Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Lots of people say this man is being rude. Does anyone think it's okay to detain this man for being rude if he's broken no law and is under no legal obligation to answer their questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungtotte Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Some days I do think it should be legal to detain people for being dumbasses, Ser Scot ;)Seriously, I bet this whole thing would have gone a lot smoother if his first response had been "I will not respond to that. I am exercising my right not to answer any of your questions." instead of going the smug route of waiting for the coin to drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Lots of people say this man is being rude. Does anyone think it's okay to detain this man for being rude if he's broken no law and is under no legal obligation to answer their questions?It depends on what the customs agents are taught as there standard operating procedures.They won't answer questions, then detain them and search EVERYTHING they have on them.It would also depend on how long the "detention" was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Kungtotte,I'm not so sure. Some officers of the law get a big head about their authority and don't like to have it questioned particularly where others can see it done. I suspect that if the man had responded as you suggest he would still have been detained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Scot,Alguien,So, do you think it's okay to detain him for refusing to answer non-compulsory questions posed by the customs agent?No. The man has a right not to answer. As to whether or not he's being an effective instrument of positive change is a bit trickier and my answer to that is I'm not sure. For one, we don't actually know how accurate his account is or if it even happened. I'm always a little dubious of such things posted on blogs.If completely accurate, what I am questioning is how far he'd go to stick with his principles. Being detained for several hours is a pain, but if he planned for this, than its not as big of a pain for him. What if he has a critical interview he has to get to, or his wife is in the hospital having a baby? As you yourself said in your original post, you'd probably just answer the question and avoid the inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Alguin,And that's what those asking non-compulsory questions from a postition of perceived authority are betting on. Perhaps I should refuse as a matter of principle. However, I rarely travel outside the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 By the way, those looking to discover why this man is a jackass should read the whole blog post. They should have cavity searched him, just for the hell of it.I am a law-abiding citizen, and, as such, I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants. They would do well to remember that.The passport control officer was aghast when I told her that my visit to China was none of her business. This must not happen often, because several of the officers involved seemed thrown by my refusal to meekly bend to their whim.And just read the tone of the story. He's a little man on a big power trip. The fact that he continually tries to pretend the customs agents are the ones on the power trip is just hilariously ironic.Nothing to do with whether he's right or not, but yeah, complete fuckwad of a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Shryke,Is being a "fuckwad of a person" rounds for detention if the "fuckwad of a person" is breaking no laws in their actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Shryke,Is being a "fuckwad of a person" rounds for detention if the "fuckwad of a person" is breaking no laws in their actions?Like I said (and you ignored me Scot) it all depends on what the standard opperating procedures are.If they are told they need to detain and investigate anyone uncoperative, then the answer is yes. They are told to look for certain things, and this guy was very much on a power trip. Yes, you don't have to answer the questions, but if you refuse then they seem to have the right to detain you, for a certain amount of time. He was not arrested. He was not charged. I guess what we don't know here are what are the procedures? What are the officials taught? How much authority do they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Shryke,Is being a "fuckwad of a person" rounds for detention if the "fuckwad of a person" is breaking no laws in their actions?Can you read Scot? Did you somehow miss the last sentence?Calm down from your damn tirade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 If they are told they need to detain and investigate anyone uncoperative, then the answer is yes. The answer is still no. Because it's illegal to detain someone for no reason (they call it "kidnapping" when you or I do it). Since they have no legally justifiable cause for detention, it doesn't matter what they are "told" to do, they can't detain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 The answer is still no. Because it's illegal to detain someone for no reason (they call it "kidnapping" when you or I do it). Since they have no legally justifiable cause for detention, it doesn't matter what they are "told" to do, they can't detain.Well, it does matter what they are told to do since those individual agents can neither change policy nor do they probably know it's exact ins and outs.They behave as they are trained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Lany,My apologies. I'd agree if he were immidieately taken and his bags searched. My problem is the "he needs to calm down/cool off for a couple of hours" statement. Surely it doesn't take a couple of hours to search the man's luggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalThor Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 I have to say I agree with this guy's sentiments if not exactly his methods. He could have been more polite but the principle remains.I've posted it here before but it pissed me off no end when agents of my government would subject my, now wife Mashiara, to the equivalent of the freaking Spanish Inquisition upon her arrival to the States without me (prior to our marriage).How long will you be here? You do have a return ticket, yes? F-you assholes, the States could do with a lot worse than her if she were to (legally) stay.Thankfully she gets to go through the line with me nowadays but we still get grilled mercilessly. They also seem to check every single one of our suitcases every single time we travel there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Alguin,And that's what those asking non-compulsory questions from a postition of perceived authority are betting on. Perhaps I should refuse as a matter of principle. However, I rarely travel outside the US.Quick note, its 'alguien', with an 'e'. Spanish for "someone."With regards to you refusing to answer their question, let me know how that goes if you decide to do so. Would you still if your family was traveling with you? I seem to recall you taking a similar stance for the Census. I'm still on the fence about whether or not what this guy did was a positive. It certainly has increased his blog traffic. On the one hand, who isn't a fan of challenging airport authority? Most of us have heard stories of how they abuse their power. GRRM is famous for his stance on them. On the other hand, the blog author's post was a little too self-congratulatory for my tastes. The challenge between between citizenry and those who wield authority is always an interesting dynamic to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 I find it strange that he's the one being called rude. As he rightly notes, they really don't have any right to ask those questions, and their expectation that he ought to answer their questions just because they have some vague authority position is problematic and basically an example of institutional rudeness. It'd be nice if he let the customs people down easily with some humble politeness, but it'd be better still if they weren't being casually rude from the get go.Well, is there any real reason for him NOT to answer a couple of vague questions? Or say whatever the fuck he wanted to, instead of holding up the people behind him in an attempt to display some sort of form of control in one of the least meaningful places you could do such a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Alguien,My aplogies for misspelling you handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Relic,Absolutely, they aren't entitled to that information. Would you just give information you consider private to anyone who asked. Should you have to justify your refusal to give that information to a stranger who is not legally entitled to that information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Well, is there any real reason for him NOT to answer a couple of vague questions? Or say whatever the fuck he wanted to, instead of holding up the people behind him in an attempt to display some sort of form of control in one of the least meaningful places you could do such a thing? Yes, fucking principle. If people like this guy, and you, and me, don't take a stand on this issue (and issues like it), the people "in charge" start thinking they do have unlimited power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Yes, fucking principle. If people like this guy, and you, and me, don't take a stand on this issue (and issues like it), the people "in charge" start thinking they do have unlimited power.A stand on what exactly? They don't even pay attention to the answer most of the time. It seems like a pretty petty thing to be obnoxious to someone over, especially someone with no control over policy. Besides after experiencing South American Customs at work (the worst being in Bolivia) i don't think answering a couple of questions is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.