PDA

View Full Version : Police State 2012



RodSBT
06-05-2012, 12:54 PM
Arrest everybody!


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/headlines/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gifEmail (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/headlines/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gif (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) 60 (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#comments) Smaller Font (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) Larger Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) | Print (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#)

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.
“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.
Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.
“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31148237/detail.html).
From there, the police went from car to car, removing the passengers and handcuffing the adults.
“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”
The search lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect.
“Once officers got to his car, they found evidence that he was who they were looking for,” Fania said. “When they searched the car, they found two loaded firearms.”
The actions of the police have been met with some criticism, but Fania said this was a unique situation that required an unusual response.
“It’s hard to say what normal is in a situation like this when you haven’t dealt with a situation like this,” Fania said. “The result of the whole ordeal is that it paid off. We have arrested and charged a suspect.”
The other people who had been held at the intersection were allowed to leave once the suspect was apprehended.

Glen Longino
06-05-2012, 01:41 PM
A job well done!
Probably prevented further bank robberies or possible deaths at the hands of this scumbag robber!

David W Pratt
06-05-2012, 01:48 PM
"wasn't until the last car was searched"
Well DUH, why would they continue to search after the got the guy?

Glen Longino
06-05-2012, 01:51 PM
"wasn't until the last car was searched"
Well DUH, why would they continue to search after the got the guy?

:D:D

Phillip Allen
06-05-2012, 01:53 PM
"wasn't until the last car was searched"
Well DUH, why would they continue to search after the got the guy?

folks, we have another winner of the 'Duh' award :)

Nicholas Carey
06-05-2012, 02:21 PM
Good job. Perfectly legal, just like a DUI checkpoint — but far more justifiable IMHO, given the "armed and dangerous" nature of the suspect, what sounds like a "hot pursuit" and the severity of the crime.

RodSBT
06-05-2012, 02:39 PM
Good job. Perfectly legal, just like a DUI checkpoint — but far more justifiable IMHO, given the "armed and dangerous" nature of the suspect, what sounds like a "hot pursuit" and the severity of the crime.

Perfectly LEGAL? Go read the constitution and bill of rights, you might be surprised.

SamSam
06-05-2012, 02:52 PM
Perfectly LEGAL? Go read the constitution and bill of rights, you might be surprised.
Not that I disagree, but why don't you just point the violations out?

Glen Longino
06-05-2012, 02:59 PM
Perfectly LEGAL? Go read the constitution and bill of rights, you might be surprised.

Get off your constitution/bill of rights high horse.
The authors never imagined the world we live in, Rod.
If they had, the constitution might read quite differently.
If some psychopath raided your home and caused mayhem with your family, would you feel somewhat differently about the police apprehending him and bringing him to justice?
Yes?
I figgered!

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 03:00 PM
handcuffs. Come on. It doesn't mean they are under arrest.Who knows what might set someone off when arrested.It's for the protection of those involved. If those handcuffed have nothing to hide, the handcuffs come off.A harmless way to avoid a potential problem.

RodSBT
06-05-2012, 03:01 PM
Not that I disagree, but why don't you just point the violations out?

This pretty much says it all:

"Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.
“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, ...."

Couldn't be anymore obvious.

RodSBT
06-05-2012, 03:05 PM
handcuffs. Come on. It doesn't mean they are under arrest.Who knows what might set someone off when arrested.It's for the protection of those involved. If those handcuffed have nothing to hide, the handcuffs come off.A harmless way to avoid a potential problem.

Yep, scrap the fourth amendment, it doesn't mean anything.
We should accept whatever law enforcement deems "a potential problem" and through away our rights.

RodSBT
06-05-2012, 03:07 PM
Get off your constitution/bill of rights high horse.
The authors never imagined the world we live in, Rod.
If they had, the constitution might read quite differently.
If some psychopath raided your home and caused mayhem with your family, would you feel somewhat differently about the police apprehending him and bringing him to justice?
Yes?
I figgered!

Glenn, you have no idea what the founders were dealing with do you?

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 03:13 PM
I am one cop looking for several thieves that may be armed. You stop them, but until back up arrives. You sit there and think, Do I abide by the 4th amendment in this case or do I restrain them so no one gets hurt. Does anyone still have a gun? Gee, I don't know. How is their aim? Ummm tough choice.

Tom Hunter
06-05-2012, 03:21 PM
The stop may be acceptable, but handcuffing innocent people does not make the police or the bystanders safer. Places where the police can handcuff innocent people are by definition less safe than places where the police have to respect the liberty of the innocent.

RodSBT
06-05-2012, 03:23 PM
I am one cop looking for several thieves that may be armed. You stop them, but until back up arrives. You sit there and think, Do I abide by the 4th amendment in this case or do I restrain them so no one gets hurt. Does anyone still have a gun? Gee, I don't know. How is their aim? Ummm tough choice.

Ah..Ailrie, as a cop you swore an oath to do just this "..I abide by the 4th amendment in this case..".

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 03:25 PM
How do you know they are innocent? Did you ask them first?Better yet, did you believe them when they told you?

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 03:26 PM
So getting shot then is okay?

John of Phoenix
06-05-2012, 03:28 PM
AAAAAANNNND, we're off!

Glen Longino
06-05-2012, 03:29 PM
Glenn, you have no idea what the founders were dealing with do you?

Yes, I do, Rodd!

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 03:29 PM
Nope. It is not worth debating

Glen Longino
06-05-2012, 03:33 PM
Nope. It is not worth debating

I suspect you're right, Jamie!

2MeterTroll
06-05-2012, 03:34 PM
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


link to the paper: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 03:40 PM
I see nothing about restraining a man/woman, who is stopped for an infraction to be restrained until they have been identified, have no weapons or warrants, etc. In fact, there is nothing about handcuffs in what you wrote.

John of Phoenix
06-05-2012, 03:40 PM
If a cop asks permission to search a car and it's given, that's fine, it's a legal search. I can't imagine many folks gave permission to be cuffed.

John of Phoenix
06-05-2012, 03:42 PM
who is stopped for an infraction What infraction would that be? Stopped at a traffic light is legal just about everywhere.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 03:42 PM
No, They want access to that gun in their waist band or underpants. Might come in handy.

hanleyclifford
06-05-2012, 05:12 PM
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


link to the paper: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4 The operative word here is "unreasonable". If one of the innocent "handcuffedees" brought a legal complaint this might be an interesting case.

Phillip Allen
06-05-2012, 05:19 PM
No, They want access to that gun in their waist band or underpants. Might come in handy.
what gun, Jamie?

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 06:14 PM
I'm using a gun as an example of something that could easily be hidden Phillip. Say in a waist band. Easily reached without some restraints.Has anyone heard of CYA? As far as probable cause to stop someone, there are plenty. Stopped at a red light isn't one, but running a red light would be.

Phillip Allen
06-05-2012, 06:57 PM
I'm using a gun as an example of something that could easily be hidden Phillip. Say in a waist band. Easily reached without some restraints.Has anyone heard of CYA? As far as probable cause to stop someone, there are plenty. Stopped at a red light isn't one, but running a red light would be.

so, any moving traffic violation (real of percieved) should be attended with restraints on the driver and passengers? There's always a bank robbery going on somewhere...

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2012, 07:05 PM
Not at all.As usual, people here make crazy, inaccurate, and often wrong assumptions. Reading what you did, I can almost make the assumption that you have joined a majority that do on the forum. Are you becoming a raving lib by chance Phillip?

John Smith
06-05-2012, 07:10 PM
Perfectly LEGAL? Go read the constitution and bill of rights, you might be surprised.
Why is this any different than treating every passenger for a plane as a possible terrorist?


Seems a different set of standards. Search every passenger without a hint of a terrorist being in the vicinity, but knowing there's a bank robber in the area we concern ourselves with the 4th amendment.

I don't get it.

John Smith
06-05-2012, 07:12 PM
Isn't this just an over zealous road block?

RodSBT
06-05-2012, 08:27 PM
Why is this any different than treating every passenger for a plane as a possible terrorist?


Seems a different set of standards. Search every passenger without a hint of a terrorist being in the vicinity, but knowing there's a bank robber in the area we concern ourselves with the 4th amendment.

I don't get it.


I agree. TSA molestation is no different.

Phillip Allen
06-05-2012, 08:36 PM
Not at all.As usual, people here make crazy, inaccurate, and often wrong assumptions. Reading what you did, I can almost make the assumption that you have joined a majority that do on the forum. Are you becoming a raving lib by chance Phillip?


I’ve always been a liberal thinker... that is what annoys me about those who claim to be liberals... intolerance is the hallmark of their thinking

Gerarddm
06-05-2012, 11:10 PM
Isn't the test 'probable cause'?

Did a tip qualify as that?

hokiefan
06-05-2012, 11:20 PM
I really have a problem with the whole handcuffing everyone thing. And I would have refused to let them search my car. Where do you think that would've gotten me? I understand the police's dilema, but I don't like their solution.

Bobby

skuthorp
06-06-2012, 04:04 AM
I am pulled both ways on this one. On one hand it intercepted two armed offenders peacefully, but the precedent could be used by unscrupulous law enforcement to less palatable effect. And by inference it could be interpreted as a big increase in unwarranted police powers.

Peter Kalshoven
06-06-2012, 05:51 AM
A few points of logic. (Sorry to interject that into this issue, but it's what I do.)

The TSA is NOT a valid comparison. You CHOOSE to allow the TSA to search you. It is a condition of flying in an airplane today. If you do not want to allow it, don't fly. Driving in an automobile is not giving permission to the police to restrain you.

I doubt a judge would uphold the concept of Probable Cause based on a “reliable” tip where “We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything." What if they had conducted a door to door search, handcuffing everyone they met, because they had a tip that the robber was on the "west side of town." The end does not justify the means. (Proof: if they hadn't found the robber, would you be so quick to excuse the actions of the police?)

If a common citizen got you out of your car, and handcuffed you, and held you for an hour and a half, I believe that there would be some charges issued. The police have no more right to do that then you do.

How do I know that they were innocent? Because, unless something has changed that I haven't heard about in the USA, a basic tenant of law is that everyone "is innocent until proven guilty." That doesn't mean everyone unless the police have a "reliable tip." Even the man they arrested is, by law, innocent until tried and convicted.

If I was taken from my car, handcuffed and forced to stand for an hour and a half, I would be in quite a bit of pain. (Bad shoulder, bad knee, bad ankle.) I would also have a pretty good lawyer. And I would not have given permission to enter or search my car, so who knows how long they would have kept me.

What would the founders have said? "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, where are you when we need you?

S.V. Airlie
06-06-2012, 08:06 AM
Peter. I'm not advocating handcuffs for everyone. I'm not advocating handcuffs for minor traffic offenses; speeding. Most here probably have been stopped at some point and no cuffs were used.I'm not advocating handcuffs being put on anyone for as you say an hour.
Using the op has the basis of what I w3as referring to; Bank robbers who for all one knows may have been armed. The police were searching for them.So, you are one cop. You come up to a car with three occupants.Knowing bank robbers were on the loose, how do you protect yourself. How do you protect them. These people maybe innocent and you won't know.

S.V. Airlie
06-06-2012, 08:37 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop

John of Phoenix
06-06-2012, 09:54 AM
Update:

DENVER -- Aurora police stopped dozens of cars and pulled out their drivers at gunpoint looking for a bank robbery suspect Saturday afternoon. Police said an armed man robbed a Wells Fargo bank on E. Hampden Avenue and S. Chambers Road and fled. Police tracked the robber to the intersection of E. Iliff Avenue and S. Buckley Road. Responding officers barricaded the area, trapping about 25 cars near the intersection. Then police went car by car and pulled out each occupant at gunpoint and handcuffed them. "Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car," said Sonya Romero, who was one of the drivers handcuffed. "We all got cuffed until they figured out who did what." Ben Barker watched the ordeal and told 7NEWS police were armed with shot guns and rifles. "We didn't know if we were in the line of fire or what the hell was happening," Romero said. Eventually police came to a white Ford Expedition and arrested the driver. Police have not released the suspect's name. The other drivers were then released. The whole ordeal lasted about two hours.

Video of the event - FBI and dozens of local police officers: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/31148175/index.html

2MeterTroll
06-06-2012, 10:06 AM
At gun point no less. Ahhh i cant wait for the litigation to start its going to be fun to hear the pigs sqeeel as the law hammers them into the dirt.

2MeterTroll
06-06-2012, 11:37 AM
good wish.




What would the founders have said? "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, where are you when we need you?

PhaseLockedLoop
06-06-2012, 01:33 PM
A few points of logic. (Sorry to interject that into this issue, but it's what I do.)

The TSA is NOT a valid comparison. You CHOOSE to allow the TSA to search you. It is a condition of flying in an airplane today. If you do not want to allow it, don't fly. Driving in an automobile is not giving permission to the police to restrain you.

I doubt a judge would uphold the concept of Probable Cause based on a “reliable” tip where “We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything." What if they had conducted a door to door search, handcuffing everyone they met, because they had a tip that the robber was on the "west side of town." The end does not justify the means. (Proof: if they hadn't found the robber, would you be so quick to excuse the actions of the police?)

If a common citizen got you out of your car, and handcuffed you, and held you for an hour and a half, I believe that there would be some charges issued. The police have no more right to do that then you do.

How do I know that they were innocent? Because, unless something has changed that I haven't heard about in the USA, a basic tenant of law is that everyone "is innocent until proven guilty." That doesn't mean everyone unless the police have a "reliable tip." Even the man they arrested is, by law, innocent until tried and convicted.

If I was taken from my car, handcuffed and forced to stand for an hour and a half, I would be in quite a bit of pain. (Bad shoulder, bad knee, bad ankle.) I would also have a pretty good lawyer. And I would not have given permission to enter or search my car, so who knows how long they would have kept me.

What would the founders have said? "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, where are you when we need you?



Thanks for this post. You've saved me a lot of tooth-gnashing time during which I'd have tried to formulate a similar one.

bobbys
06-06-2012, 05:54 PM
A job well done!
Probably prevented further bank robberies or possible deaths at the hands of this scumbag robber!..

You saw nothing wrong with this?

Well now i believe you when you said you used to be a cop...:D

Glen Longino
06-06-2012, 06:29 PM
..

You saw nothing wrong with this?

Well now i believe you when you said you used to be a cop...:D

I never said I saw nothing wrong with it.
Fact is, I do see something wrong with it.
The primary wrong is that a sociopathic felon robbed a bank and fled the scene in the midst of innocent citizens like you and was stopped by a traffic light.
Too bad you were not on the scene in your car and the desperate felon jumped out of his car and into yours and held you and your family hostage at gunpoint.
Then perhaps you would be more tolerant of a quick thinking policeman. It's all too easy for a Regressive Troglodytic Roofer to second guess those who risk themselves for the sake of inappreciative Troglodytes like yourself.
Hell, I've saved more than one person's life who, from emarassment at having gotten themselves into such a sorry predicament, cursed me.
Your kind of silliness is nothing new to me!:D

Phillip Allen
06-06-2012, 07:43 PM
stop0 digging, Glen

Glen Longino
06-06-2012, 08:05 PM
Suck eggs, Phillip!

bobbys
06-06-2012, 08:05 PM
I never said I saw nothing wrong with it.
Fact is, I do see something wrong with it.
The primary wrong is that a sociopathic felon robbed a bank and fled the scene in the midst of innocent citizens like you and was stopped by a traffic light.
Too bad you were not on the scene in your car and the desperate felon jumped out of his car and into yours and held you and your family hostage at gunpoint.
Then perhaps you would be more tolerant of a quick thinking policeman. It's all too easy for a Regressive Troglodytic Roofer to second guess those who risk themselves for the sake of inappreciative Troglodytes like yourself.
Hell, I've saved more than one person's life who, from emarassment at having gotten themselves into such a sorry predicament, cursed me.
Your kind of silliness is nothing new to me!:D.

Thank you Officer comrade glenn.

I promise to be a good citizen .

Your Speech has inspired me to listen to Law Enforcement Officers when commanded..

In the Future i will be Appreciative of being Cuffed and will reward the Officer with cheerful comments.

Hail Oceania!.:D

Glen Longino
06-06-2012, 08:26 PM
.

Thank you Officer comrade glenn.

I promise to be a good citizen .

Your Speech has inspired me to listen to Law Enforcement Officers when commanded..

In the Future i will be Appreciative of being Cuffed and will reward the Officer with cheerful comments.

Hail Oceania!.:D

:DMay your and Phillip's nearest felons show up on your doorsteps and you call 911 and nobody shows up!:D

Phillip Allen
06-06-2012, 09:15 PM
you love me; I can tell
Suck eggs, Phillip!

Glen Longino
06-06-2012, 09:21 PM
you love me; I can tell

:DThere's just something about self-righteous, bloated, anarchist Arkies that I find compelling!
Call me a Humanitarian!:D
BTW...you're much more honest, loveable, and less devious and sneaky than that underhanded bobbys critter. IMO!

Peter Kalshoven
06-07-2012, 06:44 AM
Glen, honest question. You obviously feel that the cops were justified. So, based on that justifications, if the bystanders sue, will the judge agree with you that this was legal? More importantly, when the defendant's attorney argues that the evidence was acquired through an illegal search, will the judge agree, and throw out the case?
Really, in your experience, what do you see happening?

Tom Hunter
06-07-2012, 07:40 AM
Glenn, your basing you defense of the mass handcuffing of innocent people around the idea of a primary wrong and the assumption that a mass handcuffing fixes it.

There is no primary wrong in this case. There are a bunch of innocent people who never did anything wrong. There happens to be a person who robbed a bank, and there are a bunch of police officers who are also doing something wrong.

The robber should not rob the bank.

The police should not handcuff and detain innocent people.

Both things are wrong, they are both clearly, undeniably wrong, and neither one should happen, ever. Under the US constitution there is no defense of robbing banks or handcuffing and detaining innocent people.

Dan McCosh
06-07-2012, 08:35 AM
I think this was a typical police blockade situation, where the procedure got out of hand. Not to defend the action, but it seems as if the police were improvising in an unusual situation, probably thinking the robber would take off while they were doing the car search. Innocent people are always detained in a blockade.

Phillip Allen
06-07-2012, 09:48 AM
I think this was a typical police blockade situation, where the procedure got out of hand. Not to defend the action, but it seems as if the police were improvising in an unusual situation, probably thinking the robber would take off while they were doing the car search. Innocent people are always detained in a blockade.


Innocent people are always handcuffed (a form of imprisonment) in a blockade?

Phillip Allen
06-07-2012, 09:52 AM
if anyone (not the bankrobber) had resisted being handcuffed, what would have happened to him/her?

Dan McCosh
06-07-2012, 10:17 AM
Innocent people are always handcuffed (a form of imprisonment) in a blockade? No. They are always detained, often searched. That's what a blockade is.

AussieBarney
06-07-2012, 07:08 PM
handcuffs. Come on. It doesn't mean they are under arrest.Who knows what might set someone off when arrested.It's for the protection of those involved. If those handcuffed have nothing to hide, the handcuffs come off.A harmless way to avoid a potential problem.
BS, Jamie and you bloody know it. Even here in Australia I have the right to stand unmolested by the jackbooted thugs who call themselves cops. They want to catch crims they can do it without handcuffing people. If I was at that incident. Gawd help the cop who handcuffed me with out "Reasonable cause" his employer would be funding my retirement. the fact that a bank robber is on the loose is not Reasonable cause in my books.
The rightwing always uses the old saw about"Nothing to hide" I have plenty to hide and all people have a right to go about their bussiness without being assaulted by some cop high on steroids.

hokiefan
06-07-2012, 07:52 PM
You know what, if they really think I robbed the bank (maybe the robber was dressed like me or something) I would be a bit annoyed and flustered about being handcuffed. But I would get over it. In this case, they KNEW they were handcuffing ~20 cars worth of completely innocent people. They chose to treat innocent people badly and in my mind illegally. That is is just not right.

Bobby

Glen Longino
06-07-2012, 08:08 PM
Glen, honest question. You obviously feel that the cops were justified. So, based on that justifications, if the bystanders sue, will the judge agree with you that this was legal? More importantly, when the defendant's attorney argues that the evidence was acquired through an illegal search, will the judge agree, and throw out the case?
Really, in your experience, what do you see happening?

That's a thoughtful question, Peter!
And I'm tempted to give you a thoughtful answer, but after reading this thread, I have to say that I wish the cops had not inconvenienced those innocent people, and the felonious armed robber had escaped, and as armed felons do, he had robbed another bank where Phillip Allen, Aussie Barney, and bobbys were standing at the cashier's counter with a pistola in their face and pissing their pants on the video!;)

Phillip Allen
06-07-2012, 08:41 PM
That's a thoughtful question, Peter!
And I'm tempted to give you a thoughtful answer, but after reading this thread, I have to say that I wish the cops had not inconvenienced those innocent people, and the felonious armed robber had escaped, and as armed felons do, he had robbed another bank where Phillip Allen, Aussie Barney, and bobbys were standing at the cashier's counter with a pistola in their face and pissing their pants on the video!;)

so you believe that the end justifies the means

Glen Longino
06-07-2012, 08:55 PM
Glenn, your basing you defense of the mass handcuffing of innocent people around the idea of a primary wrong and the assumption that a mass handcuffing fixes it.

There is no primary wrong in this case. There are a bunch of innocent people who never did anything wrong. There happens to be a person who robbed a bank, and there are a bunch of police officers who are also doing something wrong.

The robber should not rob the bank.

The police should not handcuff and detain innocent people.

Both things are wrong, they are both clearly, undeniably wrong, and neither one should happen, ever. Under the US constitution there is no defense of robbing banks or handcuffing and detaining innocent people.

I can't muster a good argument against your reasoning, Tom!
If the armed felon running loose among the citizens at the traffic light does not bother them, why should he bother me?
That's the reason I quit being a policeman...the citizens were as much my enemy as the felons were...and other policemen!
I could write a book about the intrigue that goes on among policemen themselves without the citizens or the felons!
Ah, the memories!:D

Peter Kalshoven
06-07-2012, 09:33 PM
That's a thoughtful question, Peter!
And I'm tempted to give you a thoughtful answer, but after reading this thread, I have to say that I wish the cops had not inconvenienced those innocent people, and the felonious armed robber had escaped, and as armed felons do, he had robbed another bank where Phillip Allen, Aussie Barney, and bobbys were standing at the cashier's counter with a pistola in their face and pissing their pants on the video!;)

Should I assume, then, that you think that the cops were justified in getting the felon off the street, and that it doesn't matter that the judicial system will throw out the arrest as "tainted fruit" of an illegal search? Or that it doesn't matter that the city of Aurora will shortly be paying out thousands of dollars for unlawful arrests? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, and would really like to know what your thoughtful answer would be.
Feel free to be part of the conversation.

bobbys
06-07-2012, 10:00 PM
That's a thoughtful question, Peter!
And I'm tempted to give you a thoughtful answer, but after reading this thread, I have to say that I wish the cops had not inconvenienced those innocent people, and the felonious armed robber had escaped, and as armed felons do, he had robbed another bank where Phillip Allen, Aussie Barney, and bobbys were standing at the cashier's counter with a pistola in their face and pissing their pants on the video!;).

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac262/bobby53bucket/CIMG6602-1.jpg

Glen Longino
06-07-2012, 10:03 PM
Should I assume, then, that you think that the cops were justified in getting the felon off the street, and that it doesn't matter that the judicial system will throw out the arrest as "tainted fruit" of an illegal search? Or that it doesn't matter that the city of Aurora will shortly be paying out thousands of dollars for unlawful arrests? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, and would really like to know what your thoughtful answer would be.
Feel free to be part of the conversation.

There were no unlawful arrests, were there?
Who was wrongfully arrested? The bank robber?
There may have been unlawful detainments...maybe not.
The judicial system is as far removed from a cop on the street as a dog collar manufacturer is from a coon hound in the woods.
In a perfect world a cop would be part constitutional lawyer, part ER surgeon, part psychoanalyst, and part bulldozer.
How do you know the city of Aurora will be paying out $$$$ to pissed off citizens?
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Iceboy
06-08-2012, 07:18 AM
Jeez Glen, if that is the way you perceive things then it is probably a good thing you are no longer in law enforcement.

I can't muster a good argument against your reasoning, Tom!
If the armed felon running loose among the citizens at the traffic light does not bother them, why should he bother me?
That's the reason I quit being a policeman...the citizens were as much my enemy as the felons were...and other policemen!
I could write a book about the intrigue that goes on among policemen themselves without the citizens or the felons!
Ah, the memories!:D

bobbys
06-08-2012, 09:08 AM
>>>That's the reason I quit being a policeman...the citizens were as much my enemy as the felons were...and other policemen!
I could write a book about the intrigue that goes on among policemen themselves without the citizens or the felons!<<<<.

Heck, thats the way Glenn feels about the Bilge !:d

bobbys
06-08-2012, 09:27 AM
Glenn Questions bank robber suspect.:D

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5gmjxqQBRqo/T9HOMpvt46I/AAAAAAABr-0/6qCf1WyWnDU/s1600/PDJ%2B8%2B%252816%2529.jpg

David W Pratt
06-08-2012, 01:22 PM
I like the forward mounted cooler

switters
06-08-2012, 02:52 PM
NDAA, Patriot act, and yet some of you still argue like we still have a 4th amendment, how cute.

Phillip Allen
06-08-2012, 03:12 PM
NDAA, Patriot act, and yet some of you still argue like we still have a 4th amendment, how cute.

we have it but like laws against robbery, it is being abused

Glen Longino
06-08-2012, 04:37 PM
Class clowns don't do "thoughtful".

Judges don't do "justice", do they, Your Honor?

2MeterTroll
06-08-2012, 06:35 PM
usual suspects, usual arguments.

Peter Kalshoven
06-10-2012, 06:19 PM
There were no unlawful arrests, were there?
Who was wrongfully arrested? The bank robber?
There may have been unlawful detainments...maybe not.

Webster's Legal Dictionary gives us:
Arrest
Definition - Noun
[Middle French arest, from arester to stop, seize, arrest, ultimately from Latin ad to, at + restare to stay]
: the restraining and seizure of a person whether or not by physical force by someone acting under authority (as a police officer) in connection with a crime in such a manner that it is reasonable under the circumstances for the person to believe that he or she is not free to leave
.



How do you know the city of Aurora will be paying out $$$$ to pissed off citizens?
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
Glen, you are a smart guy. You know and I know that there will be lawyers all over this thing, with forty or so citizens handcuffed at gunpoint without probable cause. There were kids in some of the cars.Given the footage I've seen, Aurora will NOT want this to be in front of a jury. They will probably settle, and the reason I say that is that the police already admitted that they had no description whatsoever of the suspect. When a first year law student asks for the "articulable suspicion" that caused cops to handcuff a father with two small children in his car, what will their answer be?

Fess up, Glen. Cops are humans, cops make mistakes sometimes, and the "end justifies the means" is not found in the US Constitution. They reacted on very short notice, and they screwed up.

You really think this search will hold up in court and convict the suspect?

Nicholas Carey
06-11-2012, 02:16 AM
There were no unlawful arrests, were there?
Who was wrongfully arrested? The bank robber?
There may have been unlawful detainments...maybe not.
The judicial system is as far removed from a cop on the street as a dog collar manufacturer is from a coon hound in the woods.
In a perfect world a cop would be part constitutional lawyer, part ER surgeon, part psychoanalyst, and part bulldozer.
How do you know the city of Aurora will be paying out $$$$ to pissed off citizens?
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.


Webster's Legal Dictionary gives us:
Arrest
Definition - Noun
[Middle French arest, from arester to stop, seize, arrest, ultimately from Latin ad to, at + restare to stay]
: the restraining and seizure of a person whether or not by physical force by someone acting under authority (as a police officer) in connection with a crime in such a manner that it is reasonable under the circumstances for the person to believe that he or she is not free to leave
.



Glen, you are a smart guy. You know and I know that there will be lawyers all over this thing, with forty or so citizens handcuffed at gunpoint without probable cause. There were kids in some of the cars.Given the footage I've seen, Aurora will NOT want this to be in front of a jury. They will probably settle, and the reason I say that is that the police already admitted that they had no description whatsoever of the suspect. When a first year law student asks for the "articulable suspicion" that caused cops to handcuff a father with two small children in his car, what will their answer be?

Fess up, Glen. Cops are humans, cops make mistakes sometimes, and the "end justifies the means" is not found in the US Constitution. They reacted on very short notice, and they screwed up.

You really think this search will hold up in court and convict the suspect?

One thing to note: in this country, it is fairly well settled law that you may be, for pretty much any "reasonable" reason, and without charges being brought, arrested and jailed or just held — without charge — or up to 2 or 3 days (dependent upon jurisdiction...and whether or not the time in question spans a weekend).

Given that, and the "hot pursuit" nature of the case, the detainees are unlikely to get much comfort from the courts. You might note that the 4th Amendment uses the term "reasonable".

Hypothetical situation: somebody commits an armed robbery wearing a mask and coveralls. The perpetrator flees, strips off his (her) disguise, and with pursuers pursuing, disappears into a crowd of people. Question: is it "reasonable" for the police to corral the entire crowd and winnow the perpetrator from the the crowd? Does the reasonableness depend on the size of the crowd? The severity of the crime — what if the crime consisted of, say, breaking a window and grabbing a necklace? How about rape or murder?

Settled law holds that one may be detained on "reasonable suspicion" (somewhat less than "probable cause"; more than just suspicion) of a crime. Further, the courts hold that vehicles, being rather mobile, constitute certain exemptions to the 4th amendment. And the big exception is the "emergency/hot pursuit/exigent circumstances" exemption.

I'd say that given the nature of the situation, police in hot pursuit of a bank robbery suspect, detention of 20-some people for an hour and half is justifiable.

Peter Kalshoven
06-11-2012, 07:06 AM
Nicholas, good argument. But from what I understand, and I may be wrong, Reasonable Suspicion must be "articulable". The police have stated that there was a "virtual certainty" that the suspect was at the traffic light. But they have yet to explain why they were so certain. And also, given that they knew that there was ONE suspect, this means that there was a "virtual certainty" that 39 people were innocent. Hard to articulate the suspicion in those cases.

From Wikipedia:
"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[3] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous."

Like I said, I doubt it will ever reach court. The video of a handcuffed father being led away from the cars with scared kids beside him will resonate with a jury. A good lawyer will say, "This could have been YOU. This could have been YOUR kids." I'll bet they quietly settle.

Phillip Allen
06-11-2012, 07:19 AM
because the term 'hot pursuit' has been used I submit that hot pursuit suggests a subject in mind and this doesn't qualify

2MeterTroll
06-11-2012, 07:30 AM
just sounds like a bunch of over zealous jack booted thugs decided to do it the easy way, to me. Wonder how many folks got shoved hard into the cars so the functionaries could handcuff them?

as i said earlier in the thread ths will result in suits and i do hope one or two head for the high court.