Police State 2012

[bobbys]

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!

.

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!.

[Glen Longino]

.

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!.

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

[Phillip Allen]

you love me; I can tell

Suck eggs, Phillip!

[Glen Longino]

you love me; I can tell

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

[Peter Kalshoven]

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]

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]

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]

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]

if anyone (not the bankrobber) had resisted being handcuffed, what would have happened to him/her?

[Dan McCosh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Peter Kalshoven]

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]

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!

.

[Glen Longino]

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]

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!

[bobbys]

>>>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 !

[bobbys]

Glenn Questions bank robber suspect.

[David W Pratt]

I like the forward mounted cooler

[switters]

NDAA, Patriot act, and yet some of you still argue like we still have a 4th amendment, how cute.

[Phillip Allen]

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]

Class clowns don't do "thoughtful".

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

[2MeterTroll]

usual suspects, usual arguments.

[Peter Kalshoven]

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]

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]

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]

because the term 'hot pursuit' has been used I submit that hot pursuit suggests a subject in mind and this doesn't qualify

[2MeterTroll]

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.