I love the responses the lady gave the reporter:

"I know exactly what happened..."
She's a Tough cookie, I'm glad her dog survived

Although I kinda wanted to back hand the interviewer, she just stood there while the lady asked for help to lift the rubble off the pup.

I'm not a Maher fan, but he does have a few points.
Yes, the Benghazi fiasco is an issue, as is the IRS thing, but these two "scandals" are far from being anything close to the "worst" scandal that's ever happened.
Thing is, that the American public in general (and congress even more so) has a very short attention span, they easily forget and dismiss history and only focus on the present. So when something pops up, they instantly think it's the "worst thing" (or "best" thing, depending on the situation) ever.

It made me chuckle, I'll give it a shot. Plus Fox was always a favorite of mine.

Because of this video, I listened to the full version he gave, the full version is far more impacting than the video.

The stops are shown on various websites (local authority, news, etc). So people who are in those areas shouldn't be surprised by them. And if you're so "upset" with the checkpoints, or sobriety points, or anything that is similar to this (or just checking into a flight, where they check your ID as well, do you *not* fly?) you can easily check online where they're holding the stops. It's required that they announce/post where the stops are being held. They expect and hope that not everyone has the presence of mind to check where the stops are at, that's the *point* of the stops, to find people who are not of legal status in this country.

And I bring up Illegal Immigrants, because that's the reason as to *why* these checkpoints exist. (hence why in the video they ask what the persons citizenship is)

As for the probable cause debate;
As several law journals suggest (e.g. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause ), probable cause is subjective, there can be many instances of probable cause, but there can also be a lesser form called "Reasonable suspicion", which could essentially be used in this instance.

You simplify things way too much, the law isn't just a clear cut black and white instance. The law isn't simple, you can't quantify it in a simple explanation, and lawyers, law enforcement, judges (etc) know all this. Laws aren't water tight either, many contradict each other, or can be interpreted differently (which is why there's a supreme court, they dictate the wording and meaning of the laws).

Edit: I don't know how I got into defending the DHS or the checkpoints, as I said, I think the stops are ridiculous, and probably won't do anything worthwhile. But at this point, we're just going in circles. in the end, this video is just over-sensationalism at it's best.

Are the stops irritating to civilians in those areas (which are *very* limited, and not some wide spread epidemic as many seem to think it is)? Of course they are. Are they some form of "police state"? No, they're not (see examples above), they're localized stops, where the states have enacted laws allowing DHS / Law Enforcement to literally stop *anyone* they want and question them regarding citizenship.

last edit them I'm done, I swear
Where were all these kids and "freedom fighters" when the Patriot act was enacted, the illegal wiretaps, bugging and tracking of students and civilians happened? Oh.. that's right it was to "protect" us from the Terrorists. Everyone was OK with that....

Morality isn't involved into the law because morality is not objective, nor fair. Like I said, morals are of ones own definition, trying to place a blanket over the entire debate with 1 definition doesn't make Morals "standardized".

Morals aren't necessarily "fair" nor always equal. Hence they cannot be in the same group as "morals" (I won't get too far into it, but look at the Gay Marriage debates, many claim "morals" when it comes to against it, etc)

Anyway, again the situation shown may be vaguely like East Germany, but overall it isn't even close. East Germany wouldn't allow any sort of questions to be asked to the authorities, let alone recorded onto any sort of video device. In places where there's a true police state, there's no such thing as convenience, so such a comparison isn't justified. IF this was happening *everywhere* in the country, and not along the southern border, then I'd agree that there's an issue.

The states that this is happening in (south/southwest states & Texas), it was voted on by the people to allow this. They asked, begged and rallied to get additional "border protection", this is what they get.

They didn't know the consequence, so this is on them and the price they have to pay to fight the "illegal immigrant menace". I think it's absolutely ridiculous, but I hope these people realize that if they continue to push for "closing borders" and everything that Arizona (in particular) has done, will end up biting them in the ass.

I guess first off, I should explain that I'm not in full support of these searches/stops, but again, if I were stopped and asked questions, I'd just give them my ID and be on my way. Which, actually I have been before (just not in this context).

Yes, but Identified and searched are two separate instances and rights are not forfeit for giving that information. They must still have probable cause to open, and search. By acting like the kid(s) in the video, would possibly give an officer suspicion that there may be something to hide, and therefore, probable cause (although that's a very very loose explanation/definition). Also the plain sight rules apply, and given that this is essentially an extension of the border searches, I wonder if the Border Search exception could apply (given that it's the DHS/Border patrol holding the stops).

Basically what I'm saying is that, while yes, the stops are annoying, this is what you get if you cry/whine about illegal immigrants. Also, like I said before, if the kid just said "here's my ID" he would've been back on the road in likely seconds rather than giving the officer an attitude.

Oh, and "moral" is subjective, your morals may differ than mine, or someone else, bringing morals into a law debate doesn't support your argument. And until the 1979 ruling is overturned regarding these checkpoints, they won't stop. It's just best to take another road if you don't want to be stopped in the checkpoint.

And here's my point:

1. The stops are legal, while irritating, they're not surprise check-stops, they're posted and advertised. So one could avoid them if they don't want to be stopped. There's no rights violations, there's no harassment in the literal form.

2. This is what happens when so many people cry and whine about illegal immigration. and that there's "nothing" being done about it. This is a response to those people who ask for additional checks for illegals. And again, the stops are constitutional/legal.

edit: Also, considering that a *lot* of the checkpoints are in Arizona, this is what happens when they pass a law that allows an officer to stop *anyone* for a check of citizenship. Texas has a law where they can stop and ask for your license at any time and as a requirement you must provide it to them. See a Pattern?

Then explain it to me, from how I see it, people are complaining that they're being stopped and asked for verification of citizenship at posted checkpoints.

While I don't think these checkpoints do anything other than irritate people, it is already approved and supported by the Supreme court. The decisions covered these particular checkpoints (called Interior Checkpoints), sobriety checkpoints, and pretty much all others as constitutional.

Secondly, while the person in the video does have a right to refuse to answer, his tone didn't help the situation. I'm sure if he had said "Yes, I'm a citizen" and showed an ID, he would've been on his way in 1/10th the time it took him to sit and complain to the officers. All that he was doing was raising suspicion on himself by constantly holding a snarky tone toward the officers.

Random guy walks up says he's a cop, doesn't show any badge. I have a feeling he wasn't really a cop, but just an asshole who worked at the liquor shop.

If this isn't staged, I hope that this douche with handcuffs either gets hit with impersonating a police officer, or if he is a police officer, get's fired for what happened.

The guy wasn't in the wrong at all, only thing that someone could "complain" about is that he was loitering, but if he had just bought that drink from that store, then it's no longer loitering.

Exigent circumstances has been argued and backed by the Supreme court in many cases. In this case, may lawyers and law experts have already looked into this entire situation and say that trying to claim a violation of the 4th would be extremely difficult to prove. As exigent circumstances include: Fleeing suspect (which there was); immediate danger to person or property (which there was, suspect was armed and has already proved his intent); Hot Pursuit (doesn't mean the tv version actually); probable cause (which there was, as they knew he was in the area, and possibly in a domicile).

Regardless what I or anyone on this site says, it's up to the judicial system to determine this issue. And from the looks of it, there won't be much of a fight against the searches.

You're taking context way out of proportion, Again, given the circumstances, the searches were valid and needed to find the suspect.

RE: Exigent Circumstances:
"In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. /snip"

The key part of this statement is "imminent escape", thus the searches fall under exigent circumstances. ACLU among a few others have already dove into this entire video and it's meaning, they also talked to several attorneys and legal experts and they all say that the searches aren't illegal. Maybe heavy handed, but not illegal.

And lastly (sorry for the long posts), many have already pointed out that this particular video (the only one actually) shows the defensive positioning of the law enforcement, the fact that there's a heli above. This could be a house of interest, possibly someone spotted someone running through the yard, or something seemed suspect. We may never know, but a few officers I've talked to (both in Swat as well as a few of my ex-military contacts) have stated that this isn't standard procedure positioning. That they only arrange themselves like this if they feel there's a threat in the building or car.

I understand what you're saying, and by "normal" I mean non federal assisted searches, where a town isn't on a total lockdown, where a suspect isn't wanted for terror activities along with several other major crimes.

As always, if anyone feels their rights were violated, it's always suggested to talk to a lawyer. But regarding a warrant for each searched house; when they know that the suspect is in the vicinity, time is of the essence. As to the situation when something like this is allowed or not, it's written in the law books. Sure, it can be argued for or against this action, but when it comes to a circumstance like this, where the known suspect is in the area, possibly in a house. Waiting, even for a few minutes for each warrant to come through (I'm sure there were well over a few hundred houses in the area being searched) could mean lives.

I'm willing to bet that, if they did do the warrants, and the suspect did enter a house, injuring or killing the residents, everyone would be on the authorities for "waiting". They can't win either way. And I must stress, that I understand where you and many others are saying about over-reaching of authorities into civilian rights, but in this case, I feel it's 100% justified and they made the right call. And I'm sure that if there were any court cases brought out from any of this (which I highly highly highly doubt), they'll get dismissed.

I think the circumstances are a bit different, remember, this isn't just some carjacker or thief. This individual proved how unpredictable he can be (carjack/robbery/bombs being thrown at pursuing police, fire fights, etc..) He's was a danger to all in the area. Look at the firefight that happened when they did find him. It sounded like a warzone, he just didn't raise his hands and say "oh.. guys.. you got me".

Again, I'm not saying that in any other "normal" situation this would be acceptable, but given the circumstances, the amount of danger the area was in, it was necessary to do a full sweep of every house, yard and street in the area.