Critical
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
You may have seen this elsewhere.
Jobst Brandt
Ron Wallenfang
Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.
John Forrest Tomlinson
Your comments remind me of stuff we hear sometimes when cyclists are
hit by drivers: "Well, it's too bad that person got hit. But so many
cyclists run red lights. I'm not blaming that specific cyclist, but
really cyclists ought to behave better..."
Clive George
news:ab8b8e30-5215-4a5a...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
>Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.
Oooh, there's a question which has never been asked before. Wait - isn't
there some archival system for usenet where you can check such things out?
Dan O
> On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> > Here's an item from NY:
>
> > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
>
> > You may have seen this elsewhere.
>
> > Jobst Brandt
>
Sounds like the most serious charges have to do with falsifying
official reports in an effort to fabricate a justification for the
"over-reaction" (the frame-up cover-up)
I saw that video before, and while it notably did not show what the
bicyclist must obviously have done to piss 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.
> ... but what do you say about
> Critical Mass?
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.
> IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.
People probably said the same thing about Civil Rights demonstrations,
and you may be right - at least among some people and in the short
term. I guess Critical Mass can be kind of belligerent, but it seems
like so many people really don't think bikes belong on the roads at
all, and if this gets them to consider the matter, one way or another,
and they begin to learn the law instead of just carrying their
ignorant notions around to the detriment of cyclists everywhere,
well...
Tim McNamara
Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience. Generally
speaking, however, it's most effective when the purpose of the civil
disobedience is clearly promulgated so that onlookers get the point.
For many bystanders, Critical Mass is just a form of hooliganism and
does not communicate the desired message. As a result of this, Critical
Mass is basically an incompetent form of civil disobedience and probably
is not providing a net benefit for cyclists.
Jay Beattie
> In article <umcjk494a355i3lgugh8jfvdkhbvb3u...@4ax.com>,
Even hooligans have rights, regrettably. -- Anton Scalia.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience.
Not always true. Lots or most of Critical Mass participants in my
city break no laws at all, though they disobey police orders to not
ride on the street. The courts have routinely said the police don't
have the power to give such order and have tossed tickets and arrests
based on them.
John Forrest Tomlinson
One other thing -- that's some Manhattan Critical Masses. Supposedly
in Brooklyn Critical Mass typically doesn't have any police or
government action against it at all - it's just a bunch of people
riding bikes in the streets legally. Doesn't get as much news
coverage...
Bernhard Agthe
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.
Well, I don't really know about the U.S. but living in an overcrowded
country in Middle Europe, I see basically the same thing all the time:
When I go by bike, I get "mobbed" by car drivers in the worst possible
way: they overtake on my left when I signal to turn left, they use their
horns at me in the middle of an empty street, I've even had a few
drivers pulling into my way while overtaking me and a bus driver trying
to push me out of the road... When I talk to people some say "no bikes
on the street but only on the sidewalk" or similar and when I tell them
I simply cannot use the bike path on the sidewalk because of any one
reason, they tell me I have to do this, anyway...
Government responds with a change in traffic laws - they remove any
trace of minimum requirements for bike lanes from the law. The result is
ever more cars on the road, ever more roads built and car drivers
getting actually more aggressive all the time. But not only cars, also
the number of bike riders and public transport users increased over the
last few years noticeably. What do the authorities do? They talk about
"environmental protection" and build more roads. The public transport
has been improved marginally, but is having serious trouble with
overcrowding and too much use... Actually, try to buy a train ticket for
yourself and your bike - that is almost plain impossible by now.
In my opinion, traffic rules have been good as they are right now back
in the 1950's to th 1970's - but with today's overcrowding and with
*many* people driving cars that don't even speak the local language,
they are too complicated and unusable - even the traffic police and
judges don't know all the rules. For cars I suggest the following:
inside towns 20km/h max speed (~12mph)
outside towns 40km/h max speed (~25mph)
on speed-ways 60km/h max speed (~40mph)
with the cars limited to 70km/h by technical means
Sure, a strict enforcement...
First of all, distances are not too great here, second this would
eliminate many rules and tons of signs and third safety would increase
greatly by the reduced top speeds. And - people would have an incentive
to go by bike: it's faster ;-)
As for anything else, I do not think that even a change in legislation
that would make it mandatory for bicyclists to use the roads would have
any effect whatsoever (riding the sidewalk is forbidden here in absence
of special traffic signs, still everyone does it). Nobody really knows
the laws or cares for them - so I think the laws should be changed that
they are simple and easy-to-understand...
So lets have a few days of holidays and hope for a accident-free 2009 ;-)
Ciao...
dusto...@mac.com
> 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
John Forrest Tomlinson
>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.
slide
> 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.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>jobst....@stanfordalumni.org 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?
dusto...@mac.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:44:09 -0700, slide <dryadsda...@xxyahxxoo.com>
> wrote:
dusto...@mac.com
> wrote:
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
Clive George
news:abec8655-a19e-44a2...@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>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.
dusto...@mac.com
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
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 pissed 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
slide
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.
Andre Jute
> > On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org 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 piss 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
Andre Jute
In general, I agree with you, Bernard. But there are occasions when it
is not only smart for cyclists to ride on the pavement, if available,
but sensible cyclists will *choose* to do so. A good example is riding
uphill on narrow or busy roads. It does no good to hold up and
frustrate a whole road of motorists with your slower speed than theirs
uphill. On the downhill side, sure, use the road because the speed
differential between the car and the bike won't be that great.
Andre Jute
Rights never come without equally valid duties
Andre Jute
> Clive George wrote:
> > <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:abec8655-a19e-44a2...@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> 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.
You approve of cops beating up someone because he showed them a finger
or raised his voice to them? Surely the correct procedure is not to
beat up the person with truncheons but to restrain him with the
minimum of violence and charge him with something, affray perhaps. Mr
King had not yet been found guilty of anything. The sayso of a cop
that Mr King "disrespected" him doesn't turn a raised middle finger
into a crime. If cops can decide just anyone is guilty and should be
truncheoned into insensibility, you might be the innocent bystander
who is next for the hospital and multiple stictches, or perhaps being
maimed for life.
Whatever the facts, and without condoning TV "agenda"-editing, those
LA cops were clearly arrogant brutes totally out of control.
American cops, by themselves, sometimes make America seem a third
world country.
Andre Jute
Libertarian
slide
>
>
> You approve of cops beating up someone because he showed them a finger
> or raised his voice to them? Surely the correct procedure is not to
> beat up the person with truncheons but to restrain him with the
> minimum of violence and charge him with something, affray perhaps. Mr
> King had not yet been found guilty of anything. The sayso of a cop
> that Mr King "disrespected" him doesn't turn a raised middle finger
> into a crime. If cops can decide just anyone is guilty and should be
> truncheoned into insensibility, you might be the innocent bystander
> who is next for the hospital and multiple stictches, or perhaps being
> maimed for life.
>
> Whatever the facts, and without condoning TV "agenda"-editing, those
> LA cops were clearly arrogant brutes totally out of control.
>
> American cops, by themselves, sometimes make America seem a third
> world country.
>
I said nothing about what came before yet you chose to put words in my
mouth that I approve of a 'beating' due to a raised voice or gesture. I
never said nor did I imply anything of the sort.
In the King affair, the beatee / King did much more than raise his
voice. He'd proved time and time again that he wouldn't respond to
anything short of a beating and was a direct threat to the police having
assaulted them time and time again when lesser restraint failed. It
wasn't a 'disrespect' but a really scary attack. If you'd seen the
entire video, then you'd never post what you just did. You are wrong
about the King deal and wrong about putting words into my mouth about
the CM incident.
Since we don't know what preceded the few seconds of now famous CM video
we don't really know. You are assuming the CM rider was innocently
pedaling his way down the street and then was attacked for no reason
whatsoever. I agree that may be the case, but without seeing what
preceded the famous 10 seconds of video we can't know if the attack was
justified or not. When I say 'we' I include you too.
TheRebarGuy
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9864ec96-6c6e-43e9...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
I have only seen the portion of the video that deals with the cop and the
rider after he passes the person with the camera. Is there another video
showing what may (or may not have) happened before he entered the field of
view?
To sit in judgment without knowing all the facts leads many to the wrong
conclusion
Andre Jute
wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9864ec96-6c6e-43e9...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 2:37 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org 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 piss 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.
>
> You gotta teach American cops civility before you can start teaching
> them civics
>
> I have only seen the portion of the video that deals with the cop and the
> rider after he passes the person with the camera. Is there another video
> showing what may (or may not have) happened before he entered the field of
> view?
What could the cyclist have done? Showed the cop a finger, called him
a pig? Are those reasons for assault by the police in any civilized
society. Pointed a gun at the policeman, hurled a javelin? How likely
is that?
I see no point in finding excuses for police brutality. In fact, it is
up to the police to prove they acted with reasonable restraint.
> To sit in judgment without knowing all the facts leads many to the wrong
> conclusion
The likelihood of there being mitigating circumstances for a policeman
moving six or eight feet deliberately to assault someone who at that
moment offers no threat to him or anyone else are so low as to be
dismissed out of hand.
Andre Jute
Observer
Clive George
news:gie06i$933$1...@news.motzarella.org...
That's an _entirely_ different thing to what was said and what I disagreed
with.
BTW got a link to the longer Rodney King beating video?
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > You approve of cops beating up someone because he showed them a finger
> > or raised his voice to them? Surely the correct procedure is not to
> > beat up the person with truncheons but to restrain him with the
> > minimum of violence and charge him with something, affray perhaps. Mr
> > King had not yet been found guilty of anything. The sayso of a cop
> > that Mr King "disrespected" him doesn't turn a raised middle finger
> > into a crime. If cops can decide just anyone is guilty and should be
> > truncheoned into insensibility, you might be the innocent bystander
> > who is next for the hospital and multiple stictches, or perhaps being
> > maimed for life.
>
> > Whatever the facts, and without condoning TV "agenda"-editing, those
> > LA cops were clearly arrogant brutes totally out of control.
>
> > American cops, by themselves, sometimes make America seem a third
> > world country.
>
> I said nothing about what came before yet you chose to put words in my
> mouth that I approve of a 'beating' due to a raised voice or gesture. I
> never said nor did I imply anything of the sort.
Absolutely nothing that either went before or could have gone before
is an excuse for what those policemen did to Rodney King. It was a
vicious attack precisely as you described it. They kept beating him,
as if beating him into submission, long after he curled up and stopped
moving.
> In the King affair, the beatee / King did much more than raise his
> voice. He'd proved time and time again that he wouldn't respond to
> anything short of a beating and was a direct threat to the police having
> assaulted them time and time again when lesser restraint failed.
Yes, that is what is wrong with your attitude, which grated on me
enough to make me post on the subject. Who the fuck are these cops to
decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
>It
> wasn't a 'disrespect' but a really scary attack. If you'd seen the
> entire video, then you'd never post what you just did. You are wrong
> about the King deal and wrong about putting words into my mouth about
> the CM incident.
So many policeman and one attacker... Why is it that police services
elsewhere manage to restrain madmen without them having ruptured
organs or requiring dozens of stitches whereas American police forces
have to apply overwhelming and vastly excessive force? Note that
civilized people have police services (something I point out very
sharply to mine if they are not civil) whereas Americans have police
"forces".
I apologize if you think I put words in your mouth by paraphrasing
your remarks.
> Since we don't know what preceded the few seconds of now famous CM video
> we don't really know. You are assuming the CM rider was innocently
> pedaling his way down the street and then was attacked for no reason
> whatsoever.
It is what the film shows. There can be no excuse for a policeman
moving several feet to assault a cyclist who at that moment clearly
offered no threat to him or anyone else. What do you think you'll find
earlier in the video. The cyclist shouting "pig" or throwing a javelin
or pointing a gun? Show us the evidence, if there is any, sonny, but
don't just mouth vague possibilities. It is incumbent upon the police
to prove they acted with due restraint. This copper clearly acted with
no restraint.
>I agree that may be the case, but without seeing what
> preceded the famous 10 seconds of video we can't know if the attack was
> justified or not. When I say 'we' I include you too.
I agree, I don't know. But common sense is a good guide.
Andre Jute
Eyes like everyone else. The difference is that I use mine.
TheRebarGuy
>>What could the cyclist have done? Showed the cop a finger, called him
>>a pig? Are those reasons for assault by the police in any civilized
>>society. Pointed a gun at the policeman, hurled a javelin? How likely
>>is that?
>>I see no point in finding excuses for police brutality. In fact, it is
>>up to the police to prove they acted with reasonable restraint.
>> To sit in judgment without knowing all the facts leads many to the wrong
>> conclusion
>The likelihood of there being mitigating circumstances for a policeman
>moving six or eight feet deliberately to assault someone who at that
>moment offers no threat to him or anyone else are so low as to be
>dismissed out of hand.
>Andre Jute
>Observer
Like I said I don't know what might or might not have happpened. I have only
seen the one video. Do you have any links to video of what occured before
hand?
Maybe he (the rider) threw his water bottle at a car or by-stander. Maybe he
ignored a cop up the road. Maybe he tried to run over somebody? We don't
know, based on this video, what exactly happened. To assume that only the
cop is at fault (and I do think there was an over-reaction) is very
judgmental.
Andre Jute
wrote:
You and Paul (Slide) and I have a very small difference of opinion
here -- more shadings along a scale than a real difference, I imagine,
and more to do with where we live than with the facts of the cases
known or unknown. We shouldn't blow it out of proportion. All the
same, I will say that I see the police as my servants, and everyone
else's servants, whereas far too many Americans seem resigned to
police who are a law unto themselves.
Andre Jute
Officially declared a revolutionary by now fewer than three sovereign
governments
Michael Press
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
Critical mass extravaganzas are not bicyclists going about their
business. They are public demonstrations: parades; and they do
not apply for permits to stage their demonstrations. This makes
it civil disobedience.
--
Michael Press
slide
> "slide" <dryad...@xxyahxxoo.com> wrote in message
>
> BTW got a link to the longer Rodney King beating video?
>
>
No. Saw it on TV years ago, not on youtube, etc.
slide
> Yes, that is what is wrong with your attitude, which grated on me
> enough to make me post on the subject. Who the fuck are these cops to
> decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
> for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
> person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
> did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
>
In the King affair, they were the ones being beaten by King in the part
you didn't see and don't seem to believe can exist. The police have a
JOB to arrest this sort of fellow who, as it turns out, was on drugs (at
least whiskey) driving erratically and showed violence toward the police
who tried to stop him.
Had they NOT stopped him and then ran a bicyclist over in his drunken
condition, you'd line up to curse the police for malfeasance.
>> It
>
> It is what the film shows. There can be no excuse for a policeman
> moving several feet to assault a cyclist who at that moment clearly
> offered no threat to him or anyone else. What do you think you'll find
> earlier in the video. The cyclist shouting "pig" or throwing a javelin
> or pointing a gun? Show us the evidence, if there is any, sonny, but
> don't just mouth vague possibilities. It is incumbent upon the police
> to prove they acted with due restraint. This copper clearly acted with
> no restraint.
You are of the position that nothing can justify the action of the
police at CM. OK how about this - the bicyclist had a supply of spears
and was throwing them at folks objecting to his CM ride. He was out of
spears but shouted at the police, "I'm out of spears, but not out of
darts. I'm off to get my crossbow / darts now and will deal with those
bastards by giving them a dart or two in the eye."
carl...@comcast.net
> "slide" <dryadsda...@xxyahxxoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gie06i$933$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Clive George wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Clive,
The fellow who took the Rodney King video released only the last part.
The full video is copyrighted and commercially available.
You can see the teaser at the site where the video is sold:
http://www.multishow.com.ar/rodneyking
But it's just the last part, not the full video that was shown to the
jury.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Chalo
>
> Critical mass extravaganzas are not bicyclists going about their
> business. They are public demonstrations: parades; and they do
> not apply for permits to stage their demonstrations. This makes
> it civil disobedience.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not include language
about applying for permits to publicly speak or assemble or to
petition for redress of grievances. Therefore it looks like it's the
authorities who are not obeying the law. Just sayin'.
Chalo
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > Yes, that is what is wrong with your attitude, which grated on me
> > enough to make me post on the subject. Who the fuck are these cops to
> > decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
> > for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
> > person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
> > did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
>
> In the King affair, they were the ones being beaten by King in the part
> you didn't see and don't seem to believe can exist.
Come on, Paul, I believe you. My point is this Rodney King is one guy
and there are several cops. Subduing one guy between several cops
without destroying him should be a routine procedure for trained
policemen. If anything else happens, it is because the policemen have
a culture of extreme violence.
> The police have a
> JOB to arrest this sort of fellow who, as it turns out, was on drugs (at
> least whiskey) driving erratically and showed violence toward the police
> who tried to stop him.
Same answer as above.
> Had they NOT stopped him and [he] then ran a bicyclist over in his drunken
> condition, you'd line up to curse the police for malfeasance.
Okay, you got me there. I would indeed condemn police malfeasance if a
drunk, whom they could have taken into custody, was let go to kill a
cyclist. But I would expect them to arrest the drunk, not truncheon
him into submission. That sort of thing frightens the horses.
> >> It
>
> > It is what the film shows. There can be no excuse for a policeman
> > moving several feet to assault a cyclist who at that moment clearly
> > offered no threat to him or anyone else. What do you think you'll find
> > earlier in the video. The cyclist shouting "pig" or throwing a javelin
> > or pointing a gun? Show us the evidence, if there is any, sonny, but
> > don't just mouth vague possibilities. It is incumbent upon the police
> > to prove they acted with due restraint. This copper clearly acted with
> > no restraint.
>
> You are of the position that nothing can justify the action of the
> police at CM.
This discussion is envenomed by people's opinions of Critical Mass, of
which I know absolutely nothing (I live in Ireland where we don't need
Critical Mass -- if I want to do bicycle advocacy, I speak to the
Minister). But if this guy wasn't on some kind of a civil disobedience
campaign, everyone would agree with me.
>OK how about this - the bicyclist had a supply of spears
> and was throwing them at folks objecting to his CM ride. He was out of
> spears but shouted at the police, "I'm out of spears, but not out of
> darts. I'm off to get my crossbow / darts now and will deal with those
> bastards by giving them a dart or two in the eye."
That's easy. They shoulda mirandized him about incriminating himself
in contravention of his constitutional rights. Even a corporate lawyer
should have no problem making that case stick.
I'm on the side of polite, unarmed policemen and -women who give
directions and keep motorists from running over cyclists. I have no
sympathy for cops who think that the law regarding cyclists is
coincident with their prejudices. Of course, you might say that's easy
for me, living in a place where the older and recently-retired
policemen, some of whom are my friends, can remember when every
policeman was supposed to own his own bicycle in good running order,
and younger policemen are quite often cyclists, and their families
too. But to me the principle seems clear: cops are not and should not
be and shouldn't be allowed to hold themselves above the law.
Andre Jute
Justice doesn't have an off-switch
Chalo
>
> 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.
That sure worked well for them uppity nigras.
Chalo
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> Here's an item from NY:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
>>>> You may have seen this elsewhere.
>>> Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say
>>> about Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm
>>> than good.
>> Your comments remind me of stuff we hear sometimes when cyclists
>> are hit by drivers: "Well, it's too bad that person got hit. But so
>> many cyclists run red lights. I'm not blaming that specific
>> cyclist, but really cyclists ought to behave better..."
> Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience. Generally
> speaking, however, it's most effective when the purpose of the civil
> disobedience is clearly promulgated so that onlookers get the point.
> For many bystanders, Critical Mass is just a form of hooliganism and
> does not communicate the desired message. As a result of this,
> Critical Mass is basically an incompetent form of civil disobedience
> and probably is not providing a net benefit for cyclists.
Well, you may not have witnessed it but if you look carefully you'll
see that it is a ride with all sorts of bicyclists, men and women,
racers, commuters, shopping types and others in great quantity, making
the point that everyman is a bicyclist and part of the urban scene.
It has done that in SF and achieved progress in bicycle lanes and
paths that get around auto usurped zones, as well as police awareness.
The repercussions are felt in the entire SF Bay Area. Various cities
have signs saying that this is a bicycle friendly community.
Throw shoes!
Jobst Brandt
Andre Jute
Doan jes be sayin'. Shout it from the rooftops. If some pinchlip pol
or cop can by administrative fiat stop you availing yourself of your
constitutional right to do whatever, you don't have that
constitutional right any more. A permit to assemble lawfully and
peacefully is just such an abridgement of a constitutional right by
administrative fiat. I'm very surprised that Michael Press doesn't
understand that; perhaps he was sick when they taught Civics 101 at
his school.
Andre Jute
A principle is only a principle if all its parts are respected
Chalo
>
> Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > You gotta teach American cops civility before you can start teaching
> > them civics
>
> I have only seen the portion of the video that deals with the cop and the
> rider after he passes the person with the camera. Is there another video
> showing what may (or may not have) happened before he entered the field of
> view?
I assume that the grand jury who indicted the swine thug did see that
part of the video, and decided his actions were probably as bad as
they look to us. Most abusive cops escape any legal process at all,
and most of the rest get away with it when the grand jury takes
instructions from the judge and/or prosecutor not to indict. For any
cop to make it this far along in the process indicates that his
transgression was particularly egregious, or that he's being singled
out for some other reason.
Chalo
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
[ From: jobst....@stanfordalumni.org ]
[ Subject: Re: Critical ]
[ Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc ]
[ Message-ID: <494ab8ba$0$1671$742e...@news.sonic.net> ]
I find interesting how this event brought out the self righteousness
that remains subliminal in many helmet, traffic law violation, and
safety subjects that get opposing arguments. Now the lines have more
clearly been drawn. Thanks for voting!
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
Jobst Brandt
Jobst Brandt
Jay Beattie
Sabotage! -- Jay Beattie.
dusto...@mac.com
We're not talking "Colored" (or "no") bathrooms and drinking
fountains; or being legally barred from eating at public lunch
counters.
In fact, bicyclists are specifically given the "same rights and
responsibilities", with a few exceptions and special cases, as are
motorists.
There are problems, such as "automatically at fault" with some cops,
and being the lowest form of life on the food chain, but cyclists
aren't fighting for the right to ride on the roads.
The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
incredibly stupid.
The "permit thing" for me is kinda moot. You don't need one, really,
and you might not be able to get one in the first place.
The delicious irony of having a CM ride get an official police escort
is appealing, given the antisocial stance of many CM participants.
Whatever, showing respect for law and other road users would seem
appropriate since these are what the CM'ers claim to be
"demonstrating" for.
--D-y
slide
>
> This discussion is envenomed by people's opinions of Critical Mass, of
> which I know absolutely nothing (I live in Ireland where we don't need
> Critical Mass -- if I want to do bicycle advocacy, I speak to the
> Minister). But if this guy wasn't on some kind of a civil disobedience
> campaign, everyone would agree with me.
Since the demeanor of CM riders is critical to the discussion, I don't
see how you can participate in a realistic fashion lacking that
information. CM is, to put in in the parlance of the times, an 'in your
face' movement which operates in the most disruptive manner possible.
The goal is to expand bicycling in the US (and maybe other nations). I'm
unclear how being disruptive and antagonistic toward motorists as well
as police authority will achieve these ends, but that's the method.
Due to this, I am at least willing to entertain the notion that the
bicyclist did something which the police interpreted as a downstream
threat. Frex, if we're both on the same street and I shout out, "Andre,
prepare to DIE!" and then charge toward you whilst passing a police,
that police has a duty to stop my progress toward you. If a person takes
a video showing only that whilst running by him, a police tackles me, it
may inflame the pedestrian group or distance running group, but the
police is right in having done so.
>
> That's easy. They shoulda mirandized him about incriminating himself
> in contravention of his constitutional rights. Even a corporate lawyer
> should have no problem making that case stick.
>
> I'm on the side of polite, unarmed policemen and -women who give
> directions and keep motorists from running over cyclists. I have no
> sympathy for cops who think that the law regarding cyclists is
> coincident with their prejudices. Of course, you might say that's easy
> for me, living in a place where the older and recently-retired
> policemen, some of whom are my friends, can remember when every
> policeman was supposed to own his own bicycle in good running order,
> and younger policemen are quite often cyclists, and their families
> too. But to me the principle seems clear: cops are not and should not
> be and shouldn't be allowed to hold themselves above the law.
>
In the real world it just isn't nearly as simple. In fact, even normally
peaceful citizens will, at times, become violent for no apparent
stimulus. Folks just reach a breaking point and then a nothing much
event will put them over the edge into the abyss of violence. So you
have two men who have a knife fight when both wish the same parking
space. You wonder why a parking space is so important that one must die
when in fact, the parking spot isn't the fulcrum of the dispute.
Too bad we can't, together, watch that entire King video. I'd invite you
to role play being one of those police who found King to be scary
aggressive despite all his efforts to calm the situation down. Then I'd
ask you how likely YOU'D be to, at that point, politely and with no
arms, quietly ask him to desist his violence.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>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.
This is irrelevant. The issue is the cop lied on his police report
about what is scene. That's a felony.
PS - I didn't see the whole King video but once he was subdued, there
is no point to a beating. I don't care if he was shooting people
before the video started. Beatings by cops are not justified.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Absolutely nothing that either went before or could have gone before
>is an excuse for what those policemen did to Rodney King. It was a
>vicious attack precisely as you described it. They kept beating him,
>as if beating him into submission, long after he curled up and stopped
>moving.
Dang, I'm 100% in agrement with Andre Jute. Wow.
Peter Cole
> In the real world it just isn't nearly as simple. In fact, even normally
> peaceful citizens will, at times, become violent for no apparent
> stimulus. Folks just reach a breaking point and then a nothing much
> event will put them over the edge into the abyss of violence. So you
> have two men who have a knife fight when both wish the same parking
> space. You wonder why a parking space is so important that one must die
> when in fact, the parking spot isn't the fulcrum of the dispute.
You've got to stop reading tabloids & get out more.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<rebarha...@rebarsteel.com> wrote:
>Like I said I don't know what might or might not have happpened. I have only
>seen the one video. Do you have any links to video of what occured before
>hand?
>
>Maybe he (the rider) threw his water bottle at a car or by-stander. Maybe he
>ignored a cop up the road. Maybe he tried to run over somebody?
That could justify the tackle, but the fact that all charges were
dropped suggests the guy didn't do anything wrong.
But the cop is being prosecuted for falsiflying a report. That is
arguably more serious than the tackle, even if the tackle was
unjustified.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
That's just not true, at least in NYC. The cops claim that is true,
but the courts and common sense are against it. People can go out and
use the road all they want as long as they obey traffic laws. Many
hundred thousand do it every day in my city in cars About 150,000 a
day do it on bikes. A few hundred or thousand do it once a month on
bikes in Manhattan and in Brooklyn together as Critical Mass, and
there is no law required them to get permission to do so.
The only thing they're "disobeying" are illegal orders from the
police. The courts have shown those orders to be illegal.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>Andre Jute wrote:
>
>> Yes, that is what is wrong with your attitude, which grated on me
>> enough to make me post on the subject. Who the fuck are these cops to
>> decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
>> for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
>> person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
>> did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
>>
>
>In the King affair, they were the ones being beaten by King in the part
>you didn't see and don't seem to believe can exist. The police have a
>JOB to arrest this sort of fellow who, as it turns out, was on drugs (at
>least whiskey) driving erratically and showed violence toward the police
>who tried to stop him.
>
>Had they NOT stopped him and then ran a bicyclist over in his drunken
>condition, you'd line up to curse the police for malfeasance.
Cops can and should use very server force in that situation to subdue
someone. But once he's subdued, they shouldn't go on beating him.
That's not right.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
>motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
>incredibly stupid.
What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's not
illegal.
Peter Cole
> Whatever, showing respect for law and other road users would seem
> appropriate since these are what the CM'ers claim to be
> "demonstrating" for.
They don't claim to be demonstrating for anything, just celebrating the
bicycle.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>CM is, to put in in the parlance of the times, an 'in your
>face' movement which operates in the most disruptive manner possible.
Have you watched traffic in an American city at rush hour? Take a look
at it. Now it seems to me that you can say that the thousands of
people sitting alone in cars, clogging the roads, are completely
disruptive. Why aren't they on a bus. Or walking. Or driving
another time. Look at how much space they are taking up!! How can we
let them do it!
Bill Sornson
CM celebrates the bicycle like the KKK celebrates diversity.
BS (not)
John Forrest Tomlinson
A Muzi
> On Dec 18, 5:45 pm, "TheRebarGuy" <rebarhasrid...@rebarsteel.com>
> wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9864ec96-6c6e-43e9...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 18, 2:37 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org 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 piss 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.
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> You gotta teach American cops civility before you can start teaching
>> them civics
>>
>> I have only seen the portion of the video that deals with the cop and the
>> rider after he passes the person with the camera. Is there another video
>> showing what may (or may not have) happened before he entered the field of
>> view?
>
> a pig? Are those reasons for assault by the police in any civilized
> society. Pointed a gun at the policeman, hurled a javelin? How likely
> is that?
>
> I see no point in finding excuses for police brutality. In fact, it is
> up to the police to prove they acted with reasonable restraint.
>
>> To sit in judgment without knowing all the facts leads many to the wrong
>> conclusion
>
> The likelihood of there being mitigating circumstances for a policeman
> moving six or eight feet deliberately to assault someone who at that
> moment offers no threat to him or anyone else are so low as to be
> dismissed out of hand.
It does indeed look like 'officer run amok'.
Just for argument's sake, what if the cyclist had clipped a pedestrian
or grabbed a purse before the video? Or put a lock through a cop cruiser
window? We don't know either way. I assume a judge or jury will try to
examine the event in its totality.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
A Muzi
Andre Jute wrote:
> Who the fuck are these cops to
> decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
> for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
> person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
> did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
easy:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarrests.html
slide
You've got to stop believing every left wing mouth out there and get
with the real world.
slide
>
> This is irrelevant. The issue is the cop lied on his police report
> about what is scene. That's a felony.
>
Yes, as far as the trial he'll undergo but this discussion ranged FAR
FAR from that topic and onto the other topic of if the tackle could be
justified in any way.
Perhaps it can't, but perhaps it can. I really don't know but just as
some will back a cop under any, even the most egregious situations, some
will back a wheelman always. This group is populated by the latter. So
assuming the cop was wrong with the tackle is making a decision based
on, what I take to be, rather flimsy evidence of one video with no
witness statements at all.
dusto...@mac.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:06:12 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
>
> >Absolutely nothing that either went before or could have gone before
> >is an excuse for what those policemen did to Rodney King. It was a
> >vicious attack precisely as you described it. They kept beating him,
> >as if beating him into submission, long after he curled up and stopped
> >moving.
>
> Dang, I'm 100% in agrement with Andre Jute. Wow.
Well, look at what you're agreeing on.
Rodney was a bad man. Maybe the cops (or one cop) knew him?
Not any kind of excuse. --D-y
dusto...@mac.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:50 -0800 (PST), "dustoyev...@mac.com"
>
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> >The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
> >motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
> >incredibly stupid.
>
> What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's not
> illegal.
Speaking of cyclists apart from CM? Running stop signs and red lights
is #1 complaint from what is seen here IRT letters to the newspaper
(for instance). CM rides I've seen here and on film, lights and stop
signs are ignored. Riding up the middle "suicide lane" on a busy
street, not turning, is breaking the law. Blocking traffic is
breaking the law. Buzzing pedestrians in crosswalks is against the
law. Just riding isn't, of course. --D-y
dusto...@mac.com
They claim to be celebrating. They claim there's "no organization",
"no leadership", too.
Celebrants are co-opted in the name of confrontation. I'm not even
going to call that "opinion". --D-y
terryc
>
> Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience.
Is it? There is nothing illegal about Critical Mass in Australia.
Perfectly and 100% legal.
dusto...@mac.com
> -snip-
>
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > Who the fuck are these cops to
> > decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
> > for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
> > person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
> > did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
>
> easy:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarrests.html
Should have taken The Big Fall for the robbery with a deadly weapon,
and society would have been better off.
--D-y
A Muzi
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> Who the fuck are these cops to
>>> decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
>>> for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
>>> person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
>>> did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> easy:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarrests.html
dusto...@mac.com wrote:
> Should have taken The Big Fall for the robbery with a deadly weapon,
> and society would have been better off.
But the social services types wouldn't have enough work if violent
felons were imprisoned. You mistake the interest of society for the
various interests within our society.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Blocking traffic is breaking the law.
Bikes are traffic. What are you talking about?
RonSonic
>In article <umcjk494a355i3lgu...@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:03:13 -0800 (PST), Ron Wallenfang
>> <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> >> Here's an item from NY:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
>> >>
>> >> You may have seen this elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> Jobst Brandt
>> >
>> >Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
>> >Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than
>> >good.
>For many bystanders, Critical Mass is just a form of hooliganism and
>does not communicate the desired message.
I would say that for many participants it is just a form of hooliganism and does
indeed communicate the desired message.
RonSonic
Are you going to pretend that CM obeys traffic laws? Really?
If they were just a bunch of people out riding it would be a bunch of people out
riding. It would not be CM.
John Forrest Tomlinson
They break traffic laws on the same scale average pedestrians and cars
do. The cops in Manahattan watch CM hover over them, ticket them and
even arrest them. And in case after case, the arrests get tossed.
Whenever there is any sort of video evidence, even the tickets get
tossed.
So if the cops put a huge effort into this, and the courts keep
overruling them, it's pretty clear they're following the law.
The cops in Brooklyn don't even bother, because they know CM riders
are just as obedient as other traffic.
Peter Cole
What kind of "real world" do you live in where there are knife fights
for parking spots?
Andre Jute
> On Dec 18, 12:13 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > >>>> Here's an item from NY:
>
> > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
>
> > >>>> You may have seen this elsewhere.
> > >>> about Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm
> > >>> than good.
> > >> are hit by drivers: "Well, it's too bad that person got hit. But so
> > >> many cyclists run red lights. I'm not blaming that specific
> > >> cyclist, but really cyclists ought to behave better..."
> > > Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience. Generally
> > > speaking, however, it's most effective when the purpose of the civil
> > > disobedience is clearly promulgated so that onlookers get the point.
> > > For many bystanders, Critical Mass is just a form of hooliganism and
> > > Critical Mass is basically an incompetent form of civil disobedience
> > > and probably is not providing a net benefit for cyclists.
>
> > Well, you may not have witnessed it but if you look carefully you'll
> > see that it is a ride with all sorts of bicyclists, men and women,
> > racers, commuters, shopping types and others in great quantity, making
> > the point that everyman is a bicyclist and part of the urban scene.
> > It has done that in SF and achieved progress in bicycle lanes and
> > paths that get around auto usurped zones, as well as police awareness.
> > The repercussions are felt in the entire SF Bay Area. Various cities
> > have signs saying that this is a bicycle friendly community.
>
> > Throw shoes!
>
> Sabotage! -- Jay Beattie.
No such thing as sabotage. The very word is a conspiracy by lawyers
who've had too many martinis at lunch to get their tongues round the
words "constructive deconstructionism". -- Andre "I can talk pink when
I have" Jute
Peter Cole
> On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
>>> Whatever, showing respect for law and other road users would seem
>>> appropriate since these are what the CM'ers claim to be
>>> "demonstrating" for.
>> They don't claim to be demonstrating for anything, just celebrating the
>> bicycle.
>
> They claim to be celebrating. They claim there's "no organization",
> "no leadership", too.
Apparently accurately.
> Celebrants are co-opted in the name of confrontation. I'm not even
> going to call that "opinion". --D-y
If some people are inclined to be confrontational I guess that's their
business. If there is no organization, then it is impossible to assign
motive.
Peter Cole
>>> -snip-
>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> Who the fuck are these cops to
>>>> decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
>>>> for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
>>>> person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
>>>> did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
>
>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> easy:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarrests.html
>>>
>
> dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>> Should have taken The Big Fall for the robbery with a deadly weapon,
>> and society would have been better off.
>
>
> But the social services types wouldn't have enough work if violent
> felons were imprisoned. You mistake the interest of society for the
> various interests within our society.
As if prison wasn't a major US industry. We're #1 there at least.
Peter Cole
I thought it was just me.
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > This discussion is envenomed by people's opinions of Critical Mass, of
> > which I know absolutely nothing (I live in Ireland where we don't need
> > Critical Mass -- if I want to do bicycle advocacy, I speak to the
> > Minister). But if this guy wasn't on some kind of a civil disobedience
> > campaign, everyone would agree with me.
>
> Since the demeanor of CM riders is critical to the discussion, I don't
> see how you can participate in a realistic fashion lacking that
> information. CM is, to put in in the parlance of the times, an 'in your
> face' movement which operates in the most disruptive manner possible.
> unclear how being disruptive and antagonistic toward motorists as well
> as police authority will achieve these ends, but that's the method.
>
> Due to this, I am at least willing to entertain the notion that the
> bicyclist did something which the police interpreted as a downstream
> threat.
Okay. A civil disobedience movement which intentionally provokes the
police. It does open up doubt about actions downstream, as you say.
All the same, the copper on the film doesn't appear to have asked the
cyclist politely to stop. He just went for the cyclist, who also
didn't appear to be fleeing but merely to be riding around the cop.
>Frex, if we're both on the same street and I shout out, "Andre,
> prepare to DIE!" and then charge toward you whilst passing a police,
> that police has a duty to stop my progress toward you. If a person takes
> a video showing only that whilst running by him, a police tackles me, it
> may inflame the pedestrian group or distance running group, but the
> police is right in having done so.
Then the police had better have a good reason and be prepared to prove
to a court that a crime had been committed or that they had serious
reasons to expect that a crime was about to be committed. Only in
police states -- and United States -- is it adequate reason to shoot
someone that "He was evading arrest." In a civilized society, that too
must be proven before anyone can be punished for it.
> > That's easy. They shoulda mirandized him about incriminating himself
> > in contravention of his constitutional rights. Even a corporate lawyer
> > should have no problem making that case stick.
>
> > I'm on the side of polite, unarmed policemen and -women who give
> > directions and keep motorists from running over cyclists. I have no
> > sympathy for cops who think that the law regarding cyclists is
> > coincident with their prejudices. Of course, you might say that's easy
> > for me, living in a place where the older and recently-retired
> > policemen, some of whom are my friends, can remember when every
> > policeman was supposed to own his own bicycle in good running order,
> > and younger policemen are quite often cyclists, and their families
> > too. But to me the principle seems clear: cops are not and should not
> > be and shouldn't be allowed to hold themselves above the law.
>
> In the real world it just isn't nearly as simple. In fact, even normally
> peaceful citizens will, at times, become violent for no apparent
> stimulus. Folks just reach a breaking point and then a nothing much
> event will put them over the edge into the abyss of violence. So you
> have two men who have a knife fight when both wish the same parking
> space. You wonder why a parking space is so important that one must die
> when in fact, the parking spot isn't the fulcrum of the dispute.
>
> Too bad we can't, together, watch that entire King video. I'd invite you
> to role play being one of those police who found King to be scary
> aggressive despite all his efforts to calm the situation down. Then I'd
> ask you how likely YOU'D be to, at that point, politely and with no
> arms, quietly ask him to desist his violence.
One drunk and a bunch of cops? How many of the cops had a scratch on
them? Come on, Paul, I'm bending over backwards here to keep an open
mind. Dusto put his finger on it, and that list Andrew Muzi published
a URL to confirmed it with more specifics: the cops just got fed up
with Rodney King, and out of control drunk, and decided to teach him a
lesson he would never forget. I don't care how big and nasty a drunk
is, every cop knows how to grab the nerve at the junction of his neck
and shoulder to bring him down to earth. That affair was unnecessary,
however you look at it.
Andre Jute
All the cops I've ever met that you couldn't buy worked either in
police states or welfare states. I wonder what that means.
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Okay, I'll bite on a hypothetical.
>what if the cyclist had clipped a pedestrian
Depends on whether the pedestrian was knocked down or hurt and whether
there was obvious intent, or whether it was one those "Sorry!" --
"You're okay, Jack!" things.
> or grabbed a purse before the video?
The copper should have asked the cyclist to stop before assualting
him. (This doesn't quite fit the film. The cyclist wasn't riding fast
enough to be fleeing something.)
>Or put a lock through a cop cruiser
> window?
A smart commander would have told his cops, "These CM fuckers want a
confrontation. Don't give it to them. In particular, don't arrest them
for property damage to police cars."
>We don't know either way. I assume a judge or jury will try to
> examine the event in its totality.
Quite. My point is that a judge and jury shouldn't have to decide
whether police brutality is justified, that their expensive time
should be reserved for deciding whether a crime has been committed. In
well-run societies the police are not as often in the dock as the
criminals, hmm? In the States, the police, the criminals and the NRA
have combined to create an atmosphere in which violence is the first
answer to every little irritation. That attitude stinks to high
heaven.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
Andre Jute
Who loves his local police wherever he goes, except in several parts
of the USA (all of them cities)
Andre Jute
> >> -snip-
> >> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> Who the fuck are these cops to
> >>> decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
> >>> for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
> >>> person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
> >>> did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> easy:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarrests.html
> > Should have taken The Big Fall for the robbery with a deadly weapon,
> > and society would have been better off.
>
> But the social services types wouldn't have enough work if violent
> felons were imprisoned. You mistake the interest of society for the
> various interests within our society.
That's how you get to be elected to congress, rolling enough logs of
two per cent of special interest no one else feels a strong objection
to, because if you have a strong platform someone will object to it
and then you can't be elected. That's how principle fled US politics
to be replaced by a Congress representing special interests. Yeah, I
know, naifs like Tommi Sherman think they were all bought and paid for
with corporate cash, but actually they were bought and paid for by
perfectly legal PACs put together by pressure groups, of which only a
minority are profitmaking.
Andre Jute
Conspiracy, nah! Nobody's that clever except Murphy. SNAFU, now that I
can believe in.
Jym Dyer
> about Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more
> harm than good.
=v= Here we go again. "Never mind the actual content of what
was posted, I saw the words 'Critical Mass' so I thought I'd
just regurgitate my entrenched opinions about it once again."
=v= Who needs to pay attention to new information, anyway? All
that does is complicate things. Much better to just go back to
Square One and repeat the whole thing all over again. Sure is
more comforting that way, and nobody has to worry about all that
pressure to say or think anything original.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> laws at all, though they disobey police orders to not ride on
> the street. The courts have routinely said the police don't
> have the power to give such order and have tossed tickets and
> arrests based on them.
=v= Indeed, it was a Federal case, ruled in our favor on First
Amendment grounds.
> One other thing -- that's some Manhattan Critical Masses.
> Supposedly in Brooklyn Critical Mass typically doesn't have
> any police or government action against it at all ...
=v= That's because the 2004 Republican National Convention took
place in Manhattan. The NYPD made mass arrests at the August
2004 Critical Mass (which was a few days before the RNC). The
lawsuits that resulted have put them in a position where they
had to pretend it wasn't in any way politically-motivated, so
they kept making arrests month after month.
=v= Also, they got a bunch of "anti-terrorist" toys to prepare
for the RNC. Turns out these toys have no actual practical
anti-terrorist use, but they can use them monthly to suppress
our civil rights.
<_Jym_>
A Muzi
For a literate guy, you missed the joke.
Check origin of 'sabotage' and get back with us.
A Muzi
Gee I though we were talking violent felonies, not simple possession.
I agree with you on the larger point.
Tom Keats
Ron Wallenfang <rwall...@wi.rr.com> writes:
> On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Here's an item from NY:
>>
>> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
>>
>> You may have seen this elsewhere.
>>
> Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
> Critical Mass?
Which one? The daily Car Critical Mass, or the monthly
Bike Critical Mass? Both are partly about entitlement
and possession. Operators of motor vehicles certainly
need to be /informed/ (note I didn't say "reminded")
that the streets & roads aren't exclusively theirs,
despite that pervasive mindset.
The traffic movements of bicycle CM is the bugaboo,
because they deviate from what drivers accept (in
theory) as adherence to established traffic law.
But if a CM ride obeyed traffic law to the very letter,
that would /really/ piss off a bunch of drivers.
Fortunately, CM riders are more socially conscious
and amicable than that.
> IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.
Crows & sparrows squabble over the same food tidbits
lying on the ground. Nobody gets hurt. It's just
the same old same-old, as per endless usual. What's
that biblical word? Oh, yeah: "covet." That's the
line which separates what we're entitled to, from
what we greedily and selfishly desire, and cling to,
and embrace, and would never relinquish come hell
or high water. Remember Gollum in Tokien's "Lord
of The Rings?"
{\raspy_Gollum_voice:
"My preciousss ..."}
I don't see either bicycle Critical Mass or car
Critical Mass generally crossing that line. But
sometimes there are asseninely-inspired incidents
between covetous individuals, or between covetous
individuals & people who are peacefully minding
their own business.
Those few dramatic incidents steal the attention and
the focus of what's going on in the big picture.
I think it's good that cylists are establishing
our presence among other-vehicled urban street users.
And if some riders wanna friendlily say "Hi" to fellow
urban street users, that's fine by me. 'Cuz that's
what it's all about. And the truth is, all kinds of
positive, good relations between various street users
happens. But if you're not there, you don't see it.
If you're not there, you only get to hear or read news
media stories by news purveyors who like to turn
everything into some kind of war. CM is not a war.
It's a peace.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Jym Dyer
> Maybe he (the rider) threw his water bottle at a car or
> by-stander. Maybe he ignored a cop up the road. Maybe he
> tried to run over somebody? We don't know, based on this
> video, what exactly happened.
=v= So you'll just make stuff up? Why? You, Andrew Muzi,
and anyone else inclined to dream up excuses for the thuggish
officer Patrick Pogan, I recommend that you take a good look
at Pogan's sworn complaint:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0729081bike1.html
NOTHING EVEN REMOTELLY RESEMBLING (TheRebarGuy's) throwing
bottles, ignoring another cop, trying to run somebody over,
(Muzi's) clipping a pedestrian, grabbing a purse, or putting
a lock through a cruiser window. Not even a finger-flipping.
=v= Seriously, guys, what possessed you to make up that crap???
=v= Pogan alleged that the the bicyclist was "obstructing
vehicular traffic by riding [his] bicycle in the center lane
of traffic" and "weaving [his] bicycle in and out of the
center lane of traffic, thereby forcing multiple vehicles
to stop abruptly or change their direction." Both of these
allegations are shown to be impossible at the beginning of
the video evidence.
=v= Pogan further claimed that the bicyclist "steered [his]
bicycle in the direction of [Pogan] and drove [his] bicycle
directly into [Pogan's] body, causing [Pogan] to fall to the
ground and causing [Pogan] to suffer lacerations on [Pogan's]
arms." The video evidence shows this to be absolutely false.
=v= Again I have to wonder why you'd make up crap to try to
exonerate a violent, thuggish, lying violator of the public
trust.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> I'm not saying that this is the case, only that if it were,
> it's a justification for the tackle.
=v= Oh joy, another instance of making up crap to provide an
excuse for a violent, thuggish betrayer of the public trash.
=v= Another point needs to be addressed here: this was not
"a tackle," it was a body-check. It a deliberate application
of force designed to assault. The bicyclist was thrown into
the curb, and that was an entirely-foreseeable result of NYPD
officer Patrick Pogan's actions.
=v= Being thrown headfirst into a curb can kill somebody, or
paralyze them for life. There is absolutely no justification
for that kind of violent assault and battery.
<_Jym_>
Ron Wallenfang
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:50 -0800 (PST), "dustoyev...@mac.com"
>
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> >The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
> >motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
> >incredibly stupid.
>
> What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's not
> illegal.
In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states, there's a law requiring
bicyclists to ride single file when they would otherwise be
interfering with traffic. The only Critical Mass ride I recall seeing
in Milwuakee involved many riders occupying the entire width of the
street and going very slowly. So they were breaking the law. The
police made a probably wise prudential judgment to do nothing.
Motorists were presumably annoyed, although in our not so big town,
motorist could turn at the next corner and minimize the problem.
I doubt anyone had the lightest idea of the point of the whold thing.
For all anyone knew they could have been protesting the Iraq war - or
abortion, or just disrupting traffic for the sake of disrupting
traffic - kind of like the kids driving cars who occupy every lane in
an x-way and then go 30 mph.
As far as I could tell, the incident did no good but perhaps very
slight harm to an atitude of tolerance for bike riders.
Jym Dyer
> I'm not saying that this is the case, only that if it were,
> it's a justification for the tackle.
=v= Oh joy, another instance of making up crap to provide an
excuse for a violent, thuggish betrayer of the public trust.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
that remains subliminal in many helmet, traffic law violation, and
safety subjects that get opposing arguments. Now the lines have been
drawn more clearly. Thanks for voting!
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
Those who say that motorists or police are justified in physically
attacking (knocking down) bicyclists, because they believe punishment
is appropriate by whomever witnesses the violation, are expressing a
great self riotousness. No wonder the tone of wreck.bike has changed
greatly in the last ten years.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Maybe he (the rider) threw his water bottle at a car or
>>> by-stander. Maybe he ignored a cop up the road. Maybe he tried
>>> to run over somebody? We don't know, based on this video, what
>>> exactly happened.
>> So you'll just make stuff up? Why? You, Andrew Muzi, and anyone
>> else inclined to dream up excuses for the thuggish officer Patrick
>> Pogan, I recommend that you take a good look at Pogan's sworn
>> complaint:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0729081bike1.html
>> NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLING (TheRebarGuy's) throwing bottles,
>> ignoring another cop, trying to run somebody over, (Muzi's)
>> clipping a pedestrian, grabbing a purse, or putting a lock through
>> a cruiser window. Not even a finger-flipping.
>> Seriously, guys, what possessed you to make up that crap???
>> Pogan alleged that the the bicyclist was "obstructing vehicular
>> traffic by riding [his] bicycle in the center lane of traffic" and
>> "weaving [his] bicycle in and out of the center lane of traffic,
>> thereby forcing multiple vehicles to stop abruptly or change their
>> direction." Both of these allegations are shown to be impossible
>> at the beginning of the video evidence.
>> Pogan further claimed that the bicyclist "steered [his] bicycle in
>> the direction of [Pogan] and drove [his] bicycle directly into
>> [Pogan's] body, causing [Pogan] to fall to the ground and causing
>> [Pogan] to suffer lacerations on [Pogan's] arms." The video
>> evidence shows this to be absolutely false.
>> Again I have to wonder why you'd make up crap to try to exonerate a
>> violent, thuggish, lying violator of the public trust.
>> Jym
> Don't misunderstand me, please. I agree the film looks like a cop
> run amok. I merely noted that we, outside observers, may not know
> all.
At the risk of redundancy, let me ask what else we might learn about
the incident that might put the policeman in a more favorable light
than the one we saw in the above video? Your words imply that there
might be unseen mitigating circumstances that would justify physical
punishment by a policeman. And how would that affect his subsequent
lying about the event.
Jobst Brandt
Tim McNamara
slide <dryad...@xxyahxxoo.com> wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
> > <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:abec8655-a19e-44a2...@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.c
> > om...
> >
> >> 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.
Not everybody. What the cops did to Rodney King was not justified,
period. A man can be arrested by six cops without a prolonged beating.
King was tasered twice and then repeatedly beaten by four officers armed
with batons. An arrest of a drunken driver became an aggravated assault
reminiscent of adolescent gangs.
> 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.
Just as you have an agenda in supporting the unjustified mass beating.
> 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.
Or perhaps the officer is a frustrated asshole with a hair-trigger
temper and a hatred of bicyclists. Who knows?
> No, I'm not saying that this is the case, only that if it were, it's
> a justification for the tackle.
Unless you have actual information to share that the rest of us have not
seen, you're just flapping your fingers to serve your own agenda.
Jay Beattie
FYI, this is the standard instruction in a Section 1983 action based
on a Fourth Amendment "excessive force" claim. It's along the lines
of the instruction that the jury would get in the bicyclist's civil
suit:
Plaintiff claims the defendant police officers used excessive force
when they arrested [seized] plaintiff . In making a lawful arrest, a
law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is
necessary under the circumstances to effect the arrest. Whether or not
the force used in making an arrest was unreasonable is question to be
determined by you in light of all of the evidence received in the
case.
You must determine the degree of force that a reasonable and prudent
police officer would have applied in effecting the arrest under the
circumstances shown from the evidence received in this case. In
determining whether the defendant police officers used excessive
force, you may consider:
1. The extent of the injury suffered,
2. The need for the application of force,
3. The relationship between the need and the amount of force used,
4. The threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and
5. Any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.
Injuries which result from, for example, an officer's use of force to
overcome resistance to arrest do not involve constitutionally
protected interests. An officer's use of excessive force does not give
constitutional protection against injuries that would have occurred
absent the excessive force.
The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from
the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with
hindsight. The nature of reasonableness must allow for the fact that
police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—under
circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about
the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
This reasonableness inquiry is an objective one. The question is
whether the defendant police officers' actions are objectively
reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them,
without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
If you find that plaintiff has proven plaintiff's claim, you must then
consider the defense of plaintiff police officers that their conduct
was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules clearly
established at the time of the incident in issue and that they are
therefore not liable.
Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established
constitutional rights of citizens. [Announce the Court's ruling on
what constitutional right involved was clearly established.]
If, after considering the scope of discretion and responsibility
generally given to police officers in the performance of their duties,
and after considering all of the surrounding circumstances of the case
as they would have reasonably appeared at the time of the arrest, you
find from a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff has proved
that defendant police officers knowingly violated the law regarding
the plaintiff's constitutional rights, you must find for plaintiff .
If, however, you find that defendant police officers had a reasonable
belief that their actions did not violate the constitutional rights of
the plaintiff , then you cannot find defendant police officers liable
even if the plaintiff's rights were in fact violated as a result of
the defendant police officers' objectively reasonable action.
-- Jay Beattie.
Tim McNamara
A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> -snip- Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> Who the fuck are these cops to
> >>> decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"?
> >>> That's for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to
> >>> bring the person before the courts and charge him with a specific
> >>> crime. What did they charge Rodney King with? What was he
> >>> convicted of?
>
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> easy:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarre
> >> sts.html
>
> dusto...@mac.com wrote:
> > Should have taken The Big Fall for the robbery with a deadly
> > weapon, and society would have been better off.
>
> But the social services types wouldn't have enough work if violent
> felons were imprisoned. You mistake the interest of society for the
> various interests within our society.
How many people do you want in jail, Andrew? The United States has the
highest documented per-capita prison population in the world and- from
events in the past 8 years- it appears we have quite a few undocumented
prisoners. The prison population has quadrupled since 1980 and since
2003 we have had the dubious honor of having the highest percentage of
our population in prison of any country in the world. Well over 2
million people are in US prisons and jails. We have 5% of the world's
population and 25% of of the world's prison population. The total
prison population in the US has increased at well over twice the rate of
the general population.
Nearly 20% of the prison population is incarcerated on nonviolent drug
convictions. Maybe we should stop sending those folks to jail to make
room for the vast hordes of violent felons walking around free as air?
The second ranked nation? China. With over four times the population,
China's prison population is one-fifth of ours. I have no idea what
their undocumented incarceration rate is thought to be, and the Chinese
government system appears to be more willing to carry out summary
executions which keeps the prison population down.
Michael Press
<2ed68044-1521-4c31...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > Critical mass extravaganzas are not bicyclists going about their
> > business. They are public demonstrations: parades; and they do
> > not apply for permits to stage their demonstrations. This makes
> > it civil disobedience.
>
> The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not include language
> about applying for permits to publicly speak or assemble or to
> petition for redress of grievances. Therefore it looks like it's the
> authorities who are not obeying the law. Just sayin'.
Not an assembly in a park. Not a demonstration
in front of city hall. Some of the critical mass
extravaganzas are intentionally disruptive on the
public thoroughfares, and that makes them subject
to the vehicle code.
--
Michael Press
Tim McNamara
slide <dryad...@xxyahxxoo.com> wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > Yes, that is what is wrong with your attitude, which grated on me
> > enough to make me post on the subject. Who the fuck are these cops
> > to decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"?
> > That's for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to
> > bring the person before the courts and charge him with a specific
> > crime. What did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted
> > of?
>
> In the King affair, they were the ones being beaten by King in the
> part you didn't see and don't seem to believe can exist. The police
> have a JOB to arrest this sort of fellow who, as it turns out, was on
> drugs (at least whiskey) driving erratically and showed violence
> toward the police who tried to stop him.
Get your facts straight. No drugs. Blood alcohol 0.19%. He was
attempting to outrun the cops on the highway and city streets, which is
a bit more serious than "driving erratically." From the moment Rodney
King got out of the car, the LAPD officers violated their own procedures
and were reprimanded on the scene by a superior officer; this was before
the beating began. King's violence towards the police was throwing two
of then off of him as they attempted to pin him to the ground after he
did eventually lay down at their order. That was the excuse that the
officers used to justify four of them beating him with clubs.
The JOB of the police is to enforce and uphold the law. That includes
their own actions. Most officers are fully cognizant of this and are
trained and retrained on this. My friends who are cops go to great
lengths to prevent these types of situations.
Tim McNamara
<5cc57634-85c6-42fc...@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Ron Wallenfang <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:50 -0800 (PST), "dustoyev...@mac.com"
> >
> > <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that
> > >annoy motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is...
> > >well, it's incredibly stupid.
> >
> > What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's
> > not illegal.
>
> In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states, there's a law
> requiring bicyclists to ride single file when they would otherwise be
> interfering with traffic.
Two abreast here in Minnesota. The requirement is that cyclists "ride
as far to the right as practicable" and they may ride two abreast. As
for "interfering with traffic," cyclists are traffic.
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > >
> > > Critical mass extravaganzas are not bicyclists going about their
> > > business. They are public demonstrations: parades; and they do
> > > not apply for permits to stage their demonstrations. This makes
> > > it civil disobedience.
> >
> > The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not include language
> > about applying for permits to publicly speak or assemble or to
> > petition for redress of grievances. Therefore it looks like it's the
> > authorities who are not obeying the law. Just sayin'.
>
> Not an assembly in a park. Not a demonstration
> in front of city hall. Some of the critical mass
> extravaganzas are intentionally disruptive on the
> public thoroughfares, and that makes them subject
> to the vehicle code.
Simply being there in numbers does not constitute a de facto violation
of the vehicle code, any more than rush hour traffic does.
Does all traffic have to proceed as fast as the fastest road user
likes, or else be in violation?
I think if it were cars holding their own sort of Critical Mass (which
in fact occurs twice a day in most cities), you'd have a hard time
identifying what part of the vehicle code was being violated.
What part of "public thoroughfare" don't you get?
Chalo
Tim McNamara
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> >>>> Here's an item from NY:
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3
>
> >>>> You may have seen this elsewhere.
>
> >>> Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say
> >>> about Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more
> >>> harm than good.
>
> >> Your comments remind me of stuff we hear sometimes when cyclists
> >> are hit by drivers: "Well, it's too bad that person got hit. But
> >> so many cyclists run red lights. I'm not blaming that specific
> >> cyclist, but really cyclists ought to behave better..."
>
> > Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience. Generally
> > speaking, however, it's most effective when the purpose of the
> > civil disobedience is clearly promulgated so that onlookers get the
> > point. For many bystanders, Critical Mass is just a form of
> > hooliganism and does not communicate the desired message. As a
> > result of this, Critical Mass is basically an incompetent form of
> > civil disobedience and probably is not providing a net benefit for
> > cyclists.
>
> Well, you may not have witnessed it but if you look carefully you'll
> see that it is a ride with all sorts of bicyclists, men and women,
> racers, commuters, shopping types and others in great quantity,
> making the point that everyman is a bicyclist and part of the urban
> scene. It has done that in SF and achieved progress in bicycle lanes
> and paths that get around auto usurped zones, as well as police
> awareness. The repercussions are felt in the entire SF Bay Area.
> Various cities have signs saying that this is a bicycle friendly
> community.
That sounds vaguely like the CM rides here, although the bulk of the
riders here are the urban hipster crowd. Lots of body art. Part of
civil disobedience is providing education to society at large about some
grievance, but that message is sorely lacking in the CM rides here.
Perhaps the Bay Area rides are more successful in making a useful point
than the folks here in Minnesota have been. Jim Oberstar has done way
more for structural improvements for cycling here than all the local CM
rides combined.
> Throw shoes!
Thanks, I'll stick to riding my bike. ;-)
carl...@comcast.net
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
[snip]
>As
>for "interfering with traffic," cyclists are traffic.
Dear Tim,
I'm intrigued.
Let's stipulate that cars and bicycles are both traffic.
Is the argument that no one can interfere with traffic if he's driving
a car or riding a bicycle?
Are only pedestrians capable of the offense?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel