If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KNBC 4 Los Angeles)   Because all crime has been wiped out in Venice, LAPD motorcycle cop takes to blocking, harassing bicyclists. Fark: you'd think the LAPD would wise up to these camcorder things already   (nbclosangeles.com) divider line 235
    More: Obvious, LAPD, police officers, helmet camera, California Vehicle Code, Venice Beach, video cameras, NBC4 News  
•       •       •

13530 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 9:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-19 01:09:40 PM

Repo Man: Stone Meadow: 15 MPH works for me on the bike path. If I need to go faster I use the surface streets.

The trouble is, once that path is there, and you avoid it because of the speed limit, and the overcrowding that made the limit necessary, you get the "Why don't you use the bike path?" bit. Bike paths are for pedestrians and children as far as I'm concerned. Walking is a better workout than fifteen MPH on a bicycle. Unless you are riding a bicycle against a stiff headwind, or uphill.


Maybe on your bike, but mine is a 31-lbs MB with fat knobbies that gives me a good workout averaging 15 MPH on the 16 mile ride to work. BTW, I'm ~60 years old with a BMI of 24. When I wrote, "If I need to go faster I use the surface streets", what I really meant was "If I need to get to work quicker"... ;^) If I cut straight across town it's only 10 miles and takes 25 minutes less to get to work than the longer path route.
 
2013-01-19 01:11:53 PM

liam76: You are a "real cop" you don't think attitude tickets are a big deal.


And you got this belief from where? Could it be from this statement by me?: "I don't agree with attitude tickets so the cop was wrong in doing that ."
 
2013-01-19 01:11:53 PM
I am a volunteer in a police support agency here in Utah, so I deal with lots of officers from many different agencies all the time.
Most of them are ego-maniacal douchebags that will go out of their way to manufacture a reason to arrest someone.
Some of the discussions I have heard have almost made me quit the program, but the service to the community is more important.
And..I always think of the saying "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer".
I can see 99% of the cops here in Utah planting evidence without batting and eye and high fiveing each other afterwards.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.
 
2013-01-19 01:15:15 PM

Chup: AcneVulgaris: Chup: I had no idea Fark was full of so much anti-bike sentiment. You'd think half the people on here as kids had their puppies run over by a cyclist running a red light, who then stopped and told them that Santa wasn't real, the tooth fairy didn't exist, and that their parents were getting a divorce and it was all their fault.

Yes, cyclists can act like jerks, so can cars, so can pedestrians, so can everyone. Why the particular hate over bikes? Plus, that guy was riding a granny beach cruiser ON THE BEACH. I could see hating on some spandex clad speed demon, but this guy? Come on.

Fat farks idling in their cars are pissy to begin with... show them a cyclist decked out like a space homo from planet spandex, and he's gonna draw their ire.

I bike to work everyday in regular clothes and on a "regular" bike, and I definitely encounter some bikers who are complete tools to both cars and other bikers, acting like they own the road. On the other hand, about 95% of my trip is in a dedicated bike lane and I've almost been hit 10+ times by cars turning through the bike lane, using the bike lane to drive in or pass cars near intersections, and just generally not paying attention. I can see where the biker jerks get their rage from, cause at some point the lack of concern for your safety in the interest of saving a few seconds commuting starts to grate on you.



I'm with you. I'm both a biker and a driver, so I understand the complaints on both sides. Part of it is bad city design (bike-lane-converts-to-right-turn-lane is very poorly marked), but a large part of it is people who can't drive (whether with bikers or not) and bikers who flout the laws with arrogance. Fortunately, I've been knocked off my bike only once, and by a driver who was very apologetic, acknowledged guilt, and helped me back up, but I've had many near-misses on my bike or with my car that should have been easily preventable had the other person either been paying attention or given a crap about safety.

I don't even care if a biker doesn't come to a complete stop, as long as they slow down at a stop sign and make sure someone with right-of-way isn't going through first. Or if a car drifts a little into the bike lane while looking to the right. Just look like you give a crap, and all is forgiven, at least for me.

/and bikers HAVE to stop blocking crosswalks at red lights. Why so many of us are trying to draw the ire of pedestrians, instead of having them on our side, I'll never understand.
 
2013-01-19 01:27:40 PM
Breitbart showed the way to roll one of these out: keep the video under wraps while you make a formal complaint. After officialdom goes on record, no doubt denying what happened, then you spring it. If there's enough video available, you dribble out more with each new denial. In the end the target organization looks like the buffoonish, abusive, lawbreaking, lying sacks of excrement they are.

i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-19 01:39:22 PM

CruiserTwelve: fredklein: I find this hard to believe- if the bad cops 'burn out' quickly, then there would be no more bad cops. People who would make bad cops wouldn't apply to such a "boring and repetitious" job.

Of course, there ARE bad cops, so, since the logic is sound, the assumptions we start with ("cops that are bullies rarely last") must be wrong.

I'm not gonna play that game with you fred. Go ahead and twist my reasoning to fit your viewpoint, but don't ask me to validate it.


Catching you in a logical error is not 'twisting your reasoning'.
 
2013-01-19 01:39:23 PM
Wait a second.

There's supposed to be a picture of a car crashing into a bunch of bicyclists in this thread.
 
2013-01-19 01:46:03 PM

Slappajo: macadamnut: Slappajo: How is mouthing off to a cop (who was doing something completely unrelated to the bicyclist) as you go around him the "right" thing to do?

Saying "get out of the way, asshole" to some asshole who's in everybody's way is always the right thing to do.

I know right? Every time there's a traffic accident and the police have a lane of traffic blocked off and I have to merge into another lane, I always yell something at the cops.


Tell me about it. If there is one thing I can't stand is rubberneckers on the bike path after a 10 pedestrian pileup. Sick farks.

Cop should have tazed his ass.
cdn.blogs.babble.com
 
2013-01-19 01:47:01 PM

macadamnut: Slappajo: I know right? Every time there's a traffic accident and the police have a lane of traffic blocked off and I have to merge into another lane, I always yell something at the cops.

A traffic accident in a bicycle lane?


Using "traffic accident" as an example of a cop doing something related to his job.
 
2013-01-19 01:47:18 PM

jjorsett: Breitbart showed the way to roll one of these out: keep the video under wraps while you make a formal complaint. After officialdom goes on record, no doubt denying what happened, then you spring it. If there's enough video available, you dribble out more with each new denial. In the end the target organization looks like the buffoonish, abusive, lawbreaking, lying sacks of excrement they are.

[i49.tinypic.com image 288x217]


The Art of War
 
2013-01-19 01:49:08 PM
a YouTube video of an LAPD officer pulling over and ticketing a bicyclist with little cause

Little cause is still cause.
 
2013-01-19 01:51:57 PM

nein: Chup: AcneVulgaris: Chup: I had no idea Fark was full of so much anti-bike sentiment. You'd think half the people on here as kids had their puppies run over by a cyclist running a red light, who then stopped and told them that Santa wasn't real, the tooth fairy didn't exist, and that their parents were getting a divorce and it was all their fault.

Yes, cyclists can act like jerks, so can cars, so can pedestrians, so can everyone. Why the particular hate over bikes? Plus, that guy was riding a granny beach cruiser ON THE BEACH. I could see hating on some spandex clad speed demon, but this guy? Come on.

Fat farks idling in their cars are pissy to begin with... show them a cyclist decked out like a space homo from planet spandex, and he's gonna draw their ire.

I bike to work everyday in regular clothes and on a "regular" bike, and I definitely encounter some bikers who are complete tools to both cars and other bikers, acting like they own the road. On the other hand, about 95% of my trip is in a dedicated bike lane and I've almost been hit 10+ times by cars turning through the bike lane, using the bike lane to drive in or pass cars near intersections, and just generally not paying attention. I can see where the biker jerks get their rage from, cause at some point the lack of concern for your safety in the interest of saving a few seconds commuting starts to grate on you.


I'm with you. I'm both a biker and a driver, so I understand the complaints on both sides. Part of it is bad city design (bike-lane-converts-to-right-turn-lane is very poorly marked), but a large part of it is people who can't drive (whether with bikers or not) and bikers who flout the laws with arrogance. Fortunately, I've been knocked off my bike only once, and by a driver who was very apologetic, acknowledged guilt, and helped me back up, but I've had many near-misses on my bike or with my car that should have been easily preventable had the other person either been paying attention or given a ...


Yeah, I do completely agree it entirely depends on how they act after the fact. A driver who almost hits me but is apologetic and learns from their mistake isn't really that angering, but a driver who almost hit me then curses at me or honks at me for being "in the way" deserve to have a U-lock thrown through their windshield. I've been tempted a few times, but it just isn't even worth causing property damage.

I've never been knocked off fortunately, though I have been physically hit while moving slowly.
 
2013-01-19 02:09:51 PM

macadamnut: Slappajo: I know right? Every time there's a traffic accident and the police have a lane of traffic blocked off and I have to merge into another lane, I always yell something at the cops.e have no idea why the cop was parked where he was...

A traffic accident in a bicycle lane?


You are getting completely stupid now.

We have absolutely no idea why the cop was parked where he was. For all we know, he may have spotted a drug sale or mugging and was dealing with that. A cyclist calls him out for being parked there, then proceeds to be an ass.

Anyone that acts like an ass, deserves the negative karma they receive

The moral of the story is? If someone is doing their job.... don't be an asshole. Someone might might end up having to wipe you.
 
2013-01-19 02:11:58 PM

macadamnut: Slappajo: How is mouthing off to a cop (who was doing something completely unrelated to the bicyclist) as you go around him the "right" thing to do?

Saying "get out of the way, asshole" to some asshole who's in everybody's way is always the right thing to do.


I am disappointed.... I had originally thought you were a nice guy. Either you are having a bad day, or I was wrong.
 
2013-01-19 02:13:44 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Cop should have tazed his ass.
[cdn.blogs.babble.com image 500x473]


That photo reminds me of the joy I felt at Pike's firing.

/schadenfreude...I haz it
 
2013-01-19 02:15:54 PM

CasperImproved: The moral of the story is? If someone is doing their job.... don't be an asshole. Someone might might end up having to wipe you.


I'm surprised cyclists in LA aren't all packing, actually. That would have gone much more smoothly, because if everyone is equally armed there's no uneven power to be abused.
 
2013-01-19 02:16:40 PM
Easy way to solve this. Take the cop's motorcycle away and give him a bicycle.
 
2013-01-19 02:20:56 PM

Tat'dGreaser: Most police officers will give you a break if you're not a dick.


What farking world do you live in?
 
2013-01-19 02:27:17 PM

radiumsoup: Errk: Too bad we didn't see the whole incident....

You only need to see the first 5 seconds to get the gist... when the cop says "the reason I'm giving you a ticket is because you're arguing with me", he's crossed the line into indefensible territory, no matter what else may have happened off camera. Nobody forced the guy to become a cop, he should understand what it is he signed up for... which is to enforce the laws of his jurisdiction, not to give people "lessons" on being polite by summoning them to court. If he can't figure that out, he needs to get a different job.


It all goes back to treating people decent. If your not a dick to a cop, waitress, cashier, etc then  they will most likely be decent to you too.
 
2013-01-19 02:28:25 PM

macadamnut: CasperImproved: The moral of the story is? If someone is doing their job.... don't be an asshole. Someone might might end up having to wipe you.

I'm surprised cyclists in LA aren't all packing, actually. That would have gone much more smoothly, because if everyone is equally armed there's no uneven power to be abused.


Not even a valid point. It could have been a woman that stopped with her baby carriage (maybe a pacifier dropped onto the path) on the way to the beech... and the "asshole" would likely still have been an asshole. the only difference is that the woman could not have appropriately provided a response.

And I still meant what I said, and you are still on the "stupid" path. Grow up.
 
2013-01-19 02:35:46 PM

CasperImproved: macadamnut: Slappajo: I know right? Every time there's a traffic accident and the police have a lane of traffic blocked off and I have to merge into another lane, I always yell something at the cops.e have no idea why the cop was parked where he was...

A traffic accident in a bicycle lane?

You are getting completely stupid now.

We have absolutely no idea why the cop was parked where he was. For all we know, he may have spotted a drug sale or mugging and was dealing with that. A cyclist calls him out for being parked there, then proceeds to be an ass.

Anyone that acts like an ass, deserves the negative karma they receive

The moral of the story is? If someone is doing their job.... don't be an asshole. Someone might might end up having to wipe you.



If he's dealing with a drug sale or a mugging, he wouldn't be chasing after people on a granny bike (or, if he is just because the guy said some snarky things, then the officer ought to be fired immediately). He'd have to deal with the arrest and other stuff.

And if I were an officer dealing with a more serious crime and decided to pull someone over for being a jerk to me, I wouldn't justify the (traffic?) stop to that person's face by making up a bogus violation and complaining that he was being whiny. I think I could make that person feel plenty worse by saying, "You know, that girl on the tricycle who was next to me was almost run over, I was there to make sure she was OK."

Instead, this cop gave the impression that he was indeed just parking himself on the bike path. From the visuals I saw in the video, there was no reason he couldn't have parked his motorcycle on the grass or on the beach other than he didn't want to get sand on his tires.
 
2013-01-19 02:40:47 PM
Good.
 
2013-01-19 02:42:14 PM

CruiserTwelve: liam76: You are a "real cop" you don't think attitude tickets are a big deal.

And you got this belief from where? Could it be from this statement by me?: "I don't agree with attitude tickets so the cop was wrong in doing that ."


I wonder why you didn't finish the rest of that quote? Dishonest or did you already forget you said "I doubt this was as big a deal as it appears to be"

So my belief that you don't think it is a big deal is from you saying you doubt it is a big deal.

Should I have drawn some other conclusion from your statement?

People who write "attitude tickets" should be fired. People who think it is no big deal are almost as bad, and also have no business in law enforcement.
 
2013-01-19 02:46:08 PM

Slappajo: radiumsoup: Slappajo: So why couldn't the bicyclist go around the cop, mind his own business, and keep his mouth shut?

Sounds like the bicyclist wanted some attention so he got it...

You should give lectures on the merits of liberty in a free society.

Oh, wait, no... I was thinking of someone else.

There's a difference between "liberty" and going out of your way to be an asshole.


Um.... what? That's like saying there's a difference between a V8 engine and a bowl of chopped cabbage. Of course there's a difference, one is a universally applicable philosophical construct and the other is a socially disruptive action made by an individual.

The concept of liberty gives the bicyclist the ability to be an asshole - but it does not give the cop, who is bound by strict rules of the use of extraordinary legal authority, the ability to use those police powers to restrict that liberty through the supposition of an imaginary infraction. That is, of course, unless you can cite the applicable code where "being an asshole" is grounds for receiving a ticket for speeding on a bicycle. If the cop had kept his mouth shut and given him the ticket for swerving out of the lane as he had indicated originally, we'd be having a different discussion about how the cop was simply blocking traffic - one that would very likely still come out in the bicyclist's favor given the data we know. Instead, we're discussing how the cop was an "official asshole" by exceeding his authority and got caught on camera. We expect the general public to be assholes, it's human nature to be selfish. But we expect police to take responsibility for the extraordinary powers they have. This cop clearly failed the test.
 
2013-01-19 02:46:25 PM

Errk: radiumsoup: Errk: Too bad we didn't see the whole incident....

You only need to see the first 5 seconds to get the gist... when the cop says "the reason I'm giving you a ticket is because you're arguing with me", he's crossed the line into indefensible territory, no matter what else may have happened off camera. Nobody forced the guy to become a cop, he should understand what it is he signed up for... which is to enforce the laws of his jurisdiction, not to give people "lessons" on being polite by summoning them to court. If he can't figure that out, he needs to get a different job.

It all goes back to treating people decent. If your not a dick to a cop, waitress, cashier, etc then  they will most likely be decent to you too.


That statement is patent bullshiat. Millions of starving children would like a word with you. Most people in the world are treated like shiat.
 
2013-01-19 02:49:40 PM

JosephFinn: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, other people are breaking the law too, so you shouldn't ticket me! Waaaaaaaaaaaah, there are more serious crimes!


I was with you on that! Then you went and blew it.

JosephFinn: The dipshiat deserved his ticket for going out of his way to be a dick.


Yes. The whole "there are more serious crimes" whine is really, really lame, and people who use it are morons. And, Yes, in retrospect the guy probably would have been better off not saying a word to the police officer. If it was me I would have simply gone around him and muttered under my breath about him being a dick. But, I am not everyone. Others are more vocal than I am in these situations. Not only that, but the guy has a Constitutionally protected right to say what he said. He did not go out of his way to be a dick. He merely expressed his opinion to the police officer that he was blocking the path. The only person being a dick in the video is the police officer. He got a case of butt hurt over being told off by a cyclist and then tries to come up with any reason at all to ticket the guy.
 
2013-01-19 02:49:41 PM
Making Farkers decide between cops anc cyclists: It's like dividing by zero.
 
2013-01-19 02:54:01 PM

Errk: radiumsoup: Errk: Too bad we didn't see the whole incident....

You only need to see the first 5 seconds to get the gist... when the cop says "the reason I'm giving you a ticket is because you're arguing with me", he's crossed the line into indefensible territory, no matter what else may have happened off camera. Nobody forced the guy to become a cop, he should understand what it is he signed up for... which is to enforce the laws of his jurisdiction, not to give people "lessons" on being polite by summoning them to court. If he can't figure that out, he needs to get a different job.

It all goes back to treating people decent. If your not a dick to a cop, waitress, cashier, etc then  they will most likely be decent to you too.


If you're a dick to a waitress, you may have to wait a while longer while she tells the cook to slow down your order. If you're a dick to a cashier, you may get a dirty look behind your back and they might talk about you after you leave. But as the evidence here shows, if you're a dick to a cop, you may get a falsified ticket and have to defend yourself in court for something you didn't actually do. One of these things is not like the other. It all goes back to abuse of extraordinary police powers - something cashiers and waitresses don't have.

Now, I see where you're coming from - the guy could have handled it differently, certainly. But it really doesn't matter how he handled it - the cop abused his power (twice, if you want to get picky - once for blocking traffic, and once for falsifying a ticket), which was an entirely disproportionate response. The biker was entitled to argue the ticket, the cop took it personally and got vindictive. My douchbagometer shows level 3 for the biker, but level 8 for the cop.
 
2013-01-19 02:56:20 PM

Mock26: The whole "there are more serious crimes" whine is really, really lame, and people who use it are morons. And, Yes, in retrospect the guy probably would have been better off not saying a word to the police officer. If it was me I would have simply gone around him and muttered under my breath about him being a dick. But, I am not everyone. Others are more vocal than I am in these situations. Not only that, but the guy has a Constitutionally protected right to say what he said. He did not go out of his way to be a dick. He merely expressed his opinion to the police officer that he was blocking the path. The only person being a dick in the video is the police officer. He got a case of butt hurt over being told off by a cyclist and then tries to come up with any reason at all to ticket the guy.


Well put.
 
2013-01-19 03:01:12 PM

ttc2301: Making Farkers decide between cops anc cyclists: It's like dividing by zero.


It is like dividing infinity by zero!
 
2013-01-19 03:01:34 PM

liam76: So my belief that you don't think it is a big deal is from you saying you doubt it is a big deal.

Should I have drawn some other conclusion from your statement?

People who write "attitude tickets" should be fired. People who think it is no big deal are almost as bad, and also have no business in law enforcement.


Sigh... Why do I always have to rewrite my posts at a fourth grade level so certain people don't draw stupid conclusions?

Here, try this: "I don't believe in attitude tickets so the cop was wrong in writing the guy a ticket simply because the guy had a bad attitude. I personally would not have written the guy a ticket in the same situation as far it can be inferred from the video. However, I don't think the situation, taken as a whole, was as serious as some people seem to be making it out to be. The cop stopped the guy and the situation lasted for ten minutes before the video starts. From that time delay we can assume there was nothing remarkable about the stop prior to that, and the bicyclist only decided to record the stop when he was told he was going to be issued a summons. I believe the cop was very likely going to release the guy without a summons, but something that occurred during that ten minute delay caused the cop to decide instead to issue a summons. Most likely was that the guy argued with the cop. Again, I would not have issued a summons under those circumstances and I disagree with the cop's decision to issue the summons. However, the cop didn't assault the kid or violate his constitutional rights as far as can be determined from the video. The cop simply made a decision that I would not have made. He based his decision to issue a ticket on the person's attitude, not his behavior. IF the cop wrote the summons based SOLELY on the guy's attitude and the cop did not have probable cause to believe a violation had occurred, then the cop DID violate the bicyclist's rights and should be harshly sanctioned. That does not appear to be the case in this matter."
 
2013-01-19 03:07:04 PM

macadamnut: Krieghund: Tank_Fuzzbutt: My father was hired by the LAPD in 1949 and retired after 30 years. I think I can hear him spinning in his grave over what the LAPD has become.

I'm sure your dad was a good cop and a good man, but LAPD between 1949 and 1979 was no better than it is today.


What do base that on, good netiquette? His dad sounds like a genuine scumbag to me.

We have become a society where lying is polite and plain-speaking honesty is criminal. The police are creative contributors to society in this, and only this respect.


How can you call someone you have no knowledge of a scumbag? Why don't you save judgment on things you have more experience off? Perhaps video games?
 
2013-01-19 03:11:41 PM

CruiserTwelve: liam76: So my belief that you don't think it is a big deal is from you saying you doubt it is a big deal.

Should I have drawn some other conclusion from your statement?

People who write "attitude tickets" should be fired. People who think it is no big deal are almost as bad, and also have no business in law enforcement.

Sigh... Why do I always have to rewrite my posts at a fourth grade level so certain people don't draw stupid conclusions?

Here, try this: "I don't believe in attitude tickets so the cop was wrong in writing the guy a ticket simply because the guy had a bad attitude. I personally would not have written the guy a ticket in the same situation as far it can be inferred from the video. However, I don't think the situation, taken as a whole, was as serious as some people seem to be making it out to be. The cop stopped the guy and the situation lasted for ten minutes before the video starts. From that time delay we can assume there was nothing remarkable about the stop prior to that, and the bicyclist only decided to record the stop when he was told he was going to be issued a summons. I believe the cop was very likely going to release the guy without a summons, but something that occurred during that ten minute delay caused the cop to decide instead to issue a summons. Most likely was that the guy argued with the cop. Again, I would not have issued a summons under those circumstances and I disagree with the cop's decision to issue the summons. However, the cop didn't assault the kid or violate his constitutional rights as far as can be determined from the video. The cop simply made a decision that I would not have made. He based his decision to issue a ticket on the person's attitude, not his behavior. IF the cop wrote the summons based SOLELY on the guy's attitude and the cop did not have probable cause to believe a violation had occurred, then the cop DID violate the bicyclist's rights and should be harshly sanctioned. That does not appear to be the case in this matter."



First off get your derp straight. The underlined portions don't agree.

Secondly he did write it solely on attitude, otherwise why would he start out writing it for going the wrong way and change his mind and pretend it was for going too fast.

Thirdly writing a ticket on "attitude" not action does violate his constitutional rights. Scumbag cops like your self who try and pretend otherwise and ignore it when it has pretty clearly happened are a big part of the problem.
 
2013-01-19 03:11:55 PM

CruiserTwelve: IF the cop wrote the summons based SOLELY on the guy's attitude and the cop did not have probable cause to believe a violation had occurred, then the cop DID violate the bicyclist's rights and should be harshly sanctioned. That does not appear to be the case in this matter


I understand your point of view, but I think it's a bit of cognitive dissonance. Let me be specific here in the explanation so you don't think I'm irrationally attacking you.

The ticket was dropped after review. Therefore, we can infer that the ticket was improper. If the ticket was improper, and the officer admitted on camera that the reason for the ticket was improper, how can you then say that the bicyclist's rights were not violated?
 
2013-01-19 03:13:18 PM

skinink: MFAWG: Tank_Fuzzbutt: MFAWG: Tank_Fuzzbutt: My father was hired by the LAPD in 1949 and retired after 30 years. I think I can hear him spinning in his grave over what the LAPD has become.

The legend is that LAPD is pretty tame compared to what it was in those days. Not sure how true that is, though.

Somewhat true. But the average citizen wasn't harassed like today. Back then the small percentage of the population with criminal behavior anybody they thought might possibly be a criminal or darker than a caramel had the fear put in them. The guy riding his bicycle was never a problem. There's a difference between rolling a perp for snatching a purse and tackling a skateboarder for skating where he shouldn't be.

There, fixed that for you.

I was reading a review about the movie "Gangster Squad" and the reviewer said the portrayal of LAPD cops in that movie wasn't close to how it was back in the 40s and so. The reviewer said a close portrayal of how the LA cops were like is shown in "LA Confidential" where the cops repeatedly tried to frame people for crimes they didn't commit and did anything to close a case, plus treated minorities like crap. One reference about LA cops.


L.A. confidential was quite spot on when it came to the Detectives and higher ups. The average patrolman was doing his job. In the movie there is a scene that refers to the Bloody Christmas where they beat up some guys in a holding cell that my father attested to being true. He was still young on the job and there was chatter on the radio about an officer loosing an eye to a scuffle. Many officers showed up to give the guy a beatdown. My father told me his T.O. instructed him to stay in the car until he returned which he did.
 
2013-01-19 03:16:55 PM

radiumsoup: Um.... what? That's like saying there's a difference between a V8 engine and a bowl of chopped cabbage. Of course there's a difference, one is a universally applicable philosophical construct and the other is a socially disruptive action made by an individual.

The concept of liberty gives the bicyclist the ability to be an asshole - but it does not give the cop, who is bound by strict rules of the use of extraordinary legal authority, the ability to use those police powers to restrict that liberty through the supposition of an imaginary infraction. That is, of course, unless you can cite the applicable code where "being an asshole" is grounds for receiving a ticket for speeding on a bicycle. If the cop had kept his mouth shut and given him the ticket for swerving out of the lane as he had indicated originally, we'd be having a different discussion about how the cop was simply blocking traffic - one that would very likely still come out in the bicyclist's favor given the data we know. Instead, we're discussing how the cop was an "official asshole" by exceeding his authority and got caught on camera. We expect the general public to be assholes, it's human nature to be selfish. But we expect police to take responsibility for the extraordinary powers they have. This cop clearly failed the test.


I'm not saying what the cop did was right. Actually, I don't like cops for the most part.

I agree that the shouldn't have been ticketed and that the cop is an asshole too. BUT, it wasn't like this bicyclist was protesting a constitutional right or unjust law. He was being a dick by saying something when he went around the cop. The cyclist was the original dick then the officer was a dick him and over reached. The officer didn't infringe on any right until the cyclist initiated the verbal sparring.

And just for reference, I also think that if someone is a smart ass to someone else and the someone else punches the smart ass in the mouth, then the original smart ass got what he deserved.
 
2013-01-19 03:21:20 PM

Slappajo: Bigjohn3592: Slappajo: So why couldn't the bicyclist go around the cop, mind his own business, and keep his mouth shut?

Sounds like the bicyclist wanted some attention so he got it...

Maybe he felt like doing the right thing instead.

He did, and he won. So you are invited go ahead and lick the gravy sweat off my nutz after my next 20 mile ride.

How is mouthing off to a cop (who was doing something completely unrelated to the bicyclist) as you go around him the "right" thing to do?


When the dopey officer was blocking a crowded trail for no reason, creating a safety hazard. Chris asked politely, too. That's sensible community leadership.
 
2013-01-19 03:21:54 PM

radiumsoup: CruiserTwelve: IF the cop wrote the summons based SOLELY on the guy's attitude and the cop did not have probable cause to believe a violation had occurred, then the cop DID violate the bicyclist's rights and should be harshly sanctioned. That does not appear to be the case in this matter

I understand your point of view, but I think it's a bit of cognitive dissonance. Let me be specific here in the explanation so you don't think I'm irrationally attacking you.


The ticket was dropped after review.
Therefore, we can infer that the ticket was improper. If the ticket was improper, and the officer admitted on camera that the reason for the ticket was improper, how can you then say that the bicyclist's rights were not violated?


The ticket being dropped on review isn't good proof that the ticket was improper. A lot of stuff cops are going to do are judgement calls. Nobody is perfect and bad judgements will happen.

The problem here is that the cop said he was going to ticket him for going to wrong way, turns out he was allowed to and after the guy on the bike pointed that out the cop made up another reason. That makes it very clear he wasn't giving a ticket based on a bad judgement call on the guys actions (which can happen), but that he was giving a ticket based off of his attitude and fishing for any reason he could think of.
 
2013-01-19 03:22:39 PM

Slappajo: And just for reference, I also think that if someone is a smart ass to someone else and the someone else punches the smart ass in the mouth, then the original smart ...


I guess that's where our disagreement stems from, then :)
 
2013-01-19 03:23:37 PM

incrediculous: Slappajo: Bigjohn3592: Slappajo: So why couldn't the bicyclist go around the cop, mind his own business, and keep his mouth shut?

Sounds like the bicyclist wanted some attention so he got it...

Maybe he felt like doing the right thing instead.

He did, and he won. So you are invited go ahead and lick the gravy sweat off my nutz after my next 20 mile ride.

How is mouthing off to a cop (who was doing something completely unrelated to the bicyclist) as you go around him the "right" thing to do?

When the dopey officer was blocking a crowded trail for no reason, creating a safety hazard. Chris asked politely, too. That's sensible community leadership.


Maybe I missed part of the article, but how do you know he was blocking the trail for no reason?
 
2013-01-19 03:27:35 PM

liam76: The ticket being dropped on review isn't good proof that the ticket was improper.


I think it is - why would they drop a ticket if they thought it was proper? If it were proper, wouldn't this be good PR for them to show how arguing with police has consequences? I'm sure that someone at the precinct saw this and facepalmed so hard it left a mark.

Other than that, I think we're arguing many of the same points.
 
2013-01-19 03:28:10 PM

Carth: Ilmarinen: abhorrent1: Bicyclists are assholes and should be ticketed.

RectalFury: Let's send a memo, all gun owners who wish to participate are allowed to "practice" on all these bike assholes

skinink: I hate this story because it makes me defend the bicyclist. I feel dirty over it.

MFAWG: Didn't click on the link, because I was 100 pct sure this was another asshole bicyclist being and asshole.

Milos Hattrick: [cyclebicycle.files.wordpress.com image 584x285]

Stay fat, America.

Also, a speed limit for cyclists, seriously??

It looks like a mixed use path. If that is the case you need a speed limit to stop cyclists from going 20-30 mph and running over little old ladies walking their dog.


Definitely not a mixed-use path. Venice has a walkway for pedestrians and a bike path. Both are marked very clearly, and there's about 20 feet of grass separating them. The only time pedestrians are on the bike path is when they're crossing to get to the beach.

It's funny, I regularly see cyclists on the walkway, which is a big pain in the ass because the walkway tends to get pretty crowded, but I've never seen any of them stopped by a cop.
 
2013-01-19 03:30:10 PM

Slappajo: radiumsoup: Um.... what? That's like saying there's a difference between a V8 engine and a bowl of chopped cabbage. Of course there's a difference, one is a universally applicable philosophical construct and the other is a socially disruptive action made by an individual.

The concept of liberty gives the bicyclist the ability to be an asshole - but it does not give the cop, who is bound by strict rules of the use of extraordinary legal authority, the ability to use those police powers to restrict that liberty through the supposition of an imaginary infraction. That is, of course, unless you can cite the applicable code where "being an asshole" is grounds for receiving a ticket for speeding on a bicycle. If the cop had kept his mouth shut and given him the ticket for swerving out of the lane as he had indicated originally, we'd be having a different discussion about how the cop was simply blocking traffic - one that would very likely still come out in the bicyclist's favor given the data we know. Instead, we're discussing how the cop was an "official asshole" by exceeding his authority and got caught on camera. We expect the general public to be assholes, it's human nature to be selfish. But we expect police to take responsibility for the extraordinary powers they have. This cop clearly failed the test.

I'm not saying what the cop did was right. Actually, I don't like cops for the most part.

I agree that the shouldn't have been ticketed and that the cop is an asshole too. BUT, it wasn't like this bicyclist was protesting a constitutional right or unjust law. He was being a dick by saying something when he went around the cop. The cyclist was the original dick then the officer was a dick him and over reached. The officer didn't infringe on any right until the cyclist initiated the verbal sparring.

And just for reference, I also think that if someone is a smart ass to someone else and the someone else punches the smart ass in the mouth, then the original smart ass got what he deserved.


Seems to me the officer blocking the bike path is the original smart ass.
 
2013-01-19 03:32:10 PM

Slappajo: incrediculous: Slappajo: Bigjohn3592: Slappajo: So why couldn't the bicyclist go around the cop, mind his own business, and keep his mouth shut?

Sounds like the bicyclist wanted some attention so he got it...

Maybe he felt like doing the right thing instead.

He did, and he won. So you are invited go ahead and lick the gravy sweat off my nutz after my next 20 mile ride.

How is mouthing off to a cop (who was doing something completely unrelated to the bicyclist) as you go around him the "right" thing to do?

When the dopey officer was blocking a crowded trail for no reason, creating a safety hazard. Chris asked politely, too. That's sensible community leadership.

Maybe I missed part of the article, but how do you know he was blocking the trail for no reason?


Because there's no good reason to park a vehicle on that crowded bike trail. The boardwalk is wider, just on the other side of the berm about 5 yards away.
 
2013-01-19 03:35:05 PM

CaptainFatass: Carth: Ilmarinen: abhorrent1: Bicyclists are assholes and should be ticketed.

RectalFury: Let's send a memo, all gun owners who wish to participate are allowed to "practice" on all these bike assholes

skinink: I hate this story because it makes me defend the bicyclist. I feel dirty over it.

MFAWG: Didn't click on the link, because I was 100 pct sure this was another asshole bicyclist being and asshole.

Milos Hattrick: [cyclebicycle.files.wordpress.com image 584x285]

Stay fat, America.

Also, a speed limit for cyclists, seriously??

It looks like a mixed use path. If that is the case you need a speed limit to stop cyclists from going 20-30 mph and running over little old ladies walking their dog.

Definitely not a mixed-use path. Venice has a walkway for pedestrians and a bike path. Both are marked very clearly, and there's about 20 feet of grass separating them. The only time pedestrians are on the bike path is when they're crossing to get to the beach.

It's funny, I regularly see cyclists on the walkway, which is a big pain in the ass because the walkway tends to get pretty crowded, but I've never seen any of them stopped by a cop.


My experience is exactly the opposite of this. The bike only path is generally filled with pedestrians.
 
2013-01-19 03:35:27 PM

Slappajo: BUT, it wasn't like this bicyclist was protesting a constitutional right or unjust law. He was being a dick by saying something when he went around the cop.


He was, however, exercising a Constitutional right. Whether or not he was a dick is irrelevant.
 
2013-01-19 03:35:53 PM

radiumsoup: liam76: The ticket being dropped on review isn't good proof that the ticket was improper.

I think it is - why would they drop a ticket if they thought it was proper? If it were proper, wouldn't this be good PR for them to show how arguing with police has consequences? I'm sure that someone at the precinct saw this and facepalmed so hard it left a mark.

Other than that, I think we're arguing many of the same points.



Sorry I wasn't clear. It could be improper because he made a bad judgement call. And a bad judgement call isn't a violation of your rights. Cops are people and they will make mistakes.

I think the video and his changing of what the ticket is for makes it pretty clear that this wasn't a problem with the cop making a bad call about the legality of the bikers actions but that he was making shiat up to ticket a guy who had said something he didn't like.
 
2013-01-19 03:40:33 PM

CasperImproved: We have absolutely no idea why the cop was parked where he was. For all we know, he may have spotted a drug sale or mugging and was dealing with that.


Um, he obviously wasn't dealing with "a drug sale or mugging", because he was writing the cyclist a ticket.
 
2013-01-19 03:46:30 PM

CruiserTwelve: I believe the cop was very likely going to release the guy without a summons, but something that occurred during that ten minute delay caused the cop to decide instead to issue a summons. Most likely was that the guy argued with the cop.
...
However, the cop didn't assault the kid or violate his constitutional rights
...
IF the cop wrote the summons based SOLELY on the guy's attitude... then the cop DID violate the bicyclist's rights and should be harshly sanctioned. That does not appear to be the case in this matter."


UM....
 
2013-01-19 03:46:42 PM

liam76: Sorry I wasn't clear. It could be improper because he made a bad judgement call. And a bad judgement call isn't a violation of your rights. Cops are people and they will make mistakes.

I think the video and his changing of what the ticket is for makes it pretty clear that this wasn't a problem with the cop making a bad call about the legality of the bikers actions but that he was making shiat up to ticket a guy who had said something he didn't like.


Ahh, then I must not have been clear in my original statement... that's exactly what I meant by "improper"... the video evidence explicitly shows the ticket was given as an attitude adjustment, not due to an actual infraction... and that is the most likely reason for the retraction. I can't think of another reason for the retraction, to be honest. Without the video, I don't think it would have had been retracted, as there would be no evidence to show it was improperly written in the first place. As to judgment, it wasn't pulled because the cop saw him kinda-sorta go over the yellow line but he was viewing from a bad angle and his judgment was impaired by glare off the waves and some video camera later showed a different angle that proved there was no infraction... it was pulled because he flat out made up the charge and admitted so on tape. To that end, it's a clear violation of the bicyclist's rights.
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report