• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Little Lady takes on the law AND WINS

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I started to put this in the Constitution Sub-Forum, but thought it would go better here. The link is to LiveLeak, and the video is just shy of 15 minutes.

It's well worth the time to watch this young lady take on a whole bunch of Immigration Officers at a check point. She doesn't back down, at all. Even when the big bad supervisor shows up and tries real hard to intimidate her.

LiveLeak.com - Border check point officer vs young woman in car..'it's none of your business'
 
She had crossed the border and was already in the US right? I don't understand why they couldn't detain her if they thought she might be hiding something illegal in the bins.
 
She had crossed the border and was already in the US right? I don't understand why they couldn't detain her if they thought she might be hiding something illegal in the bins.

I heard about this and went looking for it. She was about 20 miles from the border at a random check point. And no, she wasn't coming from the border.
 
I heard about this and went looking for it. She was about 20 miles from the border at a random check point. And no, she wasn't coming from the border.
I could be wrong but thought I heard her say she just came from Nogales. The bins did look kind of suspicious and at one point the border patrol guy said he wanted to check for criminal activity. ?

The video got over 3,000 comments. lol A lot of commentors seemed to think she was in the wrong. One even cited a court ruling. Others liked her resistance. I dunno, was she right or was she wrong?
 
Last edited:
She had crossed the border and was already in the US right? I don't understand why they couldn't detain her if they thought she might be hiding something illegal in the bins.

Do you know the fourth amendment?

She was already in the country. They needed to stop her at the border. Not miles inside, without probable cause.

What is their probable cause?
 
Do you know the fourth amendment?

She was already in the country. They needed to stop her at the border. Not miles inside, without probable cause.

What is their probable cause?

Since when do the police need probable cause? There's no probable cause at a DUI check point either and we have those all over the place. The police need not follow any rules.
 
Do you know the fourth amendment?

She was already in the country. They needed to stop her at the border. Not miles inside, without probable cause.

What is their probable cause?

Stops by police require reasonable suspicion not probable cause. That is a significantly lower standard.

Assuming it's a border checkpoint or one of the border patrol fixed checkpoints (the ones they have miles from the border) they don't even need reasonable suspicion to detain a person.

The woman is right that they cannot search her car without probable cause or her consent.

I only watched the first few minutes and cannot for the life of me understand why she wouldn't just pull out of traffic. The BP was completely within it's rights to have her get out of they way of traffic while it conducted the stop. She could have been arrested for that.
 
Since when do the police need probable cause? There's no probable cause at a DUI check point either and we have those all over the place. The police need not follow any rules.

Sobriety checkpoints are Constitutional. The SC ruled on it a couple of decades ago.
 
Since when do the police need probable cause?

For as long as there have been police in America...

There's no probable cause at a DUI check point either and we have those all over the place.

Strictly speaking, they are not legal, pay attention to the language at your next checkstop and the way they talk is to gather your consent for a search.

The police need not follow any rules.

Some would argue they have a stronger set of rules... Just they get ignored many times unless you demand that your rights be respected; other times (without discounting the good officers) cops are criminals with a fancy uniform.
 
Sobriety checkpoints are Constitutional. The SC ruled on it a couple of decades ago.

Has nothing to do with what I said, but thanks for the aside. Yes, the SCOTUS often expands the powers of the government without actual cause; well known. What's next? Sky is blue? Gravity attracts massive objects? Moon is a satellite of the Earth?
 
For as long as there have been police in America...



Strictly speaking, they are not legal, pay attention to the language at your next checkstop and the way they talk is to gather your consent for a search.



Some would argue they have a stronger set of rules... Just they get ignored many times unless you demand that your rights be respected; other times (without discounting the good officers) cops are criminals with a fancy uniform.

I would love it if the police were actually constrained to any of the "rules", but in reality they act with pretty much reckless abandon. There's a large number of good cops, but so long as they keep sticking up for the bad ones then we cannot take any as honest and good.
 
I don't have a problem with how officers handled this. They have their job to do too and seemed to act professionally under the situation.

We were detained for over 2 hours at a checkpoint when they wanted to see the inside of a VERY tough old safe I had in a trailer for which I didn't have the combination. Those officers also were polite. We did not put up a protest as she did and those officers also tried all sorts of bluffs, but finally did let us go on our way.

Why I say they acted professionally is not only did they not lose their cool, but they didn't fake that the dog hit on the car, which of course any officer could have just lied and said it had, thus "justifying" a search.

I wouldn't call her a hero, but she stood her ground and that is respectable. I don't see this incident as significant.
 
Stops by police require reasonable suspicion not probable cause. That is a significantly lower standard.

Assuming it's a border checkpoint or one of the border patrol fixed checkpoints (the ones they have miles from the border) they don't even need reasonable suspicion to detain a person.

The woman is right that they cannot search her car without probable cause or her consent.

I only watched the first few minutes and cannot for the life of me understand why she wouldn't just pull out of traffic. The BP was completely within it's rights to have her get out of they way of traffic while it conducted the stop. She could have been arrested for that.

Are you sure you're a libertarian?
 
Sobriety checkpoints are Constitutional. The SC ruled on it a couple of decades ago.
They don't include asking a person to wait while their plates are run. What I didn't understand is 11 minutes into the video, they claimed not to have the information running the car yet. That's a total lie. Motorolla is fast... Any law enforcement has immediate access to the car owners license plate data, almost instantaneously. MDT's (mobile data terminals) have been used in police cars for more than 20 years. You can be certain they had a terminal with fast information there.
 
I would love it if the police were actually constrained to any of the "rules", but in reality they act with pretty much reckless abandon. There's a large number of good cops, but so long as they keep sticking up for the bad ones then we cannot take any as honest and good.

That's the same think I say as well. The good police need to help weed out the bad ones. There are few things I hate more than people who abuse the authority they have.
 
She's being a tool just to be a tool. We've been through those checkpoints before, and if they asked to check our ''bins'' (If we had them) I would not act all indignant like that!
 
I would love it if the police were actually constrained to any of the "rules", but in reality they act with pretty much reckless abandon. There's a large number of good cops, but so long as they keep sticking up for the bad ones then we cannot take any as honest and good.

Really, you can't take any cop as honest and good? Way to hate a group.
 
Really, you can't take any cop as honest and good? Way to hate a group.

It's not "way to hate a group", it's just statistics. There are bad cops and bad cops are generally bad for your well being should you run across one. You cannot tell which ones are bad and which ones are good because even the good cops stick up for the bad cops. Ergo, it's just intelligent forethought to consider any cop as bad unless proven otherwise. Duh.
 
It's not "way to hate a group", it's just statistics. There are bad cops and bad cops are generally bad for your well being should you run across one. You cannot tell which ones are bad and which ones are good because even the good cops stick up for the bad cops. Ergo, it's just intelligent forethought to consider any cop as bad unless proven otherwise. Duh.

Bad cops are prosecuted. You're judging (demonizing) an entire group based on your own paranoia.
 
Bad cops are prosecuted. You're judging (demonizing) an entire group based on your own paranoia.

Bad cops are not prosecuted. Rarely are cops punished less what they did becomes public, like a video getting out. I'm not saying all cops are bad, I know quite a few are good. I'm saying that since I cannot tell good cop from bad cop, it is best to assume the cop is bad until proven otherwise.

I think perhaps you should let go of your hysteria here.
 
Bad cops are not prosecuted. Rarely are cops punished less what they did becomes public, like a video getting out.


police-brutality-infographic.jpg



I'm not saying all cops are bad, I know quite a few are good. I'm saying that since I cannot tell good cop from bad cop, it is best to assume the cop is bad until proven otherwise.

To how many groups to you attach this 'guilty until proven innocent' standard.

I think perhaps you should let go of your hysteria here.

I'm not the one bashing cops at a bizarre level. Let's not pretend that anything I've said is unusual or uncommon. I've provided referenced data. You however, have some posts that are, let's say, 'off the wall' paranoid and anti-cop.

I don't think you can produce a video for each of the convictions, above, so how about you turn down the cop-hate just a little.
 

So yay, of those REPORTED, 33% are convicted. That's a great stat. Oh wait, it's not.

To how many groups to you attach this 'guilty until proven innocent' standard.

Pretty much the whole of government

I'm not the one bashing cops at a bizarre level. Let's not pretend that anything I've said is unusual or uncommon. I've provided referenced data. You however, have some posts that are, let's say, 'off the wall' paranoid and anti-cop.

I don't think you can produce a video for each of the convictions, above, so how about you turn down the cop-hate just a little.

It's not on a weird level. Cops protect cops all the time, it ain't nothing new. Good cops protect the bad cops and we as citizens have no idea which individual cop is good or bad. As such it is best to take them as bad cops until proven otherwise. It's not cop hate, it's just rational logic.
 
It's not on a weird level. Cops protect cops all the time, it ain't nothing new. Good cops protect the bad cops and we as citizens have no idea which individual cop is good or bad. As such it is best to take them as bad cops until proven otherwise. It's not cop hate, it's just rational logic.

There are more good cops than bad. Pretending otherwise is irrational.
 
There are more good cops than bad. Pretending otherwise is irrational.

I didn't say there weren't. I said because the good will protect the bad, because there is little policing of the police, we don't know which ones are good and which ones are bad. Considering the pitfalls of encountering the bad cop, it is best to assume they are bad until proven otherwise.

Man...it's like reading isn't your thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom