Some of you will like this and some of you won't

[akflightmedic]

Some of the most historical injustices that were rectified were done so by "no name reporters", the average Joe's, grass root efforts, etc.

[Michael]

I don't see taking 5 seconds to state your citizenship as an unreasonable search or seizure.

If armed detention and subjecting to interrogation a private citizen who was bothering no one, without informing him of his rights (which would have ended the stop), is not unreasonable, what was the reason for forcing an innocent motorist to drive off the road, stop, and have to wait at the pleasure of officials for permission to pursue his goals - while those who detain him repeatedly deny that they are doing so? Whatever assured the supervisor reached by cel phone that this suspect was safe to release unvetted, except the phrase "He's got a camera"?

On the third hand, I'm not sure what simply stating your citizenship would prove - anyone can say they're a US citizen if they don't have to provide government-issued identification of some sort.

I think the point is that well-spoken white guys with American accents and hair groomed in officially approved style and no provocative bumper-stickers are disproportionately more likely to get off with minor inconvenience - but at this rate only for the time being. Are we confident (and, more important, do we care whether) the civil rights of less assertive and minority motorists and passengers, eg those with a foreign accents instead of video cameras, are accorded the same respect as this guy with his cameras running was? In order to avoid the charge of racial profiling, they initially stop everyone, then single out those whose looks they don't like for further interrogation. Not a problem until you appear to be offending the boss - legally or not - or resemble someone who does.

I sympathize with those who are annoyed by what they perceive as meaningless defiance (although a little surprised by how some say they'd like to respond), and who appreciate the relatively high degree of liberty in the US. The erosion of liberties under the guise of protecting them tends to be gradual. What has differentiated our way of life from tyranny, and thus made it worth protecting, is the publicity, transparency, accountability, and subjection to correction of any use or force or threat of force against individuals. The law doesn't make driving contingent on meeting conversational standards of agents of the State. This guy was so well within his rights that he was, without much recognition, actually protecting the private liberties of those who stopped him. Imho, he's the real border guard. I wish more people saw it that way.

[Arizonaffcep]

If they took these people running checkpoints and put them actually ON the border, they might actually do some good.

I guess that makes too much sense. Idiots.

Unfortunately, this is a huge problem here in Southern AZ (UDAs, not Boarder Patrol). I know this does sound hard to believe, but I have asked several that come into the ED and earlier this year, in the first quarter, they had over 300,000 UDA detainees from around Tucson. One of the most porus areas along the boarder is on the Tohono O'Odham Nation (used to be known as the Papagos). Their reservation extends into Mexico itself, and as a sovereign nation, Boarder Patrol CAN'T setup at that location (because it would hinder tribal member's movement on THEIR land). The checkpoint on the video is just east of the reservations boarder on Ajo Highway (Highway 86).

Also, for those that don't know, UDA=Undocumented Alien (the most politically correct slang for boarder crossers).

[Arizonaffcep]

This guy was so well within his rights that he was, without much recognition, actually protecting the private liberties of those who stopped him. Imho, he's the real border guard. I wish more people saw it that way.

Maybe not though. I'm not sure how it works on a federal level, but on a State/local level, if PD asks/gives an order (must be considered reasonable, please use common sense when reading that statement) to a civilian, they are lawfully bound to follow it. Going along those lines, a simple "yes" answer to "Are you a United States Citizen" question would be considered reasonable, no? So, might he then not be breaking the law (however menially) by not answering/refusing to follow a lawful command to answer the question?

[terr0154]

What a jackass. Seriously, in Arizona, illegal immigration is a HUGE problem, in the WHOLE state. This guy should move to Mexico and let the Federali's violate his "rights".

[akflightmedic]

Does the "Right to remain silent" or the 5th amendment mean anything?

Are you telling me by not answering a local officer's question in your area, I am breaking the law?

Very interesting, enough to the degree that we already think this is acceptable behavior on the law's part, and interesting that some seem to think it is no big deal.

[mailmantech82]

Sure the 5th amendment is a constitutional right....but doesn't that only apply to U.S. Citizens?

[akflightmedic]

Sure the 5th amendment is a constitutional right....but doesn't that only apply to U.S. Citizens?

EXACTLY!

So as a US citizen he has that right to not say a thing.

Thanks for supporting me.

[reaper]

The problem with the border patrols way of doing things, is they don't apply them to the people that they need to.

Any time I have ever walked back across a border crossing in Texas, I am stopped and made to answer 20 questions. All around me, people of Mexican decent are passing by without a single question being asked!

How is this helping patrol our borders?

I think the guy was being a jerk and could have proved his point better. He should have answered the question and if they told him he was free to go, then question how they had achieved anything in stopping him.

If you are crossing a border, then I could see a few simple questions. When an obviously American man drives up, why even stop the car, on American soil?

Even with local LEO, you have no legal obligation to show ID, unless they can prove wrong doing. Yes, you will be put through hell and the will trump up something to detain you on, because you are refusing to show them. But, you are breaking no laws by refusing to show ID at a check point!

[Michael]

on a State/local level, if PD asks/gives an order (must be considered reasonable, please use common sense when reading that statement) to a civilian, they are lawfully bound to follow it. Going along those lines, a simple "yes" answer to "Are you a United States Citizen" question would be considered reasonable, no? So, might he then not be breaking the law (however menially) by not answering/refusing to follow a lawful command to answer the question?

Thank you for keeping it civil, Arizona. I'm no lawyer; I'm only a philosopher, and we philosophers must rely for our judgments on facts from our own observation and others' credible testimony. My hunch is that if he were breaking the law, we'd have learned that by now, since the related videos show him doing it repeatedly. The fact that "He has a camera" prompted his immediate, no-questions-asked release by an off-scene supervisor suggests to me that he was within his rights. Again, speaking only intuitively (but my intuition is informed by having paid some attention to these matters), I can understand why, and approve that, no one has any business forcing me to report on my citizenship, my sobriety-level, how I'm feeling today, do I think it will rain, did I pay for that fancy jacket with my own money, or anything else if I haven't given evidence of bothering anyone. So I don't know for a fact what the laws you cite state; only that those experienced in these matters tell me what I'm not obligated to do (the second video below tells a cop's view). I appreciate the reasonable discussion. 8)