It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by hawkiye
Ah no I am not wrong the supreme court agrees with me... read em and weep...

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"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.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

You're confusing the right to travel with the right to operate.
You can travel via foot or bike (if there is no side road available), or you can ride as a passenger in someone else's vehicle. You cannot operate a vehicle without complying with state laws. This has been repeatedly upheld by a ton of courts.
Again, because I'm too bust atm to look p other case law:

In City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987): "Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."



Originally posted by hawkiye
I am not granted anything. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS! This is the problem people believe their rights were granted by the constitution THEY WERE NOT! The right to travel, keep and bear arms, free speech etc. etc. existed long before the constitution was ever written. What is granted can be revoked. The bill of rights only illustrated some of the more important UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Do you understand what unalienable rights are?

It also doesn't restrict them from making additional laws and statues that do apply within the framework of the Constitution. Since adding laws to require licensure to operate are legal (they do not impede your right to movement), they do so through licenses. Whether that be your license to drive, or an airlines license to carry passengers.


Originally posted by hawkiye
That means they cannot be alienated from you. They have always existed they are not revokable.

Unless you were born with a car attached to you, then driving is not a God given inalienable right. Walking however is, as you're born with feet.


Originally posted by hawkiye
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this amounts to a take over by coercion and force. Legal does not equal lawful. It is unconstitutional the feds have no constitutional authority to do any such thing!

There is nothing banning the government from requiring licenses to operate specialized equipment, and setting rules that allow such. Would you feel more comfortable with a bunch of alcoholic narcoleptic operating that kind of equipment?
The Constitution gives the government the right to enact laws, btw...

Originally posted by hawkiye
Such measures are a direct cause of decline in passengers causing financial problems as I show below.

Your misrepresenting, or misunderstanding what your quoting.
The first “wiki” article is about a drop in airlines due to the terrorist attacks of 911, not because of new security measures.
The second article does not even contain the text you quoted that I can find, but list numbers factors as the reason, security being only one of many, including among other things, a down economy, and gas prices. The only thing listed about security is issues that its not secure enough (needs to be even more invasive), or that it will cause passenger delays. Whoever you got that article from obviously is using it for an agenda, and didn't even read it themselves.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
It would be interesting to see if one of the detainees decided to bring a charge of "reckless
endangerment" against the police (for placing them in harm's way) instead of Fourth
Amendment violations....I guess that would be criminal though....and would require a DA....nevermind






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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


This thread is alarming, and shows a possible experiment, how people react to a police state mentality. Your posts have been outstanding. With the education system, specifically in the US, failing most of the students, but all people could use a refresher in law. We need to have more than heresay and media representation, but strong understanding of law, and uneliable rights. This should be required all the way up from grade school to graduate.
At least local groups and newsletters/magazine with think tanks for handling all the local abuses of mafia style policing, would be very useful.


edit on 6-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 





No one wants to be searched, however I would give consent for it because i am willing to put up with it for public safety and because otherwise it makes no practical or logical sense to refuse.


Sure, it was an action done for "public safety", using innocent people as suspects to barricade and flush out the armed criminal. Who cares that this Dirty Harry strategy could have gone horribly wrong and the armed robbers pulled a North Hollywood Shootout killing you and several other innocent people, right? Being a sacrificial lamb to the alter is what we should all aspire to be, and in the name of "public safety". Thank-you for your willing - albeit hypothetical - sacrifice.





Right, this is why I cant talk to you. You are always looking down on everyone else who doesn't mindlessly agree with your interpretation of events and motives or indeed, the law itself.



Well it appears you can't talk to him, because he has a complete understanding of what is RS, and also the the law, and you want to disregard all of this. There was no agreement. Once the cuffs were on, and loaded weapons drawn, this was cohersion, and extremely dangerous bullying. Its already been said that one woman's teenager, had a fully loaded firearm pointed at his face/head, and I have 2 teens now. I would be suing beyond belief.

This was not something they agreed to. That is a drastic misuse of that word.

Also, aside from the massive disregard for their entrenched rights, that courts have upheld, and a vague tip of a criminal without any identifying markers is not considered reasonable grounds. Aside from that, this was massive endangerment of the public.

They need to be disciplined, dealt with, so this "experiment" in how much the public will bend over is swiftly brought to a close and hopefully no repeats, hopefully it gets added to the course material required for law enforcement, so things don't go this way again.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Quoted in the ABC News story:


Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip



“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything,


A more perfect example of cop behavior is not to be found.
How can a "tip" that reveals absolutely nothing be considered "reliable" ?

This thinking is what forms the basis of their 'shoot first, ask questions
later' mentality.

The quote from the police chief is hilarious: He sounds like a real genius.
“It’s hard to say what normal is in a situation like this when you haven’t dealt with a situation like this"

He'd make a good politician.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.


Amen. You can bet if the police did NOT do this, and this guy hurt someone else, there would also be a lawsuit.


What about if the guy decided to fight his way out of the situation using the two loaded guns and 18 rounds of ammo and killed 7 innocent people that were detained and handcuffed by police looking for someone that they had no clue who he was?

Lets also not forget, that we don't even know if they caught the "bank robber"... they found a "suspect" based on two guns. Do you know how many people drive with loaded guns at any given time?????.. without having done anything wrong? Was part of the tip "he also has 2 loaded handguns" and that's how they know they've got their guy? NO... they have someone that's possibly innocent of the said crime, but broke a law by having his guns loaded.
edit on 6-6-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Jean Paul I am glad you are here at ATS to counter all the propaganda and nonsense! Good work, it is much appreciated.

------------------

What if the tip turned out wrong and no bad guy was caught? Would this still have been alright with you suck-ups?

------------------

What if an armed bank robber fled into an apartment complex on a "reliable" tip?

By the logic used here the police could seal off the complex and "detain" every resident in handcuffs and then "politely" ask if their apartments could be searched. That would be OK with you guys right? All in the name of catching the bad guy.

Why not shut down an entire city when an amber alert is issued?

This tactic is great! Bad guys will never get away again!!

Not sure if the robber is at the intersection? Just seal off the town search everything and everyone!! No escape!

We don't need detectives we need thousands and thousands of police than can search everywhere at once - leaving no stone unturned! Just imagine nobody could escape or hide again!!

Can't everyone see that the constitution (the 4th amendment) is really just getting in the way of being able to catch the bad guys. If people really want to be safe let the police go anywhere and search anywhere they want! No warrants! Warrants waste time!

I bet any dictator and his thug police could find a bank robber in 1/1000th the amount of time American Law Enforcement could. But don't worry we're catching up!!


Really you people ...






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

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

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

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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

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.


I don't understand what others aren't understanding. Do you think the constitution gives you your rights? It takes a few of your inalienable rights, and allows the government to infringe upon them for the sake of the nation. Not to mention, guessing at future mods of travel would be hard, if they were attempting to list what your choices can be.

There is no list, for what choices you make. Your choice is yours, its your right.

If any court ever finds to the contrary, it has made an unlawful decision, and must be taken down.

The method of traveling didn't have to be protected, it falls under inalienable rights.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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....


Except if consent is obtained after handcuffing with weapons, its not legally considered consent.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
Can the horrid 'newspeak'.

It wasn't by "consent".


I agree. Legally it was probably by "consent", but look at the conditions of the people "consenting":


“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said.


Scaring people into consenting is not ethical.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunderheart

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.
And this is how we slowly succumb and lose our liberty, little by little.



What's really sad is this how the majority of people think, or at least say they do - including most of my family and friends. They are so thoroughly brainwashed into accepting the false gift of security that they will sacrifice themselves to ensure it's success. Truly sad times we live in.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Yup, the bank's interests over the people's rights. And there are some who are still not sure who the police and the military etc (as institutions, not as individuals) really serve.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

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.


You have no idea what a police state is. I can only laugh as spoiled Americans wallow in their terrible misery, being forced to suffer the indignity of being held up for an hour while a dangerous criminal is apprehended. That some of you throw common sense utterly out the window, saying it makes much more sense they just let the criminal drive off, because they feel people's rights are being "trampled" on, boggles my mind.

As far as people poking fun at the "tip" that was given - guess what, it was reliable and accurate. The criminal WAS there, and was arrested. I'd say the tip was excellent and paid off.

I understand not wanting to set a bad precedent. I get that you feel that losing rights means you will lose MORE rights as time goes on. But this was a unique situation. It will not cause an outbreak of stopping civilians at stoplights and handcuffing or holding them up while a criminal is apprehended. This won't cause an outbreak of police brutality or a sudden loss of your rights. I swear some of you angst over this crap simply because you feel it's your right to do so. You must make a stand based on principle, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. Tail 19 different vehicles instead of doing what they did? That doesn't make an ounce of sense - you are delusional if you think that was in any way a realistic scenario.

I'm all for common sense. I'm much happier knowing when I go to my bank later today in Aurora, that I won't get caught in a situation with a robbery, because the police felt it was in the citizens "best interest" to let the criminal drive off and rob again. Perhaps this time shooting and killing someone. That you feel it's a "better" alternative to allow the criminal to endanger more lives than to do what they did just makes me sadly shake my head. You are apparently OK with people being injured or killed, if it means someone ELSE doesn't have to suffer the indignity of being held up for an hour. Protect those rights at all costs! Pathetic. This isn't 1850. The world changes, but some of you refuse to change with it.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Sounds like a good idea to me. Just last week my family and I were stopped here in my town because some meth freaks also drive a white chevy corsica- who had just knocked over a shell gas station.

I for one applaud my local law enforcement. If you want to be safe, you have to pay the price! And if being delayed 3 minutes on my trip to the grocery store, I'll pay it gladly.


So keep cryin'!



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I just watched Judge Napolitano on FOX news, he agreed with me, the cops were wrong and should be sued.
The guy is a constitutional lawyer and a libertarian.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 

A single file road check where they talk to you through the window is fine for this situation, where they stepped over the line and created a danger for civilians was by handcuffing all of them and making them step out of their cars.

Those of you that find no problem with this are the same ones that will gladly andsmiling walk to the detention camps, you know, for your own "safety".





posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dero
Sounds like a good idea to me. Just last week my family and I were stopped here in my town because some meth freaks also drive a white chevy corsica- who had just knocked over a shell gas station.

I for one applaud my local law enforcement. If you want to be safe, you have to pay the price! And if being delayed 3 minutes on my trip to the grocery store, I'll pay it gladly.


So keep cryin'!


You were stopped because you fit a description at the time.

That example does not apply to this situation.


If you want to be safe, you have to pay the price!

People were not made safer due to this roadblock, they were actually put in danger. Think about it. How is it you believe getting randomly stopped (by mistake), makes you safer?

Also, why is it always people that come stomping in with ignorance that say stuff like, "Keep crying/whining" etc. ? Honestly, you're the one being a crybaby, kicking and screaming for someone to keep you safe.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I wasn't there but if I were I would not have agreed to being cuffed if had done nothing wrong. People agreed because they are scared of the cops due to massive corruption and indicipline. Not because they didn't mind being cuffed. Who do you know like being cuffed and would agree to it for no reason? People need to wake up and smell the opression. People who lay down and take it like you is what's wrong right now and unfortunatly that's a heck of alot of people. We need to grow a spine a stand up to those bullies. This whole police state situation is getting out of hand.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Except that they were right - they apprehended the guy in the last car they searched, he had two firearms on him. While I don't exactly agree with their methods, they produced results, and did not simply conduct the search to further their "police state" agenda as people think.

Again.. perhaps not the best spur of the moment decision - but if they prevented this guy from robbing another bank, and perhaps shooting and killing an innocent, all good in the end imo. People get outraged so easily - they were putting their lives at risk to find an armed bank robber, and they are evil pig cops trying to force the nation to grovel under their steel-clad heel.


It's funny how quickly police get labeled, no matter what their intentions or results. Obviously this is part of the Americanized neo-nazi, facist rule, right? It couldn't possibly be exactly what it seems.


As if police have never planted guns before. I'm not saying they did... but just following the hype may in fact be wrong. They may NOT have found anything and then decided... "well we've got to find something after this", planted the guns, and there you have it... the public will now keep quiet.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.


Exactly. There is a big difference between being arrested, and being detained as part of an investigation.

Yes its frustrating, yes it seems un-american, and yes it certainly feels humiliating to be handcuffed and treated like a criminal when you are a law abiding citizen, but those people were lucky they werent held longer. Legally I believe with reason of suspicion detain someone for up to 24-48 hours?

The worst part of this for me, (I have experienced such check points) is this goes against the principal of "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"

Law enforcement these days treats everyone as if you're a criminal and its up to YOU to convince them otherwise...



new topics




 
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join