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

reply to post by TinkerHaus


They need no warrant. Again. Legal detention in leiu of investigation without warrants nor without informing you why you are being detained until a certain time...then they have to let you go.

It is all legal...in the guise of..."We are conducting an investigation". Thats all they need. Judges will agree with their rights to detain you.

And yes...later you CAN try to sue for it. Its been this way in America forever!

*LOOK UP THIS IS ANY CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR CRIMINOLOGY TEXTBOOK.

Im now..out>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by SyphonX

 

Under duress and threats is the new "consent."

Yes, in other words "consent" actually means "I surrender" because you have no means of which to defend yourself from the action.

"I was mugged yesterday.

"

"No, you consented to have your money displaced and reappropriated. Learn the law."

So much for equal protection under the law- if my home were robbed they would not even block the road I would bet. It is clear who the masters are.

reply to post by SyphonX


There is a difference between an arrest and a detention.

Please learn the difference and how the law applies to each before making an incorrect statement.

..and search. If they had been looking for a drug suspect would they have stuck their fingers up everyones bums? That's next time I bet.

The really sad fact is most of those detained did not object or complain.
Coloradoians are a perfect example of sheeple, its been this way since the mining strikes of 1914 and Rockefella faught back by having women and children killed.So Coloradoians know better what happens when you step out of line.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The search was by consent...

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

The roablock stopped every car meeting established criteria...

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by Danbones

 

Link? Are you serious? Legal detention. Public safety. Look it up.
Being detained for no reason given for a certain amount of hours and THEN being released.

Im not doing the work for you...look it up.

its your responsibility as a poster to back yourself up
we all do when asked
as the other posters have in rebutal to you
which they could not have done if you were correct

its called put up or shut up


and these searches are police state propaganda
like the underwearbomber the fraud...now your chidren get anally probed in airports, then muals, then on the bus, in school..at the pool...
If you think Its OK , then LIKELY you think analy probing children is OK because the underwearbomber was put on the plane by the US government....

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.

Amen. You can bet if the police did NOT do this, and this guy hurt someone else, there would also be a lawsuit.

So how come John Corzine hasn't been charged for robbin his own bank and his customers too
How come the whole congress he lied to hasn't been searched the same way?



next it will be like pakistan
drone blowing up whole buildings full of americans because they might have someone in the building who disagrees with the criminal government

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.

Amen. You can bet if the police did NOT do this, and this guy hurt someone else, there would also be a lawsuit.

The public was PUT in danger because of this, had the robber decided to make a run for it by shooting his way out he had plenty of targets.

This wasn't a single file road check, this was "Handcuff everyone and search they're vehicles!"
THAT is BS!

reply to post by Thunderheart


we had a similar case here in my town
a cop made a road block out of full cars...he ORDERED the peeps to stay in their cars

the perp came through and slammed into the roadblock and killed a bunch of those people
it was quite the scandal for the cops

reply to post by Danbones

he made a roadblock with civilian vehicles and made the drivers stay IN THEIR VEHICLES?
Police departments need pre-hire IQ testing.

One phone call from an anonymous "tipster" is all that's required for your rights to be trammeled.
It works for homes too - www.abovetopsecret.com...
SWATing - raiding homes on anonymous tips to 911.
They must be using the same intel sources Bush was before the invasion of Iraq.
"Whoops! No weapons of mass destruction here"

These cops broke the law

ldmg.org.uk...

An officer cannot enter and search or continue to search premises if consent is given under duress or withdrawn before the search is completed.

They cordoned off an entire intersection, holding 19 cars, as allegedly one of them held an armed criminal.

Do you think they had their guns drawn and were in a heightened state??

You are going to be under duress if some cop - sweating, gun-drawn, and heart racing, "asks" you to "comply"

So the "consent" they received from those folks was under duress, and therefore, illegal.

Due process of law has not been repealed in the United States, not even in the State of Colorado. The police officers who trampled and pissed all over these peoples rights took an oath of office to protect and defend that States Constitution. Within the Constitution for the Sate of Colorado comes a Bill of Rights:

Section 7. Security of person and property searches seizures warrants. The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.

~Article II, Section 7~

The argument is that the Colorado police were able to bypass due process through direct permission from the people of whose vehicles they searched, and there is a compelling argument for this case considering the express language of Article II, Section 1:

Section 1. Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Those individuals who were stopped by the Aurora Police most assuredly had the political authority to grant jurisdiction to those police officers and allow them to search their vehicles without any due process of law, and had the Aurora Police obtained this permission without the use of coercion, i.e. handcuffing the victims before obtaining that permission, then I would wholeheartedly agree that the searches were made lawfully and the police officers acted in good faith.

Instead, what these Aurora gang members did was use force to coerce these people into acquiescing to unlawful searches because they were unlawfully arrested. While an arrest is generally seen as an action with the purpose of bringing someone charged with a crime to court to face those charges, this generalization is not the long and short of what constitutes an arrest:

An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.

According to one of the arresting officers, Frank Fania:

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”

Fania has in effect confessed to his crimes with this statement. According to Fania the people arrested did not consent to this arrest and only granted permission to search their vehicles after they were unlawfully arrested. By Fania's own admission this was not a "good faith" arrest but was a sloppy disregard for people's rights in order to catch a criminal. There was no need to handcuff these people in order to uphold the law and in fact these police officers who took an oath of office to protect and defend their state constitution broke the law in pursuit of glory and their actions were not done in "good faith" regardless of what kind of "tip" they got.

Some ofthese replies are just out there.

I live off of Iliff and Buckley (less then 1 mile from this intersection) in Aurora CO. And I was just coming home from my Sabbath service when I approached the "scene" of this police stoppage.

At first I thought it was a DUI checkpoint, because they did have the cars lined up and were systematicaly checking each vehicle for the perp. I pulled over into the gas station parking lot to ask what was going on, an on-looker (who had just been released from police custody) told me, "the cops showed up and shut down the intersection, they announced to the vehicles there that a bank had just been robbed and they believe the criminal was a person at that intersection, they said to remain inside your vehicles and one by one your vehicles will be verified as not involved at which time you will be free to go about your day." The cops stood by their words and each car was free to go as they were verified as being not involved.

I saw no one handcuffed, but i arrived midway through the search, as the ones I saw with my own eyes being searched in my presence were not handcuffed while their cars were searched, I can only assume it was those against the search that might have been handcuffed, if the article has those facts. Just like in a DUI check point you have the right to refuse to blow, but that appears as suspicious behavior to one who has nothing to hide, therefore a refusal warrents further investigation.

No one was upset about this action and all appeared to be more concerned that the cops found the one guilty rather then having to help in a criminal investigation.

As for the gentleman from CO who misrepresents Coloradans I will just say helping the cops catch the bad guy, does not make one a sheep or weak minded, it makes them care more about justice then sueing the cops that are trying to stop a robber from continuing his run of victims.

I was there, no one was mad, therefore no "offense" was made, what if these Coloradans wanted to genuinely help catch a criminal and so they agreed to particiapate in the search for him, out of respect for the cops trying to put him away.

In this story the citizens of CO were the heros allowing for the police to catch a dangerous criminal, the cops are the good guys who made a great decision to catch the perp and the criminal is the criminal.

Logic and reason will help curb some of these replies.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

I was there, no one was mad, therefore no "offensive" was made, what if these Coloradans wanted to genuinely help catch a criminal and so they agreed to particiapate in the search for him, out of respect for the cops trying to put him away.

These Colorado people could have just as easily helped with the investigation without being handcuffed before helping, and if none of them were "offended" by the unlawfulness of the arrests then those calling them sheep are correct to do so. Like sacrificial lambs to the alter these people line up and gladly sacrifice their freedom for some unlikely notion of security.

reply to post by Xcathdra

“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything"

Xcathdra said:

The roablock stopped every car meeting established criteria...

The criteria was - bank robber is in a car.
You lack the ability to defend individual rights...All of you comments in these types of threads support the police.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

I was there, no one was mad, therefore no "offensive" was made, what if these Coloradans wanted to genuinely help catch a criminal and so they agreed to particiapate in the search for him, out of respect for the cops trying to put him away.

These Colorado people could have just as easily helped with the investigation without being handcuffed before helping, and if none of them were "offended" by the unlawfulness of the arrests then those calling them sheep are correct to do so. Like sacrificial lambs to the alter these people line up and gladly sacrifice their freedom for some unlikely notion of security.

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.

God Bless,