Friday, March 27, 2015

Rick Herbert and other anti-American fools who make me weep for my country.

Today's post is about those fools that have nothing better to do than stick a Go Pro camera in their car and go out to find some police officers to pester in an attempt to get famous on the internet. Usually they claim to be "patriotic" and insist that they are "fighting tyranny" or some such.

The one that caught my eye recently is this guy named Rick Herbert, who has apparently just discovered Border Patrol checkpoints despite the fact that we've had them in place since the mid-1970s without any effect at all on liberty or freedom. Here's a video of Rick, with his wife and kid along as props, heading into a Border Patrol checkpoint just to cause a scene. In his Youtube comments, he calls these his "law patrols", which suggests that he actually goes out loking for police officers to bother. But let's watch what happened when Rick took on the Border Patrol recently:


It's always interesting to see the double standards that these loons try to apply to police as well. In thie video, we see Herbert both insisting that he doesn't have to answer questions (which is actually true) and then stating that the officers have to answer all of his questions before he'll comply with their instructions.

To their credit, they don't take his bait. They repeat the instruction one time, then take it to the next level when it's clear that he heard them and refuses to comply.

Here's a newsflash for wanna-be street lawyers: The police don't have to explain jack to you. All that's required is that they have probable cause to detain you but they'll just have to be able to articulate what that is in court later and they don't have to tell you at the time. Now they may decide to tell you if time permits and you're not otherwise acting like a tool, but they don't owe you an explanation and if you refuse to comply with their lawful orders, then you risk the consequences of that, including being locked up, as our pal Rick Herbert was. I know that Herbert was hoping to see the officer lose his cool, but that didn't happen. And obviously the officer knew that any answer the officer gave would have just been followed up with more questions intended to prolong the encounter and provoke a reaction, so his response was appropriate and proper. He's not paid to stand there and get jerked around; he's got a job to do and he goes about handling Herbert firmly and efficiently with a minimum of force. My only critique was that he got hung up in Herbert's seatbelt and he let Herbert close the window on his arm, which could have led to him being dragged and Herbert getting lawfully and appropriately shot. But hey--no harm, no foul, right? Otherwise, they got him under control quickly and took care of business.

So what is this guy protesting, exactly? You might think that it's some sort of sinister government plot to take everyone's guns or snatch everyone's kids, but no, it's just a Border Patrol checkpoint. You know, one of those spots where they stop you, ask you and your passengers about your citizenship, and if you don't draw their suspicion, send you on your way in about five seconds. People in the southwest are used to these as we've had them for decades. And contrary to the internet "constitutional lawyers" that seem to be in abundance these days, these checkpoints ARE constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled on these in 1976 in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). In that case, by a 7-2 decision, the Court looked at the conflict between the right of the individual to travel freely and the compelling government interest in detering and apprehending illegal immigration and drug smuggling. They concluded that the government interest was significant enough to justify the minimal intrusion that citizens were subjected to. And this opinion came from legal heavyweights such as Burger, Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Powell and Blackmun. These checkpoints have been around for over forty years and other than a bunch of smugglers, they have no actual effect on anyone. But these days, America's law-enforcement professionals are a ripe target for losers who want to feel empowered. Sorry, but I can't get on that wagon, since I know an awful lot of police officers and other public safety professionals and I consider most of them to be among the most selfless and professional people that I've ever met. They are the good guys, in my view. And they deserve our gratitude, not the crap that they're now getting from this current unholy coalition of the lunatic left, the radical fringe right, and the low-information crowd that sumps around going "Hands up, don't shoot"

And now just who exactly is Rick Herbert, you might ask?

Well according to his own Google and Youtube posting,


He's an unemployed former wal-Mart worker.




He's a pot-head. ("Super Skunk" is a marijuana strain.)




He's a crystal meth fan. (Like we couldn't tell from looking at him.)


And according to his own internet posts, it seems that he does little more than videotape himself as he provokes confrontations with the police or cheer on other losers who make similar videos. It's also telling that when I and others have posted questions asking him if the Border Patrol found any drugs in his car (remember that the dog alerted, and in the video, at 5:34, his wife seems to say "There's a bong right there" as she points to the area below the driver's seat), he refused to answer and the questions were removed from his feed.

Fortunately for those who wondered, his wife, in her own Youtube post, confirmed that there was marijuana in the car:
Kati Herbert 20 hours ago

They told him he was being charge, booked, and released. Then told Photography is not a crime that he was released with no charges. They told him that the marijuana leave they said they found under the drivers seat, was enough to charge him for possession. They threatened to seize my car also...

So yeah, I'm satisfied that the dog did alert to the presence of narcotics, and that right there is probable cause for a search of the car per our Supreme Court. Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. ___ (2013).

Folks, even if we don't always care for everything that our government may or may not do, I submit to you that this guy is not the one that we want to get behind and hold up as our standard-bearer. While I can and have sympathized with people who, through no fault of their own, get caught up by some over-zealous government officials, I'm not about to stand in solidarity with some useless drug-user who spends his days driving around with his child in tow trying to bait the cops for Youtube fame instead of working at some job to support his family.

I'll almost always support decent hard-working Americans who get jammed up by Big Brother, especially veterans, but very few of these cop-hating internet jackwagons fit that description. Most of these perpetually angry losers tend to blather on incessantly about how they're great Americans and the rest of us are "sheeple", yet they never seem to find their way into uniform despite us fighting two wars in which tens of thousands of actual patriotic Americans enlisted and served. Ironically, a majority of these Border Patrol Agents are likely to be honorably discharged veterans these days, but the radical fringe that claims to support our vets now often targets them specifically as enemies of our nation even though these vets have already given more to our country than a hundred Rick Herberts or Shawn Dixons or Adam Kokeshes ever will. So you'll forgive me if I don't rush out and hit this guy's new crowdfunding website where he begs for money even though he wasn't even criminally charged and has no legal expenses. But I can understand why he's panhandling for cash: Meth is really getting expensive.

16 comments:

  1. I'm not fond of pretexts for bypassing the fourth amendment, regardless of whether it is technically legal--but the problem isn't the law enforcement who are following the law, the problem is the politicians that give them that ability. I'd have less objection if border patrol were limited to border issues, and DUI checkpoints could only check the driver for DUI, and neither were able to use that as a wedge to do further searches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And there you go. We have a means today to rid ourselves of these checkpoints should we as a nation want them gone. All we need to is work through our elected representatives. Thing is, I suspect that most people, when given all of the facts, actually approve of these checkpoints and their purpose--illegal alien and smuggler detection. I know that I do and I'm a big Fourth Amendment guy.

      Delete
  2. First of all, the officer closes the window on himself.

    And no one is asking you to crowdfund the dude.

    but:
    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;
    I wasn't a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

    The other part you don't mention is that the checkpoints are getting more intrusive. Used to be they just asked a question....now there be dogs and other questions besides citizenship. More and more intrusive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually Rick Herbert is the one asking for crowdfunding. And since he wasn't charged with anything and has no expenses from that incident, I'm wondering why.

      And no, they aren't getting more intrusive. Have you been to one of these? I went through several last year while out west, and I was actually disappointed that I wasn't stopped even for a minute because I wanted to shoot the breeze and ask a few honest questions myself, but only out of curiosity, not because I wanted to be an asshole like Herbert. Half of the times, they didn't even ask me my citizenship but just smiled and waved me on. It wasn't a big deal. Really.

      If these checkpoints, set up to look for illegals only--something that most of us agree that we want the government to get rid of--are the worst sort of "injustice" that someone can find to rail about, well then we're obviously living in pretty good times. There's lots of real wrongs going on every day that need to be battled, but most of them require more effort then driving by in your car and acting like a lout for a Youtube video.

      Delete
    2. Why crowd fund? To sue them, that is why. That is the only way these things get changed, and the only legal option available to him. Yes, they were more than intrusive, they violated his rights, and violated the scope of their authority. The asshole is the one violating the law, and that wasn't Herbert.They are not set up to detect illegals only. They are used as general criminality checks, nothing more. They have to allow you to turn off or away from these checkpoints, and doing so can not be used as reasonable suspicion, so when would illegals go through them? Almost never. After his first sentence it was clear he was American. Question answered, stop over. Violations of our Constitutional rights are real wrongs. By your logic, those uppity Blacks were louts too, just sitting at Whites Only lunch counters, trying to start shit with the police. Not a fair comparison I know. It was actually illegal for Blacks to sit at White lunch counters, and no Constitutional protections allowing for it.

      Delete
    3. Ssn708,

      The problem with your comment here is that you know so much that just isn’t so.
      Setting aside the apples-and-oranges comparison with blacks in the 1960s which have absolutely no relevance to this discussion, you apparently don’t know much about these border checkpoints, specifically that they have been declared to be Constitutional by our Supreme Court in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), a case which was all about these checkpoints. Read it--I linked to it above--and it’s pretty clear that there is no 4th Amendment violation here. As to these checkpoints themselves, they are not “general criminality checks” (whatever that is) but they are used to discover and apprehend those illegally in our country, specifically those who have already walked around our checkpoints down on the borders. They’re very effective at this and if you’ve ever actually seen one you’d understand that.

      Regarding your belief that someone has to be allowed to turn off before these checkpoints, that’s actually a requirement for DUI checkpoints, a different animal altogether. (BTW, I support those too, since they harm or inconvenience no one except drunk drivers and they have no “right” to drive among us.)

      Before you buy into the crap that you’re hearing on Libertarian blogs and websites about these checkpoints, I suggest that you travel down south and actually see what they’re all about first-hand. Maybe then you’ll see that they aren’t bad and that their detractors are pretty much a bunch of ignorant losers, particularly that zipperhead meth-freak Rick Herbert, who deserves nothing more than a kick in the balls from the decent people of America. Herbert isn't trying to sue to checge the law; he wants to sue because he thinks that he'll get a big pail of your cash and mine and he appears to be one of those guys who will do anything for a buck except work for it. Screw him and his get-rick-quick scheme. The Supreme-Freaking-Court already upheld these checkpoints so it's not as if any suit that he files is going to change a thing. I hope that he OD's and drops off my planet.

      Delete
  3. I'm so upset that these parents would expose their child to this irresponsible behavior. Now the kid hates LEOs. Way to be a good example Dad!

    I think people should be required to take an IQ test before pro-creating. Just my two cents...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laurne, I agree. I would consider it a form of child abuse to put the kid in the car deliberately to take it through the checkpoint just to add shock to their video, which was what they did here. And per Herbert's own posts, they've done it before. They know that it makes the child uncomfortable, but they want that screaming in the background and the ability to say "look what you are putting my kid through!".

      I'm no fan of child protective services, but I think that they should be monitoring the Herberts.

      Delete
    2. If there's meth in their house then kid needs to be removed.

      Delete
  4. Good write up. If Herbert's car did not get hit on by the dogs, If he did not have a bong in the car, and if he was not trying to bait the Agents, well, his stop may have been excessive and unwarranted.

    Now, where's my crackers and nuts... .

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've always been both amused and enraged by the people who want all illegal immigration stopped, but want to deny the government the ability to conduct lawful investigations aimed at stopping illegal immigration.
    It's similar to the people who scream for more police protection in high-crime neighborhoods, then riot when the police kill a criminal.
    I thought it was bad when I was on the job, but it's ten times worse now. I'm so glad I'm retired, and that I didn't have to make good on my threat to kneecap my kids so they wouldn't go into law enforcement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I quit watching these jack wagons a while back.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Idjits... They cause ALL of us more problems... sigh

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nailed it Murph.

    When he took off his sunglasses, my first thought was "tweaker."

    What a douche!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Skeletor vs Border Patrol K9. Looks like a win for the dog. To bad they didn't check him for a DUI/DRE.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I saw this a couple of days ago and just knew that there had to be more to the story. I just didn't care enough to search for it. Douchebags gotta douche.

    Living on the border as I do, I encounter these checkpoints on a daily basis. The vast majority of the time I just get a friendly greeting and asked if I am a Citizen. Occasionally one checkpoint in particular will ask me to "state your county of citizenship'" I usually reply Los Estados Unidas just to mess with them. (I'm so blatantly American that they get the joke).

    But there are some occasions where I have to give 'em a dose of reality. I had one of them stick his head in my window @ look around at one checkpoint where they approach you on the right side of the vehicle. I asked the P.A. if he lost something and could I help him find it. I'm often asked "where are you going/headed". Standard response is to point in the direction I was headed and say "that way".

    Had one ask me if I was going to work one day. I replied "does it matter?". He said it did to him. My reply was "you need to get a life then".

    My favorite though is when I'm on the motorcycle. The dogs, for the most part, HATE IT and go ballistic. And when they ask me where I'm headed. I just laugh and say "I'm on a motorcycle, dude. I have no idea where I'm going to end up outside of possibly a gas station in about 100 miles or so "

    All that being said, I'm almost 60, gray haired, moderately overweight, and say everything with a smile on my puss. I support the mission of the USBP and have many friends that work for them, but I won't leave my Constitutional rights on the shoulder of the road as I'm passing through a checkpoint.

    One funny story: One day I was going through the checkpoint where they approach you from the right side. My power window decided to not work that day, so I motioned for the P.A. to open the door . . He opened it and said "Where 'Ya headed today?". I couldn't resist the smartass gene that day and looked him right in the eye with as serious an expression as I could muster and replied " I think the real question here son, is where are you headed? Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?" His eyes got the size of dinner plates and he stammered "have a good day sir" and closed the door. I laughed the next six miles to Carrizo Springs. I'm sure I'm going to have to answer for that one in the afterlife, but it'll be worth it.

    ReplyDelete