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.