Va. Police Seek Highway Gunfire Suspects

After Bullets Strike Vehicles On I-64, Motorists Are Reminded Of 2002 Beltway Shootings

(CBS/AP)  Gunfire that struck several vehicles and injured two people along a stretch of mountain highway had motorists and police on edge Thursday in a region where memories of the deadly Beltway snipers still haven't faded.

Authorities were seeking at least two people suspected of firing shots the night before that hit two cars, a van, a tractor-trailer and an unoccupied dump truck on Interstate 64 just west of Charlottesville. Two people were injured, but not seriously.

Col. Steven Flaherty, the state police superintendent, would not characterize the shootings as the work of snipers, calling it "random firing."

And there were other differences from the sniper spree of nearly six years ago, including the fact that those attacks targeted people who were standing outside their cars.

Nevertheless, Flaherty conceded the 2002 attacks, in which 10 people were killed and three wounded in Maryland, the District of Columbia and northern Virginia, were on investigators' minds as they sought those behind Thursday's spree.

"It reminded us of a lot of emergencies we've had," said Flaherty, whose agency also dealt with last April's Virginia Tech shootings.

Residents, too, were mindful of the crimes of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who were convicted in the 2002 shootings. Christy Lucado, who drives through the area on the way to work, said she immediately thought about the sniper shootings Thursday morning when a friend called and told her the news.

"I thought, well, Lord, my car's out in the driveway, my keys are in it and I'm up on the mountain by myself," said Lucado, who waits tables at Duner's restaurant in Ivy, near the exit where one of the latest shootings happened.

"We're talking the mountains up here, and the first thing you usually think of is drunk rednecks. But the fact they moved from one exit to another makes me think it wasn't just someone there shooting off their gun."

Police took a call from a driver whose vehicle was hit just after midnight. Three more occupied vehicles headed westbound were shot, one at an on-ramp at Ivy, the others at an overpass in the Afton area. An unoccupied Virginia Department of Transportation dump truck was targeted later, farther down the interstate.

The 20-mile stretch of I-64 between Waynesboro and Charlottesville, home of the University of Virginia, was closed for nearly six hours while police searched for suspects and evidence. The interstate reopened around dawn.

Albemarle County public schools closed for the day.

"Given the unknown nature of a still-evolving situation, the idea of putting children in buses, cars or unsupervised at rural bus stops did not seem like the best thing to do," said Lee Catlin, a spokeswoman for the county.

Some parents had called school officials to express their concerns, she said.

"Communities are now sensitized so much to shootings that you have this at a major artery through your area, it really gets your attention," Catlin said.

Police think the bullets were all of the same caliber but they could not be sure until ballistics tests are completed.

The two injured motorists were treated at hospitals and released. Flaherty said he did not know if the victims were struck by bullets or shattered glass.

Flaherty said the shooters could still be in the area, but there was no need for motorists to avoid I-64. Police planned to deploy additional officers in the area Thursday night if no arrests were made, he said.

Robert Caldwell, owner of Duner's, said he took I-64 Thursday morning and noticed police at every overpass. "I've never seen so many state police," he said.

CBS News affilliate WCAV reported that state police spokeswoman Corinne Geller said motorists would not notice the beefed-up patrols after dark.

"You may not see the troopers," she said, "but they're there."

[billorights]

So are you saying the second is an absolute right? - Posted by ozdog88

Unless an individual has had their right to own or possess a weapon revoked by due process, yes the second amendment is an absolute right. Does the government have authority to regulate that right? To an extent, yes. That has been demonstrated, as in the prohibition on civilian ownership of machine guns. They are not completely banned, but a private citizen must undergo a lengthy and expensive background check and licensing, purchase a tax stamp for each automatic weapon, and submit to strict requirements for storage, record keeping and operation.

[ozdog88]

I think you completely missed my point. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to safeguard the individual right to keep and bear arms so that the individual CAN become proficient, and train, and practice, with his own weapon.

So are you saying the second is an absolute right?

[iknowbest-2009]

Can''t wait to be made defenceless as soon as the gun hating libs get their chance.

[j-whitman]

I''ll bet it''s Cheney hunting with Scooter

[j-whitman]

It''s Bush''s fault ---- His minions are trying to prove America is more dangerous than Iraq

[billorights]

It means, and then meant, proficiency, being well trained, highly practiced.
BillORights I think you are making my point, not every individual should be able to obtain a firearm that does not meet this "regulated" standard. Posted by ozdog88

I think you completely missed my point. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to safeguard the individual right to keep and bear arms so that the individual CAN become proficient, and train, and practice, with his own weapon.

[billorights]

So in your view criminals can not be denined purchase of firearms because it would be un-constitutonal? - Posted by ozdog88

It is already well established that the individual referred to by individual right to keep and bear arms means an adult who has not been convicted of a felony or judged to be incompetent due to mental defect. In short, yes criminals are excluded from owning firearms and cannot be protected by the Second Amendment.

[libsrweak]

I predict a more violent society in the future..

"(AP) Ultimate fighting was once the sole domain of burly men who beat each other bloody in anything-goes brawls.

But the mixed martial art sport often derided as "human cockfighting" is branching out.

The bare-knuckle fights are now attracting competitors as young as 6 whose parents treat the sport as casually as wrestling or soccer."


oh well in the end its easier to blame the gun than ourselves for allowing our kids to grow up negligent, reckless, iresponsible..

[libsrweak]

anyone care to take a stab on WHAT KIND OF A PERSON is capable of doing this reckless stunt??

[libsrweak]

A well regulated " What part of this does the pro gun side not understand?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ozdog88 at 04:04 PM : Mar 27, 2008
+ report abuse


**************

The way I understand that is "a law abiding"..

[libsrweak]

to infringe my rights to arm myself is out of the question, this had been debated several times over generations..IT WILL NOT HAPPEN..

we need to start ENFORCING what we have. We have to many ''exemptions'' to this law..IT IS TIME TO STOP.

[libsrweak]

How about better qualifications for carrying a weapon that can kill a person. Is that soooo hard to understand?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by exCoachKen at 03:43 PM : Mar 27, 2008
+ report abuse
*********************

we actually do..THE PROBLEM IS..we lack the cahones, the determination to ENFORCE it.

[billorights]

"A well regulated " What part of this does the pro gun side not understand? - Posted by ozdog88

The common usage and meaning of the term Well Regulated in the late 18th century, and specifically as written in reference to the militia, had nothing to do with government contstraint, rules, or control by any military authority. It means, and then meant, proficiency, being well trained, highly practiced.

[bhappy2-2]

Gliderguy52-I realize not all states have the same requirements but where I live you have to take a class and demonstrate your ability to handle a firearm, submit finger prints and undergo an extensive background check to obtain a concealed carry permit. There was discussion of adding in mental evaluation checkups, but that did not pass.
This is more stringent than any requirement for operating any type of motor vehicle in any state yet motor vehicles kill considerably more people than guns. Personally, I do not have a problem with a federal requirement for testing. As long as it would take into consideration the training I have already taken. Maybe we should have a federal licensing program for drivers, hair stylists, doctors, dentists and the others you mentioned as well.

[billorights]

How about better qualifications for carrying a weapon that can kill a person. Is that soooo hard to understand? - Posted by exCoachKen

The process for QUALIFYING to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, aka CCW, includes standardized training. Reports of crimes by CCW holders are virtually unheard of. In states where laws restricting issuance of CCW have been eased, the results have been universal; crime rates fell dramatically. Does that meet your BETTER QUALIFICATIONS criteria?

[bhappy2-2]

How about better qualifications for carrying a weapon that can kill a person. Is that soooo hard to understand?

Posted by exCoachKen

And just WHAT would be the qualifications? WHO would make the determination of qualifying?

[Renegade.Rivers]

More hype to convince the sheeple of American that guns should be banned. Of course the fact is, that more people are killed by automobiles and medical malpractice each year, but no where does anyone proclaim that automobiles or doctors should be banned. Of course as long the American citizenry are able to own weapons, the evil overlords cannot dominate the citizenry with impunity.

The United States has a Constitution, and the Second Amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Any law that would infringe on these rights would have to be approved by ratification of 3/4 of the states. Any law that would infringe on those right without such ratification would be a direct violation of the Constitution.

[fibonacci_]

On Sunday a woman was killed in German when someone threw a 10 pound piece of wood from a bridge. Still, its easier to do with a gun...from hundreds of meters.

[bhappy2-2]

pollroller1-
You mean like these knuckleheads? Luckily no one was injured.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/13144

[pollroller1]

Yeah, but if they didn''t have guns they could throw big rocks off the bridge. Or could shoot arrows with a hunting bow. So I don''t think banning guns would help.
If fact only the honest people would be the ones without guns. The hoodlums would still have theirs.