Road rager v. cyclist on camera

This story has made the newspapers:

"Many wade into bike-car brawl online"

-----------------------------------------------------
More than 100,000 hits on website documenting fight `Psycho motorists
strike again,' one angry posting proclaims
Jan. 31, 2006. 06:08 AM

BETSY POWELL
CRIME REPORTER

A series of dramatic photographs capturing a quintessential urban
confrontation — a daytime brawl between a bike courier and a motorist
in downtown Toronto — has sparked a raging debate in cyberspace.

The vigorous, sometimes vitriolic venting weighs in on a host of
topics from pedestrian versus motorist rights and conjecture about the
nationalities and sexual preferences of the combatants, to littering
and whether the photographer should have put down his camera and
stepped in to stop the violence.

The incident apparently began after a man tossed food onto the street
in Kensington Market and escalated when the cyclist threw the food
back into his car.

"Psycho motorists strike again!" said one posting on the website
Citynoise.org, where photographer Adam Krawesky posted the images last
Thursday.

Visitor traffic has since gone through the roof with more than 100,000
hits being logged by yesterday afternoon. The images are also
circulating widely on the Internet and appear on dozens of websites as
far away as The Netherlands, some in foreign languages, with links
provided to Citynoise.

But many postings also sided with the unidentified man.

"The bitch chucked food in his car. Yeah, he's a moron for littering,
but she made it personal ... it's nice she's so passionate about the
environment that she seeks personal confrontation by shoving food back
into people's laps, but honestly, what did she expect?" reads one.

Krawesky said while the incident highlights the "gulf between cyclists
and motorists, typically male motorists," the subsequent online
discussion mirrors another aspect of human interaction.

"It's interesting how the Internet reflects in one way when you're in
a car — in the same way the anonymity of the Internet and posting all
sorts of threatening, awful things that you would never do if you were
actually face to face," says the 28-year-old who works as an editor at
Citynoise.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...2154&t=TS_Home
or http://tinyurl.com/d3y46












J. Spaceman

A sad tale:
http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=491
Summary: Driver throws litter out window. Cyclist throws it back in.
Fight ensues which is caught on camera.


I thought about it for a while. Neither is correct nor is either
totally wrong. Clearly the motorist did the most & worst things, but
the courier is no angel either. The Police were very wrong to make the
woman press charges against the motorist.

Then it dawned on me. The cops should have charged them both. Her w/
opening his door, "relittering" & scratching his car. Then they should
have charged him w/ mayhem, battery, littering or whatever he actually
did. They should be charged w/ one count of exactly each thing they did
wrong. Not this absurd B.S., that the cops do all the time, of charging
someone w/ five charges describing the same offence. That way they
would each carry the weight of their respective wrongdoings.

Please excuse me, but obviously I don't know cop speak for the proper
terms to describe their offences. I can only use general terms for what
happened.

Perhaps the most telling / chilling part of this incident is the
police's attitude toward bicyclists, and women. Having lived in
Vancouver for a year while on an assignment, I've held a picture of
Canada being a more enlightened place that the USA. That a major city
anyplace would allow the police to get away w/ this type of prejudice
is disheartening, but particularly in Canada. Of course any country
that would elect Dubba twice doesn't push any other country (even Iraq)
hard for greater enlightenment title.

I also wonder what happened prior to his throwing the litter?

John

john wrote:
A sad tale:
http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=491
Summary: Driver throws litter out window. Cyclist throws it back in.
Fight ensues which is caught on camera.


I thought about it for a while. Neither is correct nor is either
totally wrong. Clearly the motorist did the most & worst things, but
the courier is no angel either. The Police were very wrong to make the
woman press charges against the motorist.

Then it dawned on me. The cops should have charged them both. Her w/
opening his door, "relittering" & scratching his car. Then they should
have charged him w/ mayhem, battery, littering or whatever he actually
did. They should be charged w/ one count of exactly each thing they did
wrong. Not this absurd B.S., that the cops do all the time, of charging
someone w/ five charges describing the same offence. That way they
would each carry the weight of their respective wrongdoings.

Please excuse me, but obviously I don't know cop speak for the proper
terms to describe their offences. I can only use general terms for what
happened.

Perhaps the most telling / chilling part of this incident is the
police's attitude toward bicyclists, and women. Having lived in
Vancouver for a year while on an assignment, I've held a picture of
Canada being a more enlightened place that the USA. That a major city
anyplace would allow the police to get away w/ this type of prejudice
is disheartening, but particularly in Canada. Of course any country
that would elect Dubba twice doesn't push any other country (even Iraq)
hard for greater enlightenment title.

I also wonder what happened prior to his throwing the litter?

John

I wondered how long it was going to take before someone figured out
this was W's fault...

Joseph

On 31 Jan 2006 22:57:33 -0800, "john" wrote:

The cops should have charged them both. Her w/
opening his door,
Did she open it or just toss the thing through the window?

"relittering"
She didn't do anything wrong with that one. It was his stuff and she
was returning it.

& scratching his car.
_Maybe_ but if the scratch was as a consequence of the struggle that's
not her fault.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article .com,
john wrote:

A sad tale:
http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=491
Summary: Driver throws litter out window. Cyclist throws it back in.
Fight ensues which is caught on camera.


I thought about it for a while. Neither is correct nor is either
totally wrong. Clearly the motorist did the most & worst things, but
the courier is no angel either. The Police were very wrong to make the
woman press charges against the motorist.

That the two antagonists are identified as a courier and a motorist
focuses attention on an irrelevancy - even more so since the woman was
walking her bike at the time of the initial encounter and the male
actually drove off then ran back to resume hostilities. The source of
aggression was not rooted in a traffic mishap, but the consequence of
one (litterer) defiling a public space and another, taking offense,
returning the favour upon a private space (throwing a hamburger into
the litterer's car).

But I agree, both parties erred. Most likely, they both regret their
contribution to the fracas.

Then it dawned on me. The cops should have charged them both. Her w/
opening his door, "relittering" & scratching his car. Then they should
have charged him w/ mayhem, battery, littering or whatever he actually
did. They should be charged w/ one count of exactly each thing they did
wrong. Not this absurd B.S., that the cops do all the time, of charging
someone w/ five charges describing the same offence. That way they
would each carry the weight of their respective wrongdoings.

Please excuse me, but obviously I don't know cop speak for the proper
terms to describe their offences. I can only use general terms for what
happened.

You're too severe on the police. The woman was informed that if she
proceeded with charges against her assailant, then she would also be
charged with mischief (scratching the car). She *declined* to press the
matter, and everyone let it drop. But the police were prepared to go
ahead just as you thought proper.

I've been involved in accidents where the police have asked me outright
if I'd like to press charges against a motorist and have declined too.
There is nothing untoward here; often it makes more sense to just drop
the whole matter, letting those involved make their own amends or lick
their wounds.


Perhaps the most telling / chilling part of this incident is the
police's attitude toward bicyclists, and women. Having lived in
Vancouver for a year while on an assignment, I've held a picture of
Canada being a more enlightened place that the USA. That a major city
anyplace would allow the police to get away w/ this type of prejudice
is disheartening, but particularly in Canada.

snip

Your inferences from this episode are absurd. The police 'getting away
with this type of prejudice'?!!. Examine the case. After chasing down
the hamburger hurler and satisfying themselves to the facts of the
fracas they arrive at a conclusion quite similar to none other than
yourself: That both parties could be charged. That they should be
charged, however, is another matter; and contingent upon the will and
cooperation of the concerned parties. They don't want to, there's no
point. How would justice be served by pressing a case?

To my mind, more discretion of this sort - both by the parties involved
and police - would better serve everyone. The conclusion: Burger boy
learns about littering and courier babe learns that flinging food in
autos is only appreciated at drive thrus. Justice is served.

Luke

Luke wrote:

You're too severe on the police. The woman was informed that if she
proceeded with charges against her assailant, then she would also be
charged with mischief (scratching the car).

If her account is true, that sounds like bad police work.

She said "He then lost it, and jumped out of his car and threw 2 large
Timmies at meand then grabbed me by my helmet and tried to toss me
around a bit.It was at that point that my bike lock key (that I wear on
a bracelet around my wrist) scratched his car."

So what happened? He threw her against his car and her bracelet
scratched paint, so _she_ should be charged? That makes no sense.

If he began tossing her around and she said "I'll show you!" and
deliberately scratched his paint - sorry, I'd think the cop should
never mention that. To me, it's a minor version of the burglar
breaking into a home, then suing the homeowner for defending his
property.

To me, if a yahoo does something illegal, he should receive negative
feedback, both from the legal system and the public. The cops
discouraged that from happening. They shouldn't have.


By the way, does anyone know the name of the yahoo in question? It's
great that his picture is so popular on the internet. I hope all his
potential girlfriends and potential employers see it and remember it.

- Frank Krygowski

In article .com,
wrote:

Luke wrote:

You're too severe on the police. The woman was informed that if she
proceeded with charges against her assailant, then she would also be
charged with mischief (scratching the car).

If her account is true, that sounds like bad police work.

Operative term: 'If'

She said "He then lost it, and jumped out of his car and threw 2 large
Timmies at meand then grabbed me by my helmet and tried to toss me
around a bit.It was at that point that my bike lock key (that I wear on
a bracelet around my wrist) scratched his car."

So what happened? He threw her against his car and her bracelet
scratched paint, so _she_ should be charged? That makes no sense.


If he began tossing her around and she said "I'll show you!" and
deliberately scratched his paint - sorry, I'd think the cop should
never mention that. To me, it's a minor version of the burglar
breaking into a home, then suing the homeowner for defending his
property.

To an extent, me too. But photos notwithstanding, we were not front row
center to the proceedings. Scratching the car was accidentally was her
version of affair, we're not privy to Mr. Hamburger Helper's account
(that he's chosen to remain mum seems incriminating) but the cops
surely are.



To me, if a yahoo does something illegal, he should receive negative
feedback, both from the legal system and the public. The cops
discouraged that from happening. They shouldn't have.

More precisely, it was the woman that discouraged pursuing the matter.
Think about this: The cops want to press charges and require a
statement or a court appearance from the woman; but she declines,
wanting to forget the whole matter. What are they to do then when the
victim refuses to cooperate? Perhaps the analogy doesn't apply, but
isn't this sort of outcome common in domestic abuse cases?

By the way, does anyone know the name of the yahoo in question? It's
great that his picture is so popular on the internet.
I hope all his
potential girlfriends and potential employers see it and remember it.


Here's an interesting aside to this episode. The photos of the melee
made the front page of the newsprint and online version of the Toronto
Star[1]. Apparently the marauding moron was identified, but the Star
declined publishing the specifics so as not to aid self-styled
vigilantes seeking retribution (imagine the litigation then!). Forget
about the long arm of the law; transgressors now must fear cyber
stalkers!

Futher, whatever sentence this clod would've suffered by a judge seems
negligible against his confronting his supreme stupidity printed in
full colour and framed in thousands of newspaper outlets across the
city. Perhaps the fool should've insisted on charges, if only to avoid
such adverse publicity.

To me, a fascinating aspect to this brouhaha has been the internet's
role in what constitutes a newsworthy event. This, frankly,
insignificant incident, garnered the interest of 100,000+ cyber
spectators, elicited spirited debated, and prompted a major Toronto
daily to plaster it over its front page. Amazing.

Luke


1.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...estar/Layout/A
rticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&ci d=1138661412479

or

http://tinyurl.com/acgto

On 1 Feb 2006 00:03:38 -0800, wrote:


john wrote:
snip...
is disheartening, but particularly in Canada. Of course any country
that would elect Dubba twice doesn't push any other country (even Iraq)
hard for greater enlightenment title.

I also wonder what happened prior to his throwing the litter?

John

I wondered how long it was going to take before someone figured out
this was W's fault...

Joseph

Everything is W's fault. That's why it doesn't come up too often.

Luke wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

To me, if a yahoo does something illegal, he should receive negative
feedback, both from the legal system and the public. The cops
discouraged that from happening. They shouldn't have.

More precisely, it was the woman that discouraged pursuing the matter.
Think about this: The cops want to press charges and require a
statement or a court appearance from the woman; but she declines,
wanting to forget the whole matter. What are they to do then when the
victim refuses to cooperate? Perhaps the analogy doesn't apply, but
isn't this sort of outcome common in domestic abuse cases?

I think we need to carefully distinguish between three scenarios:

1) The scenario where the victim volunteers that she is not interested
in pressing charges, or will not cooperate with an attempt to do so.

2) The scenario where the victim is not even asked, doesn't know she
needs to ask, and is later shocked to find the cops thought the
incident not worth pressing charges.

3) The scenario where the victim is told that if she does want to
press charges, she will be charged herself.

In recent weeks, I've heard of both case #2 and case #3 being defended
as being the fault of the victim - that is, case #1. I'm not buying
it.

The situation in this thread is an example of #3. Given the photos,
the witnesses, and the physical differences between the combatants, the
cops' approach seems extremely inappropriate. "I was beating her up
and she scratched my car" just doesn't get any sympathy from me. "She
scratched my car so I was beating her up" doesn't, either.

Even if she intentionally scratched the car and precipitated his rage
(very unlikely, ISTM) her act would be impossible to prove deliberate,
thus impossible to convict. I think it should have been absolutely
ignored by the cops on that basis alone. They _certainly_ should not
have used it to dissuade her from pressing charges.

- Frank Krygowski

In article . com,
wrote:

I think we need to carefully distinguish between three scenarios:

1) The scenario where the victim volunteers that she is not interested
in pressing charges, or will not cooperate with an attempt to do so.


snip

The situation in this thread is an example of #3. Given the photos,
the witnesses, and the physical differences between the combatants, the
cops' approach seems extremely inappropriate. "I was beating her up
and she scratched my car" just doesn't get any sympathy from me. "She
scratched my car so I was beating her up" doesn't, either.

Even if she intentionally scratched the car and precipitated his rage
(very unlikely, ISTM) her act would be impossible to prove deliberate,
thus impossible to convict. I think it should have been absolutely
ignored by the cops on that basis alone. They _certainly_ should not
have used it to dissuade her from pressing charges.

- Frank Krygowski

Good argument, you've given me cause to reconsider. Although, there's
one aspect of your reasoning that doesn't sit well with me: that's the
notion that the prospect of a minor charge[1] had a coercive effect in
the woman dropping the matter. I think you're overstating its
significance.

And though I concede the charge of scratching of the car probably
should've been dismissed directly by the cops, thankfully one cannot
expect to embark on the course of justice on one's own terms; at times
the vagaries of its enforcers must be suffered before justice will
emerge via the court.

Another musing: We're all Monday morning QBs here. We have the benefit
of images and distance to determine the affair at leisure. Wouldn't it
be unfair to regard the photos as a rebuke of the officers' handling of
the situation if they were not privy to them at the time of
intercession? Perhaps contradictory statements and general confusion
were all they had to go on at the time.

Luke


1.
North of the border, the penalty for mischief is a fine at worst, most
likely the court would've thrown it out.