Because this thread was resurrected with notice of Federal lawsuit and no news of its resolution, perhaps this thread should remain open until and unless some kind of finding is posted.

So the criminal court resolution and an open ended lawsuit stemming directly from the original incident isn't appropriate to a thread based on the original incident? Sorry man but there were a few of us who wanted to see how this whole thing ended and it is still a very important topic: the ethics of how police interact with a bicycle rider is very relevant to us all.. especially one that did nothing wrong.

I think it's fine. I changed the thread title because it's clear that tasering cyclists is not officially sanctioned and not without its costs to the LEO involved. Certainly not enough.

I'm with Rollfast here. IMO this was never a bicycle related issue, it was a straight issue about police use of force. It's only here because the victim happened to be on a bicycle. He wasn't tasered because he was on a bicycle, so the fact that he was is unrelated to the issue. Had the victim been running away, or trying to drive away this thread would never have been started.

I'm not saying that there's not serious reasons that we should debate police use of force issues, but they're not a bicycle related issue.

IF it was a legit issue for discussion here in the first place then sure, a follow up...follows. If people got bent out of shape, got their feelings hurt and quit BF, posted inflammatory over-the-top invective and so got banned or whatever, that's on them. Looking at the last few pages, there's only one person who is now banned, and it's not likely that was from this thread as it happens to him regularly.

BUT...FB is right. The bicycle the poor guy was riding was incidental. A busybody reporting a 'threat' that wasn't, an overeager rookie cop responding, a 'questionable' person not reacting to his command, the fact that the victim was an elderly, almost certainly poor black man (with hearing loss and possibly an odd affect) 'refusing' an order...those are IMO the more likely reasons for the use of a taser and the resulting injury and death.

BTW I got called an 'idiot' for 'playing the race card' upthread. No reason to get in a shouting match with that guy, if he's that willfully blind, that's his business.

So you believe that there's a real possibility that this man presented a real and present danger to the police officer, or that he was clearly a danger to the community and the police officer felt that using a weapon was the only way to be sure he didn't escape? And therefore using a taser was the correct action?

As you may have noticed, any post that states or implies that bicyclist(s) is/are victim(s) of some sort of evil activity from either motorists or uniformed law personnel (or worse-both ) is considered an A&S issue.

Yes, I noticed. So I guess that when daddy took the T-bird away, that would have been fodder for a sports car forum.

So if a cyclist gets hit by a car, it would be ridiculous to post it here since it's just a "car hitting something/someone" issue, not specifically a bicycle/bicyclist issue? Like they could just as well have been a pedestrian?

This thread is worth it: if you're gonna get tazed, get off your bike first...

You have to separate the main issues from the collateral ones. Riding in traffic and getting hit by a car is a bicycle safety issue. The type of car isn't. By the same token a police use of force issue isn't a bicycle one if the fact that the victim was riding isn't related to why he was tazed.

Some time back we had a thread relating to a police attempt to stop a group of cyclists "obstructing traffic". I believe it happened in your neck of the woods. In any case this was a bicycle issue, since the underlying cause was how/where the cyclists were riding. If the identical thing had happened while he was attempting to apprehend a bank robber fleeing by bicycle it wouldn't be a bicycle issue.

I get where you're coming from.

Mainly, I'm just interested to hear if anything happens regarding the suit filed in Federal court. And yes, less about the cycling issue than the victims/heirs rights issues involved here.

BeeTeeDubs: That was Rye NH, Chief of Police trying to stop the Wed eve local "Hammerfest." Flip-side is that the Seacoast Century received approval to ride through Rye as it has in the past, despite those yahoos and the deaths on the annual ride in Hampton last year. Glad the town could tell the difference between those causing issues and other cyclists, cycling groups.

I agree this isn't really an A&S issue, its about a dumb rookie cop who failed to handle a situation with an elderly person appropriately, that he was on a bicycle was incidental to, rather than the cause.

This thread covers how LEO's interact with "suspects" "persons of interest" or otherwise while riding bicycles, if you do not feel that it becomes a SAFETY or ADVOCACY issue that's your opinion. Personally however I already don't like a particular element which exists within the LEO community, the same element that exists in every part of our global community too.. yes I want to know when I'm out on my bicycle whether or not an LEO can/will taze me over any sort of suspicion, yes I do consider it advocacy to push for non harmful ways to stop riders if they're suspected of something rather than being tazered and allowed to fall to the ground at whatever your personal cruising speed is. If you feel this thread has no place being discussed here there's a very simple solution, stop clicking on the thread and don't post in it. Others of us feel this is a relevant discussion and it has already passed the muster of a moderator review

With people responding to posts that are years old this thread is becoming a bit confused. If y'all want to continue the discussion start a fresh one. At least then everyone will be on the same calendar year. Closing this thread.