5 ms·

Many police investigations depend on absolute control of evidence. Border and Customs especially depends on this and somehow have succeeded to this day in maint

Many police investigations depend on absolute control of evidence. Border and Customs especially depends on this and somehow have succeeded to this day in maintained regulations and laws that block you from accessing recording devices or recording when in the indoors secondary inspection. And of course that is the place where they fabricate all their lies and warrants.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
The things border agents get away with make an absolute mockery of the constitution. They have the ability to seize and search devices (phones, computers) without a warrant within 100 mi of the us border or international airports. I also distinctly remember a story during the Portland protests of unidentified government agents (later revealed to be border patrol) throwing people into unmarked vehicles. I fail to see how that's any different than kidnapping. It's certainly how security services the world over 'disappear' their citizens. I am usually 100% for peaceful protest over violent resistance, but in such a circumstance I don't think any jury in the land would convict someone of killing such an agent that refused to identify themselves.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pc86 3y ago
  > I don't think any jury in the land would convict someone of killing such an agent that refused to identify themselves I think you give juries too much credit, and maybe voir dire in general. The prosecution would simply hammer on the fact that they "murdered a cop" and how they don't dispute the fact they killed them, they have the murder weapon, etc. They'd bring up crying relatives of the deceased. They'd bring up the defendant's prior criminal history if one exists, or find old social media posts critical of LE or the government. And they'd go right up to the line of perjury without crossing it, asking half a dozen people from the same department about "department policy" around identifying yourself. Not to mention they'd almost certainly ask for a change of venue to a more LE-friendly area of the country. So you end up with some young kid from an urban area on the coast on trial for killing a cop in rural Colorado or Nevada or something. It's unlikely that goes well for them, especially if they don't have the funds for a bulldog defense attorney.
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    Yeah, juries tend towards the stupid side because competent people likely have lives that would be seriously impacted by a major trial. As far as I'm concerned plainclothes officers should not be allowed to make arrests outside exigent circumstances. The target is likely to feel they are under criminal attack and very well might respond with lethal force.
    - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
      I have no problem with a plain clothed officer making an arrest if they CLEARLY identify themselves as officers when making the arrest. Those agents didn't. They refused questions of whether or not they were law enforcement and were literally loading people into unmarked vans. I am quite frankly shocked that there wasn't violence in response to that.
      - pc86 3y ago
        I wouldn't consider myself a gun nut by any stretch, but how is the appropriate response to people who won't identify themselves trying to load you into the back of an unmarked van not violent-quickly-approaching-lethal force? Anyone with knowledge in the area will tell you that if you're the subject of an attempting kidnapping (or carjacking or anything in that ballpark) your number one goal is to not get taken to another location. Whatever you have to do, don't get taken somewhere else because it's definitely going to be something more favorable to the assailant. I too am shocked that this didn't end in violence and serious injury or worse.
        kyleee 3y ago
        I mean the folks this happened to in Portland were probably not well trained at all and have some sense of self preservation. They had to know quickly they’d be killed if they produced a weapon
    - pc86 3y ago
      I was on a jury a few months ago for the first time and it seemed like a reasonable cross-section of society. I don't know if I'll go so far as to say smart people are more likely to have professional-level jobs than dumb people, but professional-level jobs are not going to fire you for going to jury duty for a couple days with quite a bit of notice (I got my notice ~2 months before my time in the jury pool). While it didn't seem any "stupider" than society as a whole, it was also very clear when folks gave the prosecutor or state-called witnesses more weight than the defendant or the defense witnesses. And most trials aren't major. There were 5 or 6 trials at the courthouse that week, and only one was estimated to take more than 3 days. Ours took a full day but I still got home before my wife.
- triyambakam 3y ago
  > They have the ability to seize and search devices (phones, computers) without a warrant within 100 mi of the us border or international airports Would that mean all of Hawaii is within that 100 mile limit?
  - cultureswitch 3y ago
    Not if you're in one of the other islands.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      The coasts counts as border, so entire Hawaii is free reign for them.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    Yes. But Hawaii isn't special. That vast majority of the US population lives 100 miles from an border because the vast majority of the population is by the coasts. The great lakes count too. So almost all of the large cities in the USA are constitution free zones.
    - UncleSlacky 3y ago
      Also if you're within 100 miles of an international airport.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> Border and Customs especially depends on this and somehow have succeeded to this day in maintained regulations and laws that block you from accessing recording devices or recording when in the indoors secondary inspection. And of course that is the place where they fabricate all their lies and warrants. As a paramedic, I've routinely taken prisoners from our county jail (run by the Sheriff's Office) to hospital. One thing that always got me, when we were in the sally port, and wheeling our gurney into the receiving area, the big printed sign on the door in, telling officers to "Turn off all body cams and recording devices in this area." Why?
- macintux 3y ago
  Patient privacy would be my guess.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    The sign isn't up there for us. And if we do actually treat a patient, we do so in the medical room, not the intake area. The sign references the intake area. Sorry, that distinction may not have been clear in my initial post. My guess is that there may be different standards for release of jail footage versus officer body cam footage. I'm sure their argument would be that it's a cost saving measure, "why pay for storage of body cam footage when the area is already camera covered", but to me that seems like a convenient side effect, more than a core rationale.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

The things border agents get away with make an absolute mockery of the constitution. They have the ability to seize and search devices (phones, computers) without a warrant within 100 mi of the us border or international airports. I also distinctly remember a story during the Portland protests of unidentified government agents (later revealed to be border patrol) throwing people into unmarked vehicles. I fail to see how that's any different than kidnapping. It's certainly how security services the world over 'disappear' their citizens. I am usually 100% for peaceful protest over violent resistance, but in such a circumstance I don't think any jury in the land would convict someone of killing such an agent that refused to identify themselves.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pc86 3y ago
> I don't think any jury in the land would convict someone of killing such an agent that refused to identify themselves I think you give juries too much credit, and maybe voir dire in general. The prosecution would simply hammer on the fact that they "murdered a cop" and how they don't dispute the fact they killed them, they have the murder weapon, etc. They'd bring up crying relatives of the deceased. They'd bring up the defendant's prior criminal history if one exists, or find old social media posts critical of LE or the government. And they'd go right up to the line of perjury without crossing it, asking half a dozen people from the same department about "department policy" around identifying yourself. Not to mention they'd almost certainly ask for a change of venue to a more LE-friendly area of the country. So you end up with some young kid from an urban area on the coast on trial for killing a cop in rural Colorado or Nevada or something. It's unlikely that goes well for them, especially if they don't have the funds for a bulldog defense attorney.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  Yeah, juries tend towards the stupid side because competent people likely have lives that would be seriously impacted by a major trial. As far as I'm concerned plainclothes officers should not be allowed to make arrests outside exigent circumstances. The target is likely to feel they are under criminal attack and very well might respond with lethal force.
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    I have no problem with a plain clothed officer making an arrest if they CLEARLY identify themselves as officers when making the arrest. Those agents didn't. They refused questions of whether or not they were law enforcement and were literally loading people into unmarked vans. I am quite frankly shocked that there wasn't violence in response to that.
    - pc86 3y ago
      I wouldn't consider myself a gun nut by any stretch, but how is the appropriate response to people who won't identify themselves trying to load you into the back of an unmarked van not violent-quickly-approaching-lethal force? Anyone with knowledge in the area will tell you that if you're the subject of an attempting kidnapping (or carjacking or anything in that ballpark) your number one goal is to not get taken to another location. Whatever you have to do, don't get taken somewhere else because it's definitely going to be something more favorable to the assailant. I too am shocked that this didn't end in violence and serious injury or worse.
      - kyleee 3y ago
        I mean the folks this happened to in Portland were probably not well trained at all and have some sense of self preservation. They had to know quickly they’d be killed if they produced a weapon
  - pc86 3y ago
    I was on a jury a few months ago for the first time and it seemed like a reasonable cross-section of society. I don't know if I'll go so far as to say smart people are more likely to have professional-level jobs than dumb people, but professional-level jobs are not going to fire you for going to jury duty for a couple days with quite a bit of notice (I got my notice ~2 months before my time in the jury pool). While it didn't seem any "stupider" than society as a whole, it was also very clear when folks gave the prosecutor or state-called witnesses more weight than the defendant or the defense witnesses. And most trials aren't major. There were 5 or 6 trials at the courthouse that week, and only one was estimated to take more than 3 days. Ours took a full day but I still got home before my wife.
triyambakam 3y ago
> They have the ability to seize and search devices (phones, computers) without a warrant within 100 mi of the us border or international airports Would that mean all of Hawaii is within that 100 mile limit?
- cultureswitch 3y ago
  Not if you're in one of the other islands.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    The coasts counts as border, so entire Hawaii is free reign for them.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Yes. But Hawaii isn't special. That vast majority of the US population lives 100 miles from an border because the vast majority of the population is by the coasts. The great lakes count too. So almost all of the large cities in the USA are constitution free zones.
  - UncleSlacky 3y ago
    Also if you're within 100 miles of an international airport.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> Border and Customs especially depends on this and somehow have succeeded to this day in maintained regulations and laws that block you from accessing recording devices or recording when in the indoors secondary inspection. And of course that is the place where they fabricate all their lies and warrants. As a paramedic, I've routinely taken prisoners from our county jail (run by the Sheriff's Office) to hospital. One thing that always got me, when we were in the sally port, and wheeling our gurney into the receiving area, the big printed sign on the door in, telling officers to "Turn off all body cams and recording devices in this area." Why?

macintux 3y ago
Patient privacy would be my guess.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  The sign isn't up there for us. And if we do actually treat a patient, we do so in the medical room, not the intake area. The sign references the intake area. Sorry, that distinction may not have been clear in my initial post. My guess is that there may be different standards for release of jail footage versus officer body cam footage. I'm sure their argument would be that it's a cost saving measure, "why pay for storage of body cam footage when the area is already camera covered", but to me that seems like a convenient side effect, more than a core rationale.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]