Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 12, 2010 at 6:31am

I have had a run in with him apparently; I remember the plate.

Had I been able to catch that prick I would have committed a felony upon him.

Brendan Kevenides said:

Here's a copy of the complaint: http://207.41.16.133/rfcViewFile/10cv4450.pdf

His license plate simply reads "P". Cute.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris B on August 12, 2010 at 6:49am

Man this is just like the recent Toronto killing of cyclist Sheppard by the former Attorney General Michael Bryant. It happened the same way: cyclist goes in front of car stopped at light, driver deliberately rams cyclist, cyclist gets angry and hits car, driver then rams cyclist again and drives off carrying the bike and/or cyclist with him. Similarly there was no sobriety test of the driver since the police didn't bother asking, which was bad enough though at least there were no allegations of falsifying reports and changing stories.

Bryant didn't even get charged. I realize that political connections let people do a lot that we can't but I didn't really think killing was one of them. But here we are, two stories on a few months. Luckily this time everyone made it out alive.

The only thing I learn is that if someone is crazy enough to ram me, they've proved they have no regard for another life, and I need to get the hell out of there snapping pictures as I go, even if it means running away without my bike, then call the cops. Makes me think I should keep my phone in my pocket instead of my bag.

(Incidentally my girlfriend is a criminal lawyer who used to work in D.C. and says she cannot believe how corrupt the court system in chicago is and it's worse than anywhere else she's lived. My father (also a criminal attorney) didn't notice as much but then he only lived here. )

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by milesperhour on August 12, 2010 at 7:03am

the sad things is no justice will really be done here. they'll settle, the plaintiff will get money (which he should), but no defendant will otherwise be punished for their actions. and the cycle continues.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by igz on August 12, 2010 at 7:23am

i too am curious what you meant here

Mark Kenseth said:

are we riding by, and circling someone's house?

H3N3 said:

Sounds like the August Critical Mass ride is going to be a short one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on August 12, 2010 at 7:32am

I'd note that Bryant did get charged with criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death. I have no idea how serious those charges are in the Canadian system, but they sound pretty serious. Many months later, the prosecutor dropped the charges stating that he felt there was no chance of a conviction given the facts of the case. Whether you feel the prosecutor was just lying or not is a judgment call, of course, but from what little I know of the case it seems like a not unreasonable conclusion.

But even if it's undue influence, you're dealing here with influence having an effect over time after arrest and charging. To me, at least, the Pritzker case is much uglier since you see money and influence having an immediate effect on the actions of cops on the street. That goes beyond just a few people being dishonest and shows signs of corruption being endemic throughout the department hierarchy.



Chris B said:

Man this is just like the recent Toronto killing of cyclist Sheppard by the former Attorney General Michael Bryant. It happened the same way: cyclist goes in front of car stopped at light, driver deliberately rams cyclist, cyclist gets angry and hits car, driver then rams cyclist again and drives off carrying the bike and/or cyclist with him. Similarly there was no sobriety test of the driver since the police didn't bother asking, which was bad enough though at least there were no allegations of falsifying reports and changing stories.

Bryant didn't even get charged.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on August 12, 2010 at 7:47am

also, should we boycott the business that mr. p owns/invests in?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BalloonBiker on August 12, 2010 at 8:09am

It certainly would be good to hear more about what develops in the story. The police report is certainly a little fishy, but jumping to conclusions after just reading a complaint is a little hasty. A complaint is basically the initial "he said" part...and it really kind of seems like the complainer might be minimizing their own actions.

Pritzker stopped at a red light at Sedgwick Street, Ibarra tapped on the passenger door to tell him he’d passed too closely. After the driver cursed at him, the cyclist rolled forward and “Pritzker then began to hit Ibarra while on his bicycle with [Pritzker’s] vehicle,” according to the complaint. Ibarra then reportedly struck the hood with his U-lock “in self-defense,” and the force of the car threw him off his bicycle. Pritzker allegedly ran over the bike and sped north on Sedgwick, dragging the cycle under his car. (While the complaint represents his version of events, Ibarra, on his counsel’s advice, did not speak with us.)

Read more: http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/museums-culture/88085/lawsuit-a...

I mean, the complaint (like any complaint would) makes it seem like Ibarra is totally innocent, but as a cyclist, I know that when doing some of what happened there, it could have been kind of different. Tapping on a window could have been banging...how did the cyclist get in front of the car...why did the guy have his u-lock in hand? How is striking a car with a u-lock self defense?

Not that I'm saying that running over a bike, dragging it and driving away are okay, but part of the legal process is hearing both sides. You have to admit, sometimes cyclists can be a little aggressive when trying to right a perceived wrong.

Perhaps Pritzker's response will be. "On July 16, 2010, Pritzker was driving west on North Avenue towards his home in Lincoln Park. He approached the plaintiff riding a bicycle in the lane of traffic and carefully passed the cyclist, who was riding erratically. A few blocks later, while stopped for the lights, the cyclist began banging on Pritzker’s window and yelling. When the light changed, Pritzker attempted to leave the scene, but the Plaintiff put himself and his bicycle in front of the vehicle. Pritzker attempted to leave, and nudged the cyclist with his vehicle. The cyclist then brandished a large, heavy “u-type” lock and began beating on Pritzker’s vehicle. Fearing for his safety, Pritzker took evasive actions to get away, and pushed the plaintiff off of his bicycle with the vehicle. The plaintiff continued to act threateningly towards Pritzker, so Pritzker left the scene of the confrontation and contacted police.”

Not that that is true at all, but I think we are a little hasty with calling judgment so soon. This is just a complaint. Surely this case will be settled out of court, but it’s important to think that there could certainly have been some contributions to the scene on the part of the cyclist. It’s a case of he-said, he said since it looks like the witnesses only saw the vehicle leaving the scene.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on August 12, 2010 at 8:17am

i understand that the pritzker's are major contributor's to chicago, and now i learn that there is a pritzker tied to active trans. thanks.

and yes, it's just a complaint and everyone is innocent till proven guilty. that's why i want to reiterate that i hope mr. greenfield keeps us posted on the results.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dan brown on August 12, 2010 at 9:35am

I'm not going to boycott anything and I don't give a rat's ass if a Pritzker is my boss or the founder of chainlink. I'm not going to judge the entire family based on the action of one.

my response is just that Matthew Pritzker did something very wrong; and the uberwolk at CPD conjured up a scheme for him and that is very wrong. and all involved should be ashamed of their actions.
and all this caused a lot of pain and suffering for the now plantiff in this lawsuit (which should be
unnecessary btw if _justice *was not* a game_ in this city (to paraphrase bob dylan)).

H3N3 said:

There's a bit of a catch-22 here; we've got our own Pritzker (not sure of the relation to "P") who's been a regular participant in CM and various Bike Winter events for years, and is a major benefactor of Active Trans and the major backer of the latest edition of the Chicagoland Bicycle Map . . . you'd want to be sure you weren't boycotting his interests as well.

Mark Kenseth said:

also, should we boycott the business that mr. p owns/invests in?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T.C. O'Rourke on August 13, 2010 at 8:33pm

It appears that all parties agree Ibarra hit the car with his lock. What can we conclude solely from this fact?

He was very angry. Now, perhaps he's a hot head, or perhaps he was legitimately pissed off after being buzzed/run off the road/etc. Maybe both.

It appears that all parties agree Pritzker drove off with the bike wedged under his car. What can we conclude solely from this fact?

Unequivocally, he's a major asshole.

I don't think the above two actions are anywhere near comperable.

And pardon me for allowing the latter to influence my determination as to who is more credible...

I can't believe the dailies haven't picked this up.

jamimaria said:

It certainly would be good to hear more about what develops in the story. The police report is certainly a little fishy, but jumping to conclusions after just reading a complaint is a little hasty. A complaint is basically the initial "he said" part...and it really kind of seems like the complainer might be minimizing their own actions.
Pritzker stopped at a red light at Sedgwick Street, Ibarra tapped on the passenger door to tell him he’d passed too closely. After the driver cursed at him, the cyclist rolled forward and “Pritzker then began to hit Ibarra while on his bicycle with [Pritzker’s] vehicle,” according to the complaint. Ibarra then reportedly struck the hood with his U-lock “in self-defense,” and the force of the car threw him off his bicycle. Pritzker allegedly ran over the bike and sped north on Sedgwick, dragging the cycle under his car. (While the complaint represents his version of events, Ibarra, on his counsel’s advice, did not speak with us.) Read more: http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/museums-culture/88085/lawsuit-a...

I mean, the complaint (like any complaint would) makes it seem like Ibarra is totally innocent, but as a cyclist, I know that when doing some of what happened there, it could have been kind of different. Tapping on a window could have been banging...how did the cyclist get in front of the car...why did the guy have his u-lock in hand? How is striking a car with a u-lock self defense?

Not that I'm saying that running over a bike, dragging it and driving away are okay, but part of the legal process is hearing both sides. You have to admit, sometimes cyclists can be a little aggressive when trying to right a perceived wrong.

Perhaps Pritzker's response will be. "On July 16, 2010, Pritzker was driving west on North Avenue towards his home in Lincoln Park. He approached the plaintiff riding a bicycle in the lane of traffic and carefully passed the cyclist, who was riding erratically. A few blocks later, while stopped for the lights, the cyclist began banging on Pritzker’s window and yelling. When the light changed, Pritzker attempted to leave the scene, but the Plaintiff put himself and his bicycle in front of the vehicle. Pritzker attempted to leave, and nudged the cyclist with his vehicle. The cyclist then brandished a large, heavy “u-type” lock and began beating on Pritzker’s vehicle. Fearing for his safety, Pritzker took evasive actions to get away, and pushed the plaintiff off of his bicycle with the vehicle. The plaintiff continued to act threateningly towards Pritzker, so Pritzker left the scene of the confrontation and contacted police.”

Not that that is true at all, but I think we are a little hasty with calling judgment so soon. This is just a complaint. Surely this case will be settled out of court, but it’s important to think that there could certainly have been some contributions to the scene on the part of the cyclist. It’s a case of he-said, he said since it looks like the witnesses only saw the vehicle leaving the scene.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dan brown on October 12, 2011 at 3:44am

yeah-thanks cam for updating us.

I hope this story doesn't die-it needs to be heard; but that is what almost everyone wants (the story to be buried).

Dan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Silverman on September 3, 2012 at 9:32am

I would just like to point out that everyone who has commented, myself included, has no idea what actually happened that day because they were not there as a witness and they haven't heard any testimony. We have only read one news story about what the plaintiff has alleged in his civil complaint. Both parties will get their day in court. If after a fair hearing the court rules for the plaintiff then there will be cause and time for ranting and I will be one of the first and loudest voices.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page