Remember the bike the cop drew on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h22jeffrey

what i think happened here was that the cop probably thought he was going for a chase. if you look closely at the video the cop is infront of the motorcycle in the begining of the video right before he does the wheelie. he got his speed up to 127mph then 69mph when he passes the other cop on the side of the highway (which is behind the undercover state police when he gets pulled over). the car pointed out as the undercover car on the video is an acura TL the undercover car is a malibu. what i'am saying is that's probably why the statie pulled out his gun thinking he was going to go for it. just my .02 not defending the cop at all i think it was wrong and i might have ran him down thinking i was getting jacked or something but just going with what i see on the video.good luck to the kid and hopefully he gets off.

---

This is the same thing I saw as well. The Trooper in the Malibu was doing a Felony stop (Which The Police up here DON'T do!!! We're lucky) If you notice, When the guy on the bike looks back on the off ramp and the unmarked car is behind him, He probably looked back because he heard a siren.
The reason you probably don't see the lights on the marked cruiser is Police routinely turn their front emergency lights off when they stop and leave the rear emergency lights on. I know in MA 25 mph over is an arrestable offense and I believe in MD (been a long time since I've been there) it's the same, hence the felony stop with the gun out. The Trooper never pointed the gun at the guy BUT the first words outta his mouth should've been announcing who he was!!!!
I read somewhere else that the kid was spooked and the trooper asked if he was recording and he said no.. Not sure how true that is because it's not on video.. Like alll things that are caught on video, we don't know what happened before or after the video was started and stopped so it's hard to say why these things unfold the way they do.. The Police probably weren't the ones who brought the wiretapping charge against him, it was probably the DA who did when the case came across his desk.
And for the people who say they were harassed for ywlling out the window at the police, not saying they were right, but what else did you expect them to do!?!?! I've been in Publice service for 16 years, We deal with so many A#$holes, sometimes it's hard not to react that way when someone yells something out the window at you.. Again, I'm not condoning it, but we're human and can only take so much sometimes, you guys may have caught the officers when they'd reached their limits for the day. Or they could've just been dicks all along!! There are those out there too!:teehee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Currently

I don't think he can ... don't they have prosecutorial immunity?

I know judges and DA's have it.

---

what happen to "no one is above the law"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kham

what happen to "no one is above the law"?

---

Well the only folks above the Law are the ones who are charged with enforcing the Law, what a cosy relationship. :confused:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com...te-should.html

KingCast.net: Reel News for Real People.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Currently

I don't think he can ... don't they have prosecutorial immunity?

I know judges and DA's have it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toocrazy2yoo

Nice thought, but it's the DC Metropolitan area. It isn't LIKE anywhere else. From the cops to the judges on up, LE and the courts rule, we work for THEM, not the other way around. I never really got in much trouble down there as far as tickets and other contact with cops, but from what I read and see in the news, the difference in the relationship between citizens and LE when compared to here and down around DC is really remarkable, to me anyway.

---

This is why it would have to be a federal case. The state of Maryland may want to run their little fiefdom like it's North Korea, but as long as they're part of the USA they can't. The officials of a state can't just harass citizens, misinterpret laws in a ridiculous manner, and in general stomp all over constitutional protections just because they feel like it. The state owes this kid big time, and it's a very important case because they need to be held accountable.

For a good example of what can happen when police and judges do whatever the hell they want, read about Operation Greylord in Chicago (happened when I was in high school there):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greylord

At the time it was interesting seeing all the judges walk around in handcuffs on TV.

Hey, I buy into the idea we have rights and the rest, but present-day officials (and the current crew in power is refining this process) get a little caught up. It's nice to say we can fight things, but it's expensive. Hell, the Supreme Court already said last the whole Affirmative Action thing is unconstitutional in the fire fighter promotion case in Connecticut and in the old days, various entities would conform to that standard because after all, we have precedent on the Court. But these days? Governments and the rest go ahead and write and enforce the same AA regs in their hiring and promotions declared unconstitutional by the Supremes as if the Court doesn't exist and everyone has to live with it because after all, who can afford to carry it up to the Supreme Court AGAIN? The law means nothing, precedence means nothing, they just do what they wanna do and you're welcome to fight it if you want. In the end, they have the resources to fight, most of the little people don't.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story...ropped_ag.html

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...ping_case.html

ACLU press release on the judge dismissing the charges.

Cliff notes version -

In today’s decision, Judge Plitt ruled: “Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. “Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes” ("Who watches the watchmen?”).

This is great to read and all but damn! 6 lawyers?

Good ruling.

Well that was Step 1, Step 2 is to file a federal case against the MD state police and the state attorney's office. I hope the kid pursues this.

There is justice in this world.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...ping_case.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 07BladeRider

There is justice in this world.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...ping_case.html

---

That is the exact same link that was already posted...:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SV650N

That is the exact same link that was already posted...:confused:

---

OY. I suck. I didn't even check. :(
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4814/chucksuck.gif

:plusone:

so does that mean if need be and the case arouse in another state such as NH or MA, that I could refer to this case's verdict and the same outcome would result? I think that's what I learned in politics class...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ɹǝʍoןandɹǝʍoן

so does that mean if need be and the case arouse in another state such as NH or MA, that I could refer to this case's verdict and the same outcome would result? I think that's what I learned in politics class...

---

Maybe, but I would think it is dependent on how the law and ruling are worded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ɹǝʍoןandɹǝʍoן

so does that mean if need be and the case arouse in another state such as NH or MA, that I could refer to this case's verdict and the same outcome would result? I think that's what I learned in politics class...

---

I would think not, since it was a state law and a state court.

--mark

^oh well that's a very good point, so only in the federal courts