Squid Video............Must be a Good Story Behind This One!!!

well, I tell u what, when you have to scrape someone up off the street and attempt to breathe life back into this person, they have a compound fracture to the femur, an amputated arm, tension hemothorax, and severe head trauma while wearing a helmet, that a cop ran down for riding wheelies and then tell me its worthy of tactics like that... i dont think that potentially killing someone it just if they are riding wheelies and stunting.

I have already said that stunting has NO PLACE on public roads, but the death penalty it not a just punishment.:rant:
 
I had NO idea that this kind of stuff was happening across the country. This happened in Dallas (about 3 hrs north of me) and I just didn't see it on the news.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eNVIlb4e7o]DFW Memorial Day Street Stunt Session - I-75 Shut-Down - YouTube[/ame]


For those of you who have never been on US 75 - it's a MAJOR thoroughfare through the Metroplex. To see it shut down like this really made me speechless.


.....
 
Last edited:
Then the events of 2011 led to similar confrontations the next year.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjwSoa3kNTw&feature=related]Dallas Deputy Unlawful Arrest Of Stunt Biker To Get Bikers Helmet Cam Video - YouTube[/ame]



This was a major story in Dallas for about a week or so.

I hadn't heard any of this "Take over the city" talk on the web. I'm not real sure where these guys congregate online but I had never seen anything like this.


..............
 
I didn't post it to stir the pot - I will be the 1st to admit I post shocking videos - but I posted this because I didn't know what was going on with the 1st video. Then the 1st video went viral and then I started reading about these "Take Over the City" events happening across the country. I had NO idea that these things were happening.
 
I've said it before, I'll say it again. You run from the cops, you invite trouble. You ride with troublemakers, you look like a troublemaker. Do not mistake my statement. I do not think it should be open season on you as soon as you put one toe over the line of the law. HOWEVER, if you run from the police, they will attempt to stop you.

Whether or not you have done anything illegal, you are required by law to stop when directed to by police. If you do not stop, they are mandated to force you to stop. Their mandate is to not use excessive force. That means the amount of force they use is directly related to the amount of resisitance you give.

When you run, you become a huge, unprediactable danger to the public. The priority is to stop you before you injure a bystander. The priority is not your safety. You gave up your right to safety when you decided to run from the police. Although they are not allowed to deliberately injure you, they are allowed (and more or less required) to injure you if you put yourself in a position where injuring you is their only means to stop you.

If these tactics result in injury to you, it is your fault. It is not anybody else's fault. If you do not want this to happen to you, DO NOT STUNT ON PUBLIC STREETS, HARASS LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR RUN FROM THE POLICE, AND DO NOT RIDE IN GROUPS WHO DO OR THE POLICE WILL ASSUME YOU ARE PARTICIPATING WHETHER YOU ARE OR AREN'T!

If you are constantly being pulled over by the police for no reason, you are being harassed. There are proper channels to pursue to rectify this. Running from the police is not a proper channel. You run, I have zero sympathy for whatever happens to you. You are not a martyr. You are a douche.
 
I agree for the most part.
That's why the 1st video was so shocking to me. I had no idea what would make a group of motorcyclist run from the police like that....and I still don't really understand. :wtf:
LOL
My favorite are the boneheads who actually get away but are busted because they post videos of their debotury. LOL That just cracks me up
 
Well I wasn't going to but since you did...I agree with your post, however, why weren't they doing anything with regards to the moron that was breaking, harassing them and ridding the wrong way? Nah, let's stop the guy that isn't speeding just because he has a helmet cam that we can use
W R O N G! And I'll sit here and argue with you all day long!


jacobdahl said:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. You run from the cops, you invite trouble. You ride with troublemakers, you look like a troublemaker. Do not mistake my statement. I do not think it should be open season on you as soon as you put one toe over the line of the law. HOWEVER, if you run from the police, they will attempt to stop you.

Whether or not you have done anything illegal, you are required by law to stop when directed to by police. If you do not stop, they are mandated to force you to stop. Their mandate is to not use excessive force. That means the amount of force they use is directly related to the amount of resisitance you give.

When you run, you become a huge, unprediactable danger to the public. The priority is to stop you before you injure a bystander. The priority is not your safety. You gave up your right to safety when you decided to run from the police. Although they are not allowed to deliberately injure you, they are allowed (and more or less required) to injure you if you put yourself in a position where injuring you is their only means to stop you.

If these tactics result in injury to you, it is your fault. It is not anybody else's fault. If you do not want this to happen to you, DO NOT STUNT ON PUBLIC STREETS, HARASS LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR RUN FROM THE POLICE, AND DO NOT RIDE IN GROUPS WHO DO OR THE POLICE WILL ASSUME YOU ARE PARTICIPATING WHETHER YOU ARE OR AREN'T!

If you are constantly being pulled over by the police for no reason, you are being harassed. There are proper channels to pursue to rectify this. Running from the police is not a proper channel. You run, I have zero sympathy for whatever happens to you. You are not a martyr. You are a douche.
Click to expand...
 
My comment was in response to the people crying foul because they thought it was unfair of the cops to forcefully stop the guys trying to evade. I think the camera incident was a differet event in a different town, and I'm not 100% on this, but I think the cops who arrested the camera guy wound up in trouble over that incident, and rightfully so. I don't support police misconduct, I just get bitter when people make stupid choices and then blame everyone but themselves when the consequences come down.

I do believe, however, that the person with the camera should have been stopped and the camera siezed as evidence. The person with the camera should not have been charged with anything, and should not have been persecuted or abused by the police, and certainly should not have been arrested, but the camera should have become evidence in a criminal investigation and used against the other morons who were making trouble.

I don't know how evidence laws work in the U.S., but I am pretty sure here that police have just cause to stop and sieze if they suspect that evidence may be destroyed before thay are able to obtain a warrant. In this case they police would have been justified in getting a warrant and getting the camera, ergo they would have been justified in siezing the camera on the spot in order to protect the integrity of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
jacobdahl said:
My comment was in response to the people crying foul because they thought it was unfair of the cops to forcefully stop the guys trying to evade. I think the camera incident was a differet event in a different town, and I'm not 100% on this, but I think the cops who arrested the camera guy wound up in trouble over that incident, and rightfully so. I don't support police misconduct, I just get bitter when people make stupid choices and then blame everyone but themselves when the consequences come down.

I do believe, however, that the person with the camera should have been stopped and the camera siezed as evidence. The person with the camera should not have been charged with anything, and should not have been persecuted or abused by the police, and certainly should not have been arrested, but the camera should have become evidence in a criminal investigation and used against the other morons who were making trouble.

I don't know how evidence laws work in the U.S., but I am pretty sure here that police have just cause to stop and sieze if they suspect that evidence may be destroyed before thay are able to obtain a warrant. In this case they police would have been justified in getting a warrant and getting the camera, ergo they would have been justified in siezing the camera on the spot in order to protect the integrity of the evidence.
Click to expand...



You are correct on both counts. The 1st video was in St Louis. The video where the rider was arrested was in Texas. The policeman who arrested the biker is under investigation.
What surprised me is that these types of events are happening all across the US. That is crazy!!
 
That explains it, In the US they can't search or seize anything from you without probable cause or a warrant, 4th amendment. That was an illegal seizure and thus the cop himself was breaking the law. That is why he was in trouble. BTW, I'm not anti cop myself although it sure sounds like I am. I have friends in law enforcement and am actually getting ready to do a Sherif's benefit ride for a guy that got shot here recently. I just have a problem when law enforcers break the law....not good.


jacobdahl said:
My comment was in response to the people crying foul because they thought it was unfair of the cops to forcefully stop the guys trying to evade. I think the camera incident was a differet event in a different town, and I'm not 100% on this, but I think the cops who arrested the camera guy wound up in trouble over that incident, and rightfully so. I don't support police misconduct, I just get bitter when people make stupid choices and then blame everyone but themselves when the consequences come down.

I do believe, however, that the person with the camera should have been stopped and the camera siezed as evidence. The person with the camera should not have been charged with anything, and should not have been persecuted or abused by the police, and certainly should not have been arrested, but the camera should have become evidence in a criminal investigation and used against the other morons who were making trouble.

I don't know how evidence laws work in the U.S., but I am pretty sure here that police have just cause to stop and sieze if they suspect that evidence may be destroyed before thay are able to obtain a warrant. In this case they police would have been justified in getting a warrant and getting the camera, ergo they would have been justified in siezing the camera on the spot in order to protect the integrity of the evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Warrants are required in Canada, too. There are extenuating circumstances, however, where the requirement for a warrant is waived. One of these circumstances is when the officed has reasonable suspicion that evidence my be discarded or destroyed before the officer is able to obtain a warrant. In that case, the officer may act without a warrant and search or sieze as if one already exists. Sounds like the 4th ammendment makes things a little more challenging for police officers in the U.S.

I also take great issue with police breaking the law. As the ones who are expected to uphold the law, and who are afforded special privelleges in society as a means to uphold those laws, it is especially important that police officers lead by example and respect the laws that they are expected to enforce, and the unique laws that govern how they accomplish their mandate.

In the end, though, I think that in a civilized society, police should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. If the police can't be trusted with the benefit of the doubt we need new police, not new laws.
 
jacobdahl said:
I do believe, however, that the person with the camera should have been stopped and the camera siezed as evidence. The person with the camera should not have been charged with anything, and should not have been persecuted or abused by the police, and certainly should not have been arrested, but the camera should have become evidence in a criminal investigation and used against the other morons who were making trouble.
Click to expand...

This kind of thinking is wrong on so many levels. The police have their own camera equipment in their vehicles, they don't need someone else s camera to find evidence. They have no right to take a persons property without a warrant no matter what that property is.

I am quite glad the officer who pulled this stunt is getting his butt chewed.

I too am a law obeying citizen and respect the police because they do have to deal with plenty of crap, but to do what they did to an obviously innocent person is maddening. I am glad the entire thing was recorded.

Perhaps the guy should not have been riding in the area of the morons doing the stunting, but you cannot be guilty by association. What if the Officer pulled this same stunt to a person in an Automobile that happened to have a dash cam? Can you imagine them harrasing some cager just because he had a camera in his car?
 
So, and this example is just for argument's sake, I bear no ill will, some tool in a cage is showing off his drifting skills in the Wal Mart parking lot and loses control, hitting your car and injuring your family. The police attempt to sieze the store's surveillance tapes, which clearly show the incident, but the store refuses, citing privacy. No credible eyewitnesses come forward, and the drifter goes free.
I'm not saying the police should be able to shake down every one they see, but I am saying that, when a police officer knows you have a camera in your posession that recorded a crime being comitted, the officer should be able to sieze that evidence. There are responsible procedures that need to be observed when siezing private property, but any and all evidence of a crime should be available to the investigating authorities by law.
The officer who pulled this stunt is getting his butt chewed because he was abusive and made life miserable for someone who he should have co-operated with, and his butt should be chewed for that. The person with the camera should not have been abused and should not have been charged. His camera, however, should have been subject to seizure.
 
Last edited:
jacobdahl said:
So, and this example is just for argument's sake, I bear no ill will, some tool in a cage is showing off his drifting skills in the Wal Mart parking lot and loses control, hitting your car and injuring your family. The police attempt to sieze the store's surveillance tapes, which clearly show the incident, but the store refuses, citing privacy. No credible eyewitnesses come forward, and the drifter goes free.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I don't think security camera's in a store can be forcibly turned over without a warrant either, however considering that the store owner in this case is not being harassed or illegally detained they would be more willing to share the video evidence. Most Security systems can create a media file of some sort that could be handed over, the police dont have to run in and rip the unit off the wall and then slam a car door on the store managers leg.

I'm not saying the police should be able to shake down every one they see, but I am saying that, when a police officer knows you have a camera in your posession that recorded a crime being comitted, the officer should be able to sieze that evidence.
Click to expand...
How on earth could the police "know" if that guys camera caught any footage of bad behavior, I don't believe any footage from that camera showing crimes being committed was discovered, so essentially the police were "guessing" that there "might" be footage on the said camera. If they wanted to take a look at the footage they should of made note of the motorcycles license plate number and sent a sepina for evidence to the mans house. Or they could have followed him until he stopped and politely asked, instead they abused their power and made an unlawful arrest of an innocent man.


The person with the camera should not have been abused and should not have been charged. His camera, however, should have been subject to seizure.
Click to expand...

I still cannot agree to this, once you start allowing the law to steal private property without a warrant you open up pandora's box to all sorts of bad things.
 
There is a provision in Canadian law where evidence can be siezed in cases where the officer has reasonable suspicion that the evidence may be destroyed before a warrant is obtained. This only applies to evidence where a warrant would have been obtained. It is up to the officer to use this provision of the law responsibly, and there are repricussions if the officer abuses this authority. If the officer makes an unlawful seizure, there are serious reprecussions up to and including criminal charges.

I do not condone the police forcibly removing the camera, abusing this individual, etc... but I do think, in this case, it was reasonable for the officer to sieze this evidence. The method employed was grossly improper, and the officer is being investigated for this breach of procedure.

If you do not want your camera used as evidence against a group of individuals who are stunting all over the city, don't ride with them and don't videotape it. If you videotape a crime in progress, expect the police to want that evidence.

Seizure of evidence and stealing private property are two completely different things. When your property is siezed as evidence is it returned to you or you are compensated for it. It sucks, but it's sort of like jury duty. Bad luck, but necessary in order for the law to be effectively enforced.

I like to say opinions are like a$$holes, because everyone has one. These posts reflect mine. I am not the type to expect everyone to agree with me, and I don't think people who disagree are stupid. I like to debate, however, because it shows who has an opinion based on intelligent thoughts and reason, and who is just ignorant. Thanks for listening to my opinion, and thanks for sharing yours. What you say makes perfect sense to me; it's just not how I think things should work.
 
Wow, there seems to be a lot of opinions here. so there isnt one person in this thread willing to admit they've ridden wheelies on a public road? I would have to call you a liar, not one of you have exceeded the speed limit? seems like a lot of holier than thou attitudes.
But what I cant believe is the cops hitting people w their cars. thats crazy!!! did the riders in the rear know there was a road block ahead? what if they thought traffic was backed up because of an accident? there was heavy police presence, but info doesnt travel back to the back of the pack.
 
I have never wheelied on a public road. I have broken the speed limit by a moderate amount, on a bike and in a car. I've been ticketed for doing so, on a bike and in a car. When the police began to pursue me, I signaled my intent and brought my vehicle to a stop in the quickest and safest possible manner. I didn't mouth off at the cop and I received my warning or ticket.

Had these people stopped when directed, the police would not have rammed them. Had the police rammed a co-operative subject, that person could sue the snot out of the cop.

Everyone speeds a bit. BFD. Speeding and evading are 2 entirely different concepts. And don't get me started about stunting on the street. Take it to a parking lot or track or whatever. If you call that sort of attention to yourself, expect, and accept, the consequence.
 
safz1970 said:
Wow, there seems to be a lot of opinions here. so there isnt one person in this thread willing to admit they've ridden wheelies on a public road? I would have to call you a liar, not one of you have exceeded the speed limit? seems like a lot of holier than thou attitudes.
But what I cant believe is the cops hitting people w their cars. thats crazy!!! did the riders in the rear know there was a road block ahead? what if they thought traffic was backed up because of an accident? there was heavy police presence, but info doesnt travel back to the back of the pack.
Click to expand...

ummmm, no. Unless you call the front wheel lifting a few inches under hard acceleration I have never "wheelied" on a public road. For one I am no good at wheelies, even when I rode Dirt Bikes as a teenager i could never quite get it down, and the penalty for looping out the dirt bike on a dirt road is much less than a street bike on pavement.

Speeding is a very different thing, and those police in those videos were not try to catch people for speeding alone....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top