<< PEOPLE'S INQUIRY GETS RESULTS! ~ MAIN ~ THIS YEAR'S MICHAEL MOORE >>
BORDER FOLLIES
Welcome to the United States, nice person!
Deo - nope, it’s real. Or if it isn’t, it’s gotten into enough news outlets to become the next “Insurgents Capture G.I. Joe Doll” incident.
My personal theory as to why they let him in - he hypnotized them with those crazy Runaway Bride eyes. Otherwise I’d be interested to know how he managed to claim to be in the US military without having to produce something like, you know, a military ID.
I wasn’t aware mohawks were military regulation either.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 09 at 03:52 AM • permalinkok, here’s another pic of the perp. seems he has a buggered brother as well
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 06 09 at 04:00 AM • permalinkA certain resemblance to Chris Reeves as Superman ...?
Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 06 09 at 04:18 AM • permalinkDean0 at ‘stop the neocon death machine has more info on the ‘chris reeves chainsaw massacre’ story.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 06 09 at 04:44 AM • permalinkMay I present - the 08 Democratic Party Candidate!
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 09 at 05:25 AM • permalinkBan chainsaws and creepy looking people!
Think of The Children! TMPosted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 06 09 at 06:49 AM • permalink"Nobody asked us to detain him,” said Bill Anthony, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Hi, we’re from the government, and we’re here to pick up our bimonthly paycheck while we do whatever the damn hell we please! Loser! Now fill out these forms! We take Visa and Mastercard.
"Being bizarre is not a reason to keep somebody out of this country or lock them up. We’re governed by laws and regulations, and he did not violate any regulations,” Mr. Anthony told the Associated Press.
Besides, everyone knows Canadians are harmless. We thought he’d been carving up some back bacon with that chainsaw or something. You know those Canucks and their back bacon.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 09 at 07:05 AM • permalinkI agree being bizarre is not a good reason to keep someone out, but being bizarre, covered in blood and armed to the teeth puts a whole new spin on it.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 09 at 07:37 AM • permalinkPeople, please. Bizarre is such a judgmental term. We might be tempted to discriminate against someone who is bizarre, and that would be wrong. No, he appears to be diverse, and we should celebrate diversity. Perhaps he has developed some unusual skills that he might want to share with us. Let us sit in a circle and ask him to join us.
/moonbat mode off
Sheesh. Having lived a good part of my life next to the Canadian border, I know that some loons do make it through. But I have to wonder why they didn’t look a little closer.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 09 at 08:54 AM • permalinkWhat strikes me as strange, is people that freaky-lookin’ usually like country music
Posted by Rachel Corrie's Flatmate on 2005 06 09 at 09:06 AM • permalinkHmmm.
If I saw that walking to me I’d start getting ready for a fight to the death. WTF? They took away his blood-covered chainsaw, brass knuckles and KNIFE and let him in?
Fire the bastards. Fire them all.
Posted by memomachine on 2005 06 09 at 10:48 AM • permalinkPlease, people. The border guards can’t invent new laws, and the way the laws are constructed, this guy couldn’t legally be detained. What we need is better info sharing so that Canadian parole violators are flagged at the Canadian border. Firing the cops isn’t a fair response.
If you think that border patrol agents should have carte blanche to arrest, detain, or repel anyone they want, consider how soon they’ll be completely corrupted by all that power.
Posted by The Mighty Claw on 2005 06 09 at 11:33 AM • permalinkOh come on! So the poor, helpless border guards couldn’t do anything like pick up a flippin’ telephone? At the absolute minimum they could have frantically waved at the Canukleheads on the other side of the border and said, “say, missing any bug-eyed, chain-saw and blade carrying, blood-spattered folks?”
Trying to absolve the guards from this is absurd.Posted by Major John on 2005 06 09 at 12:46 PM • permalinkAt worst it’d be a citizen’s arrest.
Pop quiz, when you see a man and his implements of doom covered in blood walk up to you, do you:
A) Buy him a drink
B) Run like hell (or if in the position, detain him) and call the cops
C) Offer him your daughter’s hand in marrigePosted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 09 at 01:22 PM • permalinkTMC: The border guards can’t invent new laws, and the way the laws are constructed, this guy couldn’t legally be detained.
Sure he could. There’s this little thing called ‘probable cause.’ Dale Franks over on Q and O covers it quite well. Mr. Franks is a libertarian, btw, and no proponent of granting any more powers to agents of the state than absolutely necessary.
OK, OK. Good laughs all around. He does look bizarre but I’ve got to go with the border guards here. They kept him at the border for two hours questioning him. He was not wanted by the Canucks because the crime had not been discovered yet. And they did contact the RCMP. Not to mention the fact that he is a U.S. citizen. They confiscated his toys and released him. I don’t see what else was expected of them.
Posted by Just Some Poor Schmuck on 2005 06 11 at 12:43 AM • permalinkJSPS: I don’t see what else was expected of them.
A measly little blood reagent test wouldn’t be much to ask, under the circumstances.
They kept him at the border for two hours questioning him.
They also fingerprinted him, which takes much less than two hours but still more than testing the blood.
He was not wanted by the Canucks because the crime had not been discovered yet.
Actually, he was a convicted criminal skipping out on Canadian bail and fleeing the country. So, yes, he was wanted by the Canucks.
And they did contact the RCMP.
Who, apparently infected by the incompetence virus running amok among the border guards, took until the next day to check on the welfare of the people Mr. Blood Spatter had just been convicted of threatening.
Not to mention the fact that he is a U.S. citizen.
Might as well not mention it, since it’s totally irrelevant.
Come on Achillea, this is the real world, not CSI. You’ve been watching too much TV.
A blood reagent? What would that show? Presence of blood? Big whoop. It could be evidence in a crime but by itself it is not evidence of a crime.
In any case, is this a test that you can perform at a border crossing station with minimal tools and no training? Did the guards have the necessary training to perform such tests? If not they would have been inadmissible as evidence.
What charge would he have been arrested on? Felony possession of blood?
Absent an arrest warrant out of a jurisdiction that was serviceable at the border crossing, the only way he could have been arrested was on probable cause. That means that the border agents had to have proof that a crime had been committed and that probable cause existed to believe that he had committed it. Presence of blood does not provide either of these.
Any defense attorney would have shredded the case with ease and brought false arrest charges against the border agents.
“Knowing” that he must have committed a crime is not the same thing as being able to prove it. I’m a police dispatcher and I remember many times that we have had to cut someone loose because we could not prove that he had done anything even though we “knew” he had done it.
As far as the bail skipping goes, you can’t arrest someone for skipping bail until he has missed his court and a judge has issued a warrant for his arrest. The warrant has to be known to the guards and it has to be confirmed by the issuing agency. If the RCMP did not know that he was wanted and could not confirm that with the border station then it is irrelevant.
Being a U.S. Citizen is relevant because if he were a foreign national they could have turned him back. But as a U.S. citizen entering his own country, they could not refuse him entry.
Posted by Just Some Poor Schmuck on 2005 06 11 at 02:35 PM • permalinkPresence of blood does not provide either of these.
I submit there is no valid reason for the possession of a bloody chainsaw. I’d even go so far as to say that, barring obvious injury to yourself, a bloody chainsaw is evidence of a crime.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 06 13 at 11:00 AM • permalinkIt doesn’t matter what you think. The courts have ruled differently.
I’d even go so far as to say that, barring obvious injury to yourself, a bloody chainsaw is evidence of a crime
Oh, what’s the crime? You’re going to have to know that and have the statue when you fill out the paperwork.
Welcome to real life.
Posted by Just Some Poor Schmuck on 2005 06 13 at 04:43 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Kiddin me!! That cant be a real pic!!