Rev. Anderson & the Border Patrol

[JerryBaumchen 1,467]

This should get some talk going:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

JerryBaumchen

[downwardspiral 0]

If he was sitting in the car how did he know the dog didn't signal something was in the trunk?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[jclalor 12]

The fact that he is a Baptist minister is ironic in that he was probably a bush supporter. The bush administration had the therory that if one had nothing to hide then one should not mind a little search with out cause.
Now how does it feel?

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

The fact that he is a Baptist minister is ironic in that he was probably a bush supporter. The bush administration had the therory that if one had nothing to hide then one should not mind a little search with out cause.
Now how does it feel?

The religious right reaping what it sowed.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[masterrig 1]

I watched about half of that video and couldn't handle any more of that arrogant jerk. I don't care if, he is a minister. Had he gone along with the Border Patrol and used his head, he wouldn't have gotten himself in the mess he did. I've been through I don't know how many check-points while traveling and never had a problem. This guy just let his alligator mouth over-run his canary ass!


Chuck

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I watched about half of that video and couldn't handle any more of that arrogant jerk.

Yeah...he probably really thinks that God is trying to use him as a "martyr" to open america's eyes to the evil socialistic liberal movement:

Rev. Anderson

Quote

WAKE UP AMERICA!

The truth is that God was teaching him the consequences of being a dumb ass with a chip on his shoulder....trust me on that one.

...and what's up with telling everyone he's a minister?
As if that should make it more of an outrage?

This WHOLE thing stinks.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[n23x 0]

What's up Chuck,

Agree he comes off as a wiener. The part I'm gonna disagree with is here:

Quote

Had he gone along with the Border Patrol and used his head, he wouldn't have gotten himself in the mess he did.

4th amendment:

Quote

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is a very slippery process by which they are perfoming searches, i.e. they request to search your vehicle despite any probable cause, and upon refusal, they run their dog around, LIE, and say the dog indicated and that they have probable cause.

Agree that public safety is important, as are issues pertaining to the trafficing of drugs/person across borders. However, the search and siezure rules are in place for a reason, and that doesn't mean LEOs can walk all over them.

I doubt they had probable cause, and were looking to "teach this guy a lesson", in which case they deserve to lose their jobs, respect, and serve some jailtime. We have no need for LEOs who use their position for ANYTHING other than the protection and wellbeing of civilians.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Coreece 190]

I'm interested in knowing what is proper procedure for dealing with individuals that do not cooperate with officials at a checkpoint, such as intitailly refusing to answer any of their questions?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

I watched about half of that video and couldn't handle any more of that arrogant jerk. I don't care if, he is a minister. Had he gone along with the Border Patrol and used his head, he wouldn't have gotten himself in the mess he did. I've been through I don't know how many check-points while traveling and never had a problem. This guy just let his alligator mouth over-run his canary ass!


Chuck

Do you subscribe to the "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" movement?

Even jerks have rights.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[masterrig 1]

You got that right!!!


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Oh, bull-shit! He knew the check-point was there and that cars and people get searched there. He could've taken a route around it! He's just a dumb-ass with a persecution complex. The Border Patrol Agents and DPS dealt with the guy the way he asked to be treated and within the law!!!


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I watched about half of that video and couldn't handle any more of that arrogant jerk. I don't care if, he is a minister. Had he gone along with the Border Patrol and used his head, he wouldn't have gotten himself in the mess he did. I've been through I don't know how many check-points while traveling and never had a problem. This guy just let his alligator mouth over-run his canary ass!


Chuck

Do you subscribe to the "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" movement?

Even jerks have rights.

It's worked for me, for years!
This guy over-extended his rights of a jerk! How much do you think those Patrol Agents and DPS Officers should've put-up with? Have you ever worked in law enforcement?


Chuck

[n23x 0]

Quote

Oh, bull-shit! He knew the check-point was there and that cars and people get searched there. He could've taken a route around it! He's just a dumb-ass with a persecution complex. The Border Patrol Agents and DPS dealt with the guy the way he asked to be treated and within the law!!!

Once again, Chuck, I understand that immigration and trafficing are a primary issue for you, and can respect that.

You have the right to say, "no, officer", at a checkpoint. Much like you have the right to say at your homestead, "no, you are not welcome into my home".

W/r/t how much LEOs have to put up with? It is expected that they put up with what the law prescribes. That is to say, just because someone is not consenting to their requests, but still within the order of the law, they cannot circumvent that law just to get what they want.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[masterrig 1]

From what you are saying, these check-points shouldn't even be there? All I am saying is, the guy knew it was there and he gets all defensive... that's stupid! It's a very simple process... "Do you have anything to declare... fruits, vegetables and etc." Where is the problem? No infringement of rights or the 4th. ammendment. The preacher decided to get uppity and brought it on himself. As soon as he got 'stupid' about it, that raised red flags with the Patrol Agents and the preach just got worse and it all escalated and he's a dumb-ass! Sometimes, in this world, it really is easier to just go along. I know, there's all those folks who feel their civil rights are being stepped-on but, that's a 'nothing' check-point... I've been through it!


Chuck

[n23x 0]

Quote

"Do you have anything to declare... fruits, vegetables and etc."

I'm totally fine with border checkpoints. It's good for us to check for naughty things being brought into the US, and I'm 100% ok with turning them the fuck around if they're not willing to consent to enter the US. Trust me, that I'm crystal clear on.

However, from what I understand, this was an inter-state checkpoint, not a "I just brought bananas and blow back from mexico", on-the-border checkpoint. That, to me is a totally different thing, despite close proximity to the border.

I personally agree that it's 100% easier for me to be compliant, and being cordial has gotten me out of way more infractions than I'd like to admit. That being said, I support the right of people to refuse blind search of their property.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[fallfast69 3]

There are plenty of countries that don't have the protection that the US constitution provides the people of our nation.

If LEOs aren't going to uphold our constitution and chose to violate the rights of the people, they need to chose another country to live in that better reflects their personal beliefs on how people should be treated. A country where the people expect to be beaten for "nut zhowing zer papers".

In this case, the constitution should have protected Anderson in his actions, it does not protect the POS LOEs that beat this guy because they wanted to exert their control over someone.

At some point, everone will be just enough of a criminal that they can be treated in any manner that the "control-freak" type LEO sees fit...you'll see.


Patrick Henry - "Give me liberty, or give me death"

I'd rather die than see this kind "authority abuse" destroy the foundation of our country.

Jon

[masterrig 1]

That check-point has been there for years. Not only is it there to try to keep-out illegal aliens and drugs but, to keep from spreading diseases from fruits, vegetables and livestock out of California into Arizona. I've brought horses out of California through Arizona and have always had the proper paper work and etc. Never had a problem. Now, with the situation with the drug cartels and the pressure being put on Border Patrol agents and other branches of law enforcement, it's probably a bit 'different'. Just from what I saw of the video of the preacher, the guy has an 'attitude'. Also, we just have his side of the story.


Chuck

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Also, we just have his side of the story.

Yep...and right in the beginning he says "I refused to answer their questions."

Ok...go ahead....you may pass.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[n23x 0]

I don't know what the escalation process is. Do you? (It appears that you don't.)

I'm not suggesting that someone can just say "I refuse to answer your questions", and expect to be waived on through.

I do expect protection from LEOs who would think they have the right to perpetrate violence for non-violent disobedience, or that they have the right to perform random searches without due cause.

For both you and Chuck, I would ask this question:

If LEOs came to your residence and said, "we'd like to look around your home to make sure you're not doing anything illegal", would you let them into your home?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Coreece 190]

Quote

If LEOs came to your residence and said, "we'd like to look around your home to make sure you're not doing anything illegal", would you let them into your home?

Probably not....it depends...I have let them in my house before, but I was drunk and in a relatively friendly mood....

Maybe tonight I'll try to find info on the proper procedure for dealing with individuals that do not cooperate at a checkpoint.

I'll also try to find information as to what is our responsibility as citizens to cooperate with LEOs at those checkpoints.

EDIT
I've been relatively more busy than usual, but here is an article that states that the DPS has opened an investigation into the policies and procedures:

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/centralsouthernarizona/tucson/story/Tempe-pastor-Border-Patrol-beat-him-at-checkpoint/FYxzzCRcnUehq5uY8nZXHQ.cspx

Quote

He admits to refusing to answer the Border Patrol agent’s questions and his reason is simple.

He argues that our forefathers who drafted the Constitution wrote the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment in order to protect us from becoming a “totalitarian government”.

Checkpoints, he said, violate civil liberties.

In a DPS news release from Friday, officers said Anderson never filed a complaint with their office concerning his arrest but instead made a YouTube video that featured his version of the events of that day.

The news release also said the department was looking at current agency policies and procedures that officers must comply with when requested by any agency to respond to checkpoints.

As an American, Anderson said he should have the right to go anywhere he pleases without the government asking him what he is doing and why.

That is the beauty of America, he argued, the gift of a free society.

He does not believe officers had the right to search his car without a warrant.

*It should be noted that in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Federal checkpoints near border areas to enforce laws prohibiting illegal immigration. This U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint along Interstate 8 is in compliance with federal law.*

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Also, we just have his side of the story.

Yep...and right in the beginning he says "I refused to answer their questions."

Ok...go ahead....you may pass.

There you go! The questions are so simple and 'non invasive' into one's 'private' life. It's just so very obvious... to some of us, the guy was arrogant, evasive and obnoxious. That, by his own admission! He thought he was so 'smart'. Obviously, he's... 'Stuck On Stupid'!


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

I don't know what the escalation process is. Do you? (It appears that you don't.)

I'm not suggesting that someone can just say "I refuse to answer your questions", and expect to be waived on through.

I do expect protection from LEOs who would think they have the right to perpetrate violence for non-violent disobedience, or that they have the right to perform random searches without due cause.

For both you and Chuck, I would ask this question:

If LEOs came to your residence and said, "we'd like to look around your home to make sure you're not doing anything illegal", would you let them into your home?

.jim

For one thing, law enforcement can't just come to your home and ask to look around to 'make sure you're not doing anything illegal'. That's ludicrous. They'd have to have a warrant and that warrant would have to be 'specific' as to what they were looking for. If, some bad guy was in the area, they might ask permission to look around. At which point, I'd help them.
The original post is getting stretched a bit. We are discussing an arrogant jerk with an attitude and a big lack of knowledge of the law. Also, he thought that turned-around collar would give him free passage. Cops know all the tricks and had he been 'cooperative, he wouldn't have been in the mess he was in. All self-inflicted, as far as I'm concerned.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Thank you, for the 'up-date'!!!


Chuck

[n23x 0]

Quote

The original post is getting stretched a bit. We are discussing an arrogant jerk with an attitude and a big lack of knowledge of the law.

One might argue that the LEOs lacked the knowledge of the law in this instance, and chose to overstep the law in order to teach this guy a lesson.

Quote

For one thing, law enforcement can't just come to your home and ask to look around to 'make sure you're not doing anything illegal'. That's ludicrous.

Agreed. As is search of a vehicle without reasonable cause. It should not be "go along to get along" for one thing, and "come back with a warrant" for the other.

Quote

Cops know all the tricks and had he been 'cooperative, he wouldn't have been in the mess he was in. All self-inflicted, as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting. So going back to our theoretical unwarranted search of your house. If the cops roughed you up because you didn't submit to the search, would those injuries be self-inflicted?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Agreed. As is search of a vehicle without reasonable cause. It should not be "go along to get along" for one thing, and "come back with a warrant" for the other.

If they want to search your vehicle, they are going to search your vehicle. In that position, I would make it clear that any search would be executed without my permission, but the place to fight the officers' actions is in court, not on the side of the road. There is no need to make a stop more stressful to officers than it need be (nor is doing so in anyone's best interest).

One can be polite and reasonably cooperative with officers while still exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The framers established a judicial branch separate from the executive branch for a reason.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!