Insanity - Cal Train Bike Commuter Arrested
hiwheeler
========================================
Hello,
Just thought you might be interested in this video I took this morning
of
a biker being taken off Caltrain and arrested.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=888656221275581946&hl=en
He got on board, and placed his bike on a rack that only had 3 bikes
on
it. The conductor told him that the car was full and he needed to get
off
the train. He refused saying that this bike rack was not
full. Conductor called police to meet the train at the San Carlos
station, where this video takes place. Notice how the police were
also
trying to intimidate me for videotaping them (this is still
legal, isn't it??)
If you have any questions, feel free to email me
Dave Cadwallader
SF Bike Coalition Member & Daily Caltrain Commuter
========================================
THX for posting this Dave. As well, THX for having the presence of
mind to document it with video as well as for continuing to film
(knowing your rights), when the officer tried to intimidate you. This
does not reflect well on Cal Train. Tho, by the letter of the law, our
comrade did not 'follow the rules' and the train people as well as the
local constable were all within their rights, what about the Spirit of
the Law?
Is not Cal Train paid for by us and those employers who are trying to
get their workers to their places of employment? It seemed that the
conductor began to realize that was his purpose as well, to be of
service when he threw out what sounded like the friendly olive branch,
"Wanna get your bike?"
From what I could see, the whole problem was caused by one little
policeman who seemed fond of saying "Stand over there". It's almost as
if our bike comrade had been tricked by the police. When the poor guy
pushed this matter too far in their eyes, he was just walking toward
the train to get his bike as per what the conductor had seemed to
invite him to do. When the arresting cop thought he should be the
only one giving orders, demanded that his subject "Stand Back" and our
comrade balked trying to figure out who to listen to, as his bike was
left vulnerable, violent action resulted.....
The cops look the worst here. They made Cal Train look even more
troubled in the eyes of cyclists. Why, for example, did they have to
be so rough when the one small officer put our biker in handcuffs?
Why had this poor soul not been advised that he was holding up the
train and that that was a misdemeanor? To him, he was just answering
the questions the police were asking.
The first thing they should have done was to remover the 'bad" bike
rider from the train, with his bike. and told him that they cannot
hold the train up. Or barring that, they should have said that our
comrade has 30 seconds to defend himself and stay on the train.
Otherwise he needed to get off and wait for the next one.....
Was this the San Carlos Finest?
Yikes.............
--
Perfect love drives out fear - John 4:18
Martin Krieg "Awake Again" Author
2009 w/"How America Can Bike & Grow Rich"
http://www.bikeroute.com/HBGR
'79 & '86 TransAmerica Bike Rides
Coma, Paralysis, Clinical Death Survivor
NBG Founding Director, HiWheel Cyclist
Martin Borsje
Ridiculous.
These cops could do with some bicycle exercise...
SMS
<snip>
These cops need to be disciplined and suspended without pay, the
conductor needs to be fired. Has anyone gone to the TV stations with the
video yet?
Could be a great lawsuit against CalTrain and San Carlos PD.
SMS
> trying to intimidate me for videotaping them (this is still
> legal, isn't it??)
Did anyone get the conductors name?
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
I dunno, you can hear the conductor say there were already 16 bikes on
the train, and those are the rules that he was enforcing. And the
cops were doing the same.
It's absurd that it happened, of course, and I wonder if CalTrain has
decided to use a version of "work to rule" to discourage cyclists. I
noticed the cops tossing the fellows backpack around before he was
arrested, which could easily have done damage to any fragile goods
inside. And the attempted intimidation of the videographer was also
outrageous.
And if the fellow is charged with "delaying a train" as seemed to be
indicated, the conductor and the cops are far more responsible then he
was for that delay.
I see that Caltrain specifies a "maximum width" for a folding bicycle
of 32 inches. I wonder what they think the definition of width is.
73, doug
SMS
> I dunno, you can hear the conductor say there were already 16 bikes on
> the train, and those are the rules that he was enforcing. And the
> cops were doing the same.
But what was the reason for the conductor lying, if he was lying, about
the available bike space? Was there actually space or did the guy get on
the train when someone had already removed their bike from the rack to
prepare to get off, but that was getting off at the next station?
> It's absurd that it happened, of course, and I wonder if CalTrain has
> decided to use a version of "work to rule" to discourage cyclists. I
> noticed the cops tossing the fellows backpack around before he was
> arrested, which could easily have done damage to any fragile goods
> inside. And the attempted intimidation of the videographer was also
> outrageous.
That's just what cops do in small towns. They hate the proliferation of
digital cameras with video capability. If the cyclists had been in
Cupertino the cops would have told him to get on his bike and ride,
then would have hit him with a police car and killed him.
> And if the fellow is charged with "delaying a train" as seemed to be
> indicated, the conductor and the cops are far more responsible then he
> was for that delay.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking! If the guy had had a smart
mouth he would have told the police to arrest the real culprit for
delaying the train.
What is the actual legal code section that specifies this offense? I
couldn't find it. Is it a state law or a federal law?
> I see that Caltrain specifies a "maximum width" for a folding bicycle
> of 32 inches. I wonder what they think the definition of width is.
Does the conductor have a tape measure?
SMS
> And I conclude all that from a short video clip. But sometimes it *is*
> that obvious.
>
> Those police officers need to just disappear, they are behaving in
> exactly the way why people call cops "pigs" sometimes.
You often see this sort of thing in small towns. The officers aren't
well trained, they always believe someone else in a position of
authority, i.e. the train conductor in this case, and of course they
don't know the intricacies of railroad operation.
They were unwise in prolonging the confrontation with such a large crowd
being able to view their actions. They should have simply arrested the
cyclist and moved the situation to the police station. They already had
made the decision to arrest him before they even started questioning him.
Caltrain will probably make the whole thing go away by deciding not to
press charges, but they won't do anything to the conductor. They'll make
some silly statement about how the conductor has the ultimate authority
to decide who gets on the train and who doesn't.
> They should have
> asked that conductor why he was wasting their time, couldn't he just suck
> it up and let the guy ride the train. But no. The police felt they had to
> be pigs. Apologies aren't sufficient in their case. They are abusers of
> power.
As you stated, it's that kind of behavior the the public sees and then
extrapolates to all cops. They were not trained to defuse situations,
but to make them worse.
> I was thinking about going to California next year or perhaps 2010. That
> is, from the other side of planet Terra where I live. Would have liked to
> see the redwoods and other natural attractions. I'm not sure after this
> video (and other things I have read and seen on the web). Perhaps it's
> true that the USA has become an inhospitable place run by crazies. I hope
> not!
What the Republicans have done to this country in eight short years is
beyond belief. Besides bankrupting it they've created the image around
the world of a country run by people like Bush. Honest, were all not as
crazy is the neo-cons.
SMS
> And I already know that to be let into the USA even as a tourist for just
> a few weeks, I have to give my fingerprints as if I were a petty
> criminal. One of your standard procedures. I wouldn't mind as much if
> after the formalities I could just hop on a bike and ride where I please,
> perhaps take a train now and then to go places I would like to see.
It's really sad what's happened in the U.S. in terms of no longer being
a place where foreign tourists feel welcome. One area that's been hit
really hard is the network of hostels. There used to be a thick handbook
listing all the hostels in the U.S., now it's shrunk so much that
there's just a fold out map showing the few remaining ones. The one near
me, located in an old growth redwood forest, just closed due to lack of
visitors. They used to get thousands of foreign guests a year, but
A.W.E. (after George W. Bush era) it fell off so much that they couldn't
continue.
We're slowly becoming like what the Soviet Union used to be like.
SMS
> This is bad news for me. I'm far from rich, even the cost of the plane
> ticket would be quite substantial for me and my partner. So if we would
> come to travel in the US we would have to depend on low budget
> accomodation like hostels, private, modest bed and breakfast, camping
> sites with rented tents et cetera.
Lots of opportunity for camping in California. One trick is to not only
look at the state campgrounds (which can get filled up on weekends (all
year), and all summer), but the often little used county park
campgrounds. Renting a tent isn't practical. Tents are cheaply bought at
stores like Wal-Mart and Costco, or used on craigslist.com (or free from
one of the freecycle e-mail lists).
Oregon is really hospitable in terms of camping. Many campsites have
yurts that they rent for low prices (but reserve well in advance, on-line).
There are still several good hostels in California. They aren't all that
cheap for us (4 people at $20/person is often more than a hotel room),
but some of them are in really good locations where there may not be any
hotels at all.
In N. Cal, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Pescadero, Montara, San Francisco,
Sausalito, Point Reyes, Yosemite, and Redwood National Park all have
hostels. Yosemite Bug hostel is highly recommended (by me).
SMS
> I was thinking about camping sites that had tents ready for trekkers, so
> we wouldn't have to haul them along (you just bring sleeping mats and
> bags etc.). Not sure if that arrangement exists in the US.
Some private campgrounds have this sort of thing (KOA) but call them
Kamping Kabins. They aren't all that cheap. The public campgrounds in
California don't do this as far as I know. Oregon is another story as
they really encourage the use of their state parks, and do offer what
you're looking for.
Tom Sherman
> As per:
>
> ========================================
> Hello,
>
> Just thought you might be interested in this video I took this morning
> of
> a biker being taken off Caltrain and arrested.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=888656221275581946&hl=en
>
> He got on board, and placed his bike on a rack that only had 3 bikes
> on
> it. The conductor told him that the car was full and he needed to get
> off
> the train. He refused saying that this bike rack was not
> full. Conductor called police to meet the train at the San Carlos
> station, where this video takes place. Notice how the police were
> also
> trying to intimidate me for videotaping them (this is still
> legal, isn't it??)
>
> If you have any questions, feel free to email me
>
> Dave Cadwallader
> SF Bike Coalition Member & Daily Caltrain Commuter
> ========================================
>
An obvious case of petty tyrants, and makes the point that independent
citizen police oversight boards with real teeth (the power to fine,
suspend and terminate) are sorely needed if we are not to live in a
police state.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct wave
Point” - gene daniels
Jym Dyer
> 16 bikes on the train, and those are the rules that he was
> enforcing.
=v= I got some info from someone who was on that train:
One of the 16 bikes on the train was a folding bike, folded.
<_Jym_>
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I dunno, you can hear the conductor say there were already 16 bikes
>> on the train, and those are the rules that he was enforcing.
> I got some info from someone who was on that train:
> One of the 16 bikes on the train was a folding bike, folded.
There you go again with insinuations and bold faced lies. It had two
wheels didn't it... therefore it was a bicycle. See! Those CalTrtain
guys could do well here on wreck.bike with their logic.
Jobst Brandt
Jym Dyer
> bicycle. See!
=v= As the rider of a folding bike, I've encountered
that attitude from transit employees all too often.
<_Jym_>
CJ
This is fucking stupid!
Is a folding bike classified as a bicycle for determining a maximum
bicycle count on any train or is it exempt from the maximum bicycle
count. I have not seen anyplace in this thread, or anywhere else, where
this is addressed.
--
Cliff
Jym Dyer
> a maximum bicycle count on any train or is it exempt from
> this thread, or anywhere else, where this is addressed.
=v= The 32 bikes per old gallery car and 16 bikes per new
Bombardier rules correspond exactly to the number of bike rack
spots available for full-sized bikes.
=v= Folding bikes are supposed to go into luggage racks (though
Caltrain has been making noises about us hold them on our laps).
On the gallery cars, luggage is in an entirely separate car with
racks like these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jym/2451557748/
So in theory there's no way to count the folding bikes along
with the full-sized bikes. On the newer Bombs, though, there's
a small luggage rack on the bike car, right next to the bike
parking racks (no photo, sorry).
=v= I don't think that's any excuse for miscounting a folded
bicycle.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: There is a little extra luggage room on the gallery bike
cars, but they don't have racks -- or bungees or straps -- that
could be used to secure luggage. (Lenient conductors do let
non-bikers dump their luggage there, though.) When I see the
car filling up, I fold my bike and put it there, using velcro
pants straps and my helmet straps to secure it.
CJ
> > Is a folding bike classified as a bicycle for determining
> > a maximum bicycle count on any train or is it exempt from
> > the maximum bicycle count[?] I have not seen anyplace in
> > this thread, or anywhere else, where this is addressed.
>
> =v= The 32 bikes per old gallery car and 16 bikes per new
> Bombardier rules correspond exactly to the number of bike rack
> spots available for full-sized bikes.
>
[Rest of the song & dance removed]
You did NOT answer my question, but instead provided a guided tour,
complete with pictures, of the bike storage facilities on Caltrain .
I take that to mean that folding bikes ARE classified as bicycles for
determining a maximum bicycle count on any train. Therefore, the
conductor in question was probably justified in his actions and the
bicyclist deserved to be ejected from the train and arrested.
--
Cliff
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Is a folding bike classified as a bicycle for determining a
>>> maximum bicycle count on any train or is it exempt from the
>>> maximum bicycle count[?] I have not seen anyplace in this thread,
>>> or anywhere else, where this is addressed.
Is that a statement or question. I see no question mark at the end of
that sentence.
>> The 32 bikes per old gallery car and 16 bikes per new Bombardier
>> rules correspond exactly to the number of bike rack spots available
>> for full-sized bikes.
> [Rest of the song & dance removed]
> You did NOT answer my question, but instead provided a guided tour,
> complete with pictures, of the bike storage facilities on CalTrain.
> I take that to mean that folding bikes ARE classified as bicycles
> for determining a maximum bicycle count on any train. Therefore, the
> conductor in question was probably justified in his actions and the
> bicyclist deserved to be ejected from the train and arrested.
I find rigid constructionist interesting and am curious how their hard
rules persuasion got that way. One used to say "too early toilet
training" but that is old hat. I take it more as coming from parents
who don't want to parent, believing rules are enough to teach children
how to become socially acceptable adults.
Jobst Brandt
CJ
> a shy person wrote:
>
> >>> Is a folding bike classified as a bicycle for determining a
> >>> maximum bicycle count on any train or is it exempt from the
> >>> maximum bicycle count[?] I have not seen anyplace in this thread,
> >>> or anywhere else, where this is addressed.
>
> Is that a statement or question. I see no question mark at the end of
> that sentence.
Ahh... apparently you have nothing even remotely resembling an
intellegent response, therefore, you attack the grammar. Why don't you
just toddle off and play with your tinker toys and leave the
conversation to others.
--
Cliff
Frank Krygowski
... whether or not the folding bikes take up as much room as a
standard bike?
What if someone develops a folding bike that fits in a person's
pocket? Would you classify that as a bicycle for determining maximum
bicycle count?
Your thinking seems very fundamentalist - as in "Whatever the book
says. No thinking allowed!"
- Frank Krygowski
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
be in the bike car, it would seem that they do NOT count.
OTOH, I could see getting on with my bike unfolded, and then folding
it as the train proceeds, especially if the bike car was approaching
capacity. Or on BART heading into SF during the evening commute- board
unfolded, fold as you approach Embarcadero, and travel onward,
legitimately.
73, doug
raa...@gmail.com
> As per:
>
> ========================================
> Hello,
>
> Just thought you might be interested in this video I took this morning
> of
> a biker being taken off Caltrain and arrested.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=888656221275581946&hl=en
>
> He got on board, and placed his bike on a rack that only had 3 bikes
> on
> it. The conductor told him that the car was full and he needed to get
> off
> the train. He refused saying that this bike rack was not
> full. Conductor called police to meet the train at the San Carlos
> station, where this video takes place. Notice how the police were
> also
> trying to intimidate me for videotaping them (this is still
> legal, isn't it??)
>
> If you have any questions, feel free to email me
>
> Dave Cadwallader
> SF Bike Coalition Member & Daily Caltrain Commuter
> ========================================
>
> Perfect love drives out fear - John 4:18
>
> Martin Krieg "Awake Again" Author
> 2009 w/"How America Can Bike & Grow Rich"
> http://www.bikeroute.com/HBGR
> '79 & '86 TransAmerica Bike Rides
> Coma, Paralysis, Clinical Death Survivor
> NBG Founding Director, HiWheel Cyclist
upload it to liveleak and youtube. get as much publicity you can. try
to get a critical mass demonstration onboard the train. contact local
bike couriers to spread the word.
Jym Dyer
> You did NOT answer my question, but instead provided
> a guided tour, complete with pictures, of the bike
> storage facilities on Caltrain .
=v= I gave what information I know. So sorry it was
insufficient for your pedantic needs.
=v= You could always ask Caltrain why their policies
aren't more explicit, but I guess that's way too much
work for you, seeing as how you'd rather spend your
time flaming people who try to be helpful.
<_Jym_>
SMS
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>
>>> It had two wheels didn't it... therefore it was a
>>> bicycle. See!
>> =v= As the rider of a folding bike, I've encountered
>> that attitude from transit employees all too often.
>> <_Jym_>
>
> This is fucking stupid!
>
> Is a folding bike classified as a bicycle for determining a maximum
> bicycle count on any train or is it exempt from the maximum bicycle
> count.
Exempt. There is no set limit to the number of folding bicycles per
train. They are not counted as part of the 16 or 32 bicycle limit.
CJ
Uhh Jim, your post, quoted here, is what prompted my original question.
> I dunno, you can hear the conductor say there were already
> 16 bikes on the train, and those are the rules that he was
> enforcing.
=v= I got some info from someone who was on that train:
One of the 16 bikes on the train was a folding bike, folded.
I asked the question about folding bikes and you replied with a S&D
about the bike storage facilities on Caltrain. You could have simply
said "I don't know" and left it at that.
I think that it would behoove you and the rest of the 'bike on
Caltrain' crowd to ascertain this information so you can challange
conductors in the future, unless you would prefer to weep, wail, and
beat your breast every time trouble arises.
--
Cliff
CJ
Thanks, you are the first person to clarify this. Perhaps you could
post the applicable rule/regulation/law/whatever so that your fellow
riders are more knowledgeable
--
Cliff
SMS
> Thanks, you are the first person to clarify this. Perhaps you could
> post the applicable rule/regulation/law/whatever so that your fellow
> riders are more knowledgeable
I have kill-filed the clueless posters in this group and hence I did not
see the post you refer to. Making them more knowledgeable is a task that
I have given up on.
Jym Dyer
> = CJ (Cliff)
>> Exempt. There is no set limit to the number of folding
>> bicycles per train. They are not counted as part of the
>> 16 or 32 bicycle limit.
> Thanks, you are the first person to clarify this.
=v= Actually, all he did was make unsupported assertions (a
habit of his when it comes to bikes on Caltrain).
=v= His first assertion is only half-accurate. While there
is "no set limit" in terms of the number of folding bikes
allowed on board, there is a limit in terms of space available
in the luggage racks. People with folding bikes have in fact
been bumped this summer (a fact that Steven M. Scharf is aware
of from early discussion because he attempted to use it to prop
up a different unsupported assertion).
=v= His second assertion is also obviously wrong in the light
of the current incident. I argued that that's how it *should*
be, since the 16/32 limits are based on available rack space,
and you flamed me. He makes an unsupported claim that that's
how it *is* (even though it isn't) and you bubble over with
gratitude.
=v= Takes all kinds, I guess.
<_Jym_>
Bob
Based on the video, I'd say that everyone involved- Caltrain, the
police, the would-be passenger, his supporter from the train, and the
videographer- could have handled the incident better but I wasn't
there and the video doesn't show what happened when that would-be
passenger *first* got on the train. The audio isn't the best but it
sounds as if the conductor told him not to get on the train and he
boarded the train anyway because he saw an empty space in the bike
rack. *If* that is what happened then the would-be passenger was
simply being a self-centered ass. I partially agree with the OP's
comment about what should have happened once the cops met the train:
immediately remove the would-be passenger with his belongings and send
the train on its way. That is most likely what I would have done in
the cops' position. I can't agree with his "give him 30 seconds to
defend himself" alternative though simply because, as the video
clearly shows, thirty seconds tends to become two minutes stretching
to four minutes before turning into a six minute debate. Meanwhile,
the train and its passengers are delayed.
Two comments about the posts in this thread, the alleged intimidation
of the video operator and the so-called rough handcuffing of the
subject. I watched the video several times. I didn't hear *any*
threatening remarks and saw *no* hands placed on either the video lens
or the camera operator. All I heard was the video operator being asked
and then politely told to step back. All I saw was a police officer
with his arms folded standing in front of the video operator. I have
to wonder just how timid one must be to consider that "intimidating".
As for the so-called rough handcuffing, the subject wasn't struck,
kicked, pepper sprayed, or tased. Instead, he was told several times
to stop resisting and when he continued to resist he was overpowered
by two officers using what appeared to me to be the lowest level of
force needed. A resisting subject is *much* less likely to be injured
when two or more officers perform the handcuffing than he/she is when
one officer alone handcuffs them.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
SMS
> kicked, pepper sprayed, or tased. Instead, he was told several times
> to stop resisting and when he continued to resist he was overpowered
> by two officers using what appeared to me to be the lowest level of
> force needed. A resisting subject is *much* less likely to be injured
> when two or more officers perform the handcuffing than he/she is when
> one officer alone handcuffs them.
I never saw him resisting arrest. I heard the cops say that he was doing
that, but that's something they like to say to give them an excuse to
arrest someone that hasn't done anything wrong. He wasn't charged with
resisting arrest, he was charged with "delaying a train."
"Delaying a Train?" It wasn't the guy who was arrested that was delaying
the train. All the cops needed to do was to take the guy off the train,
arrest him, and send the train on its way. Of course then they'd have
had to come up with a different charge than "delaying a train." There
must be some other charge that they could have used, such as "refusing
to obey a transportation employee," if such a charge exists.
Bob
> Bob wrote:'
> > kicked, pepper sprayed, or tased. Instead, he was told several times
> > to stop resisting and when he continued to resist he was overpowered
> > by two officers using what appeared to me to be the lowest level of
> > force needed. A resisting subject is *much* less likely to be injured
> > when two or more officers perform the handcuffing than he/she is when
> > one officer alone handcuffs them.
>
> I never saw him resisting arrest. I heard the cops say that he was doing
> that, but that's something they like to say to give them an excuse to
> arrest someone that hasn't done anything wrong. He wasn't charged with
> resisting arrest, he was charged with "delaying a train."
Perhaps you should look again. Notice the way he is bent forward at
the waist, the way he is stepping forward, and the way his elbow is
bent. All three actions are typical of an arrestee trying to pull away
from the cuffs.
> "Delaying a Train?" It wasn't the guy who was arrested that was delaying
> the train. All the cops needed to do was to take the guy off the train,
> arrest him, and send the train on its way. Of course then they'd have
> had to come up with a different charge than "delaying a train." There
> must be some other charge that they could have used, such as "refusing
> to obey a transportation employee," if such a charge exists.
Did you miss my comment about what probably should have happened once
the cops met the train? I wrote that it would have been much better to
simply immediately remove the would-be passenger with his belongings
and send
the train on its way. Assuming the would-be passenger didn't decide to
try to force his way back onto the train, there wouldn't have been a
need for any charges. If OTOH, he did try such a dumb stunt there
would have been no difficulty in charging him with trespass** and
resisting arrest.
** Possessing an admission ticket to a place or public conveyance
isn't a no-strings attached proposition. Violate the business' rules
and they can have you ejected.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
SMS
> the train on its way. Assuming the would-be passenger didn't decide to
> try to force his way back onto the train, there wouldn't have been a
> need for any charges. If OTOH, he did try such a dumb stunt there
> would have been no difficulty in charging him with trespass** and
> resisting arrest.
The train should never have left the station where the guy got on. Once
it was clear that the police had been called to eject him, the guy would
have left. If he didn't leave, then he would have been arrested, with at
least the somewhat legitimate charge of "delaying a train."
> ** Possessing an admission ticket to a place or public conveyance
> isn't a no-strings attached proposition. Violate the business' rules
> and they can have you ejected.
Or in this case, violate the rule that you must follow the employee's
instructions even if you are not violating any rule other than that.
Well it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in court, assuming
that CalTrain doesn't just drop the charges to defuse the whole situation.
CJ
> Bob wrote:
>
> > the train on its way. Assuming the would-be passenger didn't decide
> > to try to force his way back onto the train, there wouldn't have
> > been a need for any charges. If OTOH, he did try such a dumb stunt
> > there would have been no difficulty in charging him with trespass**
> > and resisting arrest.
>
> The train should never have left the station where the guy got on.
> Once it was clear that the police had been called to eject him, the
> guy would have left. If he didn't leave, then he would have been
> arrested, with at least the somewhat legitimate charge of "delaying a
> train."
It is interesting you would take this position. I submit the train
would have been held up for a far longer period of time had the police
been called at the station where the passenger originally boarded. The
conductor call time and the police response time would have far
exceeded the incident time at the station where the altercation
occurred. I don't know of any police department that has officers just
standing around waiting for a call from caltrain to remove a passenger.
The present procedure where the train keeps moving and a call is placed
ahead to a subsiquent station to have the police on hand when the train
arrives is probably the most efficient and least time consuming
alternative.
--
Cliff
Bob
I don't know if your assumption that, "Once it was clear that the
police had been called to eject him, the guy would have left.", is
correct. To paraphrase Lincoln, everyone does dumb things sometimes
and some people do dumb things all the time. The subject's actions in
trying to pull away from the arresting officers don't indicate to me
that he would have done the intelligent thing and left. Those actions
lead me to believe that either he actually thought he would defeat the
arrest or he simply wanted to create a scene for the videographer.
BTW if, as seems likely, the subject was charged with resisting arrest
it won't matter if CalTrain drops their complaint. The resisting
charge will still stand. They are two separate charges.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
P.S.- If he *really* believed he was going to defeat the arrest I'd
say that's a clear indication that he wasn't acting very
intelligently. One unarmed guy on a transit platform versus three
cops? The smart money would be on the cops winning that tussle.
SMS
> BTW if, as seems likely, the subject was charged with resisting arrest
> it won't matter if CalTrain drops their complaint. The resisting
> charge will still stand. They are two separate charges.
He was not charged with resisting arrest. He was cited for "delaying a
train" and released. The video does not show any attempt to resist
arrest. At least the San Carlos police didn't make that mistake. I don't
know where on earth you got the idea that it was likely that he got
charged with resisting arrest. If there hadn't been someone taking video
of the cops he well may have had some trumped up charges added on.
I don't know what can be done about these transport employees. A month
or so ago you had the lady arrested on JetBlue, again for not doing
anything illegal.
"http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1&articleID=16860"
You can read more about what happened over at
"http://caltrain-arrest.blogspot.com/"
Tom Sherman
and do not question authority if you wish to avoid arrest.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If my posts in general annoy or offend, please kill-file.
Bob
> Bob wrote:
> > BTW if, as seems likely, the subject was charged with resisting arrest
> > it won't matter if CalTrain drops their complaint. The resisting
> > charge will still stand. They are two separate charges.
>
> He was not charged with resisting arrest. He was cited for "delaying a
> train" and released. The video does not show any attempt to resist
> arrest. At least the San Carlos police didn't make that mistake. I don't
> know where on earth you got the idea that it was likely that he got
> charged with resisting arrest. If there hadn't been someone taking video
> of the cops he well may have had some trumped up charges added on.
>
> I don't know what can be done about these transport employees. A month
> or so ago you had the lady arrested on JetBlue, again for not doing
> anything illegal.
I said it was likely he was charged with resisting arrest because of
his actions on the video. Resisting is exactly what he did when he
attempted to pull his arms away from the handcuffs. If he was not
charged with resisting arrest, he should have been. The video that you
apparently think "protected" him in some fashion is excellent evidence
of his resistance. If I were the arresting officer, I'd download it
and bring it to court with me. And yes, I read the letter he wrote to
the blogger. That he didn't think he was guilty of delaying the train
isn't an argument to be made to the police. Arguments belong in
courts, not on train platforms.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
SMS
> Well, this is the New American Century. Dress, appear and act mainstream
> and do not question authority if you wish to avoid arrest.
True. It's even sadder that you've got the sheeple that go along with
all of this and try to justify it. There will be no one left to stick up
for them, when the police come for them on some trumped up charge.
It's all the gaiety and excitement of the McCarthy era.
BTW, I didn't see the police read him his rights. Isn't that supposed to
happen right when they tell you that you're under arrest?
Bob
> BTW, I didn't see the police read him his rights. Isn't that supposed to
> happen right when they tell you that you're under arrest?
In a word, no. Turn off "Law & Order" and read the Escobedo and
Miranda decisions.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Tom Sherman
"eco-terrorist" and just "disappear" him, since habeas corpus has been
effectively revoked in the US.
SMS
> Bob Hunt wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 10:27 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, I didn't see the police read him his rights. Isn't that supposed to
>>> happen right when they tell you that you're under arrest?
>>
>> In a word, no. Turn off "Law & Order" and read the Escobedo and
>> Miranda decisions.
>>
> Of course, the executive could decide the cyclist in question was an
> "eco-terrorist" and just "disappear" him, since habeas corpus has been
> effectively revoked in the US.
Is there something similar to the "Do Not Fly" list for trains? This guy
could find himself banned from ever riding Amtrak.
BTW, as it turns out, the cops did _not_ want to arrest him. It was the
conductor and possibly the engineer, that insisted on a "citizens
arrest" for "delaying a train."
I've had this conversation with a local sheriff's captain regarding a
citizen's arrest when a group I was involved in wanted to collect
signatures for a ballot measure at a local mall. Legally, the mall has
to let us be there, though they can specify, reasonably, where we can
collect signatures. This mall, despite numerous requests, never
responded to us, because the referendum in question was strongly opposed
by them. I explained to the sheriff the court decision that allowed us
to be there, and while he was aware of it he agreed to inform his
deputies about it just in case there was any trouble with the mall
management. However he did state that regardless of the law, if the mall
told us to leave and we refused, that the mall could ask for a citizen's
arrest and we would be cited and released and would have to sue the mall
for relief. It didn't matter that no law was being broken, if a
citizen's arrest was requested, they would perform it.
Now we're in the process of suing the mall over failure to disclose
campaign contributions, though since they just declared bankruptcy it'll
be unlikely that we'll collect any judgment.
Paul M. Hobson
>> It's really sad what's happened in the U.S. in terms of no longer being
>> a place where foreign tourists feel welcome. One area that's been hit
>> really hard is the network of hostels. There used to be a thick handbook
>> listing all the hostels in the U.S., now it's shrunk so much that
>> there's just a fold out map showing the few remaining ones.
nmp wrote:
> This is bad news for me. I'm far from rich, even the cost of the plane
> ticket would be quite substantial for me and my partner. So if we would
> come to travel in the US we would have to depend on low budget
> accomodation like hostels, private, modest bed and breakfast, camping
> sites with rented tents et cetera.
A friend and her brother traveled around Europe staying with folks she
found through that site. A wonderful experience, she claims.
--
Paul M. Hobson
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
Baka Dasai
> threatening remarks and saw *no* hands placed on either the video lens
> or the camera operator. All I heard was the video operator being asked
> and then politely told to step back. All I saw was a police officer
> with his arms folded standing in front of the video operator. I have
> to wonder just how timid one must be to consider that "intimidating".
Wow. Knowing of other situations where cops have arrested people for
photographing and videoing them, your statement seems amazingly disingenuous.
--
What was I thinking?