Bicyclist assaults NYPD officer

[Careyp74]

To me it looks like in the last image the cyclist is turning/leaning into the officer. Notice how much lower his head and shoulders are, and how (to me) he is tilted to the right. The officer was definitely rushing towards the cyclist, I don't dispute that, and that made the inevitable collision much more violent. I don't think the cyclist was trying to stop or even slow down.

My question would be did the officer actually indicate to the cyclist that he wanted him to stop. I can't listen to the audio now so I can't hear if the word "Stop" is audible, but I don't think he pointed at the cyclist either.

To me it looks like the cyclist IS trying to ram. He seems to be steering towards the officer and preparing to collide with him.

You don't ride a bike, do you? Get on it. Turn to the left as if to avoid something. Notice you need to lean to the left, to keep your center of gravity. Now, correct yourself so that you don't run into the curb. Are you leaning right yet? If not, you are going to hit the curb and fall.

The cop might not have thought of this, but then again, all the cop had to do was not lunge at the bicyclist in the first place. He didn't brace for a head on collision, he side swiped the guy. He can actually be seen in the video 'leading' the target, so that at the right moment he will hit him.

ETA: what was so special about this cyclist that the cop wanted to arrest him, but not the other bicyclists zooming by him really close and all?

 

[Hannibal]

It could be acceptable if he had a good reason to tackle the biker, the tackle by itself is not enough to say anything that happened was wrong. It was that he lied in the report and said the biker rammed him instead of him tackling the biker that shows he had no legitimate reason to do this.

I disagree - there is a specific continuum in place relating to use of force and there is nothing in the bikers behaviour to suggest that a running charge was in any way warranted. The force would be to prevent harm to oneself, another or to property (as that is about the only things a man on a bike can do that would warrant force). As none here apply, and given the fact that he had to take a run-up, then the behaviour is instantly questionable WITHOUT the lying.

He would have been far better off saying " I had a carp day, these ********** ticked me off and I just flipped". Errare humane est, and even if behaviour such as this is not right it is at least understandable and can be addressed.

The false report has far more serious repercussions

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

It could be acceptable if he had a good reason to tackle the biker, the tackle by itself is not enough to say anything that happened was wrong. It was that he lied in the report and said the biker rammed him instead of him tackling the biker that shows he had no legitimate reason to do this.

This. The video clearly shows the officer tackled the bicyclists. The assault may have been warranted but instead of presenting it as such the officer filed a conflicting report in which the officer was assulted by the bicylist.

The issue of Criticalmass being losers, hypocrites and criminals is rather irrelevant to the issue of this individual case. If the officer had good reason to tackle the bicyclist he should have done that in the police report even if he was wrong. Usually in such cases the officer will receive no or minor punishment if he simply made an error in judgement. Making an error in judgement, then lying to cover it up is an action deserving of stern punishment. Blatantly committing a crime then lying about it is unacceptable. I suspcect more the middle case more than the latter.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

Well, yeh, of course he's preparing for impact. He has watched the cop take several steps on an intercept course, and for the last two steps the cop was running/lunging. What do you expect him to do?

Slow down and stop?

You should also note that the cyclist is about two feet from the curb, and there's a dark spot indicating water and/or damage to the street. Even without the cop there, I would expect the cyclist to be leaning anyway as he comes out of his turn to avoid the cop and avoid the curb.

Yep I noticed that too. The cyclist had no (or very limited) further room to maneuver to the left to avoid the officer.

There's nothing on the audio indicating the cop told the cyclist to stop. There's a street full of cyclists, so at the very least the cop would need to point at who he wants to stop. After all, four cyclists passed the cop after he turned to face the oncoming traffic. Furthermore, when you're cycling, it's hard to hear anything because of the wind (I've done thousands of miles of street riding, so trust me on this). The guy could have been deaf for all the cop knew.

If the cop wanted the guy to stop, he needed to make hand gestures. This is standard procedure for traffic control. There is zero evidence that the cop tried to get the guy to stop, and if he did, he did it completely wrong.

I completely agree. Is screwing up telling somebody to stop the same as assaulting them? Does the officer's intent matter at all? I believe somebody mentioned he'd only been on the job three weeks. Did he have experience/training in getting people to stop?

 

[One Skunk Todd]

You don't ride a bike, do you? Get on it. Turn to the left as if to avoid something. Notice you need to lean to the left, to keep your center of gravity. Now, correct yourself so that you don't run into the curb. Are you leaning right yet? If not, you are going to hit the curb and fall.

The cop might not have thought of this, but then again, all the cop had to do was not lunge at the bicyclist in the first place. He didn't brace for a head on collision, he side swiped the guy. He can actually be seen in the video 'leading' the target, so that at the right moment he will hit him.

ETA: what was so special about this cyclist that the cop wanted to arrest him, but not the other bicyclists zooming by him really close and all?

I do not ride a bike. But hopefully someday (and a 150 pounds from now). I do not know why the officer singled out that particular cyclist. I think the testimony says something about that particular cyclist riding unsafely, but the video doesn't show him doing anything different than the other cyclists.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

Does this sequence seem right to people?

Officer sees this particular cyclist and decides for whatever reason to stop him.

Officer starts moving to the left to block cyclist.

Cyclist starts moving further to the left to go around officer.

Officer starts rushing to make sure cyclist does not get by him.

Cyclist can't go further left and has not slowed down, collision becomes inevitable.

Cyclist drops head and shoulder and officer throws out arms at the moment of collision.

 

[Hannibal]

I completely agree. Is screwing up telling somebody to stop the same as assaulting them? Does the officer's intent matter at all? I believe somebody mentioned he'd only been on the job three weeks. Did he have experience/training in getting people to stop?

Yes - it is a foundation of training because in theory it can be one of the most dangerous areas of work. And he will have been three weeks on the street NOT in the job. This is important to take into account because in training scenarios are practiced regularly and frequently, and there is no chance he could not know that a nose tackle on a cyclist is not acceptable

 

[Hannibal]

Does this sequence seem right to people?

Officer sees this particular cyclist and decides for whatever reason to stop him.

Officer starts moving to the left to block cyclist.

Cyclist starts moving further to the left to go around officer.

Officer starts rushing to make sure cyclist does not get by him.

Cyclist can't go further left and has not slowed down, collision becomes inevitable.

Cyclist drops head and shoulder and officer throws out arms at the moment of collision.

Sort of - I see it more along the lines of cop wants to get out off the road, begins to walk and does not want to stop or play "bike frogger" so his frustrations with the mass of idiots boil over and he lashes out at the nearest moron

 

[One Skunk Todd]

Sort of - I see it more along the lines of cop wants to get out off the road, begins to walk and does not want to stop or play "bike frogger" so his frustrations with the mass of idiots boil over and he lashes out at the nearest moron

Huh, I didn't think of it that way. I was figuring he wanted to stop that particular cyclist and did a poor job of it. Until he starts rushing to Stop/attack (take your pick) the guy he didn't seem all that agitated to me.

 

[Hannibal]

Huh, I didn't think of it that way. I was figuring he wanted to stop that particular cyclist and did a poor job of it. Until he starts rushing to Stop/attack (take your pick) the guy he didn't seem all that agitated to me.

I would be interested in reading the full report - possible he saw that individual commit some transgression or offence and moved in on him...hang on a sec....*reviews vid*

actually that is not impossible - at about 0;22 he looks directly at that cyclist and his gaze does not waver; he locks on and hones in. Now, that is still a pretty crappy stop (no point or verbal direction) but it opens up an area of "unknown" (from the video at least).

the plot thickens....

 

[Uncayimmy]

Slow down and stop?

Why would he slow down and stop? It's pretty obvious he was planning on simply riding past. Only in the last second was it clear a collision was imminent.

I completely agree. Is screwing up telling somebody to stop the same as assaulting them? Does the officer's intent matter at all? I believe somebody mentioned he'd only been on the job three weeks. Did he have experience/training in getting people to stop?

If he didn't have training in getting people to stop, then he had no business standing on the street with a gun. Fact is, cops go to a little something called the Police Academy (perhaps you've seen the five documentaries about it in the theaters). This is basic stuff.

The fact is the cop lied in his police report. The cyclist didn't steer into him. He attacked the cyclist. If you want to argue that it was reasonable force to get person to stop, that's another issue. It's pretty clear to me that the cop wasn't trying to get the cyclist to stop. I believe his testimony is ******** because nothing else supports it (the other cop watching with disinterest says a lot). That aside, there are far better ways to stop a cyclist than what he did.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

I do see in the complaint the officer claims he was knocked to the ground by the cyclist which is clearly not true.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Huh, I didn't think of it that way. I was figuring he wanted to stop that particular cyclist and did a poor job of it. Until he starts rushing to Stop/attack (take your pick) the guy he didn't seem all that agitated to me.

We may never know the reason with satisfaction since the officer lied on the initial report and thus ruined his credibility.

I can think of reasons that tackling the bicyclist is an appropriate and reasonable response for the officer, but I see none of them presented in the video or presented by the officer. Without evidence that the bicyclist presented a danger this appears to be a case of excessive force even if the officer had good reason to want the bicyclist to stop. Stopping a bicycle is more difficult than stopping your body during a walk. A bicyclist needs a moment to comply just as a car would need even more time.

 

[davefoc]

I didn't see UncaYummy's post before I made mine. It is hard to imagine a more relevant or more complete refutation of OST's interpretation.

It shows that the officer took several steps towards the bicyclist and it shows that he is accelerating as he does it.

And UncaYummy's image also shows that not only didn't the bicyclist steer towards the officer, just prior to impact the bicycle has changed direction away from the officer further still.

On the other hand he may have cringed like a football player carrying a ball just before the impact. So what are we to conclude from that? Well one possible explanation is that he has just realized he's about to be run into by the police officer and he is cringing. Apparently OST has a different explanation.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

I didn't see UncaYummy's post before I made mine. It is hard to imagine a more relevant or more complete refutation of OST's interpretation.

It shows that the officer took several steps towards the bicyclist and it shows that he is accelerating as he does it.

And UncaYummy's image also shows that not only didn't the bicyclist steer towards the officer, just prior to impact the bicycle has changed direction away from the officer further still.

On the other hand he may have cringed like a football player carrying a ball just before the impact. So what are we to conclude from that? Well one possible explanation is that he has just realized he's about to be run into by the police officer and he is cringing. Apparently OST has a different explanation.

You think UncaYimmy's graphic shows the cyclist leaning, turning or moving away from the officer?

You see a cringe, I see a preparing for a deliberate impact.

 

[davefoc]

...
... It's pretty clear to me that the cop wasn't trying to get the cyclist to stop. I believe his testimony is ******** because nothing else supports it (the other cop watching with disinterest says a lot). That aside, there are far better ways to stop a cyclist than what he did.

I think this is another good point by UncaYimmy. As has been noted by many people, many times, it is conceivable that something happened prior to the collision that justified the officer's actions, but it is hard to imagine something that happened prior to the event that justified the officer's actions without some effort to get the bicyclist to stop voluntarily prior to the assault. And there is no evidence in the video that the officer took such a step. He doesn't seem to be shouting at the bicyclist, he's not using hand gestures to signal to the bicyclist that he needs to stop and there is no testimony that I am aware of any effort by the officer either through voice or action to get the bicyclist to stop.

UncaYimmy also makes another excellent point in his post that I hadn't considered. Even if you assume that some act had occurred prior to the event that justified an attempt by the officer to stop the bicyclist, was the approach he used to stop the bicyclist appropriate. IMHO, absolutely not. He could have grabbed the guy or his bicycle and attempted to just pull him to a stop, perhaps by eliciting the help of other police officers.

And where is the evidence of an act by the rider that might have justified aggressive action by the officer? Had he assaulted somebody? Was he fleeing from a burglary? Was there a warrant for his arrest? Did the officer see a weapon displayed by the bicyclist?

Unfortunately, somebody that invested a great deal of time and effort to qualify for a professional career has lost any possible gain from that effort and he has seen his life unalterably changed, probably for the worse. I certainly am not happy about that. But the guy's approach to dealing with his major screwup makes me think that he has yet to begin to deal with the inappropriateness of his behavior and that does not bode well for him as he attempts to find a new path when this is over. Maybe, in this case, a whacko union and a scheming, spinning, defense attorney aren't exactly what the guy needs.

 

[Aepervius]

Does this sequence seem right to people?

Officer sees this particular cyclist and decides for whatever reason to stop him.

Officer starts moving to the left to block cyclist.

Cyclist starts moving further to the left to go around officer.

Officer starts rushing to make sure cyclist does not get by him.

Cyclist can't go further left and has not slowed down, collision becomes inevitable.

Cyclist drops head and shoulder and officer throws out arms at the moment of collision.

No that does not sound right. The cyclist weas already PAST the officier (read in the same plan as him, therefore collision was already avoided) when the officer lunged forward to stop the cyclist.

For pity's sake, go click pause every half second and go frame by frame. It is as plain as anything can be in such video.

 

[davefoc]

You think UncaYimmy's graphic shows the cyclist leaning, turning or moving away from the officer?

You see a cringe, I see a preparing for a deliberate impact.

Wow.

I suppose somebody could take the trouble, based on UncaYimmy's graphic, to draw a top view and show the relative positions of the riders and the officer and that would provide a pretty good quantitative estimate about how far the bicyclist would have missed the police officer if the officer had not charged the bicyclist. It is at least several feet.

It would also show that the bicyclist is actually moving to his left toward the curb and away from the officer. It would also show that the bicyclist is turning even more towards the curb as the officer moves toward him.

It would also show that the bicyclist was moved a few feet to his left by the force of the impact.

But none of this would seem to matter to OST. What mitigates the actions of the officer according to OST is that prior to the collision the rider cringed and possibly leaned to his right presumably in response to the fact that there was a large man charging towards him.

I say wow again. It is hard to imagine a more contorted interpretation of events. I wonder what OST's reaction would be if he were on a bicycle and there was a large man about to ram him from the side. I guess he thinks he wouldn't cringe or drop his shoulder. I think OST's world doesn't exist.

 

[shuize]

With the revival of this thread, I feel the need to quote myself circa 2008:

If the officer ultimately doesn't have anything more than "resisting arrest" to charge him with, I suspect it's the officer who is in the wrong.

Still, as others have mentioned above, given it involved a "critical mass" asshat, I couldn't help but watch that video and laugh -- as it sounds like a couple of people watching the incident did as well.

The one thing which might have made that take down even better would have been watching the police officer stick his baton in the spokes of the cyclist's front tire as he tried to ride past.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The issue of Criticalmass being losers, hypocrites and criminals is rather irrelevant to the issue of this individual case.

Not really. Actions have consequences. If I'm on the jury, my default position is that the rider is guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around.