Bicyclist assaults NYPD officer

[One Skunk Todd]

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.

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.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

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.

I call it reality, feel free to drop by some time.

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.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

Exactly. I would have preferred a story like this:

All through the event cyclists were taunting police officers by calling us names and spitting near us. This particular cyclist gave me the middle finger as he approached, which is why I wanted to approach him. As we got closer, he insulted me again. I lost my temper and knocked him off the bike. I regret doing it.

While certainly not acceptable behavior for a man with a gun, it's understandable. Retraining, counseling and probation would be in order. His lies after the fact are worse than the physical assault from where I sit.

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.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

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.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I call it reality, feel free to drop by some time.

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.

We've had plenty of posters try to claim black is white and up is down. Side is front is an interesting variation.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I call it reality, feel free to drop by some time.

Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

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.

Where is the evidence that he stepped in front of the cyclist? He was walking towards the curb and was not facing the cyclist at all. When he hit the cyclist, it was from the side, not the front, and he had to run to make that happen. At no point did he step "in front of" the cyclist. The video is indisputable in that regard.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

Be sure to point this out if you're ever interviewed to be on a jury in the USA.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.


Where is the evidence that he stepped in front of the cyclist? He was walking towards the curb and was not facing the cyclist at all. When he hit the cyclist, it was from the side, not the front, and he had to run to make that happen. At no point did he step "in front of" the cyclist. The video is indisputable in that regard.

But calling it a tail is usually a pretty safe bet.

That's the thing, we're lookiing at the same thing and seeing something completely different. I don't know how to argue logically or coherently from that position.

FWIW, to me it looks like the officers arms hit the cyclist in the chest, then spin him around 90 degrees from the force of the impact. I think the cyclist is leaning right and the officer is leaning left and their upper bodies at least, are front to front.

ETA: Actually I correct myself after watching it again. The officer's body is side on to the front of the cyclist. The officer does seem to be looking to his side, at the approaching cyclist.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Oh well. Like I said, actions have consequences.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Be sure to point this out if you're ever interviewed to be on a jury in the USA.

Nope. I'll keep it to myself. More effective that way.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Look at the photo below:


This is the moment of impact. The officer's right (front) foot is right next to the bike's front tire but not in front of it. His left (back) foot is easily four feet away from the cyclist a probably in line with the crank (see my avatar).

Now, get up from your chair. Stand like the officer is standing. Rotate your torso 90 degrees. If you do that, it's virtually impossible to be hit by the bike except of possibly the pedals hinting your right shin. There is no way for your chest to impact the cyclist's chest.

Now take a look at this photo:



This is right after the impact. The cyclist is clearly past the officer, whose back is now pointing towards the camera. There was no chest-to-chest impact. The cyclist probably could have stayed upright at this point (I've had near misses like that before, and the bike wants to stay upright at that speed). The officer pushed with his arms to make sure the cyclist went down.

Look at this photo.



See how the cop's left arm is extended? He's in the process of pushing the cyclist down. The cop is leaning forward. That's not a reaction to being struck. That's a deliberate action to go after the cyclist.

All I have to say is:

 

[One Skunk Todd]

UncaYimmy thank you for making the effort to present your case in a different way. I do remain unconvinced but I appreciate you trying. I haven't thought of a new way to frame my argument and I don't think it would helpful to simply repeat myself, so I'll concede the field for now.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

Hunh, not sure what to make of it. Convicted of offering a false instrument for filing and of making a false statement. Acquitted of everything else.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jL7yDQptejUe17lX3LnWrmEcd2tgD9FCTMI01

 

[Uncayimmy]

Hunh, not sure what to make of it. Convicted of offering a false instrument for filing and of making a false statement. Acquitted of everything else.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jL7yDQptejUe17lX3LnWrmEcd2tgD9FCTMI01

Who here thinks if the cop was on a bicycle and a citizen was trying to get the cop to stop (say to answer a question), that the citizen would have been acquitted of assault?

 

[Hannibal]

Who here thinks if the cop was on a bicycle and a citizen was trying to get the cop to stop (say to answer a question), that the citizen would have been acquitted of assault?

If that was the case I very much doubt the citizen would have body-checked the cop...unless he wanted a size 11 butt-whuppin

 

[Hannibal]

Hunh, not sure what to make of it. Convicted of offering a false instrument for filing and of making a false statement. Acquitted of everything else.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jL7yDQptejUe17lX3LnWrmEcd2tgD9FCTMI01

Arguably both worse than common assault - assault would probably keep him his job with appropriate counselling; crimes of dishonesty and credibility mean he cannot - or rather should not - maintain a position of trust

quote; "He faces up to four years in prison at his June 23 sentencing."

Probably why the assault charge was dropped. The cyclist settled for a monetary amount on teh assault and may have waived the criminal proceedings and the punishment for the other two
crimes outweighs anything he would get for the assault

 

[One Skunk Todd]

Arguably both worse than common assault - assault would probably keep him his job with appropriate counselling; crimes of dishonesty and credibility mean he cannot - or rather should not - maintain a position of trust

quote; "He faces up to four years in prison at his June 23 sentencing."

Probably why the assault charge was dropped. The cyclist settled for a monetary amount on teh assault and may have waived the criminal proceedings and the punishment for the other two
crimes outweighs anything he would get for the assault

Was the assault charge dropped? I thought he was acquitted of that.

ETA: Yeah, double checked, the article says cleared of that.

 

[Hannibal]

Yeah I just saw that...who knows...sometimes they are dropped at court level and the press report them as "aquitted".

I find the "look ma no hands" offence a bit questionable given the surrounding circumstances. Cops have discretion for a reason, and this probably would have been a good time to exercise it!

 

[zooterkin]

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

Deliberate? Who was the one who closed the distance and launched himself at the other person?



(I'm having a very strong feeling of deja vu; didn't we do this to death the first time around?)

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

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.