Canadian SF Author beaten and arrested at Border Crossing.

[gmacarthur81]

[quote="Cheeze_Pavilion]This wasn't a police stop though--this was a check at a border crossing. This was a case where the police should realize they are performing both an administrative as well as a criminal law enforcement role, and that the average person isn't going to assume they are seen as a criminal suspect unless the cops make clear to them that the "hi--do you have anything to declare" thing isn't going on anymore and the "put your hands where I can see them" thing is going on.[/quote]

The problem is that at the borders, normal procedures do not apply. For example, a cop can't just stop you and search your vehicle without probable cause, but they can on the border. The safest way to look at it is like this: If you are talking to Border Patrol and not a Customs Agent, and your car is being or about to be searched then you should treat the situation as a "put your hands where I can see them" thing.

Also, last time I checked, police officers anywhere, Canada, America, Britain, Australia, aren't going to let you stand there and yak away when they are telling you to get back into your car for very long before you are going to get cuffed. Disobeying an order from a police officer is a crime, period. Whether anyone likes it or not, that is how it is.

I know this much. If I was in a foreign non third world country, and a law enforcement officer was telling me to do something, I would be doing it with a "yes sir."

More than likely, this is going to blow over, his stuff will be released and he will get an apology. The cop will probably get a written warning placed in his jacket and that will be the end of it.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I would think, or hope, that the US-Canada border is not equivalent to a prison environment.

An isolated community where you are put in fear of your life every day?

How many border guards are killed on the US-Canada border? Perhaps that region is more volatile than I assumed, but you make it sound like the number is more than...one or two, which I would be surprised to hear was true.

 

[quiet_samurai]

I love how so many people here seem to think getting out a car and asking why you've been stopped is a reasonable cause for being beaten up and put in jail. It just shows you how shit things have gotten

I think it shows how *nasty* we've all gotten. You have to practically be a saint these days to get any sympathy.

It could have come down to him just being difficult. If you are told not to get out of the car and you do, then refuse to get back in, even though you are doing nothing threatening, it is still non compliance. Non compliance isn't worth a beating, but even refusing to put your hands behind your back or complying to an officer is a crime in itself which warrants arrest.

No it doesn't--not in a situation like this where the government has forced you without any reasonable suspicion to interact with law enforcement. I also want to know why my tax dollars were wasted arresting this person, *especially* if they are going to be wasted prosecuting him. That's money and resources the government could be using to go after deadbeat dads, serial rapists, or even, ironically, cop killers.

You don't have to make a fool of yourself and get violent to be regulated by law enforcement. I bet if he would have just let them do their thing he would have crossed without incident, even if it delayed his plans for the day for a while.

True, but irrelevant.

I have had my share of being dealt with by law enforcement, and each time I am polite and honest and don't have an attitude. Even though i have been arrested, I am very compliant, which makes the whole process that much more smooth and less painful. Law enforcement don't know what kind of person you are, for all they knew this guy was a violent psycho, not an author. The have set standards on how they treat people and can't afford to take the benefit of the doubt and just assume you are a good person. It might not seem very humane, but they aren't there to be our friends... they're there to enforce the law. And being in that line of work professionalism is the answer to being safe. And being a professional means not letting your guard down for an instant. Officers who have done so in the past have been both hurt or killed or the confrontation resulted in the suspect being hurt or killed. It's just how it is.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I would think, or hope, that the US-Canada border is not equivalent to a prison environment.

An isolated community where you are put in fear of your life every day?

How many border guards are killed on the US-Canada border? Perhaps that region is more volatile than I assumed, but you make it sound like the number is more than...one or two, which I would be surprised to hear was true.

You don't have to have any killings to be in fear of your life. Given they're working on a border where terrorists have crossed before (among drug-runners etc.) you can assume quite easily that they've had guns waived their way before. It's just part of the job.

 

[BonsaiK]

He was probably being a jerkoff.

I think you're being a bit of a jerkoff right now, so I am just as entitled as those cops to give you a beating?
Their job is to enforce the law, not go nuts at anybody who looks at them funny then lock them up for it, thats what a street thug does.

I wasn't saying it was justified. I was just saying - if you act arrogant to police, this is what happens.

The way you said it sounded like you were blaming the victim, like explaining why a girl was raped in terms of "she was probably being a slut..."

It doesn't matter if it's "not their job". If you go up to some cops and act like you're Mr. Important and give them a hard time while they're doing their jobs, there is good odds that they are going to mess with you. Is it justified? No. Is it professional behaviour? No. Is it going to happen anyway? More than likely.

The question is why: cops are hired with our tax dollars. Why is this kind of institutional behavior allowed to exist? You're right that in the end it's our fault for allowing this kind of culture to continue: instead of protesting the cops and calling for disciplinary action, people should go to the contract negotiations between the government and the police and focus their attention there: when you go after someone's money, they listen, and considering the police are employed by the government we elect and have no independent authority to fund themselves through taxes, well, it's really our fault for not demanding better.

Cops are human, that's all. Like any humans in a position of power, they are prone act in a corrupt manner at times. It's just human nature and no policy wrangling will completely fix it, there is no such thing as a squeaky clean police force anywhere in the world. When dealing with a cop, always assume that he will abuse his power if you give him a hard time, so that when he doesn't, you can be pleasantly surprised.

 

[LCP]

He must have done something. Maybe he got out of the car, which he should have known not to.

Serious question; what is it you do and don't do? I mean, what does getting out the car actually mean?

You are just not supposed to. Who know if the driver is armed and plans to open fire?

 

[BonsaiK]

The question is why: cops are hired with our tax dollars. Why is this kind of institutional behavior allowed to exist? You're right that in the end it's our fault for allowing this kind of culture to continue: instead of protesting the cops and calling for disciplinary action, people should go to the contract negotiations between the government and the police and focus their attention there: when you go after someone's money, they listen, and considering the police are employed by the government we elect and have no independent authority to fund themselves through taxes, well, it's really our fault for not demanding better.

Cops are human, that's all. Like any humans in a position of power, they are prone act in a corrupt manner at times. It's just human nature and no policy wrangling will completely fix it, there is no such thing as a squeaky clean police force anywhere in the world.

When did I say anything about trying to "completely fix it" or making them "squeaky clean"? Why do you believe that the kind of culture I'm talking about is such that there can be no significant institutional improvement without changing human nature?

Well, improvement would be nice wouldn't it. Hey if it can happen, great. I haven't encountered any specific examples where a corrupt police force has been effectively "cleaned up" to any extent, so maybe that's why I'm a bit jaded.

When dealing with a cop, always assume that he will abuse his power if you give him a hard time, so that when he doesn't, you can be pleasantly surprised.

Is that what cops really want though? Is that what they want us to think when we go vote on whether they should get a pay raise this year? My guess is they don't--they want us to think of them as brave and selfless individuals who put their life on the line for our safety. I don't think they want us to think of them as some sort of necessary evil that we should avoid at all costs.

Probably not, but that's how they are perceived. I don't go to a cop unless I have absolutely no choice in the matter. If cops want to be perceived differently, they can start acting differently. Some of course do, but many won't, so these problems will continue. The fact is that many police have a cowboyish attitude and feel that the short-term benefit of abusing their power outweighs the longer-term benefit of being perceived positively by the community.

 

[Terramax]

He must have done something. Maybe he got out of the car, which he should have known not to.

Serious question; what is it you do and don't do? I mean, what does getting out the car actually mean?

You are just not supposed to. Who know if the driver is armed and plans to open fire?

That is such a typical American way of thinking... ah, I get it now.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

When dealing with a cop, always assume that he will abuse his power if you give him a hard time, so that when he doesn't, you can be pleasantly surprised.

You are just not supposed to. Who know if the driver is armed and plans to open fire?

Both these views terrify me. Because what they suggest is that you're the perpetrator if the cop decides he doesn't like you.

That's so close to Judge Dredd I really don't want to think about it.

Fair enough, you're not supposed to make their tough job any shittier; but that doesn't give them Samurai right to pulverise you for the lulz.

 

[KhakiHat]

But lets remember, this all boils down to:

*Stay in the car
*STFU

Though I do agree, that punch may have been too much. What were they expecting, an Islamic suicide bomber? A gun would have had the same functional impact.

BUT then again, we Just had Ft. Hood.

God, I miss the cold war.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Lots of assumptions in this thread. The article is by the alleged perpetrator's friend. If I wrote an article about my friend getting arrested, regardless of whether or not he did anything wrong, it would look something like this.

For all we know the drug dogs went crazy and so they thought they were dealing with a drug smuggler.

Officers cannot assume a person is not dangerous. You are taught to assume everyone you pull over is armed and dangerous. Anything you do that makes the officer think you might be unstable and might be provoked into attacking, they WILL respond to. They have to. Every one of them knows someone who pulled someone over for a routine stop or search and was gunned down because of it.

The guy should have just sat in his damn car and waited for the search to complete. Its perfectly within their authority to search his vehicle.

That being said, it does sound like the officers over-reacted. But they didn't shoot him, they didn't tase him, they subdued him and probably used pepper-spray when he got belligerent. Clearly the guy (or at least his friends) believe that the US is some kind of police state, and with that mindset you're going to be easily provoked into contradicting an officer just because you feel they are evil.

Bottom line: When crossing a US border leave your politics at the door and just sit quiet until they've searched you. Bring up the legality of the search later if you want to.

 

[KhakiHat]

That's my point: change the cowboyish attitude. Whether through programs or incentives or disincentives or even just through attrition and better hiring/training/mentoring in future cohorts, change the culture.

The hard thing is that its that exact cowboy'ish attitude that attracts many to law enforcement. In the 1979 book Pressure Cooker, a survey was conducted which studied the types of individuals that took up high stress civil occupations such as Air Traffic Control (the book's main focus) and Law Enforcement. When compared to historical data and psychological analysis, the two jobs that the majority of these people WISHED they had were:

*Cowboy
*Old West Sheriff

Nowadays, the old west sheriff has been replaced by Special Ops and James Bond, but the same thing implies: they are attracted to the extension of power that has (more or less) the approval of a community. The best I think we can do is make them watch the Magnificent Seven and its predecessor the Seven Samurai OVER AND OVER UNTIL THEIR EYES BLEED.
(and careful parental training->another topic)

 

[LCP]

He must have done something. Maybe he got out of the car, which he should have known not to.

Serious question; what is it you do and don't do? I mean, what does getting out the car actually mean?

You are just not supposed to. Who know if the driver is armed and plans to open fire?

That is such a typical American way of thinking... ah, I get it now.

Hey, i've only lived here 4 years, and i can tell you, YOU JUST DON'T DO IT. Some people need to watch footage of bad situations in order to know why some rules exist, I do not know if the journalist was being cocky toward the cops and if he was, you just dont do that. You just dont.

I'm pretty sure camera footage can clarify this

BTW: i prefer to get my news from unbiased sources not friends of the accused

 

[magnuslion]

you are a guest and you dont have any fucking rights there.

I don't think that's true:

Verdugo-Urquidez also relies on a series of cases in which we have held that aliens enjoy certain constitutional rights. [494 U.S. 259, 271] See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 -212 (1982) (illegal aliens protected by Equal Protection Clause); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953) (resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment); Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945) (resident aliens have First Amendment rights); Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931) (Just Compensation Clause of Fifth Amendment); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (resident aliens entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886) (Fourteenth Amendment protects resident aliens). These cases, however, establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country. See, e. g., Plyler, supra, at 212 (The provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment "`are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction . . .'") (quoting Yick Wo, supra, at 369); Kwong Hai Chew, supra, at 596, n. 5("The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders") (quoting Bridges, supra, at 161 (concurring opinion) (emphasis added)).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=025251A

try pulling this shit in any other country and see what happens.

America is supposed to be the greatest country on earth: we can't take pride in being the torch of liberty to the world, and then when we do something wrong, fall back on saying 'but what about other countries' as if that insulates us from criticism.

Note: border crossings are not "within our borders" and do not qualify under this law. a border is a pseudo sovereign territory. and since no one thinks we are the greatest nation on earth and treats Americans like crap, we pretty much have to fall back on being the most powerfull nation in the world.