Stadium-Armory Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Did I stumble in to Mexico? Some context (from reddit): Mirror: http://justice-blog.com/Psbbc/top-dhs-checkpoint-refusals (This mirror is provided automatically because youtube regularly removes videos against their terms of service). "Stephen Anderson, a guy in some of these clips, is a grade-A ****head. He is a pastor and prayed for the death of Barack Obama during his sermon and his church is listed as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC due to him stating that all homosexuals should be murdered. He purposefully drives to known checkpoint locations to try and stir **** up." "He is a despicable individual, however, regardless of who he is or what he believes he is doing a service by going to these checkpoints and standing up for his rights. You shouldn't be able to be stopped with no probable cause just so law enforcement can check your papers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromYellowstone Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I have to admit that was hilarious at the end where as soon as he pulled up he started asking the officer if he was an american citizen and if he had his id on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 "What authority do you have to make me leave the state?" "Come on in the office and I'll show you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 What proof do I have that he's been stopped for no probable cause? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 how do these checkpoints differ from sobriety ones ect? seat belt laws piss me off more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 how do these checkpoints differ from sobriety ones ect?seat belt laws piss me off more Well, driving while drunk could result in the injury or death of someone else. Driving while Mexican won't. I have no problem with DUI checks. It may seem like a push of rights to stop everyone to seek a few.. but those few can cause a hell of a lot of problems for innocent people. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Well, driving while drunk could result in the injury or death of someone else.Driving while Mexican won't. ~Bang it is about more than Mexican, trafficking/smuggling and of course terrorism are factors....all of which could result in the injury or death(and do) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 seat belt laws piss me off more I find it strange nowadays to either see someone not wearing their seatbelt or someone complaining about it. I feel strange not wearing mine. I grew up in the era of not wearing a seatbelt, but when I turned 16 in 1984, my parents told me I couldn't drive without mine on. I'm not sure why someone would complain about having to wear their seatbelt, unless you just can't stand for somone telling you what to do for your own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 unless you just can't stand for somone telling you what to do for your own good. Bingo....if I want orders I will ask sign up for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Bingo....if I want orders I will ask sign up for it There are SO many laws on the books that "tell you what to do for your own good." You can still get killed wearing a seatbelt, but your odds go way down from that happening. Other than the orders thing, I don't know why anyone could rationalize why they shouldn't wear one. Mainly it's protecting youself from the bad drivers out there and with texting and driving on the rise, no way I'd not have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 He's absolutely right. These DHS agents have absolutely no right to inspect their person or vehicle for without probable cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 seatbelt laws are as much for my protection as yours. if you want to fly through the windshield in a head on, that's your business.. but when your family decides to sue me because your dumbass died in a collision in which a seatbelt could have helped save you, i don;'t want to have to be the one to tell them to go F themselves. same as helmet laws. People seem to think it's a nanny law to make you protect yourself. It protects me as much as it does you. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncr2h Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 seatbelt laws are as much for my protection as yours.if you want to fly through the windshield in a head on, that's your business.. but when your family decides to sue me because your dumbass died in a collision in which a seatbelt could have helped save you, i don;'t want to have to be the one to tell them to go F themselves. same as helmet laws. People seem to think it's a nanny law to make you protect yourself. It protects me as much as it does you. ~Bang Sorry Bang, Nanny State laws like the seatbelt law aren't the reason you are protected in that situation. Before seat belt laws were enacted, the "Seatbelt Defense" already protected drivers against situations that you described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 He's absolutely right. These DHS agents have absolutely no right to inspect their person or vehicle for without probable cause. They have probable cause, crimes have been committed in those areas ---------- Post added February-26th-2013 at 11:39 AM ---------- There are SO many laws on the books that "tell you what to do for your own good." . there are laws allowing these checkpoints as well....I find them less of a Nanny nature Laws protecting the public I find less onerous than others(though telling me I can't smoke in my own office is over the line) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Sorry Bang, Nanny State laws like the seatbelt law aren't the reason you are protected in that situation. Before seat belt laws were enacted, the "Seatbelt Defense" already protected drivers against situations that you described. The way I read this is that this was an affirmative defense in which the determination as to whether or not the seatbelt defense is even admissable is only allowed if I can prove that it made a difference in the proof of their negligence. Prior to 1996, this was instructed to juries as: "The issues for your determination on this question are whether the greater weight of the evidence shows [that the automobile occupied by (claimant) was equipped with an available and fully operational seat belt,] that (claimant) did not use the seat belt, that a reasonably careful person would have done so under the circumstances, and that (claimant’s) failure to use the seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing the damages sustained by claimant" (burden of proof on the defense. * seems backwards.) OR, we could have a law that makes all of that completely moot and protects me fully from someone's negligence, by stating to juries right off the bat that " Violation of [a traffic regulation] is evidence of negligence" Seems to me to make it easier on the victim. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 He's absolutely right. These DHS agents have absolutely no right to inspect their person or vehicle for without probable cause. The 4th Amendment is pretty much suspended along the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Bang, if you are not negligent in the first place then the others actions don't matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Bang, if you are not negligent in the first place then the others actions don't matter Considering that leaves it up to someone's interpretation of negligence, i'd rather have a set criteria. Thing is no one is making you wear a seat belt. Far as i know you have to be pulled over for something else to be cited. If you get popped for it, i'd say it's your own fault. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 .If you get popped for it, i'd say it's your own fault. ~Bang and if you are negligent and cause harm to another....... at least in your case harm has to be proven, in the seat belt case potential risk is punished.:saber: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/seatbelts.shtml We all pay for those who do not wear seat belts. The higher health care and insurance costs that result from unbelted drivers and passengers involved in crashes get passed along to everyone. For example, the costs of hospital care for an unbelted driver are 50 percent higher than those for a driver who was wearing a safety belt. Society bears 85 percent of those costs, not the individuals involved.Some people see the choice to wear seat belts as a matter of “personal freedom.” But in our society, personal freedoms stop where others are injured or killed. This is especially true when it comes to children’s safety as passengers in a motor vehicle. A child unrestrained in a 30-mile-per-hour crash is like a child dropped from a third story window. Yet adults who do not buckle up are sending a message to our children it is all right not to use seat belts. Research shows that when a driver is unbuckled, 70 percent of the time children in that vehicle will not be buckled either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/seatbelts.shtmlWe all pay for those who do not wear seat belts you've never paid a dime for me,and in fact have taken some. kinda like illegals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 They have probable cause, crimes have been committed in those areas So? That's not probably cause. With that logic, the police can go into any house they want in Anacostia whenever they want... ---------- Post added February-26th-2013 at 02:26 PM ---------- The 4th Amendment is pretty much suspended along the border. That's some BS right there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 So? That's not probably cause. With that logic, the police can go into any house they want in Anacostia whenever they want... a car is not treated as a house under the law, and they can even go in a house under the right conditions w/o a warrant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Referring to them as a "DHS Citizenship Checkpoint" is sort of lazy. Yes, DHS is the parent agency, but there are several enforcement agencies under that banner. I'd be interested in knowing if this was specifically CBP or Border Patrol, or an ICE checkpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 The 4th Amendment is pretty much suspended along the border.Ummmm, when you are outside 20 mile of the border, DHS has no right to stop you and demand proof you are a citizen anymore than I have the right to stop you in downtown DC and ask you for proof you are a citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.