The General Motorbikers Discussion Thread

[GRtak]

Speeding does not justify being threatened with a gun.
The cop is lucky, if a guy jumps out of a plain sedan and pulls a gun on me, I would probably either bolt or hit him with my bike in self-defense. He didn't identify himself as a cop until after he had ordered the rider off his bike and grabbed his handlebar.

Also, notice how fast he puts his pistol away when the marked police car pulls up.

The rider has now had a search warrant served on him and the cops seized his computers and camera, he has been arrested and charged with a felony for illegally taping a cop without permission, even though there is no expectation of privacy on the side of a busy roadway.

As soon as I seen the gun the clutch would be out and he would be on his ass.

If he pushes this(and I would), the First Admendment would protect him. How do the news channels get all of there hidden stuff, not to mention cops doing undercover recordings and wiretaps?

 

[Redliner]

Bought a new bike today. It's not much, but at my age with how much money I make it's what I can afford. It's a 1992 Suzuki Katana.

I had a 1996 Katana 750, and it was great. I still miss it.

 

[Magners]

I had a 1996 Katana 750, and it was great. I still miss it.

Mine's a 600. Great second step I think. I learnt to ride on this bike last year before my friend sold it, then bought that 450cc cruiser (The 454 LTD - which I usually just call the "454"). That one was a good starter bike, was inexpensive to insure and keep fueled, and was easy to ride around. Great bike to have as your primary transportation, which is a good thing when your car is an "eternal project". However, trying to have any fun on the 454 didn't work out very well for me.

Took the Katana out on a ride today to a place called Tortilla Flat, which I had gone to before on the 454. It was a fun ride on the cruiser (apart from running into some debris that cracked my exhaust pipe - the rest of the ride was pretty loud), but on the Katana it was just amazing.

 

[British_Rover]

As soon as I seen the gun the clutch would be out and he would be on his ass.

If he pushes this(and I would), the First Admendment would protect him. How do the news channels get all of there hidden stuff, not to mention cops doing undercover recordings and wiretaps?

The cops are supposed to get a warrant to do that not sure about what exempts the news from that same rule but they do have an exemption.

Still it is just the Maryland state or county cops trying to CYA after the cop pulled his gun before identifying himself. You have two hands badge goes in one gun in the other.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Don't know the exact laws for each country (obviously) but there is usually a part that says you can film pretty much anything if it is deemed "in the public's interest". That is how paparazzi get away with shooting and filming celebs on private property without their permission, apparently it's in our interest because they are public figures and I guess that's what covers the news. There is also distinction (at least in photography) between editorial and commercial use.

Actually there was a case in Oz recently where a reporter was nabbed for recording a politician organising a hit on a male prostitute, the Judge said that the reporter should have gone to the police with the info he had rather than organise a sting and the only reason he secretly filmed the deal was for ratings/profit. The politician was also charged.

I doubt the charges will stick in this case, partly because the guy did not make a conscious effort to film the cop, it was somewhat accidental.

 

[British_Rover]

Its the audio portion that gets the biker in trouble not the video portion. Video is ok audio is not.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Still don't see how it can apply. If I'm filming a landmark and a plain-clothed, off-duty officer walks within earshot am I suddenly committing a felony? There was no intent. If the cop told him to stop filming and he did then there's no crime, remember he didn't identify himself as a cop.

 

[tigger]

Still don't see how it can apply. If I'm filming a landmark and a plain-clothed, off-duty officer walks within earshot am I suddenly committing a felony? There was no intent. If the cop told him to stop filming and he did then there's no crime, remember he didn't identify himself as a cop.

It's just a powertripping cop exploiting the law in his own favor. The whole thing is a load of shit, from the time that cop jumped out of the car with his gun drawn to when he raided the motorcyclists home in an attempt to destroy the evidence.

I heard that the warrant was unsigned, anyone know if there's any truth to that? If it is true then that cop might actually get in trouble.

 

[hansvonaxion]

That sounds reasonable but I don't any details, just what was posted here, so I can only guess but I can't see how that particular charge is relevant.

Its the audio portion that gets the biker in trouble not the video portion. Video is ok audio is not.

And 99.9% of all video recording devices also record audio, the camera appeared to be in plain sight, if the cop didn't want to be recorded all he had to do was tell the guy to turn off the camera. Can't say whether it applies in this case but there can sometimes be implied consent whereby if a person knows they are being recorded and doesn't protest it is assumed that they have given consent.

I wouldn't like to know what would have happened if the guy reached for the camera (small black object) to switch it off when a hyped up cop had his gun drawn.

 

[Spectre]

Some US states have implemented laws that make it illegal to record the actions of police without prior written permission.

Not happy about that at all.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Yeah I can understand why. At the same I would think (hope) that there would be some level of common sense at work when applying the law - when it is first tested and precedents set. If you were filming legally and an officer unexpectedly came into view (as is the case here) then you should be given the chance to stop filming and comply with the law. It reminds me of the guy who got a parking ticket in the time it took him to get out of the car and get his briefcase from the boot. Trying to think of another similar law, maybe the ten second rapist?

 

[avanti]

sexy time!

 

[shad_68]

Ugh, scooter porn...

 

[Blind_Io]

Rule 34, dude.

 

[Spectre]

Yeah I can understand why. At the same I would think (hope) that there would be some level of common sense at work when applying the law - when it is first tested and precedents set. If you were filming legally and an officer unexpectedly came into view (as is the case here) then you should be given the chance to stop filming and comply with the law. It reminds me of the guy who got a parking ticket in the time it took him to get out of the car and get his briefcase from the boot. Trying to think of another similar law, maybe the ten second rapist?

Yeah, it'd be okay if it were just intended to keep amateur journalists and the like from getting in the way of officers trying to perform their duty, but it's not. Instead, the law is protecting police from actual valid charges of misconduct - very badly thought through, these laws.

Personally, I think all police officers not actively undercover should be required to wear personal audiovideo recording devices that are active any time they get out of their cruisers. Good officers need not fear anything as such devices would actually protect them from charges of improper behavior and abuse; bad officers, well, we know why they wouldn't want it - just for idiocy like this.

sexy time!

Ugh, scooter porn...

This.

To counter the scooter porn, I offer this:

 

[Blind_Io]

Yeah, it'd be okay if it were just intended to keep amateur journalists and the like from getting in the way of officers trying to perform their duty, but it's not. Instead, the law is protecting police from actual valid charges of misconduct - very badly thought through, these laws.

Personally, I think all police officers not actively undercover should be required to wear personal audiovideo recording devices that are active any time they get out of their cruisers. Good officers need not fear anything as such devices would actually protect them from charges of improper behavior and abuse; bad officers, well, we know why they wouldn't want it - just for idiocy like this.

See, I have a problem with this. These days a great deal of news is grass-roots and comes from the consumers of news. Cell phone video and photos are a key element in both news gathering and accountability. This idea of professional news gatherers is changing as fewer and fewer people are associated with a particular news organization that issues credentials. Instead you have news blogs that rely on user submissions and the collation of data and information from a variety of sources.

I think the law should be simple because any complication allows too much room to wiggle out of it. I believe that there should be no expectation of privacy from video, photography or audio recording while in a public space. Period. That means that if you are on private property, screened from public view that you should expect privacy, so that asshole paparazzi with the telephoto lens on the next hill can be sued for taking those photos. If you are walking on the street, you are fair game. The same goes for cops.

Police can do crowd control and keep journalists away from crime scenes without pressing charges for being recorded.

 

[RaptorJesus]

So my dad just got a new bike. I don't care for it so much as it is not my style, but he's happy reliving his college days. Then again this probably has like 5 times the HP as his Royal Enfield Bullet 500. It also has given me the itch to sign up for riding lessons and finally get a license so I can get the Triumph Thruxston I yearn for. Also sorry about the shitty phone camera pics, I'm too lazy to actually photograph it properly.

Edit: Ohh yeah its a Honda VTX 1800F

 

[Spectre]

See, I have a problem with this. These days a great deal of news is grass-roots and comes from the consumers of news. Cell phone video and photos are a key element in both news gathering and accountability. This idea of professional news gatherers is changing as fewer and fewer people are associated with a particular news organization that issues credentials. Instead you have news blogs that rely on user submissions and the collation of data and information from a variety of sources.

I think the law should be simple because any complication allows too much room to wiggle out of it. I believe that there should be no expectation of privacy from video, photography or audio recording while in a public space. Period. That means that if you are on private property, screened from public view that you should expect privacy, so that asshole paparazzi with the telephoto lens on the next hill can be sued for taking those photos. If you are walking on the street, you are fair game. The same goes for cops.

Police can do crowd control and keep journalists away from crime scenes without pressing charges for being recorded.

I don't mean that they should be barred from getting footage, but the usual paparazzi tactics of crowding a cop with cameras is getting quite old. I perhaps should have said I would have less of a problem with the law if that were the case, though in general I agree with your idea. If you're in public, you should be fair game.

 

[Blind_Io]

Do you have any examples of a cop getting mugged with cameras paparazzi-style? I've never seen it.

 

[Spectre]

Do you have any examples of a cop getting mugged with cameras paparazzi-style? I've never seen it.

I have - just watch some of the Los Angeles area local news footage online, you should eventually spot it. And I'm not talking about a press conference with a press officer.