The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 13, 2009, 07:10 AM   #1
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
This ain't right. The new face of American law enforcement.

Some of the video from the beating and tasering of Pastor Anderson has been released:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Featu...m?Info=0056971

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

Sigh.



The border patrol and AZ DPS are going to pay out big bucks on this one.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg theevilgrin.jpg (88.1 KB, 351 views)
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 07:32 AM   #2
madmo44mag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Ft.Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,043
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.
__________________
Texas - Not just a state but an attitude!
For monthly shooting events in DFW visit http://www.meetup.com/TexasGunOwner-DFW
madmo44mag is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 07:50 AM   #3
Dust Monkey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 723
Payouts hell. There had better be criminal charges.
__________________
Civilian Date: 14 Century
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law.
If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say.
Dust Monkey is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 08:24 AM   #4
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc&NR=1
Here is his self made recount the following day...
Complete with names...
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 08:36 AM   #5
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
The tasering was uncalled for, but seems this guy was looking for the video he got.
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 08:45 AM   #6
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 08:52 AM   #7
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
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?
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:01 AM   #8
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:03 AM   #9
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 426
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.
musher is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:05 AM   #10
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:12 AM   #11
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
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.
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:15 AM   #12
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:18 AM   #13
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
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?
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:18 AM   #14
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:19 AM   #15
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
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.

Quote:
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.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:21 AM   #16
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
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! Profiling does happen!
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:27 AM   #17
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
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?
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 09:27 AM   #18
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,999
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.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08789 seconds with 8 queries