Comments by "CheckpointUSA" (@CheckpointUSA) on "What Happens If You Don't Cooperate At Border Check Points?" video.

  1. I have to go through a checkpoint in Southern Arizona that's been setup along an East-West highway over 40 miles North of the border & never intersects it at any point. The checkpoint has been setup along the outskirts of a nearby town with stores that can be found on either side. That means people who live & commute in the area are indeed stopped, seized & interrogated by Border Patrol agents on a routine basis merely for engaging in daily activities like going to work, school, the store, etc.
    15
  2. Why would any self-respecting US citizen allow their 'guys and gals' to seize them absent individualized suspicion along public roads inside the country, interrogate them regarding unknown crimes & seek to search them absent probable cause? Just another example of ignorant authoritarians mouthing off against folks exercising the rights these agents are supposed to defend & respect.
    3
  3. Thanks for outing yourself as a foul-mouthed authoritarian punk with fantasies of violence Raymond. It's always good for other folks to see the mentality level of those who advocate for the suspicionless seizure, investigation and searching of others inside the country.
    2
  4. Bye, bye. Thanks for making it clear you have no ability to comprehend what you see, read & hear when the result is different from your pre-conceived notions.
    2
  5. If a terrorist or drug dealer slips by your Border Patrol it's because your Border Patrol was too busy harassing domestic traffic absent suspicion along public highways inside the country to do their job patrolling the actual border.
    2
  6. The funny thing about your ignorant statement USBP420 is that CBP was invited to the show to participate but declined. In fact, as far as I can tell everytime CBP has been invited to make a statement or appear to rebut the other side regarding this issue, it has declined. Not only that, everytime I've submitted FOIA requests to get CBP's official legal position regarding this issue, the agency has declined. Why is that USBP420? Could it be CBP has something to hide?
    2
  7. To which ppl are you referring Sherwin and where's your evidence to support your claim? Further, why would you even suppose that there would be a contradiction in such a position even if you were right? Do you think that any means are valid in order to meet a specific end?
    1
  8. Nice interview. Glad to see this issue getting more media attention.
    1
  9. Of course you're welcome to prove me wrong Bryce by quoting Mr. Loy exactly in this video where you claim he said you must answer questions, show ID, etc. I wont hold my breath though. It appears that you heard what you wanted to hear and not what he actually said.
    1
  10. That's what I thought. You can't actually debate your position on the merits so you resort to juvenile taunts & fantasies of violence against folks who lawfully and peacefully exercise their rights. Where's that Loy quote again where you claim he said answering questions and providing records were required by the CA Supreme Court at federal immigration checkpoints?
    1
  11. What part of the Border Patrol patrolling the border doesn't make sense to you? Where'd you get the silly idea that Border Patrol agents operating suspicionless checkpoints inside the country have the lawful authority to compel ID from the people they stop? Why would I call the police if I need assistance? How ignorant are you anyway?
    1
  12. Your comparison is invalid. Unlike international flights that pass over a national boundary, these checkpoints are not at the border or its functional equivalent. They are setup inside the country where the vast majority of traffic is domestic in nature. Do you really think it's appropriate to be seized by armed federal agents absent suspicion demanding that you answer their questions under threat of force every time you step out of your house to go to the nearest grocery store?
    1
  13. So you're legally impaired I see Bryce. No, you don't have to answer questions and no you don't have to show ID. At least you did get the part about searching right though. If you need practical examples of how this works in reality, feel free to watch the videos on my youtube channel.
    1
  14. Prove it? I prove it several times a week. Just watch the videos on my youtube channel as I go through checkpoint after checkpoint refusing to answer questions, refusing to go to secondary & refusing to cooperate. Besides, didn't you read the U.S. Supreme Court cite I included earlier? Are you too stupid to read or just too stupid to understand what it is you're reading? BTW, please let me know when the next time local cops setup a checkpoint like this. My attorney's could use some more work.
    1
  15. Are you really trying to claim that the elements of an alleged violation is not part of the law? Please tell me you're not that ignorant of basic legal issues. Please tell me you do in fact understand that if an authoritarian punk like you was to charge somebody with, let's say, obstruction of justice for not answering questions at a federal checkpoint, that one of the defenses available to the defendant would be whether the law requires people to answer questions at checkpoints to begin with.
    1
  16. Actually Michael they don't arrest them because it would be illegal to do so. You see in this country individuals have the right to remain silent while being seized & investigated by armed gov't agents. Why is it that you're unaware of this right?
    1
  17. Of course they mean something USBP420. If he ever gets you in a court of law regarding illegally detaining and/or searching someone at an internal checkpoint for exercising their right to remain silent you'll find out just how much his views and what he thinks matter.
    1
  18. And where did you get the silly notion that I ever claimed it's offensive to say you're American? What's offensive is being seized under threat of force by Border Patrol agents inside the country & not patrolling the border in order to be interrogated, investigated & searched absent individualized suspicion.
    1
  19. The 'law' is always interpretive which ultimately means it's everybody's opinion. Tell you what though. Try taking physical action against me the next time I go through one of these checkpoints while refusing to answer questions and you may just have a chance to find out for yourself whether or not they have conjugal visits in jail!
    1
  20. Why would you hope that? I wouldn't hope that for anyone. Nor would I be upset with someone exercising their rights while being seized in the lane of traffic absent suspicion. I'd be upset at the arrogant gov't agents holding up traffic to interrogate people absent suspicion under threat of force in the lane of traffic instead of doing their job patrolling the border.
    1
  21. Yep, your disagreement with SCOTUS's rulings is moot: U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte: "...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....& our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. "[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 882. None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations”
    1
  22. Silly boy. They use a records check if you give them a record. You are however under no legal obligation to provide them with one. If you need to see examples of this is reality, please feel free to watch my checkpoint videos on my youtube channel. You'll note in over 5 years of going through these checkpoints regularly, I've never answered questions and never provided the Border Patrol with any records to check. Feel free to quote that law that requires me to provide 'records' though.....
    1
  23. LOL, still can't admit that you either lied or completely misunderstood what Loy said about the legal requirement to answer questions or show ID at checkpoints like this. Thanks again however for making your fantasies of lethal violence against folks who disagree with you so obvious. What better way to show folks what's wrong with suspicionless roadblocks then the mentality of authoritarians like you who advocate for them?
    1
  24. The compromise to which you refer was worked out way back when the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution were drafted & signed. If these Border Patrol agents were actually trying to do their job, they'd be down on the border patrolling it instead of harassing domestic traffic inside the country absent suspicion. In other words Sherwin, this has everything to do with freedom & rights & nothing to do with hamstringing agents who can't find the border they're paid to patrol.
    1
  25. Speaking of case law: "Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior & reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation"
    1
  26. Where'd you ever get the silly idea that Border Patrol agents operating at internal checkpoints have the legal authority to indefinitely detain someone in order to establish their citizenship in the absence of probable cause to believe they are in the country illegally?
    1
  27. Feel free to visit my youtube channel and blog for answers to some of your questions.
    1
  28. Look at that. Another foul-mouthed authoritarian punk with fantasies of violence against folks who lawfully & peacefully exercise their rights while being seized by Border Patrol agents inside the country absent suspicion instead of doing their job patrolling the border
    1
  29. The fact that you don't understand this basic concept & the fact that you have fantasies of 'suicide by cop' against anyone who disagrees with you shows that you have no business wearing that uniform you're wearing in your photo, that you're anti-social & prone to violence, that you're a disgrace to the principles associated with that uniform you're wearing & that as a Canadian you're clearly clueless about roadblock issues in the United States.
    1
  30. Sherwin, you're an ignorant little authoritarian. Drug checkpoints, terrorist checkpoints & general law enforcement checkpoints inside the country are illegal. This is well established law & has been for decades. Just ask the Supreme Court and review City of Indianapolis V Edmond to get a clue.
    1
  31. As such Krankster83, the dumbest part are folks who don't understand what's happening, don't understand where it's happening, don't understand why it's happening yet feel compelled to criticize others who have to endure it every day. Border Patrol should be on the border, patrolling it. Not harassing domestic traffic inside the country. Why you think armed federal agents should be able to seize & interrogate people absent suspicion along America's streets is beyond me.
    1
  32. If that's what you mean by stating the law is not open for debate, then you're dumber than I thought. What you should have said is the charges are not open for debate since the charges brought against somebody are a matter of fact, not a matter of law. The law however is exactly what's being debated when one goes to court. Specifically, what the law says, what the law means, what facts show evidence of a violation of the law, whether or not the law applies to a fact set, etc.
    1
  33. BTW Sherwin, Border Patrol agents don't have the same power as local & state police. They have far less power: "Border Patrol agents have no part in enforcing laws that regulate highway use, & their activities have nothing to do with an inquiry whether motorists & their vehicles are entitled, by virtue of compliance with laws governing highway usage, to be upon the public highways.” - U.S. V Brignoni-Ponce
    1
  34. You may want to go back & listen again. California's Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to consider the legal requirements for immigration stops since immigration stops are a federal function. All references to a supreme court in this video were to the federal supreme court, not the state's. Also, at no point in this video did Loy claim individuals had to answer questions, show ID absent reasonable suspicion or cooperate. In fact, just the opposite. Sorry, but you're just wrong :)
    1
  35. Who's the 'we' you keep referring to daflyinhawaiian2? Were you somehow voted spokesperson for every individual in this country or are you under the mistaken impression that this is North Korea where the gov't thinks it can compel everyone to preach the party line?
    1
  36. If the law was the law as you claim, there wouldn't be much need for a court system with attorneys, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, juries, etc now would there Bryce. What do you think all these people do anyway if not bring their particular opinion of the law to the table? BTW, I'm still waiting for those Loy quotes where you claim he said answering questions and showing ID were required. What's the matter? Are you hard of hearing or just incapable of understanding what you see & read?
    1