link


But then again, he is unintentionally demonstrating the fact that US border control is a pathetic joke because even after all these years it has not been given any legal teeth at all to exercise authority when it's being challenged.

No wonder Trump is pissed off about this.

Just tell the Border Control officers to piss off if they harass you.

We've heard of chocolate soldiers - well these are chocolate border guards who melt within minutes of being told to f-off.

this is what a bill of rights buys you ... ridiculous...

I only watched the first bloke, they should locked him up and left him there for a few days, then come back and asked him the question ..... see if he still refuses.

I could not stand watching that right through.

I hope he got smashed at some point.

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 12:48pm:

this is what a bill of rights buys you ... ridiculous... I only watched the first bloke, they should locked him up and left him there for a few days, then come back and asked him the question ..... see if he still refuses.

He goes on like this all the way through.

At first I thought this guy needed a kick in the pants, but then on second thoughts I think he might be highlighting the fact that US 'border protection' is a toothless tiger and a sick joke.

Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 1:15pm:

Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination.

He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected.

Aussie wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 1:40pm:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected.

He was a wanker.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 1:15pm:

Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination.

I'm amazed that after 9/11 the US government still doesn't have armed guards at the border checkpoints with full authority to make arrests when people don't obey their commands.

Aussie wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 1:40pm:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected.

I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 2:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected. I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting?

His right to have unrestricted movement in the USA.  That is why all those Officers gave way.  They had no 'probable cause' to detain him.  That being the case, and that he insisted on his rights (as everyone should) they had no option but to wave him goodbye.

Watch out, I guess, if you're not a US citizen... How much protection does the 4th Amendment provide non-citizens? Or, at least, how likely is it that a border state would, in the first instance, respect any non-citizen's possible 4th Amendment protection?

I'm guessing the phrase "We'll soon have you on your way, sir" is a euphemism in the case of non-citizens.

As for those border guards... What would be the next action if the driver confirmed he/she was a US citizen? This seems to be an intro question towards building an argument for 'probable cause' to detain.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 3:18pm:

Watch out, I guess, if you're not a US citizen... How much protection does the 4th Amendment provide non-citizens? Or, at least, how likely is it that a border state would, in the first instance, respect any non-citizen's possible 4th Amendment protection?

Have a Google on the 14th Amendment.  Non-citizens have the same rights to those set out in the 4th Amendment as Citizens do.


Quote:

I'm guessing the phrase "We'll soon have you on your way, sir" is a euphemism in the case of non-citizens.

See above.


Quote:

As for those border guards... What would be the next action if the driver confirmed he/she was a US citizen? This seems to be an intro question towards building an argument for 'probable cause' to detain.

That is why people should just shut up when the Law gives them a right to do so, in the USA, by the 5th Amendment.

Aussie wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 3:07pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 2:22pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected. I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting? His right to have unrestricted movement in the USA.  That is why all those Officers gave way.  They had no 'probable cause' to detain him.  That being the case, and that he insisted on his rights (as everyone should) they had no option but to wave him goodbye.

When did you become an expert on USA LAW?  Have you been watching Foxtel's Crime Channel?  ;D ;D ;D

miketrees wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 12:51pm:

I could not stand watching that right through. I hope he got smashed at some point.

this is what the world is coming too thumbing their noses at the rules and regulations...it only starts in a small way..

these guys are doing their job... and its quite dangerous I would think.....

like taking a breathaliser..... if its too bloody hard spend a couple of hours in the paddy over there till I get back to you... >:( >:(



the fact that the guy was filming himself says it all....

Neferti wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 3:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 3:07pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 2:22pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected. I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting? His right to have unrestricted movement in the USA.  That is why all those Officers gave way.  They had no 'probable cause' to detain him.  That being the case, and that he insisted on his rights (as everyone should) they had no option but to wave him goodbye. When did you become an expert on USA LAW?  Have you been watching Foxtel's Crime Channel?  ;D ;D ;D

come come nef you know there isnt anything aussie isnt an expert on.....

as for non citizens having the same rights as born citzs  .. I wouldnt like to risk it would you???>..

Quote:

this is what the world is coming too thumbing their noses at the rules and regulations...it only starts in a small way..

Those 'thumbing their noses at the rules and regulations' were the Officers.  The bloke religiously abiding by them was the fellow who insisted the Officers also abide by them.

miketrees wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 12:51pm:

I could not stand watching that right through. I hope he got smashed at some point.

You what?

You hope he got physically assaulted for exercising his rights?

Is that really what you are saying?

cods wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 3:40pm:

Neferti wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 3:34pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 3:07pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 2:22pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected. I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting? His right to have unrestricted movement in the USA.  That is why all those Officers gave way.  They had no 'probable cause' to detain him.  That being the case, and that he insisted on his rights (as everyone should) they had no option but to wave him goodbye. When did you become an expert on USA LAW?  Have you been watching Foxtel's Crime Channel?  ;D ;D ;D come come nef you know there isnt anything aussie isnt an expert on..... as for non citizens having the same rights as born citzs  .. I wouldnt like to risk it would you???>..

When they're in the US, they do.

"Aliens in the U.S. have essentially the same rights as citizens for many purposes because of the 5th and 14th Amendments’ language, but aliens do not have constitutional rights against the U.S. government outside its territory."

Vergudo-Urquidez

The guy making the video was doing nothing wrong, which is why he was allowed to go on his way.

What's wrong with people exercising their rights?

Herbert and John Smith are dead wrong. The problem in this circumstance is US laws did not empower these officials to conduct these searches. In particular, border patrols and immigration officials don't have authority inside USA, only at border check points or defined border areas.

These people are imposing their will wrongfully outside their areas of jurisdiction.

Aussie wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 3:07pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 2:22pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected. I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting? His right to have unrestricted movement in the USA.  That is why all those Officers gave way.  They had no 'probable cause' to detain him.  That being the case, and that he insisted on his rights (as everyone should) they had no option but to wave him goodbye.

But why would they wave him down in the first place?

Have you tried to refuse to blow into a booze-and-drug detector after being flagged down?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 3:07pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 2:22pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected. I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting? His right to have unrestricted movement in the USA.  That is why all those Officers gave way.  They had no 'probable cause' to detain him.  That being the case, and that he insisted on his rights (as everyone should) they had no option but to wave him goodbye. But why would they wave him down in the first place?

Ask Stanley Milgram.

The US government should be highly embarrassed by this candid camera video footage.

Maybe it was a State thing?

I've never seen anything like it. Uniformed and badged officers fronting up as though they had the law on their side, only to then collapse into an embarrassed heap when this fellow stared them down.

Quite bizarre.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 5:37pm:

Uniformed and badged officers fronting up as though they had the law on their side, only to then collapse into an embarrassed heap when this fellow stared them down.

A uniform and badge doesn't entitle you to do anything you like.

I believe the reason the citizens are getting away with it is because they are recording it on video which means they have evidence that they requested being informed of probable cause of which there was none.

Unforgiven wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 5:45pm:

I believe the reason the citizens are getting away with it is because they are recording it on video which means they have evidence that they requested being informed of probable cause of which there was none.

Yes.

Without video evidence, they'd have the poo kicked out of them.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 3:07pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 2:22pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected. I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting? His right to have unrestricted movement in the USA.  That is why all those Officers gave way.  They had no 'probable cause' to detain him.  That being the case, and that he insisted on his rights (as everyone should) they had no option but to wave him goodbye. But why would they wave him down in the first place? Have you tried to refuse to blow into a booze-and-drug detector after being flagged down?

No, and no-one in Australia should, because we have State Legislation which empowers the Cops to conduct random breath tests.

My guess is that there is no such thing in the USA.  Sure, a Copper can intercept a vehicle but there still, I think, has to be that probable cause (our term is reasonable suspicion)  ingredient.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 5:42pm:

A uniform and badge doesn't entitle you to do anything you like.

Let's assume we're not idiots here, okay?

Aussie wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 6:06pm:

No, and no-one in Australia should, because we have State Legislation which empowers the Cops to conduct random breath tests. My guess is that there is no such thing in the USA.  Sure, a Copper can intercept a vehicle but there still, I think, has to be that probable cause (our term is reasonable suspicion)  ingredient.

If this is a 'gray area' in US law then it's time they fixed it up.

What did those uniforms entitle those US official to do, if anything?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 6:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 5:42pm: A uniform and badge doesn't entitle you to do anything you like. Let's assume we're not idiots here, okay?

That's a mighty big assumption to be makin' in these parts.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6b/9d/30/6b9d3052dff5093f3f6b0488304f9a63.jpg

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 7:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 6:06pm: No, and no-one in Australia should, because we have State Legislation which empowers the Cops to conduct random breath tests. My guess is that there is no such thing in the USA.  Sure, a Copper can intercept a vehicle but there still, I think, has to be that probable cause (our term is reasonable suspicion)  ingredient. If this is a 'gray area' in US law then it's time they fixed it up. What did those uniforms entitle those US official to do, if anything?

I don't know, but it looks like they can ask someone to do something or answer a question....but the person being asked can say, "No, thank you, and am I free to leave.  Am I detained?"

That's fine by me.

Aussie wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 7:10pm:

I don't know, but it looks like they can ask someone to do something or answer a question....but the person being asked can say, "No, thank you, and am I free to leave.  Am I detained?" That's fine by me.

It's totally new to my experience.

They shouldn't be wearing those police-style uniforms if they have absolutely zero authority to direct the public to do something.

They should be wearing white laboratory smocks like some Car Park attendants wear.

..

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 7:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 7:10pm: I don't know, but it looks like they can ask someone to do something or answer a question....but the person being asked can say, "No, thank you, and am I free to leave.  Am I detained?" That's fine by me. It's totally new to my experience. They shouldn't be wearing those police-style uniforms if they have absolutely zero authority to direct the public to do something. They should be wearing white laboratory smocks like some Car Park attendants wear.

But, weren't you, as you said you were, a senior officer of the London Metropolitan Police at 19 years of age?

8-)

Having reminded Herbert of that......

Ya see, that is how dumb most people are and the Coppers know/exploit it.  They wear badges and uniforms, their 'duck eye' sunglasses, all the whistles and bells and ask people to do stuff and answer them.  When  they are confronted with someone who knows their rights, they become marsh mellows.

Knowing what your rights are is very important.

Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason?

rhino wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 9:20pm:

Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason?

Who is?

Yeah? whos Who?

cods wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 3:37pm:

miketrees wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 12:51pm: I could not stand watching that right through. I hope he got smashed at some point. this is what the world is coming too thumbing their noses at the rules and regulations...it only starts in a small way.. these guys are doing their job... and its quite dangerous I would think..... like taking a breathaliser..... if its too bloody hard spend a couple of hours in the paddy over there till I get back to you... >:( >:( the fact that the guy was filming himself says it all....

The check points constitute a breach of the American constitution if people are stopped without due cause. In the US constitution the police or any authority have to have a reason to stop and question anyone.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 7:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 6:06pm: No, and no-one in Australia should, because we have State Legislation which empowers the Cops to conduct random breath tests. My guess is that there is no such thing in the USA.  Sure, a Copper can intercept a vehicle but there still, I think, has to be that probable cause (our term is reasonable suspicion)  ingredient. If this is a 'gray area' in US law then it's time they fixed it up. What did those uniforms entitle those US official to do, if anything?

It would not matter what uniform they were wearing - the Police are under the same constitutional restraints. The 4th amendment gives US citizen's the right to not be interfered with unless there is due cause. It must be reasonable that the person is suspected of something.

Randomly stopping people or as in this case stopping everyone is a clear breach of their constitution. The 4th amendment dates back to 1792.

miketrees wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 12:51pm:

I could not stand watching that right through. I hope he got smashed at some point.

I have watched a number of these videos. In Australia, he would have been dragged from his car after a refusal to answer a question and then a request, and detained. Screw his "rights". He should be responsible for just answering a question, and then going about his way.

What is the point of having checkpoints if people don't want to answer a question? Australia's ecosystem would crumble if our border control was as soft as America's.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 11:44pm:

miketrees wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 12:51pm: I could not stand watching that right through. I hope he got smashed at some point. I have watched a number of these videos. In Australia, he would have been dragged from his car after a refusal to answer a question and then a request, and detained. Screw his "rights". He should be responsible for just answering a question, and then going about his way.

Its easy to be dismissive of rights when its somebody else whose rights are being 'screwed'.

It is a well regarded right, clearly, in the US, that prevents the abuse of detain and search actions by those in (apparent) authority.

The border guards would have had the right to detain and search if, on stopping the vehicle, they had the 'probable cause' required to proceed... What this video is showing, I think, is the officers constructing 'probable cause'... What does it mean to answer one simple question in this context? Does it reasonably permit the officer to ask and expect ID, as the driver has made a statement about his nationality? Does it mean the driver has acknowledged the authority of the officer? What does it mean to comply with the officer and leave the vehicle? Would the driver no longer be in a private place for the purposes of 4th Amendment rights? The female officer in the video who finally yielded and quickly lifted the tarp on the back of the truck was indicating she was well aware of the 4th Amendment issue from the start (that does allow for a quick search)...

The officers were not being honest when they persisted with their questioning, knowing, as they would, that they did not have the right to proceed to detaining and searching... Unless the driver voluntarily yielded to their request or left the vehicle... A version of entrapment more than good 'policing'.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 11:44pm:

miketrees wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 12:51pm: I could not stand watching that right through. I hope he got smashed at some point. I have watched a number of these videos. In Australia, he would have been dragged from his car after a refusal to answer a question and then a request, and detained. Screw his "rights". He should be responsible for just answering a question, and then going about his way. What is the point of having checkpoints if people don't want to answer a question? Australia's ecosystem would crumble if our border control was as soft as America's.

I have crossed every Australian border without ever being asked a question by anyone ? Most people know to not carry fruit across boarders anyway.

rhino wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 9:20pm:

Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason?

so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him?

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 11:44pm:

miketrees wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 12:51pm: I could not stand watching that right through. I hope he got smashed at some point. I have watched a number of these videos. In Australia, he would have been dragged from his car after a refusal to answer a question and then a request, and detained. Screw his "rights". He should be responsible for just answering a question, and then going about his way. What is the point of having checkpoints if people don't want to answer a question? Australia's ecosystem would crumble if our border control was as soft as America's.

Damn right.

This smartalec was lucky he didn't end up getting the sort of beating that put Rodney King in hospital.

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 7:52am:

rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him?

Racial profiling is still a tough question. Every one is free and protected by the constitution unless you look like a Muslim ?

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 7:52am:

rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him?

In Australia we do not have as much regard for rights than the US... Probably comes from our history of submissiveness to British authority given that the US 'Bill of Rights' rose from reactions against previous British (mis)rule.

The question is ... Should the people forgo rights to protection from random detain and search, leaving them in a state of presumed suspicion. Given that the likelihood any person randomly detained is probably 99.999% likely to be innocent, Americans prefer protection for that majority...

Having said all that, even the US practises racial profiling when detaining at borders... Apparently.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:05am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 11:44pm: miketrees wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 12:51pm: I could not stand watching that right through. I hope he got smashed at some point. I have watched a number of these videos. In Australia, he would have been dragged from his car after a refusal to answer a question and then a request, and detained. Screw his "rights". He should be responsible for just answering a question, and then going about his way. What is the point of having checkpoints if people don't want to answer a question? Australia's ecosystem would crumble if our border control was as soft as America's. Damn right. This smartalec was lucky he didn't end up getting the sort of beating that put Rodney King in hospital.

Sir Oswald Mosley? ... Is that you? They told me you were dead...

..

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 7:52am:

rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him?

John's right with this one.

'Profiling' is a legitimate shortcut for finding wrongdoers without wasting time on grandmothers and paraplegics.

When I was working in Sydney's Bankstown Muslim area the police were having a field day randomly stopping youths of Middle Eastern Appearance to frisk them for knives ... of which they found plenty.

But then the 'profiling' became a political issue and the searches were stopped - yet another win for the Bad Guys, courtesy of the luvvies.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 12:43pm:

link But then again, he is unintentionally demonstrating the fact that US border control is a pathetic joke because even after all these years it has not been given any legal teeth at all to exercise authority when it's being challenged. No wonder Trump is pissed off about this. Just tell the Border Control officers to piss off if they harass you. We've heard of chocolate soldiers - well these are chocolate border guards who melt within minutes of being told to f-off.

I think the guys taking the photos of themselves disrespecting
law enforcement officers is reprehensible.

Those guys are only doing their jobs trying to keep illegals out of America.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:08am:

Having said all that, even the US practises racial profiling when detaining at borders... Apparently.

Wrong.

The racial and Muslim profiling at Boston's International airport was stopped in its tracks by a chicken-livered surrender-monkey who didn't possess the wit nor the wisdom to stare-down the local Muslim leadership.

And from there this funk spread across the US until it became standard practice to avoid at all costs the perception of targeting Muslims for extra attention.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:18am:

I think the guys taking the photos of themselves disrespecting law enforcement officers is reprehensible. Those guys are only doing their jobs trying to keep illegals out of America.

This guy in the car did the US a service by showing how pathetically weak their border control really is despite the important-looking uniforms and badges which he shows up to be nothing more than Disneyland Mickey Mouse nonsense.

He should be given the 'Donald Trump Award' for improving border security. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:21am:

The racial and Muslim profiling at Boston's International airport was stopped in its tracks by a chicken-livered surrender-monkey who didn't possess the wit nor the wisdom to stare-down the local Muslim leadership.

Guess we can see where the English sensibility towards being 'born to rule' gave rise to the US Bill of Rights in the first place.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:26am:

This guy in the car did the US a service by showing how pathetically weak their border control really is despite the important-looking uniforms and badges which he shows up to be nothing more than Disneyland Mickey Mouse nonsense. He should be given the 'Donald Trump Award' for improving border security.

Border control? Really? That checkpoint was apparently 30 miles from the border.... Where there is an actual border checkpoint.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:26am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:18am: I think the guys taking the photos of themselves disrespecting law enforcement officers is reprehensible. Those guys are only doing their jobs trying to keep illegals out of America. This guy in the car did the US a service by showing how pathetically weak their border control really is despite the important-looking uniforms and badges which he shows up to be nothing more than Disneyland Mickey Mouse nonsense. He should be given the 'Donald Trump Award' for improving border security.

He showed disrespect yet he would be the first person
to complain if Mexican: murderers, rapists & drug dealers,
moved next door to him.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:32am:

Border control? Really? That checkpoint was apparently 30 miles from the border.... Where there is an actual border checkpoint.

They wanted to inspect his booth ... now why do you suppose they wanted to do that? And it was 10 miles, not 30.

Contraband.
Drugs.
Illegals

That's called 'Border Control'.

Booze buses don't operate outside pubs and clubs, but are often positioned 10 miles from any drinking hole or bottle shop.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:32am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:26am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:18am: I think the guys taking the photos of themselves disrespecting law enforcement officers is reprehensible. Those guys are only doing their jobs trying to keep illegals out of America. This guy in the car did the US a service by showing how pathetically weak their border control really is despite the important-looking uniforms and badges which he shows up to be nothing more than Disneyland Mickey Mouse nonsense. He should be given the 'Donald Trump Award' for improving border security.  He showed disrespect yet he would be the first person to complain if Mexican: murderers, rapists & drug dealers, moved next door to him.

Watch it again... He went out of his way to be respectful at all times to the officers (for fear of offering 'probable cause' no doubt)..

To decline to comply with an unlawful order is not in itself disrespectful.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:36am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:32am: Border control? Really? That checkpoint was apparently 30 miles from the border.... Where there is an actual border checkpoint. They wanted to inspect his booth ... now why do you suppose they wanted to do that? And it was 10 miles, not 30. Contraband. Drugs. Illegals That's called 'Border Control'.

Well it appears they did not have the right to detain and search... Some 'border control'...

I'm sure that would not be the case at the border.

One officer unlawfully claimed the right to expel the driver from the state.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:32am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:26am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:18am: I think the guys taking the photos of themselves disrespecting law enforcement officers is reprehensible. Those guys are only doing their jobs trying to keep illegals out of America. This guy in the car did the US a service by showing how pathetically weak their border control really is despite the important-looking uniforms and badges which he shows up to be nothing more than Disneyland Mickey Mouse nonsense. He should be given the 'Donald Trump Award' for improving border security.  He showed disrespect yet he would be the first person to complain if Mexican: murderers, rapists & drug dealers, moved next door to him. Watch it again... He went out of his way to be respectful at all times to the officers (for fear of offering 'probable cause' no doubt).. To decline to comply with an unlawful order is not in itself disrespectful.

Firstly, no-one ever gave him an 'order' throughout the entire 14 minute video - it was always requested of him.

It was disloyal of him towards US interests that he chose not to cooperate with these agents of US security with regard to drugs and weapons importation, and people-smuggling. It was his civic duty to cooperate with the authorities. 

I think a 'Rodney King' touch-up might have been helpful in educating this dude that loyalty to his home country should take precedence over his own personal conceit.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:44am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:36am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:32am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:26am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:18am: I think the guys taking the photos of themselves disrespecting law enforcement officers is reprehensible. Those guys are only doing their jobs trying to keep illegals out of America. This guy in the car did the US a service by showing how pathetically weak their border control really is despite the important-looking uniforms and badges which he shows up to be nothing more than Disneyland Mickey Mouse nonsense. He should be given the 'Donald Trump Award' for improving border security.  He showed disrespect yet he would be the first person to complain if Mexican: murderers, rapists & drug dealers, moved next door to him. Watch it again... He went out of his way to be respectful at all times to the officers (for fear of offering 'probable cause' no doubt).. To decline to comply with an unlawful order is not in itself disrespectful. Firstly, no-one ever gave him an 'order' throughout the entire 14 minute video - it was always requested of him. It was disloyal of him towards US interests that he chose not to cooperate with these agents of US security with regard to drugs and weapons importation, and people-smuggling. It was his civic duty to cooperate with the authorities.

Requested of him/Order... Just semantics... When a police officer lawfully requests that you present your driver's licence... That's, for all intents, an order.... Certainly a lawful instruction.


Disloyalty? He was exercising his constitutional rights. How much more American could you be?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:49am:

Requested of him/Order... Just semantics...

Now you're embarrassing yourself, and I've lost respect for this conversation with you.

I'm handing you over to John.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:45am:

I think a 'Rodney King' touch-up might have been helpful in educating this dude that loyalty to his home country should take precedence over his own personal conceit.

Geez you're a self-righteous  moralising old codger!

A crypto-Puritan

..

John and I have agreed that a 'Rodney King' touch-up is what this smart-ass dude deserved.

And that's my final word on the subject.

John - he's all yours. Don't take any prisoners. And for god sake use a condom.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:52am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:49am: Requested of him/Order... Just semantics... Now you're embarrassing yourself, and I've lost respect for this conversation with you. I'm handing you over to John.

Roger that, Sweetie...

Pedantry is an English fault, I'm told.

Herbert has left the building.

I love the bit at 10:45

He has no idea what his job actually is   ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3dDNPwJTU

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:08am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 7:52am: rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him? Racial profiling is still a tough question. Every one is free and protected by the constitution unless you look like a Muslim ?

I wouldn't so much call it racial profiling, more 'gut instinct' ... a lot of good police work has been done in the past when police follow their guts.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:08am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 7:52am: rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him? In Australia we do not have as much regard for rights than the US... Probably comes from our history of submissiveness to British authority given that the US 'Bill of Rights' rose from reactions against previous British (mis)rule. The question is ... Should the people forgo rights to protection from random detain and search, leaving them in a state of presumed suspicion. Given that the likelihood any person randomly detained is probably 99.999% likely to be innocent, Americans prefer protection for that majority... Having said all that, even the US practises racial profiling when detaining at borders... Apparently.

Yes ... it's the cost of living in a safe society.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:55am:

John and I have agreed that a 'Rodney King' touch-up is what this smart-ass dude deserved. And that's my final word on the subject. John - he's all yours. Don't take any prisoners. And for god sake use a condom.

now now Herb .... you didn't insist on a condom when I was giving it to you last week, why now?

"Sir, would you mind if I had a look in your booth?"

-- That's a request.


"Sir, if you do not allow me to look into your booth as I have requested, then I will arrest you for refusing to comply with a lawful order.

-- That defines the original request as having been an order.

At no time did any of these uniformed personnel qualify their original request as having been an order, hence they were not orders, but only requests.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:33am:

I love the bit at 10:45 He has no idea what his job actually is   ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3dDNPwJTU

It's pathetic - almost unbelievable.

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:08am: John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 7:52am: rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him? In Australia we do not have as much regard for rights than the US... Probably comes from our history of submissiveness to British authority given that the US 'Bill of Rights' rose from reactions against previous British (mis)rule. The question is ... Should the people forgo rights to protection from random detain and search, leaving them in a state of presumed suspicion. Given that the likelihood any person randomly detained is probably 99.999% likely to be innocent, Americans prefer protection for that majority... Having said all that, even the US practises racial profiling when detaining at borders... Apparently. Yes ... it's the cost of living in a safe society.

Is it?

History shows that at the very least it doesn't make us safe from tyranny... It ultimately guarantees less safety, in fact.

The story of the East German Stasi records on East Germans should give anyone pause to consider what kind of Orwellian dystopia arises whe the presumption of guilt is applied to all without exception... Except there are exceptions, aren't there... Like, for those who hold power.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:45am:

"Sir, would you mind if I had a look in your booth?" -- That's a request. "Sir, if you do not allow me to look into your booth as I have requested, then I will arrest you for refusing to comply with a lawful order. -- That defines the original request as having been an order. At no time did any of these uniformed personnel qualify their original request as having been an order, hence they were not orders, but only requests.

I see you've re-entered the building... (Bloody cleaners... Always leaving the toilet window unlatched).

Anyway... To venture beyond pedantry (dare you?)... The driver was right, then, when he declined to respond... As the 'request' turned out to be nothing more than a 'conversation starter'...

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:41am:

I wouldn't so much call it racial profiling, more 'gut instinct' ... a lot of good police work has been done in the past when police follow their guts.

Exactly.

They develop an acute ability to read the sort of stress on people's faces that belie the fact they are hiding something.

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Yes ... it's the cost of living in a safe society.

Precisely.

(John's on a roll today).

...

..

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:53am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:41am: I wouldn't so much call it racial profiling, more 'gut instinct' ... a lot of good police work has been done in the past when police follow their guts. Exactly. They develop an acute ability to read the sort of stress on people's faces that belie the fact they are hiding something.

Hmmm... Andrew Mallard? Lindy Chamberlain?

Not infallible, then...

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:48am:

Is it?

yes , it is.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:48am:

History shows that at the very least it doesn't make us safe from tyranny...

we live in Australia, not Zimbabwe ... we have our checks and balances to prevent that. I'm not saying they had a right to strip search him, but something as simple as showing ID when driving a car, especially in an area with a huge smuggler problem .... it's friggen ridiculous.

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:56am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:48am: History shows that at the very least it doesn't make us safe from tyranny... we live in Australia, not Zimbabwe ... we have our checks and balances to prevent that. I'm not saying they had a right to strip search him, but something as simple as showing ID when driving a car, especially in an area with a huge smuggler problem .... it's friggen ridiculous.

Yes and those 'check and balances' are where rights and constraints come in, I guess.

Do you think anyone should be able to ask for ID? Like, say, a parking ticket inspector? Or a council worker? Because its clear those officers did not have police powers... As police officers do have the power to request and expect at least driver's licence and registration..

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:52am:

Anyway... To venture beyond pedantry (dare you?)... The driver was right, then, when he declined to respond... As the 'request' turned out to be nothing more than a 'conversation starter'...

Legally correct, morally incorrect.

There are notices in nearly all Supermarkets which say:

"It is a condition of sale in this Supermarket that bags may be searched by our staff".

People believe this notice carries weight in law, and that the staff are legally entitled to search your bag.

Utterly false.

At no time are they legally entitled to search your bag within the confines of the shop, or outside of the premises.   

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:56am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:48am: Is it? yes , it is.

How do we measure when the cost is too high? Like what happened to East Germans?

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:56am:

we live in Australia, not Zimbabwe ... we have our checks and balances to prevent that. I'm not saying they had a right to strip search him, but something as simple as showing ID when driving a car, especially in an area with a huge smuggler problem .... it's friggen ridiculous.

Post of the Day.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:03am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:52am: Anyway... To venture beyond pedantry (dare you?)... The driver was right, then, when he declined to respond... As the 'request' turned out to be nothing more than a 'conversation starter'... Legally correct, morally incorrect.

So the attempt to exercise unlawful authority is moral? For whom?

Aussie wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2016 at 3:07pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 2:22pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 1:15pm: Would not happen in Australia. Border Force can legally detain people at the border for examination. He was in the USA and insisted his rights be respected. I'm sure you're right, but what right weren't they respecting? His right to have unrestricted movement in the USA.  That is why all those Officers gave way.  They had no 'probable cause' to detain him.  That being the case, and that he insisted on his rights (as everyone should) they had no option but to wave him goodbye.

many blessings and yes this is the fact

we are sovereign beings of this earth and need not

the permission or approval from governments to be here .. simple facts

nomatter how much people repeat fear based realities

this fact remains

and so be it

namaste

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

So the attempt to exercise unlawful authority is moral? For whom?

Nobody said they had the 'authority' to search the booth. None of these uniformed personnel claimed to have the authority to make a search, any more than the girls at the Supermarket checkout counters claim to have The Authority to check your bag.

What do you do when the girl at the checkout counter asks if you would mind her checking your bag?

Honest answer now.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Nobody said they had the 'authority' to search the booth. None of these uniformed personnel claimed to have the authority to make a search, any more than the girls at the Supermarket checkout counters claim to have The Authority to check your bag.

They do have the right to check your bag.

They can't touch the contents, though.

And, customers have the right to refuse the inspection (in which case, they can be asked to leave the store and never return).

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

They do have the right to check your bag.

Wrong.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

And, customers have the right to refuse the inspection

Correct.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

(in which case, they can be asked to leave the store and never return).

Wrong.

It is against the law to refuse a customer service.

Back to the Drawing Board, Boyo.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am: They do have the right to check your bag. Wrong. greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am: And, customers have the right to refuse the inspection Correct. greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am: (in which case, they can be asked to leave the store and never return). Wrong. It is against the law to refuse a customer service. Back to the Drawing Board, Boyo.

Back to the drawing board for you, Her-bert.

I am, as usual, correct.

"By entering a shop which has clearly displayed signs that bag checks are conducted, you accept the shopkeeper’s right to ask you to open your bags for checking.

"The shopkeeper’s right to check your bags also includes checking cartons, parcels or any other container you are carrying that could reasonably conceal goods.

"If you refuse to allow shop staff to check your bags you can be asked to leave the shop and not return."

Link

"A customer enters a store under licence and retailers are able to search any bags, containers, parcels, or other items that may potentially be used to shoplift, however, retailers must display a prominent sign at the entrance stating that a condition upon entering the store, is the intention to check bags.

"When a bag search is conducted no items are allowed to be touched with the retailer only able to look at the contents inside the bag. Customers do have the right to refuse to have their bag searched, but since a customer enters a store under licence, the retailer also has the right to ask a person to leave, therefore revoking the licence."

Link

At least you've learned something today.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am: Nobody said they had the 'authority' to search the booth. None of these uniformed personnel claimed to have the authority to make a search, any more than the girls at the Supermarket checkout counters claim to have The Authority to check your bag. They do have the right to check your bag. They can't touch the contents, though. And, customers have the right to refuse the inspection (in which case, they can be asked to leave the store and never return).

in which case, they can be asked to leave the store

Which is ironic given that's what you were doing in the first place?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:07am: So the attempt to exercise unlawful authority is moral? For whom? Nobody said they had the 'authority' to search the booth. None of these uniformed personnel claimed to have the authority to make a search,

But they seemed to be aware of the tactic of manufacturing probable cause or inviting people to leave their vehicle (i.e. to remove themselves from a 'private place' re: 4th Amendment)...

Why didn't they just do the quick once over and wave them on? What was all that 'Are you a US citizen' stuff? I'm convinced it wasn't just as simple as saying 'yes' then being waved on...


Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

What do you do when the girl at the checkout counter asks if you would mind her checking your bag? Honest answer now.

To be honest, I have never been into a shop with a bag in the first place except for maybe a see through plastic bag from an adjacent shop... And I've never been asked to show the contents of those bags.

I have, a couple of times, seen people refuse to open their bags and the attendant in both cases called security... But I didn't hang around to watch the outcome.

..

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:29am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:22am: Nobody said they had the 'authority' to search the booth. None of these uniformed personnel claimed to have the authority to make a search, any more than the girls at the Supermarket checkout counters claim to have The Authority to check your bag. They do have the right to check your bag. They can't touch the contents, though. And, customers have the right to refuse the inspection (in which case, they can be asked to leave the store and never return). in which case, they can be asked to leave the store Which is ironic given that's what you were doing in the first place?

True.

However, they can ask you to not return.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:57am:

I have, a couple of times, seen people refuse to open their bags and the attendant in both cases called security... But I didn't hang around to watch the outcome.

Security staff act mainly on bluff, they have the same powers of arrest as any other citizen.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:15am:

True. However, they can ask you to not return.

Yes, but its getting a bit 'CIA' if they have to keep a file on all 'banished' customers.

rhino wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:22am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:57am: I have, a couple of times, seen people refuse to open their bags and the attendant in both cases called security... But I didn't hang around to watch the outcome. Security staff act mainly on bluff, they have the same powers of arrest as any other citizen.

Yes, I'm guessing that's true.

rhino wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:22am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:57am: I have, a couple of times, seen people refuse to open their bags and the attendant in both cases called security... But I didn't hang around to watch the outcome. Security staff act mainly on bluff, they have the same powers of arrest as any other citizen.

Correctamundo.

"In public places, security guards and bouncers have no greater arrest powers than those of an ordinary citizen."

Legal Aid

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 7:52am:

rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him?

if they are concerned he might be a terrorist then one would presume there is a valid reason for that concern. Noone mentioned proof John, hence my comment about having a valid reason

rhino wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:27am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 7:52am: rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him? if they are concerned he might be a terrorist then one would presume there is a valid reason for that concern. Noone mentioned proof John, hence my comment about having a valid reason

hence my comment about having a valid reason

Or, in keeping with this thread... 'probable cause'

Probable cause implies that you suspect they have committed a crime, theres other reasons you may want to detain a person.

rhino wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:22am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:57am: I have, a couple of times, seen people refuse to open their bags and the attendant in both cases called security... But I didn't hang around to watch the outcome. Security staff act mainly on bluff, they have the same powers of arrest as any other citizen.

And circling back to the OP...

Those 'border' 'officers' were also bluffing...

Which (to allude to a previous post) is not an example of inherent morality, just a form of deceit.

I suspect that those border control officers only have powers of arrest and detention under certain circumstances such as at property designated as under control of immigration.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am:

Yes, I'm guessing ....

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 8:57am:

Herbert has left the building planet.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 12:52pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 11:24am: Yes, I'm guessing ....

In this case, the guess was spot on.

"In public places, security guards and bouncers have no greater arrest powers than those of an ordinary citizen."

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 12:55pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:57am: Herbert has left the building planet.

You're guessing ...

..

I already stated that. Try to keep up Greggary. You wont learn much if you just keep copying other peoples posts.

rhino wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 1:00pm:

I already stated that. Try to keep up Greggary. You wont learn much if you just keep copying other peoples posts.

That's all he ever does, and it's mostly my posts because he wants to ride on my coat-tails to glory ...  8-)

rhino wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 1:00pm:

I already stated that.

That's correct, you did.

Moreover, I said that you were correct.

Her-bert, however, doesn't seem to believe you.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 1:03pm:

rhino wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: I already stated that. Try to keep up Greggary. You wont learn much if you just keep copying other peoples posts. That's all he ever does, and it's mostly my posts because he wants to ride on my coat-tails to glory ...  8-)

No glory for you here, old boy.

You're getting a lot of things wrong in this thread.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 12:58pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 12:55pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 8:57am: Herbert has left the building planet. You're guessing ...

Hoping more than guessing in this case.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:59am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:56am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:48am: History shows that at the very least it doesn't make us safe from tyranny... we live in Australia, not Zimbabwe ... we have our checks and balances to prevent that. I'm not saying they had a right to strip search him, but something as simple as showing ID when driving a car, especially in an area with a huge smuggler problem .... it's friggen ridiculous. Yes and those 'check and balances' are where rights and constraints come in, I guess. Do you think anyone should be able to ask for ID? Like, say, a parking ticket inspector? Or a council worker? Because its clear those officers did not have police powers... As police officers do have the power to request and expect at least driver's licence and registration..

they weren't council workers or ticket inspectors, they were police. How do you expect police to do their jobs if you tie their hands? At some point, police have to ignore your rights in order to do their job. Unless you expect everyone to sign a confession every time they break the law.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:04am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:56am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:48am: Is it? yes , it is. How do we measure when the cost is too high? Like what happened to East Germans?

common sense. How is it police in Australia have had the power to ask you for ID since federation, and yet we haven't developed into a fascist state?

rhino wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:27am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 7:52am: rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him? if they are concerned he might be a terrorist then one would presume there is a valid reason for that concern. Noone mentioned proof John, hence my comment about having a valid reason

rubbish, they don't walk around with signs on their necks ... police act on suspicion, suspicion of terrorism, suspicion you are an illegal alien, suspicion you may be smuggling something ...  often that suspicion is based on nothing more than a gut feeling or instinct developed over years of policing. How is a policeman supposed to determine whether his suspicion has any foundation if he can't even ask for ID?

Have you ever watched the Aussie RBT or cop shows? Have you seen how often people give false names? Americans have been hamstrung by their constitution and their bill of rights ... it's time they scrapped it and started again.

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 2:39pm:

they weren't council workers or ticket inspectors, they were police. How do you expect police to do their jobs if you tie their hands? At some point, police have to ignore your rights in order to do their job. Unless you expect everyone to sign a confession every time they break the law.

How do you know they were police? Because, if they were, couldn't they have at least asked for driver's licence and registration?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 4:37pm:

How do you know they were police? Because, if they were, couldn't they have at least asked for driver's licence and registration?

the sheriffs badge on their chest

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 2:49pm:

Have you ever watched the Aussie RBT or cop shows? Have you seen how often people give false names? Americans have been hamstrung by their constitution and their bill of rights ... it's time they scrapped it and started again.

Damn right.

You the Man, John.

We knew things had gone VERY pear-shaped in the US when 'profiling' of People of Middle Eastern Appearance at entry-points to America became a Human Rights issue and was discontinued as 'racial profiling' and 'unfair'. (ie. "Why not check the Little Ol' Lady in the wheelchair just the same as the guy with the Palestinian Hamas neckerchief and the Jimmy Durante nose-job?").

That's when we knew the lunatics were in charge of the asylum.

That's when we knew that 'Leftist' politics had taken leave of commonsense and Good Practice.

 

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 5:07pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 4:37pm: How do you know they were police? Because, if they were, couldn't they have at least asked for driver's licence and registration? the sheriffs badge on their chest

With all due respect, John, I didn't see any sheriff badges.

They were wearing these, from what I could see:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/CBP_Badge.jpg

What a joke.

'Homeland Security'.

'Security' - my arse!

They were practically told to "F-off" by this fellow.  ;D ;D ;D

Where's Marla? She can fill us in on this farce.

..

..

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 4:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 2:39pm: they weren't council workers or ticket inspectors, they were police. How do you expect police to do their jobs if you tie their hands? At some point, police have to ignore your rights in order to do their job. Unless you expect everyone to sign a confession every time they break the law. How do you know they were police? Because, if they were, couldn't they have at least asked for driver's licence and registration?

No the police in the USA need due cause to pull anyone over, they can not just randomly ask for rego and License. The same constructional amendment applies.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 7:28pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 4:37pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 2:39pm: they weren't council workers or ticket inspectors, they were police. How do you expect police to do their jobs if you tie their hands? At some point, police have to ignore your rights in order to do their job. Unless you expect everyone to sign a confession every time they break the law. How do you know they were police? Because, if they were, couldn't they have at least asked for driver's licence and registration? No the police in the USA need due cause to pull anyone over, they can not just randomly ask for rego and License. The same constructional amendment applies.

Yes...

So could it be that the driver filming in this case was savvy enough to display behaviour (off camera) that all-but offered probable cause... i.e. Enough to trigger the officer's suspicion on camera yet not enough to overtly offer probable cause.

At one point the driver did suggest that asthma was the reason the officer noticed 'trembling hands'.

After all, this was YouTube and some people can make a living off videos that go viral.

Herbert, here is another "smartalec making a pest of himself."  The question for you is.....who is the smart Alec?

Link.

Premeditated murder, Herbert?

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 2:49pm:

rhino wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 11:27am: John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 7:52am: rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him? if they are concerned he might be a terrorist then one would presume there is a valid reason for that concern. Noone mentioned proof John, hence my comment about having a valid reason rubbish, they don't walk around with signs on their necks ... police act on suspicion, suspicion of terrorism, suspicion you are an illegal alien, suspicion you may be smuggling something ...  often that suspicion is based on nothing more than a gut feeling or instinct developed over years of policing. How is a policeman supposed to determine whether his suspicion has any foundation if he can't even ask for ID? Have you ever watched the Aussie RBT or cop shows? Have you seen how often people give false names? Americans have been hamstrung by their constitution and their bill of rights ... it's time they scrapped it and started again.

No John , incorrect. The suspicion is always founded on something. You watch too much TV. And these officers werent coppers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 6:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 5:07pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 4:37pm: How do you know they were police? Because, if they were, couldn't they have at least asked for driver's licence and registration? the sheriffs badge on their chest With all due respect, John, I didn't see any sheriff badges. They were wearing these, from what I could see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/CBP_Badge.jpg

As far as I'm concerned customs is or should be a branch of the police dept. They have a job to do and can't do it if they are hamstrung.

rhino wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 10:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 2:49pm: rhino wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 11:27am: John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 7:52am: rhino wrote on Oct 2nd, 2016 at 9:20pm: Why would anyone support the actions of these officers to detain anyone they felt like for no valid reason? so if the police stop a muslim and are concerned he might be a terrorist, but have no proof, you don't think they should be allowed to stop him? if they are concerned he might be a terrorist then one would presume there is a valid reason for that concern. Noone mentioned proof John, hence my comment about having a valid reason rubbish, they don't walk around with signs on their necks ... police act on suspicion, suspicion of terrorism, suspicion you are an illegal alien, suspicion you may be smuggling something ...  often that suspicion is based on nothing more than a gut feeling or instinct developed over years of policing. How is a policeman supposed to determine whether his suspicion has any foundation if he can't even ask for ID? Have you ever watched the Aussie RBT or cop shows? Have you seen how often people give false names? Americans have been hamstrung by their constitution and their bill of rights ... it's time they scrapped it and started again. No John , incorrect. The suspicion is always founded on something. You watch too much TV. And these officers werent coppers.

gut feelings & instinct

Instinct just guides us to look for specifics. So called gut feeling is normally founded on non verbal cues. Theres no esp involved. 

Aussie wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 10:11pm:

Herbert, here is another "smartalec making a pest of himself."  The question for you is.....who is the smart Alec? Link. Premeditated murder, Herbert?

Not a word from Her-bert.

Hmmm  :-/

Aussie wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 10:11pm:

Herbert, here is another "smartalec making a pest of himself."  The question for you is.....who is the smart Alec? Link. Premeditated murder, Herbert?

They had been told by headquarters that this Black on the Rampage had a gun, and it was their job to render him harmless to the public.

Bear in mind that these two police officers would have been acutely aware of the fact that the average on-the-job police fatalities per year in the US stands at a staggering 151 deaths. EACH YEAR (sorry for shouting).

151 (sorry for shouting again) ...never went home at the end of their shift.

ARE YOU BEGINNING TO GET THE PICTURE?

N*****rs on the rampage all over the US, high on crack cocaine ~ and decent people like police officers are losing their lives to the tune of 151 of them each year because of these shitbags.

And so is it surprising that these two gentlemen of the law decided to cancel this black bastard's ticket right there and then?

Again, here we have a Negro who doesn't stop when he knows damn well that the police car is there because of him - but he runs instead of stopping and raising his hands.

They capped his black ass because he was resisting arrest by running helter-skelter with weapons upon his person.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2016 at 10:11pm: Herbert, here is another "smartalec making a pest of himself."  The question for you is.....who is the smart Alec? Link. Premeditated murder, Herbert? They had been told by headquarters that this Black on the Rampage had a gun, and it was their job to render him harmless to the public. Bear in mind that these two police officers would have been acutely aware of the fact that the average on-the-job police fatalities per year in the US stands at a staggering 151 deaths. EACH YEAR (sorry for shouting). 151 (sorry for shouting again) ...never went home at the end of their shift. ARE YOU BEGINNING TO GET THE PICTURE? N*****rs on the rampage all over the US, high on crack cocaine ~ and decent people like police officers are losing their lives to the tune of 151 of them each year because of these shitbags. And so is it surprising that these two gentlemen of the law decided to cancel this black bastard's ticket right there and then? Again, here we have a Negro who doesn't stop when he knows damn well that the police car is there because of him - but he runs instead of stopping and raising his hands. They capped his black ass because he was resisting arrest by running helter-skelter with weapons upon his person.

So, that's a 'yes': it was premeditated murder?

When you are openly carrying a knife in a public place and a police office tells you to "Drop the knife!" ~ you should then drop the knife.

It's not negotiable.

Here in NSW it's a routine news item that police have shot dead yet another 'man with a knife'.

Maybe this should be taught to school children in their final year : If a uniformed police officer approaches you in a public place and orders you to "drop the knife!" - then ...... waaaaait for it, children ........ you drop the knife. 

BUT!

If you should NOT drop the knife, and you go running helter-skelter, then don't be surprised if them fine gentlemen should cap yo black ass!

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 1:58pm:

When you are openly carrying a knife in a public place and a police office tells you to "Drop the knife!" ~ you should then drop the knife. It's not negotiable. Here in NSW it's a routine news item that police have shot dead yet another 'man with a knife'. Maybe this should be taught to school children in their final year : If a uniformed police officer approaches you in a public place and orders you to "drop the knife!" - then ...... waaaaait for it, children ........ you drop the knife.  BUT! If you should NOT drop the knife, and you go running helter-skelter, then don't be surprised if them fine gentlemen should cap yo black ass!

Pardon the pun, but you seem to only see things in black & white.

For you, there are only two options: keep holding the knife, or die.

Surely public summary executions of alleged criminals shouldn't be the first line of defense used by the police.

I completely agree with the part of your post which I've highlighted, but the rest is just your usual trolling.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 2:05pm:

Pardon the pun, but you seem to only see things in black & white.

This drama involved a black man and two white gentlemen of the law.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 2:05pm:

Surely public summary executions of alleged criminals shouldn't be the first line of defense used by the police.

Absolutely it should be where a man is running amok in a public place whilst brandishing a knife.

They capped his black ass to ensure the safety of the public.

The same thing happened here in Sydney just recently when a man ran wild with a knife outside of a shopping mall.

They capped his black ass.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 2:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5th, 2016 at 2:05pm: Pardon the pun, but you seem to only see things in black & white. This drama involved a black man and two white gentlemen of the law. greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5th, 2016 at 2:05pm: Surely public summary executions of alleged criminals shouldn't be the first line of defense used by the police. Absolutely it should be where a man is running amok in a public place whilst brandishing a knife.

Stop trolling, Her-bert.

..

That black dudes knife carrying days are over. Tag him and bag him!

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 2:35pm:

That black dudes knife carrying days are over. Tag him and bag him!

While carrying a knife in public whilst ignoring requests from the police to stop is extremely stupid, and extremely dangerous, it does not warrant the summary execution of the alleged offender.

rhino wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 11:41pm:

Instinct just guides us to look for specifics. So called gut feeling is normally founded on non verbal cues. Theres no esp involved.

no one mentioned ESP ... Often these cues you mentioned are so minor, you don't consciously recognise them, but your brain does, based on it's previous experience. Even if you aren't aware of it. Ever met anyone and for no reason thought 'this guys a nutter, I need to be careful' and then later aren't able to explain to someone else why you thought that?  ... that's your brain subconsciously recognising ques that you consciously missed.

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 2:35pm:

That black dudes knife carrying days are over. Tag him and bag him!

;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 5th, 2016 at 2:35pm: That black dudes knife carrying days are over. Tag him and bag him! While carrying a knife in public whilst ignoring requests from the police to stop is extremely stupid, and extremely dangerous, it does not warrant the summary execution of the alleged offender.

America is a highly armed warzone with major public dysfunction issues mixed with severe social issues. American cops are like soldiers on high alert. Your little Vic Park rules don't apply to the hood Pecca. Expand your mind.

;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 6:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5th, 2016 at 2:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 5th, 2016 at 2:35pm: That black dudes knife carrying days are over. Tag him and bag him! While carrying a knife in public whilst ignoring requests from the police to stop is extremely stupid, and extremely dangerous, it does not warrant the summary execution of the alleged offender. America is a highly armed warzone with major public dysfunction issues mixed with severe social issues. American cops are like soldiers on high alert.

That doesn't justify the summary execution of its citizens.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 2:53pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 5th, 2016 at 2:35pm: That black dudes knife carrying days are over. Tag him and bag him! While carrying a knife in public whilst ignoring requests from the police to stop is extremely stupid, and extremely dangerous, it does not warrant the summary execution of the alleged offender.

You're leaving out the bit where these po-lees had been told by their radio communications officer that this dude was suspected of carrying a gun on his person.

151 po-lees killed in the line of doody each year in the US of A is liable make any officer a tad twitchy when sent on a mission to approach a nutter running around with a knife and a suspected concealed firearm.

These officers were not in the mood to play Russian Roulette with their lives in the cause of apprehending this nutter's black ass.

The moral of the story is do yo crack cocaine raging at home behind locked doors where the po-lees will have no cause to come looking to cap yo black ass!

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 7:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5th, 2016 at 2:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 5th, 2016 at 2:35pm: That black dudes knife carrying days are over. Tag him and bag him! While carrying a knife in public whilst ignoring requests from the police to stop is extremely stupid, and extremely dangerous, it does not warrant the summary execution of the alleged offender. You're leaving out the bit where these po-lees had been told by their radio communications officer that this dude was suspected of carrying a gun on his person. 151 po-lees killed in the line of doody each year in the US of A is liable make any officer a tad twitchy when sent on a mission to approach a nutter running around with a knife and a suspected concealed firearm. These officers were not in the mood to play Russian Roulette with their lives in the cause of apprehending this nutter's black ass. The moral of the story is do yo crack cocaine raging at home behind locked doors where the po-lees will have no cause to come looking to cap yo black ass!

That doesn't justify the summary execution of suspected criminals, or even convicted criminals.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 6:57pm:

That doesn't justify the summary execution of its citizens.

He done got whacked in the same way a terrorist running around the streets would get summarily terminated.

America is a very nervous place.

Don't run unless you're in jogging gear.
Don't be seen carrying a knife in public.
Don't behave erratically in a way that looks chaotic to the casual observer.
Don't get high on crack or ice in a public place.
ALWAYS obey the police. DON'T challenge their authority.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 7:08pm:

America is a very nervous place.

Indeed, it is.

However, that doesn't justify the summary execution of suspected criminals, or even convicted criminals.

I used to think it would be nice to live in the US - but not any longer. I've watched enough documentaries about the street-life of the US to not want anything to do with the place. Quite frankly it's a shithouse of serial killers, black gangs, black ghettoes, bulging prisons, Hispanic gangs, Hispanic ghettoes, Mafia mobsters, depressed areas, etc.