Woman tasered near US/Canadian border for refusing trunk search.

[BULLDOG]

You're saying LEOs are incapable of assault?

And you're full of shit. All she did was refuse to walk "over there". The only one "out of control" here is taser man.

Of course I'm not saying LEOs can't commit assault.

And , of course she was out of control, AND she REFUSED to obey a lawful command. When you are detained , you have to go where the police tell you to.

--- or get tased?

Aye .... there's the rub.

Can you let go of your stupid hatred of cops for the moment and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Police take control of subjects during a detention for the safety of both themselves AND the subjects. Common sense should tell everyone that it is safer for everyone if the LEOs know where everyone is and what they are doing, rather than people are just running around doing whatever they want

It's not that fucking hard to just go stand wherever a cop tells you to when you've been detained.

Once again for the slow -- "not that fucking hard" does not equate to "out of control" when the subject poses no threat whatsoever. All she did was defy an arbitrary "command" from an authority obsessed with his.

Let that sink in. Perhaps print it out and make a poultice, and apply to the cerebellum.
You may have to pull the scalp back.

Have you ever been a LEO? No? Well let me tell you, You treat ALL subjects as potential threats, because you never know which ones are. Plenty of LEOs who failed to do so have been injured by people who they dismissed as no threats.

You simply have no understanding of the subject.

Again with the " It's a hard job so they have to be ass holes" crap. They knew it was a hard job before they took it. That badge means they are a cop, not that they are God.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course I'm not saying LEOs can't commit assault.

And , of course she was out of control, AND she REFUSED to obey a lawful command. When you are detained , you have to go where the police tell you to.

--- or get tased?

Aye .... there's the rub.

Can you let go of your stupid hatred of cops for the moment and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Police take control of subjects during a detention for the safety of both themselves AND the subjects. Common sense should tell everyone that it is safer for everyone if the LEOs know where everyone is and what they are doing, rather than people are just running around doing whatever they want

It's not that fucking hard to just go stand wherever a cop tells you to when you've been detained.

Once again for the slow -- "not that fucking hard" does not equate to "out of control" when the subject poses no thread whatsoever.

Let that sink in. Perhaps print it out and make a poultice, and apply to the cerebellum.
You may have to pull the scalp back.

With all the "I know my rights" videos on the net you'd think she would have learned how to do it properly.
She was combative and far from being calm.

I agree she didn't go about it well or wisely.

But she did nothing to deserve physical assault. That was proactively committed by Taser man.

Maybe,but she was being totally unreasonable and brought it on herself.

 

[BULLDOG]

--- or get tased?

Aye .... there's the rub.

Can you let go of your stupid hatred of cops for the moment and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Police take control of subjects during a detention for the safety of both themselves AND the subjects. Common sense should tell everyone that it is safer for everyone if the LEOs know where everyone is and what they are doing, rather than people are just running around doing whatever they want

It's not that fucking hard to just go stand wherever a cop tells you to when you've been detained.

Once again for the slow -- "not that fucking hard" does not equate to "out of control" when the subject poses no thread whatsoever.

Let that sink in. Perhaps print it out and make a poultice, and apply to the cerebellum.
You may have to pull the scalp back.

With all the "I know my rights" videos on the net you'd think she would have learned how to do it properly.
She was combative and far from being calm.

I agree she didn't go about it well or wisely.

But she did nothing to deserve physical assault. That was proactively committed by Taser man.

Maybe,but she was being totally unreasonable and brought it on herself.

That sounds a lot like the thug who said "If the cashier would have just given me the money, I wouldn't have had to shoot him. It's his own fault."

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Of course I'm not saying LEOs can't commit assault.

And , of course she was out of control, AND she REFUSED to obey a lawful command. When you are detained , you have to go where the police tell you to.

--- or get tased?

Aye .... there's the rub.

Can you let go of your stupid hatred of cops for the moment and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Police take control of subjects during a detention for the safety of both themselves AND the subjects. Common sense should tell everyone that it is safer for everyone if the LEOs know where everyone is and what they are doing, rather than people are just running around doing whatever they want

It's not that fucking hard to just go stand wherever a cop tells you to when you've been detained.

Once again for the slow -- "not that fucking hard" does not equate to "out of control" when the subject poses no threat whatsoever. All she did was defy an arbitrary "command" from an authority obsessed with his.

Let that sink in. Perhaps print it out and make a poultice, and apply to the cerebellum.
You may have to pull the scalp back.

Have you ever been a LEO? No? Well let me tell you, You treat ALL subjects as potential threats, because you never know which ones are. Plenty of LEOs who failed to do so have been injured by people who they dismissed as no threats.

You simply have no understanding of the subject.

Again with the " It's a hard job so they have to be ass holes" crap. They knew it was a hard job before they took it. That badge means they are a cop, not that they are God.

It's not about it being a hard job you simpleton. It's about keeping people from being hurt. That's what the commands are all about.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Can you let go of your stupid hatred of cops for the moment and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Police take control of subjects during a detention for the safety of both themselves AND the subjects. Common sense should tell everyone that it is safer for everyone if the LEOs know where everyone is and what they are doing, rather than people are just running around doing whatever they want

It's not that fucking hard to just go stand wherever a cop tells you to when you've been detained.

Once again for the slow -- "not that fucking hard" does not equate to "out of control" when the subject poses no thread whatsoever.

Let that sink in. Perhaps print it out and make a poultice, and apply to the cerebellum.
You may have to pull the scalp back.

With all the "I know my rights" videos on the net you'd think she would have learned how to do it properly.
She was combative and far from being calm.

I agree she didn't go about it well or wisely.

But she did nothing to deserve physical assault. That was proactively committed by Taser man.

Maybe,but she was being totally unreasonable and brought it on herself.

That sounds a lot like the thug who said "If the cashier would have just given me the money, I wouldn't have had to shoot him. It's his own fault."

Well except that a cop telling you "go stand over there" is a lawful order while a thief saying "give me the money" is not.

You fucking moron.

 

[Pogo]

--- or get tased?

Aye .... there's the rub.

Can you let go of your stupid hatred of cops for the moment and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Police take control of subjects during a detention for the safety of both themselves AND the subjects. Common sense should tell everyone that it is safer for everyone if the LEOs know where everyone is and what they are doing, rather than people are just running around doing whatever they want

It's not that fucking hard to just go stand wherever a cop tells you to when you've been detained.

Once again for the slow -- "not that fucking hard" does not equate to "out of control" when the subject poses no thread whatsoever.

Let that sink in. Perhaps print it out and make a poultice, and apply to the cerebellum.
You may have to pull the scalp back.

With all the "I know my rights" videos on the net you'd think she would have learned how to do it properly.
She was combative and far from being calm.

I agree she didn't go about it well or wisely.

But she did nothing to deserve physical assault. That was proactively committed by Taser man.

Maybe,but she was being totally unreasonable and brought it on herself.

Good. Now explain how refusing the Voice of Big Dick Authority to "stand over there" begets a level of physical electrical assault. Find a way to cross that bridge and we're outta here.

 

[Pogo]

Once again for the slow -- "not that fucking hard" does not equate to "out of control" when the subject poses no thread whatsoever.

Let that sink in. Perhaps print it out and make a poultice, and apply to the cerebellum.
You may have to pull the scalp back.

With all the "I know my rights" videos on the net you'd think she would have learned how to do it properly.
She was combative and far from being calm.

I agree she didn't go about it well or wisely.

But she did nothing to deserve physical assault. That was proactively committed by Taser man.

Maybe,but she was being totally unreasonable and brought it on herself.

That sounds a lot like the thug who said "If the cashier would have just given me the money, I wouldn't have had to shoot him. It's his own fault."

Well except that a cop telling you "go stand over there" is a lawful order while a thief saying "give me the money" is not.

You fucking moron.

Here our LEO element melts down into emotional argument. The same thing that begets physical assault for having your dick size questioned. Not hard to see how this works.

 

[Pogo]

Can you let go of your stupid hatred of cops for the moment and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Police take control of subjects during a detention for the safety of both themselves AND the subjects. Common sense should tell everyone that it is safer for everyone if the LEOs know where everyone is and what they are doing, rather than people are just running around doing whatever they want

It's not that fucking hard to just go stand wherever a cop tells you to when you've been detained.

Once again for the slow -- "not that fucking hard" does not equate to "out of control" when the subject poses no thread whatsoever.

Let that sink in. Perhaps print it out and make a poultice, and apply to the cerebellum.
You may have to pull the scalp back.

With all the "I know my rights" videos on the net you'd think she would have learned how to do it properly.
She was combative and far from being calm.

I agree she didn't go about it well or wisely.

But she did nothing to deserve physical assault. That was proactively committed by Taser man.

Maybe,but she was being totally unreasonable and brought it on herself.

That sounds a lot like the thug who said "If the cashier would have just given me the money, I wouldn't have had to shoot him. It's his own fault."

Exactly. Or specific to this case, "She was askin' for it!"

 

[Billo_Really]

That's exactly what I thought when I heard that. It speaks for all of us.

Well, all except the genuflectors who can't bend over far enough for authority.

There are some people in this country that take their government rectally.

 

[Billo_Really]

She was being a complete idiot.
I've driven through many border check points and have never had a problem.

I do agree with you there.

 

[Billo_Really]

You don't have a right to fight with police LOL

She wasn't fighting.

Police have no right to detain you without charges.

 

[bodecea]

St. Lawrence County woman tased at border patrol checkpoint NCPR News
This is terrible. Is all this hyper vigilance really necessary? I like hiking there too, I hope they're not doing this up there. That's also considered the North Country. Really disappointing that we are being harassed like this.

This was NOT at the border, people. It was well within our country.

 

[Papageorgio]

She behaved like a pissy bitch throughout, refused any sort of co-operation, threatened to sue their asses, and kept asking why they wanted to search her car. She was rude, demanding and a total snot. I thought the officers were incredibly patient with her. But then I don't go around antagonizing law enforcement.

She was practicing her freedoms. But I wouldn't expect a conservative to understand that I suppose.

She was pulled over for secondary inspection, which is reasonable suspicion AND she then refused to obey lawful orders while being detained. She was not practicing her rights

Fucking morons.

Pussy

How many times have you refused a search at the border?

 

[Pogo]

• 
  

  St. Lawrence County woman tased at border patrol checkpoint NCPR News
  This is terrible. Is all this hyper vigilance really necessary? I like hiking there too, I hope they're not doing this up there. That's also considered the North Country. Really disappointing that we are being harassed like this.

  This was NOT at the border, people. It was well within our country.

  
  Excellent point.
  
• The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
• According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, 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.
• Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."

....

• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San José.

The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000. Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit. For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.

More at the ACLU link​

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You don't have a right to fight with police LOL

She wasn't fighting.

Police have no right to detain you without charges.

Wrong again stupid.

You can be detained for reasonable suspicion whether that results in charges or not.

Why don't you morons learn your rights before you bitch about them being violated.

 

[Papageorgio]

• The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
• According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, 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.
• Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."

....

• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San José.

The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000. Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit. For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.

More at the ACLU link​

How many searches have you refused at the border.

 

[Pogo]

You don't have a right to fight with police LOL

She wasn't fighting.

Police have no right to detain you without charges.

Wrong again stupid.

You can be detained for reasonable suspicion whether that results in charges or not.

Why don't you morons learn your rights before you bitch about them being violated.

Good idea.
I just posted some.

Here's a good one:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You don't have a right to fight with police LOL

She wasn't fighting.

Police have no right to detain you without charges.

Wrong again stupid.

You can be detained for reasonable suspicion whether that results in charges or not.

Why don't you morons learn your rights before you bitch about them being violated.

Good idea.
I just posted some.

Here's a good one:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Hey stupid, that applies to unreasonable searches.

The issue of border checkpoints has already been declared constitutional.

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Since 1976, that's pretty much the end of the discussion on whether border checkpoints are legal.

 

[bodecea]

• The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
• According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, 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.
• Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."

....

• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San José.

The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000. Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit. For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.

More at the ACLU link​

How many searches have you refused at the border.

That was not at the border.

 

[Papageorgio]

• The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
• According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, 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.
• Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."

....

• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San José.

The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000. Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit. For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.

More at the ACLU link​

How many searches have you refused at the border.

That was not at the border.

Was it for entrance into the US?