If a border patrol agent comments how cute your dog is, you better not ignore the compliment!

That was a sickening display of what supposed authority over another human being can do to the minds of seemingly otherwise normal people - they end up testing the limits purely for sadistic intent. Proving the point of powerlessness for the sake of it and nothing more.

Because she didn't respond accordingly she must be nervous because she's hiding something.

The mentality is disturbing; here are some examples that really happened-
has acne=must be a druggie that needs to be pulled over and searched
glanced at an officer too much in their mirrors while in traffic=must be nervous is up to no good
is young at the boarder=must have bought drugs in the other country and should have their car torn apart to look for them

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Pimpish

It's not "bowing down" to anyone.

It's called being polite in social situations.

My god you kids are completely indoctrinated to bad NWO YouTube videos.

And to think you guys are the ones screaming for the rest of us to "WAKE UP"

No seriously.
Thanks for the laugh.

How many Border Checkpoints have you crossed in your lifetime?
I'm guessing none.

I have, and when asserted our rights we were told to have a nice day in Canada, not taxed.

You do not have to be nice to law enforcement, you being rude does not give them the right to violently assault you.

They can not legally order you to move if you aren't blocking them from their duties.

You do not have to comply with any unlawfully given order period.

Just because they have a badge doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Because she didn't respond accordingly she must be nervous because she's hiding something.

The mentality is disturbing; here are some examples that really happened-
has acne=must be a druggie that needs to be pulled over and searched
glanced at an officer too much in their mirrors while in traffic=must be nervous is up to no good
is young at the boarder=must have bought drugs in the other country and should have their car torn apart to look for them

In retrospect, I suppose what's key to this discussion is whether or not these checkpoints are legal, and whether or not the Border Guards have the right to use coercive methods to ensure compliance. If so...she was asking for it. If not, well, in the words of the Prophet...

originally posted by: Snarl
The Law of the Land says we can travel unimpeded.

Exactly where does it state that?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Snarl
The Law of the Land says we can travel unimpeded.

Exactly where does it state that?

Here's a good place to start.
Link1
Link2

As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles

What I want to know is by what authority are these types of stops permissible and how that authority can be amended (seemingly at will)? Maybe when I settle down in the States again I'll ask my Congresscritter what s/he thinks about drafting a law that stops all this nonsense.

a reply to: Snarl

To which they will tell you they appreciate your comments and ideas, but as you clearly hate America they have already forwarded your letter on to the appropriate authorities.

And the signature block will contain the secretary's initials, since he/she wrote it as the congressperson is entirely too busy for you.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Snarl

To which they will tell you they appreciate your comments and ideas, but as you clearly hate America they have already forwarded your letter on to the appropriate authorities.

And the signature block will contain the secretary's initials, since he/she wrote it as the congressperson is entirely too busy for you.

Sadly ... that's probably just the way it would go. I think I'll buy you a beer instead.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

All that condescending metaphorical text must have taken quite an effort. None of what you said has any basis in law nor does it pertain to the incident in the OP video, so it was wasted effort.

The men who ratified the US Constitution would surely agree with you that civililty is necessary in a free society. They would vehemently disagree with your insistence that government should ensure civility by force. Those sorts of chains are exactly what they fought to throw off.

I believe I understand your point and perspective. I agree, people ought to be respectful to LEOs, neighbors, strangers, and everybody else. But the things that set America apart as a nation of greatness and freedom also mean that no man can force another to 'be nice.' That means some people are going to be jerks. It also means I don't have to worry about being harassed by an overzealous cop on the way home from work because I had a bad day and forgot to thank him for the ticket he gave me.

You sound like you consider yourself a patriot. If so then you value the freedoms you have as an American citizen and know that without choice, freedom is just a facade. You may be the sort of person who never abuses their freedoms, but if you want future generations to enjoy the same freedoms then you are going to have to put up with the jerks.

Think about what you are saying - 'Give respect to law officers and they will respect you.' How respected do you think the woman in the video felt before the altercation began? Going about her (entirely lawful) business, miles from the border, when she has her day put on hold while Border Patrol forces her to wait by the roadside for a dog to come and confirm what she already knew. All because they didn't like her attitude. Then when she shows the slightest dissatisfaction with her treatment, the officers treat her as a criminal. Because only criminals complain when subject to undue search and seizure, right? Just like how only witches float?

a reply to: Snarl

Think it is has to do with the NDAA?

I could be wrong though.

No way she should have even pulled off main thoroughfare into secondary as BP had no valid probable cause. Once in secondary she put herself at risk when engaging by their rules. BP agents don't care as they'll let judge figure it out later.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: WeRpeons

ATS what do you think after watching the video?

I think her tuition was wasted on a complete idiot.

How anyone with a mouth and attitude like that can become a individual working in Law makes me cringe. The entitlement is strong with this one.

I said it before on another thread on this video and I'll say it again:

The brat deserved every volt she received.


**Bonus Points for Sensationalist Headline**

Her tazing had nothing to do with her dog and had everything to do with her combative attitude. She brought it on herself be getting out of her car and being aggressive with Border Patrol. Instant Bad Karma right there.

Moral to the Story?

Stay in your car.
Be polite.
Move along without incident.

I agree she wasn't polite and was lightly combative. However, she asked several times what she was being detained for and after asking 2-3 times the female BPA (border patrol agent) finally said that she was acting "suspicious."

1. The supervisor lied on camera - he said he didn't know why she was being detained because he hadn't talked to the female BPA
2. Later when the female BPA finally says she was "suspicious" and "others witnessed it"
3. The citizen asks "what others?"
4. The supervising BPA says "me"

So, right there we have BPAs lying and manipulating a situation simply because they wanted to search people.

This is a perfect example of indoctrinating citizens to consenting and conforming to illegal searches, seizures, and traffic stops. The video causes the following:
1. some people to be enraged at the treatment by agents and violation of rights
2. some people (like you) to chime in that she had it coming because she wasn't as nice as she should have been (even though her rights were being violated), with the attitude of bend over and take it and speak to other authorities afterward - because that works so well.

In the end, we all lose because we don't work together to change it. In a slowly declining social and economic system unification is needed more than division.

I will not dispute that it was a sad occurrance.
I am no fan of violence in any way, shape of form.

All I am trying to say is to tread with caution, and don't instigate.

That is the only role I play in this game - I am not trying to interfere in the process of those who seek to change the untoward manner by which average citizens are subject.

However, the role of the citizen is being spurned by conspirators advocating such techniques in the face of authority, and we have seen our fair share of video captures of what happens when some citizens employ such methodologies.

If this woman had been calm and compliant with directives, and been tazed without provocation, I would be outraged as well.

However, as the video shows, she was not of such disposition.

Hence, my reactions as such in thread.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Because she didn't respond accordingly she must be nervous because she's hiding something.

The mentality is disturbing; here are some examples that really happened-
has acne=must be a druggie that needs to be pulled over and searched
glanced at an officer too much in their mirrors while in traffic=must be nervous is up to no good
is young at the boarder=must have bought drugs in the other country and should have their car torn apart to look for them

In retrospect, I suppose what's key to this discussion is whether or not these checkpoints are legal, and whether or not the Border Guards have the right to use coercive methods to ensure compliance. If so...she was asking for it. If not, well, in the words of the Prophet...

How many threads on ATS about BP not doing their job?

They were doing their job.

Can't have it both ways.

I live on the border. BP has legal reach up to 100 miles from border.

They are trained to do the job with a some what robotic behavior. They do not engage in personal chit chat. It can be a bit unnerving, but it's necessary to follow their directions.

Did anyone mention prior to this she had taken the physical fitness test for BP and failed?

Just got my internet back, sorry.

a reply to: Annee
Ve vill search your car vhenever ve like. You vill obey our orders or you vill be shot!'

Sig heil and all that. Because it's necessary.

a reply to: WeRpeons
A second thread on this young lady? Well at least she got her 15 minutes of fame.Not sure that will help her in her future job hunt.

a reply to: Annee

What does that change?

At the end of the day in my eyes she was treated unfairly just cause she wasn't cooperative.

Didn't know that is how that works.

Don't stand where we tell you, we will physically force you then charge you with assault after we taze you

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Annee

What does that change?

At the end of the day in my eyes she was treated unfairly just cause she wasn't cooperative.

Didn't know that is how that works.

Don't stand where we tell you, we will physically force you then charge you with assault after we taze you

Granted, she wasn't ISIS trying to illegally cross the border.

She should get special treatment.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Annee
Ve vill search your car vhenever ve like. You vill obey our orders or you vill be shot!'

Sig heil and all that. Because it's necessary.

Can't wait for the next thread about some event the Border Patrol should have stppoed, but they were just kicking back in their office having donuts.