Pueblo Mafia
When police are allowed to violate the very laws they are sworn to enforce, it is not justice - it is tyranny. Law enforcement authority exists only because the public consents to it through constitutional law, statutory limits, and ethical standards. When officers disregard those limits, they undermine public trust, constitutional rights, and the legitimacy of the justice system itself.
In this incident, the officers did not have lawful permission to enter private property - for any reason.
Absent exigent circumstances or the presentation of a valid arrest warrant, officers have no legal authority to enter private property without consent. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution explicitly protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. These protections exist precisely to prevent government agents from acting on impulse, assumption, or convenience rather than lawful authority.
Climbing over a locked fence because a gate is closed is not lawful police conduct - it is trespass. It violates the privacy rights of the occupants and transforms officers into the very lawbreakers they are sworn to stop. In a constitutional society, the badge does not grant exemption from the law; it imposes greater responsibility to obey it.
Any individual - including law enforcement - who knowingly enters private property without permission is subject to prosecution under Colorado law.
Further compounding this violation, the officers failed to identify themselves and refused to provide their names and badge numbers when directly requested by the property owner. Transparency and accountability are foundational ethical obligations of law enforcement. Refusal to identify undermines public trust and raises serious questions about intent, professionalism, and legality.
This video demonstrates a classic example of unlawful detention - functionally indistinguishable from kidnapping under color of authority.
To justify their actions after the fact, officers claimed the individual had an outstanding warrant. If a valid warrant existed:
-
Why was it not presented?
-
Why was lawful procedure not followed?
-
Why did officers wait over an hour outside the property before taking action?
It is common knowledge that police are legally permitted to lie to elicit compliance. That reality alone demands that verifiable legal documentation, not verbal claims, govern police conduct. The convenient invocation of an alleged warrant after multiple constitutional violations raises serious concerns regarding pretext and retroactive justification.
If officers truly possessed a valid warrant, lawful protocol would have required either:
-
Presentation of the warrant, or
-
Contacting a judge for lawful forced entry authorization.
Neither occurred.
The property owner lawfully denied consent to open the gate - a right explicitly protected by constitutional law. Denial of consent does not constitute obstruction, and police are not permitted to override that refusal without proper legal authority.
The two officers who climbed the fence knowingly, willfully, and maliciously conspired to commit trespass, in violation of:
Sec. 11-1-406 - Trespass
(a) It is unlawful and a Class 2 municipal offense for any person to enter or remain upon the premises of another when consent is absent, denied, or withdrawn.
Sec. 11-1-107 - Conspiracy
(a) A person commits conspiracy when, with intent to promote or facilitate an offense, they agree with another to commit such offense.
(b) Conspiracy is a Class 2 municipal offense.
Sec. 11-1-108 - Complicity
A person is legally accountable as a principal if they aid, abet, or assist another in committing an offense.
By acting together, these officers meet the statutory definitions of trespass, conspiracy, and complicity.
The officers also blocked a private driveway and obstructed traffic for over an hour, violating:
Sec. 11-1-202 - Loitering
(b)(1) Obstructing any public street or driveway.
(b)(2) Interfering with the free and uninterrupted use of public or private property.
Additionally, officers peered into a private residence, violating:
Sec. 11-1-206 - Invasion of Privacy
(a) It is unlawful to intentionally peer through doors or windows of a residence to spy or invade privacy.
(b) This offense is classified as a Class 1 municipal offense.
Finally, the officers’ conduct - armed presence, trespass, refusal to identify, intimidation, and forced seizure - meets the statutory definition of:
Sec. 11-1-302 - Menacing
(a) A person commits menacing if, by threat or physical action, they intentionally place another person in fear of imminent bodily injury.
This conduct creates coercion through intimidation, not lawful policing.
Ethically, professionally, and logically, this conduct represents systemic abuse of authority.
Law enforcement officers are granted extraordinary powers: detention, arrest, use of force, and even lethal authority. In exchange, they assume extraordinary legal and ethical obligations. When those obligations are ignored, the result is not public safety - it is state-sponsored lawlessness.
The rule of law does not survive selective enforcement.
Civil rights do not exist if government agents can ignore them at will.
Justice cannot exist when police become the violators.
This incident exemplifies why strict constitutional boundaries exist - and why accountability is not optional in a free society.
