TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:

mr.72 wrote:Cops get their egos bruised a little bit by a cyclist, suddenly they have prove his point by being overbearing jerks.

The cyclist was evading arrest. They told him to stop and he took off like a common criminal.

mr.72 wrote:Dude would not have been "evading arrest" if they weren't chasing him down in order to pump up their egos.

They were chasing him down because he refused to stop when they told him to. If you take off when a cop says stop, you will get chased. We all learn this at a very young age.

mr.72 wrote:They wouldn't have left whoever else they were harassing to go chase down the cyclist over the headlight unless they were defending their delicate egos

We don't know if they left the party they originally detained or not. If they did it was probably because evading arrest is a more serious situation than the one the other fellers were stopped for.

mr.72 wrote:.... indulged in this chase in order to stroke their egos.

Maybe it was because they were wondering why this guy took off when told to stop. Running away is very typical for someone trying to hide something when a cop says to stop.

mr.72 wrote:The point is that the police were jerks.
And we wonder why a lot of people don't trust the police?
And you guys wonder why gun owners tend to alienate others?

These comments say it all. Nice...real nice.

Exactly, we don't know all the facts, so why are you assuming he intentionally "evaded" arrest, for all we know he could be listening to his iPod and not have heard them talking to him, that wouldn't be uncommon, especially if they're after you on foot and you are in a bike, it would take them a while to either catch up at a stop or to get in their car.

Morgan wrote:

If one were to go robbing houses while blaring the communist manifesto on a bull horn, and one was arrested, would you suppose that this would be the suppression of free speech?

No.

Furthermore, they didn't suppress his speech. When he willingly drew the attention of the authorities to him, they noticed infractions. Had he been infraction free, do you think they would have beat him? I doubt it. Nor would he have been incarcerated for his speech.

Don't make this about something it is not... someone didn't have all their ducks in a row and they peed on the shoe of a police officer. Those infractions wouldn't have been noticed if the guy didn't WILLINGLY open his mouth to be a jerk.

But the guy robbing the house would have been caught whether or not he was yelling communist speech, this guy was arrested because he said these words, do you seriously believe a police officer would stop someone just biking by if they said nothing in this same situation? No they would not have, you can argue it til the cows come home, but there are very few officers who are going to do that. This arrest was solely because of his speech, if he would have garnered the attention of the officers in a different way, without insulting them, they would have nearly always let him go with a warning at most, they would not have ticketed him. So yes, he was arrested for his speech.

And to say if he would have kept his "ducks in a row" he would not have gotten a ticket is a fallacy, there are thousand upon thousands of petty infractions that exist, and there's a near 100% chance any given person is breaking at least one of them while doing anything. So if it wern't for these problems, they could have found more.

Sounds like some cops getting upset over a dumb comment they should have made a joke over...This is police being dumb and overreaching, and his weapon was probably unconcealed as part of being stopped by the police, dumb comment followed by even dumber police conduct imo.