There are a few phrases in the English language that I assumed made everyone’s ears burn and turn red when they heard them. I don’t know who first told me to be wary of these simple words, but I do not doubt the warning. There is something very chilling in justifying criminality and tyranny with these short statements:
“The ends justify the means.” and “For the greater good.”
CBS reports that Chief Daniel Oates shamelessly declared “The ends justify the means” because a suspect was caught after the Aurora Police Department shut down an intersection in search of a bank robber. At the intersection, the police stopped 19 cars, and detained all 40 innocent people who had been riding in the vehicles, because the officers had some undisclosed technology providing information that promised “virtual certainty” that the bank robber was among the 40 innocent Americans being harassed. The cops had the suspect’s name but no picture, description, or any idea what car the robber would be in. This somehow permitted an ordinary crime, once again, to be the reason for the annulment of the fourth amendment, and therefore the disrespect and arrogant dismissal of the rule of law and justice. frederickleatherman.wordpress.com had this to say:
“A reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch. It requires articulable facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that a particular individual had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
Apparently, Officer Fania was looking for a particular weapon, which he believed was concealed in one of the vehicles at the intersection, but he did not have a description of the robber or the vehicle the robber was driving or in which he was riding. Therefore, every vehicle the police stopped was an unlawful stop, including the stop of the vehicle that contained the person they subsequently arrested.”
Oates is unsuccessfully trying to fool the public into believing that what occurred on June 4 was normal, even though it isn’t, and that it was in complete alignment with the law, even though it isn’t. He is either completely ignorant of basic law and therefore unqualified for his position, or a disingenuous criminal, and aid in the the destruction of the republic; in other words, a traitor.
Jump to video.
Chief Daniel Oates called the Aurora Police Department’s two hour unlawful detention of 40 innocent, handcuffed citizens an “investigative detention,” “lawful for a reasonable period of time.” According to Oates, “Reasonableness is determined by the facts and circumstances at issue, and the facts and circumstances were the suspect was in one of 19 cars.” This gives rise for concern because reasonableness is not the government’s forte these days.
This reminds me of a conversation I had once:
Me: “Mom, why do I have to go to bed?
Mom: “Because I’m your mother, what I say goes, and I said so.“
banker bank robber was described as “extraordinarily dangerous” with his “semi-automatic” weapons, which are actually two handguns. A semi-automatic handgun shoots one bullet with every pull of the trigger. A revolver is not a semi-automatic, but it does the same thing. By calling two pistols “semi-automatic weapons,” we see a blatant attempt on the part of CBS to make this ordinary situation seem more threatening than other bank robberies, and somehow more deserving of the suspension of our most basic rights as humans and Americans. But the high-integrity journalism from CBS doesn’t stop there.
CBS’s most recent report on June 5 about the revolting attack on liberty perpetrated by the Aurora Police Department varies from the story first reported on June 4, without any note why the story has changed so dramatically. CBS at denver.cbslocal.com is now reporting that 40 cars were stopped without reason, and only 20 people were forced to witness the assassination of the fourth amendment when they had their civil liberties violated, instead of the earlier reported 19 cars being stopped and searched (as if our roads were now airports), and 40 people being treated like criminals when they were detained in handcuffs for 2 hours, and asked for consent to search at gunpoint, “harmlessly” being conditioned to accept the destruction of the very law that makes us “free.”
CBS made sure to tell us twice in the first five sentences that it was 20 people who had had their guaranteed freedoms snatched away by the state, but never acknowledged their earlier report stating that 40 innocent people had been treated like animals by government-employed thugs. Why do these officers so willingly stomp, desecrate, and mock The Constitution and Bill of Rights, those glorious pieces of parchment containing the few constants we, as American citizens, are promised in life?
There is NOTHING lawful about handcuffing a group of people because they were living as innocent, free Americans when someone else decided to commit a crime in a public place. It was not lawful when the cops decided to spit on the Bill of Rights and use secretive technology that supposedly provided information to substantiate their claims that a criminal was among a group of 19 cars that were searched only with consent obtained in intimidating and coercive circumstances, as quoted at RT.com (although they are using the new reversed numbers for the vehicle and victim count so I am wary of them, but I saw these quotes some place else.)
“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers handcuffed, tells Denver’s ABC 9 News . “We all got cuffed until they figured out who did what.”
“We didn’t know if we were in the line of fire or what the hell was happening,” adds Ben Barker, who watched from the sidelines as cops equipped with shotguns and rifles rounded up drivers and passengers.
If this is how things were done, there would be no need for the fourth amendment and U.S.A. would never have been labeled a free country.
People cannot accept this appalling perversion of the law and violation of basic rights. It does not take a Constitutional scholar, or lawyer, to know who is right and who is wrong in the eyes of the law.
The fourth amendment, the law that incorporates the concept of due process, also known as the law of the land, or the rule of law, is what stands between the U.S.A. and the complete implementation a totalitarian oligarchy governed by martial law and puppet masters from above.
“This is absolutely unconstitutional. I am in constitutional law. Here’s just a few precedents.
Handcuffing someone generally requires probable cause to believe that they are guilty of a crime, or — in the context of a brief investigative stop — “particularized suspicion” to believe that the person is dangerous to the investigators. Manzanares v. Higdon
The mere fact that someone is present at the place where a criminal may be present can’t provide such probable cause. As the Court held in Ybarra v. Illinois”
My notes in green: from 4lawnotes.com, Ybarra v. Illinois
“There is no reason to suppose that, when the search warrant was issued, the authorities had probable cause to believe that any person found on the premises of the Aurora Tap Tavern, aside from Greg, would be violating the law.“
“As the Supreme Court has noted, it has never held a detention of 90 minutes or longer to be anything short of an arrest. United States v. Place”"
My notes in green: From Wikipedia, United states v. Place
“However, in this case, even though the DEA agents did not “search” Place’s luggage when they subjected it to the dog sniff, their seizure of the luggage was unreasonable because it exceeded the limits of a Terry-type investigative stop. The length of time the agents had possession of Place’s luggage was too great—90 minutes before the dog sniff had been conducted.”
90 minute detention constituted an arrest Walker v. City of Orem
45 minute detention constituted an arrest United States v. Edwards
30 and 45 minute detentions did not constitute arrests United States v. Shareef
The use of firearms, handcuffs, and other forceful techniques generally exceed the scope of an investigative detention and enter the realm of an arrest. United States v. Cortez