So, you were there and observed what happened?

fuckin asshole pigs

I feel sorry for that guy

Sorry to tell you this but the laws are different for cars and homes. If they have " Reason To believe " then you MUST consent to the search or they will simply arrest you for obstruction and " Inventory it " for impounding.

I take it you have never been through a check point.

Yes. :1orglaugh You're too old to be trolling.

Wrong. :1orglaugh When they ask you to search the car and you say no they tell you to leave the car, take you into custody and then bring the dog.. at least that has been my experience with American "check points" ...

Oh, And if a Dog sniffed it, is as good as having a warrant handed to them

You are not only an idiot, but a liar.

And if you think you give up rights when you fly then you certainly give up rights when you drive. In fact, there is no "right to drive" you are given permission to drive.

Additionally, if you think someone is trolling by pointing out the errors in your "logic" then I don't think it means what you think it means. :2 cents:

This is pretty much the answer.. Regardless if the cops have the right to search your car if you don't give them permission, they hold all the power in this type situation. They can easily come up with a reason for probable cause no matter if it's a legit reason or not.

You will never win this kind of set up unless you have them on video for the whole stop and even then they have enough wiggle room to get out of any trouble.

If the guy can get the video's with out them disappearing, then he might have a chance at beating them. If not, he lost twice, once when they beat the shit out of him, and the second time when he hits the court room.

His best option would have been to offer to open the trunk and let them have a look. However it seems like he was trying to prove a point..

btw I do of course think the cops were out of line and used excessive force.

Shaddap. I'm not going over this all over again with you now...:1orglaugh

Just like you can't get married unless you get permission? :1orglaugh :error

There is indeed a "right to travel" by whatever means necessary, feet, vehicle, etc. People simply are too ignorant to understand this so they go ask permission just like they ask permission to get married.

You need a driver's license to drive. If you don't have one, you are breaking the law. You can be denied a driver's license and you can have it revoked too. So no, there's no "right" to drive.

Sure there is, if you're willing to fight for it. Who's laws am I breaking? Oh that's right, THEIR laws that I've never contracted to follow like you do when you go ask permission.

I'm not going to argue with your kind of crazy today. I just don't have time for it. I'm going to explain this to you one time, and I'm going to ignore your responses afterwards.

It doesn't really matter what kind of crazy interpretation you have of laws and your rights. If you drive anywhere in the United States on a public road without a license and you are caught you are going to be charged. You won't be able to argue your way out of it with any lines about not agreeing or contracting to follow the law. If you're a US citizen in the US, you're bound by US laws, period.

I'm sure you believe you don't have to pay income tax either and that nobody can force you. I'm sure any of the people currently serving time for income tax evasion would disagree with you on that point.

I can't argue with you that I'm crazy. I'm just crazy like those that used to believe the world was round before it was proven to be so.

And you just proven my point for me. That is indeed true and thus the reason they want you to volunteer to be in such a political class.

Dont you love how fast the fake nics get approved but we have a lot of good people that have to nearly beg..

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. You do not have the right to drive. It is a privilege, not a right. :2 cents:

See his register date? Times have changed.

Are you retarded?

100 retards.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2qasfpc.jpg

I tried to get a fake nick but it didn't go thru. :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Most cops are morally corrupt and abusive, and the process we use to create cops selects for sociopaths, then trains them in how to be better sociopaths.

It's not really their fault, it's our fault, we turn our cops into assholes, and we allow sociopaths and partial-sociopaths to become cops, and we allow and secretly approve of their moral corruption.

Now we have a pastor who knows what cops are all about.

I bet last week he was all secretly happy we have sociopathic cops to protect him from all the spics and blacks.

Now he's the spic.

That same day thousands of people, certainly hundreds, were secretly beaten by our cops, and none of them will get any sympathy.

There is as much accuracy in that statement as to say all [or most] pornographers are into KP and scat.

Here is the difference. They can't just pick a house a random and search it just in case you have something illegal in there. They have to have probable cause to search a house and often need a search warrant. The same could be said if you were just walking down the street in your town enjoying a spring afternoon and they roll up on you and start questioning you for no reason.

But this is a checkpoint. A checkpoint is put in place to help catch criminals. You can expect when you go to a checkpoint that they might ask you some questions. You can choose not to answer those questions if you want. But the minute you start arguing with them and not answering their questions they are going to get suspicious. It is not like this guy was just driving down the street and they randomly pulled him over. He is in a state that has a major problem with drugs and immigrants coming across its borders. He went through a checkpoint designed to help catch these things. It is reasonable for the people at that checkpoint to ask you some questions when you go through it.

That said it was not acceptable that he got his ass kicked like he did. If they decided to remove him from the car they didn't need to break all the windows out, they could have told him they were going to remove him from the car and that if he resisted they would taze him. No need to kick his ass and stand on his face and then mock him (if that really happened)

It is sad to see all the people who defend random government search and seizures that are based on no probable cause. The right to be free from such searches is a fundamental right of the US Constitution. The fact that it has been ignored and abused as long as most of us have been alive does not change the fact that unreasonable searches and seizures (DUI checkpoints, drug checkpoints, etc.) are unconstitutional and an affront to basic civil rights.

Judging by this post I would guess you clearly have no idea how cops are hired.

I won't argue that there are bad, morally bankrupt cops. There are. But they are the minority. I have a lot of friends that are cops and through them I know a bunch more cops. There are a couple that I would consider assholes, but most of them are good people who are doing a tough job and they are just like everyone else. The problem is we only hear about things when a cop does something bad or controversial. You never hear about the tens of thousands of cops who do a good job and are good people.

In a way it is like this industry. There are a lot of cool, good people in this business. There are people who raise a lot of money for charity. There is ASACP which is entirely industry funded and most of the people in this business are good, normal people. But if you are outside this business the only thing you ever hear about is a guy like Max Hardcore or the Extreme Associates who go on trial for their simulated rape and extreme porn. And the media is not shy about linking regular porn and CP so many people think if you are in the porn industry you support or sell CP as well. Just because people might think that, it doesn't make it so.

So let me ask you this. Should we just take down all the checkpoints and let anyone and everyone who wants into the country in? Why not? We can just have a checkpoint and all you have to do is say: "I'm an American citizen, I'm not answering your questions." and you will just be allowed to go on, no more questions asked. It doesn't matter if you are or are not a citizen, you have said it was so and if they are not going answer any more questions then you have no way of determining if maybe they are lying to you. So just let them all in.

Of course not. Border checkpoints and searches are perfectly legitimate. The person in the video was pulled into a checkpoint on I-8 in US territory... not at the border.

And I am sure the checkpoint is there because they have no other way to spend that money and just out of sheer boredom they decided to put a checkpoint in a random place.

I would bet the checkpoint is there because that is a place known for a decent amount of people/drug smuggling. People do sneak into the country in places where we don't have guards and checkpoints, maybe this one is in place to help catch some of those people who circumnavigate the border checkpoints.

I go back to my original statement. It all comes down to location and situation. If you are walking down the street in your neighborhood and the cops just roll up on you and start questioning you without any reason you should be able to just walk away and ignore them. If you refuse to answer it is understandable. But if you are at a checkpoint you can expect to be asked a few questions and the minute you refuse and get belligerent about it you cast a shadow of suspicion on yourself.

But I will ask the same question as before. With these checkpoints should anyone who says, "I'm an American citizen an I won't answer any questions." Be allowed to just pass on through?

Thanks for adding some sanity to this thread... :2 cents:

So you're saying that when the cops stop you on the road in your car and ask to do a search you should always say yes? After all, if they can't search then every criminal can just say no and drive away, right? So whats the point of all the cops? If you're in a car are you giving up your right to privacy, and if you're going to travel between states are you giving up your right to privacy? No, you aren't. And that's the point here, that you are entitled to privacy until they have reasonable grounds to arrest you and do their search. Reasonable grounds isn't refusing a search, the right to refuse the search is the same as the right to not be searched so saying you can't refuse a search means you would just let the cops search, every time.

What about if you were going through and had a laptop, cop asks to search your car, you say yes and he grabs your laptop. Then he tells you he has to take it down to the station for them to test it and you'll get it back when they're done, in a few months. You would be ok with that right, after all you drove through the checkpoint!

Try to use your brain.

Just out of curiosity, where exactly do yout hink border checkpoints are located? I'll give you a clue. US border check points are in US territory.

New Mexico has one just north of Las Cruces.

It sucks, it wasn't right of them to do, he shouldn't be illegally searched like that assuming what he said about the dog was true, but for all the people that are so passionately saying that everyone saying he deserved it is supporting all of our rights being taken away, guess what? SO ARE YOU! Posting about this on an adult message forum and battling wits with pornographers does not equal doing something to actually make a difference and change the way the country is heading. You're just taking this up the ass like the rest of us but want to pretend you're our saviors or something. Get fucking real. Tell us something substantial you've done in response to this that may help counteract this type of police behavior and breach of our rights. Spouting off at a couple pornographers for saying the priest should have cooperated ain't doing the job.

Here's the reality of the situation:

- As he said, from moment 1 he wasn't answering their questions. So he was being completely uncooperative - which is his right, but COMMON SENSE dictates cops aren't going to like that.

- The police could have decided "k he's not cooperating, oh well, let him through". If he gets caught later somewhere in the state with drugs or weapons, based on his behavior to them at the checkpoint, they probably lose their jobs. Or say he had that stuff and ended up harming or killing someone in the state? No cap wants to be the one responsible for that.

- With that thought in mind, they use their techniques to try and force his cooperation - first by asking "nicely", then by saying the dog reacted to his trunk. Again, by use of COMMON SENSE, once they bring the dog into play which is textbook probable cause, the priest has to know that they aren't going to let him leave peacefully without searching his trunk.

- I'm sure the priest knows that...the guy doesn't SEEM like he lives under a rock. So - his choice was take this last out for them to search his trunk so he can be on his way, or don't and at best be arrested peacefully, at worst get his ass beat. He made his choice - to somewhat martyr himself to say "fuck you" to the man. He saw they were going to break his windows and he didn't change his tune, so to me he knew the outcome of the choice he was making, and again only someone living under a rock for the past decade or two would have not understood what was going to happen with repeated uncooperation especially after the probable cause was introduced, whether they fudged the probable cause or not. That in no way means they should have done what they did, but this is probably the millionth case of police forceably getting their way over an uncooperative person.

- All that said, we're taking his word for everything. We don't know if everything happened exactly as he said - we're taking 100% his word for it because OMG he's a pastor and put up a video on YouTube and pastors have never lied in the history of life ever and it's on YouTube so it must be true.

- In the end, this is just another "Don't tase me bro!"...nobody except maybe the pastor himself will take any action because of this situation to change the fact that cops will do what they damn well please whenever they want. Heck, with all the rumors flying around now about the UIGEA probably being overturned this year, it's apparent that more Americans care about being able to gamble online than having personal rights, being protected instead of constantly SUSPECTed by cops, and feeling overall safe - because those online gamblers gathered together and have taken sufficient action to get their way whereas we let ourselves be raped. Pretty sad, eh?

As for me? I cooperate with police and don't bitch about it, and whaddya know? I've never gotten the fuck beat out of me by police - what a coincidence! Thanks to internet and social media, we're already losing much of the privacy that the government is intruding on - what fucking difference does it make? I don't like the fact that I may get my ass beat by cops for practicing the rights afforded to me by the constitution, but yes, if given a choice of letting cops search my trunk (where they will find a bunch of uninteresting shit) or getting my ass beat, I choose letting them search my trunk. *I* would be more enraged about the situation if he had been cooperative and they didn't find anything in his trunk and they manufactured a reason to beat his ass and arrest him anyways, and I'm sure there's probably been situations like that that have occurred.

Perhaps I misunderstood the video narrative but I understood that the person in question had not crossed the US border and was in the US the entire time. If he crossed the border into the US from Mexico then being subject to a search and questioning would be quite reasonable.

No, you got it right the first time. He didn't cross an international border. You made a point of saying this happened in US territory though and I just wanted to point out that even US Customs border crossings are located in US territory.

That is exactly not what I said. Please go back and read what I have written.

I said that this case was different because it took place at a checkpoint. When you drive into a checkpoint you can expect to be asked questions. If you are driving down the road and you are doing nothing wrong and the cops decide to just stop you for no good reason you should be allowed to ask why you were stopped and refuse to answer any questions you don't want and you should be allowed to refuse to let them search your car if you want. In this case I was simply saying that when you go to a checkpoint you can expect to be asked questions. The checkpoint is there for a reason. If you refuse and start acting strange you will cast suspicion on yourself. When you start acting suspicious it gives then a reason to want to search your car.

The cops need to be able to search people's cars if they have reasonable cause and that has to be taken on a case by case basis. You tell me. A guy pulls into a checkpoint in a state that is known for having tons of drugs and illegal immigrants being smuggled into it. You ask him a few routine questions and he refuses to answer. Are you going to let him go? No, you are now suspicious of him. Sure, he has the right to refuse to answer, but why is he? You also have to ask yourself what types of questions were asked? This is something none of us know. If he asked where the guy was heading and the guy immediately refuses to answer that might be suspicious. I have driven into California dozens of times and at the checkpoint they always stop me and ask if I have a fruit on board. I don't see any problem with that question so I answer it. If I refused to answer it might cast a suspicion that in fact I did have fruit in my car and they might ask to search it. At the same time if they ask me some kind of question that has nothing to do with the situation at hand and I refuse to answer that they should not have a right so search me based on the question.

It is not a black and white issue. You have to take the location, the situation, the questions asked and the way the guy acted all into consideration.

For example. If he pulled up to the checkpoint and the cop asked him "Where are you coming from?" and he immediately refuses to answer that might seem suspicious. It really is none of the cops business where the guy is coming from, but if the guy was in mexico and he says, "Mexico." now the cop might say, "did anyone give you something to carry with you into the country?" or something like that. Again, if he then refuses to answer it looks funny. At the same time if he asked the the guy, "What do you do for a living?" And the guys says, "I'm a pastor." So the cop replies, "So does that mean you fuck young boys?" And the guy refused to answer you could understand that. A question like that has nothing to do with why the checkpoint is there or what they are trying to accomplish with it.

I am all for personal freedom. I think we need more of it in this country. But I also understand that immigration is a huge problem with this country and stopping it is not easy. If helping to stop it means that from time to time you have to stop at a checkpoint and answer a few questions then I don't see how this is a huge deal.

Sending an uncooperative asshat through a checkpoint would be a great way to distract from a load going through. I'm just saying.