Cops Pulls Gun on Motorcyclist

[dbmg]

Was the felony imposed because he video taped and recorded the officer?
If is was be cause of recording officer where was the noise of the bike when flying down highway. Maybe thats why the felony was imposed or is it do to with the total of offenses while riding plus the video?

 

[Mavagrand]

Was the felony imposed because he video taped and recorded the officer?
If is was be cause of recording officer where was the noise of the bike when flying down highway. Maybe thats why the felony was imposed or is it do to with the total of offenses while riding plus the video?

Like you, I noted that the only part of the video with sound is the part where the officer exits his vehicle, I suspect the Maryland State Attorney noted that as well. I know in Florida there is a felony level of this offence designed for those who "release, distributes or discloses" the contents of the recorded material. I suspect he got himself in trouble by posting the "audio" portion on Youtube.

 

[JDPEagle]

As has been shown in the past, this case will likely not stand in court. The courts (at least three districts across the country) have ruled that an exchange between police and a suspect is not considered a "private" conversation and certainly not applicable to this "2nd party" rule. Any bystander could have recorded this exchange and placed it on YouTube with no violation of law!

This just seems like a political spin put into place by the state police to allow them a rebuttal to the events. My real question would be, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, why are they allowed to record everything (audio included), and my own employer can record what I am doing while at work (audio and electronic), but we cannot record events for our own defense??

I completely agree with Mavagrand... the officer should have identified himself immediately with a badge and a verbal disclosure (NOT a weapon). I know it is a bit extreme, but I think that the "plain clothes" officer should have been charged with assault (especially since a uniformed officer was on the scene). He obviously got a little hot-headed.

 

[The4opps1]

OK, this is one of those posts that if watched by 20 different people will draw 20 different responses. As a 31 year LEO, do I think that the UC should have shown his badge before drawing his weapon? Hard to call, I wasn't there and can't get inside the guys head. For certain, better to respond forcefully and stop the threat, than to respond in a weak manner that only aggravates the situation. What I saw was a UC holster his gun once he perceived that threat was no longer there. I'm sorry, popping a wheelie on the highway at who knows what speed and hitting way over 100MPH on a public roadway is uncalled for. It puts a lot of innocent folks in danger. As for the law about not video taping or recording law enforement activities, probably speaks more to keeping UC out of harms way by not having their identities broadcast all over creation, and may not necessarily be to cover up the mistakes of police. Just my humble.....

 

[Mavagrand]

As has been shown in the past, this case will likely not stand in court. The courts (at least three districts across the country) have ruled that an exchange between police and a suspect is not considered a "private" conversation and certainly not applicable to this "2nd party" rule. Any bystander could have recorded this exchange and placed it on YouTube with no violation of law!

This just seems like a political spin put into place by the state police to allow them a rebuttal to the events. My real question would be, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, why are they allowed to record everything (audio included), and my own employer can record what I am doing while at work (audio and electronic), but we cannot record events for our own defense??

I completely agree with Mavagrand... the officer should have identified himself immediately with a badge and a verbal disclosure (NOT a weapon). I know it is a bit extreme, but I think that the "plain clothes" officer should have been charged with assault (especially since a uniformed officer was on the scene). He obviously got a little hot-headed.

Once again, in Florida the Felony statutes involves not only releasing the audio but doing so to gain an advantage or impede an investigation. Assuming the law reads the same in Maryland, you can bet the SAO is arguing from that point.

Might very well be political spin, but what exactly are the police attempting to refute? The guy admitted he was speeding, signed his tickets and, has far as I know, has not filed a law suit. Now I do think filing any charges above the traffic ones would be excessive and unnecessary.

To clear up any confusion with the weapon, every officer has a right to defend themselves based on the facts available to them at the time, if the officer felt there was a threat he was comlpetely justified in drawing his weapon. Let's not forget, he never pointed the weapon at the rider but held it at his side.

Assault, are u serious? Once again, he never pointed the weapon, never made a threat of physical harm. Only fault I find in his conduct was he should have immediately identified himself as an officer.

 

[trvlr]

Maryland. What more do you need to say as to a government knowing what's best for you and your well-being.

This cop must have been a rookie. Just a few days ago here in the Tampa area, a citizen impersonating a police officer pulled over a woman, raped her and stole her money, credit cards etc. For this office to not identify himself with a badge, gun pulled, dressed in street clothes - has to be a rookie LEO. If not, he should be put behind a desk performing desk duties.

 

[JDPEagle]

Might very well be political spin, but what exactly are the police attempting to refute?

Public opinion. They didn't seem to care about the recording (the camera was in plain view, and I can only assume that they did not confiscate the recording device at the time of the stop) until after the video was placed in public domain.

Now I do think filing any charges above the traffic ones would be excessive and unnecessary.

I agree. It just doesn't make sense. Also note that the audio ONLY runs up to the point where the officer discloses that he is indeed "state police." At that point, the video cuts off. That seems fair to me, up until that point, the officer was acting "under his own risk and responsibly."

To clear up any confusion with the weapon, every officer has a right to defend themselves based on the facts available to them at the time, if the officer felt there was a threat he was comlpetely justified in drawing his weapon. Let's not forget, he never pointed the weapon at the rider but held it at his side.

I completely agree. As does any citizen! I especially like your statement "based on the facts available to them at the time." To the motorcycle rider (at least from the video's point of view) the facts consisted of an unknown perpetrator emerging from a vehicle brandishing a weapon. If I were to do the same, I would be charged with the illegal brandishing of a weapon (a violation of Georgia law). All I ask is that everyone have the law applied to them equally.

Assault, are u serious? Once again, he never pointed the weapon, never made a threat of physical harm. Only fault I find in his conduct was he should have immediately identified himself as an officer.

Quite serious. I agree, and I noted, it is extreme; however, so are the state's current charges. If the officer truly felt that his life was in danger, then why couldn't he have emerged with the firearm in one hand and badge outreached with his other hand? Better yet, to add to this wacky scenario, what if the motorcycle rider was another careless LEO? Boy would the Chief have had his hands full with that one.

I just cannot be convinced that this officer did what was proper. And if I were ever in a situation where we were on the bike and we were subjected to a similar occurrence, I would defend my my wife and myself.

Mistakes all around on this one, but the plain clothes officer was in the wrong as well.

Certainly not trying to start a "fight" on this one. Just an interesting item in the news concerning police and motorcycles. I personally have several friends who are LEOs, and by their own admission, they get special treatment for it (IE let off from speeding tickets, etc.). This country was founded on principles of checks and balances... just trying to do my part to help with the "balanced" part

 

[dbmg]

I understand the disagreement but the bottom line is what has this guy done to promote a positive image of motorcycles and not recklessly endanger himself and others. At least no one got hurt and maybe some lessons will be learned.
The bottom line is a few moments of irresponsibility for the sake of supposed fame on You tube.
Go Figure.

 

[Dr.Evil]

The fact there is a marked car directly behind the motorcycle leads me to believe he had clearly been riding recklessly and had drawn the LEOs attention, justifiably

Now having said that, I see nothing wrong with the officer drawing his gun. Yes, the M/C is initially backing away from the officer which is no threat.

and by the way, it's illegal in Florida to audibly record ANYONE without their knowledge, not just a LEO.

If you notice the rider looks behind him seconds before he is pulled in front of, you see no police car behind the trooper. If it were me, I would have accelerated into the trooper the second I saw the gun. That would have seriously injured both of us. Not to mention being shot by the late arriving officer.

He should have deleted the audio and overdubbed his own voice. The no voice recording law can surly not apply to the police, or they could never do surveillance. This whole thing is messed up.

 

[JJDH]

The case should be dropped. There are 2 sides, however, when the officer cut him off and jumped out, that split second could have startled the rider causing him to let go of the clutch. In todays times people do crazy things. Hijacking a motorcycle happens. Ignorant on both sides.