View Full Version : Aurora PD
Surprised no one has mentioned this yet.
Bank robbery and 19 cars were stopped, most if not all drivers cuffed, detained for about 2 hours, and asked if their cars could be searched. For me the stunning thing was that everyone agreed to a search without a warrant. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose after 2 hours they just wanted to get the ordeal over with and get on with their lives. I think it sure would have been nice if a few would have forced the cops to play by the rules.
So, what happens in a situation where a cop wants to search your car and you refuse without a warrant? You can be extensively detained, hauled downtown, car impounded, 'accidently' damaged? I have wondered about this before. How miserable could the situation become if you refuse a random search?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/
Robb
islandermyk
06-05-2012, 08:36
paperwork... to much paperwork....
... no one likes paperwork [ROFL1]
Byte Stryke
06-05-2012, 08:51
^^^^^---last time I said something negative about a police action....
SuperiorDG
06-05-2012, 08:59
The only reason you would not let them search is if you have something to hide.
That looks like Buckley and Iliff.
I had heard that late yesterday morning someone robbed the Wells Fargo on Chambers and Hampden.
DD977GM2
06-05-2012, 09:05
The only reason you would not let them search is if you have something to hide.
Biggest BS reason out there and cops use it all the time to get consent. [Bang][Bang][Bang]
I don't really think that's the point. You shouldn't have to be placed in that position.
The only reason you would not let them search is if you have something to hide.
The only reason you would not let them search is if you have something to hide.
what about the right to privacy.
what about not having your time wasted and feeling violated for something you weren't involved in, you didn't do etc.
they were essentially detained until the suspect was found. what happens if this goes on a massive scale and they shut down a neighborhood, or a town and every house, car etc searched and every person detained until they find their person? everything that is unconstitutional starts at a very basic level.
personally I would have denied them searching my vehicle. they would have sent more officers down the line, those people can choose to comply or not and they would have found the suspect and my rights would be less violated.
just another case that shows the Bill of Rights (in this case the 4th Amendment) is just a piece of paper used to wipe the govt asses
rockhound
06-05-2012, 09:11
hmmm,
Would you have felt differently had the suspect had been in a building and the persons in the building were detained until the police searched the building,
sounds like the police had probable cause and thus do not need a warrant.
I think they were giving more than they should have by even asking.
we have probable cause to believe there is a bank robbery suspect among the 19 cars at this intersection, we will be searching your car to ascertain whether you are the person in question.
while i am generally on the side of personal rights, i don't see the police doing anything wrong here, handcuffed for everyone's safety with a felon on the run
Give consent if you want to.
Refuse if you choose.
Either option is legal, and it is perfectly acceptable for the police to ask for consent. The big disincentive for a warrant-less search is the real possibility of losing any evidence obtained by a bad search.
Everyone talks about hating thieves. Why do some of those same people insist on making police out to be bad when they are trying to catch bank robbers?
Everyone here is a grownup. Make your choices and live with the consequences. [Beer]
Be safe.
This is serious shiit.
Surprised that civil rights division is not investigating this yet.
This case brings huge externality to the society (or this case, people who was held against their will).
This definitely shows that there were Greater social marginal cost relative to the marginal benefit.
I sure don't want to get held against my will on a handcuff till they find a guy for hours.
while i am generally on the side of personal rights, i don't see the police doing anything wrong here, handcuffed for everyone's safety with a felon on the run
there is so much wrong in that statement
hmmm,
Would you have felt differently had the suspect had been in a building and the persons in the building were detained until the police searched the building,
sounds like the police had probable cause and thus do not need a warrant.
I think they were giving more than they should have by even asking.
we have probable cause to believe there is a bank robbery suspect among the 19 cars at this intersection, we will be searching your car to ascertain whether you are the person in question.
while i am generally on the side of personal rights, i don't see the police doing anything wrong here, handcuffed for everyone's safety with a felon on the run
I respectfully disagree.
Probable cause (PC) will get you a warrant, if that PC is specific to the thing and place you believe contains evidence of a crime. Police are obliged to take that probable cause to a judge who then decides whether or not to issue a warrant to search or arrest. This can and often is done over the telephone, and can happen in less than two hours.
There are very well spelled out exceptions to obtaining a warrant, but the risk in using one of these exceptions is that after the fact (many months later) in an evidentiary hearing, a judge may disagree with your decision on not obtaining a warrant and throw out all of the really good evidence that you really need to convict a real criminal.
As a police officer, why would I risk doing all that good police work to not get a conviction? My motto (and many other officers share this philosophy) Get consent, or get a warrant. It saves a lot of wasted effort and makes your case much easier in the long run.
Be safe.
BPTactical
06-05-2012, 09:29
Hmmm, let's see here-
Comply, get cuffed and detained.
Refuse to comply, get cuffed and detained.
Helluva choice eh?
JohnTRourke
06-05-2012, 10:59
good thing we live in the freest nation in the world
You know, otherwise people might start to think that is resembles a police state.
but luckily, we're just fine, the government said so.
I thought I got banned for posting this!
spqrzilla
06-05-2012, 11:08
If the police are stopping 19 cars at an intersection, and detaining the drivers/passengers and searching the vehicles, then they don't have "probable cause" at all. If you can't identify a subject vehicle enough to sort out your suspects, you don't have cause to stop any of them. Aurora PD was out of line and they know it.
I'll be writing the city council to inform them of my opinion of their out of control PD.
buckeye4rnr
06-05-2012, 11:12
So if you refuse consent, besides saying "no you cannot search my car am I now free to go" what else should come out of your mouth?
Not_A_Llama
06-05-2012, 11:13
Interesting how you can always tell who fell asleep in civics... Some of our board members have a terrifying concept of what constitutes "probable cause".
We are missing an important piece of information here. Did the police inform the drivers why they were searching the cars?
If I'm pulled over and told they want to search my car, and only that, I'll inform them that they are welcome to search my nutsack with their tongues. If they say, "Hey handsome, we're lookong for a little girl in a red car, mind if we see if she is in your trunk?" Or "OMG, a bank just got robbed, can we make sure it isn't you?" Then I would likely comply.
We are missing an important piece of information here. Did the police inform the drivers why they were searching the cars?
If I'm pulled over and told they want to search my car, and only that, I'll inform them that they are welcome to search my nutsack with their tongues. If they say, "Hey handsome, we're lookong for a little girl in a red car, mind if we see if she is in your trunk?" Or "OMG, a bank just got robbed, can we make sure it isn't you?" Then I would likely comply.
That is a big difference there, my money being on the fact that they weren't like the second example....
I got into some hot water with (what I assume was a rookie) a Jeffco Deputy a few years back while on leave. I was in my mom's pickup truck, got stopped in Evergreen at 11:30ish PM for going 40 in a 35. He asked for consent to search, I refused, he claimed that refusal alone was probable cause because I was "hiding something." A supervisor was called in- who turned out to be a friend of mine- and in the end a 20min traffic stop turned into a 40min one, but at least I didn't have my rights violated. Stick to your guns. YMMV.
spqrzilla
06-05-2012, 11:30
All the Aurora PD had was an anonymous tip that the suspects were stopped at a red light.
“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.
That's not probable cause for a search.
I've had my vehicle searched with my consent on a few occasions. No more. They had no respect for my property, literally dumped out my glove box, console and school work from my backpack in the floor, etc. Fuck being the 'obedient citizen', wake up a judge.
Every officer involved should be reprimanded in this case.
battle_sight_zero
06-05-2012, 11:36
Personally I find this quite shocking. I know the intent was to catch a armed felon, but there were at least 18 other innocent people just driving along and then finding themselves at gunpoint and then being handcuffed. I would find the situation quite stressful if it happened to me. I believe I would be livid if this happened to me and would make a lot of noise about it to the Chief an City counsel. I am all for police officers and realize the difficult job they have. What if the badguy started shooting and his bullets hit the others in the surrounding cars? The collar in my thoughts was not worth the risk. Sounds like a officer Tackleberry move.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-05-2012, 11:36
Stopped, OK.
Asked for a search, OK.
Taken from my car and handcuffed in front of my kids? You are out of your mind. Nobody puts Baby in a corner and nobody puts me in handcuffs with 'someone here is a bank robber'.
If they didn't have a description, how did they ID the guy in the end??? The guy with the gun? Since when did having a gun make you a bank robber? Detained and cuffed for two hours, you have to be crapping me.
Under what legal context where these people held? Were they left out in 90 degree weather in the sun?
StagLefty
06-05-2012, 11:38
Hmmm, let's see here-
Comply, get cuffed and detained.
Refuse to comply, get cuffed and detained.
Helluva choice eh?
^ My initial thoughts also [Beer]
OneGuy67
06-05-2012, 11:41
Not from official sources but, it appears that the robber was given a GPS tracker in the money and there was no suspect vehicle observed by witnesses. The suspect was tracked to that specific location and all were contacted there. Mind you, I don't know if these are true facts or not.
battle_sight_zero
06-05-2012, 11:45
If there was a Gps tracker then this decision was even worse. Follow the GPS until it is in safer area. I feel my car is an extension of my home , thus in my thoughts this invasion of that space was inappropriate.
bellavite1
06-05-2012, 11:46
How the hell does the police have the right to handcuff people in the middle of the street without a warrant them committing a crime ???
SuperiorDG
06-05-2012, 11:54
The only reason you would not let them search is if you have something to hide.
Just so you all know, it was a joke to start a shit storm.[ROFL1]
BPTactical
06-05-2012, 11:57
Just so you all know, it was a joke to start a shit storm.[ROFL1]
I would say you succeeded Richard..........
What if a cop knocked on your door asking to come in and search your house because a neighbor called and said they saw someone suspicious run into your neighborhood?
SuperiorDG
06-05-2012, 12:07
What if a cop knocked on your door asking to come in and search your house because a neighbor called and said they saw someone suspicious run into your neighborhood?
I would tell him to stay there and that I will clear the house and let him know when it is okay.
Rooskibar03
06-05-2012, 12:09
What if a cop knocked on your door asking to come in and search your house because a neighbor called and said they saw someone suspicious run into your neighborhood?
My response would be that if someone had suspicious had run into my home there would be no need for a search, I'll be happy to show you the body.
I couldn't even imagine what would of happened if people had concealed weapons in their cars. Does that make you a bank robber?
I couldn't even imagine what would of happened if people had concealed weapons in their cars. Does that make you a bank robber?
That's what I was thinking... an honest armed citizen is easily mistaken for a criminal when a high stress situation occurs. I would have moved extremely slowly had I been stopped in this case. But my question is, isn't being handcuffed without cause (like in this situation) constitute illegal detention?
DD977GM2
06-05-2012, 12:28
hmmm,
Would you have felt differently had the suspect had been in a building and the persons in the building were detained until the police searched the building,
sounds like the police had probable cause and thus do not need a warrant.
I think they were giving more than they should have by even asking.
we have probable cause to believe there is a bank robbery suspect among the 19 cars at this intersection, we will be searching your car to ascertain whether you are the person in question.
while i am generally on the side of personal rights, i don't see the police doing anything wrong here, handcuffed for everyone's safety with a felon on the run
They had no description of the suspect so how the hell is that probable cause??????
Chad4000
06-05-2012, 12:29
That's what I was thinking... an honest armed citizen is easily mistaken for a criminal when a high stress situation occurs. I would have moved extremely slowly had I been stopped in this case. But my question is, isn't being handcuffed without cause (like in this situation) constitute illegal detention?
thats what I was thinking... yeah maybe stop you for awhile but cuff you?? doesnt sound right to me...
DD977GM2
06-05-2012, 12:37
I do hope that some people at that precinct are held accountable for infringing on those peoples 4th amendment rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that you may be detained by Police on a traffic stop for a minor vehicle infraction for the amount of time it takes to write a ticket. Searches of the vehicle w/o probable cause have to be with consent or otherwise a warrant. You can refuse a search of your vehicle and if the detention is lengthy you may have a case of your 4th amendment rights being violated. It could also lead to a nice big fat ticket too.
I do hope that some people at that precinct are held accountable for infringing on those peoples 4th amendment rights.
You're kidding, right? The chief was on the news this morning proud of what they did.
RCCrawler
06-05-2012, 12:54
So, what happens in a situation where a cop wants to search your car and you refuse without a warrant?
I tried this once in High School. I was driving and pulled up to my girlfriends house, just as I was getting out of the car a cop flew around the corner jumped out of the his car and ordered me at gunpoint to follow his commands.
He walked me back, patted me down then made me sit on the curb. He said someone called and reported that I was driving around pointing a gun at people. I have no idea where that came from, I didn't even own a gun at the time.
He said he needed to search my car, and I told him no. He told me he could call a judge and get a warrant, I told him that would be fine, and I remained seated on the curb. He went back to his car and was radioing back and forth a while, then came out and asked me again, I gave him the same answer.
This process went on for nearly 2 hours, every 20 minutes or so he'd come back out and pressure me.
Finally after about 2 hours, and knowing my girlfriends parents would be home soon I gave into him. He spent probably 30 minutes tearing my car apart to find nothing, which royally pissed him off.
In the end he got in his car and left, I got no ticket, nothing.
Uberjager
06-05-2012, 12:54
I saw pictures of this going down. There were at least a dozen or so cops, with long guns and a few others with pistols drawn, surrounding the vehicle, and detaining the people. The "suspects" were cuffed and left sitting on a sidewalk not too far from the intersection.
JohnTRourke
06-05-2012, 13:36
You're kidding, right? The chief was on the news this morning proud of what they did.
I wonder if PD's ass hurts when they wipe it with the constitution.
Claire Wolfe was wrong. :-(
I tried this once in High School. I was driving and pulled up to my girlfriends house, just as I was getting out of the car a cop flew around the corner jumped out of the his car and ordered me at gunpoint to follow his commands.
He walked me back, patted me down then made me sit on the curb. He said someone called and reported that I was driving around pointing a gun at people. I have no idea where that came from, I didn't even own a gun at the time.
He said he needed to search my car, and I told him no. He told me he could call a judge and get a warrant, I told him that would be fine, and I remained seated on the curb. He went back to his car and was radioing back and forth a while, then came out and asked me again, I gave him the same answer.
This process went on for nearly 2 hours, every 20 minutes or so he'd come back out and pressure me.
Finally after about 2 hours, and knowing my girlfriends parents would be home soon I gave into him. He spent probably 30 minutes tearing my car apart to find nothing, which royally pissed him off.
In the end he got in his car and left, I got no ticket, nothing.
Knowing what I know now, I'd stick to my guns and if he detained me for that long I'd be calling someone... then submitting a very nicely worded written complaint to his superiors and local government. [Bang]
DavieD55
06-05-2012, 13:47
When you step out of your vehicle lock your doors, dont give concent to search do not answer any questions, and dont say another word. Consult your attorney.
RCCrawler
06-05-2012, 13:50
Knowing what I know now, I'd stick to my guns and if he detained me for that long I'd be calling someone... then submitting a very nicely worded written complaint to his superiors and local government. [Bang]
Yea, things are different now then they were. I was young and dumb at the time and didn't want to get busted with at my girlfriends house, mid afternoon when we were supposed to be in school. So after 2 hours, and with her parents on their way home I had to give in.
Yea, things are different now then they were. I was young and dumb at the time and didn't want to get busted with at my girlfriends house, mid afternoon when we were supposed to be in school. So after 2 hours, and with her parents on their way home I had to give in.
Think how differently our youth would have been... if I knew then what I know now... Well let's just say there were a few traffic stops that would have gone down differently when I was a kid. [Coffee]
The problem is that if one of the lawful citizens was legally carrying or had weapons in their car, they would have been arrested. They would have had their property seized and they would have to spend a lot of money to retrieve they're property. That would be the best case.
kidicarus13
06-05-2012, 14:45
Knowing what I know now, I'd stick to my guns and if he detained me for that long I'd be calling someone... then submitting a very nicely worded written complaint to his superiors and local government. [Bang]
The longer you are unlawfully detailed the better chance of receiving money from the city [Weight]
When you step out of your vehicle lock your doors, dont give concent to search do not answer any questions, and dont say another word. Consult your attorney.
Good advice... almost too good.
What if a cop knocked on your door asking to come in and search your house because a neighbor called and said they saw someone suspicious run into your neighborhood?
In both cases, I'd be inclined to say "As soon as you show me a valid warrant, I'll be happy to let you search. Until then, I do not give my consent." If they pull me out of my car at gunpoint, I'll comply(resistance is futile), but you can be damned sure I'll have a copy of the incident report, names, and badge numbers of all the officers involved, as well as witness statements when I call my lawyer the next morning. Cuffed and detained for 2 hours? Bullshit...
In both cases, I'd be inclined to say "As soon as you show me a valid warrant, I'll be happy to let you search. Until then, I do not give my consent." If they pull me out of my car at gunpoint, I'll comply(resistance is futile), but you can be damned sure I'll have a copy of the incident report, names, and badge numbers of all the officers involved, as well as witness statements when I call my lawyer the next morning. Cuffed and detained for 2 hours? Bullshit...
Byte can help me out here, but you can resist unlawful arrest... YMMV.
glenncal1
06-05-2012, 15:14
I couldn't even imagine what would of happened if people had concealed weapons in their cars. Does that make you a bank robber?
OK I have a CCW, which means that sometimes I carry a gun. So If I am driving by this intersection, which I do all the time, into this cluster f*%k and get pulled from my car and searched I am going to get arrested as the bank robber. And this is for doing something that I had to go to class for and pay a few hundred bucks. I am all for the police but this was BS from the begining. I hate lawsuits but if some of the effected people don't sue this shit will happen again. They gonna stop and hand cuff everybody on the 16th street mall because some junkie steals a purse? [Rant1]
kidicarus13
06-05-2012, 15:57
Byte can help me out here, but you can resist unlawful arrest... YMMV.
It's not arrest, it's "detention", and no, it's not the same thing.
Byte can help me out here, but you can resist unlawful arrest... YMMV.
Yep, you can. I would just hate to have an allergic reaction relating to having my ass kicked or being shot...bleeding is not a favorite activity of mine. [LOL]
Seriously, if a cop has me at gunpoint, I'm probably not going to attempt to discuss the finer points of the law until the situation deescalates a bit. I realize cops get training for this kind of thing and are supposed to have good trigger discipline, but I would hate to find out differently by being the recipient of a rapid release lead/copper supplement. Right doesn't always have to be right now.
From watching the video in the news link, it would appear as though Aurora PD takes the "might makes right" stance on things. I'll do my level best to act surprised...
flan7211
06-05-2012, 16:49
The state is the most heavily armed force within a certain territory. That is what they are and our rights are but an illusion used in speeches. If they want something their gonna get it. I would have declined a search of my car and probably would have been beat.
XC700116
06-05-2012, 16:49
Like has been said, I'd refuse consent to search, I'd take good note of everything, as soon as I was released I'd write EVERYTHING down, and call a lawyer immediately. I'd demand names and badge numbers, everything I could get for info, etc. This kind of behavior is exactly why people don't know or understand their rights, and it's BS. Of course they'd probably have arrested me if in my personal vehicle because I always have a loaded firearm in it perfectly legal under CO law and I also have my CCW permit. It'd be a big mess and I'd keep pushing until I walked away with some form of justice. I wouldn't physically resist them but I'd damn sure not make it easy, they'd have to get a warrant or loose their asses in court.
They had NO right to search those cars up to the point that people gave consent.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-05-2012, 17:09
http://shaunkaufmanlaw.com/2012/06/04/aurora-colorado-police-empty-cars-without-cause/
At least one lawyer gets it right.
Title says:"Chief Apologizes To Bystanders Detained During Suspect Search"
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/chief-oats-apologizes-to-innocent-bystanders-during-suspect-search/
Except thats not what he said:
"The law is clear that investigative detentions are lawful for a reasonable period of time,” Oates said. “Reasonableness is determined by the facts and circumstances at issue, and the facts and circumstances were the suspect was in one of 19 cars.”
Would 20 have been unreasonable? 190, 1900 reasonable? With no description. It will be interesting to see what happens to the evidence when it gets to court. If the suspect kept his mouth shut and he can suppress the evidence he's got a chance.
Actually wish I had been there. It would have been the best civics lesson my seven year old could get.
Yeah, Oates came off as an arrogant prick on TV last night, and his statements probably shifted the decimal point on any settlement at least 2 places to the right. Trampling all over the Bill of Rights is going to cost the Aurora taxpayers a bundle. I guess they'll just have to step up traffic enforcement to cover it.
Title says:"Chief Apologizes To Bystanders Detained During Suspect Search"
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/chief-oats-apologizes-to-innocent-bystanders-during-suspect-search/
Except thats not what he said:
"The law is clear that investigative detentions are lawful for a reasonable period of time,” Oates said. “Reasonableness is determined by the facts and circumstances at issue, and the facts and circumstances were the suspect was in one of 19 cars.”
Here is the quote from the above story that I found interesting.
"Oats said the police department has received about five complaints regarding the methods used, but none of them came from any of the 40 people who were detained."
Apparently, Oates and the Aurora PD are not reading this board. There have been far more than five complaints here on this board.
Was anyone on this board there? Does anyone know what actually happened or is all of our knowledge about this incident coming straight from the always truthful and completely accurate news media?
Innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, even public officials.
The way I see it, the people who have standing to complain were there. Everyone else is speculating and offering opinions.
Be safe.
So the cops should have just let everyone go on about their business?
I guess the 4th Amendment isn't a priority with them, guess the 2nd will not be also?
I guess the 4th Amendment isn't a priority with them, guess the 2nd will not be also?
If everyone searched gave consent, then the 4th Amendment was not violated. Do you know something we don't?
I only know what the news media has provided. According to the Aurora PD, none of the 40 people detained have filed complaints. They certainly are well within their rights to file complaints, and if they feel their rights were violated, they should do so.
stevelkinevil
06-05-2012, 18:41
I read through most but not all the posts so I am not sure if this has been covered. Besides the obvious gross violation of these peoples rights, has anyone mentioned the fact that if that suspect came out guns a blazin while they were unlawfully detaining innocent people and children that they very likely put all these folks in grave danger? This story is appalling from top to bottom and yet again confirms my decision to leave the profession all together.
rockhound
06-05-2012, 18:45
Interesting how you can always tell who fell asleep in civics... Some of our board members have a terrifying concept of what constitutes "probable cause".
sorry but the rules are different when chasing known felon. you cant shoot just anyone running away from a cop either, but a fleeing felon different story.
and probable cause give them more than the opportunity to just request a search warrant, it gives them the right to enter you residence or place of business or anything else.
if they hear screams for help they can enter the residence on probable cause, if a fleeling felon (in this case a bank robber) is reported to have gone into a building they will have probable cause to follow. they do not request search warrants when chasing a fleeing felon.
search warrants are used when they are trying to ascertain whether there is a crime being committed not when chasing a known bank robber, if you think the cops need a search warrant to go into your home after a known fleeing felon you are just dumb
sorry you cannot armchair quarterback this into a violation of someones rights.
it looks to me like they police handled themselves professionally and secured the safety of the public and the officers involved.
rockhound
06-05-2012, 19:00
just to clarify my position: the fleeing felon will excuse the need for a warrant, NOT A LLAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP IN CIVICS CLASS, also just have a screen name doesn't mean you are correct.
jump up and down all you want the cops handled this appropriately
Miller: Jenna, the courts often discuss exigencies that can excuse the need for obtaining a search warrant. What does the court mean by exigency?
Solari: An exigency is something that requires immediate attention; for instances, preventing the destruction of evidence, or preventing the escape of a fleeing felon, or preventing harm to somebody. If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant. The exigency actually excuses the warrant requirement for that officers’ initial entry.
Miller: I believe you mentioned three exigencies or three exigent circumstances that might excuse the need for a warrant.
Solari: Right. There are three re-occurring types of exigencies which allow police officers to make warrantless entries into REP areas. One occurs when an officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm.
as far as civics and most of my other courses i got an A, and civics probably did not cover this but a first year criminal law class would.
[Beer]
stevelkinevil
06-05-2012, 19:05
Rockhound is correct, HOWEVER, you must have probable cause! You cannot simply randomly stop and search every vehicle in an area. If a subjects vehicle or appearance matches a description you now have it, they had nothing of the sort, a geographical area does not probable cause make.
rockhound
06-05-2012, 19:10
i would say the narrowing it down the 19 cars at a particular intersection would satisfy any judge,
How do the cops know if someone is a felon or not?
rockhound
06-05-2012, 19:11
[quote=FromMyColdDeadHand;488051]http://shaunkaufmanlaw.com/2012/06/04/aurora-colorado-police-empty-cars-without-cause/
At least one lawyer gets it right.
sorry your lawyer is a moron
I agree to a point. There are very well established and recognized exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
Exigency is one of the most often utilized, however it should be used with the understanding that the officer's judgment regarding what constitutes exigency may not jive with a judges ideas on what constitutes exigency.
In many cases, it is better to make a constructive seizure when possible and secure the container, building, room, etc... until a warrant can be obtained.
As for the fleeing felon, all I can say is that you normally have to identify your fleeing felon before you may be involved in a "hot pursuit."
The circumstances as described in this incident sound more like a localized dragnet, which most, if not all courts have determined to be unconstitutional.
The most effective method for avoiding the need for obtaining a warrant or conducting dragnet searches is to simply obtain a willing, knowing, and voluntary consent. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing better than a well obtained consent search.
Be safe.
i would say the narrowing it down the 19 cars at a particular intersection would satisfy any judge,
Not every judge. Often depends on your jurisdiction and the local bench. [Beer]
rockhound
06-05-2012, 19:19
How do the cops know if someone is a felon or not?
last time i checked bank robbery was a major felony.
they would not have used exigent circumstances to check for a person with unpaid parking tickets
they would have done the same thing if a kidnap victim was in the car with someone at the intersection,
they did not go int saying lets check everyone at the instersection to see if we can find a guilty person,
they has credible information that this bank robber is in a car at that intersection at that time.
By Erin McLaughlin (http://abcnews.go.com/author/erin_mclaughlin)
Jun 4, 2012 8:20pm
Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber
[/URL] [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#"]http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/headlines/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gifEmail (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/headlines/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gif (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) 80 (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#comments) Smaller Font (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) Larger Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#) | Print (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/#)
Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
i would say the narrowing it down the 19 cars at a particular intersection would satisfy any judge,
If I was one of the 18 other people who got my day wasted and my rights violated i would whole-heartedly disagree and be happy to put the $$ up to file the lawsuit.
Now I assume all those people gave consent...but if just 1 of them did not:
Would would you say to the police telling you they want to search your home because they believed a murdered lived in the town of bailey and they had reason to believe he was in ONE of the homes. they don't know which one, just reason to believe he is in one of them.
I just don't like the fact that these other people were detained for 2 hours with or without their consent to search their vehicles, and the facts are not out whether they gave their consent or not.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-05-2012, 19:40
just to clarify my position: the fleeing felon will excuse the need for a warrant, NOT A LLAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP IN CIVICS CLASS, also just have a screen name doesn't mean you are correct.
jump up and down all you want the cops handled this appropriately
Miller: Jenna, the courts often discuss exigencies that can excuse the need for obtaining a search warrant. What does the court mean by exigency?
Solari: An exigency is something that requires immediate attention; for instances, preventing the destruction of evidence, or preventing the escape of a fleeing felon, or preventing harm to somebody. If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant. The exigency actually excuses the warrant requirement for that officers’ initial entry.
Miller: I believe you mentioned three exigencies or three exigent circumstances that might excuse the need for a warrant.
Solari: Right. There are three re-occurring types of exigencies which allow police officers to make warrantless entries into REP areas. One occurs when an officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm.
as far as civics and most of my other courses i got an A, and civics probably did not cover this but a first year criminal law class would.
[Beer]
Dude, dial back the formatting. Makes your post almost unreadable.
[quote=FromMyColdDeadHand;488051]http://shaunkaufmanlaw.com/2012/06/04/aurora-colorado-police-empty-cars-without-cause/
At least one lawyer gets it right.
sorry your lawyer is a moron
Great point. Win many debates that way? Is Nah-ninny-Nah-nah, liar-liar-pants-on-fire your back up arguement?
Two options here. Either they did a time-distance calculation from a third grade text book or they had a GPS locator to guide them.
The first is pretty flimsy excuse to point guns at innocent people. In the video I saw a cop had his finger on the trigger of his shotgun. Uncool. In the second, why exactly did they pull the trigger then? A couple of minutes and you can get to the exact car by process of elimination.
rockhound
06-05-2012, 19:43
If I was one of the 18 other people who got my day wasted and my rights violated i would whole-heartedly disagree and be happy to put the $$ up to file the lawsuit.
Now I assume all those people gave consent...but if just 1 of them did not:
Would would you say to the police telling you they want to search your home because they believed a murdered lived in the town of bailey and they had reason to believe he was in ONE of the homes. they don't know which one, just reason to believe he is in one of them.
I just don't like the fact that these other people were detained for 2 hours with or without their consent to search their vehicles, and the facts are not out whether they gave their consent or not.
the point is with exigent circumstances (FLEEING FELON) your rights were not violated. one of three reason the cops can bypass a search warrant
you can be pissed off, you are going to waste your money hiring a lawyer.
they were chasing an armed felon, public safety outweighs your constitutional rights in this case.
would i like it? no, but these rules exist for a reason otherwise every fleeing felon would just run into a home, a car, a restaurant, the the cops would have to leave the chase and go get a warrant to enter and search while they get away
every BG in town would get ten chances to run away,
Honestly i dont even see what the argument is here, seems like no matter what the police do these days they are wrong,
the 4th amendment does protect you except in three instances of exigent circumstances.
if the cops were chasing a jaywalker then you would have a real argument.
handcuffing is as much for the safety of the public as it is the officers.
rockhound
06-05-2012, 19:46
Great point. Win many debates that way? Is Nah-ninny-Nah-nah, liar-liar-pants-on-fire your back up arguement?
Two options here. Either they did a time-distance calculation from a third grade text book or they had a GPS locator to guide them.
The first is pretty flimsy excuse to point guns at innocent people. In the video I saw a cop had his finger on the trigger of his shotgun. Uncool. In the second, why exactly did they pull the trigger then? A couple of minutes and you can get to the exact car by process of elimination.
read the previous posts about exigent circumstances and you will see why
this wasn't my only post
just saying he get it is just as dumb as my response.
he says the rights were violated, but does not address the exigent circumstances that allow the police to legally do what they did.
The Aurora PD did what they did.
The citizens and others who were detained will do what they will do.
The only way we will ever determine whether what was done was legal or not legal, would be if one of the 40 or so people who have standing were to file some form of legal action against the officers and city of Aurora claiming a violation of their rights. Then a court would make a determination what if any rights were violated.
No one here, on this board can say what rights were violated OR what was legal. All we can do is discuss our opinions based on what we know.
The post by the lawyer seemed to me to be a pandering ad by an ambulance chaser to see if he could drum up some business. Unless the attorney who posted that ad had access to all of the information available, there is no way he could offer anything other than his legal opinion.
Find me five lawyers, and I can get at least six different legal opinions. [Beer]
rockhound
06-05-2012, 20:03
The dramatic formatting of my post was for "not a llama"s benefit he is so sure that those who do not agree are somehow misinformed, i did not want him to miss the true definition and reason he was incorrect. was trying to save him some time reading, but did not want him to miss the point. [Beer]
My real point is that the original OP and many others right off the bat assume that the 4th amendment is set in stone and that everyone's rights were violated.
Dial back the hatred and distrust of the police a bit. They actually get it right more often than not. The OP and many quick to judgement responders did not even consider the exigency that trumps the 4th amendment many times and just start blathering about how they would refuse search and they would get lawyers.
As i said on page one, in this case I believe the cops gave more courtesy than they needed to by asking permission.
I guess they should have allowed him to leave the intersection and then pursued him in a high speed chase that endangered the public.
No matter what the police do these days and how safely they bring the BG into custody they get crap for it.
I don't believe they are always right, but they are not always wrong either.
rockhound
06-05-2012, 20:04
The post by the lawyer seemed to me to be a pandering ad by an ambulance chaser to see if he could drum up some business.
[Beer]
^^^^^^this
If the PD used those stops /detainments to look for other stuff in the cars, or used their time to run a warrant check on everyone , then i would say a case for violation of civil rights has been made.
No matter what the police do these days and how safely they bring the BG into custody they get crap for it.
With much authority comes great responsibility. This is why I believe that the job isn't for everyone and isn't as easy as it looks.
There will always be those who believe they can do it better. A few of them may be right.
People (including cops) are not perfect. To expect otherwise would invite disappointment.
Most people know nothing about rocket science, but when the space shuttle blows up, everyone knows that was a mistake. If cops make a thousand decisions in a shift, some of them are bound to be wrong. We just try to make sure that more often than not we are right and when we are wrong, we try not to be wrong on the life and death stuff. [Beer]
If the PD used those stops /detainments to look for other stuff in the cars, or used their time to run a warrant check on everyone , then i would say a case for violation of civil rights has been made.
A case isn't made until a verdict is rendered.
rockhound
06-05-2012, 20:21
If the PD used those stops /detainments to look for other stuff in the cars, or used their time to run a warrant check on everyone , then i would say a case for violation of civil rights has been made.
i like your point [Beer]
http://i.imgur.com/UkWg6.jpg
Totally unacceptable. The chief says it was the safest way to deal with an armed robber.
And what if the dude had gotten out guns blazing? Dozens of innocent bystanders around, handcuffed, sitting on the sidewalk. It could have been a bloodbath.
If (big IF) some of the news reports can be believed, the PD MAY have been a bit heavy handed in dealing with some of the potential suspects. I guess we'll see how this plays out.
XC700116
06-05-2012, 22:01
To rockhoud's points for the most part I whole heartedly agree EXCEPT, and it's a big one. They detained people in what in CO law equates to 19 places (their cars) CO law extends the same rights to your car as your home. So without consent that'd be 19 separate cases of "reasonable doubt". It's the equivalent of entering 19 homes in a neighborhood because they saw a felon flee to that neighborhood. They DID NOT have a specific vehicle description and therefore did not have reasonable doubt for any of the vehicles. The fact that they gained consent from them all renders it all a non issue. They received consent and therefore searched legally anyone's vehicle that gave consent. If they didn't receive consent from one or more of them, then that person has some room to bitch. .
I'm just saying I wouldn't have given it and they couldn't legally search it without getting a warrant because they had no specific description of a vehicle in which generates the reasonable doubt.
Also, If I was the kid in the green shirt above that has the shotgun and handgun pointed at him, I'd be calling a lawyer immediately when the smoke cleared. They without a doubt need more than someone in this group of 19 cars and 40 or so people committed this crime and we're detaining you all at gunpoint and in cuffs until we figure out who it was.
Consent obtained at gunpoint is not valid.
Consent obtained at gunpoint is not valid.
yeah...definitely.
I'm not sure if the picture Ridge posted is one of the "others" or if it is the actual robbery suspect, but if it is one of the "others", I think a lawsuit with "forced consent for fear of life" would be a pretty good title.
yeah...definitely.
I'm not sure if the picture Ridge posted is one of the "others" or if it is the actual robbery suspect, but if it is one of the "others", I think a lawsuit with "forced consent for fear of life" would be a pretty good title.
Doesn't look like a 45 year old man to me...
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-05-2012, 22:25
http://i.imgur.com/UkWg6.jpg
To Serve and Protect?
Soooo. This guy is so dangerous you have two guns on him, but if he is a BG and started shooting, what's in the background? You cuff and stuff a street load of people, but you don't control the background? Never mind that the photographer is in your field of fire. I can almost see the crimp on the shotgun shell in the chamber.
http://www.belch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elian.jpg
No problem detaining this illegal Elian.
http://eater.com/uploads/raw-milk-police-raid-260.jpg
Drink your milk, er. DON'T DRINK THE MILK!!!
Government. Solving our problems by pointing guns at one unarmed citizen at a time.
barney fife
06-05-2012, 22:40
I respectfully disagree.
Probable cause (PC) will get you a warrant, if that PC is specific to the thing and place you believe contains evidence of a crime. Police are obliged to take that probable cause to a judge who then decides whether or not to issue a warrant to search or arrest. This can and often is done over the telephone, and can happen in less than two hours.
There are very well spelled out exceptions to obtaining a warrant, but the risk in using one of these exceptions is that after the fact (many months later) in an evidentiary hearing, a judge may disagree with your decision on not obtaining a warrant and throw out all of the really good evidence that you really need to convict a real criminal.
As a police officer, why would I risk doing all that good police work to not get a conviction? My motto (and many other officers share this philosophy) Get consent, or get a warrant. It saves a lot of wasted effort and makes your case much easier in the long run.
Be safe.
Amen and Amen. Quick Story from last fall: An 18YO friend, who knows the Constitution, was stopped, along with a line of vehicles. He watched the driver of the vehicle in front of him get out and open the trunk for the cop to search. As the cop approached his car he got out and locked his car. The cop said it was a "routine search procedure" my friend said unless you can show me a search warrant with my name on it you cannot search my car. The cop attempted to open the door but it was locked; he looked in the back seat and saw a gun case and said, 'what is that'? My friend said he was going shooting and the cop was making him late for his appointment. By this time others behind him had gotten out and were listening to the conversation. My friend finally said he had been detained long enough and if a search warrant wasn't produced he was leaving. He got in his car and drove away. and the funny part is 2 or 3 of the guys who got out to listen got in their cars and drove away. Moral of the story: Teach your kids the Constitution!
If you don't disciple our children, what you believe will be lost in one generation!
Amen and Amen. Quick Story from last fall: An 18YO friend, who knows the Constitution, was stopped, along with a line of vehicles. He watched the driver of the vehicle in front of him get out and open the trunk for the cop to search. As the cop approached his car he got out and locked his car. The cop said it was a "routine search procedure" my friend said unless you can show me a search warrant with my name on it you cannot search my car. The cop attempted to open the door but it was locked; he looked in the back seat and saw a gun case and said, 'what is that'? My friend said he was going shooting and the cop was making him late for his appointment. By this time others behind him had gotten out and were listening to the conversation. My friend finally said he had been detained long enough and if a search warrant wasn't produced he was leaving. He got in his car and drove away. and the funny part is 2 or 3 of the guys who got out to listen got in their cars and drove away. Moral of the story: Teach your kids the Constitution!
If you don't disciple our children, what you believe will be lost in one generation!
That's a tazin'.
Consent obtained at gunpoint is not valid.
Amen!
Given they apparently "found two guns" and the suspect finally, I wonder what the consequences would've been if they'd come across one of our CO AR15er's daily vehicles, much less YOU LEGALLY carrying 2 guns?
Needs to be several terminations w/out benefits vs. lawsuits in my opinion... These type of civil lawsuits are just pass-through taxes to the citizens.
What a charlie-foxtrot on multiple levels. [Rant1]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 02:52
This whole thread makes me laugh.... Keep going.... :)
SuperiorDG
06-06-2012, 06:34
10 pages and its not closed yet. [Wow2]
10 pages and its not closed yet. [Wow2]
It is interesting how long you can have a civil discussion when people refrain from calling others names. [Beer]
on the good side they got the felon
on the bad side they will now think this tactic acceptable
The Aurora police violated basic constitutionally-guaranteed rights, federal law, rights guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution, and state law.
spqrzilla
06-06-2012, 09:19
i would say the narrowing it down the 19 cars at a particular intersection would satisfy any judge,
That's not the issue. The PD was not "following" a felon. They said that they had an anonymous tip that the suspects were at the intersection. That's not probable cause to support the search of the vehicles no matter how many or how few. In fact, the number of cars being 19 makes it clear that they had no probable cause for the stop of any one car.
A lot of people in the thread seem to think that the issue was whether or not the PD had a search warrant. Nonsense. The police do not need to obtain a search warrant to search a car. There is Supreme Court case law on this. Because of the nature of a car, there is no need to get a judge to sign a warrant. However, they do need probable cause to search without consent. Probable cause means some particular, objective reason to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime or the criminal suspect. Without a description of a car, a description of a suspect, or even the knowledge of the genders of the suspects, no probable cause exists.
"Exigent circumstances" is not involved here. If the PD were actually in pursuit of the suspects, then they can go anywhere in following them. They were not in pursuit.
buckeye4rnr
06-06-2012, 09:59
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/06/was-it-lawful-for-colorado-police-to-stop-and-arrest-every-adult-at-intersection-to-find-bank-robber/
Police in Aurora, Colorado stopped every car and handcuffed every adult at an intersection in order to find a bank robbery suspect. Police Chief Daniel Oates has said, “The law is clear that investigative detentions are lawful for a reasonable period of time.” Judge Napolitano (http://foxnewsinsider.com/tag/judge-napolitano/) disagrees, saying, “You can only be stopped if the police can articulate, can state, some suspicion about you and that can only be for a brief period of time.”
In this specific incident, the judge says these were not stops by police but were arrests.
He argued, “It wasn’t justified under the federal Constitution, under the federal law, under the Colorado Constitution, or under Colorado law.”
Napolitano concluded, “We fought wars against governments who arrested groups of people until they got their person. We don’t do that in America.”
http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/1676940509001/
Sharpienads
06-06-2012, 10:06
The TSA does it, why not Aurora PD?
My big question is- and forgive me, I skipped a lot- how long does it take Aurora PD to determine one is not the suspect in question? I would think that if I was stopped, handcuffed, and asked if I give consent to a search (now I wouldn't give consent without a very good reason, but for argument's sake...) and I do, they search, why would I have to sit handcuffed for 2 fawking hours!? I would be asking the officers "Okay, you've determined I'm not the guy you're looking for, can I please get the hell out of here and back to my busy life?" I have a shoulder injury and being handcuffed (or having my arms in that position) for a period longer than 10min causes me agonizing pain- reason #146 why I don't break the law. I think that would be one of those other circumstances where I would be calling a lawyer stating that I was detained longer than necessary and my health could have been put at risk. Or am I just overreacting?
Not_A_Llama
06-06-2012, 10:19
just to clarify my position: the fleeing felon will excuse the need for a warrant, NOT A LLAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP IN CIVICS CLASS, also just have a screen name doesn't mean you are correct.
jump up and down all you want the cops handled this appropriately
Miller: Jenna, the courts often discuss exigencies that can excuse the need for obtaining a search warrant. What does the court mean by exigency?
Solari: An exigency is something that requires immediate attention; for instances, preventing the destruction of evidence, or preventing the escape of a fleeing felon, or preventing harm to somebody. If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant. The exigency actually excuses the warrant requirement for that officers’ initial entry.
Miller: I believe you mentioned three exigencies or three exigent circumstances that might excuse the need for a warrant.
Solari: Right. There are three re-occurring types of exigencies which allow police officers to make warrantless entries into REP areas. One occurs when an officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm.
as far as civics and most of my other courses i got an A, and civics probably did not cover this but a first year criminal law class would.
[Beer]
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/154/912/berneydidnotread.gif?1318992465
We have reason to believe that (insert name of someone off America's Most Wanted here) is loose in Colorado. We will be by shortly to detain you indefinitely until that individual is located. We will allow you to closely examine the business end of a loaded Glock 19 and Remington 870 while we 'ask' consent to search your homes, including the naughties in you nightstand. Please remain calm. We are the government, we're here to help.
Waywardson174
06-06-2012, 10:42
Actually, Criminal law only explains what the crimes are. Criminal Procedure explains that the Aurora PD will likely lose their felon to suppressed evidence associated with his arrest, and the people of Aurora will be paying out millions in settlement to every one of those persons arrested. This went way beyond constitutional search and arrest law.
Also, the story indicates there was an anonymous tip. This IS NOT hot pursuit. Hot pursuit would require that the cops continually chase this guy. Exigency is a screaming victim, actually seeing a suspect enter a home, or seeing a gun held in a threatening manner.
That's not the issue. The PD was not "following" a felon. They said that they had an anonymous tip that the suspects were at the intersection. That's not probable cause to support the search of the vehicles no matter how many or how few. In fact, the number of cars being 19 makes it clear that they had no probable cause for the stop of any one car.
A lot of people in the thread seem to think that the issue was whether or not the PD had a search warrant. Nonsense. The police do not need to obtain a search warrant to search a car. There is Supreme Court case law on this. Because of the nature of a car, there is no need to get a judge to sign a warrant. However, they do need probable cause to search without consent. Probable cause means some particular, objective reason to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime or the criminal suspect. Without a description of a car, a description of a suspect, or even the knowledge of the genders of the suspects, no probable cause exists.
"Exigent circumstances" is not involved here. If the PD were actually in pursuit of the suspects, then they can go anywhere in following them. They were not in pursuit.
Since in Colorado your car is an extension of your home, does that change how cars in Colorado looked upon regarding the law? Searching your car is the same as searching your house in this state?
The only reason you would not let them search is if you have something to hide.
completely disagree. The only reason you would not let them search is if they have no reason too. This will only lead to neighbors ratting out neighbors, whether they have reason to or not.
rockhound
06-06-2012, 10:49
Since in Colorado your car is an extension of your home, does that change how cars in Colorado looked upon regarding the law? Searching your car is the same as searching your house in this state?
the exigent statute states:
If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies (fleeing felon) are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant
my position is that the limited scope of the cars at that intersection meet the "REP area" requirement and will thus be allowed to be searched.
the knee jerk reaction to the police tactics is just that, a knee jerk reaction.
Waywardson174
06-06-2012, 10:51
the exigent statute states:
If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies (fleeing felon) are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant
The problem is the officers did not comparably enter 1 house they saw a felon flee into, they entered into the 19 homes of an entire neighborhood because some unnamed person said they saw the guy running down the block. That cannot be reasonable in a free society.
BTW Rockhound, Your next post is #600!
the exigent statute states:
If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies (fleeing felon) are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant
my position is that the limited scope of the cars at that intersection meet the "REP area" requirement and will thus be allowed to be searched.
the knee jerk reaction to the police tactics is just that, a knee jerk reaction.
So say, for example, I was commuting through that intersection. What exactly makes the police believe that the suspect entered MY vehicle?
This is not about a single car. They (hopefully) didn't think the suspect entered 19 cars...
UncleDave
06-06-2012, 11:26
Not to be offensive here Rockhound, but your adamantly defending the Gestapo style tactics of Aurora PD no matter how well intentioned do not jive with the Jefferson quote in your sig line. The fact remains that there was no clearly defined evidence (and anonymous tip do not qualify as evidence) to detain these people for an extended period of time. You must charge them or release them. What happened to Blackstone's formulation (which the constitution was heavily influanced by his writings), "better ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"? Ben Franklin ecoed Blackstone's words. This sounds more like Bismark (who's writings heavily influenced Nazi Germany) "It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." That attitude is troubling for many reasons. That is why it is better to rely on one's self as much as possible rather than the "protection" of a benevolent ruling class. The rights of law enforcement to persue a criminal end at my personal rights. Once those are breached it is a very slippery slope.
"We have reason to believe the person is in a 1 mile radius of Iliff and Chambers, so we're going to detain everyone in that radius at gunpoint until they can be cleared or the suspect is found"
GPS tracker or not, substitute "200 yard" for 1 mile, and the above statement is still ridiculous. Hot pursuit would involve 1 or more suspects that could be visually identified, most likely in 1 vehicle, not 19. Drawing down on a soccer mom in a car with her kids is not advancing the investigation.
Lex_Luthor
06-06-2012, 11:34
My big question is- and forgive me, I skipped a lot- how long does it take Aurora PD to determine one is not the suspect in question? I would think that if I was stopped, handcuffed, and asked if I give consent to a search (now I wouldn't give consent without a very good reason, but for argument's sake...) and I do, they search, why would I have to sit handcuffed for 2 fawking hours!? I would be asking the officers "Okay, you've determined I'm not the guy you're looking for, can I please get the hell out of here and back to my busy life?"
I also agree with this. Say I DO give consent to a search. Why would it take 2 hours of time while I'm sitting on the curb in the sun for them to clear me.
I'm also with the rest of those that say "what would have happened if one of us was in that intersection?"
Byte Stryke
06-06-2012, 12:00
http://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/guns3.jpg?w=627
http://media.graytvinc.com/images/300*168/6-3aurora.jpg
I feel like a Jew on a boat leaving Germany 29th January, 1933.
Georgia is pointing and going "OMG COLORADO IS LIKE CALIFORNIA NOW!"
are we now so enslaved that we no longer act like free men?
Waywardson174
06-06-2012, 12:08
"We have reason to believe the person is in a 1 mile radius of Iliff and Chambers, so we're going to detain everyone in that radius at gunpoint until they can be cleared or the suspect is found"
GPS tracker or not, substitute "200 yard" for 1 mile, and the above statement is still ridiculous. Hot pursuit would involve 1 or more suspects that could be visually identified, most likely in 1 vehicle, not 19. Drawing down on a soccer mom in a car with her kids is not advancing the investigation.
Additionally, WHERE IS THE EXIGENCY. If you can follow the guy to the intersection, you can follow him to his home, hideout, lair, etc. No reason to guarantee you violate the rights of 18 innocent people when you can follow one guilty guy as long as you like.
sellersm
06-06-2012, 12:10
I haven't seen this mentioned, but weren't they just looking for a bank robber? Did the felon actually kill someone? Why all this effort and 'force' for just a bankrobber? Put a dye pack in and be done, or let him go and insurance will cover it... Sheesh, seems a bit overkill for just someone who stole some loot! Or did I miss something?
Either way, the ends don't justify the means...
just to clarify my position: the fleeing felon will excuse the need for a warrant, NOT A LLAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP IN CIVICS CLASS, also just have a screen name doesn't mean you are correct.
jump up and down all you want the cops handled this appropriately
Miller: Jenna, the courts often discuss exigencies that can excuse the need for obtaining a search warrant. What does the court mean by exigency?
Solari: An exigency is something that requires immediate attention; for instances, preventing the destruction of evidence, or preventing the escape of a fleeing felon, or preventing harm to somebody. If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant. The exigency actually excuses the warrant requirement for that officers’ initial entry.
Miller: I believe you mentioned three exigencies or three exigent circumstances that might excuse the need for a warrant.
Solari: Right. There are three re-occurring types of exigencies which allow police officers to make warrantless entries into REP areas. One occurs when an officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm.
as far as civics and most of my other courses i got an A, and civics probably did not cover this but a first year criminal law class would.
[Beer]
How is forcing 18 other vehicles, within firing range of an armed bank robber, "Preventing harm to someone"? They directly put every innocent person there in what could have escalated into a very bad situation that got innocent people killed.
My biggest gripe is exactly that. You want to stop me in my vehicle, remove me from my vehicle at gun point, then ask for consent to search my car, all while an armed bank robber is within 20ish yards from me contemplating what to do in order to get away?
Great point. Win many debates that way? Is Nah-ninny-Nah-nah, liar-liar-pants-on-fire your back up arguement?
Two options here. Either they did a time-distance calculation from a third grade text book or they had a GPS locator to guide them.
The first is pretty flimsy excuse to point guns at innocent people. In the video I saw a cop had his finger on the trigger of his shotgun. Uncool. In the second, why exactly did they pull the trigger then? A couple of minutes and you can get to the exact car by process of elimination.
If they did have a GPS tracking device everyone there has an even better case against the PD. So you can track an armed bank robber wherever he goes and you chose to stop him at a busy intersection, along with 18 other cars, and search them all while putting everyone in danger?
There was no way they could stop every car and have an Officer present at each vehicle to ensure the safety of the innocent people caught up in this.
As I stated above, they put everyone in danger.
The dramatic formatting of my post was for "not a llama"s benefit he is so sure that those who do not agree are somehow misinformed, i did not want him to miss the true definition and reason he was incorrect. was trying to save him some time reading, but did not want him to miss the point. [Beer]
My real point is that the original OP and many others right off the bat assume that the 4th amendment is set in stone and that everyone's rights were violated.
Dial back the hatred and distrust of the police a bit. They actually get it right more often than not. The OP and many quick to judgement responders did not even consider the exigency that trumps the 4th amendment many times and just start blathering about how they would refuse search and they would get lawyers.
As i said on page one, in this case I believe the cops gave more courtesy than they needed to by asking permission.
I guess they should have allowed him to leave the intersection and then pursued him in a high speed chase that endangered the public.
No matter what the police do these days and how safely they bring the BG into custody they get crap for it.
I don't believe they are always right, but they are not always wrong either.
I agree, they do get it right more often than not. And this is a perfect example of a time they got it wrong.
Endangered the public in a high speed chase? What car would they be chasing? They had no vehicle or physical description of the robber. Invalid point here. Besides, as I stated above, they PUT people in danger when they detained everyone at the intersection.
We have reason to believe that (insert name of someone off America's Most Wanted here) is loose in Colorado. We will be by shortly to detain you indefinitely until that individual is located. We will allow you to closely examine the business end of a loaded Glock 19 and Remington 870 while we 'ask' consent to search your homes, including the naughties in you nightstand. Please remain calm. We are the government, we're here to help.
And we will ask for consent while we have you at gun point, or shortly thereafter.
SuperiorDG
06-06-2012, 12:51
I haven't seen this mentioned, but weren't they just looking for a bank robber? Did the felon actually kill someone? Why all this effort and 'force' for just a bankrobber? Put a dye pack in and be done, or let him go and insurance will cover it... Sheesh, seems a bit overkill for just someone who stole some loot! Or did I miss something?
Either way, the ends don't justify the means...
Armed robbery = danger to society. Reason to chase, but that's about it.
Armed robbery = danger to society. Reason to chase, but that's about it.
good point to bring up...what determines "danger to society"? and what levels of danger justify such actions?
clublights
06-06-2012, 13:36
My BS flag is raised.......
IF it was a GPS tracker... then why didn't they keep tracing it till there were a few less then 19 cars to go thru ? ( tho yes even stoping 3 cars they would have violated 2 innocents rights... I be less upset over that )
If it was an anonymous tip ..... how could that info been valid still by the time they got enough officers to the intersection to effect the stops? how long do you spend at a red light ? 1-2 mins TOPS? By the time the tip was called in , dispatched, and officers arrived . the bad guy would be long gone ( which he was). What they think the dude was just hanging out at the intersection?
APD needs a smack in the back of the head over this . And since you can;t actually smack them in the back of the head , it means they are gunna get sued. and they should be.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 13:41
My BS flag is raised.......
IF it was a GPS tracker... then why didn't they keep tracing it till there were a few less then 19 cars to go thru ? ( tho yes even stoping 3 cars they would have violated 2 innocents rights... I be less upset over that )
If it was an anonymous tip ..... how could that info been valid still by the time they got enough officers to the intersection to effect the stops? how long do you spend at a red light ? 1-2 mins TOPS? By the time the tip was called in , dispatched, and officers arrived . the bad guy would be long gone ( which he was). What they think the dude was just hanging out at the intersection?
APD needs a smack in the back of the head over this . And since you can;t actually smack them in the back of the head , it means they are gunna get sued. and they should be.
Looks like the only people pissed off so far are people that WEREN'T THERE... Which includes you... And 99% of the other people posting in this thread...
I love it... Keep going... :)
Sharpienads
06-06-2012, 13:43
Looks like the only people pissed off so far are people that WEREN'T THERE... Which includes you... And 99% of the other people posting in this thread...
I love it... Keep going... :)
Maybe that's why we're so upset, because the people that were there aren't upset, but should be.
clublights
06-06-2012, 13:48
Looks like the only people pissed off so far are people that WEREN'T THERE... Which includes you... And 99% of the other people posting in this thread...
I love it... Keep going... :)
I'm not pissed off.
I 100% believe these folks rights were violated. I'm annoyed. I'm upset.... but pissed off ?? Nah
I wasn't in Nazi Germany in the 40's but I'm still upset over the "final solution"
WHY I do I have to be there and part of it to be bothered/upset/concerned/pissed off by it ?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 13:53
Maybe that's why we're so upset, because the people that were there aren't upset, but should be.
But they're not... And they're emotions are the only ones that really matter in this case...
The police caught a bank robber, no one was hurt, and everyone of you is bitching about it...
I bet you're the same people that bitch when someone gets away... Or you're the same ones that bitch when the police don't help you out.. Right away.. When you demand it.. Cuz you're important..
Let's just say... For shits and giggles... The Aurora Police didn't do what they did... Robber gets away... Car jacks a mother and her two children... Now he has hostages... They corner him... He freaks out... Kills all three of them...
Now you're all going to bitch because they didn't catch the guy at the intersection when they had a chance...
Here's a plan... All of you that are bitching about the way this was handled, and HAVE NOT BEEN ONE... Go be a cop for a day. Just ONE DAY. Then, if you're not too busy crying, come back and tell us how you feel. [ROFL1]
clublights
06-06-2012, 13:57
But they're not... And they're emotions are the only ones that really matter in this case...
The police caught a bank robber, no one was hurt, and everyone of you is bitching about it...
I bet you're the same people that bitch when someone gets away... Or you're the same ones that bitch when the police don't help you out.. Right away.. When you demand it.. Cuz you're important..
Let's just say... For shits and giggles... The Aurora Police didn't do what they did... Robber gets away... Car jacks a mother and her two children... Now he has hostages... They corner him... He freaks out... Kills all three of them...
Now you're all going to bitch because they didn't catch the guy at the intersection when they had a chance...
Here's a plan... All of you that are bitching about the way this was handled, and HAVE NOT BEEN ONE... Go be a cop for a day. Just ONE DAY. Then, if you're not too busy crying, come back and tell us how you feel. [ROFL1]
One Problem .....................
THEY DIDN'T CATCH HIM BECAUSE OF THESE STOPS.... he wasn't there.
Whats the old Franklin Quote?... Something about giving up rights for safety and security deserves neither.... how's that one go ?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 13:58
I'm not pissed off.
I 100% believe these folks rights were violated. I'm annoyed. I'm upset.... but pissed off ?? Nah
I wasn't in Nazi Germany in the 40's but I'm still upset over the "final solution"
WHY I do I have to be there and part of it to be bothered/upset/concerned/pissed off by it ?
Because you're more or less telling the people that were there how to feel. If they don't feel like anything was wrong, leave 'em alone.
I've actually been in a situation kind of like this. Yeah, it sucked, but the people they were looking for got caught. Could I have sued? Probably... Why didn't I? Because the 4 douche bags running drugs got caught and my night was "ruined" for a whole 20 minutes. Well worth it to see 4 felons hauled off to jail...
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 13:59
One Problem .....................
THEY DIDN'T CATCH HIM BECAUSE OF THESE STOPS.... he wasn't there.
Whats the old Franklin Quote?... Something about giving up rights for safety and security deserves neither.... how's that one go ?
We didn't kill Osama with 100% of the air strikes we sent over to Iraq and the Stans... Or is that one different?
Oh, and, if you wanna play that... If the idiot that called in the tip would have been smarter, none of this would have happened... Why don't you blame him/her?
Oh that's right... Because it's not their fault... The police should just ignore all those tips... My bad.
So say stopping numerous cars at once becomes the standard for catching someone. I'm driving through an intersection when the popo thinks someone important is in the area and needs to detain and search everyone there. I WILL be pissed off. And I will be pissed off at every individual that thinks its prudent, correct, and within their rights to do so. Don't exercise your rights and you will lose them.
Hey guys, there's a drunk driver on I25 RIGHT NOW!
Everyone, stop, get out, and blow.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:05
So say stopping numerous cars at once becomes the standard for catching someone. I'm driving through an intersection when the popo thinks someone important is in the area and needs to detain and search everyone there. I WILL be pissed off. And I will be pissed off at every individual that thinks its prudent, correct, and within their rights to do so. Don't exercise your rights and you will lose them.
Just out of sheer curiosity...
Say your car matches the discription of a vehicle used in a bank robbery...
This is the car:
[Driver]
Now let's say that you and 4 other people, one of which is the bank robber, are at a stop light... For whatever reason you all have the same car... This car.
[Driver]
Would you be upset if the police stopped all five of you?
I know this is totally different... But I'm just curious.
flan7211
06-06-2012, 14:06
These tactics are now here to stay. Not sure how far they will go but the police have a precedent. Where does it end? A whole street, block, area of a city?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:06
Hey guys, there's a drunk driver on I25 RIGHT NOW!
Everyone, stop, get out, and blow.
Not even close to the same thing... Nice try though. [ROFL1]
Just out of sheer curiosity...
Say your car matches the discription of a vehicle used in a bank robbery...
This is the car:
[Driver]
Now let's say that you and 4 other people, one of which is the bank robber, are at a stop light... For whatever reason you all have the same car... This car.
[Driver]
Would you be upset if the police stopped all five of you?
I know this is totally different... But I'm just curious.
Did Aurora PD have a description of the car?
No.
Did Aurora PD have a description of the suspect?
No.
Did Aurora PD have a gender of the suspect?
No.
Did Aurora PD know if the suspect was white, black, brown, green or purple?
No.
Not even close to the same thing... Nice try though. [ROFL1]
Oh, but it is. I will bet cash someone would blow over .08, therefore catching the bad guy and saving a mom and kids.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:12
Did Aurora PD have a description of the car?
No.
Did Aurora PD have a description of the suspect?
No.
Did Aurora PD have a gender of the suspect?
No.
Did Aurora PD know if the suspect was white, black, brown, green or purple?
No.
You missed the last part of my post, didn't you? Silly goose... [ROFL3]
Sharpienads
06-06-2012, 14:13
But they're not... And they're emotions are the only ones that really matter in this case...
I don't think that should be the case. A lot of us here obviously feel like these people's rights were violated. "It didn't happen to me" is not a good reason to not get upset or take some sort of action (as in writing the APD, newspaper editor, sharing the story with others, etc.).
The police caught a bank robber, no one was hurt, and everyone of you is bitching about it...
I don't believe "bitching" is the write word. A lot of people have brought up some very good points on the subject. Discussing a topic is not "bitching". If it were, wouldn't you be "bitching" about others "bitching"?
I bet you're the same people that bitch when someone gets away... Or you're the same ones that bitch when the police don't help you out.. Right away.. When you demand it.. Cuz you're important..
Maybe, maybe not. But that's quite an assumption, and really doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.
Let's just say... For shits and giggles... The Aurora Police didn't do what they did... Robber gets away... Car jacks a mother and her two children... Now he has hostages... They corner him... He freaks out... Kills all three of them...
Now you're all going to bitch because they didn't catch the guy at the intersection when they had a chance...
As others have pointed out, lets say that the guy shot everybody who was innocent while they were detained in handcuffs sitting on the curb. What's your point?
Here's a plan... All of you that are bitching about the way this was handled, and HAVE NOT BEEN ONE... Go be a cop for a day. Just ONE DAY. Then, if you're not too busy crying, come back and tell us how you feel. [ROFL1]
I think most if not all of the people here have a great deal of respect for police officers. But that doesn't mean that they get a free pass when they do something wrong.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:13
Oh, but it is. I will bet cash someone would blow over .08, therefore catching the bad guy and saving a mom and kids.
No. It's not... It's not a felony. But again.. Nice try. [Coffee]
No. It's not... It's not a felony. But again.. Nice try. [Coffee]
Fine. There is a felon with a gun on I25.
The point is, if you think the Aurora incident is OK, where is the line and when does it get crossed?
clublights
06-06-2012, 14:18
We didn't kill Osama with 100% of the air strikes we sent over to Iraq and the Stans... Or is that one different?
Oh, and, if you wanna play that... If the idiot that called in the tip would have been smarter, none of this would have happened... Why don't you blame him/her?
Oh that's right... Because it's not their fault... The police should just ignore all those tips... My bad.
Combat operations against a known terrorist and non citizen are a bit different.
why should I blame the tipster? I'm sure there is a high probability that when they called in said tip that the bad guy was at the intersection. see my first post again.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:18
I think most if not all of the people here have a great deal of respect for police officers. But that doesn't mean that they get a free pass when they do something wrong.
Sorry... You're right... "Crying like a bitch" would have been better... "ALL THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD SUE!!!!" That's bitching... My opinion. Or am I not entitled?
And really? FBI and Cops all over with guns... You think the dude is going to shoot everyone out there in cuffs? [ROFL1]
So much respect that the only things you see on here are about the bad things they do... And about how they should be fired... And about how they're all just a bunch of gang members...
You're right. All of you love cops.. [ROFL3]
I'm sure there's a good number that do have respect, but the ones that dont seem to out number those that do..
But hey, I'm just discussing. [Beer]
Looks like the only people pissed off so far are people that WEREN'T THERE... Which includes you... And 99% of the other people posting in this thread...
I love it... Keep going... :)
So along that line, and I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your line of thinking, what if you saw on the news tonight, a blatant disregard for someones constitutional rights by a police agency, but they weren't all too upset when all was said and done... you shouldn't be upset, right? Ya know, because it wasn't you.
I see instances like this and they get my blood temperature up, not to boiling point, not yet at least, but it makes me angry that this behavior is allowed. Again, sitting on a curb in handcuffs while the PD searches for a suspect who [B]may still be in the area, is not a concern of safety, but a concern of right and wrong. While it may be in the neat little gray area, still makes it feel pretty wrong when I have done nothing to deserve this. The fact that I didn't personally experience this doesn't change the fact that something wrong happened to my fellow Americans (remember WE the people, not I the person) by those who are supposed to uphold the law and lead by example, and I am awake enough to realize this and be angry about it.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:20
Combat operations against a known terrorist and non citizen are a bit different.
why should I blame the tipster? I'm sure there is a high probability that when they called in said tip that the bad guy was at the intersection. see my first post again.
Because the tipster didn't know what he was talking about.
My BS flag is raised.......
IF it was a GPS tracker... then why didn't they keep tracing it till there were a few less then 19 cars to go thru ? ( tho yes even stoping 3 cars they would have violated 2 innocents rights... I be less upset over that )
If it was an anonymous tip ..... how could that info been valid still by the time they got enough officers to the intersection to effect the stops? how long do you spend at a red light ? 1-2 mins TOPS? By the time the tip was called in , dispatched, and officers arrived . the bad guy would be long gone ( which he was). What they think the dude was just hanging out at the intersection?
APD needs a smack in the back of the head over this . And since you can;t actually smack them in the back of the head , it means they are gunna get sued. and they should be.
Looks like the only people pissed off so far are people that WEREN'T THERE... Which includes you... And 99% of the other people posting in this thread...
I love it... Keep going... :)
So you are capable of knowing folks emotions from reading plain text? Kudos to you....
But they're not... And they're emotions are the only ones that really matter in this case...
The police caught a bank robber, no one was hurt, and everyone of you is bitching about it...
I bet you're the same people that bitch when someone gets away... Or you're the same ones that bitch when the police don't help you out.. Right away.. When you demand it.. Cuz you're important..
Let's just say... For shits and giggles... The Aurora Police didn't do what they did... Robber gets away... Car jacks a mother and her two children... Now he has hostages... They corner him... He freaks out... Kills all three of them...
Now you're all going to bitch because they didn't catch the guy at the intersection when they had a chance...
Here's a plan... All of you that are bitching about the way this was handled, and HAVE NOT BEEN ONE... Go be a cop for a day. Just ONE DAY. Then, if you're not too busy crying, come back and tell us how you feel. [ROFL1]
So...because we were not there we have no reason to worry about our rights as citizens? An abuse of power and mistreatment of fellow citizens should be ignored by anyone who is not involved?
By your statements above I could surmise that you would be ok if Obama ordered a nuke strike in El Paso, TX, and because you were not involved or hurt in any way, you would be ok with it.
[ROFL1]
Because you're more or less telling the people that were there how to feel. If they don't feel like anything was wrong, leave 'em alone.
I've actually been in a situation kind of like this. Yeah, it sucked, but the people they were looking for got caught. Could I have sued? Probably... Why didn't I? Because the 4 douche bags running drugs got caught and my night was "ruined" for a whole 20 minutes. Well worth it to see 4 felons hauled off to jail...
How has anyone in this thread directly told anyone involved how they should feel? Not one person in this thread has posted they were there, and I doubt anyone who has posted is in contact with anyone that was in order to tell them how to feel.
A violation of rights is worth it to catch 4 criminals? Now you are sayng it is ok to violate the rights of innocent people in order to catch the few bad ones...wow.
I understand you are getting a good laugh from the posts in this thread. What I find sad and laughable myself is your complete lack of understanding of what you are reading and your complete disregard of your own rights.
UncleDave
06-06-2012, 14:23
Whether or not the people that were stopped complain is irrelevant. This is about liberties being abridged and eroded.
Whether or not the people that were stopped complain is irrelevant. This is about liberties being abridged and eroded.
THIS! [Beer]
Sharpienads
06-06-2012, 14:27
Sorry... You're right... "Crying like a bitch" would have been better... "ALL THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD SUE!!!!" That's bitching... My opinion. Or am I not entitled?
And really? FBI and Cops all over with guns... You think the dude is going to shoot everyone out there in cuffs? [ROFL1]
So much respect that the only things you see on here are about the bad things they do... And about how they should be fired... And about how they're all just a bunch of gang members...
You're right. All of you love cops.. [ROFL3]
I'm sure there's a good number that do have respect, but the ones that dont seem to out number those that do..
But hey, I'm just discussing. [Beer]
Nobody said you're not entitled to an opinion. Don't try to make it sound like you're being victimized.
And the fact that no one talks about the good things cops do on here is not true. The bad posts do outnumber the good posts, that is true. But police officers are not above reproach. And there's a difference between love and respect. Just because someone doesn't love or even like police officers doesn't equate to disrespect.
And I hope we all keep discussing. [Beer]
clublights
06-06-2012, 14:28
Just out of sheer curiosity...
Say your car matches the discription of a vehicle used in a bank robbery...
This is the car:
[Driver]
Now let's say that you and 4 other people, one of which is the bank robber, are at a stop light... For whatever reason you all have the same car... This car.
[Driver]
Would you be upset if the police stopped all five of you?
I know this is totally different... But I'm just curious.
Like you already said.. totally different..
But I'll play
Nope I wouldn't be. The cops had more of a tip other then " in the area" and besides the odds of 5 of the same car being in the same place at the same time are astronomical .
Look the real point is that stopping everyone "in an area" at gun point is just over the top. and to add to it... the "tactic" didn't even work . .they caught the guy hours later somewhere else. they can;t even say "well we got our man so it's ok" instead they did all of they FOR NOTHING! ( well ok not true .. they proved he wasn't there)
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:30
So along that line, and I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your line of thinking, what if you saw on the news tonight, a blatant disregard for someones constitutional rights by a police agency, but they weren't all too upset when all was said and done... you shouldn't be upset, right? Ya know, because it wasn't you.
I see instances like this and they get my blood temperature up, not to boiling point, not yet at least, but it makes me angry that this behavior is allowed. Again, sitting on a curb in handcuffs while the PD searches for a suspect who [B]may still be in the area, is not a concern of safety, but a concern of right and wrong. While it may be in the neat little gray area, still makes it feel pretty wrong when I have done nothing to deserve this. The fact that I didn't personally experience this doesn't change the fact that something wrong happened to my fellow Americans (remember WE the people, not I the person) by those who are supposed to uphold the law and lead by example, and I am awake enough to realize this and be angry about it.
You've got a good point... But at the same time, there's a saying about guns..
"I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."
I understand 90% of you aren't going to like this, but hey, it's the truth.
I'd rather have the rights of 1 person violated to save the lives of 1,2,3,4,5,6 as many as you want to put there...
Is violating the rights of 19 people a little much, sure... I suppose... But, if one person were to have died because the police didn't act soon enough, then what's the bigger trade off?
I'll make this more noticable this time...
I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY IS 100% DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPEND!
That being said...
Let's pretend you match the discription of a robbery suspect that just shot 9 people and was last seen shooting at 10 more in every aspect BUT you're not wearing a hat...
The police see you and order you to the ground at gunpoint...
Rights violated? Maybe...
But is it worth it to stop everyone that is even close to being the suspect? Fuck yeah it is.
Another...
Same robbery suspect runs into a building occupied by 10 people... They dont have a very good discription but they KNOW he's in the building...
Is it then ok to detain those 11 (remember, plus one robber) in order to find the robber or should you be allowed to just walk away because you can't be bothered with the murdering robber guy's capture?
The police used a tactic to catch a fleeing felon. They acted on a tip from a person that didn't want to be named... They did what they thought at the time was right... A choice was made in a matter of a seconds. Shit happens all the time. Is it always the right thing? No. Mistakes happen. But no one was hurt and the bad guy went to jail. That's the important thing.
clublights
06-06-2012, 14:37
Is violating the rights of 19 people a little much, sure... I suppose... But, if one person were to have died because the police didn't act soon enough, then what's the bigger trade off?
Right's are RIGHTS. for a reason ....
What 19-20 of us have posted in this thread.. there a bouts right ?
well if taking all of our guns away saves just one life...
It's worth it .. right ?
Oh whats that ? it won't save a life?
Just like violating the rights of those folks ( more then 19 .. it was just 19 cars .. many had more then one person in them ) Didn't catch the bad guy.
To your first point....they had a description of the robbery victim in your example, they had no description of the robber or his verhicle in this case. Moot point.
To your second example....again you have a felon in a KNOWN location, no guessing, they know FOR SURE he is there. Again, in this case, they went off of an anonymous tip and had no idea if he was there at all, which he wasn't.
Yes, they did what they thought was right, but as it turns out sometimes, their choice is wrong. Police make mistakes, I have a lot in my family and they admit the same. They are human to!
I agree, no one was hurt. However, the fact they potentially put all of those people at risk, and violated certain rights, is still not right.
No justification will make a wrong "right". Wrong is simply "wrong".
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:41
So you are capable of knowing folks emotions from reading plain text? Kudos to you....
Read the posts... You can tell...
So...because we were not there we have no reason to worry about our rights as citizens? An abuse of power and mistreatment of fellow citizens should be ignored by anyone who is not involved?
Hmm... Sure. I suppose you're right.. But if you're gonna do that... You shouldn't be mad at the COPS.. Just the one cop that made the order to detain. The rest were just following orders...
By your statements above I could surmise that you would be ok if Obama ordered a nuke strike in El Paso, TX, and because you were not involved or hurt in any way, you would be ok with it.
I don't live in Texas. Nor do I know anyone that lives in Texas. I do know this though... There is a show my mom tells me about called "Big Rich Texas." That show alone would make me not care if a nuke went off in Texas.
[ROFL1]
How has anyone in this thread directly told anyone involved how they should feel? Not one person in this thread has posted they were there, and I doubt anyone who has posted is in contact with anyone that was in order to tell them how to feel.
More than one person said that the people involved should be upset and sue... Go back and read. That's telling those involved how to feel.
A violation of rights is worth it to catch 4 criminals? Now you are sayng it is ok to violate the rights of innocent people in order to catch the few bad ones...wow.
Are you mad we dropped two nukes on Japan? I mean... All those innocent people we killed to kill just a few bad ones...
I understand you are getting a good laugh from the posts in this thread. What I find sad and laughable myself is your complete lack of understanding of what you are reading and your complete disregard of your own rights.
I understand it all more than you know... You just assume I don't... [Flower][ROFL1]
Nobody said you're not entitled to an opinion. Don't try to make it sound like you're being victimized.
I wasn't. I hope you don't think that. I'm not a victim. [Beer]
And the fact that no one talks about the good things cops do on here is not true. The bad posts do outnumber the good posts, that is true. But police officers are not above reproach. And there's a difference between love and respect. Just because someone doesn't love or even like police officers doesn't equate to disrespect.
You're right.. The comments made don't beam with disrespect at all...
And I hope we all keep discussing. [Beer]
I do too. This is the most fun I've had all day! [Pepsi]I forgot.. I don't drink...
Like you already said.. totally different..
But I'll play
Thanks for playing. I like games.
Nope I wouldn't be. The cops had more of a tip other then " in the area" and besides the odds of 5 of the same car being in the same place at the same time are astronomical .
That would be crazy, wouldn't it?
Look the real point is that stopping everyone "in an area" at gun point is just over the top. and to add to it... the "tactic" didn't even work . .they caught the guy hours later somewhere else. they can;t even say "well we got our man so it's ok" instead they did all of they FOR NOTHING! ( well ok not true .. they proved he wasn't there)
You're totally right. It didn't work. I wonder if the discussion would be different if it would have worked... [Dunno]
I just want you all to know... I still love all of you...
[Beer][Love2]
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-06-2012, 14:41
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0 http://www.ar-15.co/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?p=489667#post489667)
Looks like the only people pissed off so far are people that WEREN'T THERE... Which includes you... And 99% of the other people posting in this thread...
I love it... Keep going... :)
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
stevelkinevil
06-06-2012, 14:41
JM I was an LEO, so to answer your earlier challenge, This incident was in fact not handled correctly. The ends do not justify the means.
Problem 1. A vague geographical area does not probable cause make! Had they had a description of a suspect, a vehicle ect.. then that is PC for a stop of said vehicle. You must still have PC to go under exigent circumstances. Had they had a suspect description and information that he was hiding in a motorists vehicle, PC exists there as well. They had nothing but a vague geographical area. You must have reasonable suspicion, and that does not include everyone, not enough information in this case to clearly state PC for the actions taken.
Problem 2. If you have GPS on the subject why in gods green earth stop 19 cars at a busy intersection going one by one pulling folks out and putting them in harms way, had the suspect been inclined to come out guns blazing he surely would have done so knowing they were going to get to him eventually. Now you have put many innocent lives at risk unnecessarily.
Problem 3. Consent to search as pointed out earlier is not valid if obtained under duress, gun point certainly qualifies as under duress. If exigent circumstances exist no consent is necessary but again, not enough information for valid PC existed with only a vague geographical locale.
The idea that you must support fellow officers actions and follow orders regardless of whether or not they are justified or correct is wrong.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:49
Right's are RIGHTS. for a reason ....
What 19-20 of us have posted in this thread.. there a bouts right ?
well if taking all of our guns away saves just one life...
It's worth it .. right ?
Oh whats that ? it won't save a life?
Just like violating the rights of those folks ( more then 19 .. it was just 19 cars .. many had more then one person in them ) Didn't catch the bad guy.
No... Because taking your guns would be a permanent(can't spell that word) loss of said right... These people lost it for 2 hours...
To your first point....they had a description of the robbery victim in your example, they had no description of the robber or his verhicle in this case. Moot point.
To your second example....again you have a felon in a KNOWN location, no guessing, they know FOR SURE he is there. Again, in this case, they went off of an anonymous tip and had no idea if he was there at all, which he wasn't.
Yes, they did what they thought was right, but as it turns out sometimes, their choice is wrong. Police make mistakes, I have a lot in my family and they admit the same. They are human to!
I agree, no one was hurt. However, the fact they potentially put all of those people at risk, and violated certain rights, is still not right.
No justification will make a wrong "right". Wrong is simply "wrong".
Like I said... It had nothing to do with it. I knew that.
But, acting on a tip. They thought they knew where he was.
Originally Posted by Steps (http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?p=489735#post489735)
So you are capable of knowing folks emotions from reading plain text? Kudos to you....
Read the posts... You can tell...
You can "GUESS"
So...because we were not there we have no reason to worry about our rights as citizens? An abuse of power and mistreatment of fellow citizens should be ignored by anyone who is not involved?
Hmm... Sure. I suppose you're right.. But if you're gonna do that... You shouldn't be mad at the COPS.. Just the one cop that made the order to detain. The rest were just following orders...
It upsets me with everyone involved. Any officer there can step up and tell his fellow officers if he/she thinks someting is right or wrong.
By your statements above I could surmise that you would be ok if Obama ordered a nuke strike in El Paso, TX, and because you were not involved or hurt in any way, you would be ok with it.
I don't live in Texas. Nor do I know anyone that lives in Texas. I do know this though... There is a show my mom tells me about called "Big Rich Texas." That show alone would make me not care if a nuke went off in Texas.
I expected this response to be honest. Because you have no relations there and come to your own conclusions of a state from a T.V. show you have a complete diregard for human life.
How has anyone in this thread directly told anyone involved how they should feel? Not one person in this thread has posted they were there, and I doubt anyone who has posted is in contact with anyone that was in order to tell them how to feel.
More than one person said that the people involved should be upset and sue... Go back and read. That's telling those involved how to feel.
Yes, they stated their opinion. However, last time I checked, a person stating their opinion on an internet forum about someone does not generate any alerts out of thin air revealing what was said or telling them how they should feel.
A violation of rights is worth it to catch 4 criminals? Now you are sayng it is ok to violate the rights of innocent people in order to catch the few bad ones...wow.
Are you mad we dropped two nukes on Japan? I mean... All those innocent people we killed to kill just a few bad ones...
Comparing a war to a loss or abuse of our civil rights?!?!
I understand you are getting a good laugh from the posts in this thread. What I find sad and laughable myself is your complete lack of understanding of what you are reading and your complete disregard of your own rights.
I understand it all more than you know... You just assume I don't...
I only base my opinion off of what you are posting.
I just want you all to know... I still love all of you...
[Beer][Love2]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:57
JM I was an LEO, so to answer your earlier challenge, This incident was in fact not handled correctly. The ends do not justify the means.
Problem 1. A vague geographical area does not probable cause make! Had they had a description of a suspect, a vehicle ect.. then that is PC for a stop of said vehicle. You must still have PC to go under exigent circumstances. Had they had a suspect description and information that he was hiding in a motorists vehicle, PC exists there as well. They had nothing but a vague geographical area. You must have reasonable suspicion, and that does not include everyone, not enough information in this case to clearly state PC for the actions taken.
Problem 2. If you have GPS on the subject why in gods green earth stop 19 cars at a busy intersection going one by one pulling folks out and putting them in harms way, had the suspect been inclined to come out guns blazing he surely would have done so knowing they were going to get to him eventually. Now you have put many innocent lives at risk unnecessarily.
Problem 3. Consent to search as pointed out earlier is not valid if obtained under duress, gun point certainly qualifies as under duress. If exigent circumstances exist no consent is necessary but again, not enough information for valid PC existed with only a vague geographical locale.
The idea that you must support fellow officers actions and follow orders regardless of whether or not they are justified or correct is wrong.
I'm not supporting anyone... I never once said what they did was right... You've all assumed that though.
And, I think, given the situation anyone would have followed the order to stop all the cars. Just because of the speed at which it had to be done. But hey, I wasn't there... I donno.
Thanks for commenting though! All of your points are spot on. [Beer]
Damnit.. Forgot again.. Not a beer guy... [Pepsi]
Sharpienads
06-06-2012, 14:59
I understand 90% of you aren't going to like this, but hey, it's the truth.
I'd rather have the rights of 1 person violated to save the lives of 1,2,3,4,5,6 as many as you want to put there...
Is violating the rights of 19 people a little much, sure... I suppose... But, if one person were to have died because the police didn't act soon enough, then what's the bigger trade off?
I can't tell if you're just messing with us, or if you actually believe everything you're saying. If you do, well then I guess agree to disagree.
Liberty and living in a free society has a price, and that price is not getting you inalienable rights trampled on when it's for the greater good. I would rather the robber get away than to have one person's rights violated by anybody. A lot of your arguments hinge on the assumption that the police are the only ones capable of defending the populace (i.e., "what if one person died because the police didn't act soon enough" or "what if the robber shot other people because the police didn't do this or that"). This isn't and should not be the case.
My rights are not negotiable, and yours shouldn't be either. The fact that those involved are not pissed (that I know of) is very discouraging.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 14:59
I'm glad you expected my answer on Texas, Steps...
And yes... I did just compare a war to what happened in Aurora. Wanna fight about it?[ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3]
I'm glad you expected my answer on Texas, Steps...
And yes... I did just compare a war to what happened in Aurora. Wanna fight about it?[ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3]
[ROFL1]
Just for you....
[Driver][M2][PoPo]
haha.....
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 15:02
I can't tell if you're just messing with us, or if you actually believe everything you're saying. If you do, well then I guess agree to disagree.
Liberty and living in a free society has a price, and that price is not getting you inalienable rights trampled on when it's for the greater good. I would rather the robber get away than to have one person's rights violated by anybody. A lot of your arguments hinge on the assumption that the police are the only ones capable of defending the populace (i.e., "what if one person died because the police didn't act soon enough" or "what if the robber shot other people because the police didn't do this or that"). This isn't and should not be the case.
My rights are not negotiable, and yours shouldn't be either. The fact that those involved are not pissed (that I know of) is very discouraging.
I didn't say they were the only ones that could defend us...
And yes, I'm just messing around... Gotta get my posts back some how. [Stooge]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 15:04
[ROFL1]
Just for you....
[Driver][M2][PoPo]
haha.....
I'm glad I finally got a giggle out of you...
You should watch that show, by the way... You might feel the same way about that little piece of Texas. [ROFL2]
spqrzilla
06-06-2012, 15:05
Since in Colorado your car is an extension of your home, does that change how cars in Colorado looked upon regarding the law? Searching your car is the same as searching your house in this state?
Your car is not an "extension" of your home.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 15:06
Your car is not an "extension" of your home.
Maybe this post marks the start of round two... [ROFL1]
spqrzilla
06-06-2012, 15:09
JM Ver. 2.0
Is there a reason you are more interested in discussing the irrelevant made-up "facts" of your hypothetical and not discuss the facts of the actual incident?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 15:14
JM Ver. 2.0
Is there a reason you are more interested in discussing the irrelevant made-up "facts" of your hypothetical and not discuss the facts of the actual incident?
Yes. There is... Because the horse been beaten to death, revived by CPR, then beaten to death again. Then, just for good measure, another horse was also beatenn to death...
Agree to disagree should be the first and last post in almost all these threads...
I'm glad I finally got a giggle out of you...
You should watch that show, by the way... You might feel the same way about that little piece of Texas. [ROFL2]
Nothing will change how I feel about TX. I am from Texas!
[Beer]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 15:18
Nothing will change how I feel about TX. I am from Texas!
[Beer]
You should be ashamed of your people...
http://images.zap2it.com/images/tv-EP01409295/big-rich-texas-16.jpg
BushMasterBoy
06-06-2012, 15:22
Don't worry Obama will protect your constitutional rights...vote accordingly come November!
I just had a thought (yes it hurt, a little)...
What, if in the course of this "exigent circumstances" dragnet (call it what it is), during one of these "consent at gunpoint" searches, the officers in question discover that one of the detainees has a bench warrant out for a traffic FTA? Other than the anonymous tip, the officer in question would have had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to make a stop, and thus only made contact with the subject as a result of the blanket stop. Regardless, the subject ends up going to jail. Now that the door has opened to these kinds of searches and detainments, where do we draw the line?
You should be ashamed of your people...
http://th243.photobucket.com/albums/ff142/big_preme/Gifs/th_smileymiddle-fingeryou.gif
There's more than one Texan here....
Lol
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 15:30
I just had a thought (yes it hurt, a little)...
What, if in the course of this "exigent circumstances" dragnet (call it what it is), during one of these "consent at gunpoint" searches, the officers in question discover that one of the detainees has a bench warrant out for a traffic FTA? Other than the anonymous tip, the officer in question would have had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to make a stop, and thus only made contact with the subject as a result of the blanket stop. Regardless, the subject ends up going to jail. Now that the door has opened to these kinds of searches and detainments, where do we draw the line?
Wouldn't be a legal arrest and any good D attorney would get the entire thing tossed... It would also open the door for said arestee to sue. Which would then probably stop these sorts of searches...
See? I can play both sides... [ROFL1]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 15:30
http://th243.photobucket.com/albums/ff142/big_preme/Gifs/th_smileymiddle-fingeryou.gif
There's more than one Texan here....
Lol
I see I'm out numbered.... BRING IT ON!!!!
[M2]
I see I'm out numbered.... BRING IT ON!!!!
[M2]
You should know better JM...
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!
It's not nice to pick on the mentally handicapped![ROFL1]
Wouldn't be a legal arrest and any good D attorney would get the entire thing tossed... It would also open the door for said arestee to sue. Which would then probably stop these sorts of searches...
See? I can play both sides... [ROFL1]
I though so...fruit of the poison tree and all...
You should know better JM...
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!
It's not nice to pick on the mentally handicapped![ROFL1]
Uhmm...Obama won Colorado....which state is handicapped?!?!?
[Beer]
Uhmm...Obama won Colorado....which state is handicapped?!?!?
[Beer]
Hey now! That's not fair! Texas doesn't have the People's Republic of Boulder and the Denver Metro area... where we all know that 90% of the population of those areas is Liberal. [Flower]
spqrzilla
06-06-2012, 16:12
I though so...fruit of the poison tree and all...
Fruit of the poison tree refers to the exclusion of evidence. Specifically evidence obtained solely on the basis of information gleaned from an illegal search is suppressed or made not admissable as a remedial act for the illegal search.
An arrest warrant is an arrest warrant. Someone who is the subject of an arrest warrant can be arrested whenever found regardless of whether or not the "search" was legal. A judge is not going to release someone from custody on the basis of that someone being arrested pursuant to a pre-existing warrant on the basis of the search being illegal.
Very true! But hey...you "started" it!
lol
And, I think, given the situation anyone would have followed the order to stop all the cars. Just because of the speed at which it had to be done. But hey, I wasn't there... I donno.
I thought that the world learned after WW2 that "I was just following orders" isn't an excuse or defense
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 17:10
I thought that the world learned after WW2 that "I was just following orders" isn't an excuse or defense
But being faced with "DO AS I SAY!" or be fired... I'll take my chances with do as they say... Unless it's deadly stuff.
argonstrom
06-06-2012, 17:32
I can play both sides... [ROFL1]
TMI, my friend. TMI.
KevDen2005
06-06-2012, 18:07
I only opened this thread today in the hopes that it would be locked. [Bang]
why do you want it locked? I was surprised too!
Adding one more troll to the ignore list. [Roll1]
i'm serious, I suck at the internet, why would you lock a thread?
i'm serious, I suck at the internet, why would you lock a thread?
When a thread turns into a train wreck and most all relevant discussion is exhausted, the mods are kind enough to put it out of it's misery.
roger that pook, makes sense. Thanks!
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 18:29
When a thread turns into a train wreck and most all relevant discussion is exhausted, the mods are kind enough to put it out of it's misery.
roger that pook, makes sense. Thanks!
Which is what happens to 99% of the cop threads on this forum... [ROFL1]
KevDen2005
06-06-2012, 19:45
When a thread turns into a train wreck and most all relevant discussion is exhausted, the mods are kind enough to put it out of it's misery.
That is the most profound way it could have been put.
Sorry... You're right... "Crying like a bitch" would have been better... "ALL THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD SUE!!!!" That's bitching... My opinion. Or am I not entitled?
And really? FBI and Cops all over with guns... You think the dude is going to shoot everyone out there in cuffs? [ROFL1]
So much respect that the only things you see on here are about the bad things they do... And about how they should be fired... And about how they're all just a bunch of gang members...
I so dearly hope you don't bring this level of drama and narcissism to your day job but I suspect that is being overly optimistic...
JM Ver. 2.0
06-06-2012, 19:57
I so dearly hope you don't bring this level of drama and narcissism to your day job but I suspect that is being overly optimistic...
You take me way too seriously.
stevelkinevil
06-06-2012, 20:28
this thread is still going eh? good grief.
KevDen2005
06-06-2012, 20:31
this thread is still going eh? good grief.
I know, I thought I was clear in the begging and pleading with the mods to shut it down...they are having a laugh...Torturing KevDen! [Coffee]
theGinsue
06-06-2012, 21:05
If they didn't have a description, how did they ID the guy in the end???
The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area.
As for the fleeing felon, all I can say is that you normally have to identify your fleeing felon before you may be involved in a "hot pursuit."
The circumstances as described in this incident sound more like a localized dragnet, which most, if not all courts have determined to be unconstitutional.
The most effective method for avoiding the need for obtaining a warrant or conducting dragnet searches is to simply obtain a willing, knowing, and voluntary consent. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing better than a well obtained consent search.
Be safe.
I've only made it through the first 75 posts of this thread and feel the need to address something.
CStone hit the nail on the head. LE did not have a description of the suspect and were not in what is officially recognized as hot pursuit. Because of these facts, the use of the exigency clause is invalid. While not absolute, it is very difficult to maintain officially recognized hot pursuit without maintaining direct eye contact/line-of-site with a known suspect. To exercise "exigent circumstances", you MUST combine "Hot pursuit" with "fleeing felon" (as in We were in hot pursuit [which can stand up in court] of a fleeing felon). This was not the case here. Individually, they do not justify most tactics.
On to another topic within this discussion...
This has already been mentioned a few times but I find this particularly alarming. While I'm sure (hope) there was more involved than was identified in the referenced news story, a particular statement in the story stands out like a red flag to me:
“Once officers got to his car, they found evidence that he was who they were looking for,” Fania said. “When they searched the car, they found two loaded firearms.”
With more and more individuals realizing their obligation to their own personal safety begins with themselves and are exercising their rights to carry firearms, what if more individuals detained in this instance had been carrying? Would this have been enough to have gotten them arrested and their vehicles and other personal items confiscated until LE could sort through the most likely suspect?
This entire situation disturbs me on multiple levels. And no, I would not grant authorization to search my vehicle (I've learned the hard way as well as being on the other side of this coin). Either be prepared to present uncontestable evidence of probable cause before a judge, or obtain a warrant (which also requires some degree of probable cause to satisy a judge).
We all know that simply exercising your Constitutional rights and refusing a search shouldn't be construed as a form of guilt, however, it is most often taken that way. As has been identified in some of the real life experiences of some of our members, there is a certain amount of leniency provided to the LE community to make it increasingly uncomfortable for you to refuse to cooperate. Anyone making the decision to exercise their rights needs to understand from the outset that to do this WILL come at the expense of your time and comfort. You can likely expect some degree of manhandling short of actual mistreatment. The longer you are detained or in custody increases the likelyhood that you will give them sufficient reason to charge you with a crime where they will likely receive a conviction. Techniques such as "kettling" are often used to escalate a situation beyond boiling point on behalf of the "suspect" and providing LE with justification to move you from "detainment" to "arrest". It's exceptionally easy to fall victim to these techniques and the officers have effectively used them on many suspects before they came across you. Once they decide you are to be arrested, it's equally easy to claim "resisting arrest" - which you really have little ability to prove your innocence against. Yes, I know the laws say "innocent until proven guilty", but when it's your word against 3+ duly sworn officers of the court, you haven't a chance.
Gentlemen, we are stuck in an untenable situation these days where we are damned if we do (damned if we acquiesce & forfeit our rights) and damned if we don't. We, as a society, have voted into office individuals who have put forth laws which make it practically impossible to maintain our rights. The obvious answer is to vote new people into office that still believe in what the Founding Fathers of this nation had in mind. Sadly, I never see this happening again. We, again, as a society, have happily and voluntarily handed over our essential freedoms in order to obtain some sort of promised security. Make peace with this reality now because this trend will only continue until we are no longer a free people.
ETA: I also feel the responsibility to make a few things here clear so as to not be misquoted:
(a) I have a profound respect for Law Enforcement and the officers who have to face difficult deciions and events every day on the job.
(b) I don't know and I am not making any claims that individuals here had their 4th Amendment rights violated via the searching of their vehicles. In fact, I honestly believe all individuals involved grantged authority to search.
(c) While I think the 2 hours is excessive, I understand and agree that once the decision to perform this dragnet was made, the decision to handcuff the affected individuals was the right this to do to protect officer and citizen safety. Unfortunately, had I been one of those people I would have been in tremendous pain after more than 10 minutes due to repetitive shoulder injuries.
ETA2:
I have a shoulder injury and being handcuffed (or having my arms in that position) for a period longer than 10min causes me agonizing pain- reason #146 why I don't break the law.
I know your pain brother.
ETA3: Wait a minute. So what I'm hearing is that the guy they apprehended at the scene of this busy intersection (the guy with a couple of guns in his car) was NOT the armed robber? So, this guy was arrested (er, "apprehended") simply for the fact that he had 2 firearms in full exercise of his Constitutional rights in his vehicle? Oh, this is grand. I suspect HE will have something more to say to the City of Aurora about this even if the adult occupants of the other 18 car do not.
theGinsue
06-06-2012, 23:04
Gotta get my posts back some how. [Stooge]
?? What happened to all of your posts?
theGinsue
06-06-2012, 23:10
Oh, I'm seeing the last page of posts here where there is a call to lock this thread.
Is that what all of you want? (I don't want to be accused of getting the last word in and then locking the thread before someone can rebutt my comments).
Nah, leave it open...it's like an all night Bitch-o-Rama...[ROFL1]
this thread is still going eh? good grief.
http://i.imgur.com/BpvaB.png
Oh, I'm seeing the last page of posts here where there is a call to lock this thread.
Is that what all of you want? (I don't want to be accused of getting the last word in and then locking the thread before someone can rebutt my comments).
I like a good clean debate.
So far, we've kept it clean, free of name calling and such. Nothing to exhibit hate or anything. I, for one, don't feel the need to bash anyone's head in.
If people get tired of seeing it, don't open it. IMHO.
UncleDave
06-07-2012, 07:26
This thread ripe to be whored, now.
KevDen2005
06-07-2012, 08:28
Thomas, very good post. I agree with pretty much everything that you said. Without knowing the full circumstances of the case I make myself to comment only think about what I would potentially do in the event I were in the same circumstances that have been provided for by the media and by this thread.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-07-2012, 08:41
This thread ripe to be whored, now.
That was yesterday... You can have the sloppy seconds though. [ROFL2]
there is a certain amount of leniency provided to the LE community to make it increasingly uncomfortable for you to refuse to cooperate.
I had to address this because this is, how do they say, hitting the nail on the head. Kev will probably agree with me here, as would any of our LEOs, that while society and precedence can influence LEO behavior- not to mention policy instituted by higher ranking administration- the line between non-cooperation and standing up for your rights has been blurred quite a bit over the years. I've seen it, experienced it, and heard about it. It's very sad, and in a case like this- police trying to locate a fleeing suspect- I fear that the doors open for abusive tactics to be employed when tensions are running high. I would hope that we as a society would wake the hell up and see these transgressions and aid in "pumping the brakes" so that cops don't get themselves in trouble.
Moreover, on the flip side, we do not want to "pussify" our LEOs by putting a bunch of barriers in the way so that they question their actions in a hostile situation. As the Army taught me, hesitation can kill you, but that correlates quite differently to civilian law enforcement. I guess my point is that it's become so commonplace that in a high stress situation, like the one in this case, many don't stop and think if their rights are being violated and simply comply with toeing the line of constitutional rights tactics. I'm not saying the PD blatantly violated rights, they were under a lot of stress and on edge because of the circumstances and maybe used a little too aggressive options in trying to locate the suspect. Hopefully in the future, if, as Ginsue put it best, they didn't have a clear sight or exact location of the suspect, they would recognize a lack of need for use of such tactics. Of course there probably isn't going to be much backlash so we can all chalk this one up to setting a new precedence. [Bang]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-07-2012, 10:30
I had to address this because this is, how do they say, hitting the nail on the head. Kev will probably agree with me here, as would any of our LEOs, that while society and precedence can influence LEO behavior- not to mention policy instituted by higher ranking administration- the line between non-cooperation and standing up for your rights has been blurred quite a bit over the years. I've seen it, experienced it, and heard about it. It's very sad, and in a case like this- police trying to locate a fleeing suspect- I fear that the doors open for abusive tactics to be employed when tensions are running high. I would hope that we as a society would wake the hell up and see these transgressions and aid in "pumping the brakes" so that cops don't get themselves in trouble.
Moreover, on the flip side, we do not want to "pussify" our LEOs by putting a bunch of barriers in the way so that they question their actions in a hostile situation. As the Army taught me, hesitation can kill you, but that correlates quite differently to civilian law enforcement. I guess my point is that it's become so commonplace that in a high stress situation, like the one in this case, many don't stop and think if their rights are being violated and simply comply with toeing the line of constitutional rights tactics. I'm not saying the PD blatantly violated rights, they were under a lot of stress and on edge because of the circumstances and maybe used a little too aggressive options in trying to locate the suspect. Hopefully in the future, if, as Ginsue put it best, they didn't have a clear sight or exact location of the suspect, they would recognize a lack of need for use of such tactics. Of course there probably isn't going to be much backlash so we can all chalk this one up to setting a new precedence. [Bang]
This is one of those things that people need to be careful with though...
The place to "fight this battle" isn't on the side of the road or during a situation. The place is in court. Just like a traffic ticket.. If you're getting a ticket you're getting a ticket. Arguing with the cop on the side of the road won't change that. You're gonna have to do it in court.
To make your life and the lives of the police you're dealing with easier... Fight the battle in court. Court is safe. No one is going to shoot you in court... No one is going to throw you on the ground in court...
Telling the cop to piss off (in a sence) during a high stress situation isn't going to go well for either person involved. Go with the flow, fight it out in court.
Lex_Luthor
06-07-2012, 10:45
ETA3: Wait a minute. So what I'm hearing is that the guy they apprehended at the scene of this busy intersection (the guy with a couple of guns in his car) was NOT the armed robber? So, this guy was arrested (er, "apprehended") simply for the fact that he had 2 firearms in full exercise of his Constitutional rights in his vehicle? Oh, this is grand. I suspect HE will have something more to say to the City of Aurora about this even if the adult occupants of the other 18 car do not.
WHOA, really? So it actually DID happen to someone exercising their Constitutional rights? Now this is getting interesting...
This is one of those things that people need to be careful with though...
The place to "fight this battle" isn't on the side of the road or during a situation. The place is in court. Just like a traffic ticket.. If you're getting a ticket you're getting a ticket. Arguing with the cop on the side of the road won't change that. You're gonna have to do it in court.
To make your life and the lives of the police you're dealing with easier... Fight the battle in court. Court is safe. No one is going to shoot you in court... No one is going to throw you on the ground in court...
Telling the cop to piss off (in a sence) during a high stress situation isn't going to go well for either person involved. Go with the flow, fight it out in court.
But this brings to the discussion now what's the difference between arguing with a cop and respectfully exercising your right to refuse consent to a warrantless search? Now I know you see what I'm getting at here, but if a cop is looking for a suspect we must stand by the motto of justice "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and the proof is in the pudding, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you're in the wrong. Simply saying (and I stress be respectful) "I refuse to give consent to any searches" is just you following the law and exercising your rights... what the LEO interprets that as is where we risk going into abuse of power or failure to do their job properly if it's construed as something it really isn't. Otherwise, they can feel free to move on and let me go about my business in peace.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-07-2012, 12:06
But this brings to the discussion now what's the difference between arguing with a cop and respectfully exercising your right to refuse consent to a warrantless search? Now I know you see what I'm getting at here, but if a cop is looking for a suspect we must stand by the motto of justice "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and the proof is in the pudding, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you're in the wrong. Simply saying (and I stress be respectful) "I refuse to give consent to any searches" is just you following the law and exercising your rights... what the LEO interprets that as is where we risk going into abuse of power or failure to do their job properly if it's construed as something it really isn't. Otherwise, they can feel free to move on and let me go about my business in peace.
Eh.. Depends on the situation.. Guns drawn, yelling "Get on the ground!"... I suggest you refrain from saying anything and get on the ground. That's just me though... I tend to do what ever the police ask me to do.. But, you all know what I do for work.. Granted, I did that even before I worked here.
I think there are few cops out there with the mindset of, "Let's go mess with people today." I think most of them are honest people and they're just doing their job. Choices have to be made and I'm sure most of them believe that, at the time, their choice is the right one. Mistakes happen though.
Just be glad this was a "harmless" mistake. When I say that I mean no one got hurt...
I advocate compliance with the lawful orders of peace officers, if for no other reason than there are laws against failure to comply. However, it irritates me that we as a society have allowed ourselves to be indoctrinated that the only time to question whether or not an order is lawful is after the fact (submit first, question in court). Of course, the reason we do this is because we KNOW that police officers are armed, and willing to escalate force to the point of compliance, being backed by force of law, so it makes good sense to "go with the flow" and sort things out later. I'm not sure I have a better solution, but the idea that just because someone is a police officer, they have a right to seize control of me at any time just irks me. And Ronin brings up a good point: Where does the line get drawn between asserting one's rights, and "resisting a police officer"?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-07-2012, 12:42
I advocate compliance with the lawful orders of peace officers, if for no other reason than there are laws against failure to comply. However, it irritates me that we as a society have allowed ourselves to be indoctrinated that the only time to question whether or not an order is lawful is after the fact (submit first, question in court). Of course, the reason we do this is because we KNOW that police officers are armed, and willing to escalate force to the point of compliance, being backed by force of law, so it makes good sense to "go with the flow" and sort things out later. I'm not sure I have a better solution, but the idea that just because someone is a police officer, they have a right to seize control of me at any time just irks me. And Ronin brings up a good point: Where does the line get drawn between asserting one's rights, and "resisting a police officer"?
Foggy line for sure... I'm just glad I live in a place where I could even question it... Go to some other countries around the world... You don't even have the chance to question it before they shoot you in the face.
Here's my prediction: The bankrobber is going to get all evidence found in his car thrown out because it's fruit of the poisoned tree.
If they can’t find some other way to pin the robbery on him, he’ll walk.
Versus [assuming the presence of a GPS unit, which in my mind is a certainty] the police mixing in with the cars until via the GPS tracking information one car differentiated itself from the others. Now stop him (hopefully in a relatively safe area), get a warrant (now you have probable cause) and nail the bad guy.
All the while using less police officers, endangering fewer people and you don’t have to cuff innocent people in the process either.
Total win-win. I think someone got excited by the technology at hand (makes me think that this is the first time they had GPS data on a robbery) and jumped the gun, so to speak.
O2
I like that this point has been made, as I don't think it can be stressed enough.
Do not get into a confrontation with uniformed cops on the street. It will not go well for you.
As a non-uniformed LE, I follow that same rule. Yes, officer. No, officer. You do not have my consent officer. When you would like to see it, I can identify myself officer.
Save the civil rights fight for a safe place, like a courtroom or administrative hearing.
Sometimes it is better to be a live dog than a dead lion.
If you have the right of way, and clearly have the legal right to cross the street; to do so in front of a tractor trailer (to defend your rights) is not just wrong, but foolish.
Be safe.
KevDen2005
06-07-2012, 18:21
If you have the right of way, and clearly have the legal right to cross the street; to do so in front of a tractor trailer (to defend your rights) is not just wrong, but foolish.
Be safe.
Great point. At the end of the day, that "tractor trailer" could be very damaging and I don't think it's worth it.
If a cop does something stupid that I don't agree with and I work with, I will tell him later in a safe place. Causing a fight in the middle of a call is also not the place...and if he doesn't change his ways, well he can give up his house and all his money in court because I'll still have mine.
Some folks get detained for a short time. The bad guy gets caught and everyone goes home safe to their families. Sounds to me like a win/win for all involved.
You know, my biggest issue with this whole thing is the picture on page 9 of this whole thread. I understand that cops have a tough job. Especially in A-town. BUT I just don't think I'd be really happy when I'm being pulled out of my truck facing a 12 gauge shottie knowing that my three year old is still in the vehicle. What would really piss me off is when fattie still has his shotgun pointed at me when I was walking towards them with my child in my arms.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 07:27
You know, my biggest issue with this whole thing is the picture on page 9 of this whole thread. I understand that cops have a tough job. Especially in A-town. BUT I just don't think I'd be really happy when I'm being pulled out of my truck facing a 12 gauge shottie knowing that my three year old is still in the vehicle. What would really piss me off is when fattie still has his shotgun pointed at me when I was walking towards them with my child in my arms.
At that point they didn't know who was and wasn't the bad guy... You point your gun at everyone. Kid in hand or not... You don't know if the bad guy jumped into a car that had a kid in it and now he's holding said kid as a hostage.
And as for calling him fattie... That's cute... Were you picked on as a child?
I find it funny that you have to find some possible way to call him a name of some sort. Like it's your only goal in life...
People that talk shit about another person's weight are funny... I mean, it's like making fun of someone with a medical issue... Yeah, I understand that some people are just fat and it's their own fault. But some people actually have medical issues that cause them to retain weight... I'm one of those people. Both my parents have thyroid problems that causes their body to retain weight. Diets helped them, both only slightly, and only for a limited amount of time before their body went back into retain mode...
I play hockey 2-3 times a week, play softball once a week, and I'm in the weight room 4 times a week before I start my shift at work. I eat less than most people I know. I also eat better than most people I know. Chemically I'm in perfect health. Low cholesteral. Blood sugar is fine. Everything with my blood checks out great. I still weigh 275ish pounds. Still have a gut. Still have the fat rolls in places.
People talk shit all the time... Then they see me play hockey or softball and go, "damn... Big man can run/skate."
How do you know the cop isn't the same way? I know at least 3 guys on my shift that look out of shape... Worse than me... They run the mile and a half in 14 minutes. They do over 50 push ups and sit ups in a minute.
Would you make fun of someone with a missing leg? Arm? Finger? How about someone with a mental handicap?
I guess the point of this whole post is, Fuck off, douche bag. Don't talk shit about people you know nothing about.
That is all. [Pepsi]for me, even though I dont drink it. [Beer] for all your beer drinkers. [Coffee]for all you under 21 folks. [Flower]for the "happy ones" (Ranger. Leader of the Pink Parade Party. ;))
LOL. Well at least you are taking the moral high ground.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 08:50
LOL. Well at least you are taking the moral high ground.
I just don't understand why it's gotta be about his weight. So the guy is fat. Who cares? That doesn't mean anything. There must be something about yourself that bothers you that you feel the need to insult the man's weight.
im not picking on the big kids but i do not understand fat cops?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 08:58
im not picking on the big kids but i do not understand fat cops?
What do you mean you don't understand fat cops?
This is not meant in any negative way. Police work is actually fairly sedentary stuff I mean you spend the majority of your day sitting either in a car or at a desk if you dont take the time to work out or have a raging metabolism you are going to put on weight.
What do you mean you don't understand fat cops?
like how they have a job . i for one want police in my area to be able to catch the crooks . if you cant take a flight of stairs , hop a fence , or sprint 1/4 mile then no job .
ever seen a crack head run ? aint no heavy guys catching that !
I just don't understand why it's gotta be about his weight. So the guy is fat. Who cares? That doesn't mean anything. There must be something about yourself that bothers you that you feel the need to insult the man's weight.
Nope. I'm quite secure in myself. As a matter of fact, I'm so secure that I don't even get butt hurt over stuff people post on the Internet.
This is not meant in any negative way. Police work is actually fairly sedentary stuff I mean you spend the majority of your day sitting either in a car or at a desk if you dont take the time to work out or have a raging metabolism you are going to put on weight.
while i can see your point , i still feel that cretin jobs like , LEO ,Military, Fire Fighters and paramedics should not have people that are out of shape . from the lowest person to the top person
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 09:29
This is not meant in any negative way. Police work is actually fairly sedentary stuff I mean you spend the majority of your day sitting either in a car or at a desk if you dont take the time to work out or have a raging metabolism you are going to put on weight.
This is true... I work with this little Asian guy... He's in stupid good shape.. The bastard can eat anything he wants and never put on weight... One night he came back from McDonalds with a LARGE DOUBLE Quarter Pounder meal... When I went to lunch an hour later... He asked me to bring him back another one....
I hate him for that...
like how they have a job . i for one want police in my area to be able to catch the crooks . if you cant take a flight of stairs , hop a fence , or sprint 1/4 mile then no job .
ever seen a crack head run ? aint no heavy guys catching that !
Ain't no one catching a scared crack head...
while i can see your point , i still feel that cretin jobs like , LEO ,Military, Fire Fighters and paramedics should not have people that are out of shape . from the lowest person to the top person
That's why there's physical tests in place during the hiring process...
For Adams County there's a course you have to run..
200 foot sprint, 6' wall, 5' long jump, 3' high tunnel crawl, Serpentine through some cones, go through a window 3' off the ground, 4' chain link fence, two 3' wood fences, drag a 175 pound dummy 20' up a slight hill.
You have 1 minute 57 seconds to do it... I do it in the 1:15 to 1:23 range. 1:15 was my best, 1:23 my worst.
The course record is 57 seconds.
So, to your point, I'm "out of shape" and I can pass it with plenty of time to spare. But I also work my ass off to be able to do it.
This is true... I work with this little Asian guy... He's in stupid good shape.. The bastard can eat anything he wants and never put on weight... One night he came back from McDonalds with a LARGE DOUBLE Quarter Pounder meal... When I went to lunch an hour later... He asked me to bring him back another one....
im also one of those people but tall keeping weight on is harder than taking it off for me
Ain't no one catching a scared crack head...
ok you got me there [ROFL1]
That's why there's physical tests in place during the hiring process...
For Adams County there's a course you have to run..
200 foot sprint, 6' wall, 5' long jump, 3' high tunnel crawl, Serpentine through some cones, go through a window 3' off the ground, 4' chain link fence, two 3' wood fences, drag a 175 pound dummy 20' up a slight hill.
You have 1 minute 57 seconds to do it... I do it in the 1:15 to 1:23 range. 1:15 was my best, 1:23 my worst.
The course record is 57 seconds.damn i had no idea . how often do they retest ?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 09:44
damn i had no idea . how often do they retest ?
They RETEST a lot... But current employees dont need to meet the standard... They just need to do it.
Trust me, there's more than a few people working here that bother me with their weight... And I'm not small..
ok so this thread has gotten down to fitness standards it should die now [Stick]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 09:52
ok so this thread has gotten down to fitness standards it should die now [Stick]
Ninja Whore Thread... [Flower]
Word of warning, don't google image search ninja whore.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 12:24
Word of warning, don't google image search ninja whore.
Good thing my phone doesn't work good enough at work... I'm still stuck on Sasha Grey from the other thread. [ROFL1]
theGinsue
06-08-2012, 12:36
I effectively didn't make it into the site yesterday (not feeling well).
So, time for this thread to get locked, or keep it open?
UncleDave
06-08-2012, 12:41
Ninja, whooorrrree![Coffee]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 12:54
I effectively didn't make it into the site yesterday (not feeling well).
So, time for this thread to get locked, or keep it open?
In before lock.... [Coffee]
I effectively didn't make it into the site yesterday (not feeling well).
So, time for this thread to get locked, or keep it open?
Hope you're feeling better...
I think the ninja whoring bit just took it to a new level of interesting, but that's just me, my mind works like a teenager sometimes, I find ninjas to be about the coolest thing ever. Yes, even cooler than Batman. [Coffee]
I dunno, is there anything we haven't hit upon on this issue? Besides shotguns pointed at faces, and GPS-laden big brother stuff?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 13:00
Hope you're feeling better...
I think the ninja whoring bit just took it to a new level of interesting, but that's just me, my mind works like a teenager sometimes, I find ninjas to be about the coolest thing ever. Yes, even cooler than Batman. [Coffee]
I dunno, is there anything we haven't hit upon on this issue? Besides shotguns pointed at faces, and GPS-laden big brother stuff?
Nah... We hit the Shotgun subject...
It's wrong! All wrong! [Bang]
Nah... We hit the Shotgun subject...
Ooop... well then we've pretty much covered everything except for the conspiracy stuff (who's first?)... like it was all a big ploy to test the waters for the coming police state...
Bait set!
Chad4000
06-08-2012, 13:35
Good thing my phone doesn't work good enough at work... I'm still stuck on Sasha Grey from the other thread. [ROFL1]
bahahahahaha lol [Beer]
Good thing my phone doesn't work good enough at work... I'm still stuck on Sasha Grey from the other thread. [ROFL1]
Winning! That's is not a bad thing to be stuck on! [Beer]
UncleDave
06-08-2012, 14:15
NINJA
[Bounce]
KevDen2005
06-08-2012, 14:18
I thought I would get one more post in before the lock
MuzzleFlash
06-08-2012, 14:31
This thread ripe to be whored, now.
...I guess the point of this whole post is, Fuck off, douche bag. Don't talk shit about people you know nothing about.
Prescient.
UncleDave
06-08-2012, 15:00
^^^^ Spelling issues? I don't know what you are trying to say. No offence meant. I say this only out of love. [Muaha]
I find ninjas to be about the coolest thing ever. Yes, even cooler than Batman.
http://doodiepants.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/motivatorac5777c8efb1fbfab5211356a0.jpg
Nice TFOGGER... but again, why ninjas always beat pirates:
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/1007/female-ninjas-pirate-ninja-war-epicness-women-demotivational-poster-1279119125.png
JM Ver. 2.0
06-08-2012, 15:39
Nice TFOGGER... but again, why ninjas always beat pirates:
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/1007/female-ninjas-pirate-ninja-war-epicness-women-demotivational-poster-1279119125.png
I refuse to pass judgment until I see her face... But the butt looks good. [ROFL1]
I refuse to pass judgment until I see her face... But the butt looks good. [ROFL1]
Its a MAN baby......
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.