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.
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?
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?
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...
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'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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.