Shot recently at the corner of Delancey and Allen streets in Manhattan, this violent video depicts the aftermath of an apparent crash between a cyclist and an older man—who looks like he was walking. Instead of parting ways, the two began duking it out in the street. Brutally, the bicyclist whales the older man in the head with a u-lock until he starts bleeding and walks away in pain, clutching his face. The camera man describes the exchange firsthand:
i made a pit stop in a starbucks somewhere on the lower east side and i saw this bike messenger and an old asian guy getting into a fight because they ran into each other at the intersection. the old guy just wouldn’t leave the bike dude alone, so the bike dude totally let him have it, POW! KRYPTONITE LOCK TO THE FACE LIKE 3 OR 4 TIMES! Dudes face was actually bleeding hard core for like the next 20 minutes, but i bounced soon after. Crazy, and oddly enough the very next day i saw another fight in the street between two women and titties were flyin in that one, unfortunately i did not have the camera, bummer. Enjoy.
i hope that dude gets identified and i can have some u-lock justice of my own. that was so uncalled for.
In the video, the bicyclist is clearly trying to retreat, why Asian-Joey Bagadonuts follows him, then grabs him and his bike, whereupon the cyclist beats him with the Kyrptonite. A clear case of self-defense, and a clear well-deserved beating administered upon the jackass pedestrian who wanted to start a fight. Nice going messenger, I salute you!
That is NOT a clear case of self defense as the cyclist did NOT meet force with force. If the cyclist had punched or pushed the guy off that could be considered self defense. Instead he opted to use his U-Lock as a club and assaulted the pedestrian. Of course this is to be decided in the courts.
I ride all over the city and you encounter all types of shit. If you can't learn to de-escalate situations and "roll with the punches" then you are gonna get in stupid and un-necessary situations. It's easy to forget this when pumped up on adrenaline from speeding through the city, I know this all too well.
Put this on the flip side, if some asshole taxi driver tries to run you over then puts a bat to your head, who is wrong?
That cyclist is an asshole. I hope I run into him on the street sometime.
ifi ever catch you im ganna break your face
I never knew there were so many internet tough guys on Gothamist.
uhm. if i got hit ONCE with a lock i'd walk away. dude wanted trouble and he got it.
As someone who will be taking the NY bar in a week, let me tell, you this is not self defense. Self defense allows you to use deadly force while in apprehension of serious physical injury or death. Beating someone with a U-Lock to the head could potentially be deemed "deadly force" as death or serious injury is foreseeable. While we are missing the beginning of this encounter, if the cyclist was the first aggressor, under NY law, he is obligated to withdraw from the melee before escalating to deadly force even if the other party has escalated to deadly force first, which did not happen here. As for protecting his bicycle, as someone suggested above, well, no amount of force is permitted in defense of property.
A prosecutor could charge the cyclist with first degree assault (intentionally causing serious physical injury with a weapon) but if the injury is not deemed serious, it'll have to be third degree assault. Should the man succumb to his injuries – and you never know, with internal bleeding in the head, we have potential homicide charges. Mind you, that the man could die several years later from these injuries, and there would still be the requisite causation for homicide under NY law, which, unlike the common law, does not limit criminal liability to those cases where death occurs within one year of the attack. First degree manslaughter, or death resulting from an intent to cause serious physical injury, should be a slam dunk.
Moving on to tort liability, the man on foot clearly has a claim for assault and battery against the cyclist. The cyclist put the man in an immediate apprehension of a battery, and then committed the battery, repeatedly.
Should this tape be admitted into evidence against the cyclist in an action brought by the victim, the person shooting the video, or someone who also witnessed the scene in person, will need to verify that this tape accurately represents what transpired, if the tape is to be admissible.
The cyclist has no affirmative defenses available to him – this tape alone will likely suffice to permit the pedestrian to move for summary judgment and win, as no reasonable jury could rule that there was no intentional tort here. The man will be able to recover his medical expenses, and possibly pain and suffering. Punitive damages are also a possibility, since from a policy perspective, we as a society want to disincentivize such behavior.
Of course, bike messengers are typically insolvent, so if the victim is lucky, the messenger was in the course or performing his duties for a messenger company. However, this might be a tough hill to climb for our plaintiff, as employers are generally not liable for their employees' intentional torts, unless they have authorized the employee to use force, or the employee is mistakenly under the belief that he is furthering his employee's agenda.
The plaintiff might try instead under a theory of negligent hiring. If he can show that the messenger was known to have violent or unstable propensities, (without referring to people's opinions of the messenger or any specific acts of prior violence, which would be inadmissible in NY) he may have a case. The messenger company will probably have a decent defense by introducing industry custom in not screening for past offenses, drug use or mental problems, as that would eliminate the entire pool of applicants. Still, following industry custom is not dispositive of negligence.
Let's hope that guy gets in touch with a lawyer – ARE YOU READY TO RUMMMBBBBLLEEEEEEE???????!1!!!!?!?!?!
this lawyer guy is good!
Biking that amount of time on pot holes causes massive injury to males penile nerve endings and the perienum. Biking is for kids, whose small size/weight prevents this damage as they sit on big seats.
Google it, the bike industry tries to deny urologists…many at Harvard or Mass General who publish this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/health/nutritio…
This messenger will be impotent, and some convicts bitch in jail at some point, if thats his reaction.
Omg. People studying for the bar are unbearable.
Not only annoying. Also wrong: "As for protecting his bicycle, as someone suggested above, well, no amount of force is permitted in defense of property." This is simply not correct. You can't use deadly force in defense of property, but you can absolutely use non-deadly force (w/in reasonable limits).
To say otherwise would be like suggesting someone can try to take your purse and you're not permitted under the law to push them away to stop them.
(oh no! you'll lose 1/3 of a point on an essay that you need a 4 on to pass! better get back to those outlines!)
Shit Mike, when you're right, you're right.
So the camera guy just sits there and does nothing while a dude is getting smashed in the face with a bike lock? I think that's the real travesty here.
I agree with ET. However, enough details can be gleaned from the video to find the cyclist, especially if he takes the Williamsburg Bridge every day.
Couple of observations… 1) This clip doesn’t show what sparked the confrontation. 2) The older Asian man was clearly on the offensive. AFAIC, the biker had every right to defend himself and his reaction doesn’t seem disproportionate to me; he kept on swinging the lock until the guy back off. He then cycled off.
ET – this may be travesty, but in NY there are no good samaritan laws. There is no duty to help or stop a crime from happening under any circumstances with respect to a stranger, unless you put that person in the situation.
Claude – the other party being on the offensive does not legitimize deadly force, unless the other party is using deadly force. Can we agree that steel to the head is deadly force? So no, under the law, the biker did not have *every* right to defend himself. Punching, yes, weapon, no.
The cyclist tried to walk about _three_ times, but the walker dude kept after him. Eventually, the cyclist felt threatened enough, or the walker assaulted him or tried to stop him from moving or grabbed his bike, so the the biker hit him. I would have done at least the same thing. Nobody better touch me, get in my personal space, threaten me, follow me, unless they're ready to get a beatdown. That's exactly what happened.
Also, the biker has no free hands — he had one on his bike and one on his lock. The walker kept after the biker — all the biker had left was to hit the walker, or give his bike over to the walker. Man, I would have been bent if someone tried to stop me from moving, and if they grabbed my bike and tried to take it? Pffft. Dude got what he deserved — probably not enough.
Cyclist was yelling at the walker dude, yelling, "What are you f****n crazy, bro?!" over and over. The walker just kept harassing the cyclist. I don't understand who these people are on this board defending the walker. Are _ya'll_ crazy?
Peter – haha, my hand was occupied with the weapon so you see, I couldn't punch! I HAD to use the weapon! Creative defense.
1) We don't see what caused, or the lead up to, this altercation.
2) At 0:07, the cyclist tries to walk away for the first time. Walker pursues him. At 0:09, he stops and the walker confronts him again. At 0:12, cyclist tries to walk away for the second time. Again, he is pursued by the walker. (@Joe about to take the NY Bar: would this pursuit by the walker be viewed as an aggressive action by a court of law?)
3) Around 0:14 to 0:17, both the cyclist and the walker are mostly obstructed from vision, so it is difficult to say exactly what happened (it appears as if the cyclist tried to push him away, or maybe he took a swing at the guy. The view is too obstructed to be able to tell).
4) At 0:18, the walker guy appears as if he may have taken a offensive/combative stance. It looks like he may have even taken a few swings. This was AFTER the cyclist tried to leave TWO times. I'm assuming around this time the first throws were made, but I can't tell by whom.
5) It is also difficult to tell if the first time the cyclist struck he was actually using the u-lock.
6) The cyclist took 4 clear swings, then turned to leave for a third time (0:21). At which point the walker continued shouting at him, and appeared ready to pursue the cyclist for a third time. At this time (0:22-0:23) the cyclist turns back and takes 3 more swings, during which time (0:24-0:25) it appears as if the walker is going for the cyclist's neck in what appears to be an attempt to choke him, or maybe it was just a defensive position (hard to tell from the camera angle). After the walker is not successful at this he finally decides enough is enough.
7) The verbal exchange between the two is not clear enough to discern what transpired. For all we know walker guy may have threatened to kill him.
8) Fixed gear road bike and messenger style bag do not necessarily make someone a bike messenger.
Point is, enough information cannot be derived from this video clip to say whether or not the walker provoked the cyclist (beyond pursuing the cyclist when he tried to leave). It cannot be definitively determined who struck first. Its possible the walker took a cheap shot when they were not in view of the camera.
But I do feel that the cyclist over-reacted by further escalating the situation with his lock as a weapon. And as a cyclist myself (and having ridden in NYC and other major metro areas, but never messengered) I can understand his (and other cyclists' frustration with dealing with this kind of crap (angry pedestrians & drivers, I was once hit by a car because the lady was on her cell phone and ran a stop sign). He made two right choices by trying to leave without escalating the situation, but beyond that, well, its obvious he made a few more poor choices.
No you are
He had no reason to wail on that guy with a bike lock
He could have rode away
The guy was not holding a weapon
Think again
Maybe you should read the legal post above a little more
JK – It doesn't really matter who was the first aggressor. Assume it was the pedestrian – doesn't change a thing. You cannot use deadly force in response to non-deadly force, period, and claim self-defense. Threatening to kill someone and reaching for their neck is not deadly force, assuming that happened. The only thing that would qualify is if, when the action was obstructed, the pedestrian flashed a knife or something.
Just for the record, from a personal perspective, I think what this guy did is borderline understandable, potentially. People are nuts on the street, and who knows what the guy was saying to him, and he kept coming back at him, clearly. We just don't know all the facts. But the law doesn't always line up with people's perceptions and opinions – which is a good thing, seeing how everyone has a different one, judging by just the comments here. We need bright line rules, and this guy crossed the line.
All of this may be taken into account by the judge for sentencing, BUT, the guy is still guilty of assault, you know, from a legal perspective.
Joe – thanks for the clarification. In NY State, how exactly are "deadly force" and "deadly weapon" legally defined? I only ask because the walker took at least 6 very good blows to the head, yet he was still standing and able to walk, and still seemed fairly coherent. I'm aware in circumstances such as this the law applies more in regards to the actions than their outcome, but I personally have been hit in the head with a u-lock in a similar fashion (wasn't in any sort of altercation such as this). It hurt like the dickens, but was nothing I personally would consider life threatening in any way, shape, or form. Yes, there's that slim chance he could have gotten brain hemorrhaging and died, but I'm not sure a u-lock can carry enough force to cause that kind of internal trauma (unless it was pre-existing).
"but I’m not sure a u-lock can carry enough force to cause that kind of internal trauma (unless it was pre-existing)."
You can't be serious with that statement
Provoked or not, there is zero excuse for the biker to be assaulting someone with a weapon. He had every opportunity, especially with a bike – to leave the area without committing assaulting him. The old guy was heated – you would be too if some moron ran into you.
I hope this asshole gets caught and gets time.
I hope any of you assholes who think he did the right thing get the same.
Mom is right
Yeah. It's just not deadly force.
PL10.11. "Deadly physical force" means physical force which, under the
circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death
or other serious physical injury.
PL10.10: "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.
I don't see how the use of the bike lock in this case even begins to meet the definitions above.
"Even begins to?"
Reasonable people can disagree, but I think that's going a bit far. Maybe you have not ever handled a 2-3Lb U Lock, or perhaps you put too much faith in the resiliency of the human head. I would say that a several pound steel weight in somebody's fist is "readily capable" of causing death or other physical injury. Internal bleeding in the skull isn't too hard to cause. Untreated, that stuff can kill within a day or two.
Sotomayor thinks nunchucks are deadly weapons
http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=25089&…
Sure a U Lock doesn't have the same leverage, but we are in the same ballpark here.
Right, but the statute doesn't ask if a several pound steel weight is readily capable of causing death or other *serious* physical injury. It asks whether, "under the circumstances in which it is used" it is so capable. I would say just looking at the video demonstrates that it was capable in the physics/eggshell sense, but not in the sense any reasonable person would be worried about.
I'd note again that a broken nose doesn't cut it. Serious physical injury is: "substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."
Sorry buddy, reasonable minds can differ. But that doesn't mean one answer isn't more likely.
In re: sotomayor, that's a totally different issue. Nunchucks have been banned under NY PL for about 30-40 years. The question they were debating is whether they count as "arms" for the purposes of 2d A analysis.
Heh, okay, well at least you have backed off from "doesn't even begin to approach" to "my answer is more likely than yours." That's something.
Sotomayor was not on point, true, that was more of an "internet" argument than anything else.
I guess we still disagree on what a reasonable person would be worried about with respect to a bludgeoning to the face and head with a heavy metal object. That's why we have juries, I suppose. Broken nose won't cut it, but permanently damaged, disabled eye might, yes? Not too hard to shatter orbital bone with direct impact. Again, maybe you haven't encountered subdural hematomas much, but you don't need to be eggshell to get one "under these circumstances."
Anyway, thanks for engaging, any kind of procrastination is welcome.
Been a pleasure. And you're gonna do fine on the bar. You think, give and take. You'll make a good attorney, no matter what the next 15 commenters respond. k
There is nothing more annoying than a know-it-all Law Student!
I want to smack them with u-locks and claim self defense. "your honor, another minute of listening to this dweeb churn out legal terms and I would have to hang myself"
"why did I hit him 5 times???" "because the officer stopped me from hitting him more than that!"
Question for Joe the almost-lawyer: Assuming for the sake of argument that the pedestrian was the initial aggressor, what kind of physical response would have been legally appropriate for the cyclist's self-defense? Could he have pushed the guy? Hit him with his fist? Kicked him? Head-butted him? If the pedestrian was stronger/more skilled than the cyclist, then the only legal response from the cyclist would have been to get his butt kicked? Or is there some legally non-lethal weapon he should have been carrying for situations such as this?
I don't claim to know what happened, but it's entirely possible the cyclist feared for his safety, and used the only implement at hand to defend himself. I don't see why you're so certain he's guilty of assault. Given the circumstances, I don't see why (according to you) the only legal response on the part of the cyclist was to himself submit to assault.
Mike – A ULock can be seen as being able to provide deadly force. I'm not coming from the "Taking the BAR" side – instead, I'm working on my EMT license now and medical school applications.
That beating was seriously bad. I hope the older guy got some treatment. The chances are small, but with repeated blows to the head like that there is always the possibility of something like an epidural bleed or basal skull fracture.
In any case (and this is just me rambling, not directed at anybody), the older guy was:
1) Unarmed.
2) Not in any sort of aggressive stance. Check his gestures at 0:10.
3) Not the first to attack. The kid starts by throwing a backhand at 0:15.
I hope this kid gets caught.
Now that I think of it, there's way more that could've happened than just an bleed or fracture. Eye issues, damage to the neck, throat, cervical spine – definitely a problem.
Bilgetoast – I don't know what NY's laws are on self defense, but I'd assume that for the cyclist to begin legally using potentially deadly force, there has to be a reason. Again, there is no physical aggression from the video from the older guy. I have no idea where Jerky is getting the whole "cyclist is trying to get away from the Asian guy who grabs his bike" thing. It's not in the video.
Let me also add that I'm an avid cyclist. I've been run off roads, hit by cars, all that stuff. Even though I can relate to the issues cyclists have to face, the kid was far, far in the wrong. He needs to be caught.
The kid needs to be caught
Damn right
Let's consider that the pedestrian was mentally incapacitated/ill and/or that the cyclist hit the ped on his bike and was attempting to leave the scene fo the accident; in either or both of these situations, the cyclist should have either retreated if he was being physically threatened and/or was responsible to wait around until the police came to the scene. Leaving the scene of an accident whether you are a bicylcist or drive an SUV is inappropriate and against the law.
Please, this drives me totally mad. I mean, he hits him several times – to the head. After the first few blows, the old guy backs away – and that little shit**** comes after him! It's clear to see.
I know, America is different sometimes. But in any other country of the world this is attempted manslaughter.
If that guy gets caught, please post a message.
its clear that the biker did something first. you can see it through the telephone booth and the corner store. The biker swings at the back of the walkers neck/head area…
and after the first ulock hit the walker backs off and the biker comes at him again which of course will make him put his arms up to protect himself.
haha! cool cyclist
that's how you should gonna treat people that try to fuck with you. i'm gonna by a kryptonite lock too. 
Wow. Just wow. I'm in AZ, stumbled on this. A very avid cyclist, own 6 bikes. The guy studying to be a lawyer can spout all he wants, but this video does NOT show the entire story. Everyone screaming for the cyclist's head, you need the facts. The full facts. Sure that law in NY is more screwed than Arizona, but having a friend in the state attorney general's office review this extensively, she pointed out at the 14 second mark they disappear around the corner, there is no telling who the aggressor was. When the video next comes in to full view, it seems the pedestrian was the one who initiated contact, and even after the first swings of the lock which appears to not make contact, he kept going afte the cyclist. Sorry to all who scream for justice, the state of Arizona would decline prosecution.
Look Mike, Arizona sucks. Keep your John McCain and your federally-enforced MLK day. Really, why would you think that Arizona is any sort of example to be followed.
The kid with the lock is a sucker who thinks that he's a tough guy. He was being annoyed by an old chinese man, so he whacked him with a U-lock. It's cool. Karmic entropy is a real bitch when it catches up with you. The sad thing is that there will prolly not be a videocamera around when this kid gets his & that none of us will get to enjoy a broadcast of his comeuppance.
Quit being a bunch of manginas. The Chinese dude was a douche- he needed to learn never to touch a bike messenger. He might've got a disease.
Love reading the crap that everyone keeps spouting about who is right or wrong. I just want to see the chink get his head beat in some more…. I love it!
All this discussion about whether the pedestrian was the aggressor and that the cyclist "tried to walk away" misses a huge point: Only one party here had a bicycle. It's not really aggression on the part of the pedestrian if the cyclist has the clear option of cycling away. Who the fuck cares if he tried to walk away, dude's got a bicycle he should RIDE away for fuck's sake. Isn't the reason he's mad in the first place that the pedestrian got in his way while he was trying to ride? And now he's defending himself from an elderly man with no weapons who is yelling at him? What a fucking Pussy (yes, capital P). I guess unless its one of those Williamsburg issue walking-on-Saturday-mornings-only-so-I-can-show-of-my-new-tattoo types of bicycles. Which he kind of looks like he'd do anyway, since no messenger in their right mind would stop for a good five minutes to get into an altercation with an elderly man who bears no reasonable threat to him.
Dude's an angry wannabe, probably on his way to work as a "barista" at Starbucks. Revoke his bicycle privileges and banish him to Jersey City.
You are a sick puppy. Instead of using this for your website and saying "enjoy", you could have helped that old man out.
Unfortunately, the law student is correct about NYS law. NYS law of late has been written by bleeding heart liberals who feel sorry for all of the poor little criminals who are beaten at their own game by their victims. Good samaritans are not allowed to use physical force to prevent a criminal from victimizing an innocent and upstanding citizen. Criminals are allowed to sue and win against their victims if the victim fights back and hurts the criminal. Criminals are even allowed to sue and win against a property owner if the criminal is injured during a crime committed on the property.
NYS law does very little to address those gray zone situations between two otherwise law abiding citizens involved in a preventable altercation such as the one in the above video. We need more education on common manners. If the cyclist and pedestrian had started off just a little bit more polite and apologetic, there would have been no beating in the first place. It does not hurt to say, "excuse me," or "i'm sorry," to someone when you bump into them. A truly educated lady or gentleman apologizes for any conflict no matter whose fault it is, and does not demand an apology from the other party. A truly educated lady or gentleman is secure enough in themselves to understand that it is the other person's loss for being rude. One exception to this rule are line cutters. One can harass and humiliate a line cutter into submission and encourage others in line to do the same in order to make it impossible for people to cut lines without fear of reprisal. Otherwise, do not return rudeness for rudeness.
What happen to the video? Can I see the video somewhere else?
qixDRB wazupgzywsag