Pastor Illegally seized

[compmanio365]

imported post

I take pleasure in the fact that exercising my freedoms annoys and frustrates statists such as yourself. May you continue to be annoyed and frustrated for many years to come.

I don't have a problem saying I am a US citizen. I have a problem when a JBT at an illegal detainment forces me to prove that I am under penalty of getting stomped. That's not a free country at work, that's the SS going "Papers, please!" Apparently you have no issue with this, and therefore you are part of the problem. You can try to reword things, explain yourself, or just plain lie to make this seem not to be true, but the truth is self evident.

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

I take pleasure in the fact that exercising my freedoms annoys and frustrates statists such as yourself. May you continue to be annoyed and frustrated for many years to come.

I don't have a problem saying I am a US citizen. I have a problem when a JBT at an illegal detainment forces me to prove that I am under penalty of getting stomped. That's not a free country at work, that's the SS going "Papers, please!" Apparently you have no issue with this, and therefore you are part of the problem. You can try to reword things, explain yourself, or just plain lie to make this seem not to be true, but the truth is self evident.

JBT? im a bit new to forums whats a JBT.

whats this illegal detainment part you speak of? I see you dont have any problem saying "I am a US citizen", therefore you will have NO problem getting through a checkpoint. Thats all they ask of you. I would say its a far stretch to call that being an SS:lol:

 

[No1]

imported post

Jack Booted Thug

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

"Just do what you are told and you won't get hurt." Sounds like a criminal to me, no matter who they work for. A government sponsored thug is a thug all the same.

 

[FunkTrooper]

imported post

I remember 9/11/01, I disagree with the terrorists that committed those acts and for that reason I continue to believe in our freedoms in America.

You have a great deal of respect for law enforcement jeremy05 and for that reason you allow more abuse to occur. Just as a wife excuses the violence from her husband by saying he was drunk, you in turn are among the people who excuse LEOs by saying "they have a tough job" while that may be a reason for their actions it does not excuse them.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security- Benjamin Franklin

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

I remember 9/11/01, I disagree with the terrorists that committed those acts and for that reason I continue to believe in our freedoms in America.

You have a great deal of respect for law enforcement jeremy05 and for that reason you allow more abuse to occur. Just as a wife excuses the violence from her husband by saying he was drunk, you in turn are among the people who excuse LEOs by saying "they have a tough job" while that may be a reason for their actions it does not excuse them.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security- Benjamin Franklin

hmmm. not sure how to respond to the last few....

let me clarify. I have a great deal of respect for Honest law enforcement. The ones who dont let people get under their skin and abuse their power. I have no respect for the rest.

So the Abuse you speak of is by the 1% or less of Law enforcement. Im sure you can agree that there are 1% of the OC people who cause a bad name for the rest of us OC people. Its always a few that ruin it for the rest.

We cant be lax on security. Nobodys liberitys are being stepped on at a check point. Like I stated before, you dont have to answer questions that do not pertain to citizenship. Same as a police officer if BP asks to search your truck, they are ASKING and so forth with other questions.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

And then when you don't answer their questions, you are "resisting", "interfering with an investigation" and are a "threat to officer safety", then you are pulled out of your car, tased and beaten.

 

[buster81]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

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 (this is your opinion). Im sure the ACLU would have raised hell if they found they were not legal. Checkpoints opperate within the constitution (this is your opinion).

You mean like page from the ACLU where they call these "constitution free zones"?

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

 

[buster81]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

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 ignore this individual. I have no obligation to acknowledge his presence, so I walk right by him. If he wants to talk, he can follow me while I walk to my car. I hope he packed a lunch, because it'll be a long time before he gets an acknowledgement from me!

Bad example. here's a better one:

Lets say you drive through a ride stop. The police ask you if you've been drinking. You are under no obligation to answer this, so you don't. He arrests you for not answering his questions. Youalso geta little ride on thetazer train, and a little beating for good measure. Sound good comrade?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

SNIP Like I stated before, you dont have to answer questions that do not pertain to citizenship.

Like I mentioned before, I haven't seen anything that compels answering questions that pertain to citizenship.

Separately, Jeremy05's position on cooperating seems to have the unstated premise that there is some sort of obligation to cooperate. Yet, it seems to overlook that by exercising one's rights, one is cooperating to the full extent legally required, and to the full extent morally required based on thelearned opinion ofmen like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason.

Attack the unstated and false premise that there is an obligation to cooperate beyond exercising one's rights. Its his job as an American to explain why rights aquired after literally centuries of bloodshed and tyranny, torture, beheadings, imprisonment, martyrdom, and suffering should be cast aside. Read Miranda vs Arizona to get an idea from where the 5th Amendment derives. Here is a relevant paragraph:

Over 70 years ago, our predecessors on this Court eloquently stated:

The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare ["no man is bound to accuse himself"--Citizen] had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which [have] long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688 and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, [were] not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which thequestions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment.
Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 596-597 (1896)...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html

​

 

[FunkTrooper]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

I remember 9/11/01, I disagree with the terrorists that committed those acts and for that reason I continue to believe in our freedoms in America.

You have a great deal of respect for law enforcement jeremy05 and for that reason you allow more abuse to occur. Just as a wife excuses the violence from her husband by saying he was drunk, you in turn are among the people who excuse LEOs by saying "they have a tough job" while that may be a reason for their actions it does not excuse them.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security- Benjamin Franklin

hmmm. not sure how to respond to the last few....

let me clarify. I have a great deal of respect for Honest law enforcement. The ones who dont let people get under their skin and abuse their power. I have no respect for the rest.

So the Abuse you speak of is by the 1% or less of Law enforcement. Im sure you can agree that there are 1% of the OC people who cause a bad name for the rest of us OC people. Its always a few that ruin it for the rest.

We cant be lax on security. Nobodys liberitys are being stepped on at a check point. Like I stated before, you dont have to answer questions that do not pertain to citizenship. Same as a police officer if BP asks to search your truck, they are ASKING and so forth with other questions.

I'm afraid that I can't use bogus percentages to prove a point but I will say that the majority of police I have dealt with have used their power to attempt to intimidate me into talking to them very few officers have I run into that I could honestly say were "good" guys. I am not anti LEO I simply believe you cannot judge a man by what profession he chooses to pursue.

I feel more secure knowing I have full control of my life where ever it may take me. I feel less secure when their are people in positions where they feel it neccessary to dictate my actions.

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

Huck wrote:

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

Yes. I've heard they have them in Washington, and I know they have occasional temporary checkpoints on I-93 in New Hampshire and I-91 in Vermont.

The BP insistence upon getting a "yes/no" answer to the question "Are you a U.S. citizen?", is simply ludicrous. If Joe Jones the Aryan poster boy answers "yes", do they simply wish him a good day and wave him through? What if he's really an illegal Canadian?

If Achmed Rodriguez, swarthy with a thick accent, answers "yes", is he treated the same as Joe? What if he was born in Brooklyn?

If challenged to prove their citizenship, how do they do so? Could you? I couldn't. Oh, I could provide various information that could help them decide I was a citizen, such as date and place of birth, parents' names, and SSN, but I am not legally required to give that information, and I'm disinclined to do so. I don't have a passport, and if I did I wouldn't be carrying it unless I was planning an international trip.

The current BP questioning is as useless as the clerk asking my date of birth when I buy beer (I'm 46, and look it). To point out how silly that is, I often respond with the date exactly 21 years earlier. Sometimes I don't even get a double-take as they blindly key it into the register.