Insanity - Cal Train Bike Commuter Arrested

On Sep 26, 1:34*pm, hiwheeler wrote:
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?do...75581946&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

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

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."

"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.

On Sep 29, 3:31*pm, SMS wrote:
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

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."

** 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.

SMS wrote:

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

On Sep 29, 4:48*pm, SMS wrote:
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."

** 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..

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.

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.
"http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1&articleID=1686 0"

You can read more about what happened over at
"http://caltrain-arrest.blogspot.com/"

SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
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.
"http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1&articleID=1686 0"

Well, this is the New American Century. Dress, appear and act mainstream
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.

On Sep 29, 7:56*pm, SMS wrote:
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.
"http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1&..."

You can read more about what happened over at
"http://caltrain-arrest.blogspot.com/"

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

Tom Sherman wrote:

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?