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

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!"

reply to post by fleabit


A unique situation, ie, because he was dangerous? Liberties aside for a moment, but if someone committed an armed robbery and is deemed highly dangerous, (in order for this to be unique), then how would a spur of the moment decision be made to endanger all the citizens and children on the scene and even have them handcuffed. Just in case the bullets fly, they don't count unless their underwear is clean???? If they take a hit, they weren't??? Mason laws even for this? Or, just a really bad judgment call! Endangerment is major in this case.

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"??

reply to post by rockhndr



Then I would be all for it. However, these two situations are completely different. The OP is about the Kops frantically running around at the orders of their master, The Monetary System.

If a child is kidnapped, then yes, by all means, do WHATEVER you have to do to find that kid (with the exception of locking people up who are innocent).

reply to post by rockhndr


There is a HUGE difference between officers asking someone to step outside of the car and if they are willing to submit to a search than to arrest them without cause JUST to make SURE that they aren't guilty of something.

LIBERTY must come FIRST!!!!

I don't care if that means that some criminals get away with stuff.

Actually, if our second amendment rights weren't trampled on and posse commutatus was taught in schools. then most criminals wouldn't get away because the PEOPLE wouldn't let them.

We have allowed the police to completely take over every able bodied man's (as We the People) job and in the process allowed them to usurp authority that they were never supposed to have.

Jaden

reply to post by albertabound


Very interesting, your response...so you're saying in that case (my scenario) 19 cars should have been stopped?? Why does the LAW change just because the circumstance changed...I find it very interesting how a change incircumstances can shift a mindset of people...I am not looking for any argument...just keenly aware of alot of the responses....and how they shift according to the scenario before them...very intriguing!!

reply to post by Masterjaden


My understanding is the only person actually "arrested" that day was the perp...all others just detained?? I just want to make sure I'm on the same page...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

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

My Brother, you are replying to a post where I just insisted that Terry v. Ohio does not even apply. Indeed, I was a little too hard on Defcon in that post mostly because I knew damn well you would seize the Terry v. Ohio opportunity. I don't blame you for doing that when the door is opened for you, but for you to reply to me that I should see case law regarding Terry v. Ohio when I just slammed that door shut and posted a no trespass sign upon it is a bit frustrating.

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 TKDRL
reply to post by LondonerBLV

 

Funny, I mostly get accused of being a rightwinger. First time for everything I guess

I care not which side it comes from.
Totalitarianism is totalitarianism.

reply to post by rockhndr


Yeah after the fact they was stopped at gun point and illegally searched under duress. Yeah even though they just so happen to catch the bank robber, but they breached the peace doing so. You figure they would be arresting the bank ceo's that robbed the nation of their money with such content.

The plot thickens! So today after the news started to spread about the UNLAWFUL detention of innocent bystanders in Aurora Colorado, the Aurora Police Department posts a picture on their facebook page of a toddler sitting next to his car seat where a gas can is strapped in.

News Article

The unidentified female driver was stopped after making an improper turn in Aurora, Colo., on May 30. The woman and her two children—a 14-year-old and the toddler—were not wearing seat belts. But a photo of the back seat taken by the officer for the Aurora Police Department's "Click It or Ticket" campaign shows the gas can was secured with the seat belt meant for the young child.

Not sure the legality of the police taking a picture of the inside of her car during a stop, or the legality of then posting that picture to the internet, but those things aside; this just stinks of an effort to showcase that suddenly the Aurora Police cares about human life. I say it stinks. I don't buy it.

This is the only example you need of what the Aurora Police think about people and human life...

Photo

Yes that is a kid no older than 16 with a 12 gauge shotgun pointed at him, with another cop hiding behind a shield pointing a hand gun at him. Justified??? Yeah right.

That police department doesn't care about human life, nor does it care about laws or peace.

reply to post by tpsreporter


Good find and a completely separate story I believe -- the person was stopped for a clear violation of municipal code and everything was in "plain sight".

You could start a new thread on this though *wink* *wink*, *nudge* *nudge*...

Though interestingly this happened on the 30th of May and it is JUST now coming out. I would think a little P.R. and propaganda campaign has started to veer the eyes away from their atrocious "snap-decision" actions on June 2nd.

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.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I considered it, but that new story on it's own isn't all that crazy or suspicious. Being that yes, everything was in plain sight. The only thing i really question is the posting of it to their facebook. Would they need her permission for that? Hard to say.

So on it's own theres not much to that story, to me i just find it interesting that within 2 days we get 2 news stories about the Aurora Police department.

ALSO, for those who might believe that there are symbolic purposes to names and events:

Aurora, as defined on wikipedia:
""In Roman mythology, Aurora, goddess of the dawn, renews herself every morning and flies across the sky, announcing the arrival of the sun.""

Plenty of illuminati based conspiracy conclusions can be drawn from the name of this town and the actions of their police force, maybe announcing the arrival of the sun, the illuminated, or the coming police state?

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?

Originally posted by AgentSmith
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?

By obeying the constitution of the United States of America.

and not doing this...

Photo

^ not the robber, that was just a kid who was in one of the cars.