TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: I never intended to alienate anyone who didn't need alienating. I'm sure sorry if I've somehow offended you...that's for sure.

Not that anyone "needs alienating", but I wasn't talking about you. More like this comment:

One less spandex wearing yuppie screwing up traffic....works for me. Hope they took his bike

It was a joke. Lighten up a bit. Funny how you INTENTIONALLY took away the laughing icon to make yourself look more like a victim. Seems to me you make a regular habit of telling everyone here why "gun owners" are so hated. You do realize this is a gun forum...don't you? If you have such disdain for gun owners, what on earth are you doing hanging out here?

So...how about you tell me why you INTENTIONALLY took away the icon that makes it obvious that I was making a
harmless joke.


Here is the actual comment in it's original context.

03Lightningrocks wrote:One less spandex wearing yuppie screwing up traffic....works for me. Hope they took his bike . What on earth was this clown thinking? Popping off at cops in the middle of an arrest??? I wonder if he could also be charged with some kind of interfering in an arrest type charge.

Furyataurus wrote:Apparently this cyclist has a brother who posted on Glock Talk about what happened. The GT'ers bashed his bro pretty hard. That thread is locked now.

Link? I love reading a good old fashion flaming.

mr.72 wrote:Cops get their egos bruised a little bit by a cyclist, suddenly they have prove his point by being overbearing jerks.

The cyclist was evading arrest. They told him to stop and he took off like a common criminal.

mr.72 wrote:Dude would not have been "evading arrest" if they weren't chasing him down in order to pump up their egos.

They were chasing him down because he refused to stop when they told him to. If you take off when a cop says stop, you will get chased. We all learn this at a very young age.

mr.72 wrote:They wouldn't have left whoever else they were harassing to go chase down the cyclist over the headlight unless they were defending their delicate egos

We don't know if they left the party they originally detained or not. If they did it was probably because evading arrest is a more serious situation than the one the other fellers were stopped for.

mr.72 wrote:.... indulged in this chase in order to stroke their egos.

Maybe it was because they were wondering why this guy took off when told to stop. Running away is very typical for someone trying to hide something when a cop says to stop.

mr.72 wrote:The point is that the police were jerks.
And we wonder why a lot of people don't trust the police?
And you guys wonder why gun owners tend to alienate others?

These comments say it all. Nice...real nice.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

mr.72 wrote:Cops get their egos bruised a little bit by a cyclist, suddenly they have prove his point by being overbearing jerks.

The cyclist was evading arrest. They told him to stop and he took off like a common criminal.

mr.72 wrote:Dude would not have been "evading arrest" if they weren't chasing him down in order to pump up their egos.

They were chasing him down because he refused to stop when they told him to. If you take off when a cop says stop, you will get chased. We all learn this at a very young age.

mr.72 wrote:They wouldn't have left whoever else they were harassing to go chase down the cyclist over the headlight unless they were defending their delicate egos

We don't know if they left the party they originally detained or not. If they did it was probably because evading arrest is a more serious situation than the one the other fellers were stopped for.

mr.72 wrote:.... indulged in this chase in order to stroke their egos.

Maybe it was because they were wondering why this guy took off when told to stop. Running away is very typical for someone trying to hide something when a cop says to stop.

mr.72 wrote:The point is that the police were jerks.
And we wonder why a lot of people don't trust the police?
And you guys wonder why gun owners tend to alienate others?

These comments say it all. Nice...real nice.

Exactly, we don't know all the facts, so why are you assuming he intentionally "evaded" arrest, for all we know he could be listening to his iPod and not have heard them talking to him, that wouldn't be uncommon, especially if they're after you on foot and you are in a bike, it would take them a while to either catch up at a stop or to get in their car.

Guess he will turn that IPOD down next time...

We know he was arrested for suspicion of evading arrest because it is a matter of public record....and part of his new permanent record. Maybe he will plead innocent due to loud IPOD listening. Who knows...it might just work.

Things go downhill fast for cyclist arrested in Fort Worth

FORT WORTH — A 23-year-old bicyclist rode right into trouble this week after making an apparent smart-aleck remark.

According to a report, a police officer had detained five people on a curb after a traffic stop in the 3900 block of White Settlement Road when the cyclist rode by them about 11:45 p.m. Tuesday.

"Did y’all read them their rights first?" the cyclist said loudly as he pedaled past.

The remark drew the attention of the officer, who called for the cyclist to stop. "You don’t have a headlight on that bike," the officer said, according to the report.

Riding a bicycle without a headlight at night violates the Texas Transportation Code, the report states.

Things continued downhill when the cyclist ignored the officer and kept pedaling, prompting another officer to turn on his patrol car’s lights and chase the cyclist, the report states. Soon, another officer joined the pursuit.

The cyclist looked back at the pursuing officer, pedaled faster, hopped a curb, and rode through several driveways and yards. He stopped in the 3900 block of Monticello Drive, took off his backpack, threw his bike down and asked officers, "Why are y’all stopping me?"

The man was arrested on suspicion of evading arrest/detention.

But his troubles weren’t over.

According to the report, officers spotted the handle of a Glock pistol protruding from a mesh pocket on the man’s backpack. According to the report, the man has a concealed-handgun license. But because the gun was not concealed, he was also arrested on suspicion of unlawfully carrying a weapon by a license holder.

He was charged with both misdemeanors Thursday, court records show

Pinkycatcher wrote:But the guy robbing the house would have been caught whether or not he was yelling communist speech, this guy was arrested because he said these words, do you seriously believe a police officer would stop someone just biking by if they said nothing in this same situation? No they would not have, you can argue it til the cows come home, but there are very few officers who are going to do that. This arrest was solely because of his speech, if he would have garnered the attention of the officers in a different way, without insulting them, they would have nearly always let him go with a warning at most, they would not have ticketed him. So yes, he was arrested for his speech.

And to say if he would have kept his "ducks in a row" he would not have gotten a ticket is a fallacy, there are thousand upon thousands of petty infractions that exist, and there's a near 100% chance any given person is breaking at least one of them while doing anything. So if it wern't for these problems, they could have found more.

My gosh... are you being purposely obtuse? I said, point blank, that he was stopped because he opened his mouth. But he wasn't cited because of it. He was stopped because, like a jerk idiot, he brought attention to himself while committing obvious infractions. But no, he wasn't arrested for his speech. His speech is just what brought the attention of the police. The guy robbing the house would be caught? Er.... since when do all burglars get caught? No, the burglar in my example got caught because he was reciting the communist manifesto WITH A BULL HORN. Using a bull horn while committing a crime is unwise. It draws unwanted attention and makes people look at your actions.

Let me give you another example. Let's say someone without a CHL is illegally carrying a concealed handgun in Grapevine Mills Mall. He won't get caught. If it's well concealed, the odds he'll get caught are virtually NIL. Now, let's dress him up in fatigue pants, combat boots, a t-Shirt that says, "Die Pig Die, I'll carry my Gun ANYWHERE I WANT!!" Wrap a turban around his head. Now have him run through the mall singing, "I Want to be an AIRBORNE RANGER!!!" as loudly as he can.

Is he stopped and questioned for his speech, stating how he would like to be a member of the US Armed forces? NO.

Likewise, had the individual on the bicycle been a lawyer and stopped, and given his business card to the individuals who the police had stopped and said, "If you'd like to retain me as your lawyer I'd recommend you make sure the officers read you your rights, and you not say anything further." I bet he wouldn't have faced trouble.

Finally, your little point about how we all walk around with thousands and thousands of petty infractions... That doesn't contradict my salient point.. if all of his ducks were in a row, they wouldn't have done anything. Can you argue with that? Because you certainly aren't going to posit that EVERY person in the US has at least 1 quickly findable, obvious infraction they're committing every second of every day, are you?

Why would you say anything?

Shut your pie hole in this situation.

Basic crisis mitigation is to not escalate the situation in any way.

This is like poking a stick in a hornets nest for personal ego gratification.

I say again, Shut your pie hole!

comsec wrote:Why would you say anything?

Shut your pie hole in this situation.

While that may be a wise way to keep yourself out of trouble, it doesn't excuse the fact that the cops were responding only to a meaningless verbal provocation. This makes both the cyclist and the cops immature fools. It's excusable for a regular citizen to be an immature fool but I think once you are sworn in as a police officer it's time to leave that foolishness behind.

mr.72 wrote:

comsec wrote:Why would you say anything?

Shut your pie hole in this situation.

While that may be a wise way to keep yourself out of trouble, it doesn't excuse the fact that the cops were responding only to a meaningless verbal provocation.
This makes both the cyclist and the cops immature fools. It's excusable for a regular citizen to be an immature fool but I think once you are sworn in as a police officer it's time to leave that foolishness behind.

According to the article, the cops responded to the fact that the rider didn't have a headlight on his bike in violation of Texas law.
The rider drew attention to himself and this fact by his comments.

So you think it is "foolishness" for a Police Officer to uphold the law.
Do you have a light on your bike?

Yes I have lights for when I ride my bike at night. That's beside the point. I think it's foolishness for the police officers to take any action as a result of a meaningless remark that someone made.

If they don't stop every cyclist riding at night without a light, then it is clear that their primary reason for stopping this guy was their ego. I will stand corrected if these particular cops have got a long and storied history of being the bane to the very existence of cyclists who ride at night without lights, including the primary offenders, teenage kids.

And lest you guys think I'm just defending a fellow cyclist, I should point out that I advocate a licensing system for cyclists who are to ride on the road as well as some more enforceable laws for cycling on the road. Riding a bicycle at night without a headlight is not nearly as unsafe as riding at night without a blinking red tail light. If I put a light on my bicycle on the front that is bright enough to help me see anything then it will blind most drivers because bicycle lights are not "sealed beam" type, they have round reflectors. A 35W (two lamp) bicycle light rig will be quite blinding to drivers and is about the minimum if you want to be able to see well enough to ride at 20+ mph. The little sub-5W lights that are typical for commuters are only any good for oncoming cars to see the bicycle, but if it's indeed dark enough that a cyclist needs a light to see, then it's too dark to be riding a bicycle on the road PERIOD.

Here's the link for the GT thread: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1001827" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Furyataurus wrote:Here's the link for the GT thread: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1001827" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks...pretty much the same as posted on this thread, only with more dirty words...LOL.

mr.72 wrote:Cops get their egos bruised a little bit by a cyclist, suddenly they have prove his point by being overbearing jerks.

Dude would not have been "evading arrest" if they weren't chasing him down in order to pump up their egos. They wouldn't have left whoever else they were harassing to go chase down the cyclist over the headlight unless they were defending their delicate egos. They wouldn't have fund the pistol and charged him with UCW if they hadn't indulged in this chase in order to stroke their egos.

Whether the cyclist was a jerk or not is not the point. The point is that the police were jerks. The difference is that the police have badges and the regular citizen does not. One person once said about driving that if you leave the house with a gun, leave your middle finger at home. Well IMHO if the police pin on that badge, then they need to leave their delicate ego at home.

And we wonder why a lot of people don't trust the police?

Nice to see all of the nice comments about cyclists on this forum. And you guys wonder why gun owners tend to alienate others?

Wow. Just wow.

Sounds like you have a paranoia. Try doing their job for once. You let one guy smart off in a group and it can spontaneously get out of hand. But, I'm sure you let folks pop off to you all the time and you don't do squat. Just to prove my point, don't respond to my post.

Okay everyone, I think you have all had your say. Let's calm the thread down a little, please.

Thank you

I know that this board is full of "do whatever the cop says, whenever they say it" types, and that's ok for those types, but I've never been one of those, nor do I agree with it. Because of that I know that this post will probably not be well received, but I'm feeling onery today...so here it is...

This sounds like typical "my badge compensates for some perceived physical or pshychological inadequacy" police behavior. This attitude seems all too common among today's police. It has always reminded me of the frat boy behavior I saw in college. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. You know what it boils down to? They are bullies, plain and simple. As a High School teacher I hear it all the time; yes, from the students as complaints, but from the cops themselves (although when they tell the stories they are bragging, as if abusing your power were something to brag about). Summed up---that cop was a jerk.