Aurora PD detain 40+ people

[Vagrant0]

Meanwhile, the city would lose quite a lot in having to deal with trials, carrying out of charges against all the officers in question, hiring dozens of new officers, as well as paying whatever else lawyers might try to claim for their "clients". Meaning that even if none of the actual people involved make any statements, trial lawyers can take their own cut, and force the city to defend the necessity of their actions, and the city essentially loses either way. The same city funding that helps pay for schools, roads, services, and is paid by tax payers is also used to deal with any legal problems the city might face.

That's a good thing.

Not really. Most cities, especially in these days, don't have much funding in their budget set aside to handle frivolous lawsuits. Meaning that any significantly large trial is pulling money from other areas of the budget. Most of the money which is won in these cases ends up in the pocket of lawyers, and the whole city has to pay the price by either not having roads properly maintained, school or social programs cut, or any of the other places where cities usually pull funding. The persons who were detained would get relatively little from this, and would actually be worse off if they happened to live in the same county as that city. The only ones who benefit from these sorts of things are trial lawyers since they get their fees regardless of verdict.

[Ghogiel]

I think that the state having at least some negative repercussions, however minor they are to it, when it makes infractions against constitutional rights or doesn't follow the rule of law is a good thing as well. Of course no one wins besides the lawyers, but that is beside the point.

[Vagrant0]

I think that the state having at least some negative repercussions, however minor they are to it, when it makes infractions against constitutional rights or doesn't follow the rule of law is a good thing as well. Of course no one wins besides the lawyers, but that is beside the point.

That might not be the point, But that's the actual result of anything. A policy change wouldn't come about because the police probably did everything they could to both ensure the safety of those on the scene, and take the necessary steps to capture their suspect. Any less and they wouldn't have had any results, leaving the robber to remain free and able to rob again. As is police have their hands tied from following up on leads now and then because various legal precedents established by lawyers who were only out for their own gain, who were twisting the notion of rights to argue a case.

 

This is not to say that the rights aren't important, and shouldn't be defended when they are violated. But that common sense should prevail, and a situation which was, at most, just an inconvenience for a handful of individuals really isn't significant enough to be a violation. At some point it becomes just a matter of allowing police to do their job.

[HeyYou]

Ok, so the cops arbitrarily detaining 40+ folks 'isn't a big deal'?? Really, what if it was 100 folks? 1000?? How many people do they have to detain before it goes from being "ok" to "violating rights"???

 

Next question is: Do the numbers even matter? If it is unconstitutional to detain 100 people, why is it constitutional to detain 40? Where is the line drawn? Is this the kind of precedent we want set??

[JimboUK]

@Vagrant0 I doubt many will see being taken from their car at gunpoint, being separated from their children and then being detained in the same area as a gunman as a mere inconvenience. Not only did these fools abuse peoples fundamental human rights but they also put their lives in danger. On the subject of suing the police, yes it's a shame that it's really the taxpayer that gets sued but in the absence of any official body willing to instigate criminal proceedings against those involved civil action is left as the only form of redress.

[Aurielius]

@Vagrant

I fail to see that exigent circumstance is grounds for abrogating constitutional civil rights. There was an alternative, the police could have asked the drivers to co operate by being detained in a secure location without drawing their guns then handcuffing them.....in one case a mother in front of her children, what exactly did the police suspect her of? Robbing the bank with her kiddies in tow in a mini van....dear god.

[Vagrant0]

Robbing the bank with her kiddies in tow in a mini van....dear god.

What makes you think that couldn't be the case? Being a parent doesn't necessarily mean having a strong sense of morality or an ability to make good decisions. There have been dozens of cases where people have held up stores while their children were in the car idling outside. Regardless, once those persons were cleared as being innocent they had their cuffs removed.

 

What is the fundamental difference between getting detained like this, and being stuck in traffic for several hours while police manage a standoff? In both cases you aren't going anywhere any time soon, and in both cases there is a potential harm from a degrading situation. It is still better than being held hostage by the gunman directly. What if it was a hostage situation and the police did not know who was armed, and who wasn't; how would they know who the threat was without processing them in some way and pulling innocent people out of the area. You cannot make assumptions of innocence based on appearance.

[HeyYou]

Being stuck in traffic I may have the opportunity to turn around, and find an alternate route. I am also sitting comfortably in my car, and NOT on the side of the road in handcuffs. Nor have I had a gun pointed at me.

 

By what right did the police detain these folks? Because one of them MIGHT have been a bank robber. (which, I will grant you, one of them actually was.....) I would be mighty curious to know just how it was they identified him/her.

 

So, just for instance..... a bank is held up, and the criminal gets away. It has only been a few minutes, do the cops then have the right to detain EVERYONE within the possible travel distance the criminal may have covered? (logistics of such an event aside....)

[Tidus44]

I would be mighty curious to know just how it was they identified him/her.

 

Taking a wild ass guess here, but from what has been reported.... (and yes it is sketchy and I will repeat I am taking a guess).

 

FBI on scene (see next point down as to why)

Federal Reserve Bank

No definitive description of person or car

But general location known

 

I'm speculating GPS in a bill stack or in the bag.

 

It needs to be triangulated for a general location, and depending on type of GPS, closest indication would have been in a number of yards. I have NO information that suggests the police knew who or where for certain except for a general area and not moving or at least not moving very fast and again, I am only speculating.

 

The only thing I have seen is the suspect was found in the last car, which is confusing as was it the last car or did more remain that didn't get searched. Ie: would the police continue searching after finding the person with the guns and money even if there were more cars that had not been searched?

 

Again, I neither condone nor condemn the police action as specific details are not known.

[Ghogiel]

 

 

I'm speculating GPS in a bill stack or in the bag.

That's what was reported.