jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (48 posts)

Border Patrol Checkpoints Inside America's Borders

  1. GA Anderson profile image83
    GA Andersonposted 7 months ago

    I stumbled across this John Stossel video piece.

    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13416447.jpg
    *Just click image to view

    I am not a big fan of links with no explanation, but on this one, 'ya gotta' watch the video to get the point of the OP. But I will offer a head-start; I think this should be on the news too - as an outrageous and abusive use of power.

    What say you?

    GA

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      How far from any border are the armed guards doing skin searches in the Denver airport?  What percentage of people going through that airport have their belongings and/or person searched?

      1. ptosis profile image77
        ptosisposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        When entering an Airport - all rights are suspended.  Not talking about airports - why are you talking about airports?

          First time for me was on a bus from San Diego to Tucson. At one point, 2  Border guards board bus. One stood at the front, the other went to the back of the bus and asked me first: " Are you an American citizen?" Stunned I said yes, then he asks everybody else. 

        Now live in AZ and  go through border checks all the time - The questions NOT allowed to ask are:
        "Are you an American citizen?
        "Where are you going to?
        Sometimes have a sniffer dog.

        Plenty of videos about  those two questions and how USA citizens bristle at road block checks.

        Quit trying to hijack the  thread with spurious comparisons that confuse and distract the original point of the poster.

        Top DHS checkpoint refusals :
        https://youtu.be/u4Ku17CqdZg
        https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQI6UUJar4z5k5TnoX30nfCJ5_HEeZqlM0eKILJT07OIzz59gBz

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          I think the point went far over your head.

          We have a major problem (in terms of possible harm) from terrorists, and have given up a portion of our rights when using air travel (although certainly not all of them).

          We have a major problem (in terms of total harm being done by millions of illegals); it will take giving up a few small rights in order to contain this one, too.

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            You are pulling my leg aren't you Wilderness? All it takes for safety is "giving up a few small rights?"

            You almost had me. You comment sounds like you don't think it's a problem being stopped, up to  one hundred miles from the border, and being asked to prove you are an American - when all you were doing was driving down the road.

            Shirley you are not posing the "If you are not doing anything wrong..." rationalization?

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              To some degree, yes.  And no, being stopped a whole hundred miles from the border is reasonable, given the nature of the problem.  It's a little difficult to think that most illegals will find a major road within 5 miles of any crossing point on the border.  Southern Texas is not Georgia or California.

              I expect to give up some rights and freedoms for safety.  We do it for cops, for the military, for private security forces, for TSA and, yes, for border patrol.  That we have ignored that particular problem, and paid a very high price for it doesn't mean it isn't there and it doesn't mean that it does not need taken care of.  We either pay a monetary and safety price for ignoring it or we take what actions are reasonable to fix it - I don't find being stopped by border patrol for a quick check to be an unreasonable price.

              I will say that, if the complainers are believed, it is becoming intrusive.  As in every time they leave the house they are stopped for 30 minutes or more.  I'm not sure at all that I believe that, but it is possible - a large town on a road very much in use by illegals might produce that result.

              1. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                Hey bud, I think my response to ahorseback covers most of what you addressed here. So I won't repeat all of it.

                I will offer this much, again:
                "My response was visceral. My vision of America does not include identity checks just to go about your everyday business.

                ps. I am sure you can guess how I feel about that "...if you haven't done anything wrong..." rationalization. Like the warming frog thing, someone might consider that "...first they came for..." analogy as appropriate for your thought.


                Also, I do agree with you that we already give up some small portion of our rights in exchange for security. The question is how much are we willing to give up? For me, identity check points along the way to a restaurant for dinner, (the town example in the video), is a step too far. 

                That might make law enforcement's job harder, and I wish it weren't so, but that is a price of freedom that cannot be avoided. I think an apt comparison might be the death of New York's old "Stop and Frisk" policies. They worked, but they were an abridgement of individual rights. The ends do not always justify the means.

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  It is indeed a touchy thing, what is acceptable and what is not.

                  I'm making some assumptions here, that were never addressed in your video:
                  1) The border patrol has very good reason to think that the specific road where the checkpoint is set up is being heavily used for criminal use (presumably illegal aliens; the video never states what is being looked for).
                  2) As this has been going on for some time, I assume that the Patrol is getting rather large, positive results.  If not, one would think their efforts would be put somewhere else, that they are totally incompetent or that the purpose is to harass innocent people.

                  So we accept airport searches, for almost zero positive results (how many plane bombers are stopped?).  How many criminals make a road check reasonable?  How many are we getting? 

                  Or are the results irrelevant; there is NO possible result that justifies stopping cars driving down the road for an ID check?

                  1. ptosis profile image77
                    ptosisposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Correct: "  there is NO possible result that justifies stopping cars driving down the road for an ID check

                  2. GA Anderson profile image83
                    GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, you have posed some legitimate questions and points. I just hope I don't trip over any of them trying to explain that my perception is one of an ideological perspective. There are valid legal, and constitutional arguments on both sides of this issue.

                    The Supreme Court has ruled on their constitutionality, and strictly defined the legal parameters of such checkpoints. I think my 'it just ain't right' perspective is ideologically validated by their restrictions, and I think the the legal side of their decision addresses the 'liberty vs. safety' trade-off - a minimization of the liberty loss.

                    As you said, it is a practical matter of balance. I put my weight on the liberty side of the scale.

                    GA

      2. Credence2 profile image88
        Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Nobody is talking about airports, Wilderness. We enter airports with the expectation that in the interest of security our rights may be compromised.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Your point?  That checkpoints are not expected?  Ever been stopped in a DUI sting?  I have - it is a part of driving on a public road.

          Are you trying to say that border patrol checkpoints are set up where there is no real expectation of finding criminals?  That they should never be done?  What is your point - mine is that we give up some privacy for security, but what is yours?

          1. Credence2 profile image88
            Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

            Yes there are DUI checkpoints, your right to use a public road is a privilege. dUI is against the law. What are you looking for by randoming stopping people for just being in their cars going about their business? Just how far is the Right willing to let things like this go? I go by the story as presented by GA. If the immigration cops are not harassing people without justification or cause, fine. But it had better be that way, or there is more trouble on the horizon. I don't trust just relying on their discretion without oversight.

            The alternative, how about doing good police work? How about a justification for stopping people outside of the fact that you believe that you can do whatever you want. But you wouldn't know about that being from Idaho and all. Driving while black, for example, has been the cause of many police stops and as a result I don't trust the Right (its endless law and order rants) nor its advocates.

            Am I POed? yes.....

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              "What are you looking for by randoming stopping people for just being in their cars going about their business? "

              You mean you don't know?  Why in the world are you insinuating that there WAS no reason?

              "How about a justification for stopping people outside of the fact that you believe that you can do whatever you want."

              See, that's the difference here.  You automatically declare there was no reason, that it was pure meanness that was behind a stop.  You don't know, you haven't any information at all about it, but you will make the call anyway.   I disagree, pure and simple.

              1. Credence2 profile image88
                Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                The burden in on law enforcement to prove when it is required that there was a valid reason for the stop, otherwise who could say that pure 'meanless' is not involved?

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  And that's fine.  What is not "fine" is to assume that there is nothing but meanness, that the tales of the "victim" are always true and should be believed.

                  You choose the one, I choose the other until proven different.  Cops are not different than anyone else, IMO, and get the same assumption (innocent until proven guilty).  You disagree, that's all.

                  1. ptosis profile image77
                    ptosisposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Cops ARE different.They can do whatever they want to you including shooting you while cuffed and on the ground and can get away with murder.

          2. Credence2 profile image88
            Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

            "What is your point - mine is that we give up some privacy for security, but what is yours?"

            Just how compromise do we make before we cross the line between law enforcement and police state? I simply do not trust your vision of the world. That is my point, obviously I am more sensitive to that line than are you...

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              And obviously I do not trust your "vision" for it appears to me that cops are ALWAYS evil and do everything wrong in your eyes, while the "innocent" bystander is never at fault. 

              Cred, it comes down (in this case, with it's limited information) to whether you believe a handful of people claiming that they did nothing wrong (while obviously making as big a play as possible) - that there was no reason to stop them and certainly no reason to search.  One even claimed that the dog alerted but did not alert.

              Or you can believe the "cop" that says there is reasonable cause for a search.  I will, in general, believe the cop before I believe a random (or not so random as they WERE stopped) citizen - you will always choose the citizen's word over that of a cop.  We disagree here, and I don't see anything that can be said to change the basic concept of either of us.

              1. Credence2 profile image88
                Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, I just have a problem with random stops. Because random is not always random. I could work with a checkpoint that everybody has to pass through.....

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  I understand that you have a problem anytime a cop stops anyone.  And saying that a checkpoint is OK if 300 million people pass through it is indicative of where you're coming from.

    2. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      G.A.  While I know that John Stossel is a liberal reporter in Foxes conservative clothing  and has been for years , I also know and believe that the man himself is not only intelligent enough to have known of this practice for  two decades or more but  also am aware of his fixation on sensationalism .

      I think it was  almost directly right after 9/11 /01  that I was surprised by a interstate  traffic check about  50 miles from the Canadian border on I -91   in Vermont .It was  U.S. Border Patrol  agents ,      I remember answering the questions asked politely and  with  al due respect .

      Who in their right minds  , with any real understanding at all of illegal trafficking of ANY kind   ," sex , drugs , rock and roll " or   illegal immigration , would expect  the border patrol to simply sit on this keisters in a booth at the border checking I.D,s ?     Anyone that has a problem with law enforcement  AND  hasn't done anything wrong;   then they should have no fear of their U.S, government  protecting them .

      This practice doesn't bother me one iota !.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Hello ahorseback, I do agree that Stossel will, like most reporters, pick the examples that make their point. For instance; Stossel's video did not highlight such examples as seen in Ptosis' link where frustrated agents did allow uncooperative drivers to go on their way. I am also aware that this is not a new phenomenon - this Stossel video is from 2013, (I think).

        But the video did strike me as topical, considering present day circumstances. Otherwise, I completely disagree with you about Stossel's political and ideological leanings.

        To confuse things even more; if I were in the checkpoint situation, I would probably affirm I am an American, and even show ID if asked ... But that is my choice. If the agent was acting like an ass, I might do the same as the video examples. I do not agree to give up 'a few more' rights for 'a little bit more' security. It is those "little bits" and 'small steps' that are the most dangerous. Some folks might even offer the 'frog in warming water' analogy.

        I strongly support border and immigration actions that are lawful, and address these serious problems, but that support is not a blank check. I strongly support members of our law enforcement agencies, but that support isn't a blank check either.

        My reaction to the video wasn't primarily due to the abusive examples in the video - there are good and bad folks in all organizations; again, Ptosis' link showed some of the good ones - even if they were frustrated by confrontational drivers, they held to the law and professional behavior.

        My response was visceral. My vision of America does not include identity checks just to go about your everyday business.

        ps. I am sure you can guess how I feel about that "...if you haven't done anything wrong..." rationalization. Like the warming frog thing, someone might consider that "...first they came for..." analogy as appropriate for your thought.

        GA

    3. Credence2 profile image88
      Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, I complain, I insist that everyone be held accountable for their behavior. Who says the the standards of reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not to apply?

      Where are the limits imposed on the conduct of the law officers, do they just get to do whatever they like?

      This a problem, the tactics of a police state is unsatisfactory regardless of how many conservatives say that there is no issue.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        "Who says the the standards of reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not to apply?"

        Apparently, you are.  Without having the faintest idea if they are or not, you seem to be saying that it does not apply, and that the patrol does "whatever they like".

        Do you have an alternate solution?  Something beyond ignoring criminal activity?

      2. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Oops, my bad Cred, I left the door open for criticism of the officer's actions. As bad as some of the examples were, that wasn't my intended point. I should have been more clear that my objection was to the concept that we should just accept identity checks on the way to dinner as a cost of security.

        As mentioned to Wilderness, I think this process of identity checks - where none should be reasonably expected, (unlike airport use expectations), is comparable to the old NYPD "Stop and Frisk" policies. And I think the identity checkpoint successes would be far less justifiable than the documented successes of "Stop and Frisk."  In neither case do I think the methods justify the individual liberty cost.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          "And I think the identity checkpoint successes would be far less justifiable than the documented successes of "Stop and Frisk."

          Do you have indication of the results of each?   Are there no circumstances (50 serial murderers caught each day perhaps) that would justify an identity check of everyone passing down that road?

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            I don't have any facts, I'm just just drawing on recollections. I do recall Mayor Giuliani touting New York's declining crime stats - which he attributed to "Stop and Frisk," particularly during the time it was being challenged. And I do not recall any similar public  touting of the success of these in-country border checkpoints. That's why I qualified my comment with "I think."

            Principally, there are no 'reasonable' circumstances, (your example is not a reasonable one),  that would change my mind.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              And with that, I must disagree, for there certainly are circumstances (results) that would justify a motor vehicle stop and check.  IMO.

              I really find no difference between that and the airport or a DUI sting.  Do you also disagree with those losses of liberty, or are those OK?  If OK, can you explain the difference?

              1. Credence2 profile image88
                Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                I really find no difference between that and the airport or a DUI sting.  Do you also disagree with those losses of liberty, or are those OK?  If OK, can you explain the difference?

                Yes, nobody denies that there are circumstances that justify a vehicle stop and check, the cop just needs to be able to state the reason for the motorist and otherwise support it as a valid reason for a stop. Is that asking so much? I am going to resent being pulled off the road by law enforcement without an issue or violation involved.

                A dui checkpoint is that where everyone is subject to inspection, and you are not just deciding to let the white granny go on her way yet harass the Mexican looking kid. Random stops , has too often meant, profiling and that is unacceptable.

                I don't like 'random' you need a reason why I am being stopped from going about my business. I won't assume that law officers are disregarding the standard of either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, they just need to make sure that the reason can be supported under those principles and can stand up to muster in the courts.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  I'd disagree with the DUI stop being for everybody.  Everybody is stopped, but a quick, 3 second "exam" of the driver will let most on through.  Only those that are "profiled" (slurred speech, agressive, odor, etc.) are subjected to further examination.

                  Profiling is probably the strongest tool police (or border patrol) has, and is quite acceptable to use.  We have the choice of profiling - looking for specific indicators of higher than normal probability of criminal behavior and using them as a first approximation for further study - or throwing ten times as much manpower at the problem to obtain the same result.  I know where my opinion lies.

                  No, "random" is very seldom either effective (except perhaps as a deterrent) or useful.  Either everyone or no one in almost all cases.

                  But I do think you assume the cop is wrong - it is apparent in nearly every post you make.  Just like the link in the OP, where the "victim" says a dog did not alert after being told it did, everything the cop says is a lie and not to be believed.  In addition that probable cause must be made at the scene before any action is taken and not reserved for a court - police instructions and demands must be halted, probable cause demonstrated to a perp's satisfaction, and only then can a search or other action be taken.  Otherwise police are overstepping their bounds - you don't give them any slack at all and demand absolute perfection at all times.  You've made that very, very clear over the months.

                  1. Credence2 profile image88
                    Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    "I'd disagree with the DUI stop being for everybody.  Everybody is stopped, but a quick, 3 second "exam" of the driver will let most on through.  Only those that are "profiled" (slurred speech, agressive, odor, etc.) are subjected to further examination"

                    Let me clear this up a bit, I have a fixation on the negative aspects of the term profiling, as a process of intimidation of minority groups. You are correct in the fact that profiling, when race is not the exclusive standard then it is just fine. In other words, there is probable cause for an officer to stop a motorist if a headlight is out, he or she is driving erratically. The officer would be fully justified before any oversight committee in making a call on that basis and once the motorist is stopped, reasonable suspicion can extend to a smell of alcohol, the behavior of the driver, etc.

                    Just don't consider probable cause for a stop based solely upon the fact that I have a brown skin.

                    "Profiling is probably the strongest tool police (or border patrol) has, and is quite acceptable to use.  We have the choice of profiling - looking for specific indicators of higher than normal probability of criminal behavior and using them as a first approximation for further study - or throwing ten times as much manpower at the problem to obtain the same result.  I know where my opinion lies"

                    That is OK by me, these tools should be standard textbook stuff that  can stand the scrutiny of review when the activity of an officer is investigated. If I were a cop and I was called on the carpet in a complaint of an unjustified stop and harassment of a citizen, I should be able to use the textbook instruction to explain my action. Demonstrate that my action and suspicion of the driver was not personal and unsubstantiated.


                    "But I do think you assume the cop is wrong - it is apparent in nearly every post you make.  Just like the link in the OP, where the "victim" says a dog did not alert after being told it did, everything the cop says is a lie and not to be believed.  In addition that probable cause must be made at the scene before any action is taken and not reserved for a court - police instructions and demands must be halted, probable cause demonstrated to a perp's satisfaction, and only then can a search or other action be taken.  Otherwise police are overstepping their bounds - you don't give them any slack at all and demand absolute perfection at all times.  You've made that very, very clear over the months."

                    Where we bump heads is that I get the impression that you are opposed to oversight of law officers. I am not necessarily against them, I just want evidence that all parties behaved properly and since the cop makes the citations, has the truncheons and the service revolver and most likely initiated the contact, the burden proof is on them and as we all know, we are innocent until proven guilty. The body cams that I support and you don't is there to establish the innocence of officer in the encounter with a civilian or support a charge of innappropriate behavior against the officer. There is proof or convincing evidence in video to support what in fact did or did not occur and I like that.

                    A brief account that I will share. I was crossing back into the US from Canada, Manitoba into North Dakota. We we detained for hours. This was just after 9-11 and I was with a date who was not terribly bright. She was making a scene with US border agents. I was told after  we were finally allowed to go that we were kept for investigation because of her belligerency and the fact that it was unusual for people to travel the way we were with different last names. Even though the border people would not admit it, you don't find black people crossing from Manitoba into North Dakota everyday. Add that  to the heightened sense of security in the months after Sept 2001 and I could see that what they were looking for were suspicious patterns of behavior that have been shown in case after case to be a reason to look more closely at certain travelers. It was basically race neutral, and could apply to anyone in our circumstance.

              2. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, I am not sure how to read your first paragraph. It sounds like you may be disagreeing with an intent  that wasn't intended to be implied.

                My responses are all directed at the concept of permanent/semi-permanent immigration checkpoints within our borders, not random transient checkpoints like DUI checks, or security procedures at airports. I could even agree with random temporary immigration checkpoints on likely travel routes. I don't see these two concepts as the same.

                A thought just occurred, and maybe I should just let it go until I give it more consideration, but, wouldn't your validation of these checkpoints also apply as validation for immigration checkpoints at ingress roads to any population center recognized as a popular illegal immigrant destination? Would your logic validate immigration checkpoints at interior state lines like Illinois - which is near the top ten illegals destinations?

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  "My responses are all directed at the concept of permanent/semi-permanent immigration checkpoints within our borders, not random transient checkpoints like DUI checks, or security procedures at airports. "

                  Then we're talking about different things, for I had in mind temporary, surprise checkpoints.  How strange that communication should fail in a forum that way! big_smile

                  Not sure how you figure that TSA checks at the airport are random, transient checkpoints, though - perhaps you're a little confused yourself?

                  Yes, ingress roads to population centers could be set up.  Example: I used to live just off I-95 in Virginia, a major pathway for drugs from Miami to points north, and would have loved to see every vehicle stopped and "sniffed" for drugs.  Hardly practical, though, as dealers would quickly figure it out and simply take a detour for an hour to get around any checkpoint and the resulting disruption in stopping thousands and thousands of cars each day is untenable. 

                  So results count - if they are limited, or disruption is excessive, then it doesn't work.  We have better uses for limited resources than that.  But if results CAN be found, with minimal disruption, then yes a checkpoint may be used, and pretending that the specific problem is localized to a tiny portion of the border is silly.  In this regard, the highway system and population density of southern Texas does not approach that of Illinois, and it becomes possible that a checkpoint is a valid use of resources, producing a high degree of results for minimal disruption.  IMO.

                  One thing that should perhaps be pointed out is that the actions in your video are completely unacceptable...IF they are representative of reality.  I don't believe them - I think they are very carefully cherry picked, using either "agitators" or criminals as the "victims".  I think the normal citizen will flip right through that check without undue hassle or trouble.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image83
                    GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    "Not sure how you figure that TSA checks at the airport are random, transient checkpoints, though - perhaps you're a little confused yourself?"

                    Ok, let's try to clear-up some of that confusion. 

                    "... permanent/semi-permanent immigration checkpoints within our borders, not random transient checkpoints like DUI checks, or security procedures at airports. " (gotta love these formatting options)

                    The object was "checkpoints."   The "or" made DUI checkpoints and security procedures at airports a list. "And" would have made them a grouping, (ie ordinary statutes vs. Penal statutes). So the "or" indicated the "random transient" adjectives were not implied to apply to both.

                    Perhaps I am not the one confused. Let's ask Tess. ;-)

                    Regarding the abusive activities shown in the video; I agree they are unacceptable, but I do not believe they are the norm, other videos show properly professional Border Patrol agents doing their job within the same constraints as the abusive agents.

                    And finally, even though I disagree with the checkpoints - as being discussed, I do understand that the agents are just trying to do their job, and would fully comply with reasonable requests from the professional ones. Though the abusive ones might cause me to get myself in trouble.

                    GA

    4. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      I know this quote has been taken out of context for years, but I still think it is apt :

      "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" (Benjamin Franklin)

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Taken to the end, that would eliminate all police, national guard, border patrol, private security or any other form of authority or force.  Somewhere there is obviously a balance point where the "little temporary safety" justifies and equals the "essential Liberty" being given up.

        The question does not seem to be "Is any loss of freedom acceptable", but "how much loss of liberty, at what gain, is acceptable".

      2. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Hello Don, I did think of that sentiment as I posted the topic. But I found awhile back, that the context of the quote - Franklyn's intentions, was not as the quote is most often applied now-a-days, (as you noted). The thought might be applicable, but the quote isn't.

        GA

  2. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 7 months ago

    Americans are evolving into a very strange  bunch ;

    You don't mind your daughters , sons   and grandmothers being groped at the airport check in lines by big  guys with tattoos as long as you make your connections to your Hawaii vacation   , apparently at least as long as you have your latte in hand  ?     You fill your life details out  on line and questionnaire  to acquire your cable TV subscription  or  your  internet amazon account or   you aren't afraid  to send your kids into transgender  bathrooms alone at the mall while you  at home , BUT you are somehow offended that the people hired  by taxpayer  dollars to actually PROTECT  you and your family from  outside sources , who stop you on the interstate fifty miles from the national borders ?
    It happens in every modern first , second or third  world country in the world . But as an American , you are somehow enormously and justifiably offended .

    Snowflakes !

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Well damn ahorseback! Snowflakes?

      A while back you included me in your grouping of 90% of these forum participants as uninformed voters, and now it looks like I am a snowflake too.

      I am lucky that tonight is not a martini night, else I might not have been able to step away from the keyboard before somebody got hurt. (meaning me, by not getting banned for offering a candid evaluation of your demonstrated lack of 'factual' prowess, and choice of glasses)

      GA

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 7 months ago

    GA Anderson: Welcome to the club.  To be called a name by ahorse is a badge of honor.  Wear it proudly.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      When the ideological debate of ANY  issue becomes pointless in the face of   reason   a , gainful shared understanding and possible compromise - and the one side reduces the issue down to pure exhibitions of  hate like the new left has ;

      Then yes , snowflake is what  the left becomes.

  4. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 7 months ago

    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13418573.jpg

  5. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 7 months ago

    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13420229.jpg

    After an very local incident a few years ago with a local  cop that was shot and killed by a career idiot at a traffic stop that  was entirely recorded by dash cam , I began watching U-Tube  videos about police stops , public compliance - behavior and the intimidation factor of police , civilian interactions .       I quickly learned that one can "get away " with this  response at  checkpoints .

    Ask for a supervisor and refuse all requests to participate.

    It works .

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      The state of Florida would disagree, requiring either a license or a fingerprint on every citation.  322.15

      http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/322.15

      Armchair lawyers are very often wrong, making statements that they would like to be true but which are not.

 
working