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?
Because I don't laugh at tragedy I am "whacked?" I see nothing funny in all of this.
we know that.
All very true and legalistic, but the chances of a white van being "witnessed" near one of these shootings is very high. We all know LE can cover their butts in this case, the debate is over the risk in stopping arbitrary white vans at gunpoint and dragging their owners out onto the ground versus the value of justice and preventing future crime.
Obviously IANL.
To the newcomers to the thread...
Please Bear My Former Answer! (audio 
)
We should covertly promulgate this concept on liberal forums - and get the nitwits to vocally support it - therefore proving to the world that they have no place in political discourse among civilized people.
Just a passing (rational) thought.
PS: Hey GSS, wanna get hitched? We'll move to northeast Washington state or northern Idaho, build a log home, chicken coop and a greenhouse. We'll toss this whole decrepit civilization in the dumpster and forget that irrational, liberal people even exist.
Whaddya say?
(Just a passing irrational thought...)
It would help if you had linked where you got the pictures from. (yeah, I looked at the source code and found "the" picture, but not the news agency). I went to Drudge but did not have any luck locating it (I am not the best cyber hound). This article lacks to much information to warrent the responces (including yours) found on this thread. A couple of pictures just don't support jack IMHO.
I'm NOT staying for the next shift!
The debate is over probable cause. No one can be dragged out of their van at gunpoint onto the ground with out that foundation of probable cause. (They could be, but that's why we have Courts).
The important thing in this "debate," is that no one has demonstrated that anyone's rights were violated. That picture sure doesn't do it. We don't know why that guy is on the ground and handcuffed. Hell, we don't even know when and where that picture was taken. We sure don't knwo that the guy was dragged out. It may well be that he was run down. He might have fallen out drunk. He might have been pulled out fighting mad.
The point is, all evidence so far is that the police have acted within the bounds of law with respect to probable cause stops incident to a felony. Is this some poor bastard with an outstanding warrant, or driving on a suspended license, or driving drunk. Hell, he might not have been driving at all. He might have had a weapon.
The only thing we need to know is did the police have the right to stop him and search is vehicle under the facts and circumstances. I have submitted that they did.
If you want me to agree that the police did not have the right to walk up to his van, without saying a word, and pull him out and through him to the ground, I agree. I am with you on that. As I said before though, we don't know who he is, how he got there, when, and why. But we do know that if you were driving a white van, with certain characteristics, within a driving range of the scene of the crime, the police do have probable cause to stop your vehicle on that information.
Now, if you folks are telling me that you don't think that should be so, then tell it to the Virginia Legislature. But right now, law enforcement is acting under the principles giuded by the U.S. Supreme Court as it interprests the rights of the 4th amendment with respect to search and seizure and probable cause. That's all we have. It is true that a state can afford more rights by state statute if it wishes, but of course it could never provide less than approved and sanctioned by the Supreme Court and garunteed by the U.S. Constitution.
But have you been dragged out of your white van (the workin man's van) and thrown to the ground and shackled with guns pointing at you from every angle? I suspect not.
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.