Motorcyclist spends 26 hours in jail on wiretapping charge for filming cop with gun
- Thread starter puppychow
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
- Status
Crash Cash
Well-known member
Eh, while that article's slanted enough I don't trust it, if things went as FUBAR as they say, I'll bet there's enough for a canny lawyer to really make some serious hay, so the guy might actually end up ahead, if he plays his cards right.
wheatonFJR
...
holy crap.
tmc
Ginger-Mex Extraordinaire
Watch the video, it's all pretty straightforward really. The blogger is obviously biased, but he's pretty much on the mark here as the video leaves little gray area.
I admit the article is slanted - siding with the rider, it is not known if the motorcyclist was running from the police, however, it doesn't seem to be the case, as the marked police car which appears at the end of the video is not lit up. Moreover, it takes 5 seconds for the plain clothes cop to identify himself as State Police, whereas he immediately draws his weapon, if I were in that situation, where a car cuts me off, I would be backing up my bike as fast as I could too, and when the guy jumping out of that car immediately draws a weapon many seconds before identifying himself as LEO, I would probably assume he has designs for an attempt on my life. This is just from analyzing the behavior on the video itself and not even going into the wiretapping B.S.
Last edited by a moderator:
BkrK12
Well-known member
Based on the video, I don't see any way the Officer's actions can be justified. He created an extremely unsafe situation in which a number of people, including innocent bystanders in their vehicles, could have been badly injured. He should get a "Time Out".
exskibum
~<>~<>~<>~<>~
Well, there's really two abuses here. The first is the plainclothes officer's over-reaction with the gun during the stop (which is not the big abuse). Guy's sitting on a bike, stopped behind traffic, with gloves on and a marked unit behind him -- how reasonable is it going to be to assume that he poses a threat to physically injure or shoot the officer from that starting position? But let's give the officer the benefit of the doubt on that one. WHY?
Because if the cop could articulate a subjective fear for his safety and get anyone to believe it was objectively reasonable, it's what he did later that is the real abuse of power, under color of law -- i.e., a great 42 USC section 1983 case for violation of civil rights. According to the story, the cop not only got an arrest and search warrant for some BS charges (the real facts being that he walked into the field of vision of a video camera, in public, while acting like an ***), AND he also decided to allege new traffic violation charges he hadn't considered at the stop or before the video appeared on the net (for reckless driving, etc.). The circumstances and timing tend to show animus (ill will, intentionality, retribution). He'd have been a lot better off just letting it go and deciding not to show up when the ticket got contested with the video evidence as a part of the rider's defense. But now . . .
A lawyer is gonna have a field day with the affidavit submitted in support of the application to a judge for a warrant, looking for fabrications, timing, alleged probable cause, etc. Lying to get a judge to issue a warrant is bad enough, but if it's as the motorcyclist states -- that there's no judge's signature -- then hold onto your sphincter, soon-to-be-ex-cop. Because if that's the result of the officer fraudulently producing a fake warrant and enlisting other officers to execute the warrant (maybe as conspirators, maybe as duped public servants whose time was wasted), that cop will have gone from fresh cat **** to being in 20 foot deep diarrhea-like green/brown cougar ****. Lawyers salivate over the chance to cross examine the bad guy defendant about the real facts underlying stuff like this. Idiots like that too often want to be the tough guy in front of the jury, too, and a good lawyer will play that -- make him show the jury what a **** he is . . . until they are literally yearning for the lawyer to sodomize him.** Then it won't look like he's the lawyer's victim, and the jury will really want to send a message. All the elements (except for really substantial actual damages) might be there for this one, and a lot of good trial lawyers will consider taking it.
[SIZE=8pt]** In the late 80s, I worked for one of the very best lawyers I've ever seen or known and watched exactly that scenario take place in the courtroom. What started out with the bad guy defendant being an ******* on the stand, mocking and condescending with every answer, turned, in one viscerally memorable moment, into a savage *** kicking by the ex-marine captain attorney I worked for. Sheer mastery, and Hart was the kind of guy who would later tell you exactly the whats and whys of what he did. Very different case than this motorcycle stop, but the result was the largest verdict to date in Sacramento County -- right at $30 million. That record was broken by the same lawyer around 2003, very shortly before he was diagnosed with the esophagial cancer that killed him in '04. I digress, but really good trial lawyers always look for a bad guy defendant in a case with whom to personalize what happened to a jury -- preferably, an outsized ******* the jury will want to crucify. [/SIZE]
Because if the cop could articulate a subjective fear for his safety and get anyone to believe it was objectively reasonable, it's what he did later that is the real abuse of power, under color of law -- i.e., a great 42 USC section 1983 case for violation of civil rights. According to the story, the cop not only got an arrest and search warrant for some BS charges (the real facts being that he walked into the field of vision of a video camera, in public, while acting like an ***), AND he also decided to allege new traffic violation charges he hadn't considered at the stop or before the video appeared on the net (for reckless driving, etc.). The circumstances and timing tend to show animus (ill will, intentionality, retribution). He'd have been a lot better off just letting it go and deciding not to show up when the ticket got contested with the video evidence as a part of the rider's defense. But now . . .
A lawyer is gonna have a field day with the affidavit submitted in support of the application to a judge for a warrant, looking for fabrications, timing, alleged probable cause, etc. Lying to get a judge to issue a warrant is bad enough, but if it's as the motorcyclist states -- that there's no judge's signature -- then hold onto your sphincter, soon-to-be-ex-cop. Because if that's the result of the officer fraudulently producing a fake warrant and enlisting other officers to execute the warrant (maybe as conspirators, maybe as duped public servants whose time was wasted), that cop will have gone from fresh cat **** to being in 20 foot deep diarrhea-like green/brown cougar ****. Lawyers salivate over the chance to cross examine the bad guy defendant about the real facts underlying stuff like this. Idiots like that too often want to be the tough guy in front of the jury, too, and a good lawyer will play that -- make him show the jury what a **** he is . . . until they are literally yearning for the lawyer to sodomize him.** Then it won't look like he's the lawyer's victim, and the jury will really want to send a message. All the elements (except for really substantial actual damages) might be there for this one, and a lot of good trial lawyers will consider taking it.
[SIZE=8pt]** In the late 80s, I worked for one of the very best lawyers I've ever seen or known and watched exactly that scenario take place in the courtroom. What started out with the bad guy defendant being an ******* on the stand, mocking and condescending with every answer, turned, in one viscerally memorable moment, into a savage *** kicking by the ex-marine captain attorney I worked for. Sheer mastery, and Hart was the kind of guy who would later tell you exactly the whats and whys of what he did. Very different case than this motorcycle stop, but the result was the largest verdict to date in Sacramento County -- right at $30 million. That record was broken by the same lawyer around 2003, very shortly before he was diagnosed with the esophagial cancer that killed him in '04. I digress, but really good trial lawyers always look for a bad guy defendant in a case with whom to personalize what happened to a jury -- preferably, an outsized ******* the jury will want to crucify. [/SIZE]
Last edited by a moderator:
BkrK12
Well-known member
A few other thoughts.....
and, not to in any way condone the actions of the Officer.
1. Where's the rest of the video - the part which would include the conversation with the officer after what we saw?
2. How come there is only sound on the short video? What would we hear on the rest of it?
3. If the guy was really doing 100mph (unverified) with that much traffic around him, he needs to get in the "******* Award" line too.
and, not to in any way condone the actions of the Officer.
1. Where's the rest of the video - the part which would include the conversation with the officer after what we saw?
2. How come there is only sound on the short video? What would we hear on the rest of it?
3. If the guy was really doing 100mph (unverified) with that much traffic around him, he needs to get in the "******* Award" line too.
Last edited by a moderator:
The portions of the video before the part where the plainclothes cop cut off the motorcyclist with his car would add some needed perspective as well. However, I still don't see how pulling a gun was justified...
Happy Rider
Well-known member
The wire tap charge and search of the residence is BS.
The cops actions at the scene can not be judged based on the short video and one sided article. The article mentions that the bike did pass a marked unit. If the LEO's had been in pursuit of the bike and the video shows the termination of that chase then the officers actions don't appear to be excessive at the scene.
The officer did place himself in danger by stopping in front of the bike. The other problem is that the plain clothes officer and the vehicle he was driving are not identifiable as a LEO. Most departments do not encourage off duty enforcement for this reason. As far as the gun goes, watch any police video of a pursuit and at the termination of the pursuit the guns always come out. It's a fairly common practice and protocol for most departments. If you don't believe me then pass a LEO at 100 mph + and don't stop in a timely manner when directed to do so. I can almost guarantee that you will be removed from the vehicle at gun point.
The cops actions at the scene can not be judged based on the short video and one sided article. The article mentions that the bike did pass a marked unit. If the LEO's had been in pursuit of the bike and the video shows the termination of that chase then the officers actions don't appear to be excessive at the scene.
The officer did place himself in danger by stopping in front of the bike. The other problem is that the plain clothes officer and the vehicle he was driving are not identifiable as a LEO. Most departments do not encourage off duty enforcement for this reason. As far as the gun goes, watch any police video of a pursuit and at the termination of the pursuit the guns always come out. It's a fairly common practice and protocol for most departments. If you don't believe me then pass a LEO at 100 mph + and don't stop in a timely manner when directed to do so. I can almost guarantee that you will be removed from the vehicle at gun point.
That motorcyclist is lucky.
Any good lawyer will get a nice offer for a settlement.
I mean, in the past few months we have had the police no knock raided the wrong house and shot a family dog.
Beat a 60 year old lady who ran a stop light on her way to church.
Shoot a man they where sent to do a "welfare check" on is his own kitchen... still don't know what happened there.
And just last month a man was charged with attacking an officer on horse back and getting kicked by the horse.... you should see that video.
https://dcist.com/2010/04/watch_video_of_co...park_police.php
Any good lawyer will get a nice offer for a settlement.
I mean, in the past few months we have had the police no knock raided the wrong house and shot a family dog.
Beat a 60 year old lady who ran a stop light on her way to church.
Shoot a man they where sent to do a "welfare check" on is his own kitchen... still don't know what happened there.
And just last month a man was charged with attacking an officer on horse back and getting kicked by the horse.... you should see that video.
https://dcist.com/2010/04/watch_video_of_co...park_police.php
WTF? The guy wasn't kicked by a horse, he was mercilessly beaten by ***-holes...
Plus, I find it sickening all of those "officers" on the scene colluded to make false statements and draw up false charges to protect their cop buddies. It is clear where their priorities lie (pun intended).
I am all for upholding the law, but this just isn't it...
Last edited by a moderator:
Found the longer video... Pull over
The guy was certainly speeding excessively AND popping wheelies in traffic - which certainly is d-bag behavior in my eyes.
What is not clear is why the marked car which appears shortly after the stop made by the unmarked car has not lit his pursuit lights indicating he intends to pull over said biker and why it does not first appear in view when the rider looks back.
Is it expected of the rider to assume he was being pursued by an unmarked LEO or suspect a road rage cager chasing him down, who then proceeds to jump out his car - gun drawn ordering the biker to get off his bike without identifying himself as a LEO?
Last edited by a moderator:
CAJW
Well-known member
This is wrong on so many levels. First off, this guy rides like an :******: and needs to follow through on his threat to sell the bike before he ends up an organ donor and further trashes the public's image of riders. (The wheelie next to the tour bus was very telling of his "look at me" mentality) It appears the undercover LEO let his emotions get the best of him, by not producing a badge right away. I've known friends in AZ ride with a holstered pistol on their belt as a "reminder" to potential road ragers that any conflict could get ugly quick. If this LEO had done that in AZ, the presence of the rider's pistol would not have been a good thing to add to the mix, but that's a whole nuther' discussion. Too many questions to pass judgement on this based on a few video clips but, the late timing of the warrant and additonal charges don't pass the smell test. I'm not a LEO and didn't stay at the Holiday Inn last night, but they've got a tough job and get shot at on a fairly regular basis so I'm not totally convinced that the officer drawing his weapon is completely out of line. ( He did look like he was having a bad day though) What was that rider's name anyway? That camera looks vaguely familiar, thought I saw it strapped to a black FJR recently tearing up Hwy 1. 
exskibum
~<>~<>~<>~<>~
Most cops I've encountered have been a whole lot more professional than that, but I can't even fathom one doing the warrant nonsense on a trumped up charge of illegal wiretapping. I admire the way most LEOs can keep their cool in challenging ******* situations -- a skill I would love to be better at.
The motorcyclist didn't do himself any favors posting the video for evidence of reckless and negligent driving charges that he got hit with later, but the illegal wiretapping charge (and the whole BS of a search and arrest warrant executed early morning) is soooo over the top and unjustified that I suspect that the rider and his family are gonna be cashing checks their lawyer will be picking up for them. Nothing the rider did justified that kind of retaliation or a warrant or being held in jail before a trial, and whoever procured that search warrant better have done it with an honest affidavit and a real judge issuing it. Otherwise, there's a criminal misconduct issue as well as the civil case.
John -- with Maryland's gun laws, I'm pretty sure that if the rider had a gun strapped to his belt, the video would've ended with the rider spread eagled on the ground.
The motorcyclist didn't do himself any favors posting the video for evidence of reckless and negligent driving charges that he got hit with later, but the illegal wiretapping charge (and the whole BS of a search and arrest warrant executed early morning) is soooo over the top and unjustified that I suspect that the rider and his family are gonna be cashing checks their lawyer will be picking up for them. Nothing the rider did justified that kind of retaliation or a warrant or being held in jail before a trial, and whoever procured that search warrant better have done it with an honest affidavit and a real judge issuing it. Otherwise, there's a criminal misconduct issue as well as the civil case.
John -- with Maryland's gun laws, I'm pretty sure that if the rider had a gun strapped to his belt, the video would've ended with the rider spread eagled on the ground.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a question, puppychow.
Why do you have "Police State?" in your thread title.
What is that supposed to mean? What are you talking about?
Why do you have "Police State?" in your thread title.
What is that supposed to mean? What are you talking about?
A quick google search on the term turns up this...
"The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[1]"
"The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[1]"
Not asking what a Google search turns up. Or for a definition. I'm asking what you mean by putting that in your thread title. What are YOU saying?
You asked me what that is supposed to mean, so I merely did a simple google search to remedy your feigned ignorance. I am also saying this reeks of a proverbial "police state" in the way the civil rights of this rider were trampled on by the "police" and supposedly (allegedly) the judiciary as well - do you get the connection now? That is what I am saying! What are YOU after?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
