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

LiveLeak.com - Woman tased by border patrol after resisting order to move.

finmo

May 10, 2015
27 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=d04_1431113228
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 LiveLeak.com - Woman tased by border patrol after resisting order to move.
Author

finmo

Upvotes 27
Comments 176
Date May 10, 2015 6:29 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/35gxzz/liveleakcom_woman_tased_by_border_patrol_after/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/liveleakcom-woman-tased-by-border-patrol-after.960749
https://theredarchive.com/post/960749
Top posts by finmo

Spoiled, entitled chick throws a hissy fit

716 upvotes
May 7, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

PPD while trying to sneak past cop.

140 upvotes
February 8, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Compilation video. Some are PPD. Some are not. Some are reposts. Some are new.

73 upvotes
May 12, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

Ellen Pao must pay Kleiner $276k in legal costs : news.

28 upvotes
June 18, 2015
/r/PussyPassDenied

Drunk Karen slaps cop and has PPD

9 upvotes
April 30, 2020
/r/PussyPassDenied

She wants to butt in line

7 upvotes
August 16, 2020
/r/PussyPassDenied

Comments

[–]evohanstwoxchromosomes ex-developer 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Here's an article with more information.

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

lets post that face to /r/punchablefaces

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

or even r/fatpeoplehate

[–]dutchie1966 33 points34 points35 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The police used the wrong weapon. I guess the harpoon was in the shop.

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

Nice work.

[–]philter451 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

OP I'm all for a good PPD video but this isn't one of them. Not once did she say or do anything unreasonable. She is being detained unduly and they are holding her for "nervousness?". They could barely get those worda out with a straight face. Could have been a female, a male, or a donkey in that video if you take the voice away and just saw the transcript of what happened and the video on mute. That dude assaulted her and detained her when he had no right to. Fuck border patrol and fuck that guy in particular.

[–]finmo[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You maybe right. This video seems to be polarizing. The opinion on it seem to be split. I will agree that this isn't a pure PP video though.

[–]burning_space_sphere 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The videos fine. Pussy pass denied is ultimately about women not being treated like special snowflakes or given special circumstances because they're women. Anything happening to women is basically qualifying for this subreddit. Frankly I think the screaming and trying to justify assaulting an officer because "You pushed me" and "are you fucking retarded" definitely came from something other than her civil liberties.

Anybody telling you otherwise is butthurt over the video.

[–]philter451 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One of the reasons I love this sub is that it levels the playing field and demands equality. If feminism is wrong because it prefers the female then relishing in watching a video of a female being detained and assaulted for asserting her rights is baffling to me. It reminds me of the video I watched on this same sub of a women being arrested for being intoxicated in a restaurant (ihop I think?) And her shitlord white knight trying to rally the denizens of that restaurant to her defense. She was a shit person and broke laws and expected preferential treatment because of her xx chromosomes. This lady said nothing of the sort. She defended her rights that are supposed to be unalienable for all humans and did it without the use or mention of anything regarding her sexuality. There isnt a shred of PPD to be found here in my mind.

[–]jhr7887 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not pure PP but it is a "I am getting a degree in Criminal Justice and think I know everything so I escalated a situation where If I had just done what they asked I could have left." She knew she didn't have drugs, so if she just let them do the search they were obviously going to do this would not have happened. Somehow yelling at cops and being beligerent never works out well.

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

It was a shit post, OP. A swing and a miss. Just accept it and move on. Better luck with your next submission.

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

I was my first. I'll work on it.

[–]Deadskull86 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Wasn't there a supreme court case that was about officers keeping a person detained until a dog was available to search the vehicle and it was found unlawfull

[–]philter451 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You know I thought the precedent was set by that case but I have other people telling me that being detained is within the rights of border patrol.

[–]Deadskull86 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's really scary if you think about it. I wouldn't have anything illegal in my car but having them stop me for being nervous is crazy. I just always get nervous with cops I know I've done nothing wrong but I guess I see to many cops gone bad videos

[–]jhr7887 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Officers must get the dog there in a "reasonable amount of time." Usually ab an hour depending on some factors.

[–]Deadskull86 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

An hour seems a bit to much during that time the person isn't free to leave so that time the person is there are they considered to be detained?

[–]jhr7887 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Actually you are right, the law was recently changed in the case of Rodriguez v. US. This case appear to have overturned the holding in Illinois v. Caballes linked here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/543/405.html

Personally glad they changed this law as I believe your point about being detained is correct as it is not in line with the spirit or letter of the 4th amendment.

[–]Deadskull86 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad they did too.

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

The video is PPD material. She is wrong.

[–]philter451 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good argument

[–]jimbles115 points 11 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't get why this is PPD. Gender had nothing to do with this other than it happened to be a girl getting tased.

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

I might get down voted for saying this... But I really don't think a male would push back a federal officer after he repeatedly told her to move... We know since very young if you push back you get knocked out (at least punched)... Not the way ladies are raised.... At least this on learned

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

Personally, I think the screaming bloody murder and crying like a damn child qualify as an attempted pussy pass. Much like you never hear men screaming "STAAHHP" when a fight breaks out, you never hear men making noises like this bitch when being tazed or generally subdued. It's an attempt to draw attention and/or guilt the agents because of her gender. Just my opinion, anyways.

[–]greatslyfer 36 points37 points38 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

How is this PPD?

Could be a male jackass and have the same result.

[–]Golgon3 30 points31 points32 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Isn't that how PPD works? She acted like an Asshole, and got dealt with like an Asshole, instead of being catered to because she has breasts.

[–]greatslyfer 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There are countless videos showing idiots (both male and female) who act out of order when confronted with police.

And no, in this video there wasn't one moment where she said or referenced her gender as a tool to change how the officers dealt with her.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Nahhh she may be just a spoilt brat, so we can't really say that she's abusing her gender.

[–]PM-ME-SMILES-PLZ 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Either you didn't watch the video or you don't understand how PPD works. PPD is when a woman is acting entitled - either by behaving erratically or hitting someone or throwing a tantrum etc. - because she thinks the the very nature of her being a female makes her immune from punishment or entitled to certain privileges. It's pretty obvious why she was upset. She was being detained and she was not being told why. THAT is why she was upset. It appears as though they were in violation of her 4th Amendment right under the Constitution. She wasn't upset because she thought she deserved to be treated differently as a woman. She wanted to be treated fairly, as an AMERICAN. This is not PPD at all.

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

thank you. up vote

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

Seems to me there was recently a law passed that makes it illegal to hold someone to wait for a K9 unit...

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

The Supreme Court ruled it is illegal for the police to detain people without probable cause to wait for a K-9 unit. But, border patrol are not the same as the police, and they are held to different standards when it comes to probable cause for whatever reason. Not taking a side or saying they were right or wrong, but I don't believe the recent SCOTUS ruling pertains to the situation.

[–]5dollaftlong 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are federal. You wouldn't try that with fbi

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

this video infuriates me

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

Just hearing her annoying voice is enough to drive me insane. I hate people like this.

[–]MiCK_GaSM18 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

This isn't PPD, this is a violation of civil rights. They attempted to illegally detain a law student while waiting for drug dogs to show up (which found nothing when they finally did), and when she let them know that she knew her rights and wouldn't stand for it, they assaulted her.

I hope this girl gets a nice award from this.

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

Shes not getting shit, She admitted to assaulting the officer. I agree everything in this video was beyond suspect but her deliberate actions in the end were what caused her to be zapped. The cop escalated all of this but striking/attempt to on the officer isn't justified.

Also she was not illegally detained, Border patrol is allowed to stop anybody they want and search the vehicle. After the events if its true( and again her own words say she did it) she assaulted the officer and then actually became detained.

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

If she gets anything, it won't be at the cost of the person who committed the actions, but the tax payers which I can't really see that as an ideal outcome either way. Also, they weren't detaining her illegally. The border patrol are held to different standards than normal police. They don't have to have probable cause to stop and search vehicles. I'm not saying that makes what happened right, but they were fully within their bounds legally to stop her and search her car regardless.

Edit: a link that someone else posted with more information on border patrols obligation in regards to the fourth amendment. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

[–]I_HATE_GOLD_ 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

She sounds like a heavy person

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

Muh liberties

[–]That_One_Reference 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

did you not see the shadow? she's a fatty

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

Shes not a heavy person shes an entire ham planet.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=WD&Date=20150509&Category=NEWS05&ArtNo=150508584&Ref=EP&NewTbl=1&item=1&maxw=610&maxh=460

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

"you fucking tazed me you fucking asshole"...in fucking tears.

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

AM I BEING DETAINED

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

OK, so she was "nervous-looking," and they got a search dog out there and searched her vehicle, so WHAT CONTRABAND WAS DISCOVERED? Obviously they wouldn't seize her vehicle unless they has reasonable suspicion that it held contraband, so let's see the list of contraband seized in the operation.

No contraband, no reasonableness to the suspicion, yet they seemed so certain. Is it possible that they were just hoping that she had a large sum of cash in her luggage that they could seize under Asset Forfeiture laws and then spend on a sweet new breakroom TV set?

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

Border Patrol doesn't require reasonable suspecion of probable cause to search a vehicle. Not saying they were in the right when they used force against her because we can't see what actually happened, but they were within their legal bounds to stop her and search her car. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

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

Looking 'nervous' is not a fucking reason to detain somebody.

As an anxiety sufferer, this is my worst fucking nightmare.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I'll enjoy watching her get a large settlement while you pro-authoritarian copsuckers suck each other off over a woman having her rights violated.

[+]Kapusta_Jebana -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Guys... I've found the Feminazi

[–]SippyCup090 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You do realize he has a point right? This woman did nothing wrong the only explanation those officers gave was that she "looked nervous".

She will sue, and she will win. This was nothing more than a case of police brutality.

[–]TheBlueEdition 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Guess it's time you hit the research and good ole google. They are allowed to search your car at the boarder, without probable cause.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

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

As the other poster mentioned, they didn't detain her illegally. Border patrol do not need probable cause to stop and search vehicles and they told her she was free to leave before the real confrontation took place. I'm not saying they were right in their actions as far as tazing her because I simply don't know based on what we can actually see in the video. But her case is not quite the slam dunk you seem to believe it is.

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

Same as what the other guy said, and she even admitted to assaulting the officer. She will lose.

[–]SippyCup090 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Damn dude what a worth while response to a 5 day old thread. you contributed quite a lot.

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

Same to you too.

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

Grabs Fedora

Steadies aim

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

Hate to tell you this dumbass but nobody's rights were violated.

[–]SippyCup090 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

??? Did you not listen to the video? She was being detained against her will. The female officer refused to give her an explanation on why she was being detained beyond "you looked nervous". You can't fucking detain someone based on your perceived opinion on their current emotional status. Are you fucking retarded?

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

Did you listen to it? They clearly said she wasn't detained and could walk away, stop spitting bullshit.

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

The woman wasn't being detained. She was free to go or wait along with her vehicle as stated several times by the male supervisor.

[–]SippyCup090 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Why am I being detained?" "You looked nervous"

You're getting into semantics for the sake of it bro.

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

The officer knew what she meant and was answering her, and then goes on to clarify for her. And I'm not getting into semantics- your comment that I originally responded to revolves around the notion she was detained, which is why I was commenting to the fact she wasn't.

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

For someone who apparently was pursuing a degree in criminal justice, she must've slept through the class where they learned that border patrol can stop you and search your car for any reason.

The female officer refused to give her an explanation on why she was being detained beyond "you looked nervous".

And both the officers mention having explained it already/multiple times. Maybe the video is conveniently cut which hilariously seems to happen a lot in the police brutality videos.

You can't fucking detain someone based on your perceived opinion on their current emotional status

Jokes on you, border patrol sure can.

Are you fucking retarded?

No but she was when she assaulted the officer and gave them an actual reason to detain her.

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

You calling other people dumb is pretty funny.

[–]SippyCup090 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

What in the fuck. How is this a PPD? Let alone anything more than a huge over step of the law and clear police brutality?

The female cop said she was being stopped because she looked nervous? Being nervous is now a crime in the United States?

Those people had no authority or reason to stop that woman and hold her. They refused to give her a reason for why she couldn't leave and then tased her???

This is fucking disgusting.

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

Those people had no authority or reason to stop that woman

I know I responded to you up there, but I just want to point out again that this is false. Legally they were within their rights to stop her and search her car. They don't require probable cause to do so. They also told her she was free to walk away before the confrontation, but that they would keep her car until their search was complete. Again, I'm not saying they were right to use force against her, but it isn't quite as black and white legally speaking as youre attempting to make it.

[+]finmo[S] -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

It seemed to me that it fit in with PPD. She seemed like she was entitled and was going to tell the cops exactly what was going to happen and they put her in her place. Am I wrong?

[–]SippyCup090 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

seemed like he/she was entitled

Being entitled has nothing to do with gender.

Again. She was within her rights to tell them what was going to happen. She was being wrongfully detained. You're fucking stupid.

[+]finmo[S] -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Try that out with a cop and let me know how that goes for you. They lawfully detained her and then interfered with a peace officer. She was certainly not within her rights to obstruct the police. Now she has a case.

You belong in /r/whitekniting. Good day.

[–]SippyCup090 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Try that out with a cop and let me know how that goes for you

And this is why were constantly seeing police brutality and over stepping of the law on an almost weekly basis. People who think its okay to roll over and just accept that they're going to get fucked.

How was she not within her rights? Law officers are NOT allowed to detain people while they wait for a k9 unit. it is illegal. They refused to give her a reason for why they were detaining her beyond "you looked nervous".

How the fuck am I white knighting for stating facts? Are you this delusional and dense?

[–]Phaedrus0230 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Props Bro. The ignorance in this thread scares me.

This video was a standard recording of a US Citizen attempting to protect her rights and being mistreated by LEOs.

[–]SippyCup090 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You would think I'm advocating murdering cops when they pull you over for speeding with some of these responses.

I just think people should know their rights and not let law officers do what ever they want simply to avoid a "minor inconvenience".

It's like wtf? Don't let them search your car just because "you have nothing to hide so you're not afraid".

[–]Phaedrus0230 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

The cops told her both that she was being detained and that she was free to go. I was blown away by that. (He changed his mind once he realized that the only thing they had to charge her with was "Nervousness") I was really surprised to see them detaining her car but not her. I was unaware of any law allowing for that.

She really should have walked away the moment the officer said she could and immediately called 911 rather than threatening to call in 20 minutes. Hopefully a legitimate supervisor would know the constitution and recognize that they had no right to detain her vehicle.

Even better, had they found drugs or something, the evidence would be inadmissible in court. In Rodriguez v. United States, the Supreme Court overturned a conviction (where meth was found) because the officer detained him to wait for a K9 Unit without reasonable suspicion.

It's honestly sad to see the reaction you're getting to teaching people their rights. I'm not bothering to comment on some of the idiotic falsehoods in this thread because it just upsets me. Keep fighting the good fight.

[–]Mahlegos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully a legitimate supervisor would know the constitution and recognize that they had no right to detain her vehicle.

Ok, you spoke of ignorance in this thread but then go on to exhibit some of your own. Border Patrol Agents do not require probable cause to search vehicles. They are held to different standards than other LEOs and I don't believe the case you cited pertains to them. They can detain a vehicle without probable cause or reasonable suspecion until it has been thoroughly searched and cleared of contraband*. I'm not saying they were in morally right, or that their use of force was justified (we can't really see what actually happens in the video with regards to that) but legally they are within their bounds to stop her and search her vehicle for no other reason than they wanted to.

*edit: source http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

[–]Phaedrus0230 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I stand corrected... I was doing some further research on this earlier and what I was found was quite unsettling. This can be applied to any location within 100 miles of our borders, which covers 2/3 of American citizens. The constitution is ignored... which should invalidate the the asset forfeiture laws under the 5th amendment.

[+]finmo[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

She wasn't detained. She had every right to leave, every opportunity to leave, and was ultimately ordered to leave and she refused. You might not like it but you don't have a right to drive and you don't have fettered access to the roads.

She was fucking with the cops, not the other way around. They didn't drag her out of her car and shoot her. She walked up to two cops, started running her mouth and got shut down.

The world isn't out to get you. Turn off the Fox News every once in a while.

Reality hits you hard bro.

[–]SippyCup090 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You obviously didn't watch the video and just want to argue. You're delusional as fuck.

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

I did watch the video, both before I posted it and several time since. Where have I been factually inaccurate? I think we have a difference of opinion, which is fine, but we don't have a difference of fact.

They asked her to leave them alone. She wouldn't. She got taxed. Those are facts which aren't in dispute.

Since they didn't find anything in her car they may not prosecute her for interference with a police officer, assaulting law enforcement, and refusing a lawful order.

Relax buddy, it is just a video, she isn't your sister.

[–]bathrobeheroSexualTyranis 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

I don't get why some Americans like to tease law enforcement. Just comply and shut the fuck up. Why would you tease them and keep disagreeing with them at every point of the conversation like it was a sport?

[–]Acosmist 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Just comply and shut the fuck up."

Wow. That was an actual thing you said.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She talked (screeched) her way into trouble, what bathrobehero said makes PERFECT sense. There are legal recourses available if you've been wronged but not complying and pissing a cop off in a situation where he's in control is plain dumb.

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

People are not being raped by border patrol, they are doing their job and it would be easier and faster for everyone if certain people wouldn't act like the world is spinning around them.

[–]SippyCup090 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Did you even watch the video or read the news article? Those border patrol officers were so in the wrong it's unreal. They offered her no explanation for why she was being detained beyond "you looked nervous" That isn't a fucking legitimate reason to hold someone against their will.

I hope this case does make it to the supreme court and both these idiots lose their jobs. This woman did nothing wrong.

[–]Jesus_marley 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They offered her no explanation for why she was being detained beyond "you looked nervous" That isn't a fucking legitimate reason to hold someone against their will.

They told her she was free to go. The vehicle was detained pending a K9 search. Border patrol is specifically trained to watch for behaviours that may betray an illegal act and have the authority to detain and search property based upon those suspicions.

As with most encounters like this, law enforcement has a responsibility to maintain control of a situation. That is why they have the authority to issue orders. The orders he gave to her were lawful, even if she didn't like being told what to do. In refusing to obey the order she was given she escalated the situation. She moved from "cooperative" to "passive resistant". The officer then responded with soft open hand guidance and she then escalated again to active resistance, which is then responded to with control tactics and intermediate compliance tools. As soon as she was brought under control, the officers stopped using force on her.

What could have been a simple routine annoyance, and administrative complaint after the fact, then became an hours long detainment and struggle because of her pride.

[+]SippyCup090 -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Except that it is now illegal for any officer of the law to detain a person while they wait for a k9 unit.

Her property is part of her persons. What they did was illegal, the tasering was uncalled for and brutality.

This woman will sue, and she will easily win.

[–]burning_space_sphere 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except that it is now illegal for any officer of the law to detain a person while they wait for a k9 unit.

Did you miss the part where they said shes free to leave? That she could walk or call a friend. Shes not detained, her vehicle is, pending the search. She got detained because her dumb ass decided to swing at an officer.

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

Don't you get it? It's all about common sense and less about right or wrong - at that point in time the cops had control. She needed to comply. For her own sake.

[–]SippyCup090 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't you get it? If everyone just says "meh, okay you win I'll sit here and do nothing" It becomes the same thing the Nazi's did in Germany. Once everyone stops caring and lets the police do what ever they want were all fucked.

You have rights for a reason. Stand up for them.

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

No if you fight cops on the spot all you get is tased or worse. If there's a systemic rot it needs to be tackled in an organized way. Random people getting their asses busted won't help anything. If you need to fight, fight smart.

[–]nouveaugosse 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't get why some Americans like to tease law enforcement. Just comply and shut the fuck up.

Yeah, I think Ben Franklin said some shit like that.. /s

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

Some of you really have an unhealthy obsession with your (illusion of) freedom and try to apply it to anything - even against your laws. Maybe they have tasers to offset the vast overestimation of freedom.

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

The trouble is is that searches like this are a violation of our 4th amendment. That's not an illusion. It's written in the Bill of Rights which is part of our rule of law.

Even though this woman is an annoying fat cunt, and yes she could have handled it better, she is still ultimately in the right.

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

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.

You can't be seriously believing that you really have all the freedom you want and that everyone else also having that could ever be sustained.

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

That's nice....she wasn't crossing a border. I don't "[believe] that [I] really have all the freedom [I] want and that everyone else also having that could ever be sustained". I do believe though that the freedoms granted to me as a US citizen by the constitution and Bill of Rights are quite sustainable. If you're not American I don't expect you to be able to wrap your mind around the freedoms we have in the USA, most of the world just doesn't get it.

You're vacillating on your original statement by the way. You said "Just comply and shut the fuck up." So now you at least concede that within our borders we don't have to "Just comply and shut the fuck up"?

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

Border patrol checkpoints can be considered functional equivalents to the border and therefore the forth amendment doesn't protect you in this situation. They have been granted the ability to stop and search anyone with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion by various courts. Apparently the woman also admits to assaulting the officer as well, though she tries to justify it by saying she only did it because he put his hands on her first. In not saying it's a good thing our rights can be bypassed in this way, but that's the way it currently is. In the end, she would have been far better off complying than trying to fight them then and there even if she did feel they were in the wrong.

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

David Eckert complied, and was rewarded with several cavity searches for drugs he knew he didn't have. I'm sure he wishes he'd resisted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/david-eckert-enema-colonoscopy-drugs-traffic-stop_n_4218320.html

Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found.

Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

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

Of course there are extremes on both sides. I was talking about the vast majority of cases.

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

Both stop-and-frisk, and civil forfeiture are common activity for police departments, and both are considered by many to be an overreach of police power that violates basic protections listed in the constitution.

[–]Phaedrus0230 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Umm... because we like being free and not having our rights violated. That's kinda the premise of our country.

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

Yeah, except you're not free against the law and many other things.

[–]Phaedrus0230 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Correct, and if the officer knew the law this video wouldn't be here. The woman knew the law and was rightfully outraged by the officer's unlawful seizure of her property.

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

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

The woman didn't know that Border Patrol have the right to search a vehicle with no probable cause or resonable suspension. She may have been rightfully outraged that they are allowed to do this, but it was a still lawful search of her property according to the guidelines currently in place.

[–]philter451 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

"Just do what the people with power say and Dont talk back regardless of whether they are breaking laws."

If cops pulled you over at a DUI checkpoint and then told you they needed to search your car cause they smelled alcohol and stole your laptop out of your car never to be seen again because it is "evidence" would you still be saying that ignorant line?

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

What kind of bullshit example is that? Why do you guys always just see the rarest and most extreme case and pretend that's always happens? For your wicked story there are thousands others that are going down without any issues.

[–]philter451 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Once again if you were the thousandth person it happened to would you really still be trying to justify it? Would you say "oh you know I guess it was just a stroke of bad luck that I got tackled and tazed," or "had my property stolen."

I grew up in the south. I witnessed firsthand what corruption in a police force can look like. Look up the investigations on the auburn Alabama police force and their sudden increase of issuance of bullshit tickets to increase revenue. I was there at the city hall meetings when townspeople were trying to put a stop to it. I was there with my friend who was south american and got stopped and frisked. He was searched while the three white people he was with were not. The officer would not answer our questions as to why except to say he looked "unstable on his feet."

In my young age I should have stood up for him but my friends and I sat there dumbfounded and he grimaced and accepted what happened but just kept saying "what are you searching me for?!"

I wish I had the courage that this woman had and all others who look at our laws and expect our law enforcement to obey those very laws.

But please explain your position. I honestly want to know why you think this officer was in the right? If you can explain it to me with any real evidence or convincing argument I will gladly agree with you. I'm not above being persuaded in the presence of logic or fact.

My premise is that it was wrong of them to detain her without reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime and then following that with assaulting her; both of which are against the law. What is your position in defense of these actions?

[–]Mahlegos 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

My premise is that it was wrong of them to detain her without reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime and then following that with assaulting her; both of which are against the law. What is your position in defense of these actions?

Not the guy you were replying to, but I'll answer you anyway. Border Partrol are not held to the same standards with regards to the fourth amendment as other LEO's. They do not require probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop and search a vehicle and they didn't detain her person intiially as evidenced in the video. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

Now, I can't claim to know if they were right to taze her as we can't actually see what happened and how she physically reacted in the video but he gave her a lawful order "step over there out of the way" and she refused which escalated the situation from a simple stop and search into something more confrontational. At that point it becomes a discussion of discretion and you nor I are qualified to say they were wrong or right to use force against her because we simply do not know what actually happened. I do not expect you to agree with me, but this case is not nearly a clear cut case of police abusing their power as you and others seem to believe.

[–]burning_space_sphere 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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!!!!!

Via herself on facebook. That is why she was tazed and why she was detained.

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

Well there you have it. She has no case at all.

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

The only thing that happened throughout the entire ordeal that had any legal merit was when he told her to move away away from him. Whether "please move" is a lawful order is greatly debated. Every other occurrence in this video is normal operations and nothing dubious happened at all. Even under the circumstance that being asked to move away was not a lawful order, they will just declare it obstruction of justice when the k9 unit arrives. Its unfortunate this whole event played out the way it did but she made a mountain out of a molehill and as somebody who was majoring in criminal justice its beyond embarrassing the way she acted. To top it all off she threatens to sue, has all this great material and even a foundation to argue that she was shoved and manhandled on the basis of an unlawful order; THEN SHES GOES AND HITS THE OFFICER.

What a fucking retard. I'm sorry for her and the officer but this shit deserves to be on pussy pass denied because this cow lives in some fantasy land where she could get away with assaulting an officer and then wonders if hes retarded for zapping her. Maybe she was performing some deep introspection when she cried that out.

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

100% agree

[–]philter451 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It was my understanding that border patrol has less power not more. Is this incorrect? Under what authority can they stop and search? I don't mind your answer but what are you basing this on?

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

Not to be an ass, but did you miss the link posted? I'm not sure why you're asking what I based my statement on, because I already provided a source. It explains the exception to the fourth amendment that has been granted to BP that allows them to stop and search people without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. This is a power that other LEOs don't posses.

[–]Dionysus24779 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, I'm siding with the woman on this. There was absolutely no reason to escalate this into violence at all and tazer someone.

With stuff like this who can blame the woman for being "nervous" when she's stopped and detained?

And before someone says "She should've cooperated!"... yeah maybe she should have, but that's still no reason to go psycho on her.

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

Yeah - remind me NOT to get tasered.

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

I can hear the fat radiating off this Obeast. Yup....just followed the link..fatty fatterson.

[–]Wargame4life 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Out of interest if you had beef with the border agency and put poisoned doggy treats in your trunk, if they did a K9 search would the dog eat them? or are K9 dogs so well trained they only eat on command etc.

(im not planning on killing a dog im just curious if that would work)

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

She pushed the situation a little unnecessarily but those officers were way out of line. I hope she sues and wins.

[–]Alex_1404 -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand why people like this don't just comply. By resisting and making the search process more difficult, they just raise suspicion and encourage officers to use force and suspect illegal activity. It's this stupid woman's own fault she was tased. If she just went along with it, the whole ordeal would be over in 30 minutes, but now that she fucked everything up, there's probably going to be a whole legal process taking months.

Moral of the story, if you've got nothing to hide then don't act like you DO have something to hide.

[–]SippyCup090 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Moral of the story, if you've got nothing to hide then don't act like you DO have something to hide.

You're right, we should just all give up all of our rights and freely allow any officer of the law to search what ever they want of ours and do anything they want.

Are you fucking serious?

[–]skolrageous -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Suspicious isn't the right word. Sure, she's being a jerk, but these officers are detaining this woman against her will because they are waiting to use a dog as a horrible legal loophole into violating this woman's 4th Amendment rights. Somehow in our twisted legal system, this became ok. I'd be as pissed as she was. Once she starts making ultimatums, yeah, then she's being stupid because there's a good chance an American officer is going to respond with nonlethal force. Then there's all the extra charges she's going to face like resisting arrest and threatening an officer, blah blah blah. There was no probable cause for the officers to search her car so they detain her until the officers can get a tool that will look inside her car to see if the car contains the items they did not have the probable cause to search in the first place. Moral of the story- even if you've got nothing to hide, don't let your government illegally detain you to use a bullshit method of control. Also, don't be an asshole. Also also, don't ask the officer if "he's fucking retarded?" It will never help your case.

[–]Anaxamandrous -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They didn't detain her. She kept trying to argue that they had no right to detain her, but the male agent told her she could leave at any time. Only her car was going to stay, and that was because they had reasonable suspicion, due to her nervous behavior more than one agent witnessed, that she had something prohibited in the vehicle. Then, once she realized she could not bait an argument with them on the subject of their right to detain her (a right they may not have had but at any rate did not attempt to exercise) she changed tactics to try and make an argument about where she was allowed to stand.

I wish I had been there when this happened. I would have shouted in triumph when she got tazed, the annoying asshole.

The 4th Amendment does not go nearly as far with regard to vehicles as it does to homes. She behaved suspiciously at a border control checkpoint, and that is justification enough for them to hold her car for a drug dog.

[–]SippyCup090 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

ugh, hey idiot.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3281522/posts

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes.

Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive.

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” she ruled.

The case, Rodriguez v. United States, was brought by a man who was pulled over for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway. After the police pulled him over, checked his license and issued a warning for his erratic driving, the officer asked whether he could walk his drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle. The driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused. However, the officer nonetheless detained him for “seven or eight minutes” until a backup officer arrived with a dog of his own.

After sniffing around the car, the dog detected drugs, and Rodriguez was indicted for possessing methamphetamine. In all, the stop lasted less than 30 minutes.

According to the Supreme Court, though, that search of Rodriguez’s car was illegal, and the evidence gathered in it should not be used at trial. While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out....

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy disagreed with the ruling, arguing that police can reasonably detain people to investigate other possible violations of the law.

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

"ugh, hey idiot."

Sorry, not interested in reading further. If you think you can behave like grown-ups do, get back to me.

[–]SippyCup090 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right. Who wants to know their rights? Lets just stick our heads in the sand.

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

Agreed.

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

So the only change in argument I would have then is these officers attempted to illegally (and I say illegally knowing that full well it is "legal"- I just want to elucidate the point that a drug dug is a fucked up legal loophole to OUR 4th Amendment protections) detain her property and not her person. Still a fucked up turn of how our 4th Amendment has been interpreted.

 

If I had been there, I would have wept to see, once again, my constitutional rights get trampled while some yokel is cheering on some power trip asshole cop. You're right- the 4th Amendment doesn't go nearly as far with regard to vehicles as it does to homes. That's not a good thing... The protections these Amendments created were designed to secure the personal citizens' rights, and that's no longer the case. That's what I have issue with, and what ALL Americans should be concerned with. Yes, she did everything wrong when it came to interacting with this officer- doesn't mean she was wrong though.

 

NERVOUS BEHAVIOR IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE! You realize that is the threshold that was created by our constitution, right? Not a cop who is suspicious. That's the whole issue I have with this scene. There was no probable cause to detain her or her vehicle. We need to start fixing all of these extraneous powers we gave our police force over the years in the court system.

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

Border Partrol has different obligations than police in regards to the fourth amendment, they do not require probable cause or reasonable suspecion. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

[–]Alex_1404 -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Mate, there's just no need to cause a scene whenever an officer pulls you over. It's obviously for a reason. Officers are not bad guys. Sure there are a few that are, but the majority are there to protect the public. Put it this way, what do you have to lose by "giving up" (For lack of a better phrase) your rights for 5 minutes? I'd rather give up my rights than be tased, that's for sure.

I was in a situation when I was pulled over by a police officer about a month ago. He asked for my ID and I just gave it to him. Looked at it for about 5 seconds and said "You're not the person I'm looking for, have a nice day". Simple as that. Took me 3 minutes.

Did I feel violated? Fuck no! He's doing his job and people who resist simple checks waste their time, the officers time and other people's time. Maybe it's because I live in Australia and here, we aren't so keen to cling on to outdated amendments written over 200 years ago.

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

ARE YOU FRIGGIN KIDDING ME?!?! Clearly you're not American. I wouldn't want to give up my rights for one second. GIVE UP MY RIGHTS?!?!?! You realize how crazy that is, right?

 

I love how you feel like this Amendment that's a cornerstone of our freedom seems antiquated to you. I don't know, I like the police not having a right to unreasonable search and seizure. I guess that makes me weird? Screw it, let's take away people's freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, and all the other freedoms that were granted to us over 200 years ago because those are old and outdated. I'd rather live with this guy in a police state JUST because I can't be bothered.

[–]Anaxamandrous 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What about the Magna Carta? That damned thing was written much longer ago than the US Constitution. Probably we should void the Magna Carta, dissolve all governments save the monarchy, and restore unto the royals their divine right, the power of life and death over their subjects.

[–]Alex_1404 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Point taken and understood. Perhaps I should've worded my fix on the constitution more appropriately. Obviously not all amendments are outdated but some most definitely are in my opinion, specifically the ones about guns. However, I only feel that way since in Australia, there are very strict laws concerning guns they seem to work well but in the US, they do not.

Back to the video, I'll leave it at this. Citizens have all these rights and whatnot yet they use them to stand up against the police, which is a force designed to keep society orderly and functional. It's almost as if some of them feel that the police aren't needed and society would be better if everyone was free to do whatever they like. Well then let's remove every officer from service for just one day and see how that would end for everyone.

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

That's where we disagree. Police are a force to protect and serve- says so on almost all their cars. Police in America now are more about control and keeping an orderly society. That's the path to a police state, son, and no one should WANT to live a police state. Police are needed, they just don't deserve all the power they are garnering.

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

I definitely agree with your sentiments regarding the "fuck the police" crowd. I know some otherwise worthwhile people who still think anarchy is the best way to go. As I have told them, the closest they'll ever come to experiencing pure anarchy in public (where everyone can do whatever they want without anyone to make them follow any rules) is in the public restrooms. Somehow, to a person, they imagine that in real anarchy everyone would do right on their own, and that is just silly.

So yeah, this spoiled brat got what she had coming to her, I think. I am considering making her screams of rage and pain while being tased into a ringtone on my phone so I can enjoy them for a long time to come.

[–]MustakaThinks breakfast food is gay sex[M] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am considering making her screams of rage and pain while being tased into a ringtone on my phone so I can enjoy them for a long time to come.

Considering no. Doing yes. Then you will post here. That is an order soldier!!!!!

Signed Management

[–]SippyCup090 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd rather give up my rights

wow. You're actually fucking stupid.

You should never, ever give up your rights. Holy fuck I can't believe you believe this is acceptable.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's what the nazi told the Germans right before they took away all their rights.

[–]skolrageous 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's crazy how uninformed people seem to be about this! This is exactly what happened. Then the SS swooped in to keep things "orderly and functional." That clearly turned out to be a great idea...

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

It could be argued that she consented to the K-9 search when she said they have 20 minutes to get there.

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

She could have gone if she wanted to the supervisor said so himself. She couldn't leave with the car though

[–]SippyCup090 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You do realize they're not allowed to do that right?

Perhaps you should educate your self.

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

Why couldn't they do that? She could leave or stay that was her decision but if they were under the suspicion something was in the car why not detain the car until the k9 arrives. If the k9 arrives and hints at something being in the car then they will search it?

[–]SippyCup090 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They can't do that because it's illegal to do that.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/239513-court-rules-cops-cant-hold-suspects-to-wait-for-dog

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3281522/posts

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes.

Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive.

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” she ruled.

The case, Rodriguez v. United States, was brought by a man who was pulled over for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway. After the police pulled him over, checked his license and issued a warning for his erratic driving, the officer asked whether he could walk his drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle. The driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused. However, the officer nonetheless detained him for “seven or eight minutes” until a backup officer arrived with a dog of his own.

After sniffing around the car, the dog detected drugs, and Rodriguez was indicted for possessing methamphetamine. In all, the stop lasted less than 30 minutes.

According to the Supreme Court, though, that search of Rodriguez’s car was illegal, and the evidence gathered in it should not be used at trial. While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out....

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy disagreed with the ruling, arguing that police can reasonably detain people to investigate other possible violations of the law.

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

Ah I see then. I'm wrong, sorry.

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

It was big of you to say this, but you aren't wrong. The SCOTUS ruling pertains to police officers. Border Partrol =\= to the police and they are afforded different rules (whether or not they should be is a seperate conversation). They do not require probable cause or reasonable suspecion to search vehicles and have the right to hold them until they are searched and cleared of contraband. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

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

The US Supreme Court ruled this year that you cannot be detained for any period of time longer than it takes to resolve the issue you were initially contacted for in a traffic stop, without a reasonable suspicion that will hold up in a court of law. Among other things, this means you can't be held while they wait for drug dogs to show up, if there's no reasonable reason for doing so.

The article posted above in the comments states that the drug dogs arrived over an hour later, and found nothing illegal in the vehicle.

These guys messed up in detaining her for "looking nervous", and just piled it on from there. I hope a lot of people are made aware of and learn from it, because compliance without obligation is just submission.

[+]shadowchemos -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I don't care if it is or isn't gender related, the cunt was being a cunt and got her shit rocked, it brings a gentle warmth to my heart. Makes me wish I became a cop instead...

[–]SippyCup090 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

How was she being a cunt? She was being wrongfully detained. It's pretty obvious if you listen to the video instead of making fat jokes or calling her a cunt.

Those officers gave her no reason for why they were holding her beyond "you look nervous". That isn't a fucking reason to hold someone.

Get a fucking clue.

[+]shadowchemos -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Cops have enough problems to deal with, when some stupid fat piece of shit won't sit quietly and cooperate she gonna get rocked.

[–]SippyCup090 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

She was fully within in her rights to not sit quietly.

You're telling me if you get pulled over by police and they accuse you of something you're going to sit quietly and let them do what ever they want? Because fuck your rights?

[–]shadowchemos -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If I get pulled over, most of the time it's cuz I did something wrong. Using all the shit I've seen on the Internet it seems like a good idea to waste 10 minutes of my time instead of getting rocked. If u got nothing to hide, cooperate, they'll thank you for your time and send you on your way.

[–]SippyCup090 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a huge difference between getting pulled over while driving for what will most likely be speeding or a broken tail light, out of date inspection stickers, etc. You're obviously in a hugely different situation than what this woman was in.

She was stopped at a check point and then detained for "looking nervous"

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

If you cooperate, nothing will happen. Go pop your trunk let them take a look and you are on your way. I don't know why ppl like making everything so difficult, the cops are told to do a checkpoint spot, it's their job. You cooperate and you both get to go home without any fuss.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]shadowchemos -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lmfao

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Cops don't run into other cops.

[–]1III1I1II1III1I1II -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahahah. What an idiot.

[–]MustakaThinks breakfast food is gay sex -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ms. Cooke said, adding that she has already gone through the first phase of physical training in the entrance stages of applying to be a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent

That fatty has done no physical training whatsoever. She fucked her career totally for any form of LE regardless of whether the officers were right or not.

Stupid cunt served herself the denial.

[–]hortence1234 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Everyone is tough until that taser comes out! LOL!!!

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

I feel bad for her dog in the car - has to listen to her stupid owner scream like a pig and get traumatized. What is wrong with her? Is she fucking retarded?

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

3 minutes in, that sounded like a chorus of angels.

Well, that or a piggy squealing. One or the other.

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

To me it sounded like Goofy

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

Welp. While I agree the whole situation was escalated and unnecessary I sincerely doubt shes winning any court case.

by her own words

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!!!!!

There's obviously a struggle when shes moved to the car, could assume she tried to turn around or elbow him or some shit. But she admits it in her own words, welp. Good luck have fun.

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

Bwahaha! Dumb bitch. Guess that "law enforcement management degree" failed to teach her common sense!

[–]Diluxx -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I love these "I know my rights and I can do what I want" videos, these people don't seem to realize that regardless of the badge and the pledge to "serve the public" these are essentially a group of armed men. You have the rights they allow you have until you are safely away. I'm not saying thats right or ok but it is what it is.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Clearly you are not very acquainted with violence or you haven't been paying attention. When have you seen someone talk themselves past a checkpoint or out of a stop by quoting there rights? When have you seen serious disciplinary action taken against police for the offenses we are discussing? I don't agree with whats going on with our police force but I recognize it for what it is, in reality might still makes right so no matter how loud you quote the constitution or how well you know your rights those concepts don't help you against a half dozen Glock and Taser toting men. They are cruising around with prisoners who have a broken spine in the backseat, and shooting people who are running away and you are still daft enough to think knowing your rights is going to protect you in the middle of the situation. I bet you are going to try and tell me that border patrol and police are different organizations, but guess what the situations they create are as near as makes no difference, you will never talk your way past armed men or intimidate them into backing down by quoting the constitution, its time to grow up son.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

I am only just now realizing you have some sort of mental handicap, sorry I bothered.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Like I said I am not going to bother just look at your examples, you are clearly missing my point.

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

SCOTUS ruled that the police can't hold you for drug dog. This was border patrol, which are held to different standards (whether they should be is a different conversation). For example, they do not require any probable cause or reasonable suspecion to stop and search a vehicle for contraband and are free to hold said vehicle until the search is complete. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-officials-stop-question-search-travelers-the-us-border.html

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Yes, if you actually read through the link it mentions checkpoints and how they can be regarded as functional equivalents to the border and fall under the same rules. The fact also remains that the SCOTUS ruling applies only to police officers, not border patrol. I'm not saying it's morally right that they can do this, but chances are they were within their legal bounds to stop and search her vehicle based on the exemptions to the fourth amendment granted to them by various courts.

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

Whaaa! My rights! Ohhh my rights! Ohh my rights! Whaaa my rights! My rights! What whaaa! My rights ! Ohhh my rights! My pussy hurts! Oooh my rights! Waaaaa!

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