Probable Cause... without an effect?

[OMEGA2669]

An interesting video about what "Probable Cause" is supposed to mean. Also is the video of our friend the pastor that upheld his 4th Amendment rights at a Border Patrol checkpoint. About how the Border Patrol smashed his car windows, tazed him, stomped on his head which resulted in him needing to get 11 stitches. Yes the guy is an jerk to the Border Patrol, but they started by violating his rights.

Anyway here are the videos... enjoy!

Video On Probable Cause

Actual Footage Of Tazed And Beaten Pastor

Tazed Pastor Statement

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[TerriLi]

Ive seen those before. Okay, but the Pastor ones are junk in my opinion. Guy caused most of his own problems, and the footage is short of the full situation. Notice it starts after there already is several officers around the car?
Also pay close attention to his sidewindows in both his footage and the Borderpatrol footage, notice something odd?

[OMEGA2669]

Also pay close attention to his sidewindows in both his footage and the Borderpatrol footage, notice something odd?

No I do not, care to enlighten me?

[TerriLi]

Sidewindows are designed once broken to completely shatter, so to allow a person to exit the vehicle without fear of razor sharp glass. Infact this makes me wonder about his head wounds, considering Ive landed on the stuff and come away with only scratches at worse. His stayed intacted except where the LEOs punched a hole in it on the passenger side, and the driver side took several blows from an asp? The average asp would go right through and brain the guy in the drivers seat.

[OMEGA2669]

I see what you are saying TerriLi. However if you had watched his previous videos you would know that his windows have aftermarket tinting on them. So the tint film is what is holding his window together. And, speaking from experience, car windows are NOT easy to break. Watching the video from the BP POV and then from inside the car you can tell he is not hitting the window quite hard enough to break it his first few tries. There is no editing here. Could he have made it easier on himself and avoided being arrested? Yes. But only if he sacrificed his constitutional rights... which no US Citizen should have to do.

An ASP does not have very much weight behind it, I have handled them so I know.



Granted it is easier to brake a side window with such a small impact point, but you still have to swing this here ASP with a great deal of force to break a window.

[SIXTO]

I've broken lots and lots of car windows with my ASP. It has nothing to do with the weight or how hard you swing it, but everything to do with where you hit the window. I've really walloped windows before, not breaking them on the first strike simply because I missed my mark. Anyway, thats of no matter.

I just want to say that there is a clear and distinct difference between P.C. and reasonable suspicion.

[miklcolt45]

I just want to say that there is a clear and distinct difference between P.C. and reasonable suspicion.

Sixto,

Would you explain the difference to those of us (like me) who aren't clear on the difference, and the likely subsequent actions based on each one?

[paramedic70002]

Car glass other than the windshield, which has a sheet of plastic sandwiched between two panes of glass, was redesigned about 50 years ago in response to federal safety concerns. Untinted glass will shatter into small pieces although it may not fall out without assistance. Tinted glass must be removed by hand even though it is shattered. That film tint is fairly strong. The tool of choice to shatter side and rear glass is a loaded punch or pick axe, strike at a corner. Blunt tools like a baton frustrate many an LEO trying to break auto glass. FWIW the tool of choice for rapid removal of a windshield is the fire ax. Just chop it out. Much faster than even rescue tools designed specifically to saw it out.

[SIXTO]

Sixto,

Would you explain the difference to those of us (like me) who aren't clear on the difference, and the likely subsequent actions based on each one?

Sure. I'll let Wikipedia do the work for me though;

Reasonable suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.

Probable Cause

In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.