Bicyclist assaults NYPD officer

[zooterkin]

And we don't have a whole lot of video of this biker. It is possible he did something illegal before he entered frame and that tackling him was right.

In which case, I would have expected the policeman to have said as much.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh well. Like I said, actions have consequences.

And judging someone by the actions of others in the group is so much fun as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In which case, I would have expected the policeman to have said as much.

Exactly the video alone is not enough to know that this is wrong, you need the report also.

 

[Mojo]

I've only gotten a couple of tickets so not a large sample to judge by, but when police officers step out in front of me I slow down and stop.

Given your interpretation of the video, I'm a little surprised that you notice them.

 

[Careyp74]

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.

Your previous answer alluded to this. You cannot stop from going 15 miles an hour in the span of 15 feet on a road bike. The tires are too thin, you will either flip over, or slide. Avoidance was the riders only option, except that the cop did not allow that to happen.

Basically, everything the cop was saying was what he thought he had to say to get out of trouble. He probably thought the 'blue wall' would save him, and no one would question his intentions. That happens a lot when certain types get behind a shield.

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.

Up until the second to last line. Collision was never unavoidable. The bicyclist probably braced for impact because he knew the cop's intention. Unavoidable would mean the cop had no control of his momentum, but it increases right as the bicyclist passes him.

Last line? Officer lunges forward and throws out arms, because the bicyclist was still a bit too far away for impact.

 

[Careyp74]

I've only gotten a couple of tickets so not a large sample to judge by, but when police officers step out in front of me I slow down and stop. So I've never had the opportunity to find out what happens if I try to run them down.

My interpretation of the cop's initial actions were that of someone trying to cross a busy street. That was probably the bicyclist's thoughts too, and when the cop saw the bicyclist, the bicyclist probably thought "ok, he sees me, he isn't going to keep moving."

Then the cop moves some more. At this point, the bicyclist is wondering "what is going on here?" and moves over some more. Finally, the bicyclist realizes that the cop is out to get him, and braces for impact.

I don't think the jury, who all must have admitted to not knowing any details of the case beforehand, or else been released by the defense lawyer, got to scrutinize the video as much as we did. Are they allowed to take the tv into deliberations with them? Perhaps they did not get a good enough look to convict him of assault, though I am suspicious myself when hearing that "Pogan was not knocked over as he confronted Long, though he went down to the ground while officers grappled with him later."

 

[Cuddles]

Another point: Any experienced cyclist will tell you that ramming somebody is not a good idea. The cyclist is at far more risk of injury, which is painfully obvious watching it happen.

Indeed. I've been hit by cyclists a few times, both on purpose and accidentally, generally when messing around with friends. The inevitable result is cyclist and bike in a pile on the floor with me standing next to them pointing and laughing. A bike just isn't a sensible thing to try to hit someone with.

I don't know how to argue logically or coherently

Agreed.

This reminds me strangely of Michael Mozina's threads. It doesn't matter how carefully you demonstrate exactly what is shown in a picture, he's just not capable of seeing what everyone else sees. In his case it's seeing 3D features that would be impossible to see in a 2D image even if they were physically possible. In this case, where everyone else can clearly see a policeman running across the street to hit a cyclist in the side, you see a cyclist riding straight towards a policeman desperately waving at him to stop. It doesn't matter how you form your arguments, since they're based on a course of events that just didn't happen. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[tyr_13]

Indeed. I've been hit by cyclists a few times, both on purpose and accidentally, generally when messing around with friends. The inevitable result is cyclist and bike in a pile on the floor with me standing next to them pointing and laughing. A bike just isn't a sensible thing to try to hit someone with.

While I'm not trying to defend the officer's actions, I feel compelled to point out that a bike not being a sensible thing to try to ram someone on in no way precludes someone trying to ram someone else while on a bike. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that the person about to be rammed knows that it will hurt the bike rider more than the person standing on the ground if they have no experience with such. It would be difficult to overcome the 'large mass coming at me is going to hurt' reaction.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

you see a cyclist riding straight towards a policeman desperately waving at him to stop.

No, as I pointed out earlier, I agree the cyclist was trying to maneuver around the officer. I also believe that while the officer wanted the cyclist to stop, he was not "desperately waving". In fact I think he did a poor job of indicating his intentions.

 

[jimbob]

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.

Which means you are holding a position against the spirit of the US legal system that supposedly goes for the position of innocent until proven guilty. The issue of Criticalmass would be pertinent if there was no video and no unrelated eye witnesses as then it would be an issue of credibility, the officer's claims versus the claims of someone else.

But the cyclist is the plaintiff.

The cop was the person under investigation.

 

[jimbob]

Does anyone think the cop was telling the truth during the trial when he stated that he acted in self defence? How you one believe someone is about to hit you when they are out of reach and moving away from you?

http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/news/article/new-york-cop-cleared-of-youtube-cyclist-assault-25840

At New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Pogan claimed he ordered Long to stop due to traffic violations. He said he strode towards the cyclist and, believing the other man was about to hit him, acted in self defence

As has been said before, the abuse of a position of trust makes this more serious.

 

[jimbob]

While I'm not trying to defend the officer's actions, I feel compelled to point out that a bike not being a sensible thing to try to ram someone on in no way precludes someone trying to ram someone else while on a bike. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that the person about to be rammed knows that it will hurt the bike rider more than the person standing on the ground if they have no experience with such. It would be difficult to overcome the 'large mass coming at me is going to hurt' reaction.

True, but this isn't the situation here, when the video shows that the person was moving away from the cop, who had to extend himself in order to make contact with the bike.

 

[Careyp74]

But the cyclist is the plaintiff.

The cop was the person under investigation.

True. It still applies though. (not that you were saying it doesn't) Knowing that CriticalMass are annoying twits who disrupt traffic and cause havoc could sway the jury, even though it is the cop on trial. This might even have happened.

I would go a step further and say that the cop could have acted the way he did because of public opinion of CriticalMass. Talk in the station about this group of no-good-doers could have given Pogan the idea that no one would care if he shoved one or two of them.

 

[jimbob]

True. It still applies though. (not that you were saying it doesn't) Knowing that CriticalMass are annoying twits who disrupt traffic and cause havoc could sway the jury, even though it is the cop on trial. This might even have happened.

I would go a step further and say that the cop could have acted the way he did because of public opinion of CriticalMass. Talk in the station about this group of no-good-doers could have given Pogan the idea that no one would care if he shoved one or two of them.

True, someone going about a lawful (if antisocial and counterproductive) activity is not fair game.

This seems to be sometimes overlooked in the UK as well, where protesters are seen as "trouble" as opposed to "citizens exercising their lawful right to protest". The case about Ian Tomlinson, shows that even bystanders* can be victims of this mentality.


*note that I didn't say "innocent" as that implies that protesters are not.

 

[Careyp74]

True, someone going about a lawful (if antisocial and counterproductive) activity is not fair game.

This seems to be sometimes overlooked in the UK as well, where protesters are seen as "trouble" as opposed to "citizens exercising their lawful right to protest". The case about Ian Tomlinson, shows that even bystanders* can be victims of this mentality.


*note that I didn't say "innocent" as that implies that protesters are not.

It is good that virtually everyone has a portable video camera with them nowadays. It should be activated the moment anything out of the ordinary is noticed.

 

[Uncayimmy]

While I'm not trying to defend the officer's actions, I feel compelled to point out that a bike not being a sensible thing to try to ram someone on in no way precludes someone trying to ram someone else while on a bike. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that the person about to be rammed knows that it will hurt the bike rider more than the person standing on the ground if they have no experience with such. It would be difficult to overcome the 'large mass coming at me is going to hurt' reaction.

It doesn't "preclude" it from happening, and I didn't suggest that it did. It does provide context. How likely is it for an experienced cyclist to deliberately try to ram somebody knowing it would most likely cause injuries to himself and not the target?

 

[Hannibal]

And we don't have a whole lot of video of this biker. It is possible he did something illegal before he entered frame and that tackling him was right.

Giving the testimony on court at least SOME measure of credibility it appears that the rider in question did some sort of hokey "unsafe cycling" thing and that is why Pogan zoned in on him.

That is consistent with the video.

What I STILL cannot fathom is why he made no attempt to stop the cyclist conventionally before flattening him. If he says "Oi - you, stop". points at him THEN body checks him when the cyclist does not stop then we probably would not be having this discussion. As it stands, whatever his intentions originally were and whatever he actually did are both moot.

He lied - end of

 

[tyr_13]

It doesn't "preclude" it from happening, and I didn't suggest that it did. It does provide context. How likely is it for an experienced cyclist to deliberately try to ram somebody knowing it would most likely cause injuries to himself and not the target?

No one said it precluded it, but the argument that someone wouldn't because it isn't a good idea is a stretch to me.

At any rate, the person being rammed wouldn't know that, and 'faking out' someone is something that an experienced, and asshat, cyclist might do.

Again, my comments don't really have to do with this case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Giving the testimony on court at least SOME measure of credibility it appears that the rider in question did some sort of hokey "unsafe cycling" thing and that is why Pogan zoned in on him.

And given the police report of the the guy clearly intentionally rammed the cop. That must be the unsafe thing.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

And given the police report of the the guy clearly intentionally rammed the cop. That must be the unsafe thing.

The specific things I remember being mentioned in one of the articles were: taking both hands off the handle bars, riding in the center lane, weaving in and out of traffic, and not wearing a helmet. I don't remember if these were things the cyclist (Mr. Jones?) was alleged to be doing or if they were simply things the officers were briefed to watch out for.