Obey the rules...or jail

[Husky61]

For those of you not familiar with the use of force by law enforcement.

 

All uses of force are measured by standards established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). In the Graham case, the Court instructed lower courts to always ask three questions to measure the lawfulness of a particular use of force. First, what was the severity of the crime that the officer believed the suspect to have committed or be committing? Second, did the suspect present an immediate threat to the safety of officers or the public? Third, was the suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to escape?

[Toofarfromthesea]

What a lot of kerfuffle for a second hand completely unverified story with obvious problems and exaggerations (16 hours in PRISON?).

[PTMary]

What a lot of kerfuffle for a second hand completely unverified story with obvious problems and exaggerations (16 hours in PRISON?).

 

My thoughts exactly, Everyone knows that when a story is told over and over again, it tends to get embellished. The reaction to the first telling inspires more drama at the next, and more the next, and so on. A few minutes being pulled out of a line to answer a couple of questions eventually becomes a 16 hour stint in prison with no explanation of why. The more that people react, the bigger the story becomes to get even bigger reactions. Pure human nature.

 

Kind of like "The fish I caught was thisssssss long."

 

[davekathy]

What a lot of kerfuffle for a second hand completely unverified story with obvious problems and exaggerations (16 hours in PRISON?).

 

...and not telling her why she was being detained.:rolleyes:

[frantic36]

Any possible bruise or skin tear (if they chose to fight the restraints) is still likely preferable to the injuries they could sustain if they were perceived as being combative or resistant by the border agents. Have you never been whacked by an agitated senior? I have, on many occasions.

 

Yes I have been "whacked by an agitated senior". But I am not such a snowflake that I couldn't deal with it in a calm manner and need to resort to handcuffs. I personally prefer to try to deescalate the problem rather then create more tension.

[navybankerteacher]

Yes I have been "whacked by an agitated senior". But I am not such a snowflake that I couldn't deal with it in a calm manner and need to resort to handcuffs. I personally prefer to try to deescalate the problem rather then create more tension.

 

The fact remains: if a properly trained agent detains, for good cause, a person of ANY age and has reason to believe that flight is a reasonable likely hood, the proper performance of his her job may require restraint.

 

Sure, it’s “nice” to be gentle with 80 year olds - but why not 79 year olds - and if 79 is the threshold - why not 78?

 

What is the real difference between ageism and racism? If detention is indicated, it is indicated.

[CPT Trips]

Secondary is a secure enough area that one does not just up and leave. Surely handcuffs are not necessary unless the detainee is combative.

[notentirelynormal]

Never mind the rest. Did she say if it was a BA, OV or INT jail cell?

 

She said PRISON......

[Hflors]

Thank you for sharing your story. Maybe HAL should put up big signs in the shop indicating that you can't take cigarretes back into the US. Glad you had an official who explained everything and got your money back -- nice official.

 

You would think HAL would, but I think all HAL is thinking about is selling. And the fact that the notice is "INSIDE" is the worse part. Anyway the official was very nice after he realized that I had done it not knowing what can happen bringing the cigarettes in the country. Lesson learned. Anyway all's well that ends well!!

[DirtyDawg]

Never mind the rest. Did she say if it was a BA, OV or INT jail cell?

 

LOL Thanks for the laugh.:D

 

She said PRISON......

 

You too. :D

[wishIweretravelling]

Secondary is a secure enough area that one does not just up and leave. Surely handcuffs are not necessary unless the detainee is combative.

 

It sounds like the handcuffs came in when she was moved from secondary to detention. At that point, handcuffs are SOP.

[dsrdsrdsr]

The fact remains: if a properly trained agent detains, for good cause, a person of ANY age and has reason to believe that flight is a reasonable likely hood, the proper performance of his her job may require restraint.

 

Sure, it’s “nice” to be gentle with 80 year olds - but why not 79 year olds - and if 79 is the threshold - why not 78?

 

What is the real difference between ageism and racism? If detention is indicated, it is indicated.

That's the bit you're struggling to understand, I think. You're working on the basis that these old people are going to up sticks and run away from the guards. I'm working on the basis that an old person, by and large, is not physically capable of running away from the guards. This is why I asked if you had ever known any old people.

[sloopsailor]

That's the bit you're struggling to understand, I think. You're working on the basis that these old people are going to up sticks and run away from the guards. I'm working on the basis that an old person, by and large, is not physically capable of running away from the guards. This is why I asked if you had ever known any old people.

 

Depends on the older person. My dad passed away at 93. Even in his early 80s he would play basketball at family outings, doing a pretty good job keeping up with everyone younger than him. My mother daily rode her bike for several miles until she was in her mid 80s, and enjoyed nature hikes until her death at 89. Both of them could have given the typical TSA employee a run for their money in a race for the exit.

 

We have no idea of how fit or feeble that woman was. Monday night quarterbacking is useless in this case since we have almost zero facts to base our opinions on. For that reason, I am deferring to the officials who were actually dealing with the situation to make the appropriate decisions, not a bunch of "keyboard experts" using their imaginations to form their opinions.

Edited November 9, 2017 by sloopsailor

[navybankerteacher]

That's the bit you're struggling to understand, I think. You're working on the basis that these old people are going to up sticks and run away from the guards. I'm working on the basis that an old person, by and large, is not physically capable of running away from the guards. This is why I asked if you had ever known any old people.

 

Yes, I do know "old people". I also know that old people can sometimes be trouble. Sure - a 52 year-old can most probably outrun an 80 year-old -- but what will he do when he catches her? Grabbing her in any way which is sure to stop her, and then bringing her back, is likely to wrench an arm, leg or shoulder - or otherwise cause her more harm than she would cause herself if she had been carefully handcuffed.

 

Working on the assumption that there is good reason to detain a person, common sense dictates that said person should be kept detained than given the chance to make a dash. Sometimes good reason has to take precedence to playing nice.

[dsrdsrdsr]

Yes, I do know "old people". I also know that old people can sometimes be trouble. Sure - a 52 year-old can most probably outrun an 80 year-old -- but what will he do when he catches her? Grabbing her in any way which is sure to stop her, and then bringing her back, is likely to wrench an arm, leg or shoulder - or otherwise cause her more harm than she would cause herself if she had been carefully handcuffed.

If the security guard has enough sprinting speed to catch up with an old lady, then perhaps also he or she will have enough stamina to run on a yard or two in front and stand in front of her? You see, many of these old people are not only slower than they used to be, they're also less agile and less able to dodge.

 

Of course, if your guards are too thick to work that out for themselves, then you will need the cruel and heartless types who handcuff anything that moves. But I would suggest that as long as the guards are not both stupid and heartless - and preferably neither - they should be able to detain the elderly without handcuffs; even if this policy does marginally increase the risk that one person is roaming round the USA with incorrect paperwork.

[dsrdsrdsr]

Depends on the older person. My dad passed away at 93. Even in his early 80s he would play basketball at family outings, doing a pretty good job keeping up with everyone younger than him. My mother daily rode her bike for several miles until she was in her mid 80s, and enjoyed nature hikes until her death at 89. Both of them could have given the typical TSA employee a run for their money in a race for the exit.

 

We have no idea of how fit or feeble that woman was. Monday night quarterbacking is useless in this case since we have almost zero facts to base our opinions on. For that reason, I am deferring to the officials who were actually dealing with the situation to make the appropriate decisions, not a bunch of "keyboard experts" using their imaginations to form their opinions.

And if they had made it to the exit - so what? What exactly is the risk to national security of having one more person in the USA who doesn't have exactly the right paperwork? I'm sure he wouldn't be the first.

 

If an 80 year old is suspected of blowing up buildings, then handcuff them. If they're suspected of having an error in their paperwork, handcuffs is an overreaction.

[navybankerteacher]

I once met a man who told me that he had title to the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

Discuss.

[bUU]

I once met a man who told me that he had title to the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

Discuss.

Indeed. The self-ratifying nonsense people are excreting to rationalize placing their uninformed personal preference over the policies and procedures determined by professionals actually charged by society to protect the public is dizzying.

 

This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors.

[sloopsailor]

And if they had made it to the exit - so what? What exactly is the risk to national security of having one more person in the USA who doesn't have exactly the right paperwork? I'm sure he wouldn't be the first.

 

If an 80 year old is suspected of blowing up buildings, then handcuff them. If they're suspected of having an error in their paperwork, handcuffs is an overreaction.

 

Give it up. You are on the wrong side of this argument. Not sure why you choose a "bleeding heart" position on this. You don't know what actually happened, so your continual defense of the situation is misguided. To continue arguing a side of a situation you have zero actual knowledge about makes your credibility questionable.

[Elaine5715]

For those of you not familiar with the use of force by law enforcement.

 

All uses of force are measured by standards established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). In the Graham case, the Court instructed lower courts to always ask three questions to measure the lawfulness of a particular use of force. First, what was the severity of the crime that the officer believed the suspect to have committed or be committing? Second, did the suspect present an immediate threat to the safety of officers or the public? Third, was the suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to escape?

Homeland Security has much more leeway than the typical LEO.

[GottaKnowWhen]

And if they had made it to the exit - so what? What exactly is the risk to national security of having one more person in the USA who doesn't have exactly the right paperwork? I'm sure he wouldn't be the first.

 

If an 80 year old is suspected of blowing up buildings, then handcuff them. If they're suspected of having an error in their paperwork, handcuffs is an overreaction.

I am not an advocate of the use of force as a solution to problems. While an instructor and graduate student at the university I was accosted one evening (about 2:00am) by Campus Police and thrown against the side of their patrol car and held and yelled at for 5 minutes before they would let me show my ID and explain that I had been working late in my office. I understand excessive force and overreaction. Been there, experienced it.

 

What I don't understand about your series of posts is what age has to do with this question. Why do you think the "elderly" need to be treated differently from "youth"? Do you assume that all "elderly" are weaker? More fragile? Less guilty? I am 73 myself and would love to know whether by your definition I should expect special treatment this year? Next year? Should it have kicked in 8 years ago? Or do I have to wait another 7 years? What is the magic number?

 

Should people be treated with dignity and respect? Absolutely! Should CPB and other law enforcement officers treat suspicious persons with kid gloves, according them the same privileges accorded to important people? Whether they are "elderly" or not. Sure! But that means you need more officers (e.g., one or two extra to stay with a suspect rather than handcuffing the poor dear). Are you willing to pay higher port fees to help pay for better training, increased staffing levels, and better computer systems which will screen the innocent and prevent situations like we have heard described in this thread?

 

Stan

[bUU]

I know a number of people ten and even twenty years older than I who are far more physically capable than I, especially if we are just talking about running away.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[sparks1093]

And if they had made it to the exit - so what? What exactly is the risk to national security of having one more person in the USA who doesn't have exactly the right paperwork? I'm sure he wouldn't be the first.

 

If an 80 year old is suspected of blowing up buildings, then handcuff them. If they're suspected of having an error in their paperwork, handcuffs is an overreaction.

 

And the officers only knew the red flag in the person's record. They knew nothing about their history or anything else. Putting someone in handcuffs when that person is cooperating isn't a violent procedure, it's only when resistance is given that it can become forceful.

[DirtyDawg]

And if they had made it to the exit - so what? What exactly is the risk to national security of having one more person in the USA who doesn't have exactly the right paperwork? I'm sure he wouldn't be the first.

 

If an 80 year old is suspected of blowing up buildings, then handcuff them. If they're suspected of having an error in their paperwork, handcuffs is an overreaction.

 

Give it up. You are on the wrong side of this argument. Not sure why you choose a "bleeding heart" position on this.

 

dsrdsrdsr, You not making much headway with this crowd. May I suggest you write a stern letter to the U.S. CBP outlining why their handcuffing policy for elderly people is an overreaction. I see that you are from Lancashire, so make sure to include your U.K. passport number in the letter. That way, the next time you enter the U.S. a CBP agent can personally demonstrate their procedures for you.:halo:

 

Personally I love the U.S. CBP. They are very professional and wonderful, kind people. Eh! :D

[dsrdsrdsr]

What I don't understand about your series of posts is what age has to do with this question. Why do you think the "elderly" need to be treated differently from "youth"? Do you assume that all "elderly" are weaker? More fragile? Less guilty? I am 73 myself and would love to know whether by your definition I should expect special treatment this year? Next year? Should it have kicked in 8 years ago? Or do I have to wait another 7 years? What is the magic number?

 

Should people be treated with dignity and respect? Absolutely! Should CPB and other law enforcement officers treat suspicious persons with kid gloves, according them the same privileges accorded to important people? Whether they are "elderly" or not. Sure! But that means you need more officers (e.g., one or two extra to stay with a suspect rather than handcuffing the poor dear). Are you willing to pay higher port fees to help pay for better training, increased staffing levels, and better computer systems which will screen the innocent and prevent situations like we have heard described in this thread?

 

Stan

I'm not trying to define "elderly" as a prescriptive age. We all know what old people look like, and some people are old at 70 while others aren't old at 80. Other people (eg. disabled) can have the relevant characteristics of "elderly" in the sense that their bodies don't work as well as they would like. My position is that old people should not, as a matter of course, be handcuffed unless they are a known or likely danger, or they are a serious risk of escaping; especially when their alleged crime is non-violent and trivial. Maybe I'm biased because I have travelled to the USA with my mother and think of her when I'm assessing whether it would be appropriate to handcuff her, if the USA's paperwork was wrong.

 

But for this argument, it's not relevant whether or not the original story is true, because it';s now become about general principles - should old people receive special consideration because they are old, or shouldn't they? I'm firmly in the camp that they should; other people are not.