Friedersdorf writes: "When the Border Patrol stopped Jessica A. Cooke at a checkpoint, the 21-year-old was about to earn her degree in law-enforcement leadership from New York's public-university system. Due to her course work, she knew her rights as an American. She chose to complain when her rights were violated. And, as a result of that decision, the unarmed woman was pushed, thrown against her car, and tased."
Border Patrol agent. (photo: Mike Blake/Reuters)
Border Patrol Agents Tase an Unarmed Woman Inside the US
26 May 15
Video of the encounter suggests another instance of needless escalation and excessive force.
hen the Border Patrol stopped Jessica A. Cooke at a checkpoint, the 21-year-old was about to earn her degree in law-enforcement leadership from New York�s public-university system. Due to her course work, she knew her rights as an American. She chose to complain when her rights were violated. And, as a result of that decision, the unarmed woman was pushed, thrown against her car, and tased.
The Watertown Daily Times tells her story, but there�s no substitute for watching the altercation that left her on the ground screaming in pain and incomprehension:
Cooke is an American citizen. The Border Patrol stopped her inside the United States. Although she was close to the Canadian border, she had not crossed into that country. And she produced a New York state driver�s license to confirm her identity. Even if one believes that the Border Patrol ought to operate internal checkpoints within the United States�which I do not�showing a valid I.D. ought to be enough to allow motorists to proceed.
This video suggests that there was no probable cause to search this woman�s trunk, which was later shown to contain nothing illegal when it was opened without her permission. She should have been permitted to drive away unmolested, not forcibly detained while a canine unit was called, apparently from an hour away. And the male Border Patrol agent clearly and needlessly escalated the situation.
�If you want to know how Cooke ended up on her back, screaming in pain as the barbs from a stun gun delivered incapacitating electricity into her body, there are several possible answers,� Reason�s Jacob Sullum writes. �You could say this indignity was caused by her own stubbornness, her refusal to comply with the seemingly arbitrary dictates of a Border Patrol agent who was detaining her ... Or you could blame the agent's insistence on obeisance to his authority, which led him to assault an unarmed 21-year-old woman who posed no threat to anyone. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the Supreme Court, which has invited this sort of confrontation by carving out a disturbing and dangerous exception to the Fourth Amendment.�
His article adeptly runs through the relevant case law.
What�s additionally galling is that even with video evidence showing Border Patrol agents misapplying the case law and then meting out wholly unnecessary violence, Cooke is more likely to be charged with assaulting an officer than the officers themselves are to be disciplined. Her video will presumably be an asset if she goes forward with a lawsuit. �If I can take it to Supreme Court, I will take it to Supreme Court. I should never have been detained,� she told her hometown newspaper. She added that she is still in the early stages of applying to U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement to become a federal law-enforcement officer herself. �Of course I second-guess it,� she said, �but it takes something like this and someone like me to change it.�
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
"To each according to their need." - is implying a maximum wage which Sanders is not proposing.
On the other hand, I completely agree with your description of what Trump represents. The emperor is naked, and wow his body is ugly.
(1)-Trump is the true voice of white USia, the Ku Klux, neo-Nazi voice the One Percent likes to keep silenced because -- when it is allowed to speak freely -- the reality of the USian Empire as the Fourth Reich becomes undeniable;
(2)-Hillary has exactly the same Ayn Rand values, but (A) hides them very deftly and (B) is perfectly positioned as an identity-politi cs candidate to silence any genuine discussion of class war -- the one historical truth that, once brought into proper focus, proves beyond argument the necessity of socialism to human survival.
(3)-Sanders, though running as a Democrat, is by his personally declared socialism providing an antidote to seven and one-half decades of anti-socialist toxins. Thereby he is rehabilitating the entire spectrum of socialist thought.
Hence the unprecedented consequences of Sanders' candidacy, and even more so of a Sanders presidency: first the resurrection of the New Deal as President Roosevelt intended it (and most assuredly not as the Missouri political-machi ne operative Truman debased it). Then -- in the socialist renaissance that inevitably follows -- the continuation of the revolution We the People intended when we made FDR our longest-serving president.
The question, of course, is whether the Ruling Class with all its disruptive genius will be able to shatter the united-front majority of oppressed minorities (including Left-leaning whites) that would ensure Sanders' victory.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/us-air-force-confirms-boeings-electromagnetic-pulse-weapon/
http://www.opednews.com/thoreau1203_wellstone_assassinated.htm
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110102_wellstone.html
These guys have the motivation, means, and ruthlessness to take out any politician that dares to cross them. There is no longer any need for extra gunmen on a grassy knoll and no magic bullets will be required.
--- I don't agree. SHillary Clinton is out for herself. She does whatever it takes to paint whatever picture she thinks you want to see from kissing babies to kittens in her campaign ads. She is a self-professed "fiscal conservative" (translation; supports Trickle-down nothing for working people) while she sits on top of 21.50 million dollars. She votes with the Republicans on important issues and is a war hawk that agrees with imperialism as our country's international policy. She's an upwardly mobile 1%-er that has nothing in common with common people; not even her "little farm house" in NY state.
Trump is not necessarily even a Republican. He has said he's willing to run against Republicans if they don't nominate him.
I don't usually like David Brooks, but I think he nailed Trump's character in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/opinion/david-brooks-trumps-allure-ego-as-ideology.html
I agree that the Trump candidacy shows the bankruptcy of the Republican Party. They have no real ideas, so Trump is possibly the strongest candidate they have. He does have the appeal of being blunt and not kowtowing to "political correctness."
It's stunning that you think there will be a Trump-Sanders contest. Neither of them is likely to get their respective nominations.
It helps that the entire Neocon/neoliber al establishment that HRC represents so unobtrusively that you can't get her to really commit to doing anything, only talking about it without the intention to DO anything like Sanders' stands for, is the same establishment that all the Republican candidates represent as well. They and HRC are all lined up with their hands out for money from establishment money sources, so expecting anything else from them is pointless.
Trump does not need establishment money. The populace knows that, which also give him more credibility than all the rest (except Sanders) who are there with their hands out. That's how establishment politics works now, and people are waking up to it, and it pisses them off. So, Trump. He ain't the brightest, and he ain't the best, but he doesn't bother with trying to bullshit people for the moneyed interests. People respond to that.
The Donald is EVERYTHING that Mitt Romney tried (and failed miserably) to be in 2012, in large part because the Tea Party HATED him!
And so, The Donald - without mentioning it, of course - has become a Tea Party candidate!
The fact that he DOESN'T need to suck at the Kochs' teat makes him popular, but once people realize WHY he doesn't need that money, will he still be a right-wing darling?
Here's a reflection on that.
Today I watched a little of the 700 Club on TV. The first order of business for their news summary was to bemoan the continued candidacy and popularity of Donald Trump.
Next they had a segment where they interviewed the author of a new book called "The conservative heart: how to build a fairer, happier, and more prosperous America." The author's name is Arthur Brooks, and he's an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks' emphasis was on what a good heart Ronald Reagan had: Reagan was an optimist who believed that his small government philosophy would be good for the poor as well as everyone else.
(cont.)
I believe there is some evidence for Brooks' claim there. After all, Reagan signed the EMTALA law about 1986. It said that hospitals had to give care to people whether they could pay or not. I don't know for sure that he signed it with enthusiasm, but it's at least possible that he really was optimistic that our capitalist medical system could take care of everybody to some extent. That has not turned out to be true, at least as our system existed before Obamacare. If someone couldn't pay, the rest of us had to pay for them via higher costs. Obamacare spreads that burden out more equitably. But nonetheless, EMTALA represented our consensus as a society: we don't want people to collapse on the street for lack of basic medical care. And it's not practical to do so in some ways; for example, if someone is run over by a car and knocked unconscious, it just might be that they have the money to pay for their care but are unable to tell us at the time. The most practical thing is to take them to the emergency room and worry about payment later. (cont.)
Brooks' point, as I understood it, was to emphasize that conservatives needed to be "good-hearted" and generous if they want to win support for their causes. But of course the reality is that there isn't much real evidence that conservative policies help anybody but the 1%. There are still some true believers who accept the arguments that they do, but they are getting fewer and fewer. I could see the worry on Pat Robertson's face. The Republican Party used to have a substantial number of moderate leaders like Colin Powell. I believe that's at least partly because until recently, "the jury was still out" about some conservative ideas. It really wasn't crazy to believe in them. But today the evidence against them has become overwhelming. (cont.)
Enter Donald Trump. It has to be a terrible testimony to the bankruptcy of a party if their most popular candidate's main qualification for office is that he's an insensitive ... (use your imagination to fill it in.) But I do think that comes close to being his primary appeal: his total lack of self-doubt and ability to dismiss others. For a substantial number of Republicans, that's all they have left. There's nothing else they have to believe in but the ability to say NO, I DON'T CARE. That obviously shows that the grand coalition Reagan created between business conservatives and social conservatives is dying. People like Robertson and Brooks are trying desperately to keep it together, but there's little chance they can.
Trump's entry into the race for the Republican nomination [for president] is Shakespearean in its poetic justice.
I have never seen the planets align to create such a well deserved clusterfuck, exposing the Republican Party for the narrow-minded, mean-spirited, atavistic troglodytes they are.
Clash of the money titans: Koch announced an $800,000,000 for president and tRump is raising him and staring him down.
I know what he means, but there is only one Olbermann and one Maddow, and I can't recall hearing much from Olbermann lately. Name your next biggest liberal media pundit or anyone to justify that plural. Bill Maher? Then who? On the other side there is a small army: O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, those mentioned in the article, occasional eruptions from Dennis Miller, on down to the legions in the hate radio swamp for which there is no liberal equivalent, then add in media evangelists who add further bulk to the same messages. The depressing reality is that the right wing message is by far the bigger media business and has been for quite a while now.
The other problem is that there is no liberal equivalent to Fox News and other carriers - who gleefully accept the extreme viewpoint of the right wing. MSNBC is not nearly as far left as Fox News is far right - the reason Olbermann was forced out. Would be nice though for MSNBC and Olbermann to try to get together again.
How do we survive STUPIDITY?
The Trump base consists of people with legitimate complaints who are (finally!) pissed off with the establishment that has refused to represent them for so many years.
I hope that over the next months, Bernie will be able to reach out to them.
The progressives have always been bad at articulating a clear message - which is why the right wing has been so successful.
D'you mean "Funny, Ha-ha" or "Funny Peculiar"?
To me -maybe 'cause I'm a 'furriner'- much of it was totally surreal. There were some downright EVIL people in that wrecking-ball of a wannabe crew, most of who wouldn't be taken seriously as candidates outside of a Banana Republic -which is what this country is beginning to resemble.
My (American) wife had some good guffaws at it but I "had no stomach for this fight" for very long.
To me, it was a publicity stunt for Ailes' "Fixed" -noose channel.
I thought Bush and Kasich had the best night. Bush seemed most even tempered, most nuanced, most informed, most experienced and most presidential. Not saying I want him as President, of course. Just saying he came across the most presidential among the particularly odd crowd.
Trump was way too bombastic, egotistical and like an irate Joe Pesci at times.
When he cocked his mouth open after an emotionally charged rant, I could see Joe Pesci in him saying "Ok, ok, ok".
Carson was nice, but seemed too soft. Rubio too boyish. Paul too squirley, like the Howard Dean of the Right. Walker too bland. Best ticket of those on stage is a Florida/Ohio ticket, perhaps just what you need to have a chance. Bush-Kasich. One major problem with this ticket. Too White Male.
Me thinks they're doomed to fail. He he he.
I think that we can count on them to again ignore the candidates who might squeak by and win this thing.
After all, W did not really win either of his elections and the general population seems to understand we need to be more liberal. Why the GOP is trying to suppress Dem voters.
Absolutely agreed -but if it's made from lobbyists and corporate/milit ary ones at that, it's anti-populist, crooked and may as well be called a Mafia operation.
The only Billionaire I've ever met and known a little, was a thoroughly decent man and determinedly anonymous in his very widespread philanthropy, in which he used to include what he called drive-by giving when, on hearing or reading of a family or individual being placed in deep hardship through no fault of their own, would find out their address, stuff several $1,000 bills in an envelope and have an employee drive to their door and deliver the untitled package with sworn promise not to divulge the source.
Wish I could afford to do something like that!
--- That's Democrats In Name Only.
One of your best pieces ever. "Trumpenstein!" Oh, god (not the same one Kelly was referring to I hope!) I thought I'd roll over laughing.
He is a promise to people like the Koch brothers. A promise to bust unions, cut services, and disenfranchise people with vigorous hostility.
They can't tell the good from the bad guys any more.
He can't do any worse than any predecessor by bringing non-politicians and non-revolving-d oor lobbysits into government service.
Time for fresh air....which shows you how bad the stench in the DC swamps is when The Trumpstein's bloviations bring 'smell the roses' to mind.
The only person worse than those two is Obama.
noun, plural trumperies.
1. something without use or value; rubbish; trash; worthless stuff.
2. nonsense; twaddle:
His usual conversation is pure trumpery.
adjective
1. showy but worthless.
"Hillary has exactly the same Ayn Rand values, but (A) hides them very deftly"
- so now we know that hill is exactly the same as rand BECAUSE SHE HIDES IT SO WELL!
For RSN, this must be close to a record positive response to any article.
Having to listen to the endless gaseous discharge from Trumpenstein, and maybe even finding him as commander-in-ch ief is a perfect shit storm, and we own it.
As voters, we have abandoned common sense, we dwell on the negative, and we have a tendency to treat all of our elected leaders and governments as incompetent and/or corrupt. These are mostly GOP ideas, just in case people believe them incapable of coming up with any.