Pastor Tazered by Border Patrol w/Video

First here is the video..... www.liveleak.com...


Now, WTF?

Now, I know our men and women have a job to do at the border, but I think things got a little out of hand on this one.

I know the pastor started throwing out the 4th amendment rights, which is his right to do so... but, does this just bring on harsher reactions from those confronting you?

If I am correct, this is not the first video from the same pastor and his run-ins with the border patrol, but I do believe this is the most violent encounter so far.

I mean come on, the guy isn't going anywhere, they can clearly see him from all angles. They can clearly see he has no weapon, only a camcorder in his hand... yet as soon as the window is busted he is immediately tazed?

A bit of overkill wouldn't you say? Maybe they were hoping the tazer would destroy the evidence...

[edit on 13-5-2009 by TwiTcHomatic]

[edit on 13-5-2009 by TwiTcHomatic]

Well obviously that wasn't a tazer. It was a bolt lightening thrown by god to smite the preacher.

Come on now, don't you people know that all tazers are linked to god's hand and only sinners get it?

Ok, all joking aside.

Yes very much overkill, trigger happy cops with 20k volts in their hands is not a good idea.

These people are a disgrace to the uniform.

~Keeper

I love how they broke the glass only big enough to get the tazer into the car, and immediately fired. (saftey of the officers my arse)

Shoot first, ask questions later. That should be the new national motto.

I've been waiting for this video. I am glad it is out.

The real problem is that the actions of the officers can make a compelling legal argument their actions are justified because of our drug laws. Assuming the drug sniffing dog alerted the cops, the officers could legally arrest and search the vehicle because they had probable cause to suspect the man was carrying drugs. They then had the right to use reasonable force to arrest the man. (Whether the tazer was reasonable is up for debate.)

The man is incorrect when he says the cops have to tell him why they are searching him and arresting him. Under the principle of habeas corpus, the cops have a full day to come up with a charge after they arrest somebody. They do not have to charge him before they arrest him or shortly after they arrest him.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint



With our court systems.. anything can be justified with enough time and large amounts of money.

That still does not make it right. I think the lines of overkill and standard operating procedures have become blurred over time.

Wow, so when was the officer in such danger that he had to use a less than lethal weapon?

After all, even the police classify it as a weapon. When did he feel he was in danger to the point of using a weapon on a citizen?

Do you think he might have used the weapon on a citizen out of smite?

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


I was speaking strictly from a legal point of view. We all know that legality and decency often do not overlap.

Unfortunately, this guy was citing false legal principals during his stop. If someone else tries to do what he did, not only would they be relying on bad law, but they too could wind up getting roughed up by some cops.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint



Its odd though, since this same guy has about 5 other videos of going through border patrol checkpoints... saying the exact same things... and they let him through without incident every time. Every time he refused to get out of the car, yet they let him go.

But this time.... a dog magically gives a drug signal, and all bets are off? Too convenient for me. That K9 signal is one of the oldest tricks in the book for a car search...

Personally, I think the border patrol has been told about this individual and his previous videos.... and decided to be a little more forceful this time.





[edit on 13-5-2009 by TwiTcHomatic]

reply to post by breakingdradles


The cop is going to say that he had to make the arrest or at least search the man because he had good reason to believe the man was carrying drugs. (I know there is a lot wrong with this statement, but let us assume it is correct.) It appears that the man was not going to completely obey the cop and so the cop would have to use some level of force to make the man comply. It then follows the treatment the man received was a reasonable choice. (Again, perhaps there were other ways of getting the man to cooperate, but the cops could make a plausible argument the taser was a reasonable chocie.)


We avoid these arguments by getting rid of drug laws. If there are no drug laws, there is no reason to stop the man in the first place. If there is no reason to stop him, there is no reason to use force if he does not fully cooperate with the cops.

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


Cops are allowed to go up to anybody and ask the person if they can search them, even if the cops lack probable cause. In theory the person can refuse the cop's request and the cop has to honor the refusal.

If the cop has probable cause, the cop has a right to search a person, arrest a person, and even use reasonable force. In this situation, the alleged dog sniff gives the cops probable cause. Now, the man cannot refuse.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


No offence, I understand the law....

What I am saying, is there was absolutely none, 0, nada reason for them to tazer the man while he was surrounded by at least 6 guards in a car with the engine off.

It's overkill, there is no justification for the actions that took place there.

If he had been reaching under the seat, for the glove compartment or what have you... I could see it.

They were ticked the guy was filming them, and decided to go all the way. Period.

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


You know, pastor or not, he was clearly being defiant. I've watched several videos of what appears to be the same guy saying the same things, and I would NEVER be that defiant of local authority.

He may have rights, but his behavior certainly was alarming. Looking at this situation objectively, I can imagine being in the officer's shoes and coming across a guy who is being rude, argumentative, verbally combative, and uncooperative. That would raise every red flag I can think of, and all for what? The right to post a youtube video of him getting tasered and beat up to prove that the border check point agents are violating his constitutional rights? That's just stupid. Open the freakin' trunk for God's sake, if you have nothing to hide!

I lived on base for many years, and I would sometimes get stopped by MP checkpoints that did random searches. I could have been a jerk and created chaos, insisting they must be out of their minds, but I understood the importance of the random checks and cooperated. You know what happened EVERY SINGLE TIME? I was kind, courteous, and cooperative, and every single time they apologized for taking up my time, wished me a good day and let me go after they let everyone do their thing. No biggie. I'm glad they were doing check points, because it let me know how secure the base was.

I think this is a case where people are throwing fits left and right wanting to be safe in their country, yet refusing to let the process happen. Nobody was subjecting him to a strip search, and for all we know, the guy could have put some kind of scent in his trunk that the dog could have "hit on", so he could purposely create a scene. I mean, really....he was there with a camera and had it rolling as if he expected it.

This is just asinine to me, and wreaks of a setup on his part. I honestly don't have sympathy for him.

Honestly, this guy had it coming to him. He's been trying to provoke the Border Patrol guys for quite a while now and he finally got it. The guys has been doing this for at least 2 years now if not more from my understanding. He is an @--hole regardless.
In fact we don't even see the first part of the video so how do we know he didn't do something beforehand to provoke them? I've never liked this guy to begin with, he is an attention whore.

Edit to add: I really did actually rejoice a little bit because of this guy getting tasered, I am simply sick of him and his attitude.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by spec_ops_wannabe]

double post, disregard or delete please mods

[edit on 13-5-2009 by spec_ops_wannabe]

Like I always say.. if you dont want tazered just comply with the officers request and if he was wrong to arrest you are harass you then sort it out in a court of law with a good attorney.

This guy works on the incorrect assumption that the cops have a duty to stand there and answer every who what where how when and why question that he throws at them. They have no such obligation, beyond standard procedure.

That is what courts are for.

He had a camera ready and rolling; I wouldn't be surprised if he planted something for the dog to alert to.

I say we have come up with something neat like a tazer,

why not use it. I'm thinking of getting one myself. Pink.

My first victim is Jsobecky.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZap.

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


I agree 100%.

If you go around looking for a fight long enough you will eventually find one.

He found it.

Just so you guys know...

Following a series of related deaths in North America, Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake has advised us that the United Nations has declared tasering to be a form of torture. Portugal has been urged to forgo use of its newly purchased tasers as the intense pain they inflict is in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture. We hope that this statement will encourage universal reconsideration of taser usage.

Opportunity Agenda

And this is articles 1 & 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture.

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

And the kicker...

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.

Article 11
Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

[edit on 5/13/2009 by Tentickles]

reply to post by dgtempe


I don't think tazers work on Bodies of Steel, my dear.

Line 2 just for you.