9/9/2002: Bad policing

[warch]

I would have to agree that this image and the accompanying information do not lead me to label this "bad" policing. That the CM folk are fractured within: those choosing to run a "wuss" ride, (obeying traffic regulations) and those wanting a more confrontational style of "action" leads me to believe that the confrontation, chaos, and reactions are just what was desired by the second faction. That the law abiding riders are labeled "wuss" is telling. Is running a red light effective civil disobedience? I can see carving out a bike lane where there is none, but I dont get the disregard for signals. Its a more visually impressive mass I suppose. Someone's spoiling for a fight, and perhaps it isnt the cops. Looks like potential for good people and assholes on both sides of this event. There seem to be several agendas going within the CM riders.

There are monthly CM rides here in Mpls, only a bit of police citations- to counter the "corking". There is more of an issue with car driver vs. biker road rage, and the cops have had to negotiate those incidents. For a while the police tactic was to have bike cops ride along, but that was perceived as an escort- a close relationship not desired by either side really- for the cops it seemed like partisanship, for the CM hardcore it was too "wussy".

Hey, I wuss ride everyday. And luckily I have bike lanes on most of the streets, that were won through neighborhood/city lobby and vote. Yes I hate it when I get cut off by a car or a bike, almost clocked by some biker going the wrong direction in the lane, threatened by a car door, or my lane is hogged by a bus. But that is traffic. I wear a helmet and try not to hit anything. And if any vehicle ran a red light at me, I hope the cops would catch 'em and cite 'em.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Griff
Democracies often fail to protect minority groups.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this statement makes it sound like bicyclists have an inherent right to ride on the streets and have their own special bike lanes. That is not the case. Providing such amenities to bicyclists isn't one of those instances of protecting minority groups that the government has an obligation to fulfill.

Let's say some city decided to completely ban bicycles. Yes, this would be a grossly unfair act, and I'm sure people would rightly be in an uproar. But that city isn't trampling on anyone's rights. Having paved roads on which to ride your bicycle isn't a right; it's a privelege that is bestowed by the government when the majority of people think it's a good idea.

Look at Greece's decision to ban all electronic games. Of course it's a glaring example of an out-of-touch legislature passing an ignorant law that has people up in arms and most likely won't last long. But is that law trampling anyone's rights? Do people have an inherent right to play PlayStation? Of course not. Even though it's a ridiculous law, they indeed had the right to pass it.

It's very obviously bad policing. Those cops could be off beating niggers or faggots but they're instead attacking God's People unprovoked. Oughta be leavin' them God fearin' folks alone if you ask me. Ain't nothin' wrong with riding a bike through a red light. Unless it's stolen, in which case you're probably a nigger deserving of a beating anyway.

[BrianR]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
You're both wrong.

As far as cops arresting dudes on bikes that run red lights - uh, why would this make us re-evaluate our priorities? I <b>still</b> don't want assholes running red lights, on bikes or otherwise. What if you hit one of those idiots - that's an hour or two out of your day now (and possibly more later on, if the bicyclist maintains it was your fault).

I'll second and third that. Just such a scenario happened to me last February and I only just last week got out from under it. My (expensive) lawyer got the charges dropped and the biker was left with a flattened bike to remember his instance of disregard for traffic laws.

That event cost me three days in the slammer and a possible blot on my NCIC record. Damn him.

At least I'll still be able to afford car insurance now although I still have to get the whole thing in writing and present it to my insurance company since the event went onto their computers when the police verified my insurance information with them.

Brian

[Griff]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this statement makes it sound like bicyclists have an inherent right to ride on the streets and have their own special bike lanes. That is not the case. Providing such amenities to bicyclists isn't one of those instances of protecting minority groups that the government has an obligation to fulfill.

They believe they have a right to travel. I think the push behind this is a fundemental disagreement about who can be on the roads. Many car drivers go out of their way to stick it to cyclists because they don't know that bikes are legal vehicles most places. Some honestly don't see bikes, they aren't looking for them and they're suprised we can ride at traffic pace in town. But it can be a chicken and the egg deal. Is the driver on a payback vendetta for all those cyclists who disregard for traffic law?

What is needed are cooler heads. A "wuss" CM should be able to help in that regard, showing that many folks want to ride and if they are following the traffic laws the presence of police gives them credibility. The book I referred to earlier was written by a one-time bike messenger who had complete disregard for traffic law due to the time pressures of his job. Folks that just want to commute have little in common with the messengers as warch noted.

There is a self-righteous streak at play as well, where some cyclists think they have more rights than drivers cuz they're greener. Its a respect problem in both directions.

[lsd4all]

The closer I look at dhamsaic's comments, the more angry I get about this whole event. I ride my bike often in Portland and I choose not to ride in the CM for the reason that I understand and respect the point of CM but I don't have to wave my dick about it. Sure these people get what they deserve, they are pissing at the base of a mountain built on internal combustion engines. Unless all cars and trucks are destroyed, in 100 years these events will be forgotton.
The point of my submission of this photo is that a man is being attacked by other men for riding his bike. Is this what we have come to? There are no winner in this incident. And to make things worse, this person's sex, race or religion is a not factor in this heinous event.

On a lighter note, the nude version of critical mass is called "Critical Ass" and it usually takes place once a year.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by lsd4all
The point of my submission of this photo is that a man is being attacked by other men for riding his bike. Is this what we have come to?

Sorry you're angry about the debate. You probably shouldn't submit propaganda here if you don't want it scrutinized and picked apart, because that's what we tend to do.

This man is not being attacked for riding his bike. None of us are sure why he's being attacked (if you know him personally, please tell the full story), but if you think police are attacking people just for riding their bikes, you've obviously been taken in by this propaganda as well.

I just read the link to the pictorial on subluna.com. What a bunch of drivel.. "Mr Macho tough guy with his pepper spray, looking for someone to hurt." "The ride resumed, and made it about 8 blocks, before yet another violent incident." What a fucking load of crap. I'm sure this was just a bunch of peaceful cyclists riding along, minding their own business, when an out-of-control police force jumped in and started "cracking some heads".

The people being restrained in some of those photos are actually smiling. Looks like they're having a pretty good time about it to me.

The point of my submission of this photo is that a man is being attacked by other men for riding his bike.

Quit being so mother fucking shortsighted. Would you say the same thing if he was riding his bike over a helpless baby laying in the road? He's not being attacked by other men for riding his bike. He's being attacked by other men for <b>breaking a law</b>. Whether or not their force is justified is wholly fucking irrelevant. He was breaking the law. People need to understand that <b>there are consequences to every action</b>, and when your action is breaking the law, <b>sometimes those consequences are negative</b>. You take that chance when you decide to break the law.

[Tobiasly]

I'm sorry, I misspoke earlier.

Yes, if they've done this for years without incident, and this year cops decided they should crack down, it would have been a good thing for the cops to make that known ahead of time.

Now that I've had time to read the article, I see I was wrong:

Schmautz said officers were only enforcing the law, addressing an escalating number of complaints of vandalism to cars, harassment and assault of drivers.

Police made suggestions to ride organizers about how to make things run more smoothly, Schmautz said, even handing out 180 fliers before the ride indicating that they would enforce the law. But they were “met with deaf ears,” he said.

It does look like the police tried to make their intentions known beforehand. It is a shame that a few bad apples have to spoil the event. I wonder why these guys don't take pictures of the cyclists who assault drivers and vandalize vehicles?

[CharlieG]

Originally posted by Griff
...snip... In most places, cyclists get left out of the transportation decision making process because the gas burners have the numbers, the power, and the cash. Its a failure of democracy ...snip....

Actually, it's DEMOCRACY in perfect action - in a Democracy, the majority (you admit they have the numbers - see above) gets to vote to do what they want, they DON'T have to listen to the minority at all!

Your thinking about OTHER forms of government - for instance, you seem to be looking for some form of proportional representation, and some rules that respect a small minority

One form that handles this is the Parliamentary form of government, which we are NOT.

What we ARE is a Constitutional REPUBLIC - part of the reason for this (beside how unwieldy it would be for everyone to vote on everything) is to PREVENT the "Tyranny of the Majority"

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
-James Madison

[russotto]

As I understand it, "Critical Mass" is a translation of a Chinese term which refers to when there's so many bicycles on the street that cars can't get through at all.

Critical Mass protests thus aren't just "for" bicycles. They're "against" cars (as you can see by the slogan on the arrestee's back). Their purpose is to create exactly that traffic-clogging situation.

As for police brutality... the picture doesn't show it. It shows some guy being arrested, and not particularly violently. Where's the jack-booted foot on the back? The PR-71 marks on the head? The arms and legs twisted into an unlikely position? The handcuffs so tight they are drawing blood? There may have been police brutality... I suspect there was, out of general distrust for police. But the picture doesn't show it.

[warch]

I understand and respect the point of CM but I don't have to wave my dick about it.

There seems to be some confusion about this, multiple mixed messages. Isd, as one from that community, what is/was the goal of the action? What is your understanding? And why do you choose not to "wave your dick"? I'm not asking to piss you off, I really am curious how this event is understood locally.

And if civil disobedience is the protest tactic- peaceful disregarding of a law to highlight its injustice— how is a red light unjust? What's the action's goal? How will clogging traffic and endangering lives and property cause the desired change? It maybe just a few bad apples, or a broader philosophical disagreement, those who care more for the dick wave than the issues protested.

[lsd4all]

warch:
a good portion of this event is populated by the bike messengers who in my opinion put up with the cars for 29 days of each month and this is their payback. there are also many other bike-conscience groups who are part of this event as well as the daily bike commuters and recreational bikers.

russotto:
you are right about most of the attitudes in the photos, it seems like everyone <i>except</i> the cops are making the best of this situation. let me direct you back to my first post with the URL's. the portland cops have a bad reputation of dealing with large groups of people whether they are peaceful protesters or CM riders and this is another bad mark for them.

dhamsaic & tobiasly:
portland prides itself on white middle-upper class diversity and our mayor and police chief have been making some bad police-related decisions inthe past years. there are too many cars in this little city, so my personal opinions are all over the map on the CM/police interactions. I dont praise the cops for a job well donw, they also pepper sprayed babies (who brings their baby to a protest?) in the Bush protest a few weeks ago, but I will post some photos on that if I can find them. I think I submitted this post with many intentions; CM being the first, how our police act and a sign for things to come in our town. I hate "what if's", but would that photo mean the same if the "one less car" guy was black?

all:
I like this board and dont mind the criticism.

[Griff]

Originally posted by CharlieG


Actually, it's DEMOCRACY in perfect action - in a Democracy, the majority (you admit they have the numbers - see above) gets to vote to do what they want, they DON'T have to listen to the minority at all!

Your thinking about OTHER forms of government - for instance, you seem to be looking for some form of proportional representation, and some rules that respect a small minority

One form that handles this is the Parliamentary form of government, which we are NOT.

What we ARE is a Constitutional REPUBLIC - part of the reason for this (beside how unwieldy it would be for everyone to vote on everything) is to PREVENT the "Tyranny of the Majority"

Your take on Democracy was what I was trying to get at before my keyboard wandered off. We used to be a Constitutional Republic, brother. What we are now is open to interpretation. I'd like to try the Republic again.

[warch]

So we know who's there. But why?

this is their payback

I put up jaywalkers.
I put up with loud neighbors.
I put up with locks that stick.
I put up with bad peaches. (this really pisses me off-mealy, no juice, ptew!)
When is my payback?
Now if you're protesting the seeming requirement to own a gas-guzzling, fossil-fuel burning, single passenger vehicles due to unchecked suburban sprawl, poor planning, lack of public transit...thats a different motive and I'd say more worthy mission for protest than bike messenger revenge.Stop throwing a fit and deal with it, or even better help find solutions, that's all I'm saying. Now would bike messenger culture be so sexy cool if it was safe, or heaven forbid...mainstream?