Live blog: Boss defends NYPD officer who knocked cyclist off then told him it was “for your safety”; Yellow jersey confusion for Giulio Ciccone + more

Xenophon2 wrote:

The usual polarization here regarding the cop stop thing, I'm getting a bit tired of reading endless variations on the  'if he was riding a bike then whatever happened, he's the victim' theme.  IF everything  happened as related by the police officer then  you can put me with the 'all things considered the officer acted proportionately' crowd.   Cyclist repeatedly ignored orders to stop, ran a red light, endagering himself and others.  There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply.  I'm waiting for all the armchair specialists who weren't there to explain how he should have handled it.

How about......he just overtook him......got a bit ahead and then got out.......and shot him?

Xenophon2 wrote:

The usual polarization here regarding the cop stop thing, I'm getting a bit tired of reading endless variations on the  'if he was riding a bike then whatever happened, he's the victim' theme.  IF everything  happened as related by the police officer then  you can put me with the 'all things considered the officer acted proportionately' crowd.   Cyclist repeatedly ignored orders to stop, ran a red light, endagering himself and others.  There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply.  I'm waiting for all the armchair specialists who weren't there to explain how he should have handled it.

"There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply."

why? He's not committing a major crime, why is it worth putting his life in danger to make him comply? It's like transporting children to Australia for stealing a bread roll.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Xenophon2 wrote:

The usual polarization here regarding the cop stop thing, I'm getting a bit tired of reading endless variations on the  'if he was riding a bike then whatever happened, he's the victim' theme.  IF everything  happened as related by the police officer then  you can put me with the 'all things considered the officer acted proportionately' crowd.   Cyclist repeatedly ignored orders to stop, ran a red light, endagering himself and others.  There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply.  I'm waiting for all the armchair specialists who weren't there to explain how he should have handled it.

"There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply."

why? He's not committing a major crime, why is it worth putting his life in danger to make him comply? It's like transporting children to Australia for stealing a bread roll.

 

I think Rees-Mogg is lobbying for the reintroduction of that law...

ConcordeCX wrote:

 

"There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply."

why? He's not committing a major crime, why is it worth putting his life in danger to make him comply? It's like transporting children to Australia for stealing a bread roll.

 

Firstly, you weren't there so can't make a definite statement about 'putting his life in danger'.  Second, I guess you'd feel better if your better half or kid got run over and seriously hurt by an idiot on a bike than if the same were to happen by a car driver who ran a red light?  Anecdotal but 30 miles from where I live a 68 year old woman on her bike was killed last week after being hit by a bike courier who ran a traffic light.  I commute daily by bicycle, don't even own a car.  But damn, the way some of the cyclists whom I see every day behave themselves in traffic I can understand that we get a bad rep.  That's not to say that car drivers are saints but when talking about traffic light infractions in the city, I witness more of them committed by cyclists than by cars.  Third, pray tell:  how was the cop supposed to have stopped him else than by cutting him off after he repeatedly refused to comply (supposing that the circumstances as related are correct).

Xenophon2 wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

 

"There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply."

why? He's not committing a major crime, why is it worth putting his life in danger to make him comply? It's like transporting children to Australia for stealing a bread roll.

 

 

Firstly, you weren't there so can't make a definite statement about 'putting his life in danger'.  Second, I guess you'd feel better if your better half or kid got run over and seriously hurt by an idiot on a bike than if the same were to happen by a car driver who ran a red light?  Anecdotal but 30 miles from where I live a 68 year old woman on her bike was killed last week after being hit by a bike courier who ran a traffic light.  I commute daily by bicycle, don't even own a car.  But damn, the way some of the cyclists whom I see every day behave themselves in traffic I can understand that we get a bad rep.  That's not to say that car drivers are saints but when talking about traffic light infractions in the city, I witness more of them committed by cyclists than by cars.  Third, pray tell:  how was the cop supposed to have stopped him else than by cutting him off after he repeatedly refused to comply (supposing that the circumstances as related are correct).

Firstly: you weren't there either.

And secondly, this was a bloke on a hire bike not a courier or racer.

I really don't imagine he was speeding along, just slow and steady (and not stopping at a red): those things aren't renowned for their manoeuvrability or speed, y'know.

How often does the NYPD ram cars which have jumped red lights?

Xenophon2 wrote:

The usual polarization here regarding the cop stop thing, I'm getting a bit tired of reading endless variations on the  'if he was riding a bike then whatever happened, he's the victim' theme.  IF everything  happened as related by the police officer then  you can put me with the 'all things considered the officer acted proportionately' crowd.   Cyclist repeatedly ignored orders to stop, ran a red light, endagering himself and others.  There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply.  I'm waiting for all the armchair specialists who weren't there to explain how he should have handled it.

For me it's not so much about the cyclist thing, as just being cynical about the tendency of US cops  to leap straight to maximum violence, whether it's commenserate with the offense or not.  

Maybe in this case he could have just let the guy go?  He wasn't escaping from a bank job or shooting as far as I can tell.  (Also, if it's a hire bike, are there not records on who hires them and when, thus allowing them to summons him later if it's really necessary?).

US cops:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/30/us/dallas-police-officer-botham-jean/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

...and many, many others

British cop:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11167891/Sergeant-who-sing...

Xenophon2 wrote:

The usual polarization here regarding the cop stop thing, I'm getting a bit tired of reading endless variations on the  'if he was riding a bike then whatever happened, he's the victim' theme.  IF everything  happened as related by the police officer then  you can put me with the 'all things considered the officer acted proportionately' crowd.   Cyclist repeatedly ignored orders to stop, ran a red light, endagering himself and others.  There comes a moment that he has to be made to comply.  I'm waiting for all the armchair specialists who weren't there to explain how he should have handled it.

I think he should have just run straight over him.
There he won't be doing that again.

Biggus-Dickkus wrote:

There are always two sides to any story. In this case, the cyclist broke several laws including going through several red-light situations. He was told to stop on numerous occasions, not sure what he expected to happen. Looks like he got what he deserved... 

The cyclist apparently went through two red lights (illegal).

He was wearing headphones (illegal, apparently).

He was not wearing a helmet (not illegal).

He did not stop for a gesturing police officer shouting out of his SUV at him (stupid).

Exactly which of those means that he "deserved" having a two-tonne bulletproof SUV driven into him?  Did you see the state of the bike?  Witnesses said the cyclist leapt from his bike as the SUV ran into him, so can you imagine what state he'd have been in if he hadn't leapt to safety?

Again - which of those offences meant that he deserved to be run down?

Troll 

Biggus-Dickkus wrote:

There are always two sides to any story. In this case, the cyclist broke several laws including going through several red-light situations. He was told to stop on numerous occasions, not sure what he expected to happen. Looks like he got what he deserved... 

Yes, there are often two sides to a story, but I have trouble believing that the cyclist was endangering enough people to warrant being driven into, but maybe you have different priorities than most people.

Also, was there video proof that the cyclist went through red lights as it has been known for U.S. cops to make things up. Here's a classic example: https://www.thedrive.com/news/28865/incriminating-video-shows-cop-run-stop-sign-cause-crash-and-arrest-innocent-driver

hawkinspeter wrote:

Biggus-Dickkus wrote:

There are always two sides to any story. In this case, the cyclist broke several laws including going through several red-light situations. He was told to stop on numerous occasions, not sure what he expected to happen. Looks like he got what he deserved... 

Yes, there are often two sides to a story, but I have trouble believing that the cyclist was endangering enough people to warrant being driven into, but maybe you have different priorities than most people.

Also, was there video proof that the cyclist went through red lights as it has been known for U.S. cops to make things up. Here's a classic example: https://www.thedrive.com/news/28865/incriminating-video-shows-cop-run-stop-sign-cause-crash-and-arrest-innocent-driver

Very simple really... you are breaking the law, you refuse to stop when asked, so you are foraceablly stopped... well done to the police, was the rider hurt, nope, so reasonable force was used.

I find it ridiculous that we ignore the blatant law breaking acceptance because the police used force to stop an idiot on a bike that refused to stop, what should they do… just let him carry on and pray  he doesn’t kill himself when he runs the next red light, people on this forum make me sick as your attitude is simple… when I’m on a bike I am the most vulnerable person on the road and that gives me the right to do whatever I want, this guy deserved exactly what he got, bottom line, ride responsibly and you wouldn’t get stopped…. 45 years cycling and not once has a policeman ever had reason to stop and talk with me, maybe because I don’t run read lights and ride like an idiot.

bigbiker101 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Biggus-Dickkus wrote:

There are always two sides to any story. In this case, the cyclist broke several laws including going through several red-light situations. He was told to stop on numerous occasions, not sure what he expected to happen. Looks like he got what he deserved... 

Yes, there are often two sides to a story, but I have trouble believing that the cyclist was endangering enough people to warrant being driven into, but maybe you have different priorities than most people.

Also, was there video proof that the cyclist went through red lights as it has been known for U.S. cops to make things up. Here's a classic example: https://www.thedrive.com/news/28865/incriminating-video-shows-cop-run-stop-sign-cause-crash-and-arrest-innocent-driver

Very simple really... you are breaking the law, you refuse to stop when asked, so you are foraceablly stopped... well done to the police, was the rider hurt, nope, so reasonable force was used.

I find it ridiculous that we ignore the blatant law breaking acceptance because the police used force to stop an idiot on a bike that refused to stop, what should they do… just let him carry on and pray  he doesn’t kill himself when he runs the next red light, people on this forum make me sick as your attitude is simple… when I’m on a bike I am the most vulnerable person on the road and that gives me the right to do whatever I want, this guy deserved exactly what he got, bottom line, ride responsibly and you wouldn’t get stopped…. 45 years cycling and not once has a policeman ever had reason to stop and talk with me, maybe because I don’t run read lights and ride like an idiot.

you and the cops in question seem to have no sense of proportion.

bigbiker101 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Biggus-Dickkus wrote:

There are always two sides to any story. In this case, the cyclist broke several laws including going through several red-light situations. He was told to stop on numerous occasions, not sure what he expected to happen. Looks like he got what he deserved... 

Yes, there are often two sides to a story, but I have trouble believing that the cyclist was endangering enough people to warrant being driven into, but maybe you have different priorities than most people.

Also, was there video proof that the cyclist went through red lights as it has been known for U.S. cops to make things up. Here's a classic example: https://www.thedrive.com/news/28865/incriminating-video-shows-cop-run-stop-sign-cause-crash-and-arrest-innocent-driver

Very simple really... you are breaking the law, you refuse to stop when asked, so you are foraceablly stopped... well done to the police, was the rider hurt, nope, so reasonable force was used.

I find it ridiculous that we ignore the blatant law breaking acceptance because the police used force to stop an idiot on a bike that refused to stop, what should they do… just let him carry on and pray  he doesn’t kill himself when he runs the next red light, people on this forum make me sick as your attitude is simple… when I’m on a bike I am the most vulnerable person on the road and that gives me the right to do whatever I want, this guy deserved exactly what he got, bottom line, ride responsibly and you wouldn’t get stopped…. 45 years cycling and not once has a policeman ever had reason to stop and talk with me, maybe because I don’t run read lights and ride like an idiot.

"just let him carry on and pray he doesn't kill himself when he runs the next red light" - I know, we'll run him over (and try to kill him ourselves) to make sure that doesn't happen!

There are lots of posts on here saying he got what he deserves because he didn't comply with police instructions (which he may not have heard, wearing headphones)... Proportionate response, people! If I asked you to move out of my way because you were blocking, say, a train aisle and you refused or were rude back, so I stabbed you- you can see that's not a proportional response, can't you?

brooksby wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Biggus-Dickkus wrote:

There are always two sides to any story. In this case, the cyclist broke several laws including going through several red-light situations. He was told to stop on numerous occasions, not sure what he expected to happen. Looks like he got what he deserved... 

Yes, there are often two sides to a story, but I have trouble believing that the cyclist was endangering enough people to warrant being driven into, but maybe you have different priorities than most people.

Also, was there video proof that the cyclist went through red lights as it has been known for U.S. cops to make things up. Here's a classic example: https://www.thedrive.com/news/28865/incriminating-video-shows-cop-run-stop-sign-cause-crash-and-arrest-innocent-driver

Very simple really... you are breaking the law, you refuse to stop when asked, so you are foraceablly stopped... well done to the police, was the rider hurt, nope, so reasonable force was used.

I find it ridiculous that we ignore the blatant law breaking acceptance because the police used force to stop an idiot on a bike that refused to stop, what should they do… just let him carry on and pray  he doesn’t kill himself when he runs the next red light, people on this forum make me sick as your attitude is simple… when I’m on a bike I am the most vulnerable person on the road and that gives me the right to do whatever I want, this guy deserved exactly what he got, bottom line, ride responsibly and you wouldn’t get stopped…. 45 years cycling and not once has a policeman ever had reason to stop and talk with me, maybe because I don’t run read lights and ride like an idiot.

"just let him carry on and pray he doesn't kill himself when he runs the next red light" - I know, we'll run him over (and try to kill him ourselves) to make sure that doesn't happen!

There are lots of posts on here saying he got what he deserves because he didn't comply with police instructions (which he may not have heard, wearing headphones)... Proportionate response, people! If I asked you to move out of my way because you were blocking, say, a train aisle and you refused or were rude back, so I stabbed you- you can see that's not a proportional response, can't you?

Probably all either Americans, or the kind of Brit who has pleged allegiance to Trump (of which there seem to be a distressing number, including our next PM, it seems).

US cops have a long history of killing people who fail to carry out a complex list of ambiguously-expressed instructions.  Encounters with them can become a lethal game of Simon Says.  I guess it's an intrinsic part of gun-culture.  

Americans have built themselves a prison and called it liberty. 

Rick_Rude wrote:

After watching endless encounters of american motorists with the police on Youtube, it seems to me that the average American copper wouldn't get near the door of the job (probably need to be able to read for a start) in the UK. They mostly can't be reasoned with and carry out the job like a badly written computer program, with no deviation from their instruction set. Replacing them with actual robots would be a positive step.

 

As an American who's lived over here the past 15 years, I can certainly back this up. The USA policing system is about half a step below a paramilitary unit, and there is very little requirement for any sort of reasoning, rational thinking or actual situation de-escalation. It is about rigid law enforcement and punishment (without even getting into the racial aspects). As someone who is friends with UK cops, I am constantly in awe of their ability to assess a situation and react APPROPRIATELY and at a level commensurate with the incident. 

Rick_Rude wrote:

 Replacing them with actual robots would be a positive step.

Like an ED-209?

I'm surprised the cyclist wasn't shot to a halt TBH.

Butty wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

 Replacing them with actual robots would be a positive step.

Like an ED-209?

I'm surprised the cyclist wasn't shot to a halt TBH.

"I am only shooting you for your own safety, citizen"

brooksby wrote:

Butty wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

 Replacing them with actual robots would be a positive step.

Like an ED-209?

I'm surprised the cyclist wasn't shot to a halt TBH.

"I am only shooting you for your own safety, citizen"