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?
With respect to the above statement, if a situation did occur that the type of vehicle that I drive did become under general suspect, I would have enough respect for the law enforcement agencies to totally cooperate with the efforts to eliminate my vehicle as a possibility.
If I have nothing to hide, I would not hesitate to cooperate. The officer stopping the vehicles have no idea that the driver is not connected with the shootings until after the investigation is completed. I do not blame them for taking every precaution- their life may depend on how they approach and handle the vehicle's driver.
I'm still trying to figure out why muslims and arabs are allowed into this country by the Bush Administration still..
That, and instead of making US citizens fearful, uncomfortable and violating their rights - we aren't bombing the goat p*ss out of half the middle east, until they understand not to screw with us...
Shouldn't it be better them, than us?
How exactly is this the Rule of Law?
Perspective is a funny thing, isn't it? I think the cop-haters are the ones who need to "breathe into a paper bag", talking about getting "dragged" from vehicles and acting as though the police are obligated to ask for cooperation by starting every request with "Pretty please, with sugar on top."
You know, just because you say so doesn't make it so.
It's also a tactic used by leftists to shut down debate.
You ain't seen nuttin' yet. Just wait until martial law is declared.
The law does allow for police to stop vehicles in an attempt to find a killer. And Yes, the safety of the officers and the drivers is enhanced if the officer can make sure the person being pulled over is not about to kill him.
Perhaps we should just randomly torture citizens for information. After all, if you can catch the sniper by violating rights....
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic...
You're jumping to conclusions you have NO way of knowing and smearing good, honest law enforcement officers while you're doing it.
And just what is your answer "to doing better than that"?
YUP!!!!!!!!!!
ladyinred: How do the police know the drivers are innocent? How do they know that the driver isn't the sniper? What would you have them do? You know, I would cooperate with the police totally. If that is a problem for you, so be it.
ClearCase_guy: You are confused about Innocent until proven guilty. The police routinely lock up criminals until their trial is over -- we don't know if they are innocent or guilty yet, but we lock them up. And it's OK.
The initiation of force and threat of force is a crime. That's common-sense natural law. For the person that is the victim of initiation of force or threat of force, he or she is not free to walk away or not free to refuse the person initiating force against them.
When a suspect is arrested it is thought to be with the best judgment of the arresting LEO that the suspect initiated force or threat of force. Until an impartial jury delivers its verdict it is not know whether those government officials that participated in the arrest were using defensive force or initiated force.
That is, a police officer doesn't knowingly initiate force. Instead, he operates on the belief that he is using defensive force. When a person points a gun at a person that is a threat of force. Unless the person a LEO points his or her gun at has initiated force or threat of force the LEO is the person initiating force.
What does the LEO face in his or her decision? An analogy to start the mind thinking.
Hypothetical: THE PEOPLE VS. BOB CROW
Bob Crow is charged with assaulting Connie Jones. Bob slapped Connie, strangers to each other, hard in the face and then wrestled her to the ground. A man unconnected with either Bob or Connie just happened to video tape the entire incident including a few minutes prior to Bob slapping Connie. It is clear from the video that Bob did not act in self-defense.
Following the judge's instructions that the jury is to follow the law as the judge states it, the jury has no choice but to render a guilty verdict against Bob Crow.
However one other thing was abundantly clear in the video. The reason Bob Crow slapped Connie Jones and wrestled her to the ground was because Bob was convinced that Connie was attempting to jump off the three-hundred foot cliff. Unable to talk Connie out of jumping he slapped her and then wrestled her to the ground -- saving her life.
Had the judge upheld the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, the jury could have nullified the law. Thereby selecting option #2 -- the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant.
As a side note: If you were in Bob Crow's position, how well would your conscience hold up knowing that you could have at least tried to stop Connie Jones from jumping off the cliff yet chose to do nothing? Which is worse, being at the mercy of an impartial jury for having assault and battered -- initiated force against -- Connie Jones, or living the rest of your life knowing you did nothing to stop her?
Major problem, the judge will not permit an impartial jury to be seated in your trial.
Additional note: The intent of the authors of the constitution in regards to the Sixth Amendment impartial jury was to protect the defendant from discrimination. Not just discrimination against race, sex and religion, but to protect against discrimination by the much more powerful government.
The above hypothetical is an excerpt from an earlier article.
If you want people to read your stuff, make it easy to read.
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.