Critical

On Dec 17, 8:37*pm, Dan O wrote:

Well, I think it might be kind of an over-reaction, if you will, and
probably a bastion of some ad-hoc anarchists, but the way things are
out there it could require some dramatic action to even get people
thinking about sharing the road.

What a laugh. What "sharing the road" do you see in that clip?

"Critical Mass" will be an effective force for promoting cycling when
they start obeying laws as part of their public demonstration.

Looked to me like the cop was trying to get out of the way, and the
cyclist aimed for him, trying to intimidate him and "get a reaction",
force the cop to change his path, whatever you want to call it.

A similar thing happened to me at the hands of CM. Yeah, I was trying
to get away, one of the assholes blocked me (in my car with the bike
rack on top and my toddler daughter clearly visible in her car seat),
and his unwashed buddies hooted and mocked me-- "Yeah! Yeah! Get
him!!" Ironic, they were in a CM follow car. Buncha jerks, doing the
same thing to every motorist and pedestrian they could, daring people
to hit them, just begging to start a fight. Scum, "not worth it" here.

Too bad the cop didn't stop with the (excellently laid on) forearm
shiver, he might have gotten away with it on grounds of "self
defense".
--D-y

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:14:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

What a laugh. What "sharing the road" do you see in that clip?

"Critical Mass" will be an effective force for promoting cycling when
they start obeying laws as part of their public demonstration.

Lots or most of Critical Massers do follow the law as closely as
drivers, at least in my city. That's why the tickets and arrests of
people in Critical Mass NYC get thrown out. Over and over again.

The simple fact that there are a lot of people out riding bikes is
what makes others mad at CM. They may claim it's law breaking that
annoys them, but really it's the traffic jams that a bunch of cyclists
"cause" by being in the road. Where I live, the biggest cause of
traffic jams is car trafffic, but drivers can't moan to the cops and
news about that w/o being obviously hypocritical, so they complain
about bikes.

wrote:
Here's an item from NY:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

You may have seen this elsewhere.


The police isn't in trouble for what he did but for filing a fake
report. Also the defense here is saying that the event viewed in its
entirety shows a different picture than the snip on youtube which we've
all seen and which seems outrageous.

Most folks who have seen the entire Rodney King tape side with the
police. Those who only saw what was shown over and over edited on TV
always side against the police. So we may have a similar thing here too.

Also keep in mind that this is a CM event. CM has, as its intent, to
annoy the citizens and police. This wasn't some peaceful commuter on a
bike who got attacked for no reason at all by a lunatic police.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:44:09 -0700, slide
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

The police isn't in trouble for what he did but for filing a fake
report. Also the defense here is saying that the event viewed in its
entirety shows a different picture than the snip on youtube which we've
all seen and which seems outrageous.

I cannot possibly conceive of how any earlier behaviour by the cyclist
could make it appropriate for the policeman to lie on his report about
how he tackled the cyclist or what the cyclist did after being
tackled. Earlier behaviour might justify tackling the guy, but not
false reporting about tackle and arrest.

Can you please tell us what unseen part of the cyclists behaviour can
explain that?

I don't know how the defense will do that. I guess they'll try to make
the cyclist out to be some bad guy, which will be difficult since all
the charges were dropped. But what possible explanation can there be
for false reporting?

On Dec 18, 9:19*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:44:09 -0700, slide
wrote:

wrote:
*http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

The police isn't in trouble for what he did but for filing a fake
report. Also the defense here is saying that the event viewed in its
entirety shows a different picture than the snip on youtube which we've
all seen and which seems outrageous.

I cannot possibly conceive of how any earlier behaviour by the cyclist
could make it appropriate for the policeman to lie on his report about
how he tackled the cyclist or what the cyclist did after being
tackled. *Earlier behaviour might justify tackling the guy, but not
false reporting about tackle and arrest.

Can you please tell us what unseen part of the cyclists behaviour can
explain that?

I don't know how the defense will do that. I guess they'll try to make
the cyclist out to be some bad guy, which will be difficult since all
the charges were dropped. *But what possible explanation can there be
for false reporting?

On Dec 18, 9:19*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:44:09 -0700, slide
wrote:

wrote:
*http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

The police isn't in trouble for what he did but for filing a fake
report. Also the defense here is saying that the event viewed in its
entirety shows a different picture than the snip on youtube which we've
all seen and which seems outrageous.

I cannot possibly conceive of how any earlier behaviour by the cyclist
could make it appropriate for the policeman to lie on his report about
how he tackled the cyclist or what the cyclist did after being
tackled. *Earlier behaviour might justify tackling the guy, but not
false reporting about tackle and arrest.

Can you please tell us what unseen part of the cyclists behaviour can
explain that?

I don't know how the defense will do that. I guess they'll try to make
the cyclist out to be some bad guy, which will be difficult since all
the charges were dropped. *But what possible explanation can there be
for false reporting?

Apologies for "wrong button" and no add'l content.

If I were "the defense", I'd get all over the cyclist aiming for the
cop when the cop was trying to leave the ROW. Might not get him
totally off, but it sure looked like provocation (the raison d'être of
Critical Mass) to me.

I seem to remember "trouble", at least questions being asked in a
review, perhaps a public airing of the clip causing the clip to be
seen by the authorities "informally", whatever, that the cop was
indeed "in trouble" aside from the false report. I seem to remember
this guy having other complaints lodged against him previously, due to
excessive use of force (?).

The only "explanation" is CMA, "covering mine", or trying to.

Precious little sympathy for malefactors here, FWIW. --D-y

wrote in message
...

If I were "the defense", I'd get all over the cyclist aiming for the
cop when the cop was trying to leave the ROW. Might not get him
totally off, but it sure looked like provocation (the raison d'être of
Critical Mass) to me.

The video appeared to show rather the opposite to me. Cyclist is aiming to
miss the cop, cop is aiming to hit the cyclist. I'm actually a bit surprised
at anybody interpreting it any other way.

Clive George wrote:
wrote in message
...

If I were "the defense", I'd get all over the cyclist aiming for the
cop when the cop was trying to leave the ROW. Might not get him
totally off, but it sure looked like provocation (the raison d'être of
Critical Mass) to me.

The video appeared to show rather the opposite to me. Cyclist is aiming to
miss the cop, cop is aiming to hit the cyclist. I'm actually a bit surprised
at anybody interpreting it any other way.


Sure based only the video part you saw. Nobody who saw the 'edited for
TV' version of the Rodney King beating could imagine anything coming
before which would justify that. However, those FEW who did see the
entirety of the tape universally agreed that the beating of King was
fully justified.

I say this because I and a few others were of the 'no justification' on
the King beating but all of us changed our minds when we saw the entire
tape which was never shown on network TV. Clearly the TV stations had an
agenda which was fulfilled by their ratings boost in the ensuing riots.

Here, perhaps the bicyclist had been aiming for citizens or police time
after time as he headed toward the police's position. Thus the policeman
viewed him a threat to citizens so felt a need to stop him.

No, I'm not saying that this is the case, only that if it were, it's a
justification for the tackle.

On Dec 18, 10:51*am, "Clive George" wrote:
wrote in message

...

If I were "the defense", I'd get all over the cyclist aiming for the
cop when the cop was trying to leave the ROW. Might not get him
totally off, but it sure looked like provocation (the raison d'être of
Critical Mass) to me.

The video appeared to show rather the opposite to me. Cyclist is aiming to
miss the cop, cop is aiming to hit the cyclist. I'm actually a bit surprised
at anybody interpreting it any other way.

I slo-mo'd it several times and somewhat changed my mind. "Cop waited
for a gap in approaching riders to leave the ROW, got ****ed off when
the cyclist didn't pass in back of him". Not as close as it seemed,
meaning "cyclist approaching cop" as it looked in real time. And the
cop took at least one quick step, maybe two, to make contact. No need
to do that.

Then I'm back to "When you go out looking to provoke, don't be
surprised when you get poked".

IOW, the near-total lack of sympathy for all concerned continues
unaffected.

Outside of such a demonstration, lotta sympathy for my brother riders
of all stripes except for stuff like running a stop sign or red light,
or wrong way up a one-way and getting nailed. Tough stuff there. --D-y

On Dec 18, 2:37*am, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, wrote:

*http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

I saw that video before, and while it notably did not show what the
bicyclist must obviously have done to **** off that cop so badly (I'm
thinking maybe flipped him off and/or maybe weaved around as if to
possibly veer toward him), by the time the bike got close the rider
was clearly not trying to hit the cop, and the cop's actions were
outrageous.

Gee, why should the rider have done anything? The cop clearly just
picked someone in the parade and went for him. Maybe the cop had an
arrest quota to fill, maybe he's just scum with a chip on his
shoulder, maybe he was just cold and wanted the exercise of beating up
someone. American police almost everywhere have appallingly bad
attitudes. I remember one clown who pulled a weapon when he stopped me
for "speeding" and I laughed in his face when he said "Assume the
position." It later turned out he wanted me to stand with my hands on
the car and my feet apart; I didn't know that but "Assume the
position" sounded like a parody of something I had heard on a film set
(I didn't watch television, and the scripts I wrote didn't have lines
like that). For a suspected (he hadn't proved it yet and it isn't even
"alleged" until he tries to charge me) speeding offense!

Andre Jute
You gotta teach American cops civility before you can start teaching
them civics