not that activists are bad), and he was very cooperative. Had he exercised his rights fully (which we wish he would have done but to each his own), then he would have remained silent and provided no identification. The agents broke the law, plain and simple. Our taxpayer money will pay for the driver's lawyers and for the driver's time from that incident.
Last edited:
Conn. Trooper
New member
In other words, if a cop pulls me over unlawfully (and I have equipment that covers all the possible bases and transmits the evidence via cell network to a secure server) and orders me out of my car. I'm not getting out. Then it's game on and anything the cop does after that point is illegal and criminal and I will respond appropriately, and take it to court.
And how will you know that you didn't lose a plate, burn out a tail light, have a car that matches a bank robbers getaway vehicle? And when you resist arrest by not exiting your car, and go to jail for it, I hope it's worth it. I can't speak for everywhere, but here in CT. you can't resist an arrest, even if it's unlawful.
Cited. 3 CA 353. Cited. 10 CA 486. Cited. 12 CA 364. Cited. 14 CA 10. Cited. 27 CA 103. Cited. 32 CA 224. Cited. 37 CA 338. Cited. 40 CA 601. Cited. 43 CA 61; Id., 76. Cited. 46 CA 118. Under Sec. 53a-23, the illegality of an arrest is not a defense to charges under this section which was intended to require an arrestee to submit to an arrest, even though he believes, and may ultimately establish, that the arrest was without probable cause or was otherwise unlawful. It was not intended to require an arrestee to submit to egregiously unlawful conduct - such as an unprovoked assault - by the police in the course of an arrest, whether the arrest was legal or illegal. 79 CA 667. Interfering with an officer is lesser offense included in greater offense of assault of public safety personnel and thus conviction of both offenses for same act constituted double jeopardy violation. 86 CA 607.
Maybe I have a hard time thinking that being polite and showing some slight cooperation as "groveling".
And how will you know that you didn't lose a plate, burn out a tail light, have a car that matches a bank robbers getaway vehicle? And when you resist arrest by not exiting your car, and go to jail for it, I hope it's worth it. I can't speak for everywhere, but here in CT. you can't resist an arrest, even if it's unlawful.
Cited. 3 CA 353. Cited. 10 CA 486. Cited. 12 CA 364. Cited. 14 CA 10. Cited. 27 CA 103. Cited. 32 CA 224. Cited. 37 CA 338. Cited. 40 CA 601. Cited. 43 CA 61; Id., 76. Cited. 46 CA 118. Under Sec. 53a-23, the illegality of an arrest is not a defense to charges under this section which was intended to require an arrestee to submit to an arrest, even though he believes, and may ultimately establish, that the arrest was without probable cause or was otherwise unlawful. It was not intended to require an arrestee to submit to egregiously unlawful conduct - such as an unprovoked assault - by the police in the course of an arrest, whether the arrest was legal or illegal. 79 CA 667. Interfering with an officer is lesser offense included in greater offense of assault of public safety personnel and thus conviction of both offenses for same act constituted double jeopardy violation. 86 CA 607.
Maybe I have a hard time thinking that being polite and showing some slight cooperation as "groveling".
BP check points have multiple agents and sniffer dogs. Its their purpose to look for illegal immigrants and secondarily other unlawful activity, terrorists and smugglers to name a couple.
I remember once in the 80s being asked to open my hatch back at the BP station in the King Ranch on Hi-way 77. If I would have refused they would not have just let me leave. Come on lets get real here.
I've seen the BP pull vehicles into the secondary area and search for, aleins and contraband. I've seen them escort suspected illegal aleins off of commercial buses. All based on suspicion. Thats what they are trained to do, look for suspicious activity.
I remember once in the 80s being asked to open my hatch back at the BP station in the King Ranch on Hi-way 77. If I would have refused they would not have just let me leave. Come on lets get real here.
I've seen the BP pull vehicles into the secondary area and search for, aleins and contraband. I've seen them escort suspected illegal aleins off of commercial buses. All based on suspicion. Thats what they are trained to do, look for suspicious activity.
I can't speak for everywhere, but here in CT. you can't resist an arrest, even if it's unlawful.
Glad I don't live in your state.
Now that's freedom isn't it? You can't resist the government taking hold of your body and doing what they will with it (like rape), even if it's unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and the very definition of liberty. Nice!
There is technology that can record everything. A bit on the expensive side, but it exists. But as you've posted with your law, who cares? You can't resist unlawful arrest, and if your state government wants to do with you what it will for whatever illegal purpose, you have to submit.
Maybe I have a hard time thinking that being polite and showing some slight cooperation as "groveling".
Yes, refusing to be arrested and have your body subjected to the will of a criminal who unlawfully arrests you is "groveling." Some love liberty and freedom, and recognize it, and some don't.
Your state law, if challenged, will falter in Court. Until then you can think that the government can do whatever it wants to citizens (I mean subjects, in your state's case). Not me. And not any real American. While I may or may not win in court, if I survive, I will not be a slave. Keep that in mind if you choose to break the law. You might just run across a real American.
Last edited:
BP check points have multiple agents and sniffer dogs. Its their purpose to look for illegal immigrants and secondarily other unlawful activity, terrorists and smugglers to name a couple.
I remember once in the 80s being asked to open my hatch back at the BP station in the King Ranch on Hi-way 77. If I would have refused they would not have just let me leave. Come on lets get real here.
I've seen the BP pull vehicles into the secondary area and search for, aleins and contraband. I've seen them escort suspected illegal aleins off of commercial buses. All based on suspicion. Thats what they are trained to do, look for suspicious activity.
It's not their purpose to secondarily do anything. Brief inquiry into immigration status. That's it. It's the law. Now if you are intimidated into letting them search the back of your hatchback (though you are not required to let them), that is your business. Some are scared, and some are American.
Last edited:
VAPA
Well, I wonder why the BP check station on Intersate 8 at the California/Arizona border has sniffer dogs and arrests drug smugglers all the time?
I wonder how Willie Nelson got arrested for pot at the Sierra Blanca, Texas BP check station in November?
VAPA, your agenda is obvious and bound to fail. Go ahead and resist Law Enforcement to the utmost if they attempt to arrest you and see what happens.
Well, I wonder why the BP check station on Intersate 8 at the California/Arizona border has sniffer dogs and arrests drug smugglers all the time?
I wonder how Willie Nelson got arrested for pot at the Sierra Blanca, Texas BP check station in November?
VAPA, your agenda is obvious and bound to fail. Go ahead and resist Law Enforcement to the utmost if they attempt to arrest you and see what happens.
If another crime is committed in their presence, or they develop reasonable suspicion for, they can act. They just can't use the checkpoint to primarily look for those things. They are mandated to limit their checkpoints to determining immigration status. But if they just happen to see somebody smuggling drugs, or whatever, they can act. That's the law.
Go ahead and resist? Oh I already have, and won friend. But don't try to imitate me. You're not made of the American stuff I am made of. Better to be a good little sheep, and let real Patriots defend your freedom.
Go ahead and resist? Oh I already have, and won friend. But don't try to imitate me. You're not made of the American stuff I am made of. Better to be a good little sheep, and let real Patriots defend your freedom.
VAPA, your agenda is obvious and bound to fail. Go ahead and resist Law Enforcement to the utmost if they attempt to arrest you and see what happens.
What is my agenda? The agenda previously posted about accountability between the government and citizens? Bound to fail? Are you from North Korea or China? You type berry good Englis....
Raise a glass to real Americans who won't be intimidated out of their birth rights! Our lives and our sacred honor!
Go ahead and resist Law Enforcement to the utmost if they attempt to arrest you and see what happens.
Army vet, huh? How's that oath to support/defend/bear truth faith and allegiance so help you GOD going?
Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable seizures. Apparently in CT, the government there says you can't resist an UNLAWFUL arrest. You seem to be fine with that. Is that reasonable? You're an NRA member? But what if the government comes to your house and says "you're under arrest" and takes all your guns? You should be fine with that, right? I'm sure the NRA is proud to have your support.
Not sure how long you've been out of the Army, but combatants always have the inherent right to self defense. Oh, but not in America apparently. Not for the weak. If you submit to unlawful authority that wishes to control your body, hand-cuff you, do with you what they will, knowing they're acting illegally (as in the case of CT it seems), then you are a slave. Period, dot, done.
VAPA said:Go ahead and resist? Oh I already have, and won friend. But don't try to imitate me. You're not made of the American stuff I am made of. Better to be a good little sheep, and let real Patriots defend your freedom.
LOL I think one of the 'Patriots' from the old Legal and Political sub-Forum days has returned.
Good look winning adherents to your cause with that kind of rhetoric.
Good look winning adherents to your cause with that kind of rhetoric.
Yes, that kind of rhetoric is only attractive to Americans like our Founding Fathers and those who are not already cowardly slaves on the inside. It's not a matter of winning adherents, it's a matter of living free as Americans. This isn't the Super Bowl. It's not a game. Great men bled and died for these freedoms, they didn't just lose ten yards. But you have no idea of this. You probably didn't have the guts to play contact sports and you certainly don't have the guts to honor your oath. You should be ashamed, "It's so scary, screw my oath before God!"
VAPA
Protecting our constitutional rights and natural freedoms is commendable and laudable. So is working to get laws we don't like changed.
Actively provoking and resisting LEOs in the performance of their duty, is as over-zealous and crazy as your posts are starting to sound.
Protecting our constitutional rights and natural freedoms is commendable and laudable. So is working to get laws we don't like changed.
Actively provoking and resisting LEOs in the performance of their duty, is as over-zealous and crazy as your posts are starting to sound.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.