Do the police have rights too?

posted at 12:31 pm on September 23, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

At first glance it looks like something out of an Orwellian horror film. Police with high power weapons and riot shields shutting down an intersection on a busy city street, rousting families out of cars, handcuffing them all and lining them up on the pavement. But in this case, there was a method to the mayhem. An unknown individual wearing a beekeeper’s mask – hiding not only their identity, race, age, etc. but their gender as well – had robbed a nearby bank and the police were out to get the bad guy.

The Wells Fargo at Chambers and Hampden was robbed just before closing time on Saturday. Shortly afterwards police shut down the intersection of Buckley and Iliff just southeast of the bank, corralling nearly two dozen cars in search for the suspect.

Police Chief Daniel Oates on Monday apologized to the innocent bystanders that got caught up in the search for the suspect. Oates also said the ends justify the means since the suspect was caught.

The police are still apologizing for the inconvenience and trauma to all of the motorists caught up in the sweep, but insist that there was no question of the location of the suspect.

“We had a virtual certainty that the bank robber was in one of those cars,” Oates said.

Officers did find the suspect in one of the cars, and he will likely face bank robbery charges in federal court, Oates said. Investigators also found a beekeeper mask they say the man wore during the robbery as well as two pistols connected to the crime, he said.

So how did they have a “virtual certainty” that the bank robber would be found at that location? The bank teller had inserted a GPS device in the bag of money they gave the suspect and the police were tracking him. When it became obvious that the getaway car was approaching a choke point in the traffic, officials moved in, shut it down and began methodically going through every car at that intersection. And they found the guy, who the police described as “extraordinarily dangerous.”

But now some of the motorists are raising questions as to whether their civil rights were violated with the mass detention. And adding insult to injury, the lawyer for the suspect is already claiming that his client initially refused the police demand to search his vehicle until he felt “pressured” to do so and that all the evidence obtained from the search – money, guns, beekeeper mask – should be thrown out. (No link on that portion of the story yet, but CNN is covering it on their morning lineup.) Seriously?

I hope there is a judge out there with the common sense to toss this notion out to the curb. Yes, many people were inconvenienced, and the police have already offered an apology. But the cops were in the process of quickly apprehending a violent, heavily armed felon right in their midst. And as to the suspect’s claims of some sort of illegal search… how high does that bar have to be? If you can narrow down the location of the evidence to a group of twenty or so cars, is that not “probably cause” enough?

If this guy walks, the world has truly gone mad.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8

BTW, did ya’ll notice that this story occurred June 4 of this year? Kind of late breaking news, ya think?

AZfederalist on September 23, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Didn’t notice, but… slow news day?

Anyways, I’m out. It’s definitely past my bed time. Work in the morning. Night all.

Timin203 on September 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Night Tim.

… and I’m off to QOTD. Trolls not worth any more time.

AZfederalist on September 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM

BTW, did ya’ll notice that this story occurred June 4 of this year? Kind of late breaking news, ya think?
AZfederalist on September 23, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I think the lawsuit aspect is the “new news” here. Also of note, this is the same police chief/force that handled the Batman theater shooting.

whatcat on September 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM

I have a question… What if one of the individuals or more ended up getting busted for non related crimes because the police had done this? Say someone had a joint. Another person a broken tail light. Someone else was driving with out a license and so forth…

They could not have tracked the perpetrator better since they had the GPS device and pinpointed exactly which car it was? I would think they could have. So what purpose was served by doing it the way they did do it?

Sorry, I am all for a secure life. But I think the police state is already overbearing as it is.

astonerii on September 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I worked for a criminal defense attorney who won defending a woman who was arrested and charged for possession after they took her car as evidence for a crime committed against her (she was shot at while driving and they were looking for bullet fragments in her car and found a crack pipe in an undamaged, zippered bag).

He got her off. Argued that they violated her “reasonable expectation of privacy” by erroneously opening the zippered bag that had no evidence of bullet holes or fragments. So I guess if something similar happened there, they’d go through the hassle of a trial, but can get off as it would violate the 4th Amendment.

dukecitygirl on September 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

The only real difference is — I earned mine. In spades. Don’t like it? Tough nuts. It is what it is and I’m locked into a 110% of pay and full medical and dental when I retire soon. Does that upset you? Good. It should. But it’s still mine and not yours.

BAHAHAHAHAHA

FlatFoot on September 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM

ROTFLMAO… You live on the West coast eh, hopefully in the Peoples Marxist Republic of California… Where we are about to hand your dumb ass the effing shock of your bully punk a$$ life… If you think you are going to collect on the fat juicy retirement plan, all I have to say to you is…. BWAHAHAHAHAH………. SUCKER……

SWalker on September 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM

I’m going to post this again since flatfoot is doing such a magnificent job of proving exactly what the article says. You guys really should read the entire article.


The Rise of the Praetorian Class

Legions and Lictors – the Praetorian Class

The Praetorian Class includes members of the Armed Services, federal, state and local law enforcement personnel as well as numerous militarized officials including agents from the DEA, Immigrations, Customs Enforcement, Air Marshalls, US Marshalls, and more. It also includes, although to a lesser extent, various stage actors in the expanding security theater such as TSA personnel. The main mission of the Praetorian Class is to keep the order of the day. This requires displaying an intimidating presence in their interactions with the Economic Class.

As the Praetorian Class ascends, the clear, albeit unstated, message that emerges is that actions and events in the Economic Class only occur with its tacit consent. Whether driving on roads, traveling in the air, visiting public land, walking down the street or even living in your own home, every action you take is predicated on its permission. By preconditioning the populace to enforcement of its edicts, most of which are completely arbitrary, the Praetorian Class sets itself up for a high degree of autonomy in its actions. This is confirmed by the fact that consequences for malfeasance within the Praetorian Class are almost never observed, and when it happens, it typically becomes a grotesque spectacle in which one of their own is sacrificed as an example, so as to keep appearances of effective internal controls.

Members of the Praetorian Class are typically recruited from the Economic Class and usually from the lower socio-economic spectrum, which offers them an opportunity for personal and professional gain that otherwise might be out of their reach. Early on in the training and indoctrination process, a strong emphasis is placed on teamwork and advancing the welfare of the team above the individual. While independent thought is never overtly discouraged, the fact is that questioning authority and failing to display complete loyalty to the team results in censure, shunning and even expulsion. Naturally, the recruit learns in short order which behavior is rewarded and responds accordingly. This forges a lifelong, unbreakable bond between the brothers-in-arms. This bond can be observed when people proudly display unit insignia and decorations decades after their departure from service.

As they serve in their martial role, members of the Praetorian Class learn to despise members of the Political Class and to view the plight of the Economic Class with detachment or even contempt. Law enforcement and military personnel will converse behind closed doors about the most horrific injustices and brutalities with cavalier amusement. While perhaps natural, their training for violence and teamwork is a fundamental cause for why members of the Praetorian Class abandon their roots and in time come to view their peers “back on the farm” with contempt. Likewise, the steady displays of the craven and treacherous character of the Political Class causes the Praetorian Class to privately disavow emotional allegiance to their masters, usually early in their service.

Naturally, as the members of the Praetorian Class socially distance themselves from both their origins and their masters, even though they are paid to do their bidding, a new group identity among them emerges. Adoption of this group identity, forged by the training, indoctrination and work, defines membership in the Praetorian Class. Some of the characteristics of this identity include:

Viewing everything and everyone according to a perceived threat posture. The members’ thought processes, beliefs and actions center on viewing the world through a paradigm of a graduated conflict spectrum and how to posture themselves accordingly. Even in the most mundane settings, their conversations tend to be awkward if not centered on their martial duties.

Tight internal socialization. Because they view life through a martial paradigm, members tend to socialize almost exclusively amongst themselves. Immediate family members are expected to do the same, which naturally occurs anyway as they can share experiences that external relationships simply are unable to address.

Loyalty is the highest honor. Whether referred to as the blue wall of silence or the brotherhood in arms, even the most egregious transgressions are buried. If the misdeeds are internal, meaning member versus member, the justice is handled internally. On the other hand, external missteps are typically swept under the rug and significant chicane is experienced by outsiders who seek to learn the truth.

In a relatively free and peaceful society, members of the communities that form the Praetorian Class lead a discrete existence. Members of the military commute to and from their place of work and are largely invisible to both the Political and Economic Class, certainly in communities that are not “Praetorian” communities. Attendance at cultural events in uniform is frowned upon, if not explicitly forbidden. During these times, members of the military and law enforcement are expected to live and operate outside the perception of other members of society, their purpose and function regarded with a sense of detachment and perhaps even subtle curiosity.

As the Political Class increasingly calls upon the Praetorian Class to ensure their order, however, their martial nature becomes more visible in the fabric of day-to-day life. This serves several purposes. For one, it allows the Political Class to demonstrate its willingness to use unlimited force to achieve its objectives, something that was always the case but is now made publicly visible. Rationalizing the increased public profile, a stream of honorifics is bestowed upon the Praetorian Class so that they may be presented as defenders of the Economic Class. This is accomplished through the time-tested use of pageantry, pomp and circumstance.

Over time, additional perquisites are bestowed upon the Praetorian Class including preferential treatment in both private and public facilities. Preferred air travel accommodations for uniformed personnel, including dedicated lines at TSA checkpoints and preferential boarding, have recently emerged as cultural standards that further distance the Praetorian Class from the masses.

Another clear change is the physical appearance of members of the Praetorian Class. The uniforms transition from relatively inconspicuous attire to “battle uniforms” such are those now standard issue to both the military and law enforcement personnel. These optics reinforce the position of the Praetorian Class as maintainers of public order, convey a message of physical dominance and establish chronic low-level fear among the masses. Sometimes referred to as the militarization of the police force, this characterization traditionally refers to the increasing firepower in even municipal police departments. Frequently lost in this observation, however, is the psychological impact that such a heavily armed police presence has on the “civilian” population – specifically that it further separates the Praetorian Class from the Economic Class.

As the influence of the Praetorian Class grows, so do the resources it consumes. This is manifested in the form of continuous “equipment” upgrades, training budgets and costly “interagency collaboration” in addition to the usual staff augmentation. This, of course, has the ancillary benefit of directing resources to equipment and service providers that are favored by the Political Class and in some cases may in fact be the primary purpose.

Perhaps less obvious is the need to constantly keep the Praetorian Class on the march. A bored Praetorian is a dangerous creature that will start looking for things to do. In order to keep the Praetorian Class engaged, they must be fed a continuous source of adversaries that they in turn actively engage. In “peace time,” actual engagement is replaced by training and rehearsing the defeat of the adversaries.

While the Praetorian Class emerges as its own entity, with allegiance only to the members’ peers, the most senior of the Praetorians are eventually invited to join the Political Class. Prior to that occurring, they are vetted for suitability, after which they become “made men.” Consider the long list of senior military officers and police chiefs that joined the ranks of the political elite. It is a sight to behold, their new-found support of the Political Class, a class they had silently held in contempt until their recent assumption. Metropolitan police chiefs, district attorneys and joint chiefs of staff are selected for political compatibility, not conviction of character.

How Does It Play Out?

History does not keep a flattering record of societies that allowed the Praetorian Class to rise. The Roman Empire’s decline from splendor to squalor extended for two centuries whereas the Nazi Third Reich collapsed in less than two decades. The continuous drain on productive resources, continuous warfare against new foes, abrogation of human rights and liberties and a pervasive culture of fear inevitably send the society into a tail spin. Some societies are able to observe the retreat of the Praetorian Class, but it is usually a function of economic necessity and often after a great price has been paid by the general population.

Unfortunately, as the tragedy unfolds, the Economic Class often tries to ride out the calamity. This is understandable, since people have a limited capacity to internalize long-term trends. In fact, because people adjust to new circumstances relatively quickly, it is almost impossible for them to compare the condition of life in the present versus the past. The common vernacular for this concept is “the new normal”, which upon the slightest reflection represents an obvious paradox, since the word normal implies a historically stable trend.

The Third Reich as a Textbook Example

History books are filled with examples of societies that have seen the rise of the Praetorian Class, followed by their own subsequent collapse, ranging from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union. Of all the examples, however, none seems more instructive than the rise and fall of the Nazi Third Reich in Germany.

Over a period of two decades, starting with the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the end of World War II, Germany saw the rise of a charismatic demagogue, the rise of police and paramilitary forces, the development of a military-industrial complex, the assumption of industry by the State, the demonization and persecution of scapegoats finally resulting in widespread warfare and societal ruin. Because the timeline is relatively compressed compared to other historical examples, spanning a single generation, the Third Reich serves as an excellent example of the broader consequences a society experiences when we observe the rise of the Praetorian Class. Furthermore, by virtue of its recent occurrence, many cultural and technological parallels serve as clear milestones.

SWalker on September 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

tdarrington on September 23, 2012 at 3:59 PM

You are dead wrong. Look up Hoovervilles and read about how the army was ordered to open fire, and did, on veterans.

chemman on September 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

As a former detective for nearly a generation and a constitutionalist by heart some of the questions and comments here are disturbing to me. Maybe I can help out with some procedural issues to clear things up.

1. Probable cause. In this case it was met easily and strongly. When I first heard about the case I couldn’t figure out who or what the source of the information was that led to the police knowing the bad guy was in a car at that intersection. Was an eye witness following them? Why not give the exact car description? When it was revealed it was GPS you are led into a completely new area for some- can electronics act as a witness or evidence?

Sadly, that issue has also been addressed and answered for a long time and the answer is yes. Your phone, your car, your GPS can all be used against you. The microsecond the information leaves the device and goes into the air, it doesn’t belong to you anymore. In this case, the bad guy had no right to privacy. The GPS belonged to the victim.

2. The phrase people are looking for here is “exigent circumstances”. What is it? It is a legal principle that states basically if the police think something bad is about to happen, they have the right to violate what would have been the standard Constitutional rights of a citizen. It happens all the time. In this case, the issue is a legitimate issue of public safety. (Not the police standing on the corner with machine guns in NY because of “possible terrorist” threats they can’t specifically identify. That is an abuse.)

3. The bad guy was armed. He is in a vehicle, armed and in public. The police know he is in a vehicle, at a location, within the public and is armed. They can’t let that go. Why the police picked that intersection is probably a case of logistics and opportunity. How fast can they get to a location with enough manpower to dissuade or stop the bad guy if he decides to act.

4. It is enough of an emergency to stop innocent people. How much of an inconvenience is it vs. the threat. Again, sadly that issue has been solved. You are detained by the TSA every time you are forced to wait, be searched and then walk through a scanner in order to board a plane. Yes, under certain circumstances the police can detain and cuff people. I disagree with the process they did in that they are cuffing everyone. But I’m sure their concern was if they had the bad guy, patted him down, stood him on the street corner, went through the car then the guy bolted, they couldn’t stop him, thus another problem has been created.

Often police use their presence and their force to control a situation. Riots for example are one. This is another.

5. Can they search cars? Imagine if this were a case of a woman in a trunk with a cellphone. She can see out a crack enough to say to 911 “I’m at the intersection of such and such, but I don’t know what car I’m in.” Do the police have the right to stop all vehicles at that intersection and enter the trunk of a vehicle even if the people in the car say no? (The Carroll doctrine also applies here.)

The answer is yes. The victim’s rights supersede the rights of the bad guy, and thank god for that. It’s bad enough as it is.

6. Threat. This time the threat is real. The bad guy just robbed a bank at gunpoint. He needs to go to jail. The people who got caught up in the stop and search were just unfortunate. The fact some want to sue shows just how badly towards “victimhood” our society has leaned. It also vindicates Romney’s 47% statement rather well.

Listen, life is not perfect. Life is a risk. Nothing goes according to plan sometimes and even the police are faced with a decision between two bad choices.

Had they waited until the guy got onto a highway there would have been a high speed chase and maybe a fatal accident involving innocents. Or a shootout with the guy killing a bystander. By exhibiting overwhelming force in a small constricted area, the police hopefully convinced the armed robber he was caught and fighting back would lead to his death. MOST bad guys don’t want to die.

7. Lastly, as to the issue of depth of the threat. Violence is violence. Whether it be a bank robber with a gun, a man with a bomb, a suicide bomber with a vest, some terrorist with a bio-weapon, the threat must be met. Parsing intrusion of Constitutional rights vs. threat is a Monday morning backseat amateurs job (or that of a defense lawyer). Sure the defense lawyer will argue it, it is his job. He’ll lose. The minute the bad guy got tagged by the GPS it was like a witness on the phone in the backseat saying “He’s turning here and stopping now.”

Only a bad judge would throw it out.

As to the people. Hey, it was an experience, something to tell you buddies about. The day the police swooped down and grabbed up a bad guy in front of you. Get over it.

archer52 on September 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

archer52 on September 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

um….no..i wont get over it. i am disabled , if given these exact circumstances i would be in EXTREME pain by the time half an hour passed much less 2 hours HANDCUFFED on the side of the road where the suspect who had a gun may possibly have opened fire to get away from said police and killed me instead because hey i was FORCIBLY DETAINED and cuffed on the side of the damn road. there are many issues with this , and while normally i side with the police on most issues these cops went WAY TOO DARN FAR when they handcuffed innocent people on the side of the road for hours.

katee bayer on September 23, 2012 at 11:47 PM

As to the people. Hey, it was an experience, something to tell you buddies about.
archer52 on September 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

And they are telling, though it would seem it wasn’t as much the great good cool fun as you imagine. For some odd reason, having heavily armed law enforcement officers coming going you & your kids with guns drawn, shields up and being held at gunpoint for two hours seems to have been a buzzkill to the festive party atmosphere.

whatcat on September 23, 2012 at 11:47 PM

As to the people. Hey, it was an experience, something to tell you buddies about. The day the police swooped down and grabbed up a bad guy in front of you. Get over it.

archer52 on September 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Phucking Nazi thug. Remember a$$hole, the Gestapo, the KGB and the Stasi were all legitimate law enforcement agencies. None of them violated the laws of the nations they served, they actually were scrupulous to follow the law to it’s letter. Again, from

The Rise of the Praetorian Class

The Third Reich as a Textbook Example

History books are filled with examples of societies that have seen the rise of the Praetorian Class, followed by their own subsequent collapse, ranging from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union. Of all the examples, however, none seems more instructive than the rise and fall of the Nazi Third Reich in Germany.

Over a period of two decades, starting with the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the end of World War II, Germany saw the rise of a charismatic demagogue, the rise of police and paramilitary forces, the development of a military-industrial complex, the assumption of industry by the State, the demonization and persecution of scapegoats finally resulting in widespread warfare and societal ruin. Because the timeline is relatively compressed compared to other historical examples, spanning a single generation, the Third Reich serves as an excellent example of the broader consequences a society experiences when we observe the rise of the Praetorian Class. Furthermore, by virtue of its recent occurrence, many cultural and technological parallels serve as clear milestones.

You and your ilk are a plague on America, and the only thing worse then you, are those who enable you and grant you power.

SWalker on September 23, 2012 at 11:50 PM

As a former detective for nearly a generation and a constitutionalist by heart some of the questions and comments here are disturbing to me. Maybe I can help out with some procedural issues to clear things up.
archer52 on September 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

yeah, LOL, police officer and constitutionalist. Like Obama is one apparently.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM

yeah, LOL, police officer and constitutionalist. Like Obama is one apparently.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM

I personally do not believe that it is possible to be a police officer and a constitutionalists. You are either one or the other.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 12:04 AM

As a former detective for nearly a generation and a constitutionalist by heart some of the questions and comments here are disturbing to me. Maybe I can help out with some procedural issues to clear things up.
archer52 on September 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

yeah, LOL, police officer and constitutionalist. Like Obama is one apparently.
astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM

No – a person can be both. However, in his case, it seems archer52 is attempting to make a blue line defense for unjustifiable police actions. It’s a natural human emotional reaction/response to want to rationalize the bad behavior when someone in your “class” does something wrong, instead of saying “yeah, they screwed the pooch, but don’t judge a whole group based on a few pooch screwings.”.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM

I just think his constitutionalism is more in line like Obama’s.

:)

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM

It has often been assumed in this country (spurred by leftist propaganda) that police are “right wing fascists”. Actually, however, the vast majority of police brutality and suppression of human rights has occurred in LEFT WING COUNTRIES-attested to by the Soviet KGB and Nazi Gestapo-not to mention the ChiCom Secret Police and Castro’s intelligence harvesting goon squads.Also, could anyone arque, if re-elected, that Obama’s army of thousands of extra IRS agents needed to enforce the mandate of Obamacare will not be pursuing “extraordinary” police powers of enforcement?

Police, succinctly, are the tools of enforcement for whatever government is in power. If the government is a left wing dictatorship (or heading in that direction) I would be reluctant to give police extraordinary powers which soon would be soon be abused and become “routine.”

To allow police “extraordinary” power of search and seizure, in my estimation,should be immediately precipitated by an “extraordinary event”-such as fissionable nuclear material has just gone missing from a local military base and in order to stop the suspects, all vehicles in the immediate vicinity must be searched as well as houses, etc. The operant word here is NATIONAL SECURITY. Anything less and the answer must be no.

Also, any non- national security related incriminating evidence turned up as the result of such an “extraordinary” search should be null and void.

MaiDee on September 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Here’s where I disagree with the actions of the police: by handcuffing and lining up the innocent civilians on the curb, police endangered these people by limiting their ability to escape had the real villain hopped out and started shooting.

jediwebdude on September 24, 2012 at 12:35 AM

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

whatcat on September 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I agree. Jazz is 100% WRONG on this. Why is he even a blogger here?

Someone else stated something like “cars have less protection than houses because they’re mobile”. These idiots quote laws as if they override the Constitution. Read the Constitution as whatcat just quoted…

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Papers and effects are transportable and mobile… just like cars. Thus if a police officer stops you with a backpack, they are not allowed to search without probable cause.

We have surrendered so much of our liberty because we prefer to be sheep protected by a friendly wolf. It’s always the “other” sheep that get eaten. That wolf is our friend, so he says. Fools.

dominigan on September 24, 2012 at 12:48 AM

The only people here trolling are the pro coppers… The rest of us are using facts and reality.

astonerii on September 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Oh. My. goodness! This thread is hilarious! Yes, everyone who doesn’t fall in line with your perverted ways of thinking is a troll! People who would normally be all over your ass about your stupidity are aligned with you, a REAL troll, just because they happen agree with you on this. It is to laugh!

Flatfoot played you sanctimonious boobs like a Stradivarius!

A bunch of tough guys, most of whom would soil their drawers if they were ever faced with a life and death situation. I wasn’t there today, and I’m not a cop so I’m not going to tell these cops or any others how to do their jobs. You blowhards and I will all just have to wait and see what the courts think of all this. Well, you can keep going on about how outrageously outraged you are if you want to. I’m going to bed and sleep very soundly.

Night night, boys!

JannyMae on September 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM

I just think his constitutionalism is more in line like Obama’s.
:)
astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM

That may be, but I’m just noting that it’s instinctive to want to defend the actions of your own – even in cases where the action wasn’t defend-able as things developed. That’s nothing against the police, it’s just human.
I know where I’ve defended family & friends on things when later, on reflection, I realized they had actually messed up. In this case, the robber could get off because of bad police procedure – so it would have been all for naught down the line.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

I personally do not believe that it is possible to be a police officer and a constitutionalists. You are either one or the other.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Our defense against the police state, rests with ourselves and sheriffs. Sheriffs are the highest ranking officers from a Constitutional perspective because they are the only ones that are elected. I’ve heard stories from gun advocates on showdowns between sheriffs and federal agents over actions against gun owners. The sheriff wins. BUT, only if the sheriff understands their Constitutional authority. After all, they have the right to imprison federal officers if they step out of bounds. I know of one gun rights group that actually offers a training class for sheriffs on this very Constitutional subject.

dominigan on September 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Yes, everyone who doesn’t fall in line with your perverted ways of thinking is a troll!
Flatfoot played you sanctimonious boobs like a Stradivarius!
JannyMae on September 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Actually, if you scroll back, you’ll see where the Wannabee Cop “flatfoot” confessed to only being here to troll.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 12:57 AM

No – a person can be both. However, in his case, it seems archer52 is attempting to make a blue line defense for unjustifiable police actions. It’s a natural human emotional reaction/response to want to rationalize the bad behavior when someone in your “class” does something wrong, instead of saying “yeah, they screwed the pooch, but don’t judge a whole group based on a few pooch screwings.”.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM

I’ll take the analysis of a real law enforcement official who has “been there” over a bunch of loud-mouths who don’t know jack any day.

Archer turned out a well thought out comment. You guys are just posturing like know-it-alls who don’t know too much. If you’re right, then the courts will determine it. It doesn’t sound like the law is on your side though, and its not for you to decide, particularly based on the information you have, if any of these police actions were unjustifiable. That’s what sanctimonious boobs do.

JannyMae on September 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Actually, if you scroll back, you’ll see where the Wannabee Cop “flatfoot” confessed to only being here to troll.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 12:57 AM

That makes it even funnier.

G’night!

JannyMae on September 24, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Police, succinctly, are the tools of enforcement for whatever government is in power. If the government is a left wing dictatorship (or heading in that direction) I would be reluctant to give police extraordinary powers which soon would be soon be abused and become “routine.”

MaiDee on September 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Absolutely! And that is why I’m hesitant to allow police to have so much power… because they are UNELECTED enforcers. ALL conservatives should understand this. Sheriffs are a totally different subject. They should be regarded as the final authority because they are ELECTED by the people to serve the people. Police serve the government, not the people. Sheriffs serve the people, not the government.

Why Jazz does not understand this perplexes me. Why does he write on a conservative site again?

dominigan on September 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

I’ll take the analysis of a real law enforcement official who has “been there” over a bunch of loud-mouths who don’t know jack any day.

JannyMae on September 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM

I’ll take the analysis of someone who understands the Constitution, and proves that in comments, over someone who CLAIMS to be a law enforcement officer on an anonymous blog.

dominigan on September 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

John_G you are wrong. Probable cause exists because of the GPS tracker.

Negative. The cops are relying on an assumption that they can baffle idiot civilians that they didn’t know where this bag was at based on some silly “inaccuracy” reference. If that was viable, than a drug dealer with a “gps device” would be grounds for arresting and cuffing the entirety of New York based on the level of $10.00 equipment (or Army Pluggers).

In any case a civilian GPS can get you to 10′, and heaven forbid, if you’re a dumb criminal, cellular will get you within 3′.

Stupid call, stupid cop.

John_G on September 24, 2012 at 1:12 AM

I’ll take the analysis of a real law enforcement official who has “been there” over a bunch of loud-mouths who don’t know jack any day.

JannyMae on September 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Those the same guys going door to door confiscating firearms from peoples homes during Katrina? You and the boys in blue don’t seem to have a real firm grasp on what’s constitutional and what isn’t. Something you also share with Obama.

sharrukin on September 24, 2012 at 1:15 AM

In any case a civilian GPS can get you to 10′, and heaven forbid, if you’re a dumb criminal, cellular will get you within 3′.

Stupid call, stupid cop.

John_G on September 24, 2012 at 1:12 AM

To add to that, the GPS was a receiver; a transmitter had to be involved to broadcast position of the system. Two hours? More than enough time to use a more rational approach such as a receiver on sight to locate the specific car broadcasting the GPS location. Signal intensity measurement with a directional antenna would have nailed it.

If this is found reasonable? Heaven help us.

AZfederalist on September 24, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I’ll take the analysis of a real law enforcement official who has “been there” over a bunch of loud-mouths who don’t know jack any day.

JannyMae on September 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM

That is called an “Appeal to authority” logic fallacy, that you apply it implied that you are an idiot.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Glad to hear that the police were willing to put an “extraordinarily dangerous” criminal in a position where the only possible means of escaping arrest were taking a hostage at gunpoint or engaging in a shootout.

I can think of no worse act of negligence than tracking him to an environment with less potential for a considerable loss of human life.

WeekendAtBernankes on September 24, 2012 at 1:37 AM

over someone who CLAIMS to be a law enforcement officer on an anonymous blog.
dominigan on September 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Meh, the troll wouldn’t even make through the first day of police training in Mayberry. He’d be lucky to be get a job working for Goober at the filling station.

I wish I had a nickel for every anon flake on the internet who claimed to a General, brain surgeon or millionaire.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Two hours? More than enough time to use a more rational approach such as a receiver on sight to locate the specific car broadcasting the GPS location.
AZfederalist on September 24, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Or just go from car to car, check the car and driver-passengers out and then send them on their way if there’s nothing suspicious.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 2:10 AM

If you can narrow down the location of the evidence to a group of twenty or so cars, is that not “probably cause” enough?

What part of the phrase ‘police state’ do you not understand? If you can’t get the robbers without endagering lives in he immediate, you follow them until they stop to rest and surround them-you don’t detain x motorists. What next, should police detain an entire neighborhood, better yet an entire city?? Jazz Shaw (or whatever her real name is) really isn’t thinking about where her rationale is taking us if we follow it.

love2rumba on September 24, 2012 at 4:22 AM

Without reading all 6 pages of comments I am going to go out and say I support what they did.

Yes, securing everyone with hand cuffs was needed. What would have happened if they did not and the perp did not get caught right away, then went on to grab one of his weapons from his car and started shooting up the place?

On the other hand, any kind of infractions discovered during the search should be tossed out and ignored. If the cops saw you had a joint in the car when they got you, they are to turn the other cheek. I think cops need to do that when searching the homes if they are there to look for something that is stated in a court search warrant if I am not mistaken.

watertown on September 24, 2012 at 4:24 AM

This incident reminds me of the lazy and hazardous way the BATF(E) had the opportunity to detain/arrest suspect David Koresh when he would travel alone into Waco, and chat otherwise with the sheriff (on a regualr basis). Instead, they opted for the overdramatic and dangerous standoff that killed about a hundred people for nothing.

love2rumba on September 24, 2012 at 4:27 AM

Yes, securing everyone with hand cuffs was needed. What would have happened if they did not and the perp did not get caught right away, then went on to grab one of his weapons from his car and started shooting up the place?

watertown on September 24, 2012 at 4:24 AM

He would be able to execute, or take hostages from all those people handcuffed by the police. This would create a nightmare hostage situation that would benefit the felon.

sharrukin on September 24, 2012 at 4:34 AM

He would be able to execute, or take hostages from all those people handcuffed by the police. This would create a nightmare hostage situation that would benefit the felon.

sharrukin on September 24, 2012 at 4:34 AM

At least you get it.

On the other hand, if they would have just “let him go” what would have happened then? Say he goes on but next time shoots someone? The same very people who are bit*(ing about the abuse of power on how they handled this would then be crying about how they should have stopped him when they had the chance. None of us know how much this person could have escalated in violence. He robbed a bank, not a quicky mart or anything along those lines…he already shown right there he was not thinking clearly… he could have done much better with less time if he would have knocked off a few gas stations.

watertown on September 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM

This incident reminds me of the lazy and hazardous way the BATF(E) had the opportunity to detain/arrest suspect David Koresh when he would travel alone into Waco, and chat otherwise with the sheriff (on a regualr basis). Instead, they opted for the overdramatic and dangerous standoff that killed about a hundred people for nothing.

love2rumba on September 24, 2012 at 4:27 AM

The same sort of lazy incompetence was on display during the Columbine school shooting. The police were more concerned about themselves and procedure than actually being effective.

sharrukin on September 24, 2012 at 4:50 AM

At least you get it.

watertown on September 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM

I think you misunderstand my point. Handcuffing those people created a target for the felon who hadn’t been caught. They were handcuffed and the felon wasn’t. If he had exited his vehicle and began a shootout with police he would have had a gallery of handcuffed hostages/targets waiting for him.

The police knew those handcuffed citizens weren’t the felon because there was no beekeepers suit, no bag of money, no firearms, and no GPS.

sharrukin on September 24, 2012 at 4:55 AM

That’s right. I can beat you and down and tazer you up and you can’t do sh-t about it, chump.

Problem?

bahahahahaha

FlatFoot on September 23, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Something tells me that you didn’t help the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund’s pledge drive very much last night.

DFCtomm on September 24, 2012 at 6:44 AM

Profile of FlatFoot:
47%er (taker class)
+ eager member of the junior fascist club
+ narcissistic personality disorder
= Likely Obama voter!

Really amusing that FF considers a police officer salary and pension to be living like a king – LOL. On the other hand, it is probably more than he could ever get anyone in the private sector to pay him.

ggoofer on September 24, 2012 at 6:53 AM

katee bayer on September 23, 2012 at 11:47 PM

You know, they weren’t innocent people cuffed at the side of the road, they were potential suspects – until they were cleared. They were cleared by finding the bad guy. Could they have cleared people more efficiently? Yes. They should have uncuffed them as soon as their car was found not to have the money, then they should have been led aside into a coffee shop or some such, given a bottle of water, chatted with by a police interrogator (to get name and address if they need them as witnesses, and to give them a chance to blow some steam off), and let know that they would be able to go just as soon as they found the perp. (Oh, and they should have been asked to turn off their cell phones, too, for the duration.)

archer52 on September 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I figured the flip comment at the end would draw some fire. I understand why you made it, but in this thread it was like walking through a firing range wearing a target.

However, for the most part, archer52 is right. They did have the legal and constitutional right to search that intersection’s worth of cars, and to detain people as necessary to make that search safe and thorough. As I said above, they handled the innocents badly. But, that doesn’t make the searches illegal or unconstitutional.

And, those of you arguing that this dangerous man should be let go because of police actions (arguing that all the evidence of the search should be thrown out) are not conservatives. If you were, you would see that allowing a dangerous guilty man to go free because of the mistakes (such as they might have been) of one or more policemen doesn’t make society any safer or more just. There is a middle ground between let-the-police-do-whatever-they-want-to-catch-a-bad-guy and let-the-perp-walk-because-you-dorked-up-the-search.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Anyone can armchair quarterback after the fact. Police are called on to make life and death decisions without the benefit of hindsite. Handcuffing everyone does seem extreme but they had to control a large group of people and keep everyone safe. We don’t know all the facts about what was going on on the ground. I’m sure the likely lawsuits will hammer that all out. The only thing we know for sure is that we don’t have all the facts. A good friend who is a cop can attest to that. His department uses past cases for training purposes, especially the high profile ones. What gets reported is only part of the story and not always accurate. There are always bad players in any occupation including police forces. Most cops just want to do their jobs and get safely home to their families.

hopeful on September 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I don’t think you realized how much your mask just slipped.

fossten on September 24, 2012 at 7:20 AM

You know, they weren’t innocent people cuffed at the side of the road, they were potential suspects – until they were cleared.

As I said above, they handled the innocents badly.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Rambling, incoherent, and generally statist.

fossten on September 24, 2012 at 7:23 AM

OK, let me get this straight. The police restrained a number of civilians in a location where they knew there was violent criminal approaching behind the wheel of a car and in possession of multiple firearms.

We’re not talking about inconvenience. The police used their authority to render these people helpless and defenseless and then to place them in mortal jeopardy.

ElectricPhase on September 24, 2012 at 7:50 AM

You know, they weren’t innocent people cuffed at the side of the road, they were potential suspects – until they were cleared.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Wow. Unbelievable.

Dante on September 24, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Wow. Unbelievable.

Dante on September 24, 2012 at 8:12 AM

We’re all criminals until proven otherwise, and since there are more laws than even congress can keep track of we’re all guilty.

DFCtomm on September 24, 2012 at 8:23 AM

SWalker on September 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Another book I would suggest on the subject of the rise of totalitarian states is The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans. The book discusses in some depth the social, political, and economic underpinnings of Germany dating back to the Revolutions of 1848-49 and leading up to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor in 1933.

I might add here that it is untrue that the Germans elected Hitler. At the point of the economic collapse of 1929 the Nazis were on their way to oblivion, but with the massive economic disruption of the Depression, the ineffectiveness of the Weimar government, and the longing for a return to national unity and greatest that had existed under Bismarck and the Kaiser the conditions for a Hitler had been met.

claudius on September 24, 2012 at 8:42 AM

If conditions deteriorate to a dire enough condition in this country people will demand a police state —just one that they perceive as being favorable to themselves. The problem, of course, is that police states are really only favorable to themselves, and not even to themselves, only a portion of the leadership and their cronies.

See how much our Constitution and Bill of Rights really mean if the economic walls come tumbling down. Already in much of the country the social and moral imperatives for a free people have ceased to exist.

claudius on September 24, 2012 at 8:56 AM

They should have waited until the robber reached his destination. If they could not search the intersection with specificity, they had no business stopping anyone, let alone the many innocent persons going about their business, for whom there was insufficient reason to stop, handcuff, and search.

SarahW on September 24, 2012 at 9:08 AM

And I hope police will lose their case against the robber, if it means this type of ahot-gun stop is seen as a losing proposition.

SarahW on September 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM

And good lord, what sort of wacky title is “Do the Police have Rights, Too?” They have quite a bit of power, is what they have, and as individuals the same rights as any of us, but as a collective enforcement group, as agents of the government, their right to stop and search is LIMITED.

SarahW on September 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

You know, they weren’t innocent people cuffed at the side of the road, they were potential suspects – until they were cleared.
GWB on September 24, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Wow. Unbelievable.
Dante on September 24, 2012 at 8:12 AM

It’s the Harry Reid rationale.

By the way, can you prove you’ve stopped beating your wife yet?

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM

You know, they weren’t innocent people cuffed at the side of the road, they were potential suspects – until they were cleared.
GWB on September 24, 2012 at 7:14 AM

I’m quite sure they were all guilty of something and would confess under proper interrogation…

claudius on September 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

It is morally outrageous that these innocent civilians were subjected to the humiliation of being publicly handcuffed in front of their families. If the choice is to let a criminal get away or to subject tens of innocent people to a humiliating, traumatizing experience, you let the ****ing criminal go. They could have waited until the robber reached his destination.

It is incredible and sickening to me that we consider what happened to these people to be some kind of trivial, minor inconvenience. The police involved should all be fired and incarcerated.

Imagine driving with your family or your girlfriend, having done nothing wrong at all, and suddenly being ordered out of your car at gunpoint by five policemen, who then put you and your loved ones in shackles for two hours. Imagine how powerless and humiliated you’d feel. These police officers are scum and deserve to lose their careers and their freedom.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 9:54 AM

And, those of you arguing that this dangerous man should be let go because of police actions (arguing that all the evidence of the search should be thrown out) are not conservatives. If you were, you would see that allowing a dangerous guilty man to go free because of the mistakes (such as they might have been) of one or more policemen doesn’t make society any safer or more just.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Bullshit. In a Conservative world, a number of the innocent motorists would have been expected to refuse to follow police instructions that would lead to their handcuffing and detention. A number would certainly be counted on to bear armes per Constitutional guarantee to guard against against such tyrrany. Other citizens in the vicinity would have expectedly come to the aid of those people being asked to exit their automobiles.

The police, in a Conservative world, would have calculated that the innocent motorists would be more likely injured by reaction to the police action than by their proximity to a fleeing fellon, forcing police to choose another strategy.

But since people are sheep, we can expect to be hurded onto cattle cars at gunpoint every now and then, in fear of the authority holding the guns, for shipment to what history will record as certain death.

shuzilla on September 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM

And good lord, what sort of wacky title is “Do the Police have Rights, Too?” They have quite a bit of power, is what they have, and as individuals the same rights as any of us, but as a collective enforcement group, as agents of the government, their right to stop and search is LIMITED.

SarahW on September 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

And I wouldn’t term what they should be limited to as “rights.”

mankai on September 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM

You know, they weren’t innocent people cuffed at the side of the road, they were potential suspects – until they were cleared.
GWB on September 24, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Hence, the reason why it was unconstitutional.

When your method of capturing a criminal brings that many people of completely varying descriptions under the role of suspect, it cannot be constitutional.

Your a very helpful individual.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Bullshit. In a Conservative world, a number of the innocent motorists would have been expected to refuse to follow police instructions that would lead to their handcuffing and detention. A number would certainly be counted on to bear armes per Constitutional guarantee to guard against against such tyrrany. Other citizens in the vicinity would have expectedly come to the aid of those people being asked to exit their automobiles.

The police, in a Conservative world, would have calculated that the innocent motorists would be more likely injured by reaction to the police action than by their proximity to a fleeing fellon, forcing police to choose another strategy.

But since people are sheep, we can expect to be hurded onto cattle cars at gunpoint every now and then, in fear of the authority holding the guns, for shipment to what history will record as certain death.

shuzilla on September 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Bravo. Well said.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I’m quite sure they were all guilty of something and would confess under proper interrogation…
claudius on September 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

This 4 year old girl seems especially suspicious. “Sleeping daughter”? – I think not! The real robber, the vicious hardened criminal that she is, got away – secreted away in her mother’s arms! Just 5 hours under the light and a little work with a rubber hose in the interrogation room would have yielded a confession from the mini-miscreant!

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I COMPLETELY disagree with the premise of this article, i.e., the police have a right to physically detain EVERYBODY and ANYBODY they want to in search of a suspect.

King George’s redcoats once did the same thing to the colonialists and we went to war over it. Eventually we wrote into the Constitution the part about being “free from unreasonable searches and detention without probable cause”.

Smells way too much like fascism, if you ask me. Slippery slope with grease all over it!

Mahdi on September 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM

You know, they weren’t innocent people cuffed at the side of the road, they were potential suspects – until they were cleared.
GWB on September 24, 2012 at 7:14 AM

I believe “internment camps” is the phrase you’re looking for.

mankai on September 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I believe “internment camps” is the phrase you’re looking for.

mankai on September 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

BINGO.

shuzilla on September 24, 2012 at 10:21 AM

shuzilla on September 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Sorry, but you believe in the same batsh!t skittle-pooping unicorns the Obama cultists do – yours are just a different color. You seriously advocate that there should have been an armed response against the police? You’re nucking futz.

It is morally outrageous that these innocent civilians were subjected to the humiliation of being publicly handcuffed in front of their families. If the choice is to let a criminal get away or to subject tens of innocent people to a humiliating, traumatizing experience, you let the ****ing criminal go. They could have waited until the robber reached his destination.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 9:54 AM

They should have waited until the robber reached his destination. If they could not search the intersection with specificity, they had no business stopping anyone, let alone the many innocent persons going about their business, for whom there was insufficient reason to stop, handcuff, and search.

SarahW on September 24, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Holy cow! So a dangerous criminal should be allowed to simply go about his business without any effort to apprehend him as quickly as possible? According to this rationale, no search warrant should ever be executed unless the police can say for certain which desk drawer the evidence is in.

DFCtomm on September 24, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Not what I said or implied at all.

fossten on September 24, 2012 at 7:23 AM

If you think I’m a statist, then you need Nurse Ratchett to up your meds.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Seriously? Do you understand the difference between being a suspect and being a criminal? I suspect not.

claudius on September 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Are you people naturally stupid, or do you work hard to be this way? “Innocent” is not, in the case of finding a suspect in a crowd, a state of metaphysical being. You are a suspect until you can be cleared. This is a perfectly rational statement. In some cases you can be cleared more easily than in others. They didn’t even throw up a random cordon – they knew the robber was in this intersection.

I happen to think it might have been handled better. But, it wasn’t unconstitutional. Cuffing anyone might have been a bad idea, but not particularly statist – if you are ever a suspect in a crime, expect to be handcuffed. Leaving someone cuffed once that particular person’s vehicle had been cleared was extremely stupid. BTW, if the police knew a murderer was hiding out in a particular neighborhood, and they went door-to-door asking to search people’s homes, if I refused consent (and I likely would) I would fully expect them to have a search warrant within minutes, and to then search my house without my consent. If they had good reason to believe the murderer was in my home, they wouldn’t even need the search warrant. And, there wouldn’t be anything unconstitutional about that, in the least.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM

When your method of capturing a criminal brings that many people of completely varying descriptions under the role of suspect, it cannot be constitutional.

Your a very helpful individual.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Wrong. They stopped all of 19 vehicles. And the suspect was wearing gloves and a beekeeper hat when he robbed the place – just what description did these people not meet? At least, until their vehicles were searched.

mankai on September 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

You know, I’m sick of being accused of being a NAZI or a statist or a fascist, so my general answer to all of you accusing me of such – F*** YOU! If you can’t see anything but hatred for the police in this case, then you need to examine your own attitudes carefully. Not everything the state does is a reason to rise up in revo lution and begin taking the aristocracy to Mdme Guillotine.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Holy cow! So a dangerous criminal should be allowed to simply go about his business without any effort to apprehend him as quickly as possible? According to this rationale, no search warrant should ever be executed unless the police can say for certain which desk drawer the evidence is in.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I honestly don’t give a damn how easy it is for police to do their jobs. They are agents of government, which is a monopoly on the use of force and something I consider pure evil. If they are such a necessity, then let them fend for themselves in a free market, where I can basically guarantee you that this kind of thing wouldn’t happen.

Oh, and if it were up to me, I’d have every officer involved in this incident sent to prison for ten years and award each of their victims ten million dollars.

It’s time we stop sacrificing liberty for security and it’s time we stop this bizarre presumption that the government has any sort of moral authority and that anything it does is ever good.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:34 AM

BTW, this is a quote from KMGH-TV in Denver. Fania is one of the police officers.

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”

So, it appears they didn’t sit around handcuffed for two hours. At least there is another side to the story.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:38 AM

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Do you understand the difference between a citizen and a subject of the state?

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

They are agents of government, which is a monopoly on the use of force and something I consider pure evil.

…this bizarre presumption that the government has any sort of moral authority…

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Then you are an idiot. Sorry for wasting your time with intelligent argumentation.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

So, it appears they didn’t sit around handcuffed for two hours. At least there is another side to the story.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Except he’s a government agent and whatever he says is inadmissible to anyone with common sense. Why would you believe someone who has incentive to lie?

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Then you are an idiot. Sorry for wasting your time with intelligent argumentation.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Oh please, you aren’t the least bit intimidating or formidable. Waging ad hominem attacks against my intellect is futile and serves no purpose.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:41 AM

As a for instance on the establishment of the police state over the Constitutional rights of the public, I offer the following for you to ponder.

I live in North Carolina. In 1983, governor in perpetuity Jim Hunt signed into law the “Safe Roads Act.”

This law was sold to the public as being an anti-drunk driving law. It is nothing of the sort.
This law violates an accused person’s rights in that you lose your license upon being accused, you have to pay a “fee” to have your license reinstated – nonrefundable – before you are convicted of anything.

A police officer can use his “professioanl judgment” to decide if you are impaired – no roadside sobriety test, nothing – just he/she “decides” you appear impaired and arrests you.

Then, when accused, you are required to get “evaluated” for “treatment” at a state-approved facility. Said facility ALSO being the place that administers the “treatments” at absobitent rates – gee, no incentive THERE to find everyone needs “treatment?” This entire industry EXISTS because of this law.

What FINALLY made me accept that this law exists simply to increase revenue to the state/county coffers was when I PERSONALLY witnessed a woman come into a restaurant I was patronizing, obviously intoxicated. She was – of course – refused service and the manager called the police. An officer arrived and hid in the parking lot, watching her stagger to her vehicle, not stopping her and telling her not to drive, but WATCHING her get into her vehicle, start it and drive out of the parking lot. Only pulling her over as soon as she hit the public street.

If he weren’t simply a revenue collector with a gun and a badge, why didn’t he intervene? She could have damaged anyone’s property or injured anyone else while still in the parking lot, after all. No, hadda get dat cheddah.

PJ Emeritus on September 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

By the way, is there some TOS clause against directly insulting other users? I would enjoy your product a lot more, Hot Air, if it weren’t populated with pusillanimous trolls.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Yes. I do. Do you think – as discojoe admits to – that the government has no moral authority whatsoever? Do you think that you have no curbs on your rights when it comes to law and order?

Just what would constitute “probable cause” in your eyes? What is defined as a “reasonable” search to you? How few people do they have to detain before you think it’s ok to stop the crowd and search folks? (I think and hope that you, at least, are arguing this – where to draw the line – and not discojoe’s PoV that there should be no line.)

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:46 AM

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Wow. The irony.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

As a for instance on the establishment of the police state over the Constitutional rights of the public, I offer the following for you to ponder.

I live in North Carolina. In 1983, governor in perpetuity Jim Hunt signed into law the “Safe Roads Act.”

This law was sold to the public as being an anti-drunk driving law. It is nothing of the sort.
This law violates an accused person’s rights in that you lose your license upon being accused, you have to pay a “fee” to have your license reinstated – nonrefundable – before you are convicted of anything.

A police officer can use his “professioanl judgment” to decide if you are impaired – no roadside sobriety test, nothing – just he/she “decides” you appear impaired and arrests you.

Then, when accused, you are required to get “evaluated” for “treatment” at a state-approved facility. Said facility ALSO being the place that administers the “treatments” at absobitent rates – gee, no incentive THERE to find everyone needs “treatment?” This entire industry EXISTS because of this law.

What FINALLY made me accept that this law exists simply to increase revenue to the state/county coffers was when I PERSONALLY witnessed a woman come into a restaurant I was patronizing, obviously intoxicated. She was – of course – refused service and the manager called the police. An officer arrived and hid in the parking lot, watching her stagger to her vehicle, not stopping her and telling her not to drive, but WATCHING her get into her vehicle, start it and drive out of the parking lot. Only pulling her over as soon as she hit the public street.

If he weren’t simply a revenue collector with a gun and a badge, why didn’t he intervene? She could have damaged anyone’s property or injured anyone else while still in the parking lot, after all. No, hadda get dat cheddah.

PJ Emeritus on September 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

This is what happens when you allow an unaccountable bureaucracy to dictate the lives of everyone in society against their will.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Wow. The irony.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I’m not the one insulting other users without remorse, so it’s silly to call my conduct into question here.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

You are wrong and a phucking douche bag of the lowest order, who hopefully dies screaming for your mother, in a fire, while your mother pours gasoline on you.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Hey, I think we can both say we disagree with his content and presentation, but it’s important not to stoop to this degree. You’re better than that; this is the kind of behavior we expect from liberals, not from sane people like you and I.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Seriously? Do you understand the difference between being a suspect and being a criminal?
GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Of course I do, scroll up and you’ll note where I said the 4 year old girl detainee was obviously suspect. Fiendish little hussy! Should have been put in a line-up, I say!

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Hey, I think we can both say we disagree with his content and presentation, but it’s important not to stoop to this degree. You’re better than that; this is the kind of behavior we expect from liberals, not from sane people like you and I.
discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Yup. That was also a ban-worthy outburst.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Yes. I do. Do you think – as discojoe admits to – that the government has no moral authority whatsoever? Do you think that you have no curbs on your rights when it comes to law and order?

Just what would constitute “probable cause” in your eyes? What is defined as a “reasonable” search to you? How few people do they have to detain before you think it’s ok to stop the crowd and search folks? (I think and hope that you, at least, are arguing this – where to draw the line – and not discojoe’s PoV that there should be no line.)

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The government has no moral authority because it always acts on its own behalf due to the lack of constraints placed on it by is monopolistic nature. Notice how the way in which the police operated in this incident was to minimize danger to themselves, not to protect the dignity and emotional well-being of the innocent bystanders who were going about their day. In a free market, police would have strong incentives to not humiliate their clients by cuffing them in public when they’ve done nothing wrong.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Wow.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

So, the 4yo should have been allowed to play between the cars while they continued to search other vehicles? I didn’t see a single child that was cuffed (nor their parents). I didn’t, despite the “being detained at gunpoint” comment, see anyone sitting on that curb with a weapon pointed at them. (Don’t give me any “oh, come on, being held by an armed policeman is being held at gunpoint” argument, since the obvious implication of the “two hours at riflepoint” comment by the civil rights attorney is to imply that they had guns pointed at them as they waited there.)

It certainly looks like they fouled up how they handled this – but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Remember that it is possible for something to be wrong and not be unconstitutional (and vice versa).

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

So, the 4yo should have been allowed to play between the cars while they continued to search other vehicles? I didn’t see a single child that was cuffed (nor their parents). I didn’t, despite the “being detained at gunpoint” comment, see anyone sitting on that curb with a weapon pointed at them. (Don’t give me any “oh, come on, being held by an armed policeman is being held at gunpoint” argument, since the obvious implication of the “two hours at riflepoint” comment by the civil rights attorney is to imply that they had guns pointed at them as they waited there.)

It certainly looks like they fouled up how they handled this – but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Remember that it is possible for something to be wrong and not be unconstitutional (and vice versa).

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

If the people being detained tried to leave or escape their restraints, would guns have been pointed at them? If so, then they were, for all intents and purposes, detained at gunpoint. If the threat against your safety is being shot, then you’re being held at gunpoint. Simple, nifty logic.

As regards the Constitutionality of this incident, it’s irrelevant. We need to get beyond the idea that the Constitution is the moral benchmark of the land. Morality comes before the Constitution, not after, and the way these people were treated by the police was wrong with or without the Constitution having ever been drafted. And if it’s the Constitution that somehow justifies this kind of tyrannical police misconduct, then it’s all the more evident that the whole idea of government is fundamentally flawed.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Wow. I didn’t realize FDR was a Nazi.

Um, the internment camps I reference were here in America. People (Japanese, Italian and German immigrants and children of immigramts) were taken from their homes and relocated to camps… just in case they might not be loyal or something.

It’s up to us to prove we’re not guilty right? Until then we’re all suspects and subject to the assumptions of the state?

mankai on September 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

In a free market, police would have strong incentives to not humiliate their clients by cuffing them in public when they’ve done nothing wrong.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Lets get something perfectly clear here. The general public is never a client of the police. The police are not our custodians, they are not our masters, they are EMPLOYES of the public.

Read the United States Constitution sometime. You will find in it not one single restriction placed upon “We the People” on the contrary what you will find is that every single restriction is placed on the “Government”.

The US Constitution at every single turn seeks to protect the rights and liberties of the Citizens of the United States while limiting the power and authority that the Government can grant itself.

Because our fellow citizens have grown fat and lazy they have allowed the government at every level to over step the boundaries placed on it by the United States Constitution. The fact that this has happened does not make it right or in any way shape or form legitimate.

Remember, Adolph Hitler, Joesph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung Pol Pot, they all came to power through legitimate means. Once in power, they all used a combination of a willing majority and the existing legal structures of their respective nations to change the legal structures of their respective nations to give them the dictatorial authority they desired.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

So, the 4yo should have been allowed to play between the cars while they continued to search other vehicles?
GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

The police could have made things go more easily and much faster if, after checking the cars and occupants, they just waved them on through their roadblock as in a DUI checkstop. I’d have left the toddler off with just a warning.
Maybe not as wise as forcing her to sit down to serve for an armed criminal’s sitting duck shooting gallery, but that’s just how I roll.

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Wow. I didn’t realize FDR was a Nazi.

Um, the internment camps I reference were here in America. People (Japanese, Italian and German immigrants and children of immigramts) were taken from their homes and relocated to camps… just in case they might not be loyal or something.

It’s up to us to prove we’re not guilty right? Until then we’re all suspects and subject to the assumptions of the state?

mankai on September 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Yeah, and I love how they try to downplay the severity of this by calling it a “minor inconvenience,” as though there were anything minor about you and your girlfriend being seated on a curb in shackles while the police rifle through your private property.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Mr. Shaw,

Do cops have rights? Sure same as you and me. But let me tell you it was a bad bust. The method, not the result and the issue revolves around technology.

Look a plain civilian GPS device is good to about +/- 3meters. The DoD have even finer grained access down to +/- 3cm. Which given the need I suspect the cops might have access to. But sticking with the civilian variant @ 3m means that worse case the police should have been able to narrow the search down to no more than 3 cars in that intersection.

Second it was shoddy. The perp is known to violence? Yet they cops in shutting down the intersection set up a rich environment for a hostage taking.

Third, they have the guy on a tracker right? Why not dispatch an unmarked or a chopper and just wait for the guy to become isolated then move in.

This is a case of simple brute force vs finesse.

Dr. Dog on September 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM

If the people being detained tried to leave or escape their restraints, would guns have been pointed at them? If so, then they were, for all intents and purposes, detained at gunpoint.
discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM

They were taken at gunpoint, police shields up and dogs at the ready:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=i1Ikl_FM4O4

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Wow.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I would suggest that you try reading some genuine old fashioned American History, like say the writing of America’s Founding Fathers for example, except that I already know that a fascist Nazi puke like you has neither the desire nor the comprehension required for the task.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Lets get something perfectly clear here. The general public is never a client of the police. The police are not our custodians, they are not our masters, they are EMPLOYES of the public.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Well, ideally they would be our employees, but that’s not the case right now. In reality, police are both our masters and the standing army of the government that routinely imposes its will onto us.

But yes, ideally police would work for us and be subject to all the normal constraints of the free market.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

mankai on September 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Your comment was non-specific. If you had commented previously to give that comment context, then I did not see it. (I did not read all 5 previous pages of comments.)

As to your argument, can you seriously not see any space between letting this guy go on his merry way and a police state? This is only a binary question? The only possible way I could support the police in this case (or, as I have said, at least not call their actions unconstitutional) is because I don’t believe in innocent-until-proven-guilty or because I believe a police state is a good thing?

Do you understand the difference between being a “suspect” and being “guilty” of a crime? By your statements, you either don’t, or you are simply trolling.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM

As for some commenter who tried to claim the innocent civilians weren’t handcuffed during during their long ordeal, a screencap:

http://postimage.org/image/5m2oqq58x

whatcat on September 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM

The only possible way I could support the police in this case (or, as I have said, at least not call their actions unconstitutional) is because I don’t believe in innocent-until-proven-guilty or because I believe a police state is a good thing?

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM

It’s not about what you consciously believe. It’s about the external implications of your beliefs, whether you see them or not.

If you think it permissible for police in a government-centric society to behave in this fashion, then yes, you believe in a police state.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM

The US Constitution at every single turn seeks to protect the rights and liberties of the Citizens of the United States while limiting the power and authority that the Government can grant itself.

Because our fellow citizens have grown fat and lazy they have allowed the government at every level to over step the boundaries placed on it by the United States Constitution. The fact that this has happened does not make it right or in any way shape or form legitimate.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Amazing that you can make such a cogent statement, then follow it with something so incredibly asinine as this:

except that I already know that a fascist Nazi puke like you has neither the desire nor the comprehension required for the task.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

As to your ad hominem, well, you just really don’t know me very well, then.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM

This is a case of simple brute force vs finesse.

Dr. Dog on September 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM

This wasn’t even a case of brute force vs finesse, this was a 100 percent pure unadulterated case of arrogant disregard for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens of Aurora.

The Police Chief himself made that 100 percent perfectly clear with his “The End justifies the Means” comment. The Aurora Police Chief reflects the prevailing attitude of both the Government and the Law Enforcement and Judicial System in America today.

That attitude as expressed is that the American people are wards of the State, subjects rather than citizens, whose right no longer exist because they have been stolen and replaced with writs of privilege which are subject to suspension at any time that they become inconvenient to those in “Authority”.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:40 AM

This wasn’t even a case of brute force vs finesse, this was a 100 percent pure unadulterated case of arrogant disregard for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens of Aurora.

The Police Chief himself made that 100 percent perfectly clear with his “The End justifies the Means” comment. The Aurora Police Chief reflects the prevailing attitude of both the Government and the Law Enforcement and Judicial System in America today.

That attitude as expressed is that the American people are wards of the State, subjects rather than citizens, whose right no longer exist because they have been stolen and replaced with writs of privilege which are subject to suspension at any time that they become inconvenient to those in “Authority”.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Exactly.

discojoe on September 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM

The difficulty is when we allow the police to declare anyone a suspect without reasonable cause. Cops do that all the time (and traumatize people) because they know a lot of people will just assume they would never infringe on anyone’s rights (cops have some of the best PR people around).

I used to watch COPS all the time. One thing my children and I learned from watching that show is that EVERYTHING is “resisting arrest.” Guy on the ground, arms stretched out in front of him, 4 cops with knees in his back as they unnaturally try to force his arms behind his back… he screams in pain and all they keep saying is “stop resisting!”… and that’s what they do with cameras on them!

No, I’ve never been arrested and I only have one traffic ticket. I just have over three decades experience with dealing with bully cops who have never helped my family, never found anything that was stolen and who have hassled me and others I know for existing… because they can and they know idealists like yourself will defend them.

mankai on September 24, 2012 at 11:46 AM

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

As to your ad hominem, well, you just really don’t know me very well, then.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM

On the contrary, I know everything that I need to know about you based upon one single statement you made. In 1946 in Nuremberg Germany, German military officer and German military officer stood up and insisted, “I was only following Orders”. A few even offered up the caveat, “If I had refused to follow orders, they would have shot me”. In every single instance the court utterly and completely rejected the defense that “I was only following orders”.

In the United States of America, as codified in the United States Constitution every citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and only after that court has strictly adhered to Due Process. You made your proclamation, that every citizen subject in that intersection was GUILTY until proven innocent, you sir can go right straight to hell, do not pass go and do not collect jack $hit.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8