I just saw a news bit on the sniper story and it showed some of the "searches" and this got me thinking again.  Back during the sniper attacks, there were several very heated debates here over the profiling of white vans, roadblocks and warrantless  searches.
Well we all know the outcome now, and we know that there never was a white van used in any of the shootings.  I have also read that moose and co. had information and descriptions of the blue caprice and still went on stopping white vans.
I still remember the ski masked JBT's doing felony stops of innocent white van drivers, stopping them at gunpoint, pulling them from their vans and basically treating them as if they were the sniper and searching peoples cars at the road blocks without warrants.
This still enrages me to this day !!
The argument then was...well if you lived here and were dealing with this first hand, then you would feel differently, and that these tactics were justified and reasonable.
So, what are your thoughts now ??

Given the information at the time, I think the stopping of white vans was legally justifiable.  I think the [i]method[/i] of stopping the vans was (in good government tradition) heavy-handed and excessively forceful.  And I'm [i]STILL[/i] pissed about the ski-masks.

I'm highly opposed to the thought of "warrantless" searches, or profiling of any sort.  The fact that the police didn't stop with the white van search earlier may have been an honest mistake or it could be more.  There just isn't enough evidence to convince me of foul play yet, suspicious yes but then again hindsight is 20/20.

Edited to add:  They probably did have justifiable cause to search vehicles in the immediate area after the shootings.  I can't think of any other way to try to catch them.  I don't like the ski-mask's though.  Were they undercover cops who were called up on short notice and didn't want their cover blown?

I agree...I have no problem stopping the white vans if they fit the description given. As you stated, its the METHOD used.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

Which way do you think I'm biased?

I found that stopping any and ALL white vans to be offensive, especially when a deputy with an itchy trigger finger could have killed an innocent.  

Moose the racist also knew about the "dark skinned" sighting some of the shootings, yet didn't look into that or profile that at all.

If you're going to profile, work with the evidence at hand.  Notice they never said, WHITE GUY...bla bla bla.  They said "its most likely a white guy."  But its ok to profile white people between 25-40 with white vans, right?

It became ok to profile people after the suspects went from being "Middle Eastern or hispanic" to "white."  

Moose wif his experteetness did what he to do. He, togever wif da FBI and uver guvament agencies really proved to be a winning team.

Overall, I considered the tactics reasonable and justified.

Consider, though, that I live in the area (one murder was about 15 miles east of my house, another was about 7 miles west of me).  No one that I know cared about the LEO’s wearing masks and such.  Instead, they were very concerned with the murders being stopped!

Admittedly, I generally view masks on LEO’s dealing with the general public as an extremely bad idea.  Hiding someone’s identity encourages misconduct.  However, they were probably justified in this case given the exigent circumstances.

I don’t understand the complaint re: “heavy-handed” tactics of the police.  

There was one instance I know of after the Ashland shooting where a driver of a white van near Fredericksburg was put on the ground, handcuffed, and later released.  There may have been a reason for this, or maybe just a bad call by a particular LEO.  This is hardly worth getting hysterical about.

Keep in mind the LEO’s were looking for shooter(s) who, if found, were almost certainly going to try to kill the LEO’s.  The shooters had the tactical advantage – only they knew that they were the shooters – while the LEOs were in uniform or otherwise identified.

Plus the shooters had already killed several people, were better armed than most of the LEO’s, and were using a round that would zip right through the LEO’s body armor.

Ask yourself how you would have acted if you were an LEO walking up to a van that might hold the shooter.

Incidentally, at the time there were several reports of white vans in the areas of the shootings, sometimes being driven by olive skinned or Hispanic looking men.  

Strangely, some individuals scoff in hindsight at the foolishness of looking for a white van, while complaining that the description of the men in the white van should have been given more weight.  Yet, these two items were linked together!!

Also, it now seems the earlier “olive skinned or Hispanic” description of the suspects has been replaced with “dark skinned”, since this comes closer to describing the actual shooters.  

Regardless, no one I know would describe the actual shooters as “dark skinned” either; rather, they’d be described as “black” or “African-American”.

Interestingly, Chief Moose refused to give out a profile of the suspect(s), saying he didn’t want citizens to limit who they thought might be doing this.  While I can’t imagine anyone on this board admitting it, he was 100% correct in this.  If you recall, all of the profilers on TV (that I know of) described the shooter as a white male – and they were wrong!!

On the other hand, it genuinely appears the information on the Chevy Caprice wasn’t handled properly.  

I also have other complaints about the investigation that I’ve previously posted, so I won’t belabor them.

However, I will once again belabor the point that some board members find it OK to profile Middle Easterners, but become indignant when AR owners are profiled.  

Anyone who embraces profiling had better be able to accept that some day they’re going to be on the receiving end of it!!

I was going to respond to each "point" individually, but I think Balzac's Franklin quote is more appropriate:

"They that can sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

If the police have a problem doing a job that is potentially dangerous without resorting to (at best) questionable tactics, they should find another fucking job.  It's interesting that almost everytime in recent history the police have gotten a new "tool" for law enforcement there have been some who feared that it would be used against innocent people, while others simply bleeted that "if you aren't a criminal, you don't have to worry."  The same goes for the development of the felony stop for people who had committed crimes while driving.  Well, all of those people in white vans were guilty of nothing more than driving white vans, but they got submachineguns shoved in their faces by mask-wearing thugs who were afraid they [i]might[/i] have had weapons.  Just because you were screaming helplessly for the mommy state to defend your ass doesn't mean we should so freely accept the heavy-handed tactics of law enforcement.  

I suppose you think the PATRIOT ACT is a real good idea too, right?  I mean, terrorist activities might make you afraid to go into skyscrapers or fly, so the rest of us should juet meekily accept unconstitutional actions to make you feel safer.

I still have serious, serious, serious problems with people being yamked from their vehicles thrown to the ground and handcuffed for the duration of the search of their vehicle and personal effects by ski masked personel who were working hard to conceal their own identity.

So you would have done felony stops on people who committed the crime of (gasp) driving a white van?  

I guess you don't know anyone who drives a white van that got molested by the police.



Justified how? What is the justification of wearing a mask to hide your identity?



They're referring to the masks and the dragging of people out of their white vans that you think is reasonable.  



Unless you were the guy drug out of the van, put on the ground and cuffed. It's easy to dismiss other people's misfortune.



This same arguement can be used in about a million different situations that the police handle every day. Nobody every said that police work was safe and easy, because it's not. This is still no excuse for their "heavy handed" tactics.



So this makes everything ok? Do masks stop bullets?



I would have been very aprehensive. I would have probably been thinking that it's a good possibility that I could die today. I'd also be thinking that I was the one that signed up for this job and that I was there to "serve and protect" not play ninja and harrass.



I think it's probably because there are tons of white van type vehicles on the road. I'm sure there were a lot of black cars in the areas as well. About 50% of the people in this country could probably be considered olive skinned or hispanic looking when spotted driving by in a vehicle.  



If that is the best that they had to look for then it wasn't foolish at all. Though now looking back these two items had absolutely nothing to do with the case since nobody in a white van did any shooting regardless of what they looked like.



Obviously when the first description is wrong, as has turned out to be true, you change the description. I'm not real sure where you're going here. Do you think they should still refer to them olive skinned?  



Because that is what we call black people in America. Before we knew they were black they called them olive skinned/dark skinned, now that we know they are black we call them black.



They didn't give out a profile because they had absolutely no idea who they were looking for. How does that make him 100% correct? If profilers were 100% correct all of the time then we wouldn't need detectives.



This is debatable. How many tips had they received and about what? They could have had tips on 1000 different cars the Caprice being only one of them. They couldn't reasonably tell everyone about every single tip or relay every single bit of information that they had received.

I'd actually like to hear more about this, but it seems that they're pretty tight lipped about it, for obvious reasons.



This is too rediculous to comment much on. There is a huge difference between profiling middle easterers in certain situations (airports) and lawful ar15 owners. In fact, is there even a profile for ar15 owners? I know there is one for middle eastern terrorists.



If the profile fits....

I too live in VA, but closer to the Ashland shooting.  LEOs have a duty to adhere to the consitution (and the protections it affords) regardless of public opinion.  It's the same reason they can't beat child moleters to death.



Since they didn't have a suspect, everyone became a suspect.  Some MD AR15 owners who happened to own white vans, were paid a visit by certain agencies, and effectively asked to prove their innocence.  That, my friend, does seem heavy handed.



I was a big supporter of Law Enforcement in this case, except for Moose (the personification of a failed system of affirmative action).  Still, as I said above, constitutional protections cannot be overlooked for the sake of convience or officer safety.  Normally, if an officer believes he is in danger, he normally would call for backup.  In a case like this, no backup would be available as they were spread too thin, so the officer would be SOL and on his own.  It still doesn't matter, he cannot for the sake of convience overstep Constitutional protections.

So this discussion proves that even hindsight isn't 20-20! [:)]

The shooters are in custody and have stopped killing.  Law enforcement did that, like *we* pay them to.  

Everyone seems to have survived all the *infringements* on their liberty without the sky falling.  Oh, the internet is abuzz, that's for sure, but what to make of all the noise?  [;D]

Just a thought, now that people in the targeted areas are accepting to masked men with guns stopping traffic, will there now be a new style of carjacking?
SSD

I guess for me, the most interesting thing about any sniper story I've seen or heard lately is the absence of the words "Black", "Muslim", "Terrorist","Islam", "Al Ouaeda", or "Islamist".........

I can't help but wonder, if the perps were white if we wouldn't be hearing such words as "Militia", "Christian extremist", "Anti-government", "Constitutionalist", "Assault Weapon", and "Hate Group"........

Notice above I said "most interesting" thing, not "most surprising".......

It's our duty to analyze the performance and behavior of our public servants after events such as this...  An "ends justifies the means" attitude is not acceptable.  A defense of "you weren't there" or you are an "armchair quarterback" is essentially a cop out used by those wishing to escape critique.

I'd rate the non Moose performance to be quite good.  I'd ask them to watch for overzealous officers, and to be on the alert for and prevent possible consititutional collateral damage.  Things that in a perfect world, would be a part of any LE culture.

Moose?  I'd rate him and the Montgomery County politicos pretty poorly.  If I lived in his juristiction, I'd be mortified.  Like it or not, vocabulary and manner of speaking, are good indicators of a persons thought processes.

Can you say Manchurian Candidate

Take a close look at the responses to this thread, look just how many freedoms these so called "patriots" are willing to give up in times of crisis. If they allow mass warrantless searches of white fans by masked jack-booted thugs then you'll allow warantless searches of your homes and personal effects. In the next terrorist attack these same people won't fight the martial law and checkpoints that the federal / state government will impose.

I also heard so many reports of gun owners willingly turning over their AR15s to be ballistically tested / fingerprinted. If that's the case, when they come to confiscate your guns you will hand them over willingly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the people of Virginia deserve neither liberty nor security.

[rolleyes]

I'll say it right now, you're an idiot.

During the height of the search for the sniper, I posted a AP photo of the Brownshirt pigs putting some innocent guy from a white van on the ground in cuffs.  I said then and say now, those "professionals" deserve only a bullet to the head.  For my trouble I was threated by IM by two of the Mods. It is remarkable how the staff and mods of this board quickly drop into lockstep with the very people who will soon be knocking on their doors in search of weapons they can no longer own.  TBK locking my post with the photo of the ATF weapons display during this time was nothing short of amazing.  His stated reason?  "What it would LOOK like."(!)

Remarkably educational, wouldn't you agree?

[img]http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/rolleyes2.gif[/img]

Well, the Belt Way Snipers gave the sheeple a little taste of what it would be like to live/work under martial law, where all Constitutional guarantees are suspended. If Constitutional law were suspended, that means the 2nd Amendment would also be suspended, and the LE can come to each and every home and confiscate their property(i.e. legally owned guns, don't think it can happend today? Think about the Japanese-Americans during WWII and the American Indians.) It will also be too late for the folks who said that "I will give it 'em one bullet at a time," because at that time they will staring down the barrel of a MP5 at 4am in their jammies. Don't think some of the anti-gunners wouldn't take advantage of the situtation at hand to confiscate all ? Calif. Sen. Daine Fienstein already she would confiscate them if she could, during the TV show 60 Minutes. Gun control is a very high priority item on the agenda of the liberals(Democratic & Republican).

Considering the wearing of ski masks was established to be by undercover officers and the reasons for them to maintain their anonimity should be obvious, but to be sure:



From: [url]http://www.nleomf.com/[/url]

Now I'm not the most LEO friendly guy on this site but, where exactly did all this Police abuse take place?  

What evidence can you lay out that anyone's rights were violated?  It seems to me folks are taking their biases, applying a liberal dose of supposition and applying it to the no doubt highly accurate and unbiased new reports of the distant events they have read about.

Yes, there may have been a few drivers of white vans that were approached as felony stops and had it been me, it would both scare me and piss me off, however What right it would violate?

What part of the Constitution says a suspected violent criminal (and that is what they were looking for) can't be detained at gun point?  If that is permissible it follows that it will happen in error.  Dangerous, and potentially tragic, but not a violation of any right.  

Given the huge number of white vans that were stopped, you can bet the majority of them (as in the two cases where I personally know the drivers) were simply approached, informed they/their vehicle matched the description of suspects in a serious crime and asked if they would mind submitting to a search.  

Anyone approached this way, or even in the felony stop would have been perfectly within their rights to say no to a search of their vehicle, but as far as anyone has shown me, no one withheld their permission, and were then searched without a warrant anyway.

I suspect if you had refused, you would have been detained until there was a warrant, which while you would no doubt feel violated, is also not a violation of your rights, unless you take the position that innocent until proven guilty  means no one susptected of a crime can be detained or inconvenienced in the least.

With the high profile of this case, there is no way the police would have risked blowing the case on a warrantless search.  If anyone can point to a reliably documented case of a search with out permission or a warrant let's see the link.

That said, I fully agree with the severe criticism of the leadership (Primarily with Moose and his puppeteers) for mis-directing the search by focusing on the white van and not even mentioning the other eyewitness accounts.

Had they said they not focused exclusively on white vans and mentioned the other vehicle/occupants seen, it might have saved lives as the shooters apparently had multiple contacts with law enforcement during the spree, but since the officer on the street (like the public) was being told to focus on the white van.

I did a thread on this at the time. Talked to a number of people who had visits, and had been stopped. Bottom line? LEO was using commonly accepted techniques in the investigation. Generally speaking, it was a circle jerk, but that's to be expected in an investigation of this magnatude, with the political pressure involved.

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=149506&w=searchPop[/url]

W/ all due respect - "accepted practices", "commonly used techniques", and "behaving just as they were trained" were catch-phrases drilled into our heads (and the heads of multiple juries) everyday during the Rodney King beating and Diallo shooting trials.

One photo, which still burns in my mind and can no longer locate on the net, showed a LEO during a felony stop aiming his Beretta at a little old grandmother as she was walking backwards towards the officer's voice with her hands up in the air.  She was guilty of riding in a white van and nothing more.

Now from what I gather, a lot of the responses here are displaying anger towards the policy of profiling and the uncomfortable prevelance of felony stops - we'd never had known about them if it weren't for the media right?  They were just following their commonly accepted practices and performing exactly as they were trained to do - and they made a ton of mistakes too.

I wonder, what's our job in all this?  Are we acting out under the same model?  Are we trained to act all hot-headed and defensive given a troubling situation such as the Beltway shooting spree?  A whole lot of bitching and no action while we sit around and wait for the inevitable next [i]raison d' etre[/i] of cable news to rivet us to the idiot box?

I doubt anyone was "Trained" for what took place, with the exception of those with a military backround. The case's that have been cited involve individual officers,
not "official" practice. Were mistakes made? Yep! Did a [red]few[/red] cops go overboard? Yep! Consider this. There were THOUSANDS of cops working this case coast to coast. How many JBT incidents by individual cops can be documented??  
Answer: Damn few.....
Fewer in fact than can be documented by Houston PD in [b]one night[/b] of anti-drag racing enforcement!!!

BTW, I'm NOT known as a cop apologist....

It's the mask thing that still gets me the most.

Let me add yet another JBT incident to the discussion.

Here in Atlanta, a neurosurgeon was called at a local shopping mall to the Kennestone hospital for emergency surgery.  As he backed out of the parking space he struck another car.  While the doctor was racing to hospital, he called Cobb County 911 to tell them what had happened and what he was doing and why.  

The doctor arrived at the hospital and began scrubbing for emergency brain surgery on a child with a head injury from a soccer accident.  

Hold on to your chair for the next part...

The worthless scum Barney Fifes entered the scrub room AND ARRESTED THE DOCTOR while he was preparing for surgery!!!![IMG]http://216.40.249.192/mysmilies/contrib/dvv/po.gif[/IMG]

A second doctor had to be brought in for the surgery, but child had already died from his injury.

As you can imagine, the parents have a monster law suit against the Cobb County Police.

I defy you to defend the actions of this worthless scum such as this.  The fact people this stupid are allowed to carry weapons is scary beyond belief.

[IMG]http://216.40.249.192/mysmilies/ups/kiss_my_ass/mad.gif[/IMG]  

From the "masked officer" comments I have have been reading it would seem alot of people thing that these officers were just out in the middle of the road by themselves. In all cases I personally saw here they were next to marked cars and accompanied by non-masked officers in uniform.  

Smart move probably.  When do you think they'll start wearing their masks in court?  

Watch the news on Univision sometime.  It seems down south, they've got more cops wearing masks than not.  Is that what we have to look forward to?  

Ref. please...

[b]I'm[/b] an idiot for pointing out that Virginians said NOTHING, did NOTHING to stop or even protest at the mass violations of 4th amendment on that freeway? Stopping white vans because a racist Moooose blabbered on about people supposedly seeing white vans moving away from the scene of the sniper attacks? No specifics, just white vans.

You know what the bigger crime is? That you [b]stupid[/b] Virginians don't consider what they did a violation of your rights.

In the not so distant future I see the following conversation:

Masked JBT: Well, where the hell are your papers? You know you need to present them upon demand whenever you cross the street.

Redmanfms: I'm sorry, sir, I thought I had them, they are in my other jacket. I'll just go get them.

Masked JBT: Hmmm, you look suspicious. Wait a minute while I fingerprint you, there, OK. I think I'll follow you home and search your house while you get those papers.

Redmanfms: No problem, sir. My guns are in the upstairs bedroom closet if you want to examine and fingerprint them.

Masked JBT: (holds up several AR-15s) Why do you have this cache of weapons? Are you in a militia? I think I'll confiscate these, they serve no sporting purpose. I'll leave you the muzzle-loading rifle for protection but I'll take down the serial number on it, we'll need to keep track of it until we come to collect them.

Redmanfms: No problem, sir, I wouldn't want to offend you or the government. After all it's in the name of security and I'm willing to give up any liberty for a little temporary security. Here's my papers, I'm sorry for not having them when you asked, sir.

Masked JBT: Make sure it never happens again. Carry on, citizen.

You got your news of this event from the TV and/or newspaper and have no idea idea what went on.  

Given you have no first hand knowledge and haven't provided a shred of evidence to back your spurious claim that warrantless seraches were conducted, I'll ask that you sit down and shut the f_ck up.

Are you actually saying that the much-publicized footage and photos of masked jack-booted "undercover" thugs stopping white vans en masse without warrants was [b]fabricated[/b]?

Oi, did I hit a nerve? So for now on when somebody mentions the total lack of understanding of the 4th amendment and the protections it provides the token Virginian response will be "we don't discuss this issue with outsiders"? Could this be embarassment mixed with shame?

I'd like to see a link too. Me thinks he talks out his ass....

BTW, 99% of the few who had masks on were in jeans and sneakers, not jackboots.

Since when do you need a warrant for a traffic stop?

Notice how all news about the snipers has totally died down?

I attribute this to the fact that the snipers were:

1) Black
2) Gay
3) Muslim

If they had been white guys, we would have never heard the end of it, especially if the media could have "found" a miltia link.

BTW: Felony stops should not be done by masked men; SWAT helmets etc, OK, but not masks.

My .02.

Merlin

Post from LE6920 -

Well, I feel better about these stops already!

[u]No[/u] jackboots? What a blessed relief!

Oh, not since the time that the authorities decided that such matters were trivial and not covered by the Bill of Rights!

No one's bitching about a traffic stop. It's what happens AFTER the traffic stop that bears reflection.

I can't imagine any LEO happy about the manner in which these 'Keystone Kops' episodes have made their colleagues in Maryland/Virginia look!

[b]And they weren't even looking for the right vehicle![/b]

Eric The(Egads!)Hun[>]:)]

I'm sorry to read of your low opinion of the people of Virginia.

I don't see that you have provided your state of residence in your profile. Are you ashamed to?

Just wondering....because cowards tend to have big mouths.

So, I'm curious to hear how many of you objecting to masks and jeans and sneakers (but *not* SWAT helmets! LOL) and "unlawful" stops would have handled this situation.

What's the "constitutional" way to conduct LE activities?  

Do you just wave as people drive by with a sign that asks, "Are you the killers?" and let them on their way if they wave "no"?

Is there actually a "correct way" to legally find and stop and punish a pair or mass murderers that *someone* wouldn't object to?

Yeah I know that, but the "jack booted" describes a type of person (in this case, a Constitution-ignoring local or federal police officer) rather than actual jack boots.

Who claimed you need a warrant for a traffic stop? The issue here is that they searched the vehicles without a warrant [b]simply because they were white vans[/b]. No specifics about the vans (such as lettering or a taillight out or a small dent on the lower right of the rear bumper, etc). Any and all white vans on that highway/interstate were searched.

No, I'm not saying anything was fabricated.  I'm saying you saw a picture in the morning news and are drawing conclusions you have no real idea about.

I agree with the sentiment that it's BS to have masked LEO's doing traffic stops whatever the reason.  However, stopping a vehicle on a public street and a search with no warrant are TWO different things.  There is a distinction between what pisses you off and what is an actual violation of your rights.  

Clearly LEO's in masks piss you off.  They have not, however violated any right of yours by wearing a mask, or even by stopping you based on you matching a suspect descritption.  

Stopping a vehicle on the road is NOT a SEARCH.  If susequent to such a stop the driver of said vehicle gives permission to search, there is no need for a warrant and no ones rights are being violated.  Only if the driver denied permission and was searched anyway was there a violation of the 4th amendment.

You are asserting that because you saw pictures of masked LEO's in the paper, that warrantless searches were performed.  Please present your evidence.

quote]Quoted:
Who claimed you need a warrant for a traffic stop? The issue here is that they searched the vehicles without a warrant [b]simply because they were white vans[/b]. No specifics about the vans (such as lettering or a taillight out or a small dent on the lower right of the rear bumper, etc). Any and all white vans on that highway/interstate were searched.[/quote]

So, we agree that a warrant is not required for LEO to stop a vehicle that matches the description of one used in a crime.  

How do you know that any of these vans were actually searched vs. simply questioning the driver?  

How do you know that warrants weren't obtained or drivers gave permission if any searches were conducted?