[nukinfuts29]

not cop bashing, they are asking for it.

NO F'N WAY would I have complied. NO WAY. What an incredible violation of rights. Can you imagine being a CCW holder in this? What if you declare the gun and they flip? What if they don't give you the chance and they see it and really flip?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31148237/detail.html

Responding officers barricaded the area, trapping about 25 cars near the intersection. Then police went car by car and pulled out each occupant at gunpoint and handcuffed them.

"Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car," said Sonya Romero, who was one of the drivers handcuffed. "We all got cuffed until they figured out who did what."

Ben Barker watched the ordeal and told 7NEWS police were armed with shot guns and rifles.

 

[nukinfuts29]

I mean for crying out loud they must have had a description, so why gunpoint and handcuff a WOMAN?? I mean seriously talk about police panicking for lack of preperation.

 

[dutchs]

I mean for crying out loud they must have had a description, so why gunpoint and handcuff a WOMAN?? I mean seriously talk about police panicking for lack of preperation.

Yea!, Then they don't get the bad guy when they should and 4 people get shot!!! Who gets sued then! The whole system isn't perfect and if you want to BASH someone BASH the lawyers!! It isn't the cops! They don't want to do this stuff!! You think they wouldn't rather just find the bad guy arrest him and go home! Come on!

 

[nukinfuts29]

They have a description, probably of the vehicle as well as the men. I'm all for the barracade but you do not gun point every single person and put them in handcuffs. As you work your way down the line doing this you are more likely to be shot because you are distracted. Doing this all at once with lots of cops causes chaotic behavior, same problem.

This isn't Russia.

 

[jimmyalbrecht]

This is a tough one. Would this be considered an exigent circumstance? A armed robber is running from cops through the city. I think the cops were a bit ridiculous on this one handcuffing everyone at gunpoint, but then again the media could be sensationalizing this story. Under exigent circumstances, the police have the right to do this though.

 

[nukinfuts29]

This is a tough one. Would this be considered an exigent circumstance? A armed robber is running from cops through the city. I think the cops were a bit ridiculous on this one handcuffing everyone at gunpoint, but then again the media could be sensationalizing this story. Under exigent circumstances, the police have the right to do this though.

They got him, so an argument could be made the the ends justify the means. However, would you feel the same if they had done this and found no suspect?

 

[dutchs]

They got him, so an argument could be made the the ends justify the means. However, would you feel the same if they had done this and found no suspect?

And how would other families felt if they hadn't and a bunch of people got killed?

 

[nukinfuts29]

And how would other families felt if they hadn't and a bunch of people got killed?

The ends cannot be used to justify the means. The people in those cars have rights and the police need to operate in a manner that respects that. To me it is clear that the people in charge, or the officers, are not properly trained or experienced with this type of scenario. If they were they would have handled it differently, and even more efficiently.

You get one person in that crowd like me, or countless others out there, who are not going to immediately surrender their basic rights and now you have cops dealing with outside problems. They could have locked it down and done a vehicle by vehicle search (if needed, for example a trunk) without having to physically detain anyone in handcuffs.

Also we both know they had some idea who the suspect was, so why are they cuffing women?

 

[dutchs]

The ends cannot be used to justify the means. The people in those cars have rights and the police need to operate in a manner that respects that. To me it is clear that the people in charge, or the officers, are not properly trained or experienced with this type of scenario. If they were they would have handled it differently, and even more efficiently.

You get one person in that crowd like me, or countless others out there, who are not going to immediately surrender their basic rights and now you have cops dealing with outside problems. They could have locked it down and done a vehicle by vehicle search (if needed, for example a trunk) without having to physically detain anyone in handcuffs.

Also we both know they had some idea who the suspect was, so why are they cuffing women?

Like I said, They could have an unruly that could BLOW everything they are trying to do and how does anyone know they didn't have a call that there may be an accomplice

 

[nukinfuts29]

How would you have reacted as a driver in that mess? I'm all about following a lawful order but you can betcha they are going to explain to me why.

 

[BLCKWLF]

I'd be suing…

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.[1]

 

[nukinfuts29]

People have rights. That may not always be right or convenient, but they have rights.

 

[SeventiesWreckers]

I don't see the big deal. If the suspect (or suspects, 'cause you don't know if there is a driver & accomplices yet), were reported fleeing into a structure, you'd clear it room by room, & detain everyone you came across till it was empty. Then sort them out one by one. Pretty standard stuff. Just 'cause the reporters stick a mike in the face of a flustered civilian doesn't mean the officers were out of control at all. It looked like they were controlling things just fine & by the book.

And as far as not complying, I grew up with the L.A.P.D. Bad idea. If you want to keep your teeth in your head that is. But yeah, you could sue, it won't fix that smile you don't have anymore though. Growing up I got hooked up a lot, I just did as they ordered & didn't give them any lip, 'cause if you insisted on being a jerk, the'd recuff you in that special way that we all know & love.

And when they get it all sorted, your free to go back to running with the big dogs, until animal control wants another chat.

But hey, I'm a fossil, from another era, where getting cuffed was no big deal.

 

[nukinfuts29]

I don't see the big deal. If the suspect (or suspects, 'cause you don't know if there is a driver & accomplices yet), were reported fleeing into a structure, you'd clear it room by room, & detain everyone you came across till it was empty. Then sort them out one by one. Pretty standard stuff. Just 'cause the reporters stick a mike in the face of a flustered civilian doesn't mean the officers were out of control at all. It looked like they were controlling things just fine & by the book.

And as far as not complying, I grew up with the L.A.P.D. Bad idea. If you want to keep your teeth in your head that is. But yeah, you could sue, it won't fix that smile you don't have anymore though. Growing up I got hooked up a lot, I just did as they ordered & didn't give them any lip, 'cause if you insisted on being a jerk, the'd recuff you in that special way that we all know & love.

And when they get it all sorted, your free to go back to running with the big dogs, until animal control wants another chat.

But hey, I'm a fossil, from another era, where getting cuffed was no big deal.

In the room scenario I would agree with it. Firstly, they need to secure the scene. I have no objection to that, here or there. In this case they could have ordered people to remain in their cars. On the room scenario they are not cuffing everyone, they are directing them to a specific area. They typically also have guns, but are not holding everyone at gun point.

 

[BLCKWLF]

Being taken out of my vehicle or home fit safety because there is a threat nearby is understandable. But being held at gunpoint and cuffed... That is beyond justified... For this scenario...

 

[jimmyalbrecht]

The ends cannot be used to justify the means. The people in those cars have rights and the police need to operate in a manner that respects that. To me it is clear that the people in charge, or the officers, are not properly trained or experienced with this type of scenario. If they were they would have handled it differently, and even more efficiently.

You get one person in that crowd like me, or countless others out there, who are not going to immediately surrender their basic rights and now you have cops dealing with outside problems. They could have locked it down and done a vehicle by vehicle search (if needed, for example a trunk) without having to physically detain anyone in handcuffs.

Also we both know they had some idea who the suspect was, so why are they cuffing women?

No one is saying the ends justify the means. There are laws that allow for searches and seizures under exigent circumstances. Specifically with Law Enforcement, it has been a battle between individual rights and safety if the community as a whole. it's hard to pass laws that do both. A so to find a balance, we have exigent circumstances. When the law was passed, it was determined that sometimes individual rights must be given up to protect the entire populace. Because there would be done individuals who disagree and pitch a hissy fit for the officers doing their job of protecting them, they had to codify it in order to protect themselves from our overly-litigious society. I personally do not mind doing such. It is the same case with those douche bags who open carry looking for a confrontation. Yes, you have the right to not identify yourself if stopped by police if not suspected of a crime, but you could also be polite and choose to oblige so they can go about their day. They are not trying not do they have the ability to range your rights away, they are simply ensuring you are not a felon our a wanted criminal.

Also, in those situations if police were required to explain to everyone the entire situation, they would never accomplish their primary goal catching the bad guy!

 

[wrpNYFL]

They have a description, probably of the vehicle as well as the men. I'm all for the barracade but you do not gun point every single person and put them in handcuffs. As you work your way down the line doing this you are more likely to be shot because you are distracted. Doing this all at once with lots of cops causes chaotic behavior, same problem.

This isn't Russia.

Nukin, the whole problem was that they had NO DESCRIPTION. It was still a terrible idea, and actually endangered all who were cuffed. They would have been sitting ducks if the bad guys wanted to wreck havoc...

 

[buzznrose]

People have rights. That may not always be right or convenient, but they have rights.

+1000! This is sad! Nuk is trying to make a point about individual liberties and basic rights of free people and folks are qualifying the actions with what ifs! The Liberal Namny State and 9-11 with the actions taken since in the name of safety and security have made We the People accept way too many intrusions into our freedoms!

From fed, state, and local governments denying access to weapons and telling us when and where we can keep and bear arms (or not) to the "xray peep shows and junk checks" at airports, we're really getting oblivious to regulatory infringements on our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and liberties.

Worse part to me is the audience...a forum of 2d Amendment defenders...I don't get it.

 

[dutchs]

+1000! This is sad! Nuk is trying to make a point about individual liberties and basic rights of free people and folks are qualifying the actions with what ifs! The Liberal Namny State and 9-11 with the actions taken since in the name of safety and security have made We the People accept way too many intrusions into our freedoms!

From fed, state, and local governments denying access to weapons and telling us when and where we can keep and bear arms (or not) to the "xray peep shows and junk checks" at airports, we're really getting oblivious to regulatory infringements on our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and liberties.

Worse part to me is the audience...a forum of 2d Amendment defenders...I don't get it.

And you take the article at face value? I don't get it?

 

[buzznrose]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety". Benjamin Franklin