For some, it's a real complicated issue.
Does it have pedals?
Does it have a headlight?
Does it have a tail/brake light?
Does it have turn signals
Does it have a license plate?
Is it registered?
Is it insured?
If the answer to the above questions are "No," and stay with me here, then it can't legally be operated on the street.
It doesn't take a Clarence Darrow to determine whether a motor vehicle is street-legal or not.
If the answer to the above questions are "No," and stay with me here, then it can't legally be operated on the street.
Nobody is arguing that the "bike" he was riding was not legally a motorcycle, as much as you'd like it to be to satisfy your condescending tripe. Nobody is arguing that the cop shouldn't have stopped him. What is being argued is if the kid deserved to be booked as a common criminal.
This is why discretion is part of law enforcement, and always has been. Accusing a minor of "breaking the law" implies intent to do so. Was the purchaser, as a minor, guilty of infraction or was the seller by not so informing him? "Should he have known," at 11 years old? Your "case" is not much more than guilt by association. You just want the thrill of visiting punishment, when the seller of that equipment should have refused the sale. If there is anyone in this chain who, "should have known," it was that dealership. All it would have taken to establish guilt would then be if the seller had produced a signed document that a responsible adult had read and understood it on the purchaser's behalf. Frankly and in my opinion, it was an illegal sale.