Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Pastor beaten and tazed by border ghestoppo


Oedipus Rex
 Share

Recommended Posts

But what about when civil disobedience no longer works? Cause I mean you can look at history and see it doesn't work. It's not unpatriotic or wrong to say that theres come a point in time that talking or civil disobedience no longer works and kicking ass is the only means to an end.

 

I don't think we're there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah I know what you mean. It's all about articulating. Granted you aren't supposed to use it to find drugs it's meant, like you said for weapons for officer safety. I mean you do have show why you frisked someone. It's not like you can just frisk anybody, I'm not saying that doesn't happen cause I know it does. But technically you are supposed to be able to articulate why. The problem is unless you make an arrest there isn't anything to articulate, no paperwork generated.

 

But also keep in mind the average person subjected to a Terry frisk isn't exactly reputable. Say you got stopped I mean really what are the chances of you getting pulled out and frisked...slim to none and likely none.

 

I know exactly what you mean, that puts you into the unless you meet the bad cop or cop having a bad day thing which for someone obviously not fitting some profile and not being belligerent is incredible odds of ever happening.

 

Now you're odds of meeting up with the cop having a bad day goes up exponentially when you are searching for it and looking for it. That's what many of these guys in this thread are concerned about as far as Pastor Punk may have had his rights stepped on regarding the excessive force and even car search. Being belligerent and asking for trouble often you eventually find it.

 

Still, not just me, but others have posted, we may not condone what happens sometimes but we damn sure understand the whys. My 60s hippie example where a Hippie would spit in a cops face, call them a pig, then looked shocked when the BillyClub hit their head. I saw that many many times as a young man. I, of course, found the reaction excessive, who wouldn't, but then I also was never in the least bit surprised it went down like that.

 

That's why my first post in this so called Gestapo thread was what it was. From the moment that kid opened his trap, I saw every hippie whoever spit in a cops face. He fit their profile to a "T" despite his innocent boy act. The following video only confirmed what I knew. As cops all know, someone who is truly innocent is indignant. This guys plea for pity and our indignation was classic guilt.

 

Seeing this guys history right there on the net, It's also why I say he better be praying the LEO did lose it on him. Otherwise, his actions should and will most likely bring the full weight down on him. Those immigration check points may not have had the time or bothered to tie his trolling together and tag him as a trouble maker but the DA only has to do a Goggle and UTube search. Makes one tempted to email him and tell him too. lol

 

But then we really don't know do we. Maybe, just maybe, they did put it all together and this time when Pastor Punk decided to troll, they were waiting on him. We could tell if we could see the video. The Agents wouldn't be trying to talk reasonably to him like that first video trying to get him to cooperate but just detain him and called the Staties to come get him.

 

One things for sure though, his MO world changed dramatically when those state boys showed up for their job isn't taking illegal aliens into custody but US Citizens. His expectation of cooperation changed dramatically at that point. That's another reason I found it funny. I could just see this guy thinking he could talk to the State Patrol for an hour keeping his door locked when they told him he was under arrest and get out of the car.

 

Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know exactly what you mean, that puts you into the unless you meet the bad cop or cop having a bad day thing which for someone obviously not fitting some profile and not being belligerent is incredible odds of ever happening.

 

Now you're odds of meeting up with the cop having a bad day goes up exponentially when you are searching for it and looking for it. That's what many of these guys in this thread are concerned about as far as Pastor Punk may have had his rights stepped on regarding the excessive force and even car search. Being belligerent and asking for trouble often you eventually find it.

 

Still, not just me, but others have posted, we may not condone what happens sometimes but we damn sure understand the whys. My 60s hippie example where a Hippie would spit in a cops face, call them a pig, then looked shocked when the BillyClub hit their head. I saw that many many times as a young man. I, of course, found the reaction excessive, who wouldn't, but then I also was never in the least bit surprised it went down like that.

 

That's why my first post in this so called Gestapo thread was what it was. From the moment that kid opened his trap, I saw every hippie whoever spit in a cops face. He fit their profile to a "T" despite his innocent boy act. The following video only confirmed what I knew. As cops all know, someone who is truly innocent is indignant. This guys plea for pity and our indignation was classic guilt.

 

Seeing this guys history right there on the net, It's also why I say he better be praying the LEO did lose it on him. Otherwise, his actions should and will most likely bring the full weight down on him. Those immigration check points may not have had the time or bothered to tie his trolling together and tag him as a trouble maker but the DA only has to do a Goggle and UTube search. Makes one tempted to email him and tell him too. lol

 

But then we really don't know do we. Maybe, just maybe, they did put it all together and this time when Pastor Punk decided to troll, they were waiting on him. We could tell if we could see the video. The Agents wouldn't be trying to talk reasonably to him like that first video trying to get him to cooperate but just detain him and called the Staties to come get him.

 

One things for sure though, his MO world changed dramatically when those state boys showed up for their job isn't taking illegal aliens into custody but US Citizens. His expectation of cooperation changed dramatically at that point. That's another reason I found it funny. I could just see this guy thinking he could talk to the State Patrol for an hour keeping his door locked when they told him he was under arrest and get out of the car.

 

Tj

 

Yep you're right. I mean there was no reason other than wanting to start trouble over nothing that this guy is where he is. Thats why my post a few pages back about the problem with a lot of these "constitutionalists" like the seat belt dude I mentioned is they go looking for trouble, stir it up thinking they know what their doing and then get pissy when they get sprayed, tased or beat. Plus there is just no reason for it. When you do stuff like that to me you are being as much of a pain as the officers who do abuse their power and make everyone look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only have I read the constitution but I read many the arguments in it's construction and I also happen to be a historian. That means I strive to understand what life was like back in the day and am familiar with the finer details that most people pay no attention to.

 

Secondly, I grew up listening to and practicing a saying: "Two wrongs don't make a right" This guy very well may have been a jerk to them, but that was no excuse for them violating his rights like that. I would be quicker to buy the "being a jerk" idea if the whole Dog scenario didn't happen, and who knows, maybe it didn't. If they ask you to step out of the car, you should, but going around lying to people's faces and making up excuses to search someone's vehicle is where we have a problem, not to mention busting in to the man's vehicle and literally beat him to a bloody pulp for an ongoing period of time without being threatened. To put things in to perspective, even down to the order and style he described (apart from the presence of taser), that sounded perfectly like the conduct of the Russian OMON during and after the USSR. If you think I am just spouting senseless propaganda, then go look up some footage of them doing raids and you'll see what I am talking about, and the main reason it happens is because of what kinds of people seek employment in the OMON and the fact that they know they'll get away with it.

 

It's no surprise though. I've been in that neighborhood (Southern California/southern Arizona) before and met some of the cops around there. Some of them had a sadist and dominant way about them that was as obvious as a San Fransisco homosexual being gay. Heck, there's a few in my old neighborhood like that. I'm not throwing dirt on cops in general, but especially in left wing areas, you won't have to look hard to find a cop who fits that description. That's not propaganda either nor am I making this up. Most of the cops I encountered in Texas, Florida and surrounding states were cool as can be. Head in to California cities and the police conduct is so different, you'd think you were in a 3rd world country. I still have friends in the south who are cops and they can't stand it when some big city cop from Detroit, or Chicago moves in to the neighborhood and joins the force as they apparently have a very high probability of being a total....I am not going to say it.

 

When I lived in the south, people waved at cops, hung out with them and even met up with them at times just to share a smoke break or friendly chit chat. Around here, I haven't seen anyone ever once get happy to see a cop. It's always: "Oh, now what" and I don't hang out with criminals. These are the law abiding citizens freaking out when a cop shows up.

 

Anyway, back on topic, the struggle for government and police to respect constitutional rights has been an intense struggle almost from day one. Pride, greed and aggression are not very compatible with our constitution, and mankind is driven to do these things, thus, the never ending struggle between people, their neighbors and government to either expand or suppress these tendencies.

 

Yes, they did allot of things even in the 1800s that fundamentally violated the constitution. They were also out slaughtering natives and raping, torturing and lynching black people because of the color of their skin.

 

 

Well now, we're the same page with one major exception, you accept his side of the story as truth and since he has mislead us in that first video even falsely accused the wrong department people even using a name, I don't give any weight to his side of the story period.

 

To me a proven liar has no credibility period especially when I know his entire motivation is a political agenda. Its to his benefit these men are seen as violating his rights and it was to this end he escalated the situation.

 

I'm pretty much convinced this is the type guy who would hit someone then when they hit him back try to call the police and claim he was assaulted. He obviously has shown he believes himself above the law by constantly breaking the law.

 

Actually being actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement, I participated in my share of civil disobedience, however there is a big difference between riding in the back of the bus or helping a friend drink from a fountain and criminal misbehavior. You cross the line when in fighting against one law you do not agree, you break many others.

 

I will give the officers the benefit of the doubt and actually lean their way without even knowing their story because of this guys motivation and deception.

 

As for do I approve of arbitrarily searching peoples cars, tazering them for revenge, or out of control police tactics, I have about six years on the net of being adamantly against those things.

 

Its just in this case, I don't believe this guy at all. The whole I was calm and cooperating politely asking for my rights, we now know was bunk.

 

BTW, If you recall that video or watch it again, pay special attention to his body language especially as he shows what went down when they were getting him out of the car. If he did, indeed, pull his hands down away from his face as he demonstrated knocking the police offers hands away as he was reaching in to pull him out, inadvertent or not, that was assaulting an officer.

 

Now, if you want to talk sometime about the 92 year old black woman shot in Atlanta during a search, we probably won't have much to say to each other on that one. I took heat for my position on that on two different boards calling it a foul from the get go despite all the media hype to the contrary at first.

 

I may not be totally impartial like some of these other guys but I do tend to call it as I see them not taking sides arbitrarily based on preconceived notions. You see to me, those aren't badges talking to me but simply people wearing badges.

 

Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEAH, more cut and paste!

 

Yeah!

 

But what have YOU done?

 

Straw man.

 

When did I say I've done anything? All I'm doing here is defending other people's rights to do so.

 

ETA: Your question would be valid if I was saying others should be out there doing this kind of stuff. But I haven't, therefor your question isn't pertinent to the topic.

Edited by Oedipus Rex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, straw man?

 

When all you do is cut and paste?

 

Andf I KNOW you havent done a damn think, thats what I have been saying.

 

You're all talk, no action.

 

Are you going to talk about the subject at hand or are you going to continue to divert and use logical fallacies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you don't know what civil disobedience is, here's the wiki article on the subject.

 

Also, Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

 

Edit: fixed a broken tag

 

Actually, this is a very good post, Sarge.

 

The guy in this story's actions were far beyond civil disobedience. He crossed both the respectfully not obeying specific laws as well as was breaking other laws.

 

I knew this guy in Chicago that was totally against their toll road system since it was promised they would end when the roads were paid for and that's what everyone voted on. The state changed its mind. He chose the path of civil disobedience. This guy refused to not use the roads but also refused to pay the tolls. It was hysterical really the lengths he went to, however he never crossed the line of civil disobedience. He never destroyed public property by driving through the toll gate arms nor drove dangerously etc. to avoid being caught or trapped.

 

It's when you attempt civil disobedience you cross the line to radical when you violate other laws to protest the specific ones you are against. Its the thinking the end justifies the means that leads to that justification thinking and that same thinking behind people like the Weathermen who bombed buildings to protest the Vietnam War or hell Timothy McVeigh who took out a federal building to protest Waco.

 

I guess the best movie to show this in a comical way was "Forest Gump" when the Weathermen leader apologized, somewhat, to Jenny for beating her. "It's just that damn lying Johnson and the war." Like that was justification for beating someone.

 

I can only guess that this exact thing is why the Pastor is playing so dumb about who really broke his window down and tasered him, because once he refused to get out of the car to the state police, he was no longer dealing with immigration and crossed the line from civil disobediance to radical. There's other incidences in the story as well such as his refusal to move the car and thus blocking traffic. They caused me to do it by their stupid laws is the cry of a criminal because two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to talk about the subject at hand or are you going to continue to divert and use logical fallacies?

 

 

11 pages, Sarge is still stoned and off topic. :laugh:

 

EDIT: All your page twelve belong to the Roo

Edited by KangarooAR-15A3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's cloudy. Were the participants of the original Boston Tea Party out of line when, instead of a sit-in, they destroyed an entire shipment of tea? At what point should Rosa Parks have gone to the back of the bus?

 

Comparing this guy to McVeigh is more than a little bit of a stretch. All the DHS agents had to do was follow the fourth amendment to the letter and let him go. If they had done that no one else would have been inconvenienced. On the other hand, I will give in on the fact that instead of locking himself in his car, he should have submitted to arrest. He does come off as a whiny little girl.

 

Edit: I wasn't thinking it would take so long to reply(stupid internet connection). This post is in response to Tj's post found here

Edited by Oedipus Rex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you mind going into that You Cannot sniff a particular person a bit? That's a fine point I'm not familiar with.

 

The sniffing of a particular person is not allowed because it is an invasion of privacy. You can walk a dog around a group of people and if he alerts it is a good alert, but if there is a person just standing around or small group for that matter, much like in the home, an expectation of privacy that does not exist in a vehicle is present, therefore unconstitutional ----- extremely confusing. The K-9 has not sniffed air....he has "Searched" the person w/o probable cause.

 

this is to the best of my understanding as we are fortunate enough to have a k-9 on all but one team and would love to have my own one day. I hope this helps some...if not I'll try to see what I can do...lol.

 

 

EDITED**** Props to ethos, as he answered previously, haha.

Edited by M&P_Leo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's cloudy. Were the participants of the original Boston Tea Party out of line when, instead of a sit-in, they destroyed an entire shipment of tea? At what point should Rosa Parks have gone to the back of the bus?

 

Comparing this guy to McVeigh is more than a little bit of a stretch. All the DHS agents had to do was follow the fourth amendment to the letter and let him go. If they had done that no one else would have been inconvenienced. On the other hand, I will give in on the fact that instead of locking himself in his car, he should have submitted to arrest. He does come off as a whiny little girl.

 

Edit: I wasn't thinking it would take so long to reply(stupid internet connection). This post is in response to Tj's post found here

 

Ah but you see the Boston Tea Party was actually an act of rebellion not civil disobedience. I'm afraid it was a little bit before Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

 

They were protesting a law and had no qualms about breaking other laws in the process. That's why they wore disguises. It's importance in history is to the revolution which was an act of rebellion it's self.

 

The Rosa Parks question is actually another good question. Though her act of civil disobedience may seem trivial to many today, it was actually a pivotal point of the Civil Rights movement and used extensively as to how to choose ones ground for making a stand. There were way more civil rights issues in the south and heck even in the north back then that where more important and more stifling than where black people sat on a bus. Her act did not violate anyone's rights nor did it break any other laws. She was also polite and respectful. Her arrest and/or harassment then would be entirely focused on the law not her actions.

 

If she had chosen to say sit in the white section of a restaurant or the white section of a courthouse despite that being public property, it would not have been a wise choice for the act of civil disobedience. The restaurant would have been private property and in the courthouse her actions having an impact on those before the judge. Her choice, the law was to blame and any social disturbance a direct result of that law.

 

In the Pastors case, his belligerent attitude both escalated the situation and takes takes focus away from his cause since he then shares the blame in the public eye. His refusal to move his car, impeded traffic thus violated the rights of others, once gain taking focus away from his cause. Once the state police was involved, it was no longer immigration and totally focused away from the law he was against and the focus once more shifted away from his cause. That's unless his cause was everyone in a uniform should be disobeyed.

 

The comparison of Timothy McVeigh, the Weathermen, and even those at the Boston Tea Party is extremely valid for a topic of Civil Disobedience for it is all about changing laws and social conditions and the others about open rebellion against a government. Civil Disobedience is all about not breaking other laws to fight the ones you are against. The end justifies the means is not the thought pattern of a Civil Disobedience advocate but a radical and two wrongs do not make a right. Civil Disobedience is taking the high ground morally and keeping it. When a protester carries his sign he has the moral high ground when he uses it to hit someone else, he doesn't anymore. He just crossed the line from Civil Disobedience to Social Unrest and with it his cause suffers in many peoples eyes and thus public opinion.

 

The Pastor is a Civil Disobedience idiot. His cause was immigration check points yet everyone is talking about the 4th Amendment and our rights to be searched or not and under what conditions. He broke almost every rule of civil disobedience and thus diluted his focus. He lost the moral high ground by mis-leading others as to his intentions, falsifications, half truths, being downright belligerent, and breaking laws other than the rights he was trying to focus the public on.

 

We can label him many things but he's a better rebel than he is a Civil Disobedience Advocate. He just had to be the white guy in the flaming bus who got beat up so the others could escape. He just kind of forgot, that white guy didn't catch the bus on fire in the first place.

 

Now I'm probably going to be on yet another list for explaining Civil Disobedience on a gun board while gun control is being considered. :sad:

 

Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sniffing of a particular person is not allowed because it is an invasion of privacy. You can walk a dog around a group of people and if he alerts it is a good alert, but if there is a person just standing around or small group for that matter, much like in the home, an expectation of privacy that does not exist in a vehicle is present, therefore unconstitutional ----- extremely confusing. The K-9 has not sniffed air....he has "Searched" the person w/o probable cause.

 

this is to the best of my understanding as we are fortunate enough to have a k-9 on all but one team and would love to have my own one day. I hope this helps some...if not I'll try to see what I can do...lol.

 

 

EDITED**** Props to ethos, as he answered previously, haha.

 

Yeah, I'm still going huh?

 

It's a fine line. Though I see the importance of dogs in many areas, when it comes to this entire constitutionality aspect I get foggy as heck because the one thing a dog can't do is testify in court about what he smelled that led to the probable cause. It kind of makes it hard to face your accuser when he can't talk. That kind of throws water on the sixth amendment.

 

I guess from a legalese mindset dogs to the sixth amendment kind of falls into the same historic context as nuclear bombs and the sencond.

 

I will probably never understand lawyers.

 

Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...