Colorado Bank Robbery
Suspect captured after multiple cars/people detained and handcuffed in intersection:
Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - ABC News
Can any CO LEOs provide some more details? Evidently fact, logic and court precedence doesn't hold a lot of water here:
Police stop 19 cars and cuff all adults while looking for bank robber @ TigerDroppings.com
I'd be willing to bet that I know why they did that if it happened. I can't elaborate on the public side though. LEO's: Think about it, you'll figure it out.
[nods and approves]
Originally Posted by Cidp24
Keeping in mind that this is open for the universe to read, I have a question.
I read the ranting threads on a couple sites, including the one linked above - it was the more civil read. Obviously giving away tactical advantage for PR is a bad trade, but does anyone see an opportunity to engage with the public and explain how what was done was the best choice? Seems like a perfect case for that: there's public outrage, but the actual incident resulted in one bad guy locked up without physical harm or property loss by anyone. Nodding while Hollywood speaks for you doesn't get the best message out there.
There are questions I have about what exactly happened, some fairly trivial. Maybe they'll be answered later, if not I'm not broken up over it. It's a curious instance, not that the sky-is-falling crowd took time to notice.
If it's what I'm thinking -- some cops aren't necessarily going to know.
Originally Posted by Cidp24
Absent any evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that they had significant, reliable information that gave a strong reason to know that the suspect was in a fairly particular area. Stopping and detaining all drivers at one intersection is a fairly significant act, and I don't think it would be done without some very credible information.
Im not privileged to any significant training or insight.
I do think we put too much significance to the end justified the means(civil rights violations times 19. Ive been told the courts may uphold the decision to detain and cuff 20 people on a hunch. I think there should be 19 law suits filed in the name of the 4th, 5th. How can we allow 20 people to be detained, cuffed and questioned? To serve protect and check just because?
I guess I have a better chance of Eric Holder telling the truth then seeing what the hunch was that justified the situation.
Tapatalk does not require a sobriety test to post.
Ask Pudge about it sometime. I'm betting you would agree with if given all the variables. Hint: more than a "hunch" to cuff.
Cornfed, I get where you're coming from. I've never felt the bite of cuffs and don't expect to - otherwise would be a shock, and an injustice! My initial response was meant for the retired cop who might write up the scene for a book. (Not like book readers are dumber than the general public and need more explanation) If I may suggest framework notes for an uninformed author:
Let's back up on this scene a bit. There's a credible tip the suspect in an armed robbery was at this intersection. The description of the subject and vehicle are not well described in the media, even in later reports. What the responding officers had is a grid of cars, one of which the armed bank robber was sitting in - from the tip.
Let's back up some more. Was there a high speed pursuit to catch this bank robber? No, luckily he was caught in a grid of civilian vehicles. The PD locked that grid and kept the motoring public out of it. He could not escape. This is huge unsung win in this encounter.
Now that this grid is locked in, the people within it are being processed. They're taken out one by one, under guard. This is troubling to the innocent civilian, as it should be. The armed bank robber waiting his turn is given nothing but processing boredom to watch.
Know what's better than 19 people waving their hands while talking on their cell phones when someone desperate enough to rob a bank springs out of his car? 19 people sitting on the curb, not looking like targets as the PD approaches his vehicle. The Aurora PD processed the other motorists into non-threats before his eyes. Blame the bank robber, not the PD, for creating the dangerous scene. The Aurora PD minimized the public risk by reducing their input to the scene. Cuffed they couldn't call their relatives to draw them into the kill zone if shooting broke out. Couldn't call the television station to bring in a copter to sit over the scene. The long delay let the robber burn through his adrenaline - probably he was about ready for a nap when he was nabbed.
Also, if one had been a lookout driver or, and this is entirely too plausible in 2012, an ambush lookout - they've been removed from the play, or made obvious by locking down the scene. There are many scenarios I can't imagine that could have been in play here. Sadly there have been many ambushes on LE in the past few years.
This PD took a very unique situation, processed how to handle it in seconds and came out with success that has some lingering questions. I'm very glad that's the worst harm that came to anyone, I still have my curiosities, but if I were to write it up that's about how it'd go. Those are the variables this lame writer saw in the scene.
I hear the civil rights concerns but they can be allayed. Consider this article: GPS follows the money -- and bank robbery suspect. If you had concrete information, whether something like this, or simply a good witness who for some reason couldn't give much of a vehicle description. Their location is particularized to less than a block, and you can use the natural effect of the traffic light to effect control, then search for the suspect, in an armed robbery.
Yes, there's some intrusion on the movement and freedom of the innocents in the area -- but, as Odd has pointed out, there were lots of general safety concerns to deal with, too. You may wish to read about the Carroll Doctrine, as well.
Carroll doctrine "Deputy Smith is faced with a number of bad choices. If the deputy releases Jones, so he can go get a warrant, Jones will be back across the border in 5 minutes. If the deputy secures Jones in the back of his car while he drives 10 miles down the road where he can get radio contact he has extended a seizure of a person without an arrest. The least constitutionally intrusive practical act is a search of the vehicle on the scene."
My argument is these people were detained with out suspicion. I also think if the robber went into a stadium we should not detain and cuff everybody in the stadium. I've heard the argument that that would be legal but I see the 4th being trampled with just grabbing every one in a given area and depriving them of life and liberty while things get "sorted out".
Great input and discussion
Tapatalk does not require a sobriety test to post.
Again, a fairly limited number of cars and people, in a well defined area, were detained based on some sort of fairly concrete information that the investigating agency felt was sufficient. I'd suspect that the action was taken in consultation with the prosecutor's off. But you have a few things going on that move beyond mere suspicion. First, they had something that particularized it to that area. Maybe it was a snitch, maybe it was GPS, maybe it was just a witness -- but it was clearly something that was fairly particularized. Second, there was exigency. Armed robber, as well as probably somewhat perishable information.
It was a novel solution, probably tied to a lot of fairly unique circumstances. I give the agency a lot of credit for resolving what could have been an extremely dangerous situation without getting anyone hurt.
And remember, the media is not going to be privy to information used to detain those people.
Originally Posted by Cornfed1100