Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 13
47
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
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?


Since you're going to disregard every former post already answering this question:

Not stop every single motorist at the intersection and endangering their lives by creating a situation where the suspect may become desperate and violent. So in other words, take the hit and allow the suspect to vacate the area. It happens, not the end of the damn world. Like I've said before, the suspects didn't have motive to endanger people's lives after the robbery, considering they harmed no one during their crime and escaped virtually unseen, it's obvious their intent was to disappear. However, pinning them into a corner creates a situation where they actually DO become dangerous to everyone.

The police created a very dangerous, volatile situation where the safety of all the officers, and the innocent bystanders was left to the discretion of the actual criminal, and whether or not he chose to become violent. That would not have happened if was left to go on, allowing the police to follow up with an investigation, or simply apprehending him in a less crowded area.

------
Also, unalienable rights, etc.




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Recognizing the rock and a hard place you are in regarding this thread, and clinging firmly to the belief that you do have genuine regard for the oath of office you took, I have turned a blind eye to some of your bogus preist class lawyer mystical incantation nonsense, but you're the one who went knocking on my door begging for a spanking, so go get the switch little boy, its time for your spanking.

You are trying to conflate different Supreme Court rulings in an attempt to justify sloppy police work that showed a profound disregard for the rights of the people those police serve. The Supreme Court held in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz that roadblocks set up to snare drunk drivers was Constitutional and did not violate motorists 4th Amendment rights, holding: "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The magnitude of the drunken driving problem is not the same thing as a "tip" to police officers that bank robbers in a getaway car were at a traffic stop, but no one knows what the gender, or race of the bank robbers are, nor what kind of car they're driving.

Indeed, because Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz is not nearly enough to justify the Aurora bank stooges actions, you have conflated it with several other Supreme Court rulings as if the SCOTUS is a restaurant where you can order off the menu a la carte and just mix and match your entree to suit your purposes. All case law is very narrow in its scope and pertains the very narrow facts of that case.

I have spoken enough in regards to Terry v. Ohio in this thread to make clear that that ruling has no application in the Aurora gangland incident where gang members converged upon 19 vehicles placing many innocent people in harms way, and worse, treating those innocent victims as if they were enemy gang members and the turf war was on. Terry v. Ohio just does not apply, thus your references of Riordan and Bruzy v. Trooper Joyner et. al, which by the way is a Connecticut District Court ruling and Colorado judges are not bound by that ruling even if it did apply, but Terry v. Ohio does not apply to the Aurora incident. U.S. v. Vargas, is also a "Terry stop" case, which by the way is a 2nd Circuit ruling which also does not bind any Colorado judge even if it did apply, of which it does not. You are wasting your time with the "Terry stop" desperation.

In regards to both Muehler v. Mena and Michigan v. Summers the police in both incidents were executing lawful search warrants. If you are hoping to argue that the ex post facto searches "allowed" by the unlawfully arrested innocent people of Aurora Colorado was a lawful execution of search warrants I am not only going to spank you, I am going to disown you. You know damn well that ex post facto shenanigans are not at all tolerated in American jurisprudence.

I have shown patience with you in this thread up to now because you had begun by effectively executing a precarious balancing act, and as long as you were sticking to arguments that we don't know all the facts, and that until someone brings charges against the offending officers the gangland justice that the Aurora police administered stands, I was willing to turn a blind eye. While I have little patience for that sort of equivocation, as I said, I understand the rock and a hard place you are in on this one, but you had to know the moment you started uttering the mystical incantations of case law without any understanding of that case law you had to know that I would call you on that.

Farnia confessed the Aurora police departments crimes openly and quoted by countless news agencies across the nation, but to make things even worse, the moronic Chief of Police of Aurora placed that police department at great risk of massive law suits ripe for the picking by any ambulance chaser in the area. The Aurora police department had plausible denial-ability until he opened his big mouth and backed that tactical error by Farnia, et al. Now the entire Aurora police department is liable for those actions.

Were I the Mayor of Aurora I would have demanded that Chief of Police's resignation immediately and placed his big mouth head on a pike as necessary damage control.




edit on 6-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


Cool, now how about answering the question. I didn't ask about anyone's opinion relating to how it was dealt with, I specifically asked how YOU would deal with it. As usual those so full of criticisms have no alternative solution to offer. I'll give you one more chance, I'm listening...



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


You are not listening.

You are actually trolling, considering you already confessed to not reading any of the replies in the thread that already answer your question.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


Yes I read some of those views before getting bored. However as they had no information on the suspect apart from he was physically at that location at the time I'm not sure they could have followed it up.
They caught him without anyone being hurt, yes it was risky, but letting him go would be a risk too.
They ignore the information and he escapes, a few weeks later an armed robbery takes place and a security guard tries to fire back. A kid is killed in the crossfire and a few bystanders are injured. They could have stopped him weeks ago, but they didn't as it was too risky. So is it still right to have left him to escape?
Yes I'm speculating, but then so is saying how so many people could have been injured by them trying to apprehend him - as they did and no one was hurt.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


There are few things more amusing than keyboard pacifist drivel smugly criticizing keyboard warrior drivel. There are few things more incriminating than driviling keyboardists who openly declare they had not bothered to read the posts in the thread while ignorantly posting an assessment as if somehow that woefully ill informed analysis would settle the differences. There are few things more predictable than a driveling pacifist keyboardists who couldn't be bothered to read through a thread but then begins replying to - obviously reading replies to his drivel - posts made to he.

Why sacrificial sheep believe their fearful bleating is impressive is beyond me.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

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?



You seem to not understand why it is unacceptable for everyone in the public space gets arrested to catch one man. Let me make it clear to you that if the police come to my neighbourhood and start detaining everyone in their "hunt for a dangerous criminal" they will have big problems.

By all measures of common law, human rights and civil rights, no soldier or police officer has one iota of entitlement or authority to arrest without probable cause anyone let alone someone who happens to be traveling through an area.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


Cool, now how about answering the question. I didn't ask about anyone's opinion relating to how it was dealt with, I specifically asked how YOU would deal with it. As usual those so full of criticisms have no alternative solution to offer. I'll give you one more chance, I'm listening...


I already answered, because the answer is in the Constitution of the United States.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

SO......What would i specifically do????

I would upon learning of the suspects location, and wanting to capture him. And not knowing who he was, but knowing he was at that intersection. And seeing that there were 40 other people who were NOT the suspect, and not knowing which of those people were the suspect in question. I would NOT detain anyone because in doing so i would have no probable cause to detain 40/41 people there. I would NOT search their cars because they have the right to have their 4th amendment rights NOT violated (as god given in the bill of rights). I would allow everyone to leave and depend on standard police work to attempt to apprehend the criminal at a later date, when it does not require the violation of innocent peoples rights or put innocent people in danger. I would accept that if i never caught the criminal, it would be better than violating even 1 persons freedoms. I would recognize the money is insured. I would do my job as a sworn peace officer and aim to maintain the peace not seek to destroy it with a ridiculous abuse of power. I Would keep the majority of my officers on patrol where they are needed rather than tie 20+ of them up for 2+ hours just to violate rights and try to arrest 1 guy.

Does that make more sense?
edit on 6-6-2012 by tpsreporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I haven't stated my views on wherever the course of action it was acceptable or not, I simply would like to know exactly how anyone else would deal with the situation. Not a vague statement that it would be dealt with later, or he should just be allowed to leave. I'm not interested in what people wouldn't do because it violates this and that constitutional right, or any other reason.
I'm genuinely curious how anyone would apprehend the suspect based on the fact there was no descriptive information available at the time and for the foreseeable future, if at all.
And those that would choose to let him go and not inconvenience the other drivers or their rights, what would your reaction be if later in the day, the week, the month or any time in the future the suspect killed?

I'd appreciate it if people didn't choose my 'side' for me thank you.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

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?


Again... the guns were found in the very last car... after 2 hours of searching! Sounds to me like they may have in fact not have found anything, but knew they had to take someone after breaking all those laws.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



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. 


No I am not confusing anything you are just parroting Xcathdra's BS . You clearly have never read those cases which happen to be land mark cases on THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. They are not just about licensure (which technically is legal but these cases prove it is unlawful) they clearly define the right to use the public highways in a motor vehicle as a "natural right" not subject to government intervention or infringement and part of being able to pursue life liberty and property. They even coin the phrase "right to travel" in them.

The states have no right to infringe them either since the federal supreme court has defined them as part of the natural rights protected by the constitution. The case you cite is a clear violation of the Supreme court rulings and the constitution.


n 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


It states the constitution and state grants the right to travel which clearly contradicts the supreme court rulings that the right to travel is a natural right and not granted by the state or constitution. Therefore the ignorant judges who made this ruling are in defiance of the constitution and the natural rights of the people.

You also clearly ignored my post to Xcathdra asking where in the constitution is the federal government delegated authority to limit peoples right to travel in any way shape or form and my quoting of the 10th amendment that specifically states the federal government has no extra authority then that which it is specifically delegated to it but the constitution.

Simply "denying it in your ignorance" instead of "denying ignorance" does not change these facts!


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. 


It does restrict them from doing such by NOT delegating them the authority to do so. Please explain to me how limiting the means by which I may travel does not impede my right to travel? It is quite impractical for me to walk or ride a bike from the west coast to NY if I so chose. If that is not impedance then nothing is. It amazing how you people can sit here and claim they have no right to keep you from traveling but they have a right to limit and impeded how you travel...


Funny how you argue the supreme case rulings are about licensure which they clearly say are unconstitutional then turn around and say licensure is legal. the SC says it is not and the right to travel unimpeded is a fundamental natural right protected by the constitution as part of the right to life liberty and property. You can't have it both ways you are now just arguing from emotion with no logic so you do not have to admit to yourself that you are wrong on all counts.


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.
 

So the right to keep and bear arms is not a God given right since you were not born armed? Where do you people come up with this non-sense? Again where in the constitution is authority delegated to impede the means of travel within my rights. Where is god given rights defined as only with what you are born with? Your statement is absurd? The case below say the right to travel by automobile is part of the natural rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The SC agrees with me on every point and refutes your notions of limited liberty! What part of that do you not understand???

"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.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. D of I

Continued...



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



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...


I just quoted you five SC cases that say otherwise that men do not need government permission to operate vehicles on the public highway. How does licensure prevent alcoholics and narcolepts from operating equipment? They do it all the time depsite licensure schemes. It doesn't prevent it anymore then drug laws prevent illegal drugs from being consumed. It is part of the brainwash of modern America that licensure and victimless crime laws protects them. It does nothing of the kind it in fact robs them of their money substance and freedom! I don't need permission from government to drive or operate any car or equipment. If there is no harm there is no crime if I get drunk and endanger or harm someone then there is a reason for government intervention nothing more.

The constitution gives the government the right to enact law only within their scope of delegated authority and without violating anyones rights. The right to travel is a natural right not within that scope along with health care, individual taxation, drugs, firearms, and a host of other things that most sheeple believe are in their scope!

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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


Not doing anything IS doing something. Don't you see?

You say you don't want to hear "we wouldn't do anything" you want to know how we would arrest the guy? Arrest him later, that is what we would do, that's what Police always do, that's what they SHOULD do.

You're not making much sense.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by SyphonX
 


Yes I read some of those views before getting bored. However as they had no information on the suspect apart from he was physically at that location at the time I'm not sure they could have followed it up.
They caught him without anyone being hurt, yes it was risky, but letting him go would be a risk too.
They ignore the information and he escapes, a few weeks later an armed robbery takes place and a security guard tries to fire back. A kid is killed in the crossfire and a few bystanders are injured. They could have stopped him weeks ago, but they didn't as it was too risky. So is it still right to have left him to escape?
Yes I'm speculating, but then so is saying how so many people could have been injured by them trying to apprehend him - as they did and no one was hurt.


What you say is indeed very possible.

However you asked what I would have done, and I responded. These are both "what ifs", yes. I personally wouldn't consider it wise or safe to stop nearly 20 vehicles filled with innocent bystanders at a busy Aurora intersection with a dangerous, nothing-to-lose gunman among them. It would have not been worth it to me. The money is federally insured, and there is nothing stopping people from committing to more robberies, you can't stop them all.. The idea that he could "strike again" wouldn't be considered at the time, personally.

Current Lives at Risk > Hypothetical Future Lives



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 





I haven't stated my views on wherever the course of action it was acceptable or not, I simply would like to know exactly how anyone else would deal with the situation.


Who do you think you're kidding, sport? If you "simply" wanted to know the answer to this question you would have read through the entire thread to find your answers. Your laziness and expectations of members catering to that laziness is pathetic.

Here's a question for you, sport? Do you honestly believe this was the Aurora police departments only option in apprehending these bank robbers. Is this what your thorough and detailed analysis of the situation concludes?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


Cool, now how about answering the question. I didn't ask about anyone's opinion relating to how it was dealt with, I specifically asked how YOU would deal with it. As usual those so full of criticisms have no alternative solution to offer. I'll give you one more chance, I'm listening...


Yes we do. The answer is to obey their constitutional mandate even if that means that some criminals go free. It REALLY is THAT simple.

You follow the constitutional mandates placed on government and the law and respect our Liberty over your collars...

PERIOD.

That is the only option in a free society not an alternative.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by Thunderheart
 

How can you not have watched any Police shows about holding you without reason nor warrant? They can and do...and have been for 50-60-70 yrs at least or more...


Which is why we have to have Habeas corpus. The cops don't want to admit they are wrong, so this law had to be written. Very sad,



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by SyphonX
 


Yes I read some of those views before getting bored. However as they had no information on the suspect apart from he was physically at that location at the time I'm not sure they could have followed it up.
They caught him without anyone being hurt, yes it was risky, but letting him go would be a risk too.
They ignore the information and he escapes, a few weeks later an armed robbery takes place and a security guard tries to fire back. A kid is killed in the crossfire and a few bystanders are injured. They could have stopped him weeks ago, but they didn't as it was too risky. So is it still right to have left him to escape?
Yes I'm speculating, but then so is saying how so many people could have been injured by them trying to apprehend him - as they did and no one was hurt.


The apprehended person was ONLY the suspect because of GUNS. Probably the only one with guns... so he had to be their guy. Either that, or the guns were planted in the last vehicle because they had to take someone in. Funny how they don't mention them finding any money after a bank robbery.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


You know, you're right.

I haven't read enough follow-up on the story to hear anything about it being confirmed it was the suspect, other than guns were found and 'presumably' the suspect. Hrm, interesting.

Reading more now.

---
Source

This article states the man arrested was a former teacher, and they found a "mask", guns, and a "$2,000 money band" in the car. That's interesting, where is the rest of the money.. if any at all? With the other suspect, or what. So this isn't even confirmed, and someone still got away with the money despite all this nonsense.

They also state 40 cars were stopped and of the 40, 20 people were arrested. This is quite a lot more vehicles than what was originally assumed... Edit: I just saw an ABC news video that said it was 40 people, 19 vehicles, with the police chief stating 19 vehicles.. so I'd assume this was more accurate. Still I didn't realize it was twice as many people.
edit on 6-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I haven't stated my views on wherever the course of action it was acceptable or not, I simply would like to know exactly how anyone else would deal with the situation. Not a vague statement that it would be dealt with later, or he should just be allowed to leave. I'm not interested in what people wouldn't do because it violates this and that constitutional right, or any other reason.
I'm genuinely curious how anyone would apprehend the suspect based on the fact there was no descriptive information available at the time and for the foreseeable future, if at all.
And those that would choose to let him go and not inconvenience the other drivers or their rights, what would your reaction be if later in the day, the week, the month or any time in the future the suspect killed?

I'd appreciate it if people didn't choose my 'side' for me thank you.


The answer to that is that YOU CAN'T arrest someone if you don't know who they are what they look like etc... If you don't have a warrant issued based upon sworn affidavit or probable cause, you CAN'T ARREST ANYONE!!!!!

Jaden





new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join