It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by ElohimJD
Arrest: A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty;
People being interviewed thru the link say they were cuffed.
Link
No CO citizens were arrested during this process, except the guilty party. Therefore no "unlawful" arrents were made.
I saw no handcuffs on anyone I witnessed being searched, again I WAS THERE!
How is a bank being robbed an "unlikely notion of security"? It is a very LIKELY notion of security to the citizens of the Denver metro area.
If I can help the cops catch a criminal by allowing them to rule me out as a suspect, how does that make me a sheep?
Way are you so hot in projecting your vision of a violation upon those that were not violated? Do you hate police officers that try to catch bank robbers? What is your motive? If you care about the rights of Coloradans you would accept that they agreed to this action as a means to help their law enforcement. We have that right as well, the right to help others do there jobs more easily in order to keep the peace.
When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested."
Just goes to show how little value there is to eyewitness accounts. The article linked by the O.P. has an Aurora Police officer confessing to the crime of unlawful arrest. If you cannot be bothered to read the links provided and the quoted Frank Farnia provided in this thread why should anyone take seriously your eyewitness account?
There were plenty of lawful ways to apprehend the suspected bank robbers. There was absolutely no need to arrest everyone in sight just to catch one criminal. Investigation...real investigative police work takes much more time than gangland justice, but gangland justice is unlawful and real investigative police work is lawful. When police are acting lawfully the people have a better shot at security. When police are acting unlawfully in the pursuit of glory the people have no shot at security.
Why are you so hot in projecting your undeniably shortsighted vision of gangland justice? Do you hate the people so much you have absolutely no regard for their unalienable rights? What is your motive? If you cared about the rights of Colorado residents you would accept that there is a rule of law and that due process of law is a necessary right of the people to ensure freedom, and not defend gang member thugs for acting unlawfully.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ElohimJD
When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested."
God forbid anyone of those Colorado victims unlawfully detained file a verified complaint against the arresting officer and force the city's D.A. to bring that criminal thug to justice and they have you as their defense attorney. Your defense will only undermine any valid defense that arresting officer might have. Your profound ignorance of law is not only clear, you have clearly bolded your profound ignorance of and willful disregard of law in order to project your fantasy of what you think law should be.
edit on 5-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)
I was responding to one who gave me the proper definition of "arrest" and said in my previous post I was using this definition.
Ignorantia juris non excusat is a long held common law principle. If this offends you it say's far more about your intelligence than anything I've said.
Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk.—Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence.183 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause.184 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.185 In Terry v. Ohio,186 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved "patting down" the subject of the investigation for weapons.
law.justia.com...
Originally posted by Golf66
I'm not a lawyer but I did watch a rerun of CSI last night....
Anyway, while I respect Xcath's law enforcement prospective I think in this case the police got a little overzealous and probably opened themselves up to some possible lawsuits for unlawful detention.
Even a detention for ID stop requires some probable cause. If not it’s no better than stopping someone for walking while black. If a crime has been committed and the only thing the cops have is that the bank robbers drove off in a car... The police think this then gives them probable cause to stop every citizen in every car?
In this case the "reliable information" was that the perps were at the intersection in question. Using this as probable cause to round up everyone at an intersection is laughable and I think the police department in question will be settling some suits soon. Might as well say we know the armed robbers are in Aurora so let’s do a military cordon and search house to house for them...damn everyone’s rights we got criminals about!
Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk.—Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence.183 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause.184 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.185 In Terry v. Ohio,186 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved "patting down" the subject of the investigation for weapons.
law.justia.com...
The website above gives all the case law - can't stop anyone without probable cause. An adult in a car at a certain intersection is not probable cause.
Every detention requires probable cause - handcuffing someone is a detention, not letting someone go where they want is detention.
I don't see being an adult in a car at an intersection at which a suspect in a bank robbery (with no physical description given) was reportedly in a car (again with no description) being justifiable probable cause.
I would hope there are not 12 people in America who would sit a jury would agree with this nightmare. Then again I wouldn't be surprised nowadays. The conditioning is working.
I know I'd have been cuffed there as I am always armed who knows what they'd have done to a person with a CCW permit at the scene probably shot him. The probable cause being - hey he was an adult in a car at the intersection in question and he had a gun!
I am usually on the side of the police - this is over kill IMO.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Thunderheart
Not only was that reasonable and rational, it worked. I'd have gladly cooperated. No harm, no foul and the bad guy got caught.
I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?
Some bad person will likely sue for attention and hoping to steal a little taxpayer money.
This is a huge non-story.
I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?
Originally posted by ElohimJD
Excellent post. I am on the other side of the arguement, but you presented your feelings in such a great and productive way. If taken to the extreame it is easy to agree with your ultimate conclusion.
This was overkill.
Originally posted by ElohimJD
It was not handled properly, and boy if they didn't catch the criminal... it would blow up in their faces. You are right in that the real debate is in the lack of probable cause, what constitues probable cause, and over what range/scope can probable cause be applied?
Originally posted by ElohimJD
Thanks for your posting it causes me to think about it differently, far more productive then the insults being thrown around this thread from others...
Originally posted by XLR8R
Wow, that's crazy and very unfortunate that they have to result to that for a bank rubbery. What are they going to do if ever there's a serial killer on the loose? Put everybody on house arrest and search every house? People have to put a stop to this tirany!
Originally posted by AuntB
According to the news not only did they cuff people, the Aurora police also had weapons drawn. IMO this was a serious incident. The police screwed up and they did it big time. How many children saw their parents being hand cuffed for no reason? It was a serious violation of constitutional rights.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
This will not be the last time this happens..
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Not only was that reasonable and rational, it worked. I'd have gladly cooperated. No harm, no foul and the bad guy got caught.
I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?
Some bad person will likely sue for attention and hoping to steal a little taxpayer money.
This is a huge non-story.