U.S. Citizens Say They Were Detained By Border Patrol Agent For ‘Speaking Spanish’

[Godboy]

Wow, a whole 35 minutes. Good thing they didn't go through an airport, that would have been 45 minutes standing in line.

^ The Trump sheep immediately defends scrapping rights for U.S. citizens

No it's you regressives that claim a law enforcement officer doing his job, in a professional manner, is somehow doing something wrong. He asked for ID, verified the ID was genuine and sent them on their way. Many illegals are using stolen IDs. Also when are you regressives going to learn that Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. Did you notice the one woman couldn't even pronounce "profiling" correctly?


.

Which he is not allowed to do. Speaking Spanish is not a crime. HE had no right to ask for a ID.

Actually he did, they were within a border control zone. Border Patrol can question anyone within them.

View attachment 194794

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. Did you not read the town is close to the Canadian border?

Amendment
.

So what. Does that mean NY can suspend the 2nd Amendment. It is close to the border. there was no cause to stop these women.

NY was in the business of stop and frisk for years. No probable cause necessary. Has anyone taken NY to court for having their constitutional rights violated?

 

[busybee01]

Wow, a whole 35 minutes. Good thing they didn't go through an airport, that would have been 45 minutes standing in line.

^ The Trump sheep immediately defends scrapping rights for U.S. citizens

Rights are only for white people.

What rights were actually violated? I wasn't aware ANYONE had a right to never be spoken to by law enforcement.

Start with the 4th Amendment. Illegal search and seizure. The agent had no probable cause for detaining them for even 2 minutes.

Start with where having a conversation is not "detaining", and CERTAINLY isn't searching or seizing, and then explain to me what the **** the 4th Amendment has to do with it, other than your vague notion that anything you don't like MUST be "Unconstitutional".

They did not have a conversation. Illegal search and seizure is exactly what Joe ARPAIO was found guilty of when he stopped people with no probable cause. You are the one who believes that anything you like is constitutional and anything you don't like is unconstitutional.

 

[Godboy]

^ The Trump sheep immediately defends scrapping rights for U.S. citizens

Rights are only for white people.

What rights were actually violated? I wasn't aware ANYONE had a right to never be spoken to by law enforcement.

Start with the 4th Amendment. Illegal search and seizure. The agent had no probable cause for detaining them for even 2 minutes.

Start with where having a conversation is not "detaining", and CERTAINLY isn't searching or seizing, and then explain to me what the **** the 4th Amendment has to do with it, other than your vague notion that anything you don't like MUST be "Unconstitutional".

They did not have a conversation. Illegal search and seizure is exactly what Joe ARPAIO was found guilty of when he stopped people with no probable cause. You are the one who believes that anything you like is constitutional and anything you don't like is unconstitutional.

STOP AND FRISK! Look it up. It wasn't unconstitutional.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And once again, I point out that - as usual - leftists are "standing up" for what they THINK the Constitution says

And you're ignoring what it says in order to justify your xenophobia.

Oh, am I? My "xenophobia" that you're diagnosing based on your extensive personal knowledge of me and my life? Or my "xenophobia" that you're diagnosing because anyone who thinks you're talking out of your ass on this subject MUST think so because they hate non-white people, as opposed to just observing you talking out of your ass?

Let's look at what the 4th Amendment says, which I'm "ignoring", shall we? The REAL words, not the ones that you imagine are there because they just MUST be.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

All right, Chuckles, show me the parts you're "standing up for" here. Was it their persons, houses, papers, or effects which were searched? How about seized? Violated? Well, there were certainly no warrants issued without probable cause. Exactly what part of the Fourth Amendment are you championing in the "heinous" case of a 35-minute non-compulsory conversation? Lay it on me, MLK Jr. Show me your great "civil rights battle" here.

 

[OKTexas]

Next time speak English. See if that resolves the problem...

Or be held by authorities, even after producing their "papers"?

What if I don't want to?

What if I don't speak English?

Why are you RWNJs so damn eager to throw away basic American rights?

Over the years, the Supreme Court has upheld Border Patrol agents' authority to stop and search people in the border zone, while also defining some limit to their powers. For example, the Court has ruled that agents must have probable cause to believe that someone committed an immigration violation to search their car in a border zone, but they only need a reasonable suspicion (a lower standard of proof) to stop and question them. If they establish a roadside checkpoint within the border zone, they can stop and question anyone who drives through about their immigration status.

Stopping Americans for speaking Spanish: the latest evidence that Border Patrol agents have too much power


.

Speaking another language is not reasonable suspicion.

There could have been other factors, dress, demeanor, you might note the story only said one of them was born in TX, I wonder where the other was born? I'm not a trained border agent and I bet I could point out 80% of the illegals in Walmart.


.

 

[busybee01]

^ The Trump sheep immediately defends scrapping rights for U.S. citizens

No it's you regressives that claim a law enforcement officer doing his job, in a professional manner, is somehow doing something wrong. He asked for ID, verified the ID was genuine and sent them on their way. Many illegals are using stolen IDs. Also when are you regressives going to learn that Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. Did you notice the one woman couldn't even pronounce "profiling" correctly?


.

Which he is not allowed to do. Speaking Spanish is not a crime. HE had no right to ask for a ID.

Actually he did, they were within a border control zone. Border Patrol can question anyone within them.

View attachment 194794

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. Did you not read the town is close to the Canadian border?

Amendment
.

So what. Does that mean NY can suspend the 2nd Amendment. It is close to the border. there was no cause to stop these women.

NY was in the business of stop and frisk for years. No probable cause necessary. Has anyone taken NY to court for having their constitutional rights violated?

They were taken to court. It was ruled unconstitutional by a district judge. The city was forced to modify it by raising the bar for stopping people.

Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional? - FactCheck.org

 

[busybee01]

There is nothing wrong with checking. There are literally MILLIONS of illegals in our country. We have to be vigilant if we want to get rid of them.

Explain the 35 minute detention....all based on speaking Spanish.....It's so funny to watch trumpanzees willing to go to the wall for their precious guns, but give up their other freedoms so willingly.

Detention for 35 seconds was unwarranted.

No, 35 seconds isnt enough time to determine if they are legal residents. I think anything up to a fews hours is appropriate.

You cannot just stop people on the street and ask for their papers. They broke no laws.

Really? Show me the law that says a Border Patrol officer can't initiate a conversation and make a polite request for ID (and no, calling a driver's license "your papers" does not make it sound ominous, it just makes you sound like a moron), or that those women didn't have every right to politely decline.

A uniformed officer comes up to you and asks for a ID. You are the one who sounds like a moron and jack booted thug to boot. They broke no law and the officer in question did not say they did not have to give up their ID.

 

[Cecilie1200]

^ The Trump sheep immediately defends scrapping rights for U.S. citizens

Rights are only for white people.

What rights were actually violated? I wasn't aware ANYONE had a right to never be spoken to by law enforcement.

Start with the 4th Amendment. Illegal search and seizure. The agent had no probable cause for detaining them for even 2 minutes.

Start with where having a conversation is not "detaining", and CERTAINLY isn't searching or seizing, and then explain to me what the **** the 4th Amendment has to do with it, other than your vague notion that anything you don't like MUST be "Unconstitutional".

They did not have a conversation. Illegal search and seizure is exactly what Joe ARPAIO was found guilty of when he stopped people with no probable cause. You are the one who believes that anything you like is constitutional and anything you don't like is unconstitutional.

Oh, my holy God, WOULD you stop conflating unrelated shit and topic-hopping hither and yon, you hysterical fruitcake?!

1) They didn't have a conversation? Were you watching the same video? Three human beings communicated in words back and forth to each other. What do you call that? 'Cause in Reality Land, that'd be a conversation.

2) What the righteous **** does Joe Arpaiohave to do with anything? Not only was Arpaio a sheriff in a whole 'nother state, on the whole other side of the country from Montana, he's also not even in office any more.

3) What does search and seizure have to do with this? Was someone searched? Was their property seized?

4) The only reasons that I believe the things I like are Constitutional are because a) I actually know the Constitution, and b) I don't think with my glands, unlike some people, so what I like actually bears some resemblance to reality.

Give producing a coherent argument another try, sweetpea, because my 9-year-old could have done better than this.

 

[Godboy]

No it's you regressives that claim a law enforcement officer doing his job, in a professional manner, is somehow doing something wrong. He asked for ID, verified the ID was genuine and sent them on their way. Many illegals are using stolen IDs. Also when are you regressives going to learn that Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. Did you notice the one woman couldn't even pronounce "profiling" correctly?


.

Which he is not allowed to do. Speaking Spanish is not a crime. HE had no right to ask for a ID.

Actually he did, they were within a border control zone. Border Patrol can question anyone within them.

View attachment 194794

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. Did you not read the town is close to the Canadian border?

Amendment
.

So what. Does that mean NY can suspend the 2nd Amendment. It is close to the border. there was no cause to stop these women.

NY was in the business of stop and frisk for years. No probable cause necessary. Has anyone taken NY to court for having their constitutional rights violated?

They were taken to court. It was ruled unconstitutional by a district judge. The city was forced to modify it by raising the bar for stopping people.

Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional? - FactCheck.org

I stand corrected... however, it wasnt due to a "probable cause" argument. The judge also let it continue, so it wasn't really unconstitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

Wow, a whole 35 minutes. Good thing they didn't go through an airport, that would have been 45 minutes standing in line.

^ The Trump sheep immediately defends scrapping rights for U.S. citizens

No it's you regressives that claim a law enforcement officer doing his job, in a professional manner, is somehow doing something wrong. He asked for ID, verified the ID was genuine and sent them on their way. Many illegals are using stolen IDs. Also when are you regressives going to learn that Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. Did you notice the one woman couldn't even pronounce "profiling" correctly?


.

Which he is not allowed to do. Speaking Spanish is not a crime. HE had no right to ask for a ID.

Actually he did, they were within a border control zone. Border Patrol can question anyone within them.

View attachment 194794

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. Did you not read the town is close to the Canadian border?

Amendment
.

So what. Does that mean NY can suspend the 2nd Amendment. It is close to the border. there was no cause to stop these women.

Funny how stupid people make stupid statements even after being presented the facts. Get back to me after you finished your border patrol training.


.

 

[busybee01]

Detention for 35 seconds was unwarranted.

No, 35 seconds isnt enough time to determine if they are legal residents. I think anything up to a fews hours is appropriate.

You cannot just stop people on the street and ask for their papers. They broke no laws.

Tell me:

What law did a guy break when his rare gun collection gets confiscated just because someone decides it is too big and they don't see what need he has for it?
What law does a person break when a community decides he must take down his nativity scene @ Christmas because it was too religious?
What law does a business break when a customer want them to provide a service they don't offer because it offends them, so the Fed sues them?
What law does a president break when a political party decides to pitch a tent up his ass for a few years because they didn't like that he beat their opponent?
What law did a panicked dental assistant break when she gets gunned down in her car for making an illegal U-turn in Washington DC?
What law did a border agent break when he merely stops a couple people speaking a foreign language at the border in an area where no one normally speaks foreign languages, just to check them out enough to make sure they aren't any person of interest?

Try the 4th Amendment for starters. Speaking a foreign language is not a crime. You cannot stop someone without probable cause.

"4th Amendment! 4th Amendment! I can't tell you how it applies, but I JUST KNOW that it protects me from whatever I think is 'mean'!"

"Probable cause! Probable cause! I don't know what it means, or if it applies here, but they say it on 'Law and Order' so it must count!"

Still waiting for you to cite any laws supporting your claims, and very, very aware that you're probably dodging like a chickenshit.

You clearly do not understand the Constitution. What laws were they violating. Speaking Spanish is not illegal. The 4th Amendment clearly applies here. You sound like the chickenshit here.

 

[Godboy]

No, 35 seconds isnt enough time to determine if they are legal residents. I think anything up to a fews hours is appropriate.

You cannot just stop people on the street and ask for their papers. They broke no laws.

Tell me:

What law did a guy break when his rare gun collection gets confiscated just because someone decides it is too big and they don't see what need he has for it?
What law does a person break when a community decides he must take down his nativity scene @ Christmas because it was too religious?
What law does a business break when a customer want them to provide a service they don't offer because it offends them, so the Fed sues them?
What law does a president break when a political party decides to pitch a tent up his ass for a few years because they didn't like that he beat their opponent?
What law did a panicked dental assistant break when she gets gunned down in her car for making an illegal U-turn in Washington DC?
What law did a border agent break when he merely stops a couple people speaking a foreign language at the border in an area where no one normally speaks foreign languages, just to check them out enough to make sure they aren't any person of interest?

Try the 4th Amendment for starters. Speaking a foreign language is not a crime. You cannot stop someone without probable cause.

"4th Amendment! 4th Amendment! I can't tell you how it applies, but I JUST KNOW that it protects me from whatever I think is 'mean'!"

"Probable cause! Probable cause! I don't know what it means, or if it applies here, but they say it on 'Law and Order' so it must count!"

Still waiting for you to cite any laws supporting your claims, and very, very aware that you're probably dodging like a chickenshit.

You clearly do not understand the Constitution. What laws were they violating. Speaking Spanish is not illegal. The 4th Amendment clearly applies here. You sound like the chickenshit here.

If speaking Spanish was illegal, he would have arrested them for it. His concern was simply that they weren't legal citizens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Explain the 35 minute detention....all based on speaking Spanish.....It's so funny to watch trumpanzees willing to go to the wall for their precious guns, but give up their other freedoms so willingly.

Detention for 35 seconds was unwarranted.

No, 35 seconds isnt enough time to determine if they are legal residents. I think anything up to a fews hours is appropriate.

You cannot just stop people on the street and ask for their papers. They broke no laws.

Really? Show me the law that says a Border Patrol officer can't initiate a conversation and make a polite request for ID (and no, calling a driver's license "your papers" does not make it sound ominous, it just makes you sound like a moron), or that those women didn't have every right to politely decline.

A uniformed officer comes up to you and asks for a ID. You are the one who sounds like a moron and jack booted thug to boot. They broke no law and the officer in question did not say they did not have to give up their ID.

I don't have a guilty conscience, nor am I a trantrum-throwing drama queen, so law enforcement officers hold no fear for me. Neither does conversing with them, or politely asserting my rights (largely because, unlike you, I actually know what they are). They're human beings, not ogres. Get a grip.

Furthermore, OF COURSE he didn't tell them they didn't have to give him their ID. He's not their lawyer; it's not his job to give them legal advice on their rights. If the ******* rights are so g*damn important to them, the way they and you and every other hyperemotional snowflake around here keeps screeching, shouldn't they - and you - at least take the trouble to KNOW them?

Law enforcement pretty much counts on criminals, and people in general, to be stupid. Why are you doing it?

 

[busybee01]

Which he is not allowed to do. Speaking Spanish is not a crime. HE had no right to ask for a ID.

Actually he did, they were within a border control zone. Border Patrol can question anyone within them.

View attachment 194794

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. Did you not read the town is close to the Canadian border?

Amendment
.

So what. Does that mean NY can suspend the 2nd Amendment. It is close to the border. there was no cause to stop these women.

NY was in the business of stop and frisk for years. No probable cause necessary. Has anyone taken NY to court for having their constitutional rights violated?

They were taken to court. It was ruled unconstitutional by a district judge. The city was forced to modify it by raising the bar for stopping people.

Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional? - FactCheck.org

I stand corrected... however, it wasnt due to a "probable cause" argument. The judge also let it continue, so it wasn't really unconstitutional.

It was ruled unconstitutional because no probable cause was required. The judge raised the bar for a stop and frisk.

 

[busybee01]

^ The Trump sheep immediately defends scrapping rights for U.S. citizens

No it's you regressives that claim a law enforcement officer doing his job, in a professional manner, is somehow doing something wrong. He asked for ID, verified the ID was genuine and sent them on their way. Many illegals are using stolen IDs. Also when are you regressives going to learn that Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. Did you notice the one woman couldn't even pronounce "profiling" correctly?


.

Which he is not allowed to do. Speaking Spanish is not a crime. HE had no right to ask for a ID.

Actually he did, they were within a border control zone. Border Patrol can question anyone within them.

View attachment 194794

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. Did you not read the town is close to the Canadian border?

Amendment
.

So what. Does that mean NY can suspend the 2nd Amendment. It is close to the border. there was no cause to stop these women.

Funny how stupid people make stupid statements even after being presented the facts. Get back to me after you finished your border patrol training.


.

You seem to believe in Constitution free zones. I don't need to learn how to be a jack booted thug.

 

[WEATHER53]

For you liberals, speaking Spanish is not illegal
Engaging in activities that a border patrol agent deens suspicious ,if not illegal, certainly lends itself to the agent taking the next step
You libbies should be thanking the agent instead of banging the drum for some fake, emotive uproar

 

[busybee01]

You cannot just stop people on the street and ask for their papers. They broke no laws.

Tell me:

What law did a guy break when his rare gun collection gets confiscated just because someone decides it is too big and they don't see what need he has for it?
What law does a person break when a community decides he must take down his nativity scene @ Christmas because it was too religious?
What law does a business break when a customer want them to provide a service they don't offer because it offends them, so the Fed sues them?
What law does a president break when a political party decides to pitch a tent up his ass for a few years because they didn't like that he beat their opponent?
What law did a panicked dental assistant break when she gets gunned down in her car for making an illegal U-turn in Washington DC?
What law did a border agent break when he merely stops a couple people speaking a foreign language at the border in an area where no one normally speaks foreign languages, just to check them out enough to make sure they aren't any person of interest?

Try the 4th Amendment for starters. Speaking a foreign language is not a crime. You cannot stop someone without probable cause.

"4th Amendment! 4th Amendment! I can't tell you how it applies, but I JUST KNOW that it protects me from whatever I think is 'mean'!"

"Probable cause! Probable cause! I don't know what it means, or if it applies here, but they say it on 'Law and Order' so it must count!"

Still waiting for you to cite any laws supporting your claims, and very, very aware that you're probably dodging like a chickenshit.

You clearly do not understand the Constitution. What laws were they violating. Speaking Spanish is not illegal. The 4th Amendment clearly applies here. You sound like the chickenshit here.

If speaking Spanish was illegal, he would have arrested them for it. His concern was simply that they weren't legal citizens.

You cannot just stop people on the street and ask for their papers. That is why Maricopa County was forced to pay big bucks for what Arpaio was doing.

 

[OKTexas]

^ The Trump sheep immediately defends scrapping rights for U.S. citizens

Rights are only for white people.

What rights were actually violated? I wasn't aware ANYONE had a right to never be spoken to by law enforcement.

Start with the 4th Amendment. Illegal search and seizure. The agent had no probable cause for detaining them for even 2 minutes.

Start with where having a conversation is not "detaining", and CERTAINLY isn't searching or seizing, and then explain to me what the **** the 4th Amendment has to do with it, other than your vague notion that anything you don't like MUST be "Unconstitutional".

They did not have a conversation. Illegal search and seizure is exactly what Joe ARPAIO was found guilty of when he stopped people with no probable cause. You are the one who believes that anything you like is constitutional and anything you don't like is unconstitutional.

Actually he was found guilty of contempt of court.


.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, 35 seconds isnt enough time to determine if they are legal residents. I think anything up to a fews hours is appropriate.

You cannot just stop people on the street and ask for their papers. They broke no laws.

Tell me:

What law did a guy break when his rare gun collection gets confiscated just because someone decides it is too big and they don't see what need he has for it?
What law does a person break when a community decides he must take down his nativity scene @ Christmas because it was too religious?
What law does a business break when a customer want them to provide a service they don't offer because it offends them, so the Fed sues them?
What law does a president break when a political party decides to pitch a tent up his ass for a few years because they didn't like that he beat their opponent?
What law did a panicked dental assistant break when she gets gunned down in her car for making an illegal U-turn in Washington DC?
What law did a border agent break when he merely stops a couple people speaking a foreign language at the border in an area where no one normally speaks foreign languages, just to check them out enough to make sure they aren't any person of interest?

Try the 4th Amendment for starters. Speaking a foreign language is not a crime. You cannot stop someone without probable cause.

"4th Amendment! 4th Amendment! I can't tell you how it applies, but I JUST KNOW that it protects me from whatever I think is 'mean'!"

"Probable cause! Probable cause! I don't know what it means, or if it applies here, but they say it on 'Law and Order' so it must count!"

Still waiting for you to cite any laws supporting your claims, and very, very aware that you're probably dodging like a chickenshit.

You clearly do not understand the Constitution. What laws were they violating. Speaking Spanish is not illegal. The 4th Amendment clearly applies here. You sound like the chickenshit here.

If I REALLY "clearly do not understand the Constitution", you'd be citing it to me, instead of just assuring me that it agrees with you.

They don't HAVE to be violating any laws for him to start a conversation. There is no number of times that you're going to ignore or dodge this fact which will make it less true.

"The 4th Amendment clearly applies here, no I won't tell you how, it JUST DOES!" is left-speak for "I've never read the Constitution, STOP ASKING ME QUESTIONS!"

We won't even address the patently immature absurdity of your "I'm rubber, you're glue" debate tactic.

One last time: If the 4th Amendment applies, explain to me exactly which part of it and how. If anything he did violates an ACTUAL law - as opposed to your vague, fuzzy notion of what you think the law is - cite the action and the law it violates.

Another round of "He can't talk to them! He can't! I don't like it, so that makes it illegal!" will be viewed as an unconditional surrender on your part. So start thinking with your brains instead of your hormones, little girl, and start sounding like an adult.

 

[Godboy]

Actually he did, they were within a border control zone. Border Patrol can question anyone within them.

View attachment 194794

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. Did you not read the town is close to the Canadian border?

Amendment
.

So what. Does that mean NY can suspend the 2nd Amendment. It is close to the border. there was no cause to stop these women.

NY was in the business of stop and frisk for years. No probable cause necessary. Has anyone taken NY to court for having their constitutional rights violated?

They were taken to court. It was ruled unconstitutional by a district judge. The city was forced to modify it by raising the bar for stopping people.

Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional? - FactCheck.org

I stand corrected... however, it wasnt due to a "probable cause" argument. The judge also let it continue, so it wasn't really unconstitutional.

It was ruled unconstitutional because no probable cause was required. The judge raised the bar for a stop and frisk.

The raised bar was body cams. Probable cause wasn't the issue. What would equal probable cause? A guy wearing a robbers mask, carrying a bag with a $ sign on it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tell me:

What law did a guy break when his rare gun collection gets confiscated just because someone decides it is too big and they don't see what need he has for it?
What law does a person break when a community decides he must take down his nativity scene @ Christmas because it was too religious?
What law does a business break when a customer want them to provide a service they don't offer because it offends them, so the Fed sues them?
What law does a president break when a political party decides to pitch a tent up his ass for a few years because they didn't like that he beat their opponent?
What law did a panicked dental assistant break when she gets gunned down in her car for making an illegal U-turn in Washington DC?
What law did a border agent break when he merely stops a couple people speaking a foreign language at the border in an area where no one normally speaks foreign languages, just to check them out enough to make sure they aren't any person of interest?

Try the 4th Amendment for starters. Speaking a foreign language is not a crime. You cannot stop someone without probable cause.

"4th Amendment! 4th Amendment! I can't tell you how it applies, but I JUST KNOW that it protects me from whatever I think is 'mean'!"

"Probable cause! Probable cause! I don't know what it means, or if it applies here, but they say it on 'Law and Order' so it must count!"

Still waiting for you to cite any laws supporting your claims, and very, very aware that you're probably dodging like a chickenshit.

You clearly do not understand the Constitution. What laws were they violating. Speaking Spanish is not illegal. The 4th Amendment clearly applies here. You sound like the chickenshit here.

If speaking Spanish was illegal, he would have arrested them for it. His concern was simply that they weren't legal citizens.

You cannot just stop people on the street and ask for their papers. That is why Maricopa County was forced to pay big bucks for what Arpaio was doing.

You know even less about what happened in Arizona than you do the incident in Montana, if that's possible.

Btw, a driver's license STILL isn't "papers", Hormone Lass, and your attempts to make it sound ominous and dramatic STILL make you sound like a fluff-headed imbecile.