Remember the Pastor that was tazed and beaten? Watch.

[ClayTrainor]

From Daily Paul.


They now have footage from the actual incident , This is disturbing , They smashed the guys window and shot him with the tazer while he's still in the drivers seat screaming and yelling. They state in the video that he was being detained because he simply would not "OBEY" the officer.

YouTube - ACTUAL FOOTAGE Pastor Beaten & Tased by Border Patrol & DPS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A)

[Reason]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188802

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189099

PS: The pastor is an idiot for not following the police officer's orders to step out of the car to be arrested. Once an officer states that you are being placed under arrest, you comply. Then you fight in court.

[ClayTrainor]

Remember that search function?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188802

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189099



PS: The pastor is an idiot for not following the police officer's orders to step out of the car to be arrested. Once an officer states that you are being placed under arrest, you comply. Then you fight in court.

Oh god, the forum police... DONT TAZE ME. Let me see your moderator badge :p


But seriously, i apologize for not using the search, and i agree. If i was told i was being arrested, i would comply and fight later, however, this is still a very clear violation of rights without probable cause.

Very disgusting stuff.

[Reason]

this is still a very clear violation of rights without probable cause.

The way the law is right now allows the border patrol to use the "alert" from the dog as probable cause.

They also are absolutely NOT REQUIRED under current law to bring the dog back to see if it alerts again if the driver demands they do so.

This is a sticky situation because it clearly allows the BP the ability to lie without anyone being able to prove if they lied.

I was discussing this with a border patrol agent a week or so ago and we agreed that a good compromise would be to have an agent with a video camera tape the entire event including when the dog alerted on the car.

[ClayTrainor]

The way the law is right now allows the border patrol to use the "alert" from the dog as probable cause.

They also are absolutely NOT REQUIRED under current law to bring the dog back to see if it alerts again if the driver demands they do so.

This is a sticky situation because it clearly allows the BP the ability to lie without anyone being able to prove if they lied.

I was discussing this with a border patrol agent a week or so ago and we agreed that a good compromise would be to have an agent with a video camera tape the entire event including when the dog alerted on the car.

Sounds like a decent compromise to me.

If that dog is there to find probable cause, then there should definitely some sort of recording, to hold the officer in charge accountable and make sure he can't just use his 'blind power', as he chooses.

[phill4paul]

Video should be required by law at any checkpoint: border, dui, license etc. Also during any no knock raids. It is only logical. If the officers are in the right it adds evidence for the prosecution.
The only reason why they would not want this is if they are trying to hide something.;)

[KoldKut]

...

[Bossobass]

The way the law is right now allows the border patrol to use the "alert" from the dog as probable cause.

They also are absolutely NOT REQUIRED under current law to bring the dog back to see if it alerts again if the driver demands they do so.

This is a sticky situation because it clearly allows the BP the ability to lie without anyone being able to prove if they lied.

I was discussing this with a border patrol agent a week or so ago and we agreed that a good compromise would be to have an agent with a video camera tape the entire event including when the dog alerted on the car.

Gee, great to have the answer grape chime in.

Must be one hell of a worthless alert dog, eh? Can't smell drugs, can't smell a body. Did the border patrol guy sell you swampland during your conversation?

The law is shit. It needs to be repealed. Probably not by you.

Bosso

[Reason]

The law is shit. It needs to be repealed.

It's fine to feel that way, and if the pastor had complied with the police officer and been arrested he could take his case to court and attempt to have the law changed perhaps with assistance from the ACLU.

Just because you don't feel a law is just doesn't mean you can disobey it and cry about the repercussions. The law was established by your elected representatives.

[purplechoe]

Remember that search function?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188802

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189099

PS: The pastor is an idiot for not following the police officer's orders to step out of the car to be arrested. Once an officer states that you are being placed under arrest, you comply. Then you fight in court.

With friends like you who needs enemies?

[Reason]

With friends like you who needs enemies?

logic>emotion

[Bossobass]

It's fine to feel that way, and if the pastor had complied with the police officer and been arrested he could take his case to court and attempt to have the law changed perhaps with assistance from the ACLU.

Just because you don't feel a law is just doesn't mean you can disobey it and cry about the repercussions. The law was established by your elected representatives.

It's fine to play cop, judge and jury in a public forum, if you're hell bent on playing the village dolt, too.

The guy's innocent until proven guilty.

Wanks like you who run around sentencing people while calling them idiots, then doling out legal advice and how to repeal an unconstitutional federal sham law instructions give me an ulcer.

If I know a law is unconstitutional, I can deal with that any way I see fit. If I feel the need to pay a consultant beforehand, it ain't gonna be you, so you can save the sermon.

Bosso

[BuddyRey]

Just because you don't feel a law is just doesn't mean you can disobey it and cry about the repercussions. The law was established by your elected representatives.

There is no Constitutional mandate in place which says that citizens have to follow Unconstitutional laws. The Founders were very clear on this point.

[Athan]

His last name is HANCOCK.
Coincidence?
Anyway where is the probably cause?

[KoldKut]

Anyway where is the probably cause?

Isn't that a matter for a court to determine?

Cop says, "I have probable cause!"

Suspect says, "No you don't!"

What happens next?

[ClayTrainor]

Isn't that a matter for a court to determine?

Cop says, "I have probable cause!"

Suspect says, "No you don't!"

What happens next?

This is a good point.

It still doesn't justify the cops actions, but it's a far better way to handle the case. On the other hand, the pastor has made thousands of people aware of the growing police state in America.

I for one am glad he managed to expose this, and put it up for debate. We all agree that the cop was out of line, with his use of the taser.

[RSLudlum]

WTF???

"This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community."

Oh yeah, I forgot this is "legal torture" and unappropriate for those ignorant of state sanctioned violence.


At least LCLReport's clip hasn't been tagged 'inappropriate"
YouTube - Pastor gets Tazed and breaten by DHS agents, Actual Footage! We also examine check points. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss1JFzL0IP8)

[Danke]

If I know a law is unconstitutional, I can deal with that any way I see fit. If I feel the need to pay a consultant beforehand, it ain't gonna be you, so you can save the sermon.



Yep.


An Unconstitutional Law is No Law


Unconstitutional Laws Do Not Have To Be Obeyed.



If a Law is Unconstitutional it is as if the Law was never Enacted and no one is Required to Obey or Follow it and anyone who attempts to enforce it is NOT protected by their job title or badge because they do not have the Legal Authority to enforce it. It is as if the Law Enforcer Made Up the Law themselves.



That is what the Following means when it states: creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…



We do not have to Submit to the Orders of anyone who orders any of us to obey them when the Law they are Ordering us to obey is Unconstitutional. And if we defend ourselves from anyone enforcing an Unconstitutional Law, we have committed NO CRIME and are not Liable for any consequences.



But on the Other Hand if the Law Enforcer causes any harm to anyone while Attempting to Enforce an Unconstitutional Law, he is Personally Fully Liable for any harm he has caused. If the Law Enforcer assaults or even shoots you he is just as Liable for his actions as a Regular Criminal would be if he was the one who assaulted or shot you.



I have the Complete Supreme Court Decision and Ruling:



U.S. Supreme Court Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)



In the Documents Menu: U.S.S.C. Norton v Shelby



The following is from, The Sixteenth American Jurispridence, Second Edition, Section 177, which is one of the Books that Attorneys and Judges use to understand what the accepted Principle of Law is on a specific issue.



*******************************



What is the force of an unconstitutional law?



The U.S. Constitution

is the supreme law of the land



Any statute or treaty, to be valid, must be in agreement with the Constitution. There is a general misconception that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law not in agreement with it to be valid; the Constitution must prevail. The Sixteenth American Jurispridence, Second Edition, Section 177: states it thus:



The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.



Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…



A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.



No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. —Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177