BONUS POINT: the attacker is a cop
BONUS POINT: the attacker is a cop
Thats pretty heavy stuff.
Oh man. What an @$$. Glad they caught him at any rate. The cyclist seems to be a pretty decent guy, I guess. I'd be, well, let's just say I'd be a bit less of a pacifist.
Rast ich so rost ich. (When I rest, I rust)
Training: '90 Bridgestone RB-1, '11 BMC SR02, '09 Kestrel Evoke, MTB: '89 SuperGo Access Comp (rigid), '07 Access (rigid), Touring: '10 Windsor, SS: 1942 BFG Victory coaster brake, 70s Zebrakenko, Muscle bike: '75 Huffy Stars&Stripes, Rats:, '41 Schwinn DX, '36 Westfield Seminole, '46 Monark Super Deluxe
what a shame. on another (non cycling forum) i frequent people were chearing the guy for hitting the cyclist. what is wrong with people? that cop should not only loose his job but have to spend time in jail or teaching cycling awareness classes.
For those who didn't take the time to watcht the unedited video, which is very different from what they showed on the news, you should. Seems to me a lot of people assume the cyclist was just minding his own business and got hit bya crazy driver. Looks to me like the cyclist was an idiot (who I "assume" was riding in the middle of traffic) and the driver was an A-hole. Note, the driver didn't punch hte cyclist until he picked up his bike to use as a weapon. I'm interested to hear the drivers side of the story.
FTR, Idon't think either is fully innocent and I think they are both idiots.
He kicked the guy's bike before he tried to pick it up... and Im not really sure he was going to try to use it as a weapon. I also think the cyclist wasnt doing anything wrong. Its a busy city, with probably hundreds of cikes on the road. Looks to me like a classic case of a-hole driver. I dont think the driver resorting to physical abuse was necessary at all. Completely ridiculous.
2008 Cannondale System Six
2003 Klein Palomino MTB
60% of the time, it works everytime.
The cop hit the rear wheel of the bike, at which point the cyclist lifted it to get it out of the way. Even if he wanted to use it against the cop, he was only self defending himself. Fianlly the cop pucnhed the guy in the face, knocking one of his teeth out. He is charged with assault causing harm. It seems to be there was only one idiot.Originally Posted by Jack Hammer
It looked to me like the cop was pleading with the man for some time...probably to move but who knows. He looked frustrated and confused...even pleading his case to someone in his car or passerby's, I couldn't tell. Finally, his frustration got the best of him and he kicked the bike and then starting throwing punches.
Why didn't the cyclist just move on before it came to that? He had plenty of time to ride off. He just stayed there and said what??? Probably running his mouth at the cop, just as I'm sure the cop was running his mouth. Either side could have walked away before it came to blows.
I'm not saying assault is right or justified...just that the cyclist was an idiot for standing there and continuing the argument when he could have just moved on.
I'm also saying that the cop is obviously an a**hole, but just because the other guy was on a bicycle, does not mean he's not an a**hole.
Are you saying that if you somoene starts yelling at you and ordering you around you wouldn't argue? The cyclist was probably asking what was wrong with that guy.Originally Posted by Butterthebean
The thing is, we don't have the full story, just the hype (true, false, biased,???). The witnesses said the driver was initially upset because the cyclst stopped prior to a yellow light and he missed the light because of it. 1. This means the cyclist was riding in the middle of the lane and blocking traffic, otherwise the car would have easily gone around him. 2. The driver is clearly motioning to the side of the road where cyclists generally should ride. 3. Neither is leaving, the cyclist is still in front of the car in the middle of the lane, the driver is stopped in the road out of his car frustrated. 4. The driver kicked in a sweeping "move it' motion the cyclists tire. 5. The cyclist picked up his bike and wound up in a motion to definatley hit the driver. 6. The driver hit the cyclist out of anger and to avoid being hit by the bike.
1. Wrong, the cyclist shouldn't be riding in the middle of hte road blocking traffic.
2. Wrong, the driver should have never gotten out of his car, even if the guy said something ot him
3. Wrong, the cyclist should have long ridden off. If the guys mad enough to get out of the car, ride off, get his license plate and report it.
4. Wrong, being a cop he should know better and get back in his car. (which he probably shouldn't have been out of in the first place). The body language of hte driver says to me when he kicked, "move your ******** bike" (doubly wrong)
5. Wrong, the cyclist chose to stay and fight instead of leaving. He picked up his bike and tried to hit the guy with it (really bad idea).
6. Wrong, the guy had no choice but to punch the guy, which he was probably itching to do anyway at this point, or get hit with a bicycle.
I'm not on the drivers side. But this whole thing is about escalation. Both parties clearly kept making it worse. There were probably words exchanged on both sides before the driver ever got out of his car. The cyclist lost a tooth to prove he "wasn't wrong."
If it were me, I would have moved over or rode off before it got that far. And I would have taken the guys plate down and called the cops on him. The lesson here for people who want to engage in shouting matches and stand toe-to-toe with A-hole drivers on matters of principle is, right or wrong be prepared to get a tooth knocked out.
Makes you wonder why the cop has been on "personal leave" since 2004.
To quote you, WRONG!Originally Posted by Jack Hammer
"no choice but to punch the guy"??? You ALWAYS have a choice. And as a cop, he should know better; he's expected to be above all that.
The cyclist may have done some stuff wrong, but the COP was in the wrong and takes the full blame for this one. He should never have gotten out of his car in the first place. Doing so set these events in motion.
Lols pwnt. That guy got owned.
You assumed this. Even if it were true cyclists have a right to take the lane when needed. Cyclists don't block traffic, they ARE traffic.1. Wrong, the cyclist shouldn't be riding in the middle of hte road blocking traffic.
Last edited by operator; 05-10-07 at 07:12 PM.
Mes compaingnons cui j'amoie et cui j'aim,... Me di, chanson.
You should really cross reference this to the RBR thread you got it from...
I'm glad this cagetard didn't have a gun.
Funny that there are people here ignorant enough to defend the accused. He punched the guy numerous times. That is assault. It don't matter what happened before, during or after. He is charged with assault. There is NO way that is self defense.
Absolutely! Even if the cyclist was picking up his bike to swing it at the driver (and in my opinion it doesn't look like that was his intent) it stops being self defense as soon as the cyclist tries to turn away.Originally Posted by Portis
With a good lawyer, I could see the potential for the cop getting off for the first hit, but for the ones after that he was just wrong no matter how it is sliced.
WHat could his defense be? "Your honor, he kept assaulting my fist with his face."
Ummm, yellow lights are also not supposed to be driven through.
Ouch. Anybody wanna take this one?Originally Posted by Jack Hammer
The driver punching him wasn't self-defense, it was the result of the his own actions which he took and continued to take, leading up to a situation where he looks to have forced his hand by not getting back into his car. It's all escalation, how something stupid gets blown way out of proportion and leads to bigger problems because no one is willing to back down.
If you watch the video, pay attention to the bike, not the cyclist or driver from the kick to the punch. You'll see when he kicks the bike it is more of a soft sweeping motion to push it sideways (it is not a attack on the guy, though the cyclist (both) were probably in the heat of the moment). The cyclists grabs it to keep it from falling over sets it fully down on the ground then picks it up and winds up trying to swing it into the guys head. (I'm not defending the jerk(driver), I'm just pointing out what happened) Watch the cyclists head, it's turned toward the jerk (driver), he's definately decided to get into a physical fight with the guy. It wasn't a suckerpunch. The driver will rightly have a lot of trouble to answer to and face for his actions. I'd still like to hear his version of what happened. I think it's sad to hear how people think the cyclist deserved getting punched and applaud the actions of the driver without knowing all the facts of the situation. I think it's equally sad that people with the same lack of information applaud the cyclist.
For those who think it is smart to argue with crazed people in the middle of the street I hope if you ever have children you give them better advice.
I'm 100% for cyclists having a right to be on the road and to use the road in a safe and law abiding manner. The road isn't just for cars, nor is it just for cyclists. Cars aren't the only ones expected to obey the rules of the road. So far just about everyone, myself included, is making a lot of assumptions based on limited information about what actually happened from beginning to end.Originally Posted by shakeNbake
It would probably sound a lot like yours. Fortunately the video proves otherwise.Originally Posted by Jack Hammer
I see two enraged screwups here. Car drivers get pissed when bikes block the lane,and don't hug the right when they can.Is that "right"-no, but that is the way it is.If you can hug right with no increase in risk, hug right.Bike riding on roadways is a lot more risky than driving,so there is always increased risk!!
The cyclist should have left right away.Why stop and argue with a pissed off driver-especially since the bike rider obviously wasn't equiped to fight and win. I don't see any point in getting in a situation where you are goig to get your A kicked.-Leave!!If you are a skilled fighter of some sort-wrestling,martial arts-stay, but you had better hope your antagonist isn't armed(knife,gun,tire iron)-JUST LEAVE!!
The cop car driver is more wrong-probably-but if the bike rider was going to hit him with the bike(and he will convincingly argue that)-he isn't going to be convicted despite the fact that he hasn't been "on duty" in 3 years(why, beating the crap out of people-if so he is in trouble).
Just leave,and don't go out of your way to antagonise folks with 4000lb chunks of steel!!"DEAD RIGHT!!
This CV bs is all about being "Dead Right."."I have the right to....." yes, but he has a 5000 lb SUV going 30 mph!! I have the right to the whole lane!!
He must have wanted to be a martyr to the CV or CM cause-got his wish!!
Get a brain transplant!!Both of them.