This guy has the right response.

This guy has the right response.

Google+: Reshared 100 times
Google+: View post on Google+


  1. Grant Lewis says:

    One the one hand, I agree.  Every now and again it's right and necessary to challenge authority especially when they are abusing their powers.  In this case, obviously the checkpoints weren't actually necessary or he wouldn't have been allowed to pass through without detention.

    On the other hand, if this person were really in such a rush, isn't it quicker and easier to just answer the questions and move on?  Every checkpoint I've been through it's maybe 30secs-1min to answer a couple of questions and get waved through. This person was held up 2-3mins at each stop and ended up talking to two different people each time.

  2. Chris George says:

    +Grant Lewis What about the principle?

    He is within his rights. They have no legitimate right to stop people and ask the question.

    How would you feel if the local drug gang setup a check point to screen people coming into and out of their neighborhood of control? Would they have any less authority? Any less right to stop people?

    What makes one illegitimate authority better than another? The size of the gun?

  3. Grant Lewis says:

    +Chris George I am not arguing with you here.  As I said, obviously the checkpoints were superfluous as he was allowed to continue.

    However, if it were a valid checkpoint, such as if the police were looking for an escaped convict or had knowledge of some sort of crime being committed OTR, then he wouldn't have been allowed to continue uncontested.

    So in this case, he did the right thing.  Checkpoints just for the sake of checkpoints are wrong and need to be challenged.

  4. James Doud says:

    While it is true that they have no right to stop people within the borders of the US, extenuating circumstances aside, most people would not know this, and would comply with their demands as they are usually unaware of their rights as well.  The truth is these people are not aware of the rights either, they didn't just get together and decide to make a check point, they were given an order.  When something is outside that order, they have a standard operating procedure they are given to follow.  The officer does not know this person is not an illegal person.  However it is not allowed to post these types of checkpoints beyond the borders.  As of this time it is not legal to stop intrastate traffic for the purposes of citizenship.  

    If he did not have the camera he most likely would not have been allowed to go through the check points without due process.  The bigger question is how can these officers of the law stand there and violate the rights of citizens in the name of following orders.  They have a primary order that if the orders they are given are not within the rights of the greater order of our bill of rights, then they compelled to not carry out those orders, and in fact make this known to their superior officers up to and including the President.

    So far we do not have these check points in NY State where I am, but if they did, I would react exactly the same, if not more so.  Remember though that it was the camera that protected his rights.  No record of the event, no event.

  5. James Doud says:

    +Grant Lewis At a legitimate check point stop for extenuating circumstances, they are still not allowed to call into question your citizenship.  They can inquire to your home and ID as far as your drivers license, but they cannot question your citizenship.  You do not need a passport or proof of your citizenship within the borders of the US.  It is implied, that you are a legal person within the borders.  It is a secondary offence, they cannot question it as a primary objective.  If they were seek a fugitive, they would have to have specific parameters, and if the person did not fit those parameters, they can not be detained for further questioning.  Illegal search and seizure, we have a right to representation in any case where our legitimate rights as a citizen are called into question.

  6. Raz Veja says:

    really proud of this guy for exercising his rights. I could see myself being pretty pissed about one car holding up traffic longer than necessary, but if I had knowledge of what was happening, I absolutely would back him up and do the same.
    I have never seen random checkpoints within US borders, but I imagine that most people simply allow themselves to be asked such questions because they have no knowledge of their rights.
    +James Doud as for due process, that applies to crimes, and I would certainly bring up the question, "have I committed some sort of crime to allow you to stop me like this?" I agree that the camera may have been helpful. it's extremely disturbing that we have to safeguard ourselves in such a way.

  7. Mark Alberto Yoder Nunez says:

    Yeah! Stick up for your rights, baby!  Why are there more and more cops and why do they look more and more like pigs!  Mormon nepotism must be working!  Get them a good paying job that other people wish they had and have them making babies as soon as they turn 18 although the wives could be younger with parental permission.  Good way to create baby making jobs in the middle of a world-wide depression to increase the membership of the church!

  8. MJ Ricard says:

    This is all about conditioning the American people to passively accept increasing oppression. The emperor has no clothes when one man says, "Is this not America where we have rights and freedoms as Americans?"

  9. Max Huijgen says:

    Interesting debate as without it I wouldn´t have known that in the US you can get away with it. So although it shows the scary checkpoints, it´s good to learn that you´re not obliged to proof your citizenship. 

  10. MJ Ricard says:

    They want one of two reactions: fear and therefore submission as sheeple or an emotional rejection so they can physically subdue and make a public show of what happens to those who refuse the new order.

    They are at a loss if you stay composed and assert your rights as an American citizen. Note how nonplussed they become. 

  11. Eric Maki says:

    Where in the US is this?

  12. MJ Ricard says:

    As it says on the YouTube page: Westbound I-8 in Southern California (an East-West highway that NEVER intersects the international border).

  13. Eric Maki says:

    Thanks +MJ Ricard 

  14. Max Huijgen says:

    I shared this post a few hours ago and there is a lively debate there as well guys. Maybe you want to chime in. 

  15. Denny Sanders says:

    This guy has big brass balls!

  16. jayson mccarter says:

    The obvious reason is to simply ask if you are a legal citizen….why? Because our illegal immigrant population is out if control. So how do you ask, how do you check, how does an authority figure out if your allowed to be here or not? Our government issues us various forms of identification correct? Why is it wrong to ask for it? You have to produce it to buy beer or cigarettes…or do you all believe that doing that is a violation of your right too? What about sobriety checkpoints? Being pulled over for doing nothing wrong…omg what a travesty! It increases public awareness and safety, and pulls people off the road that shouldn't be on it…to live in harmony with other law abiding CITIZENS safely…that's what

  17. william kaetzel says:

    Those checkpts are on major drug traffiking corridors. I live on the other side of them and if I want to go north must go thru them. They are designed to slow traffic so dogs can get a scent.

  18. jayson mccarter says:

    The world is full of problems and you want government to help solve them….but you don't want to let them try…..i hope a drunk illegal immigrant runs you over after he was selling drugs in plain site at the entrance of a home depot where his friends were going out to work for cash without paying taxes on their income…only to find out that there were several officers watching it all happen and couldn't do anything about it because they couldn't even go up to the guy and ask if he was a citizen…i mean, that would be
    a violation of his rights if he WERE a citizen right?

  19. jayson mccarter says:

    I mean…he could have been selling small white bags of cornstarch perfectly legally…an officer has no right to ask….cause if it WAS cornstarch then his rights would have been violated…..

  20. jayson mccarter says:

    I'd line to see the guy in this video explain how he feels to an officer that puts his life in harms way to protect him for danger….and would do THAT without asking if your a citizen.. or ask you for id…..

  21. Heidi Gonzalez says:

    Anyone know what state he was in? Those officers and their supervisors should have known that their checkpoints were illegal. when citizens arent allowed to question police or are detained illegally we are no longer free. Im sure this man would be greatful to any police officer who lawfully protected him and his rights but when power is corrupted we lose faith in the system. Not to mention he was correct – which is why he was allowed to go – its sad that the officers all had to call supervisors to realize he was within his rights.

  22. Christopher Trenholm says:

    people argue with cops like they argue with telemarketers –  you think you're the first one to act like a smart ass?   no..      you think you're the first to tell them to fuck off?  not even the first one of the hour…

    if you're a shithead – they'll hold your ass up allllll day long happily.   :)

  23. Paul Hickey says:

    In Florida by fishing, one is often required to prove that they hold a license to be fishing. Not a problem however, the officers have also assumed the right to inspect your coolers, buckets and gear with no probable cause, even your car to see if you may have broken any regulations. You are presumed guilty and therefore have to prove your innocence while standing on a bridge or shoreline participating in a lawful activity.

  24. Sierra Bardas says:

    This is BS. Indirectly he answered the question every time. Show that you have some balls and drive through without answering. He's a wuss & the cops are lazy, what a way to show how awesome a country is.

  25. Maurice Johnson says:

    I dont see how he remained so calm…..I was getting irritated just watching this video clip…..there are days I hate what america has become…we have lost so many freedoms and rights….yet to speak of such…no one either seems to care or wants to hear it…..

  26. Chris Hamer says:

    I agree with exercising your rights but I think that guy was out looking for trouble. Why would he have a video camera ready with him on the front seat?!

  27. timothy crump says:

    This is funny! Being that I'm a truck driver and I go thru these a lot. Lol

  28. Maurice Johnson says:

    Because he wanted to capture the ridiculous america has become….it could be perceived as looking for trouble;however someone has to stand up for our freedoms…..the freedoms you seem to enjoy

  29. Brett Carpenter says:

    Good stuff. Law enforcement agencies sometimes forget that they are interfering with our freedoms when they do things like this. A good lesson for them and an all americans.

  30. william kaetzel says:

    yuma/san diego area.  I am torn on this issue.  We have what is called a Bill of Rights which the govt wants us not to know.  This guy has every right to do what he did.  Supposedly, we are to innocent until proven guilty but in most cases that is just not the case.  Now on the other hand, these guys are doing a job and it is a simple question.  Its not like these CPs are in the middle of the country.  They are mostly located in states that border Mexico.  i don't know if anybody pays attention to the news or whats going on down south but there is a little thing called a drug war.  So these things are set up to impede traffiking of drugs and terrorists and illegal aliens.  They have their benefit. 

  31. Zee Masai says:

    I agree with the first post. He stayed longer at each check point because he wanted to be an ass. It would have been easier and faster just to answer the stupid questions. Now what if they were looking for a kidnapped person or a fugitive and they did not have these checkpoints set up. First thing someone wants to say is the police aren't doing anything. Plus if I was the officer he would have been there for at least 4 minutes.

  32. Vivian Morris says:

    Look this county has absolutely gone way out of control. There are cameras everywhere now. We can't say or do anything without or being video or recorded. Then the government tells you what to do any more. It's really a shame.
    There are some decent cops out there trying to do a good job, but like the test of us we all have to follow the people above us!!

  33. Maurice Johnson says:

    zee….unfortunately that perspective is what is wrong with america and why citizens continue to lose those inalienable rights we were granted so long ago…..so we invariably have you and those like you to thank for your such loses…

  34. Heidi Gonzalez says:

    It may have been easier to answer the questions but they had no right to ask them – if they were looking for a fugitive or a missing person they wouldnt have asked him if he was a US citizen.

  35. Fanny Cruz says:

    This guy is great,jajajaja

  36. Zee Masai says:

    What is wrong with this so called free country is that no matter what people think of the police or their actions. Their actions are always going to be wrong. Those officers were doing their job. They weren't just at those checkpoints just because. A lot of civilians want to assholes to an authority figure but then turn around and call on the authority figure when in need. That dude was just being an ass. Like I said, he could have just answered the questions and been on his marry way. Oh yeah don't forget that he was going to be a premeditated ass before he hit the road as he started rolling with the camera.

  37. Mariano Torres says:

    That was epic.

  38. Vivian Morris says:

    If they ask if he was U.S. Citizen that would be profiling.

  39. Zee Masai says:

    What if he asked if he were human. Would that be profiling also?

  40. Vivian Morris says:

    No but that's what everyone else would say. I'm not thinking that. Look babe I agree with what you said a few mins. ago. The cops are just trying to do there job, and here comes along some idiot that just wants to make a youtube video.

  41. j kleine says:

    Two wrongs do not make a right

  42. Heidi Gonzalez says:

    Do you not see the parallel to Nazi Germany? Geez people if no one stands up and says this is wrong just because its easier whats next? Look what is going on in Arizona where they passed a law that says police can stop you if they "think" you may be illegal. WTF? Talk about profiling! If we dont stand up and say no then when things get worse we have no reason to bitch – cops have a hard job but they still have laws they have to follow just like the rest of us and these stops were illegal!

  43. Greg Copeland says:

    Papers please scene from Casablanca

    People don't seem to understand, "papers please" is literally synonymous with tyranny and its unconstitutional. No good has ever come from the words, "papers please."

  44. Heidi Gonzalez says:

    I also dont see why people are saying what he did was wrong – he was exercising his rights – thats not wrong – the cops were wrong. He was also being very calm about the whole thing.

  45. Jakin Avergonzado says:

    Answering the question would be a compromise on his principles. The world needs more man like this who will stand up for what is right.

  46. Zee Masai says:

    Well get use to the new America order because anything you do in USA you need "papers". That's why you have a drivers license or state ID.

  47. Heidi Gonzalez says:

    Theybdidnt ask for his license they asked if he was a citizen

  48. Greg Copeland says:

    I suspect many young people don't understand the "Nazi" reference. Many people over time questioned how the people ever allowed them into power.

    Look how many people defend the police and question a citizen's constitutional protections. Passive compliance, ignorance and fear are what empowered the nazis.

    The same people who do not support this man are the same people who empowered the nazis.

    Think about it.

  49. Chris George says:

    6% of the German middle class opposed the Nazis prior to the outbreak of war. Most of them went on to populate the camps. +Greg Copeland If even an additional 4% had spoken up before the war it is likely that the Nazis would have not been able to retain power.

    Quiet, respectful complicity in atrocity because we have been conditioned to never question authority.

  50. Shane Neufeld says:

    This guy is a hero. We need more people like him.

  51. Zee Masai says:

    If that's your idea of a hero. Hope is lost. :-)

  52. Jimmy Watkins says:

    constitution has been violated. share this post.

  53. Brian Titus says:

    He did what 99% of people in that situation (including myself) would be afraid to do. Maybe hero isn't the right word (it's lost most of its meaning anyway), but he should be commended for simply saying "no thank you" to their request.

  54. Greg Copeland says:

    +Brian Titus A hero is someone who is afaid to do something for someone else and does it anyways. I'd say he fits the definition.

  55. Shane Neufeld says:

    +Zee Masai He IS my idea of one kind of hero. (and I'm not sure what makes you think that any opinion of mine could result in a loss of hope)

    Is a person who stands up to injustice not a hero? Is defending the freedom of innocent law-abiding citizens not heroic?

    If there were more people like this man, the checkpoints would not exist.

  56. JaMaZz Jackson says:

    That's exactly how everyone should react. You can't have them go on like this … nazi germany once happened because of such state oppression, manipulation and not questioning authority!
    It all starts slowly until you realize it's too late – freedom gets limited, laws are passed, up to the point where the state has more power over the people than the people over the state – it's getting out of hand already … 

  57. JaMaZz Jackson says:

    and of course it happened because evil leaders knew how to exploit a flawed system … so, who's your leaders ?
    Not Obama … ? so who's leading this country anyway ? Ask yourself …

  58. william kaetzel says:

    +Heidi Gonzalez do you live in AZ? Do you wait in E-rooms waiting for care? Have you had loved ones kidnapped by cartels and taken across the border? Get the facts first before making a dumb comment such as yours. An illegal alien is just that*illegal*! They are people yes I do not argue that but they sap the system and reap what they do not pay into. You obviously don't live in AZ and do not know what its like.

  59. Marco Antonio Guerrero Jr. says:


  60. Mark Liederbach says:

    My metaphoric hat's off to him

  61. Heidi Gonzalez says:

    William I dont have to live in AZ to know that police cant identify illegals on sight – and asking everyone they suspect of being illegal will lead to racial profiling and its wrong. I do agree people should be here legally. As for them sapping the system im not sure im completely with you on that one since most of the time they are taking jobs most Americans think are beneath them. – and whats with the being kidnaped by cartels comment? They werent looking for kidnap victims! They were illegally detaining people and asking if they were citizens- THATS ILLEGAL in most states!

  62. Heidi Gonzalez says:

    Oh and my comment wasnt dumb it was my opinion, just because yours is different doesnt make mine stupid.

  63. Amy Flores says:

    They do these check points in Texas too and Arizona.

  64. Rosa Resendez says:

    Every emergency room requires you to wait; I'm sure they're not filled by the Mexicans being treated and stealing treatment from those other humans that need it more. Mexicans aren't the only cartels that kidnap people. And to be honest I haven't been stopped in southern Arizona in a multitude of check points. And before you say I don't know, I lived in Yuma, AZ and southern California, I sure do know how human rights don't extend to those of olive and brown skins in the south regardless where you were born. I've traveled to see my father three times a year and no matter what direction you go you get stopped in southern California, whether they're justified or not they ask the same questions, where are you coming from, is this your car and what is your citizenship? I made it a point to carry my passport card everywhere I go because a drivers license alone doesn't mean much if the authorities decide they need to meet a quota. I'm not an anti- authority type of person, but unless you're some shade of brown one does not know the extra precaution one needs to make before they leave their home. This is clearly a human rights violation.

  65. James Doud says:

    After reading the stream of comments, I am reminded that apparently there is a serious dis-connection between the rights of individuals and the rights of the State.

    The officers were not in the wrong, there was nothing they were doing that was wrong, in that they were following the orders of their superiors, who were following orders as well.  The check point by the rights of the State was legitimate, and purposeful.  That however does not make it justifiable.

    Infringement of an individual's rights over the rights of the State is a very slippery slope.  Once this is accepted by a majority, it becomes a precedent that may not be easily debated.  That there are so many opinions on the subject is good for now.  At some point however, the decision has to be made if such actions by the State are justifiable against the rights of the individual.

    One must keep in mind that the United States up until recently had no illegal immigrants, as everyone was an immigrant.  So, to answer those that concern themselves with criminals coming over the border, you ancestors did that, with impunity, and most of them were involved in some sort of criminal activity.

    My family is Irish, and we came off the boat in NY and many of us immediately were pressed into service for the activities of the Irish gangs.  Some were detained while they were provided with citizenship, but the vast majority were kicked off the boat and sent on their way, after everything they had brought with them was confiscated  by the local authority.

    Ah, but that was in the old days, when the west was still part of Mexico.  Least we forget that until relatively recently most of Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, California, and the rest of the south west, was all part of Mexico.  We took that away from them, and called it ours because we had more soldiers and were willing to kill more Mexicans than they could kill "Americans".  That was then, this is now, and we are not them.

    Security is a two edged sword, it comes at the price of freedom.  When we ask the State to protect our freedoms, we are asking them to take them away from us.  When we ask of the State, we are giving up our individual rights in exchange for the rights of the State over the individual.

    The officer's job is hard enough without citizen's giving them a hard time, although that does not give them the right to detain an individual without just cause.  They can not search your car without a search warrant, period.  As for the federal agents (DEC officers) who can request that you produce a licence for fishing, they can ask that, however they cannot search your cooler, your car, or anything else, without just cause.  Suspicion of criminal activity is not sufficient cause, generally they need evidence.  Security officers of any type must have the same set of rules that govern them, they often do not.  The US Military cannot be used within the borders of the US, did you know this.  They can be used for humanitarian  orders, however they cannot carry out military action against the citizens.

    Yes the need for means to find criminals is something that is difficult to do within a free country, and within the limits of a government that protects the rights of citizens.  Yes it is difficult, and it should be.  Security is reactive by design, it is not active, and that may not sit well with some people, but that is how it must be if we are to have any of the freedoms that most people take for granted.  An officer of the law cannot enter my home just because he thinks there is a crime occurring, he must have justification.  He cannot shoot someone just because he thought they might have been a danger to someone.  It happens, and thankfully it is rare, but it must not happen without certain amounts of due process afterwards to ensure that the rights of the individual have not been violated.

    Every citizen and illegal alien have the right to exist without impedance within the borders of the United States of America.  Since we do not know who is illegal and who isn't those given the task of finding this, must be given the tools needed to do their job, but not at the expense of the individual rights.  Just because you carry a gun does not make you a criminal.  You can be questioned, and by all rights, you can refuse to comply, this is your right.  Under certain circumstances the authorities have the right to verify your rights, such as a pistol permit, or fishing license, but once they have done so that is where their authority ends.  However this is a secondary offence, they cannot assume you have a pistol or are going fishing, so therefore they cannot require you to produce those documents unless you display the need for such actions as by their own penal codes.  In fact if you are wearing a pistol in plain site, it is assumed by the law that you do have a permit to carry, and so therefore unless you are using said weapon in a manor that is indicating illegal activity it is also assumed you are not a criminal, and should not be unnecessarily questioned.  We have a right to bear arms, we do not have the right to use that weapon to harm another individual who is not threatening our welfare or that of our children.  Every local police officer should be well versed in the local penal codes, as that is what they do, enforce the penal codes, which vary from place to place, although they cannot be far from our federal codes.

    Further local officers have even less rights, as they are what is technically known as peace officers, and not police officers.  The States of the United States of America each have the right to authorize a security force, however they are under the code of local militia laws, and have less power than the Sheriffs.  The Sheriffs are part of the Federal Marshall Act, and are officers of the Federal government, although they are operated at the local level.  They operate under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and although they do not usually know this themselves, they must uphold those rights over their own.

    The simple act of this video is a lesson is civics, that is sorely needed.  Yes we need the security of the officers, however it must not come at the cost of the individual's freedoms.  Border patrols are necessary because of the "War of Drugs" which is a economic war, that uses tactics that often violate constitutional laws.  This great experiment in civics, the United States of America is working its way through many different test of our rights, and our desire for security and other services from a government that grants us our demands through the acts of legislative action.  When we exercise our rights, no one is in the wrong, for each individual was exercising their rights.

    In this example, the driver was exercising his rights as an individual, and the officers were exercising their duties as representatives of the security force the individual has asked the State to provide.  Sometimes we ask the State for things through inaction and not always through direct interaction.  This was a case of the later not the former.

  66. James Doud says:

    +Rosa Resendez My family were immigrants, and they were for a long time considered very low.  They still are in many places, as I still have family in Ireland, who still work for the Brits, and are considered less than citizens, although in truth, they have been in Britannia longer than the Brits themselves.  It is even worse in other areas.

    It is not like slavery doesn't still go on, it does.  Children are abducted all the time, for various reasons.  Woman are oppressed in many countries.  Race is still an issue even in some areas considered civilized.

    Humans in general are a fickle lot, with our desires and wants often ahead of our needs and duties.  As far as we have come in this journey as a species we have still not accomplished simple compassion and understanding of our fellow humans, regardless of differences of opinion or otherwise.  We get hung up on religion, race, sex, occupation, status, nationality, and the list goes on.  We are on a single globe, floating in a vast and diversified universe, which cares not for us, although it gave us all that we need to survive and thrive, if we but chose wisely.

  67. James Doud says:

    +Chris George Did you think this would spark such a debate?  I congratulate you on providing such a forum for debate on a subject that often is left for the professional debaters, the politicians, to consider.

  68. Chris George says:

     +James Doud These are the topics that need to be discussed and debated on a daily basis by the citizens of every country in this world. Consumers may not have the time to recognize the threat to their freedom and they surely do not care much as long as the goodies keep flowing, but citizens do not have the luxury of ignorance.

     We are approaching a very dangerous time. The economic implosion is threatening people's entitlements and cranky billionaires tend to manipulate things to their advantage when they begin to lose theirs. War on the international front and oppression at home is their usual answer when things start to not go their way. This person acted like a citizen.

    He knew his rights and he stuck to them.

  69. Zee Masai says:

    Freedom is never free.  You are going to always pay in some form, shape or fashion to have freedom.  To have freedom to do this you will have to give up that.  Unfortunately that is how the U.S. is.  For a soldier to protect for freedom a soldier has to give up his.  That why the term "sign your life away" is heard when you enlist.  For the people who don't want the so called illegal aliens in this country, you have to give up another freedom.  Which in this video, the right to drive through the country without being stopped and asked what country do you belong to.  How else is the government going to find out who is an illegal alien or who is with the drug cartel that has drugs or weapons on them that are just floating down the road to your local near by elementary school.  That last part was sarcastic.  There is always going to be some enforcement or hiccup that somebody don't like.  That is the way of the world.  Hell, the government keep the civilians in check and the civilians keep the government in check.  Gotta love this country.

  70. Scott Wolf says:

    +Denny Sanders The United States Constitution, and your Bill of Rights give you and everyone brass balls. As outlined in these documents you have the sole right to travel unimpeded and unrestricted on our nations highways. You never have to prove your citizenship by arbitrary confrontation, only in an instance where you are applying for something that requires proof of your citizenship to process the application. I wish more people would read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. These documents empower you to thwart oppression.

    Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

  71. MJ Ricard says:

    Perfectly state, +Scott Wolf

  72. Denny Sanders says:

    Thank you Scott Wolf. Very well said!

  73. Anneke Dubash says:

    I have had occasion to pass through a number of road blocks for various things… RIDE programs (checking for drunk drivers, when the police are searching for missing persons, and when they are stopping passing vehicles after a crime to canvas for witnesses. In all cases, the police state why they have been conducting the roadblock/vehicle stops. In those cases, I have been asked certain information "Where are you coming from tonight? Have you had anything to drink?" "Do n this road on such and such a night?|you travel this road frequently?" "Were you on the road on such and such a night?", etc.

    I know my rights and would refuse if the police didn't explain why they were stopping me or if they demanded ID without showing cause.

    Doing things because "it is easier" when it is illegal is exactly how citizens become complacent and when the danger is that citizens are going to become more complacent to more and more egregious violations of their rights.

    Of course, there is the often repeated "it is in the greater good". The greater good NEVER is served by infringing on the rights of any citizen, whether we are in agreement with their beliefs or their behaviour, their politics or the don't like the colour of their skin or who they sleep with.

    We like to believe that in Canada or the US our police, military, or governments or, for that matter, any group within our countries would be able to take away our rights in the same way that the governments or Myanmar, Syria, the USSR or Nazi Germany do or have done in the past. The fact is that whether the right is taken by force or whittled away by complacency or given away "for the common good" it isn't going to matter.

  74. Anneke Dubash says:

    I am not sure how this is the result of the federal government, specifically, of Obama. The states are the ones making laws and putting their state police out on the roads stopping people based on the colour of their skin. Arizona is doing it. California (obviously from the video) is doing it. Unless and until someone challenges the laws in the Supreme Court or citizens stand up and say to their state legislators "this must stop" it is going to continue.

    Seriously, I am Canadian and know more about who is directly challenging the constitutional rights of American citizens than some American citizens do. I appear to know more about your rights as a citizen than some of the commenters here.

    IF the fault lies at all with the federal government, it predates Obama and is a trend started by Nixon and Reagan and carried on by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (mostly the latter) in establishing the Department of Homeland Security which Americans barely looked sideways at.

    You have made your beds and unless you are willing to change the covers you are going to have to lie in it.

    Meanwhile, Canada's Prime Minister is well on his way to out Cheneying Cheney in eliminating our rights. We have our own battle to wage here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>