Police Linebacker

[Tonko]

ITT, Beckwin gets owned by everyone.

Highly entertaining, please continue.

[ferigor]

Beckwin, I think you are making a lot of assumptions on the information given to us. We don't know all about the situation, and if you think that a 30 second video clip and a 2 page police report tell us everything that was going on, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. I am defending the officers ability to act, not his actions. I agree that not every traffic stop needs to get Pitted, but even non-lethal chases end in a pit after enough bullshit. I'm done arguing about it, because I don't feel like I know enough about the situation to go on.
I will say, as someone who's been stuck in a critical mass "demonstration" I have a lot of things against the group, and how they communicate their message and I'm definately biased against them off the bat. I would like to know though if you've been caught in one? If you have ever seen the actions that these cyclists take to disrupt the flow of traffic. Do you have any reference of Critical Mass outside of stuff you've read on the internet?

[Beckwin]

Also, you compare CM rides to parades and what not. Unfortunately, parades and things like that require permits (I work permits for a living, so I know a little bit about them, though not necessarily permits for parades). When doing something where you have to shut down streets takes approval and coordinating. The events are scheduled weeks to months in advance, the appropriate authorities notified (Street Department and Bridge Department, Utilities including Power, Water, Sewer, Cable, City Police (State police if the route encompasses any state routes)) and steps taken to make sure there is a viable route around that will be able to handle the flow of traffic. Permits for things like this usually cost a lot, because city engineers get paid pretty well. In New York, depending on routing and the size of the event, I'd estimate the cost of permits and fees for said event to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3000~5000. Of course, CM doesn't have a leader, or any formal organization so thats how they weasel out of having to do any of this stuff.

as it's already been covered, court rulings have decided this group doesn't need a permit as it's not really a parade and cyclists have clearance to be on public roads.

Tonko: considering all the eventual admissions of "ok the guy didn't really deserve it and the cop was way out of line", I wouldn't say I'm getting owned, especially since from the beginning I made it clear that people are more than welcome to disagree with CM and what they do (not to mention I've said several times that ticketing for traffic violations is in no way inappropriate). I'd tell you to go eat a dick but the "already had one with breakfast" response takes the fun out of it.

[Tyche]

ITT: Beckwin self-owns himself

Tyche: oh gimme a fucking break. are we gonna talk about protest strictly as a couple people with handwritten signs?

protest is protest. jesus this, jesus that, stop trying to cherrypick because you don't like this particular cause.

Let's rename self-owning to "Beckwinning"

[ferigor]

as it's already been covered, court rulings have decided this group doesn't need a permit as it's not really a parade and cyclists have clearance to be on public roads.

What gets them out of not having to have a permit is that they have no leadership or organization, not that bikes are allowed on roads so they can do what they want. Are you familiar with the sport of cycling? You know, where large group of cyclists bike from place to place in a competitive race? Those events don't need to get permits or approval or anything because bikes can be on the road. True story.

[Beckwin]

ITT: Beckwin self-owns himself





Let's rename self-owning to "Beckwinning"

umm, I didn't deny that the couple with signs were protesting, I was criticizing how you were limiting the definition of protesting based on the variety of it you liked. Why don't you go pull the quote where I say the couple with signs is a very minor form of disruption, just like all other protest is disruption?

nice try.

[Beckwin]

What gets them out of not having to have a permit is that they have no leadership or organization, not that bikes are allowed on roads so they can do what they want. Are you familiar with the sport of cycling? You know, where large group of cyclists bike from place to place in a competitive race? Those events don't need to get permits or approval or anything because bikes can be on the road. True story.

a bike race requires that there are no cars on the road :/

If you want a comparison, I guess think of biker (motorcycle) groups that go on rides together. Something like Sturgess probably gets permits because of the parade-stuff, but a local chapter of a biker group cruising through town every month doesn't. and if any bikers violate any traffic laws, they can get ticketed. note that in permitted parades/marches there aren't any traffic violations to worry about, so it's kind of a trade-off there.

[Tyche]

You sure are disrupted easily lol. The argument was over whether it was possible to have a non-disruptive protest. If those 2 people with signs disrupt you, god damn, how did you graduate with all those pencils moving during tests? They're so disruptive.

Also, Sources say the guy was weaving in and out of traffic, cop yelled at him and began to approach him. Guy never slowed down. Cop stopped him. Why is there still an argument going on?

[Beckwin]

you do realize that "disruptive" isn't single-dimensional, right? Disruptive is something outside the norm or something that shouldn't be happening. We'll go with your "pencils moving during tests" nonsense: the pencils moving is normal and expected, but someone getting a phonecall is a disruption, and a greater disruption is someone actually taking the call and talking, and an even greater disruption is a fire alarm going off.

[Tyche]

Funny you mention that, because protests that file for permits are normal and expected. Definately non-disruptive then.

[Beckwin]

they still aren't part of the normal activities. the point of all protest is to disrupt at some level, because that's how you get attention to your cause. Even though traffic accidents are generally to be expected from time to time and statistically normal, they always slow down traffic and get a lot of on-lookers. Disruption garners attention. Once you accept the fact that the goal/function is always disruption, then you can start to differentiate between sanctioned and non-sanctioned, highly disruptive protesting.

In essence we're not really arguing over anything anymore, as we both agree that ticketing/arrests can be appropriate for non-sanctioned disruption- you because you have somewhat of an inherent dislike of unsanctioned protest and me because of basic principles of civil disobedience and non-violent protest. So again the only real issue, and the one that started this whole thing even getting into the news, is the excessive force and even worse the falsifying of reports and unnecessary detainment.

[Tyche]

Disruption garners attention. Once you accept the fact that the goal/function is always disruption, then you can start to differentiate between sanctioned and non-sanctioned, highly disruptive protesting.

Disruption garners attention, attention doesn't have to garner disruption. The goal of a protest isn't disruption, it's attention. You can choose to achieve said attention by causing disruption, sure. You know what, fuck it. This is a stupid argument (at least this semantic battle). Maybe the worst ever.

Onto more pressing matters. Just going off the video and witness accounts, the police officer was in the right (as far as the detainment is concerned, not the false bullshit report). He yelled at the biker for violating some sanction, biker didn't slow down. Attempted to evade. Officer subdued him in about the only way you can.

[Kuya]

So we agree the cop screwed up, less so because of the tackle, and more so because of the falsifying report, and we also agree that Critical Mass cyclists are absolute douche-bags, not only because of what we've heard about them, but also because it was perfectly exemplified by what the cyclist who got his shit owned said.

We don't have to agree with what the cop did, but that doesn't mean we don't have to like it.

[Beckwin]

that last sentence is confusing, although I think I might get what you're trying to say.

[jmc]

as it's already been covered, court rulings have decided this group doesn't need a permit as it's not really a parade and cyclists have clearance to be on public roads.

Tonko: considering all the eventual admissions of "ok the guy didn't really deserve it and the cop was way out of line", I wouldn't say I'm getting owned, especially since from the beginning I made it clear that people are more than welcome to disagree with CM and what they do (not to mention I've said several times that ticketing for traffic violations is in no way inappropriate). I'd tell you to go eat a dick but the "already had one with breakfast" response takes the fun out of it.

Yes, but not needing a permit to assemble, DOES NOT protect them for Motor vehicle laws.

Disrupting traffic flow to a standstill, taunting motorists is a misdemeanor called Disturbing the Peace, and one can be arrested for it.

Scrapping against cars, who voice a opinion is another charge..... called Hit & Run, and is a offense one can be arrested for.

If a officer yells you to do something, that doesn't put you in harms way..... and you don't do it. Its called disobeying a order, from a public servant and one can be arrested for it.


(also, high speed chases doesn't mean its due to a major crime..... ive been involved in chases where people flee at high speeds because they "got scared" and their only infraction was they didn't have their active drivers license on them).

[ferigor]

Serious question, has anyone here ever been in a CM protest? Taken part in, or been held up by.

[Beckwin]

jmc: I've been saying the whole time that the CM riders are very much subject to traffic/vehicle laws. again, issue is the arguable excessiveness of the arrest and more importantly the falsified report and unnecessary detainment.

ferigor: not sure if it's CM or not, but where I'm at now has fairly regular bike activism rides that seem to go off without a hitch. it's a smaller town though.

[jmc]

jmc: I've been saying the whole time that the CM riders are very much subject to traffic/vehicle laws. again, issue is the arguable excessiveness of the arrest and more importantly the falsified report and unnecessary detainment.

Read my 2nd to last statement.....

If the "story" is true, about the officer telling him to slow down and he doesnt....then he is easily subject to arrest. So its not a unnecessary detainment, if he qualifies for a arrest.

[aurik]

These bicyclists in my neighbourhood always run stop signs, it's quite irritating. About 3 or 4 times I've nearly been in a collision because they just don't stop at the stop sign when I'm making a turn.

Any police officer that lies in a report should be immediately terminated unless there's fucking damn good reason.

[jmc]

These bicyclists in my neighbourhood always run stop signs, it's quite irritating. About 3 or 4 times I've nearly been in a collision because they just don't stop at the stop sign when I'm making a turn.

Any police officer that lies in a report should be immediately terminated unless there's fucking damn good reason.

Finally looked over the smoking gun link..... and I see no proof of how the officer actually lied on the report. It all depends on the wording of the document.

What the smoking gun posted, if the court proceeding paperwork the DA filed/wrote up....not the officer involved. It could be possible, the DA didn't believe charges would mean anything so he altered it himself. It also could've been the officer did lie on his incident report, or it could also be a nice typo in translation on the DA's part.

We will never know, because incident reports that require a internal affairs investigation rarely get released outside of the department.

*Note though* With the video as proof, if the officer did in fact lie on the report....he would've been fired by now.