Aurora PD detain 40+ people

[HeyYou]

If there was only one perp, seems kinda silly to keep searching after you find him. :D

 

My next question would be.... was anyone ELSE arrested due to this stop? Find drugs, or something else illegal in their car?? Would that be considered a legitimate search?? (I would think: "No".. but, that's just me.)

[Syco21]

Syco21

 

I am assuming there is a reading comprehension or perhaps a language issue present as I am not sure what you are asking, pointing out or even trying to debate.

 

I take it from your post that you were either there as a witness, as a police officer or as a lawyer and have all of the facts in detail readily at hand and in addition, have investigated the situation and are well educated in judicial law and authorized to make decisions regarding the rights of citizens and the legality of police actions. This being the case, I bow to your superior knowledge of the situation, of criminal and civil law and will concede that you are correct. I wait with bated breath to hear how you judge this particular case from the bench, m'lord (or whatever term is used in the US).

Actually I'm a doctor and you have a terrible case of foot in mouth disease.

 

However, if you are just another layman posting to a forum like me, then all I will say is that your opinions about rights, the law and its enforcement and that the information you may have gleaned from the media (please just don't tell me it was youtube –please) are no more relevant to the situation than dust bunnies under a bed and about as important or meaningful. As I stated in my post, I'll wait for those with the education and training to say what the facts are and whether the police did something wrong or not.

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.

 

While you state a police officer may not have the knowledge of a first year law student, most citizens have even less knowledge than a police officer, so your point is accepted and I will take that into consideration for my final responses to you.

Police officer receives a few weeks of training, they hardly know more than the average citizen.

 

I believe I made this statement quite clearly, but I have no idea what you read or thought you read.

"The right of the citizens to complain or voice concern is not limited by this decision." (Which by the way states you can't sue the police unless you think you had your rights violated).

As you did not seem to understand this sentence, then I will explain what it means in very simple terms and using very small words for you.

Go ahead, feel free, and cry, whine and yell as much as you want about things you have no education to judge or actual facts about – it's your right to do so.

That old cliche about assumptions and asses comes to mind. You've no idea what my level of education is, don't make assumptions.

 

My next point was

Again I am not a lawyer, and even if I were I would think and would point out the decision on the Aurora police actions will be judged by a legal professional as to the acceptability or non acceptability and not in the forums where not all the facts are known and it seems definitions and information about "rights" is not specifically within legal parameters but moreso personal opinion.

No one is claiming their statements carry weight of law?

 

You can express as much uninformed and inappropriate personal opinion as you would like (it is your right, I said so directly above this – go ahead and read it again if need be); however, I will wait for an informed, educated decision based upon the actual facts that comes from a legal professional.

Once again, assumptions and asses.

 

As for your "nothing" response to the situation – please, please, please become a police officer and let me know where and when you are working. I'd love to be a criminal in the community where you would be stationed, I'd be rich and scot free in no time.

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.

 

 

 

[university of Denver] assistant law professor Justin Marceau was especially critical of that remark by Fania. "That's not how it works," Marceau said. "What if the tip had been that the robber lived on my block– no other information? Could they detain and handcuff everyone who lives on my block in the hope of catching one bank robber? No, they couldn't. The Fourth Amendment is pretty clear.

 

"I don't have a problem saying the police violated these people's Fourth Amendment rights," Marceau said.

 

"Under settled law, this went way beyond what police are allowed to do," Marceau said.

 

I'm not a Fourth Amendment expert, but I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional. Handcuffing someone generally requires probable cause to believe that they are guilty of a crime, or — in the context of a brief investigative stop — "particularized suspicion" to believe that the person is dangerous to the investigators. (See, e.g., Manzanares v. Higdon (10th Cir. 2009).) The mere fact that someone is present at the place where a criminal may be present can't provide such probable cause. As the Court held in Ybarra v. Illinois (1979), rejecting the argument that a search warrant that authorized the search of a tavern, based on probable cause that evidence of crime would be found in the tavern, also authorized the search of tavern patrons,

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

[Tidus44]

Syco21

 

Again, I have no clear idea what it is you are trying to debate, point out or even discuss.

 

If you feel people have the right to say what they want, when they want and however they want not matter how uninformed or how uneducated they may be on the subject; then I do believe I stated quite clearly in my last post that, yes, that right does exist, so please, I again encourage you to feel free to continue to say whatever it is you want to say and make whatever assumptions and accusations in any manner you feel to be appropriate.

 

If you are not in agreement with my point that instead of making uninformed assumptions and accusations based upon no actual facts and that instead of posting personal opinion about what law or right may or may not be applicable to the situation, and that one should take a less hysterical approach and wait for facts in order to form an opinion; then that too is your right to disagree and thus, I encourage you to please continue to make as many assumptions and accusations based upon whatever information you think is pertinent and as you would like about the situation.

 

However, – a thought.

While a person has a right to free speech, that only means they are not legally forbidden from speaking. It does not mean that anyone has to listen to their speech nor are they prohibited from stopping the speaker from speaking. Others have the right to not hear the speech and to request the speaker not speak – particularly where the speech is offensive, incorrect or inflammatory or even just because they do not want to hear it.

Unfortunately, this seems to be forgotten or conveniently overlooked by many and their attitude is because it’s my right, the heck with everyone else and I can say and do what I want, when I want, and however I want because it is my right and only I have that right.

Again, if it is your belief that you have exclusive right to say whatever you want, however you want and whenever you want with no person having the right to have a differing opinion, then please continue to believe this.

 

Again, I recognize your right to continue to make whatever accusations and assumptions you feel are appropriate and to post them to the forum.

[HeyYou]

Syco21

 

Again, I have no clear idea what it is you are trying to debate, point out or even discuss.

 

If you feel people have the right to say what they want, when they want and however they want not matter how uninformed or how uneducated they may be on the subject; then I do believe I stated quite clearly in my last post that, yes, that right does exist, so please, I again encourage you to feel free to continue to say whatever it is you want to say and make whatever assumptions and accusations in any manner you feel to be appropriate.

 

If you are not in agreement with my point that instead of making uninformed assumptions and accusations based upon no actual facts and that instead of posting personal opinion about what law or right may or may not be applicable to the situation, and that one should take a less hysterical approach and wait for facts in order to form an opinion; then that too is your right to disagree and thus, I encourage you to please continue to make as many assumptions and accusations based upon whatever information you think is pertinent and as you would like about the situation.

 

However, – a thought.

While a person has a right to free speech, that only means they are not legally forbidden from speaking. It does not mean that anyone has to listen to their speech nor are they prohibited from stopping the speaker from speaking. Others have the right to not hear the speech and to request the speaker not speak – particularly where the speech is offensive, incorrect or inflammatory or even just because they do not want to hear it.

Unfortunately, this seems to be forgotten or conveniently overlooked by many and their attitude is because it's my right, the heck with everyone else and I can say and do what I want, when I want, and however I want because it is my right and only I have that right.

Again, if it is your belief that you have exclusive right to say whatever you want, however you want and whenever you want with no person having the right to have a differing opinion, then please continue to believe this.

 

Again, I recognize your right to continue to make whatever accusations and assumptions you feel are appropriate and to post them to the forum.

 

His point is, that what happened in Aurora was unconstitutional, and he cited case law to back up his claims. On that point, I agree with him.

 

As for free speech...... Folks have a right to free speech, so long as it doesn't endanger anyone directly. (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater for instance.) There is absolutely nothing in there about veracity of what is being said, or any clauses about being offensive. For a fine example, do a search on "stolen valor". Seems that falls under the category of "free speech"..... There is one that is both inaccurate, and, to a pretty good cross-section of the population, highly offensive. Yet, it is "protected free speech". Go figure.

[RitualBlack]

I don't see anything wrong with what happened. Nobody was hurt and they found the armed man they were looking for. Sitting at the side of the road for a few hours knowing that I have done nothing wrong is a small price to pay to have the robber arrested.

 

If the situation was taken more causally and they just set up a road block and looked into the peoples cars a few at a time the robber would probably either have gotten away or shot whichever officer may have been unfortunate enough to be near the getaway vehicle. Knowing that peoples lives could be at risk and that the criminal was armed should be more than enough to justify their actions.

[Ghogiel]

Sitting at the side of the road for a few hours knowing that I have done nothing wrong is a small price to pay to have the robber arrested.

 

Ben Franklin has a nice quote that probably fits here.

[Sync182]

DISCLAIMER: I have not watched the video - don't intend to. I've only read through this thread.

 

1. I would reasonably expect police to know more about common law than I do - after all, they're the ones on the ground who are deciding whether or not I've broken it. Am I right?

 

2. The kind of hysteria being whipped up in this thread is exactly what criminals and would-be criminals are hoping for to dissuade police from trying to catch them. The continual public demands for police to "catch the Bad Guys but don't you touch a hair on my Little Johnny's head while the Bad Guy is using Little Johnny as a Human Shield" boggles my mind. If you want police to catch criminals, then, for the love of whatever you call Holy, LET THEM DO IT. If you want the police to take a softly-softly approach to even the smallest of crimes (being done for speeding by 5kmh), the General Public must then expect to be continually frustrated by criminal activity and resultant on-going and increasingly-intrusive legislation which will only hurt those who obey the law (ie the General Public) in the first place.

 

3. If police know an armed & dangerous suspect is in an area, I would then reasonably expect the police will do whatever they can to ensure said suspect does not get out of that area. If that means searching every person and vehicle leaving it, so be it. The police don't know whether or not I am said suspect until they've searched & questioned me, do they? If I was a criminal in a locked down area, I'd be playing dumb to see if I could get out...I would also expect the police to know this and take whatever action they can to try and catch me; I would also be hoping that there'd be enough of a public uproar about police tactics to catch me that the police would give up before finding me.

 

Am I making my point clearly enough? Criminals will use public opinion against the public that makes them, if it suits criminal purposes.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Sync182

[Ghogiel]

Not knowing your rights is something police will use to their ends. If a policeman is arresting a burglar, they are the good guys, likewise if they are pulling you over and pointing guns at you to gain your permission under duress to search your vehicle at a simple traffic stop, they are the bad guys. It's relative to where their attention is focused. You falling victim to that scenario and being apathetic, even if you drive away all clear is not helping anything. imo quite the opposite.

 

History tells us apathy has allowed grave atrocities to happen in ones own country.

 

 

"LET THEM DO IT" < I fail to see calling for a police state is a good way of thinking about police powers.

 

3: Door to door searches if they know an armed and dangerous criminal is in the area? Where is the line, can police lock down streets, neighbourhoods, cities or states in their man hunts?

[Sync182]

"LET THEM DO IT" < I fail to see calling for a police state is a good way of thinking about police powers.

 

I fail to see how calling for the police to be actually allowed to do their jobs (you know...catch the bad guys, stop drugs on the streets, make our streets safer for Mr & Mrs Joe Public to walk at night...the sorts of things we all want, I suspect) automatically results in a police state.

 

It's the frivolous complaints of police heavy-handedness that result in greater anarchy, as police (and, after them, judges - but that's a digression) then use softer and softer tactics until we get the slap-on-the-wrist punishment for murder that has us all screaming about injustice...and the crooks, knowing that police will be examined more closely for their actions than the criminals ever will, run riot with it.

 

After all (here's another example): 3 14-year-old boys steal a car, go joyriding, crash into another car, knock over a pedestrian and keep driving; the police give chase and end up engaging in a high-speed pursuit; the stolen car crashes and one of the 14-year-olds dies as a result of injuries...and people start complaining about the actions of the police ("if the police hadn't given chase my Little Johnny would still be alive today!") while almost totally ignoring the fact that the 3 kids shouldn't have stolen the car ("ma'am, if your Little Johnny hadn't stolen the car in the first place we wouldn't have given chase, and he'd still be alive").

 

I'm not saying police should be exempt from scruitiny of their actions - they should be held to account when they step over the line, as we all are - but it seems to me that that line, for police at least, is being moved closer and closer to police such that they've almost crossed it before they get out of bed.

 

I digress, of course...but the issues are linked. While the actions of the Aurora PD may have been a bit much, I'm sure the complaints about letting a group of bank robbers get away would've been all over the media under headlines such as "Crooks get away with it" and "Police clumsiness lets robbers go free". Police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Sync182

[HeyYou]

The search and detention of folks that they had no cause to hold, was unconstitutional. Should we just throw our rights out the window in order to be "safe"??

 

Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.