Real Life Video - Man with a pistol approaches you in a hostile manner while stopped

[noyes]

So what do you do?

Trackdays don't get yourself in that situation. & ReALLY learn how to ride !

http://www.nesba.com/

http://www.sportbiketracktime.biz/

And their are many more!

[Mr. James]

There's a marked state police car right behind the bike, and they do use Malibus in that area. I know from personal experience.

+1

This whole "angry man" scenario is a canard. This isn't a random encounter, or a road rage incident. And I'd really like to see the front of that Malibu. Methinks it quite possible there are some red and blue lights twinkling merrily behind the grill, eh?

[Nubcakes]

Part of me wishes this ended in a shootout with the cop getting his nuts shot off.

Another part of me praises the motorcyclist for being better than that. He handled that very well in my opinion.

The cop is lucky he doesn't live where I live in MI. Last cop who drew a gun without a uniform on got himself buckshot to the face from a hunter who thought the cop was a trying to mug him. I believe the hunter got off without any charges and the cop? Well he didn't survive long enough to make it in the court.

Getting back on topic, The charge against the cyclist for "illegally" filming a police officer is bogus for two reasons.

1. the camera was in plain sight and on. Every video camera I've seen has a light on it to show when its on/recording so the officer should have known he was on camera and politely asked the cyclist to turn it off. Furthermore, technically the cyclist was in a catch-22 situation:
* Since the camera was already on, the moment the LEO stepped out of the car; the cyclist was breaking the law. Even if he told officer immediately, he was still recording the officer and therefore; breaking the law.
* If the cyclist immediately turned away or covered the camera lense the officer would have probably acted rash thinking the cyclist was going to do something.
Eitherway, it was a lose-lose situation.

2. I would argue that a law against recording officers is unconstitutional. This makes getting evidence against officers for abusing their power impossible in certain circumstances. In order to show that an LEO is abusing their power you need to catch them red handed. If they know they are on camera they probably won't act the way they would when they think they are not being recorded. If we take an extreme case; This means if you recorded a LEO Killing someone and disposing of the body, you cant use the video in court because it's illegally obtained evidence.
Also, this law can be twisted very easily. Technically if you are recording someone doing something suspicious who turns out to be an undercover cop, you just broke the law and commited a felony. This law basically can be use to convict ANYONE who recorded even a glimpse of an LEO as felon.

[booker_t]

Not to hijack the thread but here's some actual info:
http://wjz.com/local/preakness.fight...2.1708562.html

Some discussion on the MD Interception law:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/tripp/woods.html

Another MD example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWF3D...layer_embedded
This one was at the Preakness racetrack, which is a privately operated facility. They don't tell you the full story, the girl was in a fight with somebody else and the police came to break it up. The amount of force used is debatable. What I do see is the girl not being compliant to repeated requests to put her hands behind her back once the fight was over. Most likely drunk beyond reasonable judgment. A shame she looked great in that outfit and probably lost her Preakness hat.

And finally, the actual MD Criminal Statute sec 10-402:

http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gcj/10-402.html

Article - Courts and Judicial Proceedings

§ 10-402.

(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to:

(1) Wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Wilfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Wilfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

(c) (1) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communications service to the public may not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

(ii) 1. It is lawful under this subtitle for a provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians or other persons to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by federal or State law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, if the provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person has been provided with a court order signed by the authorizing judge directing the provision of information, facilities, or technical assistance.

2. The order shall set forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specify the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. A provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person may not disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished an order under this subparagraph, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the judge who granted the order, if appropriate, or the State's Attorney of the county where the device was used. Any such disclosure shall render the person liable for compensatory damages. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under this subtitle.

(2) (i) This paragraph applies to an interception in which:

1. The investigative or law enforcement officer or other person is a party to the communication; or

2. One of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.

(ii) It is lawful under this subtitle for an investigative or law enforcement officer acting in a criminal investigation or any other person acting at the prior direction and under the supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication in order to provide evidence:

1. Of the commission of:

A. Murder;

B. Kidnapping;

C. Rape;

D. A sexual offense in the first or second degree;

E. Child abuse;

F. Child pornography under § 11-207, § 11-208, or § 11-208.1 of the Criminal Law Article;

G. Gambling;

H. Robbery under § 3-402 or § 3-403 of the Criminal Law Article;

I. A felony under Title 6, Subtitle 1 of the Criminal Law Article;

J. Bribery;

K. Extortion;

L. Dealing in a controlled dangerous substance, including a violation of § 5-617 or § 5-619 of the Criminal Law Article;

M. A fraudulent insurance act, as defined in Title 27, Subtitle 4 of the Insurance Article;

N. An offense relating to destructive devices under § 4-503 of the Criminal Law Article;

O. Sexual solicitation of a minor under § 3-324 of the Criminal Law Article;

P. An offense relating to obstructing justice under § 9-302, § 9-303, or § 9-305 of the Criminal Law Article; or

Q. A conspiracy or solicitation to commit an offense listed in items A through P of this item; or

2. If:

A. A person has created a barricade situation; and

B. Probable cause exists for the investigative or law enforcement officer to believe a hostage or hostages may be involved.

(3) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State.

(4) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication if:

1. The law enforcement officer initially lawfully detained a vehicle during a criminal investigation or for a traffic violation;

2. The law enforcement officer is a party to the oral communication;

3. The law enforcement officer has been identified as a law enforcement officer to the other parties to the oral communication prior to any interception;

4. The law enforcement officer informs all other parties to the communication of the interception at the beginning of the communication; and

5. The oral interception is being made as part of a video tape recording.

(ii) If all of the requirements of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph are met, an interception is lawful even if a person becomes a party to the communication following:

1. The identification required under subparagraph (i)3 of this paragraph; or

2. The informing of the parties required under subparagraph (i)4 of this paragraph.

(5) It is lawful under this subtitle for an officer, employee, or agent of a governmental emergency communications center to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the officer, agent, or employee is a party to a conversation concerning an emergency.

(6) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for law enforcement personnel to utilize body wires to intercept oral communications in the course of a criminal investigation if there is reasonable cause to believe that a law enforcement officer's safety may be in jeopardy.

(ii) Communications intercepted under this paragraph may not be recorded, and may not be used against the defendant in a criminal proceeding.

(7) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person:

(i) To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that the electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

(ii) To intercept any radio communication that is transmitted:

1. By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

2. By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;

3. By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

4. By any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(iii) To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference; or

(iv) For other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

(8) It is lawful under this subtitle:

(i) To use a pen register or trap and trace device as defined under § 10-4B-01 of this title; or

(ii) For a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of the service.

(9) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire or electronic communication in the course of a law enforcement investigation of possible telephone solicitation theft if:

(i) The person is an investigative or law enforcement officer or is acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer; and

(ii) The person is a party to the communication and participates in the communication through the use of a telephone instrument.

(10) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication in the course of a law enforcement investigation in order to provide evidence of the commission of vehicle theft if:

(i) The person is an investigative or law enforcement officer or is acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer; and

(ii) The device through which the interception is made has been placed within a vehicle by or at the direction of law enforcement personnel under circumstances in which it is thought that vehicle theft may occur.

(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public may not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to the person or entity providing the service, or an agent of the person or entity) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of the communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient.

(2) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of a communication:

(i) As otherwise authorized by federal or State law;

(ii) To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward the communication to its destination; or

(iii) That were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and that appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if the divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

(e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection or in subsection (f) of this section, a person who violates subsection (d) of this section is subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

(2) If an offense is a first offense under paragraph (1) of this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense occurred is a radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted, and:

(i) The communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the offender is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both; or

(ii) The communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the offender is subject to a fine of not more than $500.

(3) Unless the conduct is for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, conduct which would otherwise be an offense under this subsection is not an offense under this subsection if the conduct consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted:

(i) To a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or

(ii) As an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls.

(f) (1) A person who engages in conduct in violation of this subtitle is subject to suit by the federal government or by the State in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the communication is:

(i) A private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this subtitle is the private viewing of that communication, and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose, or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, or private commercial gain; or

(ii) A radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under Subpart D of Part 74 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this subtitle is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain.

(2) (i) The State is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief in an action under this subsection if the violation is the person's first offense under subsection (e)(1) of this section and the person has not been found liable in a prior civil action under § 10-410 of this subtitle.

(ii) In an action under this subsection, if the violation is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (e)(1) of this section or if the person has been found liable in a prior civil action under § 10-410 of this subtitle, the person is subject to a mandatory civil fine of not less than $500.

(3) The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (2)(i) of this subsection, and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each violation of an injunction issued under paragraph (2)(i) of this subsection.

[booker_t]

Whether you like it or not, seems pretty clear to me! ACLU has put it to the Attorney General to review and possibly clarify, for specific cases, which is probably a good thing.

Ignorance of the law is no defense, and laws on the books should be enforced. Don't like 'em? Petition your legislators or vote them out. Welcome to the USA.

[JohnH1963]

Here is the other video you didnt see which is the way it should have been done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGeEEZIfZz4

The motorcylcist is obviously speeding and making the other cars on the highway look like they are standing still. The officer gets behind the motorcycle with his car, pulls over the cycle driver, gives the cyclist a warning, lesson learned...have a nice day...

The officer in the first video produced a weapon which made it into an entirely different youtube video. The pistol wasn't needed, it wasnt a justifiable use of force per court decisions and the officer could even be sued later on...

Here is an article in regards to a Taser.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-use-of-Tasers

For the officer to say that producing the weapon was for self-defense is laughable. So if I jump out on the highway in front of traffic, would it be ok for me to shoot because traffic didnt stop on the interstate? Jumping in front of moving vehicles and expecting for traffic to simply stop then when it doesnt you fire is a bit laughable and makes no sense.

[coldpointcrossing]

At the risk of alienating some folks, I feel that the plain clothes officer in question failed to demonstrate proper use of adequate force. The act of immediately brandishing his sidearm during what amounts to a traffic stop seemed excessive. If you'll notice, the officer had barely set one foot on the ground but was already reaching for his sidearm. It was as if he seemed to have already made his mind up before he opened the door of his vehicle about how he was going to handle the rider. I witnessed no provocation from the motorist that required the use of firearms. NONE. The officer showed very little restraint in this situation.

Speeding, street racing (even if you are the only participant), improper lane change, etc, etc, are ticketable offenses to be sure and even jailable if gross, but these are not the same as knocking over your local 7/11 and making your get-away. No, to me, if it were me, the approaching officer looked like a another case of extreme road rage. Actually, after seeing the angered expression on the officer's mug, I'm a bit surprised that he didn't have his front sight on the rider.

[Skans]

Brandishing a firearm in this situation was not justified. I think we all can agree on that. However, no harm no foul. Since the guy with the gun was a cop, about the worst that can happen is he will have a complaint filed in his record. He might have to answer to an internal affairs investigation, but that's about it.

Hopefully the idiot motorcyclist was arrested and is made to expend large amounts of money defending himself in court, or does some jail time. This wasn't mere wrecklessness - it was pre-planned wrecklessness as evidenced by the helmet-cam. Hey, I ride a motorcycle too - but I won't cry any if this goof gets squashed like a bug by an "angry driver" who swerves into his path just for kicks and giggles.

[coldpointcrossing]

This wasn't mere wrecklessness - it was pre-planned wrecklessness as evidenced by the helmet-cam.

Good point.

[Dannyl]

Planned recklessness or not, is that enough reason for a cop to pull a gun?

I think not.....

[markj]

Funny thing, in Omaha a couple years ago, a bunch of squids (we call these guys that) were doing stunts on a side street while being filmed. A bike got away from the rider and hit the cameraman who it just happend to be a Omaha cop. He died right there.

I was in LA running up I5, 2 guys on sportbikes were in front of me. One wheelied at like 80mph. He only stopped when his bike got loose and kinda almost lost it. Stupid stuff IMHO, should a cop be able to use a gun to stop this? I would hope he didnt need too.

Sure would like to see the front of that car.

[JollyRoger]

Planned recklessness or not, is that enough reason for a cop to pull a gun?

I think not.....

Are you friggin kidding me? You've got a motorcyclist involved in criminal activity: reckless endangerment, speeding, apparently evading arrest; and a sworn officer (state trooper) performing a lawful arrest within his jurisdiction and you're worried that he has a weapon by his side? From a practical perspective, you can sometimes bluff a guy into not running on an arrest by displaying a weapon or telling him you will shoot him. It can save you from a dangerous chase or wrestling around with a guy (which can lead to a shooting.) There is no excessive force issue until force is applied. I don't care if you like bikers or admire this guy's showboating: he's breaking several laws and endangering himself and others, and is subject to arrest. Where you've got a guy on a motorbike, waiting for a uniform or a marked car may not be an option. The trooper did good.

Also, many states restrict consensual monitoring by citizens, by requiring consent of monitored parties. This has been ruled constitutional and is probably the basis for the charge of recording the officer. It probably won't stick based on the fact the helmet cam was operable before the arrest.

[coldpointcrossing]

The guy was a Barney Fife! C'mon, let's be logical here. Saying that brandishing a firearm by an officer, plain clothes or uniformed, without adequate provocation is reasonable and within the scope of this rider's faux pas' and circumstance, then I suppose j-walkers require SWAT level intervention. Or do all the cops hold you at gun point while writing you a citation where you are from? And at what point during the video did you witness the motorist evading arrest? I certainly didn't see that.

[gunsavy]

The cop was in the wrong and that's it and so was the guy on the bike. The cop just 1up'd him with the gun drawing jazz. Cpc hit the nail on the head.

[R1145]

...but it looks like professional law enforcement to me, with the information available.

It depends on department policy, but LEOs usually are permitted to draw their weapon if it might be needed to defend themselves. Likewise, LEOs are not required to retreat in the face of a threat if they are trying to arrest someone.

It was a very rapidly developing situation, and the LEO probably saw a chance to apprehend someone who was operating a vehicle in a way that presented a clear and immediate danger to the public. The weapon was never pointed at the suspect, and was holstered immediately upon cessation of the threat.

The vehicle should've been marked, and the officer better identified, but I don't know if he was working the pursuit, or just happened to be in the right place at the right time (perhaps even off duty). He ID'd himself verbally as a peace officer in matter of seconds.

The law about recording people without their consent protects everybody, not just law enforcement. There is an exemption allowing law enforcement to record contacts, however, which should not be a problem because the courts have determined there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when talking to a cop in the course of their duty (it's always "on the record").

The biker broke the law then posted it on YouTube. He's the one who needs to be punished, by any rational standard. The officer did a good job. I'm not sure it was "best practice", but the real world is like that...

If the biker had attempted to flee by driving at the officer, and been shot, it probably would be determined to be within policy and lawful.

[JohnKSa]

Sometimes the best way to deal with a situation is to avoid putting yourself into it. This is a perfect example of one of those times.

It's ridiculous in the context of "the advancement of responsible firearms ownership" to explore tactics for using a firearm to extricate one's self from a situation generated by one's own irresponsible, criminal, anti-social, foolish, and dangerous actions.