Beware Union County tactics

[atwowheelguy]

http://www.m109riders.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146922

Union County, Hwy 60 north of Suches.

You pass by the deputy sheriff parked on the side. He radios ahead that a bike is coming. Another deputy sheriff in a white farm truck with "TAG APPLIED FOR" tag pulls out in front of you. You brake to avoid hitting him. You can't see into the cab because of tinted windows. He proceeds down the road at 20 mph. He eases over to the right edge of the lane in a straight-away double yellow section. You pass and he radios ahead for the third deputy sheriff parked on the side of the road to pull you over. Mission accomplished. $$$ Cha ching!

[cliff0529]

I'd fight it and agrue entrapment, OCGA 16-3-25.

"A person (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4596/index.html) is not guilty of a crime (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4672/index.html) if, by entrapment, his conduct is induced or solicited by a government (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/3914/index.html) officer or employee (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/1312/index.html), or agent (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4652/index.html) of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used in prosecuting the person (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4596/index.html) for commission (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/3879/index.html) of the crime (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4672/index.html). Entrapment exists where the idea and intention of the commission (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/3879/index.html) of the crime (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4672/index.html) originated with a government (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/3914/index.html) officer or employee (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/1312/index.html), or with an agent (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4652/index.html) of either, and he, by undue persuasion, incitement, or deceitful means, induced the accused (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4338/index.html) to commit the act which the accused (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4338/index.html) would not have committed except for the conduct of such officer (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4429/index.html)."

I'd argue that I'd willingly followed him at 20mph for several miles and did not pass him until he pulled over the white line, which is common courtesy for slow moving farm vehicles to allow you to pass.

[Mongo]

Should go to court and use the law....

§ 40-6-40. Vehicles to drive on right side of roadway; exceptions


(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;

(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;

Doing less than half the speed limit could easily be considered a hazard and pulling to the right edge of the lane shows the pickup agreed ;)

[Georgiacbr]

I would fight it good luck.

[BiggsRR07]

I'd fight it and agrue entrapment, OCGA 16-3-25.

"A person (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4596/index.html) is not guilty of a crime (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4672/index.html) if, by entrapment, his conduct is induced or solicited by a government (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/3914/index.html) officer or employee (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/1312/index.html), or agent (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4652/index.html) of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used in prosecuting the person (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4596/index.html) for commission (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/3879/index.html) of the crime (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4672/index.html). Entrapment exists where the idea and intention of the commission (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/3879/index.html) of the crime (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4672/index.html) originated with a government (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/3914/index.html) officer or employee (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/1312/index.html), or with an agent (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4652/index.html) of either, and he, by undue persuasion, incitement, or deceitful means, induced the accused (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4338/index.html) to commit the act which the accused (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4338/index.html) would not have committed except for the conduct of such officer (http://www.lawskills.com/term/ga/4429/index.html)."

I'd argue that I'd willingly followed him at 20mph for several miles and did not pass him until he pulled over the white line, which is common courtesy for slow moving farm vehicles to allow you to pass.

My thoughts exactly

[willr1]

this is when I would deploy this
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/IMG_0539-420x315.jpg

[willr1]

Serious note though, I would email the Sheriff, DA and every county commissioner and tell them that Union County has nothing and that their roads bring in money from bikers for fuel, food and even the hotel stay for weekend riding, so without riders, they would have a decrease in profits and targeting a group of motorist is unacceptable

[steve c]

Similar story, different day:
Got a ticket in Lumpkin, back when McClure was in charge, for the same thing - without the second cop car. Four of us were stuck behind a blue sedan for 3-4 miles. We all passed a cop doing 20mph. He just sat there - did not follow. Five miles down the road, after the blue sedan had pulled over to let us by, the cop writes all four of us a ticket for passing on the double-yellow. $221, 3 points, at the time.

- S

[Alilyoyo1]

steve did he pull over to let you pass or did you just pass him, there is a difference...what was the speed limit on the road? he didn't incite you just because he was only going 20 mph...
i was waved by a Blount county on the Dragon in a switch back....I crossed the double yellow...but he didn't pull me. I was even speeding which is why he let me pass...
we get a bad name because so many riders blame EVERYONE but themselves for tickets and accidents....but we are not angels. I know I've done things including speeding, illegal passing, etc....with rare exception I take my medicine....riding can be like gambling...we get that rush of adreneline when we get away with those behaviors but we should accept responsiblity if we get busted just as well....
(im not talkin about the OP really but is the original bike speeding when it passes the sitting cruiser?

[Todd]

Hell, someone should go up there and video tape an entire incident like that, then submit it to the news media and see if they'll air it.

[DecepticonDon]

get video evidence, call Attorney General, sit back and watch heads roll

[willr1]

Better yet, submit it to POST, then the officers and agency can face fines and even their certificates could be placed on probation.

[SquireSCA]

A lot of us have GoPro's and things like that. Why not head up there, see if you fall into their trap, get video and then put it online and send a copy to the papers?

If they want to sit in the bushes and catch people going over the double yellow, I don't have a problem with that, although I do think that in some cases, vehicles like bikes should be allowed to cross the double yellow to pass slow traffic, if it is safe to do so, knowing that bikes need less room that cars and they can do it very quickly and easily...

But when the cops put a truck out there with the intention of enticing you to go around them, isn't that entrapment? I mean, isn't that like a cop walking along and dropping a bag of weed on the sidewalk, and you see it and pick it up and then they bust you for possession? I mean, they didn't offer it to you or ask you to take it, but they put it right there hoping that you would, so their intent is the same, is it not?

[SquireSCA]

Another question... If you have a camera on your bike and get pulled over and the cop sees it and says to himself, "Uh oh, this might not look good for the department", is he allowed to take it so that you cannot use the video against them?

[RogueElement]

Another question... If you have a camera on your bike and get pulled over and the cop sees it and says to himself, "Uh oh, this might not look good for the department", is he allowed to take it so that you cannot use the video against them?

Nope. He'd have to have a case that the GoPro was there exclusively to film him. And even then, he can only tell you to turn it off. By then, he's already f'ed.

[rr_double_rr]

Another question... If you have a camera on your bike and get pulled over and the cop sees it and says to himself, "Uh oh, this might not look good for the department", is he allowed to take it so that you cannot use the video against them?

Well, I have a GoPro, you have a GoPro, there are more than a couple others here that do. I see a Sunday project coming.

[ramm]

Another question... If you have a camera on your bike and get pulled over and the cop sees it and says to himself, "Uh oh, this might not look good for the department", is he allowed to take it so that you cannot use the video against them?

No. He can not take your camera, legally. Not in Georgia anyways...

edit: is it cannot or can not? Eric has gotten in my head.

[ramm]

Nope. He'd have to have a case that the GoPro was there exclusively to film him. And even then, he can only tell you to turn it off. By then, he's already f'ed.

He actually can not make you legally turn it off either.

[SquireSCA]

Hmmm... I have a mount for the front of the bike, which mounts on the tank which would show the truck pulling out, how slow he was going(you can see my speedo), if he moved to the right to encourage me to pass, etc... And I have a mount on the tail that you can aim a camera backwards... Also have a helmet mount if we could get a third cam... LOL

So where is this road again? haha

[TroyBoy30]

No. He can not take your camera, legally. Not in Georgia anyways...

edit: is it cannot or can not? Eric has gotten in my head.

:crackup:

[Bigeclou]

Me and 2 other guys got pinched this way a few years back.

[RogueElement]

He actually can not make you legally turn it off either.

He doesn't. But he also has the right to arrest you for any traffic violation too. :)

[ramm]

He doesn't. But he also has the right to arrest you for any traffic violation too. :)

Yep. But at least I'd have it on video. :lol:

[Alilyoyo1]

sooo lets see if I am on the same page....if a cop drops a gun on the side walk that means it must be ok for you to pick it up and shoot someone cuz the cop dropped it AND if you did pick up the tantalizing gun and shoot someone its the cop's fault and not yours?


A lot of us have GoPro's and things like that. Why not head up there, see if you fall into their trap, get video and then put it online and send a copy to the papers?

If they want to sit in the bushes and catch people going over the double yellow, I don't have a problem with that, although I do think that in some cases, vehicles like bikes should be allowed to cross the double yellow to pass slow traffic, if it is safe to do so, knowing that bikes need less room that cars and they can do it very quickly and easily...

But when the cops put a truck out there with the intention of enticing you to go around them, isn't that entrapment? I mean, isn't that like a cop walking along and dropping a bag of weed on the sidewalk, and you see it and pick it up and then they bust you for possession? I mean, they didn't offer it to you or ask you to take it, but they put it right there hoping that you would, so their intent is the same, is it not?

[ramm]

sooo lets see if I am on the same page....if a cop drops a gun on the side walk that means it must be ok for you to pick it up and shoot someone cuz the cop dropped it AND if you did pick up the tantalizing gun and shoot someone its the cop's fault and not yours?

That really isn't the same thing at all...

[Todd]

sooo lets see if I am on the same page....if a cop drops a gun on the side walk that means it must be ok for you to pick it up and shoot someone cuz the cop dropped it AND if you did pick up the tantalizing gun and shoot someone its the cop's fault and not yours?
You added in shooting someone with the gun. David didn't say anything about smoking the weed, just picking it up and being busted for pos. Now if the gun you mention was a stolen gun the cops left on the ground and you picked it up, they bust you for pos. of a stolen firearm, then just like in Davids scenario, yes, that would be entrapment.

[ramm]

You added in shooting someone with the gun. David didn't say anything about smoking the weed, just picking it up and being busted for pos. Now if the gun you mention was a stolen gun the cops left on the ground and you picked it up, they bust you for pos. of a stolen firearm, then just like in Davids scenario, yes, that would be entrapment.

Bingo.

[rr_double_rr]

Kinda right, except for the fact that the vehicle moving over to the white line is written in the statute to allow for vehicles to share lanes and not impede each other.

If the cop were to unholster his weapon, drop it on the ground, and you were to pick it up to eliminate it as a safety hazard, then arrest you for it, yes, then we are talking the same thing. Shooting someone is wrong in that instance either way.

Suwanee cops were doing this crap a while ago. Standing in the middle of the road and slowing traffic down, then releasing it and watching the road ragers go off. The road ragers probably wouldn't have raged at that point if the cop hadn't provoked them to by slowing traffic down at rush hours anyway. I personally think that's entrapment, too, but learned long ago that arguing with the law rarely results in positive response.

In the case of the mountain cops, provided you weren't breaking any other laws and only passed the truck when he let you go around because he wasn't travelling at the speed limit anyway, I don't see what they can get you on. I would love to see something done with video of this.

[SquireSCA]

You added in shooting someone with the gun. David didn't say anything about smoking the weed, just picking it up and being busted for pos. Now if the gun you mention was a stolen gun the cops left on the ground and you picked it up, they bust you for pos. of a stolen firearm, then just like in Davids scenario, yes, that would be entrapment.

Exactly. I don't know how it turned into taking it and committing murder... LOL

But yeah, cop drops the pot or stolen gun, I see it and pick it up and a cop jumps out of the bushes and busts me for possession... That's entrapment IMHO.

[rr_double_rr]

On a side note, we need to be aware of unsecured firearms around Kristin, apparently. ;)

[SquireSCA]

Kinda right, except for the fact that the vehicle moving over to the white line is written in the statute to allow for vehicles to share lanes and not impede each other.

If the cop were to unholster his weapon, drop it on the ground, and you were to pick it up to eliminate it as a safety hazard, then arrest you for it, yes, then we are talking the same thing. Shooting someone is wrong in that instance either way.

Suwanee cops were doing this crap a while ago. Standing in the middle of the road and slowing traffic down, then releasing it and watching the road ragers go off. The road ragers probably wouldn't have raged at that point if the cop hadn't provoked them to by slowing traffic down at rush hours anyway. I personally think that's entrapment, too, but learned long ago that arguing with the law rarely results in positive response.

In the case of the mountain cops, provided you weren't breaking any other laws and only passed the truck when he let you go around because he wasn't travelling at the speed limit anyway, I don't see what they can get you on. I would love to see something done with video of this.

Precisely. If a tractor is going down the road at 20 in a 45 and it is a straight away and double yellow, people, including cops pass them all the time. Same for a stopped mail truck or UPS truck. People cross the double yellow if the coast is clear to get around them...

The cops reproducing what happens on a daily basis and then busting you for it just seems wrong to me...

[SquireSCA]

On a side note, we need to be aware of unsecured firearms around Kristin, apparently. ;)

[Checks holster]

[Dan43]

Another question... If you have a camera on your bike and get pulled over and the cop sees it and says to himself, "Uh oh, this might not look good for the department", is he allowed to take it so that you cannot use the video against them?This is becoming a bad area for citizens. Cops are feeling put upon by getting caught on camera and legislatures are taking the side of the cops. Several states (13 I believe) have passed laws making it a crime to photograph or record (video and/or audio) LEO while on duty. Many states who have not passed specific laws are using existing wire tap laws to charge citizens who make recordings of LEO on the job.

[SquireSCA]

This is becoming a bad area for citizens. Cops are feeling put upon by getting caught on camera and legislatures are taking the side of the cops. Several states (13 I believe) have passed laws making it a crime to photograph or record (video and/or audio) LEO while on duty. Many states who have not passed specific laws are using existing wire tap laws to charge citizens who make recordings of LEO on the job.

SO basically in those states the cops are above the law. Check.

Which states are those again? So that I can avoid them?

I understand not harassing cops doing their job, but cops are people and people do dumb shit and passing a law to protect bad cops is just crazy...

[rr_double_rr]

This is becoming a bad area for citizens. Cops are feeling put upon by getting caught on camera and legislatures are taking the side of the cops. Several states (13 I believe) have passed laws making it a crime to photograph or record (video and/or audio) LEO while on duty. Many states who have not passed specific laws are using existing wire tap laws to charge citizens who make recordings of LEO on the job.

I thought that a high court ruled on this saying that the LEO is in a public area, performing a public service, and therefore has no reasonable expectation to privacy in performance of that. I think it was a result of that kid in California getting his butt beat for not getting up when the LEO told him to stop loitering. Kid took quite a beating and it was all recorded showing that the cop escalated it unnecessarily.

[ramm]

This is becoming a bad area for citizens. Cops are feeling put upon by getting caught on camera and legislatures are taking the side of the cops. Several states (13 I believe) have passed laws making it a crime to photograph or record (video and/or audio) LEO while on duty. Many states who have not passed specific laws are using existing wire tap laws to charge citizens who make recordings of LEO on the job.

Like I said, still legal in Georgia though.

[rr_double_rr]

Doesn't mention any states where it is specifically illegal, but it's a hot button for sure

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.html

[RogueElement]

sooo lets see if I am on the same page....if a cop drops a gun on the side walk that means it must be ok for you to pick it up and shoot someone cuz the cop dropped it AND if you did pick up the tantalizing gun and shoot someone its the cop's fault and not yours?

I understand what he's trying to say. But it really only works if a cop tells you to take the weed.

[Dan43]

I thought that a high court ruled on this saying that the LEO is in a public area, performing a public service, and therefore has no reasonable expectation to privacy in performance of that. I think it was a result of that kid in California getting his butt beat for not getting up when the LEO told him to stop loitering. Kid took quite a beating and it was all recorded showing that the cop escalated it unnecessarily.As far as I know the SC has not ruled against any of the states that have passed these laws, nor against any state that has used the existing wire tapping laws to charge private citizens for recording LEO.

[Alilyoyo1]

You added in shooting someone with the gun. David didn't say anything about smoking the weed, just picking it up and being busted for pos. Now if the gun you mention was a stolen gun the cops left on the ground and you picked it up, they bust you for pos. of a stolen firearm, then just like in Davids scenario, yes, that would be entrapment.

ok ok...so he picks up a stolen gun...why not just call the cops and say hey i saw this gun didn't want some kid to get hurt....was afraid if I picked up I'd get busted. Again, its a matter of accepting responsiblity for your actions. a cop can't MAKE you do anything you don't want when it comes down to it...as far as the entrapement scenario....he can't make you race him...he can't make you steal, he can't make you pass on a double yellow...in the end it is your decision....you know what's right and wrong so live with it or don't do it....

[rr_double_rr]

There is something to be said for personal responsibility, but they are trumping up charges of an illegal pass that is sanctioned by GA statute for passing slow moving vehicles. They are in the wrong here, not anyone passing them, provided they don't do it by speeding or endangering anyone else or breaking any actual laws.

[rr_double_rr]

As far as I know the SC has not ruled against any of the states that have passed these laws, nor against any state that has used the existing wire tapping laws to charge private citizens for recording LEO.

Right, I wasn't referring to the USSC, but a state supreme court should have weighed in on this at some point. Especially with the ACLU actually doing something that makes sense for once and standing up for people to make recordings of public areas. I mean, seriously, what happens if I'm recording my lady and I in the park at Suwanee and happen to catch audio of a cop doing something wrong, even if I wasn't directing the recording at him? I go to jail for illegal wiretappiing? C'mon, that's a China or Cuba move right there.

I'm going to mount my GoPro up on the front fairing and the first thing I'm going to tell him if he pulls me over is," You should be aware that I'm recording this, not as a threat, but my camera was running when I stopped for you." That should take care of the two party notice requirement for those other states, and give some credibility to the argument that these guys only want to be video/ audio recorded when it works to their favor.

[rr_double_rr]

Reference, for Dave, about which states are two party states and those which, like Georgia, are not.


http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

[Alilyoyo1]

do you have the GA statue for passing? I can find its ok to pass if the vehicle moves to the right for you but nothing saying its ok to cross a double yellow.

[rr_double_rr]

It was quoted earlier in the thread. I'll look back and see if I can find it. Someone else posted it.

[Alilyoyo1]

It was quoted earlier in the thread. I'll look back and see if I can find it. Someone else posted it.
oh i tried to look back...must have missed it.

[rr_double_rr]

Should go to court and use the law....

§ 40-6-40. Vehicles to drive on right side of roadway; exceptions


(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;

(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;

Doing less than half the speed limit could easily be considered a hazard and pulling to the right edge of the lane shows the pickup agreed ;)

Here ya go Kristin, found it. Thanks Mongo.

[Alilyoyo1]

I was looking for a link hehe
It says an obstruction...a moving vehicle is not really an obstruction because it is still moving. an obstruction is a tree or slide...I would think.

Should go to court and use the law....

§ 40-6-40. Vehicles to drive on right side of roadway; exceptions


(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;

(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;

Doing less than half the speed limit could easily be considered a hazard and pulling to the right edge of the lane shows the pickup agreed ;)

[rr_double_rr]

But that's an interpretation, I would say that an obstruction is anything that impedes me from travelling at the prescribed speed factored for road conditions. Obviously not being able to go as fast on wet or icy roads.

Now, having said that, I would not want to be behind that slow moving vehicle when some other yahoo comes flying up RR in a Mini and pins me to the rear of the car in front of me. So if the slow mover in front slides to the side of the road, and I still have to swipe the yellow line to get around him, I'm going to do it provided that the other lane is clear. As I think any of us would, and the statute clearly endorses.

[SquireSCA]

As far as I know the SC has not ruled against any of the states that have passed these laws, nor against any state that has used the existing wire tapping laws to charge private citizens for recording LEO.

Recording them in provate is one thing. Doing it openly, in public is different. Else every news crew would be illegal. The idea that I can video my riding, but if a cop steps into the recording view that it is now illegal is bullshit.

[Mongo]

Yep, I think it could be pretty easily argued to a judge that going 20mph - less than half the speed limit - constitutes an obstruction that puts you in danger. Would also be interesting to note if the cop in the pickup was using his hazards or if he had a triangle on the back to let you know he was in a vehicle that was traveling slowly.

[Mongo]

Recording them in provate is one thing. Doing it openly, in public is different. Else every news crew would be illegal. The idea that I can video my riding, but if a cop steps into the recording view that it is now illegal is bullshit.

I think so far all the cases are being tossed out so the Supremes haven't had to bother with it.

[RogueElement]

But that's an interpretation, I would say that an obstruction is anything that impedes me from travelling at the prescribed speed factored for road conditions. Obviously not being able to go as fast on wet or icy roads.

Now, having said that, I would not want to be behind that slow moving vehicle when some other yahoo comes flying up RR in a Mini and pins me to the rear of the car in front of me. So if the slow mover in front slides to the side of the road, and I still have to swipe the yellow line to get around him, I'm going to do it provided that the other lane is clear. As I think any of us would, and the statute clearly endorses.

But its not your interpretation of the law that matters. Its the judge's.

And the mail truck analogy doesnt work because its only lawful to pass a mail truck (afaik) when it is stopped (as it is technically an obstruction at that point).

[SquireSCA]

Reference, for Dave, about which states are two party states and those which, like Georgia, are not.


http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

Cool. That is for the telephone though, where the other party would have an expectation of privacy and have no way of knowing that you are recording the conversation without you telling them.

Running a visible camera out in the open in a public place where the cop can see it, I don't see why the wire-tapping law would apply outside of states that just want to misuse the law to cover their own asses...

[rr_double_rr]

Cool. That is for the telephone though, where the other party would have an expectation of privacy and have no way of knowing that you are recording the conversation without you telling them.

Running a visible camera out in the open in a public place where the cop can see it, I don't see why the wire-tapping law would apply outside of states that just want to misuse the law to cover their own asses...

I agree, it's a BS argument, but that's the one they're using because it's an illegal audio recording of them. They are saying that in the two party states, where these suits are filed against the civvie, the officer did not consent to being recorded and hence illegal.


But its not your interpretation of the law that matters. Its the judge's.

And the mail truck analogy doesnt work because its only lawful to pass a mail truck (afaik) when it is stopped (as it is technically an obstruction at that point).

I agree here as well, the law is up for interpretation to the judge only, but traffic laws like this one are left to the interpretation of the driver and the judge. Like the right turn on green laws, they can't write that for every situation. Same here, they can't tell you in every situation if it's right to pass. Some where err on the cautious side and not do it to avoid prosecution. I would rather survive by making the questionable pass, and then be able to face the accusations.

[Alilyoyo1]

The key phrase is face the accusations...if you do it you KNOW you did something that was against the law and you need to live up to the responsibility not say the cops MADE you do it. You can do it all day long but when you get stopped you have to face the music. I cross the double yellow all the time...if I get aticket for it...its my fault not the cops and really not even the slow driver...I made the choice to pass....just like the poster earlier said, the judge said you crossed a double yellow its illegal you pay the price...do not pass go...pay the fine. We all need to face it...until the laws are different for us...riding the way we do is like gambling.

NOW if I had been pulled over by the cop who waved me by on a double yellow at deal's gap that's another story....


I agree, it's a BS argument, but that's the one they're using because it's an illegal audio recording of them. They are saying that in the two party states, where these suits are filed against the civvie, the officer did not consent to being recorded and hence illegal.



I agree here as well, the law is up for interpretation to the judge only, but traffic laws like this one are left to the interpretation of the driver and the judge. Like the right turn on green laws, they can't write that for every situation. Same here, they can't tell you in every situation if it's right to pass. Some where err on the cautious side and not do it to avoid prosecution. I would rather survive by making the questionable pass, and then be able to face the accusations.

[SquireSCA]

I agree, it's a BS argument, but that's the one they're using because it's an illegal audio recording of them. They are saying that in the two party states, where these suits are filed against the civvie, the officer did not consent to being recorded and hence illegal.



I agree here as well, the law is up for interpretation to the judge only, but traffic laws like this one are left to the interpretation of the driver and the judge. Like the right turn on green laws, they can't write that for every situation. Same here, they can't tell you in every situation if it's right to pass. Some where err on the cautious side and not do it to avoid prosecution. I would rather survive by making the questionable pass, and then be able to face the accusations.

So in those states that require both parties to consent to being recorded... Do the cops run cameras in their patrol cars? Do public buildings run cameras?

It seems that if they want to enforce the two-party rule, it should apply to all recordings and not just the ones that they think will benefit them, no?

[SquireSCA]

The key phrase is face the accusations...if you do it you KNOW you did something that was against the law and you need to live up to the responsibility not say the cops MADE you do it. You can do it all day long but when you get stopped you have to face the music. I cross the double yellow all the time...if I get aticket for it...its my fault not the cops and really not even the slow driver...I made the choice to pass....just like the poster earlier said, the judge said you crossed a double yellow its illegal you pay the price...do not pass go...pay the fine. We all need to face it...until the laws are different for us...riding the way we do is like gambling.

NOW if I had been pulled over by the cop who waved me by on a double yellow at deal's gap that's another story....

You are still wrong. If a cop dresses up like a whore and offers you a BJ for $50 and you say yes, they cannot bust you. Even though, as you point out, they didn't MAKE you say yes, the act of them enticing you is in itself an invitation to brake the law, and the law states that if they influence you to do something that you might not otherwise do, then they cannot charge you with it.

If they are just driving along in an unmarked car and you cross the double-yellow to them, they should issue a ticket.

But when they pull out in front of you in a truck, do half the speed limit and then pull to the right to "let you pass", that is them performing actions that they INTEND to try to provoke you into breaking the law.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[MONICA]

I don't think the wire tapping laws apply to police officers in public view. Remember the story of the Maryland officer that pulled over the motorcyclist in his own car? If not, here is the video. They tried to charge the motorcyclist with illegal wire tapping. The judge threw it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QNcDGqzAB30" allowfullscreen="" width="425" frameborder="0" height="349"></iframe>

[Alilyoyo1]

First of all...
In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime had it not been for inducement or persuasion on the part of some government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty. For example, if a defendant had purchased illegal drugs from an undercover officer, he may be found not guilty if it is determined that the officer initiated the transaction or aggressively pressed the accused to complete it.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

1.The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2.Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
3.The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.
On the issue of entrapment, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

and second...
did we ever find out if the truck did or didn't pull to the right? I asked but never saw a response...

[rr_double_rr]

So in those states that require both parties to consent to being recorded... Do the cops run cameras in their patrol cars? Do public buildings run cameras?

It seems that if they want to enforce the two-party rule, it should apply to all recordings and not just the ones that they think will benefit them, no?

Definite double standard. I'm sure the cops run video, and I'm sure that buildings record. I think they are covered by an expception granted by other statutes and such that were written in by our elected representatives. I honestly don't know, but I do think it's hypocrisy.

[SquireSCA]

First of all...
In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime had it not been for inducement or persuasion on the part of some government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty. For example, if a defendant had purchased illegal drugs from an undercover officer, he may be found not guilty if it is determined that the officer initiated the transaction or aggressively pressed the accused to complete it.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

1.The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2.Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
3.The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.
On the issue of entrapment, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

and second...
did we ever find out if the truck did or didn't pull to the right? I asked but never saw a response...

Driving along there is no reason to expect someone to just pass over the double yellow unless there is an obstruction or a situation that would prompt it. The officers intentionally creating such a situation, for the sole purpose of enticing someone to do it is different.

It's the difference between an undercover agent posing as a hooker and a guy walks up and propositions her and offers her money, or her offering to blow him for $50.

On the bike, the rider is, well, on a bike, he has a helmet on, there can be no verbal communication, but they are trying to write some tickets playing in that gray area of the law and I think it is bullshit, and if someone had a GoPro going I would be money that they could get a judge to throw it out.

[Dan43]

I'm going to mount my GoPro up on the front fairing and the first thing I'm going to tell him if he pulls me over is," You should be aware that I'm recording this, not as a threat, but my camera was running when I stopped for you." That should take care of the two party notice requirement for those other states, and give some credibility to the argument that these guys only want to be video/ audio recorded when it works to their favor.the two party notice requires that both parties not only be notified, but that BOTH parties GIVE CONSENT to the recording.

[SquireSCA]

the two party notice requires that both parties not only be notified, but that BOTH parties GIVE CONSENT to the recording.

So how does the media, or the cops themselves get around that law?

[rr_double_rr]

The key phrase is face the accusations...if you do it you KNOW you did something that was against the law and you need to live up to the responsibility not say the cops MADE you do it. You can do it all day long but when you get stopped you have to face the music. I cross the double yellow all the time...if I get aticket for it...its my fault not the cops and really not even the slow driver...I made the choice to pass....just like the poster earlier said, the judge said you crossed a double yellow its illegal you pay the price...do not pass go...pay the fine. We all need to face it...until the laws are different for us...riding the way we do is like gambling.

NOW if I had been pulled over by the cop who waved me by on a double yellow at deal's gap that's another story....

I'm saying face accusations in the sense that the officer, who baited me into a situation to pass him by going half the speed limit on a single lane road for no official reason, would accuse me of doing something wrong. I don't normally drive on the other side of a double yellow, but when he's(undercover) going that slow, pulls over to the side to wave me by, I'll try my best to squeak by without crossing. I personally don't believe that there's anything wrong with passing someone like that, provided that the road on the other side is clear. So no, there is no understanding of guilt on my part.

Here's the real question. Are they doing the same thing to cars? If not, then it's discrimination and we should get the ACLU to get involved there, too. If they are, then it's at best possible entrapment, and at worst, where I believe it actually is, ACTUAL entrapment. They presented a situation in which it is invited by them to cross the double yellow, then prosecute when people actually do. Bottom line is that the situation doesn't exist without the officer in the truck to instigate it. No one rides on the wrong side of the raod for fun, and survive for very long anyway.

[Dan43]

Recording them in provate is one thing. Doing it openly, in public is different. Else every news crew would be illegal. The idea that I can video my riding, but if a cop steps into the recording view that it is now illegal is bullshit.

I said they are doing it, not that I agreed with what they are doing.

[rr_double_rr]

the two party notice requires that both parties not only be notified, but that BOTH parties GIVE CONSENT to the recording.

Right, and it will be recorded that he's asking to have it turned off. Now why would he want that? What does he have to hide? Any jury would see it that way.

[Dan43]

The key phrase is face the accusations...if you do it you KNOW you did something that was against the law and you need to live up to the responsibility not say the cops MADE you do it. You can do it all day long but when you get stopped you have to face the music. I cross the double yellow all the time...if I get aticket for it...its my fault not the cops and really not even the slow driver...I made the choice to pass....just like the poster earlier said, the judge said you crossed a double yellow its illegal you pay the price...do not pass go...pay the fine. We all need to face it...until the laws are different for us...riding the way we do is like gambling.

NOW if I had been pulled over by the cop who waved me by on a double yellow at deal's gap that's another story....You are defending the equivalent of a cop directing traffic at an intersection and then giving you a ticket for following his directions.

[Alilyoyo1]

would you not pass a double yellow if a guy was doing 50 which was the speed limit and you were doing 100? sure you would....(and if yo9u say no you're lying...I would) he's still an "obstuction" in your eyes....but are you going to argue that he was an obstruction and you had to cross the double yellow? even though both things are illegal....and if it was a cop he made you do it? are you that easily persuaded to do the wrong thing?

[Alilyoyo1]

we've never been told if the OG was speeding or if the truck moved to the right to let him pass.
We also don't KNOW what the speed limit was....you're all assuming you know the details to make it out to be worst case...

[Alilyoyo1]

You are defending the equivalent of a cop directing traffic at an intersection and then giving you a ticket for following his directions.

no im not...if you are paying attention I said it would be a different story if the cop who waved me by on the dragon pulled me and ticketed me because he told me to do so....read the last line closely

[rr_double_rr]

would you not pass a double yellow if a guy was doing 50 which was the speed limit and you were doing 100? sure you would....(and if yo9u say no you're lying...I would) he's still an "obstuction" in your eyes....but are you going to argue that he was an obstruction and you had to cross the double yellow? even though both things are illegal....and if it was a cop he made you do it? are you that easily persuaded to do the wrong thing?

No, and many people on this forum can attest to that fact after having ridden with me. I don't pass when it's like that. I've stuck it out many a time behind an RV for miles because the passes never looked good, and he didn't wave me by. I waited and when they pulled over to the side and waved me on did I pass. And mind you that was still well within my lane.

[Alilyoyo1]

then You're an exception....
i can count on my fingers how many people I know who would wait for the break in the line or the vehicle to pull over....

[rr_double_rr]

About the speed limit thing, even assuming an average speed limit in the mountains of 35, which I have yet to see one posted lower outside of town limits, is 20 not an obstruction? That's 15 lower. To me doing 35 that's not too bad, but like I said, I am worried about his moderate obstruction increasing the odds of that squid on a 'Busa running 100 up there slamming into the back of me, much less a full size vehicle.

[rr_double_rr]

then You're an exception....
i can count on my fingers how many people I know who would wait for the break in the line or the vehicle to pull over....

And those people are wrong. I have done it before, I had a close call and it scared me out of doing it ever again. I was wrong when I did that, I know that's what you were looking to hear there (and with good reason because it is wrong) and if I were to ever do it again I would be wrong.

If a cop were to happen to see someone snaking around an RV like we are also suggesting on that double yellow, without the first vehicle moving over, then there would be case for a ticket. The cops aren't waiting for that situation to happen though, they are creating it, then INVITING you to do it by waving you on, and then citing you for it. Sounds like entrapment to me.

[Alilyoyo1]

again....then someone doing the speed limit or even slightly under, would be an obstruction to someone speeding? that argument could go on forever to defend the one commiting the infraction....
and you still have to determine who's definition of obstruction is important....probably not yours...mostly likely it will be the cop and or the judge. So an obstruction would be an unmovable object that is in your path...not necessarily a vehicle that is going slower than you. If a vehicle is moving slower than you the legal thing to do is wait until its legal to pass...no double yellow....pretty straight forward. There are not different laws for us because we CAN do something. Still need to accept the responsibility...

[Alilyoyo1]

we still have not been told that the slow moving pick up did or didn't move....its still your assumption. I am assuming he did not move....meaning you're still not suppose to pass.

and yes its wrong to pass on the double yellow. I had a friend almost killed by a truck because he thought the truck was pulling over for him but he was making a wide left turn...he hit the truck doing 100 mph. He lived but he spent months in the hospital and a week in a coma....I didn't say I was right. I said that I would accept the responsibility if I got a ticket.

[SquireSCA]

again....then someone doing the speed limit or even slightly under, would be an obstruction to someone speeding? that argument could go on forever to defend the one commiting the infraction....
and you still have to determine who's definition of obstruction is important....probably not yours...mostly likely it will be the cop and or the judge. So an obstruction would be an unmovable object that is in your path...not necessarily a vehicle that is going slower than you. If a vehicle is moving slower than you the legal thing to do is wait until its legal to pass...no double yellow....pretty straight forward. There are not different laws for us because we CAN do something. Still need to accept the responsibility...

Tell me, if the cops are not trying to go slow enough to create an obstruction designed to entice or influence people to try and pass them... then what the hell are they doing? Why do they need a pickup truck doing half the speed limit? Why not just patrol the road at the speed limit in an unmarked car and see if bikers try to speed around you over the double yellow?

The answer is obvious to everyone but you apparently.

The answer is that they are CREATING a situation that INVITES what it is that they want to write a ticket for. Like they want to bust people for possession and so they drop some dime bags on the sidewalks and if someone picks one up they pounce on him and bust him, claiming, "We didn't make him pick it up, did we?"

It's shady and borderline illegal, or possibly is illegal.

[Alilyoyo1]

So would it be "entrapment" if the slow moving truck was doing the speed limit and slowed you down? It doesn't matter because its the law and whether its an unmarked car of a truck its still against the law to cross a double yellow. deal with it. we are not special cuz we're on bikes....

and no its only obvious to people who don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions. Someone who wants to blame everyone else for their actions....like i said I pass on a double yellow and the lights go on I say shit....and pull over.

I wouldn't pick up a dime bag if i saw someone drop it....I wouldn't just say OK if some guy approached me and offered sex for money....unless i was looking for that....

[SquireSCA]

So would it be "entrapment" if the slow moving truck was doing the speed limit and slowed you down? It doesn't matter because its the law and whether its an unmarked car of a truck its still against the law to cross a double yellow. deal with it. we are not special cuz we're on bikes....

No, if the cop in the truck was going at or near the speed limit, it would not be entrapment. This is not and never has been about what kind of vehicle was used. It is about the cops lying in wait, hiding who they are, going well UNDER the speed limit, moving to the right to let you pass, etc... They are CREATING a situation that holds up traffic, they move to give you a way to pass and entice you to do so, and then bust you for it. They are not just going the speed limit and whoever breaks the law gets a ticket. Their GOAL is the goad you into doing it, else they would not be there in a pickup truck, doing 20mph, moving to the right and waving you on...




No, it's about the cops trying to coerce you to do something wrong, and you just have to be contrary and miss the obvious point that every single other person in the thread seems to understand. It isn't that nobody gets it but you, its that everyone gets it but you. :-)

I wouldn't pick up a dime bag if i saw someone drop it....I wouldn't just say OK if some guy approached me and offered sex for money....unless i was looking for that....

[Dan43]

So would it be "entrapment" if the slow moving truck was doing the speed limit and slowed you down? It doesn't matter because its the law and whether its an unmarked car of a truck its still against the law to cross a double yellow. deal with it. we are not special cuz we're on bikes....

and no its only obvious to people who don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions. Someone who wants to blame everyone else for their actions....like i said I pass on a double yellow and the lights go on I say shit....and pull over.

I wouldn't pick up a dime bag if i saw someone drop it....I wouldn't just say OK if some guy approached me and offered sex for money....unless i was looking for that....Responsability goes both ways. LEO are not above the law. This is no different than the way some towns used to write speeding tickets on multilane highways that happened to pass inside their city limits for a few hundred feet. Speed limit on the highway would be 55-70 mph. Local LEO would write tickets all day long because the CITYWIDE speed linit was 30-45. That has for the most part been stamped out by higher authority, but it took a long damn time. This is no different.

[Alilyoyo1]

I have always said...thru out the thread IF the cop motions you to pass you're right....
if not THEN you're wrong so stop arguing about the wrong statement.

[DecepticonDon]

again....then someone doing the speed limit or even slightly under, would be an obstruction to someone speeding? that argument could go on forever to defend the one commiting the infraction....

you keep changing the scenario to fit your position. we are not talking hypothetical situations.
This is what happened, this is what the discussion is about.


I got pulled over for passing on a double yellow and here is how their brilliant plan worked...I really gotta give it to them, it was sooo slick:

I was heading south on Georgia HWY 60, the curviest road in Georgia, when a north bound sport bike rider started tapping on his helmet.....I slowed down. About 2 miles later, I see a policeman pulled over and think "that was the officer the sport bike rider was warning me of". I speed back up to my "normal" mountain riding speed. A few miles later a solid white work truck (farm truck) pulls right out in front of me. I have to get on the brakes pretty hard but no big deal. He has a "tag applied for" license plate and dark tinted windows.....that stuff didn't register with me. I ride behind him for a couple miles at 20 mph. We get to a straight away, which is a double yellow, the truck pulls over towards the white line, I blip the throttle and go on around him. About a half a mile down the road, another policeman on the side of the road turns his lights on and motions for me to pull over. I do so and he asks me if I know why he pulled me over. I say "No". He responds "that was my Lieutenant in that solid white truck you passed and he radioed me as to what you did.....friggin brilliant!

[Alilyoyo1]

yea i asked about a dozen times and then went and actually read the forum post. that's why i made the last post....If you go back and read all my posts I have said....if they wave you buy its a different story......even pointing out my own passing a cop when he waved me by.

[Alilyoyo1]

I do have 2 things though...one is a stupid question maybe....If you go into the actual original forum via the link and look at his pics...there's one of someone standing by the road and you can see the double yellow with the broken yellow....is that where he got pulled? what does that line mean? I had a photo of one YEARS ago that was a double solid yellow with a broken white line in between but my driver ed instructor didnt even know what it meant.

2....I wonder if he's being fully honest because he isn't falling in line with the court thing...did the cop really wave him by...was the cop really going that slow? if you know you're in the right usually you don't just take the punishment....

[RogueElement]

yea i asked about a dozen times and then went and actually read the forum post. that's why i made the last post....If you go back and read all my posts I have said....if they wave you buy its a different story......even pointing out my own passing a cop when he waved me by.

Although the post says nothing about being waved by and that the truck moved TOWARDS the white line. It doesn't say he ever crossed it. He didn't say "Ok, I know Im going slow, pass me." Entrapment most likely would not apply since if it were any other car going 20mph, you would have just as likely passed them on a double yellow too.

[Dan43]

yea i asked about a dozen times and then went and actually read the forum post. that's why i made the last post....If you go back and read all my posts I have said....if they wave you buy its a different story......even pointing out my own passing a cop when he waved me by.So, let me see if I have this straight................you were defending the LEO without having read the OP?

[Alilyoyo1]

anyway im past that...what does the double yellow mean with the broken yellow inside of it? I WANNA KNOW!!

[willr1]

So would it be "entrapment" if the slow moving truck was doing the speed limit and slowed you down? It doesn't matter because its the law and whether its an unmarked car of a truck its still against the law to cross a double yellow. deal with it. we are not special cuz we're on bikes....

and no its only obvious to people who don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions. Someone who wants to blame everyone else for their actions....like i said I pass on a double yellow and the lights go on I say shit....and pull over.

I wouldn't pick up a dime bag if i saw someone drop it....I wouldn't just say OK if some guy approached me and offered sex for money....unless i was looking for that....

I got $50 ;)

[Alilyoyo1]

wait...you have $50 for sex with a guy?

[wallypiper]

I think that you are ignoring the parts of the sentence that you don't think support the contention that the pass was legal.


(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;

It may have been convenient for you to pass, or expedient or even prudent but it wasn't necessary.

[KTM Rider]

so knowing this you should go up and pass the pickup and then pull a u turn and wheelie back past him and see if he can drive as well as he can be a douche:up:

[John]

I believe "lane sharing" is legal in Georgia. I wonder completing the pass without crossing the double yellow line would have been OK. It was stated the slow moving truck moved to the right possibly allowing enough room to do so

[Alilyoyo1]

only as it applies to two motorcycles in one lane, not a motorcycle and a car I believe.
CA and TX are the only two states that its not illegal that i know of.

[SquireSCA]

wait...you have $50 for sex with a guy?

I'm very good, worth every penny.

[rr_double_rr]

I'm very good, worth every penny.

Gag.

[Alilyoyo1]

wait...i know a guy....he's got $50. I'll call him and let him know you're available.

[Mongo]

anyway im past that...what does the double yellow mean with the broken yellow inside of it? I WANNA KNOW!!

It means they painted over an old line.

[ramm]

Relevant. (kinda)

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/videographer_of_alleged_melvin.html

[rr_double_rr]

Disgusting. Don't wanna be videotaped in public doing your job? DON'T BE A COP, and DON'T BEAT PEOPLE FOR NO REASON!

Act like you have some sense and you have no reason to hide.

[Mongo]

It's all bullshit and won't go anywhere. The cop has already been busted and is just trying to pull something, he won't get anywhere.

[Alilyoyo1]

It means they painted over an old line.

after i posted my husband told me that...thanks though :)

[Alilyoyo1]

Relevant. (kinda)

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/videographer_of_alleged_melvin.html

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/criminal_past_haunts_beating_v.html
follow up story.....even the civil rights people have stopped defending him.

[Dan43]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/criminal_past_haunts_beating_v.html
follow up story.....even the civil rights people have stopped defending him.None of that changes the fact that seeking criminal charges (any kind of charges for that matter) against the person who took video of his beating is BS.

Nor does it change the fact that his beating was BS. The police are not the punishment arm of the legal system. That does not change no matter how many or what crimes the person they have in custody commited in the past or may commit in the future.

[ramm]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/criminal_past_haunts_beating_v.html
follow up story.....even the civil rights people have stopped defending him.

Not really the point of why I posted that. I posted talking about the person that recorded it being in legal trouble. Doesn't matter what the crime was, you shouldn't be subject to criminal punishment for recording the police doing something.

[rr_double_rr]

None of that changes the fact that seeking criminal charges agains the person who took video of his beating is BS. Nor does it change the fact that his beating was BS. The police are not the punishment arm of the legal system. That does not change no matter how many or what crimes the person they have in custody commited in the past or may commit in the future.

Amen, they are enforcement of the law, yes. But punishments are left to the judges. They had every right to subdue him, and I can tell you that there are plenty of ways to subdue someone without breaking every bone in their face.

[Mongo]

Not really the point of why I posted that. I posted talking about the person that recorded it being in legal trouble. Doesn't matter what the crime was, you shouldn't be subject to criminal punishment for recording the police doing something.

The officer filed a an application for a complaint - that isn't criminal punishment. That's the officer being more of a douche. If they actually follow through and then charge the person taping it you'll have a point.

[Alilyoyo1]

i understand why you posted it...and i understand that videotaping it shouldn't be cause for charges. I'm totally not getting into another pissing match in the same thread...

[ramm]

The officer filed a an application for a complaint - that isn't criminal punishment. That's the officer being more of a douche. If they actually follow through and then charge the person taping it you'll have a point.

Thanks. :up:

[Dan43]

Amen, they are enforcement of the law, yes. But punishments are left to the judges. They had every right to subdue him, and I can tell you that there are plenty of ways to subdue someone without breaking every bone in their face.From what I have read of the case, they were way past the "subdue" part of the arrest.

[rr_double_rr]

That's my point. They were way over the line, obviously guilty of their own crime for which they were recorded, and just trying to take someone else down with them.