- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: San Diego teacher held at border patrol checkpoint refuses to answer questions
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:56 am to AwesomeSauce
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:56 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
I hate grapefruit, just like I hate lacrosse.
Both are stopping vehicles. Both are asking questions with the intent to detain the individuals in the vehicle. Both, in my opinion, are government overreaches.
To make the argument they are as similar as grapefruit and lacrosse is laughably bad at best.
1
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:56 am to slackster
quote:
an intent vs letter of the law issue.
The only issue I see is that electronic devices should require warrant as well, because that was seen to be a loophole and is something that is intermittently being enforced predominantly at airport checkpoints. I would hope we will have rulings on that in the future and it to will require warrant before they are allowed to search laptops, smartphones, etc.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:00 am to crap4brain
She even brags about having time because she's a teacher. Truly the worst in the eyes of the OT.
Newsflash, they BPC agent is getting paid too. They don't give a frick if you want to waste your time to prove a stupid point
Newsflash, they BPC agent is getting paid too. They don't give a frick if you want to waste your time to prove a stupid point
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:05 am to crap4brain
quote:
she refused to say whether she was a U.S. citizen
LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:08 am to Jcorye1
quote:
Both are stopping vehicles. Both are asking questions with the intent to detain the individuals in the vehicle. Both, in my opinion, are government overreaches.
One is conducted in a given spot and in that spot and only that spot are agents given the authority to question and detain you. The other can be conducted anywhere within the departments jurisdiction. One can only detain you with beyond reasonable doubt. One can detain you just because. One has strict guidelines they must follow and once citizenship is proven or beyond reasonable doubt required for a warrant is removed they are required to let you go. The other can detain you, impound your car, and book you even if sobriety is proven. One is setup in areas where effective border patrol cannot be done at the crossing as a safety net. The other is done for revenue.
Your likening of the two is elementary at best. Maybe grapefruit and lacrosse was a stretch on my part. Fine, a cherry and a red bowling ball.
Both are spherical, red, and have one or more holes in them.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:10 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
It's their job
Right. But that isn't the debate. The debate is the law.
quote:
I just don't see the issue here.
Obviously.
quote:
it's no different than crossing the border. I just don't see the issue.
The difference is people are not crossing the border. They are within the US. They are not breaking any laws.
I've driven through checkpoints many times and I've always answered the questions. I didn't feel violated.
But I also understand the issues people have with them.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:12 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
Border patrol agents have legal authority to perform checkpoints within 100 miles of the Nation's border
This is a terrible precident, but true.
quote:
The argument that this infringes on your fourth ammendment rights is asinine.
How so? You think people should be required to give information without any basis of fact that they are committing a crime? The opinion even agrees that checkpoint stops ARE seizures (Martinez-Fuente, IV) It's clear overreach.
quote:
The agent is only allowed to ask if you are a citizen, where you are going, and where you are from,
Untrue. They can only legally inquire about citizenship. And here's the thing, you aren't required to answer. You still have 5th amendment rights even if your 4th amendment ones are being trampled.
quote:
explain to me how that has anything to do with illegal search and seizure?
My opinion aligns with the desenting two justices on Funente
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:13 am to crap4brain
Stop sharing and talking about this nonsense. It doesn't deserve attention.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:17 am to Hat Tricks
quote:
Stop sharing and talking about this nonsense. It doesn't deserve attention.
Wow.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:18 am to Salmon
quote:
The difference is people are not crossing the border. They are within the US.
I can empathize with that to an extent, but likening it to a DUI checkpoint as others have done to justify their outrage at them is asinine. At times the fourth amendment crowd sound like the second amendment guy who thinks he should be able to get a rocket launcher and be able to open carry cause "my rights".
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:18 am to jbgleason
quote:
Story says 100 miles but I think it is actually 25.
The distance from the border I don't think matters any more CBP I believe has tried to set up check points in the middle of the country arguing that int'l airport is a border crossing.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:19 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
At times the fourth amendment crowd sound like the second amendment guy who thinks he should be able to get a rocket launcher and be able to open carry cause "my rights".
You should be able to own and openly carry a rocket launcher FWIW
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 9:20 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:21 am to jbgleason
quote:
ETA. Story says 100 miles but I think it is actually 25.
100 miles is correct unless the law has changed in the last 3 years. And its all boarders. If you live in baton rouge you may remember Boarder Patrol on I-12 at the split. Their office is off Sherwood Forest Blvd.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:21 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
I can empathize with that to an extent, but likening it to a DUI checkpoint as others have done to justify their outrage at them is asinine.
CBP can legally establish check points within an area where roughly 2/3rds of the population lives, do you see this as an issue?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:36 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
Except the fact that one is required by law, is a condition of driving, and requires reasonable suspicion of a crime afoot.
Hmmm, so at a DUI check point, where I have just driven up the street into the line of cars, what is the "crime afoot"?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:40 am to LCA131
I don't think DUI checkpoint are constitutional either. And at the very least, you shouldn't be required to provide a driver's license and registration without reasonable suspicion.
I assumed he was talking about being pulled over.
I assumed he was talking about being pulled over.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:41 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
do you see this as an issue?
I have no problem with the permanent checkpoints which is what was ruled on in Fuente. I understand the reasoning for Mobile Patrols. I do not like tactical checkpoints, because typically this is where some agents are alleged to be more "rogue" with their questioning and tactics (which is illegal). If you're arguing the original decision and standards and laws set-forth are unconstitutional I wholeheartedly disagree. If you want to argue that the overstepping and attempts to broaden authority not expressly given or even ones forbidden as your reasoning then I agree that infringes, but that's not what the original discussion was. The original discussion was that the stops were unconstitutional which they aren't. Now are there constitutional infringements made by agents at these stops when they go beyond what they are allowed to do by law? Absolutely.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:41 am to LCA131
Wasnt another middle School teacher from San Diego arrested for mob violence?
Eta yep. Sure was. Oh those Cali middle School teachers...
LINK
Those wacky girls.
Eta yep. Sure was. Oh those Cali middle School teachers...
LINK
quote:
Yvette Felarca, the controversial Berkeley middle school teacher who frequently marches and protests against groups she considers to be fascistic, was arrested Tuesday night in connection with a violent neo-Nazi rally in Sacramento in June 2016.
Police took Felarca, 47, into custody in Southern California on charges of assault by means of force likely to inflict great bodily injury, a felony, and participating in a riot, and inciting a riot, both misdemeanors, according to information provided by the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office.
Those wacky girls.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 9:46 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:06 am to crap4brain
I'd hate to be in a relationship with someone like her
She thinks she way smarter than she actually is. frick her
She thinks she way smarter than she actually is. frick her
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:09 am to crap4brain
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News