Syco21

It is if the Lounge surrenders to the Neo Empire.

Like I said before, all talk and no action. *orders the carpet bombing of Britain with nuclear warheads*

That's fine, we'll happily take it from you. Unless we're in the mood to just destroy things, in which case we'll burn it all.

I don't want no stinkin crown.

*holographic transmission. point of origin unknown* They will be smashed by our tanks.:devil: http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac177/Aurielius/direwolf3.gif Tanks..how low tech....Long live the Monarchy, Mech is just another way of saying vertical tank~ You mean all four of your nuclear submarines? :laugh: Princess, we have colonized planets, we have fleets of starships that will make your infantry look like a rag tag fire team. We have clone super soldiers and more mechanized battalions than most militaries have personnel. What combat experience do your troops have? All I have seen is a war of words, with lots of threats and very little action. We live, eat and breath war. War runs through our veins, we have conquered more species than the hairs on your head.

They will be smashed by our tanks.:devil:

I SycoJack, commanding officer off all Neo Forces, supreme ruler of BoT, hereby declare total war on the The Crown. Prepare for annihilation.

There's precedence that supports the slippery slope argument in other areas as well. The American war on drugs is a great example of this. Our rights have been eroding for a long time in the name of the war on drugs. The war on drugs paved the way for the war on terrorism and things like the PATRIOT ACT and the recent NDAA.

This does not in anyway compare. You can not compare a terrorist running around and causing chaos in a mall to a man driving down the street not harming anyone, even if that man had just robbed a bank an hour earlier. Nope, they had to illegally detain him and possibly illegally search his car to discover that he was the robber.

He was interpreting what Nintii said, not stating his own opinion. You do realize that in America, our rights are codified into the law, correct? For anyone to violate the rights of another, they violate the law. And the constitution isn't just any law for that matter, it's a the highest law in the land. You comparison of running a red light in a medical emergency does not compare to rights being violated in a situation which is not an emergency. For one, running a red light in a medical emergency can still get you ticketed, it'll certainly get you pulled over if a cop sees it. Any leniency you are shown by the officer, is just the officer being a good, understanding person. This is not always the case. There was a man that died of a heart attack because his wife was rushing him to the hospital and she was pulled over for speeding. She was too far away from emergency medical services as she lived out in the country, so his only chance was for her to rush him there. When the officer pulled her over, she explained the situation. But the officers was wholly uncaring. He chewed her out, threatened to arrest her and held them up for like 10-20 minutes are some crap before finally he agreed to escort them to the hospital. Hell, there was a time an officer pulled over an ambulance, an ambulance!, on it's way to the hospital with a patient because the ambulance wouldn't get out of his way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIaUc-_eV6M&feature=related I would link to the story about the heart attack victim, but it's a very old story and I can't remember any details that would help with the google search. If the courts give you any leniency on running a red light during an emergency, it's because your right to survival succeeds most other laws. If you can prove that you could have died had you stopped at that red light, then you had legal authority to do so. The problem is, that's something that is hard to prove.

Nintii: They found their suspect, but that suspect is probably going to walk free now, even if he is the bank robber, because the case is likely to be thrown out on the grounds that the police violated his rights.

Never said I wouldn't be. Honestly, if all that happened was I got beat up and thrown in prison, I'd be counting my blessings that I wasn't shot and/or killed.

87% minorities. Hhhhmmmm......... All the more reason to hate NYC and avoid it like the plague. If a cop threw me up against a wall to try and search me, he might walk away missing some teeth.

Stop and frisk refers to stopping people without justification and frisking them. This is wrong. Now, if an officer wants to frisk someone they are detaining and they present a reasonable fear concern for their safety, I'm fine with that. But detention without RAS or PC is straight up wrong and illegal in most, in not all, states. Edit: crossed out fear and replaced with concern, I'm fine with the concern not being as strong as a fear. But again, only so long as they an present a good reason for that concern.

Wrong. Everyone has the obligation to uphold the law and not break it. Police are employed to enforce the law when it is broken, and apply penalties for breaking it to those who broke it. There's a reason it's also known as Law Enforcement, and not Law Upholding. Samething. Definition: 1. to stand up and/or fight for something like a cause or ideal; 2. to keep something in an unchanged condition Synonyms: defend, protect, champion, support, maintain Antonyms: neglect, let down Tips: If you switch the word uphold, you see that its essential meaning is "to hold up," or "to support." When you uphold something, you support it and are willing to fight for it. Usage Examples: The justices of the Supreme Court have sworn to uphold the Constitution. (support, defend) The Superior Court judge upheld a previous ruling made by a lower court. (supported, maintained) A good judge will uphold the law regardless of his or her personal beliefs. (support, protect) Police officers take an oath to uphold the law and to protect the public. (maintain, defend) Not sure what your point is though, unless you're trying to argue that the police are only obligated to enforce the law, but not follow it. :rolleyes:

There's this thing, it's called the constitution. It's supposed to be the supreme law of the land. As I have already demonstrated, their actions have violated the consitution. Their job is to uphold the law, not break it. By violating the constitution, they are violating the law. Ergo, they are not doing their job. Furthermore, as I have pointed out many times. No one was in any danger until the police showed up. The police are the ones that put these people in danger. This line of thought has been repeated ad nauseum, yet not a single person has provided a relevant example where this is true. Yet, banks are robbed all the time, and the robbers usually get away with the first one. Just google bank robbery, you'll see dozens of examples, but no national outrage because they weren't caught.

Actually I'm a doctor and you have a terrible case of foot in mouth disease. Once again, I do not need to know every little bitty detail. Only the primary facts. That the police detained, at gunpoint, a number of people, based on a tip that does not give them any specific details, in an effort to arrest someone they believed to be armed and dangerous, but presented no imminent threat to those detained until after the police intervened. You can not detain people using none specific information, it does not constitute probable cause nor reasonable articulable suspicion. I don't need to be a judge or a lawyer or a cop to be able to study statute or common law(case law). I merely have to be interested in doing so. Police officer receives a few weeks of training, they hardly know more than the average citizen. That old cliche about assumptions and asses comes to mind. You've no idea what my level of education is, don't make assumptions. No one is claiming their statements carry weight of law? Once again, assumptions and asses. I am not a police officer yet, but a friend and I are working on getting our license. Go ahead, come to whatever jurisdiction I end up in, commit crimes. You'll be arrested eventually. I wont have to violate anyone's rights to do so. Now, back to the main point. Eugene Volokh is a law professor out of UCLA. Two different lawyers, both agreeing that, at the very least, there's a high probability that the police violated civil rights. Once again, that is a good thing. Either the cities take control of the officers, or that they take responsibility for their illegal actions. If it drives them to bankruptcy, I am fine with that. They should have controlled their officers better. Detaining 40 people, whom were not in any danger until the police showed up, and mind you that having a gun pointed at your face is incredibly dangerous, is not doing everything they can to protect the people. It's putting people in harms way.

You used to enforce laws but not as a police officer? What does that mean? Your appeal to authority was a nice attempt. But as you said, you're neither a lawyer nor police officer. Not that it would matter if you were police officer, they're less reliable than a first year law student as to what is legal and what isn't. What's your point here? That we shouldn't be discussing the situation because we don't have standing to bring the case to court? Perhaps you did not understand that last sentence: "The right of the citizens to complain or voice concern is not limited by this decision." Just as you can not get a search warrant to go door to door, you can not use probable cause for a dragnet in this fashion. There is probable cause that there is a criminal, but no probable cause that any one of those individuals is the criminal moreso than a random person walking down the street may have robbed a liquor store. But that's just it. There were no specific facts that would lead the officers to believe that any one of those stopped were the bank robber. All they had to go on was he or she might have been there at that time. They didn't know what kind of car to look for or the suspects age, gender or race. We know enough to discuss the merits of the stop. From what the police have stated: They had no idea what the individual looked like, how old they were or their sex. They did not know what kind of vehicle they were driving. All they knew was that the robber might be stopped at a specific intersection, nothing more. They pulled over and detained over 40 people in what was potentially a very volatile situation while looking for an armed robber. Nothing, because "your robber might be at this intersection" is not enough information to warrant action. Let alone placing those detained in danger by placing them in a situation that could easily result in a shootout. A situation they would not have been in otherwise. That's a good thing. There was no risk to anyone at that particular point in time until the police showed up waving guns at people.

You're wrong on so many levels, Vagrant. This is true. BUT probable cause is a somewhat strict standard. Aurora PD definitely did not have probable cause to detain 40 people. They didn't even have reasonable articulable suspicion(RAS). Refusing a search is neither probable cause nor RAS. Being in the same area as a suspected criminal is neither probable cause nor RAS. They had no legal authority to do what they did. This is reminiscent of President Nixon. "If the police(President) do(es) it, then it's not illegal!" This is simply untrue and completely ridiculous. The police are human, not above the law and very much fallible. I have had police officers give me insanely illegal advice. Advice that could get you sent to the chair. But just because the police said it was okay, does not make it so. So long as the police aren't in any danger, doesn't matter if they put you into more danger than is absolutely necessary. Amirite? Because that is exactly what happened in Aurora. You're wrong, all of our rights are intertwined. If my rights are being violated, there is nothing to stop them from violating your rights if you do not stand up and speak out. It's best to stop the violations before they happen to you, rather than waiting to become the next victim. After all, no one died in Aurora. But the same might not be true when it happens to you. Never the less, the people involved are making complaints and pursuing legal options for restitution. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the defense will push the issue with hopes of getting the charges dropped on the grounds that the search was illegal.

An unloaded 9mm handgun and a single hollow point bullet.* I'm screwed. :facepalm: *The loaded clip(15rds) is to my right, spent the last of my JHPs at a friends house over the weekend. $1 per shot! The single loose bullet is the +1.

Vagrant, the type if stop you mentioned is wholesale illegal if they do not have RAS that have or are committing a felony offense. They can not arrest you at gun point and search your car simply for speeding. And people do make stinks about that. The difference is that is this involved over 40 people and created an incredibly dangerous situation without just cause. The motorists were in no danger until the police showed up in force, weapons drawn.

Rights weren't respected though, this was straight up illegal. Complaints weren't made to the officers on the scene. And supposedly permission was granted to search the cars. But I'm not going to complain that my rights are being violated to the guys that are violating my rights and pointing shotguns at the faces of children. I'm also not going to tell them no, they can't search my car. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Aurora-brutality.jpg Unlawful detainment. Assault with a deadly weapon. Illegal search and seizure. I'm sure there's more, but those are the main three. People have filed complaints and others are contacting constitutional lawyers to pursue their options. The officers weren't doing their job, they were violating the law, assaulted over 40 people and actually put them in more danger than they would have been otherwise. The bank robbery had already occurred and they were following a sketchy lead to find the robber. The person they claim was robber, was armed with two handguns. Probably either 40s or 45s. If he decided to start shooting, dozens of people could have easily been killed. A risk compounded by the sheer number of people being detained. Begs the question of how many would have been shoot by the police for trying to escape the robber's barrage of bullets.

Just watch the video. http://news.yahoo.com/video/denvercbs4-15750663/aurora-police-chief-describes-wild-search-for-bank-robber-29561750.html Thoughts?

I disagree that the people are at fault, it is the government that is constantly reminding you of the big bad boogeyman. It is the government that keeps demanding these new policies. The people at large do not want these polices, and tend to be pretty vocal about it as well. But they still allow it to continue. In that regard, they are to blame. But very few outside of the government are calling for new security measures.

He's your problem, you deal with it.