pookamatic
Junior Member
I wonder how much the city could have generated from failure to signal lane changes alone.
-
Welcome to the Yamaha FZ6 Forums. Member registration disables ads and allows you to post and share. Register Here.
Dallas biker pulled over for helmet cam
- Thread starter sloring
- Start date
Seriously. If that's who cagers think I am when I'm on the bike, no wonder they're such homicidal asshats.
There (supposedly, I didn't see it.) was a thing in Atlanta years ago where a bunch of Georgia Tech students got their cars on the Perimeter, (what we call our Interstate highway that goes in a circle around town) formed a phalanx and did a full lap around town (35 miles, I think?) at 55 mph. Those kids should have been arrested. Bikers clogging highways the way those squids did is more complicated, but it sounds like there was a lot of stupid stuff going on that warranted ticket writing. The kind of stupid stuff that gets everyone irritated with motorcyclists. I'm still not sure, given the context, that it isn't so different from a typical rush hour with everyone texting, putting on makeup, reading, eating, changing lanes into cars that they know very well are definitely there, etc. It's difficult for the LEOs when the actual infractions are small and many, and the numbers of the group doing them are large enough to clog a highway. On this biker weekend situation or a typical Monday morning.
ste
Surfing the ethernet
we call our perimeter the m50 ring road
but there have been similar protests on it too
from taxi drivers driving at less than 5mph blocking both directions to bikers too
^ Yeah, those are protests, though. The squids are using the road as a toy, and those students were just doing it to see what would happen. (Which I actually find much more objectionable.) Protesters do what they do for an ideological purpose, knowing that they may get arrested, and that their purpose is more important to them than the arrest record. The fact that the videographer got arrested is part of what we're finding objectionable in this thread. There's no "higher purpose" to what these people are doing. They're using a public road for something other than its intended purpose. Whether or not each, or any individual in the group is breaking a law and should be cited or arrested is debatable, but as a group they're limiting use of the road for other people. Much like the people that read horror novels while driving down the highway. In the left lane. During rush hour. (I'm not making this up.) Haven't they heard of audiobooks?
pookamatic
Junior Member
Beltway here.
After seeing the in car footage, you get a much better understanding of what was going on.
If he [The Sheriff] had stated that he believed the camera had captured footage of alleged illegal riding, it would have put him in a better light through the public eyes.
Why couldn't the Sheriff seize the camera footage in the same way that CCTV is used as evidence?
Nelly:thumbup:
If he [The Sheriff] had stated that he believed the camera had captured footage of alleged illegal riding, it would have put him in a better light through the public eyes.
Why couldn't the Sheriff seize the camera footage in the same way that CCTV is used as evidence?
Nelly:thumbup:
Last edited:
DownrangeFuture
Electronic Repair Genius
There's still due process and civil rights. To take personal property he needs a warrant. Period. He didn't have that, and instead of taking down the guy's information getting the warrant and coming back, he arrested the guy on a trumped up charge.
I think it would have went over better had he held the guy for questioning until he got the warrant. Then let the guy go. The guy wasn't coorperating, so there was sufficent reason to believe that he would destroy evidence, if there was any. Stopping and holding a guy on suspision of involvment in illegal activity would have been kosher. "I thought he was part of the gang, so we held him. Turned out he wasn't so we let him go and we got a warrant for his camera since it showed gang members and lots of moving violations." But since it happened the way it did, any evidence is more than likely tainted at this point. I imagine an "unlawful search and seizure" case is forthcoming.
Of course, most shop owners are law abiding and have no problems turning over CCTV footage to the police without a warrant. Had he said, "Sure officer. I'm getting my camera back after you get the footage off right?", he probably wouldn't have been arrested in the first place.
pookamatic
Junior Member
I was thinking that too. The officer probably knew he couldn't get the camera legally without a warrant, so he found a reason to arrest him.
rivettm
Junior Member
I can't believe this kind of stuff goes on. I'm glad I'm not a cop.
jdoorn14
Junior Member
You better review your Constitutional Law. The 4th Amendment specifically allows arrest and searches due to probable cause. In this case, a call to 911 about a large group of sportbikes doing reckless stuff in traffic (wheelies, etc) would be enough to arrest the first sportbiker with a prominently displayed camera (like a helmet cam), especially if they are in the middle of a large group of sportbikers. Any sportbiker with a camera in this case could be considered an instigator, which is enough for an arrest even if the person is later released and never charged with a crime. (He would have known of he was being charged with a crime, because there would have been a hearing in front of a judge.)
In case you can't figure it out, I don't see any wrongdoing on the part of the police officer making the arrest. If someone has done absolutely nothing wrong and doesn't have any intention of wrongdoing, there is nothing to worry about if you are arrested briefly. In my opinion, the dude that got arrested made things worse by not shutting up and liberal dropping of f-bombs.
Besides, if the police hadn't returned the camera after releasing this guy, how else would this video have made it to YouTube?
sloring
Banned
you sir are an idiot :Flip:
ChevyFazer
Redneck MacGyver
Many states have laws that basically say that cops can pull you over just to check your identification, and in doing so they can check for other stuff. So in other words yes cops CAN pull you over for no reason related to your driving or your car depending on your state laws or local laws.
Wh0M3
Junior Member
This seems to be similar to ROC (ride of the Century) that happened last year in St. Louis. I didn't know about it till after it happened, I'm wondering if they are going to be doing it again.
I've been on large motorcycle rides but most that are in memory or a benefit has the approval of the local authorities if not having a few cops block traffic for us as we ride by. So there is a right way to do a large ride.
I do not agree with the guy being targeted because of the GoPro. The cop clearly states that as his purpose in the beginning, then comes up with the license plate complaint to detain him.
I do not agree with the way people were acting on the road. It's one thing to ride around but another to block traffic in order to have your own stunt show. Driving is a privilege not a right in the U.S. and I think people need to understand that when they are being reckless. I also wonder if the guy who passed away did so while stunting on the highway.
I've been on large motorcycle rides but most that are in memory or a benefit has the approval of the local authorities if not having a few cops block traffic for us as we ride by. So there is a right way to do a large ride.
I do not agree with the guy being targeted because of the GoPro. The cop clearly states that as his purpose in the beginning, then comes up with the license plate complaint to detain him.
I do not agree with the way people were acting on the road. It's one thing to ride around but another to block traffic in order to have your own stunt show. Driving is a privilege not a right in the U.S. and I think people need to understand that when they are being reckless. I also wonder if the guy who passed away did so while stunting on the highway.
Is this type of response really necessary in what has been a well debated thread?
If your going to call someone an idiot at least have the decency to justify the statement.
Nelly
CowtownBiomed
Junior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Calgary Alberta Canada
From a practical standpoint however, they can pretty much do whatever they want to, including fabricating a pretext for pulling you over if they really want to stop you.
And believe me...they do..
sloring
Banned
"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."
Many thing you said doesn't make no sense whatsoever. Ok, so there was a 911 call about large group of motorcycle doing reckless stuff. Police got dispatched and see this guy with a helmet cam. Did the officer see this biker do any of the alledged reckless conducts? By the videos and the officer's own words, the answer is no. Was this biker speeding? The video doesn't show that and the officer doesn't accuse him so. The officer clearly stated that he stopped him because he wants to confiscate the video because there might be evidence of wrong doing. How is a person with a helmet cam an 'instigator'. There are many reasons for having a helmet cam. To document accidents in case he was involved in one. To avoid malicous prosecution (like this case).
Nothing to worry about if only arrested briefly? That's why I called you an idiot. If you think it's ok to spend 8 hrs in jail then releasing without charge, then you are one. I don't think any forum members here agree with your point. The biker has every right to question this unlawful stop and he is a hero to us all (bikers). Please stand up for your rights people!
And so what if the police returned the video? Were they supposed to keep a $300 camera? They copied the video and gave it back. What's your point? You got none buddy!
Wh0M3
Junior Member
With the new GoPro Wireless kit he could have saved the video without getting the camera back if I understand it correctly.
pookamatic
Junior Member
Look for that in the near future. Squad cars equipped with the ability to grab evidence at the scene from vehicles with cameras.
ChevyFazer
Redneck MacGyver
Not saying I agree with the officer taking the camera but "probable cause" I'd also up to the officers interpretation. Here is the definition on probable cause, read the last paragraph in particular. The last paragraph pretty much says that if there is even the slightest chance that the officer might be right he has probable cause.
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
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.
"Probable" in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word "probable" here is not exclusive to community standards and does not predate statistics, as some have suggested.[1]
