Posted on 06/07/2012 6:41:24 PM PDT by atomic conspiracy
You are correct. However, the number of jackboot lickers such as yourself appears to be dimishing on this forum. Wonder why? Perhaps you enjoy having a loaded shotgun pointed at your head and get a sexual thrill from being ordered out of your vehicle at gunpoint and handcuffed, but most people don’t.
Since the perp was the last person handcuffed how would you have felt about reasonable if he started shooting at the handcuffed people.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I was responding to a post that was entirely in favor of this outrageous behavior on the part of the cops.
How you could interpret my post as in favor of this fiasco is a mystery to me.
Um,
Why are you directing this at me?
Sorry about that. I’d meant to direct that at hebrew, the favorite target today.
We cannot, under any circumstances, allow the police or military to round people up, detain and handcuff them, unless cops have a valid and compelling reason to suspect they’ve committed a crime. This kind of policing is what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent.
http://www.aurorasentinel.com/opinion/perry-even-in-a-gray-world-aurora-cops-must-abide-by-unreasonable-search-and-seizure-laws/
I think this pretty much says it all.
The operation lasted more than two hours and Oates said officers searched just the one car where they found the mask, guns and suspect.
http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/chief-defends-detaining-40-during-bank-robber-hunt/
So which was it? All the cars or just the one? And if it was just the one, why where they removing and cuffing the occupants of all the cars?
I don’t agree that 1.5 to 2 hours is a reasonable time to sort through 19 cars.
Also the use of cuffs persons w/o probable cause makes this an inappropriate and abusive use of power. Those citizens were deprived of their basic rights, most especially self-defense.
Just because the situation didn’t go sideways this time, doesn’t mean it won’t the next time.
Oates (the police chief) is quoted in the local paper as that only the suspects car was searched, which means they had some means of actually identifying the car (probably a signal emitter in with the money). If the quote is accurate, then the cuffing and detention of the persons in other vehicles is beyond the pale because not only was there no probable cause, the officers had definite knowledge they were detaining innocent persons.
The problem is cops who think they can do anything in the name of their own safety, including endangering citizens in the vicinity.
The whole point of our constitution is that we Americans prefer preserving our freedoms over netting one more bad guy.
They did have probable cause: they had concrete information that the perpetrator was one of the 19.
Those citizens were not deprived of their civil rights: courts have long approved of such temporary detainment during investigation, with appropriate means to prevent flight. If it was unlawful, those detained can now sue, and I doubt they will be successful, given all the circumstances.
You assume too much. Perhaps only that car was searched because of something learned once they extricated its occupant; it doesn't mean the tracker identified that particular car--it may only have identified its more general locale, within a few feet. And responsible police would not assume he might not have an accomplice in an adjacent car.
The problem is cops who think they can do anything in the name of their own safety, including endangering citizens in the vicinity.
Those cops didn't "do anything." They went by the book for that situation. Unless you can cite specific guidelines otherwise, how do you know this approach isn't specifically designed precisely to ensure the safety of citizens in the vicinity?
The whole point of our constitution is that we Americans prefer preserving our freedoms over netting one more bad guy.
Well, that's certainly not the whole point, but let's start there. It's true that it guarantees a fair trial once charged, and it protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, as I wrote yesterday and have detailed in this post, this appears reasonable to me and to anyone, I suspect, who doesn't already have an ulterior motive in disparaging police.
While FR is increasingly replete with any number of stories about some police abusing their trust, if that's one's main input it is a slanted and distorted picture, indeed. I come at it from a specific viewpoint. I never excuse such abuse, knowing that all men are fallen and power corrupts. But, I honor first the concept of our need for civil administration and protection. That's based on my understanding of my need to obey Romans 13:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."
I vehemently disagree with the handcuffing. That’s just excessive bullshit WITHOUT probable cause.
That handcuffing permits police to turn their backs and proceed to investigate other people. They were detained, not arrested. It is standard procedure and one you would use if you were outnumbered and needed to protect not only yourself but all the other people involved. It is reasonable and not excessive, given the circumstances.
There is case law and USSC decisions to the contrary. LEO are not allowed to generalize probable cause from the specific to the general. It has to be articulated and specific.
It may suck, but they aren’t allowed to assume everyone “may” be an accomplice because they are adjacent to them or ensnared in a road block.
They most particularly aren’t allowed to detain them with cuffs. That is arrest w/o probable cause and it wasn’t done for any reason other than officer safety at the expense of public safety.
Not acceptable.
Romans 13 does not apply. LEO are NOT our rulers, nor are they in authority over civilians. You have the cart before the horse.
LEO are not allowed to generalize probable cause from the specific to the general. It has to be articulated and specific.
While you don't cite (nor do I expect it) specific cases, I anticipate that LEO have some latitude. For example, if a cop has reason to believe that a perp is among three people, wouldn't it be reasonable to detain all three while investigating? If so, where is the line--six, nine, nineteen?
I only threw the accomplice idea in as one possible motive for detaining all of them. What I said was that you assume too much. I suspect none of us yet has the details on how specific the supposed electronic tracker was, so that it could have implicated any of the nineteen, your assumption notwithstanding.
They most particularly aren’t allowed to detain them with cuffs. That is arrest w/o probable cause and it wasn’t done for any reason other than officer safety at the expense of public safety.
My understanding is that brief or temporary detention is not arrest, and that officer safety is a legally permitted reason for such detention.
Romans 13 does not apply. LEO are NOT our rulers, nor are they in authority over civilians. You have the cart before the horse.
Romans 13 very much applies, but I'll not trouble here to argue its merits. But note it does not say that "LEOs" per se are our rulers. God is my ruler, and He can and does exercise that sovereignty in many ways, one of which is by establishing civil government. He expects me to submit to it, therefore, unless and until it violates His will as clearly expressed elsewhere--primarily, that is, in Scripture.
I disagree. Being restrained like a goddamn animal in a potentially chaotic situation like that leaves a person virtually defenseless.
It's tyrannical, plain and simple.
Anybody who is not under arrest should not be handcuffed.
The ends justify the means: the favorite justification of tyrants and the servants of tyrants.
That “remedy” ensures that your fellow taxpayers “pay, pay, pay” because the officers are never individually sued.
Pointing weapons at the heads of law-abiding innocent citizens is not a “reasonable” way to catch one criminal.
You have just declared that you are willing to accept that your fellow men be threatened with the loss of their lives so that a criminal may be arrested.
That isn’t a biblical stance.
I don't have enough information to put that in its true context. It's possible that was inappropriate, and so is the reverse.
I do note the chief's claim from the article that none of those detained were among those who complained. If true, that should count for something.
What I've maintained from the beginning is that we simply have insufficient information to know what should have been done. I'm concerned at the overwrought antagonism rampant on FR toward law enforcement, which was in full evidence on this thread. They don't know, either.
The biblical stance is best depicted in Romans 13, which I cited previously. That calls for a basic respect for civil authority unless and until it acts in an ungodly manner. I maintain that, absent a fuller understanding of the facts, that still holds. Your judgment that my stance is unbiblical is, therefore, out of line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.