Video: Border Patrol tasers pastor at traffic stop

I want to start by pointing out that NOT all the facts are available in this story and video because AP does not have all the facts (and seems to admit this by the questions and quotes provided). Let’s just start with the one fact that everybody seems to agree on that the incident at the checkpoint lasted for over an hour.

I don’t see an hour of video in the clip and it never would have gone viral if the clip were an hour long.

My conclusion: a LOT of information is MISSING in the story so far.

Here’s what we CAN conclude from the information provided in the story and video:

1. The pastor was being rather (some would say extremely) provocative by contending with the BP for over an hour at the checkpoint.

2. After this hour of confrontation, the pastor was obviously shooting video and was in effect calling the dog handlers liars. This will not endear one to any LE official, from a purely social (not legal) standpoint.

3. What probably started as a request, then obviously became a reasonable order to step out of the vehicle needs to be obeyed. Period.

It’s part of our ‘liberal’ education that we think we have rights beyond what we actually possess. And to think those rights are NOT accompanied be certain duties and obligations. One of these duties and obligations as citizens with rights is the duty to obey reasonable orders from a law enforcement official. A request to step out of the vehicle is a reasonable request. In fact, the pastor, when he tells his own version of the story, alludes to this when he says that one of these agents stated that if he had just answered the questions, he would have been allowed to depart. This is probably entirely true.

Since the subject admits in the first 30 seconds of the video that ‘because I wouldn’t answer their questions they came up with that’ – so he admits on his own recording that he refused to answer the simple opening questions commonly asked at such a stop. Continually in both recordings, this subject testifies against himself and convists himself.

Working dogs do not always perform perfect work. If a dog alerts, it is reasonable for LE to request a closer inspection. The subject (and by this time the pastor has indeed self-identified as a ‘subject’ rather than merely just a ‘citizen’) does NOT have the right to request or demand a second canine inspection. The pastor, by his own admission refused to answer questions.

The request for the pastor to step out of the car so it could be inspected more closely could be taken either one of two ways: it could be viewed as an opportunity for the ‘subject’ to clear himself of any minor suspicion and be sent on is way after a quick inspection. Or it could be viewed as a breach of his rights. His own behavior ensured what would eventually happen.

But this guy placed himself under suspicion by focusing more on his rights than he does on his obligations.

If we do not wish to be required by law to follow the reasonable instructions of LE officials, then we are free to elect lawmakers who will amend or rescind such laws. But in 230 years of freedom, we have never done that – for good reason: it gives LE officials the authority they need to provide safety to the good actors among us most of the time.

This guy self-identified as a bad actor.

Sure, there is lots of scholarly-sounding discussion in conservative circles about how our rights are accompanied by duties and obligations. Most of these ‘duties and obligations’ are pretty vague and academic feeling until we see a situation like this.

For those of us who followed the Heller case that recently reinforced our 2nd Amendments rights, the anti-gun arguments in the case provided us with a clear illustration of what happened here. The Supreme Court justices were questioning the DC atty Dellinger on finer aspects of the 2nd Amendment and were discussing in part the argument that the 2nd Amendment applied ‘only to the militia’. A justice had already asked several questions and received several answers from Dellinger regarding this amendment and was trying to identify just exactly who the militia actually are. Because of his previous arguments Dellinger could only assert that the militia are ‘the people’. 2nd Amendments advocates had a good laugh at this because this conclusion could only support the 2nd Amendment advocates’ position, not the DC position. But that’s not the point here – the point is that liberal attorney Dellinger asserted that ‘the people’ are the militia.

I’m not an attorney, but my own constitutional theory on this is that when he braked to a stop at the checkpoint he was in effect invited to momentarily ‘join the militia’ and allow his rights to be breached a little by answering a couple of ‘illegal’ questions. Note that some constitutional theory suspects that we can be compelled to serve in the militia as part of the posse commitatus; but let’s set that theory aside.

Rev Anderson chose not to assist LE by providing the answers they sought (probably answers to questions like ‘where are you going? Where are you coming from?’ In that he failed in his duty as a member of the ‘militia’ (the people). Insisting on his rights, he chose to refuse answers, which is certainly his right. But he overlooked his obligations.

Yes, I too have been in compliance situations like this where compliance was distasteful and felt humiliating. But at least I know that at the end, I had self-identified as a friend of LE (even if the official in front of me did not acknowledge it at the time).

For even those conservative readers among you who may have inadvertently had your minds polluted by some over-liberal elements of your education, (and who probably love nuance, too) here is a nuance to take in: sometimes the obligations that go with our rights can be a bit distasteful. Especially if we are dealing with an LE type who is having a bad day (although there is no evidence of that in this video). I saw the LE folks treating him with respect in every instance – they warned him to close his eyes and they immediately brought in an EMT bag and treated him as soon as he was seated in the station.

This guy is stupid and he testifies against himself and convicts himself in nearly every second of both videos.

This guy obviously wanted to have his own tasering on video more than he wanted to avoid it. At any point in the last minute he could have set down the camera, put his hands in plain viewe and told them he was about to step out of the car, and this could have been avoided. He chose not to do that. He wanted the video more than we wanted to avoid the confrontation.

‘Proof of probable cause’ does not obtain: if it did, even blatant criminals could avoid a search even with a warrant. Probably cause is codified and citizens and subjects do not get to redefine it on the spot.

BTW, this checkpoint has been there for years – it is one of at least 2 along I-8 between San Diego and Yuma. Most of the time the BP does not have the funds to operate them and they are closed. When they are open, they catch LOTS of illegals. That is why they are there: they serve the border security of the US.

Why was it so easy for him to get the BP video released so quickly? Because it proves they were within SOP and it was a righteous take-down.

I hope this guy gets the 30 days in jail he deserves.

Exit question: if he did not have a conclusion he wanted you to reach regarding his self-provoked treatment, why didn’t he choose happy banjo music instead of sad piano music to dub on the second half of the second video?

Another exit question: how are police supposed to tell the good actors from the bad actors? Could it start with simply and courteously asking a couple of questions that may stretch his rights a bit? Would anybody like to be protected from the truly bad actors? If so, how would one identify them and decide which cars to have the dogs sniff?

ElRonaldo on May 18, 2009 at 6:25 PM