ACPD Blocking Key Bridge Access, Threatening Cyclists

[DismalScientist]

@rcannon100 96546 wrote:

If you ever hear a government official say something like “I am a parent and I have children too. I share your fears….” They learned that in risk communications.

I’ve always thought that the “Speaking as a mother/father” line was an attempt to claim moral superiority and I have promptly discounted any further statement.

[arlrider]

Dirt – thanks for what you did today. Today’s officer was an entirely different person (literally I mean) from the one I saw yesterday and was behaving in a manner projecting a completely different image of ACPD from the one yesterday.

Today, 8:10 AM – Car backed in, lights fully on, officer standing directly at IOD monitoring traffic, seemingly ready to act if necessary. Protecting and serving.

Yesterday, 8:15 AM – Car parked on sidewalk, impeding 3/4 of pedestrian/bike flow, no lights. Officer standing nowhere near traffic, staring into the distance. Waiting for his shift to be over.

One of these is good community policing. The other is a waste of dollars. Let’s hope we continue to see more of the former.

[AFHokie]

@arlrider 96472 wrote:

I see nothing in the quoted posts above that supports this assertion that my accounts are conflicting. I took a picture from a distance and then rode/walked past the constriction in the sidewalk, at which time the officer made the statement which I quoted. I took the photo in a manner which was intended to be discreet (from chest level and glancing) but he obviously saw what I was doing and this was the basis for the comment.

Yes, I can say that. Because I knew that taking a photo could provoke a response and I did not want to do anything to further those chances. That’s why I took the photo from a distance and tried not to make a scene. Moreover, as stated upthread, the blockage of the sidewalk caused me to need to slow and dismount following a pedestrian, so I was focused on that.

And based on your thread posts, I get the impression that you like to insert “facts” that you have made up to support your arguments.

I have too, but when the officer starts with a loaded statement in an aggressive tone, then I see the odds stacked against me and do not wish to pursue discourse.

The “facts” are what YOU presented. Are you now saying you made them up? With only your side of the story I’m left to decipher what actually occurred. Sorry, but my days of taking a random individual’s word as unbiased are long gone.

In the first you claim you discreetly took the photo, made no statement, made no eye contact and insist you gave the officer no reason to interact with you. In the second you contradict this when you imply you fully expected an interaction with the officer as you passed him. Your statement above confirms you not only anticipated it, you expected it to be less than cordial.

Do I think you’re lying? No, but because of the “fact” you are a participant, I consider anything you say regarding the officer slanted favorably toward yourself. The truth exists somewhere in the middle. Your snide comment just adds to my point.

Something you may want to consider when photographing police. Officers have been targeted for attacks in the past. Considering the manner in which you took the photo, I find it reasonable he wanted to know why you photographed him.

[Sunyata]

@rcannon100 96542 wrote:

I hate to say it: you must be white and privileged. Not everyone has the same experience with police that you do. For many, the police are innately a threat.

I may be white, but I have definitely not lead a privileged life (Thanks for assuming that I have though…). And my experience with law enforcement may be different than yours, but it is not for the reason you are thinking.

While I agree that there are officers that abuse their power and have a “chip” on their shoulder, the vast majority do not and really do have the public’s safety in mind. I am sorry that you have had so many bad experiences with law enforcement officers, that sucks. But in an age where many people do not respect those who put their lives on the line every day for their safety, I do not necessarily blame an officer for starting off on the defensive if someone yells at them or attempts to covertly photograph their actions (even if it is your first amendment right to do so, why try and hide it?).

I am glad that there are some good conversations going on with ACPD regarding this intersection. I am hoping those positive conversations continue to happen and that it makes the area a safer place for all involved (cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists).

[arlrider]

@AFHokie 96568 wrote:

The “facts” are what YOU presented. Are you now saying you made them up? With only your side of the story I’m left to decipher what actually occurred. Sorry, but my days of taking a random individual’s word as unbiased are long gone.

In the first you claim you discreetly took the photo, made no statement, made no eye contact and insist you gave the officer no reason to interact with you. In the second you contradict this when you imply you fully expected an interaction with the officer as you passed him. Your statement above confirms you not only anticipated it, you expected it to be less than cordial.

What on earth nonsense are you spouting off? How does what you claim I said at all contradict itself? Any why are you accusing me of lying? My statements are pretty clear to anyone with an elementary level of English reading comprehension. I said that I TRIED to take the photo discretely, but knew that if I was still seen, the officer might not take kindly to it. Why did I take the photo discreetly? Because I know officers don’t like being photographed. Because they try to bully people all the time for exercising their first amendment rights. See article after article and the ACLU. I didn’t want to invite that. So I TRIED to take the photo discreetly. However, even trying to take the photo discreetly it can still be discerned that one is taking a photo; barring use of a bike-mounted camera there is no way to avoid this. So that is what I said – I tried to be discreet, I knew that if he saw me he might not like it (because I was catching him doing something bad), he saw me, he got mad, I passed on my way. What is there for you to not understand?

@AFHokie 96568 wrote:

Something you may want to consider when photographing police. Officers have been targeted for attacks in the past. Considering the manner in which you took the photo, I find it reasonable he wanted to know why you photographed him.

Typical internet forum comment scum and drivel. Take the next step and insinuate that I was behaving similar to a murderer. Very well done. If he wanted to know why I took a photo, he should have asked me that, and maybe I would have told him. Instead he said, “Do you have a PROBLEM?”.

[Terpfan]

IMO, police should always be happy to be photographed unless it directly impedes them doing a job. It’s also proof for them if the individuals involved try to say something occurred that did not. That’s why MPD in DC is switching to body cams for all officers. A relative LEO of mine in MD told me he really values his dashboard camera because it backs him up on what he says occurred. I tend to record the unsolicited interactions in a non-threatening manner if it involves me. I would rather be able to point to audio or video than have my word against an officer because I will always lose. The truth will set you free.

[Crickey7]

Wow, isn’t this weather terrific?

[DismalScientist]

No, it sucks. How dare you call this weather terrific.:rolleyes:

[dasgeh]

The issues that rcannon sites with police are very real, and very troubling.

What I find troubling about this thread is that it takes one story, for which we really don’t have much context, and equates that story with the greater problem, using hyperbole. The car was not completely blocking the sidewalk, and, as arlrider later said, the police didn’t directly threaten him. The problem with elevating _that story_ to its own blog post/letter/whatever is that the hyperbole distracts from the real problem (and discredits those who promulgate it). E.g. we need to be talking about having an ACPD policy that says don’t block sidewalks unless absolutely necessary, and a way to gently report officers who break that policy. We need to talk about real enforcement at the IoD. But instead, we’re talking about whether “do you have a PROBLEM” is really a threat, and whether arlrider’s account is consistent.

Having dealt with ACPD, I can tell you, when discussing any one particular incident, they will focus on the details of that incident, even those (especially those) that are not relevant to the larger conversation you want to be having. Take, for example, the July 1st incident where I rider was hit by a car, then the rider was given a warning citing an irrelevant section of law and told “bike lanes aren’t real lanes”. On Monday, the BAC wanted to talk about whether ACPD thinks “bike lanes are real lanes”. When we focuses on the July 1 incident, Lt. Green claimed that the real issue was aggressive riding by the cyclist. No one in the room was there on July 1, or had many facts, Lt. Green included, and while I personally doubt his account, it was not helpful to be dragged into that conversation. We want ACPD to be clear that bike lanes are real lanes, and that drivers who hit cyclists in them will be ticketed properly.

[arlrider]

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

What I find troubling about this thread is that it takes one story, for which we really don’t have much context, and equates that story with the greater problem, using hyperbole.

So how many instances for you define a “real” problem? If it helps any, they were doing the same thing (blocking the sidewalk) the day before, and that’s why I took the photo on Tuesday. But I’d love to hear your statistical calculations on how many “incidents” are needed to constitute a “problem”. And where’s the hyperbole?

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

The car was not completely blocking the sidewalk, and, as arlrider later said, the police didn’t directly threaten him.

Wow, how much more of an apologist can you be? Now it’s Ok because the car wasn’t “completely blocking” the sidewalk? Is it OK if an officer doesn’t “completely shoot” someone? Like they miss the head? And threats now have to be “direct” to count? Can you explain “direct”? Like if he put his hand on his holster as he asked if I had a problem, would that add to the directness? Or is your requirement that it be a declarative statement?

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

The problem with elevating _that story_ to its own blog post/letter/whatever is that the hyperbole distracts from the real problem (and discredits those who promulgate it).

Ok, call it “elevation” if it makes you feel better. I searched this forum and didn’t find a relevant thread. So I created one. That’s the cool thing about the Internet – data is pretty much free these days, and the existence of one discussion doesn’t preclude the existence of another (what you are referring to as a “big picture” or whatever).

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

we need to be talking about having an ACPD policy that says don’t block sidewalks unless absolutely necessary, and a way to gently report officers who break that policy.

And pray tell, oh wise one, how would we ever know that we need to be talking about those policies if no one ever mentioned the behavior precipitating the need for those policies? If no one ever mentioned that sidewalks were being blocked, then how would we know that we need a no-sidewalk-blocking policy? Your post defies logic, it is the cart leading the horse.

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

We need to talk about real enforcement at the IoD. But instead, we’re talking about whether “do you have a PROBLEM” is really a threat, and whether arlrider’s account is consistent.

So instead, it’s a better use of our time to try to discredit first-hand accounts directly relevant to the topic you discuss? The fact that someone who is a daily rider, minding his own business, was so motivated to come on here and post this behavior must just mean that he has nothing to do and is making this stuff up, right? To distract from the “real” issues that are so very, very, very important to you. Because single instances can’t of course be manifestations of “real” issues, no, those are just down in the weeds and we need to see the big picture.

Got it. Crystal clear.

[arlrider]

And just to add, I’m really sorry for all the snark and sarcasm, but that’s just my personal way of coping with being marginalized, doubted, accused, compared to a murderer, etc.

If I had known that this was going to all come back on me (which I should have figured, since it is the Internet, even in a supposedly like-minded group forum like this one), I would have just left the advocacy to the advocates with their bright-green vests and their feel-good community powows and not stuck my neck out.

LESSON LEARNED.

[dasgeh]

One clarification: by “elevating” I meant taking this story to the powers that be, writing blog posts about it. Not posting about it here. And, as I should have said earlier, thanks for sharing your story.

So I was trying to formulate a calm response to the snark and sarcasm that you directed at me (and have through this entire thread) and this popped up:

@arlrider 96612 wrote:

And just to add, I’m really sorry for all the snark and sarcasm, but that’s just my personal way of coping with being marginalized, doubted, accused, compared to a murderer, etc.

If I had known that this was going to all come back on me (which I should have figured, since it is the Internet, even in a supposedly like-minded group forum like this one), I would have just left the advocacy to the advocates with their bright-green vests and their feel-good community powows and not stuck my neck out.

LESSON LEARNED.

My posts, and I think the posts of others, have been intended to say there’s more to the story than you seem to know, and there may be a better way to handle it than to write the world about THIS ONE SITUATION. I have certainly not “marginalized, doubted, accused” you or “compared [you] to a murderer”. In fact, I don’t see that from others either. You seem VERY defensive that what you did and what you want to do is exactly right, and that what everyone else is suggesting is WRONG.

If all you want is validation, then just say so. If you want to talk about how to effect real change in ACPD, then please don’t attack the people who have been working hard on this very topic.

[AFHokie]

@arlrider 96584 wrote:

What on earth nonsense are you spouting off? How does what you claim I said at all contradict itself? Any why are you accusing me of lying? My statements are pretty clear to anyone with an elementary level of English reading comprehension. I said that I TRIED to take the photo discretely, but knew that if I was still seen, the officer might not take kindly to it. Why did I take the photo discreetly? Because I know officers don’t like being photographed. Because they try to bully people all the time for exercising their first amendment rights. See article after article and the ACLU. I didn’t want to invite that. So I TRIED to take the photo discreetly. However, even trying to take the photo discreetly it can still be discerned that one is taking a photo; barring use of a bike-mounted camera there is no way to avoid this. So that is what I said – I tried to be discreet, I knew that if he saw me he might not like it (because I was catching him doing something bad), he saw me, he got mad, I passed on my way. What is there for you to not understand?

Typical internet forum comment scum and drivel. Take the next step and insinuate that I was behaving similar to a murderer. Very well done. If he wanted to know why I took a photo, he should have asked me that, and maybe I would have told him. Instead he said, “Do you have a PROBLEM?”.

Calm down Francis.

The definition of contradiction:
1. a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
2. a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
3. the statement of a position opposite to one already made.

Perhaps that will help you understand elementary level English comprehension. See #2.

I went out of my way to tell you I am not accusing you of lying because I sincerely don’t. I simply believe your statements biased due to your involvement in the altercation. If you want to take statements as fact when there’s an obvious chance of bias, that’s your problem.

Take a moment and try actually reading the article. I linked it because the point of the article is not the attack against the PA state police, but rather attacks against police are on the rise. These attacks often include planning and surveillance and at times target specific officers. Discreetly taking photos is surveillance.

You claim different and I believe you honestly think you did not, but I’d wager you rolled by the officer with a scowl on your face. How was it Dirt was able to go out the next day and have a completely different experience? A different officer, but still initially gruff…no different than yours. However, Dirt displayed niceties and built positive rapport with the officer. That’s how a results oriented person accomplishes a positive result.

Since you can’t seem to figure it out: EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU; THE COP WAS RUDE! I take umbrage with the fact you can’t seem to wrap your noggin around the idea that perhaps you are not the innocent little cherub you seem to think you are and why on earth your action elicited such a response. A response you admit to expecting which I suspect showed on your face as you went by. Yep his response was out of line. NOBODY is debating that, but there are dozens of things you could’ve done differently to effect a positive outcome for yourself, the officer, and every other motorist/cyclist/pedestrian who passed after you. Instead you chose to come to an internet forum and tell everyone how you, an upstanding citizen caught the police acting inept and then he acted like a big meany towards you.

Rudeness does not equal brutality. To claim so degenerates a very real problem. In the future I suggest you fill out this form.

[arlrider]

I understand what contradiction means. CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I CONTRADICTED MYSELF? Because you keep saying I did, but will not cite a single fact to support your cause.

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

You claim different and I believe you honestly think you did not, but I’d wager you rolled by the officer with a scowl on your face.

And if the sky was yellow it would rain lemonade. Again, your penchant for making up “facts”. No, I made it a point even before I approached the officer’s position to stay neutral in face and focus instead on the pedestrian which was blocking my way.

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

How was it Dirt was able to go out the next day and have a completely different experience? A different officer, but still initially gruff…no different than yours. However, Dirt displayed niceties and built positive rapport with the officer. That’s how a results oriented person accomplishes a positive result.

Because he went out with the intention of sitting there for 2 hours hanging out with cops whereas I just wanted to get to work.

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

perhaps you are not the innocent little cherub you seem to think you are and why on earth your action elicited such a response. A response you admit to expecting which I suspect showed on your face as you went by. Yep his response was out of line. NOBODY is debating that, but there are dozens of things you could’ve done differently to effect a positive outcome for yourself, the officer, and every other motorist/cyclist/pedestrian who passed after you. Instead you chose to come to an internet forum and tell everyone how you, an upstanding citizen caught the police acting inept and then he acted like a big meany towards you.

Again, more lies to make your case. Never stated I was innocent – though I was, as exercising one’s first amendment rights including photography is an act of innocence. The fact that I expected a potential negative response to photography in fact supports MY argument that I consciously did NOT show emotion on my face, because I knew that I did not want to provoke such response. I have posted that several times. Never called myself upstanding.

My choice in response was to document the situation and then ask others for their thoughts on it. I did not want to start a discussion at the time. Part of this is that anyone with two brain cells could realize that blocking a busy sidewalk would not be liked by pedestrians and cyclists. But this cop did it anyways. So he made it clear that he did not care about citizens, so why would I try to engage him in discourse?

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

Rudeness does not equal brutality. To claim so degenerates a very real problem.

Could you please point me to the place where I use or imply “brutality”? Again, you are making things up as you have done all along.

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

In the future I suggest you fill out this form.

Needless ad hominem. Stupid.

Honestly, if I could start this thread over I wouldn’t even mention the cop’s reaction. That was not the main focus of my post. The main focus was that ACPD was, while reporting to the media that they were helping the situation at this intersection, in fact worsening it and wasting resources.

[arlrider]

@dasgeh 96613 wrote:

I have certainly not “marginalized, doubted, accused” you or “compared [you] to a murderer”. In fact, I don’t see that from others either.

Um, ok, I’ve been told that I did things that I didn’t do, told I had a certain look on my face from people who weren’t there, told that I should have done a bunch of other things, and been linked to an article suggesting that I may have been perceived as targeting a cop for an attack. But go ahead and make that statement.

@dasgeh 96613 wrote:

If all you want is validation, then just say so. If you want to talk about how to effect real change in ACPD, then please don’t attack the people who have been working hard on this very topic.

I didn’t ask for validation. I wanted to start a discussion. What I do know is this – little community meetings don’t get much attention; stories about bad police behavior do. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Look at times when there has been actual governmental response to issues. It usually isn’t after years of stakeholder meetings where things are “taken into consideration”. It’s usually after stories break, get some buzz and some views, and attract negative light on an issue. I’m sorry it’s not the feel-good that you’re looking for, but it’s one way to attract results.

I’m sorry that I took issue with your posts. But your first post just basically came across as – we have been working very hard on this in our little meetings so you should be happy and just put up with whatever ACPD feels like because things are moving in the right direction. And that wasn’t really what I wanted to hear – I am more of the mindset of holding people accountable, rather than feel-good talk.

[Author]

Posts