This Lady is a special kind of stupid

This lady was asked if she was a citizen and it made her feel sick to her stomach. Ohhh, the horor. I wonder who she voted for.

The worst thing about this story is they didn't boot her out of the country.

shane-parmely.jpg


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-teacher-detained-border-patrol-checkpoint-legal-questions/

Cellphone video of a confrontation at a border patrol checkpoint is stirring up new controversy in the immigration debate.

A California teacher posted a video of border patrol agents detaining her after she refused to say if she was a U.S. citizen at a checkpoint in New Mexico, about 35 miles from the border.

The video has many wondering if she was within her rights or had an obligation to comply.

When San Diego resident Shane Parmely was stopped at a New Mexico border patrol station she refused to answer the agent's questions. She was heading home from vacation with her three children and asked one of them to start recording the exchange.

The videos have generated thousands of views on Facebook and sparked a heated debate on immigration rights.

The middle school teacher says she did it after hearing her Latino friends talk about their experiences at checkpoints.

"It made me feel sick to get asked, knowing what my friends have been through. It just made me feel physically ill," Parmely said.

"They do more than ask that I'm a citizen. They will ask where my kids go to school, they'll ask what grade they're in. They'll ask what type of job I have," said Gretel Rodriguez, one of Parmely's friends.

In the video, Parmely asked, "So what's the grounds? What's the violation for being detained?" The border patrol agent responded, "You know what? Just for you. Here you go, U.S. Supreme Court."

The Supreme Court does allow agents to set up checkpoints within 100 miles of the border and ask questions about citizenship without warrants.

"She had the right to remain silent. She had the right to question why was she being detained," said Victor Nieblas, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Asked what kind of avenues border patrol agents have to verify citizenship, Nieblas said, "Well, they need a reasonable suspicion that the individual is either committing a crime or is here unlawfully and that's difficult to ascertain by someone just saying I don't want to answer a question."

On Facebook, some applauded Parmely's activism while others criticized her actions.

One person wrote, "I am sorry but you are disrespectful. The boarder [sic] patrol is doing a job that must be done."

"There are a lot of criticisms that seem to basically be on this logical fallacy that if you question authority, you're disrespectful. And I disagree," Parmely said.

Parmely says she was let go after 90 minutes without answering the question.

In a statement, the border patrol says they may detain a driver for a reasonable amount of time until they can make a determination about immigration status.

It says its policy is to treat all individuals with dignity and respect.
 
These type of idiots always make me laugh. They think they're on some sort of mission to prove how the authorities are corrupt or violating their rights, and they choose the engagement area of their confrontation with said authorities at ground zero - where the authorities are at their strongest and backed by the law, weapons, and force. Then they wonder why they are detained, searched, beaten for resisting arrest, or whatever. They deserve the harassment they get. This lady is lucky she didn't get a body cavity search.

If a police officer or other law enforcement official asks you to do something, you do it. If you believe they are asking you to do something that violates your rights - you still fucking do it. If you want to protest, you do so afterwards by going to court, filing a complaint, getting a lawyer, etc. You do not resist a law enforcement officer's request! If you do so, you do so at your own peril.

If you resist at the moment of confrontation, you are asking for trouble and deserve the whoop ass you get thrust upon you. There is absolutely no reason to not answer questions like where your kids go to school, or what grade they are in. No reason other than you think you are bigger than the law of the land.
 
These type of idiots always make me laugh. They think they're on some sort of mission to prove how the authorities are corrupt or violating their rights, and they choose the engagement area of their confrontation with said authorities at ground zero - where the authorities are at their strongest and backed by the law, weapons, and force. Then they wonder why they are detained, searched, beaten for resisting arrest, or whatever. They deserve the harassment they get. This lady is lucky she didn't get a body cavity search.

If a police officer or other law enforcement official asks you to do something, you do it. If you believe they are asking you to do something that violates your rights - you still fucking do it. If you want to protest, you do so afterwards by going to court, filing a complaint, getting a lawyer, etc. You do not resist a law enforcement officer's request! If you do so, you do so at your own peril.

If you resist at the moment of confrontation, you are asking for trouble and deserve the whoop ass you get thrust upon you. There is absolutely no reason to not answer questions like where your kids go to school, or what grade they are in. No reason other than you think you are bigger than the law of the land.

Agreed to a point, but we as citizens do have Constitutional rights which at times need to be addressed at ground zero. Even if asked, I will politely refuse any police authority entrance into my house or my car without a warrant. Do I have any anything to hide,? Absoultly not, but it's within my rights to say no. If they have probable cause, they do not need my permission but they would have to be prepared to stand before a Judge to explain their reasoning.

But any lawful order given by an Officer needs to be obeyed, politely and expediently. If people would try to look at a situation from the Officer's point of view they might change their attitude. You may be the nicest person on the planet, but the Officer does not know that upon first contact, they need to know who you are and the only way they can do that is by asking a few questions.

This lady is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Agreed to a point, but we as citizens do have Constitutional rights which at times need to be addressed at ground zero. Even if asked, I will politely refuse any police authority entrance into my house or my car without a warrant. Do I have any anything to hide,? Absoultly not, but it's within my rights to say no. If they have probable cause, they do not need my permission but they would have to be prepared to stand before a Judge to explain their reasoning.

Totally agree, but you aren't at ground zero. In that situation you are on your home turf, and your rights are fully established. Even with that advantage, if the police insisted and arrived in full body armor and weapons drawn and told you they were coming in, would you still resist at that point?

But any lawful order given by an Officer needs to be obeyed, politely and expediently. If people would try to look at a situation from the Officer's point of view they might change their attitude. You may be the nicest person on the planet, but the Officer does not know that upon first contact, they need to know who you are and the only way they can do that is by asking a few questions.

This lady is an idiot.

:thumbsup:
 
The agents would have been fully justified in denying her entrance back into the US. Actually that is what they should have done, since she failed to provide evidence of legal residency.

Supreme Court precedents are quite clear that you have minimal Constitutional rights when crossing the border. For example, they can conduct an intrusive search with no warrant and no probable cause.

This woman got off extremely easy. Too easy, in my view.
 
Supreme Court precedents are quite clear that you have minimal Constitutional rights when crossing the border. For example, they can conduct an intrusive search with no warrant and no probable cause.

Correct. In fact what happened here was that the Border Patrol got caught NOT-profiling. If you make routine systematic checks and inspections then it is a given that many of the people are doing nothing suspicious or do not belong to a higher risk population, and you are not singling someone out based on stereotypes. This is all for the good, except sometimes it pisses off some histrionic white women who apparently think they are special and want to be youtube martyr.
 
This lady did not know it but she is actually a supporter of Trump's policies.

This is a soft inland border made necessary by our porous actual border.

I go through the checkpoint on the 5 and the 15 routinely. I was stopped and told to pull over once. I have been questioned maybe a handful to times and waived thorugh and I have been waived through every other time without having to stop. .

But, once in a while a friend or person I know tells a story of massive time being wasted.
Also, I had a mexican born but American professor who used to tell us the was rountinely stopped going through the checkpoints and he found it a violation of his rights. (he was a international law professor) ...

This type of checking should be going on at the border. The reason why it happens inland is because its a choke point(s) on the way north. Its hard to get north from san diego because camp pendleton gets in the way of most reasonably direct routes. So the Supreme Ct apparently says its OK to violate our rights since the border is so porous.

The proper thing to do is secure our border and take down these checkpoints or turn them in to truck weigh stations to stop smuggling.

In short this lady did not know it but she was arguing for a wall and a non porous border.
 
Back
Top