TexasCHLforum.com

Referring to the "Don't talk to the police" attitude -- This guy refused to answer questions by CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) officers when re-entering the U.S. (He is a citizen.)
An interesting read, and so is the linked response he had to many of the comments left from his original blog.
http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... ering.html
http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2010/09 ... ments.html

Excellent read. People standing up for their rights is a rarity.



Anygun

Anytime you are dealing with LEO's keep all answers short and to the point. Do not volunteer information under most circumstances, the exceptions being when reporting a crime against you or your family.

Most of the time, Keep Your Mouth Shut.

Wow! He makes some excellent points, particularly the "Martha Stewart" one.

I think that I disagree with him on the matter of politeness, though...

Why is politeness supposed to be a one-way street? The officer (LEO or otherwise) can be as rude, nasty, or confrontational as he wants to be, yet you're supposed to be Caspar Milquetoast. The police can lie to you, but it's illegal to lie to them, even without being under oath. Seems backwards to me.

sjfcontrol wrote:Why is politeness supposed to be a one-way street? The officer (LEO or otherwise) can be as rude, nasty, or confrontational as he wants to be, yet you're supposed to be Caspar Milquetoast. The police can lie to you, but it's illegal to lie to them, even without being under oath. Seems backwards to me.

I guess because I see politeness as being as much about self respect as it is about being respectful to the other person.

chartreuse wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Why is politeness supposed to be a one-way street? The officer (LEO or otherwise) can be as rude, nasty, or confrontational as he wants to be, yet you're supposed to be Caspar Milquetoast. The police can lie to you, but it's illegal to lie to them, even without being under oath. Seems backwards to me.

I guess because I see politeness as being as much about self respect as it is about being respectful to the other person.

As well as, let it not be said in court that you at any time raised your voice, acted upset or irrational, cursed at the LEO , argued with him (well maybe argued, but disagreed, yet cooperated would be better).
Point is.. It worries people in real or imagined positions of authority when the person they are "contacting" is quite, yet firm in there position of disagreement.. Frankly, it scares the crap out of them most times.. They are so used to people either being passive or going nuts.. the quite ones scare um.

bronco78 wrote:

chartreuse wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Why is politeness supposed to be a one-way street? The officer (LEO or otherwise) can be as rude, nasty, or confrontational as he wants to be, yet you're supposed to be Caspar Milquetoast. The police can lie to you, but it's illegal to lie to them, even without being under oath. Seems backwards to me.

I guess because I see politeness as being as much about self respect as it is about being respectful to the other person.

As well as, let it not be said in court that you at any time raised your voice, acted upset or irrational, cursed at the LEO , argued with him (well maybe argued, but disagreed, yet cooperated would be better).
Point is.. It worries people in real or imagined positions of authority when the person they are "contacting" is quite, yet firm in there position of disagreement.. Frankly, it scares the crap out of them most times.. They are so used to people either being passive or going nuts.. the quite ones scare um.

I'm just saying that it should be both ways. If it can be brought out in court that you were argumentative, cursed, etc., then why is it not a defense that the officer was abusive, cursing, threatening, etc. Probably not a good idea to respond in kind, but it isn't necessary for the officer to be attempting to instigate a fight, either. Often, these tactics are used by the officer to intimidate the citizen into allowing the officer to violate his (the citizen's) rights. Volunteer to allow a search, for example.

sjfcontrol wrote: I'm just saying that it should be both ways. If it can be brought out in court that you were argumentative, cursed, etc., then why is it not a defense that the officer was abusive, cursing, threatening, etc. Probably not a good idea to respond in kind, but it isn't necessary for the officer to be attempting to instigate a fight, either.

Exactly. This is why small cameras and Youtube scare the crap out of bully-type cops, and you see people being prosecuted for "wiretapping" in some other states.

sjfcontrol wrote:Why is politeness supposed to be a one-way street? The officer (LEO or otherwise) can be as rude, nasty, or confrontational as he wants to be, yet you're supposed to be Caspar Milquetoast. The police can lie to you, but it's illegal to lie to them, even without being under oath. Seems backwards to me.

Couple reasons.
A) he's got the gun, backup, radio, and handcuffs. You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride...
Now, a rude cop ain't going to be my new best buddy. But I will be courteous in a curt manner. "Yes, sir." "No, Officer."
B) Cameras are everywhere. If you're on the dashcam being a complete jerk, and have to take it to court or file some sort of complaint....good luck with that.

Reading that, I can say two things, based on my own (admittedly limited) knowledge and experience:
1) The writer of that article was, indeed, right. To my understanding, the officers WERE wrong in what they were doing. Customs officers at ports of entry can look through bags (import/export/smuggling/etc.), check passports, and inquire citizenship. However, if the person presenting himself is a US Citizen, all he has to answer are the most basic of questions (such as citizenship).
2) The writer of that article precipitated the confrontation deliberately with his manner. A simple "I'm sorry, but I'd rather not say," or "I prefer not to answer that question," delivered with a smile, goes a long way. It lets the officer know that A) you know your rights, and B) you're not trying to enter a "contest" with them. It draws a line, yes, but it doesn't dare the officer to cross it. Being confrontational/rude is akin to telling them "so what ya gonna do about it, punk?" and can lead to poorly considered actions all around. Remember, just because you CAN be rude and within your rights does not change the fact that you're still being rude and confrontational.

It is far better to be cognizant of your own rights, while still respectful of those hired to enforce the laws. Getting into a match of wills with individual agents of the law is not the way to beat laws you disagree with, or overcome overreaches of the law. All it does is let everyone around know that you've got a chip on your shoulder and are trying to prove something in petty fashion. Far better to extend the olive branch of politeness and respect, while refusing to give in to overreaches.

Thane wrote: It is far better to be cognizant of your own rights, while still respectful of those hired to enforce the laws. Getting into a match of wills with individual agents of the law is not the way to beat laws you disagree with, or overcome overreaches of the law. All it does is let everyone around know that you've got a chip on your shoulder and are trying to prove something in petty fashion. Far better to extend the olive branch of politeness and respect, while refusing to give in to overreaches.

jamisjockey wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Why is politeness supposed to be a one-way street? The officer (LEO or otherwise) can be as rude, nasty, or confrontational as he wants to be, yet you're supposed to be Caspar Milquetoast. The police can lie to you, but it's illegal to lie to them, even without being under oath. Seems backwards to me.

Couple reasons.
A) he's got the gun, backup, radio, and handcuffs. You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride...
Now, a rude cop ain't going to be my new best buddy. But I will be courteous in a curt manner. "Yes, sir." "No, Officer."
B) Cameras are everywhere. If you're on the dashcam being a complete jerk, and have to take it to court or file some sort of complaint....good luck with that.

I think you can add a third reason too: sometimes, if you continue to be courteous and respectful, even when the officer doesn't deserve it, you can defuse the situation, or at least prevent it from escalating. Sometimes the person you're dealing with may just be having a bad day, and may not actually be a jerk.

Thane wrote:Reading that, I can say two things, based on my own (admittedly limited) knowledge and experience:
1) The writer of that article was, indeed, right. To my understanding, the officers WERE wrong in what they were doing. Customs officers at ports of entry can look through bags (import/export/smuggling/etc.), check passports, and inquire citizenship. However, if the person presenting himself is a US Citizen, all he has to answer are the most basic of questions (such as citizenship).
2) The writer of that article precipitated the confrontation deliberately with his manner. A simple "I'm sorry, but I'd rather not say," or "I prefer not to answer that question," delivered with a smile, goes a long way. It lets the officer know that A) you know your rights, and B) you're not trying to enter a "contest" with them. It draws a line, yes, but it doesn't dare the officer to cross it. Being confrontational/rude is akin to telling them "so what ya gonna do about it, punk?" and can lead to poorly considered actions all around. Remember, just because you CAN be rude and within your rights does not change the fact that you're still being rude and confrontational.

It is far better to be cognizant of your own rights, while still respectful of those hired to enforce the laws. Getting into a match of wills with individual agents of the law is not the way to beat laws you disagree with, or overcome overreaches of the law. All it does is let everyone around know that you've got a chip on your shoulder and are trying to prove something in petty fashion. Far better to extend the olive branch of politeness and respect, while refusing to give in to overreaches.

I agree with you . Don't have to answer the questions but be polite about it and you wont get the attitude. Because that's all this was. You provided attitude and the CBP officers answered with their own. Now I also state that even though you present yourself as a US Citizen the CBP oficers can still ask any questions they want and they would not be wrong for asking. Just know that you dont have to answer.

In a previous life, I worked for US Customs as a customs inspector. One of the reasons we were trained to ask questions wasn't because we were really interested in your trip, but to find inconsistencies in your answers. This would help determine whether or not you got to go through the "green" door or the "red" door. At least with USCS, it was all about enticing passengers to trip up.

I'm not proud of this, and this weighed heavily on my conscience, which is one of the reasons why I left. Some people have no qualms about trying to entrap others, and these individuals make good federal LEOs. I realized that I would either have to ignore my conscience or find another line of work. I chose the latter.

Personally, having read the article and having been on both sides of the Customs desk, I'd not recommend this tactic unless (1) you're an attorney, and/or (2) you know full well what you're doing. CBP has search and seizure powers that supercede some 4th Amendment protections (so-called "border search exceptions"). They can make your life rather miserable. I can't begin to tell you how many "breaks" compliant passengers received, and how many secondary inspections passengers with an attitude got.