So.. I went to the border to shoot today.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ccwolf: Well done.

Sounds to me like he was on a fishing expedition and made up some lame reason (driving too fast) when you asked why he approached you.
 
Oh NO! Samurai just dropped a BOMB on the conservative right!!!

Oh, c'mon! They've already got my fingerprints! I had to give them my fingerprints when I got my CCW. If they want my blood-type, all they have to do is search the bone-marrow donor records. And, I'd WAY rather use DNA, as opposed to fingerprints, as identification. DNA is actually more scientifically reliable than fingerprinting. (You guys should READ some of the literature out there about exactly HOW they go about matching up fingerprint specimens! There's no SCIENCE to it at all! It's just whatever the analyst thinks... "Sure! That looks close!")

And, if they've got my fingerprints, they should have everybody's... Keep it fair...

What? Are you guys afraid the government is going to come beating down your doors, invading your "persons, papers, houses, and effects" to get their specimens? It's not that invasive. It's a swab of your cheek! Not that cheek! Your OTHER cheek! They could collect samples through the DMV, and it would be no trouble to anybody.

And, of course, collect samples at the border...

(Ok. Now one of you Moderators kindly move this to its own thread, and we'll get some REAL CONSERVATIVE DEBATE started!!!)
 
What? Are you guys afraid the government is going to come beating down your doors, invading your "persons, papers, houses, and effects" to get their specimens? It's not that invasive. It's a swab of your cheek! Not that cheek! Your OTHER cheek! They could collect samples through the DMV, and it would be no trouble to anybody
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, it's invading my "person, papers, houses, and effects." It'll be a cold day in h*** when I voluntarily surrender a DNA sample for such nonsense. You might go Google on the Houston crime lab DNA scandal and then tell me you want to go here.... :barf:

Springmom
 
I'll agree with you that the police are a little behind-the-times in properly implementing the technology.

I guess, to play devil's advocate (yeah, what have I been doing for the past two hours?), I should say: Performing DNA analysis is HARD! And, most garden-variety police definitely do NOT have the training required to handle a proper analysis. Safeguards for the procedure are definitely NOT in place, where DNA is currently in use. (The Houston crime lab should have NEVER convicted a guy without REPEATED testing for scientific validity.) BUT, the widespread use of DNA evidence could change all that!

Oh, and Springmom, weren't all of your children required to place their handprints and footprints on their birth certificates? Again, just food for thought...

Look, all I'm trying to say is, if the police really WANT to cataloge everyone's fingerprints, they've already got access to them. All it would take is a MASSIVE amount of research and compiling. Is there anyone here who HASN'T ever given any governmental agency a fingerprint before? I'd rather use DNA than fingerprints. I trust DNA more.

S.
 
No matter how we try to couch this in "constitutional terms", there was no such violation. He asked, you refused. Attempting to turn a single such incident into a diatribe against those who don't believe that this cop was spear-heading the attempt to reduce you to chattel is futile.

What happened, happened. The description was given by the ONE side, and not by both. Drawing conclusions on that is a lot like talking to yourself, you only get one opinion of what happened. Some posters here need to double-up on their tin-foil.:rolleyes:
 
Since, by your own admission, the description fits "about a million other people," it is too vague to justify a search unless you were that one-in-a-million fitting the description in the area. In short, not enough to warrant a compelled search.
Click to expand...

Depnds on the circumstances and I'm more than willing to help out th epolice in catching a real criminal by allowing them to quickly scratch my name off the list than instead of spending time haggling back and forth.


Further, what YOU are willing to subject yourself to is your problem. Don't drag us down with you.
Click to expand...

I'm not dragging anyone anywhere. But don't pretend that I'm somehow opposed to civil liberties because sometimes I decide that I would rather help out the cops.

Funny thing. I've found there is a strange correlation between people who look down upon cops and people who have less than happy meetings with LEO's. They tend to be the same.


As far as your tv fixation, I practice law. I have a lawsuit pending in Federal court based upon illegal search and seizure, with a second one (same PD) in the works. I've also had a cop barge into my home; no warrant, no PC and sure as hell, no consent.
Click to expand...

Neither of which have anything to do with the current situation or the hypothetical of planting evidence. So again, get real. No one said that there weren't dirty cops. But I'm willing to bet that the vast majority are good people trying to do their job.


You, according to your profile, are just a student.Get back to us when you have some experience with the real world.
Click to expand...

For someone who uses his mind for a living you sure make lots of assumptions. As for my profile, it was correct.... in the past decade. It just so happens that I've got a JD as well so you're not the only one in the justice system counselor. I've tried my fair share of cases so according to your standards I've got plenty of experience to comment on such things.

So, while you are removing your foot from your mouth, why don't you explain to me why there's anything wrong for a person who is fully aware of the extent of his rights, making a situational judgment and deciding to waive his rights for the particular incident in question.
 
What the hell?! Did anybody read what I posted? Seriously people, I provided some realistic reasons that the P.A.'s suspicions could have been raised. He even gave Ccwolf one of them (the driving speed directly along the border). Seriously, some of you people are so friggin' hungup on how every person in law enforcement is a jack-booted-thug that you can't let the facts bother you. It's these discussions that have made me go from loving this forum to becoming disgusted with it. It's really depressing; this place used to be the premier place on the internet to discuss things like this. It sure isn't anymore.
 
A point needs to be made here. In this (currently ongoing) thread, the majority of the posters are understandably upset about how wide open the southern border is (i.e. the Border Patrol isn’t doing it’s job good enough). Some of those very same posters then come to this thread and piss and moan about how a Border Patrol Agent’s request to search a vehicle that was acting somewhat suspicious is an infringement of Ccwolf’s rights, and how (s)he was 100% right to tell him to bugger off (albeit politely). I’d like to know just what the hell you people expect of the Border Patrol.

Honestly, that’s a serious question.
 
Not trying to hijack here but I've got a question.
How many of you who think the BP agent went over the line also think our border is plenty secure?
The guy was doing his job and believe it or not illegals get smuggled over in vehicles.
Was he on a fishing trip? IMO probably and he was fishing for illegals because that's his job.
 
this may be a minor thread hijack

...and if so, I apologize in advance, but I wanted to answer ahenry's question. The thread you ask about is not about what a specific border patrol agent is doing or not doing. It is about what our immigration policy (or lack thereof) is causing. I can't speak for everyone else who wrote on that thread, but I will tell you that I want very much to see a significant increase in the number of agents, significantly more electronic surveillance, and frankly would be perfectly happy to see a serious fence the length of the bloomin' border.

That said, the original poster in this thread did well. He was polite. He said no. He has the right to do that, and to refuse to allow a search is not and can never be allowed to become some sort of tacit admission of vague guilt that, by its very existence, gives the officer probable cause for the search he wanted to make in the first place! Even in a courtroom a defendant's refusal to testify against himself cannot be taken as a sign of guilt because "if you dont' have any thing to hide, why would you do that?"

I would do that because it is my right. Period. Nothing personal against the officer, but it is my right to say no and no is exactly what I would also have said.

Springmom
 
ahenry said:
Some of those very same posters then come to this thread and piss and moan about how a Border Patrol Agent’s request to search a vehicle that was acting somewhat suspicious is an infringement of Ccwolf’s rights, and how (s)he was 100% right to tell him to bugger off (albeit politely). I’d like to know just what the hell you people expect of the Border Patrol.
Click to expand...
I expect them to know that coyotes don't sit around plinking while ferrying a truck full of illegals.

What could the agent have been thinking he might find with a search? And isn't he supposed to go after illegal border-crossers instead of speeders?
 
Burn! Someone put up 2 points for Mvpel.

Again, that's
Mvpel...2
People willing to submit to the will of others...zero.

Maybe later you guys can give us lessons on how to appear as meek and submissive as possible to authority figures. I'm all for being polite and returning any nods of respect with an officer or bp but asking to search my vehicle is equivalent of them saying "While I don't think you're really doing anything wrong, statistically if I search your vehicle I might get to bring you to jail today, you mind?"

Odd note, if they really want to be a D about it, they can arrest you for not being compliant or any other trumped up "because I can" charge and tow your vehicle. When towing a vehicle (due to the driver being in cuffs in the back), they are allowed to 'take inventory' of your truck. Goodness knows they don't want your stuff misplaced or taken. So if they really want in...

I swear, sometimes it really is just a peice of paper in a museum...
 
Maybe later you guys can give us lessons on how to appear as meek and submissive as possible to authority figures.
Click to expand...

Meek and submissive has nothing to do with it. I know my rights, and I am the sole and ultimate decision maker of whether I decide to exercise my rights on a given day. If I choose not to in a particular situation that doesn't make me any more meek than any of you guys who pull out the face paint any time you see anything resembling a badge.



I swear, sometimes it really is just a peice of paper in a museum...
Click to expand...

Do tell me, who is actually exercising his rights... the person who gives an emphatic no regardless of the situation, or the person who gives conscious thought to what is going on and makes a conscious decision based on those circumstances.
 
Maybe later you guys can give us lessons on how to appear as meek and submissive as possible to authority figures.
Click to expand...

Deciding of free will to let a cop search during a given situation is meek and submissive? Ranting about your rights and jack booted thugs is a good way to defuse the situation. The police usually turn meek and submissive at that point, then apolagize and send you on your way.

I'm all for being polite and returning any nods of respect with an officer or bp but asking to search my vehicle is equivalent of them saying "While I don't think you're really doing anything wrong, statistically if I search your vehicle I might get to bring you to jail today, you mind?"
Click to expand...

Good on polite, but statistically speaking if you don't have anything illegal in your car you won't go anywhere but on your way.


Odd note, if they really want to be a D about it, they can arrest you for not being compliant or any other trumped up "because I can" charge and tow your vehicle. When towing a vehicle (due to the driver being in cuffs in the back), they are allowed to 'take inventory' of your truck. Goodness knows they don't want your stuff misplaced or taken. So if they really want in...
Click to expand...

It's usually obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties and it's usually for the guy ranting about being pulled over by a jack booted thug and then refusing to sign a ticket because he was written for a minor vehicle infraction after he explained to the cop how to do his job.


I swear, sometimes it really is just a peice of paper in a museum...
Click to expand...

Same here
 
Ok, maybe my last post was a bit far...

Someone else's signature read "Only 2 types of people in this world, those that want to be left alone and those that won't leave them alone." By asking to poke their noses in or around my vehicle "just cause', I feel that places one in the second catagory, thereby making them someone I wish to cut zero slack to.
 
That's cool, can't say that I disagree with you about there being no reason to search my vehicle. But have to admit that sometimes it's just not worth the argument to me. BTW I've only been asked to submit to a search twice complied once, refused once and the outcome was the same. Except it took about 15 minutes longer when I refused.........because I had to do it about 4 times. Had nothing to hide, just wasn't in the mood to have someone digging through my stuff.
 
samurai said:
Careful, azurefly... I'm actually in favor of collecting DNA and fingerprint samples of everyone in America and cataloging them. I think it would actually be helpful in solving crime.
Click to expand...


Molon labe, my man... Molon labe. :cool:


-azurefly
 
What you really accomplished though was to make him think that shooters around there don’t like the Border Patrol and don’t really appreciate what they do.
Click to expand...

Well, I can tell you that after a few moments into our conversation the above was certianly true for THIS shooter.:mad:


No matter how we try to couch this in "constitutional terms", there was no such violation. He asked, you refused. Attempting to turn a single such incident into a diatribe against those who don't believe that this cop was spear-heading the attempt to reduce you to chattel is futile.
Click to expand...
Again I never said he did.

And it was more like:He asked, you refused,He asked, you refused,He asked, you refused.

It pissed me off that he did not take my first no seriously.
As if I was just kidding. As if no one ever says no. As if no one should say no...

Funny thing. I've found there is a strange correlation between people who look down upon cops and people who have less than happy meetings with LEO's. They tend to be the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah, hilarious the BA and I had a good long laugh about that.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top