Borderdog
New member
I'm not taking anything as an attack, just a civil discussion. You said I was self centered and over sensitive but I'll let that jab go as something that came across wrong in writing.
You said that the BP helped little, comparing it to the amount of effectiveness of the assault weapons ban, and I pointed out the fact that were it not for the BP you would have almost twice as many illegals in the U.S. At least by the stats. What reality would be who knows. How many more baseball players would steal home with no catcher?
Quote:
So you are saying it is accepted to escalate force until the desired result is achieved?
Yes, the minimum necessary force to effect an arrest is universally authorized to the best of my knowledge. At some point a decisions was made by DPS to arrest this guy and they did what was necessary and authorized by their SOP. Again this guys injuries were not at the discretion of the BP Agents, it was DPS that arrested him.
At what point do you think cops should just let criminals walk away? What offenders should just be allowed off the hook because they turned beligerent? Most if not all agencies have some form of a use of force process. Agents/officers are well trained on this before they are allowed in the field. Arm chair lawyers might only require speculation and opinion but each and every leo is required to go through actual training. Yes, hands on physical force is acceptable for a physically resistant subject. When he starts to physically pull away or fight the force gets escalated to match his. If you physically resist me I will physically restrain you.
Quote:
33 years of being upheld does not make your point. The work of our forfathers allowed for the challenge of these courts by the citizens of this country, to try to keep the balance of power tilted toward the individual.
In 33 years of challenges it still stands. Our forefathers system still says it's legal.
Quote:
Let me ask you Borderdog, what is your take on the 4A. Do you think it should not apply at these check stations inside our border? Should it be left up to BP agents to interpret the 4A on a case by case basis? What does the 4A mean to you?
This is where I think your argument falls apart. You can't completely call a comparison of the second to the fourth an apples to apples comparison. The second unconditionally gives us the right to bear arms and specifically bans an infringement upon it. The fourth does not protect you from searches. It specifically protects you from unreasonable searches. The legal system has put in protections like the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, to protect agains unreasonable search. In modern times search law is based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Would a person of ordinary sense and understanding have an expectation of privacy. Would a reasonable person feel safe smoking a joint in his house? Yes. In his car? Probably not, at least not as safe. Walking in to a police checkpoint? Even an idiot would know better than that. The fourth amendment applies everywhere, but the courts have ruled, and I firmly believe no one with any common sense, would have any reasonable expectation of privacy at border patrol checkpoint.
The law which is the basis for the checkpoints pre-dates the bill of rights. It was put in place by the 1st congress. I think they would have changed some things if they intended the fourth amendment to cover checkpoints. So if your real question is do I think the fourth amendment somehow bans checkpoints the answer is absolutely not.
If a police agency is looking for an escaped murderer and they set up checkpoints on all roads leading away from the prison and search all vehicles for the fugitives are they wrong?
Nate
You said that the BP helped little, comparing it to the amount of effectiveness of the assault weapons ban, and I pointed out the fact that were it not for the BP you would have almost twice as many illegals in the U.S. At least by the stats. What reality would be who knows. How many more baseball players would steal home with no catcher?
Quote:
So you are saying it is accepted to escalate force until the desired result is achieved?
Yes, the minimum necessary force to effect an arrest is universally authorized to the best of my knowledge. At some point a decisions was made by DPS to arrest this guy and they did what was necessary and authorized by their SOP. Again this guys injuries were not at the discretion of the BP Agents, it was DPS that arrested him.
At what point do you think cops should just let criminals walk away? What offenders should just be allowed off the hook because they turned beligerent? Most if not all agencies have some form of a use of force process. Agents/officers are well trained on this before they are allowed in the field. Arm chair lawyers might only require speculation and opinion but each and every leo is required to go through actual training. Yes, hands on physical force is acceptable for a physically resistant subject. When he starts to physically pull away or fight the force gets escalated to match his. If you physically resist me I will physically restrain you.
Quote:
33 years of being upheld does not make your point. The work of our forfathers allowed for the challenge of these courts by the citizens of this country, to try to keep the balance of power tilted toward the individual.
In 33 years of challenges it still stands. Our forefathers system still says it's legal.
Quote:
Let me ask you Borderdog, what is your take on the 4A. Do you think it should not apply at these check stations inside our border? Should it be left up to BP agents to interpret the 4A on a case by case basis? What does the 4A mean to you?
This is where I think your argument falls apart. You can't completely call a comparison of the second to the fourth an apples to apples comparison. The second unconditionally gives us the right to bear arms and specifically bans an infringement upon it. The fourth does not protect you from searches. It specifically protects you from unreasonable searches. The legal system has put in protections like the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, to protect agains unreasonable search. In modern times search law is based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Would a person of ordinary sense and understanding have an expectation of privacy. Would a reasonable person feel safe smoking a joint in his house? Yes. In his car? Probably not, at least not as safe. Walking in to a police checkpoint? Even an idiot would know better than that. The fourth amendment applies everywhere, but the courts have ruled, and I firmly believe no one with any common sense, would have any reasonable expectation of privacy at border patrol checkpoint.
The law which is the basis for the checkpoints pre-dates the bill of rights. It was put in place by the 1st congress. I think they would have changed some things if they intended the fourth amendment to cover checkpoints. So if your real question is do I think the fourth amendment somehow bans checkpoints the answer is absolutely not.
If a police agency is looking for an escaped murderer and they set up checkpoints on all roads leading away from the prison and search all vehicles for the fugitives are they wrong?
Nate
