Aurora Colorado mass stop

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patriot86,

While I am not thrilled with this situation, there comes a time when there is a choice to be made. Frankly I am not thrilled with any bank robbery to be honest. I would prefer there had been less people involved but given that there is a bank robbery and the history of violence with some bank robberies, one should ask who is more important than who. Meaning, if there was a shootout, was the people there and detained at this intersection more important, or are others down the road if there was a chase that may have been involved in a shootout more important, or who? Just who is more important... Kind of a difficult question. Thankfully this bank robber did not fire on others.

Now that we KNOW it was a GPS tracking device who is the mo mo who decided to confront an armed suspect with 20 other cars around? Why not wait a mile..two miles..5 miles until they could not only narrow down the suspect car but also stop it in an area that is less populated. What would have happened if the bank robber came out guns a blazing with an AK-47 and killed some of those motorists? The more I learn the more I have to question some of the basic tactical leadership of the LEO's in command in this case.

I understand there is a concern about a hostage but what is perhaps 1 or 2 hostages weighed against 20 some odd motorists? Last time I checked 2 is way less than 20...This whole stop just seems reckless to me.
Click to expand...

From the videos of chases I have seen there are almost always way more then 20 innocent people involved that just happen to be on the same road, area, etc. I could ask the same question of "who is the mo mo that decided to let the person through and let a chase begin instead of keeping him trapped at the intersection? Or who let this mo mo through and let him shoot others or shoot at others in a chase?"

Dealing with a person robbing a bank, who, according to the early news source I posted earlier may have hostage(s), there is no great solution that doesnt place people in danger. I also dont think this robber in aurora said "give me your money or I will tell you a bad joke." There was a threat made, and with the history of bank robberies there was a threat of violence.

Say, if the officers let this guy proceed through the intersection and a chase started like the one in Rock Hill S.C. by an officer on his way to work who was flagged down and told of a bank robbery, would those at the intersection have their lives valued more then the lives of those in/around a chase? This is the video I am referencing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1618325116174896808#

After whatching this video that happened about 1 hour and 45 min away from me, can you honestly say that the people around this bank robber at the intersection in Aurora, that their lives where worth more then those around a possible chase like this rolling shootout/chase? Luckily in this video, no one else was hurt but the robber. I lost track of the cars, and possible people involved. Just which lives are more important? Thats never an easy answer. Just as its never easy to answer will this robber give up, or will there be a shoot out?

Either way, if they caught the guy at the intersection as they did, or if they let the guy through and a chase started, or in between. Lives are at risk in some way. There really isnt a way to avoid putting lives at risk. Its a gamble either way. I for one am glad it turned out safely for all.

As I said earlier, its up to the courts to decide just how many vehicles, and how large of an area, if at all can be be detained, or what settlement and how large it will be. I am not someone who is willing to give up rights either, but there again, I dont want someone to say their loved one died because LE let the badguys slip away and they tried again later with deadly results.

Edit to add...

MLeake,

I just realized I didnt answer your question earlier.
it seems to me that many (if not most) departments encourage officers to find more suitable places to stop suspects, if given the option, than crowded public arenas.
Click to expand...

Yes, most agencies encourage officers to find a suitable place to stop that involves the least risk to innocent people. With not only the public outcry, but also the risk involved in a chase, it has become preferable to try to wait until a vehicle that a suspect is in becomes tied up in traffic, if it is at all possible when there is the risk of a chase. Whether it is at an intersection such as this, or in another way. A simple traffic stop is one thing. But trying to corner a person such as a bank robber in this case, lately the choice is to try to reduce the possibility of a chase if possible. Having a limited number of folks that can be hopefully removed or evacuated has become preferable to having a fleeing person risking many people over many miles during a chase that may not be able to be removed/evacuated. There is no easy answer. There is always a level of risk involved. Honestly, there are many folks more intelligent then myself trying to find a solution to this very issue.

Have a great night all!
 
Last edited:
Fishing Cabin,

First, please realize I'm not trying to harass you. Frankly, you have always been reasonable, and are being reasonable now, so you're simply a good person to play devil's advocate with.

But here's my take on the chase vs intercept in a bottleneck scenario:

Most chases don't involve bank robbers. Going for the intercept at lower overall rates of speed has a safety advantage, and when the likeliest threat posed by the chased is ramming or hitting something with the car, then taking advantage of the bottleneck and low speed impacts might make sense.

When the chased has to be assumed to be armed (for instance, a bank robber and possible kidnapper), and likely to employ violence, particularly firearm violence, an open area seems very preferable to a crowded one.
 
one should ask who is more important than who. Meaning, if there was a shootout, was the people there and detained at this intersection more important, or are others down the road if there was a chase that may have been involved in a shootout more important, or who? Just who is more important... Kind of a difficult question.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry...

"More Important"?

What does that even mean?

I agree with MLeake...Allowing the perp to proceed to an area where the GPS could differentiate between his vehicle and others, would have been the correct course of action...
 
While I may have forced the "POLICE BRUTALITY CARD" or worse an OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING... I would have refused to play their little silly childish REPEAL OF THE BoR... With force if needed, I would refuse to be a victim of un provoked restraint by LEO or anyone else!!!

After I fully provoke them, they will have all the reason they need to detain me!

DON'T TREAD ON ME.... Mean anything to anyone but me?

I know I am preaching to a well practiced choir...

Brent
 
While I may have forced the "POLICE BRUTALITY CARD" or worse an OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING... I would have refused to play their little silly childish REPEAL OF THE BoR.
Click to expand...
Let's slow down, folks. Yes, there are constitutional violations here, but the incompetent actions of one department do not amount to a repeal of the 4th Amendment.

Yeah, I'd have been on the phone to my attorney the minute the cuffs were off, but nothing I see here would have been solved or made better by use of force.

Let's do keep this discussion civilized if we want to keep it open.
 
Salmoneye,

I did not mean to offend you or anyone else. By saying "just whose life is more important?" what I tried to get across was that there was a very real risk for an innocent person to be injured, it doesnt matter how those officers decided to proceed. Many here have said the officers involved should have tried to stop the individual at a later time in another location. A valid point to consider indeed, but I am sure that if the officers had decided to, they would still possibly be accused of risking lives. If it had become a chase at some point, the folks that are anti-chase will be upset, asking why couldnt the officers catch the person without a chase and risking lives. As I see it, its honestly a no win situation because lives will still be at risk no matter what option is decided upon.

MLeake,

Hearing the complaints of chases, the huge risk involved in a chase is exactly why many agencies have come up with a no-chase policy, or a heavily restricted policy on a chase, not to mention the large settlements from those injured/killed in a chase. I wish I had an easy answer but I really dont.

Also MLeake, I enjoy you playing devils advocate, as it keeps me on my toes at times.
 
Was not offended, I simply do not understand what you mean by 'who is more important'...

Any life is (or should be) weighed equally...

I do not believe that putting that many people at risk in an enclosed area was prudent...

The police (and all the innocent people needlessly put in harms way by them) are seriously lucky that the guy did not want to shoot his way out...
 
I can not speak with any knowledge of how the GPS trackers work. Maybe they have a limited life, work a limited distance away from the bank, whatever, I don't know.

I don't agree with the length of the detention, but if I was attempting to locate armed bank robbers, I would detain everyone in cuffs too. Once it was determined they were not armed, or a threat, off go the cuffs, explain what happened so maybe they understand the situation and off they go. I would not want to be detained any longer than I had to be, but I also don't want armed bank robbers running around my town. I don't think anybody does.
 
Salmoneye,

I was trying to get across that no matter what choice was made, there were lives at risk, since an armed bank robbery is considered by some people to be a violent act itself. No matter what choice was made, it would probably be second guessed later. All lives ARE equal.
 
Last edited:
I was trying to get across that no matter what choice was made, there were lives at risk, since an armed bank robbery is considered by some people to be a violent act itself. No matter what choice was made, it would probably be second guessed later. All lives ARE equal.
Click to expand...

I almost agree with you, but they put actual people's lives at risk and forced them to sit there handcuffed in the danger zone versus letting the guy get down the road a ways and potentially putting people at risk. As far as "high speed chase" goes, don't they have radios in their cars? Radio ahead and intercept him instead of chasing from behind. I've never seen a car that can outrun a radio.
 
I have no lawyer number in my phone and "after the fact" lawsuits do nothing to protect my rights... That task is up to me in the moment...

Brent
 
it was a bank robber. armed yes, but not a terrorist with a bombvest. no human life was being threatened at that point in time, the actions were a gross over-reaction.

look how the the OJ "chase" was handled - and they knew he was armed.

if they thought they had a Tim McVeigh type on his way to do an OKC bombing type incident that may be different.
but a bank robber steals money , that's not human life. he wasn't trying to shoot anyone - he was trying to escape, he probably would endanger more civilians when they stop him in a crowd, than if they'd let him scoot a distance away. imo they endangered more lives, all in the hope of catching only a thief not a threat to life?

2ndly - why cuff these people? that made no sense. a road block to walk up and look inside cars while still standing outside the car, leaving occupants in their car if they didn't appear suspicious and didn't meet any description, etc. could have been okay.

i don't mind being stopped and asked some questions, in the interest of public safety.

they had way too little information (no description of perp? or car?)
and there wasn't any clear threat of mass casualties,

infact they created potential for high civilian casualties, if this were like the bankofamerica incident they just gave the uncaring shooter a ton of human shields / civilian targets / potential cars to jack / and potential hostages to take in a car.

this would've been an ineffective method even if it were in a country where it were totally legal.

what i'm also sad about is how many people accepted having weapons drawn on them, being taken out of their cars, being cuffed. but i'm beginning to lose sympathy for sheeple, if they get harmed do i need to care? am open to input, this is a question that's been on my mind lately.
 
I hope the Aurora PD and the city that allowed such actions are sued into non-existence. There are already severe violations going on in NYC with their stop & frisk actions - the only way to stop these tactics is either through violence (not recommended) or through the courts - when it becomes too expensive for them every time this happens, they will stop
 
Clearly a civil rights violation that should result in criminal charges against all officers involved and the city should be sued out of existance.
Click to expand...
While I agree that those responsible should absolutely loose their jobs and possibly face charges, I disagree with the presumption that if something bad happens you should get money.
I understand that sometimes money is the only way to get people's attention, but presuming the city is willing to take appropriate action, what is a civil suit going to accomplish?
If people are so traumatized that they need therapy, the City should foot the bill, but it's litigious BS like this that has made medical care unaffordable, and gotten giant warnings stamped into the side of guns.
There's no mysterious pot of magical government money - it's the tax payers in Aurora who are going to wind up having to foot the bill.

IMHO it's a dangerous attitude when people start seeing the government as some entity separate from the people it represents.

Sorry for the rant.
 
Dayman - it wouldn't bother me to see some of it donated to a charity - but these folks were held against their will with no probable cause - the same tactics the Gestapo, KGB and other tyrannical government agencies used. The ONLY way to get them to stop is to make it SO expensive, repeatedly if necessary, that they stand down

Reread Franklin's quote about giving up security for safety if necessary - we need LESS nanny-state and big brother gov't, not more otherwise they will start to do what they are beginning in the UK - using cameras to profile to see if you look like the type ABOUT to commit a crime and arrest you beforehand.....
Remember Minority Report? It is starting to happen
 
what i'm also sad about is how many people accepted having weapons drawn on them, being taken out of their cars, being cuffed. but i'm beginning to lose sympathy for sheeple
Click to expand...

What else does one do in those circumstances? The cops have you outnumbered and they have the drop on you with superior weapons. Tactically, you have to surrender. Doesn't mean you should consent to any searches or be cooperative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top