According to the Border Patrol the public is being mislead as to WHO is coming into the US from Mexico.

This IS THE TRUTH. as reported by WSBTV in Atlanta. (a reputable public news!

Not 'Tea party' or any other special interest group!)

Video 1 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html

Video 2 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html

Its not at all surprising. Backpacker Mag did a story a few years back about the same thing, only through Canada in the Northwest.

@ Travis

Yes indeed. I believe it was titled "A Bomb in my Backpack"

OTMs. I had forgotton that one. A buddy of mine walked off the ranch we were on and got picked up by the border patrol, and that is what they called him in as. They also told us we shouldn't go anywhere on the ranch unarmed.

But, but.....bombs aren't UL!

It isn't like you are met with a gate and a guard. You just walk across the border into Canada. No frills, no fuss.

there's the case of the beloved Canadian sci-fi writer, Dr. Peter Watts, who was beaten, pepper sprayed, and arrested by the US border patrol for asking what the nature of their search was. They confiscated his laptop (with writing materials), detained him, charged him with a felony count of assaulting an officer, and then released him without his belongings in a thunderstorm, at the border, to find his way home.

http://boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html

Moral: You're probably more likely to be terrorized by those wearing uniforms than keffiyah.

Being one of the few people in this hemisphere unfamiliar with the Watts case, I read up a bit.

Unfortunately, if you read anything else about this there is no doubt whatsoever that he both mouthed off to the border cops and refused to follow their instructions during what was an otherwise benign random search. (Not surprising, given that even some of his friends in the blog you linked to described him as a bit of a smart aleck.) He has essentially admitted as much, while trying to spin it. And, claiming that he was "unfamiliar" with border procedures is such a crock as to defy comment. He's crossed many times personally, and anyone with a television in this hemisphere knows what a snarled mess the US border has become, and that you may be searched.

Does this mean he deserved to get pepper sprayed, subdued, and tossed in the clink for a couple of hours?

No, definitely not.

But it does make a hilarious mockery of all of the self-righteous posturing by Watts and his camp of followers who kept insisting that he was the very picture of politeness and got thumped for it. Any time someone uses the phrase "without provocation" I just instinctively doubt them, and wait for the rest of the story to come out. And in this case indeed it came out, as it does in most (not all) cases.

And, at least one juror did specify that they thought charges ought to be brought against the cop for over-reacting. But the jury's job was to decide if Watts resisted or obstructed the officals, and they decided that he did. (He was NOT charged with assaulting anybody, despite what was widely reported.) Still, he only got a suspended sentence, which was probably fair. What is NOT fair is that it is nonetheless a felony conviction, and he can now never enter the US again, even on a connecting flight. Too many petty crimes are considered felonies nowadays. He should press charges against the cop, I guess- he can, though with his own conviction his odds aren't good. And, he can still appeal- though I understand that he has decided not to.

Apparently there was a video, which apparently the jury saw. Watts mentions it once or twice. Someone tried to FOIA it in January, which was denied because the investigation was ongoing. Now that the conviction has been made it could be FOIA'd, but suspiciously nobody has tried.

Incidentally, he also has a 1991 conviction for "obstructing" a Canadian cop, too. Not charges- a conviction. As I said, he's apparently a bit of a smart aleck, and he even has problems with his fellow Canadians, not just the evil DHS. I'd imagine it takes a lot to set off a Canadian cop- Canadians are so infuriatingly calm and polite, as a rule. Then again, the RCMP did taser that guy to death in the Vancouver airport then withhold CPR for 15 minutes, didn't they?

Lord knows, I have my own personal hatred of petty cops abusing their authority. And Lord knows I have respect for anyone who publishes under the Creative Commons license, Cory Doctorow included. But Watts was not the innocent babe many people wanted you to believe. It was a much better story their way, though, wasn't it?

Edited by acrosome on 05/28/2010 13:17:32 MDT.

+1 on that.....

Thank you for taking the time to research and post a confirmation of what me and probably a lot of other folks were already guessing to be the case....

David and Dean,

Are you in agreement that mouthing off to a police officer should be a felony worthy of jail time? Because that seems pretty extraordinary, not to mention a completely ridiculous waste of our government's finite resources.

Let's get the facts out there, because I'm shocked at how willing some (most?) people are to side with the officers when an encounter with a citizen, who is not engaged int the commission of any crime, turns into a beating that ends up with the citizen facing jail-time.

First of all, the prosecution was forced to drop the charges of assault on an officer because their claim that Dr. Watts choked an officer was contradicted by eye witness testimony. That's a fact. So the most offensive charge was dropped because the cops were lying.

Second, the juror agreed that the punishment was ridiculous and the cops should have been charged. The quote from a juror is rather telling. From the SF Examiner: "What it boiled down to was Mr. Watts did not follow the instructions of the customs agents. Period. He was not violent, he was not intimidating, he was not stopping them from searching his car. He did, however, refuse to follow the commands by his non compliance. He's not a bad man by any stretch of the imagination. The customs agents escalted the situation with sarcasm and miscommunication. Unfortunately, we were not asked to convict those agents with a crime, although, in my opinion, they did commit offenses against Mr. Watts. Two wrongs don't make a right, so we had to follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge."

So, he wasn't violent. He wasn't intimidating. His sole crime was failing to comply with orders in a fashion deemed timely by the police. This was the crime for which he was beaten, pepper sprayed, and now faces jailtime. Are you comfortable with that?

You presume that he was a smart-alek, and you may be correct, but that rests entirely on the state's witnesses. I'd like to point out that the prior conviction you mentioned was two decades ago! And yet, based on that, you're willing to rush to judgment? This is a 50-year-old man, with no other crimes...so from this information we can glean that either in his 50 years he's had two run-in with rude police officers or he's some serial smart-alek. Either seems equally plausible to me.

Finally, the entire premise of the jury system rests on the ability of a jury to refuse to convict if justice is not being served REGARDLESS of the law. This is a well-established historical fact, and this idea directly influenced the Founders in establishing the right-to-jury in the Constitution. A jury is a check-and-balance on the power of the state, and, it was thought, if a citizen is judged by his fellow citizens, they will not convict him for frivlous or unjust "crimes". Unfortunately, the citizenry has been inundated with dogma about the "law" as if it is something other than the collective will of the citizens themselves, and they view it as some a priori moral code that must be upheld even when it is in error. It's a shame.

Mouthing off to a cop should not be a crime. In a just society, a cop mouthing off to a citizen would be a crime.

One really begins to wonder why everyone is so quick to throw their fellow citizens into cages for committing harmless acts....

Edited by Rezniem on 05/28/2010 22:07:12 MDT.

Nate:

Are you in agreement that mouthing off to a police officer should be a felony worthy of jail time? Because that seems pretty extraordinary, not to mention a completely ridiculous waste of our government's finite resources.

• Does this mean he deserved to get pepper sprayed, subdued, and tossed in the clink for a couple of hours? No, definitely not.
• What is NOT fair is that it is nonetheless a felony conviction, and he can now never enter the US again, even on a connecting flight.

Edited by blean on 05/29/2010 01:28:28 MDT.

Yeah. Thanks, Bob. I think Nate is so wound up about this that he didn't really read my post. Why are you so wound up about something that happened to a total stranger, Nate? Or do you know Watts? (One never knows when discussing things like this on interweb fora, so I guess I should ask.)

Also, I don't *presume* that he was a smart aleck. I have in fact been been *told* that he is a smart aleck, by many sources, including several on the blog you posted, including several of his FRIENDS. I've read everything he wrote on that blog- he comes across as a drama queen, and a bit of a smart aleck. Sorry. (I found the whole episode fascinating, and read that entire blog. It was quite long.) And, for that matter, Watts himself. Recall that I said he eventually admitted to mouthing off and not cooperating, though he didn't quite use those words, as he was trying to spin things. He then said exactly what you did- that that's not a crime.

But it is a crime, you see. It is obstruction. And he was found guilty. And more proof that you didn't even read my post before flying off the handle is to be found in this quote:

"This was the crime for which he was beaten, pepper sprayed, and now faces jailtime."

Because he does not, in fact, face jail time. (There is even doubt that he was beaten, rather than just wrestled to the ground and subdued.) The trial is long over- a month ago, now. He has been given a suspended sentence. (And I mentioned this in my post above, so obviously you didn't read it.) An appellate decision can not increase his sentence, only decrease it. So pardon me if I already do not consider you a very well-informed source. :o)

Now, there is a reason that judges have wide latitude in sentencing. Yes, he could potentially have faced up to 2 years in jail- the offense of which he was charged covers a lot of ground, some serious and some not. But jail was obviously inappropriate in the judge's eyes, so he got a suspended sentence.

As I said, all things considered, that seems fair.

What isn't fair is that it still stands as a felony conviction- which is ridiculous. The offense of which he was found guilty needs to be better defined in the law, with a misdemeanor option. Also not fair AS I SAID was that the cop who flew off the handle walked away.

Basically, the gist of my entire post was this:

Anytime I hear someone stand and loudly proclaim some version of "I was walking down the street minding my own business when for no reason this guy came along and..." did whatever, I instinctively doubt their story. Indeed, Watts did later change his story and admitted that he was mouthy and uncooperative, when he initially stated that he innocently asked what was going on then was immediately sprayed, punched, and beaten. (I'm forced to suspect because his profanities and lack of cooperation were obvious on that video.) So he wasn't the wide-eyed innocent as he tried to initially present himself.

That's all I'm saying. And I still think I'm right about Watts.

You seem to want to emphasize that there are bad cops out there. I was merely pointing out that most people who get into altercations with cops aren't starry-eyed boy scouts.

Most. I certainly don't doubt that innocent people have been harassed or abused by cops. Or worse. The NYPD shot that one guy dead for producing a cell phone, once...

Obviously, an unprovoked police attack on someone who is cooperating would be at least moderately more disturbing than an attack on an uncooperative mouthy ass.

I stand by my statement that Watts probably didn't need to be pepper sprayed, wrestled to the ground, and cuffed. (And he definitely WAS twice warned that he was about to be pepper sprayed if he didn't get back into his car.) But I also stand by my informed opinion that he was being a bit of an ass at the time, so his whining strikes me as just a bit hollow. Lord knows, cops with Napoleon complexes annoy me, and the one who failed to de-escalate and got into this altercation with Watts probably needed to be at least censured.

I want to point out another thing- I'm peppering my post with a lot of "probablies" and "it seems". Because I wasn't on the jury. By definition I don't know the truth- I am only making informed guesses. I don't understand your near-theological certainly on the issue.

Final responses to some of your points:

First: Watts was NEVER charged with assault, despite what you say above. That was mis-reported in the media, and verified by Watts himself. Yes, part of the case hinged on how much Watts resisted after being pepper-sprayed, including the accusation that he got a hold of the cop and tried to choke him. Frankly, I charge anyone to get pepper sprayed then try to lay still and take directions like a nice little boy. It's hard to do. One is going to flail around a bit after being sprayed. (Voice of experience...) So I can understand the misunderstanding. And in fact the jury didn't think he had tried to choke the cop. Nonetheless he was being obstructive, and they found him guilty, and the judge handed him a suspended sentence rather than the jail time he would have gotten had he really tried to choke the cop. As I said- this seems fair.

Second: Regarding the quote from the juror... Yeah. What I said. Didn't I say that?

Regarding jury nullification... I agree that it is an important institution in American jurisprudence. Great injustices have been prevented. But the standard for it is set necessarily high. Almost all jurists agree with me. It is not meant to allow any random jerk to obstruct a cop. His ultimate punishment (i.e. some inconvenience, a mark on his record, and some legal fees) was fair, even if I don't think it should stand as a felony conviction. I'm sorry- if you tangle with a cop you had better be the lily-white aggrieved party that you present yourself as.

So, no one got thrown in jail. We agree that the cop needs to get spanked. But I maintain that Watts was an ass who was asking for trouble- though that probably doesn't justify pepper spraying him and cuffing him. I can't say for certain, as I wasn't there, but the jury thought he had at least done *something* wrong, even ONE of them (one) later stated that the cop was in the wrong, too.

Regarding his prior conviction- say what you will about how people can change, but the psychiatrists will tell you that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. How many (good) (possibly Canadian) cops did he mouth off to in the past two decades who managed to de-escalate the situation successfully, thus sparing Watts an arrest? I don't know. Do you? In most courts prior bad acts are often excluded, but since I'm not a juror in this case I get to have all the information and make whatever judgments I like.

Lots of uncertainty in this case, especially among all of us who were not on the jury. Eh? All I'm saying is that he wasn't a random victim who was attacked by a cop for doing nothing, as he initially claimed (lied).

EDIT-- Just to be sure I'm not in right-wing-nutjob mode on this I had my wife, who easily meets any definition of pinko liberal lawyer, read about it. She agrees that Watts was probably guilty of something, and that a suspended sentence was fair. If anything, she is even more inclined to support the cop than I am, which surprised me. She seems to be a big believer in Niven's Law 1a and 1b.

Wow. This is going to be a good one. How can we fit guns into this discussion? Or global warming? :o)

Edited by acrosome on 05/30/2010 15:43:37 MDT.

A simple lesson is learned in life. One that I have found out about. If a police man tells you to stop,freeze, shut up, get on the ground, put your hands behind your back, or anything else similar to that, YOU DO IT. If you don't then you get what you deserve. If someone does not comply, then the officer has the right, and justifiably so, to MAKE you comply. It is as simple as that. Most folks that scream police harrasment, brutality usually bring it upon themselves. Though, there are instances of police going overboard, ie Rodney King...But if you asked Rodney why he got pulled over, what would he say?
If you abide by the law (like I do) then you have no reason to fear the police.

Unfortunately, I do disagree with your last statement, Ken.

If nothing else, innocent people have been killed because cops got the address of crackhouses wrong.

If half a dozed armed men wearing black masks broke down my front door, I'd probably start shooting, personally. I'm sure my bullet-riddled corpse would look quite dramatic. I think that in some states they can do that without knocking and announcing first, under certain circumstances. In states that do require announcement, they pay it lip service with a single light rap, a whispered identification, followed by the ram...

Mind you, I do believe that the vast majority of cops are honest, hard-working folk who are just trying to do a thankless job well. But I also believe that there are bad cops out there. I'm not some naive waif.

Oh, and King has stated on record that he engaged in a 100mph police chase because he was drunk, and knew that was a violation of his parole for a previous robbery conviction...

Edited by acrosome on 05/29/2010 16:54:05 MDT.

"One really begins to wonder why everyone is so quick to throw their fellow citizens into cages for committing harmless acts...."

+1

That is a question every potential juror should be asking themselves, before they are faced with the prospect as a juror. In a climate of fear, I suspect the instinct is to "take another one off the streets" or "make an example". I also suspect prosecutors are well aware of this and play to it in court.

"Wow. This is going to be a good one. How can we fit guns into this discussion? Or global warming? :o)"

Just keep the thread alive. Sooner or later, probably sooner.....:))

"Wow. This is going to be a good one. How can we fit guns into this discussion? Or global warming? :o)"

I think Watts should have been shot, except the heat from the round would have contributed to global warming......

"One really begins to wonder why everyone is so quick to throw their fellow citizens into cages for committing harmless acts...."

Yeah, I guess I'll agree that sentencing is a little out of hand, for some things. Some of the drug sentences in particular seem a bit over the top. On a related note, some of the zero-tolerance policies that schools have are kinda ridiculous, too. IMHO zero-tolerance policies are merely laziness on the part of school administrators who don't want to be bothered to actually make a rational decision on a case by case basis. It is much easier to enforce a rigid rule. God help the teacher who strip-searches my daughter looking for Advil...

"I think Watts should have been shot, except the heat from the round would have contributed to global warming......"

You forgot the methane and CO2 created by combustion of the gun powder".

"God help the teacher who strip-searches my daughter looking for Advil..."

I sense a justification for introducing guns into this thread. ;}

Dean, my comment was that if you abide by the law then you should not have a problem. Maybe the fact that I am white, live in an upper middle class neighborhood, being a professional makes me less of a target. But really, if you look for trouble, then you will get trouble. Been there done that a long time ago. And yes, I have had the Poh-lease enter my house in the middle of the night with a gun to my head when I was younger. Luckily I did nothing and I did not go to jail. Just a messed up situation that happened in front of my house earlier in the evening. Even with that happening, I still respect the police. It is not an easy job. I am from the 10th largest city in the US and I see major gang crap on a daily basis. Just knowing what the SJ police have to deal with adds to my respect.

This thread has brought up something I care a lot about -- freedom, privacy, and living in a place where both police powers and government powers are limited. And I am increasingly worried about our society.

In the Bush administration, the attitude seemed to be that the end justified the means if the "War on Terror" was involved. Doing a poor job of dealing with at least some prisoners of war, messing with our judicial systems, infringing on our accustomed right to privacy ... none of that mattered, in the name of the "War on Terror". NOT! If you give up part of what makes us great, then the bad guys have won ... you need to find a better solution.

These days, some of the same attitudes seem to be carried into dealing with both possible terrorism and illegal immigration. That is a Bad Idea, and worries me a lot.

This thread has brought up the Peter Watts incident. I believe that all of us agree that the police over-reacted and that his conviction should not have been for a felony. Let's assume that he mouthed off and was not very cooperative -- even so, the response should have been appropriate, and, as far as I can tell it was far from appropriate.

Well down in the responses in that blog, there was a link to a YouTube video made by a young minister who got into trouble with the Border Folks in Arizona -- not at the border, but along a highway within the state. By his own account, he was not cooperative. For one thing, they wanted to search his car, and he said no, not without a warrant. At least if you believe his account, they had no probable cause and even they knew that, though they made light of it. He was treated very badly and also has a court date.

As far as I can tell from just hearing his side of it, their reaction was over the top (such as pushing his face into broken glass). Also, in this country of ours the authorities have no right to search with neither a warrant nor probable cause (there are exceptions, such as at the border).

I have noted some folks earlier in this thread saying that if you just do as the cops ask, then you'll (probably) have no problems. I recognize the pragmatic wisdom in that statement.

But what is missing is how we get to where the authorities do not ask for things they are not legally entitled to ask for, and where minor offenses get an appropriate minor response. I am hearing a lot of cases where it sounds to me as if one or both of the above is violated.

I believe it is wrong to just quietly accept that, or else we'll all end up with a country we do not like very much. In some sense, the bad guys are winning, folks -- wake up!

-- Bob

Edited by blean on 05/29/2010 22:04:55 MDT.

I agree completely Bob. However, some people just have a hard time accepting that the police can be the bad guys.

Personally, I have no trouble understanding that the cops can be the bad guys. But I am rational enough to recognize that statistically it is FAR MORE LIKELY that the guy claiming he was accosted "without provocation" is lying. (Of course, I am also rational enough to recognize that as an upper-middle-class white male I'm not exactly personally in the cops' target harassment demographic.) That's why I tend to wait for all available info to come out before complaining about cops run amok. Usually you find that some detail was left out of the early media (or interweb) reports in the name of making the story more inciting and selling more eyeballs, per se. :o)

As Ben Franklin is often mis-attributed, "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither and lose both."

On the other hand, as Niven once said "Anarchy is the least stable of social structures. It will collapse at a touch." IMHO anarchists tend to be juveniles who really have no clue what they are saying.

So we have to live somewhere in between. And by definition any human system is going to be imperfect, and you will find abuses. Granted you don't ignore them, but you shouldn't be surprised by them. And, hopefully, they are outliers. And, yes, we should fight them tooth and nail. I have no problem suing the police both collectively and individually for illegal searches. It keeps them honest. That's why I said Watts should press charges against the cop, who should have de-escalated better, what seems likely to have been a minimally aggressive person. Then maybe the truth would come out about that, too, whatever it is.

That's part of the cop's job.

I know cops complain about that, but it's the truth. I'm a doctor, and I HATE all of the paperwork hoops that I am forced to jump through to do my job and all of the crap I have to do to protect myself from frivolous accusations. But- it's my job.

Bob, did you look up more info on your Arizona preacher? Come on. Even in his YouTube video he can't refrain from being an abrasive nut. (The video is just a video of this guy ranting- it isn't video of the incident.) So there is little doubt in my mind that he is also lying about how reasonable and polite he was at the checkpoint. He can't even fake being calm and rational on the video, which presumably he is making to support his case.

Not to mention- go to the guy's website. He's a nutjob. I mean- an utter wingnut irrational king of nutjob. He claims that gynecologists are sinners for seeing women naked, for instance. He supports the death penalty for homosexuality. He claims to pray that the president of the United States will die and go to hell. and is proud to state that he hates him personally. Etc. Just google "Pastor Steven Anderson" and look at it. This does not speak well for his trustworthiness when he makes these allegations of his.

Basically, he claims that the border patrol are lying about a search dog alerting on his car, and thus he was justified in resisting the search. So, we're instinctively believing this claim by a wingnut, Bob? Some say people on this forum are too quick to support the cops in these incidents. I OTOH propose that it is more irrational to knee-jerk believe the wingnut. Anderson, as a matter of fact, has had several run-ins with authorities, which he then rants about on YouTube. Look them up- they are quite confrontational. In one he verbally harasses a cop for not answering a question about his gun. Some of his sermons are on YouTube, too- they are all vitriolic profane rants. I mean literally profane- I can't cut and paste any quotes into this forum because the filter would melt down. He's a hate-monger and an anti-government nutcase.

So, pardon me if I reserve full judgment on this one until I can read more about it, too. Provisionally, I suspect that he has been actively seeking confrontations with law enforcement for a long time, hoping to become some sort of martyr to the radical religious right. (Which makes it high irony that the link was posted on no less a nest of liberalism than boingboing.net. They probably didn't bother to check the source- a common complaint of mine regarding such things.) He is CERTAINLY trying to make himself a poster boy for some sort of anti-Obama and anti-government agenda by telling his version to anyone who will listen. Also ironic, since the incident happened under the Bush administration.

Now, I could be wrong. As I said, abuses do happen. But I for one will actually research the incident more before I fly off the handle and start bashing the cops.

EDIT--

Well, the charges against Anderson were ultimately dropped. Looking further, it appears that they were dismissed because the prosecution made an error in discovery, not because anyone thought Anderson had done nothing wrong.

But here's some video of the incident displaying this guy's attitude, and that the cops were quite calm and polite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3F6gS7dvI&feature=related

Bear in mind that he only posted the last half of his video. I'm forced to wonder if he was even more abrasive and ascinine in the first half. Which brings up another point- if you look up the video he posted from his hearing bear in mind that he and his supporters have edited it in a very dishonest fashion to make the witnesses against him look bad.

Here's some more of his antics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1e7EBze6ho&feature=related

So, yes, this guy has a history of seeking confrontation with law enforcement. He drives around seeking checkpoints to make a scene at. There are many YouTube videos of him doing this stuff.

I'm a LOT more sympathetic towards Watts, frankly. Anderson just got what he was obviously looking for. He CRAVED a beating. He DESIRED it. So why is he complaining? :o)

Edited by acrosome on 05/30/2010 10:36:17 MDT.

I Googled Pastor Steve Anderson....wow. Those are the people that scare me the most. And he actually has a church and preaches to people. If so, then I assume that they believe what he believes??????? That is scary

Oh, it's worse than that. He has children. Fear for them. Pity them.

Also, he has no degree of any kind- just built a church and started preaching. I don't know if he actually attended seminary, but he sure didn't graduate if he did. If I were to sit down with him and ask him a theological question, such as, say, his opinions on omphalos, I'd no doubt get a vacuous blank look, followed by a statement to the effect that "F*****g f****ts must die and burn in hell! I hope they all get brain cancer!" (Yes, he has said stuff like that before. Repeatedly.)

Many of his sermons are rants against other churches in his local area that believe differently than his own hate agenda. Basically, according to him if you don't preach exactly what he does then you're going to hell.

Likeable guy.

P.S.- Bob, I liked your "pragmatic wisdom" comment. It made me chuckle. Rather like Niven's Law 1a and 1b.

Edited by acrosome on 05/30/2010 10:35:10 MDT.

Dean,

You are right that I did not bother to google for more information about the guy. It did not occur to me, because it was obvious from his own video that he was being confrontational with the BP folks. His finding the trouble he was seeking was not surprising. The question I had, and that I still do not know the answer to, is whether he deserved the treatment he actually got. No real way to tell, short of a video of the incident he is complaining about.

It was clear, even from the original video, and much more so now that I have looked around some, that he is no one I would wish to be associated with.

I just looked at the videos you cite, and also at some other related ones. The one about him confronting a couple of BP agents who were just eating lunch is amusing. I doubt it was his intent, but that one made the Border Patrol guys look very good -- they were peacefully eating lunch when he got confrontational with them. Instead of reacting to his obvious provocations, they just quietly abandoned their lunch, got up, and walked away.

I was amused by another video you pointed to -- I was amused by the slogan near the end: "You will never brake the spirit ..." (my emphasis). Sure fits with the stereotype that emerges from their rantings.

But I for one will actually research the incident more before I fly off the handle and start bashing the cops.

I agree, and I do not bash cops either. I realize that they have a difficult job to do. I realize that it is more hazardous to them than it used to be -- too many of the bad buys are likely to pull a weapon on them. I also believe that we should understand when such incidents are rantings of a nut-job, and when there is something to them (unfortunately, there sometimes is).

My concerns are more of a general nature, arising over the last few years. I am very mindful of the Ben Franklin quote you cited ("Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither and lose both."). My overall concern is that I believe there is a growing public acceptance that it is OK to violate rights in the name of fighting the bad guys. I am very worried about that aspect.

-Bob

Edited by blean on 05/30/2010 18:46:04 MDT.

I dunno. I think there is a growing acceptance of violating people's rights to get the bad guys... in some circles. (I'll grant that apathy equals acceptance, for the moment.) OTOH there is a large segment of American society that is mad as hell about it.

And if I may be flippant for a moment- big picture, yes, Anderson deserved the treatment that he got. I'm a big believer in manners. That guy was looking for a beating. Quite literally. He was trying to provoke one for a long time. People who abuse their rights are the least deserving of them. He gets no sympathy. Barring other evidence of which I am unaware- so this is quite a stretch- I would have convicted him of obstruction at the least if I were a juror. (I'm not nearly as sure about Watts.)

Small picture, did he deserve a taser in this incident? Harder question. The cops had a guy refusing to get out of his car, obviously acting in an agitated and confrontational manner, refusing what they maintained to be a righteous search. Would YOU want to try to wrestle him out of the car manually, and risk that he had a knife or a gun? Because if nothing else he would have resisted- I think he admirably demonstrated that. The Taser didn't harm him. (I've been tasered, too. Long story...) They're designed and meant for situations exactly like this.

The entire issue probably centers on the dog. The cops said it alerted on Anderson's car, which IS probable cause for a search. Nonetheless he locked himself in the car and had a tantrum, and claimed that the dog hadn't alerted. Like he's a dog handler, right? (Granted, IIRK the most common alert action by trained dogs is to sit and look at their handler, which Anderson might not have recognized. But that doesn't matter. The handler told him the dog had alerted- that's all that is needed. That's why there are handlers.)

Then, the cops were faced with dragging a petulent, resisting drama queen out of a car. There are simply too many things for someone to grab onto in a car- it is pretty hard to drag someone from one if he doesn't want to go along. Well- short of a beating, pepper spray, or a Taser, that is. (That's what Tasers are for- letting cops avoid dangerous wrestling matches.) And he could have had a razor blade in his pocket, or something. Would YOU want to wrestle with someone who might have a hidden weapon inside of a car like that?

So, I dunno. I can at least understand the cops' side of it. I sure don't think I'd convict them of anything. And in retrospect you had already acknowleded the uncertain prospects of a wrestling match with an agiated and possibly armed guy, so perhaps all of that was a pointless explaination...

Then again, if Anderson wasn't quite such an irrational wingnut I could see his side, too. But he is NOT some sort of 4th Ammendment crusader. Heck, if I were asked to submit to a voluntary search I'd probably say no, too- but I wouldn't start harrassing the cop. They ARE allowed to ask, and it is no 4th Ammendment violation to do so. Someone who really believed in that cause wouldn't be acting like Anderson did. He's certainly no MLK, and there are much better means than harrassing and provoking individual cops. I suspect that Anderson just wants attention, and kind of enjoys being an ass. And you'll note that in all of his harrassment videos when he refuses to be voluntarily searched the BP guys may grump a bit, but they always just let him go unsearched. (Despite his abuse. And usually they are smiling or even laughing when they wave him on.) This incident was only different because of the dog.

And, yes, I expect every possible display of ignorance from him and his camp. "Brake." Pfft.

Edited by acrosome on 05/31/2010 10:00:34 MDT.

Wow. What a creep.

Yet another act of animal cruelty perpetrated by police. This dog was on leash, and gunned down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kJVnA5KXJw (graphic)

These are just some of the videos that surface. Most incidents are not recorded. Most videos do not surface.

Edited by Rezniem on 06/18/2010 14:56:57 MDT.

Chris Rock has a nice little educational video explaining how to avoid unpleasant outcomes when interacting with the minions of the law: Google Chris Rock + "how not to get your a$$ kicked by the police". ;}

Fortunately my experience with the police and Border Patrol have all been quite pleasant. While I understand that there are bad cops and good cops almost all of my encounters with law enforcement have resulted in pleasant conversation (oftentimes long winded conversation too). A couple have even been kind enough to tell me what speed traps and patrols were ahead.

I guess I may just be lucky but I also lean towards the idea that if you don't look or act suspicious you won't have any issues.

Larry,

I'm sure that's cold comfort to those of us who are melanin-enhanced and subject to increased law enforcement harassment (as demonstrated in a plethora of peer-reviewed studies).

Sorry to completely jack this thread but it seems to have already happened, as do so many other Chaff threads :D

"Yet another act of animal cruelty perpetrated by police. This dog was on leash, and gunned down."

Nate, I think that you and many people on Youtube that commented on that video are drawing too many conclusions about that. Before you go calling the Police out for animal cruelty, consider these:

1. I don't see any kind of published, verified report about this that you or anyone on Youtube can provide, not even a newspaper article, much less an official police report. Heck you don't even know why the officers were there with the dog. I haven't seen you or anyone on Youtube accusing the police of cruelty provide a link to a reliable source to backup your accusations. If there is some kind of printed report related to this, please give me a link!

2. The video was of poor quality (slow f/sec, narrow view, no sound), and the dog and most of the handler was off camera for a full 10 seconds in that video (5mins mark). You could not read well the expressions of the face of dog or the officers. Because there is no sound, a lot of what would be valuable information is just not there.

3. Am I mistaken, or is the dog a pit bull? Aren't they known to be somewhat unpredictable if they have not been properly trained and/or abused?

4. The dog appeared to be violently fighting the officer once it was attached to the pole (not sure what the correct terminology is for that tool). Again, there is no sound, so you know not if the officer received orders to terminate the dog for whatever reason, or if he did so on his own will. Another possibly is that the officers came to a conclusion at that time that terminating the dog was the best thing they could do, perhaps the handler's life could have been reasonably at risk after having needed to put so much effort into controlling the dog. I don't believe that they would terminate it without clearance first, because they seemed to be (mostly) in control of the situation.

"This dog was on leash, and gunned down."

I have a really smart-alek comment I want to say so badly at that but for the purpose of an intelligent discussion, I will refrain.

With this post I do not mean to bash you, the dog, or anyone on Youtube who commented on this saying things like "those cops should be fired and put in prison" and the such.

Perhaps the police officers did commit an unwarranted act, this is not totally ruled out IMO, given that officers have been known to make mistakes, because last time I checked police are still human and thus still prone to make mistakes once in awhile, despite the (usually) high standards they are held to (a good thing!). If it is reasonably proven that these officers acted unreasonably and unresponsively, then yes, they will and should be accordingly disciplined. But to go as far as to say that they should get the "death penalty" as some on Youtube say, is pure nonsense. Dogs are not equal or superior to human beings and neither is any animal. Human beings have been ordained special by God and in the process given the privilege of dominion over all other earthly creation. Thus, when it is seen fit by us to terminate any piece of that creation (PLEASE NOTE in this I am talking about animals, not the punishment of fellow humans who have committed crimes), whether it be for provision, to protect fellow human beings, recreation, or other, it should be done with respect and thanksgiving. In this case the animal may have been needed to be terminated to protect fellow human beings, and the dog had a quick death. It does not appear to have been tortured by officers.

There is simply not enough clear evidence to make a reasonable conclusion without more information. I am certainly no expert, and this post certainly does not cover even close to all the variables, details, unknown information bits, aspects, and possibilities.

But, in defense of the police officers, get some more evidence and make sure it's reliable before making silly, generalized, far-fetched, or otherwise heavy-hammered accusations of animal cruelty!

Edited by edude on 06/19/2010 01:52:40 MDT.

"Human beings have been ordained special by God and in the process given the privilege of dominion over all other earthly creation."

Oh boy! The kindling has been laid, the tinder fluffed up. Who will strike the match?

"...get some more evidence and make sure it's reliable before making silly, generalized, far-fetched,...."

Fits statements about god to a T, IMO. And, FWIW, dogs are FAR superior to most human beings I come across on a daily basis.

"Human beings have been ordained special by God"

If we're supposed to be the best god can do, then god is a pretty lousy craftsdiety.

I'll add some rum to that fire. . .

We are definitely "special"

Nate,
I don't need any study to show me which people are prone to being watched more closely by law enforcement. It's all to obvious if a person works in the system for a little while.

I've even met "melanin enhanced" individuals who stereotype other "melanin enhanced" individuals worse than those lacking in melanin because they feel like they're giving everyone else a bad name.

I don't really think I need to respond to that Evan, but I would like to point you to Radley Balko, who blogs regularly about these issues. There are numerous instances of situations like these written up in newspapers all over the country. Regardless of your inability to find them, they exist. A famous one where police busted down, I kid you not, the mayor of the township's home and gunned down his dog in front of his family. He of course wasn't guilty, and his situation brought more scrutiny upon the police than the typical small-time citizen's does.

I don't see anything in the Constitution or statute about our god-given dominion over the earth, but I do see many protections for animals and sanctions against animal cruelty. It is is illegal to unnecessarily gun down a dog.

For someone so libertarian-incined, I'm a bit shocked you aren't skeptical of state security forces. But isn't that how it is in the US? The so-called libertarians really only care about taxes and social services. They have no problem with state infringements on civil rights and unfettered security and military operations.

Here's a little gem of a story from our less violent naighbors to the north: LINK. You may remember the Polish traveler who died after being tazed five times by the police. The emotionally-disturbed man was not a threat, and did not understand English.

But don't take my word for it, here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJqdL40lvU

(And yes, I understand he threw a chair or whatever, but they tazed him after he was handcuffed, and repeatedly. Some upthread seem to think that people who behave inappropriately "have whatever coming". That view is not only incorrect with respect to the law but is also frightening. A free socity does not allow its security force to act as judge, jury, and executioner for counts of trivial emotional outbursts.)

Oh, and Larry, I don't think you'd be interested in a full discussion of police profiling and race-based discrimination. I think the fact that you don't believe in the 14th Amendment should just speak for itself.

Cheers.

Edited by Rezniem on 06/19/2010 22:03:05 MDT.

Long post coming here! :D

"Fits statements about god to a T, IMO. And, FWIW, dogs are FAR superior to most human beings I come across on a daily basis." (Douglas Ide)

Not God's fault, dude! That’s all I’m gonna say for that.

"If we're supposed to be the best god can do, then god is a pretty lousy craftsdiety." (Douglas Ide)

Hmmm. Again, not God's fault, man screwed himself up. Are you saying that you and I are lousy pieces of workmanship? I tend to believe that we are fearfully and wonderfully made; regardless of we choose to do with ourselves afterwards.

"I don't really think I need to respond to that Evan," (Nate Meinzer)

I think you have.

"I don't see anything in the Constitution or statute about our god-given dominion over the earth,... (Nate Meinzer)

I don't recall making such a claim ;) Re-read my post.

..."but I do see many protections for animals and sanctions against animal cruelty. It is is illegal to unnecessarily gun down a dog." (Nate Meinzer)

Could you show me exactly where it says anything about that in the Constitution please?

"For someone so libertarian-incined, I'm a bit shocked you aren't skeptical of state security forces. But isn't that how it is in the US? The so-called libertarians really only care about taxes and social services. They have no problem with state infringements on civil rights and unfettered security and military operations."

You are attacking a ghost, man. I actually said in my post that high standards are a GOOD thing for law enforcement (it is for government too might I add). And if we want to hold them to even higher standards, I'm all for it. I was not siding with the officers in that video, merely stepping out for them because seems like you and a lot of other people on Youtube were making a lot of radical statements. I even said that if these officers were found guilty (by due process, not mob rule I shall add), that they should be appropriately disciplined. I am trying to help you understand that there is simply not enough evidence in that video to draw a reasonable conclusion! I do not identify myself with the "Libertarian" or any political "party". Whether your view or my view of that particular party is true or not, is irrelevant. What do political parties have to do with this?

"Here's a little gem of a story from our less violent naighbors to the north..." (Nate Meinzer)

I believe you are trying to draw attention away from the flaws in your accusations against those officers based on such limited information. And what Canada does with their issues, is also irrelevant to this.

We are talking about:
- What American law enforcement did on American soil, not what the Canadians do/did.

-Alleged animal cruelty here, not the punishment or abuse of human beings. [But I guess since some of you believe that animals are equal to humans just as you believe in gravity, I cannot make you see my point here. Worldview dictates how you interpret things, and yours is obviously different than mine.]

I have tried to be respectful, and so far Nate has attacked me with/by:

-Something made up and said to be in the Constitution when there is really no mention of that in it.
-Relating me to a political party.
-Trying to shove Canadian events at me.

Is that the best you've got? I stand up with my worldview and I get attacked with irrelevant flak. What more could be expected of BPL Chaff? =]

Cheers!

Actually, Evan, I was avoiding responding because your argument was incoherent.

But since you insist.

EDITED: Oh nevermind.

Jesus loves killing animals. It's in the Bible. They took our jobs.

Carry on.

Edited by Rezniem on 06/20/2010 00:44:57 MDT.

"Not God's fault, dude! That’s all I’m gonna say for that."

So god gets credit for all the good stuff, but doesn't take any responsibility for any of the bad stuff, bubba! How utterly ....... convenient. And human.

"Are you saying that you and I are lousy pieces of workmanship?"

Uhhhh, yeah, I think I was pretty clear on that score. Planned obsolescence -- god must make TVs and blenders too.

"I stand up with my worldview and I get attacked with irrelevant flak."

Ah yes, the ever present persecution complex. You stood up with your worldview, Nate stood up with his. But it seems that, if it disagrees with your's, it's not just his opinion, but an attack on you! What more could be expected of the modern American "christian"? :)

Nate, you never did answer my question:

..."but I do see many protections for animals and sanctions against animal cruelty. It is is illegal to unnecessarily gun down a dog." (Nate Meinzer)

Could you show me exactly where it says anything about that in the Constitution please? (me)


Alright, since this has gone from a real topic to a personal bashing, and I'm not going to stay here and argue with you, since you are more interested in flying flak at each other than real discussion :)

cheers and happy hiking!

Edited by edude on 06/20/2010 11:18:01 MDT.

Evan,

I didn't respond because I didn't think it was a serious question. I'm shocked that someone doesn't know that all 50 states have enacted statutes detailing when and how animals may be killed. But since you insist.

First, the Constitution is not a statutory regime. It is an organizational document. The Constitution delegates powers to the states in the Tenth Amendment.

Missouri has enacted statutes protecting animals. (As every other states has as well.)

Missouri's Statute is quite clear. It's Title XXXVIII, Chapter 578. Here.

578.012. Animal abuse--penalties
1. A person is guilty of animal abuse when a person:
(1) Intentionally or purposely kills an animal in any manner not allowed by or expressly exempted from the provisions of sections 578.005 to 578.023 and 273.030, RSMo;
(2) Purposely or intentionally causes injury or suffering to an animal; or
(3) Having ownership or custody of an animal knowingly fails to provide adequate care or adequate control.

More germane, the statute does not apply to "(7) The lawful, humane killing of an animal by an animal control officer, the operator of an animal shelter, a veterinarian, or law enforcement or health official; "

What is the lawful, humane killing of an animal by animal control?

Humane killing is "the destruction of an animal accomplished by a method approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association's Panel on Euthanasia (JAVMA 173: 59-72, 1978); or more recent editions, but animals killed during the feeding of pet carnivores shall be considered humanely killed;"

And finally, when does this statute not apply to police officers?

When "(9) The killing of an animal by any person at any time if such animal is outside of the owned or rented property of the owner or custodian of such animal and the animal is injuring any person or farm animal but shall not include police or guard dogs while working; "

This situation CLEARLY does not fall in that category, and thus the killing was unlawful. The animal was not injuring (and indeed hadn't injured) anyone at the time it was shot. Shooting a dog is not a method that falls under "humane killing". Therefore, the shooting was unlawful.

With that, there is no need to ask what ancient Israeli goat-herders who thought the earth was flat and stoned women who menstruated on them thought about all this.


The act wasn't lawful. Missouri law states it. Missouri law is allowed to govern this issue under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

And, really, I'm shocked that you're unaware that all the states have similar laws proscribing animal cruelty. Every single one of them does.

(By the way, I found all this by simply googling "Missouri statute animal cruelty". It was the very first hit.)

Edited by Rezniem on 06/20/2010 18:17:28 MDT.

Nate-

You and Evan are communicating poorly. He was of the impression that you claimed that there are animal-cruelty statues in the Constitution. (And he is correct- there aren't.) In fact I suspect that you were just referring to the existance of such statutes elsewhere in the law. But, in Evan's defense, your post was worded in such a way that the misunderstanding isn't surprising. Especially when people's hackles are up.

Incidentally, I'll dismiss the religious argument out of hand (and found the goat-herder comment quite humorous) but I'll still agree that the standards for treatment of humans and treatment of other animals differ. (The more radical PETA people are delusional, IMHO. "A rat is a human"? Gimme a break.)

There. That'll take this thread in a new direction.

Anyway, I'd be shocked if Missouri law did not allow the killing of an aggressive dog, even if no one had been harmed yet. After all, self-defense law does: all it takes is a resonable belief that someone is about to harm another to invoke self-defense in the killing of a HUMAN, so I'm sure it applies to a dog, too. You probably need to look harder at the law, Nate.

That is, of course, assuming that the dog was threatening and, for instance, that the officer thought he was about to lose control of it, etc. I haven't seen the video- I'm at work and the filter blocks YouTube- but I'll have a look later.

And, for the record, I'll reiterate my position on all of this:

I know there are bad cops, and I know that cops have done bad things. But I wholeheartedly believe that there is a CERTAIN demographic- including here on BPL- that have a gut assumption to the effect that any time a cop thumps someone it is abuse.

It isn't.

And by far most of the time when the truth comes out the problem was NOT the cop- it was the "victim". Now, sometimes it IS the cop- but not terribly often. The classic example has been mentioned several times, including by me- the Polish guy the RCMP killed in Vancouver airport. (And, frankly, even he could have been righteously tasered once or maybe even twice- just not five times, when he was on the ground, as he was.) But I definitely like to get all of the info before passing my personal judgement.

Edited by acrosome on 06/21/2010 10:24:45 MDT.

I'm going to make no comment whatsoever on the arguments here, but just want to point out that the man in Vancouver Airport, if you watch the several videos about it, was not threatening to anyone and he definitely wasn't crazy. He just looked upset and scared, because he couldn't speak English. If I had been there, I would simply have gone up to him, sat down with him, and quietly talked to him, even if I couldn't understand what he said. The reaction of the police and onlookers was paranoid, excessive, and very poor ability to read simple human emotions and behavior. This often happens when a non-native is involved. The idiotic attempt to calm him down by shouting at him in English was just plain stupid. If some policemen in, let's say, Laos, started shouting at you in Laotian, you'd be scared, too, especially if they were carrying tasers. Man, those policemen should just have calmed down and found someone who spoke Polish. Everything would most likely have worked out fine. But to even think of tasering him, why??? What was he going to do, spittle them to death? He had a CHAIR that he didn't even pick up, for crying out loud! Stupid, stupid, stupid! A tragedy. And no sympathy for the police there or the onlookers whatsoever.

Edited by butuki on 06/21/2010 10:46:00 MDT.

Yah, I know he crafted some strange stawman from my original statement that I didn't see anything about man's dominion over the earth in the Constitution OR STATUTES but I saw plenty about animal cruelty.

I agree we can't know the full situation and trial may reveal more, although Missouri law seems to be pretty clear on this. (Kind of shocked how clear it is. I was expecting more vague language about "danger" excusing such actions, in which case I think it'd be less clear that the shooting was unlawful.)

Also, just so I don't sound like some crazy hard-ass, while I think this sort of thing is repugnant, I don't believe anyone convicted of it should go to jail, though I don't think they should be allowed to retain their badges, if convicted.

I heard an interesting story on the radio the other night about the RCMP story. The judge who recently released his report of the incident was pretty much lambasting the RCMP and their use of tasers in this instance. He said one thing that I really agree with: that more and more officers are defaulting to tasers instead of de-escalating the situation first. Tasers have their place, as the judge said, but they should be a near last resort, not an early use weapon, as they are becoming more and more.

I am not anti police, never have been (even when I was a hooligan), and know they have a very tough job to do. I generally appreciate it. But I am concerned that ever since 9/11 and the bellicosity fomented by the last administration, we seem to be moving more and more toward aggressive police action instead of protectors of the peace. I think that's very troubling.

Miguel is spot on in his post on the RCMP tragedy, IMO.

Edited by idester on 06/21/2010 11:07:27 MDT.

(The more radical PETA people are delusional, IMHO. "A rat is a human"? Gimme a break.)"

Agree completely, not a fan of PETA at all.

"but I'll still agree that the standards for treatment of humans and treatment of other animals differ"

I'll disagree with this as a blanket statement. Cruelty is cruelty, regardless of who/what it's perpetrated against. And, as twisted/misguided as some might think I am, there are definitely specific human lives that I would value below (and far below in some cases) animal lives.

You aren't home-schooled by chance, are you?

""but I'll still agree that the standards for treatment of humans and treatment of other animals differ"
I'll disagree with this as a blanket statement."

How can you disagree with this statement? If you leashed your child naked to a 4x4 foot box in the backyard you'd go to jail. Yet people do it to dogs all the time. Likewise wiring your child to an electronic shock collar to keep them in the yard. OF COURSE standards of treatment differ. It is an EXCELLENT blanket statement- it was very vague and generalized.

A little more controversially- it is illegal to kill people for eating, yet it is legal to kill most other critters for eating.

Executing a convict by kosher methods would be considered cruel and unusual, whereas no one is rushing out to arrest rabbis. (Actually that's a bad example- there are activists who protest kosher meat plants.)

Can you imagine the reaction- legal and otherwise- if you wore a jacket made of great uncle Irvings skin? Even if he'd died of natural causes?

How about putting people on hooks and using them as bait for shark fishing?

Gassing termites is no issue at all, but look what happened to those jokers from Aum Shinrikyo...

Etc.

"Cruelty is cruelty, regardless of who/what it's perpetrated against."

Within limits I'll agree with that statement. (Even if it is necessary to kill an animal there is no reason to do it cruelly. Heck, I oppose trophy hunting! If you're gonna kill something you'd better be willing to eat it, in my book.) BUT even here standards differ. For instance, young males as a population contain a disproportionate number of individuals who are cruel and callous towards animals- thankfully most of them mature and grow out of it. But if I caught an adolescent dousing a homeless man in gasoline and lighting him on fire I would react SUBSTANTIALLY differently than if I caught him doing the same to a rat cornered in a trashcan. Wouldn't you?

Sorry.

That said, I've seen the video now, and shooting that dog was pretty pointless. It didn't seem aggressive or vicious- it just flipped out when it was poled, as any dog would. I mean- what were the cops planning to do with it once they had it poled? Did they think it would calm down and meekly walk to the patrol car? Where was animal control?

It's owner has a good case for a suit against the police. Unfortunately dogs are considered property, so he can only recoup the market value of the dog. Courts have repeatedly resisted allowing damages greater than that, for "mental anguish", etc.

Granted, it looks like the dog was on a leash somehow connected to a pickup truck stopped in a road, and I'm curious what happened BEFORE this footage was shot. Whos pickup was it? Why was he stopped? Significantly, that part isn't included in the YouTube video. Remember, people post stuff on YouTube for their own reasons and to forward their own agendas. I find it interesting that whoever got their hands on this police video (it was obviously shot from a police dashboard camera, and the cops were the ones who turned it to face the action) saw fit to edit it like that, then appeal to the ASPCA. Methinks they have an agenda. Perhaps the dog's owner threatened the cops with it or something, so they had reason to fear the dog. Who knows? But still, from what is seen on the video shooting it seemed pretty pointless.

Totally wild speculation here- it seems like they had already decided to kill the dog, and only poled it to move it away from things they didn't want to worry about the bullet encountering after exiting the dog. They moved the dog over into the grass with a wooded area as a backstop to shoot it. Whatever made them decide to shoot the dog probably happened BEFORE the footage included in that video.

EDIT--- for your consideration:
http://www.hannibal.net/news/x1600620381/LaGrange-dog-owner-vows-to-fight-for-law-changes

Yes, a friend of the dog owner got his hands on the video and posted those 7 minutes of a 68 minute incident. And the owner sounds like a real winner, too. Several neighbors had complained about the dog acting aggressively.

I'd still say the dog could easily have been caught and muzzled, and its disposition determined later.

Edited by acrosome on 06/21/2010 16:45:34 MDT.

"How can you disagree with this statement? If you leashed your child naked to a 4x4 foot box in the backyard you'd go to jail. Yet people do it to dogs all the time. Likewise wiring your child to an electronic shock collar to keep them in the yard. OF COURSE standards of treatment differ. It is an EXCELLENT blanket statement- it was very vague and generalized.

A little more controversially- it is illegal to kill people for eating, yet it is legal to kill most other critters for eating.

Executing a convict by kosher methods would be considered cruel and unusual, whereas no one is rushing out to arrest rabbis. (Actually that's a bad example- there are activists who protest kosher meat plants.)

Can you imagine the reaction- legal and otherwise- if you wore a jacket made of great uncle Irvings skin? Even if he'd died of natural causes?

How about putting people on hooks and using them as bait for shark fishing?

Gassing termites is no issue at all, but look what happened to those jokers from Aum Shinrikyo...

Etc."

It's hard to quarrel with any of the above statements. A rather more interesting conversation to have, IMO, would be whether or not there should be different standards and, if so, at what point in the hierarchy of animals would the differentiation begin to take place. Primates? Ungulates? Canines? And so on. Or would we continue to have one basic set of standards that apply to humans and another set that applies to all animals, adjusted for various cultural idiosyncrasies?

"How can you disagree with this statement?"

Easy! I read it differently than you meant it. I read it as your opinion, in which case I was disagreeing with your opinion, holding a different opinion. But you meant the statement as simple fact.

You know, miscommunication..... ;-)

As a simple statement of fact you are, of course, correct.

"But if I caught an adolescent dousing a homeless man in gasoline and lighting him on fire I would react SUBSTANTIALLY differently than if I caught him doing the same to a rat cornered in a trashcan. Wouldn't you?"

Slightly different example: I would react with the same amount of horror and disgust if he did the same thing to a puppy as a homeless man, not substantially differently, or even a little differently.

"I'd still say the dog could easily have been caught and muzzled, and its disposition determined later."

I agree completely, but from the stories I read, think the owner is almost as guilty as the police. From what I've gathered so far, only the poor dog was blameless, and of course he's the one who gets killed.

Edited by idester on 06/21/2010 20:47:02 MDT.

"I would react with the same amount of horror and disgust if he did the same thing to a puppy as a homeless man,"

Disgust I'll grant you, probably accompanied by a good beating. But I'll reserve horror for the homeless guy. Sorry.

Here, again, standards differ. A cruelty to animals charge gets the little psychopath probation and a psych referral. (Young males who do such things have a startling incidence of frightening psychiatric issues.) A murder charge OTOH starts discussion of "prosecution as an adult", life in prison, death penalty, etc. I don't think that is inappropriate, though I personally would like to see somewhat harsher treatment for the animal cruelty charges in such eggregious cases.

"Disgust I'll grant you, probably accompanied by a good beating. But I'll reserve horror for the homeless guy. Sorry."

No need to be sorry! ;-) We simply disagree, no harm in that. I also realize I'm the outlier on this subject!

Interesting thread.

Doug - I will join you as an 'outlier' on the subject. Assuming you have room.

Plenty of room David, and the water's fine!

"I would react with the same amount of horror and disgust if he did the same thing to a puppy as a homeless man, not substantially differently, or even a little differently."

I'm gonna join Doug on this too. I would add that I would be even more disgusted if it was MY dogs. The homeless man means nothing to me in a world already busting at the seams with humans, my dogs are my best and most loyal companions. However I do not like cruelty when leveled at anyone or anything, and this includes the way we treat most of our livestock at the end of their lives (slaughterhouses ARE cruel), or some livestock for the whole of their lives (eg chickens).

Now, what did this have to do with terrorist finding a way in? I think Ive lost the thread.

But wouldn't you agree that in a certain perspective, homeless men are good for the environment in that they pick up bottles and cans for recycling? That in turn has somewhat of a correlation to global warming :D

"I'm gonna join Doug on this too. I would add that I would be even more disgusted if it was MY dogs. The homeless man means nothing to me in a world already busting at the seams with humans, my dogs are my best and most loyal companions."

I love that we live in a world that places an animals life above a human, but wait not any animals, only cute ones that we have been taught not to eat by watching TV. Especially an animal that routinely attacks and kills harmless and innocent people and runs wild in the streets and has been bred to the point of being guaranteed to have a health malady.

I am convinced most pet owners would not love their dogs so much if their dogs could actually talk.

I love that we live in a world so black and white that the lives of all humans should be placed above the lives of all animals, but wait not any humans, only white ones and rich ones that we have been taught to respect by corporations and churches. Especially those humans who routinely attack and kill and cheat and steal from harmless and innocent people and run wild in the marketplace and have been bred to the point of obesity and being guaranteed to have many, many health maladies.

I am convinced that most people would not love other people so much if they could actually think.....

"I love that we live in a world that places an animals life above a human,"

I would put a close companion (furry or otherwise) above someone who is not related to me and who I don't know anything about. However, I am working really hard at being a good Buddhist which means I should try harder to treat all sentient beings the same. I can't bring myself to the monotheist ideologies that believe humans are innately more important or valuable than any other animals. Such is the nature of chaff.

We are all animals. Dog, bunny, homeless person, person with home and job, zebra. All mammals! (unless you are an echidna, duckbill platypus, or one of various marsupials.)

Chaff. You never disappoint.

(These kinds of threads make me long for religion and abortion arguments.)

p.s. Mr. Ide, keep up the good work. You never disappoint.

Edited by DaveT on 06/23/2010 18:13:01 MDT.

"However, I am working really hard at being a good Buddhist which means I should try harder to treat all sentient beings the same", which poses a dietary dilemma: Will you be a vegetarian or a cannibal?

"Will you be a vegetarian or a cannibal?"

Vegetarian. It would be impossible for me to eat all the sentient beings on the planet. I had a discussion once with a Buddhist RE: are fungi and bacteria sentient? I kinda like mushrooms...

"The homeless man means nothing to me in a world already busting at the seams with humans"

---

Hebrews 13:2

"Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

""Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.""

I am not Hebrew and I don't believe in angels. It was the bible, after all, that made people believe that GOD created all the other animals for man's exploitation. True man exploits any animals he can, but to suggest there is a deity that condones such behavior is not my belief system. However, as said before, I don't believe in cruelty to any sentient being, homeless folks included. I just don't value them above my best friends. I would (and have) put my life at risk to save my dog's life. I would not do so for a homeless man being attacked, or someone else's dog, but I would contact police ASAP.

"But wouldn't you agree that in a certain perspective, homeless men are good for the environment in that they pick up bottles and cans for recycling? That in turn has somewhat of a correlation to global warming :D"

Depends on where you live. Most cans and bottles around here are picked up at curbside for municipal recycling. There's no money in it for scavengers. But yeah, if you live somewhere where people just throw their garbage on the ground and create a market for scavengers, then I can see the use of homeless people. But don't they burn a lot of rubbish to keep warm, creating lots of smog and green house gases??

"It was the bible, after all, that made people believe that GOD created all the other animals for man's exploitation. True man exploits any animals he can, but to suggest there is a deity that condones such behavior is not my belief system."


You've been listening to some folks justification for selfishness
based on the Bible, not reading it yourself.

Ummm, I've read it several times cover to cover. But only the King James version. I think it's clear in all versions of the old testaments that animals were killed for food, and sacrificed for religious purposes. God required the sacrifices. Sounds to me like a mandate to put animals on a much lower plane than humans. However, I don't think that torture (except by God inflicted upon humans) was really condoned.

Are you seriously advocating putting animals on the same plane as humans? Or just a slightly lower one? How slight? Or is it a sliding scale, depending upon animal and the human, to be determined by its convenience to your needs?

Hold on! Wasn't that what King James' GOD was advocating? Dominion over animals?

So will you accept medical treatment that was developed through the intentional death and suffering of said sentient animals against their will? If so, that sounds a little like exercising dominion to me.

And there's that sliding scale again.

In my estimation the admission that your pets are worth more than the homeless puts you in quite the fundamentalist camp, far more so than any of the religion David Olsen is bringing to the table.




The discussion of how many animals equal a human and vice versa is not one that can ever be had rationally or without extreme contradiction on all sides.


..edit grammar

Edited by xnomanx on 06/23/2010 21:54:30 MDT.

"In my estimation the admission that your pets are worth more than the homeless puts you in quite the fundamentalist camp, far more so than any of the religion David Olsen is bringing to the table."

I would respectfully disagree. It simply puts one in the human camp. Some of us form strong emotional bonds with our pets. I certainly don't think it outlandish to value those with whom we have strong emotional bonds over those we have no bonds with whatsoever. It's why you would save your family before saving a homeless person if you had to choose (great assumption on my part, yes).

"The discussion of how many animals equal a human and vice versa is not one that can ever be had rationally or without extreme contradiction on all sides."

I'm not sure anyone has been having that discussion. We have been discussing our differing value systems, and as long as we can allow others to have value systems different from our own then we can discuss such things quite rationally. Well, maybe not me, but certainly others can.... They do it on intelligence squared debates all the time. One of my favorite radio programs.

I consider a homeless person no less than any other person. I've been known to let them shower and shave at our house, take them to dinner, buy them food or beers in the past.

Whether I help someone or feel kind depends a lot on circumstance: their attitude, my mood, my circumstances. I make no apologies when I say "no" to people for their time, whether they are offering or asking. I live my life as it suits me to live it. It's my time, my money, my consciousness that I choose to open or close to others. I assume that I am "wrong" some of the time for sharing or not sharing of my life, but I also know that it's my choice to make each time.

As for animals or pets, I generally consider them the same as people. Which means that those I know are closer and dearer to me than those I don't. Would I risk my life for an unknown human or other animal? Maybe. For a human or other animal known to me? Certainly and before an unknown, whether human or other type.

I lost the dearest being to me in my life, likely the closest to me any animal, human or otherwise, will ever be, last February. I still grieve for her every day. I'd consider destroying the remaining life on earth to bring her back. She was a cat, and I've never felt this way about any other being, and I've lost friends, family and other cats in my life before.

Life is life. We choose to or circumstance causes us to notice some lives more than others, but it is all life. I know Kiki was not "greater" or "more important" than any other life in the grand scheme of things, but neither am I or you. I also know that she was both greater and more important to me than any other life I've ever encountered, including my own. I'd gladly have traded my death for her life and still would if some fiendish metaphysical being should make that offer to me. I'd also be very tempted to trade other lives, which I'm pretty sure is at least somewhat evil, but until we face true temptation, which that would be, I don't think we have any notion of what evil is or what we are capable of, or just how culpable we are in the larger world we live within, sanctioning but not physically commiting evil on a daily basis.

Just got back from playing with my friends new golden lab puppy and i feel much better.

Thank you chaff!

Call me crazy, but the thought that there are people in this world that would save a pet before saving another human is absolutely dreary and without hope, given that the human in question could be you or I.

Talk about an utterly profound alienation from one another.

Well Craig, you could instead be amazed that there are people willing to risk life for anyone else, human or otherwise. It's certainly not required. I would never expect others to risk their lives for mine--I'd only be amazed and thankful if they did.

Kiki wasn't a "pet" to me. I consider the term perjorative. We were spiritual equals, if I may be so bold as to consider myself her equal. We were two beings who understood each other and loved each other. We all die; we are equally fragile. Why is my life or your life more special than any other? Answer: it's not. It's only more special to you or me or those who know us.

Humans aren't special. Life is life. One I love or you love is one I love or you love: special to me or to you only. All others are necessarily lesser to us.

All life exists by consuming, destroying other life. There is an old vedic statement embracing this truth: "I am food." You and I and the greatest or most vile human or dog or cow or fish of any epoch are all ultimately just food for some other life form.

We can pretend we are special, but life and death proves otherwise. We are part of the whole no more or less than a mosquito a lotus leaf a cat or a rat.

What is special for each of us is in a relationship or a moment, a shared recognition of consciousness. If that shared recognition is between you and me, then we become incredibly valuable to each other, and I would save you before any other. If that shared recognition is between me and a cat, then I'd let you die to save her. And I'd expect you or anyone else to do the same. If you wouldn't, it's only because you don't have that relationship.

...And then we have the never ending cycle of nobody taking responsibility for anyone or anything that they do not have an emotional bond with while simultaneously espousing that we are all equal, nothing and nobody is special, all is one, and I am no different than the lotus leaf or the lowly mosquito....

Oh boy.

Goodnight :)

Edited by xnomanx on 06/23/2010 23:34:37 MDT.

but we have people making their own choices, by their own hearts.

responsibility is a choice, not an obligation, and people often choose it. i've chosen it at times. nothing i said negates or refutes this in any way. you seem to differ in your opinion of what constitutes a reasonable choice. i think we choose love first and foremost and then it's a sliding scale afterward based on personal choice, which includes belief system, capability, chance, mood, personality and probably a plethora of other variables.

do you really think someone should value the love of their life beneath any other being? i suppose i can remember a time when my view might have been more like yours, but having had a soul-mate relationship with a non-human, my view has been changed. love is what it is though, and love that strong changes everything.

"...And then we have the never ending cycle of nobody taking responsibility for anyone or anything that they do not have an emotional bond with"

Life ain't black and white. Absolutes are rarely correct, though they may make good fodder for chaff arguments. Embrace the grey!

"I would (and have) put my life at risk to save my dog's life. I would not do so for a homeless man being attacked"

That's, frankly, a little disturbing. Especially since risk is a continuum, not binary. So you wouldn't try to chase off a couple of adolescent hoogigans torching a homeless man? That's pathetic. (One of the few times that I'll "call it like I see it" in a definitive manner.) What about a child being torched? I'd probably die to protect a child- even one I don't know.

Im truly curious about the situation in which you risked your life for your dog, and why it would make a difference if the dog were replaced by a homeless guy. (I could, for instance, imagine scenarios wherein the homeless guy got his own butt in a sling, and I would thus greatly lower the risk I was willing to take to help him.)

Anyway, I'll back Craig up when he asserts that such a position likely places you among fanatics, Lynn. And I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in a lifeboat with you and your dog...

Personally, though I love my dog I'd save an unknown human stranger over my dog if I had to make the choice. No contest.

Now, if I had to choose between a known human like say Jeffrey Dahlmer or my dog, well, Jeff had better have his life insurance paid up.

Or, I suppose, to make a point- you now rank below my hamster on my "who would you save from a burning building" list, Lynn. Wouldn't that infuriate you? Knowing that you died to save a hamster, no matter how much I loved it? Wouldn't that offend every humanist sensibility you might have? (If anyone ever chooses a hamster's life over mine I'm going to haunt them mercilessly.)

But that's not what you said- you weren't even talking about a choice. You just said that you wouldn't help the homeless guy. I hope I'm misunderstanding that one...

As I mentioned, there are levels of risk. I certainly don't think anyone should feel obligated to commit near-certain suicide for a stranger, for instance if our band of notional hooligans were brandishing firearms, but short of such extreme examples? There's got to be a line, somewhere. There have been several dramatic cases sensationalized in the media of bystanders standing idly by and watching people be murdered or raped. That speaks incredibly poorly of such bystanders as human beings, IMHO. (And doesn't seem terribly Buddist...) I hope you are never one of them, Lynn.

Maybe my worldview is just being skewed by my career choices, but I don't think so.

EDIT---

Wow. Of all BPL folk, who am I now in an argument with? Lynn Tramper ?!?!?

P.S.- did you see the overpopulation article in Mother Jones recently, Lynn?

Edited by acrosome on 06/24/2010 11:29:08 MDT.

What is risk? 1%, 50%, 99% ?

Life is a risk. No guarantee that any of us will be here tomorrow.

I would not risk my life for anyone or anything if the probability of death was high (whatever that is). The exception would be my wife and kids. That is because living without them, could I have saved them, would no longer be of value to me. If one of my kids was a worthless bum, then no I would not die for them. If my wife were worthless, we would no longer be married. I am lucky because I have a wonderful family and would do anything for them.

Will I put myself at some of level of risk to save someone from some level of physical injury, sure. Would I risk my life for a stranger or animal if the probability of death were high? No.

Police, Fire Fighters, and other professionals put themselves at risk. But the chances of death are not high. However being in the wrong place at the wrong time can be deadly. So can being in the wrong Post Office or McDonalds at the wrong time.

“Hold on! Wasn't that what King James' GOD was advocating? Dominion over animals?”

Dominion? Yes, because might is right??. For medical research? if truly necessary and done humanely. To eat? If there is nothing else (this is the situation in, eg, Tibetan Buddhism). Medical research and food are using the animal for potentially a higher good. Sacrifice or torturing (why all the sacrifice in the bible???), no way.

“So will you accept medical treatment that was developed through the intentional death and suffering of said sentient animals against their will? If so, that sounds a little like exercising dominion to me.”

I do not support the use of animals in research. And no, I am not PITA. I work in medical research and have seen first hand the wasteful suffering that some researchers justify. Very little of it is either necessary or produces useful results.

“Call me crazy, but the thought that there are people in this world that would save a pet before saving another human is absolutely dreary and without hope, given that the human in question could be you or I.”

OK, Maybe you are crazy ;)

“That's, frankly, a little disturbing. Especially since risk is a continuum, not binary. So you wouldn't try to chase off a couple of adolescent hoogigans torching a homeless man? That's pathetic. (One of the few times that I'll "call it like I see it" in a definitive manner.) What about a child being torched? I'd probably die to protect a child- even one I don't know.”

Again, I would assess the risk on an individual basis. If it was twelve year old hooligans armed with nothing more than some petrol and a lighter, I would certainly chase them off. If it was a couple of 18 year old testosterone poisoned and drunk males with baseball bats and knives, I wouldn’t go near them to save someone I don’t know.

“Im truly curious about the situation in which you risked your life for your dog, and why it would make a difference if the dog were replaced by a homeless guy. (I could, for instance, imagine scenarios wherein the homeless guy got his own butt in a sling, and I would thus greatly lower the risk I was willing to take to help him.)”

My dog was attacked by a pitbull. The pitbull had my dog in his jaws by her belly and was shaking her. I chased, tackled and pinned the pitbull in a judo leg hold, with my left hand on his scruff and my right hand over his muzzle. His jaws were right by my neck, and I would not have done this for any dog OR person, homeless or not if they were not priceless to me.

“But that's not what you said- you weren't even talking about a choice. You just said that you wouldn't help the homeless guy. I hope I'm misunderstanding that one...”

I said would put a close companion (furry or otherwise) above someone (or some animal) who is not related to me. Whether I help them or not depends on my on-the-spot assessment of the danger to myself.

“There have been several dramatic cases sensationalized in the media of bystanders standing idly by and watching people be murdered or raped. That speaks incredibly poorly of such bystanders as human beings, IMHO. (And doesn't seem terribly Buddist...) I hope you are never one of them, Lynn.”

I am a struggling Buddhist. If I weren’t, I wouldn’t be here (I would be somewhere in Nirvana). As a Buddhist I should really be aiming to gain relief from my attachment to my loved ones, so that I treat then the same as anyone else. I have a lot of work to do. For instance, my reaction to the pitbull attack was instinctual because of my attachment to my dog. A more rational, unattached person would not have taken on the dog IMHO.

to stand by and witness someones attack ie torching of a homeless man, and deciding whether or not to help? Really? I always have been taught to help others.

As for what Cary is writing...I know Cary, and the pain he felt when he lost his Kiki was very hard for him to deal with. I have 6 cats and love them dearly. They are my buds. Just like many reading and writing this have dogs.....you develop deep bonds with you animal friends.

To sit idly by and watch someone do harm to someone else, would be sick.

Edited by kennyhel77 on 06/24/2010 17:28:52 MDT.

"To sit idly by and watch someone do harm to someone else, would be sick."

I wouldn't be idle. I would be trying to get others around me to gang up on the pervert(s), or contact police/ambulance/fire as required. I simply can't see the point in inserting yourself into a dangerous situation to help a stranger. Like, I'm a single 50 year old woman. I'm hardly likely to stop young male hooligans intent on hurting a helpless creature, thus making myself also a target. However, a 10 year old torturing a frog or kitten (my older brother loved this kind of entertainment) would provoke my full fury and and instant intervention.

"Dominion? Yes, because might is right??. For medical research? if truly necessary and done humanely. To eat? If there is nothing else (this is the situation in, eg, Tibetan Buddhism). Medical research and food are using the animal for potentially a higher good. Sacrifice or torturing (why all the sacrifice in the bible???), no way."

Dominion in the old testament speaks to a people familiar
with a suzerain/vassal relationship. Along with power over
the vassal, the suzerain had the responsibility to take care of the vassal. It was a serious legal promise by both parties, and breaking that promise could be punishable by
death. Obviously the more powerful party could break the
promise with less chance of consequence.

What if Christians today took dominion as seriously?
I think things get lost in translation, but also one
can read into it what one wants to justify ones actions.
You have to take the Bible as a whole and compare each
part to the other. Out of context stuff can be used to
justify anything. Slavery, racism, environmental degradation, sexism. You know the stuff.

God speaks to people where they are at, in the culture they
are in. In the old testament, the animals sacrificed cost the people greatly, and were payment for their misdeads. This helps drive home that sin is costly. The animals and grain then were eaten by the priests.
That was one of the ways the priests were remunerated for their services.

Now there is no further need for animal sacrifice,
Christians believe, since Christ paid that price.

Sacrifice is a two way street. Christians are called to sacrifice themselves.

John 15:13
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Edited by oware on 06/24/2010 18:08:11 MDT.

Sorry, you don't cherry pick. If I see someone in need I will help. Maybe it helps that I am 6'1 215 lbs and have alot of experience subduing others. Yes calling 911 does help, but sometimes you just have to react. Yes I know women would have a harder time intervining physically. Don't be a witness....a famous punk band wrote that.

"Sorry, you don't cherry pick."

YOU may not cherry pick

"Don't be a witness....a famous punk band wrote that."

I never could get into punk ;)

If I deemed it so unsafe that I would not intervene, then I would also not hang around. I would be one of the first to run away from a serious aggressive attack, to get to a safe place where I could raise an alarm. And it's not just attacks. I have been in a similar situation with a car accident where it was far too dangerous to rush in and help the people until traffic was under control. I am not, nor will I ever, be, an altruistic hero. I would not expect it of someone else, I might add. I would feel worse than dreadful if some stranger got themself injured or killed on my behalf. That would be hard to live with...I even feel this way about folks who go off to war and get maimed or killed on behalf of others. Very heroic, but not something I could do unless it was to save my family and friends. If I was drafted I would spend the war in prison or another country.

Edited by retropump on 06/24/2010 18:19:12 MDT.

Lynn, I agree with all of your points sans punk rock...but then again, that is a personal choice in taste.

"Very heroic"

Off topic, but for some reason this reminded me of one of my favorite TV quotes: "Do you know who a hero is? Nine times out of ten, a hero is someone who is tired enough, cold enough, and hungry enough not to give a Damn. ..." Hawkeye Pierce, MASH.

""Do you know who a hero is? Nine times out of ten, a hero is someone who is tired enough, cold enough, and hungry enough not to give a Damn. ...""

I wonder how many of us that applies to.

It is still hard to deal with. I tear up or cry a little every day.

Not sure if I updated this, but she was quite young, only a bit over six, and we originally thought she had FIP, but now after reviewing the history, labwork and the timeline of other cats getting sick and their symptoms, we are pretty sure that she got H1N1 from me--she was by my side the whole time I was sick and her symptoms showed up a week or two later (about the lag time between all the other cats who got sick after her).

"Again, I would assess the risk on an individual basis. If it was twelve year old hooligans armed with nothing more than some petrol and a lighter, I would certainly chase them off. If it was a couple of 18 year old testosterone poisoned and drunk males with baseball bats and knives, I wouldn’t go near them to save someone I don’t know."

In other words... Yes, you mis-stated your position, earlier. That's more rational, and much less despicable, Lynn. You are after all accepting some risk from the accelerant-armed 12 year old hooligans, even if it isn't a great a risk as taking on the Mafia, or whatever.

Thought I'd resurrect this with this nauseating news by McClatchy News.

The Government has now lost 75 percent of Guantanamo Habeas cases. That's right. 75 percent.

Remember how we couldn't bring the detainees here because OMFG the terrorists would take over the prisons!!!

Yes, it's all kabuki theatre at this point, and as has been pointed out ad nauseum for years, most of the detainees were not actually terrorists, but normal citizens who were on the wrong side of a local dispute and handed over for the generous bounty given out by the U.S. Who knew that when you go into a third-world country and offer thousands of dollars for terrorists, people will turn on their neighbor, lie, and hand him over for the prize?

Sad just how much credibility our country lost by skirting both international treaties / conventions -- and our own domestic laws. Bush the man trashed our country more than any foreigner ever could.