U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Hampshire
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 07-09-2017, 10:32 AM
Location: Ossipee, NH
333 posts, read 193,944 times
Reputation: 688


The police aren't the ones that gave out his personal information. But to use that picture as a shock value photo to ask people to not do this is not a bad thing. That photo went viral and not because people are ticked off the police took it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 07-09-2017, 10:36 AM
2,660 posts, read 1,272,420 times
Reputation: 2513
Originally Posted by sb2017 View Post
Well, I know I would do anything possible to not have to drive behind or next to that vehicle no matter how well it appeared to be tied down, legal or not legal. Would those supporting it willingly drive behind or next to it?

As to why somebody posted that picture, it's amazing somebody could do that! Wouldn't you share a pic if you saw that in person? I can't imagine malice was intended.
Who said anything about supporting it. This is how rumors and slanders get started. I never said I "supported it" I just said we don't have enough information to accuse. Apparently many of you thought differently.

Regarding "malice", I read that law enforcement posted the picture. What gave them that right? They have extraordinary powers compared to citizenry. Certainly I as a citizen could not force someone to the side of the road, take their picture and post it publicly. What gives police the right, especially in a way that makes fun of the individual?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-09-2017, 10:41 AM
Location: Ossipee, NH
333 posts, read 193,944 times
Reputation: 688
According to everything written about it, the police pulled him over because they thought it was unsafe and then also found out he had no inspection sticker. That's their job. They didn't pull him over to take the picture to make fun of him. They used the picture as a tool after the fact to say "This isn't safe, please don't do this." The police can't be blamed for media carrying that further.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-09-2017, 02:48 PM
636 posts, read 953,800 times
Reputation: 738
Originally Posted by unit731 View Post

He made it to Londonderry from Belmont without any (mentioned) problems.
So with the information provided looks like all was tied down pretty good.

According the what I have read (and posted picture) he got the vehicle back home all intact with stuff still on roof. How did that happen if true?

Appears to be an invasion of privacy for the state police to post the original picture. But others may have a differing opinion on that.
I took another look at the photo that was taken when he was back at his house. It's impossible to know where he was in the unpacking process, but the extension ladder on the right side of the van is gone, as is the cart/other stuff hanging down along the back window. The state trooper did state that an item fell off the vehicle as they were escorting him off the road, so obviously, not everything was well-secured. It's possible they let him drive home after modifying things a bit. Apparently he was taken to some tow yard in Pelham first. The NH1 article doesn't make complete sense - why tow him, but then just let him go with "all the items" still on the car? The article uses that phrase twice. Police got a complaint of him driving on 106 in Loudon with all the items, and neighbors say he arrived home with all the items. Was it really "all" the items, or just a lot? I could see them making him better secure the items, and maybe remove some, and then sending him on his way, warning him to go slowly, and not drive again until he has a valid inspection sticker.

I don't think the photo of the vehicle (on the side of the highway, not the one at home) is an invasion of privacy - his name wasn't published and the license plate isn't visible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-09-2017, 07:06 PM
Location: Barrington, NH!
1,209 posts, read 1,810,515 times
Reputation: 1751
I don't believe there is any expectation of privacy on the side of a public road. Any member of the public could have taken a picture and put it on social media. I don't think this is a conspiracy by corrupt cops to frame an innocent hoarder. The vehicle was unsafe. The cops pulled him over. End of story. Nothing to see here, life goes on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Hampshire
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top