Border Patrol smashes man's window and assaults him.

  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
Let's see. Assault,Criminal damage to property,breaking and entering...OH DAMN! That's right these are thugs working for the government...oh well no charges..that's just for me and you the slave.
 
So, we are saying that border control authorities are not empowered to search persons and vehicles and property coming into the country?

Pine Valley, CA, is some miles north of the border, so, I am assuming that this is a 'flying tribunal' or 'mobile border force' that is empowered by law to stop people and vehicles in pursuit of border-control goals.

Under what authority (statute, etc.) do such 'interior' border checkpoints operate?

Do they have the same powers in the interior as they do on the actual border-line?

I haven't got a friggin' clue, and, if someone has such answers, I'd be interested in reading them.

Everyone is sufficiently up-to-speed on the illegal search-and-seizure and warrant issues raised by Constitutional law, but I'm wondering if the law that DOES allow such interior-patrol operations was crafted after a loophole was found in Constitutional interpretation or something.

I'm about as ignorant of such things as one can get, so I'd really like to know.
 
Last edited:
So, we are saying that border control authorities are not empowered to search persons and vehicles and property coming into the country?

Pine Valley, CA, is some miles north of the border, so, I am assuming that this is a 'flying tribunal' or 'mobile border force' that is empowered by law to stop people and vehicles in pursuit of border-control goals.

Under what authority (statute, etc.) do such 'interior' border checkpoints operate?

Do they have the same powers in the interior as they do on the actual border-line?

I haven't got a friggin' clue, and, if someone has such answers, I'd be interested in reading them.

Everyone is sufficiently up-to-speed on the illegal search-and-seizure and warrant issues raised by Constitutional law, but I'm wondering if the law that DOES allow such interior-patrol operations was crafted after a loophole was found in Constitutional interpretation or something.

I'm about as ignorant of such things as one can get, so I'd really like to know.

You must agree with Congressman Issa then. He wants the border checkpoints closed.
 
That's not the point boot licker.

That's MISTER boot licker to you, bub.

What the fuck did the kid expect?

Mr. Boot licker, people have to keep the cops in check. Filming them acting like apes is useful in forming public opinion in a turn key police state. You can be a part of the solution or remain a sheep. These people know exactly what they're getting into and there are attorneys everywhere chomping at the bit to sue the hell out of these goose steppers and make bank for them and their plaintiffs. That's all this is.
 
You must agree with Congressman Issa then. He wants the border checkpoints closed.
1. Although I know the name, I don't know much of anything about Issa, nor his positions.

2. My comments and inquiries were spontaneous and completely detached from Issa.

3. I don't think I actually weighed-in one way or another... I just asked about the legal basis.
 
Issa is the fella after Holder's ass for "fast & furious"....I assume he's under audit for the IRS for it but he ain't letting go of it....already got him on a couple counts of perjury.....good man, Issa is.
 
Anyway, it was the pig sheriff that busted his window out not the border patrol. And this was not on the border. The search was illegal and reeks of pig intimidation. Look at the smiling bitch pig with her tazer. She can wait to light him up. What a bunch of bad asses. Very impressive.
 
So, we are saying that border control authorities are not empowered to search persons and vehicles and property coming into the country?

Pine Valley, CA, is some miles north of the border, so, I am assuming that this is a 'flying tribunal' or 'mobile border force' that is empowered by law to stop people and vehicles in pursuit of border-control goals.

Under what authority (statute, etc.) do such 'interior' border checkpoints operate?

Do they have the same powers in the interior as they do on the actual border-line?

I haven't got a friggin' clue, and, if someone has such answers, I'd be interested in reading them.

Everyone is sufficiently up-to-speed on the illegal search-and-seizure and warrant issues raised by Constitutional law, but I'm wondering if the law that DOES allow such interior-patrol operations was crafted after a loophole was found in Constitutional interpretation or something.

I'm about as ignorant of such things as one can get, so I'd really like to know.

The area within 100 miles of any US border is known as a Constitution Free Zone.

Know Your Rights: Constitution Free Zone - Map | American Civil Liberties Union

The Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not need probable cause, or even a law to justify their actions, in this area to stop anyone they want, or to conduct a search. The person in this video was not crossing a border, he was driving from one point to another within the US. In fact, he wasn't even crossing a state border, he did not even leave the state he was in when this happened.
 
Last edited:
Let's see. Assault,Criminal damage to property,breaking and entering...OH DAMN! That's right these are thugs working for the government...oh well no charges..that's just for me and you the slave.

Makes ya feel so free and democratic, don't it?
 
What a drama queen. The little shit went there with the express intent of this happening just as it did.

Does that somehow justify the LEOs ignoring the law?

Who ignored the law here? Was it the punk-ass kid who refused a uniformed officer's request? I think so.

Where's the film of the vehicle being searched? I didn't see it.

I don't care if this checkpoint was 100 or 1,000 miles from the border.

This is trash video blog. Hell it isn't even that... it's trash bullshit.
 
What a drama queen. The little shit went there with the express intent of this happening just as it did.

Does that somehow justify the LEOs ignoring the law?

Who ignored the law here? Was it the punk-ass kid who refused a uniformed officer's request? I think so.

Where's the film of the vehicle being searched? I didn't see it.

I don't care if this checkpoint was 100 or 1,000 miles from the border.

This is trash video blog. Hell it isn't even that... it's trash bullshit.

Another boot licker. Welcome to the club.
 
What a drama queen. The little shit went there with the express intent of this happening just as it did.

Does that somehow justify the LEOs ignoring the law?

Who ignored the law here? Was it the punk-ass kid who refused a uniformed officer's request? I think so.

Where's the film of the vehicle being searched? I didn't see it.

I don't care if this checkpoint was 100 or 1,000 miles from the border.

This is trash video blog. Hell it isn't even that... it's trash bullshit.

Last time I checked it was perfectly legal to refuse requests, even if the person making the request is dressed in a tuxedo. Did I miss something?
 

Forum List

Back
Top