[43169]

Buttwipes. More laws, that solves everything. Makes me wish for a giant asteroid from outer space to kill us all. Or maybe just a plague that only kills lawyers....

 

[60793]

"The motorcycle rider swerved in front of a civilian car and sped away, causing the officer's car to hit the civilian's."



I love this Quote, how does the motorcyle "swerving" in front of a car cause the Cop to run into a car?



Now don't get me wrong the guy should not have been running from the police, but it sounds to me like the cop was being over-zealous and try to cut infront of the car when he did not have enough room to safely make it. In turn causing an accident which killed 2 people.



So IMO the has to share the blame here.

 

[Kenneth_Moore]

Silly Me

When I saw "Backlash" I thought I was going to read about manslaughter charges against the "cops" who caused the carnage by not using common sense in this situation.

Put this in the context of today's earlier post on the "High Speed Erratic Motorcycle Riding." Unf'ingbelievable.

 

[Kenneth_Moore]

Apparently we arrived at the same conclusion...

 

[56599]

Ok this legislator is really stupid.. I wish the site had a feedback section. How about MO contact this legislator and interview him? I would ask him some pointed questions like?

[*]Should we ban high performance automobiles?

[*]Exactly how many chases involve motorcycles?

[*]Is a knee jerk reactionary who doesn't think his statement through?

[*]Was the motorcyclist involved in a felony crime before the chase?

[*]Does Maryland use single engine fixed wing aircraft surveillance?

 

[56599]

Re: Silly Me

Yep I agree seems like an irrational witch hunt to me..

 

[mscuddy]

Re: Racial Profiling?

"Police say they were chasing a black, high-speed, nimble racing motorcycle".

Or as Phil Lynot once said "I'VE SEEN THE DEATH MACHINE".

Sorry, as you can see I've got nothing important to say.

Hey MO, howzabout testing one of those Chinese WWII BMW knockoffs?

Flatheads and all.

 

[seruzawa]

Well, you guys who love the govt so much should be really happy right now. You pusillaminous sheeple who turn to legislators to protect you from everything are to thank for this. This "problem" will be dealt with not by careful consideration but by broad sweeping laws that punish everyone. Just like always. Politicians just looooove to be seen 'doing something' and they don't care one whit how much harm they cause as long as it looks good in the polls.



You actually believed that the govt would never come after you personally. LOL!

 

[55765]

It implied that the rider was wanted in connection with a felony. So if he had been in a car are we to assume that he would have been observing traffic laws?

 

[Kenneth_Moore]

I've just sent this email to: '[email protected]'



Delegate Bronrott,



Although I'm not a resident of your state, I have been reading with interest the news articles on the unfortunate events related to a high speed chase last Wednesday that resulted in deaths and injuries. Apparently you are calling for an outright ban on high performance motorcycles. May I ask:



1. Are you also seeking a ban on high speed chases by the police for traffic violators? Many states and communities have enacted such laws.

2. Will high performance automobiles be included in the ban?

3. Will you be proposing bans on alcohol, firearms, and tobacco in the immediate future? I'm sure a quick check of the death statistics for your state will reveal that many more of your constituents will die from those causes than motorcycles, by an order of magnitude.



Many people think that there is a great deal of "media hype" about high performance motorcycles in the press lately. While I'm sure you have no intention of exploiting such "hype" for your personal and political gain, there may be others who perceive what I am sure are your good intentions as such. Perhaps you should explore more resonable alternatives than an "outright ban," such as society has chosen for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Tiered licensing, stronger training and testing programs, stiffer penalties for infractions, are just a few choices that come to mind.



Frankly, I'm shocked that your police officers would put your residents at risk over a non-lethal criminal. I hope someone is considering criminal charges against them.



Kenneth Moore

 

[56599]

Ok you are starting to me win me over. Never thought I would hear someone call for sportbike ban... Naive yep I know..

 

[56599]

Good work.. Well said

 

[BrowningBAR]

"Is a knee jerk reactionary who doesn't think his statement through?"

--Dude!

 

[55028]

So which side do the sport tourer fall on....

First they came for the sport bikes......

 

[nolaandy]

Yes, they can indeed ban entire classes of motorcycles from the highways. It doesn't take accurate statistics or actuarial facts. All it takes is enough bad publicity that the proles get all up in arms. They banned three wheelers and there is some noise about banning ATVs in general, even on private land.



I've seen enough reckless, foolish and illegal riding to know that the ammunition is out there. And yes, most of it involved bikes with some amount of plastic.



I long for the good old days when most motorcycle riders were into the activity of riding, not a bunch of adrenaline junkies with "lead wrists" replacing "lead feet". There have always been nutso riders, but it seems to me the percentage has increased.



Remember, riding is a privilege, not a right. It's defined that way by law. Police our selves or others will police us.

 

[58876]

Love it or leave it.



Sorry, had to do it.

 

[vermicious]

Your insinuation of motive is, unfortunately, highly accurate. Accurate enough to make forecasting the likelihood of any shift in the delegate's perspective pretty easy. As a Maryland resident I'm (once again) disgusted. I'll write a letter to this fellow as well but history leaves me without much hope of influencing a change.

 

[FrankL]

Using just the newspaper article as my sole source, there may be some ramifications here that I find a little scary. The Supreme Court in April of this year basically allowed police officers to neutralize speeders who may be running from the law by running them off the road or upsetting their vehicle so that they will crash, even if they already know the license number of the vehicle and the only apparent danger to the public is speeding. The guy in the Supreme court case was a speeding teenager who sped away from the police after being caught speeding. His car was purposefully bumped and he crashed, resulting in quadraplegia. The police knowingly caused injury (and the great possibility of death) for speeding that they themselves were enabling by chasing him after knowing the vehicle license number.

I'm curious whether or not the police were going to injure him or upset his vehicle by driving toward him or in a manner to cause him harm or death? If so, I'm glad he escaped from his executioners and that the hangmen themselves may have gotten hurt. If I'm correct, then where are the level headed politicians (oxymoron?) who will stop unnecessary police chases where the speeding itself is engendered by the police? Clearly, this politician isn't one of them.

FrankL

Link to Supreme Court ruling.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf

Link to the Scott vs Harris case (case #37)where you can hear and see the police chase:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06slipopinion.html

 

[DataDan]

FrankL wrote:

The Supreme Court in April of this year basically allowed police officers to neutralize speeders who may be running from the law by running them off the road or upsetting their vehicle so that they will crash, even if they already know the license number of the vehicle and the only apparent danger to the public is speeding.

That is not what the Supreme Court ruled. This is from the 8-1 deciding opinion:

We are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people's lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create: Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, and runs a few red lights. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

They clearly limited the option of running someone off the road to situations where the the suspect is putting the public at risk.

 

[The_AirHawk]

It's 1988 all over again, Senator Danforth..........