TexasCHLforum.com

...if they don't have reasonable suspicion to stop/hold him in the first place...the defense will have no trouble showing that he was heavy-handed into the "consensual" search...they HAD to have had some reason to stop him in the first place...and they didn't...unless the info we've been given is all wrong...what the chief said is lame...if he had a reasonable explanation of their reasonable suspicion...he would have put the firestorm out long ago...they are the honored guests at this barbecue...more sauce, please...

Here's an excerpt from Colorado Radio News about the incident:

"A Bank Robbery in the Denver Suburb of Aurora yesterday forced the police to use unconventional tactics to apprehend the suspected robber. The police department did not have a description of the suspect or the vehicle but got a tip that the man responsible was stopped at a red light. Police rushed to the intersection mentioned and found more than 20 cars and 40 people where they believed the suspect was. The police barricaded the traffic and removed all 40 people from their cars at gunpoint. The suspect was finally found in the last car searched and police recovered two loaded weapons, which was the evidence they needed to arrest the suspect. None of the 40 people involved with the unconventional stop complained to the Police Department, but they did receive 5 complaints from citizens who were not involved. The Aurora Police Chief said in an interview that he is sorry they had to inconvenience the drivers, but also said that investigative detention is lawful for a reasonable period of time."

Maybe those 40 know something we don't. Detaining a group that large w/o complaints is quite a feat. I'll be interested to hear first person accounts.

gigag04 wrote:Maybe those 40 know something we don't. Detaining a group that large w/o complaints is quite a feat. I'll be interested to hear first person accounts.

I'm sure they told them that they knew they weren't who they were looking for but needed them to play along to help them catch the bad guy. It's amazing what people will do if they think they are "helping".

"The suspect was finally found in the last car searched and police recovered two loaded weapons, which was the evidence they needed to arrest the suspect."
So, they caught the BG at the intersection. One of the following must be true:
1. The tip was legit.
2. Someone in the department did a great good of deducting the most logical direction of travel and how far the suspect could have traveled since the time of the robbery.
3. The police were extremely lucky.

None of the above warrant the action taken IMHO.

If I had been in that intersection (and it had been in Texas), they would have found a loaded gun actually on my person. Would THAT have been enough evidence to arrest ME for the bank robbery, too?

Did they find the money? Or just the guns?

Its also curious that "... it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect." That's statistically unlikely. Out of 20 cars, there is only a 5% chance that the one they're looking for would be in the very last one. 95% chance that it would have been one of the other ones searched first. (Assuming an even distribution of probability for each vehicle.)

...because none of them had the wisdom to say NO...it's set a precedent for those who want to operate that way...don't think it'd fly in Texas...at least I hope not...the last car seemed suspicious to me...as did cuffing and holding EVERYBODY...almost as if "let's see what they will stand for..."

sjfcontrol wrote:If I had been in that intersection (and it had been in Texas), they would have found a loaded gun actually on my person. Would THAT have been enough evidence to arrest ME for the bank robbery, too?

Did they find the money? Or just the guns?

Its also curious that "... it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect." That's statistically unlikely. Out of 20 cars, there is only a 5% chance that the one they're looking for would be in the very last one. 95% chance that it would have been one of the other ones searched first. (Assuming an even distribution of probability for each vehicle.)

So...statistically the same chance of being exactly the third car searched is what you're saying...

jmra wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Maybe those 40 know something we don't. Detaining a group that large w/o complaints is quite a feat. I'll be interested to hear first person accounts.

I'm sure they told them that they knew they weren't who they were looking for but needed them to play along to help them catch the bad guy. It's amazing what people will do if they think they are "helping".

No less amazing is the continued speculation about what actually transpired...

gigag04 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:If I had been in that intersection (and it had been in Texas), they would have found a loaded gun actually on my person. Would THAT have been enough evidence to arrest ME for the bank robbery, too?

Did they find the money? Or just the guns?

Its also curious that "... it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect." That's statistically unlikely. Out of 20 cars, there is only a 5% chance that the one they're looking for would be in the very last one. 95% chance that it would have been one of the other ones searched first. (Assuming an even distribution of probability for each vehicle.)

So...statistically the same chance of being exactly the third car searched is what you're saying...

Well, each car has a 5% chance, if that's what you mean. However, there is a 10% chance that the BG will be found in the first 2 cars, 15% in the first 3, etc. By the time you've searched 10 (of the 20) you have a 50/50 chance of having found the culprit. By the time you get to the last car, you have a 95% probability of already having found him. Understand?

gigag04 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:If I had been in that intersection (and it had been in Texas), they would have found a loaded gun actually on my person. Would THAT have been enough evidence to arrest ME for the bank robbery, too?

Did they find the money? Or just the guns?

Its also curious that "... it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect." That's statistically unlikely. Out of 20 cars, there is only a 5% chance that the one they're looking for would be in the very last one. 95% chance that it would have been one of the other ones searched first. (Assuming an even distribution of probability for each vehicle.)

So...statistically the same chance of being exactly the third car searched is what you're saying...

jmra wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Maybe those 40 know something we don't. Detaining a group that large w/o complaints is quite a feat. I'll be interested to hear first person accounts.

I'm sure they told them that they knew they weren't who they were looking for but needed them to play along to help them catch the bad guy. It's amazing what people will do if they think they are "helping".

No less amazing is the continued speculation about what actually transpired...

I was being less speculative and more facetious. Sorry you missed that.

All I can say is that there are worse things than a bank robber getting away ...

Its also curious that "... it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect." That's statistically unlikely. Out of 20 cars, there is only a 5% chance that the one they're looking for would be in the very last one. 95% chance that it would have been one of the other ones searched first. (Assuming an even distribution of probability for each vehicle.)

Sorry to bust in here with my first post without an intro, but I can't help myself... If I remember my statistics correctly, the probability of this happening is far less than .05. Here's how I think about it: If there are 20 cars at an intersection and one of them contains a BG, then the probability that a randomly selected car contains the BG is .05. If the BG is not found until the 20th car, then the LEOs would have had to fail to locate the BG after 19 cars had been randomly selected. The probability of this happening is, I think, (.05)**20! That's almost zero!

The point, of course, is that if the LEOs randomly selected cars to search, they most likely would have found the BG more quickly than they did; i.e., why did it take 20 cars?

Just got my plastic yesterday! Now waiting for my holster so I can do the Wal Mart walk!

Ed

FrogFan wrote:

Its also curious that "... it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect." That's statistically unlikely. Out of 20 cars, there is only a 5% chance that the one they're looking for would be in the very last one. 95% chance that it would have been one of the other ones searched first. (Assuming an even distribution of probability for each vehicle.)

Sorry to bust in here with my first post without an intro, but I can't help myself... If I remember my statistics correctly, the probability of this happening is far less than .05. Here's how I think about it: If there are 20 cars at an intersection and one of them contains a BG, then the probability that a randomly selected car contains the BG is .05. If the BG is not found until the 20th car, then the LEOs would have had to fail to locate the BG after 19 cars had been randomly selected. The probability of this happening is, I think, (.05)**20! That's almost zero!

The point, of course, is that if the LEOs randomly selected cars to search, they most likely would have found the BG more quickly than they did; i.e., why did it take 20 cars?

Just got my plastic yesterday! Now waiting for my holster so I can do the Wal Mart walk!

Ed

I think you need to review your statistics notes...

But welcome to the forum, anyway!

I think you need to review your statistics notes...

But welcome to the forum, anyway!

Sent you a PM with my thinking. Interested in your thoughts. Ed

johncanfield wrote:Here's an excerpt from Colorado Radio News about the incident:

"A Bank Robbery in the Denver Suburb of Aurora yesterday forced the police to use unconventional tactics to apprehend the suspected robber. The police department did not have a description of the suspect or the vehicle but got a tip that the man responsible was stopped at a red light. Police rushed to the intersection mentioned and found more than 20 cars and 40 people where they believed the suspect was. The police barricaded the traffic and removed all 40 people from their cars at gunpoint. The suspect was finally found in the last car searched and police recovered two loaded weapons, which was the evidence they needed to arrest the suspect. None of the 40 people involved with the unconventional stop complained to the Police Department, but they did receive 5 complaints from citizens who were not involved. The Aurora Police Chief said in an interview that he is sorry they had to inconvenience the drivers, but also said that investigative detention is lawful for a reasonable period of time."

The first sentence is a lie. The police weren't "forced" to do anything. And I wouldn't call a two hour detention a mere inconvenience. Everything in the so called "news" these days is a load of hogwash, and especially so when it serves an agenda.