Sport Bikes banner

Post your FTP comments here and here ONLY!!!

37K views 928 replies 135 participants last post by  seostudd110 
Yes, because he laid the bike down thinking it would stop faster. Just like 90% of harley riders thinks
Was he wrong for hitting the kid? Probably... at the very least he should have stayed up and just tried to brake and dodge the kid.

If we are talking about shooting the dad.... I dont see him as wrong on that as long as the story is accurate.
 
It wasnt till I was reading that the other guy joined in and they started kicking him while down that I decided the cop was ok in shooting.

As a dad I would be mad of course but I would not stop someone from giving aid to my kid no matter what.... that is the most important thing at that point ... save my kid. Then I will hand you your arse.
 
On the same note I am sure you can not find a fully straight organization out there of any type. Every oraganization of any size has corrupt people or people who make mistakes. The deal is that your talking about people so you are sure to find all kinds of messed up stuff no matter where you look.

In the end I agree though you will not find one police department that is completely free of idiots or corrupt cops.
 
I think you would find that a great many LEO are exactly like your saying we need to be Phil. Honestly most of the guys I work with feel as I do. A corrupt LEO is worse than a normal criminal. I am glad to see them caught and locked up. They are nothing but a disgrace and potential threat to the rest of the department.

I cant agree with you on the tactics needing to be for war only though. I have seen what happens even with those tactics used many times. One problem with all of that is many many videos that show what I am talking about I am not allowed to share. The rights of the criminal do not allow the public to see many of the video's displaying what officers face in these situations. But that is something different and has nothing to do with how I and the majority of LEO that I know feel about bad cops.
 
If "a great many LEO are exactly like (I'm) saying we need to be", then apparently what you need to do is figure out how to be more effective. Because what we out here consistently see is "an investigation" while the officer is put on "paid administrative leave" for a while, until it all dies down a bit, then he goes back to work.

If you're not really putting these guys off of the force, then you need to. If you are actually weeding out those bad guys, then you need to be letting us know that. Because the stories we see, that are typified by all the ones in this thread, pretty much never end up with the officers facing serious consequences for their actions.

That's a straight up consequence of the War on Drugs, in which YOU bought a war to OUR streets. A war that you cannot win, that has been completely unproductive at even reducing the use and availability of drugs, and that has done nothing but create a very lucrative black market for smugglers, while bringing the ordinary man violence and massive losses of rights.

PhilB
But if people bring up the cases of the officers being fired or put in prison then you would say that they are covering for the other ones that didnt get fired or put in prison.

The War on Drugs.... well I dont have an answer for it to be honest. We could stop the war on drugs and just allow the drugs to do whatever they do. I honestly dont care if people outside my family overdose or ruin their own life so I am good with it I guess. Drugs would be so much better if they made the user sterile for like a year after use. The good side I guess would be more good jobs for people that dont use drugs.

On the other side I do care about how bad things get. I do care what happens to my family at the hands of someone that is high or trying to get money for their next high. Of course not everyone that uses drugs is terrible or needs to steal or whatever to get money for the drugs they use but there seems to be plenty that do.
 
Opposition to the War on Drugs is NOT based on the idea that we should let society slide into a drug-addled stupor. Opposition to the War on Drugs is based on the reality that it has been TOTALLY ineffective at reducing drug use or availability, and that it does far more damage to our society than good. It's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cough medicine. That's stupid.

NO ONE is proposing that we "stop the war on drugs and just allow the drugs to do whatever they do"; what we're saying is that we should take a different approach to the problem because this one ISN'T WORKING. Addiction is a medical problem, and needs to be approached that way if any real head way is to be made.

PhilB
Ok I am good with taking a different approach. What should that be? Do we stop what we are doing? Stop going after drug dealers and such? It is possible that making more rehab places available for anyone that wants it would help some people. What about the ones that dont want to get off drugs? Education is another spot that might help. But then we already have lots of drug education so I'm not sure it is helping.

I could even see only going after drug dealers that seek new clients I guess. That way anyone that deals drugs only to the people that come to them looking for drugs dont have to worry. However if we dont go after the ones pushing drugs then we will always have more people on drugs.

I am not trying to be smart about any of this in case it does seem that way. I am honestly interested in what direction you or others think we should be going. I want to know what we need to stop doing and what we need to start doing.
 
Then legalize all drugs and simply deal with whatever crimes come from their use seperately is what your saying? If it ever did happen I sure hope I could raise my children in a way that they would never try drugs even though they where legal. It would hurt me to no end to see my children ruin their life over a high.
 
Yes, that's what I'm saying. What you seem to keep failing to realize is that the fact that these drugs are illegal isn't stopping anyone. Legalizing these drugs will not increase use significantly, because everyone who wants to use them currently can easily do so.

Yes, I'd hope you "could raise (your) children in a way that they would never try drugs", whether the drugs were legal or not. If you're currently counting on the illegality of the drugs preventing your kids from trying anything, you're living in a fantasy land. I've met plenty of kids who smoke pot because it's *easier* for a kid to buy than alcohol or tobacco are.

PhilB
I dont count on it being illegal to stop them. I do see it as an extra thing to keep them from trying drugs. It is one of the many ways that drugs can mess up your life so I think it does help. I might have tried drugs at some point in my life even if it was just weed had it not been illegal. Interesting enough though I did drink before I was 21 so for me it was no harder to drink than it was to purchase weed.

I wish there was a way to know the outcome before jumping out of the plane but there simply isnt. Something needs to change I agree with that. I have been slowly turning more in the direction of being ok with making all drugs legal. At the very least we should be able to get out of debt and have a huge surplus from the taxes off drugs.
 
I must be extreamly lucky. As many times as I have been pulled over for speeding or whatever I have never had an officer do anything like these reports. I honestly could not give you a first hand account of a time when I had an officer do anything way out of line. I am not saying it dont happen I am just saying that either I am really lucky or these people are really unlucky.
 
I dont have those problems really because it is illegal to split lanes here. I wish it wasnt but at least I dont have to worry about things like this.
 
I'd like to throw a big ole eff you to the RC who stopped me yesterday.

I was doing 141kmh in a 100kmh zone. Now, I want to make this very clear:
I have no issue paying this fine.
while I do believe that current speed limits are absolutely 100% archaic, I do speed. a fuckton. everywhere. it's no big deal for me to do 150 in a 110 (that's a premo, twinned highway zone limit). And a guy does pay to play.

So that's fine. it's a 200 dollar ticket, I'll pay it.

My issue comes with the reason she fined me.

she took my license, went to the Tahoe they were in, and came back. I was in the middle of snapping a photo or two of the tahoe, lights aglare, when she was coming back. She ended up poking her head in and saying "are you taking photos of us?"
"Yes officer I am" (my camera flash is on regardless of light conditions on this phone, it's difficult to lie about that).
"Well, I was going to let you off since you haven't had a speeding ticket since 2010, but since my photograph can end up online, I'll be back with your citation"

Huh? excuse me?

So yeah, that was a real piss off and a half. she went back, filled out the ticket, smiled and said "have a nice day".
I smiled back and said "you too."

Currently looking into why a photograph would influence her decision to fine me. if it was unlawful to assign a fine based upon my decision to take a photograph, I'll be challenging the citation in court.
Doubt you could win a challenge on the citation unless you could prove that you where not doing the speed noted. The officer letting you by with a warning has nothing to do with you being in violation of the law or not. It was simply her choice. She changed her mind when you took the picture and there is nothing wrong with that.

Would it upset you if you got pulled over on your bike and the officer wanted to take your picture and a picture of your bike?
 
First I would fight ya just promise not to take video and say I was using excessive force.

Second Plenty of these stories are absolute horrible POS people that happen to officers. They should be punished to the full extent of the law if found guilty. Some of the stories will have much more behind them and that might make some of them not as guilty as you might think.

As for the getting paid while under investigation. I do believe that if your found guilty then you should have to pay back anything you got paid while under investigation however you should still get paid till found guilty of something.

Ahh and one more thing if I witness someone doing illegal stuff ... friend or not... work or not... fellow officer or not. I will turn you in. If it is something that is on the line and makes me uncomfortable you will know about it as soon as I can get you alone.
 
Not sure if you knew this or not but people have gotten beat down for nothing more than wearing the other teams stuff. When it happens I am sure the public is all over the PD asking why they didnt prevent it. The PD then does what they did in this story and people want to say they are starting trouble. I would agree if the story said the cops verbaly instigated a fight or something but as far as I can tell from the story all they did was be at the game with the visiting teams gear on. Is there a better way to see what people are doing and if they are getting violent with the visiting fans? The idea isnt to stop people from doing stupid shit when the cops are around in uniform.... its to make people think twice before doing stupid shit when cops are not around.

Not sure why I am wasting my time with this.
 
i am not sure either. the circle jerk thread is thattaway. ---->
You are right but I was not trying to pat anyone on the back. In fact the first story as I said the cop that quit is part of the problem as well so that is right up your alley.

The second story I just dont see what the problem is at all honestly. I have said it before many of the stories in this thread are horrible cops and people and they need to be punished. But other stories are just reaching for shit that isnt there.
 
I hate my laptop...never another Sony, a company I used to love. it loads most websites in 'mobile' form.

anyways, same case from a more white-washed source: Former Pharr cop headed to trial for child rape charges : News : ValleyCentral.com

And that's probably the biggest problem with the police today. The relationship with the news companies and police departments impedes independence, which impedes objective information and justice.
I cant get the links to load but if the heading is at all true then everyone with any involvement should be charged. I can tell you if I was there it wouldnt have happened unless they shot me first.
 
Yep that guy was a POS and does not deserve to breath the same air the rest of us do let alone wear a badge. Glad they got him.... on the positive side it seems they are going to put him away for a very long time.
 
to begin:
I dunno. is it commonly known by LEOs in that jurisdiction that you don't need two brake lights, but rather at least one? or is that an unreasonable expectation?

we aren't talking about some vague ass traffic law that hasn't been relevant since the 30s here. Brake lights are kinda sorta important.

No. This is about enforcing the law when you do not understand it, and being allowed to do so. That is the end of it. It's not about the tail light. It's about stopping someone for breaking a law you (general) do not understand.

I am a chump to not fight it in court?

I miss a full day of work to fight it in court.
that's 200 bucks out of my pocket. Will the LEO pay my lost wage? Will the dumbass LEO who doesn't know the code of his own job reimburse me? Cause he just cost me that money. will the courts reimburse me? I lose less money to pay it.
ANY ticket less than 200 bucks, I just pay. Cause I lose at least half a day of work to go to the arraignment and say "not guilty your honor", and then I lose AT LEAST another half a day in court fighting against the charge. It has been 2 full days before. that's over 400 bucks outta my pocket.

They've priced me into submission.

A chump? Fuck that. I can do basic fucking math.

As for the hardhat example:

I have no need for the hardhat where overhead hazards are not present. fuck the law. it's a stupid fucking law and I fight it tooth and nail every chance I get. It is fucking dumb. you must be able to see that. if a 50 pound bundle of shingles comes tumbling down off a 2 storey roof, a hardhat ain't saving me. hell a 5 pound air nailer falls off that roof and a hardhat won't save me.
it's for looks. It's for looks and it's to make it so any idiot can do the job. who cares about where he puts his tools? everyone has their hardhat on. no worries if something falls. who cars if he leaves a sawzall on top of a 10' stepladder. You got your hardhat on. Don't teach common fucking sense. Teach safety.
"Here. put this condom on, even when you aren't getting laid, cause you might get laid soon".

So, when OH&S shows up, without fail, I say "cite the codebook on where it says I must have it on at all times".
and rather than show they have any shred of actual credibility in their job (which is still for lazy shits who want a pension and were bullied in school) they all do the same thing.

they do what most LEOs do.
they intimidate.

"I'll shut down this site! I'll stop you from working! I'll fine you!" oh man, they'd have you believe they could waltz in and take your house if they wanted. All because they cannot actually find, in that book that gives them all this "power", what I am allowed to request.

proof.

It (codebook of persecu-. . .damn there we go again. . . OH&S guidelines. . .) says "where overhead hazards are present". Sometimes it'll say "on any site where overhead hazards are present". I guess they just skip that last part. I have not yet read the revised 2015 version, but in the older ones, I couldn't find where it was written as "on all jobsites", rather than "where overhead hazards are present".

I mean, I have to memorize building code. But expecting an officer of the law to know their code is. . .it's just too much, I know. They're human and their life is tough and they were obviously forced to take this job so lets, lets cut em some slack and let em make it up as they go. After all, as long as their fabrication is reasonable, we can let it slide.

I'll be sure to tell the inspector that 24"OC studs are reasonable next time.


Overall, I'm done with this particular topic of discussion. I think it is ridiculous that an LEO can just say "well I was mistaken!" and still have what he did and found be submissable in court. That's. . . fucking incredible. I cannot build a piss poor house and say "I was mistaken about the building code!" and have that stand up.
You can see the ridiculousness there, right?
I am sure hardhats have saved plenty of lives and have a good purpose. They wont protect you from everything but they do protect. To say they are useless is kinda like saying my helmet in the USMC was useless because a bullet would go right through it. Well yes almost all the time the bullet will go through it but there is a small chance that it will hit at just the right angle that the helmet will deflect it. Then on top of that it can protect against other dangers that again are rare but do happen. If this is your stand on hardhats then you must not wear a helmet on the bike either huh? The reason a helmet on a bike is useless is the same reasons you already said for hardhats.

On the cops knowing the laws.... Well if you want every cop to know all the laws then we would never have police on the street at all. They would be to busy in law classes to keep up with changes in law and such and that is only if they ever learn the massive number of laws there are to learn in the first place. There are thousands of traffic laws then add all the other laws seeing as police dont just do traffic stops.... no it isnt reasonable to expect police to know all laws. Then the whole search of the vehicle thing. Well if the officer asked if he could search the vehicle and the driver said yes then its open season on anything he finds. If the driver said no and the officer searched anyway then everything should be thrown out and the officer disiplined.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top