"Critical Mass Bicyclist Assaulted by NYPD"

ChipPanBuddha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ

Thomas_S_Hunterson

wtf! that's horrific

ChipPanBuddha

Brutal. Could have killed the bloke had he smacked his head on the kerb. And the cops arrested the cyclist for attempted assault!

This is from an article in the New York Post.


A rookie cop - the son of a highly respected New York City detective - has been stripped of his badge and gun after being caught on video viciously attacking a bicyclist who was part of a Times Square demonstration.

The startling YouTube video shows Officer Patrick Pogan, 22, apparently setting his sights on - then tackling - a bicyclist as he pedaled along Seventh Avenue as part of last Friday's controversial Critical Mass ride.

Christopher Long, 29, was among a throng of riders as he whizzed toward the corner of West 46th Street at 9:30 p.m., and appeared to try to swerve away from the officer.

But the video shows Pogan pick up his pace as he stares down Long before shoving the cyclist, slamming him to the pavement.
To the dismay of stunned pedestrians, Long, who was not wearing a helmet, was hurtled several feet as he flipped off the bicycle and landed on the curb.

Pogan and a second officer then lunged toward the prone cyclist, at which point the video fades to black. The footage, taken by a tourist and posted anon ymously on YouTube, sparked imme diate public outcry and prompted the NYPD to place Pogan on desk duty while the Internal Affairs Bureau investigates.

The NYPD declined to comment further.

What the video doesn't show is Pogan arresting Long for attempted assault in the third degree, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct - charges that kept the Bloomfield, NJ, man behind bars for 26 hours before his release late Saturday.

Adding insult to injury, the criminal complaint drafted by Pogan bears little resemblance to what was witnessed by onlookers and recorded on video.

In court papers, Pogan claimed that he wanted to issue Long a summons for failing to keep right, and then ordered Long to stop
The cop accused Long of purposely swerving his bicycle to block traffic and then using it as a weapon to run down the officer, knocking him off his feet and causing a "laceration" on his forearm.
"You are pawns in the game. I'm going to have your job," Long told Pogan, as he flailed and kicked his arms and legs, according to the complaint.

Pogan has been on the force for just three weeks since graduating from the Police Academy on July 2 and is assigned to Midtown South. A third-generation cop, Pogan lives at home with his father - Patrick Pogan Sr., a highly respected detective and biochemical and mass-destruction expert who is retired from the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
"He's my son. I'm proud of him. He's third-generation that's been serving the city," said Pogan Sr., 51, who was at home in Massapequa Park, LI, yesterday and said he had not seen the video. "These people are taking over the streets and impeding the flow of traffic. Then you gotta do what you gotta do."

Long declined comment through his lawyer.

"If it wasn't caught on video, people would not have believed it," said Christopher Ryan, who is filming the monthly protests for a documentary. "The video just shows what the cyclists have been saying all along: that the police are still harassing and intimidating them from doing group rides."

Eoin D

Madness

seamus

Still too early to say anything. You've no idea what the guy did before he came into shot. Why would the cop walk all the way across the road to get him when there were plenty of closer ones?

Pretty rough way to arrest someone, but if the cop asked him to stop and/or he had caused criminal damage, it's justified IMO.

AndyP

seamus wrote: »

Still too early to say anything. You've no idea what the guy did before he came into shot. Why would the cop walk all the way across the road to get him when there were plenty of closer ones?

Pretty rough way to arrest someone, but if the cop asked him to stop and/or he had caused criminal damage, it's justified IMO.

WHAT??, it is in no way justified to do something that carries the risk of serious injury or possible death.

seamus

AndyP wrote: »

WHAT??, it is in no way justified to do something that carries the risk of serious injury or possible death.

That's a tad sensationalist. The guy was barely moving. It's the same principle as ramming a criminal's car. You do it to prevent potential damage to property or injury to persons.

As I say, you have no idea what he did before he came into shot - maybe he hit a pedestrian or kicked in a car's light?

To clarify - I agree that the way he went about it, probably wasn't the best idea - grabbing the guy and pulling him towards the ground would have been better. But to call it assault or an unprovoked attack is jumping the gun just a little.

Critical mass are well known for attracting people who have trouble "containing" themselves.

AndyP

What would have happened if the bloke smacked his head off the angle of the kerb? Would the copper be looking at a manslaughter charge? Now go back and read the coppers take on events and watch the video again and try to make them match up.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote: »

To clarify - I agree that the way he went about it, probably wasn't the best idea - grabbing the guy and pulling him towards the ground would have been better. But to call it assault or an unprovoked attack is jumping the gun just a little.

Yes, we don't know if anything happened off camera or what words or insults might have been uttered.

I'd have expected the cop to point at the rider and give a clear direction to him that he wanted him to stop. The cop himself was not even wearing HiVis or using any kind of traffic direction lamp.

rp

seamus wrote: »

As I say, you have no idea what he did before he came into shot - maybe he hit a pedestrian or kicked in a car's light?

Funny he didn't mention that when booking him then:

In court papers, Pogan claimed that he wanted to issue Long a summons for failing to keep right, and then ordered Long to stop
The cop accused Long of purposely swerving his bicycle to block traffic and then using it as a weapon to run down the officer, knocking him off his feet and causing a "laceration" on his forearm.

And did you see how he knocked the cop off his feet? By malicously falling over when shoulder-charged...

uberwolf

seamus wrote: »

That's a tad sensationalist. The guy was barely moving. It's the same principle as ramming a criminal's car. You do it to prevent potential damage to property or injury to persons.

As I say, you have no idea what he did before he came into shot - maybe he hit a pedestrian or kicked in a car's light?

do you not think that the officer would have referenced this in his statement given what he did have to say? He is guilty of disrupting the normal flow of traffic according to the public statement of the police officer. The officer states that Long drove the bike at him - false. The officers account is not consistent with what is shown on video. I see no effort to signal the cyclist to stop, this would be required before action such as he took. I have no issues with cops using lethal force if required to prevent injury to the innocent, or strong arm tactics if someone is resisting instruction.

If the lying cop doesn't say he hit a pedestrian or kick a light, we can take it he didn't.

His speed has limited correlation to the potential repercussions of his head on to a kerb. It takes misfortune to die off your bike, not speed. The cyclist was actually doing a decent pace none the less.

ChipPanBuddha

I wouldn't be the biggest fan of the critical mass concept, I don't think it's a very sensible way of promoting cyclists in a positive light. However, regardless of what the cyclist may or may not have done out of shot, the cop certainly doesn't look like he made any efforts to hail the cyclist down in a sensible manner. No hand up ordering him to stop and it doesn't look like he shouted any directions at him to stop either. And if the guy had committed a misdemeanor you would expect the cop to shout to his colleague beside him to help apprehend the guy.

Diarmuid

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yes, we don't know if anything happened off camera or what words or insults might have been uttered.

Unless the cyclists had a megaphone whatever he was saying, the cop could not have heard it. If you watch the video, the cyclist is doing in or around 5 m/s (about 20kph), the cop eyes him up about 4-5 seconds before he nails him (and that's what he does) so the cyclist must have been 20 - 25 meters away from the cop when he did whatever the cop didn't like. (with all that background noise too)

And the guy was arrested for "attempting the run the cop down"! No mention of doing something before that. If you look at that video and can saw with a straight face that he tried to run the cop down, then you are an idiot.

If you did that to someone else on a bike you'd be charged with assault. The cop should get the same treatment.

niceonetom

many cops (not all) are thugs who have sought out a position from which they can be violent in a socially mandated way.

the thinking goes like this: "i like beating people up . but beating people up will get me in trouble... ...i know, i'll become a copper - then i'll have a steady supply of undesirables that i beat up with complete impunity . ok, some of them may not actually be undesirables , but hey, i'm a cop, what are they gonna do? :cool:"

sure you can give the cop the benefit of the doubt. i wouldn't.

Chips Lovell

Interesting to contrast this with the reaction on an American forum, where a lot of people came down on the side of the cop.

Bambaata

i find it sick they'd defend that thug police officer

Chips Lovell

The Critical Mass crowd never seem to go down well there. A lot of people seem to view them as hippies and pinkos.

AndyP

el tonto wrote: »

The Critical Mass crowd never seem to go down well there. A lot of people seem to view them as hippies and pinkos.

After doing a little research on CM, I can understand why people would get pissed off by them. However twatty they may behave, it does not justify the copper assaulting that bloke.

FrankGrimes

I get seamus' point that it's theoretically possible that the cyclist did something off screen to make the officer want to stop him, but the cop didn't try to stop him, he flat out assaulted him end of story. And if there was anything the guy had done off screen would the NYPD not have come out immediately to try to justify what he did?

In the presence of this very damining evidence and in the absence of any evidence suggesting the rider did something to warrant this treatment (not sure there is anything that warrants it tbh), I think the any rational and objective assessment of it can only lead to clear condemnation of the cop. To be honest, if seamus didn't have 23k+ posts, I'd say it wouldn't have been long before it was suggested he was trolling.

Saying that this could have led to serious injury is in no way an exaggeration, we all know of serious injuries that have come from less violent circumstances. Throw in the suggestion that kerbs in Midtown Manhattan are metal and it's even more possible.

Just to be clear - does 'stripped of badge' equate to losing your job or is it just an temporary/indefinite demotion?

AndyP

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Just to be clear - does 'stripped of badge' equate to losing your job or is it just an temporary/indefinite demotion?

Doing a 'desk job' while the investigation is ongoing. On the kerb thing, was that not the main cause of death in the case outside Annabels? (I know he got battered but I think the fall against the kerb killed him).

blorg

The facts of the case are that the police officer gave an account of the actual arrest, not knowing there was a videotape, completely at odds with what was on tape. He claimed the cyclist has used his bike as a weapon to cycle into the officer and that in the collision he suffered an abrasion of some sort. The charge was assault on a police officer. There was no other charge for a supposed previous infraction.

The video on the other hand very clearly shows the cyclist trying to _avoid_ cycling into the officer, and the officer then ramming him off the bike.

The mayor has come out and criticised the officer's actions as "totally over the top and inappropriate" and the police are not defending him; it is looking very like he will lose his job after the investigation. I very much hope he sees prosecution for assault and jail time also.

seamus

FrankGrimes wrote: »

And if there was anything the guy had done off screen would the NYPD not have come out immediately to try to justify what he did?

Not if any investigation was ongoing.

To be honest, if seamus didn't have 23k+ posts, I'd say it wouldn't have been long before it was suggested he was trolling.

I am playing devil's advocate to a certain degree.

In court papers, Pogan claimed that he wanted to issue Long a summons for failing to keep right, and then ordered Long to stop
The cop accused Long of purposely swerving his bicycle to block traffic and then using it as a weapon to run down the officer, knocking him off his feet and causing a "laceration" on his forearm.

We don't have the full transcript though, and I'm having difficulty finding a report that isn't a tabloid (NYP) or a pro-CM blog.
The cop said that he was going to stop the cyclist for failure to keep right and ordered him to stop.
From our point of view, it appears that he then went over and hit the cyclist. However, what if the cop had walked over with the assumption that the cyclist would stop? So he walks more-or-less into the the cyclist's path, the cyclist decides he won't stop, and now you have cop standing halfway in the cyclist's way. He hits the cop, and it very much looks like the cop pushed him off, when in fact what the cop did was simply put his shoulder in the way to protect himself.

If you apply the above scenario to the events in the video, it's very plausible.

The cyclist was arrested for "attempted assault in the third degree, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct". The latter no doubt for his conduct on the bike, the first two for his actions after he was thrown to the ground.

Just to be clear - does 'stripped of badge' equate to losing your job or is it just an temporary/indefinite demotion?

No, it's sensationalist. It means that he's removed from beat duty and his gun is taking pending an investigation. It's essentially a suspension on full pay, and afaik is the normal process when a complaint is made against a police officer.

For the record, I have no doubt that the cop was simply overreacting. They were probably standing there with all sorts of idiots shouting stuff at them. This guy, being young, new and inexperienced, got frustrated and annoyed. So he decides to take it out on someone and issue an arrest/fine. When they fail to stop for him, he loses it, and pushes him off.
If he'd done the right thing, grabbed the cyclist with both hands and pulled him off the bike towards himself, no-one would have blinked an eyelid.

We've all made dumb decisions in split seconds, I believe this is all he did.

Mucco

The NYPD and critical mass have been having this row for several years now. Check out other youtube videos. The cyclists get arrested for all sorts of reasons, and are usually released without charge.

M

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Here's the arrest report for anyone who's interested: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0729081bike1.html

blorg

@seamus- your analysis is completely at odds with both the video and all other reported evidence.

No.1 - the video. Clearly shows Officer Pogan ramming Long off the bike. There is no way you can twist this into "he just put his shoulder in the way." Also completely at odds with the report given by the officer before he knew there was a videotape. It is also clear that Long was cycling in pretty much the same way as any other cyclist. No raised arm or anything to indicate that Long should stop, he just took a run at the guy.

The NYPD is NOT standing behind Pogan, in fact the commissioner has already stated "I have no explanation, I can't explain why it happened."

Mayor Bloomberg, who is generally very happy to speak out in support of NYPD officers, has publically criticised his actions as "totally over the top and inappropriate."

The only people to speak in support of Pogan here are his union (it's their job) and his father.

NY Daily News wrote:

The charges against Long, of Bloomfield, N.J., will likely be dropped and Pogan will almost surely be fired, police sources said.

blorg

Criminal Court complaint, Smoking Gun above wrote:

Deponent [the police officer] further states that upon instructing the defendant [the cyclist] to cease the above-described conduct, [obstructing vehicular traffic] the defendant steered the defendant's bicycle in the direction of deponent and drove defendant's bicycle directly into deponent's body, causing deponent to fall to the ground and causing deponent to suffer lacerations on deponent's forearms.

I'm sorry, but the above is simply a barefaced lie which is contradicted entirely by the video evidence.

seamus

blorg wrote: »

@seamus- your analysis is completely at odds with both the video and all other reported evidence.

I would still disagree with that - it's a plausible possibility.
But going by the above arrest report, it's less likely than the obvious case. The fact that the officer exaggerated/misrepresented in his report shows that he knows that there was something amiss about his actions - otherwise he would have just said it.

The NYPD is NOT standing behind Pogan, in fact the commissioner has already stated "I have no explanation, I can't explain why it happened."

I didn't say that they were standing behind him

niceonetom

seamus wrote: »

I would still disagree with that - it's a plausible possibility.
But going by the above arrest report, it's less likely than the obvious case. The fact that the officer lied in his report shows that he knows that there was something illegal about his actions - otherwise he would have just said it.
I didn't say that they were standing behind him

fixed that for you.

23k posts or not, there's an element of trolling going on here.

seamus

niceonetom wrote: »

fixed that for you.

Actually, I specifically avoided using the word "lie" because it's obvious from the scan that the officer changed his story just enough so that although it may be different from what the cyclist would say, it could be written off as a difference in perspective by a third party.

He didn't reckon with the camera being there. So yes, he did lie, but I used the words that I did to highlight the fact that the officer made his statement in a very calculated way that wouldn't raise suspicion.

That is, if his statement differed greatly from witness statements and/or the cyclist's statements, he could end up in trouble. If the statement differed only slightly, but portrayed him in a better light, then a judge/jury/whoever might believe that's how it was from his perspective and/or the cyclist was trying to make the cop look bad.

23k posts or not, there's an element of trolling going on here.

As I say, "Devil's Advocate". Nothing worse than a thread of people going, "Jaysus that's shocking", five minutes after the thing has happened and with little or no information.

You'll notice I've revised my position, given the release of more information. A troll would continually post the same position regardless.

FrankGrimes

It's pretty facetious to be going on about what possibilities are supposedly plausible while also acknowledging that in this particular case the obvious explanation does seem to be the most plausible.

Anything is possible, it's theoretically possible that the cyclist had held up a sign off camera saying 'I have a bomb' and the cop was actually a hero for taking him down. But there's no evidence in the video or the statements to suggest that so to acknowledge it is a theoretical possibility is fine, to believe that is the most plausible explanation here would be ridiculous. So, assuming that we're all aware of the theoretical possibilities but after rational consideration we all believe that the cop was simply out of line, what's to be gained by arguing about the far fetched possibilities other than trying to stir up an argument? In a court of law you don't have to account for all extreme possibilities - you just have to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion, any doubting that the cop is out of line here is unreasonable.

By the way, I get what you're trying to do in pointing out that in incidents like this there is always the possibility that the most obvious explanation is not the correct one, but I think it's a pretty misguided approach here as this one is so obvious even you don't question the obvious explanation.

Most of your points are well made, though I really disagree with this one:

"We've all made dumb decisions in split seconds, I believe this is all he did."

I'm sure you don't mean to belittle the damage plenty of people have suffered due to others making 'dumb decisions in split seconds' but that's the way you come across with that point. The Gardai who were found guilty of misconduct in battering the protesters/rioters at the May Day rally a few years back - would you say "all" they did was make a dumb decision in split seconds?

unionman

I read through all the posts, then I watched the video. Holy police brutality batman! Officer Pogan does look as though he was trying to select a target before he made his move.

Regardless of the 'devil's advocate' position, and the infinite hypotheses one could conjur to explain what might have happened, the video evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt what Pogan did, and more significantly, that he lied through his teeth about it.

However, for a native view, (and a funny perspective on CM) check out NYC Bikesnob's post on this issue...if you haven't already.