Biker arrested for videotaping officer story updated

[Slide Panda]

This seems too easy (i'm certainly no crim atty) but how about a nice demand letter saying he'll sue unless the traffic charges are dropped?  Hmmm that seems improper somehow... Or sue then settle for the charges being dropped.  A felony (guessing 140mph qualifies as that in MD) is a big problem for security clearances.

The guy totally needs an atty to talk to the DA.

Your 1st thought is basically blackmail. The 2nd (sue first) is a little more normal

[zooom]

let me turn it around on to you:  let's say you were arrested for something either that you didn't do or it wasn't against the law.  cops come into your house with a warrant, take your stuff, arrest and book you.  you sit in jail for a day until your family hires an attorney.  you miss a few days of work, all your computer stuff is locked up at the police station, and now you have to explain to people why you were arrested.

roll forward a few months and OOOPS it turns out they screwed up big -- you shouldn't have been arrested, and no, you actually did not do anything wrong.  in fact, what you did was 100% ok.

now, are you telling me you wouldn't want someone to pay?  i don't mean necessarily money.  if it was me, i'd want to take a crowbar to the guy's head, but i'm an attorney, not a "goodfellah" so i go to court. 

the law provides damages to people who are arrested in this manner (in the present case).  why pass the law unless there is a reason for it?  the reason is simple:  the police make mistakes and we do whatever we can to excuse mistakes, but when they intentionally do their job wrong, or misinterpret the law, we have to make people right.  we can't give this guy his dignity back (i.e. being treated like a criminal when he isn't one) but we can allow him to exact some kind of punitive damages against those who overstepped their authority.

and just because the rider is a douchebag doesn't mean he doesn't have rights or should be treated like a criminal.  sure, ticket him and maybe impound his bike.  take his license.  but arrest and 16 years in prison?  being charged like that would age me a few years, i would want retribution (which is totally proper in our legal system)>

while I understand the point you make...you are making apples and oranges comparisons...

the guy was doing something blatently illegal to intiate this whole action...there was no question of that whatsoever....he then retaliated against getting caught because of the manner in which he was caught...then enter this whole debacle...

with the example you cite...the same situation doesn't run as far as the statutes and how it would go down....would I want compensation??...maybe/probably....hell...for the legal defense expedatures incurred alone...but this guy started off standing on the wrong foot and the statute is for the protection of innocent folks who are wrongfully charged and prosecuted in the 1st place....

lets imagine for a minute this whole situation went differently....lets imagine this guy did his illegal riding but was cut off and stopped by a regular motorist who pulled his key and threatened to beat his ass( but didn't physically harm him in any way) and called the police to come and back up a citizens arrest and used his video of himself as evidence....where do you think his situation would have gone?.....I mean, since we are coming up with what if's and all...

[MongoReturns]

Your 1st thought is basically blackmail. The 2nd (sue first) is a little more normal

  Yep the first though smelled a little funny.  Must be a way to do it without filing all the paperwork.  Pre-settlement conference?  Maybe beers at Obama's place.  Or at Zoom's place  

[ducatiz]

And since when is it OK for a LEO to pull is sidearm on someone that isn't and immediate threat. It's not like he had the right to shoot the McSquiddy if he rode away. It should have never left his holster. A hand on the gun in the holster is as far as that should have gone. Identifying himself as a LEO about 3 or 4 seconds faster would have been nice too. Fkn cop is lucky the dude didn't panic when he saw the gun pointed at him.

I am 50/50 on the gun issue -- cops are armed for a reason.  He wasn't pointing at the rider, my feeling is that it was a defensive posture and he made the mistake of not identifying himself.  I don't think there is a big issue there.  Maybe a tiny reprimand or discussion iwth the CO to remind him of department practice, that's it.  Nothing actionable there.  Cops do not have to have the same standard applied when it comes to brandishing a firearm -- they carry one as part of their job.

[The Mad King Pepe']

I really thing the rider should be held responsible for riding like an idiot, speeding, endangerment, whatever.

On the other side I believe the officer should be held responsible for pulling out the gun (shit head got too excited) and for raiding the house and all that shit (bully on a power drive from my point of view).

I don't hate cops as a category, some of these guys are cool and work hard for shit. But I believe that all the failed bullies who turn into cops should be put into a segregated 'special reserve' with all the booze and arms one could ever dream of. Add a some cameras and nobody will watch Nascar, Football (hand-egg actually), or religious TV shows.

[ducatiz]

while I understand the point you make...you are making apples and oranges comparisons...

the guy was doing something blatently illegal to intiate this whole action...there was no question of that whatsoever....he then retaliated against getting caught because of the manner in which he was caught...then enter this whole debacle...

so you are saying there is some nexus between the laws forbidding speeding and the laws forbidding wiretapping in Maryland?  hmmm.

with the example you cite...the same situation doesn't run as far as the statutes and how it would go down....would I want compensation??...maybe/probably....hell...for the legal defense expedatures incurred alone...but this guy started off standing on the wrong foot and the statute is for the protection of innocent folks who are wrongfully charged and prosecuted in the 1st place....

All of this is unimportant and not relevant.  The cop and rider went home.  The interaction was done.  When the video was posted, the cop (likely) wanted to protect his image especially after the uproar of him jumping out of a car with a gun and no ID.

Yes, you are correct the statute is for innocent folks.  The rider is innocent of any violation of the Maryland wiretapping statute.  Period.  The fact that he sped or wheelied or jaywalked or spat in the subway prior to that is irrelevant. 

I would take this guy's case against the cop and I'd win or get a settlement.  There is no rational reason for anyone to believe that a public action or conversation is private and if a cop is acting in public, he has no rational reason to believe his actions would be protected by the 2 party consent rule under MCA § 10-410.

The cop's actions in obtaining a warrant and arresting the rider fall squarely outside his authority as an officer.

[sbrguy]

Your 1st thought is basically blackmail. The 2nd (sue first) is a little more normal

that is not really blackmail its called "a settlement" plain and simple.  or "a deal".

sounds like a simple situation, one person got a ticket and the other person had a big ego and bent the law or broke it to harass someone plain and simple.

we can defend illegal actions all we want but regardless of who does the illegal act, that person should still be prosecuted for an illegal act even if they are  .. Unless of course the argument is that  are above the law and can do whatever they want, then of course under that premise they are allowed to do what they want and can do no wrong.

[ducatiz]

that is not really blackmail its called "a settlement" plain and simple.  or "a deal".

no, it's not a settlement when the accused party is agreeing to refrain from a lawsuit.

i think most prosecutors would tell you to go to hell if someone tried that.

[Slide Panda]

no, it's not a settlement when the accused party is agreeing to refrain from a lawsuit.

You can't settle something that hasn't seen arbitration. Saying you'll hold off from doing something negative to someone in return for some payment is the basics of blackmail.

I won't show off the photos of you picking your nose, if you give me your jelly doughnut.
I won't sue you if you give me dropped charges (yes I know the grammar is messed - but I'm using dropped charges as the noun... work with it)

[ducatiz]

You can't settle something that hasn't seen arbitration. Saying you'll hold off from doing something negative to someone in return for some payment is the basics of blackmail.

I won't show off the photos of you picking your nose, if you give me your jelly doughnut.
I won't sue you if you give me dropped charges (yes I know the grammar is messed - but I'm using dropped charges as the noun... work with it)

i understand, but my point was that offering a prosecutor such a deal wouldn't fly because it may in fact be criminal. 

[Slide Panda]

Right... what I was sayin'. I was agreeing with you on the point. My comment was more directed at Sbrguy. I should have been more clear.

[Veloce-Fino]

I'm sensing a lock in the near future 

[Slide Panda]

No faith. Perhaps if this was out on General, it might have been banned as it would have had more attention and wild flame statements... But as a general rule, CAM has proven we can self regulate our discussions pretty well... (that and I think Statler's a sleep)

[Meerkat]

(that and I think Statler's a sleep)

...or maybe just doing what I'm not...working!

[ducatiz]

No faith. Perhaps if this was out on General, it might have been banned as it would have had more attention and wild flame statements... But as a general rule, CAM has proven we can self regulate our discussions pretty well... (that and I think Statler's a sleep)

I vote hangover.