If you don't see anything wrong with this:

Tony Shelton

BS Detector, Esquire
If you don't see anything wrong with this please relocate to one of the 100+ other countries where this is par for the course so that you don't cancel out the votes of the patriots of this country everytime we vote.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...lt-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/ (don't forget to read the comments, there is a lot of wisdom in there)

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.
“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.
Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.
“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver.
From there, the police went from car to car, removing the passengers and handcuffing the adults.
“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.”
The search lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect.
“Once officers got to his car, they found evidence that he was who they were looking for,” Fania said. “When they searched the car, they found two loaded firearms.”
The actions of the police have been met with some criticism, but Fania said this was a unique situation that required an unusual response.
“It’s hard to say what normal is in a situation like this when you haven’t dealt with a situation like this,” Fania said. “The result of the whole ordeal is that it paid off. We have arrested and charged a suspect.”
The other people who had been held at the intersection were allowed to leave once the suspect was apprehended.
 
Just out of curiosity, what alternative would you propose? What if it was someone that had murdered Chris? Would you want them to let the suspect go so that they would not inconvenience anyone? Let's take it a step further. What if you were stuck in traffic because there was an accident, but there was room for one car to move around at a time. The Highway patrol or PD shuts down the highway, and leaves you stranded, would you have problem with that?
You need to remember that traveling on any street via automobile is not a right. That is why every state requires a drivers license. The police did ask permission to search the cars. The permission was given. I do have to agree that handcuffing people was unnecessary. Just someone watching the people as their cars were being searched would and should have been accurate.
 
Just out of curiosity, what alternative would you propose? What if it was someone that had murdered Chris? Would you want them to let the suspect go so that they would not inconvenience anyone? Let's take it a step further. What if you were stuck in traffic because there was an accident, but there was room for one car to move around at a time. The Highway patrol or PD shuts down the highway, and leaves you stranded, would you have problem with that?
You need to remember that traveling on any street via automobile is not a right. That is why every state requires a drivers license. The police did ask permission to search the cars. The permission was given. I do have to agree that handcuffing people was unnecessary. Just someone watching the people as their cars were being searched would and should have been accurate.

Scott, I am in complete shock.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with convenience.

This is about our right to move about without the fear of being stopped at any given time and having our persons and belongings searched.

Many good men died for that right. Many businessmen like yourself gave up all their fortunes and died in poverty for that right.

If someone murdered Chris and was in that group I would expect the police to do their job and track down the murderer within the confines of the law. The slaughter of our rights as citizens of the United States is worth more than the life of one man. As I stated above, MANY men GAVE their lives for that right.

And Scott, you need to read up on your history brother. You've been brainwashed. Travelling on a street IS a right. Let me repeat that - Travelling on a street IS a right. It doesn't matter how you travel. The constitution does not differentiate between modes of travel.

The brainwashing has occurred via the oldest method in the book - "repeat a lie often enough and soon it will become fact".

Initially, in the early 1900's, we were eased into the stripping of our rights by accepting the fact that commercial vehicle operators needed to have a driver's license (to be taxed) because they were operating (making money) off public streets.

This proved to be such a big money maker for the states they eventually moved to expand it to all drivers. This was a money making endeavor and faced great opposition at first.

Later, it became more acceptable when it's added purpose, of tracking individual's movements and making the job of policing the public easier, was presented to the public as a "safety" issue.

I know your thought process on this Scott. I know you don't care because you "have nothing to hide". But what will you feel like when they take your wife and strip her on the street while looking for something someone stolen? What? You think that would never happen. It happens in countries all over the world today. And it's starting to happen in ours.

While you watch this video picture your wife's face. It's time to wake up Scott. Millions of voters like yourself condone this everytime you vote.

How about this one Scott? If you have nothing to hide I guess it's ok for the cops to strip you and take pictures while checking for tattoos. Is this the country our forefathers fought for?

http://tigerlilsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-it-illegal-to-be-biker.html

Or maybe your kids would like to see their Dad strip searched at a traffic stop with a cop shaking your nuts

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/04/BAKJ1KJK38.DTL

I could go on for hours with these and will if you wish.

But I'd much rather have you take a look at this from standpoint of a free man in America and renounce your misunderstanding of what being a free citizen means and join me in my condemnation of this deterioration of our country.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither - Benjamin Franklin.

 
I too donot have a problem with the first story. The second story is really messed up and the arresting officer and the county sherrif should be held responsible for their wrongful actions. To me that is bad judgement and basically those cops being idiots. Now we dont know if the lady was intoxicated and maybe was causing problems but that still does not justify the ripping off of the clothes.
 
When you guys tell your toddlers not to step out into the street do you just let it go if they only go a "little ways" into the street? Maybe they dropped their ball and it was "necessary" in their eyes to go into the street.

How about if they run all the way across the street, then come back and apologize? That's ok right?

There's a line you don't cross no matter what the circumstances.

The constitution of the United States tells us where that line is. That line is not there to protect the government. It is there to protect US FROM the government.

Now, for a change of pace.

Scott, I'll ask you. I know you had a problem employee a while back. What if he dropped a bag of cocaine behind the back seat of your big red truck last time he spoke with you or the last time he rode in the truck. Maybe it was an accident, maybe he did it on purpose to get you back in case you fired him.

Now you are one of those 18 pulled over, handcuffed and searched.

Your life as you know it would be over in the blink of an eye. You would be just another one of those "felons" that you make fun of when you see them on COPS swearing they don't know where the drugs came from.

All because of what? You did nothing wrong. You were simply going down the street. There was no reason to suspect you specifically for a crime, yet now you would have a record and a possible prison sentence. Think it can't happen? Let me know if you'd like me to link stories where the truth came out and the "felon" was innocent or set up by another.

There is a reason there is such a thing as warrants. Warrants mean that someone besides a cop with an agenda thinks you might be guilty of something.

And you can bet that if I was one of those 18 I would have NEVER consented to a search of my vehicle.

Again - here' s a more accurate word for word quote:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
 
So, you are saying that my 93 year old neighbor, who drives her Mercedes really slow, because she knows her reflexes are not as good as they used to be, that can't see beyond the end of the hood of her car, has a right to drive that car? I think not. I do think she has a right to go from place to place, but I don't think that right extends to driving a car, because there are other means of conveyance available to her.
Back to the question. With the first post, and the second post, you are absolutely comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference in a cop stopping a group at an intersection, and saying I would like to inspect your car for evidence of a bank robbery, and strip searching someone in their home, and at jail. It is just my opinion, and honestly, I am surprised that more people did not refuse the search, and would bet that some did, but they did not make the story. Like I previously stated, it was absolutely wrong for them to be handcuffed, without probable cause. That is tantamount to false imprisonment, and they (the officers) should be prosecuted for that. I have little doubt a lawsuit, for that group of people will be coming out soon.
 
I can't even believe some of these replys !!! These cops are stone cold criminals, if that was my wife they did that too I would be in jail for murdering those lowlife scumbags.It's getting worse everyday nothing surprises me anymore. I wish a slow painfull death on everyone involved in that poor womans humiliation...Die Scumbags !! We have truley given up all our rights in this country thanks to the Patriot Act and other laws they have passed to do as they please with no accountability.

NY mayor Bloomberg the biggest Douche Bag, is now trying to tell us that we are not allowed to drink a large Big Gulp? If I didn't here this for myself I would have thought it was a joke. We are doomed as a society if we let this continue, but hey we always have Reality shows to keep us up to date on whats really important.
 
So, you are saying that my 93 year old neighbor, who drives her Mercedes really slow, because she knows her reflexes are not as good as they used to be, that can't see beyond the end of the hood of her car, has a right to drive that car? I think not. I do think she has a right to go from place to place, but I don't think that right extends to driving a car, because there are other means of conveyance available to her.
Back to the question. With the first post, and the second post, you are absolutely comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference in a cop stopping a group at an intersection, and saying I would like to inspect your car for evidence of a bank robbery, and strip searching someone in their home, and at jail. It is just my opinion, and honestly, I am surprised that more people did not refuse the search, and would bet that some did, but they did not make the story. Like I previously stated, it was absolutely wrong for them to be handcuffed, without probable cause. That is tantamount to false imprisonment, and they (the officers) should be prosecuted for that. I have little doubt a lawsuit, for that group of people will be coming out soon.

See, this is the problem Scott, you want the law fix every problem and it can't. It never will. In the end you are just chasing your tail looking for security that you will never have no matter how many laws are passed.

Ok, what about epileptics?

Or Diabetics?

Or what if your doctor has to report to the police department that your cholesterol is too high and you are a heart attack risk and therefore unsuitable to drive due to the "possibility" of an accident?

I had a stroke. I'm still a stroke risk but I drove 9000 miles across the country last year. Should I have been stopped before I killed somebody?

You think that's far-fetched? Veterans are now being asked leading questions starting with "do you feel stressed" at doctors visits along with other questions and are losing their right to carry a firearm if they answer YES to ANY ONE of the questions!! I was asked this very same set of questions at an appointment 2 months ago!!!!!!!!!

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/veteransgunrightsWayne/2010/09/10/id/369798

There are certain risks we take by walking and breathing the air of this earth. We can't eliminate all those risks.

Some children have died with plastic bags over their heads. Let's ban all plastic bags.
Some husbands have killed their wives. Let's ban marriage.

See how ridiculous it becomes.

I can't understand why it is so hard to see that this country was founded by men and women who cherished the sanctity of their own homes and persons. They felt any encroachment on either was akin to rape and so they put assurances in the constitution that the federal government will never have the right to rape us the way those 18 people who were stopped and searched were raped just to find one guilty party.

This is insanity.
 
I dont really think those 18 people were raped. They were put in hand cuffs for the officers protection. Also they all had the right to refuse the search. Then they would need a warrant to be able to search anything not in plain sight. As for the second story that town would be losing some officers and alot of money due to a major law suit.All in all if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. Not every cop is an asshole douche bag.
 
How far do you think scenario "a" with the burglary suspect search is from scenario "b" with the screaming lady strip searched.

They are the same. They are both crimes against the citizenry that have no basis in law. Whether one seems more palatable than the other really makes no difference.
 
HuffPost Social Reading
Milwaukee Police Accused Of Illegal Cavity Searches
By Simon McCormack
Posted: 05/30/2012 2:05 pm Updated: 05/30/2012 8:41 pm

GET CRIME ALERTS:
SIGN UP
REACT: Amazing
Inspiring
Funny
Scary
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird
FOLLOW: Video, Michael Vagnini, Michael Vagnini Police, Milwaukee Police Cavity Search, Strip Search, Body Cavity Searches, Cavity Search Investigation, Cavity Searches, Illegal Cavity Search, Illegal Strip Search, Milwaukee Police, Milwaukee Police Strip Search, Strip Searches, Crime News

Seven Milwaukee police officers and one supervisor have had their guns and badges taken away amid allegations that they conducted illegal cavity searches.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel obtained a police report that shows Officer Michael Vagnini was known for conducting these invasive searches without the authority to do so, according to one alleged victim's lawyer. Under state law, cavity searches must be performed by a doctor, physician assistant or registered nurse, not a police officer.

"According to the report, Officer Vagnini had a reputation for doing this," defense attorney Alex Cossi told the paper. "This was not a rogue happenstance. This was a tacit acceptance of strip searches without proper procedures or supervision."

The case against Cossi's client was dismissed because the evidence was found improperly. The investigations into the officers' behavior could still result in criminal charges, however, since improper searches can constitute sexual assault, the paper reported.

In March, one victim told WTMJ about his alleged assault.

"When they searched me they eased their hands right between my butt," he said. "I tried to reach back and soon as I tried to reach back to stop them they slammed me on the ground."

A spokesperson for the Milwaukee Police Department declined to comment on the allegations when contacted by The Huffington Post, noting that they are still under investigation.

Mike Crivello with the Milwaukee Police Association told Fox 6 Now that the public shouldn't condemn the city's entire police department.

"We don't want the community to rush to judgment on something that may not exist,” Crivello said.

A Journal Sentinel editorial urged Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn to swiftly punish officers who conduct illegal searches.

"It's time to crack down on officers who cross the line and make sure they know that illegal searches will result in quick termination," the editorial board wrote.

Chris Ahmutym, executive director of the ACLU Wisconsin, told HuffPost it's possible these allegations could hurt the police department's credibility.

"Certainly, among some people in the community, this is undermining confidence in police and police-community relations," Ahmutym said.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:
 
I have a huge problem with detainment of citizens. Be it cuffing people like in the bank robbery story or at a DUI checkpoint or random traffic stop. If I live a clean life I should be able to go through it with zero police interaction. No probable cause, no detention.
 
Back
Top