# 'Say Please' at US Border Nets Pepper Spay



## chris_log (5 Mar 2009)

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1351216

As much as I don't appreciate some of the attitudes of some LE types I've dealt with, this guy deserves an 'idiot' award (if such a thing exists). 

When the nice man in uniform tells you to turn off your car, you turn off your car.


----------



## Corey Darling (5 Mar 2009)

> Once, he said, he asked a Canadian border agent to be more polite when requesting documents, to which the agent responded with a sheepish "please."



 ;D


----------



## CountDC (5 Mar 2009)

nothing wrong with asking for manners but in this case he pushed too far.  Ignoring the warning was plain stupid and childish.  Even my kids have learned not to push the "I'm not doing it until I get my way" button too far.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Mar 2009)

This is a clear example of why pepper spray should be outlawed! 


If the border agent had no pepper spray, he would have had no recourse but to shoot the idiot.

- US border secure
- Darwinism appeased
- Canada with one less asshat.

Seems win/win to me


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> - Canada with one less asshat.



Didn't they refuse him admission to the States?  I think we still have that one more asshat.  It also appears that he is a repeat offender, likely to be introduced to Pepper spray in the near future once again.   ;D

Unless deadly force is used, and then he can become a Darwin Awards winner.   >


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Mar 2009)

Mr. Fortunato, this is U.S. Customs, not a day care!!  :

I agree with JM, lose the pepper spray.


----------



## North Star (8 Mar 2009)

This story has been provoking some pretty brutal comments online about border guards. But a few reminders:

1) We don't have the guard's side of the story;
2) Customs officials have every right to ask you to perform certain tasks in order to be given the priviledge to enter their country, and have to ask hundreds of times a day. You only see them once. Don't expect them to be cheery all the time;
3) Demanding someone say "please" can be even more rude than forgetting to say "please" while performing a repetitive task.

This guy is going to love it when the Olympics kick off...


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Mar 2009)

Based on what's been reported in this thread I think there's plenty of stupid to go around.  Cheeking a customs officer is a bad idea, but a violent response against someone over it isn't much better.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Based on what's been reported in this thread I think there's plenty of stupid to go around.  Cheeking a customs officer is a bad idea, but a violent response against someone over it isn't much better.



Get real. It wasn't being cheeky that got him sprayed. Disobeying the officer to shut off his car and hand over his keys is what got him sprayed. The officer has the right to use force when orders aren't complied with. With all the hinky idiots coming through the border, the officer is not required to second guess whether the guy is doing a Ms Manners impersonation, or a drugged up physco looking for an excuse to off a uniform. I'd flag the asshole and never let him into the States again.


----------



## hugh19 (8 Mar 2009)

Pepper spray is not a violent response, it was the next level of force. The idiot was noncompliant and was warned he got sprayed. Too bad for the numpty he got what he asked for.


----------



## Galahad (8 Mar 2009)

The funny thing about this is that he could sue over this, and if he did he would probably win. In civil court it would be a fairly straightforward case to make, as pepper spray is almost always  argued to be an excessive use of force, same thing with tasers.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> The funny thing about this is that he could sue over this, and if he did he would probably win. In civil court it would be a fairly straightforward case to make, as pepper spray is almost always  argued to be an excessive use of force, same thing with tasers.



Are you guys for real?  What court?  In which country?  Resisting/Disobeying a Law Enforcement Officer isn't the brightest thing to do.  Someone really has to be a little on the dimwitted side to antagonize an officer doing their duty.


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Mar 2009)

sledge said:
			
		

> Pepper spray is not a violent response,



It certainly is.



> it was the next level of force.



It may well be that, too.  They're not mutually exclusive.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Someone really has to be a little on the dimwitted side to antagonize an officer doing their duty.



You're absolutely right.  But people do successfully sue others over their own stupidity from time to time (more's the pity).


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> sledge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 :

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?

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


----------



## Galahad (8 Mar 2009)

I never said what he did was smart, or that he should have disobeyed orders from a law enforcement officer. All I was getting at was that in most situations pepper spray could be considered excessive use of force.

Maybe it was maybe it wasn't in this case, I don't know. But it's his right to sue if he wants to,and unlike criminal court, he wouldn't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, just enough to convince a judge, and I'm sure he could find at least half a dozen precedents where people have sued for being pepper sprayed and won.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> Maybe it was maybe it wasn't in this case, I don't know. But it's his right to sue if he wants to,and unlike criminal court, he wouldn't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, just enough to convince a judge, and I'm sure he could find at least half a dozen precedents where people have sued for being pepper sprayed and won.



Again, in what court?  In what country?

As for precedence; someone being pepper sprayed at a protest is not the same as someone being pepper sprayed attempting to run the border.   With the current climate in the US and Homeland Security et al, the courts may not find this twit to have any grounds to stand on, and feel it well within their power to imprison him instead.


----------



## Galahad (8 Mar 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Again, in what court?  In what country?
> 
> As for precedence; someone being pepper sprayed at a protest is not the same as someone being pepper sprayed attempting to run the border.   With the current climate in the US and Homeland Security et al, the courts may not find this twit to have any grounds to stand on, and feel it well within their power to imprison him instead.



Any court in this country, civil court cases are decided by a judge, not a jury, so it is not required to establish your case "beyond reasonable doubt," if you can convince a judge that your case has merit, and the law is on your side, the judge can decide for himself.

He could win if he sued, but he could also lose, but he's entitled to his right to try, as any Canadian citizen is if they have been caused harm.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2009)

Just a point.  It would most likely be in a US Court; not a Canadian Court, as it happened on US Soil, with a US Official.  Not something handled by Canadian Courts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> The funny thing about this is that he could sue over this, and if he did he would probably win. In civil court it would be a fairly straightforward case to make, as pepper spray is almost always  argued to be an excessive use of force, same thing with tasers.



You don't know what you're talking about. This didn't happen in out tree hugging, criminal loving Canada. It happened in the States where they rarely put up with idiot assholes like we do.


----------



## Galahad (8 Mar 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You don't know what you're talking about. This didn't happen in out tree hugging, criminal loving Canada. It happened in the States where they rarely put up with idiot assholes like we do.



He'd be even more likely to win in that case, the US courts are notorious for frivolous lawsuits. You can sue anyone for anything there, thats why they have so many law schools.

In any case, it was still not a smart thing for him to do.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2009)

Yup!  Not a bright thing to be doing.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Mar 2009)

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 (8 Mar 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's see.
> 
> US Border Agent armed with sidearm and can of pepper spray.
> 
> ...



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 (8 Mar 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Mar 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> 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?





			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Mar 2009)

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


----------



## geo (8 Mar 2009)

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 (8 Mar 2009)

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 (8 Mar 2009)

..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 (9 Mar 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Mar 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Mar 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Mar 2009)

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 (9 Mar 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Mar 2009)

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 (9 Mar 2009)

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 - (9 Mar 2009)

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 (9 Mar 2009)

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 (9 Mar 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> .......... i.e. previous problems at the border).



Do you mean the several times he has tried this stunt before, as reported in the article?

I really hate defending the stupid.

I am sure this fellows name and photo are already posted at all US Border Crossings as a potential trouble maker, and perhaps as a person restricted entry to the US.  Who is to blame, other than himself, if this is the case.  

How long can a case drag on in the Courts?  Does he have the gumption and stubborness to last that long?  (Silly question....He is big enough a fool to do so.)


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Mar 2009)

Pepper spray is a darn sight better than being tasered or being grabbed and hauled out and planted face down on the pavement.
Maybe Mr. Politenessman will think the next time he decides to give the US Border Patrol(is that their agnecy)a hard time.
I've run into one or two rude border types as well (Canadian too) , but when you deal with idiots allll day long...


----------



## chris_log (9 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 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.



I'm not arguing anything. I'm telling people how the court system works, it's not my opinion, t'is fact. The civil courts won't decide whether he should or shouldn't have been allowed to enter the US, they will decide if the guy was wronged by the BSO. In the same vein, if the US wants to charge this guy for some crime or another in their criminal courts, then they can do that (and again, probably win). It is entirely probable that he can sue the BSO in court and win while at the same time get charged and convicted criminally for being a retard at the border. Sound stupid? You betcha. Can it happen? Yep. 

It's not my fault the civil courts system doesn't work the way you want it too (or the way I want it to either). 



> That's why there are rules and laws



Rules and laws that apply to travellers and BSO's. Again, I read the article and laughed at this guy's stupidity. Trust me, I used to ask cops how they didn't spray/smash some retard they were dealing with. They responded that they had rules to follow too. Now, unless anyone here has intimate knowledge of US Customs and Border Protection UoF rules, then no one here is in any place to say that the BSO acted properly or not in the eyes of the law. Not under Canadian rules, not under what they think the rules are. 

All I was trying to do was show what COULD happen in the courts. As we all know, our (and the American's) legal system is flawed at best. 



> Do you mean the several times he has tried this stunt before, as reported in the article?



Ah, forgot about that. In that case, there is a solid criminal case that the US border folks could bring to show a pattern of deviant behaviour at the border. As for a civil suit, maybe. Civil cases are very much at the discretion of judges, its all a matter of how it is argued. For example, the man could justify his behaviour as a result of (this is just what he may say, not my view) 'a pattern of hostility and aggression from the BSO's'. 

Homework assignment for George and ArmyVern. Look up court transcripts of civil cases (google is a good start) and read them and I'm sure you'll understand what I'm saying. A warning, though. Don't drink any coffee beforehand to prevent a dangerous rise in blood pressure. You wouldn't believe the idiocy of some people's arguments, and even worse, that these arguments have won cases. 



> How long can a case drag on in the Courts?  Does he have the gumption and stubborness to last that long?



A looooooong time. Lawyers love civil suits, they are easy to argue and whether you win or loose the lawyer still wins (financially). This man could argue his way through the court system for quite some time.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2009)

We'll just sic Judge Judy on him.


----------



## chris_log (9 Mar 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I've run into one or two rude border types as well (Canadian too) , but when you deal with idiots allll day long...



But, they should be polite regardless. I know people who come through the border act like morons, but, just because someone before me was a jerk doesn't give the BSO the right to be a jerk to me. I declare everything, I have my passport open and ready, I keep my hands in sight and my mouth shut. I figure if I do that, the BSO doesn't need to stick his head in my window and bellow at my girlfriend (who gets a squirrily around cops) "DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH, ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING FOR YOURSELF" and damn near make her cry when he asked what our citizenship was I told him we were both Canadian. 

Some people here like to excuse the attitudes of some LE types, I would ask then if you would treat your troops the same way just because you were having a bad day. 

I'm all about respect, I give it and therefore I expect it in return.


----------



## chris_log (9 Mar 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We'll just sic Judge Judy on him.



I feel sick just saying this, but you may be right. She (despite playing it up for the cameras and the show's authenticity being suspect, IMHO) puts people in their place. We need more judges like her. 

Our system of civil liability and a culture of rights, in place of responsibilities, has spawned idiots like this guy. Our system of human rights tribunals can also be traced back to said system. Next time you meet somebody who gloats about getting some money because he got a wiffle ball in the head, smack him.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Mar 2009)

To to beat a dead horse to much, but to this numpties defenders 1) The use of O.C. spray was not excessive, and I will tell you why. This occurred on US soil, ergo US UofF procedures are the ones involved (And I did some digging The US Border Patrol Academy is affiliated with FLETC, page 39 of this link http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GOVPUBS/gao/pdf25.pdf shows the FLETC UofF model).  

This link here illustrates the hazards US CBP face http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=2872&wit_id=6584 in particular this paragraph



> From February 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007, there have been 1,982 incidents where Border Patrol Agents have been assaulted. These assaults include rockings, physical assaults, *vehicular assaults* as well as shootings and assaults with other weapons



In their UofF model (and coincedentally in the UofF models used by most of the services here in Canada), O.C. spray is a legitmate option for a person displaying active resistance (to commands).  Now this officer is probably keenly aware of the stats in the quoted paragraph, including the number of times people have used their own vehicles to assault his fellow officers (and who knows, maybe himself too).  With all that in the back of his head, do you not think its reasonable for him to believ that numbty is being actively resitant by refusing to cut power to a 2000+ weapon?  I know I would.  

And as for the ludicrous suggestions that the Officer should have attempt to some how physically make this person turn off the car/extract them.  I have one question for you, are you F**king insane?!  Go on youtube and start watching all the video involving police trying EXACTLY that.  I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to be dragged by a car.

As well based on those comments I guarantee that (neither of) you have neither been involved in a physical altercation, nor sprayed with O.C.  I have experienced both, and I will gladly get sprayed ,before getting involved in a punch up/wrestling match.  There is a MUCH higher risk of sustaining PERMANENT DIBLITATING injuries, for BOTH parties (officer and suspect) when a LEO has to resort to physical control tactics.

This officer choose to use the safest option that would allow HIM to go home to his family unscathed while de-escalating the situation.  Numpty brought these actions down upon himself, and only has himself to blame.  Sure getting sprayed very likely sucked for him, but you know what, it probably sucks alot less than if he had gotten beaten or shot.  Perhaps he will learn not to be such a self-righteous manners prick.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Mar 2009)

As an added bonus, every time this guy puts on the windshield defroster for the next while, he'll get a reminder of his stupidity.


----------



## boredinto (9 Mar 2009)

People who don't say "please and thank you" all the time are not being rude.  They may not be polite, but they are still behaving in a civil matter.  I would define the attitude as terse.  Which from a BSO is perfectly acceptable.  You are dealing with a BSO, not calling AT&T.

Not to mention the fact that the BSO is required to asses and identify potential offenders and threats to the US, this isn't always accomplished with big smiles and courteous gestures.  Anyone of the thousands of people crossing the boarder daily could be a potential threat to the guard...I for one will forgive him for his terse behavior.  

As for the pepper spray, was it excessive? Maybe...but maybe if an officer of the law asks that you comply with his request and issues you a verbal warning with the outcome clearly stated if you don't, just maybe, you should do as he says.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Mar 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> But, they should be polite regardless. I know people who come through the border act like morons, but, just because someone before me was a jerk doesn't give the BSO the right to be a jerk to me. I declare everything, I have my passport open and ready, I keep my hands in sight and my mouth shut. I figure if I do that, the BSO doesn't need to stick his head in my window and bellow at my girlfriend (who gets a squirrily around cops) "DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH, ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING FOR YOURSELF" and damn near make her cry when he asked what our citizenship was I told him we were both Canadian.
> 
> Some people here like to excuse the attitudes of some LE types, I would ask then if you would treat your troops the same way just because you were having a bad day.
> 
> I'm all about respect, I give it and therefore I expect it in return.



Have you even considered that being a professional he recognized a "squirrily" reaction and did what his instincts told him to do?  Your just friggin' lucky that he was also professional enough to realize she was just "squirrly" or you might both have been naked in a most uncomfortable way.
Customs rule of thumb,..your guilty, prove to the Officer that your not.

By the way, when your checking ID's I guess the reaction of the person handing it to you means nothing?........back to bouncer school for you then.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Mar 2009)

Not to defend this guy in the slightest, but have any of you ever departed Edmonton on a US bound flight?  The US Customs people there are without a doubt the surliest bunch of civil servants it's ever been my displeasure to encounter.  And yes, I know, they're just doing their jobs.  Or maybe this guy saw a few episodes of US Border Service on TV and expected to encounter one of those jovial cats instead?


----------



## chris_log (9 Mar 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Have you even considered that being a professional he recognized a "squirrily" reaction and did what his instincts told him to do?  Your just friggin' lucky that he was also professional enough to realize she was just "squirrly" or you might both have been naked in a most uncomfortable way.
> Customs rule of thumb,..your guilty, prove to the Officer that your not.



I'm just sayin'. I find some people on this site hold LE's up on a pedastle and steadfastly support whatever they do. Yea, some LE types have a bad attitude and a chip on their shoulder (not like you, Mr. Caught-at-Starbucks  ) and I get annoyed when people refuse to see that or acknowledge it as a problem. And of course, there are also the great guys like the CBSA type cracking jokes while he wrote me up for $100 in duties on stuff I declared, "you're the first couple under 25 who actually declared everything...whats wrong with you". Or the Guelph cop who asked a particularily intoxicated male if he wanted to learn a new style of dance that would be quite 'shocking' (for the slower posters here, he was referring to a taser). 

Anyways, the topic isn't about good/bad LEO's. It's about a moron with a self-righteous mouth. 



> By the way, when your checking ID's I guess the reaction of the person handing it to you means nothing?........back to bouncer school for you then.



Yeah, but I didn't scream in their face (well, I didn't right away). I quit there anyways, finally. Waking up with bruised knuckles every morning started to suck.


----------



## scas (9 Mar 2009)

I have been flagged once a few years ao (pre-911). I got it cleared away, but thats besides the point. Every U.S. Customs officer I have ever dealt with Has been polite and curtious. Even with I came through the states a few months back, the officers I met at the border were nice and talkative, even when they searched the truck and car I was towing. The only problem with customs I've ever had actually was with the Candians, and our CFR's. "What province are you plates registered in?" While I'm driving a Milcots..  And this went on for a good 5 minutes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Mar 2009)

Piper,

I've just read through all your stuff. Please don't preach or treat people here like morons. Lots of the people here have more court time than you have school time. People here also have more practical experience in these matters than you have learned as a 21 year old student. If you have an opinion, fine. However, don't act like some barrack room lawyer, stating your ideas as fact, perhaps to try impress people. It doesn't work, and neither frankly do most of your book examples, compared to the real world.

Now that's just my opinion, but I'm really old and probably have forgotten more than some students ever learn. Probably not you, but some.


----------



## chris_log (10 Mar 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Piper,
> 
> I've just read through all your stuff. Please don't preach or treat people here like morons. Lots of the people here have more court time than you have school time. People here also have more practical experience in these matters than you have learned as a 21 year old student. If you have an opinion, fine. However, don't act like some barrack room lawyer, stating your ideas as fact, perhaps to try impress people. It doesn't work, and neither frankly do most of your book examples, compared to the real world.
> 
> Now that's just my opinion, but I'm really old and probably have forgotten more than some students ever learn. *Probably not you*, but some.



Oh you probably do, I wouldn't argue that. 

There are people here with lots of experience in criminal courts. But the responses that were made indicate a lack of understanding on the civil court system. What I stated about the guy being fully within his rights to sue (and the fact that he DOES have a case as far as the civil courts are concerned) I wasn't expression my opinion. I know, everyone (myself included) likes to bash the ivory tower theorists who have little experience on 'the front lines' of whatever matter they are commenting on. However, sometimes it helps to get a view from someone looking at the whole picture and who isn't biased towards cop-hating (as so many often are). This is, of course, in response to my comments on LEO attitudes and the fact that SOME posters here refuse to acknowledge that police officers can do wrong, sometimes.

My examples aren't "book examples". All I argued was a) the guy has basis to sue and b) sometimes LEO's come across with a huge attitude problem. It is entirely real world, these cases DO happen and ARE won and police officers sometimes get rude and confrontational when dealing with people. No opinions here.    

For the record though, the guy deserved what he got and he's lucky he got away without serious criminal charges.


----------



## chris_log (10 Mar 2009)

scas said:
			
		

> I have been flagged once a few years ao (pre-911). I got it cleared away, but thats besides the point. Every U.S. Customs officer I have ever dealt with Has been polite and curtious. Even with I came through the states a few months back, the officers I met at the border were nice and talkative, even when they searched the truck and car I was towing. The only problem with customs I've ever had actually was with the Candians, and our CFR's. "What province are you plates registered in?" While I'm driving a Milcots..  And this went on for a good 5 minutes.



Out of curiosity, how does coming and going across the border work with DND vehicles, weapons etc?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, how does coming and going across the border work with DND vehicles, weapons etc?



Lots of paperwork.


----------



## Teflon (10 Mar 2009)

> police officers sometimes get rude and confrontational when dealing with people.



And still does not give the individual the RIGHT to not comply with the legal order of the LEO


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Oh you probably do, I wouldn't argue that.
> 
> There are people here with lots of experience in criminal courts. But the responses that were made indicate a lack of understanding on the civil court system. What I stated about the guy being fully within his rights to sue (and the fact that he DOES have a case as far as the civil courts are concerned) I wasn't expression my opinion. I know, everyone (myself included) likes to bash the ivory tower theorists who have little experience on 'the front lines' of whatever matter they are commenting on. However, sometimes it helps to get a view from someone looking at the whole picture and who isn't biased towards cop-hating (as so many often are). This is, of course, in response to my comments on LEO attitudes and the fact that SOME posters here refuse to acknowledge that police officers can do wrong, sometimes.
> 
> ...




Anyone can sue, for anything. That's not a criteria. Will they win, that's another thing.




			
				Teflon said:
			
		

> And still does not give the individual the RIGHT to not comply with the legal order of the LEO



What he said.


----------



## chris_log (10 Mar 2009)

Teflon said:
			
		

> And still does not give the individual the RIGHT to not comply with the legal order of the LEO



Really? Ya don't say. I never said that, quite the contrary, if you decide to ignore an LEO's order, it's your fault what happens next. 

Still doesn't give them the right to act like a jerk.



> Anyone can sue, for anything. That's not a criteria. Will they win, that's another thing.



As I said, I think he has a case under the rules of the civil court system. It doesn't mean I think he SHOULD win, I just think that he COULD win. Just like the woman who burned her crotch with a hot McDick's coffee, she had an ironclad case...even though everyone (myself included) thought it was the most pathetic piece of legal theater.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2009)

:boring:

I'm not going to concede anything to you, but I'm not going to indulge you any further either.


----------



## Teflon (10 Mar 2009)

> Really? Ya don't say



Just so YOU can be sure - Yes I do say

unfortunately I am sure you also have more to say - maybe if I'm lucky it will be how exactly the border officer in this story acted like a jerk? (oh I forgot he didn't say please!)


----------



## chris_log (10 Mar 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> I'm not going to concede anything to you, but I'm not going to indulge you any further either.



Don't let the door wack ya.


----------



## chris_log (10 Mar 2009)

Teflon said:
			
		

> Just so YOU can be sure - Yes I do say
> 
> unfortunately I am sure you also have more to say - maybe if I'm lucky it will be how exactly the border officer in this story acted like a jerk? (oh I forgot he didn't say please!)



Actually, I never once said that this BSO in question acted like a jerk. In fact, I said that he acted (IMHO) entirely within reason.


----------



## Teflon (10 Mar 2009)

So the whole LEOs can be a**holes stick has nothing to with the topic but just had to said kinda deal?


----------



## chris_log (10 Mar 2009)

Teflon said:
			
		

> So the whole LEOs can be a**holes stick has nothing to with the topic but just had to said kinda deal?



Yeah, it drifted that way. It's called a tangent.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Mar 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Yeah, it drifted that way. It's called a tangent.



Nope, it's called locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

