speeding motorcycles, cop, gun, bang!

[VTRZA]

So accelerating fast from a stoplight then stopping 5 seconds after the lights come on is a felony pursuit, no one was led on any sort of chase. Gotcha.

Funny you use the word flippant, as if what you said yourself was not.

You can try to rationalize it all you like.

 

[Traq]

They accelerated from the stop sign. The cop turned his lights and siren on. They stopped immediately. At what point was it evasion? He lit them up AFTER they accelerated from the stop, not before!

And FYI it happened in Ohio, so California law means jack shit. Try to keep your feeble points at least somewhat relevant to the situation, kthx.

 

[asdfghwy]

Wait who's wrong? since when has it been a felony pursuit when you stop 5 seconds later. Once again you show your ignorance about the topic at hand.


Sorry but the law doesn't take into account the time involved even if its 5 seconds or 15 minutes. Both could be charged with Felony for evasion and the reckless riding (losing control of the motorcycle) not to mention any other other charges related to their actions. And secondly, I haven't convicted the riders as guilty anywhere in the thread, even my opening statement was pointing out the ridiculousness of the riders flippancy to lead cops with guns on chase and not take into account the officers mindset, correct in their actions or not. Play with guys with guns and badges and you might get shot...that is real life shit. Cops shouldn't be put in positions like this if these guys had nothing better to do. Why tempt it? So guys like you can point fingers without knowing both sides, just what they gather from a internet video? Really all you've said here in reaction is immature verbal garbage, pretty troll like in fact, I'm sure you're happy about yourself though.

Felony Evasion:


(1) The peace officer's motor vehicle is exhibiting at least one lighted red lamp visible from the front and the person either sees or reasonably should have seen the lamp.

(2) The peace officer's motor vehicle is sounding a siren as may be reasonably necessary.

(3) The peace officer's motor vehicle is distinctively marked.

(4) The peace officer's motor vehicle is operated by a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, and that peace officer is wearing a distinctive uniform.


2800.1. (a) Any person who, while operating a motor vehicle and with the intent to evade, willfully flees or otherwise attempts to elude a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year if all of the following conditions exist:

Felony Evasion:
2800.2. (a) If a person flees or attempts to elude a pursuing peace officer in violation of Section 2800.1 and the pursued vehicle is driven in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, the person driving the vehicle, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or by confinement in the county jail for not less than six months nor more than one year. The court may also impose a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or may impose both that imprisonment or confinement and fine.

(b) For purposes of this section, a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property includes, but is not limited to, driving while fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer during which time either three or more violations that are assigned a traffic violation point count under Section 12810 occur, or damage to property occurs.


AND

2800.3. (a) Whenever willful flight or attempt to elude a pursuing peace officer in violation of Section 2800.1 proximately causes serious bodily injury to any person, the person driving the pursued vehicle, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or seven years, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Whenever willful flight or attempt to elude a pursuing peace officer in violation of Section 2800.1 proximately causes death to a person, the person driving the pursued vehicle, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 4, 6, or 10 years.

(c) Nothing in this section shall preclude the imposition of a greater sentence pursuant to Section 190 of the Penal Code or any other provisions of law applicable to punishment for an unlawful death.
(d) For the purposes of this section, “serious bodily injury” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (f) of Section 243 of the Penal Code.

Where do you see felony evasion? Can you explain for me? As soon as the lights go on he stopped.

Why are people so ignorant sometimes?

 

[slydrite]

Wow, that seems incredibly fucked up. Don't see how the lives of the officers were "in danger" in that brief period of time when the guy is stopped on his bike, just sitting there and his equally dumb friend had crashed.

On a related note - I thought this quote was interesting;

"Mr. McCloskey testified that he and a friend were riding motorcycles at about 2:15 a.m. when they took a route down Indian Road in Ottawa Hills. He said that because of the noise of his Harley Davidson motorcycle, it wasn't until he had come to a complete stop at Central Avenue and began idling that he realized a police vehicle was behind him with its lights and sirens activated"

Apparantly, loud pipes don't always save lives

 

[4tuneit1]

They accelerated from the stop sign. The cop turned his lights and siren on. They stopped immediately. At what point was it evasion? He lit them up AFTER they accelerated from the stop, not before!

And FYI it happened in Ohio, so California law means jack shit. Try to keep your feeble points at least somewhat relevant to the situation, kthx.

Its called eluding in Ohio. And under this law both riders could both be considered for a FELONY charge.

Here's the law

2921.331 Failure to comply with order or signal of police officer.
(A) No person shall fail to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer invested with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.

(B) No person shall operate a motor vehicle so as willfully to elude or flee a police officer after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police officer to bring the person’s motor vehicle to a stop.

(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer.

(2) A violation of division (A) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(3) Except as provided in divisions (C)(4) and (5) of this section, a violation of division (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(4) Except as provided in division (C)(5) of this section, a violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree if the jury or judge as trier of fact finds by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that, in committing the offense, the offender was fleeing immediately after the commission of a felony.

(5)(a) A violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third degree if the jury or judge as trier of fact finds any of the following by proof beyond a reasonable doubt:

(i) The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender was a proximate cause of serious physical harm to persons or property.

(ii) The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.

(b) If a police officer pursues an offender who is violating division (B) of this section and division (C)(5)(a) of this section applies, the sentencing court, in determining the seriousness of an offender’s conduct for purposes of sentencing the offender for a violation of division (B) of this section, shall consider, along with the factors set forth in sections 2929.12 and 2929.13 of the Revised Code that are required to be considered, all of the following:

 

[VTRZA]

Where do you see felony evasion? Can you explain for me? As soon as the lights go on he stopped.

Why are people so ignorant sometimes?

because it's easier than just saying "Yeah that was a fucked up thing to say"

 

[Flying Pig]

Motorcyclist Shot During Traffic Stop

This happened last year, and the trial is in progress now.

Thoughts? Opinions? 2-cents?

Video with commentary: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?se...cal&id=7433661

Story, for those who want stuff to read: http://toledoblade.com/article/20100511/NEWS02/5110365

 

[JihadiKiller031]

Wow, I love how the "question authority group" on BARF immediately resorts to childish behavior when someone provides an argument that disagrees with them...

If they had stopped immediately, then how does one lose control of a motorcycle?

Must not have been trying to speed away from the flashing lights in the video. He was just alarmed, accelerated and lost sight of the the road. RIIIIIIIGHT.

They started to run, realized that the other officer was going to catch up to them at the cross and decided to stop. The initial officer reacted horribly to the situation once stopped, and even though there is minor evidence that justifies his reason for drawing his weapon, there isn't really enough evidence to justify his shooting the rider in the back. There was not enough reason to justify the officers life being threatened, considering the rider would have needed to make a near 180 in either direction in order to fire at the officer exiting his vehicle, he announced nothing when he exits. Bad decision on the riders part to accelerate after the lights go on and to move at all until the officer instructed him to, because in a high intensity situation such as this a simple movement can give the completely wrong impression and he is now paralyzed.

There IS bad on both ends, the rider is now paralyzed because of it and the officer will probably be found guilty by a jury of his peers (who probably won't be police officers).

 

[4tuneit1]

because it's easier than just saying "Yeah that was a fucked up thing to say"

If that were the case you'd be spending all your time here repeating yourself. In any event, the moral of this story is the same, the guys who bark the loudest, usually cry the loudest when they get bit. Next time think before you put LE in a position to fuck up, not fuck up, or just have to do their damn job in a world with asshats looking for a reason to get off on breaking the law.

 

[4tuneit1]

Wow, I love how the "question authority group" on BARF immediately resorts to childish behavior when someone provides an argument that disagrees with them...

If they had stopped immediately, then how does one lose control of a motorcycle?

Must not have been trying to speed away from the flashing lights in the video. He was just alarmed, accelerated and lost sight of the the road. RIIIIIIIGHT.

They started to run, realized that the other officer was going to catch up to them at the cross and decided to stop. The initial officer reacted horribly to the situation once stopped, and even though there is minor evidence that justifies his reason for drawing his weapon, there isn't really enough evidence to justify his shooting the rider in the back. There was not enough reason to justify the officers life being threatened, considering the rider would have needed to make a near 180 in either direction in order to fire at the officer exiting his vehicle, he announced nothing when he exits. Bad decision on the riders part to accelerate after the lights go on and to move at all until the officer instructed him to, because in a high intensity situation such as this a simple movement can give the completely wrong impression and he is now paralyzed.

There IS bad on both ends, the rider is now paralyzed because of it and the officer will probably be found guilty by a jury of his peers (who probably won't be police officers).

 

[gixxerjoeca]

The cop didnt light them up until after they left the stop sign(reading the article is most helpfull) the guy that was shot stopped within 5 seconds of being lit up. Probably exellent stopping time for a Harley

He said it took Mr. McCloskey about five seconds - about 600 feet - to stop his motorcycle after the officer had activated his lights and sirens behind him.

 

[billswim]

That right there is some fucked up shit. Shot him...in the back. Poor bastard, weather or not he was "evading" which BTW is NOT what I saw, did not deserve to be shot. I'm not a cop hater by any means but that was some incompetent, barney fife type shit right there. Trigger happy...3-5 seconds from stopped to shot? I can't even get my kickstand down that fast. Seeing how I'd rather be dead than in a wheelchair esp @24 years old, that cop took the rider's life. I hope the jury is brave enough to convict and the family sues the city/county into insolvency. This has happened way too often in the past and with the advent of cameras the incompetent cops are being shown for what they are.

 

[macadamizer]

Its called eluding in Ohio. And under this law both riders could both be considered for a FELONY charge.

Here's the law

2921.331 Failure to comply with order or signal of police officer.
(A) No person shall fail to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer invested with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.

(B) No person shall operate a motor vehicle so as willfully to elude or flee a police officer after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police officer to bring the person’s motor vehicle to a stop.

(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer.

(2) A violation of division (A) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(3) Except as provided in divisions (C)(4) and (5) of this section, a violation of division (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(4) Except as provided in division (C)(5) of this section, a violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree if the jury or judge as trier of fact finds by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that, in committing the offense, the offender was fleeing immediately after the commission of a felony.

(5)(a) A violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third degree if the jury or judge as trier of fact finds any of the following by proof beyond a reasonable doubt:

(i) The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender was a proximate cause of serious physical harm to persons or property.

(ii) The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.

(b) If a police officer pursues an offender who is violating division (B) of this section and division (C)(5)(a) of this section applies, the sentencing court, in determining the seriousness of an offender’s conduct for purposes of sentencing the offender for a violation of division (B) of this section, shall consider, along with the factors set forth in sections 2929.12 and 2929.13 of the Revised Code that are required to be considered, all of the following:

The point you highlighted doesn't support your thesis. I underlined the key word -- "willfully." In other words, for there to be felony evasion, you have to show intent. It's not "well, he should have stopped sooner" or "I think he was trying to flee," the DA will have to prove that he intended to flee in order for felony evasion to stick.

So, even though there is no explicit reference in the code as to how long a pursuit had to last, the length of the pursuit is relevant in trying to prove intent. Sometimes intent is straightforward -- the guy flipping the cop off or something as he rides off into the sunset -- but if you don't have that sort of specific evidence, you need to look to evidence that can support an inference of intent. A lot of people would probably think that a long pursuit supports a finding of an intent to flee. You wouldn't know for sure until you got in front of a jury, but it seems it might be hard for the prosecution to prove intent when all you have to go on is a short period between the lights coming on and the stop.

And, even if you proved "willful," under this statute, for it to be a felony, you need the additional evidence that the person either injured someone or damaged someone's property, or that there was a "substantial risk" of such injury or damage. In other words, it's not just up to cop to make a snap decision "OMG FELONY EVASION" and come out with guns blazing.

 

[VTRZA]

If that were the case you'd be spending all your time here repeating yourself. In any event, the moral of this story is the same, the guys who bark the loudest, usually cry the loudest when they get bit. Next time think before you put LE in a position to fuck up, not fuck up, or just have to do their damn job in a world with asshats looking for a reason to get off on breaking the law.

uh huh....speeding is a good reason for a cop to rush at you and shoot you in the back 3 seconds after you pull over 5 seconds after his lights come on......rationalize, rationalize, rationalize, rationalize, rationalize

 

[macadamizer]

There IS bad on both ends, the rider is now paralyzed because of it and the officer will probably be found guilty by a jury of his peers (who probably won't be police officers).

There may be "bad" on both ends, but there is no question that the worse "bad" was that of the cop. And one would hope that if the officer's jury was made up entirely of cops, they would throw the book at him for be colossally negligent and incompetent.

 

[VTRZA]

The point you highlighted doesn't support your thesis. I underlined the key word -- "willfully." In other words, for there to be felony evasion, you have to show intent. It's not "well, he should have stopped sooner" or "I think he was trying to flee," the DA will have to prove that he intended to flee in order for felony evasion to stick.

So, even though there is no explicit reference in the code as to how long a pursuit had to last, the length of the pursuit is relevant in trying to prove intent. Sometimes intent is straightforward -- the guy flipping the cop off or something as he rides off into the sunset -- but if you don't have that sort of specific evidence, you need to look to evidence that can support an inference of intent. A lot of people would probably think that a long pursuit supports a finding of an intent to flee. You wouldn't know for sure until you got in front of a jury, but it seems it might be hard for the prosecution to prove intent when all you have to go on is a short period between the lights coming on and the stop.

And, even if you proved "willful," under this statute, for it to be a felony, you need the additional evidence that the person either injured someone or damaged someone's property, or that there was a "substantial risk" of such injury or damage. In other words, it's not just up to cop to make a snap decision "OMG FELONY EVASION" and come out with guns blazing.

 

[JihadiKiller031]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33TBaNgwSUw

listen at 1:21.... hm... .09 and admitting he was high and driving?

Guess the officer just sped up the process of being stupid....

Now I think the rider deserved it. The point he drove under the influence of pot and alcohol he deserved more then parallelization.

 

[sliverstorm]

This isn't the first time I've seen stuff like this. Ridiculous as it is, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe putting your hands up when you're pulled over really is the best plan. Although I've also had an officer command me to leave my hands on the bars. You just can't win

 

[macadamizer]

If that were the case you'd be spending all your time here repeating yourself. In any event, the moral of this story is the same, the guys who bark the loudest, usually cry the loudest when they get bit. Next time think before you put LE in a position to fuck up, not fuck up, or just have to do their damn job in a world with asshats looking for a reason to get off on breaking the law.

Unless you have a perfectly stock bike, in perfect mechanical condition, and you obey 100% of the traffic laws 100% of the time, you put LE's in a "position to fuck up, not fuck up, or just have to do their damn job." If can honestly say that you fit this mold, then more power to you. If not, something about rocks and glass houses and all of that.

Actually, if you ever leave your house, you put LE's in a "position to fuck up, not fuck up, or just have to do their damn job," because LE's can make a mistake and pull over the wrong person -- and then the cascade of horrors can begin.

 

[VTRZA]

Wow, I love how the "question authority group" on BARF immediately resorts to childish behavior when someone provides an argument that disagrees with them...

If they had stopped immediately, then how does one lose control of a motorcycle?

Must not have been trying to speed away from the flashing lights in the video. He was just alarmed, accelerated and lost sight of the the road. RIIIIIIIGHT.

They started to run, realized that the other officer was going to catch up to them at the cross and decided to stop. The initial officer reacted horribly to the situation once stopped, and even though there is minor evidence that justifies his reason for drawing his weapon, there isn't really enough evidence to justify his shooting the rider in the back. There was not enough reason to justify the officers life being threatened, considering the rider would have needed to make a near 180 in either direction in order to fire at the officer exiting his vehicle, he announced nothing when he exits. Bad decision on the riders part to accelerate after the lights go on and to move at all until the officer instructed him to, because in a high intensity situation such as this a simple movement can give the completely wrong impression and he is now paralyzed.

There IS bad on both ends, the rider is now paralyzed because of it and the officer will probably be found guilty by a jury of his peers (who probably won't be police officers).

don't let the facts get in the way of YOUR reality there guy