What makes this thread so entertaining is the original AMA (American Motorcycle Association) claim that 99% of all motorcyclists are law-abiding citizens and the original 1% bikers were quite proud of being in the 1% that were NOT law-abiding.
Could someone pass the popcorn please?

 

That's nice. Do you want to apply that same standard to the LAPD?

Ever hear of the Rampart Division scandal? Numerous police officers of LAPD's Rampart Division (the elite CRASH unit) were convicted of dealing drugs, setting up dealers, planting evidence, bank robbery, and all sorts of other little "minor infractions." This wasn't just a couple of bad cops, this was huge scandal that involved scores of officers and detectives. Obviously, using your logic, the LAPD is a criminal organization as a whole, right? Why wasn't the LAPD prosecuted under the RICO act?

This corruption case rocked the entire department, and confirmed what many citizens were saying about the LAPD for years. The damage done to the citizen's confidence in the force is irreparable, IMHO.

Here, maybe this will refresh your memory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal

So, what were we talking about? Judging a book by its cover?

 

This is almost off the subject, but I really don't think the term 1%er and the 99% statement came from the AMA - yes, I know they say that on Gangland and every outlaw biker documentary. I think the original statement actually came from an under-sheriff of San Benito County, California, best I recall from the book. If you read The Original Wild Ones, at the part where they discuss the Hollister event/riot/massacree in 1947, they have the full text of an open letter from the under-sheriff to the press, saying "your reports are BS and nothing happehned here, motorcyclists are welcome back next year, etc." That letter is the one with the statement about the "99% law abiding 1% trouble-makers." Because the rally/meet at Hollister was an AMA event, I think people down the line attributed the statement to the AMA.

 

They were sued under RICO and the judge did rule that RICO could be applied, not sure about prosecution.

 

You may in fact be correct on the origin of the 99% statement.
What amuses me are the historical accounts of the extremes the original adopters of the 3 piece patch used to separate themselves from law-abiding citizens.

 

Brenn,
I believe you are correct. The letter was written to the press in response to the negative rep Hollister was getting from the Time magazine article. The truth is kinda boring so people choose to believe the myth and legend.

 

Well, obviously this profiling is a problem all over the United States. I have seen and read about it for years. Police Officers harassing bikers, simply for being bikers. Well, the state of Washington is taking the lead in stopping it. They have passed a law against profiling bikers. Just like Officers can't profile blacks, mexicans, muslims, or blue haired old ladies. Here is the link to the story.

http://www.cyrilhuzeblog.com/2011/04...ers-profiling/

 

You are correct. The door was opened to sue the LAPD under RICO for civil rights violations. I read in this article that the damages can be tripled under RICO. It has already cost the city of LA more millions than I have fingers and toes.

It's pretty amazing to me that a major police department in our country could be deemed a "criminal organization" for a civil case, and punished accordingly. Who knows if this will actually stick. Some federal judge could have, or already may have overturned the previous court's ruling. I haven't followed it very closely.

http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/lapd-rico.htm

However, I don't believe that any of the defendents (individual police officers) were ever prosecuted for their criminal charges under RICO. Many are now out of prison that would still be behind bars for a long time if they had been convicted under that statute.

 

Sad part is: none of their funding is affected, they don't lose any assets, and the citizens get to pay for the damages.

 

Totally agree with ya