My take...
When an officer is on the roadside (or anywhere) doing their job, it isnt a time for games. Games can get someone hurt, or worse. Obviously, if several officers had several individuals detained there, it was a serious matter. The cyclist rides by and distracts the officers with his comment, which had no business making... one of the suspects grabs a gun or strikes one of the officers, and now you have a less than desirable situation, all because the cyclist had to inject his two pennies. That being said...
1) The cyclist had no business yelling anything to the officers OR the suspects. As it was mentioned several times, if he had just kept to himself, he would have gone home that night.
1-a) No, that is not a violation of free speech. Distracting, harassing, or otherwise interfering with an officer while he is performing his job (as they obviously were from the original poster's decription) is called obstruction, and generally a misdemeanor, punishable by jail time, at least in my state. It is dangerous to the suspects, the officers and possibly any bystandards including the cyclist; it has nothing to do with free speech. Period.
2) If one of the officers wanted to stop the cyclist to speak with him in regards to the above referenced obstruction offense that he had just committed, the fact that the headlamp on his bike was not illuminated was not pertinant. They already had reason to stop the cyclist, if nothing else to issue him a courtiousy notice to refrain from distracting officers during the course of their duties, the reasons why and the potential penalties involved.
3) When they activated their lights and sirens, that is a clear and well known indicator to stop your vehicle (bicycle, car, bus, horse, train, plane, boat or legs...) a failure to do so is called fleeing, yet another misdemeanor punishable by jail time in this, and most other states. It is a serious offense.
4) As far as the Glock was concerned, it definatly would have been confiscated until his release for officer safety reasons-that is not a second amendment violation, though I dont think I would have charged him with the firearms violation. If he possessed a concealed carry permit, that would have been enough for me. He would have gotten his firearm back when he was released. However, as the legal, authorized carrier of a concealed lethal weapon, I feel that he should have demonstrated a little more maturity and responsibility for his actions.
Though as with all stories, Im sure some of the facts were omitted, or skewed (..not necessarily on purpose..) to one degree or another, so it is hard to say if indeed a firearms violation was committed or not.. Im simply taking the story at face value.
...just my take.
