By Carlos Miller
Arizona pastor Steven Anderson – who last month described how State Police and Border Patrol Agents busted his windows at a checkpoint and dragged him out of his car while tazing him – has finally obtained the video of the incident.
The video he uploaded to Youtube is a combination of the footage he filmed before they busted the windows of his car, and the footage he obtained from the checkpoint surveillance cameras which show him getting dragged out of the car.
The video is fascinating and appalling but I wish he would have used a better choice of music in the latter part. It just makes it seem very surreal.
But this is real. Very real.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
58 responses so far ↓
1 LibertyTiger // May 12, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Torture is torture.
2 Aaron deOliveira // May 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM
are there any organizations out there formed with the purpose of lawfully watching the police?
3 ALL BE DAMNED // May 13, 2009 at 12:10 AM
I hope the hell he sues the PISS out of the COPS and the fucking “natzi” PATROL he did ask for the dog to be brought back out and they HAVE TO COMPLY Being a Truck driver i have encountered them more then once in my short but full life and if asked they must comply if you ask for a second over view of the truck with the dogs
4 Difster // May 13, 2009 at 12:43 AM
They were Border Patrol, perhaps different rules apply. But I’m sure they can’t arrest you without reason. He didn’t actually resist arrest, he was just trying to clarify. They should all lose their jobs.
5 Christopher Martin // May 13, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Balls to a cross!!!
I’d be out for blood!
Do these bullies even know a single law that they are “enforcing”?
6 Scott Chamness // May 13, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Ummm, ok, let me just say, owwww. It is rather ironic they tell him to shield his eyes from breaking the window right before tazering him. That all seemed rather pointless violence to me.
I agree with you though Carlos, that music selection was terrible.
7 genewitch // May 13, 2009 at 2:09 AM
Aaron deOliveira: Yeah, it’s our job as citizens. Police fall under the purvey of the executive branch of the government, and we as citizens have rights as it pertains to our own safety and livelihoods.
Also, the “media” in all of its aspects is supposed to be a watchdog of the executive branch. Although we’ve all seen what that accomplishes.
The reason the constitution grants citizens and states the ability and power to raise and keep a militia is in case the government goes a little crazy with power.
Something interesting i heard from Adam Corolla on loveline oh so many years ago regarding car pool lanes:
“You know, if everyone just drove in the car pool lanes it would overwhelm the system with bogus tickets, and the state would see that it isn’t having any effect on traffic at all.” basically, civil disobedience en masse can effect a change of policy and police. He also advocated not waiting for left hand turn signals to change if the direction you’re facing has a green light; and it was safe to turn.
as for the video, i am amazed that they let that go unedited/undeleted. That is damning video “I am a police officer and i am arresting you for refusing to obey me.” – that right there pretty much sums up my disgust for the percentage of people in positions of authority that overstep that authority and NOTHING happens to them.
You know why nothing happens to them? Because of people like jones (that posts here.) People like jones that constantly throw up the blue wall for their fellow officers to duck under with comments about how what you’re seeing in the video with your own eyes isn’t the truth. People like jones that talk to the media (this is a ‘media’ site, jones) about their fellow officers as if they were doing nothing wrong. People like jones who come to the center stage and shout and call people names that dare to speak against a police officer.
People that will shut down blogs and websites that have information about crooked/corrupt/criminal cops. People that will throw photographers and journalists in jail (RNC, anyone?) for daring to record their criminal trespasses.
Anytime i see a video of a cop acting out of line (i define out of line as something that a civilian could not hope to get away with for any reason whatsoever, including self defense) – and then read comments and see stuff like jones and LEO post…
It makes my blood boil.
Carlos: keep it up man, you did what, 6 posts today? Very productive and informative!
8 Terry // May 13, 2009 at 2:38 AM
After watching the video, it’s obvious the DPS officers had no basis to intervene. If the Border Patrol’s K9 did indeed alert as the Border Patrol claim (and the DPS officer parroted without proof or first hand knowledge), the Border Patrol wouldn’t have needed DPS’s assistance or presence to take further action.
Rather, the Border Patrol clearly used the DPS to do the bulk of their dirty work for them while the state officers allowed themselves to be used by federal agents at a federal immigration checkpoint in which they were neither trained or certified to participate.
Playing the video slowly, frame by frame, you can see the DPS officer on the passenger side with a sadistic grin on his face just before he breaks the window, while he’s breaking the window and after the window is broken and Anderson is being tasered.
The Border Patrol footage on the other hand shows that it was a Border Patrol agent who broke out the driver’s side window with multiple hits from a baton while the DPS officer directed him off to the side.
Yep, state officers allowed themselves to be commandeered by federal agents who knew they had no lawful basis to search Anderson’s car or continue the detention. If the K9 had indeed alerted, they wouldn’t have had a problem with bringing it back out to show the DPS officers.
Additionally, they wouldn’t have had a problem seeking a warrant from a judge. Of course, when an agent seeks a warrant, he must attest to probable cause under penalty of perjury which is why Border Patrol agents don’t seek warrants in many cases. This allows them to lie regarding a K9 alert without perjuring themselves. After all, it’s rather difficult to cross-examine a dog in a court of law….
9 the lone white boy // May 13, 2009 at 9:05 AM
That was hard to watch. I was disturbed that they would immediately tase him for just passively resisting. He didnt have a weapon, he didnt verbally threaten anyone.
I didnt see the need for the taser’s use. Bust his window out, open his door & take him out. ANything else is unnecessary force. IMO it was done as a punishment, for being a “troublemaker” & annoying the border guards & the officer.
Sickening.
10 jones // May 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM
When they told him he was under arrest he should have gotten out of the car.
11 xdamousex // May 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Just some bored cops looking for someone to resist them so they have an excuse to bust some heads.
Too many glorified thugs in police departments.
12 xdamousex // May 13, 2009 at 11:13 AM
@jones: So you’re saying the tazer was necessary?
13 jones // May 13, 2009 at 11:42 AM
I think the use of the taser was proper in this incident.
14 genewitch // May 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM
jones: they had no lawful reason to order him out of the car. You’re a person who doesn’t understand “the law” – you just expect people to ask how high when a cop says “jump”
Here’s a clue. We don’t have to listen to unlawful orders. Yeah sometimes we’ll get tased by the less tactful police, or beaten (i notice you didn’t mention the beating, just the tasing. Cute strawman argument, I’ve always said you’re the master of the strawman!) – but in the end we’ll be the ones laughing when the court orders payment to us, every time.
15 genewitch // May 13, 2009 at 12:14 PM
jones: You’re under arrest for posting on this website. Therefore until this is cleared up you’re not allowed to post here anymore.
(see how that doesn’t mean anything, similar to the ‘disobeying me a police officer’ isn’t a valid reason for arrest or removal from a car, either?)
Jones you are aware they asked him out of the car BEFORE arresting him, right? Should he have gotten out then, too? even though the entire stop was an illegal seizure and they wanted to perform an ILLEGAL SEARCH?
The agents and police broke no less than 3 laws (and probably more) during that stop. And yet he should have just submitted to them.
I’ll say it now, you’re an idiot. (and that’s not ad hominem.)
16 Scott Chamness // May 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM
@ Jones the troll,
I really can’t tell whether you actually believe any of the idiocy you spew, or whether your just trying to elicit a response.
I want to say for the record though, that not only should a citizen resist an unlawful arrest, I believe it is a civic responsibility to do so.
I know that at least in my state, when an officer says that your under arrest, that means they have to tell you what your being charged with. Disobeying a police officer is not a crime, unless it actually causes danger to others.
I agree with you Genewitch, Jones is an idiot.
17 xdamousex // May 13, 2009 at 1:23 PM
@jones: So you think tazering is a preferrable option to pulling him out of the car, which they had to do anyway?
18 jones // May 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM
If a dog alerts on a vehicle that is probable cause to search the vehicle. If the driver interferes with that search, which is what he was doing, he is breaking the law and can be arrested.
Gene – Jones you are aware they asked him out of the car BEFORE arresting him, right? Should he have gotten out then, too? even though the entire stop was an illegal seizure and they wanted to perform an ILLEGAL SEARCH?
Yes he should have gotten out when they told him they are going to search his car. They had probable cause to search so he should have gotten out. Just because you don’t agree with the law doesn’t mean you can break it. Like it or not they had probable cause to search the car and it wasn’t an illegal stop.
19 jones // May 13, 2009 at 1:41 PM
X – @jones: So you think tazering is a preferrable option to pulling him out of the car, which they had to do anyway?
There is more then one way to skin a cat. If the officer preferred tazering as opposed to climbing over broken glass and fighting with the guy inside the car I don’t have a problem with that. If he preferred macing him I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Whatever the officer felt comfortable doing I am fine with as long as it is reasonable.
20 xdamousex // May 13, 2009 at 2:13 PM
There is more then one way to skin a cat. If the officer preferred tazering as opposed to climbing over broken glass and fighting with the guy inside the car I don’t have a problem with that.
A) After you tazer him, you have to drag him out of the car anyway.
B) Can you point me to the part in the video before the tazering where he is physically fighting the officers?
21 genewitch // May 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM
jones: strawman. not worth arguing. they still beat his ass after they tased him.
The DPS can’t conduct a warrantless search, only the officer could. And he took the agent’s words over the driver’s, the driver asked for the dog to be brought back over, which they refused.
Hence, ILLEGAL SEARCH, on top of ILLEGAL SEIZURE.
22 Anonymous // May 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM
“There is more then one way to skin a cat”
Interesting comparison. Take note: this is how these pigs think. In terms of torture, abuse and degradation—which they will find a way to label “reasonable”. The overwhelming majority of people who become cops are lowlifes with serious issues.THEY ARE THE REAL ANIMALS not the “cat.” People need to stop making excuses for them and expecting them to see the error of their ways. They can’t. These animals need to be treated with the same hatred and disregard they show others.
23 jones // May 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM
I guess we will have to wait to see the outcome of his trial, if he is convicted they were in the right, if he is found not guilty they were in the wrong.
24 jones // May 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Gene – the driver asked for the dog to be brought back over, which they refused
Oh, I didn’t know he asked for a second opinion, that changes everything. How many opinions are you entitled to anyways?
25 genewitch // May 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM
jones: because juries are infallible and no one lies in court.
“How many opinions are you entitled to anyways?”
Precisely two in this case. The opinion of the people who require a warrant for searches (which they can get in short order) – and the opinion of the people who can conduct “probable cause” searches.
Once again, jones rattling off about anything and everything that he doesn’t know anything about.
The person who he was speaking to in the video was a police officer that was called to conduct the search/arrest, because the agents at the actual stop are NOT allowed to conduct probable cause searches, only searches with a warrant or CONSENT.
Hence, TWO opinions, you smart-assed troll.
26 jones // May 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM
The officer had probable cause, the DPS told him the dog alerted, that is probable cause unless the officer had reason to believe the DPS would lie to him.
If DPS told the officer he saw the driver put a bag of marijuana under the seat would that be probable cause? Yes, even if he lied about it, the officer is acting in good faith.
27 LEO // May 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Once again Junes is 100% correct. He knows his stuff. The officers are clearly in the right here. When you break the law, you must accept that the consequences may not be pretty.
Aaron, the Department of Justice investigates complaints about local law enforcement.
28 Kol. Klink // May 13, 2009 at 3:33 PM
He’s being charged with CONTEMPT OF COP, which is the most serious infraction in the eyes of the Only Ones alerted enough.
29 Anonymous // May 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM
“You’re a person who doesn’t understand “the law” – you just expect people to ask how high when a cop says “jump” ”
Cops fail to understand the basic concept that others have rights. They think the only “right” others have is the right to obey their every whim; boy will you find out how wrong you are if you challenge them. Whatever they want is “the law” and like a three year old they explode in rage if they don’t get their way. Is it any wonder these pigs have such high rates of domestic violence?
Visit http://www.Behindthebluewall.blogspot.com to read the horror stories.
30 Anonymous // May 13, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Kol, do you happen to have that link posted here a while back where they refer to themselves as the “only ones”?
31 xdamousex // May 13, 2009 at 4:11 PM
The officers are clearly in the right here. When you break the law, you must accept that the consequences may not be pretty.
And once again, you shoot yourself in the foot with your own argument. As you can see from the video, the officers could not tell the pastor what he was going to be charged with.
32 genewitch // May 13, 2009 at 4:34 PM
xdamousex: I’ve discovered that all the apologists have is “strawman” and “red herring” arguments. it’s not worth getting upset over, as their ignorance and petulance shines through with every post regarding the blue wall.
I fully expected a response of “a cop doesn’t have to tell you what you’re being charged with” to utter forth from their mouths, honestly.
33 xdamousex // May 13, 2009 at 4:42 PM
@genewitch: I can see that as well.
I’ll just say this simply:
- It is not unlawful to refuse to obey an unlawful order.
- If you detain someone, you have to charge them with something.
- To taze someone, he has to be resisting arrest. You can’t just taze someone you don’t like.
34 Scott Chamness // May 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Actually, I think there is a difference between detaining someone and arresting them. I don’t think you have to charge a suspect with something to detain them. Someone tell me if I’m wrong though.
35 xdamousex // May 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM
@Scott: Perhaps, I’m not a legal expert. But the point here is moot because they were saying they were going to arrest him. So I guess I misspoke.
36 Michaelk42 // May 13, 2009 at 5:16 PM
The sadistic grin on that bastard’s face before he shatters the window and fires the Taser is disgusting. He especially needs locked up for the next decade or so.
37 Scott Chamness // May 13, 2009 at 5:32 PM
@xdamousex,
No, actually neither am I, was just commenting on the terminology. I totally agree though, you can’t arrest someone like that, it is a complete violation of the law.
38 ClintJCL // May 14, 2009 at 3:05 PM
People like Jones make this country less free. We’re not the freest country in the world — we’re the least free. We have the highest percentage of people in jail of any country. In fact, we have 25% of all the prisoners on the planet here in the “land of the free”.
All thanks to people who think like Jones.
I’m gonna build a time machine and bring Ben Franklin back so he can piss on you
39 Voice of Reason // May 16, 2009 at 1:23 AM
Note to Scott Chamness: You said, “Actually, I think there is a difference between detaining someone and arresting them. I don’t think you have to charge a suspect with something to detain them. Someone tell me if I’m wrong though.”
1. I’m not an attorney, though I’ve been told that I think like one. That said, I believe the police are allowed to question and detain a citizen involuntarily if and only if there are “specific and articulable” facts supporting suspicion of involvement in criminal activity.
2. This sounds reasonable, but it isn’t. The police are granted a great deal of flexibility in this area. For example, they don’t need to be consistent:
* If there’s hamburger wrappers on a car seat, this is a “specific and articulable” fact. The police might characterize the hamburger wrappers as evidence that you’re a drug dealer. The logic used in this case is that you were afraid to leave your car to eat, so drugs or something similar must be hidden in the car. Submit to a search, or face possible arrest.
* If your car appears to be unusually clean and tidy, this is also a “specific and articulable” fact. The police might say this fact also demonstrates that you’re a drug dealer. The logic used in this case is that you wanted to keep your car clean so that you wouldn’t attract the attention of the police. Drugs or something similar must be hidden in the car. Submit to a search, or face possible arrest.
3. The police don’t need “specific and articulable” facts to stop you briefly. They’re allowed to ask you, “May I speak with you?” If you say yes, you’ve voluntarily agreed to be questioned. This weakens your position considerably. However, they need “specific and articulable” facts to detain you, regardless.
4. Arrests require “specific and articulable” facts plus a high level of suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. The “high level” part is subjective. As I understand it, these two things taken together constitute “probable cause”. However, I may be mistaken.
5. When the police detain somebody (voluntarily or involuntarily), it’s often so that they can go on a “fishing expedition”; i.e., subject the person they’ve detained to random questioning. The police hope that random questions will allow them to transform “suspicion” into a “high level of suspicion”. It doesn’t matter if the citizen involved has actually done anything wrong or not.
I’ve been subjected to more than one of these “fishing expeditions”, so I speak from personal experience.
40 Voice of Reason // May 16, 2009 at 3:14 AM
Note to Scott Chamness: You said, “Jones the troll, I really can’t tell whether you actually believe any of the idiocy you spew, or whether you’re just trying to elicit a response.”
That’s the key point. You shouldn’t refer to “jones” as a “troll” unless you believe that it’s the latter case.
That said, you should shred his arguments. Additionally, you should try to pin him down. Note: If “jones” believes that he’s going to lose a debate, he sometimes disappears. If he works on that issue, he’ll be able to contribute something.
On a related note, I believe it’s past time for “jones” to explain whether he’s a LEO, a retired LEO, or simply a LEO supporter. He’s made statements in the past which have suggested that he’s a retired LEO. However, when Mr. Mansoor challenged “jones” regarding this issue, “jones” disappeared.
It’s been a while since that exchange, and perhaps “jones” has addressed the issue since then. However, if he did, I don’t remember seeing it.
41 Pinandpuller // May 16, 2009 at 3:44 AM
VOR
Jones got arrested. He’s been charged with three counts of impersonating a sock-puppet.
42 Scott Chamness // May 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM
VOR,
Yeah, your right.
jones, if your not a troll, I apologize.
43 Voice of Reason // May 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Jones got arrested. He’s been charged with three counts of impersonating a sock-puppet.
Pinandpuller, I’d missed interacting with you. I’m not sure how somebody would “impersonate a sockpuppet”. That would be second-order tomfoolery. However, if you’re serious, and “jones” or anybody else is using sockpuppets, it’s kind of silly.
I assume that Mr. Miller wouldn’t be interested enough to check the logs. He’s got better things to do. However, if somebody links to suspected sockpuppet posts located on one or more threads, I’ll run the posts through few scripts to see what turns up.
44 Voice of Reason // May 16, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Note to Scott Chamness: You said, Yeah, your right. jones, if your not a troll, I apologize.
As they used to say, that’s a mighty big “if” you got there, pardner.
It’s still possible that “jones” lives under the bridge.
Additionally, somebody can be both sincere and consistently mistaken about something. Any history teacher should be able to tell you that. Am I right about this?
I’ll repeat that if “jones” is sincere, he really should state whether he’s a LEO, a retired LEO, or a LEO supporter. People aren’t obligated to talk about their backgrounds, but it seems to me that “jones” has tried to have it both ways in the past.
45 Scott Chamness // May 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Note to VOR,
Well, as it was rather obvious from my statement, I do believe jones is a troll. I just figured that it was possible that he wasn’t and was instead just an ignorant twit, I should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with your last 2 paragraphs though.
Especially that sincere people can be mistake. Happens to me all the time.
46 Pinandpuller // May 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM
VOR
I spent one week packing and four hellish days moving east, now I’m back up and runnning.
I missed you too-you big softie…
47 Zach // May 19, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Most of you are complete morons. Considering he was crossing a border, he had already given police the right to search his car. Not only that, but he was a smart mouth, enticing the officers and not doing what they asked. I suppose he believes himself to be some sort of martyr. I think this “victim” is an imbecile.
48 Carlos Miller // May 19, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Zach,
Where does it say he was crossing the border?
Obviously, you are not familiar with that region of the country but there are several Border Patrol checkpoints you must go through even if you don’t cross the border or in many cases, even if you don’t cross state lines.
49 Rob Molecule // May 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I guess that (not being a border crossing) wasn’t clear in this specific article, but has been a well known fact in this case. That having border patrol stops inside our borders has been ruled constitutional astounds me. I remember seeing a map once that showed all the areas covered by allowable border patrol checkpoints, and pretty much most of the population could end up being subjected to them if the government wanted to do so.
50 Rob Molecule // May 19, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Here it is:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html
51 Voice of Reason // May 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Note to Zach: You said, “Most of you are complete morons. Considering he was crossing a border, he had already given police the right to search his car.”
Mr. Miller responded: “Zach, Where does it say he was crossing the border? Obviously, you are not familiar with that region of the country but there are several Border Patrol checkpoints you must go through even if you don’t cross the border or in many cases, even if you don’t cross state lines.”
Zach, if you have no objections, I’d like to use you to illustrate one of the key differences between human beings and animals.
You may be able to counter Mr. Miller’s point. However, if you can’t address the issue, then you had no basis for your statement. You worked backwards to create the reality that you preferred. It doesn’t matter if the driver was, or wasn’t, actually crossing the border, since you proceeded without access to the facts.
People will often guess at the facts. That’s not unusual. The question is this: Are you able to understand that you had no basis for your statement?
I suspect that the answer is no. If a low-level trigger has been activated, you’re not able to reason at this level. However, if I’m mistaken, I’d like to hear about it. I’m working on a formal model related to this kind of thing, and your input would be helpful.
52 Pinandpuller // May 19, 2009 at 11:10 PM
What I think is funny-having seen several of these internal checkpoint Youtube videos-is that many of the officers asking people about their citizenship sound like they got their permanent residency last Jueves.
53 John // Aug 29, 2009 at 11:25 PM
OMG Jones again….
Won’t matter even if you have proof, Jones will just ignore it….
He says hes a former LEO, but looks to be more troll than anything.
He doesn’t have a problem with the cop doing anything REASONABLE to get him out of the car.
Is it really reasonable to taser a guy, and take a chance of KILLING him, just because he didn’t get out of the car fast enough until he was told what he was arrested for?
He could have also requested a superior/supervisor too, besides having the dog come back to confirm the alert.
Its cops like this & Jones that make it harder on my relation & friends that are LEO’s.
54 CKSU10 // Nov 14, 2009 at 12:33 AM
This moron deserved what he got. He was tased, not beaten, and none of this would have happened had he simply cooperated with the police. Most people with nothing to hide would have cooperated, so of course he drew suspicion to himself! And this man has the nerve to call himself a pastor?? He’s an example alright- a perfect example of what NOT to do… idiot.
55 Rail Car Fan // Jun 8, 2010 at 3:12 PM
So let’s see now. Hmmmmm.
If the Officer(?) felt it was “reasonable” (in his eyes, obviously), to..
SHOOT
the guy, then in your eyes it would be OK?
You know.. I’ve NEVER sworn on any post I’ve ever made here, but this will be a FIRST.
Jones.. You’re an ASS!! Grrrrrrrr
Rail Car Fan
56 Rail Car Fan // Jun 8, 2010 at 3:18 PM
It’s obvious from the posters name, ie: LEO, that we couldn’t expect anything different in what he said.
Yep.. the thin Blue Line stands behind its own, no matter if they’re in the wrong or not!
And you people (LEO’s) wonder why you’re hated so much here.
Rail Car Fan
57 Rail Car Fan // Jun 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Zach.. “Most of you are complete MORONS.”
Isn’t it interesting that those who have little or NO facts to back up a argument, tend to call others who question what they’ve said.. NAMES!?
Rail Car Fan
58 Rail Car Fan // Jun 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Here’s another one of those.. “If you’ve got nothing to hide” people that just irk me to no end.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he was a “Yes Dear.. No Dear” henpecked husband who bows down to his wife’s every whim.
It must be embarrassing for people like that to be willing to give up not only some of their rights.. but their manhood as well!
When are they going to understand, if ever, that giving up rights and submitting just because you’re told to do so, leads to more and more being taken away?
Rail Car Fan
Leave a Comment