View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 02:19 AM
leftova3's Avatar
leftova3 leftova3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, Seattle, El Paso, San Jose
Posts: 41
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 0
leftova3 is on a distinguished road
Style:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrannyMan View Post
While you made some good points it's all BS, all he had to do is say he was going to buy something. He could have walked off with no further questions. Instead he had to show his ass.

I have been asked before where I am going, I tell them and move on.

And it was $4700.00, which isn't a big deal, he just should have told them. I heard no where on the tape that he got questioned because he had Ron Paul stickers.

Though it may be true that it doesn't say on the tape that he got questioned because he had Ron Paul bumpers stickers but they don't say why he is being detained, and they do say "detained", other than him being suspicious. They do have outlines describing what is suspicious behavior and in the video they explain that being a Ron Paul supporter is suspicious. He said that he was clearly carrying Ron Paul stickers and flyers so it is sufficient to say that the men who detained him knew he was a Ron Paul supporter.

Now you say that he should have just told them what he was doing with that money and left. But...would he have just been allowed to leave? Remember what he said at 5:43 in the video about the email sent by law enforcement in Missouri that says that Ron Paul supporters are potential militia members? If their agenda says that these are potential terrorists then do you think they would have let him go if he said what he was doing with that money (since the money was made from a Ron Paul regional conference)? I don't they would have. I think it was in his best interest not to say that.

Maybe if he had lied to them, like saying he was going to buy something (something being a classic car or something, not like drugs or a weapon) but lying may have caused more harm. After all, we don't know if the agents knew already why he had the money, or if they were merely inquiring.

Also, lets remember if he is not legally required to answer a question, he should not do so. Any lawyer will tell you that. Anything he says can be used against him in the court of law.

If you give them an inch they'll take a mile.

Let's reflect on that for a moment because I feel that it applies appropriately to this situation. Why should we allow these men to encroach on our rights just because it feels easier to just roll over? I feel that organizations such as these, as history clearly dictates, push further and further and the more we give in the more they take.

Those are my 2 cents on the subject. I feel that it's good this is being exposed to the public.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to leftova3 For This Useful Post:
Philadelphia 1776 (04-26-2009)