'Say Please' at US Border Nets Pepper Spay

[George Wallace]

Yup!  Not a bright thing to be doing. 

 

[Old Sweat]

He is an alien who refused a legal order of a law enforcement officer. That is the bottom line. Perhaps he could argue that he questioned the order, but he is still on shakey grounds.

Let me tell you about another reaction you could run into from US homeland security. A couple of years ago we pulled up to the border crossing at Tolstoi, Manitoba headed back to eastern Ontario. The officer who scanned our passports then said he wanted to look in the back of our RV. (The computer proably randomly selected us for a look see.) I told him the door was open, but I should go ahead to get a handle on the dog. He asked what is it and when I told him it was a Lab, the situation tunred very cordial. He took a quick look and then he and his fellow agent, both of whom owned Labs, spent the time until the next vehicle came along playing with our dog.

A month after 9/11 we pulled up to the border at Cornwall enroute to Cape Cod and the officer asked to inspect the RV we owned then. She and another, who turned out to be her husband, looked over the vehicle quite throughly and then thanked us, as they wanted to buy this model and had taken the opportunity to check it out. In the meantime, the traffic backed up.

These are the other end of the scale, but if you are civil and calm, you should have no serious difficulties. They have a job to do, and that is protecting their country. Don't be surprised if they do it.

 

[Neill McKay]

Let's see.

US Border Agent armed with sidearm and can of pepper spray.

Uses pepper spray.

Doesn't use firearm.

Violent or nonviolent response?

Violent.  Less violent than shooting him, more violent than slapping him in the face or punching him in the arm, but undeniably violent.

I would say that it was a rather restrained response considering the fact that a motorist, operating a "deadly weapon" (automobile), was being beligerant.

Do you accept a distinction between uncooperative and belligerent?  I think, based on what's been presented here, he was more of the former.

Yes, a car can be a deadly weapon, but in this case it was hardly being used as such.  Surely we can't treat all motorists as brandishing a deadly weapon simply by virtue of being motorists, can we?

 

[armyvern]

Violent.  Less violent than shooting him, more violent than slapping him in the face or punching him in the arm, but undeniably violent.

Do you accept a distinction between uncooperative and belligerent?  I think, based on what's been presented here, he was more of the former.

Yes, a car can be a deadly weapon, but in this case it was hardly being used as such.  Surely we can't treat all motorists as brandishing a deadly weapon simply by virtue of being motorists, can we?

Either of your "less violent" options would have had the agent's ass charged for doing his job - quite unlike the "less violent" option he chose.

His was the proper response and the lowest level of violence acceptable in the performance of his duties. Period.

Buddy was a dickwad, didn't comply with direction (direction given legally at that) and paid for it --- HIS problem and HIS fault. No more excuses for idiots please.

 

[George Wallace]

Violent.  Less violent than shooting him, more violent than slapping him in the face or punching him in the arm, but undeniably violent.

A slap to the face can be a charge of Assault in the eyes of the Law.  The officer would have had to place himself in danger, by entering the automobile to do so.  How far do you want to play this game?

Do you accept a distinction between uncooperative and belligerent?  I think, based on what's been presented here, he was more of the former.

I would say that he was both.  His insistence that the officer say "Please" was purposely inciting the officer and escalating the situation.

Yes, a car can be a deadly weapon, but in this case it was hardly being used as such.  Surely we can't treat all motorists as brandishing a deadly weapon simply by virtue of being motorists, can we?

Are you absolutely sure that this never had a possibility of happening; that the thought may not have entered the driver's mind to speed off?  He was ordered to turn off the ignition, and refused.  That is a key point and an indicator that he may have had other motives in mind.  A LEO can not read minds.  Apparently you can.

This guy is lucky that the officer used pepper spray and not his firearm.

 

[Journeyman]

Buddy was a dickwad, didn't comply with direction (direction given legally at that) and paid for it --- HIS problem and HIS fault. No more excuses for idiots please.

Be calm Vern.....you'll always hear countervailing arguments, habitually from people who've never once earned the Queen's shilling in harm's way.

Bottom line: This clown was directed by a LEO to turn off his vehicle; he refused; he got pepper sprayed when he could very well have been shot -- it's their country, and their security personnel's concerns. I can't even remotely begin to critique the guy doing his job.




....but then I've always believed that people are responsible for their own behaviour -- clearly I've never voted NDP either.

 

[George Wallace]

I find it hard to believe that someone would vehemently defend "Stupidity".

 

[geo]

Interesting,
It appears the individual has a 2nd home in the USA
Unless he has his US Citzenship, it is just as likely that US Customs & imigration will bar him from entering the US for the foreseable future.... which, as a US homeowner, is going to suck!

 

[Good2Golf]

This is reminding me of those two Canadian guys by Niagara Falls whose Jetskis broke down, and they drifted to the US shore, then gave the LEO's and CBPS guys grief and got themselves thrown into the slammer and put before a judge a few days later and deported.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and we had the same kind of fools defending them, and guess what, they were 100% wrong also.

Don't comply after the first two levels of force? [ officer presence and verbal communication] Then welcome to the third level.

Not a court on either side of the border that would even look at this.......except to tell clown-face how long, if ever, before he can re-enter the US again.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

except to tell clown-face how long, if ever, before he can re-enter the US again.

My guess is never. He'll soon be contacting a real estate agent down there to sell his property. Too bad, so sad, but I wonder if he'll say 'please' and 'thankyou' when he gets 20 cents on the dollar for it.

 

[Neill McKay]

A slap to the face can be a charge of Assault in the eyes of the Law.  The officer would have had to place himself in danger, by entering the automobile to do so.  How far do you want to play this game?

I'm arguing that the use of pepper spray was violent, and provided an example of something else that was also violent, but less so, for comparison.  I'm not suggesting that the customs officer should have struck the driver.

I would say that he was both.  His insistence that the officer say "Please" was purposely inciting the officer and escalating the situation.

Fair point; that might well have been his intention.  But my guess is that he was nothing more than a smart-ass who wanted to make a point with the customs officer, and didn't think his actions through.

A LEO can not read minds.  Apparently you can.

Sadly not!

This guy is lucky that the officer used pepper spray and not his firearm.

I hope we never get to a point where a customs officer in a developed country shoots someone at a port of entry over something like this.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I hope we never get to a point where a customs officer in a developed country shoots someone at a port of entry over something like this.

Like what?........were you there?...have you read the officer's reports?.....how do you [or I, or anyone here] know what "like this" really was?

I would hope that since they are our first line of defense that they would be more than ready to shoot if required.

....and cooperation at the border is required.

 

[ENGINEERS WIFE]

My  :2c: is that someone of authority, ie; police, border guard, etc says turn off you vehicle, most people with a brain in their head would do what is asked of them.  Whether they are asked nicely or not. 
Pepper spray might be excessive for some, but if you are that border guard and someone is not following fairly simple and easy directions, how the h*ll is he/she supposed to know if they are a bad guy or not?

And if all 'security forces' had to use their manners, there would be a lot more bad guys running around!! 

Plain and simple, the guy is a bonehead, thank you very much  :

 

[Good2Golf]

I hope we never get to a point where a customs officer in a developed country shoots someone at a port of entry over something like this.

"this" is only something we all know about how it went down because we have the nicety of reading the report in a paper or on the internet from the comfort of our own homes. 

Consider that we could have also just as easily read a news story about "US Custom's and Border Guard shot in border crossing."  How was the Border Guard to know that this guy was only being a pedantic smart ass?

 

[CountDC]

My understanding is that the US Border Guard was not asking him to shut off the car - he was telling him so why would he say please?  The guy was in the wrong, he was warned and told again to shut off the car and still made the choice to ignore.  I know I would have done the same thing if I was the guard - except I probably would not have given as many chances.

 

[2 Cdo]

Sadly, this idiot now has his 15 minutes of fame and the usual idiots will trip over themselves to defend this moron over the Border Guards "violent abuse". :

 

[- m i l l e y -]

He's luck he was entering the US and only got pepper sprayed, in some countries people are shot for less.
The boarder guard was not asking he was telling.  All of us, or most of us, have had the experience of road blocks being it in training or in operational theaters.  When you're the one on the line, you have no idea who this person is or what his intents are.  At a boarder crossing or a road block you command action you do not ask for it.  After all, a boarder crossing is a place to submit to authority no matter who you are, not fight it.  Ones rights are not the same in transit (boarder crossing) as they are in country, (IE: you are subject to search without a warrant at a boarding crossing, and in country a warrant would be required.)  The fact this guy acted like this shows he irresponsibility any responsible person (adult or child) knows to do what you are told to by customs.

 

[chris_log]

I'm going to jump back into the topic, miss a day here and you miss alot it seems.

I can very well see this guy suing, and winning (as per Galahad's comments). I'm afraid alot of people here don't understand the civil courts system. The man merely has to argue a 'better' case then the officer and 'poof', he wins. Criminal courts have to show both 'actus reus' (I'm probably spelling these wrong) and 'mens rea'. In other words, that the guilty act occured AND that the offender meant to do it. In civil court, all you need to do is prove that a guilty act occured, regardless of the motivations behind it. This applies BOTH to Canada and the US. The difference is that in the US the legal system is much more of a business then it is here. 

I'll use a good in-your-face example. Curt Dagenais (I'm sure you are all aware of him and what he did) is arguing that he shot and killed the two mounties in self defence because he feared for his life. If the jury accepts that argument, that he didn't mean to commit a criminal act (murder), then the case will be tossed out. Why? Because despite the fact that a 'guilty act' occured, he didn't have a guilty mindset. Remember the guy who shot the Montreal cop a few years back when they kicked in his door? He was off the hook for murder because he successfully argued that he feared for his life and shot back in self defence (he did get locked up on weapons charges, however).

However, the families of the two mounties could take Dagenias to civil court and win, quite easily. Why? Because he shot the mounties, there is no need to prove why he may have done it or the circumstances around it. All they would need to do is convince the judge that their case is 'better' then the defendent's case.

So, this idiot who decided to play the stuffy old man routine to a BSO could (and I would venture will, considering that his phone is probably ringing off the hook with litigation lawyers calling him asking to take his case) take the man to civil court and sue, and possibly even win. One major downside to being a cop in the US is that they can (and do) get sued quite often. In this case, I see the man winning (bar other details none of us are privvy to, i.e. previous problems at the border). 

 

[armyvern]

I'm arguing that the use of pepper spray was violent, and provided an example of something else that was also violent, but less so, for comparison.  I'm not suggesting that the customs officer should have struck the driver.

Fair point; that might well have been his intention.  But my guess is that he was nothing more than a smart-ass who wanted to make a point with the customs officer, and didn't think his actions through.


Sadly not!

I hope we never get to a point where a customs officer in a developed country shoots someone at a port of entry over something like this.

You're arguing as if buddy (or any citizen of any nation) has the RIGHT to cross into another country. They don't. It is a priveledge. That's why there are rules and laws.

Asshat chose not to comply. Sucks to be him.