hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Fusion, First, if I want to write a book, I can write a book. Second, there was nothing "barely readable" about it unless you are used to picture books (which is apparently the case with you).Now as for the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law isn't to hassle. The spirit isn't to use the law to find out other information. The spirit is to protect. A simple word with the mic was sufficient. Clearly the guy just took off and the cop knew it. If he saw him riding down the freeway or on a long stretch, pulling over makes sense. When he saw him take off from the light, he knew it wasn't a long stretch. We may sound like teenagers being hasseled by the man but you sound like a freaking government hack who thinks the cops can do no wrong. Hate to break it to you, but I have been around enough cops to know they DO hassle people for no reason and they DO enjoy doing it. So here is an idea, let's drop your zombie-government-worshipping hackness and accept that we can be upset when we have been hassled and we are sick of it. WAS THIS LONG ENOUGH FOR YOU?? I can make it longer next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 No, they don't leave for crimes. When they pull someone over they go 10-6. They will leave is they see it but the dispatcher WILL not call them to the crime if they are 10-6. They will call someone else. Cops also are there to be a presence in the neighborhood to deter crime. Can't be much of a PRESENCE on the side of the road talking to a biker for no good reason. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO PULL HIM OVER!! Are you guys this brain dead. HE SAW HIM JUST TAKE OFF FROM THE LIGHT!!! He has a mic that he could remind him of the visor. He pulled him over to look for other things!! Period. GOD!!! The cop apologists in this room are ridiculous. You think cops don't hassle people??? They pull people over for BS all the time. Notice this was in Worthington? Notice the one I posted before was in Hilliard? They do it in suburbs because they are bored. Notice you never hear, "I was pulled over for my visor being up on Parsons Ave." That is because they are busy fighting real crime.Oh and the cop didn't LET ME go. I wasn't even there. I wasn't the involved. As with many who have accepted this is BS, I am a taxpayer sick of cops using the power to pull people over for stupid reasons. Stupid ass line?? I am tired of people thinking they know what a cops job is. Cops don't HAVE to pull people over. They aren't robots or traffic cams. They can use common sense. Try it sometime, you might like it. How bad would the cop feel if 10 minutes down the road a woman in a broken down car was raped and beaten and if he hadn't pulled the guy over, he would have been driving by and stopped it. We can all live in hypotheticals fireman. The reality is, the pull over was bs and your constant defense of cops is bs. They do things wrong. I know that is hard to accept but they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 I want to make it very clear. I don't hate cops. I worked very closely with them for 4 years. Most are good men who have a crappy job that puts there lives on the line every day. Most do the right thing. However, there are ones who like the power. There are ones that like the fear they get from people when they pull them over. All I am saying is that a little basic common sense by cops is all that we need. I agree that the cop did give him a warning and at least he was good enough for that. The point was, he never had to pull him over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Fusion, First, if I want to write a book, I can write a book. Second, there was nothing "barely readable" about it unless you are used to picture books (which is apparently the case with you).Now as for the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law isn't to hassle. The spirit isn't to use the law to find out other information. The spirit is to protect. A simple word with the mic was sufficient. Clearly the guy just took off and the cop knew it. If he saw him riding down the freeway or on a long stretch, pulling over makes sense. When he saw him take off from the light, he knew it wasn't a long stretch. We may sound like teenagers being hasseled by the man but you sound like a freaking government hack who thinks the cops can do no wrong. Hate to break it to you, but I have been around enough cops to know they DO hassle people for no reason and they DO enjoy doing it. So here is an idea, let's drop your zombie-government-worshipping hackness and accept that we can be upset when we have been hassled and we are sick of it. WAS THIS LONG ENOUGH FOR YOU?? I can make it longer next time.The spirit of the law has nothing to do with protection, but with how a law is executed verses how it's written. Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law.While I'm not overly familiar with Columbus, she states, "As soon as we got to 270 on 23, he pulled over..." Sounds to me like they had been at speed and where continuing at speed for more than a quick light-to-light jaunt. Even then you're required to close your visor (at least to cover the eyes) when in motion. So to bitch when you get pulled over for it is nothing more than whining like a child. Unless you're just ranting to blow off steam of course.What amazes me so much about this thread is all the crying over a simple WARNING.I've known a great deal of cops as well over the years and only one has been like you describe. Needless to say we didn't hang out with him much.Yup you got me. Just because I don't see this as harassment I blindly follow the government. Not sure what you meant by "hackness" though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 I did mention the warning made it a little better. People just don't like being hasseled. The distance she is talking about in the original post is VERY short. The area has about 4 stop lights in a row. They weren't up to speed yet. The cop was hasseling them. Notice, the first cop didn't pull them over. Obviously, he made a choice. Additionally, I am assuming the rider was on a sport bike. If so, that has a windshield. Someone pointed out that the law states you don't have to wear eye protection if you have a windshield. If it was a sport bike, there is a windshield. So, by the letter of the law, no eye protection was required. So, the cop wasn't following the law and the person didn't violate any laws. I said government hackness as in you are a government hack who thinks the cops do no wrong. I spent 4 years working closely with cops. I met plenty of bad eggs. It is clear a few of you will support cops no matter what they do, even when it is ridiculous, and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisoh Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 The windshield has to be a certain height to not have to wear eye protection in OH. Not just have a windshield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Actually, the law states....Eye ProtectionRequired by law unless equipped with windscreenNo heighth is given. So by the letter of the law, you can have a Road King Custom with it's tiny little metal windscreen and not need eye protection. You would be an idiot and it far from meets the spirit of the law, but you could do it. So, legally, assuming this person was on a sport bike, they did nothing wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Actually, the law states....Eye ProtectionRequired by law unless equipped with windscreenNo heighth is given. So by the letter of the law, you can have a Road King Custom with it's tiny little metal windscreen and not need eye protection. You would be an idiot and it far from meets the spirit of the law, but you could do it. So, legally, assuming this person was on a sport bike, they did nothing wrong.I think it's safe to assume the windscreen has to be high enough to protect the eyes. Hence the phrase Eye Protection... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Would that mean you are going by the spirit of the law??? Because the letter of the law says windscreen. It doesn't indicate ANY height. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Actually after looking at the Ohio State Law under 4511 and what the DMV says..they both state the eye protection required and say nothing about a windscreen.The only place that seems to suggest windscreen might be an exception are motorcycle related sites but I can't find where they might have gotten that from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Would that mean you are going by the spirit of the law??? Because the letter of the law says windscreen. It doesn't indicate ANY height.I never suggested they follow the letter of the law. As a matter of fact, I suggested the spirit of the law be followed. I even gave an example of that, "Had he pulled the guy over for merely lifting his visor to talk to his buddy at a light, then he would have been an asshole."I'm not sure I have any idea WTF you are talking about at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 The guy just left a signal. He wasn't going fast and the cop saw that it hadn't been up for an extended period of time. The spirit of the law wouldn't be to HASSLE the guy by pulling him over and running his id. Your "example" was for the letter of the law. Pull him over, run his tags. That is letter. The cop only needed to remind him on the mic. Clearly the guy forgot. That is WTF I am talking about.As for the previous post. The BMV doesn't note it but on the Ohio law it says "unless a wind screen is present". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 :beathorse::beathorse: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 The guy just left a signal. He wasn't going fast and the cop saw that it hadn't been up for an extended period of time. The spirit of the law wouldn't be to HASSLE the guy by pulling him over and running his id. Your "example" was for the letter of the law. Pull him over, run his tags. That is letter. The cop only needed to remind him on the mic. Clearly the guy forgot. That is WTF I am talking about.As for the previous post. The BMV doesn't note it but on the Ohio law it says "unless a wind screen is present".You're just fucking stupid.1) Hassling would have been pulling him over, because he had his visor up while sitting at the light. Following the spirit of the law, the officer seems to have pulled him over after the rider didn't lower his visor immediately before/after accelerating. I guess you're suggesting stuff can't fly into your eyes during the magical space in between lights.2) If you're going to make the stupid comment, "As for the previous post. The BMV doesn't note it but on the Ohio law it says "unless a wind screen is present"." you might want to reread my post that says, "Actually after looking at the Ohio State Law under 4511 and what the DMV says...".You might also want to actually look things up instead of being a sheep and believing what's easiest for you. If you want to find the law that contradicts this one go ahead...let me help you out."4511.53 Operation of bicycles, motorcycles and snowmobiles."(section b, 5th paragraph)"No person shall operate or be a passenger on a snowmobile or motorcycle without using safety glasses or other protective eye device. No person who is under the age of eighteen years, or who holds a motorcycle operator’s endorsement or license bearing a “novice†designation that is currently in effect as provided in section 4507.13 of the Revised Code, shall operate a motorcycle on a highway, or be a passenger on a motorcycle, unless wearing a protective helmet on the person’s head, and no other person shall be a passenger on a motorcycle operated by such a person unless similarly wearing a protective helmet. The helmet, safety glasses, or other protective eye device shall conform with regulations prescribed and promulgated by the director of public safety. The provisions of this paragraph or a violation thereof shall not be used in the trial of any civil action." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 damn it I'm having fun and getting my post count up at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Stupid, So the AMA is stupid? Good to know that they agency fighting for your rights is stupid I pulled it from them. I don't have all day to go looking through the code. I trust the AMA. Talk to them. As for stupid, one need only read your posts to see that. He did hassle him for a stupid reason. God, how far up the police and government's asses are you? On the other post you make posts as dumb as here. In case you didn't notice, I am not the only one who posted the windshield thing.Your big responses are people are retarded and stupid? HAHA. Name calling, the last bastion of the illiterate, ill-informed and uneducated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Stupid, So the AMA is stupid? Good to know that they agency fighting for your rights is stupid I pulled it from them. I don't have all day to go looking through the code. I trust the AMA. Talk to them. As for stupid, one need only read your posts to see that. He did hassle him for a stupid reason. God, how far up the police and government's asses are you? On the other post you make posts as dumb as here.First I appreciate the things the AMA has done for riders. Doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.Second... here's the link to to the codes http://codes.ohio.gov/. Only took a minute to find. Here's the the direct link (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.53) since you seem to be a bit lazy.Like I said feel free to find something that includes windshields as an exception.Until then...yeah you're stupid.Again I'm not sure why I'm considered up the gov'ts ass for agreeing that the officer wasn't out of line.Try backing your statements with something more than blind hate for law or authority. You sound like an ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Like I told Ben, I am an ass to assholes. You fit the bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 http://bmv.ohio.gov/misc/new_resident.htmI know I am lazy but here is the link to the BMV that specifically says that eye protection is NOT required if you have wind screen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Like I told Ben, I am an ass to assholes. You fit the billI don't know. You pretty much started in with the picture books and "zombie-government-worshipping hackness" comment. I'm still not sure hackness is a word.I'm sorry if hurt your feeling by starting off complaining about your single paragraph post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/pdf_forms/3741.pdfcheck out page 11.No feelings hurt. Look, I apologize, I think we both kind of attacked each other when it wasn't needed. I very passionate about freedom being taken away. I let that go too far I think. Can we call a truce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 http://bmv.ohio.gov/misc/new_resident.htmI know I am lazy but here is the link to the BMV that specifically says that eye protection is NOT required if you have wind screen!OK and the "Digest of Ohio Motor Vehicle Laws" linked on the same page does NOT say that and the LAW does NOT say that. I don't think I'll be relying on this FAQ page.I will however be more than happy to email them and see why this page conflicts with the handbook and actual law. If they can point me to some revised code or something that provides for the exception I'll happily admit I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/pdf_forms/3741.pdfcheck out page 11.No feelings hurt. Look, I apologize, I think we both kind of attacked each other when it wasn't needed. I very passionate about freedom being taken away. I let that go too far I think. Can we call a truce?Yeah that seems copy and paste from the same source as the site. I am curious about where that windshield bit comes from since I can't find it referenced anywhere.Fair enough, truce. i withdraw my statement form the other thread as well.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrix Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 by the way, the law states that the "other eye protection" has to be of that approved by the department of public safety. If you go to their website and search wind screen, it brings you another version of the PDF that says wind screens are eye protection. It is the "other eye protection" that allows for windscreens to act in their place. Stupidly, they don't tell you the height it has to be. So, you could get off just by saying you had a wind screen on your sport bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.