I don't have enough information to put that in its true context. It's possible that was inappropriate, and so is the reverse.
I do note the chief's claim from the article that none of those detained were among those who complained. If true, that should count for something.
What I've maintained from the beginning is that we simply have insufficient information to know what should have been done. I'm concerned at the overwrought antagonism rampant on FR toward law enforcement, which was in full evidence on this thread. They don't know, either.
The biblical stance is best depicted in Romans 13, which I cited previously. That calls for a basic respect for civil authority unless and until it acts in an ungodly manner. I maintain that, absent a fuller understanding of the facts, that still holds. Your judgment that my stance is unbiblical is, therefore, out of line.
A police officer is not a “ruler” nor is he a person in authority in the same way that the ancient kings and emperors were in Paul’s day.
A police officer does not have absolute authority over your life and death, the same way Caesar did in the Roman Empire.
If Caesar ordered you “give me your wife, for she is beautiful and I desire her.” You could refuse Caesar’s demand, but his servants and/or soldiers would put you to death at his command.
If a police officer stops your car and says to you “let me have your wife, for she is beautiful” you can refuse that demand. Indeed, you have a chance of winning in the courts when you produce evidence that the officer propositioned your wife.
Police officers are not first century rulers with absolute power. To equate them with the authorities and rulers with whom Paul had in mind is dishonest to the text.
By the way, what do you suppose would have happened if one of the vehicle’s occupants had said “This is ridiculous, if there is an armed robber among us, you’re putting us all in range of his weapon by holding us all here. You’re forcing us to be fish in a barrel for your convenience. There are women and children here who are not the man you are looking for; why are the women handcuffed? Why are the women and children detained?”
I’ll give you a hint: “Shut up and keep quiet”.
Those people who were held were not merely violated in terms of their Fourth Amendment rights, but their very lives were treated as nothing. If they were killed while the real suspect took them out one by one, not caring for their lives any more than the police, the police would still be defending their behavior: in the words of the Police Chief “the end justifies the means”.
Treating the life of a fellow man as though it is worthless and not precious is absolutely opposed to God’s desire for how we should treat our fellow man.
Denouncing men for wicked deeds when they act wickedly and do not repent is biblical. Defending them in their wickedness because they work for The State is not. Saying you need to hear The State’s side of the story before you can judge whether or not Private Citizens were will-treated is not biblical.
But I think we both know you don’t really need to wait. The Police chief already gave you his side of the story “the end justifies the means”.
That’s not biblical. That is not the response or explanation of one who fears God. That is a sinful defense given when one knows that one has wronged or sinned against one’s fellow man. That is the justification of tyrants and their servants.
“I do note the chief’s claim from the article that none of those detained were among those who complained. If true, that should count for something.”
And if a robber said “None of the people whom I robbed ever complained to me afterward” would you say that counted for something?
How about if a gang member said “none of the people on my turf have ever complained about me and the boys protecting our turf?”
Why would a frightened person not complain about being wronged or sinned against—because he or she fears being retaliated against by the person (or persons) who wronged (or sinned against) him or her.