If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Canadian science fiction writer arrested at US Border for "no reason". Resisting arrest and choking an officer are no reason to arrest someone   (thetimesherald.com) divider line 255
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

10149 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2009 at 10:30 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-12 03:41:45 PM
Aidan: They think you think you're better. Regardless of how idiotic they are, don't use sarcasm. Or irony.

But sarcasm and irony are the tests for the depths of their idiocy, so . . . Oh -- I see your point.
 
2009-12-12 04:00:13 PM
Darth Otter: Is this the thread where we find all the people defending the border cops for kicking the crap out of a guy, throwing him in a prison for several hours, trying to get him to waive his Miranda rights and then pushing him out into a snowstorm without his possessions, but its all fine because he 'talked back' to them?

Good. I need to update my 'Ignore' list.


I'd post a "Welcome to Fark.jpg" but that would be too much effort. If you use the ignore list for people who disagree with you, and not obscene trolls, well, you should go to freerepublic or dailykos. Fark may be more liberal than other websites, but it's not a farking echo chamber.
 
2009-12-12 04:01:08 PM
I never have problems with US customs, but my brown buddies do.

I tell them to stop being Muslim. which isn't so helpful, because they're Hindu
 
2009-12-12 04:02:46 PM
dead_dangler: Dear Americans:

On behalf of my country, I apologize for the following:

- Canadians who have a chip on their shoulder at your border crossings
- Canadians who have a "Canada Kicks Ass" t-shirt, or some other nonsense
- Canadians who believe that they're more polite and well behaved that people from other nations when visiting foreign countries
- Celine Dion

An Ashamed Canadian


I can forgive all but the last one. You will forever owe the world restitution for that one.

/and Nickleback
 
2009-12-12 04:03:52 PM
hockeyfarker: I never have problems with US customs, but my brown buddies do.

I tell them to stop being Muslim. which isn't so helpful, because they're Hindu


5/10 just for the pun jab.
 
2009-12-12 04:07:35 PM
Paging CruiserTwelve.. CruiserTwelve to the law enforcement thread please...

photobucket.com
 
2009-12-12 04:08:17 PM
That didn't work.. let's try again:
i79.photobucket.com
 
2009-12-12 04:10:50 PM
Marcus Aurelius: The man was angry. Ordinary citizens are not allowed to be angry around their superiors.

Superiors? No, not superior. Just armed.
 
2009-12-12 04:11:37 PM
I was so hoping it was S.M. Stirling. I can totally see him pulling crap like this.
 
2009-12-12 04:13:03 PM
ChubbyTiger: I know lots of CBP Officers and Agents. Some are a bit douchy. Most are pretty normal. Without video, I'm disinclined to put my faith in either story 100%. But if they told him to get back in his car and he refused, which is what they say precipitated the whole thing, then they were right to take action of some sort. You don't do that shiat to Customs officers or BP agents and expect no repercussions.

This. I cross borders quite a bit, and border guards have a whole lot of discretionary power. Refusing to jump through hoop 'A' can result in anything from a polite rebuke to a nasty beat-down. At Port Huron I was rejected for a work permit (paperwork stuff only), and so I called my boss in the US to try to sort out a new letter while they processed my refusal. The young guy doing the processing didn't seem to care, but when his supervisor headed our way he quietly got me to put the cellphone away before it was seen; the other guy apparently had a reputation for getting upset very quickly. Which was soon demonstrated to me as he checked the criminal backgrounds of an entire tour bus because one passenger lied about their record; managed to catch four more in the process. That said, the folks at Port Huron have always been kind to me (crossed 5 or 6 times after that refusal, twice for new work permits, and never any problem), but I keep my head down and speak only when asked a direct question.

/Cool story bro
 
2009-12-12 04:39:00 PM
AppleOptionEsc: Darth Otter: Is this the thread where we find all the people defending the border cops for kicking the crap out of a guy, throwing him in a prison for several hours, trying to get him to waive his Miranda rights and then pushing him out into a snowstorm without his possessions, but its all fine because he 'talked back' to them?

Good. I need to update my 'Ignore' list.

I'd post a "Welcome to Fark.jpg" but that would be too much effort. If you use the ignore list for people who disagree with you, and not obscene trolls, well, you should go to freerepublic or dailykos. Fark may be more liberal than other websites, but it's not a farking echo chamber.


Eh, whatever.

I make fairly liberal use of the Ignore feature to not have to read comments of shallow knee-jerk apologists, not to remove from my sight intelligent farkers who happen to disagree with me (for those, I use the Favourite feature).

You use fark the way you want, and I'll use it the way I want.
 
2009-12-12 04:39:46 PM
TheSignPost: It's because there are so many people who "hate cops" across the board simply because they're cops, that there are so many cops who don't put up with bullsh*t from people.

You reap what you sow.

Every cop hater should try being a cop. They'd be converted in a day.


Exactly right. I don't like the idea of "secondary searches", TSA screening, metal detectors in government building and schools, etc. But I blame the asshats who create the need for these invasions of our privacy - not the authorities who are trying to keep me and mine safe.

But, act like a jerk with someone who has arrest powers the likely response will be to return the attitude - and a ride to jail. And I, for one, will be standing by waving and applauding. This guy is an asshat...

\t2.gstatic.com
 
2009-12-12 04:50:30 PM
WOBB: Exactly right. I don't like the idea of "secondary searches", TSA screening, metal detectors in government building and schools, etc. But I blame the asshats who create the need for these invasions of our privacy - not the authorities who are trying to keep me and mine safe.

*snerk*

What's funny is that you think "secondary searches", TSA screening, and metal detectors in government buildings and schools keep anyone safe.
 
2009-12-12 04:50:45 PM
Cops are douchebags that will abuse the authority given to them. End of story.
 
2009-12-12 04:59:38 PM
neongoats: Cops who are douchebags that will abuse the authority given to them. End of story.

FTFY

/Not all cops are douchebags
//But douchebag cops are an order of magnitude more dangerous than, say, douchebag convenience store cashiers, for example
 
2009-12-12 05:02:05 PM
BlankReg: I also like how the article points out only that Peter is a science fiction writer-- obviously more of a troublemaker than if they had mentioned his "day job" of Marine Biologist.

Then again, in the US anyone who teaches that evolution stuff must be one of them godless commies hiding out in Canadia.

(Full disclosure, I know Peter Watts and am inclined to believe his side of the story-- but would like to see the video of the stop. But that will probably not happen.)


FTFA: Watts, a Hugo Award-nominated novelist who has a doctorate in marine biology, spent the night in jail, was arraigned Wednesday and was released on $5,000 bond.

I suppose anyone where you're from who can comprehend what they read is one of them godless commies etc.
Also, yes, it is more noteworthy that he's an award-nominated writer than that he's a marine biologist. He'd be better known for the former than the latter, however good he is at either job.
 
2009-12-12 05:10:24 PM
Coffee Ninja: [sniper rifle image]
You have a problem with our guns?

Ahh, Pine and Miami smokes. Must have been Iraq.

/2 dollars a carton
//Probably cost me a month of my life per pack
 
Ral
2009-12-12 05:21:01 PM
CrispFlows: PS:
Not sorry about the white house burning... You farks looted york.


That's okay, it was painted yellow at the time and this gave us an excuse to paint it the white it's known for today.

Canada remains the only country to ever sack the White House, which is kind of awesome in its own way.
 
2009-12-12 05:34:49 PM
WOBB: TheSignPost: It's because there are so many people who "hate cops" across the board simply because they're cops, that there are so many cops who don't put up with bullsh*t from people.

You reap what you sow.

Every cop hater should try being a cop. They'd be converted in a day.

Exactly right. I don't like the idea of "secondary searches", TSA screening, metal detectors in government building and schools, etc. But I blame the asshats who create the need for these invasions of our privacy - not the authorities who are trying to keep me and mine safe.

But, act like a jerk with someone who has arrest powers the likely response will be to return the attitude - and a ride to jail. And I, for one, will be standing by waving and applauding. This guy is an asshat...

\


I am not a cop hater. I am a constitution lover. Good cops respect the Bill of Rights and do not use their badge as an excuse to bully people who are not doing anything illegal. Good cops do their jobs without making it a personal ego trip about individual power. Any officer that abuses our trust and ignores the Constitution should loose his or her job.

The search wasn't a problem. Ignoring the Bill of Rights and using excessive force are a huge problem. He was not "being a jerk" to ask a question and even if he was, the response was too excessive. The unnecessary force was unconscionable. Refusing his request to contact a lawyer after that was illegal. How could people with such poor understanding of our rights protect us? This is more than a temporary limit on the right to privacy, it is an assault on the First and Fourth Amendments. Giving up some of my privacy in a specific situation does not mean I should give up the whole Bill of Rights.

/I am thankful for good cops
//All the more reason to demand bad cops be removed from power
/// A search is not the same as a beating
 
2009-12-12 05:37:35 PM
Aunt Crabby: /// A search is not the same as a beating

However, both are specifically denied in the constitution.

What? Is one illegal and the other double illegal?
 
2009-12-12 05:49:09 PM
dead_dangler: CrispFlows: dead_dangler: missmarsha: Pay the Man:


Police in the US are armed, and trained in the various uses of force to effect compliance. I would rather walk away with my pride a tad wounded but my body intact. I'd also like to walk away without further legal consequences. You, on the other hand, are what we probation officers call job security.

Do you really think Canadian cops aren't armed or trained?

I heard that all the training Igloos melted in Canada City so we can't train our police force any more. That and all the riding mooses broke out of the pasture.

Isn't it amusing the official term for the police is the Royal Mounted Canadian Police, where the majority of them ride patrol cars, not horses?

The stupid... it burns.


Awesome, You caught that! :D

RCMP.
 
2009-12-12 05:58:25 PM
TsukasaK: Aunt Crabby: /// A search is not the same as a beating

However, both are specifically denied in the constitution.

What? Is one illegal and the other double illegal?


All of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have limits. The courts have recognized situations where unwarranted searches are allowed, particularly at the boarder. That makes some sense, though I can see why you would disagree.

It's all about balancing personal rights against public need. Freedom of speech is limited if the speech creates an immediate danger (e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theater could make people panic and trample others). Privacy may be limited if you cross a boarder for pressing security needs. However, asking a question of a order guard does not create a general and immediate public harm, and there is no reason to limit such speech. Respecting someone's right to an attorney and right to remain silent do not create an immediate public harm. Excessive force by government agents on one who did nothing but "pull away" and maybe "be a jerk" (which is not illegal) definitely violates human rights.

Rights should never be limited merely to stroke the ego of the government official in question. Individual police egos are not a public interest that needs to be protected above our rights. People have a right to ask question, feel angry and even be jerks as long as they do nothing illegal. Creating a charge like "resisting arrest" when there was no prior cause for an arrest is a travesty.

/There is a difference
//Courts have interpreted the Constitution in interesting ways
///The First and Fourth Amendments still survive
 
2009-12-12 06:03:25 PM
dead_dangler: Dear Americans:

On behalf of my country, I apologize for the following:

- Canadians who have a chip on their shoulder at your border crossings
- Canadians who have a "Canada Kicks Ass" t-shirt, or some other nonsense
- Canadians who believe that they're more polite and well behaved that people from other nations when visiting foreign countries
- Celine Dion

An Ashamed Canadian


You forgot Bryan Adams.
 
2009-12-12 06:23:40 PM
Aunt Crabby: TsukasaK: Aunt Crabby: /// A search is not the same as a beating

However, both are specifically denied in the constitution.

What? Is one illegal and the other double illegal?

All of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have limits. The courts have recognized situations where unwarranted searches are allowed, particularly at the boarder. That makes some sense, though I can see why you would disagree.

It's all about balancing personal rights against public need. Freedom of speech is limited if the speech creates an immediate danger (e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theater could make people panic and trample others). Privacy may be limited if you cross a boarder for pressing security needs. However, asking a question of a order guard does not create a general and immediate public harm, and there is no reason to limit such speech. Respecting someone's right to an attorney and right to remain silent do not create an immediate public harm. Excessive force by government agents on one who did nothing but "pull away" and maybe "be a jerk" (which is not illegal) definitely violates human rights.

Rights should never be limited merely to stroke the ego of the government official in question. Individual police egos are not a public interest that needs to be protected above our rights. People have a right to ask question, feel angry and even be jerks as long as they do nothing illegal. Creating a charge like "resisting arrest" when there was no prior cause for an arrest is a travesty.

/There is a difference
//Courts have interpreted the Constitution in interesting ways
///The First and Fourth Amendments still survive


A reasonable and well thought out argument!?

:)

This is for you:
i79.photobucket.com
 
2009-12-12 06:35:01 PM
TsukasaK: A reasonable and well thought out argument!?

:)


Aww thanks! I've never been awarded a card on a Fark thread before.

/Also Spock is kinda hot in that photo
//That must be before he went to an other dimension on Fringe
 
2009-12-12 06:46:44 PM
Aunt Crabby: He had a right to contact an attorney. Also, he had First Amendment rights to ask a question of a government official without being handcuffed for daring to talk without permission. They had no right to use excessive and unreasonable putative force. Want to bet the video gets lost or mislabeled a security risk and therefore withheld or edited to take out all the official wrong doing?

He has every right to ask why he's being stopped, and if he did so politely 99.9% of officers would have answered politely... he has no right whatsoever to jump out of the car with that huge maplewood chip on his shoulder and start screaming when he's asked to pull to the side. It sounds like he got grabbed for an outbound search, something CBP does a lot more of these days as Canada complains about American guns on their streets (it's illegal to export firearms from the US without a permit in most cases) and to stop drug money (undeclared currency over $10k gets seized).

As an aside, you don't always have Miranda rights when grabbed at the border. If your 'case' is being handled as an administrative immigration issue, Miranda doesn't apply because you're not accused of a crime. "I want a lawyer" during questioning for immigration issues at the border usually leads to "fine, we will not pursue criminal charges, but your ass is on the next flight back to XYZland if you won't tell us what you want to do here."

Since you cannot be fined or jailed for administrative immigration violations, you have no right to remain silent, be represented by a lawyer, etc. If you don't want to talk to the officer, that's fine, but he doesn't have to let you into the country if you're not a US citizen.
 
2009-12-12 07:01:07 PM
What I have found is that you actually need to show a bit of fear to these uniformed jerks. Enough of them are miserable, humourless jerks so they'll take offense at the slightest attempt at humour.

Your basic uniformed power tripper really just wants an excuse to harass you to make his own day go better. Any tiny excuse will do.

Really, they have and absolutely love their unchecked power to pry into your private business, steal all your stuff, make you wait for hours, make your kids cry (boy, do they LOVE that one!), dismantle your vehicle and even tase you to death if the feel like it, and know that they face zero consequences for it.

Yeah, "just doin' my job". Riiiight. And they LOVE their jobs, too. What other jobs are there where you can hassle innocent people and actually get a good job review from your boss?

So swallow your pride, give 'em what they want (fear) and you'll be on their way. They were probably bullies or man-hating women to begin with and that's why they chose that job in the first place.
 
2009-12-12 07:08:19 PM
saeufer82: Aunt Crabby: He had a right to contact an attorney. Also, he had First Amendment rights to ask a question of a government official without being handcuffed for daring to talk without permission. They had no right to use excessive and unreasonable putative force. Want to bet the video gets lost or mislabeled a security risk and therefore withheld or edited to take out all the official wrong doing?

He has every right to ask why he's being stopped, and if he did so politely 99.9% of officers would have answered politely... he has no right whatsoever to jump out of the car with that huge maplewood chip on his shoulder and start screaming when he's asked to pull to the side. It sounds like he got grabbed for an outbound search, something CBP does a lot more of these days as Canada complains about American guns on their streets (it's illegal to export firearms from the US without a permit in most cases) and to stop drug money (undeclared currency over $10k gets seized).

As an aside, you don't always have Miranda rights when grabbed at the border. If your 'case' is being handled as an administrative immigration issue, Miranda doesn't apply because you're not accused of a crime. "I want a lawyer" during questioning for immigration issues at the border usually leads to "fine, we will not pursue criminal charges, but your ass is on the next flight back to XYZland if you won't tell us what you want to do here."

Since you cannot be fined or jailed for administrative immigration violations, you have no right to remain silent, be represented by a lawyer, etc. If you don't want to talk to the officer, that's fine, but he doesn't have to let you into the country if you're not a US citizen.


Jumping out of the car with a chip on his shoulder is not illegal. Being impolite is not illegal. Unless he did something illegal first, they had no cause to arrest him. They need to recognize the limits of their power. We as a people must check the individuals who abuse their power because they are not trustworthy to uphold the law. There is no excuse for denying this man his rights, even if he did have a chip on his shoulder.

Government officials have no right to abuse their power just because they didn't like his attitude. Even if he had done something that gave them reasonable suspicion or probable cause, excessive force is NEVER excusable. Since you know this was not an administrative immigrations matter, you know he had Miranda rights, and denying him a lawyer unacceptable. The people responsible should be fired and held civilly liable for acting outside the scope of their official duties and abusing the trust we place in them to uphold the Constitution.

Why were you bringing up immigrations? Boarder crossing from the US to Canada has nothing to do with deportation by the INS. There is no hint that this case had anything to do with any problems with his immigration status. He was in the US legally. Also, he was charged with the crime of resisting arrest. He has to come back a defend himself from the charge at his own personal expense. Miranda right apply in this case. Besides, even the INS should not use excessive force.

/Red herring is red
//Basic human rights always apply
 
2009-12-12 08:07:26 PM
Aunt Crabby: saeufer82: Aunt Crabby: He had a right to contact an attorney. Also, he had First Amendment rights to ask a question of a government official without being handcuffed for daring to talk without permission. They had no right to use excessive and unreasonable putative force. Want to bet the video gets lost or mislabeled a security risk and therefore withheld or edited to take out all the official wrong doing?

He has every right to ask why he's being stopped, and if he did so politely 99.9% of officers would have answered politely... he has no right whatsoever to jump out of the car with that huge maplewood chip on his shoulder and start screaming when he's asked to pull to the side. It sounds like he got grabbed for an outbound search, something CBP does a lot more of these days as Canada complains about American guns on their streets (it's illegal to export firearms from the US without a permit in most cases) and to stop drug money (undeclared currency over $10k gets seized).

As an aside, you don't always have Miranda rights when grabbed at the border. If your 'case' is being handled as an administrative immigration issue, Miranda doesn't apply because you're not accused of a crime. "I want a lawyer" during questioning for immigration issues at the border usually leads to "fine, we will not pursue criminal charges, but your ass is on the next flight back to XYZland if you won't tell us what you want to do here."

Since you cannot be fined or jailed for administrative immigration violations, you have no right to remain silent, be represented by a lawyer, etc. If you don't want to talk to the officer, that's fine, but he doesn't have to let you into the country if you're not a US citizen.

Jumping out of the car with a chip on his shoulder is not illegal. Being impolite is not illegal. Unless he did something illegal first, they had no cause to arrest him. They need to recognize the limits of their power. We as a people must check the individuals who abuse their power because they are not trustworthy to uphold the law. There is no excuse for denying this man his rights, even if he did have a chip on his shoulder.

Government officials have no right to abuse their power just because they didn't like his attitude. Even if he had done something that gave them reasonable suspicion or probable cause, excessive force is NEVER excusable. Since you know this was not an administrative immigrations matter, you know he had Miranda rights, and denying him a lawyer unacceptable. The people responsible should be fired and held civilly liable for acting outside the scope of their official duties and abusing the trust we place in them to uphold the Constitution.

Why were you bringing up immigrations? Boarder crossing from the US to Canada has nothing to do with deportation by the INS. There is no hint that this case had anything to do with any problems with his immigration status. He was in the US legally. Also, he was charged with the crime of resisting arrest. He has to come back a defend himself from the charge at his own personal expense. Miranda right apply in this case. Besides, even the INS should not use excessive force.

/Red herring is red
//Basic human rights always apply


And to blow yet another hole in your convoluted argument, he was not entering the country, he was LEAVING it. He was trying to get back to 'XYZland', as you put it. His business in the US was completed, and he can verify that easily. Unless the surveillance video of the checkpoint goes will missing, and I have little doubt it will, the argument of the arresting officers falls apart very quickly. And legal representation is allowed in ALL legal proceedings. Not compelled or obliged, but you can holler for a lawyer if you about want to with a meter maid. You'd be an ass, but that's not illegal either.

/Wrote a letter to the editor of the Times Herald, asking him to retract or at least issue a correction regarding the contested issue of whether Dr Watt was leaving or entering the US. We'll see what happnens.
 
2009-12-12 08:29:23 PM
nickerj1: strathmeyer: I think subby means, "unlawful arrest is no reason to resist arrest," and is thus just incorrect.

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. More supporting cases (new window).

The standards for unlawful arrest are difficult to achieve, though.


/came to say this
//not disappointed
///this should happen more, but people are too weak in this day and age.
 
2009-12-12 08:34:57 PM
UberJumper: Yeah, if he was entering the US. What's really cool is that he was entering Canada when the US border guards detained him.

They'll do random checkpoints of people leaving as well. I've been subjected to non-consentual* searches of my vehicle five or six times in the past season. Screw the fourth, right?

/ I didn't refuse consent, they never asked. They just pulled my car doors open and started pawing through my briefcase.
// Land of the free, my ass.
/// Otherwise, I've no problem with the US guards at my crossing. The ones I interact with on a day-to-day basis are nice enough.
 
2009-12-12 09:50:41 PM
What, the police did not taser him to death for not getting back into the vehicle? Far too lenient.
 
2009-12-12 09:52:52 PM
Another important factor in how this may have gone down is the fact that the guy in question, despite whatever stereotypes you might have about a marine biologist-SF writer, is very, VERY tall. So don't picture him as some little dude, picture him as a very LARGE guy, probably towering over the officer. Couple that with the fact that he accidentally may have had an expression on his face indicating he thought the officer had said something dumb and you can see how the officer might have felt 'provoked' and needed to 'assert control' over the situation, and the officer may have felt he 'had' to go overboard to 'subdue' him.
 
2009-12-12 10:13:18 PM
Another case of a subbie who is either an idiot or six years of age. Ask yourself, if the main listed charge is "Resisting arrest" then what was the person being arrested for? Its common practice for the police to claim they were assaulted when they assault someone. A case like that makes the FARK headlines at least once a week, but apparently the submitter is too busy typing in stupid shiat to bother reading.

As for all the "don't mouth off to cops" bullshiat, wrong. The correct social response is "cops should never, ever use force or arrest someone unless they have an actual reason to believe a crime is taking place." Someone not liking your bullshiat border tactics is not a crime, no matter how rudely you allegedly phrased it.

The reason we have cops at all is to do things like prevent random violent idiots from assaulting us and kidnapping us. If the police start doing that, then they lose their purpose.
 
2009-12-12 10:16:08 PM
VendorXeno: If the police start doing that, then they lose their purpose.

In that case, the police have already lost their purpose.
 
2009-12-12 10:52:12 PM
VendorXeno: Another case of a subbie who is either an idiot or six years of age. Ask yourself, if the main listed charge is "Resisting arrest" then what was the person being arrested for? Its common practice for the police to claim they were assaulted when they assault someone. A case like that makes the FARK headlines at least once a week, but apparently the submitter is too busy typing in stupid shiat to bother reading.

As for all the "don't mouth off to cops" bullshiat, wrong. The correct social response is "cops should never, ever use force or arrest someone unless they have an actual reason to believe a crime is taking place." Someone not liking your bullshiat border tactics is not a crime, no matter how rudely you allegedly phrased it.

The reason we have cops at all is to do things like prevent random violent idiots from assaulting us and kidnapping us. If the police start doing that, then they lose their purpose.


They aren't "cops" or "police officers." They are CBP Officers.

Also, look into INA 235.
 
2009-12-12 11:07:09 PM
ambercat: Another important factor in how this may have gone down is the fact that the guy in question, despite whatever stereotypes you might have about a marine biologist-SF writer, is very, VERY tall. So don't picture him as some little dude, picture him as a very LARGE guy, probably towering over the officer. Couple that with the fact that he accidentally may have had an expression on his face indicating he thought the officer had said something dumb and you can see how the officer might have felt 'provoked' and needed to 'assert control' over the situation, and the officer may have felt he 'had' to go overboard to 'subdue' him.

You're absolutely right. The BP cop really should have just shot him for being tall and just maybe perhaps having a look on his face that wasn't a vapid smile. Just to be sure.

Ass.
 
2009-12-12 11:08:49 PM
kactuspatch:

They aren't "cops" or "police officers." They are CBP Officers.

Also, look into INA 235.


The CBP officers were acting within the police powers of the government. It was a police-like action, and the abuse of power is the same as sometimes seen in "bad cop" cases. The principles are the same whether they are "police officers" or not. Constitutional restrictions on government actions and the Bill of Rights apply. They are not INS. This was not an immigrations issue. What does INA 235 have to do with a Canadian citizen lawfully in the US crossing the border from the US to Canada?

/INA 235 addressing entering the US, not leaving it
//I also fail to see where INA 235 says it is permissible to use pepper spray and excessive force without giving people a chance to voluntarily comply
 
2009-12-13 12:16:43 AM
eggrolls: ambercat: Another important factor in how this may have gone down is the fact that the guy in question, despite whatever stereotypes you might have about a marine biologist-SF writer, is very, VERY tall. So don't picture him as some little dude, picture him as a very LARGE guy, probably towering over the officer. Couple that with the fact that he accidentally may have had an expression on his face indicating he thought the officer had said something dumb and you can see how the officer might have felt 'provoked' and needed to 'assert control' over the situation, and the officer may have felt he 'had' to go overboard to 'subdue' him.

You're absolutely right. The BP cop really should have just shot him for being tall and just maybe perhaps having a look on his face that wasn't a vapid smile. Just to be sure.

Ass.


You know, I purposefully put in those stupid quote marks JUST IN CASE someone could POSSIBLY mistake my intention. After I hit the 'add comment' button I regretted it. No, come on, I said. Surely no one will do with that.

But now I see I was wrong. SO.

TO THOSE SAYING THAT HE MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO PROVOKE THE COP AND THERE MUST BE MORE TO THE STORY

WELL THERE IS

HE IS SUPER TALL

SO MAYBE THE ONLY THING HE DID WAS BE A TALL MAN

SOMETIMES THAT IS ENOUGH BY ITSELF

AND TO BE SUPER CLEAR

I AM NOT SAYING BEING TALL IS A CRIME WORTHY OF A BEATDOWN
 
2009-12-13 12:25:13 AM
You're missing the point - this is the second Canadian science fiction writer I've discovered through fark.

1st was Robert J. Sawyer.
 
2009-12-13 12:39:30 AM
To be charged with "resisting arrest" you have to be in the process of being "arrested". You cannot show up in court with just "resisting arrest" on the charge list. It ALWAYS has to have an underlying charge. so what was the actual arresting charge ?

I haven't seen any mention, anywhere, of an arrestable charge.

There seems to have been something leading up to a CBP deciding that someone should be arrested, this article says that he was in the process of "pulling away" then things got violent (perhaps), then the Canadian ended up in jail, arrested.

I don't know border laws. I think those are different from state laws. They work this kind of stuff out in treaties. Is getting out of your car at the border something you can get arrested for ? Maybe it is. Borders can be dangerous places and this might be a law that most of us are not aware of. I feel bad for everyone here really. The writer might not even have known he was breaking a serious law when he got out of his car at the border, the the CBP might have assumed something far worse than was really transpiring.

I hope this can all get handled nicely and people get a lesson and things can be made clearer on this new DHS tactic. I'm really not comfortable with CBP getting on people *leaving* the country. That seems like a slippery slope. We've lived in a world for a long time with border defense pointing the guns and question outward. I really don't want to start having the fence pointing back at me.
 
2009-12-13 12:57:13 AM
ambercat: eggrolls: ambercat: Another important factor in how this may have gone down is the fact that the guy in question, despite whatever stereotypes you might have about a marine biologist-SF writer, is very, VERY tall. So don't picture him as some little dude, picture him as a very LARGE guy, probably towering over the officer. Couple that with the fact that he accidentally may have had an expression on his face indicating he thought the officer had said something dumb and you can see how the officer might have felt 'provoked' and needed to 'assert control' over the situation, and the officer may have felt he 'had' to go overboard to 'subdue' him.

You're absolutely right. The BP cop really should have just shot him for being tall and just maybe perhaps having a look on his face that wasn't a vapid smile. Just to be sure.

Ass.

You know, I purposefully put in those stupid quote marks JUST IN CASE someone could POSSIBLY mistake my intention. After I hit the 'add comment' button I regretted it. No, come on, I said. Surely no one will do with that.

But now I see I was wrong. SO.

TO THOSE SAYING THAT HE MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO PROVOKE THE COP AND THERE MUST BE MORE TO THE STORY

WELL THERE IS

HE IS SUPER TALL

SO MAYBE THE ONLY THING HE DID WAS BE A TALL MAN

SOMETIMES THAT IS ENOUGH BY ITSELF

AND TO BE SUPER CLEAR

I AM NOT SAYING BEING TALL IS A CRIME WORTHY OF A BEATDOWN


Fine. I apologize for being a jerk if you admit you fail at sarcasm.

/Tall guy myself, and I have been called out by smaller guys trying to prove something more than once, yet I'm considered the instigator just because I was the bigger guy. It does happen, and it really sucks.
 
2009-12-13 02:39:40 AM
I love it when cops charge someone with resisting arrest but nothing else. It's as funny as ex cons who say they were in prison for parole violations.
 
2009-12-13 07:55:05 AM
redcard

(they asked if I wanted a coke ;) I said sure. THey got me one.)


They took your DNA you moron.
 
2009-12-13 08:01:23 AM
Going to the US in January to watch some hockey games, gonna come back with a case of the Rolling Rock Blues!
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-12-13 09:37:58 AM
Aunt Crabby: kactuspatch:

They aren't "cops" or "police officers." They are CBP Officers.

Also, look into INA 235.

The CBP officers were acting within the police powers of the government. It was a police-like action, and the abuse of power is the same as sometimes seen in "bad cop" cases. The principles are the same whether they are "police officers" or not. Constitutional restrictions on government actions and the Bill of Rights apply. They are not INS. This was not an immigrations issue. What does INA 235 have to do with a Canadian citizen lawfully in the US crossing the border from the US to Canada?

/INA 235 addressing entering the US, not leaving it
//I also fail to see where INA 235 says it is permissible to use pepper spray and excessive force without giving people a chance to voluntarily comply


INA 287 a 3,5

And the without "giving people a chance to voluntarily comply" is an assumption. Neither of us have seen the video. Stick to the facts. Also, part of a CBP officer's job is doing immigration checks. They can do them inbound or outbound. And the INS doesn't exist anymore.

287 does cover use of force. Just because you haven't seen the law, doesn't mean it isn't there. It's not my responsibility to do your research.
 
2009-12-13 10:41:37 AM
Here's hoping that his lawyers get a copy of that tape before it mysteriously gets misfiled.
 
2009-12-13 01:51:06 PM
kactuspatch: INA 287 a 3,5

This was NOT an immigration check. They charged him with "resting arrest" reporting that he had exited the car (at their direction) "angrily" and pulled away when the agent went to handcuff him. There is no report of this having been an immigration issue. They have not said they suspected there was an immigration issue. You are the only one alleging immigration has anything to do with it.

They arrested him for "resisting arrest". "Resisting arrest" is not an immigration issue. This was a criminal arrest. As agents of the government on American soil, they have to respect his First Amendment rights, even if they think he is a jerk. In a criminal arrest they have to respect his Miranda rights. Therefore he had a right to an attorney and a right to remain silent. They tried to get him to waive those rights . Twice. He asked for an attorney and they refused to let him contact one.

I have never debated the fact that they can do outbound searches. Read what I have posted again. The problem is they exceeded the scope of their authority, denied him civil rights, used excessive force and believe their personal ego is more important than the Bill of Rights. Having a badge does not mean they are above the law. They were going to cuff him him based on the fact that he asked a question and appeared angry, neither of which is illegal. Maybe he didn't get back in the car fast enough to please them. When he pulled away from the officer suddenly coming at him with cuffs, they arrested him for resisting arrest. Then they pepper sprayed him and used excessive force. Their report says nothing about him assaulting or battering the officer in any way. All he did was pull away (and probably react to the pepper spray).

Your original reliance on INA 235 is misguided as that covers aliens applying to come into the US and no official has ever claimed this was an immigration issue. This is the first time you mentioned INS 237. INA 237 a 3,5 states, "INA: ACT 287 - POWERS OF IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Sec. 287. [8 U.S.C. 1357]

(a) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
...
(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;
...

(5) to make arrests-

(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or

(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony, if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.

Nothing in that says a a CBP officers can use excessive, force (I am sure that they can use reasonable an necessary force). More importantly. you keep quoting regulation that have to do with immigration. Although CBP may turn over immigration issues to immigrations officers, they did not in this case because this is not an immigration issue.

Why do you keep trying to use immigration regulations in a case that clearly has nothing to do with immigration?

We need to insist on procedures to safeguard our Constitutional rights. If we do not put strong checks on CBP, TSA and Homeland Security we risk doing more damage to our way of life than any terrorist ever could. Allowing the government to create federal law enforcement forces that are above the law and have no personal accountability for abuse of power means that we have given up what it means to be free. I would rather die on my feet united against outside aggressive forces then live on my knees being "protected" by those with unlimited power over me and no accountability to the people.

/I would love to see the entire, unedited video
//The person asserting a proposition has the duty to support it
///I do my own research, and mine is on point and not outside the scope of the issue in question.
 
2009-12-13 05:26:44 PM
Aunt Crabby: kactuspatch: INA 287 a 3,5

This was NOT an immigration check. They charged him with "resting arrest" reporting that he had exited the car (at their direction) "angrily" and pulled away when the agent went to handcuff him. There is no report of this having been an immigration issue. They have not said they suspected there was an immigration issue. You are the only one alleging immigration has anything to do with it.

They arrested him for "resisting arrest". "Resisting arrest" is not an immigration issue. This was a criminal arrest. As agents of the government on American soil, they have to respect his First Amendment rights, even if they think he is a jerk. In a criminal arrest they have to respect his Miranda rights. Therefore he had a right to an attorney and a right to remain silent. They tried to get him to waive those rights . Twice. He asked for an attorney and they refused to let him contact one.

I have never debated the fact that they can do outbound searches. Read what I have posted again. The problem is they exceeded the scope of their authority, denied him civil rights, used excessive force and believe their personal ego is more important than the Bill of Rights. Having a badge does not mean they are above the law. They were going to cuff him him based on the fact that he asked a question and appeared angry, neither of which is illegal. Maybe he didn't get back in the car fast enough to please them. When he pulled away from the officer suddenly coming at him with cuffs, they arrested him for resisting arrest. Then they pepper sprayed him and used excessive force. Their report says nothing about him assaulting or battering the officer in any way. All he did was pull away (and probably react to the pepper spray).

Your original reliance on INA 235 is misguided as that covers aliens applying to come into the US and no official has ever claimed this was an immigration issue. This is the first time you mentioned INS 237. INA 237 a 3,5 states, "INA: ACT 287 - POWERS OF IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Sec. 287. [8 U.S.C. 1357]

(a) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
...
(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;
...

(5) to make arrests-

(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or

(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony, if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.

Nothing in that says a a CBP officers can use excessive, force (I am sure that they can use reasonable an necessary force). More importantly. you keep quoting regulation that have to do with immigration. Although CBP may turn over immigration issues to immigrations officers, they did not in this case because this is not an immigration issue.

Why do you keep trying to use immigration regulations in a case that clearly has nothing to do with immigration?

We need to insist on procedures to safeguard our Constitutional rights. If we do not put strong checks on CBP, TSA and Homeland Security we risk doing more damage to our way of life than any terrorist ever could. Allowing the government to create federal law enforcement forces that are above the law and have no personal accountability for abuse of powe ...


CBP officers are immigration officers in addition to being customs officers and part of what they do is governed by the INA. If you insist, 19 USC 1467. It covers everyone and everything going in either direction through a port of entry, and requires ZERO probable cause to detain and search anything they wish to.

I'm sure you agree that they have the right to use reasonable and necessary force. So as adults, I think we can both reserve judgment about how "excessive" it was until we see further evidence.
 
2009-12-13 05:30:25 PM
Also: "Their report says nothing about him assaulting or battering the officer in any way."

Citation needed. I'd love to see their report.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report