Border Patrol Beats Baptist Pastor

By not backing down at all.

If he was merely trying to pursue a civil case claiming the dog never alerted, you wouldn't even know about him, and it would go nowhere. It would have been an entirely wasted effort, except for his own personal highly unlikely case of trying to prove the dog did not alert.

As a result of his steadfastness and determination, and the resulting abuse at the hands of the agents, hundreds of thousands of people are now becoming exposed to the situation due to the freedom of information on the Internet.

If he would have given in at any point, his case would not be any more significant than thousands of others.

Ron Paul's Convention Speech

The border patrol/cops cannot dream up reasons to act as a police state. That is what citizens are standing against. These two (or is it the same man?) are actually standing for the Constitution and I think they should clearly state that in their argument when they face these circumstances.

There is a definite failure to communicate going on between the people and the enforcement. Things need to be totally cleared up about what rights the enforcers have and what rights the people have.

Sure these guys could have cooperated and not been detained, BUT that does nothing to put a check on abuse of power towards our Constitution. These men were not objecting FOR themselves but FOR the defense of our Constitution and it would serve them well to state as much clearly.

Including clueless callers.

That caller was trying to say that according to the Bible, everyone should do as their government says, and therefore the pastor should have done as the border agents said.

What total bull.

And the host is a wimp, who thinks people should not "scream" about their rights being violated. Then the host admits that he was trying to trap the pastor into becoming angry -- so you could call the host a passive aggressive wuss.

Ron Paul's Convention Speech

What time in which video was the "ambush?"

Ron Paul's Convention Speech

Very well summarized.

If you consider the simple reality of what is really happening it's absurd.

Ron Paul's Convention Speech

It's all about "contempt of cop."

Big time look-a-like! LOL

Revisit the Constitution. There is absolutely no authority to violate people's right to privacy and impede their free passage within the United States.

Deep inner motivation for the irrational stand to refuse to simply tell the officers what he did for a living or any information at all?

NO! He did the right thing. People who get chatty with the cops can have any innocent statement turned against them. Never talk to cops without your lawyer present. Cops are trained on how to take advantage of clueless people, and they will, and the pastor knew what they were doing. Where he worked was none of the agent's business, and he was right to not reply. "Name, rank, and serial number" is all anyone has any business talking to a cop about. Check out the ACLU's video on how to handle traffic stops.

The cop's sadism stands in stark contrast to the pastor's excellent, peaceful behavior.

If we don't stand up for our rights, we don't have any. It's as simple as that.

All He Did Was Verbally Defend Himself - He Used No Force

I would call that pretty peaceful.

He did the right thing, and I hope he is able to take his lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court and finds people that are willing to represent him and support him.

He alone could end checkpoints, just by being the one that finally took a stand and was willing to fight. Many things have been changed by only a few men that have been willing to take a stand.

Ron Paul's Convention Speech

Our sentiments exactly, Prairiemae. If that video had been the first and only confrontation that this man had experienced (which is what my husband and I thought at first), then, yeah....wow...what a thing to happen...BUT, that is not the case. I would encourage any of you who have only seen this one video, to dig a little deeper.

This is an important issue in our nation today and many people are extremely ignorant of the Constitution and of the proper place for government and police. It behooves those of us who have some understanding of this to educate others and such tactics as this "pastor" has engaged in are not helpful to our cause.

it was the agents who were arrogant and confrontational.

I have also seen several videos of the pastor, and what I see is a man who is trained on how to behave at traffic stops. American men are so used to being ignorant wusses that a man who stands up on his hind legs and does the right thing is demonized.

That's called standing up for yourself and what is right.

Good grief.

We need more people standing up for their rights!

Ron Paul's Convention Speech

i have the freedom to be arrogant and confrontational.

so what wasnt right?
--------------
if you build it he will come..........Ron Paul 2012.
digg http://digg.com/autos/Fir...

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with secure borders.
This is about warrantless/suspicionless checkpoints 100 miles inland from
those undefended/unsecured borders.....
This is about deliberately ALLOWING the borders to be permeable to feign the excuse for the NEED to set up these encroachments to OUR liberties.

Using the La Raza argument to "shame" us into the straw man ploy of the right/left paradigm thinking is no longer working on the Red Pill folks that inhabit this forum..... get rid of it or take it to a God Bless America/NeoCon site. It won't work here..... move along.

A Nation of Sheep begets a Government of Wolves.

If you mean by confrontational....... leading to an arrest, then

yes..... he was willing to make a stand and be "arrested" for "failing to cooperate" but in REALITY,
for attempting to exercise his 4th amendment right to be (and remain)
secure in his possessions against unwarranted and suspicionless search.

To detain.... is to arrest.

When you ask the question....
"Am I being detained Officer?"
"Am I free to go Officer?"

You are throwing the legal gauntlet down.
If they choose to "detain" you..... then you have been arrested.

The pivotal question then is....
Is that arrest legal or illegal.

He was willingly and stubbornly forcing that question (by design and courage I might add)
to be answered in a court of law and not "on the street".

His absolute right.... and actually his
responsibility if he's serious (and he was) about protecting ALL of us.

If you mean by confrontational....... a physical and combative resistance to an arrest,
leading to the need or use of excessive force,
by tazing, crushing his face into glass and asphalt with your jackboot?

then no.... hell no... the man neither precipitated nor deserved that....
and this has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with his "fruit".
Paul and Peter were absolutely outspoken.... and last time I checked...
their apostolic fruit was just fine.

Live Free or Die.
(doesn't necessarily mean Rambo.....
sometimes you're just alone in your car,
armed with only the Constitution and your conscience.)

My guess is that you have been trained that "failing to cooperate" is always wrong and that the ONLY time it is "condoned" by God.... is some imaginary polemic like "Deny Christ!" or "You must STOP preaching the Word of God".... or some other ridiculously "reduced" concept to justify some "allowed" disobedient circumstance. Grow up my Christian brother.

Most of that acquiescing/non-confrontational impotence stems from Romans 13.
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God.” Romans 13: 1

Paul, spirit led, CHOSE to use the greek word "exousia"

The Greek word exousia is translated as "liberty" (NOT power) in 1 Corinthians.

“But take heed lest by any means this liberty (exousia) of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.” 1Co 8:9

Exousia is also translated as the word "right" in Revelations.

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have (exousia) right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Revelation 22:14

The word ex-ousia is from two Greek words.
Ex means 'of' or 'from',
while ousia is "what one has, i.e. property, possessions, estate".

To look at how the word exousia was used by the Greeks and Romans in the days of Christ
we can simply examine the scholars of that era:

* The Greek Glossary of Aristotelian Terms states that exousia means "right".
* Aristotle actually exemplifies its use in the statement, "The right (exousia) to do anything one wishes..."
* From Plato's notes: "Greek words for freedom (is) eleutheros (liberal/Free), exousia (Freedom/Power to do something), ..."

Exousia clearly relates to a capacity or a right to decide.
Liberty.

It certainly does not inherently mean an absolute or even far reaching central government power over individual choice.

Liberty is the power to choose to do something. It is a free estate.
Liberty is frightening to many people because it also means responsibility.
If you have given the power or right to choose to someone or something else, then they have power over you.
But if you have made no such covenants or agreements then you keep your original right to choose, your free dominion granted by God.

Let's insert the word Liberty into Romans 13 and see what happens:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher liberty.
For there is no liberty but of God: the liberties that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth (opposes) the liberty,
resisteth (opposes) the ordinance of God:
and they that resist (sets one's self against) shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the liberty?
Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.”
Romans 13: 1,3

Changes things around quite a bit doesn't it?

Why was the word "power" used in the translated text?
Dunamis, dunamai, didomi, arche, ischus, ischuros, kratos and energes all appear in the New Testament
as forms of the word 'power' but have decidedly different meanings than exousia.
A great question.... what would happen if George W. (and Cheney) had "commissioned" a "translation" for the masses.... like King James?
No matter how "sincere" and "devout" the fundamental scholars chosen... do you think for ONE MINUTE today's American fundamental clergy could AVOID "leaning" the translation by their "choice" of which English word to use?

One thing is absolutely clear, the Apostle Paul CHOSE to use the word exousia. I believe THAT is where we need to look for the "inerrancy" of Scriptures "God breathed"..... and NOWHERE else.

you are going to be confrontational. Besides he didnt cuss them or mock them he just asked a couple of questions. IF you have a better way of doing it please explain, I would love to listen, and I would love to watch you put your way into action so please post your video once you do your better way.

"With that said, from what I can gather at this point, it still looks like the LEOs in this incident were way out of line and perhaps even violated his Constitutional rights"

I find that statement truly shocking.

It is my estimation, on the same evidence, that the man was brutally assaulted and by CRIMINALS, operating under color of law, for the mere offense of not complying with their demands.

The constitution was not violated. The man's person and property were, and by people wearing a badge that I paid for (I am in AZ, as well).

You do not have to agree with his tactics, nor does anyone. The risks were his, and he knew it. He walked into the lions den knowing the possibility existed of such wrongdoing.

I am happy to offer such a man hospitality at any time.

I look forward to seeing what becomes of this case.

All opinions here are welcome...but, have you considered that this man, who travels through these checkpoints, got fed up with the unconstitutional over-reaching of the feds into our personal lives? Our constitution has been destroyed by one federal over-reach and usurpation after another. It wasn't done in one shot. It was done by one violation after another. (Like checkpoints 100 miles away from the border, the patriot? act, and others). The bullying and intimidation by most of the guys with a badge isn't supposed to be how our public servants are to behave. As evident in the video above..cops hate those who would question their authority to the point that they will use their positions to "frame" or "assault" citizens who have every right to the protections of the constitution. Believe me...you will hate the police state more than a free country. I wonder how those public servants would have felt if someone "under color of law" beat the hell out of one of his family members at a checkpoint?

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

For Freedom!

Please stop this kind of divisive language. We need to find a way for the atheists/agnostics and religious people in the freedom movement to put their differences aside. YOU are not helping.