PDA

View Full Version : This ain't right. The new face of American law enforcement.


Jim March
May 13, 2009, 07:10 AM
Some of the video from the beating and tasering of Pastor Anderson has been released:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?Info=0056971

If after seeing it y'all don't think he has a case, see also the attached still.

Sigh.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46844&stc=1&d=1242216588

The border patrol and AZ DPS are going to pay out big bucks on this one.

madmo44mag
May 13, 2009, 07:32 AM
Opppppps!!
Dam cameras -
Joe: I though you pulled the surveillance tape?
Joe: Jacks got it!
Jack: What? I got ****!

There are some LEO's out there that big heads and very small brains.
There will be a nice payout at the end of this story.

Dust Monkey
May 13, 2009, 07:50 AM
Payouts hell. There had better be criminal charges.

hogdogs
May 13, 2009, 08:24 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc&NR=1
Here is his self made recount the following day...
Complete with names...
Brent

grymster2007
May 13, 2009, 08:36 AM
The tasering was uncalled for, but seems this guy was looking for the video he got.

csmsss
May 13, 2009, 08:45 AM
The tasering was uncalled for, but seems this guy was looking for the video he got.Really? Seems to me he just wanted to go home and was detained illegally without probable cause.

grymster2007
May 13, 2009, 08:52 AM
Seems to me he just wanted to go home So he locked himself in his car and refused a lawful order by a law enforcement officer?

Here's what I got (paraphrasing here):
Officer: step out of the car
Pastor: why?
Officer: step out of the car
Pastor: why?
Officer: step out of the car
Pastor: why?......

Did I miss something?

csmsss
May 13, 2009, 09:01 AM
It's only lawful if the LEO has probable cause to think a crime has been committed. What was the LEO's probable cause? None.

musher
May 13, 2009, 09:03 AM
I think I missed something here. He was clearly told he was under arrest. He refused to follow the officers instructions (resisted arrest), so the officer used an appropriate level of force to effect the arrest.

You can argue about whether it was better to use the taser or to beat him with a club, but either way he had to come out of the car.

I think this is a classic illustration of why it's not a good strategy to argue law with the police beside the road. Save it for the courtroom.

Even if the initial reason for the arrest turns out to result in no charges, he can certainly be charged with resisting arrest--which is an arrestable offense.

csmsss
May 13, 2009, 09:05 AM
You did miss something. LEO's cannot just arrest citizens without cause - it's illegal. Just because the LEO may WANT to arrest someone isn't probable cause.

grymster2007
May 13, 2009, 09:12 AM
It's only lawful if the LEO has probable cause to think a crime has been committed. What was the LEO's probable cause? At the moment, I can't go back and listen again (I'm in a meeting), but thought I heard an officer state that the dog had alerted on the car.

hogdogs
May 13, 2009, 09:15 AM
Refusing to submit to a bogus charge by a false positive by a dope dog is called standing up against jack boot tactics.
This is not the first video by this pastor. In other instance he was finally let go when the superior officer told the officers to just let him go. He has made this trip more than once and I reckon these officers are not professional enuff to let the defeat go. They are not sage enuff to realize that their abuse of an upstanding citizen's rights would ultimately bring to light these abuses. The guy doesn't go to mexico. The "checkpoint" is many miles from any border.
Brent

grymster2007
May 13, 2009, 09:18 AM
Refusing to submit to a bogus charge by a false positive by a dope dog Without a search of the vehicle, how's anyone going to know if it's a false positive?

hogdogs
May 13, 2009, 09:18 AM
Grym, The guy asked the Arizona DPS officer to get that same dog back to the car to show him an alert and Border Patrol officers refused. I am a witness to officers using this same tactic. Officer walks dog to blind side of vehicle and says dog alerted to drug presence when no drugs had ever been in the vehicle.
Brent

JuanCarlos
May 13, 2009, 09:19 AM
Seems to me like y'all are taking issue with the wrong part of the story.

DPS was acting on information from Border Patrol regarding the vehicle, and had placed him under arrest. By not coming out of the vehicle when ordered, after being told he was under arrest (and why), he was resisting arrest (right?). He's got to come out of the vehicle one way or another, seems like the taser was one of the safer ways to make that happen.

Though perhaps tasing the dude with all that broken glass around was a bad idea. But if he won't open the vehicle breaking the window(s) is their only real option.

Taking his story at face value perhaps DPS used a bit more force than necessary afterwards. But based on what I saw I don't necessarily see what DPS did that was particularly wrong.


Now, the fact that Border Patrol was able to detain somebody so easily with what appeared to be no probable cause (or perhaps a little fabricated probable cause thrown in after the initial detention) is what worries me. But it's still not surprising; we threw a coat of White-Out over the fourth amendment long ago.

Grym, The guy asked the Arizona DPS officer to get that same dog back to the car to show him an alert and Border Patrol officers refused. I am a witness to officers using this same tactic. Officer walks dog to blind side of vehicle and says dog alerted to drug presence when no drugs had ever been in the vehicle.

But again, that was Border Patrol not DPS. DPS still had (seemingly, though I'm no lawyer) enough probable cause to arrest him and search the vehicle. Of course, I still maintain that the detention was unreasonable (though sadly legal) long before the pooch ever came out. Just because I live near the border my fourth amendment rights shouldn't be null and void.

hogdogs
May 13, 2009, 09:21 AM
When it happened to me I watched them tear apart my car, deflating my spare and busting it off the rim to search it, remove air cleaner, remove back seat, tear (literally) the carpet from my trunk and more just to leave it all for me to put back together. Reason for initial stop... "Your window tint is too dark". Keeping in mind I had no glass in the driver's door whatsoever! Tested the side glass on back door even though it could be limo tint legally!:mad: Profiling does happen!
Brent

grymster2007
May 13, 2009, 09:27 AM
Officer walks dog to blind side of vehicle and says dog alerted to drug presence when no drugs had ever been in the vehicle. I'm sure that happens, but are we all to ignore LEO's orders in protest? You looking for anarchy here?

Mike Irwin
May 13, 2009, 09:27 AM
Once again, a wonderous discussion that revolves around a LACK of facts, JUMPING to conclusions, and ACCEPTING, wholesale, only one side of what is obviously a multisided story.

I'm also not at all thilled with the implication that this is "The New Face of American Law Enforcement," as if it will now be SOP.

I think it's pretty obvious that neither video presents the whole scenario. And without that whole scenario, all of this discussion is meaningless.

Closed.