Driver who fought with cyclist is not a cop, Vancouver police say

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The question has been raised multiple times, by online commenters and fellow journalists.

      Was the car driver who got in a fight with a cyclist last week (captured in viral photos and video) a police officer?

      For example, in response to the Georgia Straight's interview with cyclist Edward Hoey, commenter "Bruce" asserted:

      Given the appearance of the driver, the move he used, and the blatant biasbias of the police handling, I wonder if the driver was a plainsclothes policeman. In that case its a simple case of the cops protecting their own.

      Today (January 28), the Vancouver Police Department said, in response to a Twitter query, that the driver is not a cop.

      However, another commenter suggested the driver might be a CSIS agent. So, the VPD's tweet might not put to rest the theories of all suspicious observers.

      Comments

      15 Comments

      Mark Bowen

      Jan 28, 2014 at 7:23pm

      Well that settles it then. Not like the cops would ever lie about something like this.

      Dr Ben Dover

      Jan 28, 2014 at 7:28pm

      And we should believe the VPD just because they said so?

      Rundrd

      Jan 28, 2014 at 8:48pm

      So just because the guy has a short haircut and used a pretty basic takedown, he's a stooge of the establishment?

      Or maybe he's what he said he was, someone who practiced a martial art for 15 years.

      Not everything is a conspiracy.

      Martin Dunphy

      Jan 28, 2014 at 9:20pm

      There is no name attached to that "police" tweet. How hard would it be for one of their communications people to issue a release if they think it is that important?

      MBFA

      Jan 28, 2014 at 9:58pm

      It's usually Sandra Glendenning who does the police tweets, from my understanding of her blog. She'll usually answer stuff pretty directly, if it comes up.

      Walter

      Jan 28, 2014 at 11:54pm

      Looks like many in by cycling community think that there should have been charges against the car driver but I am not sure why? Looks like the cyclist took something from the driver's car. If that is the case then I think the cyclist should be charged.

      Bruce

      Jan 29, 2014 at 8:54am

      @Walter

      Because the driver threatened the cyclist with his car, which alone should have been enough to charge him with assault with threatening vehicular assault

      When as a result they argued at the door of the car, the driver pulled the cyclist's arm into the car and told him he had martial arts training and would "mess him up". That was the point at which the cyclist pulled pieces of paper from the car - escaping from the driver's initial assault.

      Bruce

      Jan 29, 2014 at 8:58am

      @Ben

      "And we should believe the VPD just because they said so?"

      No, obviously not. The police seem to have decided that it's ok for drivers to threaten and then physically assault cyclists, and will give it a pass on the flimsiest pretext. Literally a piece of loose paper is enough.

      Well then, given that that's the message they're content to send to the public, cyclists need to take it to heart. If you look at the video, the driver threatened the cyclists personal safety, and his property (his radio and his bike). By the same logic, the cyclist has the right to self-defense.

      There are a lot of dangerous dogs around. It would be perfectly rational, given that they cannot trust on the police, for every downtown cyclist to get a can of pepper spray. Or is defense of self and property only ok if you're driving an Audi? Is that the city we're living in now?

      Bruce

      Jan 29, 2014 at 10:03am

      From the criminal code of Canada:

      265. (1) A person commits an assault when
      ...
      (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or..

      In other words, making a threat to harm a person, implied or verbal, is sufficient to constitute assault. If a driver threatens in any way to hit a cyclist with their car, if their intent is to make the cyclist believe they may be harmed, that constitutes assault under the law. There doesn't need to be any actual contact.

      Based on the events described, in the initial event where the driver yelled at and then drove at the cyclist with his car, he committed an assault under the law.

      The problem here is that the police are not recognizing the simple, obvious fact that any threatening move by a vehicle against a cyclist or pedestrian is a threat with a deadly weapon. It is exactly the same level of threat as waving a gun at them.

      Jennifer

      Jan 29, 2014 at 10:09am

      I can understand the anger on both side. But in the land of too much money spent on courts, incarceration and lawyers. The quest we should really ask is "Too charge or not to charge".
      Most likely there were two charges. One of stealing property out of a vehicle and the other assault. Both were proven true. Both were caught red handed
      In this case the police can either.
      Charge both of their offenses.
      Or ask both if they would like to charge the other of their offenses.
      I'm thinking the police did the later and neither wanted to get charged for their crime and off they go. Still being tax paying members of society instead of tax leaching members.