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