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?
Obviously, you don't mind that people get dragged out of their cars.
Invoke Godwin's Law all you like. A glib dismissal seems to be your MO from reading your other posts the past few years.
So, out of curiosity, what do you consider 'good citizenship', doing everything the authorities tell you to do?
And I wouldn't be using terms like "glib dismissals" if I was equating people with Nazi Germany.
How utterly unoriginal.
And I did SO care what you thought of me.
No, it's EXACTLY the point.
No matter what crisis, real or manufactured - sheeple leap to give away their rights in exchange for safety.
BTW, 10 or so dead people isn't 'serious' enough to suspend the Constitution.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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.
Pssst. If you can't catch him without doing so, then you don't catch him. That's what the Law is for.
Perhaps we should just randomly torture citizens for information. After all, if you can catch the sniper by violating rights....
Now, back to the substance of the argument... If the owner consents to a search without being coerced, that is one thing. I agree with your statement: 'It is arguable that there is such cause in the case of people leaving the scene of a shooting who meet the best description they've got.'
Agreed, we have a situation in which there is a killer. Also agreed that there is nothing wrong with someone consenting to a search ( I qualify this with the word 'uncoerced'--the officer(s) explaining the situation of why ), considering the circumstances.
What does concern me is the almost casual attitude that is displayed with respect to the rights of those individuals, be they simply cantankerous or sticklers for their rights, who refuse to be searched. There is too much of this going on in the United States under the rubric of 'security' or 'maintaining the public good', or 'its for the children'. At the risk of some other idiot invoking Godwin's Law, historically these crisis situations are the ones in which rights are in the most danger. I support the efforts of law enforcement to nail the b*****d who is doing this, but that support stops when overzealous law enforcement may find obtaining a search warrant 'inconvenient'.
And I also agree that I have a visceral reaction to those pictures. It doesn't look in those photographs as though those folks consented to being searched. Perhaps they did, but the guns in the pictures sure don't seem to indicate it.
Unless you're the sniper, this is illogical.
And it's taken 2 weeks to kill 10.
So hundreds would take a year. And still wouldn't be a fraction of the 'regular' killings that go on each year.
All a good reason to just throw away the Constitution, right?
Worse. She votes.
I know, I'll stop it, just made me so mad! :-)
If you checked than you would have noticed I was replying to post #54. The poster said the persons in th picture look seed.I did not
lol... try breathing into a paper bag.
270,000,000 /10 / 10 = 270,000 days to kill us all.
Assuming no one breeds.
Might as well suspend the rest of the Constitution NOW!
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.