Drivers of White Vans are being treated as criminals

Vanity | Self

[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?

[justshe]

~~~So you still wouldn't be upset under martial law? Interesting. But not surprising. ~~~

I didn't give my opinion on any of the three options..either pro or con. But nice try to attempt to 'spin' my words to fit YOUR agenda. Want to try again? Or have you embarassed yourself enough?

[TigersEye]

What exactly is your problem with that?

Go back and read my posts from the beginning. She has taken three small points of law and obscured the larger point of law in the whole situation. Interesting and typical tactic of debate. Sectionalise and attack out of context.

Goodnight kiddies!

[spunkets]

" the pictures show definite probable cause to approach both drivers as possible snipers given the most detailed descriptions of the suspect vans that have been made public."

That's true. It's also true that these vans are common and it's more likely they have an innocent pulled over. So they pat him down and he stands aside as they check it out.

If they did have the killer, I'm sure he's not going to wait 'till the cops get the drop on him to go start a firefight. That starts before he looses the upper hand.

[Sir Gawain]

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Now you call me evasive? You're just full of empty epithets all of a sudden. I haven't been evasive at all. I do find it interesting that you have such a blase reaction to the fact that lawmakers have been warned to stay off of golf courses, apparently by law enforcement.

But, why should we worry about that? TigersEye says it's okay!

Good grief.

[Sir Gawain]

Right. So would you ever justify the use of martial law?

[TigersEye]

I don't see handcuffs and didn't say I did. You try getting on the ground in that position and hold your wrists together behind your back like that. Not easy is it? Not for long. Why argue such a small point? He's on the ground, face down.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Geez... no need to react so 'emotionally'...

Good night! ;0)

[realpatriot71]

My bad :-)

[Roscoe]

Better yet quote Ayn Rand to the cops they really like that stuff.

Or tell 'em you don't have to show them a driver's license without a warrant.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Or even better, "I don't NEED a driver's license. I am SOVEREIGN!"

;0)

[justshe]

Yes.

[TigersEye]

I didn't call you emotional I said your rational was emotional. A little touchy aren't you? ; )

[Texasforever]

Ok a step at a time. Do you agree that these particular 2 vans closely meet the most detailed description of the van witnesses have placed at the scene of the home Depot shootings and you concede that approaching them more seriously is warranted? Do you also not see the possibility that there could be another person secreted in the back and that before they look inside they want the driver secured?

[TigersEye]

rational=rationale

[chadsworth]

Why are his hands behind his back and his wrists together?

Tigerseye, if you will look closely at the photograph of the guy on the ground, and use your normal eyes, ( not the one's in the tiger -LOL) you will see that the individuals wrists are not together as would be if cuffs were on him. I haven't heard of "finger cuffs" yet.

[spunkets]

"Spunkets, without you imagination getting untethered, where are the guns?"

There are no guns drawn in the first pic, but I'm sure they were at the initial stop. The second pic isn't clear, but she's not holding her coffee behind that door and they've been there awhile since there's an open cooler on the ground.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Man, you parse better than Bill Clinton. : )

I thought you were going to bed.

[Sir Gawain]

Under what circumstances?

[Chad Fairbanks]

I can only speak for myself, but I would have no problems with martial law under one condition - If I was in charge...