Is the 4th Amendment dead? (Egbert v Boule)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2022
- There's been a social media uproar since the Supreme Court released their decision in Egbert v Boule. The Court controversially decided that Bivens actions cannot be brought against Border Patrol agents for violating our Fourth Amendment rights. But... what does that really mean? Does this give Border Patrol agents the right to enter our homes without a warrant?
Let's discuss!
[Please note that the poster of the TikTok video we show, @musclesandnurses, clarified the legal landscape in the comments section of his video. We appreciate him bringing important legal issues to light on his channel!]
________________________________________________________
Please consider SUBSCRIBING for new videos every week!
Let's connect:
Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheLawSaysWhat
TikTok bit.ly/32AB9gH
Instagram tinyurl.com/3c3cebr8
📖 If you liked this video, you will LOVE Maclen's book: amzn.to/3g2c9BT
________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMERS: everyone's favorite!
1. We are not your attorneys.
2. This is not legal advice.
3. Any unlicensed clips used in this video are for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
4. If you read through all of that, then congratulations and consider applying to law school.
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
If there isn't a clear cut path for punishment of violation of a constitutional right, then one can assume that "Right" is either gone, or a privilege. And with the Patriot Act and NDAA, you'd probably be surprised at how many constitutional "Rights" no longer exist or mean what they previously meant.
The Patriot Act is a national disgrace. Any Member of Congress that voted for that sleaze should be repudiated by the true patriots in the land, and voted out of Office.
Yeah, the Court of Perjurers is really into redefining words, such as "militia". I wonder what gave them the notion that they had the power to reword a constitutional amendment anyway. I guess they never read the constitution which states in plain English that the Court has absolutely no role in any of the means of adding, subtracting, or altering a constitutional amendment. They're not a state legislature and they're not the congress. But they do see themselves as "Supreme". But over half of them committed perjury during the job interview and should probably be in prison because of that.
Just because a right is being violated with no remedy doesn't mean that it is not a Right, nor that it is a privilege (whatever that is).
An agent who violates your rights can still be punished, just not through a civil lawsuit for money.
@@natehammar7353
“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing”
-Every government ever
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
“Well, I happen to know a place where the Constitution doesn't mean squat! The Supreme Court.”
-Richard Nixon’s Head, Futurama
i knew it was a worthless document as a little kid.
it will not stop cops from violating you.
and they're not going to get punished
a paid vacation 99% of the time
@@timwo9830 yeah man the cartoon TV show was like super deep about that stuff man like fr fr
@@blank4227 i told my niece "never talk to the cops ever! if they are talking to you that either means there trying to take you away or they're trying to take someone you love way "
thefreethoughtproject
i'm still waited for them to release the 2 dvds from the Kelly Thomas [beaten to death] that they have. they released 10000 pages of nonsense 10 years after. those dvds i can't wait for.
there-s a 3word term i came across that describes the panic/feeling/what do i do*confusion* when 3-4-5 peaple are beating someone into oblivion [no words exchanged except "beat him with the handle.
literally 10000 pages.. i'm not going threw it again
Congress doesn't need to pass anything. The US Constitution needs to be followed, and SCOTUS should be censored by joint resolution for not following the Constitution. Yeah.......that'll happen because Congress is so intelligent and virtuous.
One party would filibuster because that is the only card in their hand.
The Supreme Court is following the constitution. This was a 9-0 ruling on the first amendment aspect of the case and a 5-3-1 in the 4th amendment aspect of the case. ALL justices claimed they lacked standing in the case at least once. How people are punished is NOT up to judges, that is where congress has its power. So the constitution, which has a 9th and 10th amendment, tells them that it is congress and the states who make the law on punishment.
SCOTUS knows that it would not pass in congress, so they don't have to worry about it.
@@TheBuzzkill2012 Yes. Boule, who is something of a grifter, was trying to recover damages by filing a claim under the Bevins ruling. The Boule ruling basically says that the Bevins ruling does not extend to Border Patrol, so it IS up to Congress to provide a remedy for this specific situation
It is disappointing, however, that Egbert does not seem to have been sanctioned by Border Patrol for his actions.
If there are no consequences then the law is meaningless!
Wait till the border patrol breaks into someone house who owns a gun and knows how to use it
And that scenario raises a number of interesting points, assuming the State provides for "Castle Defense". Another interesting scenario is where the BP agent announces his presence, by knocking at the door, and demands entry without a warrant, and the homeowner or resident flatly refuses, and barricades the door. Now what?
Can the BP agent force entry into a home? I don't think so. And if he/they do, what force can you reasonably use to intercept him? IS the BP agent in hot pursuit of a fugitive, or is he just being nosy? This would all make for some very interesting legal situations.
But the bottom line here is that Justices Clarence Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch are abdicating their responsibilities by crafting nonsense-law. To grasp how that is, I invite readers to read and study the Dissent penned by Justice Sotomayor. Thomas says: "We should not make Court Law, that is the provenance of the Congress, to legislate Statute." But the same court crafted the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, by cobbling together two disparate Opinions in cases of Mr. Rooker and Mr. Feldman, some 50 years apart, to legislate from the Bench. So, Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas, do you now set aside the notorious and abusive Rooker-Feldman Doctrine? Huh?
Nice rambo fantasy. I've seen several videos of home owners confronting what turned out to be cops who there for reasons such as swattings, wrong address, or just parked on the street on a stake out, and in every single instance the home owner ate lead. They were all idiots and just walked around with a gun in their hand like they're carrying a camera on the beach.
@@ianlounsbury1544 No surprise those three are creating nonsense law. All three of them committed perjury during the job interview. In addition to Rooker-Feldman, I'd like to know Thomas' opinion about altering the wording of constitutional amendments and what business he believed it was of the Court given that the constitution provides no role for the Court in adding to, subtracting from, or altering a constitutional amendment.
@@havable
The Constitution and its amendments also fail to mention the SC power to judge the Constitutionality of laws, but you can bet your last penny that the hypocrite "originalists" are never going to overturn _that_ precedent.
It's gonna happen in Texas one day
“when [the law] has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own proper purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real appeal was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.”
- Frederic Bastiat
Did your rights get taken away? No.
Can you do anything if they are violated? Also, no. 🤦♂️
Exactly.
You have a right to protect yourself family and property from foreign or domestic period called god given not man given
@@jimprice7774 Unless you're trying to protect yourself from Border Patrol, apparently.
@@jimprice7774 Good luck with that argument trying to defend yourself in court
Lawyers are professional liars.
OK armchair lawyers, how about this? Lets lay the 4th amendment aside for a moment. The agent enters your home uninvited and, as all law enforcement, has his sidearm with him. Has he not just made an armed home invasion? What do you think folks?
depends what state your in! ?
right to defend your home if he doesn't proclaim that he is a government agent?
If he didn’t have a search warrant,probable cause or there weren’t any exigent circumstances he would be committing unlawful entry or trespassing.At least that’s how it’s suppose to work.But we all know they rarely ever get charged for things like that.
Qualified Immunity
People have the 2nd Amendment to defend against home invasions.
@@s21killah we think we do . i bet this guy thought he had 4th amendment rights too .
That's a very dangerous thing for those agents, very dangerous
Just stockin up, waiting for this empire to crumble, and it will.
It is even worse than people think. The border patrol maintains that all international airports are also international borders so much of the interior is also subject to their jurisdiction according to their interpretation and in conjunction with this ruling.
This has been the rule since the 1950's, the only difference is that in 1970 the zone was 50 miles. It would be nice if Americans actually kept abreast these things instead of filling their heads with July 4th stupidities.
Bar Prep would be a lot more fun if you two were the ones doing it! Thanks for the study break.
Good luck!!!
thanks for watching! ❤️
@@TheLawSaysWhat Hello. I wanted to give you guys a heads up.
There is RUclipsr who calls himself "Delete Lawz", his real name is Jose "Chilie" DeCastro. I'm not doxxing him, he's very open (a better term might be "reckless") about his identity. He made a video about you guys yesterday on his channel. You may already know this.
My guess is he's going to maybe attempt to ingratiate himself with you. He may have already started with the love-bombing. Please look into this man and his history. He is a known hustler and fraud who inaccurately describes himself as a "constitutional law scholar". Perhaps he has tried to dazzle you with this lie already. The truth is he has no formal education in law. He travels around the country, seeking out distinctly vulnerable people who are experiencing major legal troubles, and he meddles. I believe very strongly that every American unconditionally deserves the best defense possible when accused of a crime. Jose's meddling with the cases of his victims undoubtedly results in their defenses being compromised. This is reprehensible and one of many reasons I am committed to debunking him.
There are several reputable channels on RUclips, run by lawyers, who have done excellent work debunking Jose DeCastro. I would recommend looking at the work *Law Talk With Mike* has done as well as *Arty's Corporate Fiction* particularly the recent stream Arty did titled:
"Breaking Down Chili's Ex Parte Harassment Prevention Hearing"
You'll see the rabbit hole goes pretty deep. Another debunker channel, Masshole Report, has essentially declared war on "Delete Lawz". They've done excellent work debunking him. The above referenced hearing relates to Jose exploiting the courts in an _attempt to_ get Masshole's channel shut down. You can imagine, because The First Amendment is a thing, he failed.
If you listen to the hearing, you won't believe your ears...
You seem like really nice people (I liked your vid here, the first content of yours that I've seen), and when I saw Jose had dedicated an entire video to you, I felt obligated to...lol, "warn" you. Just vet him.
You won't have to dig too deep to see things you won't like. Sorry this is so long. :) Take care.
this is a very sad time for Americans
No warrant...no search....BP meet 2nd amendment.....
If a Supreme Court Justice is in the vicinity, there is no such thing as a 2A. There goes that "slippery slope". Even if you don't know an SC Justice is on the scene, if you pull out a weapon they will kill you and they will not go to jail.
Yep- get to choose an arrest or a gunfight.
@@michaelgarrow3239 gunfight...it sets a precedent for other BP agents to follow 😁
Jon Single - I know. I have had the swat team at my door.
Not fun.
@@michaelgarrow3239 one reason to always have a secret escape door !
Ever seen Enemy of the State ??
I would call the State police!
Love factual education on current issues. 😊
CBP are also stationed at International Airports. Does the 100 mile radius also pertain to those as well? If so, this would affect a greater area.
Would it be possible for the Border Patrol to confiscate your belongings under an illegal search through civil asset forfeiture in this case? That's already a huge problem for a lot of innocent people, so I can only imagine it would get even worse if they were able to begin searching people's property and seizing their assets with no warrants and no fear of rebuke.
If the police "smell drugs" in your home, they can take whatever they want.
Yes, they wish be able to.
"They" can do what they want unless you use 2nd amendment.
@@ThePugilistPodcast Whoever shoots first wins. But if you shoot first you're going to jail LOL 😂😆
@@ThePugilistPodcast Yea, considering people have gone to jail or been killed for shooting at SWAT teams that hit the wrong house (leaving the occupants thinking they were being broken into), I wouldn't try this myself. Lol.
Chille from the channel Delete Lawz sent me love your content keep it up 💯🇺🇸👍🏻
Cause I can’t think for myself, but if an undereducated drifter/grifter tells me to do stuff, I have to comply. Yay me!
@@mrmtoad I'm actually heartened to not see too many of "Delete Lawz" people over here. The last thing the couple who runs this channel needs is to get caught up in...that.
They're smart people. Five minutes watching any of Jose's videos and they'll know what he is.
Every FTCA case that I’ve come across has the United States in the caption as the defendant. My impression was that the United States replaces not just the individual federal employee but also replaces the agency as well. I’m willing to be corrected on that issue…could you explain that to me if you think I’m wrong about that.
Great information. Thank you.
A right without a remedy isn't a right.
So much story in so little time! Egbert called the IRS to report Boule, and they came right away? Like that day? Surprised that they responded at all? How did Boule know that the IRS contacted him, because of Egbert?
In the process of civil litigation, both parties are entitled to "Discovery", which allows both parties to seek all manner of documents, records, etc...that the other party had. So when Boule demanded through Discovery that the BP hand over all records of communication, regarding him, they likely found one that directly tied Egbert to a call to the IRS. In following this, the same Discovery process would compel the pertinent IRS employees to confirm or deny this contact, which they would because they're not gonna be stupid enough to lie about a matter of litigation.
A burglar is a burglar no matter what costume they have on! Protect yourself..
Nice job. Tanks!
It's up to a congress with a public confidence rating at 7%,last place compared to all other entities in the recent gallup poll study.which is typically gridlocked or chooses to let someone else due their job for them instead ie.-sit and wait for further supreme court rulings to clarify this "great area"= loss of rights.
Really frightening implications for the next 20-40 years’ civil society. It’s not too dissimilar to things that have happened here before, when parts of the Constitution were defined differently.
During the first world war, citizen-vigilantes roamed major cities at will, with federal support. The American Protective League was organized in nearly every community, and their “agents” - white, established men or ruffians, with a patriotic streak - helped round up draft-dodgers and bust saloons in the prelude to Prohibition. They violated other citizens’ civil rights with impunity for years, and agents were responsible for beatings and excessive use of force in New York, New Orleans, and elsewhere.
They were disbanded officially after the war was over. But it is possible their spirit lives on, in a supreme court that is sliding backwards on rights
Especially in certain states with certain laws and rhetoric they’re pushing, at the rate we’re going I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing a new version of the APL ready to pounce on any woman suspected of abortion, or any teacher suspected of teaching unapproved, unpatriotic historical facts.
It's been this way since shortly after 9/11 and the passage of of the Patriot Act. Living within the 100 mile zone it's not unusual for cops to have a Border Patrol agent with them for searches, establish check points on roads, etc.
This isn't new nor is it something out of the blue. It is what conservative citizens wanted and made law. It was all fine as long as DHS used it against Mexicans but now that it's more broadly applied the outrage comes. You were warned many years ago but only now you become concerned, why?
"And then they came for me"
Because they were asleep at the wheel. I remember a bunch of people saying we should give up some rights for safety after 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act; but these fools didn’t understand what freedoms they would be losing. They assumed it would only affect Islamic terrorists; not actual Americans. They never listen to the people on the left who explain these things to them. 🤷🏻♂️
It was broadly applied from day one. The so called Patriot Act has been used for domestic crimes many more times that for what it was passed.
A Right without recourse, is no right at all.
Crazy how you can’t sue a border patrol agent for violating your 4th amendment but you can sue a server if you order more alcohol you can handle.
A Right without a remedy is not a Right at all! WTH.
Well if the 4th is in disrepair i guess we just gotta be ready to make up for it with the 2nd.
🤣🤣🤣 Like anyone has the balls to do that. People are weak these days.
you break into my home uninvited , i will invoke my 2A 😳🤣✌️🍺🇺🇸
So hold tight and endure until someone else fixes it. Oh boy.
When I heard you say, in the beginning, this story is about a “character” and then that it involved SCJ Thomas, I thought you meant him! That Clarence Thomas is the character. I giggled and in my mind I thought “Right??” But then you explained you were talking about a different guy, about Boules. Still, imprinted in my memory forever is so much from the Anita Hill hearings, especially the “hair on the Coke can”. Uchhh.
Clarence Thomas has been trying to to overturn Mapp vs Ohio (1961).... remember that Fruit of the poisonous tree?
If there’s signs do not trespassing and they still trespass, things will probably go in a wrong direction.
This is Armed breaking and Entering. If there is no legal remedy, people will seek extra-legal remedies...
I like this channel this my first interaction with um let's see how it goes when I respond back. I get what they're saying alright without a course of action if someone violates it isn't really a right and the Supreme Court according to them I haven't heard about the case ruled that you cannot sue a border patrol agent if he enters your house within 100 miles of the Border. I am in no way advocating violence or in no way an expert giving legal advice but my take on it is there are course of actions even if you can't sue the government or anybody does not have a right to come in your house without a warrant and you have a right to defend your domain exactly why they might want to take away everybody Second Amendment
Sue federal agents for violating my constitutional rights?, I think there are better ways of dealing w that…
So much for the US being the land of the free.
It is for the elite but not for us.
Well, that sucks.
There is no bill of rights. Take matters into your own hands.
It’s amazing how much of our politics is divided between left and right and not between the three branches of which only one has failed to do its job repeatedly causing the other two to in cases overreach. Congress need to lead again.
One party uses the filibuster to prevent congress from doing its job so that issues will instead be decided by the Court of Perjurers.
the congress was never supposed to lead. the government was designed to do as little as possible and we let it inflate into a monster.
If a law or ruling can be abused it _will_ be abused. Nothing more to say.
Since you made the video and it is now more clarified- 25 mile allowances vs 100 mile. You should edit/change update.
Is this America anymore? Our freedoms are gone
The problem is that previous precedents (not law) carved out exceptions to the 4th amendment. For example, the federal government via the Department of Justice defined a “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles. But not any law.
Actually the Supreme Court created the Rights we have under the Fourth Amendment because the Fourth Amendment only says we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, and NO WHERE in the Fourth Amendment is a warrant required for anything. Court decisions become LAW in a common law system, which is what we have, the precedents take PRECEDENT over TEXT.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn exactly my point. Not law. Court decisions, like qualified immunity
@@hannahalice1000 The "Law", especially the Fourth Amendment didn't really create any rights at all, or more correctly a generalization as opposed to a specific right. It just says "No UNREASONABLE" searches or seizures but no where does it say what are or are not "UNREASONABLE". Contrary to popular belief, NO WHERE in the Fourth Amendment does it say a warrant is necessary before any searches or seizures, only what is required to obtain one, and what one is required to contain. We have a common law system of laws which mean that the precedent setting court decisions are what we go by, and not the text of the Amendment or Statute.
If my door is locked and they break the lock can I sue
they have no problem creating a cause of action when the goverment benefits . either we have rights or we don't this should of been a easy case .
Grey area just means that individuals will suffer the duress of the institution
which has now quietly succeeded in expanding the scope of oppression.
Can anybody cite evidence that the laws codes in constitution apply to anyone?
You can still seek to suppress evidence taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment…but you have no cause of action for civil liability for constitutional torts for money damages.
Wait is it allowed to defend myself if a border patrol agent enters my home without a warrant ie not invited.
Wouldn't in turn also be a violation of the 1st amendment right to petetition the government for redress?
TLDR: So within 100 miles the answer is effectively yes.
Within 100 miles of any international border, which includes any sea coast, so the entire state of Florida, they can stop and board vehicles and vessels to check for undocumented people, NOT Enter or search your home.
so again it lands on the tax payer.
“if you are 100 miles from the border...” What, like only EXACTLY 100 miles from the border, no more or less?
100 miles or LESS but not more. Probably nautical miles too. So as a crow flys so to speak.
Can you confirm this statement: A police officer cannot be under investigation under internal affairs unless IA provides a 30 day notice prior to the investigation? Someone told me this and Im like wait.....citizens dont have that priviledge.
FALSE.
Ever since Marbury the Court has overstepped its constitutional bounds. We only had a check & balance system for a short while. Ever since Marbury we have a Court who has executive veto power that is much more powerful than a potus' veto power (instead of being in office at the time to sign or veto, the Court can now go back hundreds of years to overthrow any law that they find inconvenient to their political party). This same Court also presumes a legislative power where they set national policy thru a process of elimination by granting some standing and others a cold shoulder. Somehow the org "Pro Life America" had "standing" to challenge Florida's right to count all of the votes of all Floridians and the Court ruled in favor of appointing itself The People in which it usurped the rights of every voter by making their nine votes be the only ones which matter. In that decision they resolved that the case Bush v Gore would not serve as any legal precedent and that they reserved the right to ignore the Bush v Gore circumstance and apply whatever logic they find useful to again install a potus from their own party if they are again given the opportunity to stage that kind of coup.
They basically stood down in the last fraudulent election of a president, which negates your argument.
With the "Special Needs Doctrine" clause in the 4th amendment there really is no 4th amendment.
He needs ti go to prison.
So in the end yes they have taken your 4th amendment away
How is this legal
Don't want a remedy through the court but protects pigs with qualified immunity
What happen to the the fruit from a poisonous tree?
Neat
This is why we have the 2nd Amendment
If someone trespasses what does castle doctrine say as he is not acting legally?
Only Florida (and maybe Texas) have castle doctrine. But none of that matters in a federal court.
@@matthew8153
Murder is a state issue.
@@matthew8153 Texas has strong castle doctrine and fun fact Kansas has the best gun laws self defense laws out of all the states. Oklahoma is up there too.
give up your rights for safety and you have neither rights or safety!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wake up people !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woody Harrelson if he switched sides.
Then if they enter my home without a warrant, they are acting outside the law and should be considered a home invader, castle doctrine and self defense comes into play! And do you want to bet if you injure the agent, you will be charged and sued! So yes we are living in a police state.
You can still use the FTCA to sue for damages from blood stains, bullet holes, etc.
What's the use having the 4th Amendment then?
There is one remedy which is the 2nd amendment I think we all know what that looks like
Yes, ammosexuals like you have made it clear.
Democracy is on sale. Come and buy it soon.
What is next?Think about that.
You should probably return your law degrees from wherever you got them.
So they can break into your house, but you can't do anything to the individual offender unless they break another law (assault you, steal something, or anything outside their job duty)
But anything they could get you in trouble for can't be used to get you in any legal trouble, so there is no benefit for them in taking advantage of this loophole.
Lastly, you may be able to sue border patrol as a whole, just not that individual. So, while you might be sad you can't get specific revenge on the guy who offended you (though he'll likely get fired), that doesn't necessarily mean "NOTHING" at all can be done about it.
In the end, the legislature needs to fix/clarify this, and the Supreme Court is right that it's not their place to make the laws. I think what they ruled makes sense and the legislative branch just needs to fix the hole. In the meantime, people are being extra dramatic and misleading about what they can do to you.
From what I have heard today, there have only been 2 cases in 50 years where Bivens cases have led to monetary judgements.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn gotta love default qualified immunity... It's a hard thing to overcome
@@carverofchoice Really not a deferred QI, because even if there was a law, or Congress added the words Federal Government, or United States Government to section 42 USC 1983 there would still be QI as long as the Govt Agents didn't knowingly violate your rights based upon a precedent setting case and they acted reasonably. The problem is that the Federal Torts Claim Act specifically excludes cases of false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution. Also the Bivens decision only was applicable to DEA Agents (the original case) and based upon 2 additional cases, 1979, and 1980, prison guards and congressmen, both of which were decided over 50 years ago, so Bivens only affected Federal Actors in those three positions. Really the decision was mainly ineffective at the least.
2nd amendment says best not trespass !!!
This guy Boule sounds like he is getting paid from both sides. This sounds like the guy in the movies who is actually a double agent/spy.
The facts here really do seem like they could be part of a Netflix show
Pretty sure when an armed person breaks into your home, you would be in reasonable fear for your life and deadly force may be used, whether they are a cop or not. So, yeah, you can do something about it.
I really need some help I got hit by a sheriff on my electric scooter my shoulders messed up he never gave me his insurance information there's a lot of strange things that happened with my case I had a lawyer he wouldn't let me go to a doctor he ran my time out as far as I know I can't file a torque came but if I can file a tort claim I could really use some help my mental state isn't doing too good
Also Boule is pretty much the worst type of person. Makes a living through deceit and betrayal.
Subscribed through DELETE LAWZ. Please answer his question. TY!!
How sad are you to beg for that shtstain?
Isn’t that the guy that assaulted a woman?
@@SalaciousCrmbDid you see the video of Chille using one hand to stop the woman from walking inches behind him?
@@michaelcollins8933 Can you hit people or not? Yes or no? Is it *against the law* to shove someone or not?
So with that in mind:
Jose is standing there, a phone in one hand. His other hand is free. Kate is standing next to him. Josh Abrams is filming. Both Kate and Jose are clearly in frame. She is not atacking him. She is not touching him. She is not threatening him.
With his free hand, Jose reaches out and shoves her back. She *clearly physically* reacts, taking a step or two back.
There's no editing. There's no cut. It's an unbroken take. It's clear to see. There's no ambiguity. It happens in real time.
*Look at what you just wrote* you admit she was "inches behind him".
Why are you defending him for physically shoving a woman who posed zero physical threat?
Does "rule of law" matter........or not?
@@mcnultyssobercompanion6372 He did not hit her. Every time he stopped walking, she bumped into him. He tried to get a cop to stop her, but the cop did nothing. There is a thing called personal space even with or without covid. If anyone was on my heels following me around, I then stopped walking and get bumped into, I would do the very same.
We don't stop 👍👍
Chille doesn't stop...running from his responsibilities.
A lucid explanation of a complicated issue.
thanks!
I guess if you are feeling lucky. Well, do you feel lucky, Punk!
What happens if "someone" enters your home with a gun. They get shot lol. FAFO
Doesn't qualified immunity deem this conversation "mute"? Or is it moot?
So when they come into my house and I spill their blood all over my stuff who's going to pay for that?
You.
@@AlphaFoxAdam I guess that's the price I pay for being an American
@@deesnuts1965 um, no… it’s about the fact that you can’t employ capital punishment when your feelings are hurt.
What about Ker v. California? Does that apply?
@Delete Lawz You should ask them if it's a good idea to call court officers 'scumbags' during court. Like you did in Massachusetts recently ruclips.net/video/IkSL_-tf61M/видео.html So disgusting and disrespectful of the court.
Sup playboy! 🤣 Your right, these two know their sh!t..
I thought CHILLE was a “constitutional scholar” - finally he realizes he’s not an attorney and needs a lawyers advice - glad to see him maturing…. Only took 50 years
Leave these people alone, Jose.
Haven't you done enough damage? Where does it all end?
@@sashasandhu My read on this is he's trying to ingratiate himself with this couple.
Becoming supporting players in the "Delete Lawz Exploitation Traveling Circus" is probably the last thing they need. It's the last thing anybody needs.
They're smart people. They'll vet him. But still. In the meantime he slinks in here, under the guise of offering a legitimate, legal discussion. They have no idea right over the horizon lies "torture cuffs", bench warrants, and "all cops are evil".
Hey, Jose, here's a better question: *what does Ker v. California say about harassing kids at a parade* .....?
So, as I understand this - it is NOT "legal" for a BP agent to enter your private premises without a warrant.
BUT - within 100 miles of the border (jurisdiction of the BP), because of "National Security", you cannot deny them access.
Nor do you have legal recourse for them violating your 4th amendment right (at least as long as they don't cause damage or harm).
So in effect, the Border Patrol CAN ignore your 4th amendment right without cause or due process.
Yep, sounds just like how the original tik-tokker explained it.
The Supreme Court has basically nullified the 4th amendment within 100 miles of the US border.
The conservative bias of the SCOTUS pretty much just killed the 4th amendment.
That's about as clear as clear can be.
If only trump were still in office. 🤔 He alone could fix all this.
It isn’t 100 it’s 25
This is an interesting video, but I gave up watching due to the zoom in, zoom out cuts.
That’s ok. 2nd amendment still exists
In other words the guy was right.
If a border patrol agent illegally enters your home you can't sue. But this video doesn't address whether you could simply defend your property with force. Presumably you could just shoot the agent if state law allows for that response.
So when the video says, "...you can't really do anything about it," that might not be true. There's always violence.
Was it "violence is never the solution" or "violence is always the solution"? It's so hard to remember sometimes. But if the government has guns, I guess that means violence must always be the solution!
@@thereaction18 Violence is always an option, and sometimes a legal one. I'm just disappointed the video doesn't even address it.
I cNt chat in the near live