I agree. What's even sadder is he posting on the internet the names of the officers - since he's got a cult following. Who knows what some of these people can do.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pastor Anderson's run in with border patrol a few months ago
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
- Status
I agree. What's even sadder is he posting on the internet the names of the officers - since he's got a cult following. Who knows what some of these people can do.
It is the issue. Regardless of whether Anderson is a jerk or not, he had the right to refuse a search. The officers let him go because they had no legal reason to hold him. Being a jerk is not against the law.
Obviously you guys would have done differently. You would have said sure officer search away. But what if they started ripping the carpet out of your car looking for whatever? What if they decided to do a full cavity search when they searched your person? I guarantee you would all be seeking lawyers because your 4th amendment rights had been violated.
Then WHY didn't they hold him???????????????????????????????
He has no right to refuse a search. Any officer can search within their wingspan whenever they want to. I was going to be a cop when I was younger, and my brother-in-law is a cop.
True, but being a jerk got him some nice scars to remember the incident by. Like I said, if he would have cooperated, they would have let him go anyway. He had no drugs...but he was acting suspiciously initially.
If I was in a rental car, I wouldn't care
Now THIS would have been unreasonable, and fallsu under the 4th amendment. The only cavity search I get is from my dentist...
but like I pointed out, that is NOT the law. The law is against unreasonable searches.
And their search was unreasonable and unlawful because they did NOT have probable cause, which the officer admitted, or a search warrant. He was within his constitutional rights under the 4th amendment. Stop looking at this through your I can't stand spamderson glasses and look at what the government is trying to get by with.
Yes he does. Read the 4th amendment.
This is a different incident. Did you even watch the video?
According to you and others, a search was legal. They can search anywhere they want to.
Why the hostility, Amy?
You would be surprised at what "probable cause" constitutes. Unless you are a police officer or know what they legally can and cannot do, you are arguing from ignorance, and I don't mean that disrespectfully. As someone already pointed out, they had the right to search whatever car they want to within 100 miles of the border, and he was within that jurisdiction. His behavior coupled with a rental car is probable cause whether you like it or not. Why haven't the officers been charged with anything or suspended if what they did was wrong?
Yet they didn't conduct the search and they let him go.
The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.
The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE/104/143/127/ART/
Hostility and refusing to cooperate would be one "particular circumstance" that justifies any search without a warrant.
The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:
- the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
- the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE/104/143/127/ART/
Hostility and refusing to cooperate would be one "particular circumstance" that justifies any search without a warrant.
Probable cause is a man who will not open the window to speak to you, will not show you ID and continually answers your questions with "Am I free to go? Tell me when I'm free to go. Am I free to go? Tell me when I'm free to go. Am I free to go? Tell me when I'm free to go." If he has nothing to hide, why hide?
And beyond that, even if he was within his constitutional rights, he was not within his Godly rights. He did not act remotely like a believer and brought shame to the name of God.
They had no probable cause as the officer stated in the video that YOU posted.
Once again, tell my why they let him go if he had committed a crime. You can't because he committed no crime. It is not a crime to claim your rights.
I do not think defending your rights is ungodly. Sorry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I hope my post gets deleted, but it didn't.
Hate posts (which will subject the BB Webmaster to lawsuits) follow this guy around like flies on doggie marks. Any lawsuit is likely to break BB Webmaster and destroy BB. Who is collecting the $80,000 to buy BB for their group?
Was he kind? Was he showing Christ? Was he peaceful?
No. He committed a crime against the cross.
Six Hour Warning
At 75 miles, Mr. Anderson was well within the 100 mile border region. As I understand the statute and case law, the customs service and Border Patrol have wide latitude inside the 100 mile zone.
Mr. Anderson was banned for being unresponsive. He would start a thread and then never return to it to respond to the various comments made to his OP.
Now for the six hour warning, this thread is well beyond three pages. So, sometime after 2 AM PDT a mod will close this thread.
At 75 miles, Mr. Anderson was well within the 100 mile border region. As I understand the statute and case law, the customs service and Border Patrol have wide latitude inside the 100 mile zone.
Mr. Anderson was banned for being unresponsive. He would start a thread and then never return to it to respond to the various comments made to his OP.
Now for the six hour warning, this thread is well beyond three pages. So, sometime after 2 AM PDT a mod will close this thread.
windcatcher
New Member
Regarding Mr Anderson's rights on the road:
The law enforcement (any kind within their jurisdiction), have the authority to request to search. This does not automatically give them the authority to conduct a search. They are supposed to have probable cause, and probable cause is what supports their affadavit for a warrant to conduct an authorize search without gaining permission.
Whenever a citizen is asked to be searched, he has the right to accept or refuse, unless a warrant or probable cause is introduced: However, even if he refuses and a warrant is not introduced, he does not have the right to interfere in a violent or threatening or beligerant fashion: His rights extend up to the point of voicing (appropriately and unaggressively) his opposition to the search, and to have it placed on record that such search was conducted without his approval or permission and that the search carried out was without incident regarding his cooperation or lack thereof. At this point, he has protected his rights .....should contraband or persons be found whether of his knowledge or not. Any seizures or charges occurring would then have to take into account his constitutional rights and privileges at the time of the search....... and whether he waived his rights by giving consent, or protected his rights by declining consent but allowing his cooperation by not impeding their duties in performing their request.
It does appear that Mr Anderson is conflicting his obligations as a Christian to the cause of Christ with his duties as a citizen who takes a strict and personal stand based upon his interpretation of the constitution of the United States. The former behavirior and jurisdiction, under the laws of God and submission to the cross implies that the Christian citizen is covered under the authority and protection of God as long as he submits as Jesus would submit to authorities beneath God: The instruction of the cross is that we are in agreement with God when we submit to the reasonable requests of authorities which are in place over us: It does not matter whether these requests are right or wrong... whether observing our rights and just towards us or not....... God considers that requests by authorities are reasonable in our submission based upon the outcomes of what we do....not what is done to us: Therefore, a request to be searched, may be outside the constitutional law of conforming to a warrant and probable cause..... but, for the sake and the testimony of Christ, it may be reasonable to submit to authority... as unto the Lord, because there is nothing to hide and nothing to be gained (either for ourselves or similar persons identified with the faith) by positioning ourselves in an aggresive show of opposition.
Now, if we are taking this opposition and adversarial position due to our allegiance and understanding of the strict interpretation of the constitution of the United States, whereby we considered our rights are infringed upon by those who are in authority regarding the law.... then we do so ......not under the shadow of the cross which is our tower of protection, but under our rights as citizens dependant on the authorities and laws of man..... which includes the constitution: We are then acknowledging the authorities.... whether right or wrong, whether just or unjust, and the outcome of our actions .....whether good or bad, are according to the laws of man and apart from any protection or defense regarding our postion with God. We chose by our own action which is our judge (God or man) by the very choice we make concerning our recognition of authority and compliance and our defense if opposing.
Jesus taught much about submission to authorities.... if one demands a coat...offer it.... the tax.....render unto Ceasar...... walk 1 mile....offer 2miles, etc. The freedoms and rights which are written in the constitution...... Where do they originate? These are considered by Christians to be rights given us by Almighty God and not subject to any man. The constitution.... however we may esteem it to be... neither gives us these rights nor establishes the keeping of these rights. When I exercise my rights... I establish them in my living. When I see that even my rights are in submission to God's authority, I am then free from the fear or pressure to be impeded by the laws of man..... but this does not free me from doing what God would be pleased with me doing when standing in the laws of man to be judged by man.... provided I am kept under the order of God's authority and those which he has established over me. If I then choose to be angry and aggressive and oppositional to a request which is reasonable... then I have refused to submit to God's order and in raising myself up to judge the law, have positioned my own defense within the scope of human law, judgement, and whatever mercies or protection may be derived thereby: I have removed myself from the protection and my defense by the laws of God's own order.
In a sense, a pastor's defense and shield in the role of his duties and calling, are when he is submitted to God's direction in those works which regard his calling. When he is driving a car..... he's under the authority of road regulations, same as any driver. When he's a husband and a father, he is the head of his home and is to submit to the authority of Christ as his head, and to his wife in his patience and servatude and grace in leadership, as Christ was to his disciples and obediance to the cross of sacrifice. As a citizen, he is under the leadership and roles of those in governmental authority as any other citizen. Only to the extent that he may be coerced or expected to defer from the lawful authority of God to comply or facilitate an unlawful demand by those in human authority does he or any Christian have the privilege and opportunity to oppose and withstand by whatever strength and power God gives him, to refuse a criminal or unlawful act or compliance.
Sorry. I feel strongly about the constitution and my rights protected by it. But I believe there is a higher law with a higher standard which authority and power comes from God..... and He is the protector and defender of my rights. I do not see how these instances of challenging authority .......when it is not as much an infringement of my rights as it is a contest of my will and pride to obey or deny a reasonable request of authority..... works either for the good of my countrymen.... and much less so for the glory of the cross for which God gave himself so very much.
I would be ashamed to call myself "Christian" or a 'pastor' to cloak myself in a self-righteous display after having resisted and added antagonism to challenge, disrespect, and inflame those who are in authority, as it appears this pastor has done.
If he could go back....... to answer the reasonable requests of producing identifications, to be differential in submitting to the reasonable requests of answering questions, and then..... even if asked to search, to place it on record that while he was not giving permission for a search without warrant or probable cause, he would not interfere with them doing whatever was required in the performance of their duties....... would have stood as a great witness and testimony of Christian response. Then, as a citizen, if he had still felt like his rights were violated... or in the course of being compliant and submissive, he received property damage or personal injury, or even on the basis of an unjust search..... he has his rights protected to petition the courts and discipline the authorities. As a citizen of a country..... he would then be doing his lawful duty: As a citizen of the King, he would have caused no insult or embarassment to those who follow the Savior, or the law of God.
In the end...... we submit to the authority of God. Even our rights are under his authority. God is superior to the President and the laws of any land..... or the systems of authority made by the Babylonian design of man: But the Bible clearly details that in keeping with our submission to God, we are obliged in our submission to the lawful exercises of man's authority. He does not call us to friendship with this world's systems.... which will grow unfriendly and unlawful as time and them progress..... but he does call us to live as much as it is within us peacably with all men. This is his order and in this is our good conduct and testimony before all others.... great and small, neighbors and rulers.
The law enforcement (any kind within their jurisdiction), have the authority to request to search. This does not automatically give them the authority to conduct a search. They are supposed to have probable cause, and probable cause is what supports their affadavit for a warrant to conduct an authorize search without gaining permission.
Whenever a citizen is asked to be searched, he has the right to accept or refuse, unless a warrant or probable cause is introduced: However, even if he refuses and a warrant is not introduced, he does not have the right to interfere in a violent or threatening or beligerant fashion: His rights extend up to the point of voicing (appropriately and unaggressively) his opposition to the search, and to have it placed on record that such search was conducted without his approval or permission and that the search carried out was without incident regarding his cooperation or lack thereof. At this point, he has protected his rights .....should contraband or persons be found whether of his knowledge or not. Any seizures or charges occurring would then have to take into account his constitutional rights and privileges at the time of the search....... and whether he waived his rights by giving consent, or protected his rights by declining consent but allowing his cooperation by not impeding their duties in performing their request.
It does appear that Mr Anderson is conflicting his obligations as a Christian to the cause of Christ with his duties as a citizen who takes a strict and personal stand based upon his interpretation of the constitution of the United States. The former behavirior and jurisdiction, under the laws of God and submission to the cross implies that the Christian citizen is covered under the authority and protection of God as long as he submits as Jesus would submit to authorities beneath God: The instruction of the cross is that we are in agreement with God when we submit to the reasonable requests of authorities which are in place over us: It does not matter whether these requests are right or wrong... whether observing our rights and just towards us or not....... God considers that requests by authorities are reasonable in our submission based upon the outcomes of what we do....not what is done to us: Therefore, a request to be searched, may be outside the constitutional law of conforming to a warrant and probable cause..... but, for the sake and the testimony of Christ, it may be reasonable to submit to authority... as unto the Lord, because there is nothing to hide and nothing to be gained (either for ourselves or similar persons identified with the faith) by positioning ourselves in an aggresive show of opposition.
Now, if we are taking this opposition and adversarial position due to our allegiance and understanding of the strict interpretation of the constitution of the United States, whereby we considered our rights are infringed upon by those who are in authority regarding the law.... then we do so ......not under the shadow of the cross which is our tower of protection, but under our rights as citizens dependant on the authorities and laws of man..... which includes the constitution: We are then acknowledging the authorities.... whether right or wrong, whether just or unjust, and the outcome of our actions .....whether good or bad, are according to the laws of man and apart from any protection or defense regarding our postion with God. We chose by our own action which is our judge (God or man) by the very choice we make concerning our recognition of authority and compliance and our defense if opposing.
Jesus taught much about submission to authorities.... if one demands a coat...offer it.... the tax.....render unto Ceasar...... walk 1 mile....offer 2miles, etc. The freedoms and rights which are written in the constitution...... Where do they originate? These are considered by Christians to be rights given us by Almighty God and not subject to any man. The constitution.... however we may esteem it to be... neither gives us these rights nor establishes the keeping of these rights. When I exercise my rights... I establish them in my living. When I see that even my rights are in submission to God's authority, I am then free from the fear or pressure to be impeded by the laws of man..... but this does not free me from doing what God would be pleased with me doing when standing in the laws of man to be judged by man.... provided I am kept under the order of God's authority and those which he has established over me. If I then choose to be angry and aggressive and oppositional to a request which is reasonable... then I have refused to submit to God's order and in raising myself up to judge the law, have positioned my own defense within the scope of human law, judgement, and whatever mercies or protection may be derived thereby: I have removed myself from the protection and my defense by the laws of God's own order.
In a sense, a pastor's defense and shield in the role of his duties and calling, are when he is submitted to God's direction in those works which regard his calling. When he is driving a car..... he's under the authority of road regulations, same as any driver. When he's a husband and a father, he is the head of his home and is to submit to the authority of Christ as his head, and to his wife in his patience and servatude and grace in leadership, as Christ was to his disciples and obediance to the cross of sacrifice. As a citizen, he is under the leadership and roles of those in governmental authority as any other citizen. Only to the extent that he may be coerced or expected to defer from the lawful authority of God to comply or facilitate an unlawful demand by those in human authority does he or any Christian have the privilege and opportunity to oppose and withstand by whatever strength and power God gives him, to refuse a criminal or unlawful act or compliance.
Sorry. I feel strongly about the constitution and my rights protected by it. But I believe there is a higher law with a higher standard which authority and power comes from God..... and He is the protector and defender of my rights. I do not see how these instances of challenging authority .......when it is not as much an infringement of my rights as it is a contest of my will and pride to obey or deny a reasonable request of authority..... works either for the good of my countrymen.... and much less so for the glory of the cross for which God gave himself so very much.
I would be ashamed to call myself "Christian" or a 'pastor' to cloak myself in a self-righteous display after having resisted and added antagonism to challenge, disrespect, and inflame those who are in authority, as it appears this pastor has done.
If he could go back....... to answer the reasonable requests of producing identifications, to be differential in submitting to the reasonable requests of answering questions, and then..... even if asked to search, to place it on record that while he was not giving permission for a search without warrant or probable cause, he would not interfere with them doing whatever was required in the performance of their duties....... would have stood as a great witness and testimony of Christian response. Then, as a citizen, if he had still felt like his rights were violated... or in the course of being compliant and submissive, he received property damage or personal injury, or even on the basis of an unjust search..... he has his rights protected to petition the courts and discipline the authorities. As a citizen of a country..... he would then be doing his lawful duty: As a citizen of the King, he would have caused no insult or embarassment to those who follow the Savior, or the law of God.
In the end...... we submit to the authority of God. Even our rights are under his authority. God is superior to the President and the laws of any land..... or the systems of authority made by the Babylonian design of man: But the Bible clearly details that in keeping with our submission to God, we are obliged in our submission to the lawful exercises of man's authority. He does not call us to friendship with this world's systems.... which will grow unfriendly and unlawful as time and them progress..... but he does call us to live as much as it is within us peacably with all men. This is his order and in this is our good conduct and testimony before all others.... great and small, neighbors and rulers.
4His_glory
New Member
Honestly I fail to see how we have a right to resist a search, even if it is an illegal search. Because we are commanded to submit to authorities even if it means we will suffer. (1 Peter 1:13-17) Not honoring those in authority by being a jerk may not be against human law, but it is against what God desires of His children.
BTW. If they decided to rip the carpet from my car or do a full cavity search, I still would have to submit, even though I would be bothered greatly by it. However that would most likely never happen if I should my ID in the first place and complied with what was asked. If you are not guilty of any illegal action what is there to hide?
Glad this thread stayed open for this quote. Outstanding.
Contrast Spamderson's histrionics with how Peter and Paul reacted to authorities. Even if he is within his rights, he's being an absolute jerk. He's pushing people from the kingdom as fast as he can.
(this kind of pastor at some point will make the news...and it won't be edifying or helpful for the Kingdom).
I shudder to think what kind of home his kids are being raised in. May God protect them.
- Status