Police Investigate Officer in Critical Mass Video [Archive]

John Kane

01-04-1970, 04:34 PM

On Jul 29, 1:42*pm, Bill Davidson <bill.david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don Wiss wrote:
> > Police Investigate Officer in Critical Mass Video
> >http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/police-investigate-offic...
>
> > Don <www.donwiss.com/joyrides> (e-mail link at page bottom).
>
> The Smoking Gun has posted the criminal complaint against
> the cyclist:
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0729081bike1.html
>
> How many lies can you spot?

I'd have to take off my shoes :)

Don't rookie cops get a lecture about attacking people when there is a
high probability of a spectator with a video camera being present?

Sheesh, apparently vicious and stupid!

recycled

01-04-1970, 04:34 PM

"Bill Davidson" <bill.davidson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iEIjk.1388$wY7.68@newsfe01.iad...
> Don Wiss wrote:
>> Police Investigate Officer in Critical Mass Video
>> http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/police-investigate-officer-in-critical-mass-video/
>>
>> Don <www.donwiss.com/joyrides> (e-mail link at page bottom).
>
> The Smoking Gun has posted the criminal complaint against
> the cyclist:
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0729081bike1.html
>
> How many lies can you spot?

Once again let me say I am on the cyclists side. But I will put forth the
hypothetical best possible case the cop could have made:

In the middle of the CM protest the officer intended to arrest a random
member of said protest in an attempt to cause the others to disperse. He
shouts to him to stop. He does not, so the officer stops him and arrests him
for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct which would both be at least not
contradicted by the video.

However his method of effecting the detention - basically knocking him off
the bike - was inappropriate and disproportionate use of force to the
situation at the very least.

And lying about it in a sworn statement... didn't Clinton get impeached
over something similar...

nmp

01-04-1970, 04:34 PM

Papa Tom wrote:

> This is unacceptable behavior from a NY City cop. Of course, my
> allegiance will always be with cyclists.

I looked at the little movie clip. Yes, that was quite bad. And the lying
is what makes it really evil, not just bad.

> However, once again, I will open up the can of worms and declare that I
> have no idea what these Critical Mass rides are supposed to be
> accomplishing, other than to piss people off to the point where a cop
> loses his patience and brings a random cyclist down to the pavement.
>
> Is the message that cyclists are entitled to use the streets, or is it
> that cyclists have MORE rights to the streets than anyone else?

To be fair, I have never seen a "Critical Mass". I live in a part of the
world (almost the other side of the planet from where most of you are
sitting) where I think these demonstrations are not really necessary. I
have only learnt about these events through the newsgroups and the world
wide web.

However, it is my understanding that in those places in North America
where the Critical Mass gatherings are held, it is only a monthly affair.
And sometimes not even that.

The Critical Mass participants may be a bit unruly perhaps, but they
would only be claiming "MORE rights to the streets than anyone else" if
they took the streets more than 50% of the time. Instead they do what?
Ride one hour, two hours per month?

I'm surprised even that the police is trying to stop this. They should
send an escort, stop traffic on the intersections to let the cyclists
through, protect the riders from agression, etc.

David L. Johnson

01-04-1970, 04:34 PM

Papa Tom wrote:
> This is unacceptable behavior from a NY City cop. Of course, my allegiance
> will always be with cyclists.
>
> However, once again, I will open up the can of worms and declare that I have
> no idea what these Critical Mass rides are supposed to be accomplishing,
> other than to piss people off to the point where a cop loses his patience
> and brings a random cyclist down to the pavement.

It was a _demonstration_. Those of us who are old enough remember when
demonstrations were common, whether against the war, or whatever. Cops
beating up demonstrators is not exactly news. Witness the '68
Democratic convention in Chicago. None of those cops got assigned desk
duty.

Critical Mass, for all its faults, is trying to make a point, one which
we should all understand. That they do it somewhat belligerently is par
for the course. That pisses off the cops, and they do things like this.
The whole world is watching --- well, in this case, probably not the
whole world, but just like then, the cameras make all the difference.

--

David L. Johnson

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on
no account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams

recycled

01-04-1970, 04:34 PM

"Papa Tom" <TomMontalbano@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:488f575a$0$20920$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> This is unacceptable behavior from a NY City cop. Of course, my
> allegiance will always be with cyclists.

Myself as well. And in this case, judging by the video regardless of my
allegiance, the cop instigated the confrontation for no apparent reason.

Which makes me wonder: What caused the cop to target this guy? He was
singled out by the cop quite obviously. I was wondering if the guy yelled
out some something the cop took offense at or even had an offensive slogan
on his shirt. Something, anything!

Which is not to suggest that that in any way legitmizes the cop's actions.
Just what caused the cop to focus on this one guy? I suppose the cop might
have figured - like in any mass of people where it's impossible to arrest
everyone - would grab at least one to arrest - like picking out one speeder
to ticket even though every car is wizzing by at 23-kmh over the limit.

And again this is not a defence of the actions, just trying to understand
the thought process.

> However, once again, I will open up the can of worms and declare that I
> have no idea what these Critical Mass rides are supposed to be
> accomplishing, other than to piss people off to the point where a cop
> loses his patience and brings a random cyclist down to the pavement.

I'm not a CMer either but to me it seems to be something between a pride
parade and civil disobedience. And therein that ambiguity lies the problem.

People look at a parade and think it's all well and good. Everyone loves a
parade, whether your proud Irish, Gay, Shriner or even Gay Irish Shriners.

People see an act of civil disobedience and figure even if sympathetic that
the protesters should expect a typical detention that such acts entail.

CM seems to fall between the two with different participants treating it as
one or the other.

siva dasa

01-04-1970, 04:37 PM

In article <488fa398$0$49839$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:

> I'm surprised even that the police is trying to stop this. They should
> send an escort, stop traffic on the intersections to let the cyclists
> through, protect the riders from agression, etc.

Welcome to NYC.

Instead they tried to require a parade permit (which is not cheap in
NYC) but a judge threw it out. Hence the beauty of YouTube -- notice the
video has been pulled -- and tourists with cell phone cameras.

Demonstrations can be easily suppressed if the government controls the
media, as in China. As our fearless leader said, "Things would be a lot
easier in a dictatorship. Especially if I'm the dictator."

One good thing -- at least he wasn't shot. There may have been a more
bloody outcome if it hadn't been Times Square.

Pat

01-04-1970, 04:38 PM

>
> It was a _demonstration_. Those of us who are old enough remember when
> demonstrations were common, whether against the war, or whatever. Cops
> beating up demonstrators is not exactly news. Witness the '68 Democratic
> convention in Chicago. None of those cops got assigned desk duty.

And that was 40 years ago! Things change. There was a lot of condemnation of
their behavior and they and all cops learned from it. Sheesh. Forty years
ago! That's like saying we should all be afraid of Christians because of
Timothy McVey (which the Islamist apologists claim, anyway).

> Critical Mass, for all its faults, is trying to make a point, one which we
> should all understand. That they do it somewhat belligerently is par for
> the course. That pisses off the cops, and they do things like this. The
> whole world is watching --- well, in this case, probably not the whole
> world, but just like then, the cameras make all the difference.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson

Peter Cole

01-04-1970, 04:41 PM

recycled wrote:

> Which makes me wonder: What caused the cop to target this guy? He was
> singled out by the cop quite obviously. I was wondering if the guy
> yelled out some something the cop took offense at or even had an
> offensive slogan on his shirt. Something, anything!

It looked to me that the cop decided to walk across the street and just
shoved the first bike that got in his way.

Cops really hate civil disobedience. Breaking the law (even trivial
laws) seems to be really intolerable to many if done in their presence,
and they take it personally. I don't know if cops get that way after
being on the job or the system selects them for those predilections, I
suspect the latter.

Papa Tom

01-04-1970, 04:41 PM

>>>Just what caused the cop to focus on this one guy?<<<<

It almost appears as if the cop got fed up with the whole thing (ever have
one of those moments?) and decided to abandon his post, throwing one last
temper tantrum as he headed toward the sidewalk. I think he probably
realized afterward that it was immature, bad judgment. However, once the
damage is done, there's no taking it back - especially in the age of
YouTube.

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 04:45 PM

>> Witness the '68 Democratic convention in Chicago. None of
>> those cops got assigned desk duty.
> And that was 40 years ago! Things change. There was a lot of
> condemnation of their behavior and they and all cops learned
> from it. Sheesh.

=v= It's not clear to me what the police, institutionally,
have learned from this.

=v= The last Republican National Convention was more recent
(4 years ago, not 40). It had the largest number of protesters
of any convention in American history, the largest number of
arrests, the largest number of falsified trumped-up charges,
and large numbers of police lying on the stand. Fortunately
a large amount of video exonerated many arrestees, so it had
the largest number of cases dismissed.
<_Jym_>

David L. Johnson

01-04-1970, 04:45 PM

Pat wrote:
>> It was a _demonstration_. Those of us who are old enough remember when
>> demonstrations were common, whether against the war, or whatever. Cops
>> beating up demonstrators is not exactly news. Witness the '68 Democratic
>> convention in Chicago. None of those cops got assigned desk duty.
>
> And that was 40 years ago! Things change. There was a lot of condemnation of
> their behavior and they and all cops learned from it.

Don't be so sure. Cop reactions to demonstrations --- especially those
without permits or large media attention --- are as bad as they ever
were. "Control" of demonstrators has improved, but who cares about the
first amendment, anyway.

What the cops learned was how to stifle the protest better, not to
understand the rights of the people.

--

David L. Johnson

Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front of
enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of them would
reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The internet has
proven this not to be the case.

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 04:49 PM

>> Which makes me wonder: What caused the cop to target this
>> guy? He was singled out by the cop quite obviously. I was
>> wondering if the guy yelled out some something the cop took
>> offense at or even had an offensive slogan on his shirt.
> It looked to me that the cop decided to walk across the street
> and just shoved the first bike that got in his way.

=v= This is not the first such incident by any means; just one
that was caught on videotape:

http://times-up.org/index.php?page=july-cm

=v= We'll probably never know for sure, unless the officer
decides to be open and truthful, but note that you'll see a
bicyclist going by with a video camera. The two officers are
first seen looking downtraffic, where this bicyclist has just
gone, and *then* the attacking officer swung into action.

=v= Good thing somebody else was filming.
<_Jym_>

Steven M. O'Neill

01-04-1970, 04:49 PM

Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
>Cops really hate civil disobedience. Breaking the law (even trivial
>laws) seems to be really intolerable to many if done in their presence,
>and they take it personally. I don't know if cops get that way after
>being on the job or the system selects them for those predilections, I
>suspect the latter.

What if the cyclist was just on his way home from work when he
came across this group bike ride that happened to be going in
the same direction? What if he was riding in the lane where he
was because he just happened to think that it was the safest
place to ride under the conditions?

Would he still have been breaking the law?

If not, how do you tell him from the actual participants in the
group bike ride?

--
Steven O'Neill steveo@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo

Dane Buson

01-04-1970, 04:49 PM

Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
> recycled wrote:
>
>> Which makes me wonder: What caused the cop to target this guy? He was
>> singled out by the cop quite obviously. I was wondering if the guy
>> yelled out some something the cop took offense at or even had an
>> offensive slogan on his shirt. Something, anything!
>
> It looked to me that the cop decided to walk across the street and just
> shoved the first bike that got in his way.
>
> Cops really hate civil disobedience. Breaking the law (even trivial
> laws) seems to be really intolerable to many if done in their presence,
> and they take it personally. I don't know if cops get that way after
> being on the job or the system selects them for those predilections, I
> suspect the latter.

From reading other articles, it appears the fellow in question is a
third generation police officer. So he's had plenty of time to be
inculcated with attitudes of longtime serving police officers before he
ever joined the force (for good or ill).

--
Dane Buson - nn07tp08@unixbigots.org
X windows. Warn your friends about it.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 04:49 PM

Peter Cole wrote:
> recycled wrote:
>
>> Which makes me wonder: What caused the cop to target this guy? He was
>> singled out by the cop quite obviously. I was wondering if the guy
>> yelled out some something the cop took offense at or even had an
>> offensive slogan on his shirt. Something, anything!
>
> It looked to me that the cop decided to walk across the street and just
> shoved the first bike that got in his way.
>
> Cops really hate civil disobedience. Breaking the law (even trivial
> laws) seems to be really intolerable to many if done in their presence,
> and they take it personally. I don't know if cops get that way after
> being on the job or the system selects them for those predilections, I
> suspect the latter.

Things could be worse - in many countries police are the enemy of the
people and work hand in hand with the military and para-military units
(i.e. death squads) to suppress dissent against the ruling class.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Peter Cole

01-04-1970, 04:50 PM

Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Cops really hate civil disobedience. Breaking the law (even trivial
>> laws) seems to be really intolerable to many if done in their presence,
>> and they take it personally. I don't know if cops get that way after
>> being on the job or the system selects them for those predilections, I
>> suspect the latter.
>
> What if the cyclist was just on his way home from work when he
> came across this group bike ride that happened to be going in
> the same direction? What if he was riding in the lane where he
> was because he just happened to think that it was the safest
> place to ride under the conditions?
>
> Would he still have been breaking the law?
>
> If not, how do you tell him from the actual participants in the
> group bike ride?
>

Happens all the time -- at least used to in the demonstrations I
attended, passersby assumed they had nothing to fear as they weren't
part of the demonstration, so didn't run from the cops -- and got clubbed.

Bill Davidson

01-04-1970, 04:50 PM

recycled wrote:
> In the middle of the CM protest the officer intended to arrest a random
> member of said protest in an attempt to cause the others to disperse.

Understood.

> He shouts to him to stop.

Not unless he's a ventriloquist and even then given how close the
camera (w/microphone) was, I think we would have heard him shouting.
He doesn't appear to be shouting at all. Also, when the police are
trying to get you to stop, they usually put their hand up -- which
he also did not do. This was the shoving equivalent of a sucker
punch. There was no warning at all.

> He does not, so the officer stops him and arrests
> him for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct which would both be at
> least not contradicted by the video.

He picked one and went for it. It was a bad take down and a bad
arrest and he knew it. That's why he had to make up all the lies
in his deposition with the A.D.A. It was the only way to
legitimize it. Interestingly enough, at the end, that criminal
complaint explicitly states that anyone falsifying the information
in it is guilty of a misdemeanor. He must have been told that and
done it anyway. He should get jail time for it.

At most, the cyclist was guilty of the infraction of riding out in
the middle of the street blocking traffic. However, he got charged
with assaulting a police officer which is at least a misdemeanor but
could be a felony.

John Kane

01-04-1970, 04:50 PM

On Jul 31, 11:18*am, "recycled" <u-l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill Davidson" <bill.david...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:iEIjk.1388$wY7.68@newsfe01.iad...
>
> > Don Wiss wrote:
> >> Police Investigate Officer in Critical Mass Video
> >>http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/police-investigate-offic....
>
> >> Don <www.donwiss.com/joyrides> (e-mail link at page bottom).
>
> > The Smoking Gun has posted the criminal complaint against
> > the cyclist:
>
> >http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0729081bike1.html
>
> > How many lies can you spot?
>
> *Once again let me say I am on the cyclists side. But I will put forth the
> hypothetical best possible case the cop could have made:
>
> *In the middle of the CM protest the officer intended to arrest a random
> member of said protest in an attempt to cause the others to disperse. He
> shouts to him to stop. He does not, so the officer stops him and arrests him
> for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct which would both be at least not
> contradicted by the video.
>
> *However his method of effecting the detention - basically knocking him off
> the bike - was inappropriate and disproportionate use of force to the
> situation at the very least.

My impression was that there was no attempt to try and stop the rider.
It was an unprovoked assault. Hell, you'd get a penalty for something
like that in Rugby.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

>
> *And lying about it in a sworn statement... didn't Clinton get impeached
> over something similar...

I'm not up on US shinanigans but I don't think so. I believe he won
the vote

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 04:50 PM

Peter Cole wrote:
> Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Cops really hate civil disobedience. Breaking the law (even trivial
>>> laws) seems to be really intolerable to many if done in their
>>> presence, and they take it personally. I don't know if cops get that
>>> way after being on the job or the system selects them for those
>>> predilections, I suspect the latter.
>>
>> What if the cyclist was just on his way home from work when he
>> came across this group bike ride that happened to be going in
>> the same direction? What if he was riding in the lane where he
>> was because he just happened to think that it was the safest
>> place to ride under the conditions?
>>
>> Would he still have been breaking the law?
>>
>> If not, how do you tell him from the actual participants in the
>> group bike ride?
>>
>
> Happens all the time -- at least used to in the demonstrations I
> attended, passersby assumed they had nothing to fear as they weren't
> part of the demonstration, so didn't run from the cops -- and got clubbed.

Then there were the demonstrations at the FTAA meeting in Miami a few
years back, where the police would block off both ends of the street,
order the now trapped protesters to disperse, and since the protesters
were prevented by the police from dispersing, the police opened fire
with rubber bullets and tear gas. This is how the police in fascist
counties are expected to behave.

Another tactic often used in many places is to have undercover police
instigate the violence against the uniformed police (something
relatively harmless, of course) so it can be claimed the demonstration
was violent and the police were just doing their duty in suppressing it.
At the G8 convention in Italy a few years ago, the police went farther
and manufactured bombs to plant as "evidence" that the protesters were
actually violent terrorists.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

recycled

01-04-1970, 04:51 PM

"Bill Davidson" <bill.davidson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ubnkk.7398$KZ.2897@newsfe03.iad...
> recycled wrote:
>> In the middle of the CM protest the officer intended to arrest a random
>> member of said protest in an attempt to cause the others to disperse.
>
> Understood.
>
>> He shouts to him to stop.
>
> Not unless he's a ventriloquist and even then given how close the
> camera (w/microphone) was, I think we would have heard him shouting.

While it does not show conclusively the cop was trying to communicate, the
low quality I think makes it at least arguable if he did try to assert it.

To be clear, I'm not saying he did yell to stop nor that he clamed to have.
Just that in my viewing the recording does not contradict the possibility.

> He doesn't appear to be shouting at all. Also, when the police are
> trying to get you to stop, they usually put their hand up -- which
> he also did not do.

True enough. His body language does not look like he was attempting to
communicate to the rider to stop.

>This was the shoving equivalent of a sucker
> punch. There was no warning at all.

Maybe a little in that he did appear to be intentionally going for that
rider.

>> He does not, so the officer stops him and arrests him for resisting
>> arrest and disorderly conduct which would both be at least not
>> contradicted by the video.
>
> He picked one and went for it. It was a bad take down and a bad
> arrest and he knew it. That's why he had to make up all the lies
> in his deposition with the A.D.A. It was the only way to
> legitimize it. Interestingly enough, at the end, that criminal
> complaint explicitly states that anyone falsifying the information
> in it is guilty of a misdemeanor. He must have been told that and
> done it anyway. He should get jail time for it.
>
> At most, the cyclist was guilty of the infraction of riding out in
> the middle of the street blocking traffic.

Actually given that he moved further to the left to avoid the cop, the rider
was responding as he should to avoid a collision.

Question though: Was this a one way street? It appears to be from the cars.
Also there is what looks like to be a faded bike-lane symbol on the left
side of the street. Left as in when the camera is pointing towards the cops.

Is there anyone who knows the exact intersection and where a diagram might
be?

> However, he got charged
> with assaulting a police officer which is at least a misdemeanor but
> could be a felony.

At most I'd say resisting arrest by refusing to stop and disturbing the
peace or similar which I'm guessing in NYC would be misdemeanors. And would
only be appropriate if the cop did make some reasonable indication that he
was detaining the cyclist.

Since there can be no corrobation of a hypothetical call to stop except
perhaps if a bystander or the cops partner, and the cops own credibility has
been destroyed, by lying quite blatantly in his statement, he isn't going to
be believed where normally "cop said" vs. "arrestee said" is almost always
won by the cop.

My guess is some internal reprimand for the cop [being a rookie I doubt he
can be demoted] and a settlement with the cyclist, medical bills, bike
damage, plus 4 or 5 figures for pain an suffering with no admission of
fault.

John Kane

01-04-1970, 04:51 PM

On Jul 31, 3:04*pm, "recycled" <u-l...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> *My guess is some internal reprimand for the cop [being a rookie I doubt he
> can be demoted] *and a settlement with the cyclist, medical bills, bike
> damage, *plus 4 or 5 figures for pain an suffering with no admission of
> fault.

That's assuming the rider is not vindictive. Based on that video I'd
could see the rider pressing charges for aggrivated assault ( or
whatever the term is).

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Bill Davidson

01-04-1970, 04:51 PM

recycled wrote:
> While it does not show conclusively the cop was trying to communicate,
> the low quality I think makes it at least arguable if he did try to
> assert it.
>
> To be clear, I'm not saying he did yell to stop nor that he clamed to
> have.

On the second page of the criminal complaint, it says he claims
to have instructed Long to cease the behavior of the previous
paragraph which was obstructing traffic by riding in the center
lane and weaving in and out of the lane. The cop did no such
thing.

> Just that in my viewing the recording does not contradict the
> possibility.

It seems incredibly unlikely.

> My guess is some internal reprimand for the cop [being a rookie I doubt
> he can be demoted] and a settlement with the cyclist, medical bills,
> bike damage, plus 4 or 5 figures for pain an suffering with no
> admission of fault.

He'll be fired. Falsifying charges is serious. He probably won't
face charges but he should.

recycled

01-04-1970, 04:52 PM

"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59ddf055-815c-4571-b63e-722cd6ed6da8@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 11:18 am, "recycled" <u-l...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> However his method of effecting the detention - basically knocking him
>> off
>> the bike - was inappropriate and disproportionate use of force to the
>> situation at the very least.

> My impression was that there was no attempt to try and stop the rider.

I agree. I was trying to make the best possible case.

> It was an unprovoked assault. Hell, you'd get a penalty for something
> like that in Rugby.

But not in ice hockey. :)

>> And lying about it in a sworn statement... didn't Clinton get impeached
>> over something similar...

> I'm not up on US shinanigans but I don't think so. I believe he won
> the vote

Actually 'impeached' simply means 'charged'. So yes he was impeached and his
trial was held. He just wasn't convicted.

recycled

01-04-1970, 04:52 PM

"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1b24aca-6fce-4a3c-8830-05f914af910b@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 3:04 pm, "recycled" <u-l...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> My guess is some internal reprimand for the cop [being a rookie I doubt
>> he
>> can be demoted] and a settlement with the cyclist, medical bills, bike
>> damage, plus 4 or 5 figures for pain an suffering with no admission of
>> fault.

> That's assuming the rider is not vindictive. Based on that video I'd
> could see the rider pressing charges for aggrivated assault ( or
> whatever the term is).

I'm not saying an internal reprimand fits the what he did. Just that it's
likely to be what he gets: The Blue Wall and all that.

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 04:52 PM

> That's assuming the rider is not vindictive.

=v= Seeking justice isn't being vindictive.
<_Jym_>

recycled

01-04-1970, 04:52 PM

"Bill Davidson" <bill.davidson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:R1qkk.5321$LF2.4173@newsfe09.iad...
> recycled wrote:
>> While it does not show conclusively the cop was trying to communicate,
>> the low quality I think makes it at least arguable if he did try to
>> assert it.
>>
>> To be clear, I'm not saying he did yell to stop nor that he claimed to
>> have.
>
> On the second page of the criminal complaint, it says he claims
> to have instructed Long to cease the behavior of the previous
> paragraph which was obstructing traffic by riding in the center
> lane and weaving in and out of the lane. The cop did no such
> thing.

Oh I agree. As bad as the video is, the sworn statement is what really sunk
him. You could make the argument from the video that he was simply an
overeager rookie who made a mistake. It's always the cover-up that sinks
you.

>> Just that in my viewing the recording does not contradict the
>> possibility.
>
> It seems incredibly unlikely.

I agree. Although the sound quality is less than ideal you would think that
any call to stop that the rider could reasonably have heard would likely
have been as audible as the ambient souds that were picked up.

>> My guess is some internal reprimand for the cop [being a rookie I doubt
>> he can be demoted] and a settlement with the cyclist, medical bills,
>> bike damage, plus 4 or 5 figures for pain an suffering with no admission
>> of fault.
>
> He'll be fired. Falsifying charges is serious. He probably won't
> face charges but he should.

We shall see. He might be, given the publicity but after perusing some of
NYPD's other shenanigans that did not result in those sorts of punishments,
I doubt it.

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 04:52 PM

> On the second page of the criminal complaint, it says he
> claims to have instructed Long to cease the behavior of the
> previous paragraph which was obstructing traffic by riding
> in the center lane and weaving in and out of the lane.

=v= An interesting claim in any event, since the videotape
shows traffic at a dead stop in the center lane. It had
no way to move forward because the two police officers were
standing in the same center lane!
<_Jym_>

John Kane

01-04-1970, 04:52 PM

On Jul 31, 6:34*pm, "recycled" <u-l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "John Kane" <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:59ddf055-815c-4571-b63e-722cd6ed6da8@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 11:18 am, "recycled" <u-l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> However his method of effecting the detention - basically knocking him
> >> off
> >> the bike - was inappropriate and disproportionate use of force to the
> >> situation at the very least.
> > My impression was that there was no attempt to try and stop the rider.
>
> I agree. I was trying to make the best possible case.
>
> > It was an unprovoked assault. *Hell, you'd get a penalty for something
> > like that in Rugby.
>
> But not in ice hockey. :)
>
> >> And lying about it in a sworn statement... didn't Clinton get impeached
> >> over something similar...
> > I'm not up on US shinanigans but I don't think so. *I believe he won
> > the vote
>
> Actually 'impeached' simply means 'charged'. So yes he was impeached and his
> trial was held. He just wasn't convicted.

Ah, yes. I always think of it as the conclustion not the accusation.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Bill Davidson

01-04-1970, 04:54 PM

Jym Dyer wrote:
> =v= An interesting claim in any event, since the videotape
> shows traffic at a dead stop in the center lane. It had
> no way to move forward because the two police officers were
> standing in the same center lane!

That's an interesting point that I haven't seen anyone else
point out. The cops were in the same center lane! Doh!

Pat

01-04-1970, 04:55 PM

>> And that was 40 years ago! Things change. There was a lot of condemnation
>> of
>> their behavior and they and all cops learned from it.
>
> Don't be so sure. Cop reactions to demonstrations --- especially those
> without permits or large media attention --- are as bad as they ever were.
> "Control" of demonstrators has improved, but who cares about the first
> amendment, anyway.
>
> What the cops learned was how to stifle the protest better, not to
> understand the rights of the people.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson

Your cynicism is not supported by the evidence. In these days where everyone
has a phone with a camera in it, cops can't afford to hit demonstrators---as
proved by this entire case! There is no hiding from the camera.

Pat in TX

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 04:55 PM

In article <F-CdnfAS2I4kvA7VnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@rcn.net>,
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
> Pat wrote:
>>> It was a _demonstration_. Those of us who are old enough remember when
>>> demonstrations were common, whether against the war, or whatever. Cops
>>> beating up demonstrators is not exactly news. Witness the '68 Democratic
>>> convention in Chicago. None of those cops got assigned desk duty.
>>
>> And that was 40 years ago! Things change. There was a lot of condemnation of
>> their behavior and they and all cops learned from it.
>
> Don't be so sure. Cop reactions to demonstrations --- especially those
> without permits or large media attention --- are as bad as they ever
> were. "Control" of demonstrators has improved, but who cares about the
> first amendment, anyway.
>
> What the cops learned was how to stifle the protest better, not to
> understand the rights of the people.

What some cops have learned is toadie fielty to
their political superiors, and a jaded, higher-
than-thou attitude toward their fellow human beans.

But then there's Robo-Cop. He'll save the day.
When you're JRA and somebody throws a Big Gulp
at ya, he'll jump off his motorcycle and take
'em down. Even if he has to slowly highside
on the freeway, with sparks flying everywhere
off the pavement, to skid in front of the
offending car and stop it.

"Freeze, scum."

Kinda like Easy Rider in reverse. Which is
nothing like ChiPs, starring Eric Estrada,
and the other guy -- "party on, Wayne!"

cheers,
TOM

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

David L. Johnson

01-04-1970, 04:56 PM

Pat wrote:

> Your cynicism is not supported by the evidence. In these days where everyone
> has a phone with a camera in it, cops can't afford to hit demonstrators---as
> proved by this entire case! There is no hiding from the camera.

My "cynicism" is precisely supported by the evidence. The cop did
assault the guy, and then lied about what happened. It was only chance,
and by far not guaranteed, that someone not only filmed the event, but
put it on the web. Most likely, he would have gotten away with it, and
for all we know he may still.

--

David L. Johnson

It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster.
--Greg LeMond

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 04:56 PM

> In these days where everyone has a phone with a camera in
> it, cops can't afford to hit demonstrators---as proved by
> this entire case! There is no hiding from the camera.

=v= If only it was that simple. This is, sadly, a fluke. It
took work to obtain that video, work to put it onto YouTube,
work to publicize the facts. It's still not at all clear that
the officer is going to face anything but temporary deskwork
and bad publicity. The D.A. has not dropped charges against
the cyclist even though the video shows them to be fictional.
(If past behavior is any guide, the D.A. will jerk him around
for a year or so, scheduling one court appearance after another
where "the people [sic] aren't ready," before dismissing him.)

=v= It doesn't end there, either. Check out this site (news
and blog) to see what happens when you work on video evidence:

http://iwitnessvideo.info/

<_Jym_>

Pat

01-04-1970, 04:56 PM

> >> And lying about it in a sworn statement... didn't Clinton get impeached
> >> over something similar...
> > I'm not up on US shinanigans but I don't think so. I believe he won
> > the vote
>
> Actually 'impeached' simply means 'charged'. So yes he was impeached and
> his
> trial was held. He just wasn't convicted.

Ah, yes. I always think of it as the conclustion not the accusation.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

I think it is something like counting coup as the Indians used to do. What
matters most is being the first one to do it---that way, when the other
party finds fault in your guy, you can say, "Oops! You can't impeach Bush
because that would just be a knee jerk reaction to our impeaching Clinton!"

Pat in TX

Pat

01-04-1970, 04:58 PM

>> Your cynicism is not supported by the evidence. In these days where
>> everyone
>> has a phone with a camera in it, cops can't afford to hit
>> demonstrators---as proved by this entire case! There is no hiding from
>> the camera.
>
> My "cynicism" is precisely supported by the evidence. The cop did assault
> the guy, and then lied about what happened. It was only chance, and by
> far not guaranteed, that someone not only filmed the event, but put it on
> the web. Most likely, he would have gotten away with it, and for all we
> know he may still.
> David L. Johnson

I am saying it is the norm, not the exception or the rare chance, that
someone would photograph this incident. As a result, the cops, in a position
of authority, have the sure knowledge that someone WILL be recording the
incident. You try to make it sound as if maybe one in a thousand would have
a cell phone with a camera in it and may not even be ready to take a photo
or a recording. That is not so in today's environment. Not only that, but
you are assuming the other cop would lie as well.

I used to referee soccer and was quite aware that at all times I was being
watched by hundreds of eyes. Certainly a cop would have that same awareness.

Pat in TX

John Kane

01-04-1970, 05:00 PM

On Aug 2, 9:06*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> > Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> >> Peter Cole *<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> Cops really hate civil disobedience. Breaking the law (even trivial
> >>> laws) seems to be really intolerable to many if done in their
> >>> presence, and they take it personally. I don't know if cops get that
> >>> way after being on the job or the system selects them for those
> >>> predilections, I suspect the latter.
>
> >> What if the cyclist was just on his way home from work when he
> >> came across this group bike ride that happened to be going in
> >> the same direction? *What if he was riding in the lane where he
> >> was because he just happened to think that it was the safest
> >> place to ride under the conditions?
>
> >> Would he still have been breaking the law?
>
> >> If not, how do you tell him from the actual participants in the
> >> group bike ride?
>
> > Happens all the time -- at least used to in the demonstrations I
> > attended, passersby assumed they had nothing to fear as they weren't
> > part of the demonstration, so didn't run from the cops -- and got clubbed.
>
> Then there were the demonstrations at the FTAA meeting in Miami a few
> years back, where the police would block off both ends of the street,
> order the now trapped protesters to disperse, and since the protesters
> were prevented by the police from dispersing, the police opened fire
> with rubber bullets and tear gas. This is how the police in fascist
> counties are expected to behave.
>
> Another tactic often used in many places is to have undercover police
> instigate the violence against the uniformed police (something
> relatively harmless, of course) so it can be claimed the demonstration
> was violent and the police were just doing their duty in suppressing it.
> At the G8 convention in Italy a few years ago, the police went farther
> and manufactured bombs to plant as "evidence" that the protesters were
> actually violent terrorists.

I don't remember what the occasion was, perhaps another G8 meeting but
it was in Quebec City. The file there showed three provocateurs who
had forgotten to take of their Quebec Provincial Police boots.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

mark@drumbent.com

01-04-1970, 05:00 PM

On Aug 2, 12:09 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 9:06 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> > > Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> > >> Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>> Cops really hate civil disobedience. Breaking the law (even trivial
> > >>> laws) seems to be really intolerable to many if done in their
> > >>> presence, and they take it personally. I don't know if cops get that
> > >>> way after being on the job or the system selects them for those
> > >>> predilections, I suspect the latter.
>
> > >> What if the cyclist was just on his way home from work when he
> > >> came across this group bike ride that happened to be going in
> > >> the same direction? What if he was riding in the lane where he
> > >> was because he just happened to think that it was the safest
> > >> place to ride under the conditions?
>
> > >> Would he still have been breaking the law?
>
> > >> If not, how do you tell him from the actual participants in the
> > >> group bike ride?
>
> > > Happens all the time -- at least used to in the demonstrations I
> > > attended, passersby assumed they had nothing to fear as they weren't
> > > part of the demonstration, so didn't run from the cops -- and got clubbed.
>
> > Then there were the demonstrations at the FTAA meeting in Miami a few
> > years back, where the police would block off both ends of the street,
> > order the now trapped protesters to disperse, and since the protesters
> > were prevented by the police from dispersing, the police opened fire
> > with rubber bullets and tear gas. This is how the police in fascist
> > counties are expected to behave.
>
> > Another tactic often used in many places is to have undercover police
> > instigate the violence against the uniformed police (something
> > relatively harmless, of course) so it can be claimed the demonstration
> > was violent and the police were just doing their duty in suppressing it.
> > At the G8 convention in Italy a few years ago, the police went farther
> > and manufactured bombs to plant as "evidence" that the protesters were
> > actually violent terrorists.
>
> I don't remember what the occasion was, perhaps another G8 meeting but
> it was in Quebec City. The file there showed three provocateurs who
> had forgotten to take of their Quebec Provincial Police boots.
>
> John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Yes indeed, they were caught with their boots on, and the QPF later
admitted to it. You can see how the provocateurs "break" through the
Police line in the video (watch how one of them is yakking to his
Police buddy right before they do so). Footage is here, and you can
see the boots after the big "take-down":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Having grown up in Montreal I knew there were some slimy elements to
the QPF, and the above is just another example.

Mark

David L. Johnson

01-04-1970, 05:00 PM

Pat wrote:

> I am saying it is the norm, not the exception or the rare chance, that
> someone would photograph this incident.

Here we disagree. "Rare chance" it is not, but it is far from the norm.
it is further from the norm to expect someone to post the video on the
net.

> As a result, the cops, in a position
> of authority, have the sure knowledge that someone WILL be recording the
> incident. You try to make it sound as if maybe one in a thousand would have
> a cell phone with a camera in it and may not even be ready to take a photo
> or a recording. That is not so in today's environment. Not only that, but
> you are assuming the other cop would lie as well.

Yes, I am assuming that the other cop would not "rat" on a fellow
officer. What, you don't think that happens?

It is certainly on the order of one in several hundreds who would have a
cellphone with a video mode, that the owner would know how to operate,
that the owner would think about, and that he/she would then run to
Youtube to post the video. Yeah. Don't presume that most people know
how to work those features on their phone, or that they have any idea
how to post such a video. Most people do not. Sure, there are millions
of videos on Youtube, but there are billions of people in the world, so,
yeah, one in a thousand is about right.
>
> I used to referee soccer and was quite aware that at all times I was being
> watched by hundreds of eyes. Certainly a cop would have that same awareness.

You were being watched by soccer moms. They are protecting, so they
believe, their young. This guy was being watched by strangers.

--

David L. Johnson

Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of business.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 06:11 PM

Jym Dyer wrote:
>> In these days where everyone has a phone with a camera in
>> it, cops can't afford to hit demonstrators---as proved by
>> this entire case! There is no hiding from the camera.
>
> =v= If only it was that simple. This is, sadly, a fluke. It
> took work to obtain that video, work to put it onto YouTube,
> work to publicize the facts. It's still not at all clear that
> the officer is going to face anything but temporary deskwork
> and bad publicity. The D.A. has not dropped charges against
> the cyclist even though the video shows them to be fictional.
> (If past behavior is any guide, the D.A. will jerk him around
> for a year or so, scheduling one court appearance after another
> where "the people [sic] aren't ready," before dismissing him.)
>
> =v= It doesn't end there, either. Check out this site (news
> and blog) to see what happens when you work on video evidence:
>
> http://iwitnessvideo.info/
>
The cops protect their own. The cops that turned over the drugged and
sodomized (rectal bleeding) boy back over to Jeffrey Dahmer to be
further sodomized and murdered, not only had their firings overturned,
but were voted "Officers of the Year" and one was elected president of
the union local: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balcerzak>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”