Man is tased for refusing lawful orders and resisting arrest

Unfortunately, this is an edited video. Many have said this video shows the pastor being beaten. When exactly is that taking place?

Now I am not saying the pastor is wrong, nor am I saying he is right. All of the facts must be revealed to know what really happened. If this video is all we have to go on then the pastor isn't portraying himself in a very good light. He admits he refuses to answer questions. Then he refuses to remove his car from blocking the highway. When the DPS arrives, an officer orders him to exit the vehicle. The pastor refuses and asks why. The officer informs him that he is giving him a lawful order and he is refusing it. Now the officer has no choice but to arrest the pastor for failing to obey a lawful command. To make matters worse the pastor resists arrest by refusing to exit vehicle. Verbal commands were tried, but were futile. Now force continuum comes into play. They must break the windows to arrest the pastor. They inform him to cover his eyes. Now why would they do that if everyone is saying they are beating him and other horrible things. Seems to me they would just break the glass and ignore his safety if they are as ruthless as people are saying. It just doesn't add up. Back to the story, they break the glass, tase him and retrieve him from the car to be handcuffed. I did not see anyone beating him in this video. Which makes the pastor a liar because he said he was beaten in the title of his video.

This pastor does a lot of lying and exaggerating in his videos involving law enforcement. It seems to me if he had proof of being beaten he would present it rather than uploading an edited video. Could the pastor be lying again? It's very possible since he has no problem lying in other videos.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ACTUAL
• FOOTAGE
• Pastor
• Beaten
• Tased
• by
• Border
• Patrol
• DPS
• border
• patrol
• dps
• department
• public
• safety
• taser
• tase
• police
• brutality
• pastor
• steven
• anderson
• beat
• sanderson1611
• fourth
• amendment
• dhs
• international
• searches

[donjrkdd]

simple, you fight it in court NOT with the arresting officers.....dumbass...at the point he was told he was under arrest he had the right to remain SILENT and to have an attorney.... doesn't mean he INSTANTLY gets his attorney, doesn't mean he gets to debate it with the cops, comply or live with the results of NOT complying lol

[EffinTruth]

Don, this Anderson person makes a history of intentionally starting unneeded situations. He is also a hypocrite because when someone does it to him he becomes quite enraged.

[EffinTruth]

Jimmycar83 has been banned for repeatedly attacking users with insults and other verbal abuse. I gave him multiple warnings, but as usual people like Jimmy are incapable of discussing an issue in a mature manner. Just like how Anderson can't control his rage neither can his followers like Jimmy.

[jesperwitte]

LOL :) Great fun how this loud mouth turns into a crying baby, hahaha :)

[oldmac1]

@parker1351 So ... in conclusion ... a real offiver acting under color of law who has reasonable cause or suspicion (whether right or wrong) has a right to detain or arrest you, and you have a duty not to resist with force. If he's wrong, if he violates your rights, your best option is to go to court and file suit. Advising anyone to resist an officer (and telling them they have the righ to kill the officer) who has properly identified himself is really, really, REALLY stupid.

[oldmac1]

@parker1351 in 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court court ruled US. v Di Re that "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and the courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." Since then, the courts -- mostly lower courts and state Supreme Courts, have judged what those proper cases are, and what resistance is warranted. And lethal force against officers has never been sanctioned.

[oldmac1]

@parker1351 Here some some of the specific instances: the person making the arrest never identifies himself as a cop. The "arrestee" reasonably believes that the person making the arrest is impersonating an officer with the intent of victimizing; or there is reasonable belief that the arrestee would be the victim of police brutality if taken into custody by that individual. Resistance DOES NOT in any situation include a blanket use of deadly force. Period.

[oldmac1]

@parker1351 Wow. You are giving incredibly bad and inaccurate information here and I hope no one ever relies on you or Youtube as their legal defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER made such a blanket ruling, specifically related to your "right to resist an unlawful arrest with any means necessary." There are very very specific instances in which courts (not the Supreme Court) have said you can resist, but nothing you said here is even close to accurate.

[parker1351]

Supreme court ruled when you are givin an unlawful order by a cop, you do not have to obey. The supreme court also ruled you have the right to resist an unlawful arrest with any means necessary, upto and including using the officers own handgun against him. Just better make damn sure it is an unlawful arrest and you have evidence of everything.

[RayneRaven1]

@donjrkdd Exactly. When an officer tells you do something, even if you don't agree with it, you fucking do it. Period.