Advocacy & Safety - YouTube star Patrick Pogan finally goes to trial for NYC bicyclist assault case

In one of 2008's most popular YouTube videos, NYPD officer Patrick Pogan is seen walking toward a bicyclist and tackling him down to the concrete sidewalk. Then officer Pogan attempted to frame the bicyclist for assaulting a police officer. The video was taken by a tourist who just happened to be standing on the sidewalk as the bicyclist rode by.

Officer Pogan's trial finally starts today. He is charged with felonies for framing the bicyclist as well as misdemeanors for assault. Story in the NY Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nypd_cop_to_be_tried_for_pushing_hIfJaj2dfCQMXluuQj29FO

The assaulting a police officer charges against the bicyclist were dismissed as soon as the video appeared, but would probably have stuck without the video.

...anyway watching closely...

Video saved the cyclist, who looked innocent enough.

The Former Officers Lawyer: "Sometimes, good police work can look ugly,"

He was fired from the NYPD when the felony charges were filed.

11 days on the job... best to catch the hotheads early.

Here is the video just in case

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXzRczBk06M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWjSOVDyUJ4&feature=related

I hope they gave Mr Pogan a UA.

the affected is asking 1.5 million, hope he gets it

the affected is asking 1.5 million, hope he gets it

This is what's wrong with the american legal system. What has he done to be entitled to $1.5 million? Did he lose his job? Was he severely hurt and has huge medical bills? What merits $1.5 million? I think it really should be enough that the officer was fired and faces legal charges.

Everyone believes they are owed a large some of money when stupid things happen. I don't see how he's owed money at all unless he was hurt, can't work, or was fired for the charges that were filed.

This is what's wrong with the american legal system. What has he done to be entitled to $1.5 million? Did he lose his job? Was he severely hurt and has huge medical bills? What merits $1.5 million? I think it really should be enough that the officer was fired and faces legal charges.

Everyone believes they are owed a large some of money when stupid things happen. I don't see how he's owed money at all unless he was hurt, can't work, or was fired for the charges that were filed.
Agreed here, but the cop should have some punishment if he did something wrong, which it seems like he did.

This is what's wrong with the american legal system. What has he done to be entitled to $1.5 million? Did he lose his job? Was he severely hurt and has huge medical bills? What merits $1.5 million? I think it really should be enough that the officer was fired and faces legal charges.

Everyone believes they are owed a large some of money when stupid things happen. I don't see how he's owed money at all unless he was hurt, can't work, or was fired for the charges that were filed.

The point of lawsuits in which money exchanges hands is it is supposed to reset the victim into a state prior to the incident. So the easiest example of this is a wrongful death suit where someone who was an engineer, making $x dollars per year, with a life expectancy of y, and is able to provide his family with z comfort of living. They do calculations to figure out how much is family "lost" out on because he is now dead.

In this case, there are many circumstances that could be at play. I suspect that getting tackled off a bike while you are moving is not a nice thing to have happen to you. I bet there were at least some injuries. Then he was arrested, probably forcefully restrained, humiliated. He was framed and treated like a criminal ... until the video came out. Maybe that's not worth 1.5M to you. The other part of the money is to teach the police department to do a better job hiring. If your company lost $1.5M for something stupid you did, I bet they would try really hard not to hire someone like you again.

The problem with this logic is the we are the ones that end up paying that $1.5 million in the long run. Like I said, I could understand if he lost his job, or lost his ability to work, or lost his ability to get work, or had major medical expenses but I haven't read anything suggesting any of this. Trust me, I know all about people wanting to make a quick buck. My mom has been a paralegal for personal injury cases for the past 20 years. People most often or not end up suing because they think they deserve to get paid. Until I see something saying he deserves $1.5 million I think the lawsuit itself is frivilous. I agree the Officer should pay some restitution and should be in trouble but I don't think it is $1.5million. Heck, here in Nashville a couple of weeks ago a corrections officer decided to rip a guy's grill out during new prisoner intake and the the settlement was for $95K which I think is reasonable. This kid on the bike had no major medical issues that I've seen and he didn't lose his job or atleast neither of these have been reported. Honestly guys, who hasn't wanted to tackle a guy in a critical mass occasionally. Often times, these guys just don't get it and are just being ******bags on bikes (not saying the cop was in the right at all).

the cop is going to love his time in the prison showers. stay away from me bubba!

In one of 2008's most popular YouTube videos, NYPD officer Patrick Pogan is seen walking toward a bicyclist and tackling him down to the concrete sidewalk. Then officer Pogan attempted to frame the bicyclist for assaulting a police officer. The video was taken by a tourist who just happened to be standing on the sidewalk as the bicyclist rode by.

Officer Pogan's trial finally starts today. He is charged with felonies for framing the bicyclist as well as misdemeanors for assault. Story in the NY Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nypd_cop_to_be_tried_for_pushing_hIfJaj2dfCQMXluuQj29FO


A&S



This is what's wrong with the american legal system. What has he done to be entitled to $1.5 million? Did he lose his job? Was he severely hurt and has huge medical bills? What merits $1.5 million? I think it really should be enough that the officer was fired and faces legal charges.

Everyone believes they are owed a large some of money when stupid things happen. I don't see how he's owed money at all unless he was hurt, can't work, or was fired for the charges that were filed.


P&R

WTF does disrupting traffic for commuters have to do with road cycling?

Is the guy even on a road bike?

The problem with this logic is the we are the ones that end up paying that $1.5 million in the long run.

Don't fret. The kid is not likely to get 1.5 million. Thats just what his lawyer is initially asking for.

Typical cop behavior. If a cyclist attacked a police officer (I'm not advocating this in any way) similarly to the way he was attacked, he would do hard time. This cop lost his job but is going to get off with a slap on the wrist and will probably not do any real time.

Thank God for the video. There was a similar incident in Chicago (not bike related) and the cop was fired but for some strange reason (yea right...) he was let go. His victim was a 95lb woman bartender who refused to serve an already drunk cop any more booze.

If either case was not caught on video, both victims would have been charged and probably convicted and both cops would still be on the payroll "serving and protecting".

For real? Surprised the mods left this. A kid two weeks out of the academy is typical of all the cops in NYC or nationwide? Do another bong hit. Can I say ass? Hey look I can.

Sending to A&S

Don't fret. The kid is not likely to get 1.5 million. Thats just what his lawyer is initially asking for.

Not to mention that the lawyer will probably get 40% of it anyway. The kid, if awarded the full amount, will only end up with 900,000 or so... of which easily several 10s of thousands will go to pay for possible medical expenses and maybe a new bike. In the end, he may "pocket" perhaps 1/2 a million or so, which can be considered "pain and suffering" for the kid and "punitive damages" for the PD.

All in all it seems quite fair to me for the humiliation, the suffering and the time away from work and loved ones that these false charges brought.

Don't fret. The kid is not likely to get 1.5 million. Thats just what his lawyer is initially asking for.

The bicyclist is not a "kid". He is a 31-year-old US Army veteran.

If you read the article (link in the OP), there appears to be some kind of conspiracy to frame him for assaulting a police officer. Is that worth $1.5 million? Probably not, but he does deserve some accounting for what could have happened here.

All in all it seems quite fair to me for the humiliation, the suffering and the time away from work and loved ones that these false charges brought.

Yes. And if anyone doesn't like it then they should be complaining to the officers in charge of their police for doing a crappy job. If Joe Taxpayer doesn't like paying the price he should make sure that he doesn't have his police commit the crime.

For real? Surprised the mods left this. A kid two weeks out of the academy is typical of all the cops in NYC or nationwide? Do another bong hit. Can I say ass? Hey look I can.

Two weeks on the job and he's already roughing up innocent people? To folks in Cop-Land, this kid is called a "fast learner", maybe even a prodegy. Too bad (for him) he was caught on video because might have received an award otherwise for "serving and protecting".

Cheers Officer-friendly!

FB

This is what's wrong with the American legal system. What has he done to be entitled to $1.5 million? Did he lose his job? Was he severely hurt and has huge medical bills? What merits $1.5 million? I think it really should be enough that the officer was fired and faces legal charges.

Everyone believes they are owed a large some of money when stupid things happen. I don't see how he's owed money at all unless he was hurt, can't work, or was fired for the charges that were filed.

It is my understanding that the cyclist who was assaulted no longer lives in either the city or state of NY. And that he has suffered psychological injuries. That doesn't warrant some sort of compensation? Not all injuries are visible to the naked eye. Psychological/emotional injuries run deeper and take longer to heal then do physical injuries.

If your company lost $1.5M for something stupid you did, I bet they would try really hard not to hire someone like you again.

And all the people at that company, and every other company, would continue to do what they want, because the shareholders/owners will pay, not them.

The problem with this logic is the we are the ones that end up paying that $1.5 million in the long run. Like I said, I could understand if he lost his job, or lost his ability to work, or lost his ability to get work, or had major medical expenses but I haven't read anything suggesting any of this. Trust me, I know all about people wanting to make a quick buck. My mom has been a paralegal for personal injury cases for the past 20 years. People most often or not end up suing because they think they deserve to get paid. Until I see something saying he deserves $1.5 million I think the lawsuit itself is frivolous. I agree the Officer should pay some restitution and should be in trouble but I don't think it is $1.5million. Heck, here in Nashville a couple of weeks ago a corrections officer decided to rip a guy's grill out during new prisoner intake and the the settlement was for $95K which I think is reasonable. This kid on the bike had no major medical issues that I've seen and he didn't lose his job or at least neither of these have been reported. Honestly guys, who hasn't wanted to tackle a guy in a critical mass occasionally. Often times, these guys just don't get it and are just being ******bags on bikes (not saying the cop was in the right at all).

Think about it like this, that $1.5 million is the opening bid, he knows that the city of NY is going to make a counter offer, which will probably be considerably lower then the $1.5 million that he is asking for. His lawyer will then come back with a counter, counter offer and they'll go back and forth until they come to a figure that all sides can agree to.

If you've been following this incident at all you would know that the cyclist no longer lives in either the city or state of NY, and that he has an understandable fear of law enforcement officers. Again, don't you think that the psychological and emotional injuries he sustained are worth compensation?

The guy should get legal costs and a few thousand bucks. The rest of any award should go towards something like bicycle advocacy. I was going to say creating bike infrastructure, but since the government would be doing that, 1.5 million dollars would probably buy a paint stripe one block long.

The guy should get legal costs and a few thousand bucks. The rest of any award should go towards something like bicycle advocacy. I was going to say creating bike infrastructure, but since the government would be doing that, 1.5 million dollars would probably buy a paint stripe one block long.

Its very easy to say that when its not you thats involved.

This is what's wrong with the american legal system. What has he done to be entitled to $1.5 million? Did he lose his job? Was he severely hurt and has huge medical bills? What merits $1.5 million? I think it really should be enough that the officer was fired and faces legal charges.

Well, if you don't want to pony up $1.5 million, you probably shouldn't tackle any bicyclists. I've been able to do a pretty good job of this myself ... I see lots of cyclists going by, to and fro, and occasionally I'll find myself racing a few of them, but I've never tackled any of them, and I've never been sued for $1.5 million for it. My guess is that you've probably been a success at this, too.

It's sort of like if you break something in a store, or rear end somebody's car. When that happens, you aren't in a position to bargain over the price. You've already bought it at whatever is the asking price. Put another way, the officer already decided he was going to have fun attacking and framing a cyclist, regardless of what it would cost his city. And now it's the cyclist's turn.

Other people have alluded to a pillar of the American legal system, called vicarious liability. The NYPD is at fault here, for giving a psychopath a gun and a badge. He was empowered to act as a representative of the police department, and of the city, and his official actions are legally treated as such. That's how it works, with private and public entities.

Seeing as how the NYPD itself can't be put in prison for criminal behavior, hitting them in the pocket book is the only way for justice to be served, and for a deterrent to be enforced. This is like Ford and the exploding Pinto. It's unfortunate that the taxpayers will ultimately be stuck paying for the stupidity of a particular bad apple. But it's better than full impunity.

And again, I've never had any problems with not assaulting people, so I'm not feeling much pity here that the NYPD was caught on film with their pants down.

EDIT: Apparently the officer was not fired, if the Post is to be believed:


Pogan resigned from the NYPD soon after he was indicted. The top charge against him is for allegedly filing a false criminal complaint -- a felony carrying anywhere from probation to four years. He is also charged with a misdemeanor assault against Long.

Its very easy to say that when its not you thats involved.

I've got no problem with restitution, but that's not restitution, that's punitive. I've got no problem with that either, but the victim should get restitution, not punitive damages. Punative damages should go to someplace to make it less likely that something like this will not happen again.

Punative damages should go to someplace to make it less likely that something like this will not happen again.

Got a bit of a double negative there....

He will get maybe $100,000-($50,000 in his pocket-rest to lawyer/expenses). The jury gives awards(if they don't cut a deal) and I suppose they must realize that the $$ is coming out of their pocket.

Besides, is the city responsible from criminal actions of its employees?? Could they have predicted this guy would do that?? Now in NOLA they certainly could predict it because ALMOST ALL OUR COPS would do that or much worse.

He'll get a few bucks, but not $1,500,000. Juries can be pretty cheap when it is their money-and it is their money.They give big awards when playing with some CORPS money, but not with their own.
Charlie

the guy should get legal costs and a few thousand bucks. The rest of any award should go towards something like bicycle advocacy. I was going to say creating bike infrastructure, but since the government would be doing that, 1.5 million dollars would probably buy a paint stripe one block long.


i've got no problem with restitution, but that's not restitution, that's punitive. I've got no problem with that either, but the victim should get restitution, not punitive damages. Punative damages should go to someplace to make it less likely that something like this will not happen again.

qft.

The bike rider should be made whole. The police officer should be punished. Other police officers should see that behaving in such a way is costly. It's called a deterant.

Newspapers are reporting that the bicyclist settled the civil suit for $65,000. Obviously, the $1.5 million number was not serious.

You gotta read this to believe it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/nyregion/24pogan.html


I know the defense attorney has to go with something (we all have the right to be represented by counsel), but you gotta think that lawyer is giving himself a mental facepalm as he hears this.

You gotta read this to believe it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/nyregion/24pogan.html


I know the defense attorney has to go with something (we all have the right to be represented by counsel), but you gotta think that lawyer is giving himself a mental facepalm as he hears this.

I haven't finished reading the article yet, but please tell me that "Mr. Pogan" really didn't testify to this:

<quote>
Mr. Pogan explained that he had been standing on Seventh Avenue, just south of 47th Street, when he turned his head and focused on Mr. Long because he appeared to be pedaling through a red light, riding in the middle of the street without a helmet, screaming, stretching his arms above his head and flashing, in Mr. Pogan’s view, both his middle fingers.
</quote>

I presume that as a former member of the NYPD and a police academy grad that he knows that perjury is a crime. I did not see any evidence in the video of Mr. Long doing any of what Mr. Pogan claimed except for not wearing a helmet. And given that he wasn't wearing a helmet it's was Mr. Pogan's "expert" opinion to body slam him to the pavement???

What the bloody hell was Mr. Pogan smoking that night? I can't see anything (other then the no helmet) that he is talking about. If Mr. Long ran a red light so did several others, why didn't Mr. Pogan body slam them as well? Why did he target Mr. Long? Why were Mr. Pogan and his partner standing in the middle of the street? Why hadn't the more senior officer stop Mr. Pogan?

Interesting isn't the word for this case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-0Gi6DQDI&feature=player_embedded#! - "Caution Language"

From this clip you can see he did in fact have a helmet (AFAICT), just not on... Then again you can also see him running after getting hit.

The helmet was never on his head, in that clip. Even at the beginning, it was hanging on his back. Not that that justified anything the two badged thugs did to him.

Does NYC even have a mandatory helmet law? All I've been able to find reference to is a law requiring bike messengers and the like to wear helmets while on the job.

Sorry Greyryder, I edited my post after I watched it closer, to state that he had one just not on. You are right.

every street should have a surveillance camera of some sort to at least "discourage" such behavior from anybody and more so from those who we are paying for to supposedly "serve and protect"! I could just imagine the feeling of the cyclist if this video had not showed up! Thanks for technology!

Besides, is the city responsible from criminal actions of its employees??

In short, if those criminal actions occured in the course of the employee performing his/her duties, yes.

In short, if those criminal actions occured in the course of the employee performing his/her duties, yes.

Yes, but governments enjoy a great degree of sovereign immunity. Which makes these suits, even if they are civil, very hard to prove.

...anyway watching closely...

Video saved the cyclist, who looked innocent enough.

The Former Officers Lawyer: "Sometimes, good police work can look ugly,"

Or the way the lawyer would prefer to spin it, 'ugly police work made to look good'.

Or the way the lawyer would prefer to spin it, 'ugly police work made to look good'.

Don't be too hard on him. After all, the constitution guarantees everybody the right to be represented by counsel. I do have images of this guy going home and having to numb himself to the cognitive dissonance he's creating through the drug of his choice.

The bicyclist is not a "kid". He is a 31-year-old US Army veteran.

If you read the article (link in the OP), there appears to be some kind of conspiracy to frame him for assaulting a police officer. Is that worth $1.5 million? Probably not, but he does deserve some accounting for what could have happened here.

That's it right there. It's not the injuries that the cyclist suffered -- either physical or to his ego -- it's the fact that he could have received a substantial amount of jail time for a felony assault on a PO. Had there not been a video, I'll guarantee you that the cyclist would have been convicted. Apart from the jail time, a felony conviction will follow you around for the rest of your life. Finding employment, with the exception of minimum wage jobs, becomes next to impossible. Convicted felons are also stripped of their civil liberties and are not allowed to vote. This badge-thug could have very easily ruined the cyclist life, but for a tourist with a video camera. If I were in this cyclist's shoes, I'd demand more than $1.5 million.

BTW, the POS pig-thug is a third generation pig-thug. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Well, Pogan's fate is now in the hands of the jury. Unless I missed something, none of the newspaper editorials related to this trial have commented on the fact that Pogan himself was the only defense witness. If I were on the jury, the absence of defense testimony from the cop who was standing right next to Pogan during the incident would make me believe that Pogan was a liar.

I hope he is convicted, but I am torn as to whether he should get any significant jail time. I have a hard time believing that other cops superior to Pogan were not complicit in this assault and cover up. Why is Pogan the only one on trial?

every street should have a surveillance camera of some sort to at least "discourage" such behavior from anybody and more so from those who we are paying for to supposedly "serve and protect"! I could just imagine the feeling of the cyclist if this video had not showed up! Thanks for technology!

All hail George Orwell!

Well, Pogan's fate is now in the hands of the jury. Unless I missed something, none of the newspaper editorials related to this trial have commented on the fact that Pogan himself was the only defense witness. If I were on the jury, the absence of defense testimony from the cop who was standing right next to Pogan during the incident would make me believe that Pogan was a liar.

I hope he is convicted, but I am torn as to whether he should get any significant jail time. I have a hard time believing that other cops superior to Pogan were not complicit in this assault and cover up. Why is Pogan the only one on trial?

Sorry, but wrong. The silence of witnesses or even the defendant himself cannot be used against him. Only what he said and what the witnesses said can be used. I think it's a slam dunk, but you never can tell when it goes to the jury (a reason lawyers on both sides hate jury trials).

Sorry, but wrong. The silence of witnesses or even the defendant himself cannot be used against him. Only what he said and what the witnesses said can be used. I think it's a slam dunk, but you never can tell when it goes to the jury (a reason lawyers on both sides hate jury trials).

Huh? Are you saying I am wrong about how I would personally feel if I were a juror?

I agree that the fact that a defendant, or any other potential witness, doesn't testify can't be used as evidence against him. However, jurors are allowed to evaluate whether a witness is being truthful. If there are no corroborating witnesses to Pogan's testimony, jurors will use that to discount that testimony. Just a witness' demeanor may make jurors disbelieve him. If any attorneys are on this thread, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Huh? Are you saying I am wrong about how I would personally feel if I were a juror?

I agree that the fact that a defendant, or any other potential witness, doesn't testify can't be used as evidence against him. However, jurors are allowed to evaluate whether a witness is being truthful. If there are no corroborating witnesses to Pogan's testimony, jurors will use that to discount that testimony. Just a witness' demeanor may make jurors disbelieve him. If any attorneys are on this thread, please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, I'm saying if you ruled based on the absence of evidence rather than on the evidence itself you would be wrong. You may very well feel that way, but you have to deal with what you have rather than what you don't. It's why defendants can't be convicted based on the fact that they didn't present a defense. You can convict based upon the strength of the prosecutors case, however. So if there are five credible witnesses for the state and only the defendant, you can convict because they have five, but not because the defendant has none. Follow?

Huh? Are you saying I am wrong about how I would personally feel if I were a juror?


I agree that the fact that a defendant, or any other potential witness, doesn't testify can't be used as evidence against him.

Correct.


However, jurors are allowed to evaluate whether a witness is being truthful.

Indeed, that is one of your main functions as a juror and jury during deliberations.


If there are no corroborating witnesses to Pogan's testimony, jurors will use that to discount that testimony.

Not in a criminal trial against a defendant. You will be given very specific instructions about this. Use of the fact that a corroborating witness exists and would offer testimony in favor of a certain position, is limited. In a criminal trial, in some limited circumstances it can be used against the government; in a civil trial you can find it used, but not in the circumstance you mention. You, as a juror cannot speculate on whether there were even corroborating witnesses to begin with, or the reason for their failure to testify, or for that matter, anything not directly in evidence before you. The fact that there were other officers "present at the scene," does not indicate that they would have anything to offer, and quite simply, the defense would be better able to use this absence of testimony that they had nothing good to offer the prosecution AGAINST the defendant. As was mentioned above, the defendant does not have to offer a defense at all...he is always presumed innocent. The Government has to overcome that presumption, and beyond a reasonable doubt, with both the production of evidence, and with the persuasion of the evidence so produced. I know it was not the posters intent, but it is not a simple 5 to 1. It is that the 5 have to be more persuasive than the 1, or indeed, have to be more persuasive than the fact that the defendant is presumed innocent.


Just a witness' demeanor may make jurors disbelieve him.

Again that is one of your primary functions as a juror.