Who's at fault here?
- Thread starter Grassman
- Start date
- Status
Bailey Guns
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 381
Maybe. But if you're gonna play the smartass game with the cops you should understand some of them can play that game pretty well. If you're playing for keeps, you'd better be good. This guy was a smartass and a dumbass all wrapped up into one idiot.
The laws in place for obstructing police officers are often-times designed to protect people from themselves. In this case it didn't work.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
the rest of the charges would/should be thrown out.
nope
nope
Lightninstrike
Member
To Grassman's question in the OP, the guy on the bike is at fault. Running his suck to needle a LEO in the performance of his/her duties ain't very smart and neither is improper carry. 
jpatterson
Member
"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
+1
+1
The bike rider was an idiot. As many have said, he called attention to himself while breaking the law. Riding at night without a light is stupid, it's unsafe for the rider and unsafe for others.
You don't have a First Amendment to ride without a headlight, and apparently in TX you don't have the right to open carry. And no one believes that its a good idea to ignore a call to stop from a law officer.
I think you might want to save your thunder for a more deserving gun owner.
You don't have a First Amendment to ride without a headlight, and apparently in TX you don't have the right to open carry. And no one believes that its a good idea to ignore a call to stop from a law officer.
I think you might want to save your thunder for a more deserving gun owner.
jc650
Member
There seems to be a lot of support for a bicyclist who wanted to be a know it all but was in the wrong. If you want to call someone out be it a LEO or a citizen guess you better have your ducks in a row. The attitude the Officers exhibited is no different than many peoples on this forum, the Officers knew what they could do and did it.
Where does it say that suspects HAVE to be Mirandized everytime they are arrested? If the Officer is not questioning you about the crime a Miranda warning is not necessary. An example would be driving with a suspended license, the state DMV computer shows your license is suspended, end of story. At that point there is no reason to question the driver about that crime.(It is a misdemeanor in my state)
Where does it say that suspects HAVE to be Mirandized everytime they are arrested? If the Officer is not questioning you about the crime a Miranda warning is not necessary. An example would be driving with a suspended license, the state DMV computer shows your license is suspended, end of story. At that point there is no reason to question the driver about that crime.(It is a misdemeanor in my state)
Poor East Texan
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 366
Thar be plenty 'o' hot head cops here in my state.
But the cops in this example get no blame from me.
It's just plain STUPID to open your mouth in that situation.
Especially a Concealed Carrier should know this!
But then thar be some hot headed CCs too.
But the cops in this example get no blame from me.
It's just plain STUPID to open your mouth in that situation.
Especially a Concealed Carrier should know this!
But then thar be some hot headed CCs too.
Exercise of civil rights requires responsibility in this country
Let's not forget that the bicyclist initiated the whole thing by deciding to ride through an incident under investigation.
A prudent citizen can exercise constitutional rights in a responsible manner at any time.
But riding through an incident under investigation in order to verbally harass the participants is
NOT A RESPONSIBLE EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH.
Let's not forget that the bicyclist initiated the whole thing by deciding to ride through an incident under investigation.
A prudent citizen can exercise constitutional rights in a responsible manner at any time.
But riding through an incident under investigation in order to verbally harass the participants is
NOT A RESPONSIBLE EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH.
Yes, the guy is a certified moron. I haven't seen anyone dispute that. Hopefully, he will learn from this experience.
The police, in many circumstances, are afforded the right to selectively enforce the law. They can choose to ignore minor violations under some situations (give warnings or not bother with pulling someone over in the first place) or ticket violators in the same or other situations.
With such discretionary enforcement powers comes responsibility.
What I am saying is, I believe the officers chose to enforce the law in this circumstance because of his speech. If that is the case, the selective enforcement action was an attempt to impede his speech in violation of his freedom of speech.
And... the other violations were only discovered as an result of the violation of his freedom of speech and thus be thrown out because of the poison pill.
Example: The police officer doesn't like black people so every black that is pulled over for speeding is ticketed, while only 50% of the whites are ticketed.
It is a very slippery slope not to require unbiased and equal enforcement under the law or allow the use of police discretionary enforcement powers to impede the freedoms afforded to us by God and the Constitution of the United States.
The police, in many circumstances, are afforded the right to selectively enforce the law. They can choose to ignore minor violations under some situations (give warnings or not bother with pulling someone over in the first place) or ticket violators in the same or other situations.
With such discretionary enforcement powers comes responsibility.
What I am saying is, I believe the officers chose to enforce the law in this circumstance because of his speech. If that is the case, the selective enforcement action was an attempt to impede his speech in violation of his freedom of speech.
And... the other violations were only discovered as an result of the violation of his freedom of speech and thus be thrown out because of the poison pill.
Example: The police officer doesn't like black people so every black that is pulled over for speeding is ticketed, while only 50% of the whites are ticketed.
It is a very slippery slope not to require unbiased and equal enforcement under the law or allow the use of police discretionary enforcement powers to impede the freedoms afforded to us by God and the Constitution of the United States.
With such discretionary rights and freedoms comes responsibility.
FAR too many Americans have forgotten this simple truth.
Which is why we have so many rude jerks who feel ENTITLED act that way.
The sword swings both ways.
Consider this...
You want to protest something I believe in. You have the right to do it under free speech.
But if you hold your protest on my property, I'll likely have your butt hauled off to jail for trespassing.
I may not have done that to someone that I AGREED with.
But you can better damned well believe that I would if I didn't.
Was your trespassing the primary cause of the arrest? No, not really.
Was your statements? You bet.
But the Trespassing is what got your butt hauled off.
And I can live with that.
-- John
We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
The constitution affords us the right to freedom of speech without fear of reprisal.
(Of course there are limitations on this freedom, it is not absolute. Terroristic threatening, etc.)
The comments the "idiotic" bicyclist made concerning miranda rights were not one of the exceptions.
The constitution affords us the right to freedom of speech without fear of reprisal.
(Of course there are limitations on this freedom, it is not absolute. Terroristic threatening, etc.)
The comments the "idiotic" bicyclist made concerning miranda rights were not one of the exceptions.
rscalzo
Member
Item 1 - summons violation
Item 2 - Eluding -criminal offense
Funny how some thing being a smart ass can only work in one direction. The officer was quick thinking and found a valid violation. Idiot on the bike escalated it. I stuck his nose in something he had no connection with and had no idea what was goin on and now is crying for those actions. Must be from that radical bike group !!!!
Item 2 - Eluding -criminal offense
Funny how some thing being a smart ass can only work in one direction. The officer was quick thinking and found a valid violation. Idiot on the bike escalated it. I stuck his nose in something he had no connection with and had no idea what was goin on and now is crying for those actions. Must be from that radical bike group !!!!
True, rscalzo.
I find it incredible that some believe the that officer should IGNORE the violation that he noticed when this idiot called attention to himself-- BECAUSE the person said something and we can't violate freedom-of-speech.
FACT: The person called attention to himself.
FACT: The officer noticed a violation when his attention was called to the cyclist.
FACT: The officer chose to do what is in his job to do.
FACT: The cyclist attempted to flee when told to stop for said violation
PRESUMPTION: His actions were motivated by retaliation.
ADVICE: Don't be calling attention to yourself if you think you are breaking the law.
End of story.
-- John
I find it incredible that some believe the that officer should IGNORE the violation that he noticed when this idiot called attention to himself-- BECAUSE the person said something and we can't violate freedom-of-speech.
FACT: The person called attention to himself.
FACT: The officer noticed a violation when his attention was called to the cyclist.
FACT: The officer chose to do what is in his job to do.
FACT: The cyclist attempted to flee when told to stop for said violation
PRESUMPTION: His actions were motivated by retaliation.
ADVICE: Don't be calling attention to yourself if you think you are breaking the law.
End of story.
-- John
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
kinda like a punk kid starting a fight then whining and calling the cops when he gets his clock cleaned. and it always amazed me when it happened there were always some girls who would side with him. the poor victim
Bailey Guns
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 381
191145Fan...
I think you're point is a little strained. I don't think any evidence in this case was "tainted" by the officer's stopping this idiot because he was exercising his speech rights.
I think the officers will easily be able to articulate why attempting to stop this person, in this particular instance, was responsible.
Question by Defense Attorney: "Officer, why did you choose to attempt to stop the defendant? I mean, do you stop all cyclists you see who don't have proper lighting equipment?"
Answer by officer: "No, sir/ma'am. I don't stop every cyclist I see operating a bicycle without proper lighting equipment. However, in this case, after the defendant called out to me I noticed he didn't have a light on the bicycle he was riding. I told him to stop because I wanted to discuss this violation with him. I felt it was important in this instance because the increased traffic in the area due to the traffic stop with multiple subjects detained posed a greater risk to him than he might otherwise face. I know from past experience at traffic stop scenes involving multiple subjects and officers that motorists tend to oftentimes focus on the police activity and not on the additional hazards of driving through a scene involving police activity. And in this instance the defendant, on his improperly equipped bicycle, was far less visible than he would have been had his bike been properly equipped, thus placing him at greater risk than usual. It is not uncommon for a scene like this to evolve into a secondary accident scene or even multiple accident scenes through the fault of inattentive motorists. I felt this cyclist, operating his bicycle at night, through a scene involving police activity, without properly mandated lighting equipment was at much greater risk than he might otherwise be under normal circumstances. (I might also mention the way the cyclist was dressed, especially if the clothing he was wearing wasn't reflective, easy to see in the dark, etc...) I felt the risk in ignoring the cyclist was too great to let him continue and my intent on requesting him to stop was strictly related to his safety. Especially since it also appeared to me the defendant was not focusing on properly operating his bicycle while he was engaging me in conversation. His conversation also distracted me from my main concern which was the welfare and safety of the subjects on scene that I had detained and other motorists transiting the scene."
I think you get the point. A good officer will always be able to articulate why they did what they did.
There is no way a "free speech" argument is going to prevail in this case and it's really a stretch to think it will, in my opinion.
I think you're point is a little strained. I don't think any evidence in this case was "tainted" by the officer's stopping this idiot because he was exercising his speech rights.
I think the officers will easily be able to articulate why attempting to stop this person, in this particular instance, was responsible.
Question by Defense Attorney: "Officer, why did you choose to attempt to stop the defendant? I mean, do you stop all cyclists you see who don't have proper lighting equipment?"
Answer by officer: "No, sir/ma'am. I don't stop every cyclist I see operating a bicycle without proper lighting equipment. However, in this case, after the defendant called out to me I noticed he didn't have a light on the bicycle he was riding. I told him to stop because I wanted to discuss this violation with him. I felt it was important in this instance because the increased traffic in the area due to the traffic stop with multiple subjects detained posed a greater risk to him than he might otherwise face. I know from past experience at traffic stop scenes involving multiple subjects and officers that motorists tend to oftentimes focus on the police activity and not on the additional hazards of driving through a scene involving police activity. And in this instance the defendant, on his improperly equipped bicycle, was far less visible than he would have been had his bike been properly equipped, thus placing him at greater risk than usual. It is not uncommon for a scene like this to evolve into a secondary accident scene or even multiple accident scenes through the fault of inattentive motorists. I felt this cyclist, operating his bicycle at night, through a scene involving police activity, without properly mandated lighting equipment was at much greater risk than he might otherwise be under normal circumstances. (I might also mention the way the cyclist was dressed, especially if the clothing he was wearing wasn't reflective, easy to see in the dark, etc...) I felt the risk in ignoring the cyclist was too great to let him continue and my intent on requesting him to stop was strictly related to his safety. Especially since it also appeared to me the defendant was not focusing on properly operating his bicycle while he was engaging me in conversation. His conversation also distracted me from my main concern which was the welfare and safety of the subjects on scene that I had detained and other motorists transiting the scene."
I think you get the point. A good officer will always be able to articulate why they did what they did.
There is no way a "free speech" argument is going to prevail in this case and it's really a stretch to think it will, in my opinion.
Last edited:
I don't see this as a free speech issue at all
Interfering with a Police Officer while he is conducting a traffic stop with multiple subjects is dangerous. Maybe the Officer hasn't called it in yet but he's got a group of gangstas that just stopped to rob a stop'n'rob store. As our cyclist rides by and pops off his remark the Officer's attention is directed away from the group in front of him just long enough for one of them to produce a gun and fire. That's NOT that far out there is it? There's a reason you shouldn't interfere with the police in the performance of their duties.
Interfering with a Police Officer while he is conducting a traffic stop with multiple subjects is dangerous. Maybe the Officer hasn't called it in yet but he's got a group of gangstas that just stopped to rob a stop'n'rob store. As our cyclist rides by and pops off his remark the Officer's attention is directed away from the group in front of him just long enough for one of them to produce a gun and fire. That's NOT that far out there is it? There's a reason you shouldn't interfere with the police in the performance of their duties.
Bailey Guns
You are correct.
It probably could not be proven that the officers stopped the man as retaliation for his negative comments.
This would certainly be a case that would be lost by the "idiot" on the bicycle. And rightfully so, he is a moron and could have placed the officers lives at greater risk because of his actions (being a distraction).
You are correct.
It probably could not be proven that the officers stopped the man as retaliation for his negative comments.
This would certainly be a case that would be lost by the "idiot" on the bicycle. And rightfully so, he is a moron and could have placed the officers lives at greater risk because of his actions (being a distraction).
I know TX is not an open carry state. However, if you bend over and flash a little bit of the handle of your gun, or, while the gun is generally covered by your shirt, reaching up to the top shelf of a store causes it to peek out a little, neither of these constitutes open carry.
If they did, there would be no way to legally carry without occasinally accidentally breaking the law.
I call BS
a proper officer should be able to do his work even with people watching, making farting noises while the cop bends over, or making sexually related comments while a person is being patted down.
It's called professionalism, and it ISN'T the responsibility of the average citizen to be professional, it is the responsibility of the LE0.
This is good common sense, but doing something unwise doesn't mean it should be illegal. It also sounds like you are advocating applying control measures BEFORE a crime is committed. Under that same logic, none of us would have guns, because while most gun owners are law abiding, you never know what will trigger one to 'snap' and have an ugly incident.
You got a court decision to back up your theory? I didn't think so. In many jurisdictions across this nation, in fact I would bet that in most of these United States, sticking his nose into a police action he wasn't involved in was a crime. Ever hear of obstruction? There are laws on the books just about everywhere that forbid you from exercising your free speech and other rights when that exercising of your rights would interfere with the official performing his duties. If you don't believe me, just try exercising your free speech rights in court sometime.....I suppose that you would argue that your arrest and incarceration or fine for contempt was selective enforcement after your brought attention to yourself by exercising your right to freedom of speech.
The bicyclist was in the wrong for sticking his nose into police business he wasn't involved in to start with. To be in violation of other laws while you are obstructing isn't real smart.
If you want to exercise your right to free speech, write a letter to the editor about the travesty of justice you just witnessed, or even an oped piece, show up at the city council meeting during the public comment period and demand some answers as to if the suspects you'd witnessed being arrested had their rights against self incrimination protected. Interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties in not free speech it is obstruction, interfering with a public official or some other term in some other jurisdiction.
Your right to free speech does not allow you to interfere with a public official in the performance of his duties. Most laws not only extend this to the police, but also to firefighters, other first responders and other public officials.
docfubar
Member
This all falls on to the guy on the bike.
A) He consciously rode his bike without a light.
B) He consciously disobeyed a police officer.
C) He consciously ran from police.
D) He consciously put the glock in a mesh pocket.
Most cops when dealing with a situation at hand will allow minor infractions to go "unnoticed". But if you are going to have such poor judgement to irritate a cop who is dealing with god knows what (drugs, alcohol, gangbangers) when you already broke the law (A and D) then you are just not that bright.
Leave the cop alone. I am not a cop either.
A) He consciously rode his bike without a light.
B) He consciously disobeyed a police officer.
C) He consciously ran from police.
D) He consciously put the glock in a mesh pocket.
Most cops when dealing with a situation at hand will allow minor infractions to go "unnoticed". But if you are going to have such poor judgement to irritate a cop who is dealing with god knows what (drugs, alcohol, gangbangers) when you already broke the law (A and D) then you are just not that bright.
Leave the cop alone. I am not a cop either.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
This is good common sense, but doing something unwise doesn't mean it should be illegal.
he wasnt charged with running his mouth he was charged with no light and then they found the gun. stupid is supposed to hurt
he wasnt charged with running his mouth he was charged with no light and then they found the gun. stupid is supposed to hurt
Bailey Guns
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 381
Call "BS" all you want. Don't be surprised, however, when these actions get you arrested for obstruction by professional officers.
Of course, you could always hire an attorney who likes to use the time-tested and court-approved "my client calls BS" defense theory in court. He could also say he saw it on a gun forum on the internet. I'm sure that would help, too. See how far that legal theory gets you and let us know how it works out.
- Status
