Video: Border Patrol tasers pastor at traffic stop
posted at 10:11 am on May 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
The first video’s a month old and a minor viral hit online, the second one — showing the incident described in the first — is brand new. Why would the BP be so impatient with a stopped driver as to get rough after just a few minutes? Well, turns out it wasn’t just a few minutes: According to Fox Phoenix, it was a “standoff” that lasted for more than an hour. As for the taser, the Phoenix New Times weighs pros and cons:
At first glance, the use of the Taser seems to violate a policy adopted by most Valley police agencies. When Tasers were first introduced, police used them against suspects who simply refused to obey orders or resisted arrest not by force, but by sitting down or pulling away from an officer’s grabbing hands. Such use was later prohibited in most agencies when police realized Tasers could potentially be harmful to some suspects.
However, the DPS could probably make the case that Anderson was a threat to officer safety because he had control of his vehicle. Once the agents and officers decided to pull him out of the car (a questionable decision, itself), they must have decided to Tase him right away to prevent the possibility of the vehicle driving off with an officer stuck in the window.
Anderson claims he was repeatedly Tasered even after being dragged from his car, but that’s not shown on his video.
I think it might depend on whether he had the keys in the ignition at the time. If so, the fear that he’d try to take off after they broke the windows is reasonable; if not, not so much.
Update: I meant to mention — this didn’t happen on the border. Anderson was driving east from San Diego to Phoenix. What was the BP doing there?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
I’ll watch it at home tonight.
“Yes sir, I did ask him to let me search his vehicle since the K-9 indicated drugs, but this guy said something about the Constitution so I let him go.”
If that sounds reasonable to you, and the BP ever adopted this as a rule for officer’s behavior, you can bet there would be lots of white guys muling herion from Mexico being coached to say exactly what this dope said in perfect American English.
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Snoopy was not seen by the accused as having made a motion, the USBP did not take Snoopy back when asked by the DPS to show Snoopy having an issue…
people can say anything and in the case of LE in this “war on drugs” can get away with saying anything….
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM
speed911 on May 18, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Driving without a license is illegal. A person refusing to show his license when requested is reasonable. And whatever the law says when driver refuses to show his license while stopped by an officer is reasonable.
But the issue isn’t about him not showing his license, its about them saying they had probable cause to search the vehicle because the dog told them….kind of reminds me of David and his dog goliath come to thnk of it.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM
By his own admission in the first video.
speed911 on May 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM
No, the issue is NOT about the search. The issue is about this guy and his pointless refusal to answer any questions. The dog and search issue came after that.
My question is, when the guy refused to answer ANY questions, should they have just let him go? Or should they have pulled him to the side?
speed911 on May 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Get out of the car, let them search the car, get back into car and drive away…5 minutes max.
Instead this fool sat there and argued about nothing for an hour.
First, it was already quoted, as a “pastor” he should have submitted before the authorities.
Second, these guys are trained to notice unusual behavior, he was “unusual”.
Third, I have been through hundreds of border checks, and dozens of times been ordered over to “secondary”, the area for search. You comply and move along. Meanwhile, I have watch the most “responsible” citizens have their cars torn apart, and the agents finding contraband. Seldom was a dog even employed, they just use instincts, and sometimes the law of averages.
Fourth, he is a Baptists, so he can just find one of his fellow “healers” and be just fine.
And fifth…he is an absolute fool…he got exactly what he was hoping for, and what he deserved was much worse.
I just paid for several agents, for a couple of hours, waste their time with this ego-driven Baptist pastor…that just cost me a few hundred dollars for him being a fool.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I don’t care if he had drugs in his car, or a dead body…when asked a question, WHAT AM I BEING CHARGED WITH, he got told to cover his eyes and tazed, and then got busted up. He did not show any signs of threatening the officer…all he did was challenge his authority to detain him and search his property.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM
speed911 on May 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Man you sound like those guys who put blame on the girl who was raped…if she wasn’t wearing such skimpy clothes…
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I agree that this guy is a jerkwad and one hell of a street cherry. On the other hand The Border Patrol was a little heavy handed. This guy was obviously no threat to them. He just pissed them off, that’s all.
I think we all need to think about whether that’s truly what jerkwads (who are not trying to get physical with the cop) deserve for pissing off a cop. I’ve known a few cops. Some are good, some aren’t, and I’m sure any cop will agree with that.
Ernest on May 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM
really? glad to know that you agree with the British in the Revolutionary War.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Nice try? I nailed it. The fact that you must obtain a license to drive on public roads means that it it illegal to drive w/o one. When you obtain said license, you agree to a set of rules. Violate the rules, and you lose your rights.
Is this a new concept to you? When a license is required for any activity (dentistry, hunting, driving on public roads), it becomes illegal to engage in that activity w/o one. To get any license one must agree to certain rules. One rule of the road is to cooperate with law enforcement. As soon as this genius failed to cooperate, he was violating the law and the officer had a duty to enforce it.
You may think that you sound constitutionally pious by taking the stand you have taken, but it bears scant resemblance to the reality of the situation.
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Gotta go. It’s been real.
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:38 PM
speed911 on May 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM
If this was an illegal alien……….
………… would the officers involved still be in jail?
Seven Percent Solution on May 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Then charge him for not brandishing his license when asked before being detained for over an hour and then tazed. If refusing to show his license was the issue, why did they not CHARGE HIM WITH THAT?
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:42 PM
speed911 on May 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM
school yard insults? Have I called you a nanny nanny boo boo or something? Or is it that you realize your argument doesn’t hold much water.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Like I said, anything to avoid answering the question.
speed911 on May 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM
speed911 on May 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM
because as much as you think I haven’t answered your silly question…I’ve YELLED IT!
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Try again.
SCotUS allows “papers please” since ’79 because of border security but when a person presents US papers there is no border issue beyond this. Then the “war on drugs” expands why they can molest you beyond establishing residency. We are told Snoopy got excited, but the accused does not get to see Snoopy wag his tail or show agitation and not even State LE gets to see Snoopy act out.
This is indicative of ineffective mission creep on the exception they got by SCotUS and further highlights the idiocy of US border policy….
the USBP knows there are legions of illegals inside the 45 mile containment zone draining US resources and does nothing….they know there are multitudes in the interior of the US who got by their “zero tolerance” zone and do nothing….but on those magic checkpoints you grasp at straws saying I have no right to move on a road it is a privelage….well yeah it is as things have evolved….tell me did US Grant have to have a horse license to ride his horse?
A smart American should WALK through the “zero tolerance” zone….
let them make the march towards “papers please?” even more overt….
guy was a tool but the USBP and boyz in blue fanboyz who are not bothered are as well.
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 4:46 PM
JetBoy on May 18, 2009 at 2:10 PM
cool video,I wonder if the illegals realized it’s illegal to pack so many people into a van?
aceinstall on May 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 4:46 PM
And the thing is, I want people to be like this preacher…a stubborn cuss who understands the constitution…a patriot. The boyz in blue can taze themselves, because we live in America, not Amerika. This preacher, as a “tool” can’t bust up your property, detain you for hours, and bust you up because his manhood got threatened.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM
it really is amazing…I bend over backwards to give every reasonable doubt to people who literally have the power of life and death granted them by a badge but dear lord the USBP can’t find 1/30th of the US population here illegally but can screw with 100% of the citizenry going through checkpoints??
they got pu$$yhurt that a guy was rude to them….moreso than they would have if the guy had been an illegal who ran….
sorry but at the end of the day that speaks of some weird Judo PC racism to me.
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Where in Federal or State law does it say that you are obligated to say even a syllable to the police?
I’d be interested to hear how you holster sniffers would feel about the following exchange:
Cop: Are you an American citizen
Preacher: Am I being questioned as part of a criminal investigation?
Cop: Answer the question.
Preacher: I’m sorry but since anything I say can and will be used against me in a criminal proceeding, I think it’s prudent, because of police and prosecutorial misconduct, to only answer police questioning with my attorney present. My attorney’s name is Ploni Almoni Esq. Here’s his number. Call him and he’ll make arrangements for us both to come in, and then you can ask me whatever you want to. Of course the Fifth Amendment says that I don’t have to say much, but I’ll be happy to help you with your investigation. Here’s my business card. Have a nice day, officer.
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:04 PM
The Constitution says that criminal defendants have the right to confront their accusers in open court. How, pray tell, do you cross examine a dog? Will the dog in question be made available so the defense can test its accuracy?
Or do we just take the word of a pissed off LEO, affronted that someone dared to not kiss his ass? If so, why do we bother with trials, judges and juries?
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Just doing my part. 1000 or bust.
AbaddonsReign on May 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM
The war on drugs has destroyed the concept of Probable Cause….
say the USBP decides Snoopy scoping out that gal in car #3 means he responded to car 2….he tosses your trunk and finds fixed blade knife you were transporting from Fort Bliss to Ohio and decides then and there….”well golly I am really gonna toss the car now since this blade is illegal in some states”
that is the fishing expedition aspect of taking the LEO’s word that Snoopy has issues without being able to see Snoopy yourself.
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Of course you don’t recognize it because you’re the sharp end of the power of the state. You wouldn’t recognize a decrease in freedom or liberty until your own behaviors were being controlled.
I think that every police cruiser should be equipped with video that cannot be disabled and the recordings should be on public record.
Public employees should not be allowed to organize labor unions. I’m not even sure they should be allowed to vote.
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:12 PM
I predict a tasering in your future, followed by a lawsuit decided in your favor.
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 5:13 PM
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:07 PM
What worries and upsets me more than these sorry excuses who happen to have a badge, is the sorry excuses defending their behavior…At what point do they say the cops crossed the line?
What did it for me was the preacher simply asking what is he being charged with ( he has a right to know ) and their answer was a busted up car, 11 stitches, and having a joy ride with their tazer guns. If that doesn’t cross the line, what will?
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Amazing how many Americans would tolerate a police state.
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:12 PM
+100 ( other than the right to vote…but can see the reasoning behind it )
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 5:12 PM
I am generally in favor on the war on drugs, as I am against drugs, but its stories like this one that makes me think we should end the war on drugs.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM
The majority of comments here are quite scary given that they are coming from supposed “conservatives”.
A number of commenters try to make the point that the only proper venue for discussion of Constitutional protections is the courtroom, never the real world.
The idea that one should meekly submit to violations of your God given rights now, and hope that later your day in court (which you might or might not get) results in the violator receiving some sort of rebuke or sanction (which it might or might not) is antihetic to the spirit of liberty upon which this once great nation was founded.
Bob Mc on May 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM
tolerate, and get hostile towards people who dare mention code words like…gasp, the constitution.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I bet Bush made them do it…
workingforpigs on May 18, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Bob Mc on May 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM
No where in that video was the preacher being hostile, threatening, or trying to get away. He complied covering his eyes. He wasn’t yelling. He asked a simple question…WHAT AM I BEING CHARGED WITH! But you see, that threatened their manhood, and the had to make an example out of him for wasting their time…truthfully I am surprised “evidence” wasn’t planted to cover themselves.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I’m of the same quandry.
I have seen up close what Meth and Crack can do to a community but I am also seeing the escalation of the tools used in the conflict with little abatement in the problem…
there does not seem to be a stigma attached to the recreational abuse of narcotics and other mind altering substances if the last three men to be elected are any indication of prevailing mores….I suspect cranking back the clock to circa 1927 or so on the legal front may well be the way to go.
Let people wreck themselves and don’t give them any help.
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM
He may have every “right” to stay in his car…but it is still stupid.
The border patrol are supposed to check suspicious vehicles, that is what they are for.
Being “right” and being “smart” do not always go hand and hand.
He could have saved hours, and us hundreds of dollars if he wasn’t such an *ss.
And just to be sure you understand, he was not representing a Christian…
Try this:
Now tell me how a Baptist pastor should act?
Border Agents are trained to notice suspicious abnormal behavior, looks like from this guys history, they were right.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM
So remind me again of the crime he committed? Not getting out the car? You have got to be kidding me, that sounds like a Soviet excuse for sending someone off to the gulag….
Tim Burton on May 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I post the following responses realizing that many of you may not be on still, but I still wanted to respond.
OK, I see points to your response, but I think reasonable cause has to come into play. I guess this was at the heart of the issue. Again, they could have gotten a search warrant to play it safe. Also, I don’t recall laughing at the “don’t taze me bro”-guy.
Yes, you are right. If you behave badly, there should be consequences, but I fail to see how it is the responsibility of the police (or BP) to deal out Karma to sarcastic people such as this pastor. That’s why we have a judicial system.
Relativistic argument? I suppose the Constitution is relativistic and we need to be more pragmatic in the real world…
I’m not following. If you break the law, I suppose it’s reasonable to be sent to Rikers.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Ok Bob. What would you do in similar circumstance?
a) Come out shooting in defense of your Constitutional, God-given rights
b) Delay and frustrate officers until you are tasered and taken into custody
c) Protest but comply, file lawsuit later
d) Other
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 5:26 PM
+1
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:26 PM
It doesn’t matter what he would do. The Constitution doesn’t protect person A based on what person B would do.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM
The reason they don’t answer, is because that locks them into a specific charge…the border agents were asking for him to get out of the car for over an hour…they wasted too much time on him, and too much of my money.
How about you coughing up the several hundred dollars, I bet you would have hauled him out in 5 minutes if you had to pay for his foolish, childish, publicity stunt.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Since you asked:
Constitution of The United States of America, Amendment I:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
I’m pretty sure that we have the right to mouth off to just about anyone we want to in a public place.
Pretty simple stuff.
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM
After further review of the circumstances…
HA’s been suckered. This guy is a local Phoenix nutcase who intentionally provokes confrontations with the authorities to support his paranoid agenda. Look at his Youtube file. He’s a moron.
As for the civil libertarians and anti-government types that typically get all bent out of shape when these videos surface, well, if deliberately poking the dog just to see how hard it bites is your thing, then there ain’t much anybody else can tell you that you’ll listen to.
n0doz on May 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Which is funny, because his “God given rights” was that he submit. He is a Christian Pastor. Try this: Romans 13:1-5…the key verse is this: Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
You are calling for “God”, and he is refusing God word.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 5:31 PM
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Two other things that make me question the war on drugs.
1. Cops get money directly from “drug dealers”, homes, vehicles, etc…this means it in their best interest to “prove” wealthy persons to be drug dealers.
2. Hemp being outlawed, as that form you can’t get high on, but you can make outstanding paper and clothing material rather cheaply too.
So my position is, want to use, go ahead. But abuse, and lose your kids…don’t pass the drug test, you don’t get welfare checks. Offer free drug rehab to those who remain sober…and educate the public how drugs ( including alcohol ) do harm. I am amazed that cigarettes are vilified, but anti-drug commercials are rare.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he’s a con. We already know. It doesn’t mean that the police behavior was correct. They didn’t know he did Youtube videos did they? Even if they did, does it justify their response?
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM
As a simple excercise in practical judgement, what would you do, and why?
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 5:33 PM
So what do you say about someone like Bonhoeffer? He came up earlier
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Because I’m not a jerk like this pastor, I’d get out of my car.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Then I assume you think that Chinese Christians should submit to the Chinese government’s outlawing of Christian churches?
justfinethanks on May 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Of course…
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:37 PM
/sarc was probably need…
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:37 PM
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Ah, I see, so doing a check point with how many officers there isn’t a waste of your money? Or the fact that, he was non-compliant but non-aggressive, but for “wasting your money” you are ok with “hit him again John!”
Submitting to the authorities…he was willing to comply with the LAW. Unfortunately too many officers seem to not grasp the freakin BILL OF RIGHTS.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Fixed it for you!
Well, I am torn by this. I know that there are two sides to the coin. Christians are supposed to obey the government, but yet they have a right and duty to follow the Constitution. After all, if we are supposed to immediately offer tribute to Caesar, then those martyrs were wrong. At the same time, if we refuse to offer reasonable tribute, then we are wrong.
Tim Burton on May 18, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Wow, it makes so much sense, yet I feel the inherent need to worry about someone toking… //s
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:34 PM
And so was he, once he understood what it was he was being charged with.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Hey lets address a couple of items:
1. If BP asked you if your a US citizen and you say yes, it’s a honor system only–NO PROOF.
2. BP didn’t ask this guy for his license and if they did, do they have the authority? I don’t think so. If they did BP would write him the ticket for blocking traffic instead of calling DPS. Notice BP used DPS to make the arrest. I saw a video of local coverage and they quoted BP as saying ” we don’t use tazers that’s DPS and we didn’t arrest him that was DPS”. So BP threw DPS under the bus, not our problem.
There has to be a line between professional border policy and acceptable stops. I’ve already stated with all the other holes HARRASSING US citizen isn’t it effective. Any rational person can see this is .00001% effect as in comparison to checking everyones SS# when they go to work. As to requiring citizenship to obtain services, education, welfare, housing, etc.
100 cars in line, polluting the environment where is the outcry from GreenPeace?
Useless questions–are you a citzen, answer is yes or no. No= further inspection, Yes= see ya or pull over because I suspect you need to be search based on??? Looks??? Skin color??? Taco Bell rapper??? Stating the constitution as a reason you don’t want to be searched???
SFTech on May 18, 2009 at 5:40 PM
It kind of brings into question exactly what is Caesar’s… I’m assuming personal choice is not Caesar’s…
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:40 PM
No, I’d probably get out of my car even if I wasn’t crystal clear on what I was being charged with. That said, the Constitution doesn’t say that if that’s what I’d do it what Crazy Pastor should do…
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:42 PM
I don’t understand the question…I have never seen Bonhoeffer’s “youtubes”, and I don’t think this squirrelly pastor can play the piano like Dietrich could.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM
where do I sign up for the “We’re Sorry British Monarchy and we resubmit” group you are vouchsafing?
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Just saying, I couldn’t see any hint of hostility from the preacher, he was asking simple questions and instead of getting a simple answer, his car and head got mauled while his body adjusted itself from the extra flow of electrons.
Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 5:46 PM
If you were a jerk would you:
a) Not be able to spell ‘exercise’
b) Not be able to spell ‘judgment’
c) Not get out of your vehicle
d) Be surprised when you were Tasered
e) c and d above
f) a and b above
g) All above
h) Other
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 5:46 PM
So now you tell us when can and cannot follow God’s word…you tell us how you think God is misinformed and doesn’t understand the complexities of something like the Chinese Government…and then you read the whole passage I referred to, and see where it says what is God’s is God’s…and the Christian Church is God’s and you don’t forsake that for another (might even be a commandment)…sheesh, you should have gone to Sunday school more often.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 5:46 PM
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al violated the word of God then yes?
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Coming back throught the border Windsor/Detroit they ask questions, we answer. If they ask you to pull over you pull over. Get out. Accept a search. Don’t need to see a pointing beagle to validate the routine
I was searched once by unfriendly Canadian BP. I didn’t wait for the beagles to comply.
Driving through Detroit I have been pulled over for going through a red-yellow light in a bad neighborhood, where my car stood out. Not illegal. Police ask questions. I answer them. I didn’t have to see a beagle. They used flashlights to look in my vehicle. So what. They didn’t taser me but I didn’t come looking for a three act drama. I helped them do their job which helps me
Another near traffic miss I was stopped by a female officer. I misunderstodd and exited the car. She motioned for me to back off and stop. I did it. I had a right to run a drama, seeing as there was no beagle but I did it and she completed her check on my plates.
if the BP has checkpoints somewhere other than the border the place to test the checkpoints is in the courts, which I assume the ACLU is doing and there are better ways to stage the test case.
Meanwhile, because it is a checkpoint, people ask questions, and may request exit from car. These checkpoints are atypical, but so is the beagle test of the the minister and his need to pitch a drama. If it is BP, and it is some kind of checkpoint, there is no checkpoint if everyone pretends it is not there.
He has a mission and it does not seem to be eliminating non border checkpoints.
Finally, if Jesus had been asked by the Roman soldiers to exit the vehicles he would have exited. Jesus answered the Romans when questioned. Unfortunately the Christ I so admire took the hard end of justice in a lawful court session. His trial was legal, met the beagle test, and so much more meaningful
I supposed super victim will get his day in court too.
entagor on May 18, 2009 at 5:53 PM
He was not willing to submit to the law.
The officers are trained to spot unusual suspects. Take a look at his history and you can see he has placed himself in these situations on purpose to “tweak” the authorities.
He is a off the wall wacko Ron Paul follower. He believes that only men are men if they stand up and pee (look at his youtube and you will see).
He acted in a way to raise suspicion…that is what these anti law enforcement people do…once again, look at who and what he really is.
He was “cruising” for a fight, and he got what he wanted. Publicity, and you have been taken in by this publicity hound, and you are one of many being used by him to undermine authority.
Sticking up for him, is no different then in the 60′s sticking up for the “anti-establishment” fools. Look whom you are supporting, he is using you…which makes many the same fool.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM
I am stunned at the response here in favor of law enforcement’s actions over a person who was doing nothing more than protecting his own rights.
I have respect for law enforcement, but I would have acted the same way if these officers were plainly making up reasons to illegally(I stress illegally) search my vehicle. It’s your job to make sure your rights are not violated.
Those BP Agents were obviously lying, if they hadn’t been there would have been no issue in bringing the dog back in for the benefit of the DPS officers… and if you think the beating and tasering that this guy got for a simple refusal to have his vehicle searched is justified…well, once again I am stunned.
You people talk a big talk about individual rights, until you see them assaulted in front of your faces. Then you just roll right over.
Stunned…
ManInBlack on May 18, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Hey…if a Border Agent asked me to step out of the car…I’d step out of the car.
why should any honest law abiding citizen take over an hour to decide whether he wants to obey the law..or be arrested?
It didn’t take Mr. Anderson that long to decide he’d like to get his story out, and be interviewed by Alex Jones on Prison Planet.
Mr. Anderson’s story lacks credibility.
I’ve been stopped by BP agents and they were very courteous. I even had my car searched in Arizona…everyone involved was very professional, and I was impressed with the manner in which it was handled.
Those guys have a tough enough job without having to deal with pompous, I’m above the law” American citizens.
monique on May 18, 2009 at 5:57 PM
I have answered this so many times…Religion and politics do not mix.
You can’t serve two masters…you are either a politician or a theologian in these cases.
Your people you cited were politicians…don’t be coy and try to get into a fight where you begin to look stupid.
This guy is a Christian leader, he is sworn to uphold God’s word…the rest of us just try to “get along” and be in God’s favor. Church leaders are judged more harshly, by God’s standards…please be reasonable in your arguments.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 5:58 PM
If he wasn’t under arrest, then was he free to go?
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:58 PM
He was asked by border agents to exit his vehicle…he refused.
His pattern is to do this to start a “fight”…look at his history. Don’t ever be shocked that conservatives do not fall for a con job like liberals do so easily.
We get the game, and conservatives leave the gullible to liberals.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM
He did try to try to assassinate Hitler and he tried to protect the Jews – both punishable under Nazi law.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Peter and Frederick Muhlenberg were violating the word of God then yes?
both were founders and clerics….
they did not seem to have a hard time reconciling faith and politics….
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 6:02 PM
I don’t necessarily disagree. I’m just saying what I’d do myself. But I think his rights should be protected too.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 6:03 PM
I have been asked to “drive over to secondary” where inspections are made. I step out and let them inspect, then in 5 minutes I am on the road, no big deal.
Agents have lists…number of times you have crossed, type of car, color of dirt on the car (determining where you were and what area), if you are “trunk heavy”, you ask suspicious, don’t look them in the eye when they ask a question…this guy knew all of this, and egged them on, that is is SOP, this is what he does.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 6:04 PM
WTF – Get used to it… This is the hope and change we’ve been waiting for. Or is this just a hold over and side affect of the EVIL BUUUUUUUSH…?
Kuffar on May 18, 2009 at 6:04 PM
I think the definition of jerk is a little bit broader.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 6:04 PM
There is a simple 1 question quiz at 5:26. What is your answer?
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 6:05 PM
It’s not completely clear. In terms of constitutionality of the local laws, though the latest case, Hiibel, ruled that it was constitutional to ask for ID, it was a 5-4 ruling that went against a lot of precedent. In Brown v. Texas, the court ruled that without reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior, the police might not simply stop people on the street and ask for their names.
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 6:07 PM
No, he was Lutheran, and since I am Lutheran, I give him a pass. We can do no wrong…except Luther was a Jew hating theologian, as I am sure these were also.
Hear, let me repeat…you can’t serve two masters…I didn’t make that up, that is God’s word.
Tonight when you go to bed, argue with Him…get it?
The two institutions are not compatible, they can be friends, but not ever sleep together.
That is why Jesus never ran for Governor…
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 6:08 PM
The little upstart is lucky he wasn’t a pregnant woman. They would have given the little bigmouth an on the spot abortion. He had it coming anyway talking about the constitution and all that. Who the F does he think he is.
Kuffar on May 18, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Gave me a tingle up my leg when I read your comment, someone who hit it right on!!! Great Job.
————————–
As shown on local TV, BP got DPS to make the arrest and now they’re going to take the brunt of the legal backlash. When DPS asked for the dog to come back the 2nd time and BP refused, DPS should have got in their car and drove away.
If as you say he had every “RIGHT” then that’s the end of the arguement. Just cause you’re willing to give up your rights doesn’t make him WRONG or DUMB for exercising his.
When the BP makes statements like:
1. According to law you have no rights at an internal border checkpoint.
2. We don’t need a warrant to search your car–then BP shows the pastor the BP written statement showing that they do need a warrant.
3. The only cause I need is I think you’re odd.
4. Stop you can’t go, but you need to go to second screening cause your blocking traffic.
5. Are you a US citizen, answer the question!!! I know you’re the guy from checkpointusa.org. So I know you’re a US citizen, I’ve fullfilled my BP requirement, but I want to bust your ass cause I can.
BP agents have a tough job, this internal checkpoint is just ineffective. I believe the resources could be used elsewhere. Don’t they say we only inspect 3% of cargo containers, hum maybe that’s a good place to send them.
SFTech on May 18, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Like I told the other…take it up with God, I am just repeating what he stated.
You are arguing with the wrong person…you tell God that He is wrong, that you are the one with the Truth.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Better yet, Lowe’s. All signs in all US Lowe’s stores are bilingual They require all their vendors to have bilingual displays. I’m sure that’s for all the native Spanish speakers in West Bloomfield, Michigan and has nothing to do with illegals working in the construction and repair trades.
A couple of years back I was doing sprinkler contracting for a friend and I used to joke with him about yelling “INS” and watching all the landscaping crews scatter.
rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 6:11 PM
It’s not a definition. My answer is f.
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I’m beginning to think that Mr. Anderson may be a little wackier than first thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9DtBHeRP1Q
Oh my goodness.
monique on May 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM
again they were involved in the rebellion against God’s duly annoited representative here on Earth….
Jesus did not need government power and his whole mission was to come here and be martyred, I sort of have an emotional attachment to the BoR and the Constitution I can’t get over….YMMV
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Rather then cut and pasting, and only seeing the words that you want…try reading the whole post and learn to understand what someone is writing.
Taking a sentence, with several defining sentences after, and saying that “sentence” tells it all is typical of either someone very uneducated, or a deceiver.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Like I said, you tell God that He was wrong, and they you have the Truth.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Killing Hitler? Well, that’s something I’d definitely have to take up with God. Helping Jews is a no-brainer. I know that I am suppose to show God’s love and that is most definitely not turning one’s back on persecuted Jews.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Quit talking about King George III and get with the thread… Can’t you stay on subject?
Kuffar on May 18, 2009 at 6:14 PM
OK, got to go, but I see this isn’t going to be settled anytime soon.
Keep the fight, sven10077
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 6:15 PM
That pretty much sums up your knowledge of the Bible…better go back to Sunday school class, you missed the first few years of Bible 101, and Jesus 101…
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 6:15 PM
SFTECH’s IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2009
1. build a fence across the southern border.
2. staff the southern, northern, and coast line effectively.
3. enforce all existing immigration laws.
4. detain all illegals while awaiting deportation in open work camps, 6 months max.
5. if they return without legal status, they go to jail for 1 year. Charge their country for these costs.
6. all workers must submit valid ss#, non matching have 30 days to correct.
7. create a legal work program for workers that are needed. Seasonal workers would get a visa based on months needed.
8. eliminate anchor babies. Period.
9. illegals that committ violent crimes such as murder, rape, etc. are given a 2nd appeal within 3 months and put to death/life in prison within 12 months. Charging their country for these costs.
10. All sanctuary cities lose all federal aid while they fail to report illegals, especially criminal illegals. Period.
11. make english the required language within 12 months. No more government forms in 15 languages. Legal entry forms excluded.
If only Tom Tancredo could have won…
SFTech on May 18, 2009 at 6:15 PM
This is messed up. If you think that they won’t turn on their fellow Americans, remember this.
ronsfi on May 18, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Like I said you show me where God said, “you know what screw it if the government says jump you jump”…..
doesn’t exist it is true that Jesus ordered submission to just authority but he also gave us (Luke 22:36-38)….Jesus was for self-defense
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Apparently he thought he was an ambassador to the UN
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »