Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tpsreporter
 
Thank you for your post. This is a terrible incident and there seems to be no outrage. I am floored that the local news stations are not really covering this. People should be outraged. It maybe Aurora today but it could be you tomorrow. This is a clear violation & public safety hazard all around and the officer who made the decision to do this needs to be suspended without pay, until an investigation.

This is the only commentary that actually spoke out strongly against the officers:
Aurora police chief apologizes for “inconvenience” to citizens




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:24 PM
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.


No it doesn't at least not in the context of this story. You can detain a suspect and probable cause is an aspect but you cannot arrest everyone especially when you know most are innocent.

If their is a major public safety concern then the decision to rescind civil rights is decided upon at a political level by a vote of elected officials.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 





If their is a major public safety concern then the decision to rescind civil rights is decided upon at a political level by a vote of elected officials.


While the language you've used makes this statement correct - civil rights are legal rights and what can be granted legally can legally be rescinded - in the context of this thread it is incorrect. The right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures is not a "civil right" it is an unalienable right.

It does not take any declaration of Martial Law to rescind civil rights, and it remains dubious if any lawful government can ever at any point declare any authority to deny and/or disparage unalienable rights, but "civil rights" is a grossly misunderstood term that has caused many a person to walk out of a courtroom believing that law is arbitrary and crooked. Law is not evil, but those trying to sell unalienable rights as "civil rights" should do a little soul searching.

I'm not suggesting your selling "civil rights" but it does appear as if you've bought their crap.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
There is so much fail in this thread it's not even funny. You people really need to wake up, learn the laws. Every single thing these cops did is ILLEGAL.

Cop: May I search your vehicle
Person: No, Am I being detained or am I free to leave. Keep repeating.
If they ask you to exit, roll the windows up and lock the car.

Rights worth pushing aside are rights worth losing. I for one will not let my rights be trampled on. This was illegal search and seizure plain and simple. All 18 families that were stopped now should sue the department for violation of the constitution.

Another reason to keep an audio/video recording device nearby and on hand at all times for these types of encounters.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AuntB
reply to post by tpsreporter
 
Thank you for your post. This is a terrible incident and there seems to be no outrage. I am floored that the local news stations are not really covering this. People should be outraged. It maybe Aurora today but it could be you tomorrow. This is a clear violation & public safety hazard all around and the officer who made the decision to do this needs to be suspended without pay, until an investigation.

This is the only commentary that actually spoke out strongly against the officers:
Aurora police chief apologizes for “inconvenience” to citizens


This is of course the shame of it all - had it turned out to be a bloodbath they'd be all over it. I suppose the only thing better than a massacre of innocent bystanders would have been say white cops shooting black bank-robbers who just needed the money to feed their families.

However, it's non-news since the only victims were the intangible rights of the people.

The Police Chief will call it a job well done since they got their perps and the people (the ones who weren't there) will go blissfully about their lives as if nothing is wrong. That is until the day they are cuffed at gunpoint in front of their children for the crime of being in their car at the same intersection as a criminal suspect.

It will now go down into the playbook as an intrusion deemed acceptable to the people in exchange for catching criminals.

I suppose the next step is that the next time there is bank robbery in Aurora they can set up road blocks at ALL possible routes of egress from the scene I mean they have established that the people will buy the reasonable suspicion the criminals will try and escape as probable cause enough to stop everyone for a quick cuff and search operation at gunpoint.

Why? Because it worked and "we the people" rolled over and let it happen.

IMO it's a bloodbath all the same; however, the bleeding is being done by the Constitution.

Who wants to bet even odds that they will even give out some awards to the cops involved for their bravery.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
It makes one wonder if this was a false flag from start to finish
just to set the precident so that this tactic can be used again and again and again...

a buick was stolen in ohio last year...
we'ed like to search your car and probe your children.
but officer, this is florida
yes well, they could be anywhere ....now bend over



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I think more likely it is a case of glory hounds who've seen too many Dirty Harry films and television cop procedural shows where the writers love to write characters who are constantly bemoaning the fact that the Constitution doesn't allow them to catch the bad guys.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Stories like this are one of the reasons my children are being taught much different than I was about interactions with the police. I was taught to respect the police and that I could always go to one for help, because they were the good guys. I don't believe that anymore and don't want to lie to my kids.

I still teach them to be polite to officers when interacting with them, but to limit interactions with police to as little as possible.They are being taught that the authority of the police comes from the fact that they carry a weapon,and are the enforcers for a legal system that has failed to protect inalienable rights for many years now and that we as a family do not have the money or political power/connections to seek redress if aggrieved by one. When they get a little older I will make them watch the youtube video (which I have saved in several formats) "Why you should never talk to the police". It sucks that it's come to that, but it's what I believe.

At some point in the last quarter century the police motto has changed from "protect and serve" to "get home safe regardless of the rights you trample on". Sunshine laws in many states will let you see what your local gendarme makes for a living, some go as far as to give names and salaries others require a bit of deduction like knowing what a Lt. in the PD makes and matching the name to the pay. I encourage all to look it up. It's my opinion that even with the risks that the profession entails many police are overpaid.

I think the most disturbing thing about the OP is the number of people who willingly submitted to a police overreach. Nothing will change as long as so many are sheep. Awareness is getting better though and here is my idea on how to turn things even more against police.

White America by and large could care less about whether police are killing black and hispanic kids. It's a fact, I saw it in my own family during Katrina. They saw hundreds of black kids and elderly outside the civic center and Superdome in the immediate aftermath and felt sympathetic, but it didn't break their heart like i thought it should have. However, when the suffering pooches were shown on TV it really bothered them and you could tell. So my idea is not to focus on events like the OP or other things that outrage me, but to focus on the dogs killed almost daily nowadays by police. I dare say if you showed a montage of all the pooches killed by the police in the past few years, it would garner more outrage than if you showed all the people killed by police in questionable circumstances.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
A lot of people in this thread are forgetting that not only do we have a right to refuse search. We have a right to consent search. By cooperating during a police investigation these citizens made their town safer, I think they contributed just as much as the police to this mans capture.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Sadly these nice people have no legal recourse. The courts have upheld again and again the right of LE to detain and handcuff a citizen during any action being conducted by said LE. It is for the safety of the officers. It is disgusting.

Our Constitution was quietly shredded in courts all over the country, from small city courts to the Supreme Court. We as citizens no longer have any rights. We really don't. When it is the law of the land that any police officer can stop you and cuff you and search you and/or your property with only the most vague notion of "probable cause"; well, sorry kiddies, the game is over and we lost.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
A lot of people in this thread are forgetting that not only do we have a right to refuse search. We have a right to consent search. By cooperating during a police investigation these citizens made their town safer, I think they contributed just as much as the police to this mans capture.


Gee, if sitting handcuffed on a curb with police officers aiming loaded weapons at you is all it takes to help capture criminals, you got to wonder why more people don't do it?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
A lot of people in this thread are forgetting that not only do we have a right to refuse search. We have a right to consent search. By cooperating during a police investigation these citizens made their town safer, I think they contributed just as much as the police to this mans capture.


Gee, if sitting handcuffed on a curb with police officers aiming loaded weapons at you is all it takes to help capture criminals, you got to wonder why more people don't do it?



Do you really not understand why these people were stopped and searched? Are you really that important that society is expected to let a dangerous criminal get away so you don't have to, I don't know, sit on a sidewalk for a few minutes?

The cops didn't hurt anyone. They weren't imprisoned. A criminal was captured. And everyone involved has great story to repeat every thanksgiving. Its a win/win except for the robber.

I don't see how any rights were violated.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
If it were me I'd sue.

They did not have probable cause.
I did not give them permission to search.

They did not have a reason to search anybody's car.

They can not search without probable cause.

They can search what they see, but they can not search your car without probable cause.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
A lot of people in this thread are forgetting that not only do we have a right to refuse search. We have a right to consent search. By cooperating during a police investigation these citizens made their town safer, I think they contributed just as much as the police to this mans capture.


That's the far side of the universe, if they knew they had a robber in sync, (and only that) there is no telling of the danger to all those in handcuffs. It seems that the robber was more concerned with safety, since he/she/it also consented to a search...or perhaps not?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
That happen here and was all over the news. One lady with two toddlers said she may file a complaint as the cops had guns aimed at her, along with her children. The cops interviewed said they can legally detain anyone for up to 2 hours. That was on the news! A middle aged mother with 2 toddlers? Whatever, they say that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights....bird turd.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


How about we anal probe you because your butt looks a lot like some criminals I saw the other day.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

I don't see how any rights were violated.



1. Then sadly you don't understand your rights (assuming you are an American).

2. You also (evidently) didn't read any of the source material including case law in the US placed in the thread with numerous links that were provided for you.

Both are a little sad in my opinion....

Those willing to cede liberty for safety deserve neither....

(Dunno if that’s exactly the quote or who said it originally but it makes my point.)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 





Do you really not understand why these people were stopped and searched? Are you really that important that society is expected to let a dangerous criminal get away so you don't have to, I don't know, sit on a sidewalk for a few minutes?


Ohhhhh! All they had to do was sit on a sidewalk for a few minutes? My bad, I thought they were handcuffed after drug out of their cars by heavily armed police officers aiming weapons at them and then detained for several hours. That's what I get for reading several news reports instead of listening to your propaganda. Doh!




The cops didn't hurt anyone. They weren't imprisoned. A criminal was captured. And everyone involved has great story to repeat every thanksgiving. Its a win/win except for the robber.


Yeah, you're right. Parents should be allowed to use this tactic with their kids. Just point armed pistols and shotguns at them while handcuffing them and then make them sit on a curb for a "few minutes" (wink wink). After all, it's not like imprisoning children, it is a "win/win" for parenting and upbringing.




I don't see how any rights were violated.


Yeah, you're right. That due process of law nonsense is just a bunch of ideological hooey. Hell, if you're not doing anything wrong, then why do you need rights, right?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Your the type of person who at a road block will sit there for ten minutes and lecture the cops. Your the type of person who when pulled over during a search for robber, will pointlessly assert your rights even when its counterproductive and makes no sense to do so.

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.

Your rights are there to protect you, that does not mean that you have to mindlessly assert them every chance we get.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
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.





new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join