What was the 'probable cause' for the stop, in the first place at 75 mi. (or an hour's drive) away from (and running parallel to, and not away from) the US/Mexico Border - a rental car??
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
Poster on Baptist Board in the news
- Thread starter paidagogos
- Start date
- Status
Ed
If the dog smelled something, why wasn't Mr. Anderson charged with something?
This is unacceptable behavior from police officers. It is unconstitutional. It could be you next time.
Does anybody know any law enforcement officers?
I do not know any personally, but if you do, I would like to hear a professional opinion.
Until then, my inital answers stands - do as the cop says - then if necessary call your lawyer and file a lawsuit.
tasers are evil tools for incompetant officers
In the bad old days the officer would have dragged him out of his car, cuffed him, and searched it. Since 1964 civil rights act police forces and federal agencies are hiring runts who can't intimidate anyone and so they are instructed to use a taser and not try any physical force. I didn't this was the case with the Border Patrol.
I can close my eyes and imagine Anderson's big mouth inviting the officer to take a cheap shot at him. Heard it, myself, many a time.
In the bad old days the officer would have dragged him out of his car, cuffed him, and searched it. Since 1964 civil rights act police forces and federal agencies are hiring runts who can't intimidate anyone and so they are instructed to use a taser and not try any physical force. I didn't this was the case with the Border Patrol.
I can close my eyes and imagine Anderson's big mouth inviting the officer to take a cheap shot at him. Heard it, myself, many a time.
What was the 'probable cause' for the stop, in the first place at 75 mi. (or an hour's drive) away from (and running parallel to, and not away from) the US/Mexico Border - a rental car??
Ed
Why did they need probable cause? I have no problem with random checkpoints 300 (500, 600) miles away from the border if they want to try and find some illegal immigrants, or drunk drivers, or drug smugglers, or whatever. Stop people randomly, check them out, if everything is cool send them on their way. Where's the problem?
Everyone loves to blame law enforcement for not dealing with crime, but when they actually do something about it then it's a problem and a violation of your rights. Cry me a river....
Because they didn't find anything. If 100 pounds of pot was in the car the day before, the dogs will fire on that.
I'd be happy for it to be me next time. I won't end up beaten, however, because I'll comply with law enforcements wishes. I'll be back in my vehicle and on my way because I will act like a law abiding citizen, instead of somone that has something to hide.
The guy was obviously not an illegal alien for goodness sake. The search was illegal.
What's to stop the police from making a search of your home without probable cause? Yes, they have done that too.
When law enforcement deals with crime, that's a good thing. But no crime had been committed in this case. I would like to think that a citizen of this country has the constitutional right to refuse an illegal search and even protest it.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
My father died (of cancer) while an active policeman. Your answer was his answer. At the scene you can do nothing. Later you can spend all the money you want trying to get even. In general, it is good to be polite to folks with a taser in their hand - especially the ones with side arms.
Have fun if you are a deaf/mute and you hands are cuffed :-( It is the main reason for having the fact you have a handicap on your Driver's License and on your wrist, dog-tag, ear-tag, or whatever.
But how would the police ( or you) know that no crime had not been committed?
salty
PS, I know its a double negative
The dog alerting on the car is probable cause for searching the car. Charges would not be filed for there was not actually something found.
This will not happen to me because I would comply with law enforcement instructions.
Upon approaching a vehicle the demeanor of the driver and the vehicle occupants have a bearing on the outcome. There have been many times I have not issued a citation simply because the driver was cooperative and a warning was sufficient. If you are "hot-headed" or suspicious in your actions that will cause me to ask more question and possibly take more action.
It appears in this situation that if Mr Anderson had simply complied, he would have been on his way in short order. We do not know Mr Anderson's demeanor nor the exchanges between him and the officers.
If you feel violated or intimadited by an officer, ask for a supervisor or cooperate and seek legal advice later. Contrary to comments made in this thread most officers are not going about seeking to harm people. There are unfortunately some bad officers who violate the rules. No different then the few Pastors who violate the trust of members of a congregation.
The search was NOT illegal. All cars are stopped at these check points not just those that look like illegal aliens (that would be illegal). Anytime a dog alerts, the search is justified.
If you did not have anything to hid why would you not cooperate?
FTR, I would have complied as well. But with the illegal alien problem, the drug war and now Christians being targeted by homeland security as possible terriorists, I am feeling my rights slipping away.
Why was the dog even used in this case? Once the officer saw that Mr. Anderson was alone and was not an illegal, why did he pursue it any further?
They were not just looking for illegal aliens, but for illegal drug traffic. A drug sniffing dog is often used to check vehicles (as well as luggage at an airport). Drug smugglers come in all shapes sizes.
Oh, how many Christians (for being a Christian) have been arrested for being a terriorist?
Didn't you read the report by HS? It was posted in another thread.
It won't be long before you will not be able to preach against h*mose*uality in your church without the threat of being arrested.
The dog hit on the trunk.. a person could have been in the trunk for all the officers knew.. They were not sure Anderson was alone.
The dog was trained for drugs and humans.
What we have is an attention loving pastor.. (Those of us that have had exchanges with him know his lack of integrity.. and attention grabs).. who no doubt is using this to get more attention.
Tim - I hate to say it, but I agree with you (not that I hate agreeing with you but that I hate to say that he's attention getting).
Honestly, his response is less than what I'd expect from a Biblical Christian and more what I'd expect from Al Sharpton (me being from NY and all....). If he felt he was wronged, it's fine to go ahead and attempt to have things taken care of. To post the names of the guards on the internet is just idiocy. The way he's showing himself on the internet shows that the guards had just cause to fear for themselves.
I'm not sure where you got that the dog hit on the trunk, but HERE is an article in the Yuma Sun.
After reading the above article, it sounds like Mr. Anderson was not cooperating, refusing to answer questions. I still question whether or not the dog actually hit on anything. The scary thing to me is that the 4th amendment is suspended or rendered moot when it comes to the Border Patrol. They have been given the authority to override the 4th amendment, which is a big concern of mine regarding the protection of our constitutional rights.
Has anyone posting on this thread even bothered to so much as read the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution?
Effectively, on this thread I have seen an implication that he must have been hiding something, and that he should not have refused to answer any questions, and that unreasonable search is reasonable.
Do I consider Steven Anderson a jerk? I definitely do, but what does that have to do with our Constitution? If it doesn't apply to a jerk, how long before someone gets to decide you or I are jerks, because we are theologically conservative, therefore it doesn't apply to others of us, as well?
Oh, Wait a minute! I almost forgot!
That already has been decided, hasn't it? Or have all here completely forgotten about WGCB radio, Bob Jones University and Goldsboro Christian Schools some 30-40 years ago? :tear:
I was in total disagreement with the policy of these said entities. But once again, what does that have to do with anything??
Ed
- Status