"Leave our checkpoint IMMEDIATELY."
UPDATE: Click here for why this guy had such a short fuse.
You like the border patrol agent who took a picture of him taking pictures?
It reminded me of something from Rob's excellent post;
Take for instance the case of Ezra Levant, a Canadian publisher brought up before the laughable "Human Rights Commission" for the unspeakable act of publishing the Mohammad cartoons. Watch the videos he has of his ordeal. Watch how detached the "human rights officer" is from the whole affair. For her, it's just a job. She gets a sheet of paper that says do X, she does X. The fact that she is is a tine in the pitchfork of fascism is lost on her. The fact that she is instrumental in crushing free speech bothers her about as much as deciding what she will be having for lunch.
"Hey look, this dude's recording us! What a douche. I'll go record him! Heh. What's his problem?"
He has recorded this check point before, this is why he asked if she already knew who he was. He made this one about a month before the above one. It's worth watching.
"You can ask me what ever you want."
Note there are no orders issued, only forceful requests. Notice also that there was very little actual answering of questions. Questions were met with questions.
Check out this video at the same checkpoint. Note how the officer doesn't ask him to stop recording, but contends that by recording the exchange, he is creating a traffic hazard. Unbelievable.
I've also decided to add a tag that I didn't really want to add. This clenches it. The tag is Double-Plus Ungood
UPDATE: Hazel Stone, of The Line Is Here, is taking me to task in the comment section. The best way to change hearts and minds is with open debate! If you disagree, please attempt to change my mind, and allow me the same courtesy.
UPDATE: Blogi has joined the fray, with his keen ability to spot BS from a mile away!
also, that rhymes
14 comments:
It actually just looks like some guy being an intentional douche to a bunch of working stiffs who aren't really interested in standing out in the desert being whinged at by an overpriveleged gringo.
So, all I've learned through this little home movie is that the border patrol is so poorly supervised that they'll let said overpriveleged gringo get away with not answering their question (after which he would summarily have been waved through), and acting like said douche, instead of yanking him out and searching his car to see what he was so intent on concealing. No sympathy here.
Is being a douche against the law? Working stiffs or not, you cannot claim you were "just following orders" if your orders are illegal. No laws were broken here, nor rights infringed upon since this "douche" was left alone. I credit the BP for this.
You'll note that they didn't yank him out and search his car, this is because that would be illegal.
Are you a citizen? If so, you have the same rights to refuse unlawful search and seizure.
Certainly you would rather he submit. Were a team of cops to pound on your door at 3am, and ask to search your house without a warrant, would you let them in?
>>Is being a douche against the law?
Clearly it isn't since he wasn't arrested.
>>No laws were broken here, nor rights infringed upon since this "douche" was left alone. I credit the BP for this.
Oh, if he hadn't been videotaping them then they would have done something illegal? Brilliant argument.
You speak as if their checkpoint is illegal. If so, make complaint to the appropriate authorities. If not, STFU and move on. Searches at checkpoints are NOT illegal, dear, as the Supremes have so ruled.
>>Certainly you would rather he submit.
You might want to look into how to conduct a reasoned argument. Here's a hint...putting words in the mouth of your opponent is not it.
There is all the difference in the world between standing up for your rights, getting intrusive laws overturned, etc. etc., and one agitator (who apparently doesn't know the difference between liberty and anarchy) pissing in some local official's pool because his morning drive is interrupted. The more tempests in a teacup spotlighted, the less attention is paid to legitimate liberty-infringing issues.
>>Oh, if he hadn't been videotaping them then they would have done something illegal? Brilliant argument.
Who's putting words into who's mouth now?
>>You speak as if their checkpoint is illegal. If so, make complaint to the appropriate authorities. If not, STFU and move on. Searches at checkpoints are NOT illegal, dear, as the Supremes have so ruled.
Their checkpoint is NOT illegal. However, they did not let him go after he made it clear he was not going to answer their question voluntarily. If the exchange went;
BP: "What is your country of origin?"
Guy: "Am I being detained?"
BP: "What is your country of origin?"
Guy: "Am I being detained?"
And continued for 3 hours, would you still insist he was not detained illegally?
>>You might want to look into how to conduct a reasoned argument. Here's a hint...putting words in the mouth of your opponent is not it.
My mistake, I made an assumption, and that was wrong. Please allow me to rephrase my statement;
"WOULD you rather he submit, and answer the question?"
>>There is all the difference in the world between standing up for your rights, getting intrusive laws overturned, etc. etc., and one agitator (who apparently doesn't know the difference between liberty and anarchy) pissing in some local official's pool because his morning drive is interrupted.
Funny. I don't think there is.
>>The more tempests in a teacup spotlighted, the less attention is paid to legitimate liberty-infringing issues.
And the more people marginalize minor infringements of individuals, the less attention is paid to the fight against infringements on our liberty.
>>Who's putting words into who's mouth now?
You said it yourself:
"No laws were broken here, nor rights infringed upon since this "douche" was left alone. I credit the BP for this."
>>Their checkpoint is NOT illegal. However, they did not let him go after he made it clear he was not going to answer their question voluntarily. If the exchange went;
BP: "What is your country of origin?"
Guy: "Am I being detained?"
BP: "What is your country of origin?"
Guy: "Am I being detained?"
And continued for 3 hours, would you still insist he was not detained illegally?
Let him go? He was not detained! He was idling. In the road. While refusing to answer the question. While being as obnoxious as possible. Where does three hours come from? In each case this guy has made his own misfortune.
>>My mistake, I made an assumption, and that was wrong. Please allow me to rephrase my statement;
"WOULD you rather he submit, and answer the question?"
Is there some problem with answering to what country you claim citizenship? You guys are getting all worked up over a checkpoint designed to catch illegals, it's just baffling to me. If he'd answered the question, in his whitebread, Arizona accent, he'd have been waved through without issue. But that doesn't drive traffic to a website now does it?
>>Funny. I don't think there is.
Well then that's where we'll disagree. What a psychologist could tell us about this video clip would almost be worth the price, though.
>>And the more people marginalize minor infringements of individuals, the less attention is paid to the fight against infringements on our liberty.
We're talking past each other at this point. This is a non-issue, and raising such a fuss about it dilutes the message.
I said: "No laws were broken here, nor rights infringed upon since this "douche" was left alone. I credit the BP for this."
You said: "Oh, if he hadn't been videotaping them then they would have done something illegal? Brilliant argument."
I said: "Who's putting words into who's mouth now?"
You said: "You said it yourself:" And quoted the first line.
Are you suggesting that I implied he would have had his rights violated if he didn't have the camera? I neither said, nor implied any such thing. The issue I took with this interaction was that he was detained by BP by the repeated asking of questions, and refusal to answer direct questions. While I believe it was an infringement, I still credit BP for refusing to overstep their boundaries when provoked. (provoking, by the way, is perfectly legal) (though admittedly in bad taste)
>>Let him go? He was not detained! He was idling. In the road. While refusing to answer the question. While being as obnoxious as possible. Where does three hours come from? In each case this guy has made his own misfortune.
If your contention is that he was not detained, then I disagree. Had he driven through the roadblock as soon as the BP agent responded "No." to the question "Am I being detained?" do you argue that he would not have been pulled over? Did you notice in the videos that when told he could leave, he asked for clarification just to make sure?
>>Is there some problem with answering to what country you claim citizenship? You guys are getting all worked up over a checkpoint designed to catch illegals, it's just baffling to me. If he'd answered the question, in his whitebread, Arizona accent, he'd have been waved through without issue.
To prevent myself from drawing further assumptions, would you kindly answer the question I posed clearly, before I formulate my reply?
"Would you rather he submit, and answer the question?"
>>But that doesn't drive traffic to a website now does it?
You might have noticed there are ZERO ads on this site. You might have also noted there is NO donation button.
I cannot, however, say the same for the site you write for.
I must therefore conclude this attack is simply an attempt to dismiss my arguments, rather than challenge them. This has been duly noted.
>>What a psychologist could tell us about this video clip would almost be worth the price, though.
What does it matter what someone else thinks about how someone exercises their rights? In America, we're allowed to bathe in mayonnaise if we please. While I'd agree someone would be rather strange for doing such a thing, I would not openly cast dispersions on what he wants to, and is free to do.
>>This is a non-issue, and raising such a fuss about it dilutes the message.
It seems we must agree to disagree once again.
You lost me here, ET. I would say that those border patrol agents should have slammed that fat bastard to the ground the very first time he didn't answer a question.
Being a douchebag is not against the law. Not complying with an enforcer of the law is.
Someone needs to slap that fat bastard around. A lot.
Please don't give the hippie whine about a free country or that you're entitled to not have to explain that you're American to the Police.
You're frickin' ET, bearer of strong arms, guarantor of peace in your neighborhood. How can you support this hippie asshole? I'm stunned.
It's fair enough to say that this is a lame attempt at supporting our border, but how can you be against it?
I came to this party late, following your comments on The War on Guns. Hazel is just one of the government sympathizers who will happily hand us all over to the next duly-elected Hitler. Sad, but not rare.
>>How can you support this hippie asshole?
Somehow this was a more convincing argument than everything Hazel Stone managed. Blogi, I applaud you for knowing just how to cut to the quick.
First, you should know that I'm a civil libertarian in a family of cops. This means I know exactly how cops may bend the rules, but find myself in reluctant agreement with the fact that they only do so because they feel it is in the best intrest of the people whom they watch over. If someone looks like they need to be pulled over; cops can and will find a reason to pull them over. Part of me wants to get upset with perceived violation of civil rights, but the pragmatic part realizes that 90% of cops are just trying to make our streets safer, and are just doing what they feel is right.
I hate hippies. Until you raised the point, I didn't realize, but this guy IS a bit of a hippie. But there's only one thing I hate more than hippies. Feds reminding citizens that we must obey.
This guy WAS dragged out of his car and roughed up. Then when it came time to try him for a crime, they backed off. I'd say he earned the right to be a douchy hippie right there.
>>Please don't give the hippie whine about a free country or that you're entitled to not have to explain that you're American to the Police.
This isn't the police. This isn't the local Sheriff trying the stop the coyotes from coming into his town. This is the Fedgov coming to a city near you, and insisting you answer their questions in order to drive on the highway.
>>It's fair enough to say that this is a lame attempt at supporting our border, but how can you be against it?
I'm not against the actual roadblock. I think any time we can catch the government actually doing it's job is something that should be celebrated. However, he should have been sent on his way as soon as any rational person would have asertained he was not who they were looking for. Instead he was detained by the refusal to answer his direct questions.
Sure, "What is your country of origin?" seems to be a rather benign line questioning. But so does, "What's your name? Where are you coming from? Where are you headed? To what end?" and after you answer all those innocuous questions; are you going to answer the last one? "What's your social security number?"
I have no problem with this roadblock, or the DHS or BP doing their job. I just take issue with the intimidation that was used in this instance because I think it's indicative to what we might expect when the Fedgov comes to a freeway near you.
I'm libertarian to a fault, yet saw nothing wrong with what the feds did here. I would have even been ok with them thwacking him a few times with a baton until he answered the questions or showed ID.
There's an invasion going on, and a sad part of our duty is that we prove that we are not part of that invasion whenever questioned. I know it blows, but we must choose to accept being invaded, or accept proving that we personally are not invaders. I choose the latter.
Be a dick to the feds after you prove your citizenship if that is your thing, but if you are unwilling to prove it, I hope they beat the crap out of you. Maybe add a little tasing.
personal opinion, of course.
I respect your opinion, and if confronted with the same situation (sans previous beating and threat against my freedom, of course) would probably simply reply, "America." If the question went beyond that, I might take issue with it. Would you?
I know we've got a huge problem with illegals, and I guess breaking a few eggs is understandable. However, at it's core, it's an issue created by the government, with proposed solutions that inconvenience regular Americans.
It's like allowing 500 terrorists into the country, and then setting up roadblocks all over the country with fingerprinting and SSN recording to find them.
Understanding that you are willing to break a few eggs, I guess my question to you is; would you answer the last question if the DHS asked you?
We enjoy a very fundamental right to travel freely within our country. Would you give that up knowing that the government never gives up a power it can exercise with impugnity?
I am very curious of blogagog's definition of "libertarian" after reading his comment.....
I certainly agree with your 500 terrorists scenario, ET. It's VERY much like that. But I don't blame the government like you do. I blame the half of Americans who won't let our security force do what needs to be done, preferring evil multiculturalism or the almost as bad 'bilingualism' over obeying the law. The g-men are doing what they can with what the west coast has given them.
We are seeing how Arizona is solving the problem with great laws, but look at all of the crap they are receiving! I completely support laws like Arizona has initiated country-wide, but until that happens, I'm all for using whatever works.
I WANT a weak government intranationally, and since you said you're libertarian, I bet you kind of do as well. But there are a few things that government is useful for. One of (the four of) them is national security. I only wish they'd been more aggressive with that guy.
Post a Comment