Tasers! Lying Cops! Cyclists!

Serial Midget · Apr 24, 2009

"the Deputy replied "possibly" that says it all to me. :monkey:

I never even knew there where well known cycling attorneys anywhere. :busted:

Serial Midget · Apr 24, 2009

Classy!

"On several occasions the subjects stood up and shaked their butts at me taunting me."

JohnE · Apr 24, 2009

I gotta see the deputy...prolly somewhere between Buford T. Justice and Larry the Cable Guy.

About as professional as the Baltimore officer slamming the 14 year old for skateboarding in the wrong area...

sanjuro · Apr 24, 2009

"Operating a bike on the roadway."

manimal · Apr 25, 2009

dick of an officer, HOWEVER, problem would have been resolved in the roadies would have just pulled over when requested.
dickhead or not, when a cop says, "pull over" or gets behind you w/ his lights and/or siren you pull over to the right. if he's in the mood to discuss the legality of bikes in the roadway then fine, if not, take the ticket and make him look like an idiot in court. but not stopping gives him a legitimate reason to be a dick. period.

stinkyboy · Apr 25, 2009

"Dude, you just shot me with a taser! That was totally uncalled for!"

:rofl:

kidwoo · Apr 25, 2009

manimal said:
dick of an officer, HOWEVER, problem would have been resolved in the roadies would have just pulled over when requested.
dickhead or not, when a cop says, "pull over" or gets behind you w/ his lights and/or siren you pull over to the right. if he's in the mood to discuss the legality of bikes in the roadway then fine, if not, take the ticket and make him look like an idiot in court. but not stopping gives him a legitimate reason to be a dick. period.

Looks like you got a good bit of the 'content' part of the story. Now see if you can find the 'meaning' section you seem to have glazed over.

It's towards the end. You may not have gotten that far.

valve bouncer · Apr 25, 2009

Sounds like Tony doesn't know when to shut the f*ck up and that Deputy Knobhead will soon be making a move into mall security.

MikeD · Apr 25, 2009

Holy crap. What a cluster****.

Ed: Don't these guys have dash-cams?

RayB · Apr 25, 2009

So did this overzealous, irrational, lying pig lose his job??

but not stopping gives him a legitimate reason to be a dick. period.

People are so quick to forget the duty of police officers is to uphold and protect the law. I can't seem to recall where abusing using excessive force (c'mon... a F*CKING taser?! seriously?!) for the sake of "being a dick" fits in the job description...

PonySoldier · Apr 25, 2009

manimal said:
dick of an officer.... but not stopping gives him a legitimate reason to be a dick. period.

The first issue--whether cyclists must obey the orders of law enforcement officers--was central to the "motion to dismiss" hearings for Tony and Ryan. As the Court held, if the cyclist hasn't broken a traffic law, then the cyclist can't be lawfully arrested, and the order to pull over is itself unlawful. Therefore, if the order is unlawful, the cyclist is not required to obey the order, and can't be arrested for failure to comply. Now, this is the law in Ohio, but it is based on 4th Amendment jurisprudence, so the jurisprudence in other states should be similar. If somebody knows of contradictory 4th Amendment jurisprudence in another state, please let me know.

manimal · Apr 25, 2009

RayB said:
So did this overzealous, irrational, lying pig lose his job??

People are so quick to forget the duty of police officers is to uphold and protect the law. I can't seem to recall where abusing using excessive force (c'mon... a F*CKING taser?! seriously?!) for the sake of "being a dick" fits in the job description...

wrong. job of police officer is to enforce the law. job of courts is to uphold and protect the law.

cop was wrong in the arrest because he was too stupid to understand the relation of cyclists to the road, however, a cop doesn't have to tell you why he wants you to pull over at the initial attempt to stop you. it was the cyclists responsibility to heed lights/siren/verbal command to pull over. there is a reason that most states have a charge on the books called "fail to heed lights and siren". the courts are there decide later if the cyclists were in the wrong at all but simply not stopping based on their idea that the officer was just messing with them is stupid and arrogant on their part.

manimal · Apr 25, 2009

PonySoldier said:
The first issue--whether cyclists must obey the orders of law enforcement officers--was central to the "motion to dismiss" hearings for Tony and Ryan. As the Court held, if the cyclist hasn't broken a traffic law, then the cyclist can't be lawfully arrested, and the order to pull over is itself unlawful. Therefore, if the order is unlawful, the cyclist is not required to obey the order, and can't be arrested for failure to comply. Now, this is the law in Ohio, but it is based on 4th Amendment jurisprudence, so the jurisprudence in other states should be similar. If somebody knows of contradictory 4th Amendment jurisprudence in another state, please let me know.

cyclists or not, everyone has to obey the orders of LEO's at the initial attempt to stop. there is no case law that states you can just continue on your merry way when an officer is trying to stop you simply because you "think" that you have done nothing wrong. if the officer is wrong in stopping you than you have a hefty civil case against him for violating your 4th amendment rights but no one has the right to not stop when told to do so by LEO.
don't get me wrong here, that cop was way out of line and the cyclists have a legitimate 4th amendment case against him but they are not innocent either.

4xBoy · Apr 25, 2009

manimal said:
wrong. job of police officer is to enforce the law. job of courts is to uphold and protect the law.

Okay, but choosing to enforce a law that is not there, or the officer does not know if it is legal/illegal is not right.

manimal said:
a cop doesn't have to tell you why he wants you to pull over at the initial attempt to stop you. it was the cyclists responsibility to heed lights/siren/verbal command to pull over.

But in this story the officer does not say with lights and sirens pull over he was quoted,

(1) "You guys shouldn't be riding in the road; (2) "Get off the f-cking road"; (3) "You're under arrest"; and (4) "Stop or I'll shoot." If no order was given,

These two are not completely in the right, but neither was this officer, sadly this is a cause that a car camera would have solved the question.

4xBoy · Apr 25, 2009

manimal said:
cyclists or not, everyone has to obey the orders of LEO's at the initial attempt to stop. there is no case law that states you can just continue on your merry way when an officer is trying to stop you simply because you "think" that you have done nothing wrong. if the officer is wrong in stopping you than you have a hefty civil case against him for violating your 4th amendment rights but no one has the right to not stop when told to do so by LEO.
don't get me wrong here, that cop was way out of line and the cyclists have a legitimate 4th amendment case against him but they are not innocent either.

So if he swung his car in front of them as it sounds like he did causing one to go almost ogff the road the other to swerve around the drivers side and he attempts a block with his door, he in my opinion has chose to use force with a weapon (his car) which makes it an attack there for his authority is gone and should not be considered.

The five times he was hit with a tazer though, :disgust1:

Ryan says that at this point, with Tony now laying on the ground, the officer tased Tony a third time. In notes he made shortly after the incident, Ryan says that Tony was tased a total of five times by Chesapeake Police officers; Tony says we was tased "repeatedly." The Deputy's report states that:

"He went to the ground and we kept giving him commands to stay down and he tried to get up and he was Tazed for the second time. He finally became compliant and he was handcuffed."

That line is great, tazed five times, after second taze he was compliant and was handcuffed.

When did the other three happen? in the car ride for fun?

I hate reading these cause neither side is completely honest and a side is quickly chosen when reading, and the truth is nowhere.

sanjuro · Apr 25, 2009

I guess the question is when is ok to ignore the police's demand to stop.

I think we all can agree this cop is a huge dick, but I stop when the police tell me to stop, whether on foot, bicycle, or in a car.

I know how the cyclists felt. When I got a ticket on my bike, my first thought was to run for it.

manimal · Apr 25, 2009

4xBoy said:
But in this story the officer does not say with lights and sirens pull over he was quoted,

hmmm.....

The Deputy reported that he got out of his vehicle, and as the cyclists approached, he told Tony to pull over, and that Tony replied "I have got as much right to the road as anyone else," and continued riding towards town. The Deputy reported that he then got back in his cruiser, hit the lights and sirens, and continued to follow the two cyclists, giving commands over his public address system, and "at times out the window."

again, a cop asking you to pull over is not unreasonable. the street is not the court room. i have pulled people over for an expired/ficticious tag only to discover, after getting them stopped that i made a mistake and had run the tag wrong. i apologize and get them off on their way. had those innocent drivers not stopped then what? now they have a "fail to yield light/sire" and "resist,delay,obstruct a police officer" charge.

silver, the difference here is that the deputy told them to pull over, a lawful request from a law enforcement officer. what is done after the stop is the problem but the cyclist still has a duty to pull over when requested. if the deputy had no probable cause to stop the cyclist then he will have to pay the piper for the 4th amendment violation but the cyclist simply thinking he doesn't have to stop because he feels he's innocent is not kosher. had the deptuy asked them to give him a bj then that is no longer a lawful request and the cyclists have a duty to disobey. apples and oranges here, but nice try.

manimal · Apr 25, 2009

4xBoy said:
But in this story the officer does not say with lights and sirens pull over he was quoted,

hmmm.....

The Deputy reported that he got out of his vehicle, and as the cyclists approached, he told Tony to pull over, and that Tony replied "I have got as much right to the road as anyone else," and continued riding towards town. The Deputy reported that he then got back in his cruiser, hit the lights and sirens, and continued to follow the two cyclists, giving commands over his public address system, and "at times out the window."

again, a cop asking you to pull over is not unreasonable. the street is not the court room. i have pulled people over for an expired/ficticious tag only to discover, after getting them stopped that i made a mistake and had run the tag wrong. i apologize and get them off on their way. had those innocent drivers not stopped then what? now they have a "fail to yield light/sire" and "resist,delay,obstruct a police officer" charge.

silver, the difference here is that the deputy told them to pull over, a lawful request from a law enforcement officer. what is done after the stop is the problem but the cyclist still has a duty to pull over when requested. if the deputy had no probable cause to stop the cyclist then he will have to pay the piper for the 4th amendment violation but the cyclist simply thinking he doesn't have to stop because he feels he's innocent is not kosher. had the deptuy asked them to give him a bj then that is no longer a lawful request and the cyclists have a duty to disobey. apples and oranges here, but nice try.

4xBoy · Apr 25, 2009

manimal said:
hmmm.....

They say it a little differently;

Tony and Ryan both recall it differently; Ryan recalls that they were riding two abreast, at about 18 - 20 MPH, and had entered the city limits, where the speed limit is 25 MPH. They heard a car approaching; Tony called "car back," and they singled up. As Tony tells it:

"We were riding along, and about 300-400 meters beyond the library, this Sheriff's car suddenly pulled up alongside me and the Deputy rolled down his window and said 'You guys shouldn't be riding in the road.' I responded 'We have as much right to be in the road as you do.'"

As I guess I tried to say, they are both wrong, but who has the least wrong story?

If an officer says something to me from his car I will stop, usually cause my hearing is bad and I can't hear what was said, these two sound like idiots, that pushed and got beat, now want to cry foul when a 20 second conversation everyone could have been on their way.

syadasti · Apr 25, 2009

As the OP pointed out it was clear the deputy was lying in his account:

Notice the deputy's testimony in court (15-20mph) and his written report (5-10mph) don't match.

Any account or excuse he has cannot be trusted, he does not know the laws he is supposed to enforce, and he is clearly unfit for duty and at fault.

ohio · Apr 25, 2009

manimal said:
hmmm.....

again, a cop asking you to pull over is not unreasonable. the street is not the court room.

but the cop didn't ask them to pull over. He told them to "get off the ****ing road." given the inconsistencies of the deputies report, and the consistency of the cyclists, despite being debriefed in separate stations, I am inclined to believe their version of the story, which is

1) officer tells them to "get off the ****ing road", a term that does not, to me, mean "pull over." It means, "I don't like you and I don't think you belong here." I'm not sure what I would do if an officer yelled that at me, but honestly pulling into a ditch isn't one of them. The nature of the remark would put in the same mode as Tony, namely that this isn't someone acting as an officer, but instead a private citizen that doesn't like bikes.

2) Officer pulls across road in front of them, and tazes Tony as he comes to a stop. why do I believe Tony was coming to a stop? Because there was no bike wreck, and Tony was able to pull the electrode out without falling over. You can't do that if you're trying to sprint past the roadblock or into the cop.

3) Officer then starts swinging baton at Tony while he defends himself with the bike. I got to be honest, if someone was swinging a baton at me, I don't care if they're an officer, I will defend myself. I'm not going to lie down an take a beating. I'm not going to attack the officer, but I will do my best to talk him down while preventing myself from being struck.

I see nowhere in the story that the officer asked the riders to pull over. I see nowhere that the officer asked the riders to lie down on the pavement. I see nowhere where he gave them anything approaching clear directions to which they could hope to comply.

RayB · Apr 25, 2009

manimal said:
i have pulled people over

It all makes sense now......

:rolleyes:

sanjuro · Apr 25, 2009

It wasn't mentioned in the article, but I bet both of these guys were white dudes.

Why do I bring up race? Because most minorities know that when a cop flashes his lights at you, their lives are now at risk.

Remember the Dallas cop who stopped a NFL player and his family on the way to the hospital? Despite the enormous emotionial strain, I noticed the player was as polite as anyone could be.

When I deal with the police, I always have a respectful attitude and I don't play games like "what's the lights for"?

Except the time I got a ticket on a bicycle, and all I did there was argue.

syadasti · Apr 25, 2009

Race is not applicable in this case, the LEO was the only person playing games and acting irrational. What would you do if an official was harassing and trying to attack without any standard request or warning - that why Tom is looking to sue. Its clear they deputy was trying to enforce his own agenda rather than follow well established procedures and the fault is all his.

sanjuro · Apr 25, 2009

syadasti said:
Race is not applicable in this case, the LEO was the only person playing games and acting irrational. What would you do if an official was harassing and trying to attack without any standard request or warning - that why Tom is looking to sue. Its clear they deputy was trying to enforce his own agenda rather than follow well established procedures and the fault is all his.

And I fully agree with this. The deputy was wrong.

Do you disobey a police officer though? Do you ignore lights, start yelling at him, get into an officer's face?

Let me speculate what would have happened if they had pulled over when the lights went on: they would have received a ridiculous lecture, and this would have made a great story on the next team ride.

sanjuro · Apr 25, 2009

I want to compare this incident more to the NFL player/Dallas Police.

He did not pull right over, which is the only time he disobeyed the officer. He drove a few more blocks to hospital, and then he took the verbal abuse of the officer while his mother-in-law died.

Now I believe the officer in Dallas and this deputy were totally in the wrong, but notice the difference in the behavior of citizens? The NFL player did exactly what he was told. The cyclists ignored instructions and the common sense that a cop turns on the lights, you don't keep rolling along.

ohio · Apr 25, 2009

sanjuro said:
The NFL player did exactly what he was told.

And his mother in law died. What exactly is the lesson you're trying to bestow?

kidwoo · Apr 26, 2009

ohio said:
And his mother in law died. What exactly is the lesson you're trying to bestow?

We finally got the brothas in line.

Sanjuro's asian. He hates black people because they keep stealing from his store.

blue · Apr 26, 2009

In SLC when I was a messenger I regularly bolted from bike/foot/car cops under order to stop (and lawfully, to boot!)

Somehow, I always avoided the taser.

And I have nothing else to add to this moderately dysfunctional discussion other than "most cops kinda suck, but it's not their fault". I don't hate most police officers personally...I just hate the idea of most of them. This idea that everyone is guilty until a court of law four months in the future tells them they aren't.

sanjuro · Apr 26, 2009

ohio said:
And his mother in law died. What exactly is the lesson you're trying to bestow?

Well, if a black man decided to ignore the instructions of redneck cop, what would have happened then?

As opposed to the two white guys on fancy road bikes?

ohio · Apr 27, 2009

sanjuro said:
Well, if a black man decided to ignore the instructions of redneck cop, what would have happened then?

Something worse than his mother-in-law dying?

kidwoo · Apr 27, 2009

sanjuro said:
Well, if a black man decided to ignore the instructions of redneck cop, what would have happened then?

As opposed to the two white guys on fancy road bikes?

Damn.....if it was a BLACK guy? The cop probably would have tried to run them off the road, taze them and started swinging with a stick.

oh wait.....

Actually the story doesn't say anything about race. Maybe they were.

jimmydean · Apr 27, 2009

I wish I could taze most roadies.

kidwoo · Apr 27, 2009

jimmydean said:
I wish I could taze most roadies.

Join the force!

Tasers! Lying Cops! Cyclists!

find me a tampon

Al Bundy

Al Bundy

filthy rascist

Tube Smuggler

Ociffer Tackleberry

find me a tampon

Plastic Santa

Artisanal Tweet Curator

Master Dildoist

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Monkey

Monkey

Ociffer Tackleberry

Ociffer Tackleberry

find me a tampon

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Tube Smuggler

Ociffer Tackleberry

Ociffer Tackleberry

Turbo Monkey

i heart mac

The Fresno Kid

Monkey

Tube Smuggler

i heart mac

find me a tampon

Tube Smuggler

Tube Smuggler

find me a tampon

The Fresno Kid

Artisanal Tweet Curator

boob hater

Tube Smuggler

The Fresno Kid

find me a tampon

Artisanal Tweet Curator

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey

Artisanal Tweet Curator