Originally Posted by lionsm13

+1

I'll tell ya another one. Most of your "real outlaw" clubs police themselves quite well.
They also have a reputation to maintain, and know if they get too far out of line that the proverbial **** will come down on them.

They mostly do not want to be seen in a bad light in the public's eye.
They know how they are perceived by the public.
On the other hand the IP's want to be seen as "outlaw types", but in reality are not.

I've known a few 1 %ers that were chastized because of drunken behavior in public and were made to go on the wagon, and put on probation, etc.
Am I excusing or minimizing their behavior in general ?
Hardly...
They know who they are, and that is why they do not cooperate with whom they perceive the "other side" to be.
Why would they?

Originally Posted by Mad Mike

...... My personal opinion was that as a cop he just should have exercised better judgement in going in that particular bar wearing what he was wearing PERIOD! That's all I've been saying.......

Originally Posted by Lyfer

Sturgis bar reacts to shooting; suspects charged
By Ryan Woodard
Journal staff Wednesday, September 03, 2008

The Loud American Roadhouse in Sturgis has adopted a “no colors” policy in reaction to an early-morning Aug. 9 shooting that has resulted in criminal charges against six men.

The new policy means that biker groups will not be able to wear clothing that distinguishes their various affiliations.

Dean Kinney, one of the bar’s owners, said the policy, which was considered for a few years, was pushed into action after the shooting of a Hells Angels member during a fight that involved members of the Iron Pigs motorcycle club. The bar wants to show customers that it takes the incident seriously and doesn’t want any more trouble.

“We’re committed to making sure our customers are safe and feel safe in the Loud American Roadhouse,” he said.

Kinney’s comments came on Thursday, the day after a Meade County grand jury called for the arrests of the shooting victim, four off-duty law enforcement officers and another biker.

No court dates have been set in the case. Arrest warrants and court summons for the defendants will be “issued and served, as appropriate,” according to a news release.

Meade County Clerk of Courts Lane Keil said no warrants or summonses would be issued Thursday because there were no judges on duty to sign the orders.

The grand jury heard testimony from 25 witnesses on Aug. 10, and from another 10 witnesses on Wednesday.

After considering the evidence, a Meade County grand jury found probable cause for criminal charges and indicted:

*Ronald Smith, 43, an off-duty Seattle Police Department detective, for aggravated assault, perjury and carrying a concealed pistol without a permit. He faces up to 15 years in prison for assault and five years for perjury. He also faces alternative charges of simple assault and failure to abide by a permit of a reciprocal state.

*Joseph Patrick McGuire, 33, Imperial Beach, Calif., for aggravated assault and an alternative count of simple assault. The Hells Angels member faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted of aggravated assault, or up to one year in jail on the alternative charge.

*Scott Lazalde, 38, Bellingham, Wash.; Dennis McCoy, 58, Seattle; Erik Pingel, 35, Aurora, Colo.; and James Rector, 37, Ferndale, Wash., each for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit or an alternative charge of failing to abide by a permit of a reciprocal state. They can be convicted of just one of the charges.

Lazalde and Rector are members of the U.S. Customs and Border Inspection in Blaine, Wash. McCoy is a precinct patrol sergeant in Seattle. Pingel’s occupation and motorcycle club affiliation were not known.

Smith and the other men from Washington are reportedly members of the Iron Pigs, a group comprised of police officers and firefighters.

Smith has admitted to shooting McGuire but has maintained it was in self-defense as he was being hit and kicked during an altercation between the Hells Angels and Iron Pigs.

Smith testified before the grand jury the day after the fight. Officials did not provide details into the allegations of perjury.

The Seattle Police Department declined to comment on Smith’s indictment, other than to say that Smith and McCoy would remain on administrative leave until more information is released.

The two were placed on leave immediately after the incident, along with three other Seattle officers. The other officers at the rally had nothing to do with the shooting and were returned to duty, according to Seattle Police Department spokesman Jeffrey Kappel.

The Seattle Police Guild have defended Smith, who is a member of the union.

“We are certain that once all the facts are known, the involved SPOG (Seattle Police Officers Guild) members will be vindicated and absolved of any wrong-doing,” the guild said in a statement issued on the group’s Web site. “Until that occurs, we are heartened by the news that Detective Ron Smith is recovering from his serious injuries and that no other parties were injured except for Detective Smith and his alleged assailant.”

A guild spokeswoman declined to comment on Smith’s injuries referred to in the release.

McGuire, who was hospitalized after the shooting, is not listed in the directory at Rapid City Regional Hospital. A relative told Seattle media that he was moved from intensive care about a week after the shooting and was recovering from gunshot wounds to his stomach and leg.

Business has gone on pretty much as usual at the Loud American Roadhouse since the Aug. 9 shooting, Kinney said.

“People recognize that it’s an isolated incident and could have happened anywhere,” he said.

Kinney said other than the no-colors policy, the bar is not considering other security measures and has no plans to check customers for guns. A policy like that would be difficult to enforce, he said.

“Having said that, I think it was surprising to all of us that that organization, the Iron Pigs, was in our establishment with guns,” Kinney said. “We certainly don’t appreciate it.”

Originally Posted by pococj

South Dakota law or not, the cop in question was drinking. He admitted to that. That means he can't be carrying under the federal law that allows cops to carry nationwide, with a few "place exceptions". But then the federal law has never been implemented 'cause the DOJ hasn't done what they need to do to make the law take effect. Because of those two little points of law, the cop that was carrying was rightfully charged with a weapons violation, trial to follow.

Originally Posted by Da Gumpmeister

Yes, he had the right to walk into the bar. At that point, he also had the responsibilty, and the consequences, that goes with the right to choose. And I still say, he was an idiot LEO. Just like an HA waltzing into the police station, to 'prove' a point, DOH!!!!! But the HAs I have known over the years, have figured that out.
Now, again, if you believe this guy was just John Q. Public LEO, exercising his 'right' to walk into any bar he chooses, then you can believe that. I believe the guy was playin' Billy Badazz, based on his public record, his display of the 3 piece patch in a known hang out, and displayed unbelieveably p*ss poor judgement. Whether he was 'legal' or not. And unfortunately, his choice turned out to be not so good, for more than just him.
I am anti-idiot, not anti-LEO, anti-1%er, or anti-choice. I don't care if it is the patch, the badge, the sportbike, or the gun. He displayed really p*ss poor judgement for a 1%er, let alone a LEO. Think about it, how would a bunch of LEOs at a get together in their watering hole, respond to a few HAs walking in with CCW, and brandishing an attitude, especially if one of them was known to have put one of your own away for being a dirty cop? And if you say you would be congenial and courteous, then you, sirs, are angels here on earth, pics of the 'halo' would help. But according to one of the posts earlier, it was pointed out that the HAs wouldn't go after the LEO because of the 'blue' line. Is that any better than what the HAs are about? Red and white, or blue, guess it makes no difference to some.
To this ol' bikin' bastud, it does. If you want to keep playing with fire, yadda, yadda. If one believes they are above the consequences, some one, an HA, a LEO, a Mongol, an Outlaw, or possibly just a 'citizen' is going to trim the tailfeathers.
You can believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. That, Sir, is what makes this a GREAT country. I believe I will not drink and drive, causes conflict with the LEOs round here. I believe I will not waltz around with a 3 piece patch, playing badazz, it causes conflict with the HAs and Outlaws round here. But you can do both if you so choose. This is not my first rodeo, and I do not believe it is yours either.

Originally Posted by RIDEIRISH

Dope man, you've been trying valiently to turn the story around and use my own analogies against me...LOL too funny, but your reasoning in the last one is flawed...
The copper has yet to be proven that he was drunk, he wasn't running his mouth off, he wasn't acting badass in front of his friends, if I came up behind you and attacked you, you'll get your *** kicked too, and as it's been proven already, he did "dish it out" just fine it would seem. The grand jury TRIED to use some of the personal feelings to charge the guy, and once the DA actually sat down and appied the LAW, charge started dropping....it's no coincidence, trust me.
And, try to do better on the rebuttals....stick with the FACTS before posting.

Originally Posted by Jimbo60

Mike, I think its falling on deaf ears. Myself and others in this thread posted the same thing early on.

It's not whether or not the LEO was justified in his use of force (considering the recent legal decisions it would appear that he was) . Rather his judgement that allowed him to be in that position in the first place.

Apparently many of the LEOs on here can't wrap their brains around this concept and those of us who feel this way are classified as somehow 'bashing' LEOs.

................. Jim

Originally Posted by RIDEIRISH

Side bar.....(intended to be humorous, so laugh please..)

I'm off duty, heading out to the tattoo shop to finish my sleeve in a short bit here........

I know HA's and their "B" team have been in the shop and have gotten work done there(actually sat in the chair next to one last tattoo, it was scary!!!)...

The employees and my artist know I'm a copper...

I'll be wearing either a copper shirt OR a LEMC t-shirt...no vest 'cause I'm taking the cage...

They have a refridgerator that has beer in it, in the shop....

Question: Can I take my gun?

Originally Posted by Professor

Why the heck would anyone want to be in a bar on main street in Sturgis at 1:00 am? That's like standing in a lightning storm and hoping not to get hit. Adrenaline, testosterone, alcohol, and gunpowder. A bad combination. The only thing worse is to throw in a little gasoline.

Originally Posted by Jimbo60

I don't think that this has turned into a cop 'bashing' thread at all.
It is however, reflecting the general polarization of society at large, regarding LE.
Conventional wisdom tells us to respect and honor the police. When their behaviors are not honorable, the respect no longer applies.
Being in a bar, at a biker rally, dressed up like a bad**z, at 1:30 in the morning is not what I expect from LE.
Critcism of LE on this thread - yes. Criticism, however, is not 'bashing'.

................ Jim

Originally Posted by badinfluence63

Big difference here and in this circumstance,bottom line, 1%'s don't advertise being one thing then act another. Unlike the IPMC who set a confusing precedent. Your post waters the issue into symantics and trifflings in the LEO's favor. Fact is, as an active member of the LEO community if you don't think you have an obligation to conduct yourself in a respectful manner off and on the job instead of swinging your career like a weapon when not on duty, then perhaps your in the wrong line of work.

Originally Posted by badinfluence63

Seems to me he played his LEO card while trying to pretend to be a tuff guy. But hey, its all good. The system will cover his action, the LEO community will save face and life goes on.

Originally Posted by SloChicken

Another one is,

"It doesn't matter how it went down, it is how it is written up."

That is how far too many arrests, convictions, and even exhonerations occur. Thus the public angst and the us vs them mentality, on both sides of the law.

Personally, I don't trust cops, or 1%ers.
I am not in their club and both will find a way to take advantage of that if they choose. I especially won't trust a cop that runs around like he is a 1%er. He knows what he is doing, and so do all you LEOs with your panties in a twist over this - so quit with the BS about "we can wear what we want when we want." You can, but you are (I hope) smart enough to know what comes with it. Yet the guy "legally" carries a gun while doing it.
What a joke, so bad cop of him. And you wonder why the public has a problem???

Go ask a brother of color to throw on a blue shirt and walk around a neighborhood that is claimed by Bloods (red shirts), and see the reaction he gives you.
He knows better, cause he isn't an idiot. He knows what goes along with it. Seems the LEO/IPs don't really want to look at that part, for whatever reason. I am pretty sure it isn't so they can maintain their "fashion liberties" however.

Not the attitude I want my tax dollars paying for.

I have seen this or similar BS chest thumping emanate from cops (too many times), I haven't ever been messed with from 1%ers tho.

Nevertheless,
I find it best to stay the f out of either their business and mind my own.

I bet you this tho.

If a civilian was in a bar, got in a fight, and shot somebody, they would still be in custody. And,
I am quite sure that if my plea was that "he was choking me out" that it wouldn't do dick for me and my case of "self-defense" With anyone here, or the courts.
Yet this guy is walking around - So typical.
What if the cop was choking the HA out, and the HA shot him? How would that play out? Hmmn ...
We have a cop here in San Diego that shot one of our best Charger Linebackers after following him home because he didn't like his way of driving (off duty mind you). and tried to make an arrest out of uniform and no badge shown. Just a gun.
Then he saw how big the guy was when he got out of his car. He shot him from some 30 feet away, twice in the leg.
The Charger is now retired secondary to the "injury"
The cop is now back on his beat.
WTF I say.
And you guys wonder why people have a problem with cops.
Why can't you just do your job like you are supposed to. Act like you are supposed to.
Ever hear the term "Officer and a Gentleman"? How about "Conduct unbecoming an Officer?"
I know they are military terms. But much could be learned from them. Especially with the IPs and the Punk *** cop that shot the linebacker.

The HAs are different. At least you know what they are. Not some wolf in sheeps clothing.

Originally Posted by Jimbo60

There seem to be some LE oriented folks on this thread that just haven’t picked up the plot yet.

It’s like this. Some folks are a little sharper than a bag full of wet mice. We suspect that this whole situation might have been avoided by the officers in question showing some better judgment in their off duty life, by not imitating an OMC or, going into the Loud American Roadhouse in the first place. Isn’t there a saying somewhere that if you play with fire, you might get burned?

LEOs have the responsibility of maintaining a certain amount of professionalism both on and off duty. I know that some of you don’t particularly care for the idea of being held to a higher standard but, you are. That’s not only the way its, it’s the way it should be. I suspect that is the reason for the intricate hiring/training process the profession has adopted. It is supposed to weed out those who don’t meet the higher standard. Because of this higher standard you are all very proud of your profession (presumably)and generally enjoy the public’s trust. Don’t blindly defend a fellow officer just because his actions were legally justifiable. Especially when it looks like the whole situation could have been avoided, by avoiding the whole situation.

The IPMC doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I seriously doubt that they came up with their patch and mission statement ’out of the blue’, in the spirit of ‘good clean fun’. The only reason that I can conceive for doing so, is to imitate and possibly intimidate the various 1% clubs. The question is not ‘can they?’ - of course they can, they’re cops, but, ‘should they?’ Knowing the possible repercussions, which I’m sure they do/did, they probably shouldn’t have, because they’re cops.

So because some of us have been critical of the officers involved with the IPMC, and by extension, LE in general, that makes us ‘cop haters’? Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.

................ Jim

Originally Posted by faber

So this thread isn't locked yet....

This whole patch system is BS. It really is, folks. But.....people who ride, wear colors and three-patch MC logos know what the deal is.

But I'm glad the general public doesn't. Patch, two or three patches, no patches...they don't know the difference. I pull up to the DQ in my leathers and people think I'm, some kind of outlaw. Oh, yeah...all the nine-year-olds just start quaking.

There are many more good LEOs than rotten ones, so I hope they take of this guy like we took care of our own when I was in the Army. If the police can't police the police, then someone else should police them, like a state or federal prosecutor. If you can;t follow the law you enforce, it'll catch up with you and remove you from the force.

As for the 1%ers, live and let live. If they break the law, there are thousands of LEOs from all levels of jurisdiction to bust them and hopefully make it a RICO indictment. There's a big difference between the romanticized ideal of living and riding free and the organized criminal activities many of these guys get into to finance this "freedom." They are scrutinized for a reason. Those guys know the circumstance and still choose the life.

Whatever the hell happened at that bar in Sturgis, it sounds like it took two to tango, but one was armed. The only guy speaking in favor of this LEO/IP is his union rep.

In the meantime, the average cage-driving mary will just think we all like to go to bars, start fights and shoot each other. Hmmm....maybe I will sew on that HOG patch just to phreaq people out.

Originally Posted by coltsfan

It really doesn't matter to me if you are a police or if you choose to belong to a club. We are all free men protected by the constitution aren't we? And there is always that really good one; judge not lest you be judged. I suppose we are all trying to emulate something or have been influenced by something aren't we? Does it matter?

I am under the impression the IP was point o eight, but I could be wrong. It has been posted on here that HR 218 has never been ratified or some nonsense that would never make it through an appeals court to uphold a conviction, "knowingly and willingly" and all that.

The only issue is whether they were armed and drinking. The rest is just me spouting my own opinions about people pulling guns in fistfights, even if the fight "doesn't look good" for them. Make your choice and live or die with it.

Originally Posted by MNPGRider

RideIrish, this article appeared last week in the Rapid City Journal concerning that:

Federal firearms act cannot be used in caseBy Journal staff Friday, August The Meade county grand jury that indicted a Seattle police officer for bringing a gun into a Sturgis bar in the early morning hours of Aug. 9 could not have used the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 to exonerate him, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Thursday.

Congress passed that law in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to exempt qualified law enforcement officers from state laws that prohibit the carrying of a concealed weapon. But because the legislation was never implemented by its rule-making agency – the U.S. Attorney General’s office -- the Meade County grand jury could not have used it in any case to defend the actions of Seattle policeman Ronald Smith, according to Carrie DiPirro, public information officer in the Denver office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Nowhere in America would that act have been considered by a grand jury, DiPirro said.

“The act was passed, but it’s never been enforced by the Attorney General’s office,” she said. Congress directed the U.S. Attorney General’s office to meet the conditions for its implementation – such as establishing the necessary databases and identifications -- something which DiPirro said apparently has never been done.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act amended the federal criminal code to authorize qualified law enforcement officers (including certain qualified retired officers) carrying the photographic identification issued by their governmental agency, notwithstanding state or local laws, to carry a concealed firearm. That authorization is not intended to supersede state laws that permit private entities to prohibit the possession of concealed firearms on their property, or prohibit the possession of firearms on state or local government property. The law also would not cover any officer under the influence of alcohol and it excludes from the definition of “firearm” any machine gun, firearm silencer, or destructive device.

Smith and four other men were charged on two alternative concealed weapon permit violations. According to the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Web site, Washington and South Dakota do not have reciprocity of concealed weapons permits, but Attorney General Larry Long said Thursday he could not immediately confirm that.

“We’re not sure if Washington is or not,” Long said.

The grand jury issued alternative concealed weapon permit indictments for Smith and the others. The men could be convicted of carrying a concealed pistol without permit or failing to abide by a permit of a reciprocal state, but not both counts, Long said.
_________________

Originally Posted by pococj

I read elsewhere, but have no idea if it is factual, that he blew a 0.08. If so, he's under the influence.

And if the federal carry law can not be applied, as seems the case, then he wasn't permitted to carry in S. Dakota.

But even with those two circumstances, it will still be up to a jury, if he chooses to go that way, to decide his guilt.

I don't serve on juries because I believe that a jury has the duty to judge the law as well as the accused. DAs and judges don't like that, even tho the Supreme Court has said that is the purpose of a jury. (You ever want out of a jury, simply tell the DA you are a member of the Fully Informed Jury Association.)

Originally Posted by badinfluence63

By their own words and actions, the ipmc in this particular case, sound like dirty cops to me. When they couldn't cash the check their mouth wrote, they played their LEO card. By all acounts I have read, smith had been annoying customers and running off at the mouth. Was I there, no. The best I have is scouring the WWW for newsclippings, interviews and news reports. To me some, not all LEO here are, true to fashion, standing by there guys, right or wrong. Other LEO's have called it as it was, inappropriate and bad judgement on the ipmc's part. Too many are over simplifing it saying if it was an altercation between the cops and the HA you know it was the HA's fault. Not this time.

I have been in the company of HA, Pagans and Outlaws and never had problems. Never in 30 years. There were a couple of tense moments from time to time but only until what the deal was, was straightened out. I found the tense moments fair and reasonable. My input was given fair air time in each case. I never felt belittled or insulted in the exchanges, nor did I insult or grovel for mercy. The ones I ever saw getting the what for brought it on themselves by being disrespectful and mouthy, like in this case with the ipmc. From my experience and it being a judgement call based on what I have read in reports, news articles I have seen and things I have seen and experienced in person, the ipmc brought it on themselves. Their system is doing a great wag the dog smoke and mirrors show and the ipmc will be vindicated. I won't buy it and I won't be the only one either.

The 1%ers police themselves, LEO's seem to allow the misjustice to perpetuate itself until its so confusing it looks justified. Like what you are trying to do right now. Its called the blue wall or the blue line. I think someone called Serpico brought attention to that. Then their was the LEO corruption of New Orleans. And too many other LEO issues stymied because some cop broke the law and the other cops allow it to perpetuate. The ipmc existence pushes that envelope further and in a bad direction, in my opinion. If I was a good LEO and concerned as to what light myself and fellow LEO bretheren were seen in, I would be pissed at the impc in this scenario. Maybe not all the impc but this group I would be pulling patches and shutting this particular chapter down. If the eye offends you pluc it out. Sometimes ya have to cut off the finger to save the hand, yada yada yada.

You present yourself as a decent person and hopefully you are an LEO who grasp and embraces the full scope of being an LEO, off and on duty. I doubt you and your bro's ride around conducting yourselves in the manner as the impc did in this particular incident. If you did it would be a matter of time before you would make news too. Will you play the LEO card when your fun gets out of hand?

Originally Posted by RIDEIRISH

Yeah...funny you say that...I'm sitting here thinking that this dance is getting old fast..time to change up the music. I'm just very stubborn sometimes and simply refuse to give up....apparently some guys here suffer from the same affliction...

Listen, all I want if for people to stop being a little narrow minded when it comes to us coppers.we drink, we party, we fight with our wives, we get mad, we join cop motorcycle clubs to be around like minded people, we cuss.