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.

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



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.

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


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

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



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.

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


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.

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


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:


See above.

Quote:


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.

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



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....

Quote:


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.

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


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?

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


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?

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.

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.

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


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.

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


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 7:06pm:



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.

..

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

Yeah? whos Who?

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


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.

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

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'.

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



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


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

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

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

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


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.

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


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.

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

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:



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

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

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.

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


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. 

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

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?

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

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.

Herbert has left the building.

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



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.

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



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

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



It's pathetic - almost unbelievable.

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

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 9:42am:



Precisely.

(John's on a roll today).

..

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



yes , it is.

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


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.

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


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:



Post of the Day.

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


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

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


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).

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


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.

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

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:

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:


True.

However, they can ask you to not return.

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

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:


Correctamundo.

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

Legal Aid

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

hence my comment about having a valid reason

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

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

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.

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

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


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."

..

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


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

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


No glory for you here, old boy.

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

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


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.