Digital_Cowboy

Agreed.

genec

Isn't the I-95 a major route for everything on the east coast... that one finds drug couriers there should be no more surprise than finding any other type of "commuter" there.

Digital_Cowboy

Steve,

Which raises the question that I've asked before. Given that this officer had only been on the job for a month where was his training officer? Wasn't the cop who body slammed a CM participant also on the job for about a month or so? Also given that this cop had only been on the force for a month how many negative run-ins could he have had with people on bikes?

I agree, I've read a couple of articles that have shown that in the few cities that still have mandatory bicycle registration laws. That the police will use the lack of a registration sticker has grounds for harassing otherwise law abiding cyclists over.

Is it S.O.P for police departments to place rookie cops in positions where their lack of training can escalate a situation into one with deadly results? Also shouldn't the rookie have been given the information that he was going to investigate a person having fallen and potentially being drunk? How does that equal the rookie thinking that it was a potential drug bust?

mconlonx

Yes, and you're good right up to here. If you want to compare the two situations regarding taser use and possible police misconduct, knock yourself out, I'll not fault you for it.

However:

Bzzt. Not so much. As in: you cannot back up that assertion in any way, shape, or form. I.e. Was the guy in the OP wearing a helmet?

There was certainly intent on your part to bring your uninformed pro-helmet agenda into a thread that has nothing to do with helmet use. It's not mentioned in the OP, not mentioned in the original cited article, not mentioned in any post on this thread until you bring it up. Helmet use is a seriously contentious issue with its own stickied thread for those who want to participate in the debate. Post there regarding helmet use if you want, leave your helmet trolling out of this thread.

sggoodri

Drug traffic related crimes are very high next to I-95 in NC and drop off with distance from the corridor. The area surrounding I-95 in NC is rural; the intensity of drug crimes associated with I-95 make it different from rural areas farther away. Also, being low density rural, bicycle commuting in that area of NC is not very common except among those who cannot drive cars, such as people who cannot get licenses, illegal immigrants, and people with disabilities. It's not likely that police who are targeting people whom they think look like local drug couriers are going to accidentally net a card-carrying ACLU member bike commuting to his law office, so they may feel emboldened to conduct such stops with impunity.

genec

We need more card-carrying ACLU members bike commuting to their law offices.

Paul Barnard

I wouldn't take the report that he had been on the job for 1 month at face value. Every police agency I know has an training program that requires new officers satisfactorily complete a training program under the immediate and continuous supervision of a field training officer before the trainee is allowed to patrol solo. I would guess he had been on his own for a month.

Digital_Cowboy

You really think that? Given that the article that I linked to makes it clear that the person who was tased had hit the ground hard enough to break the helmet that he was wearing at the time. It is reasonable to presume that if he hadn't had a helmet on he would have suffered even greater injuries then he had already received at the hands of the LEOs. We don't know if the deceased was or wasn't wearing a helmet. As there is/was no mention of it in the article. Sadly we do not even as of yet (if I am not mistaken) know what the cause of death was other then that the taser played some role in it.

No, there was not. The helmet was relative to the individual in the article that I posted the link to. I am neither pro nor anti-helmet. I do see their usefulness. But I am neither pro nor anti-helmet.

A helmet may or may not have had a bearing on the outcome in this particular case, but we'll never know now, will we?

mconlonx

You are talking out your a$$ and nothing you say regarding this is proving any different. His helmet broke, you say? And that's indicative of the helmet protecting the rider, how...? It is certainly not reasonable to presume that the cyclist would have suffered greater injuries without a helmet--others would point out that perhaps his injuries were exacerbated by helmet use. Regardless, since we don't know if the guy in the OP was wearing a helmet or not, or what his injuries actually were, there is no link between the two for you to make any comparisons where helmets are concerned.

And yet you go ahead and do it. And then keep arguing the point when you are clearly, totally, completely in the wrong on this.

Your hands just magically typed pro-helmet nonsense having nothing to do with this thread into your response? Automatic writing, channeling some now deceased former helmet wearer?

THEN WHY'D YOU BRING IT UP IN THIS THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE???

sggoodri

I know of at least one in Raleigh; he has been involved in a number of local cyclist rights issues.

shawmutt

Not until an investigation takes place.

All we know is what was reported by a local news outlet.

It depends on the situation and the SOP of the particular area.

We don't know the entire situation, therefore "common sense" doesn't apply.

It depends on the situation.

I'm not making assumptions about the training methods.

shawmutt

I was trying to listen but I have hearing damage. Try a different color font.

SnowJob

Bad troll! No troll-treats for you tonight.

skye

Here's the equation. It's pretty simple.

cops=dicks

Never trust a cop. Never speak to a cop unless in the presence of a lawyer. If a cop asks if he can (a) come in or (b) look at your bike, the answer is "no." Never stop for a cop with his lights on unless in a populated area where others can see you.

cops=dicks

shawmutt

Bad sock puppet! No fabric softener in your bath!

KvltBryce

This video will change your opinion on Law Enforcement no matter what opinion you hold at the current moment.

https://youtu.be/ADq8wGH54B8 Just try and grit your teeth and bare it, it's a real perception changer. Some of the video is about the military too, I know that doesn't really have to do with the OP, but this thread has gotten off track anyway...

Digital_Cowboy

So what all of the cops that have been suspended pending a full investigation were wrongly suspended?

Hmm, let's see we have a person riding a bicycle minding their own business, they for whatever reason fall. Someone calls the police to report that a "drunk person" fell. The police sent someone who upon not getting the results that he expected in attempting to stop the person. Choose to use his taser to stop the person. Whereupon the person received some sort injuries that resulted in the person who was tased dying.

You really think that it is "reasonable" for the police to be able use a taser on a person on a bicycle? When the only thing that said person has done "wrong" was to fall over.

As I've said, not too long ago while I was riding my front wheel hit a patch of loose sand or gravel and I fell. I'm glad that no one called the police to report me as a possible "drunk" otherwise I might have been tased. I have also taken food out of my pockets to eat, so again I am glad that I've never been "caught" by a LEO while doing so, as again I guess I could have been tased for having done so.

The very FIRST mistake that this rookie cop made was he assumed that the person on the bike was guilty of something. For that reason alone he should at least be suspended and made to take a remedial course on "a person/suspect is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.

Really, you don't think that a reasonable person with half an ounce of common sense wouldn't realize that common sense says that tasing a person riding a bicycle isn't a good idea?

So, if one of your family members was doing the same thing and ended up getting tased and dead, it wouldn't upset you?

Given that the rookie in question assumed that he was being ignored and/or that the person on the bike was trying to flee. Instead of assuming that the person suffered some sort of disability. He reaches for his taser and tases a person riding a bicycle.

Again, I ask what if instead of riding a bicycle what if the deceased had been riding a motorcycle/scooter/moped or driving a car? Would you still be in favor of them being tased?

mconlonx

Love to watch the evolution of your presumptions into pure, unadulterated made up BS.

To whit: was the officer previously employed at another department? Where do you come off calling him a "rookie," like it's some kind of fact here? Please quote from the OP or other sources to support your assertion.

Given that you've displayed a grand sense of presumption not based on any kind of facts, I think it's save to assume that most of what you write is pure, speculative BS.

But lets review this line again:

Maybe you should take the same course...?

Digital_Cowboy

The article stated that the cop had been on the job a month. Even if he had come from another police department from another city that would still make him a "rookie" in the new department as he wouldn't know the SOP/protocol for his new department.

And given that the actions of law enforcement can have and as we see in this situation do have deadly consequences they are and should be held to a higher level of conduct. Is it a double standard? Yes, it is but again given the deadly consequences their actions can have it is one that I think that most people can accept.

Given that the only thing that had happened was that the person fell, not witnessed by the LEO and then took something from his pocket and put it in his mouth what did he do that he "deserved" to die? How many American's are hard of hearing or are totally deaf? How many American's suffer from seizures? Or are developmentally challenged?

They shouldn't have to worry that their disabilities can/will cost them their lives if they encounter a LEO on the street. The police should be trained to recognize the possibility that person that they are attempting to stop to talk to isn't ignoring them but may not hear them, or understand that the person following them wants to talk to them.

mconlonx

The assumptions you make based on limited information is breathtaking.

I dare you to go a day posting on BF without using the phrase, "given that..."

RaleighSport

Might I ask why this type of argument is breaking out when we still have no updates?

mconlonx

Boredom? Well, that and I really take offense to DC's style of arguing based on wild presumptions and assumptions given the very limited information that we got in the OP.

RaleighSport

I think DC means well but it seems he's quite passionate about all this and seems to lead to an overflow of input from him towards all fronts, hell I've even found on occasion I agree with him.. but you're just giving the mouse a cookie by engaging in the speculation before the autopsy and investigation reports come in.

mconlonx

I don't disagree with a lot of what he says, but his approach really turns me off. Especially with something like this, where the info we have to go on is extremely limited and people like DC are willing to toss out wild speculation, arguing as if it were some kind of fact.

That's why I pointed out the "innocent until proven guilty" part of what he posted -- maybe he should wait until the info is available before staking out a position. Kinda hypocritical to comment on the situation, essentially assuming the cop is guilty and green before getting any more of the facts than those presented in the original skimpy report.

Digital_Cowboy

Thank you.

What are the odds that the results of the autopsy will be either printed in the paper or posted here?