Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

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 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,061-1,073 next last
To: NittanyLion
And exactly WHERE in 520 are YOU referred to?

BTW, that post was to ME, with you pinged. You seem very confused.

621 posted on 10/20/2002 5:56:58 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
Perhaps you would like to answer it.

I did answer it dear. I said I would not be in the situation to be arrested for such a thing. You just didn't like my answer, therefore you ignored it.

622 posted on 10/20/2002 5:58:23 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I don't know what you're reading, but THIS thread hasn't gotten to $#621 or #620 yet. We were discussing 520.

My mistake. I notice you didn't post #521 along with #520. Better?

Avoiding the issue are you? So predictable.

623 posted on 10/20/2002 5:58:39 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I am having a hard time following all this now.

All I am saying to these people is, if they think some van drvier has been mistreated or has been violated by the police, have them come to me. I will represent them for free if they have a case. My point, of course, is they won't find one -- not one. Hell, they don't even know if anyone has complained. They dug up some picture of a guy post-handcuffing and declared that ALL drivers of white vans were being treated as criminals. Then the annarchist drove down the anti-cop, stop trampling on everyones' rights road. Hey, if you find someone with a complaint about being stopped in a dragnet by police after one of these shoootings, I am glad to take the case -- free.

And being that I am working, or trying to, at 9PM on a Sunday for paying clients, I clearly don't need the work.

624 posted on 10/20/2002 6:00:27 PM PDT by Iron Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Limited language skills but good for a laugh none the less.

Glad to see you are finally having a laugh at my expense and not at the expense of the victims in this case.

625 posted on 10/20/2002 6:00:45 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Of course it means that probable cause exists!
They're hunting for a serial sniper!

Good grief!
We have 619 posts, and we're still at square one!

626 posted on 10/20/2002 6:01:52 PM PDT by COB1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
And exactly WHERE in 520 are YOU referred to? BTW, that post was to ME, with you pinged. You seem very confused.

Sigh. #520 was a reply to #503, in which you replied to a post by me. The other poster clearly wouldn't ask you to bring him someone who felt their rights are violated, because he'd be preaching to the choir. Any reasonable person can see context - the post is to me, with you copied. It was simply more convenient to reply to your post.

Did I mention you're predictable? I called you on an error, and now you're trying to obfuscate and play numbers games (620 vs. 520). It's actually very Clintonian.

627 posted on 10/20/2002 6:02:52 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: COB1
Of course it means that probable cause exists! They're hunting for a serial sniper!

So the definition of probable cause can change depending on the crime?

628 posted on 10/20/2002 6:05:14 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Glad to see you are finally having a laugh at my expense and not at the expense of the victims in this case.

Man to man TNP, GFY.

629 posted on 10/20/2002 6:07:06 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: COB1
BTW, Funny how my analogy of being arrested for prostitution is to a woman who uses the nickname of 'ladyinred'. 606 posted on 10/20/02 5:44 PM Pacific by PatrioticAmerica

OMG! ladyinred is hooker name?!!!

Happy Valentine's Day Cobby!

630 posted on 10/20/2002 6:08:49 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Now you are moving closer to a substantive debate. Excellent.

Legally, if one witness were to report that they saw a white van connected to a homicide or attempted homicide, I think it would be accurate to say that there is no probable cause to stop every white van, every day, every where.

But those are not the facts. Police were stopping:

1) White vans with certain characteristics and models.

2) Said vans being driven at, near or around the alleged action. These road blocks were set-up in concentric circles to catch white vans, fitting the description, that could have travelled x distance in Y time.

Thus, you have law enforcement acting on specific infirmation, from a witness, with additional background information from other witnesses, focusing on white vans with certain characteristics travelling within a distance and time capable of putting that vehicle at the crime.

I can tell you, that will stand-up for probable cause ever single time in any jurisdiction.

631 posted on 10/20/2002 6:09:54 PM PDT by Iron Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Give me a break.... No one here has thought anything about the killings was funny. The people you are talking about have been here having serious discussion for the whole thread. If in the course of the discussion, someone says something funny... we can LOL... I think it is nice when the disagreement is friendly enough that a little LOL happens. It is kinda pleasant! Try it?
632 posted on 10/20/2002 6:10:00 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Right. The post is TO you, that's why he pinged ME first; ever hear of just adding to a thread.

Hate to break it to you, but you aren't even MENTIONED in that post from Iron Eagle. Sorry. He was discussing something entirely different.

I didn't make an error; you assumed it was addressed to you......why, I have NO idea.

633 posted on 10/20/2002 6:13:39 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Man to man TNP, GFY.

You presented yourself as a grieved mother...challenging me on that basis. Now it is "man to man GFY?" I believe nothing more need be said since your true self has been revealed...so go FY.

634 posted on 10/20/2002 6:14:03 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: COB1
We have 619 posts, and we're still at square one!

Well, we're not........LOL.

635 posted on 10/20/2002 6:14:55 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
You presented yourself as a grieved mother...challenging me on that basis

You're whacked.

636 posted on 10/20/2002 6:17:19 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I have no idea what you just said, but I don't think there is probable cause for me to figure it out! ;~D
637 posted on 10/20/2002 6:17:25 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Pay attention here. jwalsh told you he was a father, you also "claimed" to be a father (although what kind of father teaches his children to use the "F" word in an arguement with women is well beyond me). He was standing up for me, the one you addressed the "F" word too merely because I laughed at a rather clever statement jwalsh made in one of his posts.

You really should pay more attention.

638 posted on 10/20/2002 6:20:16 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
So the definition of probable cause can change depending on the crime?

Following the law regarding "probable cause" can be outweighed by the gravity of the circumstances involved -- a higher priority than strictly following the letter of the law can occur.

For example (to be as extreme as I can simply to illustrate the point): If the police were alerted that white van was carrying a suitcase nuke into Washington D.C. for detonation, you would see a circumstance on the freeways and highways that would make you think last night was mere child's play. No consideration of "rights" whatsoever would be given and we would probably see far more destructive pre-emptive actions taken.

The seriousness of situation can dictate the actions relative to the preservation of "rights" in these circumstances.

639 posted on 10/20/2002 6:20:27 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
They'd still be against stopping it, or making the driver get out of the car so they could make sure he wasn't dangerous. No nuke is worth the inconvenience of being stopped for merely driving a vehicle similar to the suspect vehicle.
640 posted on 10/20/2002 6:25:31 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson