Advocacy & Safety - What to make of this guy?

http://www.kval.com/news/local/30153259.html

Why did they want to stop him again? It seems a little stupid to waste so much police time and effort to stop some guy that's riding without lights. Plus I wonder how much danger the police put the community in by chasing him. Chases usually cause dangerous situations.

If he wants to indanger his life by riding without lights for a few minutes before the sun rises then that should be his right. Right? It's not like he is endangering others.

What was the charge... "Dark clothes?"

It is light here at 6:30 in the morning... I imagine later as you go further north... but to call out cops for riding without lights???

When was the last time you saw a roadblock for a car without lights? :rolleyes:

Good to know the police are always there to tackle cyclists. Lord knows charging people who run them over would be too much to ask.

Police love the circular logic. He was charged with resisting arrest. No charge which would justify the aforementioned arrest, but that doesn't stop him from resisting it!

Hell, I guess we're all guilty of that. resisting, by definition, is trying to avoid.

Of course, he was a complete idiot for not stopping, but still...

It's not like he is endangering others.

He could be. If drivers or pedestrians don't see him until the last minute, that's one more factor making an accident more likely. Someone could walk into his path out of a shadow, or someone could swerve in a car to miss him at the last minute and hit someone else.

I really hope there's more to this story, like this guy was wanted for eating babies or something.

Sometimes it's better to play the game by their (LEO's) rules than antagonize them, now the guy has got something more serious than just a fine for riding with no lights to contend with.

I don't get what the problem is. If a car is pulled over for driving with broken/turned off lights, so be it. But if a car runs from the police for having a broken light, I really don't see what the problem would be to chase him. Everyone's making it sound like the police tackled him just for riding without lights, which obviously misses 90% of the point.

Ah yes. Eugene, Oregon. Gotta love it. This morning I came pretty close to taking out a bicyclist riding on the wrong side of River Road underneath Beltline as I was turning to go east on Beltline. I even had my turn signal on. To his credit, the organ donor was in the bike lane, but he was wearing dark clothes and no lights. It was still dark enough at 7:20 this morning to need my lights on. Just another accident waiting to happen.

Ah yes. Eugene, Oregon. Gotta love it. This morning I came pretty close to taking out a bicyclist riding on the wrong side of River Road underneath Beltline as I was turning to go east on Beltline. I even had my turn signal on. To his credit, the organ donor was in the bike lane, but he was wearing dark clothes and no lights. It was still dark enough at 7:20 this morning to need my lights on. Just another accident waiting to happen.

So you tackled him?

I make of this a reminder not to ride in the dark without lights.

The gov't has nothing better to do with taxpayer's money?

I don't get what the problem is. If a car is pulled over for driving with broken/turned off lights, so be it. But if a car runs from the police for having a broken light, I really don't see what the problem would be to chase him. Everyone's making it sound like the police tackled him just for riding without lights, which obviously misses 90% of the point.

indeed. on those shows that show police chases, like half of them are just stuff like a tail light out or a license plate.

besides, when the police showed up, he was riding ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. a bicycle is a road vehicle, and im all for the cops making sure people are safe by following the rules of the road.

Something doesn't make sense here.

Sunrise in Eugene, OR this morning was at 7:12 a.m P.D.T.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php
The cyclist was reported 8 minutes later at 7:20. What do OR statutes say about cyclists running lights? In FL he wouldn't have been legally required to have them.

Looks to me like another case of mass media misreporting.

On the other hand, not stopping for a LEO is just dumb. He deserved to get arrested on that one.

Surise was at 7:12 am local time (civil twilight at 6:43 am). So at 7:20 am, by law, the cyclist did not require lights, since it was daytime. Or is there some obscure law in OR about bicycles having lights on in the day during heavy cloud cover?

The guy should have just pulled over. Then what could the cops do, since the cyclist apparently did not violate any law (at least until he failed to stop) other than wrong side riding which many of the college kids do there anyway.

It may all get thrown out anyway, since the stated reason the cops made contact was not a violation.

Police love the circular logic. He was charged with resisting arrest. No charge which would justify the aforementioned arrest, but that doesn't stop him from resisting it!

Hell, I guess we're all guilty of that. resisting, by definition, is trying to avoid.

Of course, he was a complete idiot for not stopping, but still...

It isn't circular logic, it's the way the legal system works.

If you're innocent, you don't need to resist arrest, you need to resist in the courts, resisting arrest is never going to get you off the hook.

Ya know, you can act like a goof ball, ride without lights, slalom across the road on your bicycle, but when the police flash their lights and say, "pull over". Well, Buddy, ya just better pull over don't cha think?

I'm with the police on this one. A dude acts like a nut. They want to check it out. He doesn't comply - they have to expect the worst and deal with it.

The whole idea of a "resisting arrest" charge makes me leery. You can be charged with resisting arrest for almost anything. Like that NYC CM rider who got tackled by the cop. If someone unlawfully attacked me, you bet I'm going to defend myself! Oops, that's resisting arrest. I guess I should just lay there and let him do god know's what else to me.

I served on a jury once where one of the charges was resisting arrest. The arresting officer testified that the defendant held his arms down at his side when they were trying to arrest him. Apparently that's resisting arrest too. (We wound up not convicting him on that.)

This NYC CM rider? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ

The local paper did their own story, adding little to no extra detail. What lazy reporting:

http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/276766//story.csp

^^^
You are right, that article has no detail at all. It almost looks like a blank format page, for reporters to type a story on.

Look at it from the police officer's perspective. It doesn't matter how minor the infraction is just to pull someone over. He may have just been pulling him over to say, hey, get a light man, have a nice day.

Now when the guy takes off, you have to realize that normal people don't just run from the police. Sure there's a small handful of idiots that just want to prove a point, but the vast majority of people who run are trying to hide something. Either they've got a warrant or they've got a gun or they've got a crotch full of crack, who knows, but most people don't just run to avoid a traffic ticket. The cop didn't "tackle him just for not having a light," he did it because the guy gave him reason to believe he had committed a worse crime. What was probably going through the cops mind is "why would this guy run from me if he didn't have something important to hide."

The whole idea of a "resisting arrest" charge makes me leery. You can be charged with resisting arrest for almost anything. Like that NYC CM rider who got tackled by the cop. If someone unlawfully attacked me, you bet I'm going to defend myself! Oops, that's resisting arrest. I guess I should just lay there and let him do god know's what else to me.

I served on a jury once where one of the charges was resisting arrest. The arresting officer testified that the defendant held his arms down at his side when they were trying to arrest him. Apparently that's resisting arrest too. (We wound up not convicting him on that.)

It's the city, if I don't fight back, I can file a fun civil suit.

Deep pockets.

I know it was wrong of him to run, and I understand the concept of resisting arrest, but if they don't have an arrestable offense, it's bull****. What, exactly, did he do, that was an arrestable offense? And you can't say running, because that's what they're calling "resisting arrest". If the charge was "resisting a traffic stop" or "resisting a ticket", cool, that makes sense - but otherwise, resisting arrest without a specific, arrestable charge, is by definition circular.

why oh why is any guy on a bike..a mountain bike on a road especially..considered a cyclist...A cyclist should be someone who is in Lycra or at least has Carbon soled road shoes for their commute and not mountain bike shoes. Everybody else is a guy on a bike...except the hipsters on single speeds, those will remain to be called hipsters on single speeds.

It's kind of ridiculous what the police can do and get away with, but isn't failing to pull over considered resisting arrest? or is resisting arrest only charged when the police has an intent to arrest you but you fight back.

It's kind of ridiculous what the police can do and get away with, but isn't failing to pull over considered resisting arrest? or is resisting arrest only charged when the police has an intent to arrest you but you fight back.


That's exactly my point, it IS considered resisting arrest, even when they don't have anything to arrest you for other than resisting, so the logic is circular. It SHOULD be as you described it at the end (only charged when there is an intent to arrest), but it's not.

It's the city, if I don't fight back, I can file a fun civil suit.

Deep pockets.

:lol: How true...although their pockets may not be that deep.

The story said he was riding west in the east bound lane. Also the police responded at 7:20, it doesn't say what time the calls were first made. Every thing else said, unless you have a good escape route, when the police say pull over......pull over.

I know it was wrong of him to run, and I understand the concept of resisting arrest, but if they don't have an arrestable offense, it's bull****. What, exactly, did he do, that was an arrestable offense? And you can't say running, because that's what they're calling "resisting arrest". If the charge was "resisting a traffic stop" or "resisting a ticket", cool, that makes sense - but otherwise, resisting arrest without a specific, arrestable charge, is by definition circular.

You can be arrested without a valid reason (the physical act, not the legality of it), hence why you fight it in court, and not on the street. You cannot say because the arrest was without reason that the arrest itself should be ignored, being as in a legal sense, the city is liable for that impeachment of rights, so the idea of being arrested still stands.

You can be arrested without a valid reason (the physical act, not the legality of it), hence why you fight it in court, and not on the street. You cannot say because the arrest was without reason that the arrest itself should be ignored, being as in a legal sense, the city is liable for that impeachment of rights, so the idea of being arrested still stands.

But did they list any other charges on his arrest? I'd agree with you if they arrested him for threatening an officer and resisting arrest, or public nudity and resisting arrest, or money laundering and resisting arrest - whatever, as long as there's a charge on there that they were trying to arrest him for.
On top of that, your statement that you can be arrested without valid reason is not supposed to be true in our society. There are supposed to be checks in place to prevent arrest without probable cause.

Having said that, I've been doing some reading and the supreme court has ruled that traffic stops constitute a short-term arrest for the purposes of resisting arrest charges. I understand the reasoning behind this, and I guess based on that there's nothing legally wrong here. I just disagree ideologically: resisting traffic stops is VERY different from resisting arrest, and IMO the crime and penalty should be different as well.

It has already been mentioned twice here, but since no one seems to actually read these posts, I'll try again for the sake of something other than 28+ one-sided discussions by cyclists with persecution complexes.




HE WAS RIDING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD!!!1!!ONE!1!!!




Then he acted like a nutter when, in all likelihood, the officer would have simply tried to set him straight.

I'm glad the cops went after him. Get these ill people on bicycles off the road, that's all I'm saying.

bf

But did they list any other charges on his arrest? I'd agree with you if they arrested him for threatening an officer and resisting arrest, or public nudity and resisting arrest, or money laundering and resisting arrest - whatever, as long as there's a charge on there that they were trying to arrest him for.
On top of that, your statement that you can be arrested without valid reason is not supposed to be true in our society. There are supposed to be checks in place to prevent arrest without probable cause.

Having said that, I've been doing some reading and the supreme court has ruled that traffic stops constitute a short-term arrest for the purposes of resisting arrest charges. I understand the reasoning behind this, and I guess based on that there's nothing legally wrong here. I just disagree ideologically: resisting traffic stops is VERY different from resisting arrest, and IMO the crime and penalty should be different as well.


The article did state that he was arrested for disorderly conduct...I certainly think wrong-way cycling on the street is flat-out stupid, but I am not quite sure that it would cross into the domain of "disorderly conduct" as it is usually defined.

Several of my friends are either current or former LEOs, and they hate abuse of power just as much as I do. But the fact is that physically resisting arrest, or running from the police will get you nowhere except a holding cell.

Generally (it varies by state), the only time you may physically resist a police officer is when they use force or deadly force when it is not necessary. Unless you have clear video (and sometimes audio) proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the arresting officer went far beyond the force needed to make the arrest, you will be lucky to get that assertion to hold up in court.

On the other hand, if you truly are being arrested without a reason (no warrants/PC/etc.), and you do not physically resist, you have a very strong case against the city, the PD, and the arresting officer. Name them all in a lawsuit, get a good lawyer, and if you are in the right then in all likelihood there will be some serious changes made at the department.

So, if you are being arrested without reason, don't make any statements at all until you lawyer up, then go to town...

No, it is not supposed to be this way. But we live in a far from perfect world, and you can come out a winner if you learn how the world works.