WOW!! Did anyone catch the news tonight?

[bcoop]

I love it that these guys think they are untouchable. Brien, and Skid - I've got to say I'm shocked. Neither of you have had your bike long at all, and you've already adopted the entitled, invincible attitude that every future highway stain I know has.

I'm going to LMFAO when some city has enough, and a whole bunch of you get fucked with no lube.

[mstng86]

I think seeing a metric ton of bikes cruising down the road is pretty impacting, the social network would take off and people would be talking about it. I'd rather see a large group cruise through DFW and setup at a large lot that has been approved, and have fun!

Exactly, looking for attention, not really focusing on the act of remembering someone.

[CexMashean]

I don't really have a say in this, or really any experience, but the only questions I really have are these:

If they want to do all that, why do it on a busy highway like that? If you really want to shut down a road, why not do it out in the middle of no where? Hell I20 has way less traffic. Why not be more considerate of others?

It seems like this is just a stunt for attention, not for remembering someone.

What do you think "stunting" is?
They're doing it, and everything else they do, for cool bro points with each other.

[dsrtuckteezy]

I have held a class M endorsement for 20 years.
How long have you had yours?

obviously that wouldnt be directed at you.

i've been riding street for 6 years, but have never had my M.

[Skidmark]

I love it that these guys think they are untouchable. Brien, and Skid - I've got to say I'm shocked. Neither of you have had your bike long at all, and you've already adopted the entitled, invincible attitude that every future highway stain I know has.

I'm going to LMFAO when some city has enough, and a whole bunch of you get fucked with no lube.

How have I adopted anything? I did not participate in the ride, I do not like the fact they are blocking traffic, I do not like people stunting on public roads.

I am playing devil's advocate in trying to understand the legalities and am tired of hearing people say they would run people over.

BTW: I am both Brien and Skidmark.

[BradM]

Unlawful Restraint does not apply to this. You need to post definitions when citing the penal code.



§ 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements
without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's
liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by
confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is
accomplished by:
(A) force, intimidation, or deception; or
(B) any means, including acquiescence of the
victim, if:
(i) the victim is a child who is less than
14 years of age or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian,
or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced
in the movement or confinement; or
(ii) the victim is a child who is 14 years
of age or older and younger than 17 years of age, the victim is taken
outside of the state and outside a 120-mile radius from the victim's
residence, and the parent, guardian, or person or institution
acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement.
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to
prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he
is not likely to be found; or
(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.
(3) "Relative" means a parent or stepparent, ancestor,
sibling, or uncle or aunt, including an adoptive relative of the
same degree through marriage or adoption.
(4) "Person" means an individual, corporation, or
association.
(5) Notwithstanding Section 1.07, "individual" means
a human being who has been born and is alive.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, § 2.03, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

[bcoop]

How have I adopted anything? I did not participate in the ride, I do not like the fact they are blocking traffic, I do not like people stunting on public roads.

I am playing devil's advocate in trying to understand the legalities and am tired of hearing people say they would run people over.

BTW: I am both Brien and Skidmark.

Both of you have the cocky ass untouchable attitude in this thread, acting like you can't be touched, cops aren't going to do anything, blah blah blah. Just like the dsrtuckteezy douche. At least, that's the way I've perceived what I've read, and perception is reality.


I know, jackass. Mis type on my part.

[Skidmark]

Unlawful Restraint does not apply to this. You need to post definitions when citing the penal code.

Thanks, I'll remember that.

[dsrtuckteezy]

they already stated on the video that they could only receive misdemeanors for this type of stuff.

[Lason]

Both of you have the cocky ass untouchable attitude in this thread, acting like you can't be touched, cops aren't going to do anything, blah blah blah. Just like the dsrtuckteezy douche. At least, that's the way I've perceived what I've read, and perception is reality.


I know, jackass. Mis type on my part.

Your not alone.

[Machx2]

Unlawful Restraint does not apply to this. You need to post definitions when citing the penal code.



§ 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements
without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's
liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by
confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is
accomplished by: (A) force, intimidation, or deception; or (B) any means, including acquiescence of the
victim, if:
(i) the victim is a child who is less than
14 years of age or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian,
or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced
in the movement or confinement; or
(ii) the victim is a child who is 14 years
of age or older and younger than 17 years of age, the victim is taken
outside of the state and outside a 120-mile radius from the victim's
residence, and the parent, guardian, or person or institution
acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement.
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to
prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he
is not likely to be found; or
(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.
(3) "Relative" means a parent or stepparent, ancestor,
sibling, or uncle or aunt, including an adoptive relative of the
same degree through marriage or adoption.
(4) "Person" means an individual, corporation, or
association.
(5) Notwithstanding Section 1.07, "individual" means
a human being who has been born and is alive.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, § 2.03, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Your definition changes nothing.

[BradM]

Can someone post Texas Penal Code 42.03 for me? I'm posting from my phone and it's a bitch.

[BradM]

Your definition changes nothing.

Just because they are in vehicles? They can get out and go anywhere they want. This is not the proper offense title.

[Skidmark]

Both of you have the cocky ass untouchable attitude in this thread, acting like you can't be touched, cops aren't going to do anything, blah blah blah. Just like the dsrtuckteezy douche. At least, that's the way I've perceived what I've read, and perception is reality.


I know, jackass. Mis type on my part.

Your not alone.

Maybe this will help you two.

1. Starting talking about a guy on the NBC page who was talking about running motorcycles and their riders over. Talked about calling him out and how his current career probably wouldn't like that.

- Nothing different than I've done before digging up people's information.

2. Discussed the technicalities of "holding" someone against their will by blocking traffic, compared it to wrecks holding up traffic and police blocking traffic.

3. Posted the unlawful restraint penal code and asked where the exception was to wrecks blocking traffic.

4. Agreed with Magnus that it is quite possible for a motorcycle to fly out of control and hit a car that was blocked in traffic, which could relate it to unlawful restraint.

5. Posted information about the guy who went down and took the other ride with him.

6. Compared additional legal trouble with planning a crime, to planning on not wearing a seat belt.

7. Made another comparison in regards to unlawful restraint with a car purposely running over motorcycles and their riders, therefore causing a traffic jam on purpose.

8. Agreed with mstng86 that this is mainly for attention and offered advice on a different solution to the ride, that does not invole blocking traffic.

[Machx2]

Laws are about interpretations. We have convicted a guy of unlawful restraint who boxed a lady in at a grocery store parking lot. How is this any different BradM?