Urban Tribe - Ride with your kids in front.

Police ticket man who was run over during ‘Don’t shoot’ protest

Posted by on December 14th, 2014 at 1:02 pm

copwatchvid

Guilty for “improper position on a highway”.
(Still from Multnomah County Copwatch video)

Portland Police have issued a ticket to a protestor who was taking part in a march downtown yesterday.

The march was organized by Don’t Shoot PDX, a fledgling group of activists who have organized a sustained movement for more police accountability and justice following protests in Ferguson, Missouri that started last month.

According to people involved with the march, there was a collision on West Burnside near Powell’s Books between someone driving a car and one of the marchers. A man who has uploaded video footage from the scene alleges that the driver swerved into protestors and yelled, “Get a job” before running over a man’s foot. The driver did not stop.

There was almost immediate outrage on Twitter once people learned that not only was the driver not charged with anything, but the man whose foot was run over was the one given a citation.

Below is a video from the scene uploaded by Multnomah County Copwatch:

In the video, PPB Officer Anthony Passadore dismisses allegations that the driver yelled “Get a job” before running over a man in the street. Passadore said the driver’s alleged statement was “free speech issue” just like the protestors were taking part in.

mandownB416wVLCMAA1MdL

Julian Rist.
(Photo: Bette Lee)

Today the Portland Police Bureau offered their side of the story. In an official statement, the PPB confirmed 19-year-old Julian Rist suffered a foot and ankle injury. When officers responded, the statement says, “medical personnel were delayed due to all traffic in the area being blocked by the protest march.”

Here’s more from the official statement:

“Witnesses told police that the involved vehicle was driving eastbound on Burnside at the time of the crash and continued driving out of the area.

At approximately 3:30 p.m., the Milwaukie Police Department received a call from 37-year-old Thomas Munsey, who told police that he was involved in the crash but was too afraid to stop as the protesters surrounded his car and he was concerned for his safety and the safety of his family.

Traffic Division officers conducted the investigation and learned that Munsey was driving his 2015 Audi SUV eastbound on Burnside Street. The protest crowd of 30 or more people was in the street blocking traffic.

Rist was part of the group and was not in a crosswalk, standing in the eastbound lanes of Burnside Street when one of Munsey’s tires came into contact with one of Rist’s feet. Munsey drove slowly through the crowd and out of the area before calling 9-1-1.

After the completion of the investigation, officers issued the pedestrian, Rist, was given a citation for Improper Position on a Highway (ORS 814.070).”

People involved with Don’t Shoot PDX tell us they have retained the services of the National Lawyer’s Guild in order to look into this incident further.

CORRECTION, 4:31 pm: An earlier version of this story stated that “witnesses at the scene” alleged that Munsey yelled “get a job” prior to running over Rish. I made a mistake and should have made it clear that the only person making that allegation was the man making the video. I regret the error.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you.

111 Comments
  • Nick Skaggs December 14, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    “PPB Officer Anthony Passadore dismissed allegations that the driver yelled “Get a job” before running over a man in the street. Passadore said the driver’s alleged statement was “free speech issue” just like the protestors were taking part in.”

    The “Get a job!” part isn’t a crime, and is dismissed as free speech (sure, I get it), but what about the running-over-of-a-human part? That doesn’t count as free speech. Why hasn’t the driver been ticketed for smooshing someone?

    Oh yeah, the onus is on human beings to stay out of the highways. Highways are for the first-class citizens.

    The driver couldn’t *help* but to swerve and hit someone. The protest was inconveniencing him and making him drive slowly near the Pearl district. He had no control over that. Cars have a right to drive fast anytime, everytime.

    *sigh*

    Recommended Thumb up 49

    • pixelgate December 14, 2014 at 2:49 pm

      I live in downtown and based on the mob mentality I’ve seen from the recent Portland protests I completely understand driving off rather than having a mob of confrontational people banging on your car and absolutely terrifying your children and wife.

      If you don’t want a car to run over your foot, don’t walk in traffic.

      Recommended Thumb up 48

      • Nick Skaggs December 14, 2014 at 3:03 pm

        Doesn’t the inverse also apply?

        If you don’t want a mob of protesters to get mad at you, don’t try to run a protester over.

        Recommended Thumb up 30

        • pixelgate December 14, 2014 at 3:34 pm

          Try to run a protester over? So now you’re insinuating the driver, with his children and wife in the car, decided “I’m going to run someone over” ?

          Come on.

          Recommended Thumb up 30

          • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 3:40 pm

            The driver is insinuating that he was threatened. It’s just another one of those he said/she said, she said, she said situations.

            Recommended Thumb up 6

            • pixelgate December 14, 2014 at 4:03 pm

              Now you’re disingenuously changing the facts. He stated he was threatened AFTER the incident had already occurred, hence driving off. From the official report:

              Thomas Munsey, who told police that he was involved in the crash but was too afraid to stop as the protesters surrounded his car and he was concerned for his safety and the safety of his family.

              Recommended Thumb up 7

              • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 4:08 pm

                So you agree completely with me. He insinuated that he was threatened. I shouldn’t even have to point out that being threatened after hitting someone doesn’t justify hitting that person in the first place.

                Recommended Thumb up 11

              • pixelgate December 14, 2014 at 4:14 pm

                Unfortunately Maus is now holding my comments for moderation.

                Recommended Thumb up 6

          • Spiffy December 15, 2014 at 9:59 am

            are you insinuating that people don’t do horrible things with their wife and kids in the car?

            Recommended Thumb up 4

        • wsbob December 14, 2014 at 7:15 pm

          “…If you don’t want a mob of protesters to get mad at you, don’t try to run a protester over.”

          I’ve got dial up, haven’t yet seen the video so I’m presently relying on other people’s impressions, having viewed it, to try get some idea of what happened, and why.

          Do you feel, that from what you’ve seen in the vid, and what you know about the guy driving, that you can be certain he deliberately intended to run over the foot of somebody protesting? If it’s true that Munsey, the guy driving, had his family with him, and due to the conduct of the crowd, had reason to feel fear for his family’s safety, his claim of seeking to escape the area ASAP for that reason, may be credible.

          So, did he really try to run over a protester, or are people just jumping to that conclusion. Before the collision, out the window of his car, if he’d shouted something like ‘Watch my car roll over you, bum!), that could suggest he had some intention to do so.

          This guy, instead, drives his family home, and then, on what seems to be the same day, calls up the police to report his involvement in the incident, and submit to their questions.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 7:58 pm

            I’m not suprised that the protesters perceived malicious intent, and I’m similarly not surprised that Mr. Munsey denies it. The video only shows the aftermath and some allegations being made. Stories conflict, of course.
            The protesters allege:
            * That Rist and the other protesters were in the Westbound lanes;
            * That Munsey was travelling Eastbound and crossed the centerline, hitting Rist;
            * That Munsey did so deliberately;
            * Some people, including but not limited to the cameraman, Hart Noeker, and Dannon Charles Raith, allege that the driver yelled “get a job.”
            The video clearly shows Rist and the protesters in the Westbound lanes; it is unclear how long after the collision the video was shot.
            Munsey alleges:
            * That Rist was in the Eastbound lane. (The police statement says this, but the only evidence is Munsey’s statement.)
            * That he did not hit Rist deliberately.
            * That he feared for his safety in the aftermath of the collision.
            Am I completely certain about Munsey’s intent? No, I can’t be, all I have are conflicting allegations. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • wsbob December 14, 2014 at 9:40 pm

              When I get a better chance to see the video, one of the things I’ll be looking for, is what all besides Munsey’s vehicle, may have been in the eastbound lane, and how far from his vehicle. That is, things that may have brought him to cross the double yellow lines into the opposing lane, for reasons other than, as some people are assuming, to run over a protester.

              A group of thirty people together, demonstrating on a street the size of West Burnside, is not a very big demonstration. Of course, whether or not their presence was threatening to people using the road for travel, depends on what the group or individuals may have been doing near Munsey’s vehicle around the time of the collision. And, what the vid frames of Munsey’s driving possibly suggest about him.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Mike December 15, 2014 at 9:50 am

          Some of the mob.. err…”protesters” do not need a reason to get mad at you. They will use any excuse to react or overreact poorly.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Dannon Charles Raith December 14, 2014 at 3:15 pm

      Yes, and that lane’s traffic was not even impeded. Traffic was slow everywhere downtown yesterday because of all the Christmas. I was several blocks behind the bulk of the activists when the hit and run occurred, but I know traffic was flowing freely on the eastbound lanes of Burnside the entire time. He swerved into the oncoming lane over the double yellow line; I’m confident his intent was to intimidate or possible injure one of the demonstrators, not because of being inconvenienced in that moment but because of preexisting animosity for us and what we were doing.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • J_R December 14, 2014 at 4:55 pm

        Dannon: I’m confused by your statement. In part you state “I was several blocks behind the bulk of the activists when the hit and run occurred….” Following that you state unequivocally “He swerved into the oncoming lane over the double yellow line….”

        I conclude based on your statement that you actually witnessed the collision, but it also seems you were some blocks away.

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • Dannon Charles Raith December 14, 2014 at 6:07 pm

          I did not witness the hit and run. I was several blocks away, but the the protest was only blocking the westbound lanes of Burnside. When I caught back up with the group the incident had just happened. Traffic was STILL moving freely in the eastbound lanes. Where the victim of the hit and run was laying was in the middle of the inside westbound lane. I’m confidant that the driver crossed the double yellow line. I don’t know if he yelled. “get a job” or some such thing… but there were at least a handful more witnesses who said that besides the cop watch guy.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

      • joel December 15, 2014 at 4:46 am

        does swerve imply speed?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Todd Hudson December 14, 2014 at 3:15 pm

      The driver won’t be charged because the person hit was not in a crosswalk and did not have the right of way.

      Play dumb games, win stupid prizes.

      Recommended Thumb up 18

      • soren December 14, 2014 at 4:01 pm

        So jaywalkers deserve what they get? It’s “physics” right???

        Recommended Thumb up 14

    • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 3:19 pm

      Even more importantly, if the driver made such a statement then he initiated the confrontation. My understanding is that you aren’t allowed to use fear for your safety as a defense if you are the one who picked the fight in the first place.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

  • Peter W December 14, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    WTF. This is crazy.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

  • ~n December 14, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    The implications in that press release language are very disturbing. The hit & run driver apparently shares a name with a dishonorably discharged military person, and also–irony of ironies–a Portland health care industry board member: http://tinyurl.com/mf2xyuw. Wishing Julian a full and speedy recovery.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • q`Tzal December 14, 2014 at 2:37 pm

      Doxxing?

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • ~n December 14, 2014 at 3:39 pm

        @q`Tzal Me? Nah…I was just Googling. Was hoping to learn more about the police decision not to cite the driver for hit & run. No answers found.

        A driver using a car as a weapon is such a violent, inhuman act. But police allowing a driver to do so–that’s emotional violence, and consent to violence done against the person who was victimized. It’s a perfect example of the type of police mentality being peacefully protested all over the country. By not citing the driver, Portland police are demonstrating that protesters are correct to be out there protesting.

        Recommended Thumb up 15

  • Jonah December 14, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Members of the march stepped in to redirect traffic to protect the safety of the injured pedestrian when the police were allowing cars to pass within a couple feet of him, often at unsafe speeds. We indicated to the police that it was safer for everyone and the ambulance could easily approach from the West down Burnside, since the Westbound lanes were entirely clear for emergency vehicles to travel East towards the person.

    Their press release is a disgusting case of victim-blaming in a hit-and-run case of someone intentionally assaulting someone with their car. The Constitution doesn’t protect your right to drive your car, especially into people who are using their First Amendment rights.

    Recommended Thumb up 22

    • GrannyT December 15, 2014 at 6:57 am

      If you are an eye-witness, then I know I can rely on the truth of your statement, Jonah M. There was never born a more stand-up guy.
      I hope you will report the incident and inappropriate police response to the Department of Justice Criminal Investigations Unit — user friendly message line. 202-514-2000
      Thanks for being a citizen of conscience. People like you give me hope.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

  • A.H. December 14, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    I’m waiting for the story on a driver running over a cop’s foot while shouting at them, and it turns out all right with hugs and free oil changes for everyone.

    Recommended Thumb up 27

    • Chris I December 15, 2014 at 7:04 am

      In that situation…

      White driver: arrested
      Black driver: dead

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Rupert December 14, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Hey everybody, fear is a blank check to commit crime now! Cowards have special privilege under the law!

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • J_R December 14, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    I’d be more inclined to believe you if it hadn’t been for your written support for vandalism against delivery trucks parked in bike lanes.

    Recommended Thumb up 48

    • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 2:46 pm

      The video posted above may not be perfect evidence about what happened to Mr. Rist on Burnside, but I don’t understand how “Hart said this one thing this one time about a completely unrelated situation” could possibly clarify what was shown in the video. Let’s stick to the facts, please.

      Recommended Thumb up 24

    • BIKELEPTIC December 14, 2014 at 3:15 pm

      I believe that the city should have trucks equipped with sponge rollers loaded with neon green paint. And just roll along the bike lane. Anyone parked in the bike lane gets a stripe of shame.

      If drivers don’t want bikes in the road, then stop taking over the lanes specifically purposed for bikes. Period.

      So in a way, I support vandalism of vehicles in bike lanes as well.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

      • Lester Burnham December 15, 2014 at 7:39 am

        So vandalism of property is okay…Use of bright bike lights not okay. Wow, okay!

        Recommended Thumb up 16

        • Spiffy December 15, 2014 at 9:56 am

          I see nothing about bright bike lights in BIKELEPTIC’s statement… try to stay on-topic…

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • Lester Burnham December 15, 2014 at 10:53 am

            And how is talking about vandalizing vehicles in bike lanes “staying on topic”?

            Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Spiffy December 15, 2014 at 9:54 am

      you’d be more inclined to believe the witnesses if Hart didn’t support direct action against bike lane violators?

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • J_R December 15, 2014 at 10:58 am

        Direct action consisting of: legal enforcement and driver education – YES

        Direct action consisting of: vandalism – NO.

        Do you understand the difference?

        Recommended Thumb up 4

  • reader December 14, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Hmmm… Not wearing hi-vis.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • soren December 14, 2014 at 3:53 pm

      Flashing lights and a safety vest might have also helped prevent this “accident”.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Interpreting Burnside as a highway under ORS 814.070 seems overly creative, though I’d bet money it would still hold up in court. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice!)
    Consider, on the other hand, reckless driving: “A person commits the offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.” (ORS 811.140) “Recklessly, when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists.” (ORS 161.085)
    I am not a lawyer, but charging Mr. Munsey with reckless driving seems about as reasonable as charging Mr. RIst with improper position on a highway. The Portland Police Bureau made a choice to charge only one party. Charging both parties would have sent a clear message: “It takes two to tango, don’t let this happen again.”

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 3:12 pm

      To be clear, I am not endorsing the “it takes two to tango” message. I think it’s probably the strongest message that the police could send without laws that put more responsibility on vehicle operators to operate their vehicles safely.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 3:33 pm

      … and then there’s the multiple witnesses alleging that Munsey crossed a double-yellow, which is much less ambiguous then “reckless.” I’m just trying to understand how you could have enough evidence to charge Rist but not enough to charge Munsey.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

    • wsbob December 14, 2014 at 5:56 pm

      “Interpreting Burnside as a highway under ORS 814.070 seems overly creative, …” Karl Dickman

      From an archived bikeportland story that includes a brief, one sentence state legislature supplied definition of what in Oregon, constitutes a highway:

      [*”Highway” in Oregon law is a general term for all public roads and does not refer to freeways.] HB 3150

      http://bikeportland.org/2011/02/18/salem-watch-highway-speed-limit-bill-scrapped-focus-shifts-to-residential-streets-48190

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 6:15 pm

        Good thing I bet money that it would hold up in court, then! 😉 No sarcasm implied at all–the text that you dug up is a reason why laymen like me need to be so careful when trying to interpret statutes.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • reader December 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    What Nick said. (12/14 @ 1:43pm)

    If the police won’t cite the driver, perhaps the victim or a witness will do so.

    http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/03/a_citizens_traffic_ticket_in_f.html

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • BIKELEPTIC December 14, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Passadore has a history of hating pedestrians and cyclists. Look him up. I don’t know why he still has a job.

    Recommended Thumb up 16

  • Todd Hudson December 14, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    How’s the view on that giant cross you nailed yourself to?

    Recommended Thumb up 22

  • reader December 14, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Does this guy cuss out other drivers and gun his SUV through crowded intersections when traffic is backed up because of too many cars or only when it’s pedestrians expressing an opinion that differs from his own?

    Recommended Thumb up 16

    • Chris I December 15, 2014 at 7:07 am

      Driving a 2015 Audi SUV in the pearl? I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy is a dick to all types of road users.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

      • Mike December 15, 2014 at 9:34 am

        Classist. Classy.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Peter W December 14, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Note that the driver did not stop immediately, as is required by law. I’m not a lawyer, but this clearly fits the definition of a hit and run.

    According to the official report from the police themselves, 18 minutes passed between when the driver hit the teen and when police received the call.

    While the law calls for the driver to stop “at the scene… or as close thereto as possible” and contact “the nearest police agency”, the driver was able to get far enough away that his call went through to the Milwaukie police. There is no conceivable way that the City of Milwaukie, 16 minutes away by car, was the closest possible location to stop from the Powells in downtown Portland.

    Additionally, the driver did not stay to render any kind of aid, or assist in transporting the victim to the hospital, which is required by § 811.705 (1)(e).

    The fact that the police did not immediate call this a hit and run shows that either a) they don’t understand the very laws we pay them to enforce, or b) they are protecting the action of this driver, despite witness statements that he swerved out of his lane and yelled angrily at the protesters (which explains why he was “too afraid to stop”). No Portlander should be comfortable with either of those scenarios.

    Here’s the law in full:

    § 811.705¹
    Failure to perform duties of driver to injured persons
    • penalty

    (1) A person commits the offense of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons if the person is the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident that results in injury or death to any person and does not do all of the following:

    (a) Immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible. Every stop required under this paragraph shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.

    (b) Remain at the scene of the accident until the driver has fulfilled all of the requirements under this subsection.

    (c) Give to the other driver or surviving passenger or any person not a passenger who is injured as a result of the accident the name and address of the driver and the registration number of the vehicle that the driver is driving and the name and address of any other occupants of the vehicle.

    (d) Upon request and if available, exhibit and give to the persons injured or to the occupant of or person attending any vehicle damaged the number of any document issued as official evidence of a grant of driving privileges.

    (e) Render to any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including the conveying or the making of arrangements for the conveying of such person to a physician, surgeon or hospital for medical or surgical treatment, if it is apparent that such treatment is necessary or if such conveying is requested by any injured person.

    (f) Remain at the scene of an accident until a police officer has arrived and has received the required information, if all persons required to be given information under paragraph (c) of this subsection are killed in the accident or are unconscious or otherwise incapable of receiving the information. The requirement of this paragraph to remain at the scene of an accident until a police officer arrives does not apply to a driver who needs immediate medical care, who needs to leave the scene in order to secure medical care for another person injured in the accident or who needs to leave the scene in order to report the accident to the authorities, so long as the driver who leaves takes reasonable steps to return to the scene or to contact the nearest police agency.

    (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the offense described in this section, failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, is a Class C felony and is applicable on any premises open to the public.

    (b) Failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons is a Class B felony if a person suffers serious physical injury as defined in ORS 161.015 (General definitions) or dies as a result of the accident. [1983 c.338 §573; 1993 c.621 §1; 2001 c.919 §1]

    Source: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.705

    Recommended Thumb up 22

  • Todd Hudson December 14, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    >Witnesses allege that the driver swerved into protestors and yelled, “Get a job” before running over a man’s foot.

    Not a single person other than the camera man asking “did you hear?”, “is it true?” independently confirmed the driver said “get a job”. Nor is the guy filming is reputable source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uehFqpulWsU&list=UUNp5Ha6B50-QguG4f7H1-sA

    For someone who claims they’re an objective journalist, this article sure doesn’t seem very objective.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

    • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 3:52 pm

      Yeah, it’s really too bad that Mr. Maus didn’t include the video in which the allegations were made. Without the video, there’s no way for us to come to our own conclusions about how credible the allegations are. Mr. Maus is really doing a number on objectivity.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 4:00 pm

        I did notice that no one explicitly assented to the cameraman’s version of events. Do you know what I also noticed? That every interviewee alleged that the driver left his lane of travel in order to hit Rist.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

      • pixelgate December 14, 2014 at 4:08 pm

        Agreed. Especially since eyewitness accounts are never exaggerated, and also because mobs in the streets are known for always being highly respectful of automobiles and their drivers: https://vine.co/v/O1UKEh5h5HP

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 4:14 pm

          And people who might be suspected of a crime never make up stories that would exonerate them. The truth lies somewhere in between.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm

        Karl,

        I have edited the story to reflect that to my knowledge the “get a job” allegation was only made by the Multnomah County Copwatch guy and not by any of the witnesses as I stated in the original story.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 5:21 pm

          I wouldn’t have mentioned it but Mr. Hudson brought it up, too. Sorry for my sarcasm upthread. I get too combative sometimes and I never meant to imply that you did anything amiss.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • Dannon Charles Raith December 14, 2014 at 6:31 pm

            When Mike BlueHair was making the part of the video were he is asking if anyone had heard the driver say that, people who said they saw the incident clearly were already lined up to give their testimony to legal support around the corner. I’m in the video myself at the part where he is going around asking people that and I don’t think there were any witnesses around then.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam H. December 15, 2014 at 9:05 am

          Eyewitnesses are notoriously inconsistent.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • soren December 15, 2014 at 12:29 pm

            They can be inconsistent but they can also be consistent. Do you have any knowledge of inconsistency in this case?

            Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Doug December 15, 2014 at 5:29 am

      I don’t come here for objective journalism.

      It’s bikes against motor vehicles and I’m bikes

      Recommended Thumb up 10

  • nunya December 14, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    It was a road rage incident, surely. I definitely believe the driver was scared. He’d probably never seen that many conscious people before. He was probably trying to get the hell out of there, and was “scurred” which turned to “urgrer”, at which point he decided to run over somebody, which is “stewpid”. He should get a ticket (which is usually followed by a severe beating, if you assert your rights).

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • John P. December 14, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Why does this merit a mention on bike portland? Are all accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians here? Or just ones involving a protest march? Or ones where the drivers makes a comment that is unrelated to bicycling?

    Recommended Thumb up 14

    • 9watts December 14, 2014 at 7:21 pm

      I won’t speak for anyone at bikeportland, but it seems to me that people walking and people biking have a lot in common when it comes to
      – experience with physical threats from automobiles
      – police bias (which ironically enough was the reason for the march)
      – difficulty getting fair treatment from the justice system as a whole

      As such I can see why a story like this, which mirrors other situations where instead of being on foot the victim was on a bike, might be useful to consider as we try to make this world a better place for human powered transport.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 15, 2014 at 9:13 am

      Thanks for asking John P.

      I think carefully before covering non bike-specific articles like this one.

      In this case, I decided to cover it for several reasons. I feel it’s important because it relates to the PPB’s perspective/culture around people in traffic and the interaction between drivers and people who are not in cars. Also, given the dynamics of this incident, I wanted to make sure there was at least one story out there (mine) that was very sensitive to modal language use and fair to all parties involved.

      On that note, I’ve noticed several other local media outlets simply post the PPB statement verbatim — without making it clear to readers that they’ve done so. That type of thing happens all the time, but in this case – when you have conflicting account of what happened — I feel that shows very poor editorial judgment.

      So, you can expect from time to time that we will cover things that are not specific to biking – but that we feel are important and relevant to people who ride bicycles.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

  • Gerald Fittipaldi December 14, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    I wonder if the cop would say the driver was using “freedom of speech” if he had yelled, “get a job,” following by whacking a protester with a baseball bat. The driver went over the double yellow line intentionally. Therefore he was using his car as a weapon. Do the police understand this? What if this officer’s child was standing in the middle of the street and a driver crossed the double yellow and ran over his child’s foot?

    Recommended Thumb up 12

  • 9watts December 14, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    Thomas Munsey – too afraid to stop.

    Remember Rob A? – too angry to notice he was the one acting dangerously.

    http://bikeportland.org/2014/04/04/reader-email-and-my-reaction-cornell-rd-encounter-spurs-concerns-104046

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • John P. December 14, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    9watts
    I won’t speak for anyone at bikeportland, but it seems to me that people walking and people biking have a lot in common when it comes to
    – experience with physical threats from automobiles
    – police bias (which ironically enough was the reason for the march)
    – difficulty getting fair treatment from the justice system as a whole
    As such I can see why a story like this, which mirrors other situations where instead of being on foot the victim was on a bike, might be useful to consider as we try to make this world a better place for human powered transport.

    To quote SNL: Really. Really?

    Perhaps not people walking but people biking are overwhelmingly white upper middle class 18-40 year olds. These folks have no problem getting fair treatment from the justice system or police.

    The bias if anything is obvious from this thread, where the posters have already acted as judge, jury, and executioner for the driver based on very little evidence. See as best example the person above who admits he was blocks away but somehow is certain that the driver crossed the yellow lines. Or the search for the drivers name on Google with some wild claims about who the person is, then admits it was just a Google search.

    Navel gazing at it’s best. Fred Armisten would be proud of you. This was a march meant to protest unfair treatment of black people, and we have claims that young white middle class people are oh so poorly treated by the police.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

    • 9watts December 14, 2014 at 7:44 pm

      If the police are found to dispense their bias to people who are black and people who are not in—but run over by—an automobile, what does Fred Armisen have to do with this?

      Quite apart from any speculation about Munsey’s intentions or utterances before he ran over Julian Rist’s foot, are you suggesting that the police’s decisions about who to cite here seem appropriate, logical, just to you? Do you have any questions you’d like answered?

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Alex Reed December 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm

      NOT true. Biking in Portland is spread across all income classes, and is if anything more common among poorer folks. Michael Anderson wrote and article about it after the last release of relevant Census data. Not sure about the racial part.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • random December 15, 2014 at 7:50 am

        Biking in Portland may be spread “across all Income classes”, but is concentrated among white people with high levels of formal education.

        Lots of BAs and MAs from expensive schools holding down low-paying jobs in this town – that doesn’t put them into the lower classes, socially.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • random December 15, 2014 at 9:13 am

          Doesn’t answer my point that there are a lot of high-education, low-income white cyclists in Portland.

          As an illustration of this, look at the minuscule cycling numbers in outer East Portland – if the “poor” were truly relying on bikes as a means of transportation, you would see a lot more cyclists in that part of town.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 9:30 pm

      Wait, Bike Portland commenters convicted and executed Mr. Munsey? Shame on all of you! Vigilante justice never solved anything!

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Opus the Poet December 15, 2014 at 9:39 am

        Mr. Munsey is currently walking around as free as a bird, unlike his victim who won’t be walking at all for a while. Broken ankles take a while to heal even when surgically repaired.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Barney December 14, 2014 at 7:42 pm

    I get that this is all in response to the Ferguson issue. It is important to remember that the “hands up don’t shoot” part of it is a lie, it never happened! That is based on the testimony of the majority of the witnesses and the 3 autopsies presented to the grand jury which supported that finding. You may have other problems with the outcome but why would you base your protests on something that never happened?

    Protest anything you want, $2 gas, waterboarding, global warming whatever, just make sure it is based the truth, not fantasy. This guy got himself run over for something that never happened. Here’s my advice, next time you want to get run over, pick a better cause!

    Recommended Thumb up 13

    • ~n December 14, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      Barney–thanks so much for speaking up about witnessing Michael Brown’s murder, and letting the people here know “hands up don’t shoot…never happened.” This is probably the first most of us have heard this from an eyewitness. I’m sure it was incredibly traumatic for you to see it unfold, so it’s almost surprising to me you’re able to be here commenting.

      I wasn’t a witness, and I didn’t witness Garner’s killing in person, but I did see the video of the cop choking him. It’s very traumatic for me to see. I couldn’t understand why Garner’s grand jury had an identical ruling to Brown’s; I’m sure you probably had a similar reaction of shock.

      Recommended Thumb up 17

      • Barney December 14, 2014 at 9:45 pm

        Little n,
        We live in a representative republic. In Ferguson the grand jury, whom were all members of the community were the representatives of the public interest. They saw all of the evidence, over 90 hours of testimony over a period of 6 weeks. They are the only ones who know all of the facts. Not you, not me just them. I make no claim to have witnessed anything. I do not know why you would misstate that (oh wait, maybe I do). It seems that you do not accept the process of the justice system and would prefer mob rule. Yeah, not so much for me. Instead of “hands up don’t shoot” I say, ***deleted due to insensitivity***

        To connect this with the Garner incident also doesn’t work, that is unless you believe that the black police supervisor who was on the scene and ordered the takedown of Garner was also racist. What kind of logic is that?

        Rupert-
        You weren’t there either and your hyperbole is meaningless.

        Okay ***deleted. moderators don’t allow name-calling. please make your comments as sensitive as possible. Thanks barney***, let the name calling begin!

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • Karl Dickman December 14, 2014 at 9:56 pm

          It’s a real shame that none of the evidence presented to the grand jury in Ferguson was ever released to the public. Without knowing what the jury saw, we will never know for sure what to think.

          Recommended Thumb up 9

        • ~n December 15, 2014 at 7:06 am

          Ah, Barney, so YOU’RE the one from Oregonlive spewing that racist phrase ad nauseam. It’s attitudes like yours that are in part why the protests continue with strength, because people have had it with racism and stereotyping. Your phrase is not appropriate here either. Jonathan, is there a way we can flag here? Thanks.

          ***~n, Thanks for your feedback on Barney’s comments… But please don’t call him racist. That is name-calling IMO and it does not lead to productive, respectful commenting. Thank you – Jonathan.***

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • 9watts December 15, 2014 at 7:09 am

            +1

            Recommended Thumb up 1

          • Barney December 15, 2014 at 8:33 am

            Sorry little n, I have never commented on the Oregonian, and casting the term racist around so liberally dilutes its meaning. You should save it for when it really matters.

            You want to flag my post, remove my comments? That is just classic, if you don’t like what someone has to say then try and shut them up. That is tolerance at its best.

            HUDS is still a fiction, it is a shame that the symbol of your protest is based on a falsehood.

            Recommended Thumb up 7

            • ~n December 15, 2014 at 8:59 am

              Barney, I don’t want to shut you up–on the contrary, keep on talking!

              But all people reading this should be able to feel emotionally safe to converse here–imho. ***deleted name-calling*** language and stereotyping—that is violence directed at a person’s heart. We have enough of that elsewhere. So I do think your ***deleted name-calling***—belligerent, if you prefer not to acknowledge it for what it is—phrase should be edited from your comment. (That sort of thing generally is edited at this blog, as far as I know.)

              Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 15, 2014 at 9:25 am

                ~n,

                My job is to protect the conversation — not to protect readers from different perspectives and opinions. I have read yours and Barney’s comments and I have tried to delete out the portions that I think are too insensitive and/or mean. Let me know if you feel I’ve missed something.

                Again, I realize that you disagree with what Barney is saying, but IMO — as long as he is respectful and considerate of other commenters — his perspective deserves this platform as much as anyone elses.

                Recommended Thumb up 6

              • ~n December 15, 2014 at 10:15 am

                Thank you, Jonathan, that’s very fair. To be clear, I was attempting to call attention to LANGUAGE that I consider extremely insensitive, and may have done so less than cleanly. You’re right, in my mind I may have been judging Barney unfairly by his use of certain language. I sincerely apologize and I understand it cuts both ways; Barney, I’m sorry. The LAST thing I intended by my rhetoric or in asking to flag that phrase was to further jeopardize the respectful nature of this conversation/community. I have a feeling if all of us here were having this conversation in person at a coffee shop, we all might not be that far apart in this thing.

                I’m exceedingly grateful for a news source in Portland where we can have this discussion in the way it’s done here. It’s been so upsetting to me that Oregonlive allows insensitive language in their comments with seemingly no moderation. I’d been reading articles about the protests at Oregonlive, and I probably should have gone for a bike ride instead of attempting to read further or write comments!

                Recommended Thumb up 3

              • Barney December 15, 2014 at 11:56 am

                Thank you Jonathon for moderating, it seems that it is hard to keep some conversations civil. The “PUDL” comment that was deleted was not my own, it came from the evening news several weeks ago. Okay for public broadcast but not safe for BP I guess.

                The other deleted “a” word was not meant as an insult, I thought it was a label proudly worn by those of that stripe. There has been a lot of anarchy involved with these protests nationally so I guess it is a little hard to tell sometimes.

                I accept ~n’s apology for his part and offer mine as well for my part, though I do feel that I tried to keep the conversation civil.

                Perhaps you can also edit out ~n’s last insult to me in his 8:59 post.

                Thanks!

                Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Jonah December 14, 2014 at 9:08 pm

      I believe folks were chanting “I can’t breathe” just before this happened…

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Peter W December 14, 2014 at 11:25 pm

      > It is important to remember that the “hands up don’t shoot” part of it is a lie. … why would you base your protests on something that never happened?

      If you think that people are protesting over a specific phrase or hand gesture… I don’t think you understand what people are protesting about.

      Recommended Thumb up 18

  • Rupert December 14, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    Never happened… you mean like the Holocaust?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Pete December 14, 2014 at 11:40 pm

      Godwin++

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Opus the Poet December 15, 2014 at 9:43 am

        You know who else didn’t like bicycles? HITLER. This is an historical fact, Hitler wanted bike lanes to get bicycles out of the way of his beloved automobiles. Which makes people fighting bike lanes WORSE THAN HITLER 😀

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • are December 15, 2014 at 11:17 am

        i would argue this is an instance in which godwin’s law does not apply. we do seem to be moving toward a police state, and the early victims will of course be the black underclass, but the effects will gradually move upstream. as people continue to fall out the bottom of the lower middle class, the idea this is really happening may begin to take hold.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Rupert December 15, 2014 at 12:12 pm

          Well it does fulfill Godwin’s Law. All Godwin said was that Nazi stuff eventually gets mentioned. (Which meant it was amusing for a minute as a critique, but not too interesting.)

          Granted I was being a little outrageous, but I was making a fully intentional comparison between the murky motives for denying the Holocaust and the murky motives for denying that something “happened” in Ferguson. Go ask Mike Brown whether anything happened. For that matter, go ask Kendra James and James Chasse (anyone?). The important part of the story, happened.

          Oh his hands weren’t up? My mistake! Hey everybody, you can stop protesting — everything’s cool now!

          Quibbling weakly over details is just foot-dragging. Denial is often the first of five stages of grief. What is the loss? The illusion of America as a decent, free and just (including non-racist) place. Even the least convinced of the protesters has at least moved on to the anger phase, so don’t criticize those who are miles ahead of you.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

  • John Liu
    John Liu December 15, 2014 at 6:47 am

    Charge the driver with hit and run. Even if he felt threatened and left the scene for that reason, he should have called the police as soon as he was a couple blocks away, not many minutes and miles later. I suspect he finally called when he realized that with so many witnesses, his license plate had been noted and he wouldn’t get away with it.

    Dismiss the ticket against the protester. Very poor judgment by the officer.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • Mike December 15, 2014 at 9:46 am

      Ticket them both.
      Our interactions with the protesters on Saturday were not positive – it seems that rather than trying to gain support, they were much more interested in pissing off everyone else.
      One particular a$$ too offense to my wife plugging her ear (she has sensitive hearing) so he decided to get closer – within a foot – and yell directly at her ear.
      She wisely chose not tell me about this until after they group moved on.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • redhippie December 15, 2014 at 9:12 am

    random
    Biking in Portland may be spread “across all Income classes”, but is concentrated among white people with high levels of formal education.
    Lots of BAs and MAs from expensive schools holding down low-paying jobs in this town – that doesn’t put them into the lower classes, socially.
    Recommended 0

    Tell that to all the Latino’s who depend upon bikes to get to work. I guess to you they don’t count unless they are riding a Bianchi Pisa?

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Jayson December 15, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Pretty disturbing story. The person driving a car literally has a dangerous, life-threatening weapon and proceeded to use it against citizens exercising their right to protest. So apparently, people driving cars through a protest are just as guiltless as cops shooting unarmed citizens.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Kay jAde December 15, 2014 at 10:01 am

    With violation, there can be no civil disobedience. “Those who make peace revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.”

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Mike December 15, 2014 at 10:23 am

    ~n
    … and I probably should have gone for a bike ride instead of attempting to read further or write comments!
    Recommended 0

    Yes! A thousand times yes.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • ~n December 15, 2014 at 10:37 am

      Ha! Going on a ride now 🙂

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Brian Davis December 15, 2014 at 11:11 am

    I live downtown, work downtown, walk around this neighborhood constantly, and regularly patronize several of the businesses near this location. I am utterly horrified that the Portland Police turned a blind eye to a felony hit-and-run, one that occurred in my neighborhood and was perpetrated by someone who was apparently from a different city and county. I wonder who it is, exactly, that our police force is aiming to protect and serve.

    The context, to me, is irrelevant.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Dave Thomson December 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    Wow – I had never perused Mr. Noecker’s site before, but after confirming your statement I would have to classify anything he says here as highly suspect. There is no excuse for inciting violence against others.

    Recommended Thumb up 15

  • Joe December 15, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    hit n run… wth? will I ever be safe in the street riding? 🙁

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Radmacher December 15, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    The above video shows nothing. Given the prevalence of video footage from every angle of every protest, I find it a little odd that no one has come forward with video actually showing the incident.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • caesar December 15, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    Has anyone seen some of the reader comments on the Oregonian’s story on this topic? The philistinism of some of those people is breathtaking.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • TOM December 15, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    OKAY ..I watched the video. person with the camera was trying to lead the witnesses to say “he said: get a job” . Nobody really agreed.

    The multiple repeats of the cop at the end, ***deleted – insensitive*** show the bias of the photographer.

    I am certainly not a “cop lover” , but can’t really fault their response on this one.

    The “hands up, don’t shoot” people seem to have latched onto something that most likely never happened. Rather devalues their argument. ***deleted – name calling*** Al has traded in for a real suit, but he and Jesse are still professional racial agitators.

    Sure, the police need a lot more oversight , but protesters in PDX are desperate to be relevant and in doing so just seem to be less so ….

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 15, 2014 at 2:15 pm

      Hart. Are you referring to the way he described Al Sharpton? If so, I’ve deleted that out. If not, please let me know what you are referring to.

      Also, FWIW, I’m about to close comments on this post. I think the discussion has run its course.

      Recommended Thumb up 6