cmantis
Junior Member
I get text alerts of checkpoints. Nymstf.org
Black and white law enforcers are beyond scum
What an a-hole! Who were you really hurting there?!
You should have "seized" his cop car, well partially YOUR cop car since you paid for it to exist with your tax money.
Black and white law enforcers are beyond scum
You knew what he meant. Not all police are the same as bikers. It's those that abuse the system is probably what he is referring to. We need police, ones that do there job anyways.
Nothing gives ambulances the true right of way even with lights and sirens, but then again speeding is speeding right? That's what black and white means. It should be handled on a case by case basis. Instead it's "you did this, maximum penalty" it was nothing derogatory buddy
Am I bitter towards LEOs who didn't lift a finger to look for my stolen ****? Hell yeah I am. Doesn't mean I just blatantly hate everyone who wakes up every morning not knowing if he will be shot at his first traffic stop.
Saw one on the TV cop had a guy stopped. The driver put a revolver to the cops face and squeezed the trigger. !!MISSFIRE!! You know how lucky you have to be for a REVOLVER to misfire?
Anyways thank you for doing what some Americans won't do and despise. Most of you don't hear it enough.
Scott, we all know cops are scum until we need one :spank:
Nothing worse than dealing with a rotten cop, nothing better than dealing with a professional LEO who knows his job -even when getting a ticket
From your drawing, and since you were told that it was a "motorcycle check point" after you were stopped, it looks like the hiding cop set a trap for the next unsuspecting motorcyclist to come along, who happened to be you. I guess "stop and frisk" is still OK in New York as long as you are riding a motorcycle. The thing I don't get is why they did not hammer you with a multi-hundred dollar fee to get your bike out of impound. Sounds like a lost revenue opportunity to me...
**For the record, IMO, there was a violation, maybe improper use of the lane, improper passing but certainly not reckless driving. The whole confiscation thing is BS big time. If I was the cop at the end, he would have got a warning and sent on his way, but then again, I'm beyond SCUM, TWO TIMES....
Pretty much, and that is a good question.
Agreed on all counts. I was expecting to get a warning or at worst some type small traffic ticket- not reckless driving..
I get text alerts of checkpoints. Nymstf.org
Wow...I wasn't saying all police officers are scum, you mistook the meaning of black and white to maybe referring to uniform or cruiser color. That's not what I meant at all... I was referring to officers who serve their pension's best interest and NOT the public interest, for which they OUGHT to be serving.Guess retired cops are SCUM TOO??
That would include myself, 25 years of scum..
Guess you need to remove any thanks and rep points from this post:
http://www.600riders.com/forum/fz6-...thanks-scott-townsendsfjr1300.html#post588254
Sounds like Sterotyping as in "all bikers" are bad /scum bags. Hey, I'm a scum bag x TWO!
BTW, PROUD TO be a retired "BEYOND SCUM", BUT still a SCUM BIKER!!
**For the record, IMO, there was a violation, maybe improper use of the lane, improper passing but certainly not reckless driving. The whole confiscation thing is BS big time. If I was the cop at the end, he would have got a warning and sent on his way, but then again, I'm beyond SCUM, TWO TIMES....
I thought I read something in the AMA magazine about motorcycle only check points being illegal...I could be wrong tho. Check their website.
Technically all checkpoints are illegal.
Nope not in most of 'Murica:From what I've heard I think all checkpoints are illegal.
Random checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLegality in the United States
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.
Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject himself to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test. In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
Dissenting justices argued against this conclusion. Justice Stevens argued that the checkpoints were not reasonably effective, writing that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
Further, Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion argued that the police had failed to show that the checkpoint seizures were a necessary tool and worth the intrusion on individual privacy. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," he insisted.
Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. One other state (Alaska) does not use checkpoints even though it has not made them illegal.[12] Montana uses checkpoints frequently.[13] Some states combine their efforts in setting up sobriety checkpoint initiatives, such as Checkpoint Strikeforce, jointly run by Virginia, Washington DC, Delaware, West Virginia, and Maryland[14]
Agreed on all counts. I was expecting to get a warning or at worst some type small traffic ticket- not reckless driving..