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.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Belphegor wrote:though I might be confusing the teacher's authority with the teacher's responsibility

Sounds like you might.

If a person continuously interrupts a judge during a trial, they can be held in contempt of court and arrested.

A teacher does not have the right to forcibly put a child in a jail for the night for interrupting class.

Same concept.

They have the right to suspend them from school.

Yep.

A lot different from imprisonment though.

Belphegor wrote:

Frazzled: How else would you have handled it?

Taken his plate number and information.
Let him know he needs to wait until he complies and can only drive away when he is told he may do so and may not leave his vehicle without an officer immediately present.
have him wait 20 minutes
repeat (he's being held non-violently with reason)
inform shift-change if he's really stubborn
if he behaves threateningly or attempts to drive off or leave his vehicle unsupervised, then you can 'take-him-down"

Sure! We should just close down the operation waiting for the guy to get his head out of his own ass. If we are lucky, he will be blocking the lane and so everyone else has to wait for their turn to talk to the border agents. After all, we should all be allowed to make demands that have no effect on the actual exchange of information. "Say Please!"... "Now say it with a French Accent!"... "Now say it in Spanish with the French accent!"

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

Gen. Lee Losing: Sure! We should just close down the operation waiting for the guy to get his head out of his own ass. If we are lucky, he will be blocking the lane and so everyone else has to wait for their turn to talk to the border agents. After all, we should all be allowed to make demands that have no effect on the actual exchange of information. "Say Please!"... "Now say it with a French Accent!"... "Now say it in Spanish with the French accent!"

Why would he block the lane?, have him pull off to the side (turn around if necessary).
If he's just been an ass all that he really deserves is to wait in the corner until he's done.
If he refuses to move to the side, inform him that he is creating a dangerous situation for others and warn him that he will need to be forcibly remove if he does not comply.
He needs to be actively causing a dangerous situation to warrant physical harm being done to him.
(at least that's what my ethics tell me)

Belphegor wrote: Why would he block the lane?, have him pull off to the side (turn around if necessary).
If he's just been an ass all that he really deserves is to wait in the corner until he's done.
If he refuses to move to the side, inform him that he is creating a dangerous situation for others and warn him that he will need to be forcibly remove if he does not comply.
He needs to be actively causing a dangerous situation to warrant physical harm being done to him.
(at least that's what my ethics tell me)

Just make sure to say "please" as you tell him to move, right? With a french accent. Maybe in German this time...

Belphegor wrote:

Frazzled: How else would you have handled it?

Taken his plate number and information.
Let him know he needs to wait until he complies and can only drive away when he is told he may do so and may not leave his vehicle without an officer immediately present.
have him wait 20 minutes
repeat (he's being held non-violently with reason)
inform shift-change if he's really stubborn
if he behaves threateningly or attempts to drive off or leave his vehicle unsupervised, then you can 'take-him-down"

That's nonsense. Sorry. Border patrol gives an order, tool fails to follow it, suffers the immediate consequences, because at that point he changes from being a suspect to being an actual criminal (failure to follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer).

LuciusAR wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Um...are people actually defending the dance-instructing jackass? I'm a card-carrying liberal (really, my Michigan Democratic Party membership card is in my wallet) and I feel the Border Guard was fully justified in what he did.

I'm not necessary defending the Canadian. I am however condemning the border guard. I don't see how using pepper spray could possibly be appropriate in this situation. Unless the officer had good reason to suspect the Canadian was going to become physically aggressive this sort of force just isn't justified.

Pepper spay is a defensive tool to protect the officer and those around him from harm. It is not an offensive tool to be used to force people to comply.

Suspect behind the wheel of a vehicle and refusing to comply with instructions. A vehicle can, in certain circumstances, be considered a weapon.

Wow, so just about all the Americans are defending the officer and just about all the non-Americans are condemning him.

Frazzled hit the nail on the head though. If I was the border guard and some guy was effectively stalling or refusing to comply with an ORDER I sure as hell would be thinking about how to resolve the situation as safely as possible.

Failure to obey a direct command is a crime, frankly the guy is lucky they aren't pressing charges against him.

Centurian99: That's nonsense. Sorry. Border patrol gives an order, tool fails to follow it, suffers the immediate consequences, because at that point he changes from being a suspect to being an actual criminal (failure to follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer).

Why is it nonsense?
It's functionally the same as what happened to the guy sans-pepper spray, detention. Which the exception that it is non-violent and requires less effort and no possible medical repercussions. Also it gives a chance for all parties involved to cool their heels and truly inconveniences no one but the prickly dance instructor.
Failure to follow a lawful order doesn't mean you should be able to harm the person.
Unless you need to prevent someone from leaving or protect yourself or the people around you.

Ozymandias: Wow, so just about all the Americans are defending the officer and just about all the non-Americans are condemning him.

I (as an American) just wanted to pitch in that I'm going on the basis that they're both 'tards and defending neither.

How else could I have defused it? I could have said please, just the once, before escalating.

I'm from a different culture apparently though. I thought americans were all about small government and individual freedom. Must have been mistaken.

We're also about being pretty stubborn so when someone you are detaining asks you to say please you're going to get a bee in your bonnet about it.

Individual freedom also means individual responsibility. The Canadian was warned and ignored that warning. Seems like the one in the wrong was him.

Perhaps, but I expect law enforcement to take the higher ground. My father is a Garda, and he'd be disgusted by that sort of behaviour by any of the force.

T

Centurian99 wrote:Um...are people actually defending the dance-instructing jackass?

No, they’re not. The saying he was a jerk, but that the customs guy was also a jerk.

I'm a card-carrying liberal (really, my Michigan Democratic Party membership card is in my wallet) and I feel the Border Guard was fully justified in what he did.

He used a weapon that causes extreme pain and can incapacitate for several hours, when there was no risk of violence or even of resistance. Twice before the jerk Canadian had gone through customs, and twice before the situation had been resolved without anyone getting pepper sprayed.

For whatever reason, the decision was made to detain this individual. He was asked, three times, to turn off his car. The asshat refused to do so three times, while behind the wheel of a running car...a potentially deadly weapon.

You can pretend any situation is potentially deadly, but that’s why we have trained, professional humans enforcing the law and not ED-209.

As to not saying "please" - c'mon here. The Border Patrol was issuing an ORDER. "Please" implies that the subject has a choice in this matter.

Pretending someone has a say in a matter is a courtesy. When you were a kid and Mum said ‘could you turn that tv off please’… you didn’t have any say in the matter. It was just a courtesy from Mum to pretend you did.

Frazzled wrote:How else would you have handled it? The dillweed was not complying with a lawful order. We know he was a dillweed because they had pulled him out of the car for three hours sometime before.

The situation had been resolved twice before without anyone getting pepper sprayed. Obviously it can be handled without pepper spray being needed.

Are you saying you can’t think of any possible resolution being incapacitating the guy? I think you’re turning law enforcement officers into basic automatons; make request, if request is denied incapacitate. You’re ignoring the capability of capable individuals to problem solve there on the spot.

The customs guy could have said please. He could have informed the driver that failure to comply was in breach and that he was going to be rejected entry into the US or detained. He could have instructed the driver to move his vehicle to a side lane, please, now adding the please and removing the jerk Canadian’s complaint, while still maintaining authority and progressing the situation towards its resolution.

Lordhat wrote:This is the disconnect. Pepper spray certainly IS an offensive tool to force people to comply. In the hands of a civillian, it is a defensive tool because it is against the law for a citizen to take offensive action. In the hands of the police force, it is yet another tool to aid in the performance of a job. What is the job of the police? To ensure compliance with the law.

No, that's wrong. There are considerable risks to pepper spray and people have died from its application. It was introduced as an alternative to a physical takedown, and the best reason for it's introduction was that it was so much less dangerous than grappling with a suspect. If a situation wouldn't otherwise justify a physical takedown, then pepper spray is also not reasonable.

The idea that police work is 'request compliance, if rejected spray in the face' is a really horrible way to look at policing.

Ozymandias wrote:Wow, so just about all the Americans are defending the officer and just about all the non-Americans are condemning him.

Nah, everyone thinks the Canadian was a jerk. Just some of think the officer was also a jerk, while others think the only possible solution to a difficult individual is pepper spray.

If I were the guard I would have just said 'please'. In fact, I would have said it the first time, but that's neither here nor there.

But I guess if I did buckle and say 'please' that would have undermined my authority and power as an officer and a man, and I would have gone home and cried, and my penis would have shrunk two inches, and the whole of America would have become a joke because of the mighty Canadian's huge victory over me, and there would not be any more freedom, or liberty or guns, and Osama Bin Laden would have been made king of the Universe and every puppy in the world would have been kicked in the face by paedophiles and illegal immigrants and everyone would speak French.

I suppose it was better that he sprayed him in that case.

sebster wrote:

Lordhat wrote:This is the disconnect. Pepper spray certainly IS an offensive tool to force people to comply. In the hands of a civillian, it is a defensive tool because it is against the law for a citizen to take offensive action. In the hands of the police force, it is yet another tool to aid in the performance of a job. What is the job of the police? To ensure compliance with the law.

No, that's wrong. There are considerable risks to pepper spray and people have died from its application. It was introduced as an alternative to a physical takedown, and the best reason for it's introduction was that it was so much less dangerous than grappling with a suspect. If a situation wouldn't otherwise justify a physical takedown, then pepper spray is also not reasonable.

So, what you're saying is, it's perfectly fine to disobey the law as long as the law isn't behaving the way you want them to? So, the guy who doesn't pull over for the flashing lights and sirens (they never say please either) is, while a jerk, not to be subjected to the consequences because he (theoretically) wouldn't need a physical confrontation to ensure compliance?

The fact of the matter is, here the police rarely say please when telling you to do something. Asking a person means they can say no. When the police stop me (and this only applies to Arizona, I don't know how the other states work), They TELL me to 'stand there'; They have the power to detain me while determining certain things, I don't have a choice in this. They also ASK me to relinquish my firearm; They do NOT have the power to disarm me until I'm actually under arrest, I can say no to this. Yes the officer COULD have said please, but he is not required to. However the gentleman, having subjected himself to the officer's authority by asking permission to cross the border did NOT have the option of non-compliance, nor did he have the authority to 'negotiate' how he would comply.

Non-compliance automatically singles you out as a possible threat; You could be a nutjob with a trunk full of ammonium nitrate, or a smuggler of drugs, people, guns, or a thousand other items that are contaband (Hell as a dance instructor he could be trying to smuggle duty-free tutu's across the border ). Continued non-compliance after being informed of the consequences indicates a willingness to continue in your course without regard to the law, yourself, or others. Pepperspray was a mild means of enforcement considering what gear a Police Officer carries as standard equipment: A pistol (9mm or higher caliber), a baton, a taser, and the afore-mentioned Pepperspray.

All this being said, I don't condone the guy being sprayed over asking for courtesy, I condone him being sprayed for continuing on a course of action knowing that it would end thusly.


Two Dumbasses butting heads:

"Sir, shut off your engine."
"Say please."
"Sir, shut off your engine or I will pepperspray you."
"Say please and I will."
"Sir, for the last time, Shut off the vehicle."
"Say ple-----arrrrgh!"

Both these guys deserve what they get, neither one is acting in a particularly intelligent manner.


One dumbass and an indignant smartass:

"Sir, shut off your engine."
"Say please."
"Sir, shut off your engine or I will pepperspray you."
"Ok, but in the future could you be more polite and say please?"
"I'll keep that in mind, now exit the vehicle......."

Nothing unpleasant happens, and the motorist now has a valid reason to complain about the demeanor of the the officer.

sebster wrote:

The idea that police work is 'request compliance, if rejected spray in the face' is a really horrible way to look at policing.

Well there it is again......... compliance is NOT requested here, it is mandated by law. You have no choice, you comply, or you deal with the consequences.

sebster wrote:

Nah, everyone thinks the Canadian was a jerk. Just some of think the officer was also a jerk, while others think the only possible solution to a difficult individual is pepper spray.

Who has said this? I mean honestly, who said that the only solution to a difficult individual is pepper spray?

for shame sah

Shrike78 wrote:Who has said this? I mean honestly, who said that the only solution to a difficult individual is pepper spray?

for shame sah

Sbuh? Are you playing some stupid rhetorical game (no-one said it was the only solution just the best one) or have you not read this thread?

Lordhat;
"Pepper spray is exactly what the situation called for. Quick effective neutralization of the suspect, no physical injury sustained by either the officer or the suspect"

Frazzled;
"The Canadian was a or a threat. Either way its pepper time."

OverbossGhurzubMoga;
"As for the "is pepperspray excessive?" No."
"Pepperspray was designed to force compliance in individuals who will not comply"

Gen. Lee Losing;
"Pepper spray in the face is a just punishment for failing to comply in a dangerous place (border crossing)."

Centurian99;
"I feel the Border Guard was fully justified in what he did."

Lordhat wrote:So, what you're saying is, it's perfectly fine to disobey the law as long as the law isn't behaving the way you want them to?

No, I never said anything of the sort and I'd like it if you didn't create silly strawman arguments. I said that the response should be proportionate to the problem. Before pepper spray police dealt with difficult individuals without taking to them with a nightstick, what's changed?

So, the guy who doesn't pull over for the flashing lights and sirens (they never say please either) is, while a jerk, not to be subjected to the consequences because he (theoretically) wouldn't need a physical confrontation to ensure compliance?

The guy wasn't pulled over on a lonely road in the middle of nowhere. The level of caution shown and the need to overtly dominate the situation is massively different when an officer is exposed compared to when he's on a border crossing with dozens of his mates around.

The fact of the matter is, here the police rarely say please when telling you to do something. Asking a person means they can say no. When the police stop me (and this only applies to Arizona, I don't know how the other states work), They TELL me to 'stand there'; They have the power to detain me while determining certain things, I don't have a choice in this. They also ASK me to relinquish my firearm; They do NOT have the power to disarm me until I'm actually under arrest, I can say no to this. Yes the officer COULD have said please, but he is not required to. However the gentleman, having subjected himself to the officer's authority by asking permission to cross the border did NOT have the option of non-compliance, nor did he have the authority to 'negotiate' how he would comply.

Cop could be naked, covered in jelly, and his police hat could have a glowing neon bit that reads 'not really an authority' and I'll still know he's a cop and he can arrest me and he is the authority. Saying 'please' doesn't change that, nor does it imply a request as opposed to a demand... it's a courtesy and means nothing beyond that.

I gave the example earlier of when we were kids, and Mum would say 'please turn that telly off'. No kid thought 'Mum said please so it was only a request and I can keep watching'. It doesn't work that way.

Non-compliance automatically singles you out as a possible threat; You could be a nutjob with a trunk full of ammonium nitrate, or a smuggler of drugs, people, guns, or a thousand other items that are contaband (Hell as a dance instructor he could be trying to smuggle duty-free tutu's across the border ).

No, non-compliance doesn't automatically single the individual out as a threat. That's ridiculous. Every single night police deal with individuals who don't immediately tow the line, because they're inebriated, because they're showing off in front of their mates, because they're jerks. Every night officers deal with these people without reaching for the pepper spray, and they constantly manage this feat because they apply their training, experience and brains.

Yet here we have one smarmy Canadian, in a completely controlled situation, who isn't offering any threat or even gesturing at physical resistance, and the customs guy couldn't solve the problem without pepper spray. Compared to actual cops, this guy is a shocker.

Two Dumbasses butting heads:

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.

You know how, in your extended group of mates there'll be a couple of guys who just can't back down a step, and will keep escalating until it gets ridiculous... so they end up in a punchup over who gets to sit in the front seat of the car. Everyone is willing and able to call those guys jerks. It's easy. Doesn't matter who really deserved the seat, doesn't matter who threw the first punch, we all just look on and say 'what a bunch of jerks'.

Except when one of those jerks is in a uniform. Then you get people talking about how policemen who aren't customs guys face specific, dangerous situations that customs guys don't face. Or that customs guys have the right to shoot dangerous people so jerks should presumably be happy when they only get pepper sprayed. Or that a random guy being obstinate could mean he's really smuggling explosives into the country so you better play it safe and pull out the pepperspray.

It's weird, because the answer is so obvious, 'both those guys were obviously jerks'.

sebster wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:Who has said this? I mean honestly, who said that the only solution to a difficult individual is pepper spray?

for shame sah

Sbuh? Are you playing some stupid rhetorical game (no-one said it was the only solution just the best one) or have you not read this thread?

Lordhat;
"Pepper spray is exactly what the situation called for. Quick effective neutralization of the suspect, no physical injury sustained by either the officer or the suspect"

Frazzled;
"The Canadian was a or a threat. Either way its pepper time."

OverbossGhurzubMoga;
"As for the "is pepperspray excessive?" No."
"Pepperspray was designed to force compliance in individuals who will not comply"

Gen. Lee Losing;
"Pepper spray in the face is a just punishment for failing to comply in a dangerous place (border crossing)."

Centurian99;
"I feel the Border Guard was fully justified in what he did."

Actually I was palying a stupid rhetorical game where i pointed out that no one has said that it is the only solution for any difficult individual.

I will admit, that people are saying that it was the best course of action for this particular incident.. that is fact... but saying that people are saying that it is the only recourse for difficult persons is a flawed statement

Shrike78 wrote:Actually I was palying a stupid rhetorical game where i pointed out that no one has said that it is the only solution for any difficult individual.

I will admit, that people are saying that it was the best course of action for this particular incident.. that is fact... but saying that people are saying that it is the only recourse for difficult persons is a flawed statements

I gave you more credit, and actually went back and picked out the quotes of people saying the best solution or the correct solution was pepper spray. But you were only making the meaningless, inane and irrelevant distinction between best or correct solution and only solution. Thanks for that.

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, and laughing.

Fixed.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

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, and laughing.

Fixed.

And that's the thing, this would be funny. Because that jerky Canadian got caned for being a jerk. Except people start defending the other jerk, and it takes on this whole other thing.

So, I just read this entire thread. And coming from working on becoming a cop, I've got quite a bit to say on this

1) If a dutifully sworn officer tells you to do something, you do it. Yes, an officer can't be demeaned really by being polite. But, considering the man had done it before and gotten a smarmy response from a Canadian official, what did he really expect?
2) We don't know what time of day or the complete situation. Yeah, it might seem a cheap way out, but let's face it. Officers are people too. If you had a shoddy day at work, and then got some smarmy git telling you to say "please" because you told him to stop his car?
You'd be a mite bit frustrated and likely to find an excuse to take it out on him too.
3) The comparison of a law enforcement officer to a principal/teacher is laughable. A LEO has the responsibility to protect the public at large, whereas a school official is acting in the best interest of the individual children(in loco parentis. Remember that phrase).

Yeah, it does seem a bit like overkill for the officer to have done this. But, the man has done it before. He was at a border crossing, which in itself is an area that regular policing rules don't apply at and also has the added bonus of being a high flow traffic area, which compounds a bit of the officer's actions to being slightly more reasonable.

And honestly? The European member responses don't surprise me. From what I've seen in some of the studies we've done of foreign law enforcement agencies, it's a lot different than United States agencies. Then you've also got the cultural differences, the fact that in a lot of the EU, LEOs are actually respected to a bit of a degree.
If any of you Euros can debate that with other than just "F U COPS!", I'd be glad to hear it. But here in the States, cops aren't exactly looked upon favorably.
Heck, my own parents don't like the fact that I want to be a cop. Not because of the fact that I could be injured.

But because they think all cops are crooked and the system is up to the point where cops would rather shoot a victim than put in paperwork, yadda yadda yadda.

sebster wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:Actually I was palying a stupid rhetorical game where i pointed out that no one has said that it is the only solution for any difficult individual.

I will admit, that people are saying that it was the best course of action for this particular incident.. that is fact... but saying that people are saying that it is the only recourse for difficult persons is a flawed statements

I gave you more credit, and actually went back and picked out the quotes of people saying the best solution or the correct solution was pepper spray. But you were only making the meaningless, inane and irrelevant distinction between best or correct solution and only solution. Thanks for that.

sorry, I don't like fallacious arguments.. i am currently being brainwashed by my AP LANG course to eradicate it wherever I see it... however, due to my lazyness, yours was the first that I saw/bothered to correct

In case you were wondering, the fallacy is termed the "straw man" argument... which is attacking an argument that does not exist, or is an insubstantial detail in the opponents argument.

sorry for the inane chatter

Shrike78 wrote:

sorry, I don't like fallacious arguments.. i am currently being brainwashed by my AP LANG course to eradicate it wherever I see it... however, due to my lazyness, yours was the first that I saw/bothered to correct

In case you were wondering, the fallacy is termed the "straw man" argument... which is attacking an argument that does not exist, or is an insubstantial detail in the opponents argument.

sorry for the inane chatter

Thing is, if your first post had said 'people have claimed it was the best solution and the correct solution and just punishment, but they never said it was the only solution'. Then I could have said 'alright, but who cares' and it would have saved me ten minutes going back and re-reading this thread and picking out the bits with people saying it was the best solution.

And that was the first logical fallacy you picked up in this thread? I don't think it was even the worst of my logical fallacies, let alone from everyone else that's posted

sebster wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:

sorry, I don't like fallacious arguments.. i am currently being brainwashed by my AP LANG course to eradicate it wherever I see it... however, due to my lazyness, yours was the first that I saw/bothered to correct

In case you were wondering, the fallacy is termed the "straw man" argument... which is attacking an argument that does not exist, or is an insubstantial detail in the opponents argument.

sorry for the inane chatter

Thing is, if your first post had said 'people have claimed it was the best solution and the correct solution and just punishment, but they never said it was the only solution'. Then I could have said 'alright, but who cares' and it would have saved me ten minutes going back and re-reading this thread and picking out the bits with people saying it was the best solution.

And that was the first logical fallacy you picked up in this thread? I don't think it was even the worst of my logical fallacies, let alone from everyone else that's posted

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.