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.

jp400 wrote:I feel that he acted according to protocall. I mean, seriously its not hard to do what your told when crossing the line. I cross back and forth into Canada all the time and have never had a problem with the guards.

Sure, you didn't have any issue because you didn't act like a jerk. The Canadian dude was acting like a jerk, no-one is arguing otherwise.

The issue is whether the pepper spraying was necessary, and whether the officer used decent judgement. He pepper sprayed a guy who was sitting in his car, who was not acting threatening. Twice previously the situation had been resolved without anyone being pepper sprayed, so it was obviously an unnecessary escalation of the situation.

sebster wrote:

Ah no, no-one was sent to Guantanamo for being annoying while waiting at customs. There were some messed up cases, but nothing that ridiculous.

Not that we know of.

Seriously though, I agree it was total overreaction, yet not excessive.

sebster wrote:
And yeah, there’s authority to maintain. If a guy doesn’t comply, you order him out of his car, sit him in a waiting room for two hours while you search his car. But pepper spray?

Umm isn't the first step to ordering a suspect out of his car "Shut off your engine."?

sebster wrote:
You may possibly be the worst host ever. I mean, I’ve been to some crap parties in my time, but no-one ever demanded I empty out my pockets, or pepper-sprayed me.

Ever been to a party in gangland, USA? (Note: I'm not trying to come off as a 'hardass from the mean streets of Phoenix, AZ, but I HAVE had people come to parties who I wasn't entirely comfortable with. These people were (politely ) asked to divest themselves of all weapons and illegal substances before entering my house.)

All our personal commentary aside, I'm sure the officer in question will get no more than a public warning to make better judgement calls, and a private commendation on following procedure like the robot he is.

and a private commendation on following procedure like the robot he is.

Except pepper spraying a suspect in a running vehicle isn't procedure. It's stupid as hell. What if he slammed on the gas? He could have injured innocents, caused an accident, hit the officer, etc.

ITS WHY YOU DON'T BLIND PEOPLE IN RUNNING VEHICLES WHEN THEY ARE IN THE DRIVERS SEAT.

Proper procedure would be to draw the gun and order the suspect to exit the vehicle. You don't go from nothing to pepper spray, there are steps. It's not a tool of casual enforcement, its a tool for subduing suspects in a physical encounter or when the officer feels threatened. Get over the canadian being a moron, this is about the officers incorrect response. And it was an incorrect response. It also doesn't matter whether he was a canadian or US citizen the procedures are the same, so lets drop that load of crap right now.

@ Sebster:

Lets look at this another way shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMttrTtkYDg

Same situation, same use of force.... totally different outcome.

Its past events like this that dictate the way Agents and Officers act the way that they do.

@ Shuma:
Take it from someone that has been sprayed more times then they want to remember... The stuff works great, but not at 100% if you dont get it directly in the eyes or nose/mouth. You can still function even after sprayed. Plus it doesnt come in a "gun" form. It comes in a spray can like Zip Kicker, or you can get ones with handles attached for better aim/spray pattern. Also spraying someone in an enclosed space (like a car) isnt a stupid idea.

Also spraying someone in an enclosed space (like a car) isnt a stupid idea.

It is when the car is on. As in the driver can panic and pull into traffic or hit people on the side of the road. It turns a controlled situation into an uncontrolled one. Enclosed spaces work, because accompanied with the spray they can serve to detain. but a car is not a cage, it is a vehicle, it's designed to make people go fast very easily.

"I refused to turn off the car until he said please.

Haha.

You can't just refuse to comply with the order, not because the person issuing the order issued it in a way you didn't like.

It says he asked the officer to say please three times, so the officer must have asked him to turn the engine off three times too.

Plus, the officer specifically told him that he was about to be sprayed with pepper spray if he didn't turn his engine off.

The border officer may have been a jackass, but this Canadian guy was just being stupid as hell. He did this once before too, so it's not like he could even pretend he didn't know it was a stupid idea.

Just out interest, isn't actually more normal for you to start off polite, then get firmer if getting no response? Surely the default start to this conversation is, "Would you mind turning off your engine please sir?" If after this the person fails to respond you could repeat (if you feel they may not of heard) or get more blunt.

By the way, I think the guy is a pillock for carrying on like this in the first place. Your border guys are known for not having a sense of humour at the best of times.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Also spraying someone in an enclosed space (like a car) isnt a stupid idea.

It is when the car is on. As in the driver can panic and pull into traffic or hit people on the side of the road. It turns a controlled situation into an uncontrolled one. Enclosed spaces work, because accompanied with the spray they can serve to detain. but a car is not a cage, it is a vehicle, it's designed to make people go fast very easily.

How is the guy going to pull into traffic if he has his foot on the brakes. Also I think most people put there cars in park when the cops are talking to them. Personaly I have been pepper sprayed in a running car its not that bad. I had no warning but I made sure i keep my foot on the brakes

ShumaGorath wrote:Proper procedure would be to draw the gun and order the suspect to exit the vehicle.

Uh... what?

Why the hell would he do that? He's not going to shoot him, both of them know he's not going to shoot him, what would be the point of drawing a gun?

Also, as previously said, he was being asked to get out of his vehicle; that's why he was asked to turn the engine off. It's the first part of getting out of the vehicle.
It's not like the guy would have gotten out of the vehicle if the officer skipped the turning off the engine step (except with a "please"), if he would've done that he would've turned off his engine.

Wolfstan wrote:Just out interest, isn't actually more normal for you to start off polite, then get firmer if getting no response? Surely the default start to this conversation is, "Would you mind turning off your engine please sir?" If after this the person fails to respond you could repeat (if you feel they may not of heard) or get more blunt.

By the way, I think the guy is a pillock for carrying on like this in the first place. Your border guys are known for not having a sense of humour at the best of times.

Absolutely. The officer should have been polite in the first place. I would expect politeness from any police officer who wished, for any reason to search me or my property. If I turn threatening or aggressive then by all means the officer can give me a warning and then pepper spray me if I don't calm down sharpish. Backchat does not ever call for force. Incidentally I don't think asking the officer to say please is an unreasonable request.

We don't know he reason this guy was being pulled over, it could just have easily been a routine random inspection, so lets not speculate regarding why he was going to be searched.

jp400 wrote:@ Sebster:

Lets look at this another way shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMttrTtkYDg

Same situation, same use of force.... totally different outcome.

Its past events like this that dictate the way Agents and Officers act the way that they do.

@ Shuma:
Take it from someone that has been sprayed more times then they want to remember... The stuff works great, but not at 100% if you dont get it directly in the eyes or nose/mouth. You can still function even after sprayed. Plus it doesnt come in a "gun" form. It comes in a spray can like Zip Kicker, or you can get ones with handles attached for better aim/spray pattern. Also spraying someone in an enclosed space (like a car) isnt a stupid idea.

Ive just watched that vid. As tragic as that was the only thing these situations have in common was the use of pepper spray. Don't compare the situation in the vid to one we are discussing here.

I think it's rather perverse to use, thankful fairly rare, situations were police officers are killed to justify excessive force by the police in other day to day situations.

I dunno, maybe it's because the police here have an entirely different ethos, but if they could get you out of the car with something as minimal as saying please they would- you're still doing what they want, they haven't had to bop you in the head, authority has been maintained.

The Green Git wrote:

LuciusAR wrote:Pepper spray is for use when confronted with a dangerous individual who needs to be disabled. Its not for use in this situation.

See... that's where we differ. Pepper spray is for use when non-lethal means of takedown are necessary and was totally useful in this situation. The non-compliant suspect was subdued with no injury to himself or the officer.

Guns are for use when confronted with a dangerous individual who needs to be disabled.

Maybe it would have been easier just to say "Please switch off your engine." ?

That might have sent the wrong message to the world's Canadian dance studio directors.

OTOH it would have saved the cost of replacing a pepper spray.

Perhaps a Tasering would have been the best way to resolve the situation.

The USA is the land of the free.

The citizens are very concerned to have guns to prevent the forces of authoritah from coercing them.

Police are public servants who are supposed to serve and protect the public.

Anyone seen that video where the 15-year old girl kicks her shoe at a policeman, who proceeds to beat her into the cement floor of her cell?

The world turns in circles and I am back to defending LuciusAR's opinion again.

This situation, and who is defending whome is quite illuminating regarding the way American unculture conflicts with people outside.

Politeness is not weakness. However to be impolite in a position of authority gets peoples backs up. As this policeman is of no greater visible worth than the people at the crossing it is only a matter of time before someone wont stand for being humiliated.

Ted Roosevelts idiom has been forgotten: 'talk softly and carry a big stick'.

Let us put in this way, it you went to a Hollywood movie and saw the little guy being told to submit to the bully and he stands his ground and says no, even though all the bully wants right now is a token of humiliation - you would be rooting for him.

Same principle applies in real life. People go to extraordinary lengths, beyond what logic would suggest to avoid having their name and honour dragged in the mud.

For this border crosser to turn his engine off would be worse than being sprayed, because to do so is to submit. To submit to a high handed command is the slaves station - and Canadians are not made to be slaves.

Furthermore and equally poiniently to have done so would have psychologically justified the aggressor.

Why did the policeman refuse to be polite? Power trip? Ignorance? Must be one or the other.

The only times a policeman should be blunt is if he requiresd immediate action with good cause. Stopping someone from running after a crime for example.
At every other time, and I mean EVERY other time. An order from a policeman - note that these requests are not really requestas but orders should be tempered with 'please' and 'sir/maam' at the end.
Even arrested suspects are to be dealt with this way, until they struggle or are verbally abusive.

US police use these words as well as UK ones. Just listen top the recordings on traffic cop shows, which are real life events and see how police behave.

There are numerous incidents of riots starting because a policeman gave a blunt order, and by human nature someone stood up looked him in the face and refused, simply because he was not asked nicely.

Defending ones dignity is human nature, the police understand this philosophy, this policeman should have known it.

Kilkrazy wrote:Anyone seen that video where the 15-year old girl kicks her shoe at a policeman, who proceeds to beat her into the cement floor of her cell?

horrible isn't it

The Green Git wrote:

LuciusAR wrote:Pepper spray is for use when confronted with a dangerous individual who needs to be disabled. Its not for use in this situation.

See... that's where we differ. Pepper spray is for use when non-lethal means of takedown are necessary and was totally useful in this situation. The non-compliant suspect was subdued with no injury to himself or the officer.

Guns are for use when confronted with a dangerous individual who needs to be disabled.

Exactly. if the individual is dangerous you go to taser/nightstick / pistol depending on why he's dangerous.

Unless you interrupt Kerry in which case you go straight to the taser.

jp400 wrote:@ Sebster:

Lets look at this another way shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMttrTtkYDg

Same situation, same use of force.... totally different outcome.

No, utterly, ludicrously different circumstance. A lone officer giving chase of an individual who was just seen shooting and then running over another officer. And that's compared to a guy in a checkpoint, manned by multiple officers, who is telling an officer to say please.

Yes, policeman have a difficult job where they can suddenly, unexpectedly be thrust into situations that threaten their lives and the lives of others. That's why we require them to have excellent judgement. The kind of judgement that can tell the situational difference between a dangerous criminal and jerky Canadian.

Lordhat wrote:Umm isn't the first step to ordering a suspect out of his car "Shut off your engine."?

Yes, in two other cases the guy was causing the same trouble. In both of those cases the situation was resolved without pepper spray being needed. The only difference in this case was that the jerk tourist ran into a jerk customs guy.

Ever been to a party in gangland, USA? (Note: I'm not trying to come off as a 'hardass from the mean streets of Phoenix, AZ, but I HAVE had people come to parties who I wasn't entirely comfortable with. These people were (politely ) asked to divest themselves of all weapons and illegal substances before entering my house.)

I've had parties where randoms have turned up and tried to force their way in. I found rather than get them to turn out their pockets before entering, I just didn't let them in.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
What the blue feth is wrong with you? You don't need to use pepper spray on an unarmed, harmless civilian! He didn't NEED to be taken down. The officer could have insisted, or simply used firm language. Brutality like that is just sick, and I can't believe that you're supporting it. He wasn't even doing anything wrong. There is NOTHING wrong with asking someone to say please.

What's wrong with me is people like you that side with snooty feths that thumb their noses at the US because they think they are better than everyone else, especially us barbaric Yanks.

The guy apparently DID need to get taken down, because the border guard asked him on multiple occasions to turn off his car. He even warned him that he was going to mace him. The offender WAS doing something wrong, and illegal by the way; we was disobeying a direct order from an agent of the United States government at a border crossing.

May I remind you again that this did not go down in said snooty Canadain's dance studio, but at an official border crossing checkpoint?

There is nothing wrong with asking someone to say please. There is EVERYTHING wrong with demanding it while disobeying a direct order from a lawfully appointed agent of the government during the official pursuit of his appointed function.

The story as printed above does not support your viewpoint.

According to the Canadian, he was told to turn off the engine, asked the policemen to say please, who refused, then the situation escalated.

On the face of it, the whole issue would have easily been defused by the policeman saying please the second time he asked.

This is based on the Canadian's say, of course, and I look forwards to the results of the speedy investigation that US Border Patrol always do in such situations.

The truth will out, I am sure.

The Green Git wrote:What's wrong with me is people like you that side with snooty feths that thumb their noses at the US because they think they are better than everyone else, especially us barbaric Yanks.

That's right. Can't ever concede a thing, not even that a customs guy over reacted, or that'll be just like conceding the American way of life is wrong. Obviously baseball, Mom and apple pie aren't wrong, so neither is the customs guy.

Why de-escalate it? He was disobeying a direct order. The order was stated three times.

Smackdown required.

Smackdown provided.

Problem - solution. Its perfect symmetry.

Kilkrazy wrote:The story as printed above does not support your viewpoint.

According to the Canadian, he was told to turn off the engine, asked the policemen to say please, who refused, then the situation escalated.

So how does that not support my viewpoint?

Fact: Border crosser was asked to turn off his vehicle.
Fact: Border crosser did not comply, but demanded a "Please".
Fact: Agent warned border crosser if he did not comply, he would be maced.
Fact: Border crosser did not comply.
Fact: Disobeying a direct order from a US police officer in pursuit of his station is a violation of the law.
Fact: Agent was trained to use non-lethal methods to bring about cooperation.
Fact: Agent ended situation without loss of life.

You have opinion "If he asked nicely, the border crosser would have complied".

Kilkrazy wrote:
On the face of it, the whole issue would have easily been defused by the policeman saying please the second time he asked.
This is based on the Canadian's say, of course, and I look forwards to the results of the speedy investigation that US Border Patrol always do in such situations.
The truth will out, I am sure.

Look, I don't have conqueror's guilt like Brits do. If someone comes into MY house and demands something from me they are going to get their ass handed to them with no apologies.

If the smarmy dance studio owner didn't like the way he was treated he had many options, including complaining to his superiors, writing a letter to PresBO or just going the feth back to CanaDUH.

The border agent does not get paid to be polite. He gets paid to do his job and prevent all sorts of nasty things from coming into the U.S.

The border crossee does not have the right to demand politeness from the agent. The crossee has the right to do as he is told, both quickly and quietly.

As for the "is pepperspray excessive?" No. A .45 ACP round to the chest is excessive. A police nightstick to the head several times is excessive [in this case]. Pepperspray was designed to force compliance in individuals who will not comply [or protect oneself].

If this officer is forced to publicly apologize, I will be pissed. He was doing his job, nothing more.

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:The border agent does not get paid to be polite. He gets paid to do his job and prevent all sorts of nasty things from coming into the U.S.

He gets paid to make decent judgement calls based on each situation. This means balancing speed, security, border protection and the rights of the individual. Considering only one or two of those is a fail.

The border crossee does not have the right to demand politeness from the agent. The crossee has the right to do as he is told, both quickly and quietly.

Yep, he was jerk, we've all agreed to this. But part of dealing with the public is dealing with jerks in an appropriate way. The customs guy failed, and failed terribly.

If this officer is forced to publicly apologize, I will be pissed. He was doing his job, nothing more.

People can do their job, and make a bad call.

It is bizarre. People are normally quite willing to see a guy acting like a jerk and call him on it. Put a guy in a uniform and people fall over themselves to justify the guy.

Hey Guys,
All we have is a news story that doesn't cover all that happened! Did the Border Patrol say please and the guy didn't hear it? Was his music to loud? Did the officer just handle a bad case and just wanted this guy to do what he was told and then he could go on his way? All we know is what spin was put on it by the news media and thats all! I know when a police officer asks me to do something more then once and tells me that if I don't I will get something that will cause me a great deal of pain I should do what he asks reguardless if please is put in or not. From what was said the officer told him three times to do something. He didn't do it. Got a great deal of pain for not doing what he was told. Maybe it was all for a law suit? Don't know and until the news reports it (if ever!) we will not know. Maybe he should have listened to the officer and done what he was told and then afterwards talk to the shift boss about the officer. Then again how does a dance trainer afford two homes? In these times? I didn't know training people to dance paid that well! Maybe I'm in the wrong field!

The Green Git wrote:

What's wrong with me is people like you that side with snooty feths that thumb their noses at the US because they think they are better than everyone else, especially us barbaric Yanks.

WTF???

Who on earth called the officer a Barbaric Yank? Who even had a go at America in general? Nobody made an issue out of this before you.

Please stop fighting with that straw man and debate the issue at hand.

On the topic of OTP police behaviour, the Canadian airport police tasered a mentally ill guy to death in late 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7095875.stm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJqdL40lvU

The enquiry started this January.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7839008.stm

Use of taser against unarmed civilians has increased in the UK too.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/12/plods_love_their_tasers/

It's not a question of barbaric Yanks, it's a question of what is appropriate police behaviour in a modern society which has the rule of law.

Also a side note:
Pepper spray can and will seriously mess up someone if their constitution can't handle it. (allergies come to mind first)

Also for those in support of the guy getting pepper sprayed:
Would you be in support of a school teacher pepper spraying a mouthy 7 grader?
   since said teacher would have the same practically the same level of authority (if not more) over that child
What if the guy was a lady, would that make any difference?
What if he wasn't a dance instructor and had a more macho occupation?