Border Patrol Agents Tase Woman For Refusing To Cooperate With Their Bogus Search
from the the-question-that-has-no-real-answer dept
Jessica Cooke, a New York native who had recently applied for a position with Customs and Border Protection, asked the only question that needed to be asked after being tased by CBP agents for asserting her rights: "What the fuck is wrong with you?!?"
Cooke was driving from Norfolk to her boyfriend's house in Ogdensburg, the northern border of which is the St. Lawrence River. If you cross the river, you are in Canada, but Cooke was not crossing the river. She nevertheless became subject to the arbitrary orders of CBP agents by driving through one of the country's many internal immigration checkpoints, which can be located anywhere within 100 miles of the border (a zone that includes two-thirds of the U.S. population). For some mysterious reason, she was instructed to pull into a secondary inspection area, where she used her cellphone to record a five-minute video of the stop (below). [Language possibly NSFW]
These CBP agents -- like too many other law enforcement officers -- had no idea how to react when their authority was challenged. They only saw one route to take: escalation.
Cooke knew the CBP agents needed something in the way of reasonable suspicion to continue to detain her. But they had nothing. The only thing offered in the way of explanation as they ordered her to return to her detained vehicle was that she appeared "nervous" during her prior interaction with the female CBP agent. This threadbare assertion of "reasonable suspicion" is law enforcement's blank check -- one it writes itself and cashes with impunity.
The CBP supervisor then stated he'd be bringing in a drug dog to search her vehicle -- another violation of Cooke's rights. The Supreme Court very recently ruled that law enforcement cannot unnecessarily prolong routine stops in order to perform additional searches unrelated to the stop's objective.
If the purpose of CBP is to secure borders and regulate immigration, then this stop had very little to do with the agency's objectives. Cooke is an American citizen and had not crossed a border. If the CBP's objective is to do whatever it wants within x number of miles of the border, then it's apparently free to perform suspicionless searches. In this case, the CBP was operating in drug enforcement mode, but even so, it still hadn't offered anything more than Cooke's alleged "nervousness" to justify the search and detainment. Additionally, the CBP's decision to bring in a drug dog raised the bar for justification.
While nervousness alone might be deemed enough for reasonable suspicion, SUNY Buffalo immigration law professor Rick Su told the local NPR station, "it is not sufficient" to justify a vehicle search, which requires probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.Things escalated when Cooke refused to return to her vehicle and wait passively for the CBP to perform its questionable search. Cooke told the officers she would leave if the search wasn't performed within 20 minutes. The supervisor told her she could leave, but her car couldn't and if she tried, spike strips would be deployed.
Shortly thereafter, this exchange occurred:
CBP agent: I'm going to tell you one more time, and then I'm going to move you.Cue said "touching," followed almost immediately by screams of pain and swearing as Cooke is tased. Before the recording end, you can hear the CBP agent claiming Cooke "assaulted a federal officer." (As one does…)
Cooke: If you touch me, I will sue your ass. Do you understand me?
CBP agent: Go for it.
Cooke: Touch me then.
CBP agent: Move over there.
Cooke: Go ahead. Touch me.
CBP agent: I'm telling you to move over there.
And for all the hassle, the CBP came up with nothing.
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.There will always be those who feel citizens who refuse to meet law enforcement instructions with anything but meek obedience deserve whatever happens to them. "It's tough being in law enforcement," they claim. And it is. But considering the job contains the constant threat of injury or death, a little mouthiness or stubbornness shouldn't be met with this level of force.
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.
Things are slowly changing, though. Law enforcement officers can no longer rely on the belief that citizens know less about their rights than they do. They will need to do more to justify searches and seizures in the future, instead of just making vague claims about perceived nervousness. Otherwise, their unconstitutional search attempts are either going to rely heavily on ensuring compliance through inapproriate use of force, or head to the other end of the spectrum, where they won't even get a chance to take a look. [Language possibly NSFW]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, border patrol, search, taser
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wrong again.
As long as the public foots any bill from civil right lawsuits and there are no consequences or drawbacks to the officers overstepping any line of reasonability, law enforcement officers will be able to continue doing searches and seizures without any rational justification.
Any right that can be breached without adverse consequences for the person breaching it is non-existent. The Fourth Amendment in particular is given the standing of a bad joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong again.
Or departments will see budget shortfalls due to lawsuit costs and seize stuff to cover the gap, whichever seems more likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least that is what the cops will say. This problem needs to be fixed at the root.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agonistes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Police are also civilians"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The police are paramilitary
If you like, we can just call all the non-law-enforcement civilians suspects. Including toddlers and infants.
That should resolve any semantics issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cops were aggressive? Where? You mustn't have watched the right video.
Cops were asses? As one would be when being confronted by an impatient aggressive confrontational person brandishing a video camera in their faces.
There's procedures to deal with these problems, and sticking a video camera in their faces and being a dick is not one of them.
I love how this site went from a tech site to a blindly anti-cop site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please elaborate...what should she have done?
- File a report, and let them investigate themselves? I can't imagine how that would work out...
- Let them defy the Supreme Court ruling, and just let us all know after the fact? So that folks like you can still defend their actions?
Please, please, please elaborate as to what else she could have done that would be more effective?
Because right now, I'm betting that she's lawyered up, and it's going to cost us taxpayers some money. And personally, I'm sick of paying for ham-fisted actions like this, that do nothing to improve public safety (try to remember that NO DRUGS were taken off the street, so we're not any more safe from the boogeyman than we were before).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides calling her a child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean that thing they wipe their asses with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So ... you advocate the tazing of five year olds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
She is a US Citizen, driving in the US. She is stopped at a security checkpoint (and I already hear echos of "papers please"...). They tell her to pull over and then just have her sit there (while they surreptitiously are calling for a drug dog).
She has a right to go about her (legal) business without interference. Security checkpoint, somewhat OK (I have other problems with that, but the courts seem to think they are OK so long as they stop EVERYONE). Unless they have probable cause to detain her they should have let her go on her way immediately.
She knew her rights. She objected. They tazed her. She had the foresight to record the encounter; it didn't seem "in their face" to me -- and THEY are the professionals. They are supposed to know the law, and how to apply it. They f*cked up, and you are blaming the victim.
Pull your head out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may be injured or killed, but I guess the settlement you win in court (or your family) will be bigger. Me, I personally don't try to piss people off who may or may not end up shooting me.
Am I saying it is right what the border patrol did? Nope, they violated the law. It shouldn't have happened. I just tend not to want to poke sticks at tigers. I would let lawyers do that in a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then stop making excuses for these assholes. If you're too much of a pussy to do what a hundred something pound woman did, then the problem is YOU, not her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So where is your passive attitude now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tazing someone who isn't presenting an active threat isn't aggressive?
Hang on, its ok to be an ass if someone else is an ass first? Seeing as a stop and search without reasonable cause violates your constitution, I'd say they started it.
Finally, criticizing cops for doing things they are explicitly NOT allowed to do is not blindly anti-cop, its perfectly justifiably anti-THESE-cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The job of Customs and Border Patrol is to protect the borders of the United States. How is it their job to perform suspicionless searching of people who aren't crossing the border?
Yes, they were aggressive. She wasn't bothering anyone by standing there, but they still felt the need to physically grab her and shove her back towards her vehicle.
So if a person isn't being 100% friendly and obedient to the cops, it's perfectly OK for them to brutalize and tase that person? Can you please cite the relevant law that allows them to do this? Because if there's no law saying that they can do that, then what they did was illegal.
In other words, just bend over and take it up the ass, then let the courts sort it out after your rights have been violated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can be polite all they want, but they're still subjecting the woman to an illegal search.
If your bank was arbitrarily service-charging you for no good reason, the politeness of its customer service agent would be cold comfort while she was denying you a reversal or an explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, sounds about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They should have just kicked and shot her dead. Questioning authority has no place in the Land of the Free. Where uppity "citizens" like her come into play, rule by police and rule by law diverge and our country has to show its true colors.
And those true colors are ugly and nobody wants to see them. So the sooner people like her are eradicated, the better for everyone else.
Uh-oh say can you see by the dawn's early light which so prudently we buried at the twilight's last gleaming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please explain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A warning about "common sense".
It's not necessarily sensical. You can't trust it to make rational sense without reducing it to logic and agreed-upon axioms.
Apply this to any incident in which the phrase common sense is used. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless the cops aren't human beings with compassion, level-headed judgment, control of their own emotions, and strict training in the rights if citizens, then yes, it is very easy to blame them and they shouldn't be given authority and responsibilities that they can't handle when faces with opposition to their overreaches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The boy got one thing right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're admitting that the cop acted out of process, but you're defending his actions anyway?
This is what I find wrong with the argument of you people who defend cops unconditionally - you admit the cops are out of line, but it doesn't matter because reasons.
I wonder how much of our tax dollars will pay for his incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to blame
The LEO is not my master, the LEO is supposed to a public servant. Maybe if the LEO didn't go around violating the RIGHTS of CITIZENS, they would get more cooperation. Until then, they deserve none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to blame
Why should he? It's not like he is going to suffer any adverse consequences. Any settlement is not going to come out of his pockets. And he is likely to get promoted in consequence of his actions so that he looks better before judge and jury. Standard procedure. So why should he heed the law? The tax payers shoulder any bill resulting from his actions, and he is likely to get promoted as a routine consequence of being caught breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If following your recommended behaviour you are saying let Law Enforcement (great word ENFORCEMENT EH?) have their own way.
everyone should stand up to these Law ENFORCEMENT morons and stop voting for the corrupt Puppets that are the Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's just great. It doesn't matter that they were acting well outside their bounds, detaining and searching illegally. We should just always comply with authority regardless of it's veracity, is that what you're saying? She's got every right to be upset and to question her detention. Cops should not be able to simply say 'I thought you looked nervous so I'm going to violate your rights.' Have you never gotten nervous around a cop despite not being guilty of anything? Most people do, it's normal. They've got a baton, taser, and gun and the states blessing to use them with almost no fear of retribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A sensible person in the US would be far more nervous around police than they would about terrorist attacks as they are about 100 times more likely to die that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" get there RIGHTS (BLEEPED) in the rear end "
well there is a Japanese proverb about getting RAPED !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news05/new-video-shows-border-patrol-agents-visiting-house-of-jes sica-cooke-video-20150512
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm just going to leave this here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm just going to leave this here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're happy with the way things are. It makes the population easier to control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
She's probably not going to get the job now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Systemic Problem
Truly we are seeing 1% of these violations. Welcome to the new world order of the U.S. Police State. I don't think it was this bad or rampant in East Germany during their heyday of civilian rights violations. Something has to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Systemic Problem
I've worked with law enforcement and there are a few bad apples, just like in any job. Where I was working (with about 10 officers) they all knew who would be the one to be eventually fired for something like this (and I agreed with them), but since he hadn't done anything yet, there really isn't anything they can do to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Systemic Problem
The real problem is that the "good" cops won't stand up and out the bad cops. They have to do something truly horrible for even a single cop to stand up against them.
Sure, they know that Bob has an anger problem and they know that the guy he just put into the hospital didn't actually assault him or do anything to warrant the beating that Bob gave him, but when it comes time to give their reports, every last one of them will swear that they saw the guy take a swing at Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Systemic Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Systemic Problem
He's a desperate-to-keep-his-job cop, which is what I expect all cops are, once they realize there's no room for good cops anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Systemic Problem
That's the sad truth at to why the good ones won't stand up to the pieces of shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yea!
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yea!
Still cool, moron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I once had a cop pull a gun on me for doing far less. I have little sympathy for people like her who are basically "asking for it."
The situation, of course, is one of a police state. The southern border is much worse, like the infamous Sierra Blanca "immigration" checkpoint in the Constitution-free zone outside El Paso, which has been a cash cow for law enforcement for decades. But the northern U.S. border has never been a major conduit for illegal immigrant (or even drug) smuggling, so what's the pressing need of this checkpoint anyway?
As culturally, financially, and militarity close as the US and Canada are, why does there even need to be a tightly-secure border between them? In fact, why the need for a "border" at all between the US and Canada? The border crossing between Northern (UK) Ireland and Ireland was until a few years ago one of the most militarized and privacy-invasive borders in the world. But it no longer exists, and people can now walk or drive across that same border with only a "welcome" sign to remind them they've crossed into a different country. How long do we need to wait before the US/Canada border is the same way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People like you are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
About thirty years ago, I heard stories about the Canada - US border was mined with geophones. They dropped them from planes in Vietnam all along the DMZ. They can tell the difference between a fox or bear or horse or human, and track them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But once terrorism started ramping up, we secured the border. Good thing, too, since a couple legitimate terrorist plots were already stopped by terrorists trying to get into easier Canada first. (2000 Millenium Plot and 2013 Rail Plot).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They had no legal justification to stop her in the first place. She wasn't crossing the border and they had no reason to suspect that she had or was about to commit a crime. They're still law enforcement and they still have to follow the rules. These border patrol checkpoints have the legal authority to stop people and briefly question them, although US citizens are not legally required to present ID or answer questions about their status as a US citizen. A search of the vehicle can only be performed when Agents have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Being nervous is not enough justification for a search.
The woman in this video was simply defending her rights, which sadly too many Americans today have given up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acting that belligerently to virtually any cop will draw the same kind of treatment
It's one of those corrupt politicians sorts of things. We expect politicians to be corrupt, but that's not to say they ought to be.
Law enforcement officers should be able to not resort to
And if I recall, it was the officer, not the suspect, who initiated the shoving match. As a civilian who is used to de-escalating matters, my response to her would be You can stand anywhere you like. You can even hang out with us while we wait for the K-9 team, though I doubt you'll find our company much comfort.
If you cannot mete out force with care and reservation, maybe you shouldn't have the authority to mete out force at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brain fart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This all changed after 9-11 with the US side requiring that Canadians show a passport and adequate reason for going to the US. A lot of Canadians used to going across the border for shopping or just to go drinking after the bars closed. Those activities have been severely curtailed by Homeland's propensity to be assholes and thieves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8MjcksHSgo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also the sudden interest by law enforcement in possession of pirated media
Hope there was nothing private on there. Expect any cheesecake shots to be shared around the precinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incompetent CBP Officers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Planting illegal aliens in her trunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
allergies
Come to think of it, I also have a very unhealthy reaction to high voltage electricity and lead...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason to be nervous.
That would make me nervous as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, this might mean that some of them get killed -- but after all, they're only servants. They're expendable. Better a thousand dead cops than one dead citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let the civil servants be civil. A person who is within their rights and doesn't want to be bothered should be commended for giving overreach the finger.
I will commend the police in the second video for doing their jobs properly and not acting like I completely expected them to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What I'm saying is that even though everything is right in that video the guy COULD have been more polite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This. Police are trained in doing this, and you can see it happen in most police encounters. Watch that first video again. Even though the cops are abusing their authority and violating that woman's rights -- even to the point of tasing her -- they were pretty polite while they were doing it.
There's no reason why ordinary citizens can't do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, directly challenging LEO's can result in putting yourself in harms way. If they violate your rights (and break the law) what is another violation (by tuning you up) going to mean? Best to record and explain what they are doing is illegal and then go along with their orders (even though you have explained that what they are doing is illegal, violates your rights and you will take future action.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. I'll take this a step further: it's every citizen's duty to stand up for their rights in the face of authority.
"Citizens are not required to be polite"
True, however it's a very good idea for a whole bunch of reasons. Don't mistake the idea of being polite with the idea of being weak or acquiescing. You can be immovable and polite at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"courage" vs. "nervous"
After watching the video it is pretty obvious that she was scared. What they are calling "nervous", is the girl trying to act rightly, even in the face of her own fear. That is called "courage", not "nervous".
While she was acting in defense of her rights, her failed compliance to the order to move reflected an unlawful act. Fortunately for her, any jury seeing this video isn't going to care. All they are going to see is a scared stressed out girl trying to act respectfully, and getting assaulted by federal agents.
It is tough to be smart and act smart at the same time. Especially when your about to get Rodney Kinged. Both parties failed in this situation, but the feds failed by a larger margin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "courage" vs. "nervous"
You are not required to obey an unlawful order. Since the cops lacked probable cause and the duration of the stop violates the recent Supreme Court ruling, any order thereafter relating to the detainment is unlawful.
There are certainly consequences to not obeying unlawful orders because the cops will assert an argument (or fabricate a narrative) that will "justify" their behavior and make it sound lawful (because it's their job to know the law, so they know the keywords to say to make it sound like they're acting within the law). It's why you hear cops on videos beating (sometimes unconscious) people while yelling "stop resisting."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "courage" vs. "nervous"
As the thread began, it was probably either a head game, or optionally they wanted to confine her in order to give them some breathing room to figure themselves out. (just as likely) Either way, zapping her was excessive force, because they were already exceeding their authority when they did it.
However, there was an opportunity to deescalate on her part without forfeiting her rights.There is a good chance she would have driven away with dry knickers and without being searched if she had complied with the order to get back in her car. She wasn't tazed for defending her rights on the stop, she was tazed for refusing the order to move.
Under stress it is unlikely that she grokked the nuance. Most people wouldn't under those circumstances. Which is why all the posts suggesting the cops were ignorant of the law are wrong. They knew exactly what they were doing when they shifted angle. It doesn't make it right, but it does create plausible culpability on the part of the girl. So in court, she COULD loose. Not likely, but possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "courage" vs. "nervous"
The cops created the situation that led to them ordering her to move, just like the cops who tell protesters to step onto the street during a protest and then arrest them for walking in the street. You can't create the situation in which someone breaks the law and be justified in enforcing the law because of that situation you created.
It isn't the responsibility of the woman to deescalate if the cops weren't unlawfully detaining her. She has freedom of speech to say what she likes. She shouldn't have been detained, so she can stand where she likes as it doesn't interfere with police actions, which she wasn't intending to do because she shouldn't have been there. The cop pushed her when she said she'd sue him. He escalated the situation. She was just filming and verbally asserting her rights. He never asserted any argument about safety or any other reasoning. He was telling her to shut up and get in her car because he was illegally detaining her and didn't want her to assert her rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You lose any rights you don't assert."
The sensors by which we detect problems with our rights are passive, but that encourages law enforcement to hack the system to stealth rights violations so they continue to go undetected.
Some thoughts for the next society, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just do what the cops say...
Go and read the Declaration of Independence. 1st 2 paragraphs will be enough.
Not only do you have the right, but a DUTY, to throw off despotic government activity. Saying that you just need to do what they say is the same as saying that Rosa Parks should have just moved her ass to the back of the bus.
There is only 1 way to tear down tyranny... and we all know what it is... you have to fight against it and doing what you are told is not exactly what I would call fighting.
America, your first defeat was believing that authority was deserving any any respect or trust.
Never respect the authority of a person, only respect the result of their Actions, never trust a person in authority... EVER for when you are not looking they are not only sure to abuse it, they would not waste a moments hesitation to do so!
Government, while necessary to be instituted among men, have always been and will ever be the single greatest threat to freedom. Governments have destroyed more lives than all wars combined ever or will ever be. Government have visited more evil upon their citizens than any wars combined or will ever be.
Any institution created and established by mankind must always be rigorously and vigilantly guarded against corruption. Every action taken by those in power must be continuously scrutinized, and should you dare to look away... then blame yourself, for you should have seen it coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There you go, people start filing lawsuits against individual people, guess what will happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The number of SWAT raids will increase to match the number of suits being files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SWAT raid surge
It might motivate the populace to actually do something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny, only in NYC is that considered a usual reply and doesn't result in a beating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Explanation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Police,
You might be nervous too if confronted by large, armed bullies with the power to kill you free of consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There it is, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Period, full stop, drop the mike. This is what we have gotten away from, politicians, the NSA, CIA, local police. Violating civil rights goes against the Constitution of the United States.
Don't like those rights? Fuck you, then change the Constitution. Until then, shut the fuck up and uphold the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She'll sue (at least I hope she sues), get a settlement and nothing will change. There's not even the hope that this can be taken to the Supreme Court because they've already ruled that these checkpoints are legal and it would take an act of Congress to overturn that. And we all know that that's never going to happen.
It royally pisses me off that police and federal agents can treat people this way and you basically have no legal right whatsoever to protect yourself. Sure, the law might have a vague concept of resisting illegal orders, but try it in real life and the reality is that you'll be charged with a string of felonies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only if she has a lot of money, can get a layer on board on contingency, of find a lawyer prepared to work pro bono. This problem limits the cases brought, and the LEOs know this, and they will most likely get away with abuse of the citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the ACLU might want to take this one up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly the majority of CBP agents I've dealt with were friendly or simply professional, I have gotten hollered at for what seems to be random things, like my son using his cell phone in the car during the border crossing "PUT THAT THING DOWN NOW! YOU COULD BE SETTING OFF A BOMB"
So maybe I'm a little nervous when dealing with CBP, so is my wife, son, daughter, and her husband. The consequences of our mistakes or their hallucinations go much worse for us than them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm pretty sure that incident qualifies as symptomatic of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Are American Citizens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are two dead NYC cops who were assassinated by a wack job from Baltimore because of the actions of other NYC police when they put a New Yorker in a choke hold who died and then was not found that they committed a crime by a grand jury.
Without that happening, those two cops probably would still be alive. When cops act like they did in the video, or fail to get rid of bad cops, more and more cops will be murdered by the many wack jobs out there.
When will they learn that violating rights, abusing citizens will end up coming back to bite them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retaliatory attacks against Law Enforcement
And yes, law enforcement are thought of as an insular institution, not as individuals. But they act as such.
I recall a program in the 19th century by a late Jacob Marley to instill sympathy and forward thinking into people in positions of power and affluence. Sadly, we dont have any effective programs today to promote such awareness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the CFZ will hold up in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Reason to be nervous.
Perhaps the reason she was nervous, was that she had just been pulled over and interrogated by a gang of thugs who can quite easily hurt or kill her without fear of reprisal and for the sole reason that they didn't like her.That would make me nervous as well.