Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

reply to post by hawkiye


The cases you are citing have nothing to do with freedom of movement inside or across state lines. They deal with the ability to travel unlicensed.

Defcon is correct and I agree with him. You have a constitutionally protected right to travel within and across state lines. The method of travel is not protected.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
It is all legal...in the guise of..."We are conducting an investigation". Thats all they need. Judges will agree with their rights to detain you.

Just remember that all Hitler did while in power was "legal" too. You can cram your "it is legal" mumbo jumbo up your ass as far as I'm concerned.

Consent = legal...

you can jam your ignorance and refusal to acknowledge that fact up yours....

Originally posted by Thunderheart
Police departments need pre-hire IQ testing.

They have it already. It's just not for the reason you would think.

Our contributing LEO draws the line at the truth of the matter....If every vehicle search was
conducted with the consent of the occupants...every vehicle search was legal.

As for the hand-cuffs....

A cursory pat-down, necessary to establish that the person had no weapons should have sufficed.

And in this particular case a quick pat-down should have been the prime directive of the LEO's at the scene.
They were looking for an unknown, and armed suspect, after all.

______


As for the TSA

It is perfectly legal for a business entity to conduct personal searches of potential customers for whatever
they choose before allowing patrons access to their service. Bouncers routinely frisk nightclub
patrons all across America before allowing them entry.

And an airline enjoys that some privilege to protect their business from harm...it is perfectly legal.
If you do not like their policy, you can simply refuse to use their service.

The federal government, however, has no clear constitutional authority to search anyone, anywhere
without probable cause or clear legal warrant. It is not in the governments purview of authority to
conduct searches for private industry.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again please do some esearch and learn the law and your rights and how they apply and are affected before making an accusation that is not true.

I am really sick of hearing in a free country that I need to do research of the law and learn what my rights are and are not.

How is this a free country with thousands of laws on the books and people like you (drones) to uphold them?

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again please do some esearch and learn the law and your rights and how they apply and are affected before making an accusation that is not true.

I am really sick of hearing in a free country that I need to do research of the law and learn what my rights are and are not.

How is this a free country with thousands of laws on the books and people like you (drones) to uphold them?

Speaking of lazy drones... A free country is not "free". I wish you and some of the others would learn that. Its your civic duty to know whats going on with your government at all levels. Its not my job to educate you on them however I post the information so you know because based on the responses by some its apparent some are just clueless.

You want it... earn it. Im tired of people demanding others do the work for them. You wanting to take me to task for knowing the law while at the same time you being ignorant of those very laws is the problem. If you don't know how can you claim there is a problem?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Consent = legal...

Not at gunpoint it is not. I know...I know...we were not there to see it. The dashboard cam will sudenly get "lost". The law states.....blah, blah, blah, excuse, excuse, excuse.....

Again, I will state to you Mr. Policeman. SHOVE YOUR LAWS........

"Everything Hilter did while in power was legal"

"The United States of America was founded by people who were sick of the law"

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

See supreme court rulings in my post just above that extend from terry.

This is the problem, out of control government, we have slowly allowed them to make acts such as this "lawful".

We are not headed towards a police state, we have arrived.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by hawkiye

 

The cases you are citing have nothing to do with freedom of movement inside or across state lines. They deal with the ability to travel unlicensed.

Defcon is correct and I agree with him. You have a constitutionally protected right to travel within and across state lines. The method of travel is not protected.

Really so where do any of those cases restrict such movment?

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

If it is a right and not a mere privilege that is a common law right to life liberty and property I am curios as to how you come up with the absurd idea that it is limited to licensing even though it clearly states it is about travel on the public highways...

Where in the constitution is it specifically delegated authority to restrict the method of travel? Let me break it down for you

Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since nowhere in the constitution is it delegated authority to restrict the method of travel it is left to the people. There that is not so hard to see now is it...

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Not at gunpoint it is not. I know...I know...we were not there to see it. The dashboard cam will sudenly get "lost". The law states.....blah, blah, blah, excuse, excuse, excuse.....

again were you there?

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Again, I will state to you Mr. Policeman. SHOVE YOUR LAWS........

ignorance for the win....

Originally posted by HandyDandy
"Everything Hilter did while in power was legal"

When in doubt, invoke hitler.. Do you do this to hide the fact you have no idea what you are talking about or?

Here is an idea you should try... If I am wrong and you are right, then by all means support your position with case law, supreme court rulings etc etc etc... Simply yelling hitler doesnt work.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Right, have you EVER been detained in a situation like this? Its understandable why the cops had their guns out and ready. There were innocents around and the perp was armed. At any moment he could have fired off shots and the police need to neutralize as quick as possible. They don't have time to play quick draw here.

Yea, because the police PUT THEM in that situation.

There would never have been a situation where the "innocents" were in danger if the police hadn't blocked the intersection and created a scene.

But hey, cognitive dissonance, diffusion of responsibility and all that. Whatever the police do is "fate" and unchangeable.

meh nvm.. not worth my time...

Feel free to continue complaining over something while continuing to ignore the facts. Someone shoot me a U2U if anyone of the 18 people stopped at the checkpoint file a lawsuit.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Here is an idea you should try... If I am wrong and you are right, then by all means support your position with case law, supreme court rulings etc etc etc... Simply yelling hitler doesnt work.

Here's an Idea......

When I state I have no use for your draconian laws, I am stating I have no use for case law, supreme court rulings etc etc etc.

Can your simple "law, law, law" mind wrap around that for a second?

Case law: Everything Hitler did while in power was lawful. Yeah it does work for my argument, but a blind copper wouldn't realize that would he?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
meh nvm.. not worth my time...

Feel free to continue complaining over something while continuing to ignore the facts. Someone shoot me a U2U if anyone of the 18 people stopped at the checkpoint file a lawsuit.

edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Typical Leo when truth is presented that destroys his thug paradigm arguments he bows out... Good riddance!

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Xcathdra
meh nvm.. not worth my time...

Feel free to continue complaining over something while continuing to ignore the facts. Someone shoot me a U2U if anyone of the 18 people stopped at the checkpoint file a lawsuit.

edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Typical Leo when truth is presented that destroys his thug paradigm arguments he bows out... Good riddance!

Just don't take it out on the next "perp" you encounter please..........

Originally posted by rival
Our contributing LEO draws the line at the truth of the matter....If every vehicle search was
conducted with the consent of the occupants...every vehicle search was legal.

Define consent. Really, do it.

In this case, everyone was coerced. If you are stopped, held at gunpoint by dozens of police, and "asked" to have your vehicle searched, are you going to "consent"?

What happens, pray tell, in a situation like that and you decide you don't want to "consent". God only knows. You run the risk of hoping the officer you are dealing with is not a hot head and is reasonable. So you "consent" for your safety, because you are afraid the police might escalate your situation.

That is not consent, it is coercion.

This newspeak is BS and I cannot believe you people.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
meh nvm.. not worth my time...

Feel free to continue complaining over something while continuing to ignore the facts. Someone shoot me a U2U if anyone of the 18 people stopped at the checkpoint file a lawsuit.

Take a look in the mirror.

Just because you disagree with the premise of the arguments, does not make your arguments "facts". I would love to see undeniable evidence that all of these people were not coerced. I would love to see them voluntarily stopping, not being held at gunpoint, and not being pressured.

I would also like someone to explain to me with confidence, and not doublespeak, that these people were then not placed in serious danger because the police corralled them in an area with a known dangerous suspect. It is my argument that the police were less concerned about the safety of their lives, and more concerned with making a high-profile arrest as soon as possible. "Safety" being the premise of those arguing for it... it just doesn't make sense.

People keep arguing that it would have been somehow "disastrous" if the perp fled the scene and "got away". As if it would have been extremely dangerous, more so than the situation thrust upon the "detained". Perps "flee the scene" all the time, it's nothing new. The suspects have little motive in the near future to actually "put people in danger" once they get away. Their only motive is to flee, since they've already committed the crime. However, the perp would have motive to start opening fire in a crowded area if he is pinned, which is what happened in this scenario and something the police "disregarded" in light of being able to make a quick arrest "for safety reasons".

In fact, it's procedure in many cases to actually allow the perp to "flee" so as not to escalate the pursuit into a "high-speed" chase that 95% of the time ends up with people dead or critically injured. That's usually up to the officers on the scene, and I applaud those that make such split-decisions in the face of endangering more lives instead of trying to get an arrest.

Also, I've argued many cases with you over the years Xcath. Why do you always pressure people into being quiet, and "waiting" for more to the story, when there is plenty to discuss right now. I'm of the opinion that cases involved with the police are drawn out and internal investigations are held 'at length' with the hope being the people will forget about it and/or become complacent.

Why am I expected to "shut up and be patient", when the police are not expected to do the same.

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by rival
Our contributing LEO draws the line at the truth of the matter....If every vehicle search was
conducted with the consent of the occupants...every vehicle search was legal.

Define consent. Really, do it.

In this case, everyone was coerced. If you are stopped, held at gunpoint by dozens of police, and "asked" to have your vehicle searched, are you going to "consent"?

What happens, pray tell, in a situation like that and you decide you don't want to "consent". God only knows. You run the risk of hoping the officer you are dealing with is not a hot head and is reasonable. So you "consent" for your safety, because you are afraid the police might escalate your situation.

That is not consent, it is coercion.

This newspeak is BS and I cannot believe you people.

.
I agree with you..

But, we don't know the circumstances or the extent of coercion..,

A policeman, ten feet away, with a shotgun to your face, demanding to be allowed to search
your vehicle is coercion....

In fact any situation where an officers gun is drawn compels instant compliance, be it an order to
lie face down or a request to search a vehicle. It's a case for the courts to decide...That is if someone
decides to bring charges.

Right now all we know is that a bunch of people's rights were violated.....and they all consented to it.

reply to post by rival


Consenting to search, especially on the road.. is a very shaky, controversial matter. I really don't have a problem with people being detained or searched if they meet valid descriptions, and the crime is serious enough. That is police work after all.

However, it starts listing into the absurd, so obviously, when a large group of people are detained and searched in broad daylight, at an intersection.

So yes, I think it was very wrong to do so, for reasons argued ad nauseum in this thread. I have more of an issue with the way it was conducted, and how they placed everyone in danger at the scene. Jean Paul posted a "Greeley Gazette" article where the writer exclaimed, "How different this story would have been if the suspect decided to go out in a blaze of gunfire." How different indeed.

The perp is not going to randomly stop once he flees, to go on a killing spree. After all, he did indeed escape as they had no description of him whatsoever. He would have disappeared and the police would have followed up with an investigation. So it was more about "making the arrest", and NOT about making a situation safe "as soon as possible" or whatever that absurd argument is...

reply to post by SyphonX

I would also like someone to explain to me with confidence, and not doublespeak, that these people were then not placed in serious danger because the police corralled them in an area with a known dangerous suspect.

There is no justification for this stop unless the police believed they were dealing with a known hostage
situation.

Then it gets murky...Should police place many innocent people in danger to prevent a felon with a known
hostage from escaping?....I dunno.

But should police put many people in danger to prevent a known bank robber from escaping?

NO...HELL NO