The bottom-line problem seems to be that law-abiding people don't have much experience with being treated like criminals.
In a high-pressure situation they sometimes fall back on their quaint expectations of rights and basic human respect. I would wager that someone who had spent serious time in prison would do much better in these situations.
The guy probably had a long day. I bet he just wanted nothing more than to get home and go to sleep. He obviously didn't understand what all the fuss was about, and he ended up stepping on someone's hair trigger. It seems terribly unlikely he did something that you or I would consider physically threatening. After being pepper-sprayed and man-handled, and likely not in the soundest state of mind, maybe he even flailed a bit -- guaranteeing an assault charge (and possible conviction).
Perhaps that's how it went down. It'll probably turn out that the border guards "followed procedure." But that's exactly the problem that makes the story frightening to us:
The path from "long day + non-violent temporary failure of judgement" to "being physically assaulted and facing a life-altering felony charge" seems terribly short.
There appears to be a growing disconnect between what we consider right and what we consider practical. It seems right that you should be able to peacefully question any non-emergency procedure, expect basic respect even if you're not being the most pleasant person, and retreat a step or two reflexively if you feel threatened.
Of course, we know that the practical approach to take is to be docile, passive, sickeningly submissive, and compliant nearly to the point of being patronizing.
The border guards train and drill repeatedly on how to behave aggressively and militantly in this situation. Most adults have no corresponding practice at acting completely flaccid and defenseless on command, which is what it seems we've come to expect.
quaint expectations of rights and basic human respect. I would wager that someone who had spent serious time in prison would do much better in these situations.
This is America. We shouldn't be expected to act like guilty slaves when interacting with law enforcement. Your attitude isn't constructive at all.
Oh dear. I had hoped that the satire of the first two grafs was self-evident [1]. Helpfully, wiktionary includes for quaint the definition:
"quaint, adj., 3. Highly incongruous, inappropriate, or illogical; naive, unreasonable -- usually used ironically."
Edit: While sarcasm in writing is a generally bad idea, the tradition of thoughtfully written irony and satire goes back a ways (c.f. A Modest Proposal). It of course does require the reader to reflect intelligently while reading, but that is what we expect in this forum. Since my final three grafs made my position pretty clear, I was rather unsure until your response below whether you were intentionally trolling.
[1] My statements are likely true, paradoxically, but we react strongly to the fact that they shouldn't be.
Did you hear the one where the police dog was literally chewing on the arm of a guy, and when the guy tried to escape from the dog he was charged and convicted with assaulting a police officer. The dog being the police officer.
Firstly, please site at least a news article on the case.
Also under the law, a police dog is an officer, an army dog is a soldier, a search and rescue dog is typically a fireman. Also, depending on the US state, and if it's in any other western country, animals have rights and injuring a dog is a criminal act, and when it's owned by a cop you can be sure as hell you'll be charged with animal abuse. If you're lucky, you won't be charged with both and won't be sued civilly by the officer in question for damaging property.
IMHO when a German Shepherd latches onto your arm and is attempting to force you to the ground, you do as it says. Also when there's a half-dozen cops (usually 1 for the dog team, and 2-4 cops called in for suspected drug possessions) shouting "Stay down, stay down! DO NOT FIGHT THE DOG!" then you do what they say.
Fighting the dog only does 1 of 2 things. 1st it angers the dog, which will mean it clamps down harder and will likely mean it breaks the skin (which it is trained not to do), which means any attempt to remove your arm can literally shred the muscle from your bone. 2nd if you're lucky and get free with your arm intact, running turns that highly trained dog into nothing more than a wolf, it will no longer bite your arm or try to pin you down, when it gets you it's likely to be going for the throat to kill you.
There can be no automatic presumption of a rational response to entirely measured and legitimate and carefully orchestrated police activities.
Even otherwise peaceful and rational and law-abiding folks that happen to become involved in an altercation with police or that are physically restrained by police can and sometimes will fight with an officer or with a police dog with absolutely everything they're worth, and fight well past the point of personal injury.
There's no automatic presumption of rationality here. There's no reasoning here. Fight or flight is one of the most basic and powerful human instincts. And sufficiently fearful folks can and sometimes do become feral.
This based on over twenty years experience providing emergency medical services on the streets; of working directly with the some of the best-trained police and police dogs, and with the public, and with the aftermath of the occasional collisions among all these folks.
You appear to be asserting that it's unlikely this has ever happened because no reasonable, thoughtful person being attacked by a dog would, upon careful consideration, panic and struggle instinctively to get away from the dog.
This is fine rational for a forum post. But as tc points out, few have any experience being "handled" by law enforcement and react with primitive defense. I love dogs and don't show fear around a clearly well-trained police dog. But I've never had one take me down either and have no idea how I'd react.
I think the underlying point of his comment was that it was silly to consider the dog an officer...having a silly idea enshrined in law doesn't make it less silly.
It's like the experiment in Stanford with the prison where the prison guards started doing typical prison guard things and the prisoners started doing typical prisoner things, even though originally, both groups were composed of people who had simply volunteered for an experiment and randomly assigned a role.
The first way you are treated is what you become in a way. When you get to the border and they are searching your car, you are guilty until proven innocent. And I argue it should be that way.
Think of the ramifications of seeing someone in a car at the border and treating them cooperatively. If they are a competitor intent on blowing the place up, then the guards have a lot to lose in this prisoners dilemma and little to gain. They could lose their life, but they gain a happy dude who got through the border easily.
Unfortunately, in this case, the individual crossing the border when treated like a guilty person didn't appreciate it and things got out of hand. That much we know. That's not the desired outcome, but what was the worst that happened? He got pepper sprayed, roughed up, but lived to tell the story. If the other team had lost, they could be dead -- lots of them could be dead -- or even worse, a city blown up. Dramatic but true.
So, let's all try to understand that we are all in this together. I really don't think some border guards are looking forward to beating up a sci-fi writer and I don't think the sci-fi writer was looking forward to experiencing anything even close to what went down there that day.
How does your game theory example stack up when 20,000 people coming through the border have no intent to blow stuff up, and only one does?
The benefits of roughing up 20,000 innocent people start to look a little bit small in comparison to the probability of that behaviour catching the one extremely polite person going out of their way to avoid detection.
"just touching an officer could get you tasered or beaten and stuck with a felony charge for assaulting a police officer."
NOT to excuse what they did, but I crossed the border for decades. You're free to refuse consent to a search. That doesn't mean they have to quit searching. They appreciate you remaining respectful. Pushing the definition: crossing a border is probable cause for drug warriors. And when you're ordered to get back into the car and don't, you're pushing your luck. I'm guessing these guards (crossing just north of Detroit) had had enough attitude for one day and were primed for a rumble.
Happened here in Vancouver, an elderly Canadian man crossing into the USA objected to a borer guard not calling him sir. The DHS pepper sprayed him an dragged him from the car.
Simple solution, don't visit America - don't buy American
This article sets off my bullshit detector, and let me explain why.
First, it's throwing red meat to the dogs. The internet and tech community is extremely sci-fi and video game friendly. This was one of us, and bad things happened to him.
Second, it's not a news article. There's no presumption of being two sides to the story. One side is given, by a friend, and a call to action given out. Were the officers interviewed? Was the video-tape released (And you know they have video tape)? Nothing of the barest minimum was done to provide some sort of context. The purpose of this piece is clear: it's a call to action, an editorial, an opinion piece. Don't confuse it with a news article.
Third, there's lots of loaded language in here -- "was subject to a beating and arrest", and "the gang of border guards", "and losing it may cost him his entire life" etc.
Look -- I'm not taking sides. Border guards screw up and are badly-trained sometimes. That's why we have video on all border crossings. On the other hand, people crossing the border have been known not to be able to handle submitting to requests from people in authority for various reasons. There is a very good case for using physical force on occasion. I simply don't know what happened.
What do I do when someone starts singing sweet songs of injustice that sounds wonderful to my libertarian senses? That's when I start asking questions.
I would like to know more about this, and from a non-aligned source, before being able to form any kind of opinion at all.
I completely and fully believe the story. I've crossed the Canadian - US border many times by car and I've personally witnessed more than one occasion of absolutely unwarranted aggression on the part of the border guards.
Seriously, you have to make the trip a couple of times per month for a year or two to get any idea of how many rotten apples there are in that basket.
American and Canadian visitors are always completely surprised when we tour the region here, and we go from the Netherlands to France, Belgium and Germany without ever seeing a borderguard in person, let alone having to interact with one.
It's really just costumed theater, you could easily do without it and it would not somehow threaten the American way of life.
American borders being what they are I stopped going there completely after one especially nasty incident in Miami that caused me to miss a connecting flight.
Until sanity returns to the American borders I'm sure they can do without my business.
I used to travel internationally quite a bit, so I've crossed the border many times too. What can I say? It's usually not a pleasant experience no matter which border you are crossing. And it seems to just be getting worse, especially in the U.S.
It's also obvious that people who know Peter think of him as having a docile character. So if I had to guess I'd guess that Peter was indeed wronged.
But I don't have to guess. There should be plenty of evidence for reasonable people to make up their minds. I'll just wait until I hear more information.
Or put another way -- is this a story because of what exactly happened? Or is it a story because it feeds into larger narratives that we already agree on and it comes from somebody well-known on the web? Joe Schmoe gets tasered, perhaps unfairly, and nobody cares. Person-of-note X gets tasered, perhaps fairly, and everybody is up in arms. Why? Because it's easy for us to be. It's a familiar theme with lots of characters doing things we would expect them to do.
That type of story -- one that fits so well into established narratives and stereotype and one that is presented without context -- just makes me feel like I'm being manipulated, even if everything happened just the way it was told and a true injustice was done.
I just don't know. But I do know that if there was serious misconduct on the part of the border agents then heads deserve to roll on this -- just like any other case involving anybody else.
You may be right. It might even be a publicity stunt for Peter's new book (which I'd buy in a heartbeat)...
But in any case, your critique doesn't mean that the event isn't useful for helping people who haven't decided how they feel about the various post-911 excesses formulate a more nuanced opinion.
Remember there has never been a problem between Germany and any of it's neighbours or any problem with terrorism in Europe.
The USA lives under the constant threat of Canadian invasion, following their 1812 burning of the Whitehouse - it's natural for US security on the 'front line' to be nervous.
> The USA lives under the constant threat of Canadian invasion, following their 1812 burning of the Whitehouse - it's natural for US security on the 'front line' to be nervous.
He's not the guy most likely to blow up and punch someone.
About the only point of information that might serve to remotely spin this in the border guards' favour is that Peter is just shy of seven feet tall: if you're of average height, he looms.
I gather the assault indictment stated that he was trying to enter the United States when the incident took place. As he was in fact leaving one wonders what other lies the border patrol are telling?
We've heard one side of the story -- from someone who tells stories for a living. He may have been arrested, and he may have been beaten, but I'd wait to hear more about why.
Having just been given the third degree by both U.S. and Canadian border patrol last weekend, I can attest that it can be a really infuriating process. To be blunt, they can (and generally are) huge assholes, really getting in your face and making you feel like a criminal even when you have nothing to hide. I presume the goal of this is to psych out the people who actually are up to no good, but the end result is that you end up feeling pissed off and unwelcome.
That said, I definitely agree that there is another side to this story. For one thing, everything that happens at a border crossing is videotaped from about 14 different camera angles, so there's no way they're going charge him with assault unless he actually took a swing. The fact that the situation even got to that point--multiple guards, pepper spray, verbal commands--means he did something pretty egregious. The crossing guards are dicks but they are professional dicks, at least in my experience. Do as you're told and you'll eventually get through. Ignore repeated commands and project the same surliness back at them and you're just asking for trouble.
> project the same surliness back at them and you're just asking for trouble.
That's commonsense, but its truth still pisses me off. There is zero reason border guards deserve deference, and projecting surliness to people behaving surly is my natural right.
There is zero reason border guards deserve deference
No? Such universal, stratospheric levels of assholedom don't arise organically--border guards behave the way they do because they are trained to. Probably because the alternative, cheerfully waving everyone through, is unacceptable from a national security standpoint.
I know you can justify pretty much anything these days by waving the security flag, but I think in this instance it's fair. They deserve deference because somebody has got to secure our borders in this day and age, and like it or not, this is probably the best way to go about doing it. I'm willing to live with my feelings getting hurt if it means people aren't able to drive bombs over the border.
I think you are 100% wrong. Do we really want to live in a society where being hurried or annoyed at the border guard will result in searches, detention, or worse?
Pretty soon simply giving the guard an annoyed look can land you behind bars for a few hours. This is the opposite of the rule of law, it is giving way too much power to the whim of the guy with a gun.
No, but it isn't as simple as that nowadays. My only point is that, when there are people out there who are trying to blow you up, dealing with a certain amount of bullshit from law enforcement is an acceptable tradeoff for putting a stop to that. It's not optimal, but neither is dying in a terrorist attack. Neither extreme--fascism or doing nothing--appeals to me as much as the middle ground. YMMV.
If enough people think like you do, the terrorists won.
They are not out to blow you up. They want to destroy your way of life - your freedoms and the notion that government serves the people. The want the opposite.
And they are winning. Blowing people up is not the objective: it's the tool.
If enough people think like you do, the terrorists won
Al Qaeda spent $20,000 or so on September 11. The US spent $1 trillion and counting. They "won" the minute we opened our checkbook; turning the country into a police state was just dancing in the end zone.
> My only point is that, when there are people out there who are trying to blow you up,
The smart ones make the bombs inside the country. When has anyone ever tried to drive a bomb across the border? Hell, this is the same thing as airport security. They could just drive the bomb into the mess of cars at the border before being inspected and it would have the same effect. It would be even a more spectacular effect if done on a bridge (i.e. Ambassador (Detroit-Windor); Peace Bridge (Buffalo,NY); Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls)) because then it would strike fear into people about not being caught in the blast but being on the bridge that is collapsing (Hollywood milks this one all the time).
The vast majority of the US/Canadian border is unguarded and there are hundreds of roads the guy could have alternately taken.
Any sophisticated attacker would realize this and simply go a few miles out of the way to one of those logging roads.
I hardly think that your example offers evidence that border security enhances national security, only that it did in one isolated instance (with a very stupid terrorist).
Odds are if the terrorist failed to realize he could cross the border without being screened, he would have made some other mistake that would have foiled whatever his planned attack was.
Acting like a child and expecting the adults in the room to protect you only encourages those who believe you shouldn't live freely (whether it is your local politician or a religious radical).
> They deserve deference because somebody has got to secure our borders in this day and age, and like it or not, this is probably the best way to go about doing it. I'm willing to live with my feelings getting hurt if it means people aren't able to drive bombs over the border.
Have you ever been to EU? Or somewhere else? How it is, that these guys are able to act professionally, non-emotionally and secure the borders without acting like assholes?
This is not either-or situation, border guards can do their job without intimidation and beating people.
(The US border is in fact the worst one I ever went through. Makes you think.)
15 minutes by rowing boat anywhere in lake Huron near the Sault border.
But this guy was trying to leave.
On top of that there is a much easier way to get a bomb in to the US, buy it in bits and pieces in the US, assemble it there. No point in taking it across the border.
Well put - to put it simply - Don't act like you have any rights whatsoever when crossing a border - the instant you think you don't have to answer every question, be prepared for an instant search, or otherwise, be completely docile - well, that's the start of a fairly ugly downhill journey, as Mr. Peter Watts has just discovered.
As a frequent border crosser though, I'll note that I have _never_ witnessed, nor been exposed, to anything other than thoroughly professional (if sometimes highly antagonistic and hostile) behavior on the part of Immigration. These guys _really_ know what they are doing - and the "psych out" is intentional - nothing personal.
Though, I'll admit, traveling back to Canada for a visit (I work in Silicon Valley) and explaining what I (a Canadian Citizen) will be doing there, and why, and where - does get a little old after 10+ years of doing so. At least I know what to expect.
That argument's hardly better than the "he helps cats therefore he's innocent" quip at the bottom of the link. Quit thinking of there being two sides: there's no "other story", there's just "insufficient information". All we know is that he got pepper sprayed and charged, and that he needs money. Donate to his defense fund and leave the speculation to science fiction writers.
(I'll let someone else comment on "if you don't obey, you're asking for it".)
Swiss border guards at airports are worst - esp if your European (like me). I nearly got arrested for standing the wrong side of the yellow line a few months ago :) The best border guards I've met are the ones as Newark Airport, NY; friendly and smiley.
I actually find US/Canadian Border guards not too bad (by comparison) - as you say they are at least professional and perfectly helpful if you are courteous.
I agree with what you end with: he has to have done something pretty stubborn and rude to get that treatment.
Agreed, I've been in and out of many countries in my time, including multiple times through Canadian customs and through the US border. I've been greeted by surliness before, but usually less than I get in a coffee shop or supermarket checkout from people who are being paid to be nice.
My first time into Canada had me dragged through the entire process. Questioned, threatened, bag searched, more threatening, etc. In the end the other officers were telling the one dealing with me to lay off, I overheard one say, "He's got nothing, you've got to let him go through." The man who searched my baggage was downright courteous, he even complimented me on my packing skills.
The first thing in the article that made me question WTF was when he got out of the car. In my experience with police, you never get out of the car until you're directly told to. Whether he was told to or not, I didn't get from the article. If he wasn't told to, that would have at least got him slammed to the ground and handcuffed.
This wasn't his first time crossing the border, so this seems a little erroneous. He should have known how to behave at a border crossing, what he did to let this occur is beyond me. I've been greeted at customs by four cops with MP5's (gotta love the Spanish hospitality), and I doubt a single one had less-than-lethal rounds in them. I acted courteous even though I was speaking a foreign language, the immigration officer was a bit abrupt but I let it slide. The captain, or whatever he was, of the squad asked how good was the book I was reading (a Terry Pratchett novel I believe it was) and wished me a good vacation. There was a lot more stress there than at any other land or airport border crossing I've done.
I think if he did actually assault a border guard, he would never have been let go (edit: so quickly). The surface facts that we know and can believe (detained and released) smack of punishment for some small slight. His punishment (beating, citing for a felony a being immediately released) is completely consistent with many other cases of people saying the wrong thing.
Make no mistake, when you really do cross the actual line with a cop/border guard, you will pay with all the force of the law (and then some).
Refusing to stay in your car when a cop demands that you do so seems like a good way to get thrown to the ground, and once the police start using physical force to restrain you, they get harsh pretty quickly: they gang up, they jam their knees into you, and they slam your face into the pavement. All of this qualifies as taking a beatdown.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out their General Orders demand decisive force once a situation escalates; if you've confronted the wrong kind of guy, doing things that just piss them off (like getting grabby and trying to guide them back into the car) could be dangerous.
>I wouldn't be surprised to find out their General Orders demand decisive force once a situation escalates
They demand compliance. If the officer does not have compliance he is legally required to gain it by escalating up the force scale.
According to the police manuals, in the event of non-violent non-compliance, non-lethal force should be used such as pepper-spray or taser until compliance is gained.
The charge of assaulting an officer probably came into effect after the writer was pepper-sprayed. The police probably tried to subdue him and he struggled - struggling often counts as assaulting an officer. And people who are getting tasered and pepper-sprayed often struggle out of instinct.
According to a ex-cop relative of mine, when police assault people they fairly routinely charge those they've assaulted because it covers their asses if the person files a complaint or wants to sue. If it goes to court the word of the police generally has more weight than a the average person's.
> According to the police manuals, in the event of non-violent non-compliance, non-lethal force should be used such as pepper-spray or taser until compliance is gained.
If this is the case everywhere then it should be make public knowledge. Because there are a lot of people that feel they have the right to argue with an officer as long as they are not being physical.
I have a suspicion that if that ever was released as knowledge to everyone there would be a lot of political movement to limit the extents of it.
In my experience there are plenty of police that don't even know the law. I used to carry around a copy of the the Florida statues, the same version that the police have in the trunk of their cruisers which they could refer to if they actually gave a shit and did not just want to harass cyclists because they are having a bad day.
They make stuff up all the time. It's shameful. Before you get all "Oh, you must be one of those jerks!". I would like to say that by not getting pissed off you can spontaneously create a relationship with a law enforcement officer and actually get them on your side.
This actually takes a tremendous amount of self control, which we are not capable of at all times, since we are all fallible humans. However in most cases law enforcement works for us, we pay their salaries to protect us (sometimes from ourselves) not to abuse us.
The circumstance of being a non-citizen at the border is of course different but in a larger sense is the same. If you anger your neighbor enough times then they will seek a remedy through a higher authority.
The solution is using the law. Every time government agents abuse their authority they must be sued, if there is to be law then it must be the tool we all use. If there was abuse of authority in this case then there is a legal remedy to be sought.
I don't want to live in a police state. I have some personal responsibility, as does everyone else, in preventing that from happening.
You can argue as long as you do it in the context of complying with police orders. The law has been this way for literally millennia. And it's totally publicly available information.
Agreed. Be polite, contrite if necessarily, to LEOs to get clear of the situation. Deal with the injustice later, unless you are ready to go all the way and do it the hard way.
Schools are bad because school funding is flawed. All the metrics and standardized testing cannot fix a broken foundation.
It's not the media's job to teach. It's the media's job to generate the most possible advertising income.
What about a non-violent non-compliance where it's still too risky to attempt even non-lethal force? For example, what if a person gets out of their car holding a baby?
Tasers and pepper spray would probably not be considered non-lethal against babies. Cops would be expected to show restraint I think. But I'm speculating.
My guess would be that he politely mouthed off to the guards a bit. Technical people are at risk for harassment because we assume that the process is about something other than the guard not taking a personal dislike to you.
My guess was that he raised his voice or otherwise displayed ire. Undoubtedly he did something a wise person in his shoes would not have done. But he probably didn't deserve a beating (although we lack any evidence that that actually happened).
I'd like to donate to the border guards. I figure there's a 50/50 chance there's a lot more to this story than Cory Doctorow's (his friend) has told, but nobody else will blindly take their side.
You already do donate to the border guard; it's your tax money paying his/her salary.
More importantly, I don't think blindly taking the government's side on any issue is a good thing. I'd much rather have everyone default to believing the private citizen and be wrong some of the time. Blind faith in the citizenry probably at worst has a net zero effect. Blind faith in the government is most certainly negative.
That being said, I'm completely open to the possibility that the border guards followed procedure. I definitely need more information to form an opinion.
If following procedure means beating someone senseless and trying to get them to waive their legal rights, then procedure is fucked. Yes, I am taking Watts' story at face value, and I could be wrong in that, but given my experiences, it seems much more likely that border crossing guards acted out of line than the alternative.
I have had incidents with the Canadian guards at the Windsor border... Not as extreme as Watts' case, but I did nothing more than take a call on my cell phone for 5 seconds (to tell the person I'd call back later), and then say "This is bullshit" when the car was turned away from Canada b/c of the phone usage.
This was before 9/11 and I am an utterly harmless, good natured person who is about the most obviously non-criminal one could possibly imagine. It is absurd any border guard anywhere would feel the need to ramp up the testosterone in response to me.
Law enforcement of any kind (police up to military) are trained to be 'in control' of their situation. When you start asking questions (or getting out of your car or whatever) you are being proactive for yourself. You're trying to take control of a situation so that you understand what's going on and that you don't have to accept everything at face value. But this contradicts all of their training that they need to control the situation. Even though you might be unarmed and they are armed (meaning that no matter how verbal you might get they still have control... they can f-cking kill you) they react to gain complete and utter control over the situation.
I'm not saying I like this. To be truthful, I absolutely hate this. But it is the way it is. Their training is f-cked. (or at least there are a majority of people that take the training past the point of (un)common sense).
I realize that under some circumstances the training is beneficial, but I have seen way too many examples of various armed officials using excessive verbal/physical force with obviously harmless people.
I think of it this way: If you're in law enforcement, the real bad guys are very scary, so you would start to feel like a real wimp after a while. The way I think many of them deal with this is by over-controlling obviously harmless, law-abiding people.
It's not just Cory Doctrow vouching for him, but also Charlie Stross and Neil Gaiman. Is it possible that there is more to the story that exonerates the guards? Of course it's possible, but given the US border crossing guards, it's not bloody likely. Even if he did something tremendously ill-advised, which doesn't sound like the case here, that does not justify a brutal beating and an assault charge, nor does it justify attempting to get Watts to waive his Miranda rights. Hell, we can even take the extreme case that Watts did somehow commit a felony (no evidence of this); the guards still should have respected his rights and his human dignity.
It doesn't have to be. It just has to mean it's more likely that he was telling the truth than that the border guards were, and the border patrol doesn't exactly have an upstanding reputation.
So have I incidentally, but that didn't stop the Canadian guards from mistreating me on one unfortunate occasion.
There are a variety of issues here, but I think the core issue is that people should be very concerned when law-abiding, harmless citizens are exposed to unnecessary coercion based on the whims of border clerks.
I was in college (U of M) and going to windsor with a friend the night before spring break to visit the casino (a bit of a novelty at the time and more fun than Ann Arbor when most of the campus was vacant). He had loaded his car (he had his video game system and guitar in the back, ready to drive home to Ohio the next day)...
Just as we were pulling up to the checkpoint, I got a call from someone I hadn't heard from in a long time. In about 5-10 seconds I said, "Great to hear from you let me call you back in a few minutes". That overlapped by about 3 seconds with the guard's question "What's your citizenship".
I said "US Citizen". The guard said, "Why are you on teh phone when I'm talking to you?" I said, "I'm sorry about being on the phone, I just got a call from someone I hadn't heard from in a long time and wanted to answer and say I'd call back".
The guard reached over and stuck something under the wiper and directed us to drive into the search bay.
Then, two surly men in uniform walked up and started hyper-aggressively asking questions. I explained that I thought I'd offended the previous guard b/c I'd been on the phone, and that we were just going for a routine visit to the casino.
The guards then ordered us to get out of the car and began searching the car. They found my friend's video game system and guitar and acted as if this was highly suspicious. We explained that it was the night before spring break and that he had those things ready to bring home with him the next day and that they would be coming back to the US with us later.
The guards proceeded to ask a lot more questions with voices raised, etc. Then they informed us that were were going to have to go back to the US. I said, "That's bullshit" in a firm voice. One of the guards came quickly toward me, so I jumped back into the car and locked the door. He roiled for a few seconds and then said, "I'm not going to hit you".
I then waited for a moment until he backed away and got back out of the car and said, "Ok, you are making a mistake, we are harmless" etc.
We then returned to the US and looped back around to re-attempt crossing, but the license plate had been flagged and we were ordered to leave again without being searched.
The next day I called the Canadian border control office and explained to the supervisor what had happened. He said something along the lines of "How do I know you're telling the truth?" and hung up. He obviously didn't care.
The next time I went to Canada I asked a few people who worked in tourism related shops just inside the Canadian border if my experience was typical. They told me that the job of border guard appeals to the sort of people who enjoy getting into fights, etc. and that they take the job to "blow off steam".
If the supervisor had expressed the slightest concern, etc., I'd attribute it to a random bit of bad luck or misunderstanding, but I think the reality is that excesses/abuses happen all the time. I was ultimately only verbally abused, harassed, and turned away... fortunately the guard who came at me was prevented from acting on his impulse to get physical by my retreat into the car.
Thanks for telling that story. I thought it was very informative and please don't think my following comments are demeaning it in any way. I'm simply trying to add a little context.
I think it's safe to assume that border guards are not going to be educated and treat you with the same courtesy as the concierge at the local Hilton. This is a dull, monotonous, and repetitive job that only gets interesting if international felons or terrorists show up. Add to this the natural inclination of guards to begin to mistreat/abuse people in their care. Plus these fellows are armed and have the full force of the law on their side.
There was a great link put up on another branch. I would encourage everyone to take a look at some of this information: http://www.flexyourrights.org/
The site's main message? You have to know exactly where the lines are and how to play the game when you're dealing with people in authority. Even then, you can expect to be mistreated on occasion. No, they do not care about you. You are just a number. They play this game all day long and know all the rules. You can either understand how it works or be very surprised at times.
And just so I'm really clear on this: I do not like this and am pretty ticked that it's this way. But that doesn't make reality change, and we have to live in reality whether we like it or not.
Thanks for the link. Definitely no offense taken at your comments...
I forgot to mention that the guard at one point said, "You have no rights here", which I found oddly unnerving. I realized at the time that I had no idea what rights (if any) I had on Canadian soil at the Canadian entrance checkpoint.
I agree with you about the best strategy, and that the guards are not likely to be cordial, etc. The experience taught me (for the first time) what it feels like to be someone who isn't automatically given the benefit of the doubt by law enforcement officers, and nudged me firmly in the direction of libertarianism (small L).
I think the most worrisome aspect is when the law empowers guards, police, etc., to use too many whims. There was also no method for oversight... in retrospect I should have asked them to send a supervisor over, but in the stress of the moment I didn't think to ask for one (though my subsequent phone call suggests that the supervisor wouldn't have been sympathetic)...
I was lucky in that I had experience in the service at a young age, so I'm used to being very docile when the situation calls for it.
An interesting thing I learned from those videos is that cops can say anything at all to you -- they are not required to actually tell you the truth. I found that very unnerving. On the other hand, I found that you can ask if you are being detained and if not, if you are free to go. It's a funky kabuki dance you do. There actually a video on that site of interacting with a border patrol agent. The agent wanted to detain, search, and interrogate the driver but the driver understood that since they were not at the border the agent did not have authority to do so, even though it appeared that the agent stood his ground. It was a very interesting interaction.
I remember in my mid twenties I was driving with the chief of a local police department in his personal car a good ways from his home (long story). While we were talking, his speed got too fast and he passed a radar checkpoint that a state trooper had set up.
I never saw a man go from totally macho to totally polite and subservient quicker in my life. It was all "yes sir" and "no sir" and "I believe I was not paying attention to my speed and was probably speeding, but I have no idea how fast I was going", etc. You would have thought that the man's personal deity had appeared to him from the way he acted.
The trooper gave him the ticket too! It my my heart warm to see the system working the way it should.
Of course, many times the system doesn't work the way it should, and once you have too many laws you easily reach a point where law enforcement officials can capriciously determine which ones to enforce and which ones not to. (We reached that point a long time ago) Adding extra cops and border agents does not make these problems go away and in fact just make them worse. (Insert long little "l" libertarian text here)
If he was going back to Canada he was not passing through US customs, you just go through and stop at Canadian customs. He was pulled over by the US border police so this could not have been a customs matter. Unless they had tip that he was doing something illegal or he broke a law like speeding, I don't know why they would have pulled him over.
Also I have crossed the border plenty of times, what I have issues with is that customs officials are given too much discretion it seems in what they can do. If an officer has a bad day they can pretty much do what they wanted.
The worst I saw was when my brother was renewing his TN1 visa. I was driving him to the airport in Buffalo. We waited for close to two hours at the customs office. The whole time the customs officers were just talking about their weekend, what their plans were, on one was actually doing their job.
Two girls that were there before us finally asked, and they were were courteous while do so, when their case would be handled. They said they had waited for 3 hours and were on their way to a funeral. The customs officer blew up at them right away, told them to shut up, used allot of swear words directed at them and threatened to throw them in jail.
Nothing the girls did warranted that behavior. After his tirade he had everyone that was waiting come over and denied them entry right on the spot without hearing them out. The whole time all the other officers were just laughing.
Usually everyone has always been professional when I crossed the border and that was the only time I have seen someone on a power trip. But it does happen, and when it happens you are pretty much screwed if you are caught in the cross fire.
It's not that hard to think of reasons why the border guards would pull someone innocent over on the way out. Most obviously, he or his car could fit the description of an all-points alert; at least, enough that they want a closer look.
Lifecasting should change rude behavior like this in our lifetimes. Just consider, if there is 5-10% risk of someone being an a..hole/criminal almost directly ends up at Youtube, media or the police.
We can look forward to a polite society.
(I think this argument was from Steve Mann, but my memory might have bitrot.)
I think a lot of people don't realize that they have drastically reduced rights at or near border crossings. You and your car can be searched by customs at their discretion without warrant or probable cause.
The "in some other universe... I didn't get back in my vehicle when I was told to" quote is telling too. I think someone more familiar with how border crossings work would never refuse to physically comply with a demand from officials.
> The "in some other universe... I didn't get back in my vehicle when I was told to" quote is telling too.
I agree. I do not know this man - but from my frequent Canada <-> USA border crossings I do know that while border guard power trips are frequent (too often so), getting beat takes effort. The story is clearly not as clear-cut as a bunch of crooked border cops deciding randomly to pepper spray and beat some guy. His friends and family are free to contribute to his legal defence, but without knowing what really happened I am unwilling to contribute.
That being said, the amount of unprofessional power tripping at American borders is ludicrous - myself and other Canadians avoid cross-border travel for this very reason, and it's costing America business. Even my American coworkers get hassled on their way home from Canada, and nearly everyone agrees that Canadian guards are on the whole a hell of a lot more professional and polite.
Nothing tops the time I was at the airport in Vancouver, pre-clearing customs. A very large border guard with a pissed off sneer on his face was hassling everyone he dealt with, and verbally berated an elderly gentleman for moving too slowly as he shuffled his way up to the booth. That sort of bullshit cannot be tolerated, and gives America a bad name for no good reason.
I suspect this has to do with the fact that you are Canadian. I am American, I have always found crossing back into America to be much less of a hassle. The Canadians have been stone-cold S.O.B's whereas the Americans are just rude.
Ironically - I have precisely the opposite experience. As a Canadian on a TN-1 Visa, approximately 85-95% of the time (more often in the last few years) - I get fingerprinted and asked a single question "What are you doing" when I answer back "Going to work in Redwood City" - the interview is terminated and I'm waved on.
Coming back INTO Canada though, and I'm subjected to the third degree - asked why I'm coming back, where I'll be going, what I'll be doing, etc...
But, after having done this six times a year for 13+ years, it's become pretty routine so at least I know what to expect.
At grave risk of redundancy: I have had the opposite experience. Canadian customs have always been friendly to me, and US customs at the Canadian border have always been total dicks.
I used to work and live on opposite sides of the US-Canada border (for around 1.25 years -- I was too lazy to apply for the pre-screening to get to the front of the line... plus when it gets backed up on those bridges you still have to get through the lines of cars just to get to the pre-screened booth). So I have a lot of experience with Border Patrol (at least on the Rainbow Bridge -- I avoided the other ones since I figured they would be nicer at the one most tourists would use).
Canadian Border Patrol:
* Very professional
* Demeanor ranges from 'stone cold' to 'polite and pleasant' (in some cases 'warm' too)
* Once had an asshole of a Canadian Border Patrol guy that said my story was 'confusing' and that 'it takes a lot' to confuse him. (In a total, "I'm talking down at you because I'm a law enforcement officer that needs always project authority" sort of way)
* I once was in front of some people that got turned back from the Canadian border (one of them wasn't a US citizen and was trying to use a Driver's License as ID to cross the border) and at no point did I feel that the border people were acting like assholes to the couple trying to cross.
US Border Patrol:
* "military police with a chip on their shoulder"
* One time I had a border patrol guy get pissed at me because he accidentally set off the car alarm (he asked me to hand him my key fob, and he pressed the f-cking red button on it).
* One time I had a US Border Patrol officer try to crack a joke with me about a recent local suicide (it happened at the casino I worked at). It was in total bad taste... and I'm someone that finds humor in crap on 4chan /b/. I just kinda nodded to get through the border (and because the casino didn't want us talking about it at all either).
* One time I was almost pulled out of my car because they confused "I work at the casino" with "I won at the casino." The guy asked me how much money I had on me, and got pissed off when I told him, "I dunno, maybe $5 in change." (The odd thing about this was that he and his 'partner' were wandering around through the mess of cars backed up over the bridge going into Canada . They were US Border Patrol Officers, why are they patrolling the people going into Canada?)
Overall, I've only ever had my car searched 2 or 3 times (all by US Border Patrol as a US citizen). (One of those times I kinda agreed with the search even though they told me it was a 'random' search. I had gone across the border to deliver a present because it would be faster than shipping it. When asked how long my stay in Canada was I replied, "about 20 minutes." The reply I got was, "You've been randomly selected for a search. Pull around to the spot over there and take this slip with you."... At least they could be honest and say that I was suspicious...)
I've had really bad experiences crossing back in via car too. Really intrusive personal searches, and a horrible attitude. They really deserve the reputation they have. But, that said: they have that reputation, and so I think you'd have to be kind of crazy to give them any shit.
On the other hand, coming back to the States from Europe has always been a pleasant experience for me.
On the other side of the globe, car searches by customs without a warrant or a probable cause were a standard thing up until ~2000. Now not only don't you see any border control when travelling in Europe, you're not bothered at all by the authorities at the airports (unless you're from outside EU). It seems ironic, when you think about people running away from here, over the ocean, to get to freedom just a couple of decades before...
I had my bags searched on a train Europe, in the middle of the ride, not at a crossing. Just taken out and rifled through. Say what you will about the States, but that's unconstitutional here --- except at the border.
Obviously it depends where in Europe you are, but in the UK at least, the police need reasonable suspicion before they can search you (or certain other specific circumstances must obtain), and there are limits on what they are allowed to search for. They are not legally allowed to search you just because they feel like it.
There's a summary of police powers of search and seizure in the UK here:
You don't get harassed at borders but you have lost national sovereignty. So it's one freedom for another - and in the case of the EU many would argue that it is a net loss of freedom.
No, we have voluntarily pooled our national sovereignty by treaty in some areas, and enjoy an increase in individual freedoms as a direct result. This is quite different from what you describe.
You voluntarily gave up your national sovereignty, which is a voluntary loss of freedom.
There are other good things in life besides freedom. I'm not saying the EU is a bad idea. I'm saying that when the UK joined the EU it gave up a good number of freedoms it previously had - admittedly those particular freedoms were not considered valuable. Such as the freedom to control trade.
It doesn't really feel like it. For typical people nothing changed. The laws were changed a bit so that they're more unified and the market forces work a bit differently. But sovereignty itself? No. Every country still has authority over its own territory. It's not independent authority, but was it ever? (in practice, that is) The countries are still divided much more clearly than the states - in every way I can think of.
I have never understood the legal doctrine by which inalienable rights suddenly become quite, well, alienable at the border. If a right is truly universal, then it should hold at the border just as well as it does anywhere else. This is one of many places where I disagree with the US Supreme Court on principle, and where I suspect that they let politics cloud their expertise.
Sadly, I think we won't get too much more info for a while, since Watts is not in a place to say much right now, and I don't think that the border guards will have much to say...
when stopped by a police officer I always act like they already have a gun pointed at me. I keep my hands visible and answer everything with a 'sir'. maybe there's lots of good cops out there. But if I get the one asshole who gets off on power I'd rather appease his view of the world than challenge it.
From the border agent's perspective anyone can be a threat. You should approach these situations avoiding any actions that may confuse you with a lunatic or criminal. Not sure if that was the case here or not. Hopefully it was on camera so we can know the true story.
So the correct response is to supplicate before the guard, avoiding any visible signs of irritation, hurry, etc. It is generally preferable to put on the most benign facial expression one can muster to avoid threatening or annoying the guard, who has the power to waste several hours of your life on a whim, and can cause far more harm if he chooses.
In a high-pressure situation they sometimes fall back on their quaint expectations of rights and basic human respect. I would wager that someone who had spent serious time in prison would do much better in these situations.
The guy probably had a long day. I bet he just wanted nothing more than to get home and go to sleep. He obviously didn't understand what all the fuss was about, and he ended up stepping on someone's hair trigger. It seems terribly unlikely he did something that you or I would consider physically threatening. After being pepper-sprayed and man-handled, and likely not in the soundest state of mind, maybe he even flailed a bit -- guaranteeing an assault charge (and possible conviction).
Perhaps that's how it went down. It'll probably turn out that the border guards "followed procedure." But that's exactly the problem that makes the story frightening to us:
The path from "long day + non-violent temporary failure of judgement" to "being physically assaulted and facing a life-altering felony charge" seems terribly short.