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?
Well gee, that's kind of the heart of the discussion. Just because you don't believe the Constitution is being violated, doesn't make it so.
Huh? Why would they? I'm sitting up here in Pennsylvania, and I'm not a LEO. Take a few deep breaths, gather yourself, and present your argument.
The precise meaning of "probable cause" is somewhat uncertain. Most academic debates over the years have centered around the differences between "more probable than not" and "substantial possibility". The former involves the elements of certainty and technical knowledge. The latter involves the elements of fairness and common sense. There's more adherents of the latter approach, but how do you define common sense. Supreme Court case law has indicated that rumor, mere suspicion, and even "strong reason to suspect" are not equivalent to probable cause. Over the years, at least three definitions have emerged as the best statements:
Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)
Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. (sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants, not arrest warrants)
Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)
No offense, but your definition of probable cause is probably a lot tighter than the courts have held and your 168 is a prescription for dead citizens and free terrorists.
First of all, your post approaches a personal accusation that you have absolutely no prior knowledge of;so I would advise you to cool it a bit.
This lady has made several very intelligent contributions to several threads that I have read. She has never participated in any personal attacks that I am aware of and I don't think with the level of intelligence she has displayed that she would degrade herself to that point.
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20021020-014456-2207r.htm
An FBI spokesman told United Press International that the area's sniper task force and FBI agents were quickly sent to the scene.
Motorists were questioned aggressively up and down I-95, in ONE case temporarily handcuffed. But no one among the MANY HUNDREDS of drivers questioned was arrested.
Mr. Adams, don't you have to ask yourself what this ONE guy did to warrant kissing the pavement?
Like you and I, they want to go home at night. I know you'd agree that in a situation where our lives could be in danger from the occupants of a vehicle, we would be within our rights to unholster our weapons.
None taken. My definition might be tighter, but I think on this issue the courts have been pretty strict themselves. I've read cases thrown out based on bad warrants and the like. I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to make a good argument one way or the other, though. Don't know enough about various rulings.
As for my #168, what do you dislike about it? The current method hasn't exactly worked to perfection, and I suspect if it didn't work the first time (when the police had some element of surprise) it never will.
If that's true, it also depend on a government with commonsense. How likely is it that shooter is driving a white van? I'd say close to zero. How likely is it that a roadblock will catch the shooter? I'd say 1 in a 100. Is it worth an accidental death for those odds? I don't think so.
The problem is, that you are getting a little too personal here, as you darn well know. You could have worded this differently if you really wanted to engage me in this senario, instead of implying I have the equipment. I would not be in the position in a "hooker" raid as you nicely put it to be arrested dear boy. You are just way out of line, and obviously anti authority of any kind.
That's exactly what I want to know. Please tell.
That's right. Unreasonable means that probable cause is not present.
I think pulling over white vans in that area is certainly reasonable. You do not.
Right again.
I'm grateful that you are not on a police force.
Your free to hold that opinion. And I'm grateful you're not a Congresswoman, so I guess we're even.
That is really embarrassing for me. I have been here the whole flippin' time!
That is true. However, I was simply pointing out that we have birds up there that have VERY elaborate optics, perhaps more so than the HST. Although the HST is taking advantage of the fact that it doesn't have to contend with the Earth's atmosphere, its optical capabilities are extraordinary.
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.