Woman tasered near US/Canadian border for refusing trunk search.

[Pogo]

Yep....I was trying figure out what oth
She's an idiot. As I've said multiple times,there are plenty of "how to" vids on the internet if you want to protest this kind of stuff. She didnt follow a single one of em.
To bad for her.

The only way to effectively contest that kind of police behavior is to have a video. Otherwise, they will believe anything the cop has to say.

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Agreed, but it is important to have the facts straight. Well, at least to me, people like Pogo only care when it is THEIR facts they want straight.

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The only way to effectively contest that kind of police behavior is to have a video. Otherwise, they will believe anything the cop has to say.

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Agreed, but it is important to have the facts straight. Well, at least to me, people like Pogo only care when it is THEIR facts they want straight.

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

 

[Pogo]

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Agreed, but it is important to have the facts straight. Well, at least to me, people like Pogo only care when it is THEIR facts they want straight.

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

Then it's odd you have no documentation of that beyond your own imagination.
Doncha think?

North country residents have mixed views on U.S. border patrol checkpoints
Based on random interviews, several said they believe border checkpoints are necessary to keep illicit drugs, illegal immigrants and other unlawful activities out of the country.​

However, many also said they’re concerned that too many law enforcement officials — including border patrol agents — unlawfully stretch their authority by using aggressive tactics when interrogating law-abiding citizens traveling in their own country.

Last week, Jessica A. Cooke, 21, Ogdensburg, was pulled over at a border checkpoint in Waddington by border patrol agents who wanted to search her car’s trunk. During an altercation that followed, Ms. Cooke allegedly was subdued with a stun gun.​

Here's Waddington, with highway 37 shown:

​

Now where do you see a border crossing, idiot? What are you gonna do -- SWIM your car across the St. Lawrence River?

The nearest place you actually CAN cross the international border is at Ogdensburg. I've been through that border myself. IT'S AT LEAST FIFTEEN MILES DOWNRIVER.

From the same article above:

■ Heather M. Wells, 29, Ogdensburg, said she and her husband pass through checkpoints occasionally on Route 37 when they’re heading to the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation to purchase cigarettes.

“I think we’re close to a border so we should have checkpoints,” Mrs. Wells said. “If you don’t give them a reason to stop you, they won’t.”

■ William R. Wagstaff Jr., Massena, said he believes border patrol agents at times abuse their power by asking to inspect vehicles without having reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

“This woman had every right to refuse to open her trunk,” Mr. Wagstaff said in an email. “I have refused several times to let them search me and put their K-9 in my vehicle.”

Mr. Wagstaff said he filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C., and received a letter of apology. He also filed a complaint with border patrol officials in Swanton, Vt.

“Now I don’t get harassed anymore,” he said.

■ A 26-year-old SUNY Canton student who asked that his name be withheld said he has personally experienced aggressive questioning by border patrol agents in Buffalo where he resides. He believes he was targeted because he is a black man who was traveling to Grand Island, a predominately white community.

“Protection is definitely needed, but it’s wrong when that authority gets abused,” he said. “They (border patrol agents) have a role to play, but it must be contained in that role.”

Referring to Ms. Cooke’s situation, he said, “Her tone was a little abrasive, but they shouldn’t have put their hands on her. She wasn’t a threat to them or anyone around her.”
​

NOTE -- Grand Island is also in New York. No border crossing involved. Entirely within the United States.
And the St. Regis Reservation mentioned above? Also in the US, in the other direction, toward Rooseveltown/Cornwall Ontario -- the next closest border crossing, THIRTY miles away.

Unless you're in some kind of amphibious vehicle that can traverse the St. Lawrence River, it is impossible to be in Waddington New York and be "less that two miles" from crossing the border.

This has nothing to do with crossing an international border. No one anywhere has claimed that. WAKE UP.

 

[Pogo]

​

from the ACLU "Know Your Rights" page:
Many people think that border-related policies impact only people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.

Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population, about 200 million people, lives within the 100-mile zone that an outdated federal regulation defines as the border zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border.

Although this zone is not literally "Constitution free"—constitutional protections do still apply—the Border Patrol frequently ignores those protections and runs roughshod over individuals' civil liberties.

Learn more about the government's 100-mile border zone.

Read the ACLU factsheet on Custom and Border Protection's 100-mile zone​

It's damn instructive when the self-styled "anti-big-gummint" crowd does a complete 180 when they notice there's an Authority Boot to lick. OoooOOOooh, a uniform!

 

[BULLDOG]

It certainly was at a border town , it was a secondary stop so yes it wasn't right on the border. Look at a map pogo the little tow is right on the St Lawrence river, which IS the border.

Yep....I was trying figure out what oth

So I'm telling you when the authority figure you love to bend over with goes over the line, that's on them -- not the victim.

"Acting like a moron" isn't illegal. That's why you're still walking around.

Not to mention the geographically-challenged poster just before this one.

Furthermore the proper reaction to "acting like you have a kilo in the trunk" isn't tasing.

She's an idiot. As I've said multiple times,there are plenty of "how to" vids on the internet if you want to protest this kind of stuff. She didnt follow a single one of em.
To bad for her.

The only way to effectively contest that kind of police behavior is to have a video. Otherwise, they will believe anything the cop has to say.

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Damn, you still don't get it.She shouldn't have to confront the cops about her rights. They have no right to infringe on her rights to start with. They stay within their authority and she has nothing to confront them about to start with..

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yep....I was trying figure out what oth
She's an idiot. As I've said multiple times,there are plenty of "how to" vids on the internet if you want to protest this kind of stuff. She didnt follow a single one of em.
To bad for her.

The only way to effectively contest that kind of police behavior is to have a video. Otherwise, they will believe anything the cop has to say.

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Damn, you still don't get it.She shouldn't have to confront the cops about her rights. They have no right to infringe on her rights to start with. They stay within their authority and she has nothing to confront them about to start with..

What rights? You do NOT have the right to scream at a LEO and refuse to obey their lawful commands. You simply do not.

 

[BULLDOG]

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Agreed, but it is important to have the facts straight. Well, at least to me, people like Pogo only care when it is THEIR facts they want straight.

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

Don't you find it odd to refer to this persons facts or that persons facts? Facts are just facts. They don't belong to anybody. If you want to discuss opinion or spin, that's all together different.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Agreed, but it is important to have the facts straight. Well, at least to me, people like Pogo only care when it is THEIR facts they want straight.

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

Don't you find it odd to refer to this persons facts or that persons facts? Facts are just facts. They don't belong to anybody. If you want to discuss opinion or spin, that's all together different.

Correct facts are facts, but there are MANY people on this board, both left and right, who only acknowledge a fact when it bolsters their already formed opinion. That shit drives me crazy. If a fact exists that makes your opinion invalid, the you need to reconsider your opinion not dismiss the fact.

Should this woman have been tased? My OPINION is no, but at the same time, she did NOT have the right to push and shove on a LEO and refuse to stand where she was told to stand.

Why people feel they have a right to be an asshole to LEOs is just beyond me. The LEO fucked up though, when she wouldn't stand where he told her to to and shut up, he should have arrested her for interfering with a police operation, then he could have IMMEDIATELY searched her vehicle pursuant to the arrest, ad if she had resisted arrest, he could have added that charge as well.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only way to effectively contest that kind of police behavior is to have a video. Otherwise, they will believe anything the cop has to say.

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Damn, you still don't get it.She shouldn't have to confront the cops about her rights. They have no right to infringe on her rights to start with. They stay within their authority and she has nothing to confront them about to start with..

What rights? You do NOT have the right to scream at a LEO and refuse to obey their lawful commands. You simply do not.

Certain requirements have to be met before a cops orders are lawful. He can't tell you to do what ever he wants just because he wants you to do it. The citizen being ordered, or in this case, his victim, has the right to know why he is being ordered.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Agreed, but it is important to have the facts straight. Well, at least to me, people like Pogo only care when it is THEIR facts they want straight.

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

Don't you find it odd to refer to this persons facts or that persons facts? Facts are just facts. They don't belong to anybody. If you want to discuss opinion or spin, that's all together different.

Correct facts are facts, but there are MANY people on this board, both left and right, who only acknowledge a fact when it bolsters their already formed opinion. That shit drives me crazy. If a fact exists that makes your opinion invalid, the you need to reconsider your opinion not dismiss the fact.

Should this woman have been tased? My OPINION is no, but at the same time, she did NOT have the right to push and shove on a LEO and refuse to stand where she was told to stand.

Why people feel they have a right to be an asshole to LEOs is just beyond me. The LEO fucked up though, when she wouldn't stand where he told her to to and shut up, he should have arrested her for interfering with a police operation, then he could have IMMEDIATELY searched her vehicle pursuant to the arrest, ad if she had resisted arrest, he could have added that charge as well.

Why cops feel they have the right to be an asshole is just beyond me. Don't say that if you behave calmly, the cop will always be proper, We both know that is not the way it works. Until cops weed out their assholes instead of patting them on the back, they will never regain the trust of the public. That's what most of the problem is to start with.

 

[Pogo]

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Agreed, but it is important to have the facts straight. Well, at least to me, people like Pogo only care when it is THEIR facts they want straight.

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

Don't you find it odd to refer to this persons facts or that persons facts? Facts are just facts. They don't belong to anybody. If you want to discuss opinion or spin, that's all together different.

Correct facts are facts, but there are MANY people on this board, both left and right, who only acknowledge a fact when it bolsters their already formed opinion. That shit drives me crazy. If a fact exists that makes your opinion invalid, the you need to reconsider your opinion not dismiss the fact.

Like the way you tried to denigrate "my" fact above, even though it's exactly the same fact as "your" fact?

Busted, hack.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Agreed, but it is important to have the facts straight. Well, at least to me, people like Pogo only care when it is THEIR facts they want straight.

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

Don't you find it odd to refer to this persons facts or that persons facts? Facts are just facts. They don't belong to anybody. If you want to discuss opinion or spin, that's all together different.

Correct facts are facts, but there are MANY people on this board, both left and right, who only acknowledge a fact when it bolsters their already formed opinion. That shit drives me crazy. If a fact exists that makes your opinion invalid, the you need to reconsider your opinion not dismiss the fact.

Like the way you tried to denigrate "my" fact above, even though it's exactly the same fact as "your" fact?

Busted, hack.

Uh no Pogo, your "fact" I was referring to was you claiming this did't happen anywhere near the border.

I in fact agreed with your other fact, that she did not run the checkpoint.

 

[Pogo]

Is my fact not correct? You just came in and agreed with it. Changing your mind already?

Ask your shrink about "Pee Wee Herman Syndrome".

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

Don't you find it odd to refer to this persons facts or that persons facts? Facts are just facts. They don't belong to anybody. If you want to discuss opinion or spin, that's all together different.

Correct facts are facts, but there are MANY people on this board, both left and right, who only acknowledge a fact when it bolsters their already formed opinion. That shit drives me crazy. If a fact exists that makes your opinion invalid, the you need to reconsider your opinion not dismiss the fact.

Like the way you tried to denigrate "my" fact above, even though it's exactly the same fact as "your" fact?

Busted, hack.

Uh no Pogo, your "fact" I was referring to was you claiming this did't happen anywhere near the border.

I said it didn't happen anywhere near a border crossing (and I even gave you a map) but the active point at the time was the myth that she "drove through without stopping".

Asshole.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Damn, you still don't get it.She shouldn't have to confront the cops about her rights. They have no right to infringe on her rights to start with. They stay within their authority and she has nothing to confront them about to start with..

What rights? You do NOT have the right to scream at a LEO and refuse to obey their lawful commands. You simply do not.

Certain requirements have to be met before a cops orders are lawful. He can't tell you to do what ever he wants just because he wants you to do it. The citizen being ordered, or in this case, his victim, has the right to know why he is being ordered.

What requirements do you believe have to be met before an officer's orders are lawful

And there is NO legal requirement for a police officer to tell you why he has detained you. They only have to inform you of the charges once you arrested, if you are arrested.

That is why I say "learn your rights"

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm talking about your "fact" that this did't happen on the border, even though it did. The woman was stopped at a BORDER checkpoint , waved through and then pulled over for a secondary inspection less than 2 miles away.

Don't you find it odd to refer to this persons facts or that persons facts? Facts are just facts. They don't belong to anybody. If you want to discuss opinion or spin, that's all together different.

Correct facts are facts, but there are MANY people on this board, both left and right, who only acknowledge a fact when it bolsters their already formed opinion. That shit drives me crazy. If a fact exists that makes your opinion invalid, the you need to reconsider your opinion not dismiss the fact.

Like the way you tried to denigrate "my" fact above, even though it's exactly the same fact as "your" fact?

Busted, hack.

Uh no Pogo, your "fact" I was referring to was you claiming this did't happen anywhere near the border.

I said it didn't happen anywhere near a border crossing (and I even gave you a map) but the active point at the time was the myth that she "drove through without stopping".

Asshole.

No, Pogo the argument started when Bode made the claim that this happened nowhere near a border, those were her exact words, and I said that was untrue, that the woman had crossed the border then got pulled over for a secondary inspection, they you came in with "this wasn't at a border crossing" which I never said it was. I have maintained from the beginning that the woman crossed the border, then for some odd reason was pulled over some ways away for a secondary inspection.

You may not have claimed that this did't happen anywhere near a border, but Bodey certainly did and that s who my original comment was made to and then you jumped in for who knows what reasons. To defend a fellow liberal I suppose.

 

[Pogo]

Yep....I was trying figure out what oth
She's an idiot. As I've said multiple times,there are plenty of "how to" vids on the internet if you want to protest this kind of stuff. She didnt follow a single one of em.
To bad for her.

The only way to effectively contest that kind of police behavior is to have a video. Otherwise, they will believe anything the cop has to say.

Uuuh...there is a video.
She went about it the wrong way. She drove through the check point rather than stopping and confronting them in a calm and calculated manner.
Once you run the check point and then start yelling and screaming all bets are off.
She's a dumbass plain and simple.

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Damn, you still don't get it.She shouldn't have to confront the cops about her rights. They have no right to infringe on her rights to start with. They stay within their authority and she has nothing to confront them about to start with..

It's both ironic and perhaps instructive that she's been studying to do the same job they're doing. Or was.

Clearly she baited them, and unfortunately for them, they bit. It's plausible that she deliberately set out to test and/or document exactly this kind of abuse, based on either what she learned about the job, or prior incidents in the area, or both. If so, she brought to light a serious police state issue, and we have to consider her a patriot.

That is, unless we like Authoritarianism.

 

[Pogo]

Don't you find it odd to refer to this persons facts or that persons facts? Facts are just facts. They don't belong to anybody. If you want to discuss opinion or spin, that's all together different.

Correct facts are facts, but there are MANY people on this board, both left and right, who only acknowledge a fact when it bolsters their already formed opinion. That shit drives me crazy. If a fact exists that makes your opinion invalid, the you need to reconsider your opinion not dismiss the fact.

Like the way you tried to denigrate "my" fact above, even though it's exactly the same fact as "your" fact?

Busted, hack.

Uh no Pogo, your "fact" I was referring to was you claiming this did't happen anywhere near the border.

I said it didn't happen anywhere near a border crossing (and I even gave you a map) but the active point at the time was the myth that she "drove through without stopping".

Asshole.

No, Pogo the argument started when Bode made the claim that this happened nowhere near a border, those were her exact words, and I said that was untrue, that the woman had crossed the border then got pulled over for a secondary inspection, they you came in with "this wasn't at a border crossing" which I never said it was. I have maintained from the beginning that the woman crossed the border, then for some odd reason was pulled over some ways away for a secondary inspection.

You may not have claimed that this did't happen anywhere near a border, but Bodey certainly did and that s who my original comment was made to and then you jumped in for who knows what reasons. To defend a fellow liberal I suppose.

And you JUST DID IT AGAIN. It's in bold.



Let's roll the tape and see who said what:

• The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
• According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
• Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."

....

• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San José.

The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000. Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit. For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.

More at the ACLU link​

How many searches have you refused at the border.

That was not at the border.

You proving how dishonest and stupid you are yet again...

Border Patrol Tases U.S. Student Agents Thought She Looked Nervous Video

Jess Cooke, 21, was tased and taken into custody by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Waddington, New York, on Thursday.

Waddington sits on the U.S. side of the St. Lawrence River across from Canada.

It WAS right on the border.

You will have to tell us how she DROVE HER CAR across the border there, Mal.

To which you came up with this gem:

You ever hear of a bridge you moron?

--- which, as I've already shown you, does not exist in Waddington, the nearest one being at least fifteen miles away to the south, thirty to the north.

That's when you left the thread to lick your wounds -- then came back making exactly the same bogus claim. Apparently expecting different results.

 

[BULLDOG]

You're wrong on that point. She stopped at the checkpoint and was waved through but then pulled over for a secondary inspection.

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Damn, you still don't get it.She shouldn't have to confront the cops about her rights. They have no right to infringe on her rights to start with. They stay within their authority and she has nothing to confront them about to start with..

What rights? You do NOT have the right to scream at a LEO and refuse to obey their lawful commands. You simply do not.

Certain requirements have to be met before a cops orders are lawful. He can't tell you to do what ever he wants just because he wants you to do it. The citizen being ordered, or in this case, his victim, has the right to know why he is being ordered.

What requirements do you believe have to be met before an officer's orders are lawful

And there is NO legal requirement for a police officer to tell you why he has detained you. They only have to inform you of the charges once you arrested, if you are arrested.

That is why I say "learn your rights"

Anything a cop tells you to do is a lawful order? Bullshit. Would it be lawful for him to tell you to stand in the middle of interstate traffic? Of course not. There are limits to the orders they can lawfully give, Being an expert on cops, I'm sure you can tell us where the dividing line between lawful orders and unlawful orders is.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Correct facts are facts, but there are MANY people on this board, both left and right, who only acknowledge a fact when it bolsters their already formed opinion. That shit drives me crazy. If a fact exists that makes your opinion invalid, the you need to reconsider your opinion not dismiss the fact.

Like the way you tried to denigrate "my" fact above, even though it's exactly the same fact as "your" fact?

Busted, hack.

Uh no Pogo, your "fact" I was referring to was you claiming this did't happen anywhere near the border.

I said it didn't happen anywhere near a border crossing (and I even gave you a map) but the active point at the time was the myth that she "drove through without stopping".

Asshole.

No, Pogo the argument started when Bode made the claim that this happened nowhere near a border, those were her exact words, and I said that was untrue, that the woman had crossed the border then got pulled over for a secondary inspection, they you came in with "this wasn't at a border crossing" which I never said it was. I have maintained from the beginning that the woman crossed the border, then for some odd reason was pulled over some ways away for a secondary inspection.

You may not have claimed that this did't happen anywhere near a border, but Bodey certainly did and that s who my original comment was made to and then you jumped in for who knows what reasons. To defend a fellow liberal I suppose.

And you JUST DID IT AGAIN. It's in bold.

Read the entire story Pogo, the checkpoint was set up on the road leading between Canada and the US, are you saying her car just magically appeared between the border and a checkpoint and so that's why she got stopped in the checkpoint?

She HAD to have crossed the border in order to have gotten stopped in the checkpoint and in fact she says that she often crosses the border in that area and has never had a problem before.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Ah...so she started the asshatery when she was asked to pull over for a more thorough search.
She still went about it the wrong way if her intent was to be one of those people who confront the cops about their rights.

Damn, you still don't get it.She shouldn't have to confront the cops about her rights. They have no right to infringe on her rights to start with. They stay within their authority and she has nothing to confront them about to start with..

What rights? You do NOT have the right to scream at a LEO and refuse to obey their lawful commands. You simply do not.

Certain requirements have to be met before a cops orders are lawful. He can't tell you to do what ever he wants just because he wants you to do it. The citizen being ordered, or in this case, his victim, has the right to know why he is being ordered.

What requirements do you believe have to be met before an officer's orders are lawful

And there is NO legal requirement for a police officer to tell you why he has detained you. They only have to inform you of the charges once you arrested, if you are arrested.

That is why I say "learn your rights"

Anything a cop tells you to do is a lawful order? Bullshit. Would it be lawful for him to tell you to stand in the middle of interstate traffic? Of course not. There are limits to the orders they can lawfully give, Being an expert on cops, I'm sure you can tell us where the dividing line between lawful orders and unlawful orders is.

Well no shit Bulldog, "stand over there and shut up" is a lawful order and not even remotely close to " go stand in the middle of the road" which NO cop would order .

For ****'s sakes, you people don't want discussion, you want echo chamber.

Morons.