Jump to content
IGNORED

Cop with gun versus Squid with camera.


Joe Frickin' Friday

Recommended Posts

 

 

This makes no sense. Why would the officers stop the rider in the first place if there was no violation? Your logic appear fuzzy at best.

 

Just playing devils advocate here but I was stopped and ticketed for speeding even though I'd been driving a couple of MPH under the limit. And I wasn't ticketed for just a few over but for 86 in a 70! I don't think mistakes like this are common but they DO happen. Either the officer was being a jerk or he confused me with someone else (the likely reason I hope). Either way I was stuck with a ticket after no infraction.

Link to comment

 

 

This makes no sense. Why would the officers stop the rider in the first place if there was no violation? Your logic appear fuzzy at best.

 

Just playing devils advocate here but I was stopped and ticketed for speeding even though I'd been driving a couple of MPH under the limit. And I wasn't ticketed for just a few over but for 86 in a 70! I don't think mistakes like this are common but they DO happen. Either the officer was being a jerk or he confused me with someone else (the likely reason I hope). Either way I was stuck with a ticket after no infraction.

Not wanting to trivialize your unfortunate and unjust situation but almost every speeder I stop and cite tells me the same thing.

Link to comment

I say job well done! Officer in the right place at the right time. The gun was pulled to take control of the situation, and he clearly stated State Police within a few seconds. The fact the the rider looks back tells you that he was being signaled (possible light flash or horn blowing).Come on how many time do you turn your head 180 degrees while riding. And the fact that a marked police car shows up within 15 seconds tells you that the first officer had called for back up or possibly had been called by another motorist. Even viewed in a rearview mirror (from the officers view) you can clearly see that he is speeding and he could have even possibly seen him stunting in the rearview.

Link to comment

 

 

This makes no sense. Why would the officers stop the rider in the first place if there was no violation? Your logic appear fuzzy at best.

 

Just playing devils advocate here but I was stopped and ticketed for speeding even though I'd been driving a couple of MPH under the limit. And I wasn't ticketed for just a few over but for 86 in a 70! I don't think mistakes like this are common but they DO happen. Either the officer was being a jerk or he confused me with someone else (the likely reason I hope). Either way I was stuck with a ticket after no infraction.

Not wanting to trivialize your unfortunate and unjust situation but almost every speeder I stop and cite tells me the same thing.

 

I'm sure you do. :) And my situation is why I have such an issue with the law that could cause someone to get a felony conviction for recording a stop as in this case. You have no idea how much I wished I had video and audio of my driving before and the issuing of my ticket. With what the ticket cost me I probably could have paid a good portion for some type of camcorder and not poored good money down a hole. Yeah, I'm a bit bitter.. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Picking up on a theme several have mentioned: In so far as I am concerned the civilian control of the police and military is central to concept of a democratic republic which operates under the rule of law. Indeed, I think the central concepts of our idea of Police and Military forces as existing to protect us and to serve us, as opposed to enforce the will of the rulers, is a hallmark of our society and a central tenant of what we call "Freedom."

 

I can understand that civilian authority can sometimes rankle those in our services (see even the word, "services") and that civilian oversight may need to be educated by the professionals we employ, however, I would also encourage those who choose to serve in the forces, and particularly the various domestic law enforcement agencies, to recognize the necessary and valid role of the civilian point of view.

 

There must always exist a balance between authority and freedom, between letting a criminal go (accepting a risk to society) and using extreme measures and authority to effect capture (accepting a different risk to society). This balance is properly expressed by the civilian's will, and it is the lot of the LEO to respect the limits we place on them, and operate within those limits.

 

In the present case the officer uses his vehicle as a weapon in a dangerous manner w/o provocation, and without identifying himself as a LEO, and without attempting a proper stop first. He then, again without even the slightest sign of aggression or non-compliance draws his weapon and advances, still not having identified himself.

 

I think we who have chosen to write here, or write to the proper authorities are saying to the LEOs, who we respect as having a difficult job to do, that this incident crosses a line and reflects a level of authority that is unacceptable to us as the civilians you serve and protect. Primarily because the officer chose techniques that escalated risk rather than minimized them, over a minor infraction that did not pose serious risk to the public.

 

It is very reassuring that nearly everyone here sees the aftermath as unacceptable.

 

+ 1000

 

I could not have stated it more concisely or eloquently myself.

Link to comment
Just to keep Ca reidents tuned up on our laws, it is against state law to use unmarked cars and UC officers specifically for the purpose of enforing traffic laws.

Yes, a UC car/plainclothes on-duty LEO's can make a traffic stop but their regular duties would have to be some other LEO function such as investigations or admin.

The reason has to do with police impersonators and the legislative mindset that officers enforceing traffic laws should drive distinctlively marked vehicles while in full uniform. Lawmakers also felt voluntary compliance of traffic laws could be attained by the mere presence of black and white nearby.

What kind of voluntary compliance do you get with a UC car working traffic enforcement? Would this Maryland incident escalated to the point it did had this trooper been driving a marked vehicle?

The law..

40800. (a) A traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main

purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 (commencing with

Section 20000) or 11 (commencing with Section 21000) shall wear a

full distinctive uniform, and if the officer while on duty uses a

motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color specified by

the commissioner.

 

Interesting. Is this a relatively new law? I commuted from Gilroy to SJ from 2000 to 2008 on Hwy 101 and on MANY occasions witnessed people being pulled-over by a dark blue, unmarked Chevy Malibu, the only thing distinguishing it as a LEO vehicle being red lights in the windshield by the rearview mirror and red/blue flashers on the rear dash (I believe that the officer was uniformed, but I couldn't swear to that).

Link to comment

As I indicated, the law does not prohibit an unmarked car and plainclothes officers from making a traffic stop and writing a ticket as long as their primary LEO duties are something other than traffic enforcement.

If that dark blue unmarked sedan was used primarily to enforce vehicle codes laws, any tickets written could be tossed in court if the defendant made a motion to dismiss based on this law.

"Distinctive color" means black and white BTW. The all white CHP Crown Victoria we occasionally see complies because it's primary duties is commercial enforcement.

Some agencies such as San Jose PD use a dark blue and white marked car. Those cars comply too since the officers driving them have primary duties in patrol, not traffic enforcement.

I am sure all San Jose PD motorcycles are black and white.

Link to comment
As I indicated, the law does not prohibit an unmarked car and plainclothes officers from making a traffic stop and writing a ticket as long as their primary LEO duties are something other than traffic enforcement.

If that dark blue unmarked sedan was used primarily to enforce vehicle codes laws, any tickets written could be tossed in court if the defendant made a motion to dismiss based on this law.

"Distinctive color" means black and white BTW. The all white CHP Crown Victoria we occasionally see complies because it's primary duties is commercial enforcement.

Some agencies such as San Jose PD use a dark blue and white marked car. Those cars comply too since the officers driving them have primary duties in patrol, not traffic enforcement.

I am sure all San Jose PD motorcycles are black and white.

 

 

I have written a crap load of cites from my unmarked Ford Expedition and me in plain clothes. There are many AZ DPS cars that are unmarked: Chargers, Luminas, Impalas, Camaros, Crown Vics....etc. Never had an identity problem in court. Never.........a reasonable person would assume that if one says: State Police, has a weapon/badge and can articulate he is a LEO then one would be prudent in following commands unless unreasonable. I have had convictions of agg assault on me in plain clothes and told the court and jury of the scenario and poof! Convicted......4 years in the pen. Yawn..........................this is getting to be sooooo boring.

Link to comment

Bob,

Thanks for expanding and explaining more in-depth. I have no idea whether the car/officer in question was actually enforcing traffic code or was performing other duties... it was just something that came out of the cobwebs of my memory.

 

:wave:

Link to comment
As I indicated, the law does not prohibit an unmarked car and plainclothes officers from making a traffic stop and writing a ticket as long as their primary LEO duties are something other than traffic enforcement.

If that dark blue unmarked sedan was used primarily to enforce vehicle codes laws, any tickets written could be tossed in court if the defendant made a motion to dismiss based on this law.

"Distinctive color" means black and white BTW. The all white CHP Crown Victoria we occasionally see complies because it's primary duties is commercial enforcement.

Some agencies such as San Jose PD use a dark blue and white marked car. Those cars comply too since the officers driving them have primary duties in patrol, not traffic enforcement.

I am sure all San Jose PD motorcycles are black and white.

 

 

I have written a crap load of cites from my unmarked Ford Expedition and me in plain clothes. There are many AZ DPS cars that are unmarked: Chargers, Luminas, Impalas, Camaros, Crown Vics....etc. Never had an identity problem in court. Never.........a reasonable person would assume that if one says: State Police, has a weapon/badge and can articulate he is a LEO then one would be prudent in following commands unless unreasonable. I have had convictions of agg assault on me in plain clothes and told the court and jury of the scenario and poof! Convicted......4 years in the pen. Yawn..........................this is getting to be sooooo boring.

 

Interesting difference between California and Wisconsin. The latest trend here is the State Patrol and County Deputies are now doing traffic in unmarked squads painted in a very dark stealth gray/black, with hidden light bars.

Link to comment
I am simply asking that you not be so quick to condemn the actions of the officer

 

I have not condemned the officer. I have asked politely that there be an investigation. Personally I am still hoping for exonerating evidence that justifies the officer's behavior. It is not beyond the pale at this point to imagine that entire situation as presented is intended to mislead. I would be quite relieved to learn of some such situation.

 

However, we are discussing the facts as we have them at this point, and in my latest post I was responding to your specific suppositions as to a possible mindset of the officer. This is a purely hypothetical argument at this point, not a condemnation of the officer. My response was prefaced "if."

 

Your position, if I am understanding you, is based on a lot "ifs" and potentials. Things that others have done, and this rider could do. I am not in denial of those possibilities. However basing law enforcement actions on these possibilities, absent any particular evidence that the suspect is prone to such, simply isn't going to fly. That would result in maximum use of aggressive techniques in all interactions: You wouldn't be able to speak to a man walking down the street until you had him in a straitjacket.

 

In this case my concerns are apparent use of high risk techniques w/o justification and the apparent attempt by the department and legal system to harass on trumped up charges in the aftermath. The latter is more concerning and got the most space in my letter.

 

Please, have a nice afternoon, and lets meet in good cheer at a BMWST event sometime!

 

 

Jan,

 

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that I base my arguments on many “ifs” and potentials. I think this discussion became a little too heated and we all forgot to explain what we were basing our opinion on from the start.

 

If this officer was in fact an off-duty officer, with no radio contact with the other officer in the marked car and only stopped the rider because of the slight speeding violation, then I would agree that his actions were very questionable. Not only questionable, but downright stupid. I still don’t have that much of an issue with the gun being un-holstered, but I do have an issue with the officer conducting that stop in the first place if he was an off-duty officer.

 

However, based upon what I observed in the video and based on my experience as a LEO, I came to a different conclusion about the circumstances of the stop.

 

My conclusion was that this was a UC officer, operating in conjunction with the marked unit. Just because the rider didn’t capture a police officer observing his actions early in the video, doesn’t mean that there was no officer seeing the “stunting” (I know, I don’t really agree that it was all that reckless either, but I don’t work on this freeway and don’t know its history). Everyone also seems to conclude that the marked unit that pulls up behind the rider is the same unit that was observed stopped in the median. This may not be true. The marked unit may have been somewhere behind the rider the whole time and observed the filmed “stunts”, as well as other riding that occurred prior to the beginning of the longer video.

 

Now, if the purpose of the UC is to get the drop on “stunters” and block them in before they can flee, it makes sense that the marked unit did not alert the rider to his presence by activating his lights and siren to conduct a normal traffic stop.

 

These are obviously lots of speculations on my part, just like most of the other posters here have based their opinions on their speculations.

 

My speculations are based in part on the behavior of the rider immediately prior to the stop, which suggest to me that he suspected the police was behind him. Furthermore, during the stop I find his actions consistent with someone who knows he is being stopped by the police and is looking for an out.

 

My speculations are also based in part on the behavior of the UC officer during and after the stop. Based on my observations I believe the UC officer knew the marked unit was right behind him during the stop, leading me to suspect that the UC officer had contact with the officer in the marked car before the stop was conducted. This means the UC officer knew he was stopping a “stunter”, not a simple speeder.

 

Based on these speculations I find the officer’s action to be well within reason.

 

So, I guess the reasonableness of the officer’s behavior depends entirely on the speculations of the individual poster about what the surrounding circumstances were in this incident.

 

I would however appeal to people on this board to not jump to the “worst case scenario” conclusion so quickly. It is also important to remember that a video only shows one point of view and can be edited to give a certain slant on a given situation.

 

I’m sure Officer Morse in Inglewood, California wishes that more people had given him the benefit of doubt following the video of him punching a handcuffed suspect. As it turned out, there was more video than what was initially released and the part that had been edited out in the original clip, exonerated Officer Morse and completely supported his claim that he struck the handcuffed suspect because the suspect had attacked him.

 

I read many blogs following that event and some of the comments were openly hostile, some going as far as saying the Officer Morse did not deserve to live. Officer Morse also received numerous death threats following the release of the video.

 

So, to many of the posters on this board, please, don’t be so eager to condemn someone based on very little information and a short video clip posted on the web.

 

Link to comment

So, to many of the posters on this board, please, don’t be so eager to condemn someone based on very little information and a short video clip posted on the web.

 

But, but, but........I thought thats what the internet was for :grin:

Link to comment

This site is tame compared to some.

And these are mild ones.

 

Another take on this looking at the case law involved in the charge of intercepting an oral communication.

http://www.popehat.com/2010/04/14/embarrass-a-cop-in-maryland-thatll-be-five-years-in-jail/

Most other sites I've looked at have indicated that in the initial report the officer didn't report drawing his weapon.

Question.

Is that required in your jurisdiction?

Do you have to report when you draw your weapon?

Or only if you point it at someone?

 

From a police blog

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/general-law-enforcement-topics-discussion-2/93793-motorcycle-speeder-charged-felony-posting-traffic-stop.html

 

The rider is an Air National Guardsman with two children.

He should know better.

 

The officer works in a traffic safety division.

 

I still can't find out if the car was personal or unmarked.

 

Around here the use of unmarked cars for traffic enforcement is widespread.

 

Link to comment

In CT, "marked" trooper means they took the lightbar out of the trunk and put it on the roof. No distinctive paint or other external markings.

 

You get used to looking very carefully for Crown Vic tail-lights, anti-swaybars, A-post lights, and the light-bar connector above the B-post. :)

 

It's kind of funny to watch the vehicles w/ out of state plates blow by the Crown Vics, while the rest of us are pacing it. :D

 

Link to comment
Most other sites I've looked at have indicated that in the initial report the officer didn't report drawing his weapon.

Question.

Is that required in your jurisdiction?

Do you have to report when you draw your weapon?

Or only if you point it at someone?

 

For most California agencies that I know of, drawing AND/OR pointing your gun at someone is not considered a use of force. Thus, there is no requirement to report it. If I was required to report every instance were I un-holstered my gun, I'd be killing a lot of trees.

 

From a police blog

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/general-law-enforcement-topics-discussion-2/93793-motorcycle-speeder-charged-felony-posting-traffic-stop.html

 

The rider is an Air National Guardsman with two children.

He should know better.

 

The officer works in a traffic safety division.

 

I still can't find out if the car was personal or unmarked.

 

Around here the use of unmarked cars for traffic enforcement is widespread.

 

California is restrictive on the use of unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. However, I've seen it on many occasion in other parts of our country. It's also widely used in parts of Europe, unless it has changed in the last 20 years.

Link to comment
This site is tame compared to some.

And these are mild ones.

 

Another take on this looking at the case law involved in the charge of intercepting an oral communication.

http://www.popehat.com/2010/04/14/embarrass-a-cop-in-maryland-thatll-be-five-years-in-jail/

 

An insane cowboy engaged in a screaming match?

 

This is what I was referring to with respect to forming and expressing opinions without sufficient information.

 

Granted the aftermath is absolutely ridiculous and certainly reeks of retribution, but some of these articles are just libelous.

 

If Uhler wanted to get something out of the video, he should have sued all these reporters for character defamation. Would have made him look a lot more honorable than reaching for straws to get back at the rider for posting the video.

 

Guess nobody wins in this one.

Link to comment

 

An insane cowboy engaged in a screaming match?

 

This is what I was referring to with respect to forming and expressing opinions without sufficient information.

 

Sure, that could be considered over the top. But we've seen none of those types of comments here - at least in this thread, IMO. Glad you acknowledge the silliness of the aftermath of the origional incident.

Link to comment

Jan and Motorinla, both good summaries. I agree that we have far too little evidence at this time to evaluate the officer's behavior at the time of the arrest. However, I think we have more than enough information to say that the raid, by six officers, on his mother's home, with an unsigned warrant, on a bogus charge, is unconscionable abuse of power. If I were the judge, I would throw out all charges against the rider as a warning to the police not to abuse their power.

 

The part that surprises me is that, so far, this story appears to have been picked up only by blogs and motor vehicle forums like this one. Google news search result:

 

Your search - David Uhler anthony graber - did not match any documents.

 

Given the sensational nature of the video, I'm amazed that TV news hasn't picked up on it. A 24 second video with a gun seems made for cable news (pick your network) to broadcast endlessly, along with screaming heads commentary, for about a week. I'm not saying this should happen; just surprised that it hasn't.

Link to comment
motorman587
Most other sites I've looked at have indicated that in the initial report the officer didn't report drawing his weapon.

Question.

Is that required in your jurisdiction?

Do you have to report when you draw your weapon?

Or only if you point it at someone?

 

For most California agencies that I know of, drawing AND/OR pointing your gun at someone is not considered a use of force. Thus, there is no requirement to report it. If I was required to report every instance were I un-holstered my gun, I'd be killing a lot of trees.

 

From a police blog

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/general-law-enforcement-topics-discussion-2/93793-motorcycle-speeder-charged-felony-posting-traffic-stop.html

 

The rider is an Air National Guardsman with two children.

He should know better.

 

The officer works in a traffic safety division.

 

I still can't find out if the car was personal or unmarked.

 

Around here the use of unmarked cars for traffic enforcement is widespread.

 

California is restrictive on the use of unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. However, I've seen it on many occasion in other parts of our country. It's also widely used in parts of Europe, unless it has changed in the last 20 years.

 

Here in Florida and my department pulling your weapon and somebody sees it, use of force. IE if your responding to an alarm call, nobody sees it no report.

 

We use unmarks for traffic. Sounds like each place has it's own rules.

Link to comment
If I were the judge, I would throw out all charges against the rider as a warning to the police not to abuse their power.

 

How would throwing out charges stop the police from performing abusive, retaliatory raids in the future? It seems to me that throwing out charges has about the same effect on police as dismissing a traffic ticket for technical reasons. On the other hand, the defendant gets to pay for lawyers, take time off work to deal with the legal system, experience emotional stress, try to get his stuff back, etc. without recompense or apologies from police or prosecutors. If I have misrepresented how the justice system works please let me know.

Link to comment

John,

Thanks, that was my impression.

I guess things are different elsewhere.

 

Personally I think if the gun is out, it should be noted.

There may be a problem that with training could help prevent mistakes.

 

This video was on local news affiliates in the area.

My google with the names, individually turned up a lot, including the officers posting information.

Link to comment
If I were the judge, I would throw out all charges against the rider as a warning to the police not to abuse their power.

 

How would throwing out charges stop the police from performing abusive, retaliatory raids in the future? It seems to me that throwing out charges has about the same effect on police as dismissing a traffic ticket for technical reasons. On the other hand, the defendant gets to pay for lawyers, take time off work to deal with the legal system, experience emotional stress, try to get his stuff back, etc. without recompense or apologies from police or prosecutors. If I have misrepresented how the justice system works please let me know.

 

This is how we discourage law enforcement officers from performing illegal actions all of the time. It's why the "Exclusionary Rule" exists (to the extent it exists anymore.) You punish law enforcement by keeping them from putting away the bad guys.

 

Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that most of the time when police overstep the limits society has put in place, that this happens because most LEOs are trying to do a good job, and a good job, generally speaking, is putting away the bad guys. Some folks get overzealous. Others do human things, like get angry, or overcome by adrenaline, or just make a mistake. But they generally don't want to see the bad guys go free, especially not because of something they did.

 

This is the position of the courts, anyway, and it generally seems to work. Suspects are read their Miranda "rights". They aren't routinely beaten. They aren't routinely denied counsel. People aren't routinely arrested without probable cause.

 

But sometimes they are, and there are both evidentiary protections and civil remedies available. (Though I was just reading this article last night questioning the efficacy of civil remedies.) It may not be a perfect system for policing the police -- in fact, it does often make it very difficult to hold parties accountable -- but for the most part, it does accomplish its goals.

Link to comment

Thanks for the clarification, Greg. I was afraid I might be talking through my hat re the "exclusionary rule" (a new term for me).

Link to comment
motorman587
John,

Thanks, that was my impression.

I guess things are different elsewhere.

 

Personally I think if the gun is out, it should be noted.

There may be a problem that with training could help prevent mistakes.

 

This video was on local news affiliates in the area.

My google with the names, individually turned up a lot, including the officers posting information.

 

Tim,

Remember a couple of years where that I believe it was Orlando at a college football game, where the uniform police officer shot the Alcoholic Beverage Tobacco undercover agent?? And notice them now at a college game???

Link to comment
motorman587
John,

Thanks, that was my impression.

I guess things are different elsewhere.

 

Personally I think if the gun is out, it should be noted.

There may be a problem that with training could help prevent mistakes.

 

This video was on local news affiliates in the area.

My google with the names, individually turned up a lot, including the officers posting information.

 

Tim,

Remember a couple of years where that I believe it was Orlando at a college football game, where the uniform police officer shot the Alcoholic Beverage Tobacco undercover agent?? And notice them now at a college game???

here is the link

 

http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/2.10660/ucf-officer-shot-dead-before-marshall-game-1.1427424

Link to comment

John,

Yes, remember that well.

Daughter nearby when it happened.

 

That was you in the fog the other morning wasn't it?

Link to comment
motorman587
John,

Yes, remember that well.

Daughter nearby when it happened.

 

That was you in the fog the other morning wasn't it?

 

Yup that was me. That was a stolen car that I was out with. Was taken in burglary a few days before. Guess the bad guys ran out of gas. lol

Link to comment

I would side with the officer, but he most likely will get put down for over stepping this authority.

 

The guy was wheelieing, I would recommend jail just for that alone, the speeding and all over 3 lanes is a little much also.

 

The problem, police cannot catch this guy, so when you get a chance, you better nab him or he will be gone.

Link to comment
Charles Elms

the speeding and all over 3 lanes

 

And if you know the spacing of the painted while lines, you can calculate how fast he was riding. Stupid to post that video. I've no problems with speed, but NOT on I 95 when there is traffic. Glad he got stopped. I do have a problem with the search of the house and what followed.

Link to comment
...The guy was wheelieing, I would recommend jail just for that alone, the speeding and all over 3 lanes is a little much also...[/quote

 

 

Dave, We'll keep this in mind when you get your Multistrada. :wave:

Link to comment

Eddd, thanks. If I wheelie it would be for a VERY short duration and then a long slow spell to calm my nerves, but it has an adjustable DTC to prevent that I imagine.

 

Several years ago, Jean and I got on an interstate here locally (riding 2up), I pull out to pass the slower traffic in the right lane while pulling a bridge incline. I notice in my mirror a guy on the back wheel, shirt tail flowing in the wind, gaining on me at a rapid pace (I was doing 70ish), no where for me to go but right side of my lane as trucks and cars in the right lane. Yep, he passes us on the left of my lane about 90ish and was gone. Oh, you can not read an license plate with the guy on the rear wheel.

 

Didn't appreciate him endangering me and my wife, among the 18 wheelers, I had no where to go if he messed up.

Link to comment

there are alot of aholes out there and some of them are cops I've dealt with decent cops and some douche bags .this one is definatly a dbag

Link to comment

Everyone chip in. This is the chance we all have to whip on a punk with a gun without being there. I'm out of work and I sent $100. Everyone on the board can sent something, so don't act like the cheap asses that squeal over the price of an oil filter for your 20K$ machine. Help the brother out. Any of us can be next. We need to act like we are a real community.

Link to comment
Everyone chip in. This is the chance we all have to whip on a punk with a gun without being there. I'm out of work and I sent $100. Everyone on the board can sent something, so don't act like the cheap asses that squeal over the price of an oil filter for your 20K$ machine. Help the brother out. Any of us can be next. We need to act like we are a real community.

 

Anyone want to second that this thread is going into the toilet fast?

Link to comment
Everyone chip in. This is the chance we all have to whip on a punk with a gun without being there. I'm out of work and I sent $100. Everyone on the board can sent something, so don't act like the cheap asses that squeal over the price of an oil filter for your 20K$ machine. Help the brother out. Any of us can be next. We need to act like we are a real community.

 

Anyone want to second that this thread is going into the toilet fast?

 

From where it makes its way to the water treatment plant and then to the water cooler where on Monday we can gather round and discuss the weekend.

:lurk:

Link to comment

The thoughts expressed that the officer shouldn't have pulled his weapon reminded me of what happened in 1998. My wife was watching COPS on the livingroom TV, and as I walked through I saw that the police were doing a felony stop with the suspects exiting the car and laying down on the road. I told Wendy that this would be coming to Wisconsin and she disagreed.

 

Two weeks later in the very small city Manitowoc, Wisconsin:

 

Officer Dale TenHaken was shot and killed after making a traffic stop on the driver of a car for not having license plates or its head lights on, at an apartment complex.

 

The squid from the video may have made the choice to flee if the gun wasn't out, and if something bad resulted he could be sitting in a prison just as the killers of TenHaken are (and TenHaken might have lived--Watts and Halda might be on the streets if they were arrested like those I had seen on COPS.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

The use of force policy for New Jersey states:

 

Definitions

 

A. Constructive Authority

 

1. Constructive authority does not involve actual physical contact with the subject, but involves the use of the law enforcement officer’s authority to exert control over a subject.

 

2. Examples include verbal commands, gestures, warnings, and

unholstering a weapon.

 

3. Pointing a firearm at a subject is an element of constructive

authority to be used only in appropriate situations.

 

_______________________________________________

 

Seems this scenario clearly falls in the #2 catagory and on first blush appears appropriate. I probably would not have pulled my weapon, but it's not WAY out of bounds to do so. I also do not have a problem with the stop since SO MANY sport bikes are constantly running from the police. Unlike California (I think, from watching all of the videos) many east coast police (including NJ) are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to engage in any type of pursuit for motor vehicle violations. Result? Sport bikes refuse to stop REGULARLY, and especially when they know they've been caught (you can see he do the "look behind" before the plain clothes officer stops him).

 

 

For the search warrant? I have a complete guess. Maybe, just maybe this guy takes his ticket. The cops do not know they were recorded. The squid posts the small snippet on You Tube showing the gun, not the whole video. That gives PC for the REST OF THE VIDEO he shot. I'd guess he wouldn't post his antics on the initial video, only the cop with the gun.

 

I'd also disagree with it being just fun. If he dumped that wheelie while passing that very large bus on it's right, causing the bus to swerve and flip over.......maybe that would be quite a mess. Of course he would admit it was his speed and wheelie that caused him to begin a chain reaction that killed (?) people. Yea, right!

Link to comment

While I mourn the loss of the officer in the story you cite, I feel comparing apples to apples is needed.

Stopping a car and stopping a cycle are sifferent WRT visibility of operator.

 

Any situation like this would be different in outcome if we

apply some sort of hindsight.

I've had firends who were LEO's attacked and shot.

I've had relatives of friends killed by police in a traffic stop.

He was unarmed.

 

IMO, we should stick to the OP and see what details emerge.

For isntance.

On/off duty?

Personal/unmarked vehicle?

 

The fact the rider turned to look at the marked car can mean many things, including the possibility he saw that vehicle in his mirrors and was stopping for that.

The fact that the uniformed officer did not have his weapon drawn, nor did he appear highly agitated or rushing to the rider can have different interpretations too.

 

 

Link to comment

Nor do we know why the marked unit was there (or if it was the same unit as in the median or yet another unit)- it's possible he was simply exiting on that ramp and came up on the scene. Unlikely perhaps, but it would explain why his lights were off.

 

Link to comment

So I viewed the video and read that the squid is selling his bike because he no longer trusts the police. I thought that was a cute notion. At the risk of raising the ire of our LEO members. I grew up in Maryland, learn to drive and ride in MD and learned to not trust the police in MD. I think I need to get on board video.

 

If that was me I'd would have sat as still as possible to try and not Aggravate the guy with the gun. The rider did'nt have anywhere to go accept toward the guy with the gun. Not a good choice for a good outcome. As for pulling your own gun, if you have one, well unless you are Flash, it just makes you dead.

 

Morale of the story. Don't ride in a manner that will get attention of the LEOs because It might not be a pleasant expereince.

 

 

Link to comment
WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! Take that you deceased equine! :eek:

 

so draw your gun and arrest me

 

Sorry, I'm still busy pointing it at the horse carcass. You never know what it may do :grin:.

Link to comment

Nah.....forget about it, its time for the BRR :grin:

 

Next week we can start a new thread focusing on the overbearing speed enforcement of the VA State Police :rofl:

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...