Drivers of White Vans are being treated as criminals

Vanity | Self

[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?

[FormerLurker]

said suspect is totally innocent of any crime = "Person of Interest"?

Person of Interest = Occupant of a house targeted by law enforcement, where they inadvertently had the address wrong or was given an incorrect "tip" from an informant due to the informant wanting to get even with a neighbor or co-worker...

[ican'tbelieveit]

At taxpayer expense. So lets hold the police accountable for their actions. The police has admitted themselves that the white van report is probably not that reliable, so if only people in white vans are being treated this way, you better believe there will be a lawsuit.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

It is not necessarily the face that determines seediness. It is the Gestalt!

[southern rock]

Their paranoia is too preemptive; they seem to forget that we are AT WAR, and extreme times call for extreme measures.

First of all, we are not at war. It may be a technicallity, but we are not. Secondly, what does this have to do with "the war"?

[Howlin]

I agree wholeheartedly! Some among us are insistant on bringing "The Rule Book" to a knife fight.

I suspect there is a lot we don't know, and I am comfortable with that. If your scenario is right, even part of it, once the people realize that this IS, in fact, a real war, just new rules, all hell is going to break loose. I suspect law enforcement are trying to bring us there in steps.

[southern rock]

He says that policemen must anticipate that a person they just pulled over might attempt to use lethal force on them. They are especially cautious when working alone. So, if pulled over for any reason at night, the driver ought to turn on the inside lights of his car, put both hands on the steering wheel - and never, ever 'smart mouth' the cop.

Translation: Cops are scardy cats, so be prepared to suffer humiliation and indignity for this fact.

[Howlin]

Let's see: the choice is 1) open my trunk, or 2) let perhaps hundreds MORE people die.

It's just not that hard a decision for me personally to make. It's called citizenship and the good of all. People have forgotten what that's all about.

[NittanyLion]

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.

1. Authorities need to release more details to the public, including descriptions, info on the tarot card, etc.

2. Authorities should put in place a system where the public can be alerted via radio (Emergency Broadcast System)within minutes that a shooting has occurred at X - be attentive.

3. Unfortunately, they must mostly rely on a person disrupting the next attempted sniping, or on an acquaintance turning the sniper in.

Let's face it, these roadblocks are really meant to give the appearance the police are "on the case". The chances of one resulting in an arrest are nil; the sniper's already prepared for this eventuality.

[PresbyRev]

Cops are generally out of control and a menance to no one less than authentic criminals? They want to look like they're doing 'something'? Ashcroft, et.al. have driven through massive powers for police at the expense of civil liberties? Those photos should be repugnant to every son and daughter of liberty.

[HairOfTheDog]

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.

You are led to believe that by your own tinted glasses. Have not watched cops enough to know what a felony stop looks like? They don't manhandle anyone if they don't have to. THAT is risky. They stand back and ask the guy out of the car, and don't approach until the guy is down and laying out prone. That is the way it works when it works well, and that is the way it worked on the video I saw of it last night.

[FormerLurker]

Where did it say anyone ate dirt or had a boot in their back?

That's a reasonable assumption considering the cops knew they were being filmed when holding people at gunpoint on the ground in handcuffs. I can only imagine what they did when the cameras weren't rolling..

Of course it's only a guess, but I'd say it's highly probable.

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.

I suppose you wouldn't mind if their finger "slipped"?

[southern rock]

Maybe the guy in handcuffs gave LE a hard time?

Yeah, like asking if he was under arrest or refusing consent (oh wait, consent wasn't asked).

[FITZ]

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.

In some ways that could work against a local ---they'd be more likely to slip up. Someone would recognize them, notice they did something out of the ordinary. Using a small town might not work because often in those everyone knows everyone and everything. They notice when something is out of the ordinary, they notice even when a stranger comes into town. Escaping into a garage would be easier.

[Howlin]

Aren't you the dreamer. We've been asking for "their plan" for days. Nothing forth coming.

[GirlShortstop]

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?   Is your question an effort to *shut down the debate* as to whether or not LE is following the rules that they are REQUIRED to follow in doing their job? I appears that your question assumes that the police are *not violating the 4th*. If that's where you stand, you may very well be correct. But to ask that of the "those who believe ... violate" is not part of the debate and does not come across as balanced.

[FormerLurker]

Might I suggest you ask for a new screen name?

I propose that the poster in question should change his name to "burntheconstitution", or "p*ssontheconstitution"...

[thepitts]

I wish that all you law enforcement detractors would give this a little more thought. How can you say it's OK to stop them and question them, yet not have any regard for officer safety? In case you hadn't noticed, they are trying to catch a cold blooded murderer. I suspect that when the individual is caught, he won't give up easily. I want the officers to keep themselves safe, and this is how is has to be done. It means a little inconvenience for the owners of white vans, but this isn't a perfect world. If I owned a white van, I would cooperate, be grateful for their diligence and wish them luck.

Ironic isn't it, your screen name and all...

[southern rock]

Wrong, they require a probable cause to suspect.

And owning a white van is NOT probable cause.

[Howlin]

Her question is an effort to get a plain answer; if you don't like HOW they are doing it, how would YOU do it.

And I see you have no response.

[Darlin']

". So what is the deal with our citizens being treated like Jesse James just for driving a white van?"

Come on. Surely you aren't serious. What law abiding citizen in that area would complain about a police roadblock and extra precautions taken with white vans. Commonsense would dictate continuing that practice until they've ruled out the possibility of a white van being used in these murders. Ask the wife of last night's victim that question.