Man beaten and tasered by Border Patrol for exercising cons utional rights.

[Blake]

But it wasn't full of drugs and if he's not breaking the law and the cops don't have any real pc, then he has a right to not be embarrassed. Or not embarrassed. Or not to open his trunk at all. Whether you care about it or not.

if a dog starts going off, then probable cause supercedes your embarassment, whether you like it or not.

You don't have blanket protection in your home. But in both instances you have a right to be safe from search and seizure without justifiably probable cause. You don't just waive all your 4th amendment rights just because you're driving on a public street. Not even close actually.

again, you don't have the same blanket protection in a car on a public road that you do in your house.

You have 4th amendment rights in your car, but a search of your car requires much less effort.

see: border patrol

The cons ution and subsequent courts disagree with your assessment.

wrong.

with probable cause, courts have sided with a cop's search of a vehicle without a warrant on numerous occasions.

Your cons utional dignity and civil rights. Pretty important.

civil rights: important.

Getting embarassed after a cop has probable cause to search your trunk and finds your dildo: not so much.

But in this instance the cops weren't keeping society safe. And they broke the law. And it's almost too cliche to bump the Franklin quote about liberty vs security, but that's what the situation is. How could you possibly support the notion that we should all just roll over when it comes to the 4th amendment in the name of keeping society safe? That kind of complacency is the fundamental building block of fascism.

If they broke the law, then should get punished for it.

Pretty simple.

[jman3000]

He is at the border patrol. They can search anyone they ing want. Please give us a ing break. They should not have beat this instigator up. This dude urged them forward to break into his car. I can't believe one person out of that mob did not step in and say STOP. I can't believe they beat this up especially knowing the cameras were on. All those guys should be FIRED. But that does not excuse pastor weed to give the border patrol a hard time. Some of you guys honestly think everyone is innocent.

I used to go to Canada all the time. Once in awhile they ask you to get out of ur car and open the trunk. You say "no problem" Usually u are on ur way in a few minutes. One time I had to pull off to the side. They brought the dogs and that search took about 10 minutes. They thanked me for my cooperation and I thanked them for doing a good job. ing dumbass wanted something to happen to him. And some of you actually defending him for instigating them. Again they had no right to beat him like they did. They had every right to break his windows, taser him and pull him out of his ride. The beat down was wrong, very wrong, fire them, perhaps even charge them.

they can x-ray, dog sniff, and ask you if they can search your vehicle all they want.

what they can't do is intrusively search your vehicle on a whim.

it's true that you lose any reasonable expectation of privacy at border checkpoints or their equivalents (airports/seaports), but you don't lose it completely. there are still things police officers can't do, and what the BP did in this case is one of those. Especially the apparent lie about the dog sniff. Getting evidence off false pretenses like that is uncons utional and everything found under such cir stances should fall under "fruit from the forbidden tree"

[Blake]

You clearly know absolutely nothing about what we are discussing. I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself out to be even MORE of a moron. There is not a single person in this thread who isn't laughing at your ignorance right now. I'm surprised ballijuana hasn't absolutely gone off on you for this kind of idiocy.

If a cop has probable cause, and you aren't doing anything wrong, why are you pissed about a 2 minute trunk search?

It's really more a personal question, 4th amendment rights you think you have aside.

[Blake]

Dude, about 5 different people have explained to you... You have a cons utional right to not do so. Whether you have something to lose or not. You may not like it, but that's the ing law and has been since 1791.

Dude, you may not like it, but there have been courts that have ruled in favor of probable cause warrantless car searches since 1791.

And nobody, absolutely nobody should have to suffer the punishment of being tasered, and bloodied and dragged out of their car and beaten, because they choose to exercise something that is well within their plain as day cons utional rights.

I agree even though that's besides the point.

Quit being a ing idiot. And if you can't do that just STFU already and/or go back to the club.

I really just asked a simple question. I'll try to rephrase it for you as best as I can:

"If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you personally have a problem with a cop doing a 2 minute search of your trunk if he has probable cause?"

Is it really that hard to understand this is just a question and not an argument against 4th amendment rights?

[balli]

They didn't ing have probable cause!!!!!!!!!!

Especially the god damned cops who tasered and beat this guy over nothing more than the lies of the BP that the dog got su ious.

I'm sorry, the BP telling the cops that the dog was su ious before flat refusing to bring the dog back over when the cop asked them to, doesn't pass muster as probable cause. Now if the BP had complied with the officers request and let him see the dog's reaction for himself, or if the cop had his own dog get su ious, sure, that might count. But "because the BP told me so, while refusing to back it up" doesn't count as PC. And the dog didn't react to anything in the first place; there was nothing in the car for it to be reacting to.

And originally, your question didn't ask a damn thing about probable cause. So go ahead and "re-phrase" it, but I consider it more of adding a caveat that you didn't include in the first place and that doesn't even apply to this instance.

[Blake]

They didn't ing have probable cause!!!!!!!!!!

Who said they did???????

I'm sorry, the BP telling the cops that the dog was su ious before flat refusing to bring the dog back over when the cop asked them to, doesn't pass muster as probable cause. Now if the BP had complied with the officers request and let him see the dog's reaction for himself, or if the cop had his own dog get su ious, sure, that might count. But "because the BP told me so" doesn't count as PC. And the dog didn't react to anything in the first place; there was nothing in the car for it to be reacting to.

I'm not gonna disagree with you, but I still don't know enough of the situation to determine if they had probable cause or not. Hopefully a good judge will decide.

And originally, your question didn't ask a damn thing about probable cause.

Does my exclusion of "probable cause" in the original question change your stance on getting pissed about a 2 minute trunk search?

[balli]

Does my exclusion of "probable cause" in the original question change your stance on getting pissed about a 2 minute trunk search?

You've got to be ing kidding me.

The answer of course is yes. The day I let a cop anywhere near the inside of my car without him or her having real probable cause to search it, is the day I have my windows broken out and taser wires shot into my neck.

If you wanna roll over like a complacent anytime a person of authority asks you to on a whim, fine, that's your choice. But how you could be surprised that the rest of us give a about our rights is beyond me.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

How far away from the border was he? Within 25 miles of the border, BP agents only need reasonable su ion.

[Blake]

You've got to be ing kidding me.

The answer of course is yes. The day I let a cop anywhere near the inside of my car without him or her having real probable cause to search it, is the day I have my windows broken out and taser wires shot into my neck.

If you wanna roll over like a complacent anytime a person of authority asks you to on a whim, fine, that's your choice. But how you could be surprised that the rest of us give a about our rights is beyond me.

so if a cop has probable cause then you have no problems with a 2 minute trunk search?

Great! We agree! So why are you yelling?

[Blake]

How far away from the border was he? Within 25 miles of the border, BP agents only need reasonable su ion.

there's a full blown border patrol station about 60 miles north on any major highway of any Texas Rio Grande Valley city complete with dogs and highway cameras.

You go from 70 mph down to a stop and get questioned by the BP who ask "Is everyone in here an American citizen?"

There's also usually a sign that says "1.2 million lbs of drugs confiscated at this checkpoint since January" or something similar.

I'm betting they use reasonable su ion quite a bit at these stops.

[FaithInOne]

Don't have time to watch videos atm, but I think this might be the same pastor that has numerous videos of arguing with Border Patrol.

[SnakeBoy]

They didn't ing have probable cause!!!!!!!!!!

Irrelevant...Take it up with the judge. If a cop politely tells you he's placing you under arrest and asks for your cooperation you got two choices. Cooperate or resist like an asshole and maybe get ed up a little.

[balli]

Irrelevant...Take it up with the judge. If a cop politely tells you he's placing you under arrest and asks for your cooperation you got two choices. Cooperate or resist like an asshole and maybe get ed up a little.

I suppose that's a fair point, but so is taking it up with a judge.

And at that point, if you're innocent, on the offensive and equipped enough to afford legal advice, that cop's gonna deal with the consequences.

And I'd argue that "getting ed up a little" should mean as little as necessary. Once you're tased and subdued, a cop has no business grinding your face into broken glass, standing on your head or putting his knee into your spine.

[SnakeBoy]

And I'd argue that "getting ed up a little" should mean as little as necessary. Once you're tased and subdued, a cop has no business grinding your face into broken glass, standing on your head or putting his knee into your spine.

I didn't see anything that I would consider excessive in the video. The guy got cut by glass because he forced them to break the glass by refusing to get out of the car.

These cops did things right imo, unlike the cops in the other thread.

[Cry Havoc]

Don't have time to watch videos atm, but I think this might be the same pastor that has numerous videos of arguing with Border Patrol.

Because he drives back and forth from Cali to Arizona a lot, and unlike a lot of the ignorant morons who don't give two s about their cons utional rights, he's probably sick of repeatedly having his car searched. I've been through those checkpoints. They don't use probable cause. They search at least 25% of the cars that go through there. It's a hassle and a headache and this guy is one that's finally bringing it to national attention.

[Cry Havoc]

I didn't see anything that I would consider excessive in the video. The guy got cut by glass because he forced them to break the glass by refusing to get out of the car.

These cops did things right imo, unlike the cops in the other thread.

I would just stop posting in this thread before you are humiliated. You're either trolling, or a complete moron of unparalleled incompetence.

[mookie2001]

you cant even drive from west texas to new mexico without stopping for these es, i didnt go anywhere near the border and they ask me where i was born? -WHARTON TEXAS chode
-thought i was making up cities

as far as authorities theyre the worst, because they get real mad when you say youre american, theyre offended you know their job, because they like to think theyre the fbi eagle pass division


thats me though, i own cops, on the regular
i dont boast, this is the truth
FIRM!- i neva lose my mind

[SnakeBoy]

I would just stop posting in this thread before you are humiliated.

Okay I watched it again. Exactly what did the cops do wrong? Breaking the glass? Pulling him out of the car? Handcuffing him on the ground?

In the other video it's very clear what the cops did wrong. It doesn't matter if this guy didn't have drugs, he resisted arrest. The other guy committed serious crimes but gave up peacefully and got beat on anyways.

There's no humiliation for me, I'm right and you're wrong. Think of it this way, which cops would you rather have arresting you (whether you had actually commited a crime or not). The ones that try to be reasonable and peacefully arrest you or the ones who just start beating the out of you because they're pissed off.

[Cry Havoc]

Okay I watched it again. Exactly what did the cops do wrong? Breaking the glass? Pulling him out of the car? Handcuffing him on the ground?

In the other video it's very clear what the cops did wrong. It doesn't matter if this guy didn't have drugs, he resisted arrest. The other guy committed serious crimes but gave up peacefully and got beat on anyways.

There's no humiliation for me, I'm right and you're wrong. Think of it this way, which cops would you rather have arresting you (whether you had actually commited a crime or not). The ones that try to be reasonable and peacefully arrest you or the ones who just start beating the out of you because they're pissed off.

[Yonivore]

My first response is, Wow, this is going to be one wealthy MoFo in a few months but, something just doesn't add up.

I do believe he rolled up to that checkpoint with the intent of (or at least the hope of) encountering a situation much like what happened. I'll bet he didn't think it would go that far though.

With that in mind, the video taken from inside his car is rather abbreviated and only starts well into his conversation with the State Trooper. I'm wondering if he's leaving out some -- maybe clipped off the first, oh, I don't know, 15 or 20 minutes? And, setting the sped up surveillance footage to music, while a nice touch, seemed to somewhat make light of the situation.

He tells a convincing story, though.

That's what courts are for.

[mavs>spurs2]

pigs, there aren't too many good ones anymore. Props to the few that still stand to serve and protect.

[hope4dopes]

I would just stop posting in this thread before you are humiliated. You're either trolling, or a complete moron of unparalleled incompetence.

Hey man have you every resisted arrest?

[hope4dopes]

I wonder if they pay well? I don't like bapstist preacher all that much anyways.

[Homeland Security]

That prick got off easy. He deserved more permanent damage.

People always whining about "rights." Rights originally were supposed to go only to wealthy landowners. If a guy like that wants to give the authorities a hard time, he needs to get the beat out of him. They call them the "authorities" for a reason. You're supposed to do what they say.

[Winehole23]

^^^Hi-skool Security is one tough mofo.