Outrageous behavior

Discussion in 'Bay Area Bikers' started by sobiloff, Oct 27, 2007.

  1. sobiloff

    sobiloff Guest

    Yesterday on my commute home I witnessed the most outrageous driving
    behavior I've ever seen. Traffic in all lanes on southbound Highway
    101 through San Jose was moving at around 30 MPH as drivers a couple
    miles further south were merging at the airport and Highway 87 ramps.
    I was lanesplitting between the two left-most lanes, and about 50
    yards ahead of me was another motorcyclist doing the same.

    As this other motorcyclist came close to a gold-colored Chevy Tahoe,
    the Tahoe pulled half-way into the left median, straddling the yellow
    line. Drivers sometimes do this to help motorcyclists lanesplit
    cleanly so the behavior wasn't unusual. However, as this other
    motorcyclist pulled alongside the Tahoe the driver swerved sharply at
    the motorcyclist, causing him and the cars around him to brake hard
    and scatter to avoid colliding.

    After a few moments the traffic re-composed itself and this other
    motorcyclist found himself again behind the Tahoe. Once again, the
    Tahoe started straddling the yellow line, inviting the other
    motorcyclist to take another pass. This he did, but this time he used
    a gap in the lane to the right to give the Tahoe a wider berth. In
    response, the Tahoe swerved back to the right and the passenger leaned
    out the window and tried to grab at the motorcyclist as he passed!

    By this time I was just a couple of car lengths back and could see the
    two young male chuckleheads in the Tahoe laughing and having a great
    time with their murderous antics. Fortunately the other motorcyclist
    was able to stay out of the Tahoe's grasp and get away cleanly. At
    this point the Tahoe saw me approaching and did the same move to
    straddle the yellow line, thinking they could invite me to continue
    their game. Instead I memorized their license plate and moved over a
    couple of lanes to the right, putting several cars between us as I
    lanesplit out of their reach.

    As soon as I got home I called the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and
    relayed the incident to the emergency operator. Of course the CHP
    can't really do anything about a phoned-in complaint unless an officer
    can catch the alleged perpetrator in the act, but at least there's a
    record of a complaint. I imagine that this isn't the first or last
    time these psychopaths will engage in this (or other) reckless
    behavior, and maybe this incident can come back to haunt them in the
    future.

    In the meantime, I'm documenting this incident and publicizing the
    Tahoe's California license plate:

    4XSS478

    All drivers, not just motorcyclists, should watch out for this vehicle
    and its occupants. Shame on them!
     
    sobiloff, Oct 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. sobiloff

    Timberwoof Guest

    Well, Goddamn! My close call was the result of carelessness; this was
    malice!

    Thanks for the warning. And my Oregon Scientific camera goes on my bike
    and stays there.
     
    Timberwoof, Oct 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. sobiloff

    Morrgaine Guest

    I find it extremely annoying when law enforcement officers try to
    weasel their way out of making an arrest by claiming that an offense
    is a misdemeanor and that it wasn't committed in their presence, so
    there is nothing they can do.

    That's utter *bullshit*. Cops can cite offenders for infractions or
    misdemeanors not committed in their presence, upon reliable
    information. Look at what it says on a citation.

    For instance, officers working with a spotter plane can pull a vehicle
    over and cite the driver for speeding without ever clocking him. The
    aircraft pilot is the reliable informant in that case.

    This particular incident you described was a felony, an attempted
    assault intended to cause great bodily injury or death of a
    motorcyclist. Anybody can report a felony to the police with
    reasonable expectation that something will be done about the
    criminals, and that the mergency operator will not "blow off" the
    matter with an incorrect staement of policy.

    If you phoned in a description of the suspects, their vehicle
    description and license number, the emergency operator should have
    relayed that information to the CHP.

    And, if you want to go after the emergency operator, the conversation
    is on tape, so you might pursue the matter with whoever supervises 911
    in that area.
     
    Morrgaine, Oct 28, 2007
    #3
  4. sobiloff

    Morrgaine Guest

    Yes, It was *your* carelessness that almost got your silly ass killed.
     
    Morrgaine, Oct 28, 2007
    #4
  5. sobiloff

    sobiloff Guest

    Hmmm, I didn't know that that was an option--thanks for the tip!
     
    sobiloff, Oct 28, 2007
    #5
  6. sobiloff

    sobiloff Guest

    I understand your frustration and feel it, too, but I also understand
    that we don't want police officers arresting folks on hearsay since
    this could be used as a very vicious harassment technique. The 911
    call taker did explain that the aggrieved motorcyclist would need to
    lodge a complaint before they could pursue the issue any further, so
    this is one of the reasons I posted here--I'm hoping maybe that fellow
    reads this group or knows someone who does.

    Unfortunately, I was so focused on the Tahoe that I didn't get a
    detailed look at the other rider. He seemed to be a slender fellow,
    red and white leather jacket with black accents, helmet of similar
    colors. He was riding a sport bike, but from where I saw the incident
    I couldn't even tell the color, let alone the displacement or brand.
    Similarly, I think he was also wearing matching leather pants, but I
    can't be sure.
     
    sobiloff, Oct 28, 2007
    #6
  7. sobiloff

    ~ Guest

    You saw a felony go down and the 911 operator or the CHP told you your
    statement was "hearsay", and you bought that?

    If a person saw an armed robbery about to go down at a bank and called
    911, would the operator say, "Oh, that's just hearsay. We can't send
    officers to the bank just because *you* say there are men wearing ski
    masks and body armor and carrying assault rifles going into the bank.
    They might just be going to a Hallowe'en party"?

    Fortunately, LAPD officers saw Larry Phillips and Emil Matasareanu
    entering the North Hollywood Bank of America branch and they were
    right on it.

    "Hearsay" is unverified information heard or received from another;
    rumor.

    In law "hearsay" is evidence based on the reports of others rather
    than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not
    admissible as testimony.

    In law, "evidence" is the documentary or oral statements and the
    material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

    A witness to a crime does not give *evidence* to police officers, he/
    she does not make a sworn statement that a crime is in progress or has
    been committed.

    Police officers are sworn to uphold the law and obligated to
    investigate *every* credible complaint, they are not supposed to "blow
    it off" and go back to their doughnut.
    By that theory, the "aggrieved" Linda Sobek would have had to rise up
    out of her shallow grave to press charges against Charles Rathbun, who
    tortured, raped, sodomized, and strangled her.

    Any person who sees a crime in progress should reasonably expect the
    police to investigate the report.

    However, any person who reports a crime in progress should responsibly
    pursue the matter to its conclusion in a court of law.

    Police officers are frustrated by the citizen who makes a report or a
    complaint and then decides he/she will not testify in court.

    That's why the police will tell you that they cannot arrest somebody
    for a misdemeanor if they (the cops) did not witness the crime
    themselves.

    Too many people believe that, once they have reported a crime and the
    police have arrested somebody, their involvement is over. So they
    abandon all thoughts of going to court and testifying.

    OTOH, the cops get paid to testify, but they hate going to court and
    they hate doing all the paperwork involved with making an arrest.

    Their doughnut makes them happy though.
     
    ~, Oct 28, 2007
    #7
  8. sobiloff

    Paul Elliot Guest

    Since I travel this route daily, I shall make a note of it. What time of
    the afternoon was this?

    --
    Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
    German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

    Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
    French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

    http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/
     
    Paul Elliot, Oct 29, 2007
    #8
  9. sobiloff

    Guzzisto Guest

    FYI, some of your stuff is way off. In most assault cases you need a
    victim. If this person is nowhere to be found, how do they charge the
    offending party? Who/where is the complaining witness?
    A cop can arrest a person on a misdemeanor committed in his presence
    only. Otherwise, citizen's arrest is the only other way to get such a
    case to a DA.
    Ref Penal Code sections 836 and 837.
    Citizens may also bring the case directly to the DA themselves.
    And as for your contention that cops don't like to go to
    court...WRONG! That's where a huge chunk of their over-time comes
    from.
    But they Do like donuts...
     
    Guzzisto, Oct 30, 2007
    #9
  10. sobiloff

    Guzzisto Guest

    Homicide cases are different. But even there, you have to have
    corroborating evidence. A body isn't always needed if other evidence
    is presented. There is no such thing as "he said/she said in a
    criminal case. Someone just can't walk in say, "Hey, I just killed Joe
    Dokes" and be arested for it without corroborating evidence.
    Corroboration, corroboration corroboration.
    Uhh, no. The "complaining witness" IS the victim. You can not walk
    into a police department and report, without corroborating evidence,
    that so and so #1 was assaulted by so and so #2 without so and so #1
    being available to testify.
    You're convoluting what I said. Of course they can arrest on a
    misdemeanor warrant under specific conditions, but in such cases
    that's referred to as a "warrant arrest", not an "on view" arrest.
    Vastly different.
    Uhh, no. Swings and midnights are usually more heavily manned.
    Besides, even day watch guys mostly have weekdays off, so that would
    mean coming in on their day off.
    Anything else you'd like to know about "the business"?
     
    Guzzisto, Nov 7, 2007
    #10
  11. sobiloff

    sobiloff Guest

    sobiloff, Nov 9, 2007
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.