On MSN News today, it's been reported that during a demonstration in Times Square on Friday during a Critical Mass ride, a cyclist was arrested because he was obstructing traffic in the heart of Times Square. The charges were attempted assault of a police officer, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The official complaint stated that Christopher Long (from New Jersey) deliberately steered his bike into the officer, causing both to fall to the ground. During his arrest, Long squirmed and kicked, saying to the officers "You are pawns in the game, I'm gonna have your job." There were no other arrrests during this incident.

For those who don't know Critical Mass is a monthly protest on urban reliance on motor vehicles.

Sounds cut and dried, right?

Wrong.

What the police officer in question didn't realise was that the whole incident was recorded by a bystander. This bystander uploaded the footage anonymously to youtube on Monday, which resulted in the Officer being stripped of his gun and badge and placed on desk duty pending the results of the investigation.

Watch the footage and decide for yourself who exactly was at fault.

Wow could not believe what I was seeing. this copper is a world class prick. How dare he just single someone out like that for no good reason. He deserves what ever he gets.
As far as critical mass goes I agree with the concept but they do cause a lot of trouble. I am a keen cyclist, I race with my local club and ride a lot and I notice a definite peak in angst from drivers after their little stunts. Despite that, none of them deserve this type of treatment.

I've already had this argument elsewhere, and I disagree with both of you. It is clear the police wanted that man to stop, the cyclist tried to cycle off, didn't stop, and paid for it. I agree that the police officer should not have lied, however the filming angle on the camera is not conclusive - I can't see whats going on after he gets knocked off.

Cop Body-Checks Biker - Flight Sim World

Sorry hangman I disagree this cop may not indication that he wanted him to stop. He just picked him out lined him up and wooshka. Hello pavement!

Videos simply do not capture the 'mood' of the event - there was obviously a reason the policeman wanted this cyclist to stop, and whilst it was clear through the body language (and it is indisputable that the cyclist knew the police were after him as he started to turn away and avoid the police) it is definately appropriately to take people to the ground when you have doubts over their intentions. The fact he didn't slow down and stop when he saw the police officer walking towards him would make anyone think "why isn't he stopping".

You're looking at it from a biased position, Callum. Pretend you don't want to be a plod for a minute.

How is it clear that the police officer wanted the man to stop. All through the footage, cyclists are riding around the officers, then this officer in question starts walking and shoves into the cyclist. Where's the indication he wanted the cyclist to stop... and where's the reason he wanted that particular cyclist to stop?

If he wanted him to stop where was an out stretched hand some sort of visual indication. Of course he swerves he doesnt want to hit him i would have made evasive moves to. I dont see anything there that would have indicated to me that he want that person to stop.

Yes, I know I'm slightly biased however I'm going off what I've seen on the video, and I'm trying to see it from the perspective of him being of good character which you should be able to expect of any officer. I don't know his track record, and I don't know what he's like as a person - so I don't think anyone should be judging his character on this piece of footage alone.

He turns his body and walks towards the person on the bike, as he gets closer he moves in front of it (which would usually make someone slow down). The fact that the cyclist turns left, away from the policeman clearly and irrefutably proves that he saw the police officer moving in front of him. Eye contact was made and I think anyone in that situation with half a brain would know to slow down and stop.

We don't know whether this cyclist has history for evading arrest, assault, or violence, the police might hence that could be a reason why he acted so positively to stop him.

Callum, the point is there are thousands of cyclists going past that police officer. The guy is peddling away merrily, probably seeing other cyclists riding around the officer. The officer starts walking - without making any indication that he wants anyone to stop - the throws out his arms and launches the cyclist into the kerb.

I don't know the police man, I don't know the guy - I do know what I'm seeing. I didn't make a snap judgement, I watched the footage four or five times - a couple focusing on what the cyclist was doing and the others focusing solely on the officer and at absolutely no time is it obvious that he wants that particular cyclist to stop.

Then you have the fact that the police officer lied in his report. If he wanted to stop the cyclist for a legal reason, why did he lie? It's blatantly clear that the cyclist did not swerve into the officer, on the contrary he swerved away from him - as anyone would.

Why is it that you're happy to sit there and state that we don't know if the cycilst has a history for evading arrest, assault or violence, but you get all stroppy when people dare to question the integrity of a police officer?

We are obviously seeing this from very different perspectives. I do not see any sign from the officer. If I was on a bike and saw that I would have assumed he was just walking to the side of the road. Being part of an organised group I probably wouldnt have slowed down either I would have just maintained to speed of the rest of the group just like this guy did.