Folding Bikes - Brompton Rider Tazered and Assaulted by Airport Police...for Riding a Bike.

It's bad enough that cyclists are treated like second-class citizens in the US.

But this story is simply outrageous!!! And he was riding a Brompton!

http://greencycles.blogspot.com/

It's bad enough that cyclists are treated like second-class citizens in the US.

But this story is simply outrageous!!! And he was riding a Brompton!

http://greencycles.blogspot.com/

I spent alot of time reading this story. In my opinion, he's going to need a good lawyer real quick. With the footage lost/erased the arrest becomes his word against theirs.

This is interesting from his own words.

>>>>>>I was threatened again with mace and taser. I was given a series of contradictory, unlawful, and increasingly unsafe and punitive orders clearly designed just to intimidate and humiliate, including being told " you're going to walk your bike back to the terminal and take public transit"- this, against lanes of oncoming traffic with no sidewalks, no pedestrians allowed, and dangerous blind, walled curves<<<<<


I agree with his assertion that going back up those ramps with blind curved walls would have been very dangerous. I get the feeling the police wanted him to ride with the rest of the traffic in the right direction heading to Route 5!! His intention was to exit from a ramp called Northwest drive (probably safer) going against traffic in the wrong direction avoiding Route 5 altogether. Airports frequently dump exiting motorist on high speed restricted highways so it wouldn't be a surprise to me if this was the case. He was trying to avoid this by going the wrong way down a ramp he considered safer.

From police testimony, they actually gave him an alternative to ride an adjacent road since he was going the wrong way. I think they actually wanted him to ride on one of the ramps which would have led him on Route 5 which is a high speed expressway. A mistake.

On Microsoft Streets and Trips, I clearly saw his error and he will lose the case.

The problem with the gentleman is that he was trapped in an airport that had no safe exits for cyclists but high speed ramps and blind walled curves feeding into an expressway. The police in my opinion had a right to stop him as he intended to exit using a ramp (Northwest Drive) that was going against traffic. If you look at Mapquest, you'll see the poor guy had no choice but to use this ramp for he was avoiding the expressway called Route 5.

There's an important lesson to be learned here. If you're trapped in an airport with no exits and all ramps lead to an expressway, please take public transit. With a Brompton, he would have had no difficulity at all in boarding the lightrail. A quick study using MS Streets and Trips would have illustrated no safe exits from that airport.

I also think the police are covering themselves since excessive force was used. Regardless, I feel sorry for the guy.

I also think the police are covering themselves since excessive force was used.
In this particular case, I think this is the angle he's going for.

But from a quick read, he's not accomplishing anything else because it seems as if he's not counter-suing, just trying to get his case dropped, so I fail to see the point of this incident, his case, or his web site. However, if he did accomplish one thing, it is that he ensured "no biking" signs are now posted throughout the airport. Congrats to that... I guess.

The police in my opinion had a right to stop him as he intended to exit using a ramp (Northwest Drive) that was going against traffic. If you look at Mapquest, you'll see the poor guy had no choice but to use this ramp for he was avoiding the expressway called Route 5.
I also think the police are covering themselves since excessive force was used. Regardless, I feel sorry for the guy.

Based on what I read, the fact that at one specific given point he was wrong (riding against traffic) will make him lose the case.

I feel sorry for the guy too.

I also read the blog, but did I miss a statement from him that he was going the wrong way opposite to traffic direction?? The way I read that, he said that to return to the teminal he would have had to go the wrong way. He said he was breaking no law when he was stopped.

But from a quick read, he's not accomplishing anything else because it seems as if he's not counter-suing, just trying to get his case dropped, so I fail to see the point of this incident, his case, or his web site. However, if he did accomplish one thing, it is that he ensured "no biking" signs are now posted throughout the airport. Congrats to that... I guess.

He might be waiting to win his case before suing.

BTW, are we sure he was riding in the wrong direction?

....

Where did this happen?
On the Outbound Roadway (also called Glumack Drive), just east of the post office and west of the highway.

He also insists that he broke no laws. I doubt that he would overlook mentioning that he was riding in the wrong direction. (Maybe purposely omitted the fact ...)

Google map of the area ...

http://www.google.com/maps?q=Glumack+Dr,+St+Paul,+MN+55111,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=44.882178,-93.205476&spn=0.020039,0.036736&z=15&iwloc=addr&om=1

EDIT: The post office is on Northwest Drive. I think that there is a divider between Northwest Drive and Glumack Dr such that he would be traveling in the normal traffic flow if exiting the airport.

I suppose it will be interesting to see a typical cornfed police officer, clad in kevlar, testify how he felt sufficiently threatened by a bicyclist pushing a bicycle that he had to use a taser. Perhaps he would taser deaf people who didn't obey fast enough as well. Convincing anyone he was a threat will take some work. Even the old Homeland Security angle won't work as the guy was leaving the airport.

The DA should do the smart thing and order the case dropped.

Has the case made the local paper? It should.

No, he wasn't tasered for riding a bike. He was STOPPED for riding his bike on a very busy road, posted for motor vehicles only, an on-ramp to a controlled-access freeway.

He was tasered after the initial stop for trying to leave when the officer told him not to, and for trying to pull away when they physically tried to restrain him.

The rider's own account (even when he tries to put it in the best light) is a perfect model of how to get arrested. Don't pull over when they first tell you, argue with everything the officer says, and try to leave when they tell you not to.

About the only thing to this guy's credit is that he has the honesty to put the police reports on his websites along with his own account of the incident:

http://web.mac.com/stephanorsak/iWeb/Site/police%20narratives.html

He might be waiting to win his case before suing.
Let's hope so, otherwise his efforts to inform the public seem a waste.



BTW, are we sure he was riding in the wrong direction?
I agree. I thought he said the cop wanted him to ride back the way he came - i.e. the wrong direction - but I don't think he was originally going against traffic.

...posted for motor vehicles only...
They put these signs up after this particular incident, according to the web site.

They put these signs up after this particular incident, according to the web site.

This is pretty convincing since he claims to posses before and after shots of the additional signs.

-G

Yeah, I think this guy has an uphill battle. It seems likely that the cop interpreted his actions as an attempt to leave the location during questioning.

Also, while obviously there is a great deal of emotional satisfaction in telling your side of the story, it is generally unwise to make public statements, especially extensive ones, when facing criminal charges or even civil proceedings. If I was his attorney, I'd instruct him not to have posted such extensive info about the case to begin with. For example, recently a pediatrician who was facing a malpractice suit sabotaged his own defense with his blogging.... (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/05/31/blogger_unmasked_court_case_upended/)

But Lee does have a point that there are better ways to interact with a police officer than the rider's strategy. Long story short, I understand how police officers are supposed to behave theoretically; however, despite their training, they are human beings and subject to the normal emotional reactions.

Given the rider's circumstances, if he was trying to prove a point, he should have asked to be arrested or left alone rather than ignore the officer's commands. I think that would be the way to avoid the threatened violence.

-G

The police could have put him and his cycle in their car and taken him back to the terminal and told him to use the transit system. And before you start to tell me this is not their job, remember the police are public servants and safety is their job. As far as the guys attitude towards them I cannot comment. In general I have never had a problem with the police when stopped, I have always been polite to them and viceversa.
Ian

*If* there was a way for cars to use that road to leave the terminal legally, *if* the claim is correct that the motor vehicles only signs were not posted until after the incident, then it's hard to see how he could have been doing anything illegal by riding on that road. Whether it was a good idea is another matter. Whether he broke any laws in the way he dealt with the police is still another matter.

An individual police officer doesn't necessarily know all the traffic laws as they relate to bicycling. Like many other people, a police officer may confuse his own common sense ideas with the actual law. I recall a long thread on one of the Usenet groups about a police officer directing a cyclist to get off the street and ride on the sidewalk, in a town where it was legal to ride on the street and actually illegal to ride on the sidewalk.

No, he wasn't tasered for riding a bike. He was STOPPED for riding his bike on a very busy road, posted for motor vehicles only, an on-ramp to a controlled-access freeway.

He was tasered after the initial stop for trying to leave when the officer told him not to, and for trying to pull away when they physically tried to restrain him.

The rider's own account (even when he tries to put it in the best light) is a perfect model of how to get arrested. Don't pull over when they first tell you, argue with everything the officer says, and try to leave when they tell you not to.

About the only thing to this guy's credit is that he has the honesty to put the police reports on his websites along with his own account of the incident:

http://web.mac.com/stephanorsak/iWeb/Site/police%20narratives.html

You aren't a cop yourself by any chance are you Lee?

I make it a mandatory thing to do by taking my own Brompton on public transportation properly bagged when the streets are too clogged or way too fast for me. I never had a trouble with any of my folders. I think of myself as some sort of pioneer or ambassador of alternative vehicles. That means I don't necessary rub the bike or small car in someone else's face. And I am also aware that this is not the same United States that most adults remember growing up under. This is a new post-9/11/01 world. Especially around commercial airports.

I think the guy hasn't quite learnt how to deal with bullies in life. I don't condone for one second what happened but really - acting like a smart-arse around agitated police officers is never going to go well. If a copper stops you and is already somewhat non-plussed with you - it's really not the time and place to start answering back - however politely. I can't believe he hasn't learnt this in life.

Yes it's humiliating, uncalled for and if life was fair you could have a rational discussion with said lawperson and sort it all out - possibly even leaving the altercation a better person and richer from the expereince, but it's not - and you really have to bend over backwards and ooze repect from every pore with these sort of undertrained ingorant people so as not to ruffle their feathers or at any moment make them feel they'er losing control of the situation. So I think it's awful but I think he made his own bed a little. He left the scene mid-interview - what did he expect to happen? And the fact he was 'downed without a warning'. Really? No 'Hey - you - stop!" Could there be just a hint of selective hearing here?

When I read about the views the average american has on cycling - it does sadden me but I think when a bored copper is shaking you down it clearly doesn't pay to try and take the moral high-ground. He could have got a bus to somewhere without freeway style ramps. We don't know how good a rider he is either - perhaps he was weaving? Looked overladen? A brompy is *not* your usual bike - perhaps the cops thought he was some nutter on a kids bike.

Too many unusual circumstances for him to have not looked out for his own ass a little when things became sticky. I wish him well in the case but think he'll prolly lose for not bending over and taking it from Mr Paranoid Lawgiver at the point when he could have got away without being zapped like a mosquito.

Let's hope so, otherwise his efforts to inform the public seem a waste.



I agree. I thought he said the cop wanted him to ride back the way he came - i.e. the wrong direction - but I don't think he was originally going against traffic.

I tried to create a route using Microsoft Streets and Trips and Garmin to go down the ramp (Northwest Drive) he wanted use as an exit. In both cases, the program routed me to the ramps onto Route 5 because it will not send you down a one way street in the wrong direction.

You aren't a cop yourself by any chance are you Lee?
Nope. But I was skeptical when I first read the guy's screed, even before seeing the police statements or looking more closely at his route.

Putting myself in the same situation, I imagine handling it differently from the start:

If I'm riding down a busy road, and I get pulled over. I wouldn't start by arguing HOW I was pulled over. Lights, sirens, gestures, yelling, whatever - if I can tell it's cop who wants me to pull over, I comply.

If the officer tells me I can't ride there, I wouldn't argue that I can or demand to be shown where it's posted. I'd politely and perhaps bit sheepishly say I didn't know. Even if I believed the cop was full of SH..aving cream, I'd entertain the possiblity that I might be in the wrong.

At that point, I''d be in a good position to ask the officer what he thinks would be my best way to get back to a bike-legal route.

That's not giving up any rights; it's just being sensible and polite.

Far less likely to upset an officer who might be edgy for any number of reasons. And if things still went bad from there, I'd be in a far more defensibly position if/when we end up in court.

I tried to create a route using Microsoft Streets and Trips and Garmin to go down the ramp (Northwest Drive) he wanted use as an exit. In both cases, the program routed me to the ramps onto Route 5 because it will not send you down a one way street in the wrong direction.

Yes ... but did he want to go down Northwest Drive?

From space, you can see several ramps leaving the area that come from Glumack Drive and cars traveling outbound.

I think the guy broke the one unwritten law: Don't be a smart-arse with a cop.

Eg don't tell them you pay their salary. :D

Another problem that I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that this is the AIRPORT POLICE which in the case of MSP are only a step above security guard. There have been several articles written about the lack of training and the backgrounds of some members of these semi-private police forces. I don't think he handled the situation very well and for what ever reason the police were looking for a fight. I have driven in and out of MSP many times and would be damned if I would try to cycle it. There is light rail, taxi and bus service from the terminal. There are only a few airports in the country that I would even consider cycling out of, most of them aren't set up for it.

Aaron:)

Putting myself in the same situation, I imagine handling it differently from the start:

If I'm riding down a busy road, and I get pulled over. I wouldn't start by arguing HOW I was pulled over. Lights, sirens, gestures, yelling, whatever - if I can tell it's cop who wants me to pull over, I comply.

If the officer tells me I can't ride there, I wouldn't argue that I can or demand to be shown where it's posted. I'd politely and perhaps bit sheepishly say I didn't know. Even if I believed the cop was full of SH..aving cream, I'd entertain the possiblity that I might be in the wrong.

At that point, I''d be in a good position to ask the officer what he thinks would be my best way to get back to a bike-legal route.

That's not giving up any rights; it's just being sensible and polite.

Far less likely to upset an officer who might be edgy for any number of reasons. And if things still went bad from there, I'd be in a far more defensibly position if/when we end up in court.

+1. As soon as the police officer (or a supermarket cashier, bus driver, professor, boss, wife, whatever) identify you as someone wanting to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, things usually go very well (even if you are wrong).

BTW/FWIW/ETC... For anyone arguing the road wasn't properly marked for motor vehicles only... it doesn't matter.

The following has been true of every place in the USA that I have ever lived, so you might want to check the laws in your own state before you "stand on your rights" to ride wherever you please:

* A limited access highway is always for motorized vehicles only - even if it's not posted as such.
* The on ramps to such highways are limited-access in the same way.
* A police officer has the authority to tell someone not to drive (or ride) on a given road at any time. They are allowed to use their own judgement for safety reasons.

BTW/FWIW/ETC... For anyone arguing the road wasn't properly marked for motor vehicles only... it doesn't matter.

The following has been true of every place in the USA that I have ever lived, so you might want to check the laws in your own state before you "stand on your rights" to ride wherever you please:

* A limited access highway is always for motorized vehicles only - even if it's not posted as such.
* The on ramps to such highways are limited-access in the same way.
* A police officer has the authority to tell someone not to drive (or ride) on a given road at any time. They are allowed to use their own judgement for safety reasons.

Your last statement is pure BS IMHO. I have been told so much crap by various police officers over the years that is proves to me that most of the ones I have had the interactions with were completely ignorant of the law they supposedly were upholding. I was told on one occasion that it was illegal for a bicycle to ride on a street with a posted speed limit of 45 mph or more and that I needed to be on the sidewalk. I didn't disagree but asked for his supervisor's name. In NC and by city ordinance it is ILLEGAL to ride on the sidewalk. And there is NO LAW or ORDINANCE in affect that bans cyclists from any roads other than limited access freeways, regardless of posted speed limits. In my case it was the only road that went where I was going that was available to cyclists and was signed as a Bike Route. The other 2 routes were limited access.

Aaron:)

Your last statement is pure BS IMHOThe "IMHO" is important there.

I would never argue that the police are always right. Some are great but some don't know jack.

Regardless, the law gives them wide discretion in matters like Orsak's story - and your own case of being ordered off of a particular route. You did the right by not arguing, but getting the supervisor's name.

What happened next in your case? Were you ticketed? If so, did you take it to court? Did you contact the supervisor to make sure the officers got better informed?

BTW/FWIW/ETC... For anyone arguing the road wasn't properly marked for motor vehicles only... it doesn't matter.
That seems to be what the defendant will argue.



In any case, Dahon.Steve seems correct. The police report in the link above states that Orsak was going against the flow of traffic, which is why he was ordered to stop:

"I then ordered the white male to take his bike and go across the roadway and walk it to Post Road, as Northwest Drive is a one-way street and the bicycle operator was going against the traffic flow. After several more attempts, the white male crossed over the median with his bike.

At this time, the white male stated that Northwest Drive roadway did not have any "no bicycling" signs posted on it and that he was going to ride his bike on it. The white male stated this road is free from heavy traffic and it does not pose a risk to him. The white male then proceeded to get on his green bike and begin pedaling away. Being that the white male was now riding his bike against the flow of traffic and was told to walk his bike on Northwest Drive, Officer Wingate commanded the white male to stop. The white male did not stop. Officer Wingate told the white male at least four times to stop, which Orsak kept riding away."

Explain again the need for a Taser. There was no threat to the officer (regardless what he claims he felt after the fact). None of the accounts I have read show evidence the cyclist posed a threat to anyone besides himself, and even that is debatable. He wasn't threatening himself with harm, either.

Best case is to justify a traffic citation for driving on a supposed limited access ramp not posted as prohibited to cyclists. That is a weak case to start. Don't believe me, ask a lawyer.

All things considered, the cyclist has a good case for excessive force, perhaps even battery. His internet postings are irrelevant. He ought to hire an attorney.

The cop is the only one who is able to or can explain the need for a taser. Only his testimony is relevant to this case.

It seems Orsak did hire a lawyer. The lawyer is the one who wrote the motion to dismiss the case.
http://web.mac.com/stephanorsak/iWeb/Site/Motion%20to%20Dismiss.html

Nope. But I was skeptical when I first read the guy's screed, even before seeing the police statements or looking more closely at his route.

Putting myself in the same situation, I imagine handling it differently from the start:

If I'm riding down a busy road, and I get pulled over. I wouldn't start by arguing HOW I was pulled over. Lights, sirens, gestures, yelling, whatever - if I can tell it's cop who wants me to pull over, I comply.

If the officer tells me I can't ride there, I wouldn't argue that I can or demand to be shown where it's posted. I'd politely and perhaps bit sheepishly say I didn't know. Even if I believed the cop was full of SH..aving cream, I'd entertain the possiblity that I might be in the wrong.

At that point, I''d be in a good position to ask the officer what he thinks would be my best way to get back to a bike-legal route.

That's not giving up any rights; it's just being sensible and polite.

Far less likely to upset an officer who might be edgy for any number of reasons. And if things still went bad from there, I'd be in a far more defensibly position if/when we end up in court.
Thank you.

Well, I can understand the pragmatism of your position, but were all of us to take your advice, black people in the Southern States would still be sheepishly apologising for having stepped on a pavement (sidewalk) and eagerly complying with demands that they sit at the back of the bus and give up their seats for white people.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/mlk/photogallery/1963-65/photo01.jpg

The police are public servants charged with maintaining the law. I don't know about where you live, but in England, they are expected to do it politely and not to infringe our rights. It is ALWAYS ESSENTIAL to act with politeness with police, and with everybody else if you have any commonsense, but I would not hesitate to ask why I was being pulled over or directed off my bicycle and to politely insist on my rights. If that got nowhere, I would ask the officer for his number (which I have a right to do) and inform him that I would be taking the matter further.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/mlk/photogallery/1963-65/photo01.jpg

This guy could use a can of
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31WCS9TNTRL._SS500_.jpg

I just read through the police statements. This guy is in trouble. Regardless of what was actually said, the actions speak for themselves: First he didn't comply with an order to stop, then after the verbal altercation he moved off against traffic flow and disobeyed/disregarded legal orders to stop. The police may cop some flak for using the taser, but that is a separate case which he must bring against them. It won't count at all in the case against him. He acted really dumb.

I have to say I agree with LittlePixel on this. Before it hit these boards, I was reading this story, and also agree with many posters this guy has an uphill battle.

Regardless of whether I believe I'm in the right, I'd stop for a police officer every time (unless there was an absolute compelling safely reason not to do so). Not doing so is just a quick way to get them annoyed. And why get someone with authority annoyed at you? Sooner or later they will force you to stop, so you might as well do it right there and then. As LittlePixel states, it might not be fair or right, but it's just a fact of life.

Secondly, if a police officer instructs (or "suggests") you to do something, I'd do it (and again, unless if was unsafe to do so, and then you'd have to weigh the risks of what the police would do if you didn't do what they ask!). I wonder whether it was that unsafe for him to reverse course. And of course, had he been less combative with the police, he could have simply explained his fears and asked for a ride with his bike folded up (and might have received one, rather than the ruder one he received). Even if he was legally in the right for cycling where he was -which seems open to some question -the problem here is that clearly the two officers on duty thought they were in the right, and you just can't win that argument in that situation.

The point is that if you believe you've been unfairly treated or police officers got an incorrect legality, you're probably going to have a way better chance with the system, rather than at the hands of 2 police officers out on duty, who at that time, were the absolute law. Of course, mass civil disobedience obviates this somewhat, but he was just one guy. Maybe I'm without moral substance, but I'd be "yes sir", "three bags full sir" and kow-towing all the way in this situation (and if I felt in the right, seething inwardly and wondering whether I should pursue it at a later time and place).

All this doesn't mean that the police were correct or appropriate; merely that I believe he did not react in the best way. There are always two sides to a story, and honestly I got the impression he was attempting to move away from the police officers when they were still questioning him, and after one of them had even attempted to physically stop him. How else were they to stop him? It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, but I have a feeling it doesn't look too good for him.

I have to say I agree with LittlePixel on this. Before it hit these boards, I was reading this story, and also agree with many posters this guy has an uphill battle.

Regardless of whether I believe I'm in the right, I'd stop for a police officer every time (unless there was an absolute compelling safely reason not to do so). Not doing so is just a quick way to get them annoyed. And why get someone with authority annoyed at you? Sooner or later they will force you to stop, so you might as well do it right there and then. As LittlePixel states, it might not be fair or right, but it's just a fact of life.

Secondly, if a police officer instructs (or "suggests") you to do something, I'd do it (and again, unless if was unsafe to do so, and then you'd have to weigh the risks of what the police would do if you didn't do what they ask!). I wonder whether it was that unsafe for him to reverse course. And of course, had he been less combative with the police, he could have simply explained his fears and asked for a ride with his bike folded up (and might have received one, rather than the ruder one he received). Even if he was legally in the right for cycling where he was -which seems open to some question -the problem here is that clearly the two officers on duty thought they were in the right, and you just can't win that argument in that situation.

The point is that if you believe you've been unfairly treated or police officers got an incorrect legality, you're probably going to have a way better chance with the system, rather than at the hands of 2 police officers out on duty, who at that time, were the absolute law. Of course, mass civil disobedience obviates this somewhat, but he was just one guy. Maybe I'm without moral substance, but I'd be "yes sir", "three bags full sir" and kow-towing all the way in this situation (and if I felt in the right, seething inwardly and wondering whether I should pursue it at a later time and place).

All this doesn't mean that the police were correct or appropriate; merely that I believe he did not react in the best way. There are always two sides to a story, and honestly I got the impression he was attempting to move away from the police officers when they were still questioning him, and after one of them had even attempted to physically stop him. How else were they to stop him? It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, but I have a feeling it doesn't look too good for him.

A mass has to begin with one. Obviously the guy did not act in his own best interests, but I believe he acted in the best interests of us all. We should be thanking him for taking one for the team, not criticizing him.

A mass has to begin with one. Obviously the guy did not act in his own best interests, but I believe he acted in the best interests of us all. We should be thanking him for taking one for the team, not criticizing him.

Perhaps ... but it isn't clear that his "taking one for the team" did him or anyone else any good. In fact, one might argue that it made things worse since he might have been breaking the law as opposed to his cycling rights being trampled.

.... other comments ....

In reference to civil rights, I don't think that Lee's description of proper interaction fits my mental picture. But at some point, when one has reached an impasse and you think that your rights are being grossly abused, then the best way to proceed is to say, "either arrest me or let me be" as opposed to just leaving. In another context (baseball cards), I actually did this with my stepfather.

Gee thanks, but no thanks. He's not "taking one for the team" as far as I'm concerned (I brought up the subject of mass civil disobedience as an example of where questioning the police or disobeying them was a better situation to be in rather than the one he found himself in, that's all).

As I kept stating, it isn't about the rights or wrongs of his actions -I'm just being a pragmatist. To anyone who wants to do the same as this guy did, feel free to do so! (call me crazy, but I wouldn't recommend it though....)

And I still don't know 100% what he was doing was legal or illegal by the way, or whether the police had the right to remove him from the road (from reading earlier posts). I do believe the tasering was excessive, but then again I'm not a police officer who may be faced with a person who does or does not have a weapon and does not apparently comply with their instructions. Interestingly, even if the cyclist was in the legal right, I wonder if a judge would find the actions done by the police to be appropriate given the situation and what he appeared to do. Ultimately it may well come down to two versions of the story, and which you believe.