Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the people who are saying that the cop wasn't justified in using pepper spray are totally confused here. The situation is as follows, from the border patrol officer's point of view:

1) Subject has done something, been flagged due to previous crossings, or has just been randomly selected for a more thorough search/interrogation. The reason really doesn't matter.

2) Officer orders subject to turn off car.

3) Subject refuses.

4) Officer repeats order twice more, and the subject refuses twice more.

5) Conclusion: Subject is willfully disobeying officer.

5) Subject remains behind the wheel, with the engine on. We can assume the window is down. How exactly is the officer supposed to subdue and arrest the offender?

Remember, this is a Border crossing. All sorts of people cross. Almost all of them are legitimate. But it only takes one to ruin everyone's day.

The officer has to ask: why is this person disobeying my command? Why does this person need to keep his car running?

Kanluwen wrote:Honestly, I'm of the opinion it was the best option or the officer was just having a shoddy day.
But then, you've also got to think about the fact that it would have been something a bit more ridiculous if the guy had shot him or his car.

How is it the best option when twice before the situation had been resolved without resorting to pepper spray? Who cares if he was having a bad day, decent law enforcement means remaining professional.

And ah, yeah, it would have been worse if he'd shot him. That's a bizarre response, though, because there's always something that could have been a worse reaction, and it never means the action taken was justified.

"Timmy, did you steal $10?"
"Yes, but I could have stoled $30."
"Good point, on your way then."

Centurian99 wrote:I think the people who are saying that the cop wasn't justified in using pepper spray are totally confused here.

No, not confused in the slightest. You forgot the border guy was at a secured, controlled position. Once sprayed, the guy was taken into custody by multiple officers. There were piles of cops around. There was nothing to be gained from resistance. The Canadian never made any threat or took any action that implied resistance. There was no reason other ludicrous paranoia for the customs dude to feel threatened.

You're ignoring the subject clearly stated his reason for disobeying the order. He wasn't, as you summary implied, simply not obeying. He was giving a reason for disobeying and that reason gave the customs dude multiple possible resolutions. The customs dude was presented with all that and could only come up with 'pepper spray'. I suspect this is because the guy is really, really bad at his job.

You also assumed the only solution after 'subject has not immediately done what was requested' was to subdue and arrest jerky Canadian guy. The first and most obvious alternative was to say 'please'. He also could have escalated the situation while also saying please 'sir please turn off the car and exit the vehicle you're going to be taken into custody' - thereby meeting the request and giving the jerky Canadian no way out, while still maintaining authority as the guy has learnt his act of minor resistance has just landed him in more trouble.

And again, a thousand times again, you're ignoring that this had happened twice before and in both cases was quickly resolved without pepper spray. Because such a thing is easily achievable for people that don't suck at being customs dudes.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Honestly, I'm of the opinion it was the best option or the officer was just having a shoddy day.
But then, you've also got to think about the fact that it would have been something a bit more ridiculous if the guy had shot him or his car.

How is it the best option when twice before the situation had been resolved without resorting to pepper spray? Who cares if he was having a bad day, decent law enforcement means remaining professional.

And ah, yeah, it would have been worse if he'd shot him. That's a bizarre response, though, because there's always something that could have been a worse reaction, and it never means the action taken was justified.

"Timmy, did you steal $10?"
"Yes, but I could have stoled $30."
"Good point, on your way then."

And decent law enforcement officers are still human. They're no different than the twit manning the cash register at McDonald's or the hooker on the corner.
A bad day's a bad day, and some smartmouth git giving you guff and holding up a traffic
I mean, if you want perfect responses to everything, and perfect mannerisms?

Make robot cops. It's that simple.

The smartmouth git in the car got what was coming to him for mouthing off to a Border Patrol officer, imo. There's some folk you just don't tick off, and those folk are Border Patrol and Air Marshals. Those are situations you *do not* mess around in.
Border Patrol officers and Air Marshals are not there to be your friends. That's what local LEOs are for.

Kanluwen wrote:And decent law enforcement officers are still human. They're no different than the twit manning the cash register at McDonald's or the hooker on the corner.
A bad day's a bad day, and some smartmouth git giving you guff and holding up a traffic

You expect the same level of professionalism from a trained policeman, entrusted to protect our safety and enforce the law, that you expect from the minimum wage highschool kid behind the Macca's register?

I mean, if you want perfect responses to everything, and perfect mannerisms?

Make robot cops. It's that simple.

No, no-one is demanding perfect cops. I want competent cops, and expect that when cops fail to be competent they have their actions examined. It is not a contraversial, or even particularly interesting request. What is bizarre is the number of people who emerge to start defending cops no matter what the guy in question did.

The smartmouth git in the car got what was coming to him for mouthing off to a Border Patrol officer, imo. There's some folk you just don't tick off, and those folk are Border Patrol and Air Marshals. Those are situations you *do not* mess around in.
Border Patrol officers and Air Marshals are not there to be your friends. That's what local LEOs are for.

Yeah, jerky Canadian was a jerk. He jerked off the wrong guy. We all know this.

But there is a massive point of distinction between 'customs is serious business' and 'customs guy was presented with problem and multiple lines of solution, and it was a problem officers in the past had solved simply and without incident and all customs guy could think to do was pepper spray a guy'. Customs is a serious business, and that means as well as respectful citizens, it needs competent officers. Officers able to resolve situations without having to turn to pepper spray.

ugh. In any situation, just roll with whatever happens. If the officer don't say please, whatevs. If he do, awesome! I don't wanna tell people how to run their lives or I'll look silly.


That kinda sucks for the canadian though.

Cryonicleech wrote:ugh. In any situation, just roll with whatever happens. If the officer don't say please, whatevs. If he do, awesome! I don't wanna tell people how to run their lives or I'll look silly.

Yup. I'd say you look silly enough with your spelling and grammar..... using it to advise others would really compound the silliness factor.

(After looking up your other posts, I realize you don't actually converse this way, but I can't help gettin a dig in, when somebody writes things like 'whatevs' and 'if he do'.)

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And decent law enforcement officers are still human. They're no different than the twit manning the cash register at McDonald's or the hooker on the corner.
A bad day's a bad day, and some smartmouth git giving you guff and holding up a traffic

You expect the same level of professionalism from a trained policeman, entrusted to protect our safety and enforce the law, that you expect from the minimum wage highschool kid behind the Macca's register?

I mean, if you want perfect responses to everything, and perfect mannerisms?

Make robot cops. It's that simple.

No, no-one is demanding perfect cops. I want competent cops, and expect that when cops fail to be competent they have their actions examined. It is not a contraversial, or even particularly interesting request. What is bizarre is the number of people who emerge to start defending cops no matter what the guy in question did.

The smartmouth git in the car got what was coming to him for mouthing off to a Border Patrol officer, imo. There's some folk you just don't tick off, and those folk are Border Patrol and Air Marshals. Those are situations you *do not* mess around in.
Border Patrol officers and Air Marshals are not there to be your friends. That's what local LEOs are for.

Yeah, jerky Canadian was a jerk. He jerked off the wrong guy. We all know this.

But there is a massive point of distinction between 'customs is serious business' and 'customs guy was presented with problem and multiple lines of solution, and it was a problem officers in the past had solved simply and without incident and all customs guy could think to do was pepper spray a guy'. Customs is a serious business, and that means as well as respectful citizens, it needs competent officers. Officers able to resolve situations without having to turn to pepper spray.

I'm defending the guy because he'll probably lose his job just because of some smarmy twit thinking he had a right to get uppity about not having been said "please" to.
Or did you miss the statement from the Border Patrol spokesman that "any use of pepper spray is investigated"?
I'm sick to death of hearing about LEOs getting the shaft because of the general populace, personally.
Yes, there are some instances where it's ACTUALLY APPLICABLE. Like, say a cop shooting an unarmed suspect who was surrendering just because the guy had run a bit. The officers who tossed that girl around in the cell? I don't have all the facts on that, so I can't really say.

Or hey, why don't we stop looking at the people who randomly get "abused" by police(as if pepper spray is abuse) for mouthing off. And let's switch over to cops who get punished for doing their job, shall we?
http://www.americanfreedomriders.com/JoeLoyaLetter.html

This was one of my favorite cases to have read about last year in Ethics. Pretty fun, huh?

Pepper spray is not a replacement for proper procedure and is not to be employed in situations where force is not needed. I will repeat this in big letters for people.

Pepper spray is not a replacement for proper procedure and is not to be employed in situations where force is not needed.


Force was not needed here. A civilian talking back to an officer about engine shutoff does not warrant the use of force. What it warrants is the officer informing the suspect of his rights and the consequences of further refusal to comply.

YOU INFORM A NON VIOLENT SUSPECT OF THE CONSEQUENCE OF NON COMPLIANCE BEFORE YOU INITIATE SAID CONSEQUENCE. Otherwise you risk creating a situation out of nothing. Its not the polices job to wave a big stick around and act like they are the law. It is their job to administer the law in a calm and effective manner that does little to aggravate the civilian population. These men aren't clint eastwood, if saying please would resolve the situation, save money on detainment, and avoid unduly stressing the day of a par of the civilian population then that is what they should do.

They aren't there to be your beer swilling buddies with cool stories and they aren't there to put people "in their place". Thats not what law enforcement is about. Its not important that the canadian was a tool, what is important is the misuse of police authority and the creation of a forceful situation. Both people were jackasses in the situation, the only difference being the officer is held to a standard that the canadian isn't. Because he has to be.

And you can't really call pepperspray harmless. Sure, it generally doesn't cause physical harm, but it hurts like hell. It's no better than smacking someone around.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm defending the guy because he'll probably lose his job just because of some smarmy twit thinking he had a right to get uppity about not having been said "please" to.
Or did you miss the statement from the Border Patrol spokesman that "any use of pepper spray is investigated"?

No, I read that. I also read the bit about refusal to obey a direct order being justification for the use of pepper spray. It’s a typical press release, ‘we don’t see anything necessarily wrong but we are investigating the matter’. There’s nothing to be read into the statement.

I'm sick to death of hearing about LEOs getting the shaft because of the general populace, personally.
Yes, there are some instances where it's ACTUALLY APPLICABLE. Like, say a cop shooting an unarmed suspect who was surrendering just because the guy had run a bit. The officers who tossed that girl around in the cell? I don't have all the facts on that, so I can't really say.

There are lots of cases where abuse occurs. There are lots of cases where abuse is claimed despite an officer acting as well as can be expected. It’s a difficult job where that is very subjective, very political and where investigation is rarely able to establish all the facts.

So yeah, sometimes cops get a raw deal. Sometimes cops get away with being jerks. What we need to do is press on, improve our investigation processes, improve police procedure to remove. What we never, ever should do is start picking a side, start saying a cop somewhere got a raw deal so next time I’ll defend a customs officer who pepper sprayed a guy.

Every case has to be taken by itself, or it’ll get a lot worse.

Or hey, why don't we stop looking at the people who randomly get "abused" by police(as if pepper spray is abuse) for mouthing off. And let's switch over to cops who get punished for doing their job, shall we?
http://www.americanfreedomriders.com/JoeLoyaLetter.html

This was one of my favorite cases to have read about last year in Ethics. Pretty fun, huh?

Only read the beginning, but it looks a really interesting case to get stuck into. If I get spare moment this weekend (unlikely) or next week (more likely) I’ll give it a read, check up some other sources and get back to you on it. Maybe even start a new thread, because this thread is about a jerky Canadian getting pepper sprayed by a jerky customs guy. That Loya case is a lot more serious and deserves more than an offhand comment in this thread.

The border patrol guard should of been polite, but the canadian should of obeyed the order. You don't piss around when it comes to obeying the law.


Still, I think the use of pepper spray was OTT but the Canadian WAS warned it would be used. But I doubt the Canadian would of become violent lol.

sebster wrote:

That's basically what I said in the first place. Two jerks bumped into each other, both acted jerky, situation ended with everyone else in the world looking on, shaking their heads and wondering what the point of all that was.

Exactly. The difference is that Jerk A was a civilian and Jerk B Was a uniformed representative of the United States who was on duty.

Being a Jerk in civilian time should have no consequence other than people thinking your a jerk. Being a Jerk Whilst in uniform and on Duty can have severe ramifications and the cop should have realized this.

Kilkrazy wrote:

We should wait for the results of the official enquiry, before making our snap judgements.

O M G no, that would be boring KK!

Centurian99 wrote:I think the people who are saying that the cop wasn't justified in using pepper spray are totally confused here. The situation is as follows, from the border patrol officer's point of view:

1) Subject has done something, been flagged due to previous crossings, or has just been randomly selected for a more thorough search/interrogation. The reason really doesn't matter.

2) Officer orders subject to turn off car.

3) Subject refuses.

4) Officer repeats order twice more, and the subject refuses twice more.

5) Conclusion: Subject is willfully disobeying officer.

5) Subject remains behind the wheel, with the engine on. We can assume the window is down. How exactly is the officer supposed to subdue and arrest the offender?

Remember, this is a Border crossing. All sorts of people cross. Almost all of them are legitimate. But it only takes one to ruin everyone's day.

The officer has to ask: why is this person disobeying my command? Why does this person need to keep his car running?

Add to that:
6) Suspect is still in car at an international crossing. Suspect could have drugs, be a psycho, be a criminal, more importantly BE A TERRORIST.

This could have gone down far far worse.

(Was this the crossing that caught the Millennium terrorist at? )

ShumaGorath wrote:YOU INFORM A NON VIOLENT SUSPECT OF THE CONSEQUENCE OF NON COMPLIANCE BEFORE YOU INITIATE SAID CONSEQUENCE.

And the officer did.

The Article wrote:He said he was questioned by a border officer who demanded he turn off his car and, when asked to make the request more politely, threatened to spray him with his pepper gun if he did not comply.

LuciusAR wrote:Being a Jerk in civilian time should have no consequence other than people thinking your a jerk.

What if that being a jerk also involves committing a crime?

Like repeatedly refusing to obey the lawful order of a border officer?

The point is that it could have been defused quite easily by just using please. If the guy continues to be an ass after that then fine.
I don't accept the "I had a bad day" argument for this, I don't think it's acceptable to take your bad days out on other people, no matter who you are.
And for the record, yeah I do think the Canadian guy was being an eejit.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

We should wait for the results of the official enquiry, before making our snap judgements.

O M G no, that would be boring KK!

I am resident Mr Prose Man.

Lordhat wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:ugh. In any situation, just roll with whatever happens. If the officer don't say please, whatevs. If he do, awesome! I don't wanna tell people how to run their lives or I'll look silly.

Yup. I'd say you look silly enough with your spelling and grammar..... using it to advise others would really compound the silliness factor.

(After looking up your other posts, I realize you don't actually converse this way, but I can't help gettin a dig in, when somebody writes things like 'whatevs' and 'if he do'.)

lols. I blew a grammar fuse.


Still though, does anyone know when the official enquiry comes out?

The incident only occurred recently.

I cynically suspect we will never hear the result of the enquiry.

Da Boss wrote:The point is that it could have been defused quite easily by just using please. If the guy continues to be an ass after that then fine.
I don't accept the "I had a bad day" argument for this, I don't think it's acceptable to take your bad days out on other people, no matter who you are.
And for the record, yeah I do think the Canadian guy was being an eejit.

It's not acceptable to take your bad days out on people, but nor is it acceptable to think you're entitled to pleasantries from officers trying to actually get their job done with minimal fuss.
I've said it and I'll say it again:
If this was a routine traffic stop or the like, the Canuck might actually have reason to be ticked. He was at a border crossing checkpoint, you know, those crazy places where people like to go from country to country?

In the name of God, is it so hard to say "please"?

When I visited Geneva and Mont Blanc in 2004, I flew to Switzerland and drove between Switzerland, France, Italy, France and Switzerland without once being tasered, maced, or menaced by a border guard. I'm British and my wife is Japanese -- so double the trouble at every border crossing -- and we were driving a car that spoke German.

Our biggest hassle on the whole trip was when I went into the French toll lane that doesn't accept coins, and it was the jerk French driver behind me giving me hassle.

Minimum fuss? What's minimum fuss? "Please", or three verbal warnings, a Mace discharge, an official enquiry and the news plastered all over the WWW?

This was an overreaction by the border guard. He could have completely defused the situation just by saying please, and it would have used up about 1/3rd of a second.

It's nothing to do with being American, we have our own overreacting police in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm

It's bad wherever it happens.

Let's not get hung up on defending our national identities.

Americans used to support freedom from tyranny in all its forms.

Kilkrazy wrote:In the name of God, is it so hard to say "please"?

When I visited Geneva and Mont Blanc in 2004, I flew to Switzerland and drove between Switzerland, France, Italy, France and Switzerland without once being tasered, maced, or menaced by a border guard. I'm British and my wife is Japanese -- so double the trouble at every border crossing -- and we were driving a car that spoke German.

Our biggest hassle on the whole trip was when I went into the French toll lane that doesn't accept coins, and it was the jerk French driver behind me giving me hassle.

Minimum fuss? What's minimum fuss? "Please", or three verbal warnings, a Mace discharge, an official enquiry and the news plastered all over the WWW?

This was an overreaction by the border guard. He could have completely defused the situation just by saying please, and it would have used up about 1/3rd of a second.

It's nothing to do with being American, we have our own overreacting police in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm

It's bad wherever it happens.

Let's not get hung up on defending our national identities.

Americans used to support freedom from tyranny in all its forms.

Thanks for expressing what I couldn't have expressed.

sA

I could only manage it by drinking a whole bottle of cava.

In vino veritas.

Dirty Harry Don't Say PLEASE!

Kilkrazy wrote:In the name of God, is it so hard to say "please"?

When I visited Geneva and Mont Blanc in 2004, I flew to Switzerland and drove between Switzerland, France, Italy, France and Switzerland without once being tasered, maced, or menaced by a border guard. I'm British and my wife is Japanese -- so double the trouble at every border crossing -- and we were driving a car that spoke German.

Our biggest hassle on the whole trip was when I went into the French toll lane that doesn't accept coins, and it was the jerk French driver behind me giving me hassle.

Minimum fuss? What's minimum fuss? "Please", or three verbal warnings, a Mace discharge, an official enquiry and the news plastered all over the WWW?

This was an overreaction by the border guard. He could have completely defused the situation just by saying please, and it would have used up about 1/3rd of a second.

It's nothing to do with being American, we have our own overreacting police in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm

It's bad wherever it happens.

Let's not get hung up on defending our national identities.

Americans used to support freedom from tyranny in all its forms.

The Stockwell shooting has no comparison, whatsoever, to this.
The officers had a *valid reason* to do it.

They were operating off of intelligence that placed Menezes near the area, and he matched the description of a suspected *suicide bomber*. You're not going to sit there and try to tell a friggin' suicide bomber please.

It has nothing about national identities, by the way. The person maced could have been an American crossing into Canada, and I'd still think he got what he deserved for mouthing off.

And you know what? It's not tyranny if you're mouthing off to a dutifully sworn law enforcement officer. It's called disobeying a lawful order. And it could end up with you in jail here in the US. There have been cases of drunks who refused to exit their cars and been tasered. So this Canadian? Not so special. The only thing about it is that it gets all you bloody Euros up in a tizzy that some meathead Yank pepper sprayed someone for asking him to say please.

Maybe you guys have more tolerant officers over there, but here in NC? You pull that crap, you're going to get maced or tasered. It's that simple. Too many cops get killed in routine traffic stops for them to really feel comfortable dealing with a mouthy suspect in a car.

Wow!

It turns out that an armed society isn't a polite society.

Did you expect any more?

sA

Americans on't need to be polite. We're Americans!