Originally posted by fleabit
No one was shot, they got the criminal.. and they are evil pigs for doing it, right? So sad.

No... as I've already pointed out. They got someone that had loaded guns. There was never a description of the robbers, so nobody knows whether these were the actual bank robbers or not.

So here is a question since many are questioning the "consent" portion -- unfortunately, Xcath has decided he doesn't want to deal with this discussion:

Why is it considered coercion if a citizen holds and asks another citizen at gunpoint to do something, but when an officer does the same, it is consent?

Example:
A man holds a knife to a woman's throat while detaining her and receives "consent" to have sex. Of course, we know this isn't consent.

--BUT--

An officer holds a gun drawn at you and detains you and receives "consent".

Post Script:
A side note. Just because citizen's examine and question police action doesn't mean they despise the police. In an open and free society, all facets are in effect, a check and balance on the whole of society. They minute citizens stop pushing back against actions such as these is when they take a mile for every inch we allow.

I've not read the entire thread - about half - and see that there are a number of people who advocate in favor of what the police did. Please allow me to posit the following to those of you who either support or condone what the police have done...

Why stop at illegally detaining innocent non-suspects at intersections? Instead, whenever a crime is committed, let's just simply shut down the whole neighborhood and have house-to-house warrantless searches. Imagine the legions of crime that could be uncovered by the police!

Or... let's just simply allow any "Anonymous tips" to be used as "probable cause" for detaining anyone, at any time.

In fact, I'll start... (me, to police): "I heard that the people on ATS who support illegal arrest and illegal search and seizure are actually planning some sort of terrorism against Constitutionalists - you should go arrest them all before something happens!"

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Masterjaden
I suppose you think that the TSA is legitimate and legal too???

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Not to get off topic, but the TSA is legal.
You have no legal “right” to fly, other means of transport are open to you. You additionally waive your rights via contract with the airlines when you get your ticket.

The difference is between what you CHOOSE to do and what the government FORCES you to do. That's where you end up with things that violate your Constitutional Rights.
Sometimes that line can be a very fine one, though.

For example, you have the right to move about the country, but Constitutionally that does not mean that you have the right to operate a motor vehicle or even to fly as a passenger on an aircraft. You can CHOOSE other methods of travel, so these are not rights, but choices (privileges).

See the difference?

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

Here we go with more idiocy...

No you DON'T nor CAN you waive your rights...

Not for the government.

Yes, if I want fly on a private airline and I make an agreement with that airline to go with their service and THEY as a PRIVATE airline want to enforce a policy, THEN and ONLY then have I agreed to fly under their rules.

That is NOT the case with the TSA. It is a government mandate that unequicably violates my fourth amendment rights, because the GOVERNMENT is not allowed to search and seize me or my property without warrant based on sworn affidavit or probable cause.

So long as the government requires ALL airlines to do it and it is sworn officers of the government executing the policy it is a VIOLATION of my rights.

They have no warrant and no probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and it IS a violation of my rights.

If there was the possibility for me to open my OWN airline and NOT implement those policies and it just so happened that all airlines had the same policy AND it was not sworn government employees carrying out the policy, THEN and only THEN would it not be a violation of my rights.

As it stands the TSA is a violation of every citizen's fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure and again, that there are any pussies out there that think that the violation of our liberty is justified for perceived safety makes me SICK!!!!!!

Jaden

I wonder just how different the opinions would be if this were a burglary suspect who had taken a child captive...would you be so quick to deny a search of your vehicle then?? What if the child were YOUR child, wouldn't you want a search if the possibility were there that out of 19 vehicles, one may have your child in it?? And if LE denied such a search based on some of the things I've read here...you'd be trying to sue from the other side.... *Afterthought...does this mean I can refuse to be detained by Wal-Mart when they man the doors during a "code Adam"??

The cops broke more laws then the bank robber did! Not only did they recklessly put everyone in danger, they detained everyone at gun point and then asked to search their vehicle under duress?? Wow unbelievable! Who are the idiots that train these idiots? ROFL.

So if the bank robber ducked into a stadium of 10,000 people then it would be ok to detain everyone at gun point behind chain link razor wire fences? Something to think about.

Originally posted by SyphonX
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.

Oh please, old woman- I keep myself safe by carrying my 1911 (legally I might add, you kids should look into getting a man-pants-busting ..45 like me) and the police stopping me protected me from having to retain a lawyer because I blasted a drug addict in self defense.

No, YOU're crying.

I started reading the thread, but frankly can't be bothered to go through the 12 pages of keyboard warrior drivel.
Bearing in mind that everyone was quickly released and the culprit found with two loaded handguns, so the intelligence was sound, I just have one simple question to anyone that disagrees with the course of action taken:

In the same position, having to make a split second decision knowing the dangerous armed robber was stopped at the red light but without any description whatsoever, how would YOU specifically deal with the situation?