TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Let's discuss "Border Patrols and PPD". I was irked by the "woman tazed by border control" - why do some (a few) of you think a woman standing up for her rights is PPD? Read the article linked here, the police are trying to say she assaulted them first [Article Linked in Comment]

q_-_p

May 14, 2015
126 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
https://www.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/35mgq1/why_would_you_argue_with_border_patrol_tazed_and/cr8xbfa
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Let's discuss "Border Patrols and PPD". I was irked by the "woman tazed by border control" - why do some (a few) of you think a woman standing up for her rights is PPD? Read the article linked here, the police are trying to say she assaulted them first [Article Linked in Comment]
Author

q_-_p

Upvotes 126
Comments 176
Date May 14, 2015 3:00 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/35ya92/lets_discuss_border_patrols_and_ppd_i_was_irked/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/lets-discuss-border-patrols-and-ppd-i-was-irked-by.960709
https://theredarchive.com/post/960709

Comments

[–]MiCK_GaSM26 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

For anyone assuming she was later busted for possession:

After being told by officers that K-9 units would be there in a few short minutes, they did not arrive until an hour later, when they would find nothing inside or outside of her vehicle

Ms. Cooke, who exhibited visible scrapes and bruises on her upper back, foot, hands and elbows on Friday, said she was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car where she waited for an hour for a K-9 unit to arrive.

During an exterior inspection of her vehicle by the unit, nothing was found, Ms. Cooke said. She said agents then opened the car doors, got her keys and opened the trunk.

Again, nothing was found, Ms. Cooke said, adding that agents did a second search of the vehicle with the K-9 unit, but found nothing.

[–]strathmeyer 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Also I have no idea when the incident happened but back in April the US supreme court ruled the cops cannot make someone wait for the K9s (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/us_supreme_court_rules_against.html)

[–]aarghj 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just fyi, from the article you linked...

"The ruling stems from a 2012 traffic stop in which a Nebraska man, Dennys Rodriguez, was stopped by an officer after he veered onto the shoulder of a roadway. The officer wrote Rodriguez a warning, according to Slate, but also asked if he could walk his K-9 around Rodriguez's SUV.

Rodriguez refused, but the officer called for backup and, eight minutes later, conducted the search anyway. The dog, on his second pass of the vehicle, alerted to drugs and the officers found a bag of methamphetamine. "

[–]mrmgscott3 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it applies if you're in the jurisdiction of the border patrol.

[–]mistermorteau 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the juridiction of the border patrol is inside or outside of the border ?

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck police dogs.

If the police like shooting peoples dogs so much ... maybe we shouldn't feel too much for police dogs. Police dogs are monsters wrapped in fuzz and exterior familiarity.

They are trained to destroy and menace.

[–]ColinYourBluff 43 points44 points45 points 11 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

So, I don't mean to be an ass here, but this video annoyed me quite a bit. I don't agree that the officers actions were correct, but lord this woman was just the picture of antagonism instead of problem-solving. Also, the whole taser-torture thing was purely dramatics. The gauge on the taser needles is 18, not some huge dagger, and the shock only runs for 5 seconds, not the good 15-20 seconds she screams like she's being flayed alive. It's not bad, I've been tased several times and I've never once heard anyone react in this manner. Legally she was in the right, and this doesn't belong in this sub, but I still came off feeling like this all could have been handled much better on both ends.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Her job is not to problem solve or not be antagonizing. As someone having her rights abrogated and her time wasted, I think that irritation is completely justified. She has no expectation of professionalism, and she doesn't draw a salary generally equal to 1.5x the median household income to be professional. I will never have any expectations of compliance and copsucking from free people.

[–]dangerousopinions 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While in principle I completely agree with you, the supreme court has affirmed the legality of law enforcement to set up interior border checkpoints and hold people until they're satisfied that they are in the country legally. This IMO is outrageous.

In any event though, the supreme court only affirmed legality of this practice for the purpose of establishing legal immigration and citizenship. They did not specifically affirm the legality of search and seizure without cause at interior border checkpoints. I think this woman should take this as high up the rung as possible and maybe she can win. This practice is completely unacceptable and exactly why the 4th amendment exists.

[–]ColinYourBluff 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You do you man.

[–]WillBlaze 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My friends and I got our hands on a tazer when we were younger and we actually did dumb shit like play a game called "Tazer Tag". Yes, that shit hurts but 9 times out of 10 when I see a woman tazed they tend to way blow it up out of proportion.

One thing I did notice though is that tazing someone is an easy way to get the anger out of someone (friend tazed me unexpectedly and I, without thinking, reacted with pure anger) so that is probably why we see reactions like this.

[–]evilchefwariobatali3 points 11 years ago [recovered] (22 children) | Copy Link

Being annoyed that your rights are being violated isn't illegal. Getting tased because you are annoying and they want to force your compliance and get you to shut up should be illegal. Sorry, I just disagree with about everything you said. I think telling people they should have to kiss the ass of a cop or cop look alike is a step in the WRONG direction for fixing the problems in our law enforcement.

[–]TheBlueEdition 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her rights being violated?

[–]bathrobeheroSexualTyranis 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

What rights of hers were violated? Let me help you there, none of them. She was asked to get out of the way but she decided not to move so she was forcefully moved.

I think telling people they should have to kiss the ass of a cop or cop look alike is a step in the WRONG direction for fixing the problems in our law enforcement.

Oh wow. I get that you love the idea of your (fake) freedom but officers have authority for a reason. You're not free from upholders of the law. They are doing their jobs and just because occasionally people in power abuse their position doesn't give you the right to shit all over them becasue the vast, vast majority of cases, people doesn't abue their positions. You don't have to kiss their ass you just don't have to be an ass to them.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you fellow sane person.

[–]ArousedPony 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

What rights of hers were violated? Well, you cannot be forced to wait for a K9 unit during a stop without a warrant or probable cause according to Rodriquez v the United States. 'Looking Nervous' is subjective but can be used as reasonable suspicion in some cases. You can hear the story play out on the video. The female officer says she has a pretty dog and apparently that made the female officer think she was nervous. The officer never asked her any follow up questions about being nervous, which is required if they are going to use that as reasonable suspicion unless they catch her in a lie(they didn't). The male officer said she looked nervous but that was after the K9 units had already been called. If you rewatch the video you can hear the victim ask who the male officer is and he says he is the supervisor. Well how can he say she looked nervous enough to call K9 units when that was the first time he met her and they had already been called? There is a serious plot hole in both of the officer's stories as witnessed by the video.

Now we are going to move onto lawful commands from an LEO. Since it is illegal to force someone to wait for a K9 unit without warrant or probable cause(there is no legal probable cause), then you can agree that she was being detained illegally. She now has the legal right to get in her car and drive away. You can hear the male officer telling her she is not leaving with her car. This is an UNLAWFUL command by an LEO. If she attempts to leave, The officer could then spike her tires, arrest her, tase her and bash her head if she attempts to drive away, but he would be violating her constitutional rights under the color of law.

When the officer walked into her personal space and told her to move this was also an UNLAWFUL command because she was being illegally detained. He then tased and arrested her. In the Mattos v Agarano case filed in Dec 2010, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that, Unless in a setting where an officer's safety is at risk, the officer must give warning before each application, and that the suspect must be capable of compliance, with enough time to consider a warning, and to recover from the extreme pain of any prior application of the Taser. In this similar case, the courts determined that the officers had used excessive force. The officer in the video did not give warning of tasing her, and his safety was not at risk. Now even if the officer had used a LAWFUL command when he told her to move, using a taser still would have been excessive force. This was an UNLAWFUL command so this may even constitute assault and battery on the woman when it inevitably goes to court.

Now any lawyer will tell you to obey an officer's commands, even if unlawful, and deal with the litigation afterwards to determine if your rights are violated. This is only for the safety of the victim, not because cops deserve to be responded to with 'Yes sir' and 'No sir.' The victim in the video is also a law student who knows her rights and was not afraid to use them. Even if it got her tased, bruised and arrested. You also have to understand that not everything an officer tells you during a routine traffic stop is considered a command. This is a tactic they use during an attempt to get your consent. If an officer 'asks' you to step out of your car is it a command or a request? Sometimes the way you answer a question can mean the difference between consent and non-consent. Did you know that once you are out of your car, if an officer asks you for your keys and you give them to him thinking it is a command, it is a form of consenting to a search. I think this is why the victim in the video said she will not give the male officer her keys. I think this may have also been why she didn't move once the officer told her to. The language of law may have considered that a request and not a command. It was clear once the officer got in her personal space that it was a command and not a request, but it was still unlawful.

What rights of hers were violated? Many! I think this will be an easily won mult-million dollar lawsuit assuming she doesn't settle outside of court. IMO, the female officer should be suspended and retrained, and the supervisor should be fired and charged with multiple felonies.

Sources: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/us_supreme_court_rules_against.html

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf

http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/case-law/probable-cause-reasonable-suspicion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/10/17/08-15567.pdf

[–]autowikibot 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Taser:


A Taser or conducted electrical weapon (CEW) is an electroshock weapon sold by Taser International. It fires two small dart-like electrodes, which stay connected to the main unit by conductors, to deliver electrical current to disrupt voluntary control of muscles causing "neuromuscular incapacitation". Someone struck by a Taser experiences stimulation of his or her sensory nerves and motor nerves, resulting in strong involuntary muscle contractions. Tasers do not rely only on pain compliance, except when used in 'drive stun' mode, and are thus preferred by some law enforcement over non-Taser stun guns and other electronic control weapons.

Image i - A Taser, with cartridge removed, making an electric arc between its two electrodes


Interesting: Taser International | UCLA Taser incident | University of Florida Taser incident | Taser safety issues

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]Mahlegos 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

So there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding here. Your argument is based on an incomplete/flawed premise.

First, the ruling by SCOTUS being cited is in regards to police officers. Border Patrol are not the police. They are held to different standards and are a federal agency not a state agency. Therefore the SCOTUS ruling doesn't apply here as they are specifically talking about state/municipal police agencies making traffic stops and then calling in k9s, not border patrol searches at designated areas.

This leads into my second point. One of the different standards is something you mention, probable cause and the claim that she was illegally detained. The fact is that BP has been given the power to stop and search anyone with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion at the border or a functional equivalent which includes checkpoints like the one seen in the video. Whether or not they should be allowed to circumvent the fourth amendment is another conversation, but the fact is they are. That contradicts your claims of his unlawful orders. They had the right legally to stop her and search her vehicle. She didn't like that they were able to do this. But they were acting lawfully and she continued to escalate the situation with her actions. Which brings me to my final point.

The woman herself admits to physically resisting the officer. She posted on Facebook something to the effect of "they're trying to charge me with felony assault on an officer but I only did that because he put his hands on me first", which immediately makes her into a culpable party in getting tazed. If she ignores a lawful order and then resisted the officer, that escalates her from passively resistant to physically resistant and makes the use of reasonable force an option. Should they have used that option? I'm not sure. We can't see what actually physically transpires in the video. But her actions beforehand and statements afterward seem to suggest the arguement can be made and by no means is it the clear police brutality you claim.

I am by no means a police appologist. I fully agree this could have been handled in a much better way by everyone involved including the Border Patrol officers. I'm entirely for knowing and protecting your civil rights, and there is absolutely no denying the abhorrent abuses that are becoming more and more common and that we're in desperate need of reforms. But, in this situation the woman was in the wrong and escalated the situation and it isn't the slam dunk case for her you and others seem to believe it is. Even if she won some kind of monetary judgement which is unlikely, it wouldn't be coming from the person you perceive to be in the wrong here. It would be coming from the tax payers and I don't really see that as justice. All that being said, I don't really think it belongs on PPD as she never tried to use her gender to justify her actions.

Edit: source on the ability to stop and search without probable cause. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

And the quote from her Facebook. "Now they are trying to put charges on me federally for assaulting an officer when I did it in self defense after he pushed me!!!!!" I don't have the direct link unfortunately and I'm not going to go creeping on Facebook to find one, it was stated in the comments of the original post.

/u/Theblueedition and /u/bathrobehero I figured I'd mention you in this post since you both were involved in the conversation as well. None of her right were violated and she was the main instigator that escalated the situation to the outcome we saw.

[–]Snarglebargle 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Man, if anyone deserves gold, it's you.

[–]Mahlegos 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate the sentimate but I'm not too worried about it. My only concern is putting the correct information out there so people aren't operating under false pretenses and possibly getting themselves into trouble if they're ever in a situation like this.

[–]bathrobeheroSexualTyranis 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for taking the time explaining it. I certainly see where I was wrong.

[–]ArousedPony 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow, thanks for the Reddit Gold! I will have to find out what new features there are. I'm more impressed that you changed your point of view based on new information. Admitting to this is more than most people would do. Good on you, sir!

[–]bathrobeheroSexualTyranis 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I was as a bit of an asshole and you took the time explaining why I was wrong and I think your comment should be read by more people on both sides of the argument so thanks and enjoy!

[–]evilchefwariobatali 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What rights of hers were violated? Well, you cannot be forced to wait for a K9 unit during a stop without a warrant or probable cause according to Rodriquez v the United States. 'Looking Nervous' is subjective but can be used as reasonable suspicion in some cases. You can hear the story play out on the video. The female officer says she has a pretty dog and apparently that made the female officer think she was nervous. The officer never asked her any follow up questions about being nervous, which is required if they are going to use that as reasonable suspicion unless they catch her in a lie(they didn't). The male officer said she looked nervous but that was after the K9 units had already been called. If you rewatch the video you can hear the victim ask who the male officer is and he says he is the supervisor. Well how can he say she looked nervous enough to call K9 units when that was the first time he met her and they had already been called? There is a serious plot hole in both of the officer's stories as witnessed by the video. Now we are going to move onto lawful commands from an LEO. Since it is illegal to force someone to wait for a K9 unit without warrant or probable cause(there is no legal probable cause), then you can agree that she was being detained illegally. She now has the legal right to get in her car and drive away. You can hear the male officer telling her she is not leaving with her car. This is an UNLAWFUL command by an LEO. If she attempts to leave, The officer could then spike her tires, arrest her, tase her and bash her head if she attempts to drive away, but he would be violating her constitutional rights under the color of law. When the officer walked into her personal space and told her to move this was also an UNLAWFUL command because she was being illegally detained. He then tased and arrested her. In the Mattos v Agarano case filed in Dec 2010, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that, Unless in a setting where an officer's safety is at risk, the officer must give warning before each application, and that the suspect must be capable of compliance, with enough time to consider a warning, and to recover from the extreme pain of any prior application of the Taser. In this similar case, the courts determined that the officers had used excessive force. The officer in the video did not give warning of tasing her, and his safety was not at risk. Now even if the officer had used a LAWFUL command when he told her to move, using a taser still would have been excessive force. This was an UNLAWFUL command so this may even constitute assault and battery on the woman when it inevitably goes to court. Now any lawyer will tell you to obey an officer's commands, even if unlawful, and deal with the litigation afterwards to determine if your rights are violated. This is only for the safety of the victim, not because cops deserve to be responded to with 'Yes sir' and 'No sir.' The victim in the video is also a law student who knows her rights and was not afraid to use them. Even if it got her tased, bruised and arrested. You also have to understand that not everything an officer tells you during a routine traffic stop is considered a command. This is a tactic they use during an attempt to get your consent. If an officer 'asks' you to step out of your car is it a command or a request? Sometimes the way you answer a question can mean the difference between consent and non-consent. Did you know that once you are out of your car, if an officer asks you for your keys and you give them to him thinking it is a command, it is a form of consenting to a search. I think this is why the victim in the video said she will not give the male officer her keys. I think this may have also been why she didn't move once the officer told her to. The language of law may have considered that a request and not a command. It was clear once the officer got in her personal space that it was a command and not a request, but it was still unlawful. What rights of hers were violated? Many! I think this will be an easily won mult-million dollar lawsuit assuming she doesn't settle outside of court. IMO, the female officer should be suspended and retrained, and the supervisor should be fired and charged with multiple felonies. Sources: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/us_supreme_court_rules_against.html[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf[2] http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/case-law/probable-cause-reasonable-suspicion[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser[4] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/10/17/08-15567.pdf[5]

/u/TheBlueEdition just makin' sure you saw this

[–]TheBlueEdition 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well shit.

[–]dangerousopinions 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The problem here is that these are U.S border and customs agents at an interior border checkpoint. The constitutionality of which has been affirmed by the supreme court in The United States v. Martinez-Fuerte but only for the purposes of establishing the legality of an individual's presence in the U.S. I could be wrong here as I'm not a legal scholar, but the supreme court did not affirm the constitutionality of unwarranted search and seizures at said checkpoints.

The fact that these are customs and border agents at an interior border checkpoint and not law enforcement potentially makes a big difference in terms of constitutionality. They don't have the same powers they have when people are entering from outside the country. These people are already inside the country and they can't exercise the same powers they do at an actual border crossing. The law treats those two locations very differently for obvious reasons. I don't know that they even have the power to search for anything but humans at an interior checkpoint, at least as far as the supreme court ruling and constitution are concerned.

I personally think the whole idea of interior checkpoints is unacceptable and more than a little bit fascist. I think this kind of search and seizure is exactly the kind that the constitution is intended to prevent. And I think this woman was right to challenge the authority of border guards inside the borders of the U.S trying to carry out a search of her vehicle. It's a terrible practice and I hope there is a lawyer out there willing to take on this woman's case and get it up the rung where it can possibly stop this kind of nonsense from happening in the future.

[–]Mahlegos 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Border Patrol can search any vehicle with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion at the border or a functional equivalent like the checkpoint in the video. Courts have given them an exception to the fourth amendment and therefore there was nothing unconstitutional about their actions. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

Not disagreeing with your assertion that this practice is a slippery slope, but legally they were in the right and the woman was in the wrong for escalating the situation. Even if the officers were unconstitutionally searching her vehicle, she wasn't going to do anything but make things worse by acting the way she did so she wasn't "right for challenging their authority" regardless.

[–]dangerousopinions 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Border Patrol can search any vehicle with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion at the border or a functional equivalent like the checkpoint in the video.

The actual border and a checkpoint are not the same thing though and the reason there is even precedence is because their ability to confirm even identity needed affirmation in the courts. This obviously isn't necessary when people are still technically outside of the country in which case border guards have almost absolute power. Since the ruling, so far as I know, doesn't affirm the legality of anything more than checking identity and ensuring ones legal presence within the U.S, doing searches within the borders is probably something that could be challenged in court.

[–]Mahlegos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The checkpoint can be ruled a functional equivalent to the border, in which case the exception to the fourth amendment that has been granted to the border patrol and upheld by the courts would allow them to stop and search vehicles without probable cause. This is outlined in the link I provided which it appears you didn't read. Also, the purpose of the checkpoints isn't only to check identity, it's also to make sure there is no contraband being brought through hence the ability to conduct searches. You clearly don't have a firm grasp of the facts here, so please stop trying to argue as if you do.

[–]dangerousopinions 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The checkpoint can be ruled a functional equivalent to the border

But it can't, that's obvious. It's within the borders of the United States where people have their charter rights. They do not have said rights at an actual border which is why it's never been an issue to strip a car to it's frame and leave it like that but it is at an interior checkpoint. Similarly, a challenge of the kind I referenced wouldn't have been possible if the incident had occurred at an actual border and the ruling wouldn't have stated that an individual subject to the checkpoint need not do anything at all, including respond to the border guard. The ruling specifically stated that the only power a border guard has at the checkpoint is to confirm the identity of those that pass through it.

This is outlined in the link I provided which it appears you didn't read. Also, the purpose of the checkpoints isn't only to check identity, it's also to make sure there is no contraband being brought through hence the ability to conduct searches.

Yes, but not according to the supreme court ruling on the issue which only upholds the existence of checkpoints and guards ability to confirm the legal presence in the U.S of individuals that pass through said checkpoint. No other function of these checkpoints has been upheld as constitutional so far.

I get where you're coming from in that under the law the guards at an interior checkpoint have search powers. But the law to which you refer hasn't been challenged. The constitutionality of the checkpoint itself has, and it's been upheld with limits. There is still a question as to whether the law that empowers guards to search is constitutional. That has yet to be brought to the supreme court. Since there is a clear difference between and internal border and external border, there is a good chance that if challenged, searches at interior border checkpoints would be ruled unconstitutional. I think random searches on the highway without so much as reasonable cause, carried out by border guards (this part is important), is the very definition of unreasonable search and seizure.

.....therefor, it's completely possible that these guards are infringing on this woman's constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. She should challenge this in court. I hope there is a lawyer out there with the will and resources to assist her in this, and I hope she wins or the supreme court limits the power of guards at interior checkpoints the same way they did in the first challenge when the plaintiff claimed confirming identity was a 4th amendment violation.

[–]Mahlegos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok, just because you repeat something doesn't make it any more true. Interior checkpoints can be ruled functional equivalents to the border. This is not debatable. They aren't always viewed as such, but they unquestionably can be. And if it is, then the same powers and exceptions apply. You say the law I referenced hasn't been challenged. That means it's currently still valid, which is why they are using it to justify the searches. The rest of your argument is based almost entirely on supposition and therefore I'm not going to debate any further with you. If the woman takes them to court and challenges their search (which should have been her initial responce to the situation instead of escalating it then and there), I wish her the best of luck as I don't support the disregard of our rights, but she would be fighting an uphill battle. Thank you for the conversation. Good day.

[–]autowikibot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte:


United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border, and that these checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.


Interesting: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 428 | Idem | City of Indianapolis v. Edmond | United States Border Patrol interior checkpoints

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]q_-_p[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

She annoyed them, true, but what gives them special rights to not have to deal with annoying people?

I'd like to see you get tazed and rationalize it as "only 5 seconds".

I don't think she has to be polite though, and he definitely knew what he was doing by making 10 strides up to her and then 3 seconds later telling her to back off, that's textbook setup for a takedown.

[–]Gnes990 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

His point is that after those 5 seconds. The pain subsides. It doesnt keep coursing through her body for a long time, like she was acting.

[+]q_-_p[S] -27 points-26 points-25 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

His point is that after those 5 seconds. The pain subsides. It doesnt keep coursing through her body for a long time, like she was acting.

Having a fat dumb cop lying on your back is enough to make you angry, especially when you know he baited you into it.

Now you're advocating for people who stand up for their rights to remain quiet after being tazed?

[–]mojobytes 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

fat dumb cop

And now we're done listening to you

[+]q_-_p[S] -26 points-25 points-24 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

we're

I didn't realize you were having a tea party with your dolls. Enjoy that.

[–]t-reznor 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

He's not wrong. You exposed your bias. Own up to it.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, the cop being fat is on video, and so is him being dumb. You are exposing your own bias.

[+]q_-_p[S] -23 points-22 points-21 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You know that "how it works" comic on XKCD? that was the start of a particular problem. You see, how it really works is:

You suck at math.

  1. I do?
  2. WE DO?!!?

Notice the difference.

That's what really happens. The entire comic is a false premise.

Now, on to this:

fat dumb cop

OMG GUYS THIS GUY HATES COPS

Right, so prove to me there are no fat dumb cops, or that this cop isn't fat and dumb, and I'll let you call it a bias, until then, sorry to say, you're just going to have to accept that I am calling this person, Travis or Cody or Bret or whatever, a fat dumb person who has a job as a cop. A fat dumb cop. That person.

Prove it, or accept it. Ball, your court.

[–]bathrobeheroSexualTyranis 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

baited you into it.

You have to be a special kind of stupid.

[–]Gnes990 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No Im talking about the fact that she was acting like she was being tortured in an attempt to make it seem like that less lethal response was over doing it.

[–]Wargame4life 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I commented on one that seem deleted, I side with the woman on this one this is not PPD and these guards are at best unprofessional and at worst "utter cunts"

thinking someone "appearing nervous" is legit grounds to impound and detain your car is fucking ridiculous.

this border patrols are bang out of order, I support her conduct and cause, she has every right to defend her rights and kudos to her for not kowtowing to a bully.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I feel like there's a real rash of people not doing what cops tell them to do and then are astounded when the officers use force.

The cops weren't even being unreasonable. They told her to get back in the car.

[–]aarghj 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Detaining her without valid probable cause was them being unreasonable. The courts have upheld this. If they wanted so desperately to search her car, they should have had a valid reason to detain her BEFORE telling her to just chill out and wait for a k9. She knows this, and everyone who paid attention in civics class knows this.

[–]Mahlegos 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The border patrol does not require probable cause to stop and search a vehicle. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

She was supposedly studying to become a border patrol agent so she probably should have been more aware of this fact.

[–]aarghj -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here. Let me just show you the law that trumps this law by design and intent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation33.html

[–]Mahlegos 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Here. Let me tell you why you're wrong. Border patrol is a federal agency, not a state agency which the law you posted specifically pertains to. The law you're citing solely prevents States from imposing laws on motorists from other States unfairly and has no relevance to the Federal agency or situation in question. An example of something it would protect you from is being issued a ticket for not having a front license plate in a state that requires them when you're in a vehicle registered in a state that doesn't. Again, it has no bearing on the Border Patrols exception to the Fourth Amendment or the situation in question. The exception from the Fourth Amendment I mentioned has been upheld for some time now by various courts. That's why they still routinely search vehicles without probable cause at the border and at checkpoints like they did in the video. Because they are expressly allowed to. It's this kind of egregious misunderstanding of the law that leads to the "freeman of the land" type people, who erroneously cite this one in particular regularly in an attempt to of speeding tickets and other lawful situations, getting themselves into more serious trouble. Same goes for the woman in the video. I understand wanting to protect your rights. But, the best course of action in a situation like this is to document the presumed violations and seek justice in a more effective manner. If you go the route the woman did (even if you are right, which she wasn't) you risk escalating the situation and getting yourself hit with more charges that wouldn't have happened or stuck otherwise. Please, do not attempt to cite a law and/or debate a topic that you don't have cogent understanding of.

edit: spelling and words

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying what they did was right, but if a cop tells you to get back in your car... As a thinking adult... Are you getting back in your car?

[–]aarghj 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, the answer to that is a complex one, as is the question.

Here's MY personal answer to that. I have a quick little cheat-sheet flow-chart I run through in my head. it goes like this.

  1. Am I with anyone who would be adversely affected by my standing up for my rights at this moment in time, and if so, would their adversity have a negative impact on my life or socio-economic well-being?

  2. Am I likely to be severely injured or killed by these particular individuals?

  3. Do I have the time to deal with these individuals, including being incarcerated for the weekend, next few days, until I can see a judge, whatever the case may be?

  4. Am I feeling particularly RIGHT on this topic at this moment in time? As my mother says, "Is THIS the hill I want to die on in this fight?"

That said, I have stood up for my rights, and I have had many conversations with LEO's about such situations. I happen to have no problems with LEO's, so long as they hold themselves to the standards by which they hold others. I don't think most of them are bad apples. I think there's a lot of unfortunate training going on right now, misinformation being fed to them about what is legal, what their rights are, what our rights are, literally, how to get over on us and trample our rights through intimidation and insinuation rather than force. These methods are wrong-headed. They are not how you treat people in a free and equal society, and they are not respectful of the people you are supposed to be, above all else, protecting.

p.s. a little note. The list above is in order of importance to me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're absolutely right but that's not my point at all.

My point is that if a cop tells you to do jumping jacks, you do jumping jacks. If you think a cop is being an unreasonable asshole, do not try and reason with them. Do what they say, record what they do, and after you're done dealing with the angry man with the gun and tazer, file a formal complaint to either their CO or IA and post it to facebook and youtube and staple it to telephone poles.

But the bottom line is, "When a cop pulls you over and you get out and start arguing with them, if that cop tells you to get back in your car, you get back in your car."

If he tells you to put your hands up. Put your hands up.

He tells you to stop, you stop.

Especially if they think you're mueling drugs. Just deal with it, and press charges afterwards.

[–]aarghj 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While I agree that what you say is reasonable on its face, the problems that happen with it is that they can just say, meh, you weren't actually that put out because you didn't make a scene and we didn't have to unlawfully assault you. 9 times out of 10, when it comes down to it, the police attorneys offer a settlement and these things are settled out of court. Or is that 99 out of 100? or more? Either way, it never sets a precedent because it never gets ruled on.

[–]q_-_p[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this, well said.

[–]Polaris2246 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

though not PPD, if they told her to wait her ass on the side of the road because they decided they wanted to inspect her car, she should have waited her ass on the side of the road. Whether or not you like the authority they have, they have it and will be backed up by the people that gave them that authority.

She was being a bitch and non compliant to very calm officers telling her they are waiting for the K9 unit to arrive. She got irate and her actions led to her being tazed.

[–]winthrow 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

The thing is: she is partially correct. Rodriguez vs. US indicates that it is illegal for an officer to detain someone until the K9 unit arrives UNLESS there is probable cause. However, "nervousness" can be considered probable cause. She contests that she is nervous, which would make the entire thing illegal.

[–]bathrobeheroSexualTyranis 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

She wasn't detained. She was told repeatedly that she could leave but not with her car.

[–]winthrow -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, that was expressly ruled unconstitutional in Rodriguez.

[–]Mahlegos 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It was expressly ruled that the police could not do this. The border patrol are not the same thing as the police. For instance, the border patrol has the right to stop and search any vehicle at a border or the functional equivalent (like the checkpoint in the video) without probable cause. This is something the police expressly can not do. But the border patrol can. I don't believe the SCOTUS ruling applies to anyone but state and local police agencies.

Edit here is my source for the probable cause claim http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

[–]aarghj -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

By that reasoning... Say you have, I dunno, 35k in your pocket, in cash. I pull you over, because I'm working a checkpoint of some sort. I see your wad of moolah and say, hey, put that over there. You do so. Then I get all touchy touchy on your wad of cashola there, and you get upset about it. My response is, hey, I'm not keeping you here, GTFO if you wanna, but your gonna leave without this here wad o cash so that I can play with it until I'm satisfied. And no, I won't give you any sort of guarantee that you will get it back intact, let alone at all. You don't like that idea? Well then, lemme introduce you to my lil friend taser, and his buddies, military boots and industrial zip ties.

And, for the record... There was a war fought over shit like this (well, in part). They called it... The American Revolutionary War...

Shortly thereafter, they instituted a system of laws, and to prevent things like are going on today, they put in place a list of the rights of the people. In this case see numbers 1, 4, and 8.

[–]83xlxinsocal 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

her contention isn't enough to disrepute the 3 separate officers observation of nervous behavior. they had plenty of cause. and her escalation rather than just shutting up and letting them get it over with really sent off signals. most people just let them look for things they think are there and arent there, because there's nothing to find.

when you start throwing a tantrum, you're either A) trying to hide something and it makes them want to find it more, or B) a fucking douchebag and deserve to be inconvenienced and tazed.

[–]JeremyRodriguez 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Wrong. I have nothing illegal in my car(that I know of). I don't do drugs, don't carry illegal firearms or anything. And Yet i would refuse, up to the point of me getting arrested(falsely), to be searched.

[–]NRMusicProject 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And Yet i would refuse, up to the point of me getting arrested(falsely), to be searched.

As would I. There's a reason that fourth amendment exists. It's so we CAN get pissed off if someone is suggesting an illegal search. Not agreeing to a search is by no means grounds for probable cause. I thought we were all taught that in high school!

[–]Mahlegos 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing though, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to the Border Patrol. They are allowed to stop and search any vehicle at the border or a functional equivalent (like the checkpoint shown in the video) without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Whether this should be the case or not is another converstion, but courts have allowed them an exception to it. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

[–]NRMusicProject 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the fourth amendment doesn't apply to the Border Patrol

Well that just sucks. You're right, that's a completely different beast to tackle, and I'm too tired to do that now!

[–]Mahlegos 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't get me wrong, im not really in favor of it. I can see the argument for why those type of searches at the border can be necessary, but at the same time it's hard for me to accept anyone being allowed to disregard a right guaranteed to us.

[–]winthrow 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

eh, I agree that she was incorrect in her assessment of probable cause.

I disagree about a tantrum only being indicative of those two scenarios. There are plenty of reasonable scenarios which don't involve those two causes.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

her contention isn't enough to disrepute the 3 separate officers observation of nervous behavior.

Feel free to link to that law. They do this shit to me all the time when I'm recording. Walk up while fingering their guns and being inherently threatening. When my hands shake, because I'm scared of being beaten and robbed by them (again), they start asking if I'm on drugs or guilty of something. Its bullshit 101 copsucking logic.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They ruled on that only a few weeks ago. I don't know when this was shot.

[–]JeremyRodriguez 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nervousness can not be used as probably cause. There were cases where an officer pulled over someone for driving properly at the speed limit, with hands at 10 and 2. He had drugs, but it was thrown out because that is not a reason to stop someone.

So someone acting normal is not probably cause. And driving up to a Border patrol checkpoint where people have guns and being nervous is normal.

[–]winthrow 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not necessarily. It varies state by state. I dunno about the federal level.

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2012/06/supreme_court_nervousness_can/

[–]aarghj -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I know that there was in fact a federal case regarding the whole "looked nervous" bit, and the civilian won that case. I don't remember where it took place either, but I do remember reading about it and thinking "woohoo, things'll change a little for the better!" and then being sorely disappointed.

[–]Mahlegos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, seeing as how Border Partrol don't require probable cause or reasonable suspicion to search vehicles at the border or a functional equivalent (like the checkpoint in the video) this is a moot point. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

[+]SwordfshII -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You are wrong. Detain = arrest. Just like with a traffic stop you were not being detained

[–]WhyYouAreSoStupid 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Legally, a traffic stop is detention. But, thanks for trying, keyboard lawyer.

[–]winthrow 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm

[+]SwordfshII -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Probable cause is still not necessary to detain.

[–]winthrow 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it is to detain for a K9 search.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whether or not you like the authority they have, they have it and will be backed up by the people that gave them that authority.

They don't. And it costs taxpayers hundreds of millions a year. The problem is when they act illegally, the issue is solved in civil court where they lose repeatedly and extravagantly.

[–]nguyencs 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

This. You fight for your rights in courts where you can actually win. Not at the side of the road where you will surely lose. Her being rude and annoying was counterproductive and didn't help her situation. Of course, that was probably her intention so she can get a reaction out of them to post online.

Majority of the comments in the original post said this wasn't PPD. Don't know why there has to be a discussion.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This. You fight for your rights in courts where you can actually win. Not at the side of the road where you will surely lose.

Lets make it so we don't surely lose, because the court system is just as crooked and corrupt. Keep in mind that you have the right to use deadly force to resist illegal arrest. You do. No matter what other retards say, that right has precedent.

[–]Fatalis89 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Regardless, I would NOT suggest it. Ever. That's a great way to end up dead.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Imagine if cops had that frame of mind? Oh wait, they already do. They treat everyone like they might get murdered for the stop.

[–]Fatalis89 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know what point you are trying to make. I was simply trying to convey that using deadly force against officers who are making an illegal arrest, when you are outnumbered, is extremely dangerous and something you are very unlikely to come out alive from.

Add to that their brotherhood mentality and hatred of "cop-killers" even if you survive you may wind up dead later.

[–]fortifiedoranges 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, everyone can afford the lengthy court process that your brilliant solution entails.

[–]q_-_p[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She did wait, they approached her.

[–]BuckfostGargles sweaty, ball flavored mouthwash[M] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This should have been posted as a comment to the original post, it doesn't need it's own post.

[–]q_-_p[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This should have been posted as a comment to the original post, it doesn't need it's own post.

What do you mean?

It was days ago, I forgot about it except some other moderator (now just seeing you've posted and opted to click 'acting in "official" capacity' and then not say much) had posted a reply much later and I saw it, spent 7 minutes of my time getting to the bottom of this.

Why should it have been posted as a comment? you trying to bait me?

[–]DarkCircle 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some people on this sub like seeing a woman get hurt even she if she is not playing the PP. Start your own hating women sub if you want that. I laugh just as hard at men getting served justice for being jerks as women.

[–]ButtButtinator 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I like seeing libertarian douchebags getting hurt, regardless of gender. Might not have been PPD, but it was still satisfying.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

It is not PPD and this sub itself has gone to hell. Standing up for your rights is what a good citizen does, holing LEO's responsible for abuse is a must. These LEO's assaulted a woman with a deadly weapon, that is no joke.

[–]SwordfshII 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

A taser is not a deadly weapon.....

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

they have killed in the past and will do so in the future. Deadly. I don't give a fuck how the police classify it.

[+]bigheadgoat -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Does this mean peanuts, staircases and wet shower floors are also deadly weapons? They have killed and will kill again.

[–]penemue 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Who the fuck is using peanuts, staircases, and wet shower floors as a means to hurt/incapacitate/kill others? Your logic is shit.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually his logic applies exactly to what was said. It was said a taser is a deadly weapon because they have killed people and will continue to kill people. The things he listed have killed people and will continue to kill people. It's the exact same thing.

[–]bigheadgoat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My logic is fine. You might want to have your sarcasm meter checked though.

[–]madbuilder 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What about the Polish man that Vancouver RCMP tazed at the airport? I think he would say it was deadly.

[+]SwordfshII -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Dead people can speak?

Don't be an idiot. On most people tasers aren't deadly and they are not classified a deadly weapon

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On most people tasers aren't deadly

Good things cops will use them over and over until you die, even when handcuffed or in custody. Do you read this sub?

[–]MiCK_GaSM3 points 11 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Then why have people died from them?

[+]SwordfshII -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I won't argue with an idiot.

[–]MiCK_GaSM5 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I won't argue with facts.

FTFY

Edit: and I hope the irritation I left you with has you following me around with downvotes for weeks to come, instead of just today.

[+]SwordfshII -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope I said and meant idiot. I guess you also consider aspirin, cars and the flu deadly too. Those kill people.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deadly-weapon/

[–]MiCK_GaSM4 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I consider anything that has caused fatal bouts of cardiac arrest when used to be deadly.

The very definition of fatal involves being dead.

If you are dead as a result then the cause was fatal and therefore deadly

There's not much room for argument.

[–]SwordfshII -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are right. There isn't much room for argument. The law is very specific and what "you consider" has no basis in law or the courts.

Carry on with your little circle jerk and sensationalism.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

after the hearing her belch for 15 seconds straight i was laughing like it was a joke...

sorry

[–]DexterousRichard -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's PPD because she thought she could simply disregard the instructions of border patrol officers near the border. This is typical princess behavior.

She also thought that no one could ever "touch" her. Did you hear her screaming "you touched me!!!"? Wow, yes. They touched you. She was living in a fantasy world created by feminist rhetoric, believing that she was invincible and untouchable. She got her comeuppance.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

comeuppance.

Big word! Never once did she mention being a woman, just that the LEO's were violating her rights.

[–]DexterousRichard -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So what? It's about the attitude, man.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just because you don't like someones attitude does not mean you are allowed to torture them. Because right not a few people on this site don't like yours. Can we torture you?

[–]q_-_p[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There was another one with a black guy getting his window broken, but he was doing what another guy did (another black guy) almost textbook, which is a shame - I just think people on here might need to sub to some nodonut/copwatch subs.

[–]johndeaux5882 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Everybody keeps quoting the Rodriguez decision, but there is one underlying fact that everyone keeps missing..... this was a Border Patrol checkpoint and your "rights" mean about zero at them. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has "border search authority" which allows them to search anything passing through a checkpoint without a warrant and with little to no probable cause.

[–]q_-_p[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who is contesting that? Link to the comment and quote them.

I posit nobody agree with me is contesting that. Why are you making up strawman arguments? Do you not understand the points being made?

[–]ArousedPony -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure this was in Nebraska, which does not border any other country. If this woman never left U.S. soil then she never lost any of her constitutional rights.

edit: Was not in Nebraska. I was thinking of the case Rodriquez v US. I'm not sure where the video took place.

[–]thebabbster 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The place to bludgeon your local cops about your "rights" is in a court room, not the side of the road.

[–]TheWiredWorld -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

not at the time and place that they are infringing on those rights

Better get busy, you got a lot of boots to lick

[–]thebabbster 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good luck in your roadside lawyering.

[–]dickholedoug 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

/r/titlegore I literally have no idea the point you're trying to convey. Write in legible sentences next time.

[+]q_-_p[S] -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Let's debug, I added some breakpoints:

Let's discuss "Border Patrols and PPD".

10 Still with me?

I was irked by the "woman tazed by border control"

20 Still with me?

  • why do some (a few) of you think a woman standing up for her rights is PPD?

30 Still with me?

Read the article linked here,

40 Still with me?

the police are trying to say she assaulted them first [Article Linked in Comment]

50 Still with me?

So, let me know at which point your interpreter crashes out and we can talk.

[–]aarghj 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn, /u/q_-_p went all old school there. I remember that shit. But, where are your rem statements?

[–]q_-_p[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hey, dickhole, answer my question and stop being cowardly - if you didn't understand something, fine, but don't be a hypocrite, take the time to convey something more meaningful yourself. I want to know where you assume the failing is, or if you were in fact the point of failure in this.

[–]dickholedoug 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Dude you're pathetic. Find something to do with your time other than reddit. I've got other stuff to do than decipher your rambling.

[–]q_-_p[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're the pathetic one who said you couldn't understand it, now either you're lying, stupid or lazy, which is it?

[–]q_-_p[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Has this been silently deleted by any reddit filter / automoderator "oh a reddit address without np" or some other sad rule, I am just linking to the comment I made, I shouldn't have to think to copy it again? Someone let me know if they see this. thanks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/35mgq1/why_would_you_argue_with_border_patrol_tazed_and/cr6e2xp

Here's some more info on it, at the time I made a numbered list, but /u/Mustaka said this was indeed PPD, well, that's a lie:

  1. He linked me to a comment he wrote
  2. That said it was posted previously
  3. That said there was an article that discussed it
  4. I searched for the previous post
  5. Read the comments
  6. Found the artlcle link, then read it
  7. Nothing in the article says PPD, in fact it even says the police are making up that she assaulted them

The police are in the wrong here, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:

  1. You're being detained Why? "ok you're not being detained" (law now states they can't use "waiting for dogs" as a reason to detain, without cause)
  2. You can walk anywhere you want
  3. No, you have to get in your car (being a controlling bully, deliberately steering her to a confrontation)
  4. They walked up to her and then told her to get out of the way, they fabricated this entire incident, and she had nothing on her
  5. This was abuse of powers by police, not PPD

[–]grinder_man 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I remember the original thread. There were many people saying that this is obviously not a person who is trying to use gender for an advantage. Of course, we were heavily downvoted, so you might not have heard us.

[–]83xlxinsocal -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Heavily downvoted because you were wrong, so there is that.

[–]grinder_man 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

begging the question

[–]83xlxinsocal -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

there is no question. there is the observed consensus that you and the people agreeing with you were wrong. hence the downvoting. so you couldn't be seen. because you were wrong.

[–]MiCK_GaSM 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You never hear in the video, nor is it ever implied, that "you can't ___ because I'm a girl".

[–]grinder_man 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So your logic is that the majority opinion is always the correct one?

[–]q_-_p[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was away for a few days, but came back to a reply from the mod linking - I think I did see some voices, but yeah generally downvoted, like I said, I don't really care, I am just kinda surprised that people are finding it normal to blame the person standing up for their rights ... rather than the abusive cop, I think they'd do this even if it was a guy. Even that crazy guy who was tazed, got up and ran off, I love that video.

[–]Soundwavetrue 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

FYI this is border patrol/control
Rules apply differently to them.

[–]TheBlueEdition 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And so do certain laws. Which seems to be going over many people's heads...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really. They are no more allowed to trample on your rights than any other LEO. The border (and within 100 miles of it) itself is given a special exemption to allow for stops/checkpoints without cause, and they can ask for identity (at the border to enter) but beyond that, they legally held to the same standards as far as citizens rights. They still require RAS, and nervousness has been held to not alone be cause for detention.

[–]Pious_Agnostic -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

/yawn. You have a lot of time on your hands.

[–]dealbreakerjones 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We all do...it's why we're on reddit.

[–]aMotoVadered 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They taser-tortured that woman because of her attitude.

[–]Mellonpopr 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]q_-_p[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Basically this - they were annoyed so they hurt her.

Fuck that.

[–]dangerousopinions 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I cannot believe the U.S supreme court has affirmed the constitutionality of interior border checkpoints. This is quite plainly an illegal search and seizure and has the obvious potential for abuse of the 4th amendment. I think morally, if not legally, this woman was right to refuse such a search.

[–]Narwhalbaconguy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying either of them were right, but she kind of provoked it when she kept being disrespectful, then pushing the officer when he walked up to her.

[–]ArousedPony 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

IMO, I don't think the woman was being annoying at all. This should be the default response when on officer is attempting to violate your constitutional rights. The officer was attempting a power play by telling her to move. She was leaning on her property and was tazed. I hope to God she doesn't settle out of court. This lady should get several million in the lawsuit, with the female officer being disciplined and the male officer charged and fired.

[–]q_-_p[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, I hope she wins and it signals to tax-receivers that they have a job to do.

[–]TerrinUK0 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Definitely not PPD, everyone was wrong in this scenario, she is a stubborn sovereign citizen dumbass that is just begging to be suspected of hiding something, and they are entitled, abusive wannabe cops that couldn't enforce the law right if they fucking tried

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think federal law enforcement agents fall under "wannabe cops".

[–]mygenericalias 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a lot of misinformation going on here, and people are very quick to dismiss this women's actions as justification for her being tased. First off, nervousness is not probable cause for being detained in this situation. Second, where she was standing was lawfully out of the way of the checkpoint. Third, these checkpoints have been a hot-spot for normal citizens to assert their rights to drive peacefully and without being unlawfully searched or detained. Yes, the women was being antagonistic. I'd be, as well, with my rights being so blatantly violated. Here is a great example of what this women's likely intention was - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4zYizaMmDo And here is a great (staged) video from reason tv on the subject - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB_l6sLxNj4

Most people do comply in these situations, but it is a fundamental principle of this country that you may not be unlawfully searched, questioned, or detained, while simply traveling on a road somewhat near a border. Unfortunately, the "Constitution-free zone" complicates things. See https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map

On a separate note, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it is against the law to hold a motorist for longer than 10 minutes while awaiting a K9 unit. The hour this woman was handcuffed was absolutely illegal. This is about holding our law enforcement, especially federal law enforcement such as border patrol, to a very high standard, such that the rights of all are maintained.

Know your rights and always hold law enforcement accountable.

[–]q_-_p[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well said, and yes I think I referenced the K9 law.

I've seen similar videos and she was clearly given conflicting information, I hope there's a hearing on this.

[–]HitachinoBia -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahahah stupid cunt. Respect the authoritah!

[+]YellowBrickChode -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure she had something in that car. Why else would a human act like that? OP's title suggesting she was standing up for her rights is a little fucking stupid.

[–]Feral_PotatO 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Standing up for your rights, and not consenting to random searches based on illegitimate bullshit randomly pulled out of thin air by Boarder Patrol doesn't mean you have something in your car. I frequently assert my rights, and I never drive with anything illegal in my car. That being said, I am also respectful, and obey orders. The side of the road is not the place to fight a cop.

[–]83xlxinsocal -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

but that's the point. let them search, take a video, submit your complaint. the more you sit on the road and fight, the more they have reason to suspect your guilt.

the idea that everyone thinks its outrageous that someone would possibly think they were less than honest when they are displaying abnormal behaviors because THEY know they're not doing anything is arrogant and stupid.

how should law enforcement officers conduct these types of searches if they can't use behavior identifiers? should they pull you over, call your familes, get some character references, check your college trasncripts, and see how much you donate to your church before they ask you any questions?

how about, hmm they're not gonna find anything and I might lose 15 mins of my day. oh well, carry on.

but no, everyone is so fucking egotistical they think they should be viewed better than the hundereds of thousands of people that look and act like total law abiding citizens but are lying and hiding something.

like, oh for example say.... This Guy

[–]fortifiedoranges 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Complain to whom? The people who order the police to do this? You're out of touch with reality.

[+]SwordfshII -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Actually with borders your rights are: let then search things they want to search or don't enter the country

[–]WhyYouAreSoStupid 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Totalitarian governments love pushovers like you. And, Border Patrol checkpoints can exist anywhere within 200 miles of the borders.

[+]SwordfshII -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Those are the rules. Follow them or don't leave/enter a country

[–]fuckspeciesism10 points 11 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

So George Washington should have left the colonies because he didn't like the King's laws? You're a coward.

[–]SwordfshII -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and that bears no correlation to today.

[–]fuckspeciesism1 points 11 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Sure it does. You're saying that people shouldn't challenge unjust laws. You're a coward.

Follow them or don't leave/enter a country

[–]SwordfshII -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I have served my country. Have you? Guess you are a coward

Just because you feel something is unjust, doesn't make it so. Talk to me when you have actually done something for this country other than just complain, coward

[–]fuckspeciesism2 points 11 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

So during the revolutionary war, you would have been loyal to the king and killed your fellow Americans for violating British laws they felt were unjust? That's pretty scummy.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." -Albert Einstein

Talk to me when you have actually done something

The fallacy you just attempted is called a Tu Quoque fallacy. You tried to distract from the issue by criticizing someone else (who you know nothing about, btw).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

You know what else is cowardly? Invading a country that doesn't belong to you, and using drones and scoped weapons to kill people from a safe distance. That's the definition of cowardice lol

I stand by my previous statement. You're a coward who is too afraid to ever stand up to authority figures.

[–]thebabbster 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hilarious you're getting downvoted by people still stuck in their teenaged rebellion years.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Jesus. Don't implode your lungs as you copsuck with all that force. Get an education before you say dumb shit like this.

[–]SwordfshII -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have multiple degrees. If you had an education your writing might not be so bad

[–]MiCK_GaSM 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She acted like that because her legal rights were being violated and her time was being wasted by charge-hungry LEOs.

After being told by officers that K-9 units would be there in a few short minutes, they did not arrive until an hour later, when they would find nothing inside or outside of her vehicle

Ms. Cooke, who exhibited visible scrapes and bruises on her upper back, foot, hands and elbows on Friday, said she was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car where she waited for an hour for a K-9 unit to arrive.

During an exterior inspection of her vehicle by the unit, nothing was found, Ms. Cooke said. She said agents then opened the car doors, got her keys and opened the trunk.

Again, nothing was found, Ms. Cooke said, adding that agents did a second search of the vehicle with the K-9 unit, but found nothing.

[–]q_-_p[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nothing was found, and come on son, really? "Why didn't she just submit to a search if she had nothing to hide..." oh man, that's not freedom.

[–]YellowBrickChode 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

While crossing borders you have to waive some of that hippy freedom bullshit.

[–]q_-_p[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agree to a point, but this doesn't change what happened here, so while true, it's different, it doesn't excuse this instance at all. Hopefully there will be some outcome to this, then I'll start another thread and invite you to comment.

[–]bathrobeheroSexualTyranis -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is not PPD by any means because a male could have been just as much of a cunt as the woman in the video. With that said, the border patrol was in the green here; they didn't detain her, she was free to leave but a K9 unit was inbound to inspect her car.

What rights she was standing up to? None of her rights were violated;

At border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.

That's what you get if you undermine the authority of border patrol and tease them at every chance you get. She was asked multiple times to move but she thought the world was spinning around her and decided not to move.

[–]q_-_p[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She was asked multiple times to move

Go get the transcript of the recording and post it all, then bold all the orders she was given, then write out to me explaining each one, count them, and tell me how many times, QUANTIFY how many times she was told to move, where and how, and if they were conflicting.

[–]q_-_p[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She was told she was detained, then not, told she could go anywhere, then immediately he strode towards her and told her to back away, this was baiting her. It's illegal to make someone wait an hour for a k9 unit, there's a whole thing about this.

They were being assholes and bullies, and they made mistakes and when they verdict comes in, we'll have another conversation.

[–]Hazzman -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This subreddit is rife with folks who just plain don't like women.

I am 100% entertained by the original intent of this subreddit. Women who overstep their socially obligated bounds because they think they get away with it based purely on their gender... but I often see videos and comments that have nothing to do with this and are just examples of abuse.

I find myself hovering over the unsubscribe button at least once a week.

[–]q_-_p[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

who just plain don't like women.

I don't doubt that, but I am more astonished that it's people who seem to genuinely to understand how how police work... I mean, this is a NWO wet dream, citizens that cheer on the police as they taze non-compliant citizens who won't be ordered around.

[–]ghastlyactions -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with your interpretation of events. She disobeyed a lawful order and escalated the situation. That's not defending your rights... she had no right to refuse his order.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

she had no right to refuse his order

Want to bet 20 bucks that she gets a civil settlement because you are wrong?

[–]q_-_p[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She disobeyed a lawful order

Which order?

Go where you want? In the car? Walk anywhere?

There was no lawful order, he she could do what she wants, go to the car, go away from the car, he approached her, she was standing where she was always standing, that doesn't constitute a lawful order.

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because IT's a woman, and women are always, implicitly or explicitly, trying to use their PP. The sooner you learn that, the better.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter