[July 28 update] Star Tribune story (Jim Foti):
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1322372.html
[July 28 update] KFAI interview (Erin Vassilopoulos and Lauretta Dawolo): story begins at 14:20, continues to 21:20-
http://helix.kfai.org/ramgen/replay/KFAIEveningNews/KFAIEveningNews
[July 20 update]- 2nd Pioneer Press story this weekend on the trial and its completion:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_6426488?source=most_emailed
Also see http://presspubs.com/articles/2007/07/20/white_bear_press/news/doc469e1aa46d057014929027.txt
for the White Bear Press story of July 19.
Emily Gurnon of the St Paul Pioneer Press has written a very balanced story of the incident. It can be found here:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_6220737?nclick_check=1
See also Bridgette Bornstein's succinct and accurate WCCO-TV story from July 10:
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_191182435.html
Cheers to all,
Stephan
Monday, July 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
Andrew B made a comment in the last post about how to his knowledge and training there have been NO deaths related to the use of Tasers....many other people have already replied to such comments...but it doesn't take much to find out more information on deaths that re related to Taser use.
Just go to google and type in Taser deaths. The first thing to come up is a CBS news story about "70" deaths related to taser use.
Of course I imagine that the taser making companies would like you to believe that the person died of heart failure and not of being shot by the taser.....but it's pretty obvious.
Anyway, it is interesting that in your EMT training they stress this point....why?
Do you know why?
hmmmmmmm
What happened with your motion to dismiss? I'm very interested to read the results. It looked like a fairly well argued brief to me.
I'm looking forward to reading the decision!
Although the Motion to Dismiss has been served, it apparently will not be actually read and considered by a judge until it is certain the case will go to trial. I assume it will be considered before jury selection on July 16. I agree that it is a nice piece of work. Thanks for writing! Stephan
To: apd@mspmac.org
Cc: greencycles@mac.com
To whom it may concern:
I just read a story about two of your officers brutalizing a law-abiding visitor to our state simply for riding a bicycle (SEE: http://
tinyurl.com/yum7om ). Typically I would disregard such a story but, given my experiences with your officers, I believe every word of this tale and am outraged.
On several occasions I have been bullied by your officers for no reason. In one instance I was putting my infant into his car seat in front of the NWA gates. One of your officers started giving me grief and interrupting the task at hand apparently because he thought I was taking too long. I can tell you that person has never put an infant
into a child safety seat. When I asked the officer if he was telling me to drive away without securing my son's safety seat (in violation of Minnesota law) he said I was arguing. He was dead wrong, and he
was a jerk.
That is but one example of how your officers treat people at our state's largest airport. They're rude bullies who aren't keeping us safe. In fact, one could argue that their insistence on pestering law-
abiding citizens, as noted in the story above, is actually making us less safe. They should be spending their time and effort patrolling
the airport for suspicious behavior and people. Certainly hassling bicyclists and parents wrangling small children into safety seats does nothing but pump your officers' fragile egos and make the people feel as if we live in a military state.
If your department management is not capable of hiring sane, honest, competent officers they should be relieved of duty post haste. No
doubt you have good officers at the airport but you also have more than your fair share of certifiable whack jobs who shouldn't have
guns, tasers or badges. Fortunately there are plenty of cameras around that won't allow these people to get away with their heinous
acts.
It is my hope that the officers who brutalized this man are brought before a jury of their peers. I hope they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that they lose their jobs and right to
work in law enforcement. Most of all I hope the morons who put these jerks into uniform are also punished for their lack of competence, good judgement and remarkably poor leadership.
You are failing the state of Minnesota.
Dave
There really needs to be an investigation of all incidents that have occurred at Minneapolis airport over the past "x" years. I believe you will find that there is a common thread with abuse of power at the airport and it may well be that certain police officers have been involved in repeated incidents.
Ted
I tried to post to the blog but had to sign up then it all got lost which is a shame since I wrote from my heart and wanted to contribute my thoughts to the ongoing discussion. So I will just say thank you so much for your courage to stand up for peace and The Constution of the United States of America. It is truly scary how so many people just give in to authority even when that authority is completely out of line and actually behaving in a thugish un-Constitutional manner. Police states don't happen over night...they just sneak in and one day they are there. I'm so thankful for people like you who can so courageously stand up for not just yourself, but me, and all Americans. And do it in such a peaceful and intelligent way that is so inspiring.
You are a true American hero and what you did was no small thing. It was brave, it was peaceful, it was honest, it was pure American...it was right!! I hope you get to ride your bike in peace for the rest of your life!
Keith in Connecticut supports you all the way.
Moral to the story:
An order by an officer not followed is an arrestable offense...Do not disregard an order from an officer no matter how much you think you're right. Do it and file a complaint later.
It'll save a few thousand volts from giving you shrinkage....
Steven I'm sure many have read this story: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Woman_70_clashes_with_police_over_n_07092007.html
and some (myself included) have seen parallels to your own contact with the police. Authoritarians will always be with us, and will always want everyone to give in to the police. that is until the police knock on THEIR door at 3 in the morning
On July 1st, 2007 Andrew B wrote:
"One factual error in your story: there has never been a case of a TASER killing a patient....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."
While 'original studies' regarding death by taser appear to be in short supply, try this video on for size (warning - not for the squeamish):
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=833329c647
If that's not enough for you, go to
http://freedomsphoenix.com
and do a search on 'taser'.
Terry
http://www.checkpointusa.org
Those who feel that we should not ask officers to explain confusing instructions to us in an otherwise nonthreatening, peaceful situation are exactly the kind of people who would be successful and content citizens of Cuba, China, and other authoritarian countries where foremost, you DO NOT challenge or question the authorities, the most common interface of which is the police. Police run police states, and you are not to challenge or question them.
We are free in the United States of America and enjoy the wonderful freedoms we do because there are a small minority of brave people who do challenge authority. It is those challenges that keep authorities in check, maintains our checks and balances, and creates the situation that makes the United States so blessed as a free country.
If even that brave minority instead were to follow the instructions that "you don't challenge or question police officers," then our society would be no better than Iran, Saddam's Iraq, or Myanmar (Burma).
I appreciate what people like Stephan Orsak do in protecting my freedoms as an American. I also appreciate what the police do to protect my safety, but it is the police, more than the common citizen, that represents the greatest POTENTIAL threat to a free society.
Darryl Carson
There is asking about instructions and then there is getting angry at being told what to do...Big difference....
And Darryl, your comment about the Police being the threat to our free society, tell that to all the victims of crimes. Without the Police or law there'd be chaos..
Would you like that?
I think that you should stick with you know best....Music.... and leave the law enforcement to the professionals.
If an officer makes a "reasonalbe request" and states that it is unlawful to do something, just because it's not posted, and just because you have no "instant" knowledge that it is not a lawful order (ignorance of the law is no excuse).
You were on Airport Property, and the laws of this little "city" may be different than what you are accustom to. In addition to that you have to realize that the Federal Government has the "threat" alert at "orange", which is a high level.
Do you think that the police should ignore a bicycle riding about the airport property without asking what it's all about?
1) They said that it was not permitted to be riding a bike where you were stopped.
2) The only other alternative was to use the other (less traffic) roadway. You chose to ride your bike against one-way traffic, while they were still present. Now, they couldn't ignore that.
If you had "walked" your bike, at least until they departed and started to answer their other call, probably nothing further would have happened.
You had to "prove" your point that night, and now you are pushing it again and it's costing the Hennepin County residents $$'s for you to try to prove your point.
If you are found guilty on any count, you should also be liable for the costs that the county has incurred.
What was your original intention? I haven't been able to determine it.
Was it to continue riding your bike onto Highway 5, or was it to go over to Post Road where bicycle traffic is permitted?
Too bad they were not K-9 officers
Stephen,
You are making such a specticle of something easily avoided. It looks like you are finally getting the attention thet you have been searching for your whole life. When you are found guilty, I hope you have to repay Henn. Co. for all it cost them to build this 3 ring circus. At least the officers are going to get paid OT for dealing with you again.
Peace bro.
Nice "Calendar Announcement" on your home page:
..."(For obvious reasons, ALL traffic control signals will be observed.)"...
As if "...ALL traffic control signals..." are not usually followed by bicyclists.
I am so looking forward to this trial. Blogs make me a little bit crazy. I really think cyberspace has the potential danger of bringing out the worst in people. Cyber-disinhibition, I've heard it called. It's somehow easy to "yell" at someone if you can't see their face, their eyes. Thank goodness the courtroom will have live people in it. That is, if the case isn't dismissed, as I expect. That said, reading this blog has certainly been eye-opening for me, and I'm glad it was posted and available to read.
It will be interesting to see how many people show up for this ride...since many employed people will be working.
You made it! This is such a interesting story, kinda like Rosa Parks standing up for her civil rights.
You said..."See also Bridgette Bornstein's succinct and accurate WCCO-TV story from July 10". It is not her story, its yours, she just covered it. It's only "succinct and accurate" because everything said came from your goofy little page.
Where do I begin? I read your story as an unbiased citizen. By the time I got half way through, you lost all credibility. Which of your guardians taught you it was ok to disrespect and talk back to a police officer? Not having seen any story or video of what really happened, and going by your side of the story, Officer Wingate may have acted inappropriately. You, however, brought what happened onto your self. I will gladly share 16 reasons how and why in chronological order:
1. You say you were legally operating your bicycle on airport property. However further along in your story you indicate there is a sign posted stating Authorized Vehicles Only. This would make it illegal to operate your bicycle no matter if you saw it or not. Ignorance is no excuse for the law.
2. You were immediately threatened by mace and tazer? You have this as a quote so I'm guessing you are implying that the officer said it to you. Here is a tip: If you are going to lie, do your homework (this will also be applied later too). Police Officers do not carry mace. they carry pepper spray, and you should be thanking your lucky stars you didn't get sprayed with that. You might actually have something to complain about.
3. The officer then decided he would let you go on about your business. This however was not good enough for you and you decided to make a point? So instead of actually leaving and illegally riding your bike away, you stayed to argue about it some more. This is of course going to agitate any Law Enforcement Officer. So now you are going to have to take yourself and your bike back to the terminal. But wait! You changed your mind! You decide, after all, that riding away IS the best option. Too late. Read on.
4. You now decide that against the orders of a Police Officer, you are going to just ride away. Now you are violating at least 3 laws: Unauthorized Vehicle, Disobeying a Peace Officer, Fleeing and Eluding. I guess all the burglars and murderers and rapists should just be able to walk away from the police because all of a sudden they realize the mistake they made? Think about it, just for a second.
5. You claim that your bike is now a crumpled heap in the road? Whoops! You forgot to make up a story about how that happened.
6. I have a real hard time believing that you were just tazed for no reason. You had to have made some gesture or movement to indicate a potential threat. And, yes believe it or not, there are those out there who are actually out to harm or even kill police officers.
7. The tazer is barbaric and causes many documented deaths? Really? Did you forget to read the rest of the story? Tazer related deaths are not caused by the tasers. The people getting tazed are bad people Stephen. They do things like cocaine, PCP, heroine and meth. These drugs taken in any quantity cause your heart to pump and beat faster, swell up and even explode. This can then be triggered by a tazer, a bicycle ride (oh yes), a jog around a park bench, sex, or fist fight. So any activity, other than sleeping, could kill them.
OH and lets not forget the best part. The officer didn't ask your permission to shoot you with the tazer! Excuse me Mr. Murderer, I was wondering if I could taze you since you are not obeying me or the law? Is this going to be ok with you?
8. The EMT came to remove the barbs of the tazer from you so it's less barbaric.
9. I'm POSITIVE the officer did not step on your glasses on purpose, but in the act of arresting you they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
10. You called out HELP! That's fantastic. Now not only do the police think you are crazy, but everyone passing by does too. You don't think every lunatic and bad guy out there doesn't think he is innocent too?
11. "At no time did I physically resist arrest". See number 4. It’s the same violation.
12. "The admission process was intentionally made to take over 8 hours, so I could legally be held through the long weekend to an arraignment on Monday." So now it’s not just the police that are out to get you it’s the Corrections employees too?? You are making quit an impression on these people. Of course everything was taken from you, you are in jail. You are not allowed to have things inside the walls of your cell.
13. "24 hours later I was released." What happened to staying in there "through the long weekend"?
14. So you got 4 warnings about being tazed and you continued the behavior. Gee.....
15. "discrimination and profiling of a cyclist". That’s just kind of funny.
16. You claim to have PTSD. That really is an insult to the men and women who have fought for our country and returned home with an actual disorder. Don't flatter yourself.
I don't wish anything bad to happen to you Stephen. God help you if something does and you have to depend on the Police to defend you or protect you. You'll probably sue them for saving your life.
We need iron-fisted control over our population. The very thought that bike riders have a certain amount of freedom is something that an order-loving people CANNOT and WILLNOT tolerate. Hopefully, justice will be served, and the freedom loving Mr. Orsak will be punished severely for this egregeous offense against good order.
And why all the fuss about terrorism? This country can handle terrorism---only 3,000 people were killed in 9/11. Thats really not all that bad. What IS bad is a LACK OF ABSOLUTE CONTROL. Stephan represents a REAL threat to ALL of us who demand goose-stepping, automaton-like order!
Best wishes on your upcoming court appearance Stephan.
A good judge will hopefully see through this malicious prosecution and grant your motion to dismiss in short order.
A really good judge will sanction the airport police and the prosecutor for wasting everyone's time and the taxpayer's dollars.
That will in turn free up your own resources to hold these overzealous cops accountable for their transgressions - if you so choose.
Terry
http://checkpointusa.org
You made it! This is such a interesting story, kinda like Rosa Parks standing up for her civil rights.
You made it? This was planned? Your goal in life is to be a famous white bicyclist? Congrats!
You made it! This is such a interesting story, kinda like Rosa Parks standing up for her civil rights.
Now if that isn't an insult to Rosa Parks, I'm not sure what is.
That's the most assinine statement ever.
No, you are!
The trial started today. The motion to dismiss was denied. 4 jurors have been selected, I think. If you go to watch (it's fun, really!) and if you bike there, make sure you have a hard Kryptonite lock: not a chain or cable. There has been a rash of bicycle thefts from in front of the Hennepin County Government Center.
Children, Children, Children. Will you never learn?
I knew it...It was only a matter of time....
Shephaon is the boss of this website, you shouldn't say bad stuff like that. why don't you just leave?
There have been many thoughts and issues concerning this matter. More than any one cares, at this point, I'm sure. In an effort to generally access, stepping back and NOT addressing whether or not one likes Stephan Orsak or Officer(s) Wingate and/or Bryant AND their specific political/social ideology. At this point, what exactly is important? Here are thoughts:
The state of Minnesota and the MAC (Metropolitan Airport Commission) are spending far too much time, energy, and taxpayer money prosecuting an individual who is CLEARLY not a threat to anyone's safety - certainly not threatening the airspace or airports of this state or country.
(For the tedious version read:) One MUST admit to this statement even if you despise Orsak and/or his actions. He is a career (30 year) concert violinist. Continues to be. The morning of his first court appearance this week, he was performing with the Minnesota Pops Orchestra.
CAN WE ALL AGREE THERE ARE BADDER DUDES WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO? There are folks who actually DO want harm to us, our airports and the "free (at least freer) world". Time, attention, money spent on Orsak take away time, attention, money on REAL issues. Guilty or not, this should have never seen court or even the back seat of a squad car. There are adultery laws, sidewalk spitting and jaywalking laws that could be enforced to the furthest extent of the law. Should we also press these? (Girl scouts unlawfully soliciting cookies at the airport?)
There is lobbying to call off car chases because of the NET RESULT and expense to the public. (allowing these criminals a pass) Officer Wingate testified, this week, he stopped Orsak because of concern for Orsak's safety. (One) end result is Orsak being tased.. for his safety? Matter should be dropped YESTERDAY to pay attention to terrorists, murderers, rapists, and the like. The MAC prosecutor, Chris Renz, and possible even the judge should be admonished for taking this up. Enough said - although this issue has gone on ad nauseam in court presently and YOU are footing the bill. If YOU want Orsak in jail (apparently a possibility), you better be prepared to let a criminal (violent perhaps) out (re:prison overcrowding) and I would think it fair this criminal is released to YOUR neighborhood. I'll take Orsak - violin music is not going to keep me up at night. Take your pick, you can't have both.
-terrance
As long as I’m typing and still considering this matter objectively, how about this?
ANYONE WILLING TO COMPROMISE? STEP INTO THE OTHER SHOE? CONSIDER THE OTHER SIDE? (Addressing what seems to fuel this debate.) Politics. Left, right, liberal, conservative. Pro-police, anti-police. At times, this sounds like SUNNI vs. SHI`ITE. Really.
a)Are there ANY police officers who think they could have handled this violin toting, bike riding, grandfather any other way than tasing and arresting him? I've seen Orsak; he weighs 140ish lbs and not really the anarchist-type. Not a brawler. Fairly sure police encounter perpetrators who are huge, looking to fight and might even have a weapon (or two) and manage to defuse seriously bad situations without physical altercation, tasing, or arrest..? ANY police reading this blog: have you ever encountered actual thugs with bad intent and controlled the situation, de-escalated, and resolved it without incident? Of course there are. Probably many brilliant examples. And if so, this makes the Orsak incident cake. PLEASE can we hear from one of the men in blue addressing THIS?? Officer Wingate: - you're not an evil guy - could it be, being human, you had a bit of a bad day or things just went awry. Your training in tolerance has covered dealing with much more than Orsak dished out. You say he accused you of acting like an a*hole (heard third graders lately?) "Shoulder shrugging, flailing arms?" okay.. (Grab my grandmother from behind or on her bike, albeit stationary, SHE"LL FLAIL.) On replay - I'll wager you would not risk your opportunity to lead the presidential motorcade with THIS non-issue turned ridiculous. I will also wager that a shoulder shrug on your part and the words "Mr. Orsak, how can you help - while I do my job upholding the law, get you on your way? Reason with me here, Mr. Orsak, let’s work something out" Ten minutes of patience would have been much more preferable than the amount of time you spent on this non-criminal element.
People who have never had contact with the law do not understand that it is in their best interest to NOT annoy police with discussions of right of ways and 'seemingly' trivial matters. We think, that this is our right - which it actually is - and police are required to reason with us and correctly explain. All. True in theory. Not necessarily in practice. You have to wait until court to be presumed innocent. [This is Orsak's lacking - no prior experience that would give him pause to verbally challenge a cop.] Which explains so many of the "what??!! you questioned a cop! after he told you to do this??!!" comments. Our society should be so lucky to have more "problems" with people who are "naive" to police experience.
And conversely, police expect, folks (who had never had contact with police) understand the importance, authority, and intensity of their job and thus comply immediately without question. (Why would they? ..they're looking at police as just another person they can have conversation with.)
Orsak knew that personally, he was zero threat to the officers and had no intention of doing anything wrong or illegal. [It is not by accident you live over 5 decades trouble free. There are some people who's principles in life are more stringent than law. I'll give 2 to 1 on covering that bet.] (Thus giving him confidence to verbally challenge and expect sufficient comprehensive answers.) Officer Wingate, as the training officer, must know this. (If not, he's not perceptive enough to be a cop and train the airport police. Shouldn’t we have airport police with honed instincts?) By Orsak's own account, in this blog, he mentioned he's NOT even that upset with Officer Bryant (Bryant tased him.. under Wingate orders) - Bryant was not as rude to him as Wingate was. Even mentioned that Bryant could have a promising career. What say you Bryant? Or any other officers? Can you see ANY flaws with the officer(s) response? Or is it 100% support and approval for the brotherhood and nothing for anyone in opposition?
b)How about the cop haters? All cops are bad and corrupt??? Not so. Police are human. Some are great - 90+% of the time. Some are not-at-all great - 90+% of the time. Most, exacerbated by an exceedingly more difficult and intense job, have complex issues to deal with and bestowed with authority that does not come naturally to humans. Much more training and experience is necessary to handle such authority. We don't fund our criminal justice system sufficiently. And some humans just don't possess the skill, no matter how schooled. We need police. Yeah, we do.. Police learn on the job, as we all do in our prospective jobs. Except, police learning can come at an expense. To both sides. (if you insist upon sides) And when police stand up for other police, even if they are aware of missteps - there is function for this 'got your back' psychology. The need to know where your partner(s) stands. At all times. A part of military success.
How can police turn attitudes on and off - depending on who their dealing with. Humans are not very deft at this - in any forum. Except for politicians and car salesmen. But see, that’s a specialized skill. Psychologists have many years of schooling under their belt and that belt doesn’t include a gun. Again, we expect a lot of comprehensive understanding.
For those who just can't tolerate police. Society would not bode without.
c)We all need to bend a little. Compromise is cool. I’m fairly sure that isn’t going to happen. Lots of money spent on litigation. And the opposing sides will move further and further.
again, terrance
Terrance, Officers must quickly assess a situation and don't know if someone is a "violin toting grandpa". You assume that upon first look one can easily determine the intent of an individual. After finding out that there was no imminent threat, they told Stephen that he couldn't be there.
Should have been end of story, but instead of listeneing he chose to argue. Hey he can choose to do as he pleases...But do NOT be surprised if the outcome isn't what you thought....
There are no excuses and even by his own admission he argued....
So instead of going on his merry way he had a beef because, darn it, how can you tell ME what to do...I find a bit of arrogance behind it...
And in my eyes it was a very stupid choice....
And while I'm on it, lacking "police experience" is no defense....It's also considered ignorance.....
Orsak wasn't tased for HIS safety, Orsak was tased for OFFICER safety..When someone becomes belligerant (sp?) and begans to flee, how does the officer know what is coming next? How does an officer know what's in the violin case?
Everyone wants to rail on the officers and say "poor Mr Orsak, he was just minding his own business"...I'm sure I don't need to say anything about the likes of Timothy McVeigh and how he just strolled away from his truck......
I noticed the people who are testifying, and I really have problems with character witnesses..I mean if the person wasn't at the scene character really isn't in question...
There were many people who said that Jeffrey Dahmer was a nice and polite man....And I'm not comparing Stephen to Dahmer...My point is that we can all find people who will say we are nice and kind, but we all have acted like buttheads from time to time....
His attitude was mostly to blame for the escalation of what happened.
Let's carry this to a place of employment, his.
If the Director of the Orchestra said that he wanted this passage played in this manner, would he object? Probably not since he recognizes the authority of the director to have the music played as he (the director) wanted it played. If he insisted on playing it "his way" do you suppose he would still have a job?
Shouldn't that have applied here, his acknowledgement of the authority of the police officers?
I haven't been able to make it to the Court to see how this trial is going, but would really like to know!
More than anything else, this to me is a civil rights issue. Orsak should not be on trial, but those who deprived him his freedom of movement. People have the right to move themselves on a publicly funded right of way using their own power. Stephan Orsak is the bicycling version of Rosa Parks. Thank you Stephan for your courage!
blog admim. lighten up!!!
July 12, 2007 9:52:00 PM PDT,
anonymous said:
" It looks like you are finally getting the attention thet you have been searching for your whole life. "
Do you know Mr Orsak personally? Did he tell you this? If not, you might want to leave that huge of an assumption up to the judge and jury to decide on.
Allow me to make a huge assumption, too:
For the police to win this case, they'll have to prove that Mr Orsak was a serious threat, or even a suspected terrorist. They'll need all the luck in the world for that!
(If Osama Bin Whatzizface produces another greatest hits video, and he's riding a folding bicycle while playing the violin, I'll be the first in line to get a copy.)
Barry...They don't have to prove he was serious threat or a terrorist and you're an idiot if you think that....
They have to prove that Mr Orsak disobeyed a direct order and tried to flee...
That's it....
Doofus...
Actually the police testimony was that Mr. Orsak was tased for his (Mr. Orsak's) safety. Tasers are apparently safer than officer inflicted injuries. I still question why two trained officers could not subdue one untrained "flailing" individual. (Not flailing, really.) By the way, another part of the testimony was that his hands were open, not in fists. Not a sign of aggression. He was "approaching" officer Wingate but by their own testimony NOT aggressively, with open hands, I think Bryant actually said as if to pat. Also Wingate and Bryant both demonstrated "flailing" and the demonstrations were NOT matching.
By the way, the previous Court Observer post about bicycles being stolen was not meant in any way to intimidate. I posted that because my own bike was stolen, on the first day of the trial. It was parked next to Mr. Orsak's bike.
"Actually the police testimony was that Mr. Orsak was tased for his (Mr. Orsak's) safety. "
This is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time, being that tasers are known to kill. Or are police better known to kill than tasers, and that's why the police decided to use the taser "for Orsak's safety" instead of using their fists as they might otherwise be forced??????
What a laugh. I'm surprised the police would let themselves get so twisted up in their defence!
William
As I've read through these many postings, I've noticed a certain kind of knee jerking anti-bicylist/anti-arts/anti-pacifist kind of personality that has posted throughout (I'm sure it's many people, but they all fall into the same pigeonhole) that intrigues me.
The more of these knee jerking postings I read, the more it makes me think that these are the very kinds of people who most threaten a democracy and our freedoms as Americans. Their authoritarian bossiness is nauseating!!!!
Thanks Mr. Orsak for standing up for our rights. I sympathize that you have to deal with the knee jerker authoritarians, whose greatest concerns seem to be that unbridled vehicular oppulence be allowed to reign forever on our roads.
There is clearly a problem with certain police officers serving at the airport. That reality becomes clear with the stories apart from Mr. Orsak's encounter (there's a common theme, different people being harrassed in different ways by airport police).
The issue is not whether police are good or bad, but whether their are checks and balances to stop the excesses of the few rotten apples on the police force.
Anonymous, have you chosen to overlook the anti-cop/police/law postings?
It goes both ways, whether who is right or wrong...
Link 1: http://www.metrotransit.org/rail/station_detail.asp
Link 2:
http://www.metrotransit.org/rail/stations/12_ftsnelling.asp
John P. Bloomington, MN
Everyone has gotten off track here. He wasn't tazed for his saftey, but for the officers. He was however stopped for his saftey. riding your bicycle on a highway is NOT safe.
I think some of you need to look at your police departments a lot closer. Most of them have bicycle patrol. Maybe even the airport! Yet somehow you make it seem like a bicycle rights violation.
No he is NOTHING like Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks stood up for years of opression for an entire race of people. This was not an issue of him riding his bike (he was told to carry on his way, he chose not too), it was an issue of him riding his bike where it was deemed unsafe and illegal.
Had officer Wingate stopped him while being on Bike Patrol, would you still be arguing this point? I doubt it.
I am a fellow "Man in Blue". While I don't neccessarily agree with the officers actions (I wasn't there to see it), I do not agree with Stephens either.
Regardless of how petty the crime may be, our great country has the same process for everyone. That is what you wanted. equall rights and due process for everyone. It seems hypocritical to think you are above all that.
Well you've had your 15 minutes of fame.
Now go away get a real job and a real life.
Thank you for standing up for your rights and the law. You are an inspiration to me and I hope that the public will learn more of the abuse of authority that is so prevalent in the airport police department. They seem to forget that they have jobs to provide a service; not to harass and brutalize law-abiding taxpayers. Shoua
Ooops, once again you are forgeting that HE BROKE THE LAW. He is by no means Law Abiding
> He wasn't tazed for his saftey, but for the officers.
Really? Biking away from the officer somehow jeopordized the officer's safety?
> riding your bicycle on a highway is NOT safe.
he was not on the highway and had no intention of entering the highway--he explained that to the officer. the officer understood and accepted the explanation, before he went berserk.
> it was an issue of him riding his bike where it was deemed unsafe and illegal.
who's safety again?
it's was not illegal -- those signs were put up after the fact.
Post a Comment