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.

 

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

page: 8
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
One poster said that refusing a search gives probable cause?

I dont remember the consritution saying we give up our rights by ascerting them. It pains me to see fellow citizens so easily volunteering mine up on the chopping block. You can make whatever choice you want regarding your rights. But that doesnt lead to the argument that mine should be given up as well.

We need to stop allowing law enforcement to treat everyone as a suspect. Its the blanket justification for all violations of rights to say that individual rights must be suspended in order to ensure the capture of a suspected criminal. Stopping the citizens and asking questions and searching cars after consent is given without threat is one thing. Immediately arresting then asking to search vehicles is another.




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Why don't you just be honest and admit that you didn't bother to look for that bit. Had you bothered you would have found that "bit" ...

...

You might want to consider becoming an Aurora police officer, from what I hear they're not real big on facts either.



Again, I am missing the part where the police put a shotgun in someone's face. They were armed? Gee, what a stunner. With shotguns? Another stunner.. since many cop cars have shotguns in them. Being armed and putting a shotgun into someone's face are two very different things. They knew an armed suspect was probably directly in their vicinity. You are surprised they were armed? Your disingenuous comment tries to make them out to be bad guys, which I assume is your agenda. Your comments about them being basically power-tripping bullies is laughable. What a reach - you don't know any of the police involved. Again just more comments to villainize them. Nothing new on these boards at any rate.

And I happen to live in Aurora Co. I've had 5 run-ins with police over various things in the last 15 years. They were professional in all cases. You make a lot of assumptions about an entire police department. Or maybe it's you just have a lot of assumptions about police officers in general.

I am not even saying what they did was LEGAL. They may get into legal trouble over it. I'm saying I don't think they trampled on people's rights, and I don't feel they were trying to bully mr. badcops to the citizens. They were doing what they thought was right to apprehend an armed bank robber, and they got their guy - the armed criminal you seem to feel it was perfectly fine to just let drive away, because it's much more important to not impede on an Americans all powerful "rights" no matter what the situation.

There are times I get outraged at certain police officers antics, and the actual purposeful impediment of said rights. I just think that like much PC crap these days, common sense goes out the window in cases like this.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


You're missing quite a bit, sport. If you think it is okay for cops to walk up to innocent people armed to the teeth, dragging them out of their cars and handcuffing them, leaving them on the sidewalk curb exposed to the dangers you yourself spoke to, then this is your character. If you think that is the kind of character that should be admired, that's your problem, not mine.

I fight for the unalienable rights of all people. There are some police who do too, but not near enough while way too many hold the attitude you do and have a character similar to yours.

God help us all, every one of us.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:23 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.


Are you high? Or trolling? Or do you actually believe that rubbish?


Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both - Benjamin Franklin


Why don't they just arrest everyone "just in case?" Throw us all in jail to make their job a little easier? That's a sure-shot way to stop crime and have safe streets. Or maybe stick a camera in everyone's car so we can stop these crimes before they happen? Who cares about that crap called "rights" and "privacy". Anyone who desires their rights to be honored or their privacy to remain private is probably doing something wrong anyway, right? I bet if they detained you against your will in a situation like this you'd have second thoughts. And if you didn't, quite frankly I don't know how you could live with yourself.

Why is everyone so afraid of "crime" and "terrorism" that they're willing to allow criminals to invade their privacy and freedoms and completely disregard their rights? You're giving up your humanity in the name of imaginary safety. What happens when someone really does want to hurt you? Do you think the cops are going to protect you? Sure, they might find your murderer after the fact, but does that make you any less dead? Why are you so dependent on authorities to keep you "safe"? And what do you consider "safety"? Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's right, too, by the way. It's legal for them to bomb children in third-world countries, I bet you don't approve of that. But the end justifies the means, right?
Gotta get those nasty terrorists lest they throw sandles and IDEs at American citizens! F*ck the children! WE WANT SAFETY!

We have the biggest generation of push-overs on this planet right now that it's a wonder we have the balls to tackle any of these issues at all!

This is only going to get worse, you know that, right? Sure, it starts with a bank robbery, but if we don't make it clear that this is symptomatic of pure fascist control of society and we won't bend over, then where does this stop? With hundreds of thousands of drones in the sky and checkpoints on every major road? Worse? Would you be okay with that?

If you answer yes then I'm going to have to assume, for the sake of my own sanity, that you're just trolling us.


We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.

Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.


If you can read that and not be deeply offended by it on some level, perhaps you've already lost the battle and now you're just another workhorse pet. In which case, I feel very sorry for you.

I think armed robbery is wrong, and I don't condone such actions. But I think assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent is even worse. But maybe I'm just a filthy communist who hates America, right?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Sadly, we don't know under what pretenses such consent was obtained. As another poster stated earlier -- was their some strong arm tactics employed to get compliance with the action. We won't know unless someone speaks up or this does somehow get to court.

An evil conspiracy does not have to exist 100% of the time when it comes to law enforcement. Until a legal challenge comes from it the searches were by consent. The reason for the handcuffs is a given since the person they were looking for was armed. Detaining an individual and placing them into handcuffs, coupled with the fact the person was armed, is an officer safety precaution. I have done that when I have had to search a vehicle without any backup available.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
What established critera; the police already said the tip was vague. So any yahoo can call into a tip line, say that they believe someone who committed a crime (or maybe just for fun) is at such and such intersection and the police have enough "cause" to detain citizens that did nothing wrong?

The US Supreme Court has ruled many times when it comes to DWI / Insurance / check points. There has to be an established pattern in terms of contact. Every car, every 3rd car, every 5th car etc etc etc.. In this case every single car that came t the checkpoint was stopped.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I can see if they were at the scene of a crime...that is investigative. This was people in no way connected with the crime and were all held. While the argument can be made both ways, it has a lot of merit for the citizens that were going about their business and were detained for no reason other than "virtual certainty" as the officer stated...

It was connected to the crime and the chief stated as much. During his press conference he stated they had received verified information as to the suspect and his location (irtual certainty). This is not the first time something along these lines have occured and it wont be the last (however I am all for constant review and challenges to them to ensure any abuse of that ability is resolved and prohibited from occuring again).

Similar road block swere used years back during the killing spree by sniper rifle in DC and surrounding states.

The Supreme court has also ruled and established guidelines for how long a person can be detained during a traffic stop. The longer the detention the more law enforcement is required to justify their actions. Dont get me wrong I completely understand the issues involved and as I stated before both sides have valid arguments.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAnarchist



We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.

Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.


If you can read that and not be deeply offended by it on some level


I am extremely offended by the acts of these tyrants. One thing that I would like to point out about the whole situation, and something that really makes no sense at all is that by the quoted officers own statement the police had no description of the suspect. They "didn't know the race, gender, or anything" yet they were looking for a suspect.

How in the hell could they have been looking for someone if they had no idea who they were looking for? Were they searching for someone with a t shirt on that said "I'm an armed bank robber"? Really, think about it, there is absolutely no way at all that any of this was legit. How would they have even known that they had the robber if they had came in contact with them?


Personally I think that the bank robbery was simply used as an excuse to through around their power and initiate a probable cause scenario. This whole scenario reeks of BS and totalitarian Gestapo tactics.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
How in the hell could they have been looking for someone if they had no idea who they were looking for?


Video surveillance....
Money......
Money wrappers.....
Money bag.......
Disguise......
Weapons (in and of itself not illegal but still)...
Vehicle description.....
Last known direction of travel.....
Behavior at the checkpoint.....

I can keep listing but you get the idea.


Originally posted by Nucleardiver
Personally I think that the bank robbery was simply used as an excuse to through around their power and initiate a probable cause scenario. This whole scenario reeks of BS and totalitarian Gestapo tactics.

Which could be a valid opinion except for the fact the 4th amendment was not violated. The article states consent, which is an exception to the 4th. Until a person who was stopped files a complaint, we go with consent and valid.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 


I love my state all the more at moments like this. Car is an extension of my home. I have to invite them in.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 


I love my state all the more at moments like this. Car is an extension of my home. I have to invite them in.


To an extent yes however they do not equate in the same manner.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:32 AM
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.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Yes, the police may detain you for a “terry stop”, and are permitted to preform a “pat down” search of clothing (stop and frisk). They need reasonable suspicion to search beyond a stop and frisk. If they put you in cuffs then they are legally arresting you, not detaining you. The minute your are physically restrained, in legal terms, you're under arrest. Unless there's more to this story, these cops violated peoples constitutional rights, and can be sued for false arrest.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Execution of a search warrant and officer safety allowing handcuffs to be used without it being an arrest.
Muehler v. Mena, ___U.S.___, 125 S.Ct. 1465 (2005)
Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981)

Supreme court ruling allowing handcufs to be used during terry frisk on traffic stops = not an arrest.
Riordan and Bruzy v. Trooper Joyner et. al, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5312 (Dist. CT. 2005)
U.S. v. Vargas, 369 F.3d 98, 101 (2nd Cir. 2004)


The court noted that use of handcuffs during a “Terry Stop” is not the ordinary course of events, but it does not necessarily change the event to an arrest “when it [use of handcuffs] is a reasonable response to legitimate safety concerns on the part of the investigating officers… Further, the fact that the officers approached a stopped car with guns drawn in order to protect themselves and bystanders on the street [does not] necessarily transmute a ‘Terry stop’ into an arrest.”

In applying the law to the facts here, the court noted that the troopers had information from an identified good-citizen informant who remained on the scene during the police investigation. The troopers had no reason to believe that Mr. Angelico’s information regarding Bruzy and her vehicle was unreliable. In looking at the treatment of Riordan, the court noted that officers were aware that Riiordan’s fiancé was under investigation for firing a shot. “Although Riordan had not been disruptive to the investigation, there was the potential that he could do so. Objectively speaking, the justification for placing Riordan in handcuffs was twofold: (1) to prevent him from disrupting the investigation of Bruzy, and (2) to determine if Riordan had any role in the suspected criminal activity.” The court found that the actions of the Troopers and officers were reasonable with respect to Bruzy and Riordan and notwithstanding the handcuffing, remained a “Terry stop” and not a full-blown arrest. As such the officers were released from liability.


While we normally agree on this topic we do not. Handcuffing is permissible in this situation and does not equate into an arrest. Its an officer safety issue.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


The events that took place in Aurora Colorado do not come anywhere near the very narrow facts of Terry v. Ohio, and the Supreme Court did not rule in Terry v. Ohio that police officers could indiscriminately and arbitrarily stop and frisk whoever they goddamned please. Such a ruling would have been grossly unlawful. The ruling the SCOTUS did render was in fact lawful and just. The police officer that frisked the three would be bank robbers of Terry v. Ohio only did so after observing a series of events that combined made the three look very suspicious. It was under those circumstances, where this police officer did not jerk his knee and react but investigated the scene and determined, correctly so, that the three men of Terry v. Ohio were up to something that was probably criminal.

In no way does that ruling apply in any way to the events that took place in Aurora Colorado. If someone does file a complaint, and if they file a verified complaint pressing criminal charges against the arresting officers, those officers will not be able to rely on Terry v. Ohio as a sound defense. It is wholly inapplicable in this context.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


First off, there MUST be a valid legal reason to detain someone. You cannot set up a roadblock and legally detain everyone. That is a violation of peoples Fourth Amendment rights:

The Fourth Amendment: Stop and Frisk
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband)

So right off the bat, they were wrong in stopping all the traffic flow and preforming a “Terry Stop” on anyone in the area. They cannot have “reasonable suspicion” for all the drivers on a road. That is a dangerous and gross misinterpretation of the intent of the law. Why not just say that the police have “reasonable suspicion” against everyone at all times, and just set up permanent checkpoints?

Also, even if they have “probable cause” if the detention goes an unreasonable amount of time its automatically considered an arrest:


Case: Cooke v. State, 29 FLW D2693 (4th DCA)

Date: December 10, 2004

FACTS: Police stopped a vehicle pursuant to a report of it being involved in a “suspicious incident.” The driver fled but the occupant, Cocke, was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. About ten to fifteen minutes later, a canine unit arrived and started a search for the driver. Another fifteen minutes passed when the person who reported the suspicious incident arrived. He was unable to positively identify Cocke as being involved. An officer then read Cocke his Miranda rights. Cocke immediately confessed that he had been smoking marijuana. The officer then searched the vehicle and found not only marijuana but evidence that led to Cocke being arrested for burglary. At the suppression hearing, the defense claimed that there was no probable cause to detain Cocke and therefore his statement about smoking marijuana was obtained as a result of an unlawful detention. Furthermore the drugs and evidence should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree (that is, they were discovered only as a result of the statement given by Cocke).

RULING: The State conceded that there was no probable cause to detain Cocke. However, they argued that the detention was lawful because it was based on reasonable suspicion (a Terry stop). The appellate court pointed out that under certain circumstances a person temporarily detained on reasonable suspicion may be handcuffed if there reason for the officer to believe he or she is armed and dangerous. But the handcuffs must be removed once the officer pats the person down and finds no weapons. In this case, the defendant was handcuffed for a significant period of time for no apparent reason. Thus, the detention went beyond what Terry allows and by reason of the extended handcuffing, had morphed into an arrest. Since there was no probable cause to support an arrest, the marijuana-related statement and eventual discovery of the drugs and evidence violated Cocke’s constitutional rights and should be suppressed.

So in this case, 10 to 15 minutes moved this man from a detain to an arrest.
This whole thing stinks of officers who were overwhelmed by the situation, and stepped outside of their legal rights. If it had been me, I'd be retaining a lawyer.

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


edit on 6/6/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The search was by consent...


Complete and utter bovine excrement! Being pulled out of the car and hand cuffed then asked if you consent to be searched is coercion by fear and intimidation pure and simple!


The roablock stopped every car meeting established criteria...


That is the most ridiculous absurd BS I have ever heard! Yeah we don't know what he looks like and he is in a car at the intersection but we don't know what the car looks like either. Thats like having someone murdered in your nieghborhood and getting a tip the murderer is in one of the houses; we don't know which one or what he looks like and the cops simply going door to door and pulling each inhabitant out of their house handcuffing them and searching every house with supposed probable cause. let me just puke at such idiotic BS!


The armed bank robber was among those 19 cars that were stopped....


Yeah so as a typical cop in your mind that justified violating the rights of the people in the other 18 cars... Sigh! And you wonder why cops get so much hate... Why don't we just do random house to house searches I am sure we could turn up a few criminals here and there on a regular basis. Hitler and Stalin would be proud of this mindset...


Once the police cleared each car the people were released and allowed to continue....


Once the gestapo determined der papers vere in order you vere free to go... Wow how good of them to do so after violating their rights... Sigh!


Both sides have valid arguments, making the action subject to court interpretation within existing laws and case laws. The argument by the police is going to be investigative detentions based on credible information, and since the criminal was located it should be interesting to see how this plays out.


Un-effing-believable! You are a real piece of work... Sigh!
Credible information my ass no description of the car or suspect so just stop everyone handcuff them all and then ask to search, nothing like a little fear and intimidation to get citizens to voluntarily comply...



For this the term people need to be familiar with is "good faith exception".


For this term the people need to be familiar with is "police state mentality" or how about "tyranny"; that anytime someone commits are crime their rights are temporarily suspended until lazy ass cops coerce intimidate search and harrass everyone in hope of catching a crook without doing any real investigative work and producing some evidence or even probable cause.

Just goes to show you how far this country has sunk into ignorance and acceptance of police state tactics god help us all...



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” Samuel Adams

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

My god where are the patriots of this generation who will stand up to this BS and ever increasing tyranny! Buhler Buhler...


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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


It doesn't matter one iota if they thought what they were doing was right. They were without equivocation stomping on the people's rights.

That you can even state that they weren't makes me sick. Have you read the fourth amendment, because that is what states what our rights are in regards to search and seizure...

I suppose you think that the TSA is legitimate and legal too???

People like you make me sick and when they do come knocking on your door, you're the one who will be screaming for people like me to save you from them, "But I've done nothing wrong!!!!".

"Hey, we tried to tell you what allowing that type of precedent inevitably leads to, but you didn't want to hear any part of it, so lie in your bed".

Actually, better yet, wake up and help us prevent this from remaining the status quo...

Man, makes me sick to see what has happened to Liberty in arguably the last bastion of Liberty in the world.

I guess as of now, there is no liberty in the world.

Libertas Captus, Para Bellum...

Jaden



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
An informant told us that that a bank robber is hiding inside one of these 18 houses, GONNA HAVE TO ARREST AND SEARCH ALL OF YOU




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Wow, it weighs heavy on my heart, that even a single american can not only not be outraged at this, but even go so far as to defend it.........



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

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.



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

Originally posted by TKDRL
Wow, it weighs heavy on my heart, that even a single american can not only not be outraged at this, but even go so far as to defend it.........


Not only does it weigh heavy on my heart but it makes me angry that stupid ignorant people will defend this garbage! These idiots don't realize that one day these same police will be pulling them out of their cars and not releasing them but sending them off to gulags as enemies of the state if we allow this BS to continue!



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join