Pastor Illegally seized

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

arentol wrote:

What exactly did hearing this accomplish? From what I see on YouTube most people think he is an idiot. So this polarized more people against him than it did for him. Yeah, it raised the issue, but not in a POSITIVE manner.

Let me first start by saying so the heck what!!! Attention on a matter of unconstitutionality is always good. Just because most Americans are morons does not mean this isn't a good way to fight the unconstitutional thugs.

Secondly, in the days preceding our Revolutionary War... the majority of colonists were either against any sort of action against the King, or apathetic to it. They probably looked at those who were agitating for revolution as idiots and traitors. So because a majority of the people were not FOR revolution, does that mean they should not have done it?

I am not loyal to the US government and I will not obey unconstitutional demands made by jack booted thugs. And yes, any police officer who commits these offenses is a jack booted thug no better than Hitler's SS.

 

[buster81]

imported post

Johnny_B wrote:

NightOwl wrote:

For anyone interested, here's another youtuber who has posted quite a few border checkpoint videos. They turn out better, but I notice that he picked up and posted a copy of the pastor's incident as well. http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?blend=2&ob=1

You know, after watching this guys videos, I can understand why that happened to the pastor now and don't feel a bit sorry for him. If the pastor acted in anyway like this guy he pretty much PUT HIMSELF into the situation.

In one of the videos he pulls up, BP says "Afternoon sir, are you a U.S. citizen?"
as he's pulling up he says "Officer xxx is walking up to me..." "Officer xxx is standing over there..."

After the question "Am I being detained officer xx??"

I mean frick, even if it's a checkpoint out in the middle of no where the guy goes on for 7 minutes "AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!?!" how hard is it to really just say "Yes, I am a U.S. citizen." "Have a nice day"

I understand "fighting for your rights" but that's just getting to extreme, I'm not going to submit to searches and the like, but I'll have the decency enough to say "Yeah, I'm a citizen" and be done with it, because other cars just zipped through after answering a quick question, but the guy in the videos above ASKS for it every time.

Since when is one required to be a US Citizen to drive down the road? What would you have said if you were not a Citizen? Would an answer of "no", provide cause for them to remove person from the vehicle, detain, search, interogate, arrest?

 

[Freeflight]

imported post

And yes, any police officer who commits these offenses is a jack booted thug no better than Hitler's SS.

+1

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

Ok, I saw this, and he is one of the guys asking for trouble. He researchs law, but not well enough.



Border Patrol Check points are well Within the law. There is no debating that! I dont understand what there is to debate. If you think there is something to debate about the legal authority then you need to do more research.

If I were the Border Patrol Agent and I got a guy like this at the check point I would tell him "YES you are being detained" Pull over to the secondary area. The longer you let a guy like this the longer the line gets. The longer the line gets the greater chance you have to cause a car accident.

And then I would tell him when he is ready to answer my questions let me know. I dont have time for his games. Then just let him sit there as long as he likes. He is not free to go until he answers my questions. Simple as that. LEO have a big ego problem and feel like they need to get into pissing matches with these people.

Side note. MOST dogs that are trained DO NOT BARK OR SCRATCH! They Sit down. or do something that WILL NOT ALERT THE DRIVER!!!!! Thats the whole point!

 

[Citizen]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Ok, I saw this, and he is one of the guys asking for trouble. He researchs law, but not well enough.



Border Patrol Check points are well Within the law. There is no debating that! I dont understand what there is to debate. If you think there is something to debate about the legal authority then you need to do more research.

If I were the Border Patrol Agent and I got a guy like this at the check point I would tell him "YES you are being detained" Pull over to the secondary area. The longer you let a guy like this the longer the line gets. The longer the line gets the greater chance you have to cause a car accident.

And then I would tell him when he is ready to answer my questions let me know. I dont have time for his games. Then just let him sit there as long as he likes. He is not free to go until he answers my questions. Simple as that. LEO have a big ego problem and feel like they need to get into pissing matches with these people.

Side note. MOST dogs that are trained DO NOT BARK OR SCRATCH! They Sit down. or do something that WILL NOT ALERT THE DRIVER!!!!! Thats the whole point!

Oh, thanks for the reminder.

The guy who runs the CheckPoint USA website has some information on his site to the effect that merely refusing to answer questions does not provide reason for additional detention. I can't recall if he cites a court opinionor the BP's own field manual or both.

If true, detaining him for the dog sniff may have been illegal.

 

[buster81]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Ok, I saw this, and he is one of the guys asking for trouble. He researchs law, but not well enough.



Border Patrol Check points are well Within the law. There is no debating that! I dont understand what there is to debate. If you think there is something to debate about the legal authority then you need to do more research.

If I were the Border Patrol Agent and I got a guy like this at the check point I would tell him "YES you are being detained" Pull over to the secondary area. The longer you let a guy like this the longer the line gets. The longer the line gets the greater chance you have to cause a car accident.

And then I would tell him when he is ready to answer my questions let me know. I dont have time for his games. Then just let him sit there as long as he likes. He is not free to go until he answers my questions. Simple as that. LEO have a big ego problem and feel like they need to get into pissing matches with these people.

Side note. MOST dogs that are trained DO NOT BARK OR SCRATCH! They Sit down. or do something that WILL NOT ALERT THE DRIVER!!!!! Thats the whole point!

Wow. So in your world, not answering questions is reason for an indefinite detainment. Wow.

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

buster81 wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

Ok, I saw this, and he is one of the guys asking for trouble. He researchs law, but not well enough.



Border Patrol Check points are well Within the law. There is no debating that! I dont understand what there is to debate. If you think there is something to debate about the legal authority then you need to do more research.

If I were the Border Patrol Agent and I got a guy like this at the check point I would tell him "YES you are being detained" Pull over to the secondary area. The longer you let a guy like this the longer the line gets. The longer the line gets the greater chance you have to cause a car accident.

And then I would tell him when he is ready to answer my questions let me know. I dont have time for his games. Then just let him sit there as long as he likes. He is not free to go until he answers my questions. Simple as that. LEO have a big ego problem and feel like they need to get into pissing matches with these people.

Side note. MOST dogs that are trained DO NOT BARK OR SCRATCH! They Sit down. or do something that WILL NOT ALERT THE DRIVER!!!!! Thats the whole point!

Wow. So in your world, not answering questions is reason for an indefinite detainment. Wow.

Correct, you are NOT free to go untill the USBP has estiblished citizenship. As much as people want to think they can not say anything, they are wrong. What do you expect? The BP is not going to sit there and argue with you. Either Pack a lunch and sit in your car for as long as YOU WANT, or corroprate.

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

Ok, I saw this, and he is one of the guys asking for trouble. He researchs law, but not well enough.



Border Patrol Check points are well Within the law. There is no debating that! I dont understand what there is to debate. If you think there is something to debate about the legal authority then you need to do more research.

If I were the Border Patrol Agent and I got a guy like this at the check point I would tell him "YES you are being detained" Pull over to the secondary area. The longer you let a guy like this the longer the line gets. The longer the line gets the greater chance you have to cause a car accident.

And then I would tell him when he is ready to answer my questions let me know. I dont have time for his games. Then just let him sit there as long as he likes. He is not free to go until he answers my questions. Simple as that. LEO have a big ego problem and feel like they need to get into pissing matches with these people.

Side note. MOST dogs that are trained DO NOT BARK OR SCRATCH! They Sit down. or do something that WILL NOT ALERT THE DRIVER!!!!! Thats the whole point!

Oh, thanks for the reminder.

The guy who runs the CheckPoint USA website has some information on his site to the effect that merely refusing to answer questions does not provide reason for additional detention. I can't recall if he cites a court opinionor the BP's own field manual or both.

If true, detaining him for the dog sniff may have been illegal.

Thats true to a point, if they ask anything other than citizenship questions, you do not have to answer.

A dogs alert on a car provide Probable Cause. Which is what you need for a search of the ENTIRE Vehicle.

On another note, they cant hold you at a check point while they get a dog to sniff your car, that is unreasonable. The dog have to be in the area. But the longer people want to stay and argue, the longer the dog handler has to get over to the car and get a free sniff.

edit sorry im still learning how to quote stuff.

 

[Legba]

imported post

I think you meant "cooperate" above, jeremy. How that word makes me cringe. The prisons and graveyards are full of cooperative people.

-ljp

 

[buster81]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

buster81 wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

Ok, I saw this, and he is one of the guys asking for trouble. He researchs law, but not well enough.



Border Patrol Check points are well Within the law. There is no debating that! I dont understand what there is to debate. If you think there is something to debate about the legal authority then you need to do more research.

If I were the Border Patrol Agent and I got a guy like this at the check point I would tell him "YES you are being detained" Pull over to the secondary area. The longer you let a guy like this the longer the line gets. The longer the line gets the greater chance you have to cause a car accident.

And then I would tell him when he is ready to answer my questions let me know. I dont have time for his games. Then just let him sit there as long as he likes. He is not free to go until he answers my questions. Simple as that. LEO have a big ego problem and feel like they need to get into pissing matches with these people.

Side note. MOST dogs that are trained DO NOT BARK OR SCRATCH! They Sit down. or do something that WILL NOT ALERT THE DRIVER!!!!! Thats the whole point!

Wow. So in your world, not answering questions is reason for an indefinite detainment. Wow.

Correct, you are NOT free to go untill the USBP has estiblished citizenship. As much as people want to think they can not say anything, they are wrong. What do you expect? The BP is not going to sit there and argue with you. Either Pack a lunch and sit in your car for as long as YOU WANT, or corroprate.

Can you provide a cite for this?

So, in the event that a non-citizen is stopped, when their answer is no, they are simply allowed to be on their way?

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

buster81 wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

buster81 wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

Ok, I saw this, and he is one of the guys asking for trouble. He researchs law, but not well enough.



Border Patrol Check points are well Within the law. There is no debating that! I dont understand what there is to debate. If you think there is something to debate about the legal authority then you need to do more research.

If I were the Border Patrol Agent and I got a guy like this at the check point I would tell him "YES you are being detained" Pull over to the secondary area. The longer you let a guy like this the longer the line gets. The longer the line gets the greater chance you have to cause a car accident.

And then I would tell him when he is ready to answer my questions let me know. I dont have time for his games. Then just let him sit there as long as he likes. He is not free to go until he answers my questions. Simple as that. LEO have a big ego problem and feel like they need to get into pissing matches with these people.

Side note. MOST dogs that are trained DO NOT BARK OR SCRATCH! They Sit down. or do something that WILL NOT ALERT THE DRIVER!!!!! Thats the whole point!

Wow. So in your world, not answering questions is reason for an indefinite detainment. Wow.

Correct, you are NOT free to go untill the USBP has estiblished citizenship. As much as people want to think they can not say anything, they are wrong. What do you expect? The BP is not going to sit there and argue with you. Either Pack a lunch and sit in your car for as long as YOU WANT, or corroprate.

Can you provide a cite for this?

So, in the event that a non-citizen is stopped, when their answer is no, they are simply allowed to be on their way?

No they have to prove that they are in the United States Legally. What do you want a Cite for? Border Patrol Athority to have checkpoints? A quick Google Turns this out.

(a) 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides that “Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power to arrest without
warrant within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United
States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of
the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within
a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access
to private lands, but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border to
prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” “Within a reasonable
distance” is defined in 8 C.F.R. 287.1(a)(2) as within 100 air miles of any external
boundary of the United States or any shorter distance that may be fixed by the
District Director . Upon recommendation of the District
Director the Commissioner may declare a distance of more than
100 air miles to be reasonable.
(b) 8 U.S.C.Section 1357(a)(3) also authorizes immigration officers “to board and
search any vessel, aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance or vehicle in which
they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.”

or goto

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/563/563.F2d.1169.76-1898.html



So until they determine citizenship you are not free to go.

 

[buster81]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

No they have to prove that they are in the United States Legally. What do you want a Cite for? Border Patrol Athority to have checkpoints? A quick Google Turns this out.

(a) 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides that “Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power to arrest without warrant within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border to
prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” “Within a reasonable
distance” is defined in 8 C.F.R. 287.1(a)(2) as within 100 air miles of any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance that may be fixed by the District Director . Upon recommendation of the District
Director the Commissioner may declare a distance of more than
100 air miles to be reasonable.
(b) 8 U.S.C.Section 1357(a)(3) also authorizes immigration officers “to board and
search any vessel, aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance or vehicle in which they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.”

or goto

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/563/563.F2d.1169.76-1898.html



So until they determine citizenship you are not free to go.

In the cite you provided, it makes no mention of the extent of the interogation that they are allowed to perform. In reading what you've quoted, it sounds as though they can "arrest without warrant within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States". So, they can pretty much arrest anyone, anytime, within 100 miles of any border, for anything they like? It doesn't sound like it's in compliance with the constitution to me. If my understanding is correct, about 2/3rds of the US population lives within 100 miles of the border of the US. Wouldn't it make sense to just give the border patrol free run of the entire country and violate everyone equally?

Section 'b' says they may "board and search any vessel, aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance or vehicle in which they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.” Would you not interpret this as requiring some reasonable suspicion that aliens were being brought into the United States? Is a single person driving down the highway (in a four door sedanfrom the looks of it)typically importing aliens?

Here's a question. Lets suppose that the pastor was not a citizen. When stopped, he simply says "yes sir, I'm a US citizen". What next? Is every US Citizen going to be required to carry papers now to prove they area Citizen?

Just for my own curiosity, are you saying that this is just the way it is, or do you actually agree with this situation? Since your argument is that he is in violation of this law, are you in agreement that he needed to be treated in the way he was? Was repeated use of a tazer required?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

No they have to prove that they are in the United States Legally.

So until they determine citizenship you are not free to go.

With regard to citizenship, I see nothing in the cites that over-rides the 5th Amendment.

As an analogy, police are statutorily given broad powers to investigate crime. Those statutes do not necessarily limit that authority. But that does not mean the authority is not limited. It is understoodthe authority is limited by the Bill of Rights.

The reference to arrest power is necessarily limited by by the Bill of Rights and case law. Were the statuteitself toinclude all the limitations, angles, and so forth, the statute would have to repeatwithin itself the relevant articles of the Bill of Rights and every single court opinion having a bearing on the matter since theFounding.

Of course, if we madeCongress do that, it might slow 'em down a little on the rights infringing.

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

buster81 wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

No they have to prove that they are in the United States Legally. What do you want a Cite for? Border Patrol Athority to have checkpoints? A quick Google Turns this out.

(a) 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides that “Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power to arrest without warrant within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border to
prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” “Within a reasonable
distance” is defined in 8 C.F.R. 287.1(a)(2) as within 100 air miles of any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance that may be fixed by the District Director . Upon recommendation of the District
Director the Commissioner may declare a distance of more than
100 air miles to be reasonable.
(b) 8 U.S.C.Section 1357(a)(3) also authorizes immigration officers “to board and
search any vessel, aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance or vehicle in which they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.”

or goto

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/563/563.F2d.1169.76-1898.html



So until they determine citizenship you are not free to go.

In the cite you provided, it makes no mention of the extent of the interogation that they are allowed to perform. In reading what you've quoted, it sounds as though they can "arrest without warrant within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States". So, they can pretty much arrest anyone, anytime, within 100 miles of any border, for anything they like? It doesn't sound like it's in compliance with the constitution to me. If my understanding is correct, about 2/3rds of the US population lives within 100 miles of the border of the US. Wouldn't it make sense to just give the border patrol free run of the entire country and violate everyone equally?

Section 'b' says they may "board and search any vessel, aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance or vehicle in which they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.” Would you not interpret this as requiring some reasonable suspicion that aliens were being brought into the United States? Is a single person driving down the highway (in a four door sedanfrom the looks of it)typically importing aliens?

Here's a question. Lets suppose that the pastor was not a citizen. When stopped, he simply says "yes sir, I'm a US citizen". What next? Is every US Citizen going to be required to carry papers now to prove they area Citizen?

Just for my own curiosity, are you saying that this is just the way it is, or do you actually agree with this situation? Since your argument is that he is in violation of this law, are you in agreement that he needed to be treated in the way he was? Was repeated use of a tazer required?

Im no lawyer so Im not really going to be the best source to explain the law part.

The thing is if he says, yes I am a citizen, they would have probably sent him on his way. That is unless they had a reason to further question him. From what I read the BP did not Tazer him it was the police department that responded.

You can only Tazer someone that is being ACTIVE RESISTANT. So if he was just sitting in the car not being resistant, tazering was over the line. BUT if he was "Locked up" on the steering wheel while they try to extract him, then its a green light for a tazer. If hes just PASSIVE they can use Pressure Points, and joint control to get him out of the car.

Im Pro-Border Patrol. I feel checkpoints are very useful and a minor inconvience to the public.

From what I hear U.S Citizens are not required to carry proof, but thats what record checks over the radio are for.

There are a lot of things I would imagine that are tell tale signs of cars that are loaded. I would think that a guy not talking to me, or a guy like the pastor may have something to hide.

 

[buster81]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

buster81 wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

No they have to prove that they are in the United States Legally. What do you want a Cite for? Border Patrol Athority to have checkpoints? A quick Google Turns this out.

(a) 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides that “Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power to arrest without warrant within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border to
prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” “Within a reasonable
distance” is defined in 8 C.F.R. 287.1(a)(2) as within 100 air miles of any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance that may be fixed by the District Director . Upon recommendation of the District
Director the Commissioner may declare a distance of more than
100 air miles to be reasonable.
(b) 8 U.S.C.Section 1357(a)(3) also authorizes immigration officers “to board and
search any vessel, aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance or vehicle in which they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.”

or goto

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/563/563.F2d.1169.76-1898.html



So until they determine citizenship you are not free to go.

In the cite you provided, it makes no mention of the extent of the interogation that they are allowed to perform. In reading what you've quoted, it sounds as though they can "arrest without warrant within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States". So, they can pretty much arrest anyone, anytime, within 100 miles of any border, for anything they like? It doesn't sound like it's in compliance with the constitution to me. If my understanding is correct, about 2/3rds of the US population lives within 100 miles of the border of the US. Wouldn't it make sense to just give the border patrol free run of the entire country and violate everyone equally?

Section 'b' says they may "board and search any vessel, aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance or vehicle in which they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.” Would you not interpret this as requiring some reasonable suspicion that aliens were being brought into the United States? Is a single person driving down the highway (in a four door sedanfrom the looks of it)typically importing aliens?

Here's a question. Lets suppose that the pastor was not a citizen. When stopped, he simply says "yes sir, I'm a US citizen". What next? Is every US Citizen going to be required to carry papers now to prove they area Citizen?

Just for my own curiosity, are you saying that this is just the way it is, or do you actually agree with this situation? Since your argument is that he is in violation of this law, are you in agreement that he needed to be treated in the way he was? Was repeated use of a tazer required?

Im no lawyer so Im not really going to be the best source to explain the law part. But you made statements like you were a good source???

The thing is if he says, yes I am a citizen, they would have probably sent him on his way. That is unless they had a reason to further question him. What might be reason for additional questions? How many more questions and how long would be reasonable? It sounds to me like you are in favor of just bypassing 4A and 5A,when the BP folks feels like it. Back to my question, why not just give BPthe run of the entire country and violate everyones rights equally? Why the magic 100 mile rule? Will it be 200 miles next week? Why not have checkpoints in Missouri and Kansas?

Im Pro-Border Patrol. I feel checkpoints are very useful and a minor inconvience to the public. I think many rights infractions start as "minor inconveniences". It would be a minor inconvenience to have to register your guns as well.

From what I hear U.S Citizens are not required to carry proof, but thats what record checks over the radio are for.It would be so much easier to identify and track citizens if they were required to carry papers. Why not just make everyone carry their citizenship papers, and travel permits?

There are a lot of things I would imagine that are tell tale signs of cars that are loaded. I would think that a guy not talking to me, or a guy like the pastor may have something to hide. The BOR was written to protect people who aren't doing anything "wrong". Maybe it's just in the way and should be eliminated???

 

[Huck]

imported post

A question about these "checkpoints". Does the BP have themwithin 100 miles ofthe Canadian border?

 

[FunkTrooper]

imported post

If the Government is bypassing it's own restrictions in the US constitution I'll gladly break the law. The whole reason the constitution was created was to restrict Government although in recent years they want to use it to restrict the people (prohibition of alcohol).

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

If the Government is bypassing it's own restrictions in the US constitution I'll gladly break the law. The whole reason the constitution was created was to restrict Government although in recent years they want to use it to restrict the people (prohibition of alcohol).

I agree, The People need to control the Government. But the problem is when something like 9/11 happens everyone wanted better security and stronger borders. Now that everyone forgot about 9/11 Checkpoints are the big bad government. Border Patrol are not only looking for illegal immigrants, they are an essential part of the "war" on terror.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither." No quote rings more true for this discussion. Inland "checkpoints" are not vital, nor necessary to the "war on terror", but are another symbol of a government that has turned against it's people and where you are now guilty until proven innocent.

Jeremy05, if you insist on defending and even applauding the actions of those who would subvert the Constitution and everything else this country stands for, then you are just as guilty as they are for the infringements on civil liberties that these "checkpoints" represent.

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither." No quote rings more true for this discussion. Inland "checkpoints" are not vital, nor necessary to the "war on terror", but are another symbol of a government that has turned against it's people and where you are now guilty until proven innocent.

Jeremy05, if you insist on defending and even applauding the actions of those who would subvert the Constitution and everything else this country stands for, then you are just as guilty as they are for the infringements on civil liberties that these "checkpoints" represent.

The opinion that checkpoints are not vital, nor necessary is a opinion. I think the overall debate was on the legality of them, which they are legal. Im sure the ACLU would have raised hell if they found they were not legal. Checkpoints opperate within the constitution.

I applaud anyone that puts their life on the line in law enforcement field.



Like I just dont understand why people feel so threatened over answering the question, are you a U.S Citizen.

Not really the same situation, but its like going to walmart or bestbuy, when you purchase something at the registar that item is now your property.When the security asks to check your reciept, do you let him or act like a jerk and give him a hard time explaining its your stuff not his and you dont have to show him anything. People like that give me a headache.

I understand you dont want your civil rights violated, but the truth is they are not being violated at checkpoints. Know your right and know that if you act like this pastor, you are going to be treated the same way... I wasnt there so I dont know excatly what happend, but it sounds reasonable to me.