Motorcyclist Arrested So Cop Could Get His Camera

Submitted by: CATAPLT 5 years ago in

LEO admits to pulling over a motorcyclist to get his camera just before arresting him for a minor misdemeanor
There are 41 comments:
Male 1,446
Why didn`t the rest of the bikers stop and beat this cop`s ass on the side of the road?

Figure that out and you will know why the cops keep doing this crap.

0
Reply
Male 135
"its called REASONABLE SUSPICION. cam are use by gang members so he could be a gang member for having a cam"

Are you going to suggest that every CNN van with a camera mounted on the roof or close to any window is a crip drive by wagon just waiting to be called into action?

You have to be a world class cretin to not recognise that the police officer was completely in the wrong by: Suggesting he can take possession of private property without reasonable cause.

Driving on the highway under ths speedlimit is not probable cause. Driving a motorcycle is not probable cause. By that definition, every black, white or hispanic person in the US should always be stopped for just about everything because someone with their particular skintone once killed a guy.

Do you European immigrants currently residing in the USA have any sense of self respect left?
0
Reply
Male 79
DM: Your walking a very very fine line. That`s like saying that every kid who has a cell phone may potentially be carrying video footage of his friends committing a minor crime, so therefore all teenagers cell phones should be screened for video evidence. It`s ridiculous.

Reasonable suspicion usually applies only when a crime has been committed and a person matches the description or a person is acting out of the ordinary. It is not to be used to take away the rights of citizens to be unlawfully searched without a warrant. And you`re doing exactly what Macgruffin did, you`re assuming that that the cop has a right to stop the person for his camera. That individual can deny the cop the right to search his property without a warrant, which means the inital arrest to GET the camera was unlawful. So before you start throwing out precendents, first understand the crime being committed. Heres a hint, there wasn`t one in this case.
0
Reply
Male 3,714
>Based on what evidence? >

its called REASONABLE SUSPICION. cam are use by gang members so he could be a gang member for having a cam

"(1) the consensual
encounter, which may be initiated without any objective level of suspicion; (2) the
investigative detention, which, if non-consensual, must be supported by a reasonable,
articulable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) the arrest, valid only if supported by
probable cause." United States v. Smith, 594 F.3d 530, 535 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting
United States v. Waldon, 206 F.3d 597, 602 (6th Cir. 2000)).iii
0
Reply
Male 38,764

biker targeted for the camera, cop even said so.
Cop makes up the excuse to arrest him.
"Partially covered plate" ? That`s a ticketable thing, NOT an arrest thing.

This cop is a dick.
0
Reply
Male 766
you `mercans better get your civil rights in order the rest of the world is laughing
0
Reply
Male 79
Motorcyclist was being targeted for the camera on his head and not on his actions. It irritates me that you`re trying to defend your ignorant opinion and how you pick the smallest nuances of other people`s comments to respond to. The troll comment, the `dangerous looks` comment, but not the idea that your view on the situation is inherently wrong.

Go back under your bridge Trollette.
0
Reply
Male 79
Macguffin: I love how you`re trying to backpedal here. Your first comment was how he was trying to "prevent" some action on the biker’s behalf, and then you say how that the cop believed he was intending to create a nuisance. ‘Prevent’ means that an event HAS NOT occurred yet, so does ‘intended’, so when you say that “we`re not talking about any future hypothetical scenario” that’s a load of BS because you are assuming that the driver was going to create a disturbance. At the time of the stop, the driver was doing nothing wrong in the cop’s eyes, which is why he had to go back to his car and come up with another excuse for pulling him over.
You’re a troll because in the same comment where you state “we`re not talking about any future hypothetical scenario”, you ask questions assuming that the driver was going to do something wrong. I love how you don’t see the main point here: That the motorcy
0
Reply
Male 3,364
MacHuffin: "This is a person that was arrested because there was good reason to believe he was intent on making a public nuisance of himself, and endangering other drivers."

Based on what evidence?


0
Reply
Male 201
what I believe this assclown of a cop pulled the biker over for was for the license plate holder/fender eliminator, if this is the case (it`s difficult for me to see if there`s one, but I`d wager it to be the case) then the cop is in the wrong, FULLY
most fender eliminators aren`t covered under DOT (they don`t test them to see if they fall off their in the wind or could be an issue in collisions, but if you look at them, the bolts are the same grade as stock, there`s less material to fly off if broken), so in technicality, the cop COULD have pursued to pull the guy over for such, BUT he uses the "the plate`s obstructed" line, which fender eliminators are made so the plate is NOT obstructed

assclown cop is an assclown and in the wrong, let alone how he managed it is a gross misuse of authority, just so you know MacGuffin
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]than how can you possibly justify it this time? that`s my point. your either a troll or a hypocrite. probably both. i know you love to troll.[/quote]

I justify it this time on exactly the grounds I stated below: that the officer`s actions were proportionate, legal and had the desired effect. It`s amazing how often people like you will leap to accusations of trolling/stupidity/hypocrisy/etc when you can`t find a flaw in a simple argument. So predictable.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
"does that mean officers, in your mind, should be able to arrest any anyone that looks like they may possibly cause trouble in the future?


In a word, no. As stated several times, my opinion concerns this officer on this occasion only. Now, what`s yout point?"

than how can you possibly justify it this time? that`s my point. your either a troll or a hypocrite. probably both. i know you love to troll.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
That`s called a "slippery slope" fallacy. It`s a fallacy, because we`re not talking about any future hypothetical scenario: we`re talking about this cop, on this occasion, taking actions that apply in these circumstances only. Do any of you actually have a view about whether the motorcyclist being detained was actually about to participate in a repeat offence that endangered other road users? And if you think that he was, do you believe it was inherently wrong for him to have been prevented from doing so by legal means?
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]would imply that we should arrest all people who LOOK dangerous.[/quote]

If I had actually said that, you would of course have been right to criticise me for holding such a stupid point of view. I didn`t say it, however, so it`s irrelevant.

The main objections each of you has given to my support of this officer on this occasion have been based what you imagine *might* happen in a hypothetical future if > insert gross exaggeration of this cop`s behaviour applied to a future hypothetical scenario here <.

...
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]does that mean officers, in your mind, should be able to arrest any anyone that looks like they may possibly cause trouble in the future?[/quote]

In a word, no. As stated several times, my opinion concerns this officer on this occasion only. Now, what`s yout point?
0
Reply
Male 79
Macguffin: So in your argument of "good reason to believe he was intent on making a public nuisance of himself" would imply that we should arrest all people who LOOK dangerous. I would hate to wear a hoodie after dark around you.
The fact is he was doing NOTHING illegal, that in itself was an abuse of power for the cop to stop him. Unless there was a call that a biker with a helm cam was causing a disturbance, there was no legal grounds to pull him over. The cop FURTHER abuses his power by creating a ridiculous charge just to justify himself. So we have two wrongs on the cop and nothing on the biker, yet you`re still on the cops side? You are assuming that he will do something dangerous in the future. Sorry but we don`t live in a Minority Report society yet.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
@MacGuffin: you said "This is a person that was arrested because there was good reason to believe he was intent on making a public nuisance of himself, and endangering other drivers."

does that mean officers, in your mind, should be able to arrest any anyone that looks like they may possibly cause trouble in the future? that they have the right to arrest before any crime is done? so they can just arrest any person because of their skin color, tattoos, clothing, vehicle they are driving, or have a cell phone that has a camera on it, or a dash cam? where do you draw the line on "intent on making a public nuisance of himself, and endangering other drivers"

because if that`s the road your going down than can we keep women from driving since most at horrible drivers, lol
0
Reply
Female 2,602

This is a person that was arrested because there was good reason to believe he was intent on making a public nuisance of himself, and endangering other drivers. Sure, he actually got arrested for something more trivial, but the cop`s actions were proportionate, legal, and they had the desired effect of preventing a more serious offence. I`ve no problem with that at all.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]What you fail to realize is that you are arguing for the idea that "The ends justify the means.[/quote]

Which would only become a problem if you were to go on to believe that the ends *always* justify the means.

I`m the first to criticise US Police where there`s reason to (ask anyone that`s actually read any of my posts on IAB if they honestly believe I`m a fan of US cops? - you`ll soon find that the very notion will be widely considered ridiculous given the way I`ve criticised actual police brutality on here in the past). This case in hand isn`t about some low-intelligence thug cop arresting some helpless girl for the "assault" of blowing bubbles on him.

...
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Is there no cop deeck MacGuffin won`t suck?
Apparently not.
0
Reply
Male 723
MacGuffin:

"He was trying to prevent a repeat of some pretty dangerous and antisocial behaviour..."

What you fail to realize is that you are arguing for the idea that "The ends justify the means." I once saw a film about that back in school. It was a fairly old black & white film and was pretty grainy. Also, it was fairly hard to understand at the time. It was all in early 20th century German.

Just step into this shower, my dear. Everything will be just fine. Never mind that pile of bodies over there in the corner. We know best. We know what this country needs. Thank you for your cooperation.

8-) LJ
0
Reply
Male 1,397
Hey Sheeple: Don`t forget, if you`ve nothing to hide, you`ve nothing to fear....just keep chanting that `til it becomes second nature to think. The powers that be will love you for it!
0
Reply
Male 201
and thus McGuffin makes my brain hurt once more

we can see your hatred or at least vile dislike of motorcyclists is showing

but when a cop pulls a BS charge like this out of his ass, the usual outcome isn`t arresting him, then proceeding to say he has suspicion that the film might have proof of illegal stunts or some other BS, then proceeding to detain him and get irritated that the arrested guy is making sense, then going about shoving him into the cop car and then slamming the door (leg could have been wedged in there, and that is likely to injure the guy)

how is this even up for debate, whether or not the motorcyclist did/film something wrong prior, does not warrant the cop to act in such a way

I thought i was "to protect and serve", not "to maim and harass"
0
Reply
Male 19
You could see in the video dude`s plate wasn`t even concealed.
0
Reply
Male 79
Macguffin: As usual your ignorance astounds me; the cop obviously pulled him over hoping to check his helmet cam to catch OTHER bikers as stated by the COP when he approached the driver. It is NOT illegal to have a helmet cam, the cop then decided that the charge of obstructing his license plate was going to be used instead to save his ass. Maybe where you’re from its okay to give up your rights without a fight, but here in America we tend to frown on someone abusing their authority in such a manner.
0
Reply
Male 1,754
I hate cops. WHY DO WE ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS?!?! One day the people will get sick of the power that corrupts the police force. I hope I`m around for it because I`ll be at the front of that drating charge.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Since when is having something allegedly blocking a clear view of your license plate an arrestable offense?! I doubt most officers give more than a warning for that!
And MacGuffin? You`re out of your mind.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
Wow, this cop needs to be discharged.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]I suppose you`ll be just turning yourself in to your local police force on some BS charges and giving them reasons out of thin air?[/quote]

No, I wont be needing to do that. But then again, I wont be using the freeway for stunt riding any time soon either. I made clear that my support of the police in this case was based on the reasonableness of their underlying motivation for the stop (and the fact that there actually was some legitimate lesser offence that the person could be arrested for - a concealed licence plate). I don`t have one of those on my vehicle either.

So, what is your point, caller?
0
Reply
Male 2,178
Shoot first,ask the cop why later.
0
Reply
Male 712
::Sure, it was a BS stop, and an excuse appears to have been plucked out of thin air as justification for another motive (none of us is perfect, and there`s a lot of laws in the book to choose from if you want to stop someone).::

Okay so if it was a bullpoo stop with a justification being plucked out of thin air and you state also in the same paragraph...

::I`m with the cop this time.::

I suppose you`ll be just turning yourself in to your local police force on some BS charges and giving them reasons out of thin air?
0
Reply
Male 712
A few facts. The motorcyclist is right, he committed no crime and therefore the camera (his personal property) cannot be siezed. In order for a legal siezure to be performed the officer has two options. 1. He can only sieze without a warrant if he makes an arrest
2. He must obtain a warrant.

He will now, in a court of law, have to prove that the license plate was indeed obstructed. If he cannot do that then the cyclists rights against illegal search and siezure were violated.
0
Reply
Male 38,764
0
Reply
Male 612
seems like a pretty smart idea. check a guys camera for illegal activity.
0
Reply
Male 243
just going to get worse
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]"He was trying to prevent a repeat of some pretty dangerous and antisocial behaviour..." yeah that`s fine. He needs to find a way to do that with out violating an individual`s rights.[/quote]

Which rights did he violate? I notice they didn`t show that concealed licence plate that he was arrested for. After a legitimate arrest, you can search a person`s belongings for further evidence, which is what happened.

As I say, I`m the first to criticise excessive force or unreasonable practices. All I saw here, though, was a beligerent biker getting stopped from doing something illegal, by being legitimately detained for another lesser offence. That`s not violating anyone`s rights, even the arrestee`s; looks all square to me - good policing.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
If you think someone has evidence of a crime, you get a warrant or a subpoena. You don`t find some excuse to seize their property.
0
Reply
Male 701
"He was trying to prevent a repeat of some pretty dangerous and antisocial behaviour..." yeah that`s fine. He needs to find a way to do that with out violating an individual`s rights.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
I`m usually the first to criticise when Police step over the line, but, tbh, I don`t see anything wrong this time. Sure, it was a BS stop, and an excuse appears to have been plucked out of thin air as justification for another motive (none of us is perfect, and there`s a lot of laws in the book to choose from if you want to stop someone). However, the cop wasn`t just being a dick for the sake of it. He was trying to prevent a repeat of some pretty dangerous and antisocial behaviour, and he didn`t assault the person he was arresting or use excessive force despite provocation. I`m with the cop this time.
0
Reply
Male 81
So , how is Soviet-Murica theese days ...
0
Reply
Male 7
Link: Motorcyclist Arrested So Cop Could Get His Camera [Rate Link] - LEO admits to pulling over a motorcyclist to get his camera just before arresting him for a minor misdemeanor
0
Reply