Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
2) That guy is an idiot. If you are going to be a martyr, do it for a good cause. He thought that he had some right that he did not have. While the police overreacted. He was in the wrong and should just admit it.
The 4th didn`t apply to him, as the trained drug-sniffing dogs gave them probable cause to suspect that he had contraband in his vehicle. His actions only further amplified their suspicions. I`m surprised he wasn`t actually beaten. (the cut on his head was from being pulled through the window, not from being `beaten`)
what the cops were doing was obviously wrong, but that pastor handled himself like an idiot.
Furthermore, by resisting the way he did, he prevented the cops from doing their duties. He had a large contingent of cops that had to deal with him rather than the people they were really there to catch: drug runners and other law breakers. He wasted the time a resources of a legitimate authority, so he deserves a little jail time.
If he really wanted to show the injustice of the law, he should have taken the injustice in a mature way, rather than whining and wasting everyone`s time. It`s obvious that he doesn`t think of cops as people, and that is wrong.
He screams like a bitch though..
I still don`t see why the taser or the beating was necessary.
this entire statement is bullpoo. There`s a difference between resisting a resist and questioning authority. This instance involved the latter.
You have the right to refuse to answer questions regarding any crimes.You have the right to have an attorney present before answering questions regarding any crimes.Do you understand?
That is all, nothing more. And Miranda Warnings are only applicable during QUESTIONING not during others interactions. Don`t believe everything you see on Law and Order.
And as for People Having Rights. You`re correct they do have rights. Arguing with police is not a right. Refusing to comply with orders is not a right. Rights are protected by THE COURT SYSTEM. That is why courts exist. Otherwise the officer would sentence you to jail on the spot. This guy was given plenty of warning. People see a couple episodes of CSI: Miami and think they`re Civil Rights Attorneys.
Actully he was never told what he was being arested for and if you brush up on your U.S. history. It`s illeagal for an officer to arrest citizens with out telling them what their offense was; I.E. MIRANDA RIGHTS:1.To remain silent. 2.TO BE INFORMED OF CHARGES AGAINST YOU.3.To obtain an attorney or have one appointed to you if you cannot afford one. 4.To have a judge decide if you should remain in jail or be released until your trial.
To be silent as in if asked a question; you dont have to answer it.
mind my Grammar errors $%^@#es
Still, it was pretty funny when we cried while getting tazered.. Other than that; sucks to be him.
innocent till proven guilty means to treat the person with respect and abide by their rights as human beings until they are proven to be a criminal
An issue like this was raised awhile ago with some cop telling some bikers to get off the road; they refused (as there weren`t any cars on the road at the time). After awhile the officer managed to stop them (by pulling up infront of them I think) and tazed one. Both the cyclists sued, and they won - they got a few thousand dollars for their bikes (which were just left at the scene) and the officer (I believe) was fired.
I dont know if there was any more to it than whats in the video, I don`t know what happened - but they were abusing what they beleived were their powers.
People shouldn`t just agree with the authority just because that`s what they are.
your logic implies that he`s guilty until proven innocent!
Are you suggesting they only search people of Spanish descent or other nationalities... That`s called profiling and smugglers realize this better than anyone, they use it to their advantage by hiring out U.S. citizens that don`t stick out like a sore thumb to traffic the contraband. This is exactly what "Random" searches are meant to do, catch people off guard. As for this particular case, I would say the story is a bit one sided as all we have to go on is this mans biased testimony and an edited video tape. He fails to reveal any footage of said K9 and simply denies that the dog alerted to his car. Did the dog alert..we may never know. In any case getting pulled out of a broken window is going to result in a few cuts and scrapes.
These agents knew he wasn`t an illegal, They knew his name, knew he owned the vehicle, knew had no warrants or priors, and knew where he lived. There was no good reason to treat him like they did.
#1 No drug dog alerted, That was a lie told by the agents. This` backed up by the fact that NOTHING was found.
#2 There was no crime, Thus no criminal investigation and no obstruction of a legal investigation.
#3 You`re not getting it, The agents expect everyone to just let them do whatever the hell they want (Whether or not it`s legal for them to do so.) That`s exactly the kind of mindset that they want, So they can trample over the constitution and get away with it.
#4 This guy didn`t physically resist the officers (other than locking his door). They hit him with 2 tasers, Shoved his head into the glass on the door, and on the ground.
If you think they`re right, Then you need to re-read the constitution.
Also, I`ve defended Cops over some Skateboarders in earlier instances. So I`m not against them all the time.
Exactly what crime was committed here. They gave this man ample opportunity to exit the vehicle and gave him fair warning of the consequences if he did not comply. I believe goaliejerry said it best and I quote,
"And IF COPS COULDN`T BUST OPEN THE WINDOW OF A NON-COMPLIANT suspect, what, prey tell, are they to do to execute the search? Asking nicely didn`t work.
How insane would it be if this guy could have resisted a reasonable search just by locking the doors? Should the cops just asked again, NICER??"
You see what I`m getting at? They did what was necessary and nothing more. Back to your original question though, how do I measure injustice, well if they had dragged him out beat him Rodney King style or worse but a piece of lead between his eyes, then yes that would have been "injustice". That, however, did not occur so as for me cheering at the crime scene... well there was no crime scene to be cheering at.
I don`t misread.
I was just wondering, how you measure injustice? do you round to even milions? do you leave out the victims who weren`t nice enough? as clumsy as space_kowboy`s argument was - cheering bystanders at a crime scene are never innocent. and wether you defend one brutal police man now or 70 years ago, makes no difference for what kind of person you are. plus: if every person makes just one murder or crime justifyable, it adds up to milions soon enough. even if every self proclamed judge here only saw and sanctioned one such case in their lives and lived in blissful ignorance the rest of it.
I believe you may have misread my comment. I was not saying civillians murdered anyone, quite the opposite actually... Innocent people were being murdered.
he tapes these videos because he`s an activist, he has more of them.
Either that, or he should be chucked out of his job.
Well the ACLU disagrees with you regarding the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act:
I`ve shown they had probable cause to search his car, and further that cops have authority to setup checkpoints to combat drug smuggling so long as they have a valid reason (guranteed they didn`t randomly select an area to check).
I won`t bang my head on the wall anymore.
Want to know why? Because it largely operates to amend specific language in already existance US laws and doesn`t operate as a standalone act (just like most legislation). How do I know? I`ve read it, and its gibberish.
Rather than repeating what you read on the internet, tell me what you actually understand and object to.
Tell me where the Patriot act purports to abrogate the constitutional rights of US citizens. (Hint - it doesn`t - all federal laws must comply with the Constitution - see Marbury v. Madison (classic case)).
Title IV relates to IMMIGRATION - i.e., non-US citizens, who do NOT have the same constitutional rights as citizens.
i`m wondering what kind of checkpoint this is. is it a racially profiling checkpoint to keep illegals out? if it is, why is it 50-70 miles from the border? i think the preacher has a lot more with that video, but a bad lawyer could mess all that up. his defense is, "Well the only point I was trying to make is that I have the right to travel within the United States without being searched arbitrarily at ran
Now that is crazy, and I don`t think that will stand in federal court. A waiver signed under threat of arrest is crazy invalid.
This isn`t true if the federal government knows that a particular freeway acts as an artery for drug smuggling. How would they prove they know? By having busted drug smugglers in the area before. People think the government acts randomly - but study economics a little and you will understand an organization with limited resources will focus its efforts on areas in which the funds can do good. Cops don`t just go out looking to harrass people - they want to bust criminals. (Corruption at lower levels, not saying it happened here, doesn`t disprove the validity of command`s strategy of focusing its effort on particular areas proven to be high in crime).
If the cops turn out to actually have been wrong, that doesn`t change that they had probable cause. The propriety of a search under probable cause is determined by circumstances BEFORE the search, not after.
And, as I said, and as courts and science have long recognized, Dog Noses Are Good At Smelling Drugs, So Good That It Is Reasonable To Belive A Trained Dog Smells Drugs When It Signals It Does.
Don`t reference the "right to privacy" without noting the word in the constitution preventing "unreasonable" searches...A dog signalling contraband gives cops a REASONABLE reason to thing there is contraband.
And IF COPS COULDN`T BUST OPEN THE WINDOW OF A NON-COMPLIANT suspect, what, prey tell, are they to do to execute the search? Asking nicely didn`t work.
How insane would it be if this guy could have resisted a reasonable search just by locking the doors? Should the cops just asked again, NICER??
1. the checkpoint is too far away from the Mexican border to have the jurisdiction to have dogs sniffing the vehicle or searching it without the need of consent. he has a right to privacy since he is still in America.
2. even if he is assumed to have contraband, you do NOT bust open a car window, TAZE the suspect who isn`t giving any violent resistance, CRUSH his head onto BROKEN GLASS, and most of all you do NOT F*CKING SMILE WHEN DOING THE AFOREMENTIONED!
this has nothing to do with racial profiling or religious association. since he had no contraband, the dog`s "signal" is worthless. you CANNOT manufacture a crime!
Just to level the playing field so we aren`t just ripping information from thin air here.-------------------------------------------------I did that on the last vid featuring this guy. I really cant be bothered dredging it up again! Plus it`s time for work so later all!
Just to level the playing field so we aren`t just ripping information from thin air here.
And can you imagine the absurd consequences if every person ever pulled over could demand that the police prove - to the person`s own personal, stubborn satisfaction - that they had probable cause???? Think about all the jackasses out there who would pull this crap in entirely valid situations, people with no legal training whatsoever being empowered to challenge probably cause on the roadside. REDICULOUS. Law enforcement would lose all effectiveness.
Lets say dude is smuggling pot, and the dog IDs it - under your view, the cops should show the criminal the dog IDing the pot BEFORE ARRESTING HIM, but only if the criminal wanted to cooperate. If he didn`t, under your view, the police would be stuck....rediculous.
The police have EVERY right to stop anyone if they have probable cause. Without that right, how the hell can they do their job and arrest acctual criminals otherwise?
The idiot in the video may well have had nothing to hide or have done anything wrong but he could have avoided it all by just assisting the police with their enquirys.However, I agree the police where WAY to heavy handed but thats a diffrent argument.
If you start shouting about freedoms and rights then your just making a circular argument. If the police cant stop anyone for any reason ever, then people can get away with all sorts of crimes and you might as well just give up!
hamisgood nailed it in his post.Comply THEN complain. The police have no way of knowing anything without investigating accordingly! If the police are corrupt to begin with, then you are screwed whatever happens!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/16/...This D. bag wasn`t just driving home, minding his own business, when BAM a cop with a taser jumped out and busted his ass. This guy certainly seems to get a thrill out of being just an all around tool.
Hmm, you know, I am no right-winger, but there is a HUGE distinction between the "religious right," and the ACTUAL "right." The religious right would be happy if Jesus dicated the law - those people don`t care if the government stops homosexuals from banging each other....
The ACTUAL "right" has HUGE problems with government interference into people`s personal lives.
So, I predict (I predicted 10 years ago, and its happening) Republicans will shed religion in favor of libertarianism, and only then will they again ascend to power (shoot, I might even vote for them - keep government off of my stuff).
But don`t expect bible beaters to give up the ear of the Republican party without a disgraceful fight...
Wow... aren`t we quick to make assumptions on people we don`t know based on 2 comments. In any case, not French but whatever. I simply believe that the guy instigated the situation. The officers were within their bounds to ask him politely to step out of the car. They were also within their bounds to drag him out by force when he refused. It`s the same as roadblocks set up to catch people drinking and driving. If you refuse they will act accordingly and pull your ass out of the car one way or another.
Actually, they do - its called Federal Law. Please don`t spread ignorance. US citizens have full rights under our Constitution, and the patriot act does not abridge that. It may have gone a little too far in removing restrictions on the executive branch, but note something - all three branches remain involved and (this gets deep) Congress has broad authority to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts per the Constitution.
People do not understand that the patriot act did NOTHING to change the law regarding the detention of foreign ENEMY COMBATANTS during armed conflict.
However, a US Citizen retains the constitutional right to habeus review (or its equivalent) even if an enemy combatant.
This person was simply crossing the boarder, implicating boarder security laws, not the patriot act. Please don`t conflate the two - people need to understand how government works.
1st - When a police dog IDs on contraband, cops then have probable cause to search - SEACH, not arrest. This is well established in the law, and not controversial - do you deny that dogs have good noses?
THEN, if someone disobeys a lawful demand to search based on PROBABLE CAUSE, they are guilty of a crime, thus subject to arrest. This guy commited a crime (obstruction of police investigation), then he locked himself in his car.
I don`t give a F_uck if this guy was a "baptist priest." I can become ordained right now.
Jackass - the place to argue legality isn`t on the scene, its in court. If a crime dog IDs your car, thats probable cause. At that point, authorities have the legal right to detain - EVEN IF THE DOG WAS WRONG.
You surrender your freedoms really quickly and casually, Must be French.
But this isn`t about your willingness to let yourself be searched at will. It`s about authorities over stepping their bounds and imposing their will upon you.
He probably should have let them search, but wanted to stand up and make a point. The cops took it waaaayyy too far! They need to be reprimanded, and should pay for damages including medical, and more.
Or maybe instead of having them shred my freedoms and face, I will just get out of the car when they ask and not sit there picking a fight I know I`m not going to win. I have had my car searched before and it takes all but 5 minutes, they ask a couple questions and verify you are a U.S. citizen and that`s it. He could have been on his merry way in a few minutes, but instead refused to cooperate.
@indigo_dream "...didn`t the patriot act or something basically end that, meaning you can be arrested just because they think you`re a threat..."No.
@Masticore "A border search of a vehicle entering the country is, by legal precedent, a reasonable search."This was not a border search. This occured 70 mi. east of Yuma on I-8 --over 50 miles from the border as the crow flies, over 100 mi. by road. Therefore, this WAS an illegal search.
The agents got violent because he wasn`t complacent and stood up for his rights. They were thinking how dare he refuse us to search ?, WE ARE THE LAW!, Do what we say or else!
It`s time for cops and agents with that kind of power trip to be fired.
You sure are quick to make assumptions about someone based their religious views.
Oh yeah, I forgot, we`re only allowed to do that when it`s a Christian involved.
"just give up... they`re right, you`re wrong..."
not to sound too cliche, but this sounds like someone whose living in 1984.
You can never win against an officer on the street. Your best option is to do whatever they say without question and if you disagree follow it through in court where you can and will win if your intelligent enough.
right! because anyone with authority is ALWAYS right, and you should NEVER try to fight back
even though he didn`t listen..they shouldn`t have done that.
Yes, it was Border Patrol, but they had a checkpoint at a sizable distance from the border (I can`t remember the exact distance, but 50 miles seems right).
"HE`S GOT A GUN!""MAN THAT ISN`T A GUN, THATS A BOOK!""BOOK IS SECURED!"
Yeah, obviously they should have said "well, this guy sure doesn`t want to get out, maybe we should just let him go through".
Its not about guilt or innocence in the first place, its about unreasonable searches. And the fact is, is that it is reasonable for the border patrol to search you and your vehicle as you cross the border.
I don`t get why you`d object to law enforcement dealing with physical resistance to a reasonable search.
also, psycho killer... quest que c`est...
America is obviously a police state, since it searches everyone who boards a commercial airplane.
You only have a right against "unreasonable" search or seizure. A border search of a vehicle entering the country is, by legal precedent, a reasonable search. This is due to pretty much identical logic as why a search of your person and possessions as a condition of entry to the secure area of an airport is reasonable, or a search as a condition of entry into certain visitors sections of a prison, or part of a courthouse, or whatever.
Its one thing to "stand up for your rights", but this is NOT one of the situations where a constitutionally guaranteed right was being abrogated.
Father! Rodney King just called! He said, "DAYUM, i thought i got MY ass beat!"
When will people finally start realizing that the police can and likely WILL lie to you to get you to do what they want, Regardless if they are right or wrong. They are experts at it, Even so far as getting coerced false confessions.
If we don`t start standing up and defending our rights we are going to loose them all, On piece at a time.
It boils down to this - American cops are about 99% of the time high on a power trip. They love putting people down because they are "always" right. They are the law! Think of them as server admins on a game. If you annoy one not by breaking the rules of the server at all, but if you just annoy them, then they will kick and ban you. Why? because they can. If you annoy a cop then he is going to get righteous on you because he can. There is none of this "mediation" they have in England. If a cop stops you here and asks questions
This is exactly as if an officer stopped you randomly on the street and demanded all your money and credit cards. </sarcasm>
other than that what beatdown?
So if the cop tells me to give him all my money, my credit card, my social security number, or else he will brutally attack me, I should just listen because the cop is boss, right?do people these days LIKE fascism? Mussolini really wasn`t that nice a guy, contrary to what some may say (i don`t know who)
2.He has a right to ask what he`s being arrested for, they didn`t answer him, which is illegal of the police to do. They did violate his right there.
3. Once they pulled him out, it didn`t look like they were overly brutal, but the car is block the view when he`s on the ground, they could have been doing something we couldn`t see, and as I recall from the original story of this, he said they were kicking him and kneeing him in the head, which we wouldn`t have been able to see.
5. This is a hard one to call.
6. I don`t care if it`s customs, no police officer has a right to infringe you constitutional rights. Period.
7. Cops do abuse power quite too often. I have a friend who was aressted who was drinking and going home with friends one night, they were sober, and he was not driving, they were pulled over, and because he asked why he was being arrested, the police officer said drunk in public, even though he was removed by the officer.
I wonder how this will play out in the court?Will he sue and will he win or will the police?Keep an eye on this one. It`s one thing to rant as armchair quarter backs it a whole other issue when it comes down to who`s actually guilty.
Besides, drating with cops is a sure way to a one-sided ass-kicking.
Actually no. You can`t turn the taser off after you`ve pulled the trigger. It has to go for the full five seconds before the current stops, and then the officer can choose to hit it again for five more seconds.
I understand him being pissy about not wanting to get out of the car, because the cops weren`t telling him exactly why they wanted him out, but if he had just cooperated, this would not have happened.
a)If you actually read the screen, you would know that he had his eyes closed for the latter part of the ordeal.
b)He was squaking "in shock" not because he was being grabbed, but because he was actually being shocked (tased, more accurately.)
c)Where was the hostility or the aggressiveness? He was asking for a simple explanation as to why he was being arrested. That is a pretty major demand to want to know why they were doing it. Asking something repeatedly doesn`t make you hostile and/or aggressive.
d)Silly priest? Is that really the comment that you make in this kind of situation?
Well, when a crucial right is infringed, then slowly, the rest of your rights can be "overlooked". It`s as obvious as that. We do have to put a stop to this infringement eventually, but where? who knows.
When I have nothing to hide I don`t mind working with law enforcement. A few mins and a quick look in the car would have been it and then he could`ve been on his way.
What they did wasn`t right but he didn`t help matters either...
This was so wrong on so many levels.