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?
BTW, that post was to ME, with you pinged. You seem very confused.
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.
My mistake. I notice you didn't post #521 along with #520. Better?
Avoiding the issue are you? So predictable.
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.
Glad to see you are finally having a laugh at my expense and not at the expense of the victims in this case.
Good grief!
We have 619 posts, and we're still at square one!
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.
So the definition of probable cause can change depending on the crime?
Man to man TNP, GFY.
OMG! ladyinred is hooker name?!!!
Happy Valentine's Day Cobby!
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.
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.
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.
Well, we're not........LOL.
You're whacked.
You really should pay more attention.
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.
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.