View Full Version : Aurora PD
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1001/pirates-vs-ninjas-pirates-demotivational-poster-1264884521.jpg
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 16:03
Its a MAN baby......
I don't want to admit this... But I'm sure I'm not the only one...
When I worked in Boulder I was driving behind this "person" on a bike.. Said person had a long pony tail coming out of their helmet...
Said person had a nice, firm ass...
I drove by... Said person was a guy.... :(
KevDen2005
06-08-2012, 18:27
I don't want to admit this... But I'm sure I'm not the only one...
When I worked in Boulder I was driving behind this "person" on a bike.. Said person had a long pony tail coming out of their helmet...
Said person had a nice, firm ass...
I drove by... Said person was a guy.... :(
Nope, never happened to me...I bet it happened to no one else...
Good Job, JM!
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 18:34
Nope, never happened to me...I bet it happened to no one else...
Good Job, JM!
[Bang] DOH!
I don't want to admit this... But I'm sure I'm not the only one...
When I worked in Boulder I was driving behind this "person" on a bike.. Said person had a long pony tail coming out of their helmet...
Said person had a nice, firm ass...
I drove by... Said person was a guy.... :(
Nope, never happened to me...I bet it happened to no one else...
Good Job, JM!
[Bang] DOH!
so how do you feel about gladiator movies jm ? [LOL] [LOL]
KevDen2005
06-08-2012, 18:42
LOL, [Beer]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 18:44
I'll wait for my pink username....
lpgasman
06-08-2012, 18:59
I just love how these threads digress. Especially when talking about sexy ninjas. I would like to get my ass kicked by one of them.[Flower]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 19:00
The other one is headed that way... Maybe it can be the rival thread.... The sexy pirate thread.... Ronin! Get on that!
KevDen2005
06-08-2012, 19:32
I'll wait for my pink username....
(Holds head in shame)
I don't want to admit this... But I'm sure I'm not the only one...
When I worked in Boulder I was driving behind this "person" on a bike.. Said person had a long pony tail coming out of their helmet...
Said person had a nice, firm ass...
I drove by... Said person was a guy.... :(
you coming out?
KevDen2005
06-08-2012, 19:42
you coming out?
LOL.
JM, you should have never admitted to that, man!
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1001/pirates-vs-ninjas-pirates-demotivational-poster-1264884521.jpg
arrrgggghhh matey!!!
LOL.
JM, you should have never admitted to that, man!
one more thing to mentally write down. $500 lowers, likes to look at guys asses, oh the list just gets better and better! please DO tell more[ROFL1]
Well, lawsuit is finally out.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/20/they-brandished-shields-and-pointed-assault-rifles-directly-at-innocent-citizens-and-that-was-just-the-start-lawsuit-details-shock-case-of-alleged-fourth-amendment-violation/
I would post the text, but I'm on the cell.
The only reason you would not let them search is if you have something to hide.
I get so tired of the ignorance of this statement.
Well, lawsuit is finally out.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/20/they-brandished-shields-and-pointed-assault-rifles-directly-at-innocent-citizens-and-that-was-just-the-start-lawsuit-details-shock-case-of-alleged-fourth-amendment-violation/
I would post the text, but I'm on the cell.
I hope they win and every single cop involved is fired. They need to understand that just because they are in control of a situation (which was fine) they do not need to treat everybody as a cimminal until there is just cause. Ensure they are disarmed, fine, sit them on a curb, ok continue to point guns at them afterwards, search without a warrant (they had a tracking device, they were going to find the car regardless and could have protected the Constitution that they and everyone on this forum SAY they want to protect and uphold), not listen to medical concerns, not address the obvious anxiety this would cause.......... Ever point a gun at a kid being held by a parent (let the guy go if a kid is in that much risk, there was no evidence the kid was in any danger from all reports) .... Simply no. For those of you going to the cop bashing BS flag, I don't think so. If your policy allows this type of behavior it is time to disband that police dept and start over. Treating everybody as guilty before proof is not caution, it is wrong.
BushMasterBoy
05-20-2014, 18:39
Don't ya just love the po po....
This scenario is only possible in TV show 24.
GilpinGuy
05-21-2014, 07:10
If the gps indicated that the suspect entered an apartment building, could the police lock down the entire building and search every apartment without a warrant? I just dont know the law well enough - not trying to stir the pot here.
If the gps indicated that the suspect entered an apartment building, could the police lock down the entire building and search every apartment without a warrant? I just dont know the law well enough - not trying to stir the pot here.
You mean like Boston did with the whole friggin city after the marathon bombing?
kidicarus13
05-21-2014, 08:08
You mean like Boston did with the whole friggin city after the marathon bombing?
But it was to protect the PEEple of Boston [facepalm]
There is a problem when everything turns into an exigent circumstance. It really starts putting a new meaning behind the old saying "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail!"
Ranger353
05-21-2014, 11:00
Colorado follows this interpretation defined in U.S. case law:
"Exigent Circumstances refer to situations that demands unusual or immediate action and this allows people to circumvent usual procedures. In other words emergency conditions. The circumstances are such that it would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt action is necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers. For example when a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning house to save someone inside.
These are situations in which a police officer can take immediate action to effectively make an arrest, search, or seizure for which probable cause exists. This can be done without first obtaining a warrant. The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109 requires police officers to knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. However, exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.
Exigent circumstances are said to exist when
(1) a person's life or safety is threatened
(2) a suspect's escape is imminent, or
(3) evidence is about to be removed or destroyed.
This is also termed as emergency circumstances or special circumstances."
Colorado follows this interpretation defined in U.S. case law:
"Exigent Circumstances refer to situations that demands unusual or immediate action and this allows people to circumvent usual procedures. In other words emergency conditions. The circumstances are such that it would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt action is necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers. For example when a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning house to save someone inside.
These are situations in which a police officer can take immediate action to effectively make an arrest, search, or seizure for which probable cause exists. This can be done without first obtaining a warrant. The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109 requires police officers to knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. However, exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.
Exigent circumstances are said to exist when
(1) a person's life or safety is threatened
(2) a suspect's escape is imminent, or
(3) evidence is about to be removed or destroyed.
This is also termed as emergency circumstances or special circumstances."
You missed the point of my statement.
Ranger353
05-21-2014, 14:03
You missed the point of my statement.
Nope, I didn't. This has been the standard for the past 20 years and has stood the test of SCOTUS review. It happens frequently if not daily and it always has, but it's just now being refocused on because of this specific event or incident in Aurora. Bottomline is based on the limited information provided by the tracking device at the time, they pursued the most cautious and expeditious course of action available at that moment and the officers had PC.
ThunderSquirrel
05-21-2014, 14:39
There is also plenty of case law that covers Exigent Circumstances that were created by the government or law enforcement agency.
Haven't read the entire thread.
But I use this exact scenario when I teach carry classes, when I go over exercise of rights.
In the situation, if you didn't consent, you would be harassed, but well trained P.D. will eventually let you go. If they didn't....
42 U.S.C. 1983! When they DIDN'T find any evidence of bank robbery, the department would be really sweating if you got a good attorney on it.
"Escape of a Fleeing felon" wouldn't hold up in the situation. If someone robs a bank, and they see them bust down the door of a house the can pursue it. If they detain 19 cars, well, self defeating argument there. Even if one is a felon, they already have proven 18 are not. So, less than 5% probable chance of them being a fleeing felon? Not good odds for a department. Win for rights violation if that line was crossed.
You did get my statement ;)
Ranger353
05-21-2014, 19:55
Haven't read the entire thread.
But I use this exact scenario when I teach carry classes, when I go over exercise of rights.
In the situation, if you didn't consent, you would be harassed, but well trained P.D. will eventually let you go. If they didn't....
42 U.S.C. 1983! When they DIDN'T find any evidence of bank robbery, the department would be really sweating if you got a good attorney on it.
"Escape of a Fleeing felon" wouldn't hold up in the situation. If someone robs a bank, and they see them bust down the door of a house the can pursue it. If they detain 19 cars, well, self defeating argument there. Even if one is a felon, they already have proven 18 are not. So, less than 5% probable chance of them being a fleeing felon? Not good odds for a department. Win for rights violation if that line was crossed.
But the premise was that the GPS device in the bank bank gave them the responding officers a location within 50 feet so they knew it was one of those vehicles at the intersection. They did find the suspect in the group of cars and all the people were released within 15 minutes of the apprehension. The 2 hour time was total time from the initial stop to the release of last car.
No one likes their freedom restricted, I know I don't. But no one likes being robbed at gun point either.
But the premise was that the GPS device in the bank bank gave them the responding officers a location within 50 feet so they knew it was one of those vehicles at the intersection. They did find the suspect in the group of cars and all the people were released within 15 minutes of the apprehension. The 2 hour time was total time from the initial stop to the release of last car.
No one likes their freedom restricted, I know I don't. But no one likes being robbed at gun point either.
No one should have guns pointed at their kids, medical needs ignored or constitutional rights ignored just because the police are "just following orders!" Oh, excuse me, I mean dept policy. What you just stated comes down to giving up our freedom and rights for security.....and that the ends justify the means. I swear I have heard somebody else make statements about these issues. It must have been somebody a LONG time ago.
ThunderSquirrel
05-22-2014, 09:02
The biggest issue here is that the PD CREATED the exigent circumstances by not having the correct equipment to even locate the gps beacon.
They waited HOURS for the FBI to bring the equipment before they could pinpoint the beacon.
Because they failed to be prepared to even respond correctly to a 'gps beacon situation', I should have my rights suspended and sit on a curb, cuffed, with a muzzle in my face?
Had they waited, or even had the equipment they needed, there would have been no need for vehicles to be unlawfully searched.
Bitter Clinger
05-22-2014, 09:11
There was NO reason for this, several other options were available. Such as follow the beacon in a unmarked unit until the car is alone? I missed BEING at that intersection by about 20 min.
Ok, so Aurora PD had a fix on this beacon to within say, 50 meters. Why couldn't they just track the beacon for another 10 minutes, and figure out which car was carrying it? Did it not occur to anyone involved that the perp might figure out he was trapped in their little intersection dragnet, and decide that the best way out was either to open fire, or take an innocent party hostage? It would seem to this Monday Morning Quarterback that the police created a potentially volatile situation by funneling a known armed suspect into a situation with 18 non-combatants, in an enclosed(but not secured) perimeter. If they were indeed following a GPS signal, they should have been able to discreetly track it until the subject was in a more isolated situation. I pay taxes in Aurora, but I hope they win this lawsuit.
Bitter Clinger
05-22-2014, 09:36
Ok, so Aurora PD had a fix on this beacon to within say, 50 meters. Why couldn't they just track the beacon for another 10 minutes, and figure out which car was carrying it? Did it not occur to anyone involved that the perp might figure out he was trapped in their little intersection dragnet, and decide that the best way out was either to open fire, or take an innocent party hostage? It would seem to this Monday Morning Quarterback that the police created a potentially volatile situation by funneling a known armed suspect into a situation with 18 non-combatants, in an enclosed(but not secured) perimeter. If they were indeed following a GPS signal, they should have been able to discreetly track it until the subject was in a more isolated situation. I pay taxes in Aurora, but I hope they win this lawsuit.
Same here Tfog. Can you imagine if one of those poor people happened to be CCW?
Ok, so Aurora PD had a fix on this beacon to within say, 50 meters. Why couldn't they just track the beacon for another 10 minutes, and figure out which car was carrying it? Did it not occur to anyone involved that the perp might figure out he was trapped in their little intersection dragnet, and decide that the best way out was either to open fire, or take an innocent party hostage? It would seem to this Monday Morning Quarterback that the police created a potentially volatile situation by funneling a known armed suspect into a situation with 18 non-combatants, in an enclosed(but not secured) perimeter. If they were indeed following a GPS signal, they should have been able to discreetly track it until the subject was in a more isolated situation. I pay taxes in Aurora, but I hope they win this lawsuit.
This!
I was think about that this morning, did APD do everything to ensure public safety? I think not. They could have potentially put more at risk by going the route they did had the robber decided he didn't want to give up without a fight.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.