tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post8738130237023219203..comments2023-11-27T02:17:22.859-06:00Comments on The LawDog Files: Oh, great.LawDoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05232684877582591461noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-71151468627729158212009-05-14T12:04:00.000-05:002009-05-14T12:04:00.000-05:00Simply put:
In most states, you ARE NOT entitled ...Simply put:<br /><br />In most states, you ARE NOT entitled to resist because, in YOUR opinion, the officers do not have sufficient cause.<br /><br />If they (in your opinion) don't have sufficient cause to search, you state that you do not give consent, physically comply as ordered, and resist them IN COURT, and get the case dismissed with prejudice, after all the illegally siezed evidence gets suppressed.<br /><br />"Civil Disobedience" and "Passive Resistance" DO NOT give you license to physically resist. Go along PASSIVELY, and fight it out in a courtroom. Part of teh technique of "civil disobedience" is to take teh consequences, and show (either in court, or to the court of public opinion) that YOU, and not the law (or the LEOs) are in the right.<br /><br />If you plan on physically reisting (even passively), you had better be prepared to establish that they were in the process of committing a violent felony on you in defiance of the law. In other words, be prepared for the same level of legal scrutiny as if you are claiming to have shot or beat an on duty uniformed police officer "in self defence". (Not saying there aren't legitimate "in self defence" cases where a "civilian" has to hurt a dirty cop. . . but this wasn't one.)<br /><br />As for the look on the officer's face -- I see NOTHING that shows him "gleefully" grinning ear to ear -- I see a facial expression that COULD be a gleeful grin, a grimace, or a shout caught mid-frame. The stills you pointed to me are simply not high enough quality to establish the nearly impossible to see in PERFECT conditions tells that can distinguish subtle expression differences.<br /><br />Hell, some people have a default setting of "demnted grin" when in a high stress situation -- inlcuding ME (which I have found was advantageous in confrontation situations, as it unsettles one's opponant). Doesn't mean that the grin reflects humor or enjoyment -- or even whether it is intentional (mine's not).<br /><br />Aside from that, there is NOTHING in lawful use of force that says you can't gleefully grin while applying it. Justification for use of force doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the expression on the officer's face.<br /><br />Finally managed to get the video working. (Comments above on facial expression stand.)<br /><br />What LITTLE can be seen doesn't indicate excessive use of force IN THE SLIGHTEST, provided the stop and arrest were in and of themselves legal.<br /><br />You have a suspect, in full control of a 2500 pound lethal weapon that apparantly contains contraband. he refuses to relinquish the weapon or comply in any fashion. BEFORE reaching in to get him, you employ a disabling device so you can yank him out without him getting a hidden weapon into you, or driving over an officer (which has happened A LOT, while trying to drag non compliant suspects out of cars).<br /><br />I saw no evidence of a "beating", either in the ICE footage, nor in teh photos of his head. What those injuries looked like were pretty typical "while I was resisting and squirming, they pinned my head to the cement and forced me into cuffs" injuries. (Keep in mind that teh aftereffects of Tasers CAN pass very quickly once the juice is let off.)<br /><br />If he was hit with multiple Tasers, he will have multiple pairs of Taser barb hits. even if so, it doesn't indicate excessive force -- especially since teh FIRST Taser hit was through a hole broken in glass, and one can easily see how THOSE wires will end up being disconnected as he is dragged out of the car.<br /><br />The footage of him inside, which he notes (in text) by implying that they were somehow "hiding" his face to avoid letting his injuries get on camera, there are two problems:<br /><br />1. That is apparnatly a FIXED camera, intended to cover as much of teh space as possible. The chair they stuck him in (likely so they could keep him cuffed and still have full access to evaluate injuries or allow treatment if needed) is at the edge of that coverage.<br /><br />What it indicates is, when setting up the room (which they didn't do just for him), either no one noticed the lack of coverage (probaly becuase they didn't check), or the installer didn't think he NEEDED to cover that particular chair. Both are VERY common in camera installations like this.<br /><br />This guy MAY have a good 4th Amendment case (I doubt it), but it is even LESS likely that he has a good 5th Amendment case.Rick R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-63785275936586300092009-05-13T15:44:00.000-05:002009-05-13T15:44:00.000-05:00If you can't get youtube to work, others are notin...If you can't get youtube to work, others are noting the ghastly still images found in there, including Anderson.<br /><br />As far as I can tell, these two stills are authentic and un-retouched:<br /><br />http://stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.com/2009/05/actual-footage-pastor-beaten-tased-by.html<br /><br />Those pictures are going to make Pastor Anderson (or I would hope his church?) very, very wealthy. EVERY shot of that cop extractable from the video makes him look gleefully psychotic.Jim Marchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16830919998461849806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-11290830310567323992009-05-13T10:55:00.000-05:002009-05-13T10:55:00.000-05:00OK, but...define "resistance".
In this case, the ...OK, but...define "resistance".<br /><br />In this case, the guy wasn't a threat of violence at all - that was just dead obvious. He didn't want to come out of the car, or put another way, didn't want to voluntarily consent to a search he believed (with pretty good reason!) wasn't legal.<br /><br />So he was doing *passive* resistance, not active.<br /><br />The other thing the tape shows is the look one one officer's face as the guy prepared to use the taser, and then the moment he used it. Do some freeze-frame around a minute and nineteen seconds. What you're seeing isn't the face of somebody "afraid".<br /><br />The son of a beech is gleeful, grinning ear to ear that they're going to get the chance to mess this guy up.<br /><br />According to Anderson, they tased him at least twice simultaneously, and left the taser(s?) on for a severe length of time while grinding his face into broken glass. And...that's certainly what it looks like SO FAR, pending additional data.<br /><br />So I guess my first question is, once they had his car door(s?) open, did they need to taser him, or should they at least have tried "OK, now come on outta there, we really are serious" or similar first?<br /><br />That's not even getting into the probable cause behind the search. Remember, Anderson claims the BP agent's dog didn't alert, and then when DPS asked if they could try it again, BP refused. At which point the AZ DPS guy(s?) took the side of the Feds.<br /><br />I think that "look of glee" is liable to absolutely hose the cops if this ever gets to a courthouse (on offense or defense by Anderson).Jim Marchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16830919998461849806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-29350613788334353332009-05-13T10:43:00.000-05:002009-05-13T10:43:00.000-05:00I can't get the YouTube link to work from the news...I can't get the YouTube link to work from the news article page.<br /><br />However (without having seen it), I will say that, in general, field "Continuum of Force" study group receptive participants from the "Taser" group fared better (shorter pain experience, faster recovery, less injury) than participants from the "baton", "pepper spray", or "Glock" group.<br /><br />Noncompliance is noncompliance -- and Taser is generally a SAFER resort than other weapons, or even (in many cases) a brute force manhandling to overcome resistance.Rick R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-55265198452710133172009-05-13T06:26:00.000-05:002009-05-13T06:26:00.000-05:00Part of the video has been released:
http://www.f...Part of the video has been released:<br /><br />http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?Info=0056971&From=News<br /><br />The whole part about the dog is NOT there. That could be a deliberate ommission, or this video (edited by Anderson) may be simply focusing on the time period where Anderson was attacked.<br /><br />And "attacked" is indeed what it looks like.<br /><br />Questions for those with law enforcement experience:<br /><br />1) I can understand them breaking the glass and manually opening the door locks and doors.<br /><br />2) Was immediate resort to at least one taser necessary, or was it excessive force?<br /><br />3) Would two tasers at once (one of his claims) be considered excessive?<br /><br />4) Was grinding his head into broken glass necessary, or was it excessive force?<br /><br />What this LOOKS like is a bunch of cops going "oh yeah, we got us a chance to play ROUGH!"Jim Marchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16830919998461849806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-27072976253143701552009-05-12T11:13:00.000-05:002009-05-12T11:13:00.000-05:00Well, thank goodness for that, Anonymous. Obvious...Well, thank goodness for that, Anonymous. Obviously you want your way, and I seriously doubt that you have ever talked to anyone with either agency, OR to anyone with Homeland Security. Which, by the way, why don't you join? You would suit their mentality.<br />LawMomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-88186312830032542782009-05-07T14:52:00.000-05:002009-05-07T14:52:00.000-05:00The Rosa Parkses and Dick Hellers of the world are...The Rosa Parkses and Dick Hellers of the world are rare. These are the people of good reputation and have carefully planned the encounter for maximum legal effect.<br /><br />The rest of the time, we get someone with a spotted reputation, or dull of mind or who makes legal blunders, someone who makes it easy for us to make a sour face and turn away. It's just a whack job who deserves it. It's just a racist. It's just someone who should have known to keep their mouth shut instead of sassing back to the cops.<br /><br />Yeah, it stinks that we usually get some very unlikable people being infringed upon, but the people who ought to be our Hellers and Parks don't usually play this role. They know the rules and follow them and then grumble on the web later. That's why you're going to get people like this doing the dirty work.<br /><br />That's the way it is. Resist the urge to turn away because the victim was unlikable, or idiotic, or bad. Infringement upon the rights of man must never be excused. Never.Wayne Conradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10595005905880642013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-25752864960693427252009-05-01T21:04:00.000-05:002009-05-01T21:04:00.000-05:00Lawmom,
Border Patrol's dogs are NOT "retrained" ...Lawmom,<br /><br />Border Patrol's dogs are NOT "retrained" in the manner you describe; I've talked with them about this very issue. <br /><br />Border Patrol and Customs are two different agencies. Customs dogs had absolutely nothing to do with this incident; how Customs trains their dogs and handlers is therefore irrelevant.<br /><br />I'm done arguing. You're obviously not listening, at least not on this issue.<br /><br />Out.<br /><br />AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-22000670469278003952009-05-01T20:24:00.000-05:002009-05-01T20:24:00.000-05:00Anonymous-
I have friends who are Customs dog hand...Anonymous-<br />I have friends who are Customs dog handler/officers, and their dogs ARE being taken for retraining to be used to sniff out illegal aliens. Full Stop.<br />LawMom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-69065711775272290182009-05-01T12:18:00.000-05:002009-05-01T12:18:00.000-05:00Hello,
I just wanted to let you know that Police...Hello, <br /><br />I just wanted to let you know that PoliceOne.com has added you to our blog directory. Here is the link so you can check out your blog: http://www.policeone.com/law-enforcement-blogs<br /><br />Also we would like it if you could do some type of link exchange or display our RSS feeds. Please email me at darcy.carroll@praetoriangroup.com<br /><br />Best, <br />Darcy CarrollFire Safety Grantshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15646236114355736207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-35360552029057035222009-04-28T01:05:00.000-05:002009-04-28T01:05:00.000-05:00Lawmom -
While there may well be former Customs ...Lawmom - <br /><br />While there may well be former Customs dogs that have been "retrained" in the Border Patrol, I've not seen any yet. The Border Patrol has its own breeding program, and to my knowledge, has no need for dogs from Customs.<br /><br />In fact, our canines will actually assist Customs, when their dogs aren't around. We usually have at least one on-duty 24/7. In just the past couple of weeks, the local (minor) port of entry has requested just that sort of assistance multiple times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-88448496187856650772009-04-27T10:57:00.000-05:002009-04-27T10:57:00.000-05:00Anonymous-
My point being that Customs dogs are be...Anonymous-<br />My point being that Customs dogs are being taken for 'retraining' to be used on the borders, presumably by the Border Patrol.<br />We had a Customs drug dog for a while. Marvelous creatures, but very focussed; he was always on duty, so to speak.<br />LawmomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-25717752914213900102009-04-26T23:22:00.000-05:002009-04-26T23:22:00.000-05:00I tried to read the articles. I attempted to foll...I tried to read the articles. I attempted to follow the logic of his sermons. But I couldn't, because all I could think was:<br /><br />"I could make a fortune selling black market urinals in Germany"!<br /><br /> AntibubbaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-13794263772548987312009-04-26T11:03:00.000-05:002009-04-26T11:03:00.000-05:00LawMom -
I've seen the Border Patrol dogs (not C...LawMom - <br /><br />I've seen the Border Patrol dogs (not Customs, which is a different agency) work first-hand. Whether they're "retrained" or not, they are good at what they're asked to do, whether that be detecting narcotics, hidden humans, or tracking humans in the desert.<br /><br />I have no idea how Customs dogs are trained, but this situation involved Border Patrol, not Customs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-81303869142894980032009-04-25T10:48:00.000-05:002009-04-25T10:48:00.000-05:00First they came for the seemingly-nutty preachers....First they came for the seemingly-nutty preachers...<br /><br />Regardless of his other views, if his behavior the night he was beaten paralleled his other checkpoint videos, the uniformed government agents were in the wrong.<br /><br />(It's important to get both sides of the story, so I eagerly await the release of video and audio of the incident.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-73137710171983498172009-04-25T10:26:00.000-05:002009-04-25T10:26:00.000-05:00He's lying. The story he relates has several bits...He's lying. The story he relates has several bits of erroneous information, several opinions and statements ignorant of actual law (both statutory and case law) and a couple of just plain lies.<br /><br />Anderson's claims about the checkpoint and the authority thereof is in contradiction to SCOTUS decision in "United States V. Martinez-Fuerte" decided in 1976.<br /><br />I find his claim of the dog not alerting to be very telling. I hear this kind of sheer hookum all the time. No law enforcement officer has to satisfy a suspect or interviewee regarding probable cause. Anderson's claim the 'dog didn't alert' has absolutely no basis in fact - he wouldn't know a dog alert if it peed on his wall (or leg) nor are his opinions valid in law.<br /><br />Law Dog, how many tmes have you had to convince someone they are in violation of the law prior to arresting them? If that is the standard, none of us arrest hardly anyone.<br /><br />Yes, the primary purpose of the checkpoint is to search for smuggled aliens. However, one a stop or interview is initiated, any violations noted or reasonably suspected may be explored to the officer's satisfaction.<br /><br />As for 'extra special', I'd say Anderson intentionally provoked the incident. He was looking for a problem. He found it and now wants to be a victim.<br /><br />I also find it very curious he was 'tazed' and beaten and then released. If I use physical force above the level of a 'soft technique', I will hold him for further processing, to include the probability of charges of assault or impeding an officer in performance - and so forth. No one gets tazed and then sent on down the road, literally or figuratively. I seriously doubt either Border Patrol or DPS is going to use physical force of the level <br />Anderson claims and then just let him go. <br /><br />He's a Christian pastor? I'm an ordained Baptist preacher; this guy is a twit and a rabble rouser. Maybe his church - or business - needs the publicity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-5158876818744438102009-04-25T09:40:00.000-05:002009-04-25T09:40:00.000-05:00Well, then, Anonymous, you don't "understand it." ...Well, then, Anonymous, you don't "understand it." I don't know where you've come up with your information, or if it's just something that seems logical to you, but obviously you have no recent personal experience with Customs search dogs.<br />Customs search dogs have never been cross-trained. That is a recent innovation of Home Security, an organization which doesn't understand the least bit about these dogs and could care less. Good drug search dogs are being removed from their handlers and sent for "retraining" on a daily basis.<br />The person formulating this idea hasn't the slightest clue about these dogs-and unfortunately, doesn't care a damn. It's another three-button-suit idea that sounds good and may be practical in a galaxy far, far away, but not in this world.<br />The dogs ARE being "retrained;" that's a fact, whether it makes sense or you like it or not.<br />LawMom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-55454597343499288842009-04-25T02:21:00.000-05:002009-04-25T02:21:00.000-05:00The "canine sniff" has been ruled to be the doggy ...The "canine sniff" has been ruled to be the doggy equivalent of "open view" - that is, the dog "sees" the drugs with its nose. As current case-law stands, it's not a "search," per se; it's currently the legal equivalent to looking in the back seat and seeing dope.<br /><br />The current crop of dogs aren't being "retrained" on drugs. As I understand it, they're trained to alert to both drugs AND hidden humans from the get-go. And yes, it does work.<br /><br />By the way, simply presenting your driver license doesn't mean anything. Lots of aliens, both legal and illegal, hold valid driver licenses (coughcoughCaliforniacoughcough). The agent needs to actually determine, to his satisfaction, that you are either a citizen of the United States or a legal resident alien. To this end, he can ask any question he wants to determine citizenship/residency status, but the only question citizens have to actually answer is "Are you a citizen of the United States?" A simple yes or no (followed by proof of legal residency in the case of "no") is sufficient to satisfy this question. Barring anything else (i.e., evidence of a crime being committed right then and there through canine sniff or open observation) the person is then free to leave.<br /><br />There's a LOT of misconceptions regarding the Border Patrol checkpoints; I hope this clears them up somewhat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-17655623943250115622009-04-24T02:37:00.000-05:002009-04-24T02:37:00.000-05:00Well for reasons completely unrelated to this inci...Well for reasons completely unrelated to this incident, I had to go through this very checkpoint today.<br /><br />I had no camera or audio record going, but I was interested in what they might do with the dogs in my case.<br /><br />See, I'm a biker. I drive a fairly small sportbike (Buell S3 Thunderbolt) that absolutely could not conceal an illegal alien. There's just me, a big engine, a gas tank, a seat and two wheels.<br /><br />This is of interest because the case law allowing these checkpoints WITHIN the borders of the US are there for immigration checks - period. The only 4th Amendment exception carved out for them involves looking for illegal humans. If they happen to scoop up something else along the way, fine. They're really stretching the "dual sniff role" or whatever you call them doggies.<br /><br />However, if they had let the dog sniff my bike, that could NOT be explained away as an illegal alien check.<br /><br />So what happened?<br /><br />When I was at the front of the line, a dog and handler started towards me but then at around 20 feet out the handler guided the dog away from me and off to actual cars.<br /><br />Now, this isn't 100% definitive that they're not checking out bikes. First, they may be paying more attention to "outlaw biker looking" stereotypes versus the sportbikers, who have a fairly low rate of drug involvement.<br /><br />Second, the dog was downwind of me and it's possible that despite the distance, the handler saw that the dog wasn't alerting and I "passed" a check of some sort.<br /><br />Anyways. If someone were to look over the arrest records and find a fair number of bikers getting busted for pot or other drugs, esp. if sniffer dogs were involved, that would be decent evidence that they're not even trying to live within the boundaries set up by the supreme court.<br /><br />From my "sample of one" so far, it *appears* they "get it" and aren't sniff-checking vehicles that couldn't possibly pack a concealed human.Jim Marchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16830919998461849806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-44917902028710210762009-04-22T23:46:00.000-05:002009-04-22T23:46:00.000-05:00The only thing required by law is to show the offi...The only thing required by law is to show the officer your Drivers license period. The preacher did not do so, this makes the stop valid, however they did so with extreme prejudice, which was wrong! Two wrongs do not make it right. At a traffic stop give the officer your drivers license, but do not consent to any search. Be nice but firm in refusing a search without a warrant. You do not have to "say" anything, as they will use it against you (guilty until proven innocent).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-24731039117145861262009-04-21T20:12:00.000-05:002009-04-21T20:12:00.000-05:00So a complete and utter failure to do a modicum of...So a complete and utter failure to do a modicum of fact-checking gets you off the hook for all the bits about giving false testimony about your neighbors and speaking falsely in general getting you banned from the Kingdom forever?<br /><br />Wow, that God guy has a lot more loopholes than I'd heard.LabRathttp://www.atomicnerds.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-10391887326671388302009-04-21T11:59:00.000-05:002009-04-21T11:59:00.000-05:00Thank goodness; someone is as irked by the use of...Thank goodness; someone is as irked by the use of apostrophe s ('S) for plurals as I am!<br />LawMomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-26135952123648338012009-04-21T08:11:00.000-05:002009-04-21T08:11:00.000-05:00PS:
Strike "Please not that..." from my last and ...PS:<br /><br />Strike "<I>Please not that...</I>" from my last and replace with "<I>Please <B>note</B> that...</I>"<br /><br />Thank you.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-1553863442950205072009-04-21T08:10:00.000-05:002009-04-21T08:10:00.000-05:00P-M B,
"... what is so far out about saying belie...P-M B,<br /><br />"<I>... what is so far out about saying believer's...</I>"<br /><br />Please not that an apostrophe does not mean "<I>Look out! Here comes an "S"!</I>" The plural of "believer" is "believers", with no apostrophe.<br /><br /><br />"<I>But to ridicule someone for *gasp* actually advocating the tenants of Scripture...</I>"<br /><br />The "tenants" of scripture would be people who lived inside it and paid it rent. The "tenets" of scripture would be the various principles that it espoused.<br /><br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(Word Verification: "subroctu". What the captain says when the first one misses the <I>Minsk</I>.)Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-58191816560576852982009-04-20T19:15:00.000-05:002009-04-20T19:15:00.000-05:00I really have to wonder...
Is this nutjob related ...I really have to wonder...<br />Is this nutjob related to Phred(oops.. I'm SOOOO sorry)Fred Phelps of West-whatever Baptist Church fame?<br />Sounds like they my have slimed up from the same gene pool. They sure share the same retoric and it looks like this dork is looking at the same method of income generation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com