They continue to claim the witnesses are mistaken (this has happened since the very start, remember the white box truck/purple lettering?).
If the white van is not a clue, why are they only searching white vans?
This crime will not be solved without citizen involvement, and yet the citizens are kept in the dark as to what to be aware of.
ladyinred: How do the police know the drivers are innocent? How do they know that the driver isn't the sniper? What would you have them do? You know, I would cooperate with the police totally. If that is a problem for you, so be it.
ClearCase_guy: You are confused about Innocent until proven guilty. The police routinely lock up criminals until their trial is over -- we don't know if they are innocent or guilty yet, but we lock them up. And it's OK.
The initiation of force and threat of force is a crime. That's common-sense natural law. For the person that is the victim of initiation of force or threat of force, he or she is not free to walk away or not free to refuse the person initiating force against them.
When a suspect is arrested it is thought to be with the best judgment of the arresting LEO that the suspect initiated force or threat of force. Until an impartial jury delivers its verdict it is not know whether those government officials that participated in the arrest were using defensive force or initiated force.
That is, a police officer doesn't knowingly initiate force. Instead, he operates on the belief that he is using defensive force. When a person points a gun at a person that is a threat of force. Unless the person a LEO points his or her gun at has initiated force or threat of force the LEO is the person initiating force.
What does the LEO face in his or her decision? An analogy to start the mind thinking.
Hypothetical: THE PEOPLE VS. BOB CROW
Bob Crow is charged with assaulting Connie Jones. Bob slapped Connie, strangers to each other, hard in the face and then wrestled her to the ground. A man unconnected with either Bob or Connie just happened to video tape the entire incident including a few minutes prior to Bob slapping Connie. It is clear from the video that Bob did not act in self-defense.
Following the judge's instructions that the jury is to follow the law as the judge states it, the jury has no choice but to render a guilty verdict against Bob Crow.
However one other thing was abundantly clear in the video. The reason Bob Crow slapped Connie Jones and wrestled her to the ground was because Bob was convinced that Connie was attempting to jump off the three-hundred foot cliff. Unable to talk Connie out of jumping he slapped her and then wrestled her to the ground -- saving her life.
Had the judge upheld the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, the jury could have nullified the law. Thereby selecting option #2 -- the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant.
As a side note: If you were in Bob Crow's position, how well would your conscience hold up knowing that you could have at least tried to stop Connie Jones from jumping off the cliff yet chose to do nothing? Which is worse, being at the mercy of an impartial jury for having assault and battered -- initiated force against -- Connie Jones, or living the rest of your life knowing you did nothing to stop her?
Major problem, the judge will not permit an impartial jury to be seated in your trial.
Additional note: The intent of the authors of the constitution in regards to the Sixth Amendment impartial jury was to protect the defendant from discrimination. Not just discrimination against race, sex and religion, but to protect against discrimination by the much more powerful government.
The above hypothetical is an excerpt from an earlier article.