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

[Arizonaffcep]

The courts have held that police interrogation regarding any crime or potential crime falls within the scope of this provision. See Miranda and Self-Incrimination in the Wiki article already cited.

That's dumb. I hate lawyers (until I need one:) ). Although I'm surprised you are backing a Wikipedia article. Not that it's necessarily bad, but any/all colleges (that I've gone to) and now almost all levels of schools say its a bad source because it can be altered from the original content very easily, therefore...unreliable.

[Dustdevil]

I wasn't so much citing Wiki as an indisputable source, so much as I was citing it as a way of saying the same thing I am trying to say without duplicating the effort. If there were anything wrong with the article -- which I did read before citing it -- I would not cite it.

As for lawyers, I will defer to Shakespeare on that topic.

Back to the guy doing the videos, I agree with FormerEMSLT; he's a dick that needs to get a life and quit jacking with people who aren't the policy makers. But that certainly does not in any way negate the validity of his point.

[Arizonaffcep]

I wasn't so much citing Wiki as an indisputable source, so much as I was citing it as a way of saying the same thing I am trying to say without duplicating the effort. If there were anything wrong with the article -- which I did read before citing it -- I would not cite it.

As for lawyers, I will defer to Shakespeare on that topic.

Back to the guy doing the videos, I agree with FormerEMSLT; he's a dick that needs to get a life and quit jacking with people who aren't the policy makers. But that certainly does not in any way negate the validity of his point.

I agree he is a dick. I really think he could have gone about it in not only a better way, but a more effective way as well. Although I must say-I have no problem with the check points. BP does get a bum rap a lot, most of it unfair. BP are doing a job that not many want and most have a problem with. They are good people doing a most difficult job. We get them as patients from time to time, most MVC's, but occasionally some as GSW by some unknown spineless prick on the other side of the line, presumed to be a Mexican drug person, sniping at them. At least they are paid well with large amount of firearms.

[akflightmedic]

I agree he is a dick. I really think he could have gone about it in not only a better way, but a more effective way as well.

And this is where I disagree. How else could he have gone about it a better way? How else could he get a message to the policy makers?

Maybe he is not in a position to do so; however he is in a position to give a voice to this cause, in a very calm and professional, well documented manner, and in by doing so, he actually just MAY BE going after the policy makers in a most indirect route. His well publicized website and videos just might be seen by someone who knows someone who IS a policy maker and then some changes may occur.

This is what it is all about. First you have to raise awareness (accomplished albeit on small scale at this time), second, do it in a way that is non offensive (think how you would have commented had he been picketing or being verbally loud or abusive), and finally spread the word (again a work in progress).

We do not lose our freedom over night, no country does. It always starts with small baby steps, gradually increasing, until one day you wake up and go aww shit, what happened?

Here is a story from my life, relevant to the small intrusions on our civil liberties theory, yet in reverse. I believe the point is still relevant.

When I was a young child, my parents were in a situation where we knew we were going to be living in a 32 foot RV on a campground for an extended, unknown amount of time. This was my parents, my brother, sister and me all going to live happily in this tin can. Thirty days prior to the move, they moved us into a 13 ft RV, talk about being cramped. We pissed and moaned and whined as such would be expected of kids in that situation.

Then the day came when our 32 ft RV arrived. Amazing! We were ecstatic because it was SO HUGE! We had so much room and were able to breathe, so amazing it was. This new perspective carried us through the long haul until our situation improved. We always knew things would get better, but we had the reality of how worse it could be.

Losing our freedoms occurs the same way. A little here, a little there, until one day you wake up in a 13ft RV and say WHOA!

[Michael]

The question was cut and dry, so no need to think about the answer, you are or you aren't. Yes or no, not much simpler around.

I keep saying the simplicity of the interrogation isn't the issue, and you keep defending the interrogation on the basis of its simplicity. Oh well.

Where in the constitution does it state that "I have a right to be left alone?" In looking at the Bill of Rights, there is no such right.

It's earlier in the document, namely the Preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty* to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

*= "the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force." [Wiki is a good example of the value of simplicity and convenience. As soon as it shows something wrong, discard it for that instance.]

Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights underscores that the States or the people retain all powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government.

Again, if the motorist was not within his rights to remain silent, why did the off-site supervisor immediately direct his interrogator to stop harassing him solely on the basis of hearing that he was a "young man with a camera"? Wasn't the supervisor exposing himself and his subordinate - on camera - to the charges of failure to arrest a lawbreaker, dereliction of duty, and potential complicity in the driver's crimes? And this is only one in a series of videos rehearsing the same scenario. Seems like more than chance that his challenge always succeeds.

Honestly, I would think "bad press" as the driving force.

We agree. And that is how the press, which includes this guy, safeguards your civil liberties.

As far as illegal immigration goes...I hate it.

Please don't get me wrong. If a person wants to come to this country to work/live/play, I have absolutely no problem with it...and encourage it!

I know it's a process that needs revamping. It is broken and I have no idea how to fix it (well above my pay grade).

Dismantling the Welfare State [i'll let you go to the wiki article on your own - respecting your freedom of association and all that ] would result in attracting only those immigrants who seek opportunities for self-advancement through hard work rather than free goods and services.

Sorry for the rant.

Never apologize for exercising your freedom of speech! And that's an order! :shock:

[Michael]

New Border Guard uniform, designed to keep traffic moving. 8)

[paramedicmike]

In light of the Fourth Amendment discussion, I offer this:

[web:92bc962b1f]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102700767_pf.html[/web:92bc962b1f]

[CBEMT]

I think the whole voluntary versus involuntary nature of the stop/detainment/seizure is moot.

The asshat VOLUNTARILY drove up to the checkpoint! He knew it was there, and chose to initiate the confrontation for his own purposes.

[Michael]

Wasn't all the highway traffic in that direction diverted? Could all those cars behind him have just passed without stopping?

Oh, you were joking (I really missed that at first).