mconlonx

See, this is the thing that worries me. This goes to trial by jury and there's plenty reasonable doubt that can be introduced by spinning it this way. I mean, heck, cops get off when people die in situtions that seem pretty cut and dry against the cops, there's no way Pogan will get convicted on criminal charges. And if the cops can use the video this way, I suppose there's a chance that the charges might actually stick against the rider... Hopefully, there will be employment repercussions for the cop, but if the union is backing him, I won't be holding my breath there, either. So what's left? Some kind of civil case? There's gotta be a swarm of lawyers salivating over a chance to sue/settle with the City, right?

randya

the police union ALWAYS backs their members in situations like this

frymaster

oh spare me. we both know that if this was the early 1960's you'd be saying that freedom rides and lunch counter sit-ins were just hurting the cause of civil rights by making all it's proponents look like "scofflaws" and that such actions only opened up the average black person to retaliation by the klan. there were a lot of people who made that argument back then, and you would almost assuredly have been one of them.

Blue Order

My first protest was a freedom march in the early 60s...And I still think CM has it all wrong. And if you're going to compare CM with civil disobedience, you're also going to have to acknowledge that there is in fact nothing Gandhian about CM.

Blue Order

Oh, and since this is a thread about the assault in NYC, and I haven't yet commented on that, I guess I should make it clear that I think that the cop in question assaulted a cyclist and then lied about it in his report. That combination should result in appropriate disciplinary measures. However, I also agree with an earlier poster-- if the rookie was just following orders, he shouldn't be singled out for punishment, because the problem runs much deeper, and disciplining him as a "rogue rookie" while leaving the deeper rot intact would be tantamount to a cover-up.

zeytoun

+100

If he were a rogue rookie, you'd think that his fellow officers would be a little more offended by his behavior..

Carbon Unit

The cop claims that the cyclist tried to run him over. However, the cyclist was giving the cop lots of run and the cop was walking towards the cyclist.

This cop should be charged with assault and removed from the police force. The cyclist will be able to afford any bike he wants.

randya

oh, I don't know about that, fighting against the continued hegemony of the personal motor vehicle in our transportation system, despite 43,000 unnecessary motor vehicle-related deaths a year and all the damage motor vehicles do to the environment should more than qualify...

Blue Order

The mere act of "fighting hegemony" does not make the fight "Gandhian."

randya

Ok, smart guy, tell us what would make it 'Ghandian'?

saxonrider

For those who are too blinded by their emotionalized need for rebellion...a few facts...

1)The Civil movements which brought rights to minorities and women were movements against unfair treatment, laws, and prejudice for our fellow human beings. There were actual philosophical juggernauts at war here.

2)Bike riders ALREADY have all the same rights as motorized drivers. CM is like Rosa Parks fighting for bus privelages that she would of already had, had they had the rights and privilages we all deserve in a nation that promotes freedom, liberty, justice, etc.

3)Therefore, CM isn't anything like TRUE civil disobedience and also has absolutely no reason to exist. We ALREADY have the same rights...there is nothing we need to fight for.

We can fight for better bike riding education because afterall ignorance can be fought but hatred and stupidity cannot. If CMers want people to stop hating bikers, good luck. Not to mention that CM only helps hasten the hate as opposed to quell it.

frymaster

1. my comment was, in fact, directed at dobber.
2. not all civil disobedience is "gandhian" and the history of early-mid 20th century struggles in india and south africa does not and should not set the standards for activism in different times, places and cultures against different opponents on different issues. right? naturally.
3. thanks for marching. i dread to imagine how much worse our society today would be had people not made that effort and taken those risks.

randya

Cyclists only have the same rights as motorists on paper, in the street the situation is often entirely different, including countless cases documented right here in A&S which demonstrate that not only doesn't the average motorist understand and acknowledge cyclists rights, but that even many LEOs either don't correctly know or won't adequately enforce cyclists' rights.

And actually, a more appropriate civil rights analogy would be the intimidation and disenfranchisement of black voters AFTER they received the right to vote.

frymaster

+1

cyclists are seperate but equal.

Blue Order

I know, but it seemed to be going in the direction that is one is against CM now, one would also have been against freedom marches then.

When one starts comparing CM to freedom marches, Gandhian CD becomes an essential part of the discussion, because Dr. King was explicitly following a Gandhian model. One can't compare one's actions to Dr. King's actions, and simultaneously disavow Gandhian principles.

I was just a kid, marching with my parents in San Francisco in support of the freedom marchers in the south. But I knew why I was there.

I, too, appreciate that our society is a better society because of the risks the freedom marchers in the south took in standing up for justice.

apricissimus 

Reasonable doubt? No... Any reasonable person can see that the police story is BS. But Rodney King was videotaped, and those cops got off, so who knows what the hell a jury will do. There's a marked shortage of reasonable people in the world, unfortunately.

Blue Order

Gandhian Civil Disobedience is first and foremost non-violent...That doesn't just mean "no fisticuffs," it also means not deliberately taunting and goading bystanders into acting out violently. Gandhian CD means calling attention to injustice by forcing the state to arrest and prosecute non-violent dissenters; it is particularly effective when the state over-reacts with violence against non-violent dissenters. Indeed, the foundation of Gandhian CD is that it is undertaken with the expectation that those who are dissenting will be arrested, in order that the unjust law will have the light of day shined upon it, and the people will be confronted with the reality that their government is oppressive in a way that is in direct contradiction to is stated ideals. That is the reason Gandhi was successful in India-- because he exposed the reality of British power juxtaposed in contradiction to stated ideals of British civilization. Dr. King adopted the same strategy here in the U.S. Gandhi was quite clear that non-violent CD worked precisely because it exposed the contradictions between the ideals of British civilization and the realities of British power; he did not believe that non-violent CD would work against the nazis.

frymaster

the individual in question has, in the past, made some stunningly authoritarian statements. again, the post was a direct response to an individual post by and individual, uh... individual. not a general statement.


sure you can, at least in part. comparison is about assessing both the similarities and differences, not about assessing rigid identicalness. nvda is a very, very broad and deep topic and all the groups that practice it from the quaker justice folks to food not bombs draw upon the ideas of gandhi and thoreau and all the practitioners and philosophers that came before and adjust those ideas to meet their tactical, philisophical, cultural and temporal situations. besides, where is the explicit disavowal of the principals of nonviolence here? we are talking about critical mass, not the red army faction right?

randya

the way I see it Ghandi had almost an entire nation united behind him against a foreign usurper, whereas CM is a minority movement fighting a different kind of enemy Ghandi was, in a completely different social and cultural context.

dmac49

Another one coming from the dark side of the moon. What ever you're smoking it can't be legal.

Blue Order

Dr. King didn't have an entire nation united behind him..,.at least, not at first. But whether he did or not, one can't compare one's movement to Dr. King's movement if one is also disavowing Dr. King's methods.

randya

who said anything about following or not following Dr. Kings methods? The time, place and circumstances are different in each case, no one on CM is setting out to follow some sort of textbook example of CD just to please you.

frymaster

yes. but nonviolence and "no fisticuffs" does not have to mean non-confrontational. in fact, the act of any sort of disobedience is, inherently, confrontational.

arrests or state backlash are not necessary and, in fact, oftentimes nvda does not need to be directed at the state. witness the greenpeace tactic of zodiacing between whales and the whalers harpoons. there are no arrests, no possibility of arrest (at least not in the immediate term) and the person being disobeyed is not the state. yet, it is one of the "classic" examples of effective nvda.


and there are many situations where this is not the situation... hence the necessity for a broad range of nvda philosophies and practices.


certainly. yet, ironically, it was the murder of horst wessel that really galvanized the nazi party in 1930.

Blue Order

I agree, comparison involves more than just rigid identicalness. But I also think it's quite fair to point out, when somebody compares their movement to Dr. King's, whether the comparison is accurate or not.

Bklyn

Whose movement? I don't think the comparisons were made by anyone in Critical Mass.
Anyway, I like the back and forth here. I think it's accurate to portray CM as a descendant of the Civil Rights movement, but certainly no one thinks that the stakes are as high or the cause as worthy.

Critical Mass probably resembles most closely the gay-rights movement that developed in the wake of Aids. Also not as life-or-death, but in terms of shaking the status quo, very similar. People at first didn't even know what the hell the gay movement was agitating for. They soon found out. Before ACT UP, the gay stereotype was — what, Charles Nelson Reilly being coy on Hollywood Squares? Limp-wristed friends of high-maintenance actresses? ACT UP forever changed that image. "Queers" replaced "fairies," and they were confrontational and angry as hell. And it irritated the gay establishment to no end, I believe.

Critical Mass is probably a lot less confrontational, but it has forever altered the image of the hapless, lonely biker. I think CM often crosses a line — not by "inconveniencing" motorists who imagine the world is theirs (the hell with them!) but by allowing confrontations to escalate so quickly. Mob violence is always cowardly. Is CM due for a change? I think so. But I certainly don't mind the idea that cyclists are to be feared a little. I like that.