Bicyclist assaults NYPD officer

[Uncayimmy]

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.

It's only a stretch because you are creating a straw man. It's simply one thing to consider among many. In no way is that a stretch. It is, of course, a stretch to draw a conclusion from one single factor. Was the cyclist trying to ram the cop? In order to believe that we have to accept the following:

* He singled out that cop for no particular reason.
* He knew he would get arrested for it.
* He knew he was more likely to get hurt than the cop.

No point above can stand on its own. Together, though, it makes it hard to believe that the cyclist was intending to ram the cop.

 

[tyr_13]

It's only a stretch because you are creating a straw man. It's simply one thing to consider among many. In no way is that a stretch. It is, of course, a stretch to draw a conclusion from one single factor. Was the cyclist trying to ram the cop? In order to believe that we have to accept the following:

* He singled out that cop for no particular reason.
* He knew he would get arrested for it.
* He knew he was more likely to get hurt than the cop.

No point above can stand on its own. Together, though, it makes it hard to believe that the cyclist was intending to ram the cop.

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.

Try again please.

 

[jimbob]

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.

It might be better to do this the other way:

I don't know heavy you are - I guess about 11-stone overweight, given your 150lbs comment.

This link describes someone who decided to start cycling because he was overweight (39-stone*), and used the cycling (mainly commuting) to help him lose weight.

I had a brief word with him on the Manchester to Blackpool ride last summer, (about 62-miles IIRC) when he was about 22-stone, and he managed that OK; he was going at a reasonable pace when I passed him at about 8-miles.



*In case you aren't familiar with this measure, there are 14-lbs in a stone.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

But what are you basing this belief on? Nothing in the video supports the officer wanting the cyclist to stop (well except for the part where he violently knocked him over, of course), and I don't think it was mentioned in the testimony either. He didn't do a 'poor job', he made no attempt whatsoever.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Try again please.

Actually, I don't need to "try again." Perhaps you should spend a little more time thinking about what I wrote rather than constructing a snotty retort. You wrote, "[the] argument that someone wouldn't because it isn't a good idea is a stretch to me." I pointed out that such a statement is rather stupid because it's only a stretch if there is no other context at all. Since we were already, you know, talking about a situation where a cyclist would know he would hurt himself, I used it as an example (an instance serving for illustration) to demonstrate that in context it most certainly has some meaning and is not, therefore, a stretch.

Now, if you want to hang your coat on making the brilliant argument that this one little piece of information in isolation (something that virtually never happens) is a stretch, go right ahead. And if you want to refer to "the argument," which was made in this very thread, is not "the argument" to which you were referring, you can do that, too. It doesn't make it useful or insightful.

But if it makes you feel better, if I'm ever on a jury and the only piece of information I am given is, "cyclists get hurt crashing into people" I'll be sure to tell my fellow jurors all about your brilliant post.

 

[luchog]

Was the cyclist trying to ram the cop? In order to believe that we have to accept the following:

* He singled out that cop for no particular reason.
* He knew he would get arrested for it.
* He knew he was more likely to get hurt than the cop.

No point above can stand on its own. Together, though, it makes it hard to believe that the cyclist was intending to ram the cop.

I'm not making any comments about this particular case, since I'm not in a position to do so; but that condition doesn't necessarily make it hard to beleive he intended to ram the cop. The video might disprove such an assertion; but the believability depends on the context. Massholes are well-known for that sort of martyrdom-seeking behaviour. Not all of them, but a substantial number are extremists with a very strange agenda.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Unfortunately the cops seem to have figured out what to do about that: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4465392#post4465392

 

[jimbob]

Was the cyclist trying to ram the cop? In order to believe that we have to accept the following:

* He singled out that cop for no particular reason.
* He knew he would get arrested for it.
* He knew he was more likely to get hurt than the cop.

No point above can stand on its own. Together, though, it makes it hard to believe that the cyclist was intending to ram the cop.

I'm not making any comments about this particular case, since I'm not in a position to do so; but that condition doesn't necessarily make it hard to beleive he intended to ram the cop. The video might disprove such an assertion; but the believability depends on the context. Massholes are well-known for that sort of martyrdom-seeking behaviour. Not all of them, but a substantial number are extremists with a very strange agenda.

Maybe not that condition but the video evidence is pretty unambiguous and does show that the cyclist was trying to avoid the cop hitting the pedestrian.

Why can't you comment on this particular case? The video is sufficient to show the policeman was lying.

Massholes are well-known for that sort of martyrdom-seeking behaviour

Maybe, but there also looks to be a wider problem with the police behaviour when dealing with people exercising their lawful right to protest, even if it is probably counterproductive and antisocial.

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

Long v. Pogan is the second NYPD assault on cyclists to hit the headlines in recent weeks, both involving a YouTube video. Last month, New York City paid $97,751 to five cyclists who were wrongfully detained and arrested by the NYPD during a Critical Mass ride in March 2007.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Sergeant Timothy Horohoe for the excessive force he and the officers under his command used. Sgt Horohoe had pushed protester Richard Vazquez, 55, off his bike.

<OT>
I do cycle to work and often imagine what the roads would be like if most of the people whose commute was less than 3-miles cycled in fine weather. In fact my (12-mile each way) commute isn't much longer by bike than car, and about once a month it is faster due to gridlocked traffic. </OT>

 

[tyr_13]

Actually, I don't need to "try again." Perhaps you should spend a little more time thinking about what I wrote rather than constructing a snotty retort. You wrote, "[the] argument that someone wouldn't because it isn't a good idea is a stretch to me." I pointed out that such a statement is rather stupid because it's only a stretch if there is no other context at all. Since we were already, you know, talking about a situation where a cyclist would know he would hurt himself, I used it as an example (an instance serving for illustration) to demonstrate that in context it most certainly has some meaning and is not, therefore, a stretch.

Now, if you want to hang your coat on making the brilliant argument that this one little piece of information in isolation (something that virtually never happens) is a stretch, go right ahead. And if you want to refer to "the argument," which was made in this very thread, is not "the argument" to which you were referring, you can do that, too. It doesn't make it useful or insightful.

But if it makes you feel better, if I'm ever on a jury and the only piece of information I am given is, "cyclists get hurt crashing into people" I'll be sure to tell my fellow jurors all about your brilliant post.

You really don't understand what I'm saying at all. It appears that you're intentionally trying to misunderstand it. I'm not talking about this case. I'm not hanging my coat on that one point to prove something, it's the only point I'm making. Something being a bad idea doesn't mean someone won't do it, or fake doing it to scare someone. No one would get on a bus with explosive strapped to their chest and blow it up because it's an insanely stupid idea right? Wrong. The same applies to 'no experienced cyclist would try to ram someone while riding a bike.' It being insanely stupid doesn't play down the likelihood especially when there are other motivations that could tip the cost/benefit analysis in the other direction. It being a bad idea doesn't make it very unlikely, but in this case the video evidence does. I think luchog nailed it.

Again, I'm not talking about this case, but about reasoning. You can try to twist it any way you like just to have that righteous anger and snarkiness really show through in your post, but I simply don't care what you think I mean.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

But what are you basing this belief on? Nothing in the video supports the officer wanting the cyclist to stop (well except for the part where he violently knocked him over, of course), and I don't think it was mentioned in the testimony either. He didn't do a 'poor job', he made no attempt whatsoever.

To me, it looks likes the officer spots Mr. Jones and fixates on him and then moves to stand in his path. When Mr. Jones tries to go around the officer, the officer starts moving more quickly to continue blocking his path. It is my belief, based on pretty much hunch and nothing else, that the officer would have would have tried to grab or shove Mr. Jones if Jones had had more room to swerve further to left. As it is, it looks to me like Jones is just starting to cut back to the right into the officer the moment before they collide. To my mind it's probably not intentional, Jones swerves left to go around the person in his path(maybe he doesn't even realize it's an officer) with the thought of swerving back right once he goes by. I think they both had an "Oh shoot!" moment when the collision became inevitable and reacted instinctively. Jones put his head and shoulder down and Officer Pogan threw out his arms. Unfortunately it looks like Pogan is twice or maybe even three times the size of Jones so Jones got the worst of it.

Sorry if I'm simply repeating myself.

Also, I finally got a chance to watch the video with sound on and I can't hear the officer say stop or halt or anything. But I don't hear anything when they collide either so I don't think Jones would have had any possibility of hearing any commands from Pogan until they were right on top of each other.

 

[WildCat]

Unfortunately the cops seem to have figured out what to do about that: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4465392#post4465392

And in many/most US states it's illegal, unless the sound is not recorded. Very useful way for public officials to protect themselves.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You really don't understand what I'm saying at all.

Actually, I do. I just don't find it particularly useful.

Something being a bad idea doesn't mean someone won't do it, or fake doing it to scare someone. No one would get on a bus with explosive strapped to their chest and blow it up because it's an insanely stupid idea right? Wrong.

And there is the straw man right there. Again. Nobody said somebody won't do something because it's a bad idea.

The same applies to 'no experienced cyclist would try to ram someone while riding a bike.' It being insanely stupid doesn't play down the likelihood especially when there are other motivations that could tip the cost/benefit analysis in the other direction.

It's a factor to be evaluated with everything else.

But I thought you weren't talking about this case...

What a waste of time this exchange is has been.

 

[luchog]

Why can't you comment on this particular case? The video is sufficient to show the policeman was lying.

Because I haven't bothered to watch it, or peruse it in any depth. I'm not concerned with the specifics anyway. More with the general principles involved.

Maybe, but there also looks to be a wider problem with the police behaviour when dealing with people exercising their lawful right to protest, even if it is probably counterproductive and antisocial.

Yes, there are times the police get out of hand. But they're human; and situations like this almost invariably involve a lot of taunting, harassment, and provocation of police. Massholes deliberately try to goad police and civilians into reacting forcefully. They want to get beaten, tased, or otherwise assaulted. They want to be martyrs for the cause, and make a few bucks suing the city.

They're hardly alone in that, many groups use similar tactics. Fred Phelp's Westboro Baptist Church is famous for it; and it's been used by a lot of anti-war and civil rights protesters. The main thing differentiating the massholes from previous and contemporary protest groups is the sheer pettiness of their ostensible goals, especially when compared to their tactics.

Should the police have more self-control, and refuse to be baited by these jackasses? Absolutely. Should the officers involved be penalized for overreacting and physically assaulting the cyclists? Without a doubt. Police have a great amount of power handed to them, and they should be held to a higher standard because of it. But let's not kid ourselves that these cyclists are innocent victims of random police brutality. They go out of their way to incite the police into just those sorts of reactions; so that they can come over all self-righteous when an authority figure loses control.

<OT>
I do cycle to work and often imagine what the roads would be like if most of the people whose commute was less than 3-miles cycled in fine weather. In fact my (12-mile each way) commute isn't much longer by bike than car, and about once a month it is faster due to gridlocked traffic. </OT>

I used to cycle a lot; and plan on doing so again once the weather warms up and I can afford a new bicycle (mine was stolen a couple years ago). I will be studiously avoiding anything to do with Critical Mass, however.

 

[jimbob]

I used to cycle a lot; and plan on doing so again once the weather warms up and I can afford a new bicycle (mine was stolen a couple years ago). I will be studiously avoiding anything to do with Critical Mass, however.

Oh yes, I have very few problems with drivers* - courtesy goes a long way. I have a roundabout where I turn right (remember we drive on the left) and, overwhelmingly, drivers let me cross. (It probably helps that I am going only a couple of mph slower than the traffic at this time, and they can then overtake on the left, to get onto the dual carriageway, which I am avoiding).


*I do also drive a car

 

[zooterkin]

Why can't you comment on this particular case? The video is sufficient to show the policeman was lying.

Because I haven't bothered to watch it, or peruse it in any depth. I'm not concerned with the specifics anyway. More with the general principles involved.

This thread is about the specific incident, not any general principles.

Yes, there are times the police get out of hand. But they're human; and situations like this almost invariably involve a lot of taunting, harassment, and provocation of police. Massholes deliberately try to goad police and civilians into reacting forcefully. They want to get beaten, tased, or otherwise assaulted. They want to be martyrs for the cause, and make a few bucks suing the city.

Nice demonstration of critical thinking, there. Because some of the people in Critical Mass in some places may act as you describe, all people taking part in any Critical Mass ride are like that?

But let's not kid ourselves that these cyclists are innocent victims of random police brutality. They go out of their way to incite the police into just those sorts of reactions; so that they can come over all self-righteous when an authority figure loses control.

Yes, just like those uppity folks following that Martin Luther King fellow.

 

[jimbob]

Because I haven't bothered to watch it, or peruse it in any depth. I'm not concerned with the specifics anyway. More with the general principles involved.

One general principal is that (in the UK at least) there seems to be a general attitude from sections of the police (up to fairly senior levels) that people exercising their lawful right to protest are "troublemakers". Furthermore this seems to lead to a presumption that anyone near a demonstration is involved, and is thus guilty of something. Mark Thomas was wrongfully arrested for looking "over confident". He was protesting, but was unlawfully detained.

Yes, there are times the police get out of hand. But they're human; and situations like this almost invariably involve a lot of taunting, harassment, and provocation of police. Massholes deliberately try to goad police and civilians into reacting forcefully. They want to get beaten, tased, or otherwise assaulted. They want to be martyrs for the cause, and make a few bucks suing the city.

They're hardly alone in that, many groups use similar tactics. Fred Phelp's Westboro Baptist Church is famous for it; and it's been used by a lot of anti-war and civil rights protesters. The main thing differentiating the massholes from previous and contemporary protest groups is the sheer pettiness of their ostensible goals, especially when compared to their tactics.

Are the goals petty from their POV? I don't think the tactic would work, but highlighting how unfriendly some cities are to bikes, and the consequent health cost due to accidents, and reduced physical activity due to the fear of accidents could be considered to be nontrivial.

Should the police have more self-control, and refuse to be baited by these jackasses? Absolutely. Should the officers involved be penalized for overreacting and physically assaulting the cyclists? Without a doubt. Police have a great amount of power handed to them, and they should be held to a higher standard because of it. But let's not kid ourselves that these cyclists are innocent victims of random police brutality. They go out of their way to incite the police into just those sorts of reactions so that they can come over all self-righteous when an authority figure loses control.

The courts seemed to think that this cyclist *was* an innocent victim. As were the other cyclists in the article I linked to.

In the UK, it seems as if the police have less to worry about if they assault a member of the public during a protest than if they were themselves a member of the public.

 

[lomiller]

Again, I'm not talking about this case, but about reasoning.

Perhaps, but it’s a poor, and misguided point to say the least. Just because some unlikely things do happen is in no way shape or form evidence that that have happened in any particular case. Such arguments are far more likely to be brought up to distract or derail then to make a valid logical point.

Put another way, even if you are just insinuating you are making what amounts to an implied claim, and one that we can tell is improbable. It’s true improbable doesn’t mean impossible but improbable claims require strong evidence, whereas you want to imply the claim is correct simple because it hasn’t been proven false. Both are significant logic errors on your part.

 

[tyr_13]

Perhaps, but it’s a poor, and misguided point to say the least. Just because some unlikely things do happen is in no way shape or form evidence that that have happened in any particular case. Such arguments are far more likely to be brought up to distract or derail then to make a valid logical point.

Put another way, even if you are just insinuating you are making what amounts to an implied claim, and one that we can tell is improbable. It’s true improbable doesn’t mean impossible but improbable claims require strong evidence, whereas you want to imply the claim is correct simple because it hasn’t been proven false. Both are significant logic errors on your part.

Implied claim? I've made it very clear that I'm not making a claim about any specific happening. We know that the cyclist in the case didn't try to ram or fake ramming the officer because of the video evidence, not because ramming on a bike is stupid. People taking my point as an implied claim is something I've refuted in each and every one of my posts after the first.

And again, you've misstated my point. The logic I find faulty is that we can assume it is likely that an experienced cyclist wouldn't ram or fake ramming someone from a bike because it's a bad idea. The likelihood of that happening or not (I'm making the null hypothesis) isn't totally dependent it being a bad idea.

As for such arguments being brought up to distract, I've said, over and over, that it isn't in regards to this case. If you think it really is to distract or derail the thread, ask that it be made it's own.

 

[lomiller]

You seem to have missed my point. While you are correct that just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean it’s impossible, I.E. even if it’s a bad idea it still may be possible to find situations where someone on a bike has tried to ram a pedestrian.

The problem is that it’s still unlikely and therefore something of an extraordinary claim requiring positive evidence. It’s not an argument that is in any way useful in the hypothetical because you can’t extrapolate anything from it because you need details of a specific case to provide the required positive evidence.

Very few real world events can be proven absolutely one way or the other. There is always some possibility, however unlikely, that can’t be absolutely disproved. Because it is unlikely the burden of proof rests with the person raising it, but it’s nonsensical to speak of proof in a hypothetical scenario like the one you raise.

 

[luchog]

This thread is about the specific incident, not any general principles.

So, no general principles should be discussed? When was that rule enacted?

Nice demonstration of critical thinking, there. Because some of the people in Critical Mass in some places may act as you describe, all people taking part in any Critical Mass ride are like that?

Pardon me if I go into a sneezing fit while addressing this, I'm allergic to straw.

No one claimed they all are, I'm sure there are plenty who aren't. But if you actually pay attention to the majority, hanging out on their webboards, reading their blogs, listening to the protesters, you'd see just what a bunch of sheep the majority of them are. The fact that, although many of them don't participate in the more egregious acts, but go out of their way to justify them instead of repudiating them, doesn't really speak well for the organization.

Individuals may be good or bad, the organization has lost focus and earned the whole group a negative repuation. Which is why I, as a cyclist, have no interest in associating myself with it. They used to be a worthwhile group; but their approval of vandalism and violence has invalidated them.

Yes, just like those uppity folks following that Martin Luther King fellow.

Because bicyclists have a basic civil right to more bike lanes, bicycle-only days, and prohibiting motor vehicles from arbitrary parts of the city? I never realized that before. Do I have a basic civil right to walk around naked on warm days? How about to prohibit large crowds of tourists from the Pike Place Market when I want to go shopping?

One general principal is that (in the UK at least) there seems to be a general attitude from sections of the police (up to fairly senior levels) that people exercising their lawful right to protest are "troublemakers".

That attitude exists in the US, but in highly varying degees depending on the region. In some areas on the Left Coast, the cultural attitude is diametrically opposed; and police are routinely lambasted in the press and popular sentiment for taking any action against protestors who aren't actively engaged in vandalism and violence, and sometimes even when they are. In other places, protestors are

Are the goals petty from their POV?

I don't really care, since they're petty by any reasonable and objective standard; particularly when compared to the severity of their tactics.

Staging accidents and beating the drivers is not a valid tactic regardless of the cause. A strong argument can be made that vandalizing privately-owned vehicles is also a less than valid tactic for anything that doesn't involve mass murder by government officials.

I don't think the tactic would work, but highlighting how unfriendly some cities are to bikes, and the consequent health cost due to accidents, and reduced physical activity due to the fear of accidents could be considered to be nontrivial. And intimidation of innocent bystandard is pretty stupid, but naturally that's just my opinion.

Except that that's not typically what the protests here are about. The biggest protests appear to be taking place in the most bicycle-friendly cities in the nation; and aren't about safety as much as they are about privileges. Some of the things they've demanded are replacing traffic lanes with dedicated bicycle lanes; and closing a large chunk of the downtown core off to motor traffic entirely.

The early Critical Mass efforts were directed toward safety and "share the road" concerns; and were relatively peaceful, involving petitioning and campaigning at least as much as public protests. Unfortunately, they have become increasingly about special privileges, as their actions have become more violent.

The courts seemed to think that this cyclist *was* an innocent victim. As were the other cyclists in the article I linked to.

Perhaps, I don't know. I'm certainly not privy to the context of this incident outside of the video. But as I said, I'm not debating that.

In the UK, it seems as if the police have less to worry about if they assault a member of the public during a protest than if they were themselves a member of the public.

In my city, it's not that way, and tends toward the opposite. Others vary widely.