Border agents taser a smart alec

cop taser video of pastor steve andersonYou’ve probably seen enough cop taser videos –have you seen one videotaped by the tasee? A troublemaking Baptist Pastor named Steve Anderson got himself ordered from his car where he had been refusing to consent to a warrant-less search by Homeland Security border agents. They told him he was under arrest, but wouldn’t say for what, they said that a K-9 team had given them probable cause, but wouldn’t bring the dog back to confirm it, and the officers wouldn’t respect Anderson’s fourth or fifth amendment rights, but that’s not the worst of it.

6 thoughts on “Border agents taser a smart alec

  1. Avatarcopy cat

    From the title, I’m not sure I understand your view on the tazering. I am personally offended and frightened that american citizens are treated in this manner, in violation of the very document that gives the government what little authority is has. I have seen the video, and I believe that the officers used excessive force in their encounter with this man. Remember, he was not crossing a border, he was traveling within his own country. I do not believe that exercising one’s rights counts as being a “smart alec”.

    Respectfully,

    copycat

  2. AvatarBrother Jonah

    Ah, for that you would have to know Eric.

    And, yeah, he’s against taser attacks.

    The border patrol are kind of ehhh… they have their really extreme moments and when they do people get hurt. Not just American citizens.

    When they do it to Americans that gives a huge window on the hypocrisy of the whole set-up, and shines it forth as a particularly glaring example.

    They threw down on me in El Paso Texas one morning. jumped out of an unmarked black windowless van, wearing black Tac Gear and brandishing automatic weapons, screaming at me in Spanish and at the time I didn’t know what they were saying, they screamed “Donde Nacio Donde Nacio?”

    I thought it was a drug-related hit in progress, that they were looking for my acquaintance “Nacho” Ignacio.

    And that I was about to die because I didn’t know where the Hell he was or who exactly he had pissed off to the point that they would jump ME with guns.

    “Donde Nacio” means “Donde ha nacido” and it’s “where were you born”

    That was bad enough but then they criticized ME for looking Mex.

    The Minutemen shoot first and ask later. That’s the Major difference.

    This one incident here, shows the B.P. doing the same.

    That’s disturbing on many levels. We’ve done quite a bit of reporting on the drug warz going on in amongst other places El Paso. And here.

    It ties together.

  3. Avatarcopy cat

    dude, what are you doing on a socialist website? seems to me that your views are more geared toward ultra-libertarianism. (mine are). it just seems to me that the left wants to control my money, and the right wants to control my morals. I just want them to leave me alone, and stop taking my money to help people they think need help. if i think someone needs help, I’ll help them, but I want it to be my choice.
    I see no difference between taxing you for someone else’s welfare, and forcing you to a particular religious observance.

  4. AvatarBrother Jonah

    Ah, so you’re here to insult the left.

    Was that your comment on the Scabs at Safeway and King Soopers?

    Unions are considered “socialists’ by a lot of the Right Wing. The right of workers to organize for collective bargaining and collective representation.

    Would that Freedom you speak of not include freedom to seek work in a zone forbidden to you by reason of your citizenship? Why not? The Corporate Government has claimed the right to rule their country, and ours, and limit among other things the right to collective bargaining.

    Strangely, they also use the term “Liberty’ to justify their thefts and, yes, Murders.

    That “Liberty” appears to include not paying in their share of maintaining the workers they would and do exploit.

    Things like not abandoning us to die if we become too infirm, sick, aged or screwed up by their unsafe labor conditions (like they did me)

    Educating the young, providing public health, providing public safety…

    The rich don’t like paying back to the society that supports their wealth, too bad.

    I notice that when they move their businesses to foreign lands to exploit the laborers there, they use the Publicly Funded army as shock troops to conquer and “pacify” the locals to the point where they can safely screw those workers as well.

    And to use the Publicly Funded Police and even the Army as their own privately controlled “shock troops” to suppress Unions, Civil Rights, and anything or any group that doesn’t make an immediate profit for them.

    They want to make money off a democratic system, but not pay their dues.

    That’s the True “entitlement mindset”. They’re entitled to our labor and our service at a price they demand, even if we’re not able to produce that labor at the price they pay.

    Or so they think. And the price for us to produce our labor is for us to not only survive, but thrive. All of us.

    Even those of us the “Libertarian” Elite think shouldn’t be allowed to survive or thrive.

    Liberties would have to apply to everybody, universally and equally, not just to him who has the money, gotten from the backs of “his” workers, to afford them.

  5. Avatarcopy cat

    >>Ah, so you’re here to insult the left.

    no

    >>Was that your comment on the Scabs at Safeway and King Soopers?

    don’t know, if you will quote, i’ll know my words, and i will explain my reasoning.

    >>Unions are considered “socialists’ by a lot of the Right Wing. The right of workers to organize for collective bargaining and collective representation.

    I completely agree with the right of individual workers to form into groups for any legal, peaceful purpose, whatsoever. i also agree with their right to bargain collectively for the best wages and benefits. i also agree with the employer’s right employ whoever will do the job for which he is hired. I additionally, support the right of an employer to fire any worker that does not perform his job (strike).

    >>Would that Freedom you speak of not include freedom to seek work in a zone forbidden to you by reason of your citizenship?

    Assuming that we get rid of all welfare, then that individual would come here to trade his labor for money. this can only benefit this country, and that individual, because, by its very nature, trade increases the perceived wealth of all parties involved. in that case, i would welcome the non-citizen with open arms, and thank him for helping my country.

    If that individual comes here (or was born here), and becomes a drain on the economy, by using the welfare money that was stolen (taxes) from those individuals (citizen or non) who produce, then I would tell him to stay home.

    >>Why not? The Corporate Government has claimed the right to rule their country, and ours,…

    only through “regulation” and unconstitutional subsidies from government.

    >> and limit among other things the right to collective bargaining.

    if they need workers to produce, and the workers decide to renegotiate the terms of their employment (within the terms of the employment contract), i see no way, barring FORCING workers to work(i am speaking of the air traffic controllers back in the 80s that episode makes me mad at government) to limit the right of the individual workers to band together and strike. Not prohibiting the hiring of “scabs” is not a limit,(by definition, prohibition is a form of limit, so it can’t be it’s own opposite).

    >>Strangely, they also use the term “Liberty’ to justify their thefts and, yes, Murders.

    I assume you mean the corporate “purchase” of foreign lands which were stolen (by governments) from the aboriginal peoples who occupied it. (but i don’t understand where they have used the term “liberty”) maybe you are speaking of something else entirely.

    This is appalling behavior, for which the people of the offending countries should punish their government (preferably with short ropes and tall trees). I would support any individual’s right to voluntarily give as much money, or other support to fight such behavior by foreign governments (and in some cases, our own government).

    >>That “Liberty” appears to include not paying in their share of maintaining the workers they would and do exploit.

    Liberty is the free choice to do, or not to do something, so long as you do not assault, or rob (including fraud) another individual. The employer “pays his fair share” when he pays the workers’ wages. If the workers do not think the pay is worth the labor, then they should be free to renegotiate as stated above. As far as “exploitation” no one can be “exploited”(barring fraud) in a voluntary exchange. The exchange of the worker’s labor for his wages is a voluntary exchange. If fraud (theft by deception) is involved, then then, and only then should the government step in to make sure that justice is served (notice i did not say fairness).

    >>Things like not abandoning us to die if we become too infirm, sick, aged…

    are you talking,here, about the government, corporations, or individuals?

    if the government: if they would stop stealing 7.5% (potentially 15%) of the money you earn, you would be able to save enough money to support yourself when you can no longer work for a living.

    if corporations (employers) : you trade your labor for the money the employer pays. this is a transaction, a contract. Should you be forced to work for an employer , even after he can no longer pay you to do so? (no.) Then why should the employer be forced to pay you when you can no longer work? a job is an exchange of labor for money. If only one party is contributing, there is no exchange.

    If individuals: You have a right to help, or not help anyone you choose. Others have this same right. You do not have the right to force someone else to help another, or yourself. Whether or not helping the needy is the right thing to do, no one has the right to force someone to do the right thing. (people have the right to be immoral, as long as they do not assault or rob another.

    >>or screwed up by their unsafe labor conditions (like they did me)

    On the one hand, if you knew the conditions of the job were dangerous, and were willing to take the risk, for the pay you negotiated, then the employer has already compensated you for your injury (through higher pay for taking the risk).

    On the other hand, if you were unaware that the conditions you were working under were hazardous, and/or the employer sought to hide this fact from you, then they have committed fraud, and assault upon you, and should be made to pay you restitution (enough that it will be more expensive than having informed you of the risks, and paying you accordingly).

    >>Educating the young, providing public health, providing public safety…

    in addition to not really being the responsibility of government, these functions could be fulfilled more efficiently, and less expensively by private organizations. The underwriter’s labs (UL) is a good example of a private organization serving a “public safety” function. Similar organizations could thrive if they did not have to compete with the government monopolies that currently serve these functions badly.

    >>The rich don’t like paying back to the society that supports their wealth, …too bad.

    If “the rich” acquired that wealth through mutual exchange, and labor of their own, then they have “paid back” with each voluntary exchange.

    >>I notice that when they move their businesses to foreign lands to exploit the laborers there, they use the Publicly Funded army as shock troops to conquer and “pacify” the locals to the point where they can safely screw those workers as well.

    see my comment about short ropes above.

    >>And to use the Publicly Funded Police and even the Army as their own privately controlled “shock troops” to suppress Unions, Civil Rights, and anything or any group that doesn’t make an immediate profit for them.

    I assume this comment is about some activities in this country. I have no immediate response to this situation, except to say that they are only able to get away with such activities, because laws were passed, which allow it. The answer is not “more laws”. The answer is “repeal those laws”.

    >>They want to make money off a democratic system, but not pay their dues.

    1. a democratic system is the second most terrible form of government. (we originally had a democratic republic, but we have lost almost all of that)

    2. the loss of that republic is the only reason that corporations are able to get away with some of the things that would have been illegal in 1790.

    3. the only way we are going to stop the corps from using the government against the people, is to make the government smaller.

    >>That’s the True “entitlement mindset”. They’re entitled to our labor and our service at a price they demand,…

    An employer cannot FORCE an individual to work for them. The employer can set a wage that he is willing to pay, for a particular job. If someone believes that he is better off doing that job, for that wage, than he is doing another job,( or no job) then he is free to take the offered job. If he does not believe he is better off, then he should not take that job. Whether or not the worker can feed himself on the wages from that job is not at issue, and not the responsibility of the employer. The worker agreed to trade a certain amount of labor for a certain amount of money. Complaining about it is like negotiating to trade for a Hammer, and then complaining that you really needed a screwdriver.

    >> even if we’re not able to produce that labor at the price they pay.
    ??? i didn’t understand this part of the sentence.

    >>Or so they think. And the price for us to produce our labor is for us to not only survive, but thrive. All of us.

    If I read this correctly,
    If the employers want us to work, they will have to insure that all of us thrive.

    My success is my responsibility, no one else’s. It is not the responsibility of my employer that there is food on my table. It IS his responsibility to pay me the agreed wage for my work.

    >>Even those of us the “Libertarian” Elite think shouldn’t be allowed to survive or thrive.

    There is no such thing as a “libertarian elite” I, as a libertarian, see each person as an individual. I reject the idea of “groups” in relation to rights (liberties). Each individual should be treated the same, no matter what their income, race, etc. (all those “groups” that the media likes to separate everyone into). I believe each person is entitled to own himself, to protect himself, and the product of his labor, and to act as he wishes, so long as he does not assault another person, or rob another of his property.

    >>Liberties would have to apply to everybody, universally and equally,not just to him who has the money…to afford them.

    I agree, but i suspect that you believe that someone has the right to take property from another (in the form of taxes) because he “needs” that property (welfare) to survive.

    If this is true, then you are saying that rights do not apply to everyone equally. you are saying that the needs of one individual entitle him to the property of another individual. That the needy individual is more important than the prosperous individual. Need is not a valid claim on resources. Production and trade are a valid claim.

    >>… gotten from the backs of “his” workers, …

    The workers voluntarily exchanged their labor for their wages. The employer did not steal the labor.

    respectfully,
    copycat

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *