Aurora PD detain 40+ people

[Nintii]

@ Ghogiel ... Laws are absolutely vital for society and need to be respected by the populace and those who are elected to uphold it ... and must as far as possible be upheld

by all parties.

But yes, there are times that laws or rights must be suspended ... an example of this ... the law says that you must not drive through a red traffic light ... now that's a firm law, no

question about it.

 

However, if there is an emergency situation with your wife being pregnant is in the process of giving birth or your child has just swallowed something and it's stuck in their throat or someone has just had a heart attack ... then I would suspend the law that demands I stop at a red traffic light.

This type of "suspension" of laws or rights is done under unique circumstances and is not a "liberty" that can be flaunted everyday.

There are many such instances of "suspension".

 

When laws are strictly adhered to in an iron fisted manner, there is sure to be times when there should the the exception to the rule ... but now in an iron fisted non-merciful

or compassionate setting this will mean nothing.

 

@ Syco21 ... you're most probably right, the criminal justice system is there to protect the criminal - thanks to all the "bleeding hearts and artists" (and Pink Floyd for the line).

[Aurielius]

@Nintti

You are far too willing to suspend what we fought so hard to obtain, I find it amusing that I side with the idealists versus the pragmatists. :whistling:

[Syco21]

Cynicism over idealism? Not what I would usually expect from you. Though if past history as taught me anything, expedience sometimes reigns when it should not. Not sure if Burke is the precise correct author but I agree with his attributed sentiment..."The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing." or to paraphrase in more modern parlance... the only thing necessary to accede to the trampling your rights is to do nothing.

He was interpreting what Nintii said, not stating his own opinion.

 

@ Syco21 ... you're most probably right, the criminal justice system is there to protect the criminal - thanks to all the "bleeding hearts and artists" (and Pink Floyd for the line).

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]

@ Aurielius & Syco21 ... I'm not saying to let the cops push you around and deny you your rights ... I'm saying that that there are times that "the greater good" needs to be

considered ... and yes, sometimes this might be an inconvenience ... this clearly seems to be the case and is quite acceptable when it comes to taking precautions when

it comes to combatting terrorism.

 

I'm 100% certain that if a terrorist was running amuck in some mall and the cops had lined everyone up and was searching everyone that not one person would complain

because it was all in the interests of saving our ass from the baddies.

Now whether or not you'd want to complain you would suffer law enforcements inconvenient actions in the interests of "public safety" so why not in Aurora ?

[Ghogiel]

I agree there are some situations where dealing with consequences of breaking the law/constitution is a better option than otherwise not doing so in a particular situation. I can think of dozens of scenarios where I end up dead unless I break the law. Sure no problem with that. But there should be consequences to those actions! There should be no get out of jail free card (even if they do exist doesn't mean they should.) In the clean up after a hairy situation, no excuse can be made for violations committed during an emergency that just gives it a free pass. There is a need to face the music all the same. They can be lauded as heroes and get the minimum penalty for breaking those laws for all I care, but abuse of power and violations on law and constitution should never go unanswered for just because you figured it works out better that way for the 'Greater Good'. Law enforcement need to be setting the example too. My opinion is that the laws/constitution are not suspended even in emergency situations, but are broken and that carries a penalty. judge might not throw the book at someone breaking them in such a situation but there is no such thing as a free pass ( especially for law enforcement. )

 

The red light running in an emergency, though a direct comparison is flawed, I think any possible situation you can think of where you break the law can be evaluated the same way. Police violating constitutional, or any laws for that matter, similar to running the red light in an emergency is breaking the law. You'll take your ticket and pay the fine if a cop hands you one. You violated the law, and you are paying the price. Pretty straight forward. You can go on and plead to the judge and explain your circumstance and perhaps he might take pity on you when sentencing, perhaps his haemorrhoids are playing up and he's not feeling sympathetic to your pleas.. But you should still be right in the docks if you want to contest the law. In every conceivable situation where persons breaks the law, including and especially law enforcement personnel.

 

In the case of the Aurora bank robber, perhaps the APD should get sued or some black marks on the COs record or what ever the disciplinary action is appropriate if court decides constitutional breach happened> I don't think the bank robber will walk because his rights were not violated. He was GPS'd fair and square, the first requirement of a lawful stop would have been met, suspicion a plenty right there, so he in particular is probably looking at time.

[Aurielius]

@ Aurielius & Syco21 ... I'm not saying to let the cops push you around and deny you your rights ... I'm saying that that there are times that "the greater good" needs to be

considered ... and yes, sometimes this might be an inconvenience ... this clearly seems to be the case and is quite acceptable when it comes to taking precautions when

it comes to combatting terrorism.

 

I'm 100% certain that if a terrorist was running amuck in some mall and the cops had lined everyone up and was searching everyone that not one person would complain

because it was all in the interests of saving our ass from the baddies.

Now whether or not you'd want to complain you would suffer law enforcements inconvenient actions in the interests of "public safety" so why not in Aurora ?

The concept of Public Safety of the majority has been used to justify some of the worst excesses in American history from the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the Civil War the interment of the Nisei in WW2, if all men's rights are not sacrosanct then no one's rights are secure.

 

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

-James Madison

[Syco21]

I'm 100% certain that if a terrorist was running amuck in some mall and the cops had lined everyone up and was searching everyone that not one person would complain because it was all in the interests of saving our ass from the baddies.

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.

 

I don't think the bank robber will walk because his rights were not violated. He was GPS'd fair and square, the first requirement of a lawful stop would have been met, suspicion a plenty right there, so he in particular is probably looking at time.

Nope, they had to illegally detain him and possibly illegally search his car to discover that he was the robber.

[Vagrant0]

The concept of Public Safety of the majority has been used to justify some of the worst excesses in American history from the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the Civil War the interment of the Nisei in WW2, if all men's rights are not sacrosanct then no one's rights are secure.

 

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

-James Madison

Pretty much. Absolute freedom looks great on the postcards, but doesn't work very well in practice on account of all the people who would gladly exercise their right to rape, steal, murder, or cause harm to society then hide behind the constitution or use the law to get away free to do it again. Justice is just as important to the health and productivity of a society as any amount of freedom. Too much freedom, and you have lawlessness. Too much justice and you have a fascist state. A balance between the two has to exist somewhere for either to be practical.

 

It's easy to criticize when you don't know the whole story and when you are not tasked with having to give a better solution.

[Aurielius]

The concept of Public Safety of the majority has been used to justify some of the worst excesses in American history from the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the Civil War the interment of the Nisei in WW2, if all men's rights are not sacrosanct then no one's rights are secure.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

-James Madison

Pretty much. Absolute freedom looks great on the postcards, but doesn't work very well in practice on account of all the people who would gladly exercise their right to rape, steal, murder, or cause harm to society then hide behind the constitution or use the law to get away free to do it again. Justice is just as important to the health and productivity of a society as any amount of freedom. Too much freedom, and you have lawlessness. Too much justice and you have a fascist state. A balance between the two has to exist somewhere for either to be practical.

It's easy to criticize when you don't know the whole story and when you are not tasked with having to give a better solution.

At least in terms of this particular incident the facts are evident so a critique on that basis of the known facts is fair. On the other hand if in the field, commanding the situation I will concede that it was a time sensitive case, so not being in that hot seat, a critique of the command decision is back seat piloting. It seems you favor pragmatism over idealism in the core concepts of maintaining freedom versus enforcement, if anyone would understand the pragmatic approach I would be a receptive audience. It is simply that in respect to civil liberties I must fall in the idealist camp. I have seen all too often the consequences of moving down that slippery slope of rationalization in other countries, something I would prefer that my country would not emulate. I believe that we both have been clear in our views, so we shall have to agree to disagree.

[ginnyfizz]

Me too Aurelius...

 

And I bet Abraham, Maimonides, Adams, Blackstone et al are still spinning in their graves... I may be a dinosaur, but when I was at law school we still adhered to the ancient principles of the presumption of innocence, Habeas Corpus, beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof being with the prosecution.

 

I doubt anyone who thinks that rounding up a few innocents and detaining them without good cause would feel the same if they were the ones involved. An Uncle of mine got rounded up for no good reason and ended up in one of Uncle Joe's gulags for a long time. I guess since they also arrested a burglar and a thug at the same time then that makes it a price worth paying, does it? No, it ISN'T any different to this situation, it's the logical extension of the line of thought that excuses it.