Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, without a video or some other kind of confirmation, none of us have any idea what really went on or why. For instance, we don't know if maybe the guy flipped the officer off while talking to him. Or, his wife did.
Or, maybe he moved the car forward. There's an endless list of things he could have done which would arouse the officers suspicions enough to order him out of the car, but which would not show up on an audio recording alone.
Well, there is no indication anywhere in the audio to even remotely suggest such an action occurred. Using that form of approach, we don't know that the officer didn't do the same. The point is that this form of speculation is a bit over the top. I know what you are saying, that there "may" be some unknowns here that could change the perspective of the incident, but we are evaluating what we have here and my opinion is based on what we do know, not the unknown.
Besides, I don't see any of your scenarios being the case. If he tried to drive up, this would have warranted an immediate physical escalation (maybe even a drawn gun, though certainly an arrest and cuffing) by officers, not a verbal line of requests of "give me the keys" as the officer calmly asked. Keep in mind also, in the charges mentioned later, none of the charges support that speculation. Also, if the man or his wife had given the finger, such would have been brought up by the supervisor in the room or the second officer that was talking to him when he was brought in. Point is, the scenarios you are given are not substantiated or supported, they are pure speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
The point is that since he WAS recording the thing from the very beginning and he HAS uploaded similar stuff to YouTube before, the circumstantial evidence suggests that he intended to create a confrontation of some kind. If that's the case, it wouldn't have mattered if the officer simply said, "Hello. Go ahead."
Again, you are making extreme speculations on the issue and I think you are excusing the evidence that is available in the audio in order to imply some different scenario which has no support. His recording does not provide support for any specific claim of malicious actions, this is unfounded. Now his previous posts on YouTube is a support for a confrontational style, yet as I said, the audio available of his comments did not warrant the escalation by the officers.
Now certainly, there may be some more we are missing, but I don't hear any support for the examples you used in the audio and the "intent" of the accused is not a validation of the officers actions. The accused actions as I can identify in the audio didn't warrant the escalation and the officers comments concerning the crimes (his explanation of assault and the charge of obstruction of justice) are weak use laws. It is like the "poor left right" law used in a traffic stop.
These types of laws are loosely interpreted and while they can be useful in further investigation of a known violator (a known drug dealer is stopped for the violation that otherwise wouldn't allow the officer to pull him over), some officers use them improperly as a crutch to justify their poor actions. In this case, the charges they mentioned were bogus intimidation techniques, an approach that most investigators will discourage (especially in cases such as these).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Or, it could be totally faked.
It is possible. We don't know... I was commenting on what we do have available to us, not what "might" be possible. I am not saying that you are wrong to desire more information before making a conclusion, just that your objection is not validation to a support the position you seem to be implying. As I said, my evaluation is based on what is available to us only.
Doesn't surprise me. Wasn't there a toddler on the list not too long ago that TSA got a lot of flack for?
Whoever is doing the "lists" needs a good evaluation of their competence.
Anyway, there are much easier ways to detain people without creating a huge fiasco. Considering the success rate of their lists, officers should take this into consideration when they do detain. Innocent people have a tendency to get extremely angry when they are treated as if they are criminals. A different approach would go a long way to avoiding unnecessary incidents.
If the guy was on the list, it would have been easier to have had him come into the office first using a "random interview" approach as a reason. The person may still have gotten angry, but the officers could have avoided direct attention to them by saying "sorry sir, we are just following policy".
Doesn't surprise me. Wasn't there a toddler on the list not too long ago that TSA got a lot of flack for?
Whoever is doing the "lists" needs a good evaluation of their competence.
Anyway, there are much easier ways to detain people without creating a huge fiasco. Considering the success rate of their lists, officers should take this into consideration when they do detain. Innocent people have a tendency to get extremely angry when they are treated as if they are criminals. A different approach would go a long way to avoiding unnecessary incidents.
I have no doubt that there are thousands of people on those lists who don't need to be there. Like any data base, stuff tends to get entered but never removed, so the list just grows and grows and grows. Garbage in; garbage out.
But, it is what we have and the procedures for using that list are what we have too. Until, or unless, those lists are purged of faulty data and new procedures adopted, border officers have their hands tied and must do what they have to do.
Whether or not those lists were a factor in the confrontation under discussion here isn't known. But, it's not hard to see how the overall mindset of working under those conditions can easily lead an officer to be more aggressive than perhaps he should be.
the us border patrol at niagra coming back from quebec is awful. they dont discriminate they treat everybody bad. random searches and detainment u r grilled in front of everybody else it gets very personal they take u out of the car and put u in a cement brick building with metal benches very cold for may almost an hour take your keys and go thru your car too.
being a citizen and former or retired law enforcement will not save u from this experience.
very very nasty.
I believe that crossing is the biggest US-Canada crossing.
And soon there will be a drone flying over your back yard checking to see how many burgers you are grilling [for your weight gaining safety of course]
Do you really think that Moochelle would send them out to do that? I will demand that my wife raise and lower the lid very quickly from not on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will demand that my wife raise and lower the lid very quickly from not on.
