Police Investigate Officer in Critical Mass Video

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.

"John Kane" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 11:18 am, "recycled" 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.

"John Kane" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 3:04 pm, "recycled" 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.

"Bill Davidson" wrote in message
...
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.

That's assuming the rider is not vindictive.

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

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_

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_

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 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!

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