Whereas I've never understood why people who feel threatened or want to be "special" insist that another person can't possibly comment on any aspect of their role/job/hobby/whatever unless they've done it or been trained for it. It's as if they actually expect people to believe that they have some sort of magical insight and other people can't draw inferences or understanding from their own experiences and life and training. Etc. It's a disingenuous distraction from discussion IMO.

In spite of all you say, my assumption in any encounter with LE is that 'probable cause' is whatever the agent(s) say it is at that moment. Period. Disagreeing is only likely to lead to a very negative outcome for me.

Case in point: a CBP agent demands I take off my sunglasses (when the sun is behind him/her and shining directly in my eyes). I don't dare take the risk of explaining that. It is quite likely that the entire interaction will get stalled right there: we're not going any further until I take the sunglasses off (or roll the window down or open the trunk or get out of the car or anything else the agent demands). Do you really think I'm going to be stupid enough to ask the agent 'why'? Do you really think I'm going to be foolish enough to ask if the agent has 'probable cause' for telling me to open my trunk or take off my sunglasses? You can't be serious. I'm not a confrontational person, I don't go looking for trouble, and that would be looking for TROUBLE.

Even if I have the time and financial resources (I don't) to hire the most highly qualified lawyers in the business and try to get redress in court, it wouldn't change what is happening at that moment. It is possible that if I did have the time and resources, a court might find that the agent(s) didn't have 'probable cause'. I'm not going to take that risk. And I believe any internal process will almost certainly find in favor of the agent.

All right, my memory of RK is faulty. Bad example. My bad. Mea culpa (just as I am presumed to be at a CBP checkpoint).

My point was that in any encounter where a video shows a handcuffed, facedown individual being beaten, there is no excuse. None. Period. It doesn't matter if that individual just shot someone (and it was me), it doesn't matter what it took to get that individual into that position, it doesn't matter if that individual is still flopping around uncontrollably (possibly because he/she has been tased repeatedly and/or is writhing in pain). At that point, nothing that has gone before matters: suspect is immobilized, incapable of harming anyone who doesn't do something profoundly stupid (like, say, stand so close he/she can lunge and bite the officer in the ankle). So no physical assault at that point is justified. Period.

Yes, civilians can have biases too. Isn't it interesting that so many organizations seem to think the only folks qualified to participate in oversight are themselves? Civilians/outsiders can't be trusted because they lack the necessary expertise, the knowledge, the integrity, the lack of bias - but none of those things apply to civilians who put on a uniform and go to work for the agency in question. Suddenly that makes their opinion unbiased, trustworthy, knowledge-based.

If a civilian questions something and an organization can't explain in, it may just be that the organization is guilty of BS and CYA. I have no problems with 'uneducated' outside oversight in my own organization. As I posted before, if I say I don't see a problem, then I don't. If someone else can call my attention to something I've overlooked, or been blind to because of my insider perspective, then we are all better off. And I work in a very high-tech environment.

I am not talking about commenting. That is what is happening repeatedly here is it not? I am happy to discuss what we do and why to the extent that I am able to. However, to believe or imply that the opposite bias that Chollie believes exists in law enforcement is not in evidence here would be disingenuous or naive. I am talking about oversight in the policy making and having control of operations of an occupation without any training and understanding as to what is going on. Again, read the examples given. It is a very big difference in what I am talking about and what you are implying.

How about we put together a panel of civilians and have them critique lawyers and how lawyers go about their craft. How about that panel reviews the depo's, trials the lawyers participated in, and review the contracts etc. lawyers prepared. After those reviews, the lawyers are expected to change how those tasks are done regardless if the law supports that they performed their tasks correctly. Do you think there would be support for that from the attorney community? Of course not, that is why all of their reviews and discipline also happens behind closed doors and not in public view.

FB

Nope.

In other words, qualified immunity.

Only if it is clearly established. There are plenty of government wrongs that have virtually no redress; that is just the law. And Pearson v. Callahan made this problem worse.

Things would be much easier if Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte went the other way, but they didn't. They should be overruled, but I don't see that in the near future.

For someone who is not a confrontational person, you seem to be holding your own just fine here. With that said, your individual bias is showing more and more with each post.

You don't go into the details in your recent example. However, some observations and questions. Why would it be an unreasonable requirement for you to remove your sunglasses when speaking to a CBP Officer or Agent at a checkpoint or POE? If you are talking to me in either environment I will require you to remove your sunglasses. Depending upon circumstances, I either have to match you to your travel document as well as being able to observe facial expressions while talking to you is important. In any case, that is what I am going to tell you if you ask me why. I would have no problem explaining that to you nor would just about any officer or agent.

You say that going to court doesn't help you in the moment. How does civilian oversight help you in the moment? I obviously can't speak for all other agencies. However, I can speak to the one I work for. Internal process do not certainly find in favor of agents or officers. There are times that complaints are sustained. There are times that complaints are unfounded. That specific information meaning specific instances that include identifying information are not made public. The very same privacy laws that protect private sector employees apply to public sector employees as well except in the very obscure situations. There is a lot of information that is not incident specific to look at. The agency is not hiding anything. The internal process for integrity issues for CBP is very large. However, the agency makes it very easy with multiple avenues to lodge complaints. Those complaints are taken very seriously. If you are not taking advantage of that process, it is because you are letting you assumptions and bias cloud what really happens. CBP spends a lot of money, time and effort on internal integrity issues. Every single supervisor from first line on up spends a considerable time each week on integrity issues from the dealing with complaint issues to the mandatory training with the staff. This might be interesting reading for you or maybe not you judge.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650505.pdf


I tend to be very direct and I call things the way I see them. Your statements tend prove the very points that I am trying to make concerning uninformed and untrained civilian oversight. I agree that a handcuffed individual that is facedown does not need any more strikes. However, (don't roll your eyes I know you are) there variables that you have not considered. You state “stand so close he/she can lunge and bite the officer in the ankle" The officer's do not have a choice. They have to approach that individual. They don't get to just leave him there. As a matter of fact, if they don't and leave that individual in that position for too long of a time period as a manager I am going to discipline them. Why? for the disregard of the safety of that restrained individual. There is a medical phenomenon called positional asphyxia. It can occur when a person is restrained and left in a position such as you are describing. It took a long time for it to be recognized and included in the officers’ training. I really don't expect you to know about it nor should you. The officers are expected to know about it. The officers supervisors are expected to know about it and anyone that is responsible for oversight better know about it.

The only way to know about it is training. The only way that you keep up on these topics and be proficient in their application is if it is your job and it is a full-time job. So that is a new question and problem. Who pays to overseers so that they can perform to an acceptable level? Me, I really don't care who would pay them. I only care about if they have the knowledge to judge what they are expected to evaluate. However, I am betting who ever pays them will not meet your expectations of independence. I am not against oversight in the least I just want them to be able to understand what they are expected to judge.

In addition, just because a person is restrained by handcuffs does not mean that person cannot still pose a threat. I can provide many examples of law enforcement officers injured and killed by handcuffed prisoners. It is not common by any means but that is why each and every case has to be examined individually and judge by its merits by people with a firm understanding of the applicable laws and methods. To believe that untrained people should be making judgments concerning things they don't understand is unfair and can lead to very dangerous situations for forget about the officer it can and has put the public at risk.

.

What law enforcement agency is hiring a civilian putting them in a uniform and sending them to work without attending an academy and going through a Field Training program? It is not the uniform that makes the difference I am talking about. It is the knowledge and experience gained by doing the job day in and day out. It takes a good five years depending upon how busy the department is for a law enforcement officer to become truly proficient in the performance of his job. I would have the same objection to an officer with less than five years on being in a position to provide oversight or supervision

The real problem I see in my interactions with you thus far is contained in your very first sentence of your post. You are basing your beliefs on your assumptions. Those assumptions are dictating how you behave in your interaction with law enforcement which if you take how you describe those behaviors to an extreme are raising the very red flags that you are attempting to avoid. Those assumptions are very often incorrect. Yet, in the very next breath you vilify any law enforcement officer that acts within the parameters of his training and the law in regard to his inferences drawn from your actions, the environment that you both are in, his experience which in almost every case is going to out measure yours, and the training he has received which again is going to out measure yours. That is not a bad thing. It is just a fact that is not going to change. I don't believe that you hold any malice towards law enforcement officers at least I hope that you don't. If it matters to you, which I am sure that it doesn't, I really don't think any less of you for your opinions. It does make me wish that I could do a better job of education but this medium doesn't lend itself to that end very well.

It does go a long way on keeping me current on the issues though so even if no one else benefits from it at least I am getting something out of it.

FB

For those non-lawyers in the audience, could you expand a bit more on the above? (My interest is purely academic, I've stated my practical behavioral position pretty clearly above).

You know I am really just trying to have a conversation with you. I am not being sarcastic nor am I making light of anything you have to say. I would appreciate that you not put words in my mouth. I am being respectful of you and your opinion I would ask that you do the same. Imagine my surprise when I read your current post. I really don't believe that was nessasary or called for.

I did not nor did I imply anything that you posted in the above quote. I did not say that CBP was perfect or above reproach at all. CBP Officers and Agents most certainly are not perfect as matter fact I just spent a lot of bit of time responding to your earlier post. In that post I included the Internal Affairs statistics for CBP for the past I don't remember but it was 2005 to 2012. You know those secret numbers that the very secretive agency posted on the internet.

My agency has a very extensive and very accessible avenue to the public to lodge complaints or any other feedback they wish. If you are unaware of it, you didn't look very hard.

I am interested in conversation that is why I am here. I don't get paid to post it is my own time. I don't believe the agency is above reproach. My agency is not self-policing. You don't believe that nor do you agree who is doing the policing. So since you believe that and I don't your conversations is frank and mine is not. Essentially, you have to be right and I have to be wrong because I am a law enforcement officer

We differ on video because I have seen video abused, doctored, and just flat out misinterpreted. It has its place, it useful, and it has limitations.

We differ on independent oversight. I don't even disagree that independent oversight is bad. I want those people that are responsible for oversight to be trained. They have to have the expertise to make the judgments if those judgments are going to shape policy and operational components of an occupation and I believe that for all occupations not just law enforcement. Otherwise, they should stick to judging from behind the safety of a computer screen were they can't be held responsible or liable for their opinions.

We also differ on if you have the qualifications to judge if the actions of a law enforcement officer were legal or correct. I believe that you have demonstrated that you don't nor do you have the objectivity to understand why you don't.

If you really want advice for a more positive experience in your interactions with CBP or any law enforcement agency, stop groveling, stop expecting the worst, stop assuming the officer is out to do you harm. You more than likely are overdoing your groveling act. It more than likely is not appearing natural which will cause you problems. You clearly will not accept that as a possible issue. However, I have been doing this long enough to bet that it is.

FB

Unproductive waste of time.

Yup, you win, I lose, you're completely 100% right, absolutely, no outsider can ever hope to understand your above reproach agency.

And you clearly don't know the first thing about me.

I entered this discussion in good faith, with honesty and no bias. You chose not to reciprocate in kind, so I'll leave it there.

:)

Really, so how do you explain the above post and all of my exact quotes that you have clearly misrepresented? If that is your version of good faith, honesty and no bias, I wouldn't want you working for me. You would find yourself at odds with the very internal process that you believe doesn't exist.

FB

Completely disingenuous.

I made a limited statement. I clarified it when someone took it beyond what I'd said. You pointed to the FedReg and said I was wrong. I quoted the FedReg itself to show that you were mistaken. So you just switch to claiming I'm playing word games? :rolleyes:

Look, you keep going on about people having to be qualified to comment and, by implication, that no one here has the "qualifications" or "experience" to comment on much of anything related to your day job. Putting aside the sheer arrogance of that, it doesn't seem to occur to you that people here can be and in many cases are exactly that. ;)

You work very hard at missing the point, y'know. :cool:

And again, incorrect. Your posts could have been construed to mean that a non-immigrant does not have to have their registration document in their physical possession. You went as far as to specify the holders of H and L status do not have to possess their passports which while technically true those same H and L status holder are required to carry their registration documents which was not at all clear. The statute can be confusing and in my sixteen years’ experience as an US Immigration Officer it very often misunderstood which leads individuals to be in violation of that statute. I took the time to point out to you that the statute does not specify passport, I-94 or LPR card. It talks about registration documents. It does this for a reason.

I also have freely admitted that I hold the exact opposite viewpoint. I find sheer arrogance in believing that someone that has no training or experience can or should sit in judgment of some else's occupation that takes a considerable amount of time and training to master. Like I said if that is should be acceptable, why is that not done in other occupations like attorneys?

There is nothing disingenuous about either of those things. They are facts that are evidenced in this very thread.

I am not implying anything. I am being very clear. I believe that if you are going to hold a position of oversight over an occupation any occupation you should have some expertise in that occupation. I know what my qualifications are and have been upfront with what they are. If there are others here that have some expertise, they should be upfront with that information as well.

So how does that go? Since you appear to be implying that you have expertise, how about you be upfront with what that expertise is? Because so far your posts could have gone a long way to confuse a non-immigrant visa holder to the United States and could have resulted in a somewhat difficult situation for that visa holder.

I suggested the same to Chollie but instead was accused of dishonesty, bias and bad faith.

FB