It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Saturation Unit Keeping Busy: 12News Rides Along

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:54 PM

It's been a busy few days for Erie's new police saturation unit. It hit the streets, on Friday.
Monday, 12News rode along, to get a first hand look at how it's going. CLICK FOR VIDEO

It was a busy afternoon Monday, for the new saturation unit, and 12News got a close look at what they're doing out on the streets of Erie.
Monday afternoon, we rode along with Corporal Rick Lorah. He's a supervisor with the new saturation unit.
Moments after we left City Hall, the unit got called to check out a complaint of gambling, and a group of men loitering in the 300 block of East 24th street.
When they got there, they searched the men and broke up their gathering.
Police arrested one man for disorderly conduct.
An officer searched around the house, and found a bag of suspected crack coc aine.
Charges in this case are pending.

Just a bit later, in the 900 block of Wallace street, the saturation unit approached a group of men sitting on a porch.
While searching one of the men, Corporal Lorah found money, crack coc aine, and and a knife.
They were about to arrest him, when he took off running.
After a foot pursuit, the suspect got away. But police say they believe they know who the suspect is.

Meantime, since this unit hit the streets on Friday, they've made more than a dozen arrests, and handed out several citations.
It's a 7-officer unit, made up of more experienced officers on the force.
So far, it appears to be working. As they've been able to crack down on specific crime issues in the neighborhoods.
And while riding along, we heard many citizens compliment and thank the officers of the saturation unit. Corporal Lorah says they're hearing that a lot as well.
"For the most part, it's pretty positive. A lot of residents are happy that we're there. Because for the most part a majority of the people are good people. There's a small element right now that's causing the problems. And that's why we're here, to remove that bad element from the area." Said Cpl. Lorah.

This new unit's shift is Noon to 8:30.
Erie's Police Chief says he formed the unit to work cooperation with the the NAT team, and city residents.

So what we have here is local law enforcement riding around and if they see anything suspicious they trespass and illegally search people.

A friend of mine that lives up in PA asked me to post this on ATS and get reactions.

This is nothing more than abuse of power and Violation of individual rights.

We live in a police state.

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:58 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

If a police officer sees anything that they consider suspicious they are allowed to enter your property and search you. Its called “Probable Cause”, and has existed about as long as law enforcement has existed.

Edit to add:

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar-Spinelli test.

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

[edit on 6/17/2010 by defcon5]

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:31 AM
reply to post by defcon5

I can understand probable cause, but guys standing around their own yard that's a whole different story. The Law here in MS basically says that LE has to be summoned or witness a crime to trespass and search you on your own land.

I guess up in PA the Peasants are willing to deal with that.

However I know many will not tolerate those actions on the part of police.

We all have a right to be secure in ones person as stated by the 4th amendment.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:49 AM
As I was reading this, I thought to myself how horrible this all sounds. I'm sure that the people being harassed aren't angels but still. How does gambling or crack coc aine hurt anyone who doesn't choose to participate? Sure these things may spawn other crimes such as burglary or theft but we already have laws for those crimes.

To me, this seems like a bunch of cops out to harass the citizens. What ever happened to liberty in this country? Have we completely traded our liberty for a false perception of security? I realized that it's the law but that doesn't make it right. As MLK Jr. once said, "never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany, was legal". I'm afraid we have gone mad in this country and concern ourselves too much with other people's business.

If someone wants to gamble or smoke crack, it should be no business of ours. However, if they decide to steal from us or initiate force in any other way, then we should deal with that force accordingly. If we are in the business of outlawing certain activities to prevent crime, then we should also outlaw iPhones on the subway system as they too provoke crime by enticing thieves to steal them.

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

I'm a libertarian and so don't believe in the initiation of force, though that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to force as a response. We should have maximum liberty, up until it impedes on the liberties of others and smoking crack, hanging out on a porch or gambling is not initiating force against anyone, though harassing them for these activities certainly is. I just can't understand for the life of me, how people seem to concern themselves with the business of others, to the extent in which it is done in this country. Could it be indoctrination to believe that these activities are wrong? When you honestly ask yourself this question, be sure to include the question of whether imposing your will on others is much worse.


[edit on 17-6-2010 by airspoon]

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:34 AM
Airspoon. Have you ever lived in a neighborhood where people gamble in the alley and feel like they can smoke crack on their front porch with impunity.
These activities lead directly to crime and initiated force.

I can tell you from experience that neighborhoods where such events occur can be extremely stressful and the families that depend on the neighborhoods as their community are extremely affected by these activities.

The problem isn't inherent in the activities themselves but in the economic model built up around them. People need money to gamble, and will gamble all their money away. they need money to buy crack, and they will spend all of it on crack. People in turn take advantage of this and they are setting up their "business" in neighborhoods where families live. If you have a community where these "lawless businesses" thrive it is going to attract people that earn their money "lawlessly" themselves who will steal and initiate force against people somewhere, and likely in that same neighborhood.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:47 AM
reply to post by thedarklingthrush

Then you need to prosecute the people who actually commit the crimes. As far as living in a neighborhood without crack or gambling, that decision is yours alone. If you don't like it, you should move. If I lived in south Louisiana for instance, I would be around the stench of fish. It would be my choice to live there. If I outlawed fishing because it was a nuisance, then I would be initiating force. It really shouldn't matter whether the majority is along with me or against me.

In fact, this Republic was set up in a manner as to eliminate the majority ganging up on a minority and that is why we are not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is not a "just" system.

Look, I hear what you are saying and no I wouldn't want to live in a crack infested neighborhood, just as I don't want to live near a chemical plant. If I did live near a chemical plant or in a crack infested neighborhood, it would be because of my choice. I believe that one's liberty should be at the max, up until it impedes on the liberty of another. By moving somewhere and forcing someone to abandon something that they do, my liberty is impeding on their liberty.

If someone smokes crack, it shouldn't hurt you unless they are doing it in a manner to where you are affected, such as doing it on your property or blowing the smoke in your face, which at that point, they are initiating force against you and proper measures could be taken. However, just the simple fact that someone had crack in their pocket, really doesn't affect you. Whatever property or violent crimes are committed as a result, should be dealt with. In simple terms, victimless crimes aren't crimes in my book and any attempt to initiate force based upon a victimless crime, is a crime itself.

If you don't like something but aren't affected by it, then you have every right to remove yourself from the situation. You shouldn't have every right to impede on the liberties of someone else for your own comfort. It is wrong and against natural law and no, someone smoking crack doesn't affect you. It is the property and violent crimes that are committed by people who usually smoke crack, that affects you. Because of this, you should deal with the actual crimes that affect you, which would not be the initiation of force. You have to break this down to the lowest common denominator, which is force. Nobody is forcing you to live in a certain place.

You should research "Austrian economics", which is the corner-stone of libertarianism and the principal of liberty. Don't we all have the same goal of freedom, to include person freedom? A good place to start:


p.s. please excuse if this post is all over the place as I'm half asleep.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:37 AM
reply to post by airspoon

So you think people should be free to come into to your neighborhood and build a chemical plant next door? Wouldn't your form of libertarianism be against zoning laws?

The notion that people could just up and move away from these things is ridiculous. That's not real economics, most people are pretty much stuck where they live. I was also talking about myself as a child so no, I couldn't move. My parents still can't afford to either.

It's a fact that crack and gambling correlates with the presence of forceful crimes as you call them. The cops can't stop this kind of neighborhood casual crime unless they are being creative.

They aren't even doing anything illegal here. This gets my stamp of approval because they are working with the neighborhoods. This is grassroots crime fighting here in my opinion.

Cops vs people = bad
Cops + people vs criminals = win for everyone involved.

new topics

top topics


log in