Posted on 06/03/2012 3:23:17 AM PDT by AmonAmarth
AURORA, Colo. – Police have a “person of interest” in custody in connection with the robbery of the Wells Fargo back at 15301 E. Hampden Avenue Saturday afternoon.
Immediately following the robbery, police closed the intersection of Iliff and Buckley after reports the suspect might have taken hostages.
According to our crew on the scene, police stopped and searched nearly two dozen cars. The adult occupants of the vehicles were handcuffed during the investigation.
Careful, officer, that type of statement has been the cause of dismissal for more than an few LEOs.
I know you do not speak for the majority of LEOs; either you are a newby or you are a thug and have been burned by a citizen who wouldn’t roll over just for you....
Most FReepers hold all God-given rights of man dearly and would not let it go easily.
Why again are you here? News?
On a roll,huh?
Dogs of the pitbull type (pitbull is a type, not a breed, as spitz is a type, not a breed) are not the only ones which cops execute.
There is a definite War On Dogs (it’s even a Free Republic keyword, though it has not been used much of late. You will find the articles “tagged” Warondogs and/or Donutwatch of relevance.
Educate yourself.
Who said the suspect took hostages?
In fact, it turns out there were no hostages.
Where did they locate the person of interest?
According the the article, it never said this person/suspect was in one of the vehicles during this mass detainment and search of innocents.
Was this more more police hysteria based unsubstantiated bad information? If they were so concerned with hostages, why were single occupants of vehicles being searched and held?
You're a cop?
Why do you think there is increasing widespread distrust for cops and other agents of the government?
There's a reason that people are quickly losing their patience with "law enforcement," it's that they have corporately become a sort of legal-mob, an organization founded on "heads I win, tails you lose," an association which while charged with upholding the law often ignores it.
Let me start off with a couple of very simple, concrete, black and white examples.
New Mexico Constitution, Art 1, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]Yet every state and municipal courthouse I've seen in NM has "No Weapons - Violators Will Be Prosecuted" posted. This begs the question, prosecuted under what law, given that No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense. Moreover, municipalities are prohibited from regulat[ing], in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
What happens when I ask a LEO about this conflict?
"Well, we prohibit firearms from universities."
Ah, so no law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense really means we can prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms on university, and other school property... oh, and minors (and those in the first year of majority), because they aren't real citizens.
And I love how one infraction justifies the other(s).
And my new state, South Dakota, is similar:
SD Constitution, Art 6, § 24. Right to bear arms.Yet South Dakota has an entire chapter dedicated to making various keeping and bearing of arms illegal... oddly enough, that chapter violates the State Constitution at least five ways by my count.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.
Oh, and I especially love how "in order to challenge the law in court, you have to have 'standing'"... which you gain by breaking the statute (and getting caught) and then after this implicit acknowledgment of the Statute's authority present your defense; because it comes from a position of weakness, that of the accused, it only comes off as the "nun-uh, you missed!" shouted by some kid who id himself applying selective rules.
But, before you start thinking "Oh, this is some deranged 2ND Amendment nut," let me say that it's not about the right to keep and bear arms, in and of itself: it's about the Constitutions being routinely ignored.
Where were the LEOs when the IN Supreme Court committed [federal] felonies in one of their rulings?
Nowhere. I think because that if any of you were aware of them they were a-ok because the decision gave the police more power and latitude. (Indeed, claiming that there could be no resistance to illegal police entry/occupation essentially removes private property rights; a police officer could renig on rent and force his way into the apartment and stay there until the court mandated that he leave... or perhaps stay with the people he's trying to catch red-handed until something happens to make some arrest "legit.")
What about Fast and Furious? How have you guys been working to bring those involved in that [de facto] conspiracy to justice? And don't tell me it's only federal crimes.
AZ Constitution*, Art 2, Section 28.
Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against the state, or adhering to its enemies, or in giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court.
Given that the cartels which were being supplied with material aid, and with official sanction (legal comfort), and these have been admitted in the congressional hearings... THERE EXISTS PROBABLE CAUSE TO PROSECUTE.
Yet there is nothing from state-level LEOs? Why? (Nothing from fed-level either! Why?)
Is it above your pay-grade?
That is why I have so little respect for Law Enforcement; because it's not about enforcing laws, it's about selectively enforcing laws. (And the "respect my authority!" attitude you guys pull doesn't help at all.)
* -- NM and TX have similar sections.
Ladies and Gentlemen, if you are tired of the excesses of today’s law enforcement, the disregard for the Constitution, and the very rational fear that the police are becoming militarized, please consider this.
This has all come about because of the government’s zeal to prosecute the drug war at the behest of it’s law-abiding citizens.
The drug war has been going full swing since 1972 and has been responsible for more challenges to the 4th, 5th, and 2nd amendment than any other source. Police are CONSTANTLY looking for narcotics, gangmembers, and guns. It’s the mantra of every police department because it provides statistics that they can provide city councils to justify their actions and their need for more toys, overtime, etc.
At some point, you are going to have to make a choice. Allow the drug war to continue, with the continued assault on liberties, and the further militarization of the police, or demand an end of the drug war and the restoration of the Constitution. It is far better to provide all the free narcotics a user can do, than continue with the nightly body count and the expansion of out of control government enforcement.
FWIW, I do not call citizens, “civilians”, have been a drug warrior, am convinced that the fed has nefarious plans for all police officers, and the license I have on the wall still says Peace Officer.
Indeed; that's also the reason that I can't get upset if Obama wins again: we deserve him and his administration.
When we allow the states to pass and enforce statutes contrary to their state constitution, and the federal likewise, and allow the judiciary to reject cries for justice (because of "standing"), when we allow the Judiciary to rewrite their binding Constitutions (Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana or Roe v. Wade), and allow the executive branch to commit acts of war w/o properly obtaining Congress's approval [declaration of war] then what other sort of government can we have?
Given that the NDAA declares the entire US a war-zone (IIRC) I think they may be more prepared for it than you or I would believe.
Also note that some have commented on the docility of the citizenry in the video, that itself does not bode well. (And we're behind the game; we need to set up logistics and comm lines, institute planning & training, and otherwise prepare for war now in order to be ready in, say, 5 years time.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.