Mass Detention in search for bank robber

[churchmouse]

Does that make the rest of us reading, Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch?

I have got to read more....you guy's are killing me.......

 

[Ted]

I have got to read more....you guy's are killing me.......

Henta topsa layingpa ithwa ourselfya ndaa etga aa ookba.

 

[churchmouse]

Perfect.............

 

[CarmelHP]

No infringing at all. If I hire a person to wear a pink cap and blue diapers then that is what he wears. If, as a community, we hire a cop to do the job without a gun then that is how he does the job.

Police are not a "group". They are employees who dance to the tune of the employers the same way that virtually everyone else does.

The king's men answer to no one, didn't you know?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Thats a little harsh...

No, it's not. It is strict, but it is not harsh.
Not everyone in this world is a relativist.

 

[Jack Burton]

No it is not my best, but I restrain myself from responding to it, for the same unpleasant reason I care not to consume feces.

General rule is when you are in a hole -- stop digging. You're half way to China by now.

 

[Beau]

Here is a quote from a FB post with a retired Denver officer that I am discussing this with. He of course is siding with the Aurora PD. The first is one of my posts. The second is he response.

Me:

I agree that the caption is inflammatory but it is deserved. I would say the phrase "ready to blow the child's brains out is an accurate description. The 2nd rule of firearms is never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. Since two officers were pointing guns at this kid I would say they were ready to blow his brains out.

FACT, These officers, at gunpoint, removed men, women and children from their vehicles. FACT, They cuffed and questioned these individuals. FACT, They performed searches on the individuals cars.FACT, All of these actions are a violation of citizens rights and cuffing them constitutes false arrest.

Answer me this. If this guy was armed and presumed to be dangerous how is detaining a group of citizens, making them vulnerable to attack, in the same vicinity as said criminal safe?

I think these officers hearts were in the right place. Someone made a snap decision and no one stopped to question whether it was the right decision. Well it wasn't the right decision. This could have and should have been handled differently. Maybe the crook gets away, maybe he doesn't. But trampling citizens rights and putting them in danger by pointing guns at them and trapping them in an area with an armed and dangerous criminal is not acceptable. Saying that they got their guy and no one got hurt DOES NOT make this okay.
Figured I'd toss this one out there also. I know it's old and out dated. Probably not even relevant anymore.

Amendment IV

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

Him:

Beau, I agree and point well taken. Let me try writing the 3 paragraphs;

25 Aurora citizens unaware that an armed and dangerous bank robber had slipped into their area were swept up in a police “dragnet” as they sealed off the intersection that the suspect had stopped in. Officers swiftly, tactically, systematically and without deadly force successfully apprehended the suspect.

As officers rapidly closed in on the suspect some citizens stood frozen in fear and were ordered to the ground, several citizens attempted to discuss and argue the situation and were promptly cuffed and secured as officers moved past. The suspect was in view and placed himself between the officers and citizens placing children in the line of fire. Officers sorted out the crowd and eliminated possible accomplices and released everyone.

Officers had accurate, up to the minute, detailed information on the suspect and were able to bring the situation to a safe conclusion. (in an officers mind the decision is not how can we make everyone happy and feel good, but, how can we end the situation with everyone ALIVE)

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Here is a quote from a FB post with a retired Denver officer that I am discussing this with. He of course is siding with the Aurora PD. The first is one of my posts. The second is he response.

Me:


Him:

Notice how he changes a few of the publicly known facts around to make it sound warm and cozy?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Notice how he changes a few of the publicly known facts around to make it sound warm and cozy?

Liars have a way of doing that.

 

[CX1]

several citizens attempted to discuss and argue the situation and were promptly cuffed and secured as officers moved past.

Wonder how many of those folks had asked if they were being detained.
Nice to see you get cuffed for 'attempting to discuss'

Could be the previous labeling of all the folks as sheeple was misguided.

 

[griffin]

He didn't deny that what they did may have been/was against the law. Just that they were justified in breaking the law.

 

[Ted]

General rule is when you are in a hole -- stop digging. You're half way to China by now.

It would be nice if you would follow your own advice.

I feel sorry for you and your delusional state. Have you tried contacting your family physician for that ailment?

 

[Jack Burton]

It would be nice if you would follow your own advice.

I feel sorry for you and your delusional state. Have you tried contacting your family physician for that ailment?

Hate to subject my fellow INGOers to such drivel, but really, this is the best that ted can do. We had a member ask a serious question, it was answered in a serious way, and ted has been pissing in everyone's pot ever since then.

To get back to the subject... Is a demand that the police be disarmed, whether serious or tongue in cheek, the same as denying a "group" their 2A rights?

I state no. Individuals have no 2A "right" to be issued a firearm as part of their employment.

 

[Ted]

Hate to subject my fellow INGOers to such drivel, but really, this is the best that ted can do. We had a member ask a serious question, it was answered in a serious way, and ted has been pissing in everyone's pot ever since then.

To get back to the subject... Is a demand that the police be disarmed, whether serious or tongue in cheek, the same as denying a "group" their 2A rights?

I state no. Individuals have no 2A "right" to be issued a firearm as part of their employment.

Now you see, that is a legitimate question, and certainly different from what you stated before.

The guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, is both a guarantee to a group.......specifically the militia.......and that of the individual.

To remove an individual's right, because of the group occupation happens to LE, would be a huge slippery slope. Who would be next? Lawyers, Nurses, Physicists, Truck Drivers, TV Reporters, Secretaries, .......?

 

[Jack Burton]

Now you see, that is a legitimate question, and certainly different from what you stated before.

The guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, is both a guarantee to a group.......specifically the militia.......and that of the individual.

To remove an individual's right, because of the group occupation happens to LE, would be a huge slippery slope. Who would be next? Lawyers, Nurses, Physicists, Truck Drivers, TV Reporters, Secretaries, .......?

It's virtually identical to what I stated before. You just have a bug up your rump for some reason or another.

And you're confusing two quite different things. One is the individual right to keep and bear arms, which is not part of the discussion. The other is the "right" of an employee to be issued a firearm AS PART OF THE EMPLOYMENT.

Sorry for shouting, but I want to you clearly understand the discussion this time around.

And I was not aware that Lawyers, Nurses, Physicists, Truck Drivers, TV Reporters, Secretaries all had a "right" to demand that they be issued a firearm as part of their employment by a governmental agency. When you find that they do, then get back to us.

 

[gunsisgood]

And you're confusing two quite different things. One is the individual right to keep and bear arms, which is not part of the discussion. The other is the "right" of an employee to be issued a firearm AS PART OF THE EMPLOYMENT.

^^^^
THIS !

 

[Ted]

It's virtually identical to what I stated before. You just have a bug up your rump for some reason or another.

And you're confusing two quite different things. One is the individual right to keep and bear arms, which is not part of the discussion. The other is the "right" of an employee to be issued a firearm AS PART OF THE EMPLOYMENT.

Sorry for shouting, but I want to you clearly understand the discussion this time around.

And I was not aware that Lawyers, Nurses, Physicists, Truck Drivers, TV Reporters, Secretaries all had a "right" to demand that they be issued a firearm as part of their employment by a governmental agency. When you find that they do, then get back to us.

You stated earlier that LE is not a "group", and no group is entitled to such.

I would argue that it is an entire profession. A profession that I might add, that has frequent contact with individuals with nefarious intentions, who also have access to firearms and intent to use the same upon LE. Not to mention a profession with a job description that firearms possession and use are requisite.

The bump on your rump, is apparently the one you took for the team....if you are able to discern my meaning.

 

[churchmouse]

Play nice boy's..... Marquise of Queensbury.........

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

The bump on your rump, is apparently the one you took for the team....if you are able to discern my meaning.

Clouds forming.... Dark to the East...
Nuclear Moderator "Thread Play-Nice" attack initiated... in 3..2....1...

(Actually I include the above words, just to give my friends at DHS something to do with their spare time when they are not busy groping the general public...)

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's virtually identical to what I stated before. You just have a bug up your rump for some reason or another.

And you're confusing two quite different things. One is the individual right to keep and bear arms, which is not part of the discussion. The other is the "right" of an employee to be issued a firearm AS PART OF THE EMPLOYMENT.

Sorry for shouting, but I want to you clearly understand the discussion this time around.

And I was not aware that Lawyers, Nurses, Physicists, Truck Drivers, TV Reporters, Secretaries all had a "right" to demand that they be issued a firearm as part of their employment by a governmental agency. When you find that they do, then get back to us.

I understand what you are trying to say, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate. Yes, a private employer may restrict a persons behavior, but can a govt entity restrict a Constitutionally protected right due to their employment within the govt? Are not those employees still citizens capable of the militia qualification? The Constitution does not read, "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.... Unless you work for the govt, then we can make our our rules," it simply states "shall not be infringed."
One must keep in mind that the BoRs is a restriction on govt, not private parties.