Alaska border patrol officer pulls handgun on scout, confiscates camera, detains group.

[TAHAWK]

Assuming it went down as described - boy picture agent gun seizure of camera threats, its fairly ugly.

 

This seems accurate:

Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply.

 

See also: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_ltr_5-14-12.pdf

 

So we have a person acting under color of law depriving a citizen - or two - of his Constitutionally-protected rights by threat of lethal force. That would be a civil wrong and possibly a criminal offense.

 

A Google search of boy scout border canada alaska agent gun camera = 329,000 hits

[RememberSchiff]

A little more precise in this followup report - Customs officer at a port of entry, gun drawn and pointed at scout, the $10K fine was nonsense.

 

http://www.kcci.com/news/boy-scout-f...102496#!bkm97i

 

I think the "civics lesson" for scouts is to take legal and legislative action so this does not happen again to any American. I think the ACLU has a related suit about photo taking. Get the Alaskan and Iowan congressional delegations involved.

[Papadaddy]

The CPB works under Homeland Security, now run by Jeh (rhymes with Meh?) Johnson. Eric Holder doesn't care, as he doesn't about most violations of constitutional rights. I would not let this die...demand an apology or an explanation as to why the scouts' behavior caused the officer to fear for his life which is the only acceptable reason for a law enforcement officer to draw down on an unarmed minor citizen.

[duckfoot]

Four van loads of scouts? I bet the agents were a little out numbered, then you have one of them snapping pictures of the agent, not following orders? How hard is it to just sit there and get through the checkpoint? Not very, yet this troop couldn't seem to do that. Lack of scout leadership on the part of the adults to prepare the boys for this situation. As you guys Monday morning quarterback this, put yourselves in the shoes of those agents.

[packsaddle]

Please, anyone who sees how the border agents were right in their actions, please explain how if you were in their shoes, you would have justified aiming your loaded gun at a boy's head. Please explain how you would feel that this is the proper action and would personally have done the same thing had you been there.

[Peregrinator]

How hard is it to just sit there and get through the checkpoint?

Depends on how long they're sitting there. If they were caught behind a bus or buses they could have been there for quite some time.

 

And packsaddle is quite correct (this might be the first time I've ever written those words, and could very well be the last time!) -- there is zero justification here for a border official to aim a loaded gun at a boy's head.

[packsaddle]

OK, to alleviate Peregrinator of some of his discomfort, lol, I'll note that I haven't actually done anything more than to ask for an explanation. I'm willing to be persuaded, if someone can help out, that it was right and proper to aim that gun at a boy scout. It's just possible that this action WAS in fact in the vital interest of our national security, or was necessary to protect the integrity of our borders from illegal entry by non-citizens. Persuade me.

[CalicoPenn]

Ok Pack, you asked for it - not saying it's right, but I can see a justification. When a vehicle is being searched by customs officer or by a police officer, they will ask you to take down any luggage or equipment in full view of the officer. When someone does it on their own, even if it's just to be helpful, that triggers an almost universal and immediate assumption that the person is going for a weapon which then triggers an instant response - and that response is to pull their gun. It sounds like the Scout thought he might be helpful - but wasn't doing so under the direction of the officer. Overreaction? Perhaps from our perspective or in hindsight but if they weren't really Boy Scouts but were instead a group out to do harm and the officer didn't react as trained and was killed, wouldn't we all be wondering why he didn't think someone might pull a gun on him?

 

I know we don't want to think of it in this way because, well....Boy Scouts, but lets not forget there might be other things at play.

 

So Pack, to answer the question, would I have done the same thing? Given the training, and being assigned to a border where there are likely to be a lot of sportsmen crossing the borders with guns in their vehicles, and given the attitudes of a lot of people in the Norrhwest about "big guvmint" and law enforcement, and knowing to expect the unexpected, then yes, I probably would have done the same thing. I might feel bad about it later, but at the time, I wouldn't feel guilty at all.

 

Of course, chances are pretty good I wouldn't be in that situation in the first place because I don't think I'd make a big issue out of someone taking photographs in the first place - it's not like the border has capability to launch nuclear weapons.

[duckfoot]

As far as justification goes, Calico has the right of it. These officers are trained to react in these situations and it obviously was threatening from their perspective. They have the right to protect their health and safety and this situation escalated to that point.

 

The article does not say anything of the ages of these scouts, but I'm going to bet they are the older ones, going on a three week trip like that. It's a big difference between a ten year old and a seventeen year old. You just can't throw around the word boy like that.

[packsaddle]

So, now that you've pointed the gun at his head, would you really have "been prepared" to pull the trigger? Clearly,as you say, this just might have been a cleverly-disguised terror cell of youthful suicide bombers about to attack...what was the target again?... Alaska....you know...that really well-known and popular target for terrorism. Caribou and moose quiver with fear every day. And lemmings, can't forget those.

 

Incidentally, FYI: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

It was interesting, that part about police being guilty of evidence tampering if they delete a photo.

As far as the word, 'boy' goes, I guess you need to take that one up with the people in Irving, TX.

[RememberSchiff]

Why didn't the Customs border officers have control of the border inspection from the start, e.g., "All those in the vans exit and stand over there with Officer Smith while we check your vehicles."

 

I don't buy the excuse that those with the guns were afraid.

 

BTW, good to see all those videos of Alaska Customs posted by CBP on Youtube.

[TAHAWK]

Civil and criminal.

[CalicoPenn]

Oh sure, Pack - change the parameters of the question after getting an answer - I see how it is

 

The simple answer to "would I be willing to pull the trigger" is that in my training, it was drilled into us over and over again not to pull your weapon unless you were prepared to fire it, so I'd have to say yes, I would be prepare to fire it while hoping I wouldn't have to.

 

But the question to you is, does that scenario make any sense to you at all? At a certain level, training just takes over, no matter what logic seems to suggest.

 

I know - but it's Alaska, why would there be terrorists in Alaska - I don't know - maybe a certain famous pipeling running through the state above ground most of the way from the North Slope, or maybe one of the shipping ports for that particular product. Of course, it's ridiculous on its face to think that a group of presumably mostly white teenage boys could possibly be anything but innocent - maybe I've read too many Southern Poverty Law Center reports and my imagination has gone silly but I can see Alaska as a training ground for supremacist separatist militia groups for survival skills. I know it's not something we think about because again...Boy Scouts, but is it really that hard to believe that there aren't teenagers from supremicist families that might be trained up in militia style?

 

Schiff - good question - why wasn't there better control? Of course, anything we think would be speculation but might I suggest, based on how the news report was worded, that it seems only one of the four vans was detained and it's possible that the people in those vans were under control and it was a Scout from one of the other vans that came by to help. We just don't know though, do we?

[King Ding Dong]

Looks like mistakes were made. Gee, I have never heard of anything like this happening under other Presidents or Attorney Generals. I sure miss the good old days.

[NJCubScouter]

I think it is worth repeating that we don't know all the facts here. Even the two articles that have been posted paint a slighly different picture from each other, especially on the subject of the Scout who had the gun pointed at him. The first article said, "Another of the Scouts was taking luggage from the top of a van to be searched when something startling happened." (The startling thing was that he turned around to find himself looking down the wrong end of a gun.) So he was taking down the luggage to be searched - sounds kind of "authorized", doesn't it. But then we have the second article saying, "Volunteers with the scout convoy said the officer pointed a loaded gun at one of the scouts after he reached for his suitcase without authorization." Ah, WITHOUT authorization. After the first post, I said, "nothing in the article provides any explanation for the officer pulling the gun and pointing at the Scout's head." After the second post, Calico says, well, maybe it's not so clear, and I think we're both right. I still think it is highly unlikely that the agent was justified in pulling his gun, but it's not an absolute certainty. We don't have all the facts, and since the border patrol doesn't seem to be talking, we will continue to have only one side of the story. Or one and a half, after the second article.

 

Speaking of not knowing all the facts, after watching the video (from the first article) I have to wonder whether the council spokesman actually knew about the gun-pulling incident when he gave that interview. He's doing an awful lot of smiling for someone who has just had one of his Scouts stare down a loaded weapon while on a Scouting trip. He clearly regards the whole thing rather lightly. (And someone asked whether his quotes in the article may have been taken out of context; I think that if you look at the video, and see his general attitude and sunny disposition, his quotes seem pretty much right in context.) It is difficult for me to imagine that he knew about the gun part at the time. If he did, I have to wonder whether he is in the right profession.