Below are two summaries of the case, each with their own stream of uncensored comments.
As for the tone of comments, I don't believe that anything useful is gained by name calling, rudeness or profanity, whether directed at me or directed at the police. It is a blogger's 'shock and awe', perhaps a personal venting at best. Such commentary offers little or nothing for shaping a more positive future, and these remarks are now getting too much in the way of the process of people coming together to understand this issue.
Up until now I have allowed all to comment in whatever way they felt they could best express themselves. However, many people are now telling me that they are tired of the murk and have asked that I change the policy. I don't relish becoming a censor of any kind, but I shall do my best to be fair. Criticism is welcome, but excessively offensive or insensitive comments that flame either the police or myself, or anyone else will be removed from this point on.
Comments are turned off for old posts, but new comments can be added at the end of the most recent post.
May the process proceed peacefully, soberly, respectfully and thoughtfully.
Stephan Orsak
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Stephan, you can disable comments on individual posts, if you like. You need to use the "edit posts" facility on blogger, and then pull up "post options".
I presume you have good legal representation for your upcoming court dates. I suggest you should let them know of your blogging on the matter, if they do not already. It might make a difference on the day.
I've been critical of your descriptions of the encounter, at my own blog; but I am still wishing you all the best in July.
I read the police narrative. It makes no sense. If you were in fact leaving the airport, in the out bound lane, you would be going with traffic. If you were going against traffic you would be going to the airport. Also if someone is in a car and pulls aside a biker, who is not stopping, they must match speeds to engage in coversation, probabally not going to happen if going against traffic. I don't see how the danger of biking in traffic is a reason to stop someone. Risk is a part of life, and cars are pretty risky on either side of the glass.
Even in the police narritive, I don't see how "Officer Wingate then advised the white male that if he did not comply with our orders, he may be tased and arrested for obstruction" could be seen as anything but a threat of excessive force.
Does anyone read this before it's sent out?
Having been on that road a million times, I cannot believe that you would even THINK about riding a bicycle on that road out of the airport! With all the lane changing necessary to get in the correct lane to go the direction you need, and the curves in the road - you were lucky you weren't hit. EVERYONE knows there is light rail or bus service to the Humphrey Terminal. From there you can get on Post Road.
What's with the CA drivers license? Hopefully you live in MN less than 6 months a year, or you should have changed that within 30 days. Also, where are you homesteaded? When you draw attention to yourself and claim to not have broken any laws - make sure your ducks are in a row.
Let me see if I can explain how I see it.
(1) Stephan is riding with traffic on an outbound road. A police car on that same road asks him to stop. The road in question is a freeway entrance road; there is no no legal route for a bicycle that continues along this road.
(2) Stephan explains his proposed route. He is not going to continue on the road. He is planning to leave the road just a few hundred yards further on, after taking a turn off that would normally proceed to a flyover for a U-turn and return to terminal. But rather than take the flyover, he was proposing to exit the road across the median and walk the bike a short distance to where he could proceed legally on a service road. Clever handling of a very bicycle unfriendly terminal.
(3) To visualize this, realise that the service road is right next to the exit road, immediately on Stephan's right. The service road was at that point one-way, returning to the terminal. There was a small median strip between the main exit road that Stephan was using and the one way service road. The service road becomes two way about four or five hundred meters further on, not far from where the main exit road splits up into two freeway entrances and the U-turn flyover.
I have provided some views of the area using Google Earth at my own blog article on this subject: Cycling Sensibly. By the way, Stephan; you may want to use Google Earth yourself to illustrate your position. You are welcome to copy the images I have obtained if they are any good to you.
(4) By Stephan's account, the police say he can go; but they ask him to take the service road... which would be against the flow of traffic.
(5) Stephan chooses to stay and argue over what is legal, and what is safe, and about how the police are being rude.
(6) This irritates the police. They insist that the main road is not safe or legal for a bike and insist that he should walk, either back to the terminal or else along the service road in the direction he is going.
(7) My perspective at this point. Never argue law with the police at a stop. The regulations for police at the airport really do mean that they may direct traffic, and that vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles are all obliged to follow those directions. This is not a police state clause or a violation of civil rights. It is a sensible pragmatic rule for managing roads, and if you have a problem with directions take it up later with their superiors. At the time, be polite and do what you are told. See ordinance 100.
(8) The discussion goes down hill. Everyone is getting upset. The police are annoyed at being held up on their way to another call by an argumentative cyclist; Stephan is annoyed at being inconvenienced unnecessarily by officious police. At least, that is how each party sees it.
(9) This is where it turns really bad. Stephan decides at his own initiative to end discussion and ride off along the service road, going against the one-way signs. He decides on his own initiative that this is better than walking, despite the most recent instructions from the police to walk. Riding away from police on foot and in direct defiance of their explicit instructions is not going to end nicely. This move by Stephan is illegal and incredibly stupid.
(10) Stephen is brought down off the bike and a taser is used. He is arrested.
Is this a reasonable summary?
Sounds to me that when they asked you do do something the first time, right or wrong, you should have listened. Maybe you and your "tree hugging" friends learned a lesson...you do not need to protest everything for the sake of proving a point. Write a letter after the fact..oh yeah, there goes another tree!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Stephen,
Have you contacted "Communities United Against Police Brutality"?
http://www.cuapb.org/HomePage.asp
I can relate to your story since my son was brutalized by the Saint Paul Police.
The sad thing about all of this is the abuse doesn't end with the beating. It continues in the form of the police covering up the incident. Also, if you filed a police brutality complaint with internal affairs and you lose this case you could be charged with a felony for filing a false report.
The law that enables these charges to be brought is unconstitutional, however, this state is leading the charge on civil rights violations and it doesn't seem to matter to anyone until something like this happens to them.
My name is Bob Johnson I am a well known civil rights activist here in Saint Paul. I'd be honored Stephen if you will come to my blog "A Democracy Town Hall Meeting" and say a couple words to the members of my blog. I posted your story at my blog.
http://www.ademocracy.blogspot.com/
I can't believe that you would even attempt it.
Glumack Drive only has an exit (and entrance) from a controled access road (State Highway 5). It is controlled from just north of the 7th street bridge into, and past Bloomington.
I didn't realize that non-motorized traffice were permitted on control accessed roads. Even the Mendota Bridge doesn't have access to the driving lanes, but has a ped. walkway, which is also used for bikes.
Next time take the light rail (towards Minneapolis) and get off either at the VA center stop or the Minnehaha park stop, then start your trucking.
Being from Minnesota and flying as much as you claim, you should have known that the highway to and from the airport didn't allow peds. or non-motorized vehicles.
Here was I thinking that America was the land of the free.
I hope that the case goes well for you. Some people should never be allowed to wear a uniform; the power is just too much for them.
I'm glad that England is always a generation behind the States. I'll be dead before this kind of nonsense gets here.
Interesting. Even more interesting that Stephen thinks he will have a day in court over it. It brings up a good growing pain in our society today-that of biker vs. pedestrian vs. auto and where each is appropriate. Unfortunately, common sense has to play a part in most of this as laws aren't and shouldn't be written and displayed everywhere. Pedestrians don't run out into traffic, etc. Choosing to ride your bike out of the Mpls/St.paul international airport REALLY lacks common sense. Stephen you should thank those officers for providing you some common sense.Something cyclists seem to increasingly lack as they try to compete with cars where no bike lanes are developed(or even worse, as they use roads with no shoulders and no passing lanes for cars to avoid hitting them) It is hard enough to get around Mpls/st. paul int'l in a car, much less a bike. And as a cyclist AND a driver, you should have some respect for the people trying to avoid you as you ride in their driving lanes. I hope your day in court comes out in favor of cyclists developing some common sense and outward reflection of others around them.
Anonymous'es:
Not everyone who rides a bike does it for show, or to make some kind of grand, worldly political statement.
Most do it for reasons that would bore you to tears... Money, fitness; spouse needs the car that day, car is dead; no place to park the car where they are going to; Or, maybe... it's fun.
Plenty of right-wingers bike, too, because the law says they CAN.
The major issue here is police brutality. It does happen. What you all think Mr Orsak's political alliance might be has nothing to do with it.
Stephan, thanks for standing up for bike rights in such a hazardous environment. Laws are already in place protecting the right of cyclists to use roads without marked bike lanes, and drivers need to be made aware of this and quit thinking that they have a monopoly on the roadways. The more of us are riding, the more drivers will become accustomed to us.
As for those of us who both drive and bike, we should realize that the occasional inconvenience of being stuck behind a bicycle for a couple blocks with no easy way to pass is a small price to pay for the great convenience of being able to travel without a car when we prefer, in an environmentally friendly and healthy way.
Best of luck in court. I'd say the next step is getting a safe, legal bicycle route to the airport established!
There is a very easy way to get to the airport from local bike trails. The light-rail stops as close as Ft. Snelling. The stop location is approximately 3 blocks from the current trail. After boarding the light-rail, there are bike racks on board. The train ride is less than 1 minute from the stop to the terminal.
Another option is to ride your bike to any of the stops along Hiawatha or 34th Ave, then board the train.
The confined areas around the Lindberg Terminal can not be easily expanded to accommodate bike or walking paths from Ft. Snelling State Park.
There are some kinds of comments that make no sense to continue on this blog:
(1) Whether or not bikes SHOULD or should not be riding in such places, or whether Stephan Orsak should or should not use a bicycle versus a vehicle. LEGALITY is the only issue here.
(2) Stephan Orsak's attitude or whether or not he should have questioned a police officer. Until someone can frame these kinds of comments in the context of LEGALITY (is 1uestioning a police officer illegal? I think not!), I don't believe that have any bearing on the core issue, just as they would have little to no bearing in the context of a court case that decides whether Stephan did or did not violate the laws AS THEY ARE ARTICULATED.
I personally believe that the blog comments should be focused on the legal rights of bicyclists in general to enter/exit airports, and the specific legality of a bicylist to enter/exit the Minneapolis airport.
David Corcoran
Dear District Attorney's Office,
Your site navigation is difficult at best, but please pass this on the the DA who has decided to prosecute Mr. Stephen Orsak with the multiple grand misdemeanor charges when he refused the order from Officer Wingate to ride his bicycle against the vehicle code. My question is why are you prosecuting this? After reading the blogs, the police report, and reading your vehicle code it is plainly apparent that Mr. Orsak was riding his bicycle within the confines of the Minnesota Vehicle Code section 169.222. If the road in question is not obviously a freeway and you do not have No Bicycling signs posted than you have not properly warned cyclists that they are prohibited from riding on the road in question. It's even questionable if its legal for the Airport to post No Bicycle signs post incident. Nowhere in the vehicle code does it state that an officer of the law may make personal decisions about what is safe and what is not safe i n an ordinary situation barring accidents, construction, or any other apparent immediate hazard to citizens. The fact that Officer Wingate did not have probable cause to stop Mr. Orsak, other than his own ignorance of the vehicle code, invalidates all other actions occurring afterwards, no matter who escalated first. Do you normally allow officers to make up their own laws or interpret them as its suits their mood? It appears that in this case you do.
Let me tell you a little story about the governmental agency I work for, a handicapped rider on one of our buses had not secured her wheelchair correctly in the bus wheelchair harness. Agency policy at the time was wheelchair bound passengers were responsible for securing themselves. To make a long story short, the bus turned sharply and the lady slid across the floor hitting her head on the window. Her lawyers made a "reasonable" claim of $350,000. The agency said sue us, so she did. The jury awarded her $ 2.35 million. Not only did this agency have to pay her the settlement but also had to spend millions redesigning new harnesses, purchasing them through public bid, then training the drivers how to use them.
The lesson to be learned is if you lose you have "Nifonged" yourselves and will be spending a lot more money and prestige than you would if you just apologized and walked away. Best of luck to you because I wouldn't want to be working in your department if you lose.
Sincerely,
Greg Beattie
Mountain View, CA
I just came out of MSP airport yesterday.
There is only one entrance and one exit, though the exit splits into two directions when leaving the airport, one towards Minneapolis and St. Paul, the other towards Bloomington.
Therefore, coming down the exit roadway from the main terminal (Glumack Drive), your only option is to continue to travel on a roadway that turns into a freeway.
At the point where Glumack Drive turns onto the highway (either direction), the Minnesota Department of Transportation has signs posted stating that you are entering a Freeway, and no pedestrians, bicycles, etc. are permitted.
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that anyone coming out of Glumack Drive must be in, or on, a moterized vehicle.
True, the Airport Police, made the stop before Steve got onto the highway, but there was no where else to go when you are exiting the airport.
The only other option, as they pointed out, was for him to get off of Glumack and onto the other road, which is one way coming into the postal facility (because the exit is again out on Glumack Drive) and walk eastbound which would get him onto a two way street that would exit onto Post Road and other available streets (even though this is NOT the direction he wanted to go).
The only viable alternative available to people who want to walk or bike after leaving the airport is to take the LRT (Light Rail Transit) to the first stop in either direction then get off and continue on. And for $1.50 or $2.00, that's not too bad a price.
Now he's facing the question of whether it "should" be possible to ride a bicycle on Glumack Drive UNTIL he reaches the "Freeway" that is posted against going any further.
If bicycles should be allowed, the only possible legal route would be a circular route away from the terminal and on the loop that brings you back to the terminal. On this route you do not go onto the posted "Freeway".
But the cyclist would be "sharing" the roadway, which has multiple lanes going the same direction, with drivers leaving the airport, some in rental cars and their not quite sure where they should be going and are concentrating on exiting the airport.
Others that are leaving and are coming from the arrival area, or ticketing area, but are having to change lanes depending on the direction they want to travel, while being aware of the merging traffic from the parking ramps that may have to cross lanes to get to their proper exit. Is this an environment a cyclist wants to be in?
Now, the question facing Steve in the trial is "What would a reasonable person do in this instance". Even though he might not have been aware that the "Freeway" signs were posted (and they look as though they have been there for years), is ignorance of that fact relevant?
Maybe the Airport Police should have informed him of the fact that he could not leave Glumack Drive because of the "Freeway" designation, but their knowledge of that fact was "probably" the reason that their police department had (or has) a regulation of no bicycles.
The "No pedestrain" sign I believe is between the "Transit Center" and the post office that is across the exit lanes. People might think that they could walk to the post office to mail something, like something they wanted to retain but TSA would not allow in the secure zone of the airport.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens on July 7th ?? or whenever the trial is.
Steve, please post the results.
Thanks.
Herb
I lived in M/SP for 25 years, many of those as a punk rocker. I know about the wonderful "Harass and Assault" mentality of many Twin Cities officers all too well.
Many of the cops there are good people, trying to do their jobs as best they can--but there are altogether too many officers who can only be described as thugs.
The Twin Cities' police departments--Minneapolis' in particular--need a serious housecleaning. Good luck with this, bro.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with an officer, you have to obey his verbal commands. You were engaged in legitimately suspicious behavior (how many other people had bikes on that road?) and you attempted to flee the scene before the officer(s) gave you permission to depart. That is a pretty clear-cut admission of guilt to me.
I love biking and am fortunate enough to have been able to share the road without major incident. I consider myself one of the lucky ones. At the same time I always respect police authority and recognize that I am operating a vehicle that is subject to applicable laws.
One factual error in your story: there has never been a case of a TASER killing a patient. I am an EMT with some tactical awareness training and that is something that our MD teacher made sure we knew.
Do you have any original studies to back up your claims? If you can convince me otherwise I will write a post about how right you are on my blog.
It saddens me that a hub of human activity as big and dynamic as MSP would prohibit bicyclists and pedestrians. This says something incredibly negative about our society. (FYI---I am a non-tree-hugging, conservative Republican.)
The formatting on this blog software causes quite an eyesore. Who thought that using 25% of the screen width for text with the rest being margin is a fantastic idea?
Post a Comment