Officer Arrests Biker for License Plate

[EEllis]

Since I don't want to violate the rules I will just say I find your comment unnecessary and offensive. If you feel like stepping up then do so this passive aggressive thing is ... I think I'm about to bump into the rules so since I think I've said my piece I'm done.

We don't often agree on things, but I'll have to go along with you on this. I really didn't intend it to be offensive when I typed it, but I can see that it clearly is. I was out of line to post it and I apologize for doing so.

I thank you for that.

[EEllis]

OK, so you're driving along in your compact car......
.......and you're OK with all that?



Personally for me, if you can't admit it, then I just can't take anything you say seriously enough to give it due consideration before responding......which means I won't respond at all. I'd rather that not be the case.

I get so tired of defending myself for things I don't say and positions I don't hold. If you want to make stuff up why not have the cop shoot a dog and kick a baby while molesting a 8 yo child? When posed with the question what to do if pulled over and the cops want your camera I said "why not just five it to them if they ask?" That presumes a legal stop which I already question if that was so in this case. If a stop was legal I think in that case said camera could be considered evidence and a warrant could be obtained to take the camera depending on the time it may take to do so. I also indicated that if it was a legal stop for an arrestable offence then the camera would be taken into property and if they tried they could get a warrant for the camera by the time the guy got out. Every one of those things is base on it being a legal stop and since I was the one who pointed out that the cop called in the plate before he even pulled the motorcycle over I obviously thing that there were major issues with the stop. If I didn't say so at first it was because I didn't have that final nail that was the plate check so I was reserving judgement. Now if you want to ask a question based on what I did say then go ahead.

[EEllis]

LEO threads: Forum Rule 9 prohibits blatant COP-bashing, but it does allow discussions of specific events. Until recently, this rule seems to have worked quite well. Unfortunately, there is a trend developing that is troublesome. Threads are being created concerning events involving law enforcement officers from other states. Some of these threads serve little if any legitimate discussion purposes and appear to have been posted solely to tarnish law enforcement personnel in general. These threads invariably invite one or more posts that are in violation of Rule 9. Equally troubling are the responses from a very few members who are obviously in law enforcement and who always take the officer’s side of any event either with insufficient evidence to make a decision one way the other, or in spite of evidence making it clear that the officer’s conduct was inappropriate or unlawful. Such responses are transparent on their face, but more importantly they tend to escalate the rhetoric in the threads in which they are posted.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=68162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part of the issue seems to be that because the evidence is conclusive to some, those people refuse to believe others could be honest in desire for more info before declaring judgement on a particular situation. Then attacks start questioning honesty or motive of others without any basis but the fact that they disagree. Look what you just wrote "obviously in law enforcement" referring to who? The people who have said and regularly state that they are in law enforcement? Why that is kind of gratuitous since they regularly make that clear. Maybe you mean me who has been "accused", like it would be a bad thing, because to be law enforcement means you can disregard my arguments without really addressing them. I mean I'm obviously biased right? Must be a secret LEO, (and I would bother keeping it a secret why?) so I can't have a honest opinion. Then you blame the "escalated rhetoric" on those that state opinions but not those that then start to aim the discussion at the posters and no longer the discussion, as you are doing right now!

OP says cop1 violated my rights

X says that he agrees

Y says he disagrees because of A B and C

X says That Y must be a cop and cop1 is totally guilty and thats whats wrong with the country and ...all the while ignoring A B and C but going on about E F and G

Mojo says that Y is instigating

Mind you I'm not trying to draw exact parallels but this stuff is getting old. I can't have a different opinion without people getting rude? God forbid when people disagree they actually discus what I say not some strange inaccurate creation based on what they think I might believe.

[mojo84]

I didn't write that. See the link. I do apologize, I should have I indicated it was a quote. I corrected that.

What gets old is someone giving one side the benefit of the doubt when there is little to no doubt. It's obvious the cop was in the wrong. Even his sheriff saw that he was in the wrong. You are one of the very few that is defending his actions.

[Robert*PPS]

Can't watch the video (I'm at work)....but I"m gonna check it out when I get home!!!!

P.S. I think discussions involving matters such as these with a forum such as us do serve an instructive purpose.

[Robert*PPS]

Even his sheriff saw that he was in the wrong. You are one of the very few that is defending his actions.

I didn't take EEllis's responses as defending the officer's actions. I took his responses as opening up a discussion point about voluntarily waiving 4th amendments rights versus standing firm, which would press the need for a warrant. That's just my take.....

[EEllis]

I didn't write that. See the link. I do apologize, I should have I indicated it was a quote. I corrected that.

What gets old is someone giving one side the benefit of the doubt when there is little to no doubt. It's obvious the cop was in the wrong. Even his sheriff saw that he was in the wrong. You are one of the very few that is defending his actions.

I didn't defend his actions, ever! If you want to jump on me make it for something I actually said please.

[EEllis]

Even his sheriff saw that he was in the wrong. You are one of the very few that is defending his actions.

I didn't take EEllis's responses as defending the officer's actions. I took his responses as opening up a discussion point about voluntarily waiving 4th amendments rights versus standing firm, which would press the need for a warrant. That's just my take.....

Thank you

[mojo84]

Give them the camera, or the card anyway. Honestly tho I wonder about that arrest and think they need a warrant it seems to me they should be able to get one and get the camera if needed so, as long as you are asked, why not let them have the video? I am a motorcyclist myself and hate that type of behavior represented by groups such as those so that may color my opinion. More bikes had no plate or had them bent to be unreadable than not, so while the cop may be out of line I feel no sympathy to the idiot taking the vid at all.

So, if I was a cop and saw that you had a smart phone and guys on sport bikes were riding by, I should be able to get your smartphone in case you may have captured something illegal? Get real. In top of that, you called the innocent citizen an "idiot". Play the games if you want but know your antics are transparent

[Keith B]

Drop the attacks now.

[EEllis]

Give them the camera, or the card anyway. Honestly tho I wonder about that arrest and think they need a warrant it seems to me they should be able to get one and get the camera if needed so, as long as you are asked, why not let them have the video? I am a motorcyclist myself and hate that type of behavior represented by groups such as those so that may color my opinion. More bikes had no plate or had them bent to be unreadable than not, so while the cop may be out of line I feel no sympathy to the idiot taking the vid at all.

So, if I was a cop and saw that you had a smart phone and guys on sport bikes were riding by, I should be able to get your smartphone in case you may have captured something illegal? Get real. In top of that, you called the innocent citizen an "idiot". Play the games if you want but know your antics are transparent

"Play the games if you want but know your antics are transparent" first you concoct a strawman argument ascribing a position to me that I didn't take and then insult me for that position. Yep that's the way to conduct a discussion.

[Keith B]

I said stop and you don't listen. Topic locked. You have been warned.