It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pastor Tazered by Border Patrol w/Video

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I think most of you are missing the pastor's main point.
The pastor is not


an obviously mentally ill man with nothing to do but ride from border point to border point challenging the officer's legal duty. He should be ashamed of himself for the unwarranted commotion he caused, which only wasted time and resources, and made the border vulnerable while he played his little game.

Nor should he be ashamed.

What he's trying to show is the hostility that Border Patrol uses against people crossing the border, specifically the Mexican borders.

There are many cases in which Border Patrol acts immoraly, trying to catch illegal immigrants, or drug "lords."
He is merely a vessel, using his incidents to show the world of the hostility that most certainly exists, here in America, along the borders.



He is not trying to get the world to feel sorry for him,
but for the people who have been through this harsh, hostile treatment, unjustly. (Unjustly meaning that the accused has not physically harmed anyone in any way)




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Here is a video of him with an earlier encounter with border patrol officers.






Originally posted by jsobecky
The same way you can stick up for an obviously mentally ill man with nothing to do but ride from border point to border point challenging the officer's legal duty. He should be ashamed of himself for the unwarranted commotion he caused, which only wasted time and resources, and made the border vulnerable while he played his little game.


You forget this WAS NOT AT THE BORDER. He was in the United States. These are internal checkpoints that, according to the border patrol, were ruled legal by the Supreme Court. He was on (according to him) Interstate 8 in Arizona. (Source: Watch the above and below video)

Interstate 8 gets very close to (within 2 miles) of the border but does not cross it.


Interstate 8 map.






sllapur already posted a link to the video below but this one is embeddable.


Originally posted by sllapur
Watch the other video and you'll see that the cops were lying the whole time.

www.liveleak.com...




His testimony in the above video seems to be accurate. He accurately mentions them informing him he needed to cover his eyes and accurately described the fact that they bashed out his window. Unfortunately we cannot confirm the second window hit nor the second tazer shot off screen. But from what I've seen I believe his testimony to be accurate.

If his testimony is accurate...
Supposedly the dog signaled that drugs were present. The driver asked if they could bring the dog out and show the dog signaling. They refused. When a highway patrolman arrived. The driver asked for the border patrol officers to show to the patrolman the dog "signaling." The highway patrolman agreed with the driver and asked to see the dogs signal. The border patrol refused.

That's suspicious. I understand that they feel they do not need to show the driver but why would they refuse the highway patrol officer's request?

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Studious]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


But that's just it, Rival....they DID have a "reason" to search his vehicle. The dog got a hit on the car, and they politely requested to take a look. They are under no obligation to bring the dog BACK out to prove to the "pastor" (I use that word very lightly, as I don't think his actions or his behavior portrayed anything remotely close to Christian behavior), that the dog did indeed get a hit. If we all went around, throwing fits like children every time we stopped at a check point, we'd have all sorts of problems and security issues in the U.S.

After repeated noncompliance of the requests, the pastor - NOT THE OFFICERS - but the pastor elevated the situation by blocking traffic and behaving irrationally. This gave them two more very valid reasons to not only search his car, but apprehend him. He resisted, and they used force.

I don't understand why people identify with behavior like this! Why do so many choose to fight for the person doing wrong these days? Where is the moral backbone to stand up and say, "you know, he went about it all wrong, and he did it to himself." It's like the public school systems today. Kids get into trouble at school, and instead of the parents reacting the way mine did when I was younger, they attack the teachers and the school board. It's never about what the KID did wrong, which is the way it should be. But there is such a wide spectrum of acceptably moral behavior in this country now, that the line between what's right and wrong is no longer visible.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AnubisGem
 


We must be watching different videos, because the only one I saw being hostile was the pastor. In fact, the officers went above and beyond being patient and calm with him. HE CREATED these scenes.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by emeraldzeus
We must be watching different videos, because the only one I saw being hostile was the pastor. In fact, the officers went above and beyond being patient and calm with him. HE CREATED these scenes.


Annoying, maybe but hostile? No.

I think we are missing the point here. Border patrol created these scenes by setting up internal checkpoints. I highly doubt the dog signaled because they refused to bring it out again. Therefore I assume they did this just because they thought he was suspicious. I doubt if they had any real evidence at all. They didn't find anything in the end so the dog would have to have given a false positive.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Studious]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
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.


I suppose if I am his attorney my first question is "Where are the drugs?" Since the dog cannot testify someone will need to explain to the jury (and you bet your tail I push this to a jury trial) how there was probable cause. With the video evidence that will surely be presented, there will most assuredly be reasonable doubt. After the jury rules in his favor, the civil suit is almost a guaranteed winner. If they do not press charges, which I imagine will be their sort of gesture of a peace offering, they still have to answer for why they abused him and damaged his vehicle and yet can present no evidence.

Actually, of what I have seen in videos and articles this is the standard procedure, and seeing as how the market collapse has basically ruined my retirement plan, perhaps I should consider a little vacation in Arizona so that I can re-establish a viable retirement plan.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
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.


You're basically implying that all it takes for your rights to be negated is the word of an leo based on nothing more than his/her/pooches say so. No evidence required, just the word. To refuse is to engage in a legal battle you cannot win, to comply is to basically give up those rights implicitly.

Which seems redundant, in my opinion. What good are your rights if all it takes is for the very people your rights protect you from, to simply say they do not apply. Bit like an umbrella that dissolves in water.

While I don't think this guy is innocent in his own downfall, watching this vid makes me incredibly mad.

Still, at least here in Australia, we know we don't have any rights... so it's all out the window from the get go.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by dgtempe
 


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


Line 2 just for you.


Robert Downey Jnr, is that you??

Nice segway to the hulk at the end, btw.

Ahem..




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Studious
 


Why would they have to bring the dog out again? What do they care if the "pastor" agrees with them or not? In their position, they saw some suspicious behavior (which they are trained to be aware of), and they acted accordingly. They have no obligation to make sure this guy is "okay with it" first. They're just doing their job, regardless whether or not anyone agrees with it.

I know everyone gets all up in arms about how suspicious cops and the like are, and how the methods they use might sometimes be overkill. Think about what you might do in that situation though (and be completely objective about it); you have no idea what this guy at your checkpoint is capable of, or what weapons he might have. So, in order to protect yourself and your buddies, you might make a move that to some might seem like overkill, but to you, it was necessary to eliminate any resemblance of a threat. What if this guy had a knife or a gun, and instead of tasering him first, the BP guys just tried to pull him out first. That would be an unnecessary risk on their part.

Yes there is a lot of crap that goes on with our law enforcement that shouldn't happen. But the Border Patrol is a little different from normal LE. They have been on an extra high alert level for quite a while now, and are going to do everything within their power to prevent any loss of life.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I commend him by sticking to his guns...Pastors got balls and is looking out for you and I

ill make this an easy one..

Guy annoys Bo's,has camera with him,within rights..gets let go numerous times.

Bo's talk and grow a plan to get him..

Guy comes back at night,Bo's put operation bible Thumper into action

Bo's use the dark setting to hide or skew camera.bring dog out for show to any witnesses..No sign from dog..

Bo's call LEO's give bad info..LEO's have no other option to go in Bo's word at the moment..

Guy goes to court and wins..



[edit on 14-5-2009 by Redpillblues]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dwiggen
 




Originally posted by dwiggen
Why would they have to bring the dog out again? What do they care if the "pastor" agrees with them or not? In their position, they saw some suspicious behavior (which they are trained to be aware of), and they acted accordingly. They have no obligation to make sure this guy is "okay with it" first. They're just doing their job, regardless whether or not anyone agrees with it.


Excellent point and I agree with what you said. However I did not say what you thought I said. I was asking why would they not have brought the dog out when the highway patrolman asked them to? I said and I quote...


Originally posted by Studious
I understand that they feel they do not need to show the driver but why would they refuse the highway patrol officer's request?


[edit on 14-5-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Studious]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Redpillblues
 


I understand (and am all for) standing up for your rights and everything, which I guess is what this guy was trying to do. But does he have to be a douche about it? What level of provocation will this fellow stoop to in order to get a good video showing how "unfair" our law enforcement is? I'd be all for this if this was a one time occurrence, but he's tried this numerous times, and the fact that he had the camera out and ready to go seems a little fishy to me.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Studious
 


Oops, sorry Studious, wasn't really paying close enough attention I guess. Thanks for the correction!



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dwiggen
 


the way i take it this is on his way to and from work..Wouldnt you get to be anoyed if you were stopped everyday going to work by a LEO wanting your ID for no reason?

Camera in hand to protect your self if false claims made?

I'm all for border patrolls at the border,but this is just a nosey check point..



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Redpillblues
 


I could see that, good point. I feel like there would be other more appropriate ways to go about telling these guys how you don't like to be searched every time you come through their gate, rather than cause a scene. I admit that I don't know all the circumstances or the motives from either party, so I'm not trying to judge; rather just merely speculate.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by emeraldzeus
 



You state "...I'm sorry, but I don't see how opening a trunk is a violation of my rights."

Please read the fourth amendment. Opening your trunk without probable
cause is ABSOLUTELY a violation of your, or any US citizen's rights.
(as to the officer's assertion that the dog made a "hit" on the car--at that point in the encounter, probable cause is established, whether or not you agree with the officer's judgment. At that point cooperate with the search and seek justice via an attorney and a court of law)

you further state "...unless I have something to hide."

Having "something to hide" does NOT disqualify the Fourth Amendment,
and is so weak a circular argument that it is hard to reply because I'm
afraid that I won't be understood, but I'll try: Crime and criminals can never
be eradicted in a ~free~ society. You must understand that any alleged
criminal or suspicious person MUST be afforded the same protection under
the law as any free man is afforded. Without this reciprocal protection of rights, NO MAN in said society could be considered to be free. This is the
trade-off one must make to be "free."


One more quote from your post.

"...Now, when I'm stopped at a border check point and they make me strip down to my skivvies, THEN we'll have a problem."

In actuality your are agreeing with me here. We only differ in where we
draw the line in the sand, so to speak. For me, that line is unequivocal and
IT IS the letter of the law written into the Constitution. That line for me will
always be CONCRETE and unmistakable. It gives me a solid foundation
from which to argue (thx Mr. Jefferson). For you the line seems more
maleable, and arbitrary. IMO, this is unnacceptable...I have to use
foresight and hindsight--I have to learn from what has happened in the
past, and stand guard at the gate, to make sure it does not happen in
the present, nor in the future. I do this for the sake of my children and
yours.







[edit on 14-5-2009 by rival]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Where did you see this guy being cooperative?

Dogs got a hit on his car, they want to search his car and he refuses.




well im glad they took one more druggy off the streets

he did have dope on him afterall correct?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Nice try being a smartass.

Now answer the question. Where in that video was he coopertive?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by emeraldzeus
 



I think we disagree on something more fundamental than whether the dog did, or did not signal a "hit".

My argument is that internal border checkpoints, or any checkpoints for that
matter are unconstitutional. I realize the Supreme Court ruled that
interior check points were, in fact, lawful. I however VEHEMENTLY disqagree
with their judgment. I am a simple man who didn't finish ninth grade, but
that does not dissuade me from my opinion that the Fourth Amendment is
implicit in its stance on privacy, search, probable cause, and search warrants
executed by a judge in good standing.

I suppose my opinion can be written off now, since I don't agree with the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dwiggen
reply to post by Redpillblues
 


I understand (and am all for) standing up for your rights and everything, which I guess is what this guy was trying to do. But does he have to be a douche about it? What level of provocation will this fellow stoop to in order to get a good video showing how "unfair" our law enforcement is? I'd be all for this if this was a one time occurrence, but he's tried this numerous times, and the fact that he had the camera out and ready to go seems a little fishy to me.


The pastor is not a douche.... he's exercising his rights, not trying his rights.... It was the border patrol that provoked the situation and destroyed his rights. It's absurd to have your car searched by drug dogs while minding your own buisness inside your own borders. Just totally ridiculous. Then to top it off with a Taser which can be deadly.

You say he tried this numerous times? The pastior travels to his job, and he is aware of his rights... that's not trying... thats' doing his job. I would carry a camera too if i knew my rights where about to be violated.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by imitator]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join