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
![](http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20021020/i/1035081814.3087523958.jpg)
![](http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20021020/i/1035088131.2214994039.jpg)
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 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580 ... 1,061-1,073 next last
To: GirlShortstop
I didn't call you a name. I have commented a couple of times about your distracting formatting. It is getting in the way of whatever your message is. That is good for you to know, if you want to be more effective.
To: jwalsh07
They will catch this guy leaving the scene or they won't catch him. I remain optimistic that he/they will be caught one way or another. Then we hang'em high on Pennsylvania Ave for all to bear witness.
To: jwalsh07
If the van can't do ze time, it shouldn't do ze crime
LOL!
To: Scott from the Left Coast
"You owe Ladyinred an apology, but I doubt very much you have the class to see that."
Perhaps she owes all freedom loving people an apology for insinuating that they should have to prove their innocence upon accusation instead of the accuser proving their guilt.
I wont apologize, as my analogy holds the truth to her view. She still hasnt answered the question. Should she have to prove her innocence just because, as a woman, she was in the area of a vice round-up and was accused of being a prostitute?
If that question endangers anyones delicate sensibilities so does the viewpoint that innocent people should have to prove their innocence upon accusation.
The analogy is a good one, brought in response to a statement raised by a female reporter that teaching boys to shoot is tantamount to equipping them to be murderers. The response was just because they can shoot doesnt mean that they will be murderers, just like she is equipped to be a prostitute but that doesnt mean that she is one.
To: COB1
The statement made was that white van owners should have to prove their innocence. If that escapes you, you are a one lost pup.
To: COB1
What in the sam hell have hooker raids got to do with trying to catch this sniper?You see COB, that's the problem. They really can't see the difference.
To: McGavin999
LOL! Escuse me, but what the eff is so funny? I fail to see any humor in any of this.
To: Scott from the Left Coast
"Comparing this reign of murderous terror with a vice raid?"
Wanna show the post where I did that? If yer gunna eavesdrop, get the whole story.
To: Howlin
And just because you think it is, doesn't make it so. True enough. But I don't start my arguments with that as "fact" and then argue from there - I frame my arguments to prove that point. Some folks around here state an opinion, call it a fact, and expect me not to call it what it is (an opinion).
To: PatrioticAmerican
Oh geez....stop digging.
550
posted on
10/20/2002 5:04:11 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: PatrioticAmerican; ladyinred
You offended a woman personally, nearly provoking her to hit abuse - and when called upon to apologize, this is your response? Good grief. Your stubborn attitude and lack of class is noted.
I think this individual is a strong candidate for auto-ignore, ladyinred.
To: Scott from the Left Coast
So why, in your opinion, aren't things like that being tried? Or are they being tried as well? Dunno. I'm sure the traditional police work is being done. As for why no description of the shooter has been offered, it's tough to understand...
To: PatrioticAmerican
Perhaps she owes all freedom loving people an apology for insinuating that they should have to prove their innocence upon accusation instead of the accuser proving their guilt. You are a real piece of work PA. I implied no such thing!
To: takenoprisoner
Escuse me, but what the eff is so funny? I fail to see any humor in any of this.Do you talk that way to your mother? Assuming not, why would you talk that way to somebody else's.
To: PatrioticAmerican
The statement made was that white van owners should have to prove their innocence. If that escapes you, you are a one lost pup.I'm unaware of any arrests. Are you Chief Moose?
To: PatrioticAmerican
Perhaps she owes all freedom loving people an apology for insinuating that they should have to prove their innocence upon accusation instead of the accuser proving their guilt. Where exactly did she say that. Which post number? Exactly the post she said that. Not where you ASSUMED that is what she meant; where she said it.
556
posted on
10/20/2002 5:08:27 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: PatrioticAmerican
No, the statement was made that "the police didn't know if the van drivers were innocent" or dangerous. If the cause is that the vans might be involved in the sniper shootings... Then those drivers need to be approached with great care.
They had to make a two-second risk assessment on each and every car or van they either let pass or pulled over. The drivers don't have to prove their innocence, but they do have to comply with "requests" of officers to check them out, including doing what the police ask to ensure safety for everyone involved. That is not requiring anyone to prove their innocence.
To: PatrioticAmerican
The statement made was that white van owners should have to prove their innocence.Where.
558
posted on
10/20/2002 5:09:17 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
I think this individual is a strong candidate for auto-ignore, ladyinred. I am very offended by his implication that is for sure. He made this very personal with his hooker remarks, and he knows it.
To: PatrioticAmerican
Indeed your analogy was a good analogy and well thought out. Some meatheads just don't get it. Meantime, the perps are most likely escaping in a Mercedes.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson