Man in custody after police surround white van

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by abooja
I said they were arrested, so that's why I assumed they were charged with something.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Oct21.html


I wasn't worried about arrested or detained.....that's parsing words to me. Anyway, thanks for the link......I hadn't read that.:)

I can see where one would think an arrest was made......without the knowledge I now have I would have said the same thing. Can't trust the press with fast moving news though......everyone tries to "scope" everyone else.:)
 
Originally posted by DE Wrangler 2
I wasn't worried about arrested or detained.....that's parsing words to me.  Anyway, thanks for the link......I hadn't read that.:)  

I can see where one would think an arrest was made......without the knowledge I now have I would have said the same thing.  Can't trust the press with fast moving news though......everyone tries to "scope" everyone else.:)

You're welcome. :)

But I guess I thought arrests were made because the White House Press Secretary said so. :(

"On the arrests, it's a fluid situation," Fleischer told reporters. "There has been more than one." He declined to elaborate.
 
What does Ari Fleischer have to do with a police investigation? Nothing.
 
Originally posted by paul
What does Ari Fleischer have to do with a police investigation?  Nothing.

The White House Press Secretary speaks for the President, who's been involved in this investigation for a while now. If he feels comfortable publically discussing those two men as having been "arrested", I feel that gives the story a lot of credibility.
 
Abooja, dear, I truly think you're terribly misinformed about this whole story. :(

Bush is not involved in the investigation in any way.

Here's what happened, police apprehended two men (read: not arrested), brought them in for questioning, during questioning found out they were illegal aliens.
 
Are you confusing making statements at his podium, or Ari Fleischer making statements with being invovled in a police investigation?

If not, can you show me some links that show Bush actively taking part in the investigation.

Unless Bush has suspended Habeus Corpus then he hasn't done squat in the investigation. And I don't remember him suspending it. Apparently you do?

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

18 U.S.C. 1385

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to
execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)
 
As impressive as your legal research may be, it was unnecessary. I said Bush was involved in the investigation. That does not mean he's heading up the investigation, or that he's dragging around bloodhounds sniffing white vans in the D.C. area. It simply means he is being made aware of all the pertinent details, and has some influence as to how things proceed.

This investigation does not exist in a vacuum, after all. That 9/11 hovers as a backdrop to all this, particulars about the investigation are naturally going to be run past the White House.

As for the federal government's involvement, that's already happening.
 
Paul this is off subject......but, since you went to all the trouble to research all that: Bet better legal experts than any of us on this forum already knew all that.........since no one has seriously challenged the use of the RC-7 observation aircraft, I figure it's legal.:D
 
I think you're confusing Ari Fleischer making statements with Bush being involved in a police investigation.

Or if you're saying the extent of his investigation is being told details then I'll agree. How is he influencing anything?

Links?
 
I'm not confusing anything. I'm pretty well versed on this subject, and current events in general, and think I have more of an instinct for these things than you give me credit for.

As far as the public is aware, the extent of Bush's involvement in this investigation is, yes, simply being made aware of the goings on. However, if you honestly believe that Bush & Co. are not pursuing all possible leads tying this to Al Qaeda, you're the one who's misinformed. Why else would the FBI be questioning prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?
 
Originally posted by DE Wrangler 2
Paul this is off subject......but, since you went to all the trouble to research all that:  Bet better legal experts than any of us on this forum already knew all that.........since no one has seriously challenged the use of the RC-7 observation aircraft, I figure it's legal.:D

Use of the plane nudged the PCA but I don't think that it was a blatant violation of it.

It relied on a third-generation FLIR that can track moving targets. No weapons aboard, and supposedly there were Federal agents on board. That is, the Army guys only flew and operated the equipment.

I'll agree that's legal, Bush influencing a police investigation, however, is not.
 
Originally posted by abooja
I'm not confusing anything. I'm pretty well versed on this subject, and current events in general, and think I have more of an instinct for these things than you give me credit for.

As far as the public is aware, the extent of Bush's involvement in this investigation is, yes, simply being made aware of the goings on. However, if you honestly believe that Bush & Co. are not pursuing all possible leads tying this to Al Qaeda, you're the one who's misinformed. Why else would the FBI be questioning prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?

That is not being involved in a police investigation.
 
I just heard it argued that the feds should take command of this investigation because it's multi-state, and seemingly too enormous for local investigators. Bo Dietl was very upset about the request for clarification of the killer's message, saying that it was inexcusable -- what if the killer left his name? -- and that the feds should at least lend them some better equipment. He also wondered why we're even believing the caller is the true killer, but that's another subject altogether.
 
not to mention just because the press says something does not nessarily mean its really true.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the Director of the FBI reports to the Chief of Staff. How is that unrelated?

And, Smack, the Press Secretary is NOT the press.
 
Abooja -

George Bush... is not... involved... in a police... investigation.
 
Originally posted by smack500
abooja your wrong and your not even makeing any sence.

I'm right, and you're not making a whole lot of sense there yourself, pal. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by paul
Abooja -  

George Bush... is not... involved... in a police... investigation.

I...get...your...point.

No need to be so excruciatingly condescending.
 
To be honest, each jurisdiction is probably doing their own investigation now....the FBI, ATF, and all the local jurisdictions. There's almost too many jurisdictions involved....which also makes me think this guy is from around here.
 
Originally posted by fergy1370
Damn, Paul...they were taken in because they were being interviewed and that they were illegal aliens. The van was towed so it could be processed, which is not an uncommon practice for high profile cases.

The "sniper" was said to left a number. Chief Moose said in his news conference that we wanted the person to call back at the number that was given. Two plus two tells me that the "sniper" must have left a phone neumber to a pay phone since the "sniper" was suppose to call. Well, the good guys set up surveillance and when a white van pulled up in front of the phone, wham bam thank you ma'am, the goodguys came out of the woodwork.  

 


And what do you mean, "...in that part of the country"?


Fergy, I was simply refering to the area of the country that has been having trouble with a pesky sniper problem, no offense intended if any was taken.
 
I'm sorry that I came across the wrong way with that post, I apologized to Paul in private, but I should have here in the open....especially since I posted that for everyone to see.

I apologize to both you and Paul, mlite. Shouldn't have snapped at you like that.
 
Yeah, no worries fergy...don't worry about it at all man. We got thick skins here bro. :)
 
Yeah so we got a sniper on the loose, I guessed it as soon as they were arrested it wasn't them. Just a hunch I had.
 
Everyone else seems to believe those two men were arrested -- every news report I saw last night, and most newspaper articles I've read, including the following from the NY Times. I'm pretty sure their fact checkers and legal departments are very careful about how these articles are worded. Could everyone else be wrong? :uhmnotsur

Perhaps Fergy or another law enforcement officer can shed some light on the term "arrested". Does simply seizing someone because you have good reason to suspect he's done something illegal mean that person has been arrested, even if no charges are ever filed? This is an honest question.

Since I think you have to have an account to view this article, I'll copy it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/national/22SCEN.html

Richmond Is Jolted by a Sniper's Attack and Its Aftermath as Well
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

RICHMOND, Va., Oct. 21 — They unleashed the Blackhawk helicopter, the SWAT team, scores of federal agents and even a spy plane.

But by day's end, the big sting that the authorities said went down in the suburbs of of Richmond, with two men collared in a white minivan, appeared to be worth as much as so many other leads in the sniper investigation: absolutely nothing.

The two men who were hauled away by a black-clad SWAT team were immigrant laborers, guilty of no more than working without papers. But they had the bad luck of pulling up to a phone booth the sniper may have used, in a white minivan, right at the moment the police were watching.

"It looks like they were in the wrong place at the wrong time," an F.B.I. official said. "It was one of those coincidences."

People in Richmond were stunned as they watched the news trucks with their satellite dishes and yellow-slickered journalists roar into town and then roar off. At the Exxon station in Henrico County where the police arrested the two men, a crowd gathered to watch officers pry up manhole covers with their fingertips and shake bushes for "evidence." Now they had to go home, with no good story to tell.

"This is crazy, man," said Mark Deering, a mechanic who saw this morning's arrest. "They need to catch this guy."

Until Saturday, Richmond was not part of the sniper frenzy. More than 100 miles south of Washington, people here were not crouching behind gas pumps, not canceling soccer practice, nor checking the rooftops. It was not their hometown sheriff on television but somebody else's.

But that all changed after the sniper shot a 37-year-old man on Saturday night in a Ponderosa Steakhouse parking lot in Ashland, north of Richmond, leaving him in critical condition. Ballistic tests released today confirmed that shooting was linked to the 11 sniper attacks in the Washington area.

The authorities in metropolitan Richmond, which has about one million residents, responded more drastically than anywhere else, closing all public schools today and Tuesday, much to the annoyance of many parents.

"Parents have to rearrange schedules," said Jane McCarthy, whose two children, ages 8 and 12, attend suburban Richmond schools. "It's not like I don't fear for my kids' safety, but where are they going to be anyway?"

Richmond officials said there was no other way to guarantee the children's safety.

There was a sense today, in the empty food courts and at the lonely gas stations, that people were staying home.

"It's what terrorism does," said D. Ray Davis, 42, who sat with friends at a usually crowded mall that was quiet today. "You shoot a few people and you put everyone in fear."

There were also many more police officers on the streets.

Around 8 a.m., Mr. Deering, the auto mechanic, stepped out of the garage at the Royal Oldsmobile dealership to see two officers squinting through a pair of binoculars at a phone booth across the street.

"They looked ready to spring," said Mr. Deering, 38.

An F.B.I. official said agents staked out phone booths on a stretch of West Broad Street because there had been a suspicious call from one of them, possibly from the sniper. The person who left a note at the scene of Saturday's shooting mentioned the number of a pay phone in Richmond. He wrote that he wanted someone in law enforcement to go to the pay phone to receive a call. The phone booth sits right outside the Exxon station.

The official added: "What are the odds that two guys would drive up in a white van on a day like today?"

But at 8:35 a.m., that is exactly what happened. Two laborers, one Mexican, one Guatemalan, pulled up to the phone booth in a Plymouth Voyager minivan, much like the Chevy Astro minivan the authorities think the sniper is driving.

That is when a three-member SWAT team sprinted toward the vehicle with rifles drawn, screaming, "Get out! Get out! Get out of the car!" As mechanics huddled in the garage across the street, the black-clad officers yanked the driver out of the van sideways, pinned him to the pavement and hauled him away.

"They looked like they were going to shoot him," Mr. Deering said.

Pathenia Fields, a receptionist at Royal Olds, said, "They bum-rushed him," and Keith Underwood, the service manager, said, "They had some big long guns." .

Shortly after the driver was arrested, his friend was scooped up at a gas station across the street. Then the Richmond authorities put out a bulletin summoning all news media to a news conference at 1 p.m. They even put up a tent for reporters to protect them from the drizzle.

At the news conference, few questions were answered.

The Hanover County sheriff, V. Stuart Cook, announced, "The two people we have in custody are being questioned in regards to the sniper shootings."

"Do you have the shooter?" someone shouted out.

"Is this your man?" another asked.

The sheriff would not say. Two weary eyes stared back from a sphinx-like face.

By midafternoon, rumors leaked out that there was no sniper suspect. And at 6 p.m., the Richmond authorities called reporters back.

"Two men were detained and questioned by local and federal authorities," said Sgt. Tom Shumate of Henrico County police department. "They are now in the custody of the I.N.S."

He did not say anything else.

Russell Bergeron, spokesman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Washington, said the two men would be charged with being illegally in United States and face deportation. He did not disclose their names.

Several officials with the F.B.I., the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the immigration service said that the pair had nothing to do with the sniper case.

"Wrong place, wrong time," was what many officials said.
 
It's simple. I'm not wrong.

BTW, you clearly do have a problem letting things go. Maybe that's why we can't seem to agree on anything. We're both bullheaded. :)
 
Right, I'm the one that rehashed it a day later.

Your act is wearing thin.
 
Alright, both of you people let's just drop it. We're all mature in here, granted this place is for arguing, but come on this is getting out of hand.
 
We know there is someone going around picking people off with a sniper rifle. And there are contradicting stories as to whether two other people were arrested or just detained for questioning. Well they just got deported, and we STILL have someone shooting up people.

Who cares about those two guys who got sent out of the country. They aren't of any importance, nor should we be at each other's throats about something so trivial.
 
Whoever is doing that awful dead NEEDS to be caught. Those two guys who were caught before were false leads. I don't see the arguement.
 
Paul, you're completely right about everything.

I bow to your brilliance on this and all issues.

:)
 
Sarcasm and last word-itis do not belong with this particular subject.

This issue is closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom