And because that happened in Seattle, you have no sympathy for someone unconnected being attacked by a policeman in a different city?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bicyclist assaults NYPD officer
- Thread starter HarryKeogh
- Start date
And because that happened in Seattle, you have no sympathy for someone unconnected being attacked by a policeman in a different city?
Bicycle assault in N.Y.City & what you can do about it!
07/Sept/08
Having just seen on You-tube the deliberate action of a what appears to be a N.Y.City "cop" I will offer, in my opinion, what would be an effective solution to stem any further illegal police tactics.
There is a new governor in Albany,N.Y. that will take into consideration the amount of letter received on this blatant police abuse of public servant powers.
Also mention that the Bureau of Municipal Police Training Council insert into the training procedures for police ( what ever it is you want for the police to change from their current way of dealing with the public)
When the police are trained to think of themselves as public servants, and get away from the us vrs. them mentality we as a nation will have taken a rather large step toward community policing services.
There is a new governor in Albany,N.Y. that will take into consideration the amount of letter received on this blatant police abuse of public servant powers.
Also mention that the Bureau of Municipal Police Training Council insert into the training procedures for police ( what ever it is you want for the police to change from their current way of dealing with the public)
When the police are trained to think of themselves as public servants, and get away from the us vrs. them mentality we as a nation will have taken a rather large step toward community policing services.
Sincerely,
D. Pendelton
D. Pendelton
P.S
Having had multiple levels of govt. jobs in my career similar to law enforcement I can only hope that some of you reading this take pen/computer in hand and express your view that change is needed with an obvious dysfunctional police system.
Having had multiple levels of govt. jobs in my career similar to law enforcement I can only hope that some of you reading this take pen/computer in hand and express your view that change is needed with an obvious dysfunctional police system.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Yeah, the Critical Mass people are absolute idiots, in my book. "Hey, let's try to improve cycling's image by clogging up traffic and ticking everyone off! Yeah, that'll work!"
I ride, and I wish these cretins would knock it off because they're not helping anybody.
But that said, yeah, it's still an unprovoked assault by a cop.
often mrunderstood
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2004
- Messages
- 215
Do you also find bicycle terrorists humorous?
More like very little sympathy. The connection is Critical Mass. Hard to follow isn't it? These are not friendly rides through the city. They are looking for confrontation with motorists and not solutions to sharing the road. If you choose to hang out with people looking for confrontation, don't be surprised by escalation.
The cyclist should sue for damage to his property, and any medical expenses. Not a penny more.
The Seattle situation sounds exactly like the "stunt" in the video with the elderly couple.
Rasmus: I think that the ride/protest has been deemed legal in many locations and therefore allowed with police presence and control. But the tactics that they use during the ride are extremely questionable and they get away with it due to sheer volume of participants.
BTW, I ride both a bike and motorcycle on the road with other vehicles. Distracted, or possibly aggressive, motorists have nearly killed me. I am not talking near misses. Actually being hit at 30+ MPH. This does not give me the right to retaliate like CM does. People make mistakes and physics wins. Very few people really want to hurt cyclists. Some people are jerks no doubt. The difference is the monopoly that CM has on jerks.
Last edited:
often mrunderstood
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2004
- Messages
- 215
So Lonewulf. Looking to be the third person that I have to point to my previous posts about my position on this cop in this incident?
I'd be happy to be your dictator though!
Last edited:
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
If they are regular demonstrations I guess car drivers will just have to suck it up.
No argument from me, if that refers to attacking cars and people.
I was asking, though, because the laws here in Germany are quite different than some of those that have been referenced here. A bike doesn't have to keep out of the way of cars. Cars have to wait until there is enough space to pass by the bike - or wait. There is no need to for the bike to squeeze into the gutter and let the car pass in the same lane.
Bicycle paths are only legal if it can be demonstrated that the road would be too dangerous for bicycles - how much they slow down traffic is not a factor. (Cyclists have to use their own paths, though, even if they might not be legal.)
Of course, following theses laws would simply be suicidal ...
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
It's the same here, at least where I live.
Bicycles have the right to use the roads -- but not interstate highways -- and you have to treat them like any other vehicle on the right-of-way.
But cars generally don't treat them like that, they treat them as a nuisance.
I ride on paths, not roads, because these little curvy 2-lane state highways just aren't built for bikes and it's dangerous to ride on them. I call road bikers "suicyclers".
We don't have bike lanes around where I am now. When I lived in N. Florida there was enough land, and enough cyclers, to make it feasible, so I used to ride in the bike lanes on the roads down there all the time.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
And they both involve something I just don't get. The idiots in the vehicles GOT OUT. If you're surrounded and threatened by a pack of rabid raving loonies but at least protected by a big, sturdy, powerfully mobile shelter, what could POSSIBLY make anybody think it could somehow be a good idea give up your only advantage and put yourself at the attackers' mercy for absolutely no possible gain?! That's just filling in your application for the Darwin Award. The only sensible response is to keep the thing closed up & locked, and use the GAS PEDAL on them if they try anything.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Ignoring the fact that you haven't been very convincing on the topic to me so far, I was more of thinking of this post:
Demigorgon said:
The argument "They were asking for more escalation!" is no defense for breaking the law. The cop in this case singled out a single person, that he seemed to attack for no real reason; if he wanted to attack any of these evil terrorist bikers
D), he easily could have targeted anyone else in the crowd, if not went after multiple people. Should've used a tazer, too, 'cause all the real cops use 'em for laughs.And your defense can pretty much be used to attack anyone that's remotely connected with some group that's "bad", hence "guilt by association".
I'd bet you would.
But nah, I'm a bit too ambitious to let you interfere with my work.
porch
Muse
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 825
I took part in a CM event once in Montreal.
There were obviously some people who organized it, but I, like most people involved, was a participant in an event, not a card-carrying member of an organization.
Of the people I chatted with, every single one was concerned with striking some balance between getting noticed by causing disruption, and not discrediting ourselves and our message by pissing people off too much. If we were slowing things down on one major street for "long enough", we'd turn down a different road. The most "terrorist" thing we did that I was witness to and a part of, was at one intersection going in a big circle in the middle so that traffic both ways was stopped. We did this for the duration of one cycle of the lights.
Some people were annoyed, a few were really agitated, some were supportive. I say 'big deal'. Obviously some CM events in some places at some times have a lot more jerks than what I experienced.
If there are any questions, feel free to ask. If you would like to vent and hurl abuse, I welcome that as well. In fact, I am demanding an escalation! As a revolutionary martyr type, there is no going too far until the masses are completely polarized and we reach the final showdown between the workers and the pigs.
Honk if you love bikes!
There were obviously some people who organized it, but I, like most people involved, was a participant in an event, not a card-carrying member of an organization.
Of the people I chatted with, every single one was concerned with striking some balance between getting noticed by causing disruption, and not discrediting ourselves and our message by pissing people off too much. If we were slowing things down on one major street for "long enough", we'd turn down a different road. The most "terrorist" thing we did that I was witness to and a part of, was at one intersection going in a big circle in the middle so that traffic both ways was stopped. We did this for the duration of one cycle of the lights.
Some people were annoyed, a few were really agitated, some were supportive. I say 'big deal'. Obviously some CM events in some places at some times have a lot more jerks than what I experienced.
If there are any questions, feel free to ask. If you would like to vent and hurl abuse, I welcome that as well. In fact, I am demanding an escalation! As a revolutionary martyr type, there is no going too far until the masses are completely polarized and we reach the final showdown between the workers and the pigs.
Honk if you love bikes!
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Don't you see the inherent contradiction in this?
How can "causing disruption" help us?
I guarantee you that the only "supportive" people were folks who were already sympathetic.
For everyone else, you were either a confirmation that cyclists are a pain in the ass, or new evidence that cyclists are a pain in the ass.
These kinds of stunts help nobody.
Please, do us all a favor and knock it off!
porch
Muse
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 825
I swear, what we did turned some people's minds around a full 360 degrees!
Honestly, at the time I certainly felt some ambivalence about the whole thing. Looking back on it, I'm less for it now than I was then. I'm still not totally convinced that the net harm outweighed the net good. Sure, most people minds weren't changed for the better, and some for the worse, although maybe it motivated some people to get more involved in other kinds of bicycle activism, or at least consider it as a bit more of an issue in the next municipal election.
I think we can probably agree that there are some times, some places, where certain causes would justify a degree of civil disobedience and disruption, if not outright rebellion. Is annoying some people by making them a few minutes late worth the starry-eyed hopes of getting one more bike lane? I don't know, maybe not. Seems like a fairly small difference either way. These days I have other things I prefer to do with my time.
ps: I'm a velosexual and I find the mere thought of having sex with a car-driver repulsive!!!!
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
It's funny how the issue of cyclists seem to generate the same amount of "us and them" attitude in the US as in Britain. Some car drivers would like nothing more than the right to run them over just like it was once a right to shoot aboriginals without redress. Similarly there are the eco-nutters who see car drivers as baby-killers and like nothing more than venting their fury. It's a sad reflection of human beings in general. A lack of tolerance and a holier than thou attitude - I'm always right so screw you! 
The irony is that there is a huge proportion of people in the UK (not sure about US) who drive and cycle, which includes me. I used to cover 4000+ miles on a bike at one stage.
What people should do is forget about who was riding and where in that video. Put away your prejudices with regard to the police or the demonstrators or cyclists and just look at the video with a critical eye.
There is clear intent on the part of the policeman to assault that cyclist. He speeds up as the cyclist goes to ride around him and at the point of impact the cyclist is almost past him. This is nothing more than abuse of power and the full weight of the law should come down on this individual. What they hell were those two coppers doing in the middle of the road anyway? They weren't directing traffic. I'd charge him and his colleague with jaywalking too. He doesn't wait for the road to clear before walking across. I wonder if he'd try the same tactic with a car?
If you let this sort of thing go unpunished then it's just allows other officers to think they are immune from the law. We wouldn't expect this sort of behaviour from a mere member of the public so why a copper?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The irony is that there is a huge proportion of people in the UK (not sure about US) who drive and cycle, which includes me. I used to cover 4000+ miles on a bike at one stage.
What people should do is forget about who was riding and where in that video. Put away your prejudices with regard to the police or the demonstrators or cyclists and just look at the video with a critical eye.
There is clear intent on the part of the policeman to assault that cyclist. He speeds up as the cyclist goes to ride around him and at the point of impact the cyclist is almost past him. This is nothing more than abuse of power and the full weight of the law should come down on this individual. What they hell were those two coppers doing in the middle of the road anyway? They weren't directing traffic. I'd charge him and his colleague with jaywalking too. He doesn't wait for the road to clear before walking across. I wonder if he'd try the same tactic with a car?
If you let this sort of thing go unpunished then it's just allows other officers to think they are immune from the law. We wouldn't expect this sort of behaviour from a mere member of the public so why a copper?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
B3LYP/CEP-31G(d)
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 53
It would be an interesting sight if Critical Mass were to bring their activities to Ho Chi Minh City: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_City#Transportation
I'm sorry to see "skeptics" so quick to rush and judge here.
This is just like truthers who make snap judgements about videos that don't show the entire picture, before they know all the facts, based on preconcieved notions.
We are just seeing a small part of this entire thing. We do not know what this person did off camera before that.
The fact that some are willing to watch a 1:10 video that may be the tail end of who knows what other activities, and rush to proclaim the cop a piece of garbage and needing of dismisal is incredibly reactionary and demonstrates bias held against police in general. I'm shocked at some of you. Let's wait for the facts and evidence. This quick assumption of guilt is insanely over the top and reactionary and biased.
Whoever watches this and doesn't think the cop is automatically guilty is somehow an idiot? How can any critical thinker rush to that conclusion on a short video that could be part of a much greater sequence of events? Maybe what we see is exactly what it is, and if so, I agree the cop should be fired. But to just see this little snippet, assume it contains all details, all facts, and is completely worty of interpetation on it's on, without any other extenuating circumstances or evidence, is a ridiculous rush to judgement.
This is just like truthers who make snap judgements about videos that don't show the entire picture, before they know all the facts, based on preconcieved notions.
We are just seeing a small part of this entire thing. We do not know what this person did off camera before that.
The fact that some are willing to watch a 1:10 video that may be the tail end of who knows what other activities, and rush to proclaim the cop a piece of garbage and needing of dismisal is incredibly reactionary and demonstrates bias held against police in general. I'm shocked at some of you. Let's wait for the facts and evidence. This quick assumption of guilt is insanely over the top and reactionary and biased.
Whoever watches this and doesn't think the cop is automatically guilty is somehow an idiot? How can any critical thinker rush to that conclusion on a short video that could be part of a much greater sequence of events? Maybe what we see is exactly what it is, and if so, I agree the cop should be fired. But to just see this little snippet, assume it contains all details, all facts, and is completely worty of interpetation on it's on, without any other extenuating circumstances or evidence, is a ridiculous rush to judgement.
Last edited:
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
Do look at the video and keep in mind what the cops claimed had happened, though. The claim was that the cyclist hat intentionally run into the cop. There were no claims that the cyclist did any of the things that might have potentially justified such an outright attack. There is nothing in the video that indicates that either of the cops was making any attempt to communicate with that - or any other - cyclist.
Things just don't add up.
What do you think could have happened?
Funny how the officers involved somehow forgot to mention that much greater sequence of events, iddnit?
Well, good thing then, that that is not what's going on here, hm?
davefoc
Philosopher
I think you see something in this thread that I don't. Of course, most of us think the cop's actions were horrific and unjustified based on what appears to be the situation on the tape. But none of us know exactly what the situation was and many of us have gone out of our way to add provisos to our comments to the effect that our opinions might change if facts that have not been put forth yet surface to justify the policeman's actions. And many people have speculated about what those facts might be.
But right now, a few weeks after the incident, no such facts have emerged to my knowledge and therefore my estimation of the likelihood that the policeman's actions were criminal has gone up. Based on what looks like the situation to me, this policemen should be fired, indicted for assault and indicted for filing a false report. That doesn't mean that I can't change my mind if the conditions warrant it, it just means that based on the available information, I have formed an opinion of what probably occurred and what should be done about it assuming that the facts are what I roughly suspect they are.
I don't think being skeptical means never forming a reasoned estimation about what went on before perfect information is available. But intellectual honesty does require us to be willing to admit our initial estimate of a situation was wrong in the face of contrary evidence and so far I haven't seen anybody in this thread do something that makes me think they wouldn't change their opinion if contrary facts emerge.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Please tell me, oh dear Whiplash, what piece of ultimately convincing evidence could possibly be provided that would demonstrate evidence that the clash between police officer and bicyclist was an "accident", and why I should not be dubious as to any other facts if they are willing to lie about this?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
Yes. It is illegal to block in intersection, this is anti gridlock laws.