Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drivers of White Vans are being treated as criminals
Vanity | Self

Posted on 10/20/2002 7:48:19 AM PDT by SamAdams76

The photos above currently on the Drudge site concern me. I followed the link and the article clearly stated that nobody was arrested last night.

Why then, do we have drivers of white vans, innocent civilians, evidently being pulled out vans at gunpoint and treated like dangerous criminals? One photo shows a man on the ground, evidently in handcuffs, with police officers standing over him as though they have just captured Whitey Bulger. When I first saw the photo, I figured the man was obviously a wanted criminal that police just so happened to come across during their search. But since there were no arrests last night, this man was obviously released and was no criminal after all.

The other photo shows a man by another white van with his hands in the air and a police officer has a gun drawn on him. Again, this was evidently just another innocent civilian who had the misfortune to be driving a white van on I-95 last night.

Now I understand the need for these roadblocks and for the police to be very thorough in their search for the sniper(s). But I cannot see the point of innocent people dragged out of their vehicles at gunpoint with no pretext other than the fact that they happen to be driving a white van.

Now maybe somebody here has an explanation why these two individuals were treated like criminals. Maybe they tried to evade the police or maybe they were driving stolen vans. But again, there were no arrests made last night. So what is the deal with our citizens being treated like Jesse James just for driving a white van?


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,061-1,073 next last
To: SamAdams76
Dear Mr. Adams,

I was interjecting levity and I sincerely apologise if I offended you with my attempt. I remain curious as to what LE tactics you think are appropriate in this situation.

141 posted on 10/20/2002 9:35:33 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
Winded? ;~D

Hullo Scott!
142 posted on 10/20/2002 9:36:22 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: luvtheconstitution
These procedures are only the norm when officers are looking for dangerous criminals. It's called officer safety.

And what about the safety of innocent civilians? "Accidental" shootings happen all the time when cops have their guns drawn, and they NEVER face prison time for killing innocent unarmed civilians.

143 posted on 10/20/2002 9:36:59 AM PDT by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
I hope you're right. If it's Muslim terrorists they'll soon be doing similar shootings all over the country. Since that hasn't happened I think it's still possible it's some psychopath type.
144 posted on 10/20/2002 9:37:01 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: soozla
I say lets work together proactively with the law enforcement agencies

Pardon the sarcasm, but there have not been many indications that LE wants to work proactively with citizens. The door swings both ways. For example, the only mention of assurances of witness protection came in response (Moose) to a question from a reporter.

If this has an Islamic connection, or even a remote possibility of an Islamic connection, LE should be oozing assurances of witness secrecy/protection to the public, since investigations since 9/11 have proven how difficult it is to gain cooperation from Muslim groups since even the non-sympathizers among Muslims in this country live in well-founded fear of ostracism or retaliation.

The well-publicized arrest of a false witness the other day certainly couldn't have reassured anyone fearful of coming forward, either.

145 posted on 10/20/2002 9:37:20 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
From your post, it would seem that you want the police to stop possible criminals only after the possible criminals has already stood for trial.

The cops require EVIDENCE to stop and detain.

146 posted on 10/20/2002 9:39:10 AM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
The authorities have to check this out, and they never know who might be in the van. Walking up and saying, "Hey, you aren't the sniper are you?" doesn't make sense to me.

Chances are better than even the sniper is not actually in the white van. Therefore, your very words (posted right here) apply to any and all traffic stops. If white van drivers are made to lie handcuffed on the ground, then ALL OTHER drivers should as well.

147 posted on 10/20/2002 9:40:24 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave
Seems to me his rights have been violated big time.

They have, and he will be very rich, very soon.

148 posted on 10/20/2002 9:40:32 AM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
I mean the people in the pictures do look rather seedy.

How do the people in the pictures look seedy? the first person is down on the ground with his face facing the ground and the second person in the second picture is facing backwards

149 posted on 10/20/2002 9:40:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: philetus
If this policy of telling drivers of white vans to get on the ground and handcuffing them is necessary then any traffic stop for any reason, anywhere could pose the same danger to the cops and should be dealt with in the same manner.

Good point. Frankly I would be more concerned for my safety approaching a vehicle on a dark road alone than in a massive roadblock such as that which occurred last night on I-95. As a poster said earlier, this roadblock is just window dressing. The chances of nabbing the snipers in this manner is slim. You think the snipers are going to patiently sit in a roadblock for hours on end if they have anything incriminating on them?

150 posted on 10/20/2002 9:40:43 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
*If* someone has violated some law which makes it an offence "to give LE a hard time", then arrest him and try him before a jury.
151 posted on 10/20/2002 9:40:46 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Seedy? People that work for a living often look like that.
You must hang out with Hootie in Georgia and wear a green jacket and yellow pants with geese on them each day?
152 posted on 10/20/2002 9:43:00 AM PDT by oldironsides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Mixing fact with fiction is disingenuous. Where did it say anyone ate dirt or had a boot in their back? Being held at gunpoint and handcuffed until they determine who I am and what's in my vehicle is reasonable behavior for the police. It's fine with me. You betcha.
153 posted on 10/20/2002 9:43:02 AM PDT by luvtheconstitution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Hey Hair!

I just saw your latest...while I'm still in the terror camp, the one arguement that is most persuasive against it is that the perp(s) seem to have a great knowledge of the "local" area(s). Something a long-time resident would have -- they know access roads, have an excellent knowledge of escape routes. That argues for someone who's intimate with the area -- even tiny, isolated towns like Ashland. They're obviously not using the Interstate (at least for more than a minute or two immediately after the shooting).

Now a lot of that could be explained in the terrorist camp as well: GPS, a deep-plant who's been here for some years planning this action, etc. But still, this person(s) has a remarkable knowledge of the area.

154 posted on 10/20/2002 9:43:06 AM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
The cops require EVIDENCE to stop and detain.

Wrong, they require a probable cause to suspect.

155 posted on 10/20/2002 9:46:32 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
I drive a white van Sam, and if the police asked me to get out of my van and allow them to inspect inside, I would. They obviously have a reason to ask, it's not like they just decided they would pull over various people and look inside for kicks.

So would I. These drivers were probably refusing.

That's what I'm trying to find out. I posted this thread in the first place to find that out. Maybe there was a good reason for these two individuals to be treated in the manner that they were. But so far, those reasons have not been identified. Furthermore, the media is reporting that there were no arrests last night. So I am only led to believe that these citizens were yanked out of their vans at gunpoint, shoved to the ground and handcuffed all on account of the fact that they happened to be driving a white van.

This is what has me upset about the whole thing. If there were reasons for those people being treated the way they were, such as an outstanding warrant or if a scoped rifle was found concealed in the van, I would understand. But that does not appear to be the case here.

156 posted on 10/20/2002 9:46:38 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
They did a standard felony stop. Stood back, asked the drivers to show their hands, open the door from the outside, step out and lay down. Dammit it's a precaution.

Seem like all the cops ever do is take "precautions" to protect themselves.

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It has to be done like this EACH and every time, in EACH and EVERY instance!

157 posted on 10/20/2002 9:46:49 AM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: luvtheconstitution; FormerLurker
Being held at gunpoint and handcuffed until they determine who I am and what's in my vehicle is reasonable behavior for the police. It's fine with me. You betcha.

Might I suggest you ask for a new screen name?

158 posted on 10/20/2002 9:47:03 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Maybe because the police over there are so brainless?
159 posted on 10/20/2002 9:47:16 AM PDT by Ally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
To those who believe the police actions violate the 4th amendment, I will ask the same question I asked last night:

What would you do to catch the sniper?

And please stick, to the case at hand, and not opine about immigration, second amendment rights, muslims, etc.

I am truly curious as to what your solution would be, particularly how you would catch the sniper without violating the rights. Thank you in advance for your replies.

160 posted on 10/20/2002 9:47:40 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,061-1,073 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson