Pastor Beaten And Tased By Border Patrol
He refused to answer their questions or be searched without probable cause, he said. And then they had a dog come over and sniff his car and they said the dog indicated that he had drugs or a human being in his car. He asked to see what the sign was from the dog and they refused to show them. See the rest on the video.
What did they find when they searched his car? NOTHING. Tools -- no drugs, no person.
The pastor's site is here. Via Lisa Simeone.
Chilling story. The more we allow our rights to be trampled on -- by the TSA and others -- the more and more we will hear stories like this one.
But...it was for the children, Amy!
I R A Darth Aggie at March 30, 2011 9:15 AM
The SC has ruled that border checkpoints are legal. Behave like an idiot and you will get treated like one. He is very lucky he was not charged.
ParatrooperJJ at March 30, 2011 9:18 AM
No no no... it's for our SAFETY!
Sabrina at March 30, 2011 9:21 AM
ParatrooperJJ wrote: "The SC has ruled that border checkpoints are legal. Behave like an idiot and you will get treated like one. He is very lucky he was not charged."
And how was be behaving like an idiot? By refusing to have his rights violated. Then I guess that makes me an idit too. "Legal" doesn't equate to "Constitutional". They pass all kinds of laws that violate the Consitution but that doesn't make it right. It's not about safety and well-being of the public; it's about power.
Regardless the beating he got surely wasn't legal... that's excessive force. I can't beleive you would even defend that.
Sabrina at March 30, 2011 9:25 AM
ParatrooperJJ, behave like an idiot? Did you watch the video? The man tried to stand up for his constitutional rights. If anyone behaved like an idiot it was the bullheaded officials.
You may not be bothered by having your rights trampled on but I hope you are in the minority.
Ray at March 30, 2011 9:40 AM
People need to wake up. They are more afraid of something like this happening to them than a government that does this to everyone.. But if we don't stand up to them now it is guaranteed to happen to you eventually. We need real standards tests to allow people to be officers and we need them to know the constitution.
JosephineMO7 at March 30, 2011 9:40 AM
Do note that this is not breaking news. The post is from April 2009.
Customs claims the right to search anywhere within 100 miles of the border - even if the border with with the ocean. That encompasses the vast majority of the population. The Supreme Court has ruled in their favor. This is all true, and it still doesn't make the searches right.
The USA is becoming a police state; it is as simple as that.
a_random_guy at March 30, 2011 9:41 AM
Re: @ParatrooperJJ:
This man wasn't behaving like an idiot; he was a hero for standing up for his principles and for nonviolent protest.
The Supreme Court says it's OK? Fuck that. The Nazi court system said that the Nazi laws were acceptable as well.
TJIC at March 30, 2011 9:44 AM
Um.
Since when should a nation not have the ability to search vessels (including vehicles)entering that nation?
What if people bring in nerve gas? Nuclear bombs (in seagoing containers)? Contraband? (I happen to believe all drugs should be legal, but the law is the law).
Should we have no immigration laws? People can just put an illegal migrant into the trunk of their car and then refuse to be searched?
This pastor is no hero...I hope he was searched by the proctologist long and hard. He cost taxpayers quite a bit, and was upholding no "right."
BOTU at March 30, 2011 9:45 AM
All of these officers should face criminal charges. The guy was not even crossing the border. You shouldn't have to forfeit your 4th Amendment rights just to drive from California to Texas.
Al at March 30, 2011 9:46 AM
ParatrooperJJ, you're wrong on two points. First the incident didn't happen at the border. It was about 50 miles from the border. It wasn't a border checkpoint. Therefore, Supreme Court precedent for border checkpoints don't apply.
Second, he was charged, and then acquitted. Why? Because he wasn't doing anything wrong. That's why.
The whole video is available online.
The government doesn't grant us our rights. We retain all of our rights at all times. Agents of the government must have probable cause before searching your property, or they must swear out a search warrant. We citizens mustn't waive those rights.
We must retrain the government to respect our rights.
Border checkpoints hundreds of miles inland. TSA security theater. It's about accustoming the citizenry to waiving their rights. Police are trained to trick you into waiving your rights. Don't do it.
Jeff at March 30, 2011 9:49 AM
BOTU I would agree with you if he was actually crossing the border into the country. Hell, I would even go so far to agree with you if he wasn't an American citizen. But he wasn't and he is. He was going from one state to another. In AMERICA. You know, the land of the free... where we have the consitution which garauntees us the right not to be searched without probable cause and all that jazz... or at least we use too...
Sabrina at March 30, 2011 9:52 AM
Check out the FlexYourRights DVDs, 10 rules for Dealing with Police. It explains your rights under the law.
One of the amazing things I learned: it's legal for police to lie to you.
Jeff at March 30, 2011 9:54 AM
Jeff- Border checkpoints under the SC decision and federal law can occur within 100 miles of an international border. Also he was charged under state law, not federal law.
ParatrooperJJ at March 30, 2011 9:56 AM
Behave like an idiot, and get beaten, eh, Paratrooper?
Who defines idiot? Who says when the beating should end?
I have watched the police forces grow increasingly macho and militaristic over the past few decades. Words like "war" and "fight" are used to describe what is, in reality, simple policing. Any questioning of police gearing up like Delta Force is met with (unsupported) claims of the danger police face from the out of control criminal element. Sorrowful dirges about slain officers are given as reason for harsh tactical teams that are deployed in ever greater numbers, even as crime rates actually fell.
I pay cops' salaries and obey the laws. I am the customer in that transaction of cash for protection. And I don't like cops any more, or at least I don't like the subculture they live in, with their "command presence" and air of constant hostility to non-uniformed folks.
And trust me, when the cops lose citizens like me, they definitely have an image problem.
Spartee at March 30, 2011 11:02 AM
Sabrina-
I concede an error. I thought this happened at a international border crossing. Once inside the USA, no one should be subject to unreasonable searches.
Searching at the border makes perfect sense.
BOTU at March 30, 2011 11:42 AM
ParatrooperJJ, you are misstating the Supreme Court's opinion.
This is from the ruling itself.
The inland checkpoints are for "informational purposes" only. The pastor was not "lucky." The Border Patrol had to call the DPS because they can't conduct searches at these checkpoints. He was charged under state law because he had broken no federal law.
It's legal for police to lie to you. The Border Patrol routinely tricks people into waiving their rights by giving "implicit consent" to search.
The Border Patrol became angry at the Pastor, because he wouldn't waive his constitutional rights. So, they tortured him.
The law is clear. Refusing consent to a search is not evidence of guilt, and it is not cause for any other police action against a citizen.
We are a free people. We have rights against government overreaching.
Jeff at March 30, 2011 11:59 AM
And how was be behaving like an idiot? By refusing to have his rights violated. Then I guess that makes me an idit too.
Count me in with the idiots.
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2011 12:15 PM
Searching at the border makes perfect sense.
With probable cause. As a citizen of this country, you cannot be denied entry -- as I understand it from previous reading.
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2011 12:18 PM
Outrageous and frightening. I have seen so many police beatdowns via the internet in the last few weeks where the victim is not resisting and still gets beaten to a pulp. I am glad they did not plant something in his vehicle. I also hope that somewhere a camera was rolling.
Eric at March 30, 2011 12:40 PM
In the same vein: They're trying to make the enhanced TSA patdowns a misdemeanor (on the part of the agent) in Texas, but there is some question as to whether or not that type of law would work, since TSA agents are federal employees and have immunity from acts committed while on duty.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/82nd-legislative-session/bill-could-subject-tsa-agents-to-state-misdemeanor/
ahw at March 30, 2011 12:49 PM
"With probable cause"?
How does this make sense? Suppose there is legitimate concern that someone is transporting a nuke into the USA through a shipping container, but we did not know which ship?
We would have to run the scanners on every container that could have any chance of harboring the nuke. There would not be probable cause for any specific container.
If we cannot search cars at the USA/Mexico border, then bringing in illegal aliens in the trunk of your car would be the national pastime. You can get $5k per person.
A few trips to Mexico, and I can take summer off.
Hey--you're are right. There should be no searches allowed at the Mexican border!
BOTU at March 30, 2011 1:43 PM
It's people like BOTU who are hastening a full-on police state in this country.
Lisa Simeone at March 30, 2011 2:01 PM
BOTU is right. We cannot have unknown people wandering about the country just because they feel like it. This would lead to confusion and anarchy. That man had no business being in a public place without proper authorization. He shoud be grateful he was let off with only a slight beating.
kenmce at March 30, 2011 2:57 PM
"The SC has ruled that border checkpoints are legal."
Contrary to what you might have been led to believe, the Supreme Court does not actually have *legitimate* authority to override and *violate* the Bill of Rights - the Constitution is 'higher' than the Supreme Court. Do you really think it would make sense, in the context of the founding documents, if nine random individuals were given enough power to decide to override and 'revoke', say, your 1st or 2nd amendment rights? If the SC declared the entire Bill of Rights invalid, would you say "oh it's OK, they're the SC!" Just wondering.
"Behave like an idiot and you will get treated like one."
It's idiotic to stand up for the Bill of Rights? You are criticizing *him* for having the balls to stand up for *your* rights? These are your rights too that he's defending, pal. Well I suppose there's some truth what they say, people get the government's they deserve.
"Suppose there is legitimate concern that someone is transporting a nuke into the USA through a shipping container"
Was there any such concern in this case? No. So the argument has no applicability. Your argument is basically "but what if it was an entirely different situation?" .. it wasn't.
Lobster at March 30, 2011 3:03 PM
Put another way, if the SC could override the Bill of Rights whenever it wanted, there wouldn't be any point in having a Bill of Rights at all, would there?
Lobster at March 30, 2011 3:11 PM
Sigh, so many misinformed on this. Anyway, take a look at checkpointusa's videos on youtube about this stuff in Arizona.
Sio at March 30, 2011 3:22 PM
I thought this guy looked familiar.
He's a complete nutbag. You can listen to one of his sermons on YouTube.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qr6gxIHhQ
Speaking of the United Methodist Church (a fairly inoffensive church if ever there was one): "10% of their pastors are queers." "They got a dyke and a faggot behind the pulpit." And more of the same. He also prays for the death of President Obama.
Not that that has any bearing on his Constitutional rights, of course.
LMM at March 30, 2011 3:38 PM
Spartee--
"I pay cops' salaries and obey the laws. I am the customer in that transaction of cash for protection. And I don't like cops any more, or at least I don't like the subculture they live in, with their "command presence" and air of constant hostility to non-uniformed folks."
How dare you speak of the LAPD that way. And the SWAT team costumes are good for morale.
Otherwise they might look like Barney Fife.
BOTU at March 30, 2011 3:42 PM
Hunter S. Thompson to the rescue, with his article "Brazilshooting" from the National Observer in 1963 IIRC (when he qualified as a "real journalist") and from the book "The Great Shark Hunt" . . . (read the whole article at the link)
http://www.myspace.com/elijah0/blog/150272366
"What happened? The Correio de Manhã, one of Rio's best papers, explained it this way: In an editorial entitled, "Battlefield Copacabana," the paper said: "Copacabana was the scene of a military operation on Friday. A detachment of paratroopers under the command of two lieutenants sealed off a street in order to assault a nightclub with machine guns, hand grenades and tear gas. . ."
Correio went on to say: "These arms have been acquired by the nation with the money of taxpayers and put at the disposal of the armed forces for the defense of the country, protection of the constitutional powers, and maintenance of the legal order. . . in the Copacabana case, they were not used for these purposes. . ."
That was not all of it. The attack on the Domino, carried out by uniformed paratroopers wearing black greasepaint on their faces, was a case of pure and simple vengeance. Several weeks ago an Army sergeant was beaten to death as a result of a dispute over the size of his bill in the Domino. A few days later an Army captain stopped in the club to say that the Army intended to even the score. He was severely beaten by the doorman and several others. About ten days passed without incident, then the Army evened the score." . . .
Jay J. Hector at March 30, 2011 3:53 PM
Well, count me with the idiots, too. And regardless, even if this guy is Fred-Phelps-Lite, he still has rights.
Patrick at March 31, 2011 1:06 AM
Kenmce... are you dense?
He was not some "unknown person wandering about the country just because they felt like it"... He is a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATED OF AMERICA. As such, he is protected by his Constitutional Right not be searched without a warrant. He wasn't even crossing the border! He was traveling IN HIS OWN COUNTRY! He did nothing illegal. Even if the SC "approved" this checkpoint, (and I actually don't think this checkpoint was valid but that's still up for debate) that doesn't mean we should lie down and take it. We actually have the right to say "no".
Kenmce wrote: "That man had no business being in a public place without proper authorization."
What.the.fuck? Authorization? From whom? Do YOU need authorization to go out in public? Do you carry papers with you everywhere you go just in case someone questions your "authorization"? Are the thought police monitoring your computer right now?
Kenmce wrote: "He shoud be grateful he was let off with only a slight beating."
Slight beating? You can't be serious with that statement. In what fucking universe is it acceptable for cops to beat up American Citizens? Or anyone for that matter? So, would you consider yourself lucky if while out running errands or while visiting an out of state relative, the cops stopped you for no reason and because you said "NO" to an unconstitutional search, they beat the shit out of you? Would that be okay with you? Would you celebrate that fact that you only got off with a "slight" beating?
Actually scratch that... you'd likely just comply like a sheep anyway.
Sabrina at March 31, 2011 5:19 AM
I am the customer in that transaction of cash for protection. And I don't like cops any more, or at least I don't like the subculture they live in, with their "command presence" and air of constant hostility to non-uniformed folks.
And trust me, when the cops lose citizens like me, they definitely have an image problem.
Agreed!
nuzltr2 at March 31, 2011 5:59 AM
70 years ago people who think like this:
"The SC has ruled that border checkpoints are legal. Behave like an idiot and you will get treated like one. He is very lucky he was not charged.
got promoted quickly within Hitler's SS.
Samuel Taylor at March 31, 2011 6:31 AM
Sabrina, I'm pretty sure kenmce was being sarcastic. Frightening if I'm wrong, but I really doubt he's serious.
Angie at March 31, 2011 8:18 AM
I hope so Angie. If so I apologize. If not... holy shit dude...
Sabrina at March 31, 2011 11:48 AM
Kelo v. New London and Plessy v. Ferguson should lay to rest any wholesale acceptance of SCOTUS rulings as the last word for the rights of the People (really, I've tried, but I just can't find "separate but equal" anywhere in the Constitution, nor "public" equals "private"). Our rights are inherent, not granted. But SCOTUS is still counting nits on the head of a pin (yeah, it's a mixed metaphor).
Given that Tucson, AZ, is centered roughly 60 miles from the USA-Mexico border (this covers both the 50 or 100 mile limit), I guess that means that Tucson should be under the control of the Border Patrol and there should be checkpoints on Speedway Blvd or Valencia. After all, those people going to work could have nuclear devices...just saying. I won't even go into Douglas, AZ.
The Pastor is a nutjob in some areas but not this one. Why some people can't separate the message from the messenger after millenia of showing how this is an ignorant, no, stupid fallacy is beyond me. Some days I have no hope...
The Border Patrol simply got him back for not respectin' thar authoritah. When they act in this manner, the criminal isn't in the car. The charges were dropped because again the criminal wasn't in the car. I am always amused by how this behavior is excused by a "what if" scenario that has nothing to do with what happened. I mean, "what if" the Jews were responsible for Germany losing WWI (forgive me Godwin for I know not what I do)? Does the phrase "boot-lickin' authoritarian statist" mean anything to you who see nothing wrong done by the Border Patrol in that video? If not, google "lassiter police 1920 third-degree", read and enjoy because you will.
And the dogs? They give a high number of false positives based on cues from their handler (this does not mean the handler consciously made them signal, but had expectations that the dog cued on). The dogs that have the lowest false positives are bomb-sniffers as the handler has much less bias. Balko ran a post or article on this with citation. Police run on cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias on this one.
Sabrina (March 31, 2011 5:19 AM), dead on!
Ariel at March 31, 2011 2:17 PM
No argument the border patrol seemed out for revenge, and there may have been excessive force. But the pastor clearly did not understand that, yes, a citizin does have to obey the reasonable command of the police - like 'get out of the car until we figure out what's going on with the border patrol and you' - and at the moment he refused he was constructively resisting. Cops really should have said "either obey or we will tase you & drag you out,' but ... and ironically, I think the cops would then still have the right to do a search of the car to ensure there are no weapons within treach. I'm a bit rusty on my crim law & constituional law, but ...sadly, rev, the time to challenge whether they had PC to search is often after they get to do a search anyway; if it was not valid, then even if they found pot, the evidence is inadmissible in court.
Mr. Teflon at April 2, 2011 11:26 PM
Am I being detained or am I free to go?
Repeat as necessary.
DrCos at April 3, 2011 5:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/03/30/pastor_beaten_a.html#comment-1995598">comment from DrCosSmart question.
Amy Alkon at April 3, 2011 6:19 AM
D'oh! forgot to enter name, comment swallowed. SHorthand; remember you are protected against UNREASONABLE search & seizure. Not ANY search & seizure. You do not have a right to refuse the resonable request of an officer - e.g., when the cop showed up, not having been party to the initial bogus detention, he has a right to ask the citizen to step out of the car, away from any potential weapons, and if he feels the need, do a limited pat-down to ensure the officer is not in imminent danger while he figures out WTF is going on. "til then, all ghe knows is he has a belligerent guy refusing to roll his window down. You talk politics & rights after a minimal trade between protecting those rights & the safety of all involved. The pastor could have complied with the request to step out, continued to refuse to consent to have his car searched, ... you get the picture. It's then possible that once the cop sussed out the bogus premise by the Border guys, he'd shoo the pastor on his way. ANyhoo, no one's clean here ... and for better or worse, the pastor's recourse is then through the courts and system to address any wrongful conduct by the authorities .. whcih right many other countries do not provide.
Mr. Teflon at April 3, 2011 10:10 AM
Leave a comment