I would simply point out that our uniformed services are, and always have been, under civilian control. Often, these civilian leaders knew very little about the military forces or the Department of Defense. Speaking from over 30 years of experience, many of those in uniform, I can say that it was frustrating at times. But, because of the checks & balances and different perspective, I wouldn't have had it any other way.

If the military in the U.S. didn't have civilian leadership right on up to the Commander in Chief himself, I dare say we would have had at least one military coup attempt by now. Police forces, at all levels of government, absolutely must have the same civilian control and oversight (and not just misconduct review boards). My hunch is that one reason for "police-gone-wild" is lack of strong civilian leadership. It may have been in place on paper, but was either corrupt and/or weak.

I agree but the civilian Commander in Chief is not the one who reviews conduct and performance of the rank and file. That is done by the people who have the training to do it.

FB

Care to elaborate?

I read the entire thread and didn't find any reason that a window needs to be rolled down more than 3 inches if I can hear him and he can hear me just fine. The particular border patrol agent I encountered apparently agreed, since I ignored his complaint and then drove away 10 seconds later.

But the Secretary of Defense and the POTUS review conduct and performance of those who review conduct and performance and remove those "with training" from the military. Secretary Gates has not been shy with this responsibility.

Firstly, no. They will not be posted on the internet. However, they will be freely available for discovery by the defense in a trial (I've seen several cases where police departments have twisted themselves around trying to keep dash cam video from being turned over to the defense)

As for videotaping me in my office... go right ahead, but it's going to get pretty boring seeing me sit in an office writing and reviewing contracts all day.

One more addendum: I have extreme amounts of distaste for the practice of officers referring to non-officers as "civilians", as it implies officers have some kind of special status. There is no special status. You are citizens just as much as the rest of us are. It's just another part of the problem with law enforcement in this country.

This is a great question.

Just a comment; we have a CRB in Chicago and it hasn't done anything to stop police abuse here. Federal courts (both criminal actions and civil lawsuits) in addition to hapenstance survailance cameras in-squad cameras and (which a recent front-page article in the Chicago Sun Times reported several officers frequently intentionally disable) are the only things that have changed things. Furthermore, several officers were recently caught lying on DUI stops to rack up overtime hours; the CRB we have had several complaints about them (including once from 2 DA's doing a ride-along) and dismissed the complaints. It wasn't until it showed up on the local news that the officers (three in total at various times over the last 18 months) were placed on desk duty. So, CRB's aren't necessarily the anti-cop bodies you'd think-- at least not around here. Federal courts, cameras and local news are the only things that have helped de-coruupt our police force to the extent that there is improvement.

Not according to the TBAC: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/enforcem...rification.asp:

That may be true, but sometimes constant cop "exceptions" are finally reigned in by the courts (See Arizona v. Gant, but you already know that opinion likely).

I disagree than an EMT cannot deprive of liberty under color of law given the right set of circumstances. As far as "contempt of cop," people are arrested for this every day of the week and I saw a jury acquit someone guilty of DUI just last week because they were convinced that the cops only arrested him for cursing at them.

I don't think that is a fair analysis of what's going on here; as an LEO, he is entitled to see things in a different light. He is not sayind that the BP officers in this case necessarily acted appropriately, just that there are many reasons why their actions could have been necessary.

That isn't fair. In this case, he refuses to speculate and gives the officers the benefit of the doubt given his experience and expertise. I see things a little differently. If Firebug were actually on the scene and knew exactly what was going on (i.e. not reviewing a video pot-hoc), then his (or her?) attitude might very well be different. The comparison is not exact.

I turst video over an officer's word and so do the courts. Cops lie. I hope most cops don't, but some do.

^ to me.

3 inches seems ok; a crack does not. The jerk in the video rolled the window down a crack and used it as some sort of game.

Not at all accurate. I personally have had performance reviews signed by civilians with about a nanosecond of military experience. I'm, by far, not alone.

The Commander-in-Chief nominates every officer in every rank. It's a presidential appointment just like very other one. And, we are all confirmed by the Senate. Generally, only 3 & 4-star nominees testify, but, any one of us can be called to testify for a promotion to any officer rank.

^ While on active duty, it is not at all uncommon for officers to be evaluated by civilian supervisors.

Why is 3 inches versus a "crack" ok? What is the difference? The video shows communication was fine even with the window rolled up. A crack allows passing documentation. And why is the driver a jerk exactly?

Excellent point. Some more examples off the top of my head:
- The tragedy that was the CPD "Special Operations Section."
- Man is handcuffed to a wheelchair in a hospital. Officer brutally beats him with a strap. The incident is videotaped, but he receives only a slap on the wrist until the feds get involved.
- Small female bartender stops serving 300 lb. drunk off-duty officer. Officer beats the crap out of small female bartender, while other off-duty officers casually look on. The incident is videotaped, but the tape is not immediately released to the media. County prosecutors charge him with a misdemeanor for something that is rather obviously a felony in IL. Tape is released to the media, outrage ensues, charges upgraded to a felony. The officer received probation and currently is trying to get reinstated on the force.
- A group of detectives routinely tortures suspects for several years, resulting in many wrongful convictions. The state's attorney at the time (who is now the mayor) does nothing. Local media investigates and reports. (The main journalist subsequently was terminated from the Chicago Reader in a cost-cutting move.) Later, a state's attorney investigator concludes that the torture allegations are true but nonetheless declines to prosecute. The ringleader retires to Florida with a full pension. The feds eventually filed charges against him and currently are exploring charges against his sidekicks.
- A group of off-duty officers jump a group of businessmen playing pool at a bar. When units arrive on the scene, one of them goes outside, flashes his badge, and sends them away. State judge acquits them for battery, finding that one of them supposedly made a joke and, therefore, the victims were asking for a beating.

Etc.

Does one really have to explain . . . :rolleyes:

Interesting, I am looking at my old TABC guide book, and it says something different, granted it is 15 years old. So it seems the law will now accept others, but, as the webpage you link notes: Local businesses can restrict use to a TX DL only-which many, many do. I suspect it is because of the older TABC guides which state that prior fact.

The original point I made stands. TSA rules have zero bearing on CBP.

Ciao,
FH

I'm late to the party on this one, and I see it's gotten a bit off track ;), but I wanted to add my experiences. This is a routine occurrence at ELP. In the dozen or so times I've flown out of there in the last year, at least two Border Patrol officers (armed, too!) were at the checkpoint every time, asking the Hispanic folks "how are you?" or "where are you going?" Even the TSO asked me on Sunday "where are you going?"...I told him to look at my BP.

Anyway, a particularly startling incident happened in TUS back in November. Folks with Canadian passports were being sent to the Border Patrol agents by a TSO. I recall the TSO telling a couple with a Canadian passport to "show him your passport. He needs to check it."

I asked her on the plane why she went along with it, and, in typical Canadian fashion she said "oh...we don't want to make any trouble." :D

It's probably just CBP having too many people at the airport not doing anything. They need to "look busy" just like the TSOs who come around and stare at passengers getting on the plane.

True.

:td::td::td:

That is grossly exceeds the authority of the TSA. It would be the same as a TDC telling everyone who presented a California DL or ID to "go over there to the policeman; the drug dog needs to sniff you".

CBP can ask questions on their own; they don't need the TSA's help. They know what they are doing.

TSO's have no business helping the CBP in a routine way and such actions exceed the TSA's administrative search authroity (forget for a second that many dispute their authority to check ID's in the first instance).