Passing rednecks in the country

[animalrooster41]

I was told by a prosecution attorney friend that cops receive atleast a dozen or more calls a day in my small town of 30k (northern Utah) from pissed off motorists. He straight up told me that it is impossible to prosecute based on eye witness and written statements of bad driving alone. You must be seen by the officer during the act. They simply don't have the man power, time and money to tie up the court systems with he said, she said cases and to check out every call either. He said a lot of vindictive people (ex wives) make these traffic calls. Now, my ex cop friend says they usually counted on people to self admit things during a stop. Effectively doing their job for them. Remember, you have the right to remain silent and the burden of proof is theirs. Guilt is very tough to prove. I admit, I have not always waited for the double yellow to disappear on my passes or passed at a decent speed, but that's no excuse for someone to try and run you off the road and kill you! We are on our own out there. Good advise, always take the high road and try to be the better person, it pays in the end.

 

[Crash Cash]

In most, if not all states, a LEO can only cite for a minor offense (in Calif, that's infractions and misdemeanors) IF he witnesses it occur. That's NOT a requirement for a felony.

I had a woman in an Astro van get pissed off at a stoplight because her tires spun in the rain and she wasn’t able to beat me off the line and pass me before her lane ran out. She passed me in a seriously heavy downpour, overcooked the next corner, and ended up buying a tree.

And your quote is why I went past, honked my horn at her and waved, and kept on going, instead of stopping to help or anything. She just tried to kill me, let her go her own way.

 

[exskibum]

In most, if not all states, a LEO can only cite for a minor offense (in Calif, that's infractions and misdemeanors) IF he witnesses it occur. That's NOT a requirement for a felony. There's a bit of a gray area about witnessing the act vis witnessing evidence of the act (e.g., as occurs with drunk drivers parked on the roadway), so it'd be nice to hear a LEO's take on it, but I'd bet that's why you got the response you did -- they were seeing it as a right of way offense that required a LEO to witness to cite it.

Interesting.

If that is true then there is no reason for riders to be worried about cell phone calls to the police after passing a motorist illegally? I know this possibility is what keeps many from passing on the double yellow even though it may be safe to do it. I'm sure that I have heard stories of cops tracking down a biker after only getting a complaint by phone. Maybe it varies by jurisdiction?

Proably not for that called in violation, but watch out for cops laying in wait for you up ahead. I had exactly that happen to me in about 1980. Late for work in Donner (I was a painter and drywall taper back in those days), speeding north from Tahoe City on Hwy 89, when a CalTrans worker called me in for excessive speed when I passed the CalTrans yard a ways back. Some miles further on, I was starting an illegal pass of maybe 4 cars at around 90 - 100 when I spotted a LEO up ahead, hit the brakes and dove back into the line. Shortly after, another LEO was coming from the other direction, did a U to get behind me and then I sat chatting with the 2 cops on the side of the road as we waited for the CalTrans worker to get there. Embarrassingly, it took a while.

When he got there, he was ranting, and I stayed quiet and was polite to everyone. After he got done, the cops told him that when they saw me, I was obeying all traffic laws, and besides, speeding motorcyclists "usually only take themselves out". Then they let me go on to work, a little later than I would have been if I hadn't been speeding in the first place. :blink:

The laws ARE different from state to state, but that's the general status -- universal enough that I'd swear I either learned that in law school or in studying for the bar exam. Haven't really had a reason to further research it in the 27 years since, though.

I too have heard of cops tracking down the offending driver (motorcycle or car), but then gave a warning, not a ticket.

On a couple occasions when I've called the cops on non-traffic offenses (or been a witness to the act that someone else called in), they've straight up told me that they can't really do anything (which I've understood), but would be happy to make contact and have a chat with the offender. They know that can have a prophylactic effect, plus it's good public relations with concerned citizens if they have the time to do it.

Here is how you can issue a citation in Oregon. Check the laws in your state.

citizen issues citation.

Yep, probably applies to traffic citations in California, too. Twenty years ago, I had a client interested in putting an end to the nuisance caused by rental neighbors in Tahoe -- involved multiple regular loud music and partying complaints, a misdemeanor at best. Trying to talk to the problem neighbors didn't work, so she started calling the Sheriff's Dept. But each time deputies showed up, they had a chat with the neighbors and then told my client that they couldn't write a citation because the noise wasn't excessive by the time they got there. The deputies did offer her the option of swearing out a citizens arrest complaint, however. (She was frustrated enough to contact me about the costs and issues involved with filing a civil suit for nuisance, including the possibility of a small claims court action.)

The problem with a citizen's arrest citation is the strength of your evidence, as noted above. (BTW, also one of the problems in a civil nuisance case for noise.) It's typically your word against theirs -- measuring speed, or volume of the noise. A LEO is far more credible when testifying about something he's been trained to judge (like speed), and when he's got corroborating instrument readings like a radar readout, his evidence is often better than you can come up with.

Another problem with it is the possibility of getting sued civilly for "malicious prosecution" if, after successfully defending the action on the merits, the object of your complaint can show that at the time you brought the case, you didn't have probable cause to support the underlying facts necessary to the criminal charge (or civil cause of action), that you acted with malice, and that damages resulted from your actions (e.g., attorneys fees to defend the underlying charge).

The video in the YouTube case? Now, that's some pretty good evidence of an attempt to hit the motorcyclist by means that sure don't look likely to have happened without intent.

Again, I wish we had a couple LEOs weigh in on this -- they enforce this stuff all the time and have a much better hands on perspective.

 

[HotRodZilla]

Ok...So the part about 'minor' traffic infractions is mostly true. I obviously can't speak for all states, but most states west of the Mississippi (eastern states are really weird and don't follow the same logic) consider most traffic infractions something along the line of a Petty Misdemeanor. Some others are full Misdemeanors, and fewer still are felonies.

The breakdown: In New Mexico, a petty misdemeanor is only good for a maximum 90 day sentence and $500 fine. This means that with any type of probation, jail time, or whatever, the sentence cannot exceed 90 days and the fine can't exceed $500. I don't think I can remember anyone ever going to the pokie for a PM. If a person does not show up in court and gets a warrant issued, then yes, but not for the offense itself.

PMs usually include speeding, moving violations, license and registration issues and equipment problems...Most stuff cops will write most tickets for. This is also state dependent because in NM, all speeding is a PM. In Arizona, anything 15 or over goes from a PM to a full misdemeanor and the driver can be arrested.

Misdemeanors are good for up to 364 days in jail and a $1000 fine. These include stuff like reckless driving, the first few DWIs and driving on a license that has been revoked for a DWI or other decent crime. They also include charges stemming from hit and run wrecks. Hit and run crashes that cause injury are felonies.

Felonies are anything worth 365 days plus and depending on the felony can cost up to thousands of dollars in fines.

Now...for the most part in the western states (probably not all) a misdemeanor has to be witnessed by law enforcement for any enforcement action to take place. We have a term: "Misdemeanor commited outside of my presence" that does not include just traffic stuff. It is pretty much all misdemeanors. Basically, people calling in speeders, and other types of rude driving may or may not see enforcement action. Also remember that with misdemeanors, the cop has the choice to cite or arrest or not. It is not set in stone.

If we get a call about a bad driver, you have to remember that by the time the call is made, the call gets routed through a dispatcher, and then gets routed to an officer that may or may not be close, the offender may not be anywhere near the area. My agency requires that we go check anyway, but all may not do that.

If for some reason, we are close and the call comes in fast enough, or we actually find the driver, we usually do a couple of things. We may follow for a bit to see if the reported driving is actually going on or we may wait down the road and see if we can see them coming and witness it for ourselves. If neither of these things happen, we can still do something.

If I don't witness anything, by Circut Court Case Law, I can pull the driver over just based on the report. However, barring any other major issues such as DWI, drugs in the car, suspended license, all we can do is tell the driver their driving was reported to LE, and if they were actually doing what was reported, they need to correct their driving. I have yet to have anyone say, "Oh, yes officer, I was driving like an asshole. I'm glad that lady called me in." On the other hand, I have found some good warrants, gotten a lot of DWIs, and been in some genuinely good fights. If someone is pissed off on the road, most times, they will really let loose with us.

However...some misdemeanors do not have to be witnessed to be enforced. These are mostly hit and run crashes. If I find a piece of a Ford Mustang attached to the side of your truck, and then follow a line of coolant to a house find the damaged Mustang, and get the driver to admit he was driving, or I can prove who was driving, I can arrest or cite. I didn't have to witness it. So...The person above whose buddy got run off the road near the airport, probably got the hose; however, this is dependent on state laws, and whether or not the vehicle run off the road sustained any damage...No damage, no crash.

People here can file thier own criminal complaint in any of our Metro or Magistrate courts. As SkiBum suggested, I would recommend having proof of the alleged wrong-doing to avoid a "he said/she said"; as that is not good enough for any type of conviction.

In reference to the clip that started this: If I had responded to that call, I would have taken the video as evidence and then arrested the driver for at least three counts of Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, reckless driving, and any traffic violations that came along with it...DWI for example, or driving with a suspended license or no insurance. The reckless driving kind of includes the numerous lane violations and the speed, so double jeopardy somes into play there.

Don't be surprised when the DA pleas the case down to parking in a handicapped zone with credit time served and the judge cuts the guy loose.

So...To sum it up: If someone calls on you for passing in a double yellow, and a cop actually finds you, you will probably get stopped. The cop will probably tell you to knock it off and then let you go. Unless...There is video of it, or the cop actually saw it, or the lady calling is the judges sister (another eastern thing).

If you call on another driver, expect the same response, but you can help out by maintaining a very safe following distance and directing the cops to where you actually are. Then they can sneak in from behind and maybe witness it themselves. Either way, if they make a stop based on your call, stop about 100 yards up the road. Away from the other driver, but close enough that the cop has an actual victim that is willing to testify. If we don't have a victim, we really don't have a crime.

That answer most of it??

 

[exskibum]

I have yet to have anyone say, "Oh, yes officer, I was driving like an asshole. I'm glad that lady called me in."

Imagine that! :lol:

However...some misdemeanors do not have to be witnessed to be enforced. These are mostly hit and run crashes. If I find a piece of a Ford Mustang attached to the side of your truck, and then follow a line of coolant to a house find the damaged Mustang, and get the driver to admit he was driving, or I can prove who was driving, I can arrest or cite. I didn't have to witness it.

Sounds like an appellate court opinion here in Cali that upheld a DUI charge where the officer came upon a drunk parked 10 feet from the curb on a public highway, engine running, asleep behind the wheel and with sufficient alcohol in his system to both fail the FSTs and show a too high breathalizer result. The officer didn't actually see him driving under the influence, but the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that he had been. (I don't recall the procedural manner in which the appellate court got it, which can be determinative of the resulting opinion -- e.g., whether his conviction was upheld on the evidence after a trial, or in another context, whether there's simply enough evidence to go forward with a trial that will weigh all the evidence to determine if he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)

That answer most of it??

Good stuff, 'Zilla. Thanks!

 

[animalrooster41]

Cool, that answers it, thanks

 

[FarWestFastEddie]

As Rich, my lerned counterpart, states, the issue in Calif for a misdemeanor is of two levels, Malem prohibitum and Malum in se, the first Malem prohibitum indicates the law is because the lawmakers have made it so, ie: speeding, speeding in not inherently evil, just is law by standard.

Malum in se indicates the law is set at a higher much more serious level due to the nature of the crime, reckless driving, vehicular assault etc. This misdeamenor may not have to occur in the officers presence.

We all have to watch out for drivers that are HUA, Dui APO'ed, & just plain dumbass's.

I am not an attorney, an LEO or even versed in vices, well alittle in the vices...

FWFE

 

[Bounce]

+1 for national concealed carry

i agree but even when justified, deadly force for self defense can cost you tens of thousands of dollars just to get a NO BILL (texas term for a grand jury deciding NOT to forward your case to trial). when deadly force is the only option, don't think twice (you won't usually have time to). if there's any other option, leave the ego behind and ride the other way.

 

[HotRodZilla]

+1 for national concealed carry

i agree but even when justified, deadly force for self defense can cost you tens of thousands of dollars just to get a NO BILL (texas term for a grand jury deciding NOT to forward your case to trial). when deadly force is the only option, don't think twice (you won't usually have time to). if there's any other option, leave the ego behind and ride the other way.

I'm with Bounce on this one. Mainly because the riders had the option to ride away and make distance between them and the idiot. The other reason though is that I don't remember ever seeing that guy do anything with that crow-bar but hold it. If he had come out swinging, that may have been different, or if he had charged one of the bikers, but he didn't. He was a chickenshit who was holding it for intimidation and probably his own protection.

If he lived, he would have been coached by his attorney to say he was very scared of the TWO bikers stopping to confront the ONE of him. A jury of reasonable people have to agree for criminal charges, but civil courts are much different. It's not hard to get money out of someone even if it seems the plantiff is totally wrong.

By law, people are not required to retreat, but sometimes it is better to pick our situations. If we have the time to think, "is this right or wrong," assume it is probably wrong, or will at least be perceived that way by a jury. Hell, even a completely justified totally perfect shoot is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 grand, just to cover lawyers. Unless you are a criminal, there is a price for defending yourself. It's bullshit, but that's the way it is.

 

[FJRay]

+1 for national concealed carry

i agree but even when justified, deadly force for self defense can cost you tens of thousands of dollars just to get a NO BILL (texas term for a grand jury deciding NOT to forward your case to trial). when deadly force is the only option, don't think twice (you won't usually have time to). if there's any other option, leave the ego behind and ride the other way.

I'm with Bounce on this one. Mainly because the riders had the option to ride away and make distance between them and the idiot. The other reason though is that I don't remember ever seeing that guy do anything with that crow-bar but hold it. If he had come out swinging, that may have been different, or if he had charged one of the bikers, but he didn't. He was a chickenshit who was holding it for intimidation and probably his own protection.

If he lived, he would have been coached by his attorney to say he was very scared of the TWO bikers stopping to confront the ONE of him. A jury of reasonable people have to agree for criminal charges, but civil courts are much different. It's not hard to get money out of someone even if it seems the plantiff is totally wrong.

By law, people are not required to retreat, but sometimes it is better to pick our situations. If we have the time to think, "is this right or wrong," assume it is probably wrong, or will at least be perceived that way by a jury. Hell, even a completely justified totally perfect shoot is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 grand, just to cover lawyers. Unless you are a criminal, there is a price for defending yourself. It's bullshit, but that's the way it is.

Well said. You can't fix stupid and unfortunatly you can't shoot it either. It's better to give it as much distance as you can unless there is no way out.

 

[exskibum]

As to the way that stop went down, I agree with Zilla and Bounce. In fact, what they state about consequences and very last resort use is the primary reason I still think obtaining a CCW should require training and education. The legal consequences and repercussions (among others) are often horrendous and stupidly expensive, even if you ARE justified in shooting the instigator. The truck tool in the video didn't do himself any favors in terms of putting himself at risk to get shot, but I don't think he went quite far enough to be justifiably shot after that stop. Zilla nails it re: his actions after he picks up the crowbar, but that's only my opinion from what I saw, and those things are many and like assholes.

 

[SacramentoMike]

Good info in this thread, but does anybody know what actually happened to the asshole in the red truck? Guess that just was a random YouTube vid somebody copied here?

 

[sporto]

Here are few words from a document entitled: "7_things_you_must_know" that most everyone who carries would benefit from googling and reading in its entirety.

So, all total, your act of legitimate self-defense, if performed in

public, will likely cost upwards of $100,000. If the same act is

performed at home, the likelihood of being arrested and tried

will go down considerably, but as I am writing this for readers of

Concealed Carry Magazine and not Home Defense Magazine, we

had better plan for the worst case. And, if the above isn’t a hard

enough pill to swallow, we still have the civil suit to worry about.

The decision to carry a gun in public should not be taken lightly.

There are immense implications, both for your future freedom and

your future economic viability. But, on the other hand, it beats

being dead, doesn’t it? Future articles will detail how we can

minimize these liabilities.

 

[Mr Bill]

This NH teen convicted of running motorcyclist off road because he didn't want to be passed. Of course this is Live Free or Die NH so the convict keeps his license. Mommy must be the judges sister.

 

news 9

 

[Aasland]

+1 for national concealed carry

i agree but even when justified, deadly force for self defense can cost you tens of thousands of dollars just to get a NO BILL (texas term for a grand jury deciding NOT to forward your case to trial). when deadly force is the only option, don't think twice (you won't usually have time to). if there's any other option, leave the ego behind and ride the other way.

I'm with Bounce on this one. Mainly because the riders had the option to ride away and make distance between them and the idiot. The other reason though is that I don't remember ever seeing that guy do anything with that crow-bar but hold it. If he had come out swinging, that may have been different, or if he had charged one of the bikers, but he didn't. He was a chickenshit who was holding it for intimidation and probably his own protection.

If he lived, he would have been coached by his attorney to say he was very scared of the TWO bikers stopping to confront the ONE of him. A jury of reasonable people have to agree for criminal charges, but civil courts are much different. It's not hard to get money out of someone even if it seems the plantiff is totally wrong.

By law, people are not required to retreat, but sometimes it is better to pick our situations. If we have the time to think, "is this right or wrong," assume it is probably wrong, or will at least be perceived that way by a jury. Hell, even a completely justified totally perfect shoot is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 grand, just to cover lawyers. Unless you are a criminal, there is a price for defending yourself. It's bullshit, but that's the way it is.

Carrying doesn't mean there's a requirement to use it, but it gives us more options should situations like this one escalate. Fortunately it didn't.

No argument that successful self-defense is expensive. Failed self-defense is expensive too.

As for the requirement to retreat .. that varies by state. Here in Minnesota the law is ambiguous, neither requiring retreat nor offering legal protection to those who defend themselves (even in your own home). We're hoping to change that.

 

[Fred W]

First off, let me say that this is a great discussion.

Here is how you can issue a citation in Oregon. Check the laws in your state.

citizen issues citation.

Steps detailed in the above link:

So, regarding item #1, any motorcyclist wearing a full face helmet is pretty much unidentifiable on the road.

This NH teen convicted of running motorcyclist off road because he didn't want to be passed. Of course this is Live Free or Die NH so the convict keeps his license. Mommy must be the judges sister.

 

news 9

Wow. :huh:

I don't understand several things about that report: I don't understand how the "victim" crashed his bike, sustained a broken leg, yet his bike looked fine (in the video)? I don't understand why the kid was not sent to jail. He apparently plead guilty to the charges and admitted the wrong doing. Attempted manslaughter is not an offense they generally give out "warnings" for. He wouldn't need to worry about finding employment if they sent him where he belongs.

Since when is "road rage" an excuse for anything? It may explain a wrong doer's state of mind, but the actions still occurred.

Unless he was deemed temporarily insane he is still fully liable for his actions. Is road rage now some sort of an automatic temporary insanity plea?

Was the passing motorcycle somehow found to be partially culpable? According to comments on the web site it was a legal passing zone.

It sounds like the state did not take up the cause for the injured biker. That kid should have lost his license for the rest of his life. What if he goes temporarily insane with road rage again? Did they cure him of it?

[edit] The plot thickens...

Doing some on line searching it appears that the reason that the bike wasn't destroyed is because the rider never crashed. The guy's leg broke with the impact from the car, but he never went down. So that explains that.

Here's a better article from the Manchester Union Leader.

Cop said is that the pass was made in a legal passing zone, even though the kid thought otherwise and the pictures on WMUR showed a double yellow. That point is moot anyway. Whether the motorcyclist was driving illegally or not the kid had no right to cut him off and intentionally hit him.

The arraigning judge was the one that let the kid keep his license and set the bail. I think he may be in for a rude awakening when he actually goes to court.

 

[Aasland]

That kid should have lost his license for the rest of his life. What if he goes temporarily insane with road rage again? Did they cure him of it?

I was thinking about that too, and I'm usually of the "throw the book at them" sort.

Three things come to mind:

1. Don't want to make a career criminal out of a kid who has a one-time lapse of judgement.

2. Can't drive, can't get to work, can't pay restitution. Granted, his parents would be responsible.

3. If he has a history of such acts, or repeats it, THEN throw the book at him.

Being on the verge of doing time, losing his license, and jeopardizing all his dreams in life could be a very valuable learning experience. This could be a "teachable moment" that actions have consequences, and when as young as he is, small actions today can have large effects on what your life is like 30 years later.

 

[Fred W]

In my opinion, any 18 year old (technically an adult) that for even a split second thinks that side swiping a passing motorcyclist is a good idea is beyond getting a second chance at driving. Not just because it involves a motorcyclist, of which I am obviously one. But because it involves the high likelihood of serious injury and/or taking another person's life. Even in these modern times, nobody really needs a drivers license to survive. He could learn to live without one.

As an analogy, let's suppose that instead of what happened here, this 18 year old shot a gun at someone (that he allegedly thought was breaking the law, but in fact was not*) and hit him in the leg. Would you still be up for giving him a second chance? IMO there is no difference.

What if it was you or one of your family that this miscreant tried to kill? Would you still think the scrub deserves another opportunity?

* - I'm not convinced that he thought the guy was breaking the law. I think that he was just pissed that the biker was going to get ahead of him.

 

[BkrK12]

Normally, I would be with AAsland on this. I believe in the DOD they call it "Proportional Response". However, I went out Sunday morning for a few hours. During that time, I had four separate car drivers take shots at me - of one kind or another. Finally, one got me in Henniker, NH and I went down, not because he hit me but because I had to stop so hard, in a place where the road fell away and the traction was so bad that I couldn't get enough leverage to keep it upright. It was a zero mph fall. He just drove off and left me there. A couple of guys came along in a minute or so and helped me get the bike back up. By then, the perpetrator was long gone.

So (and this is the reason they don't put victims or their families on juries), screw this dickhead. Take away his license and put him in jail. He deserves it.

Dan

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Here is how you can issue a citation in Oregon. Check the laws in your state.

citizen issues citation.

Steps detailed in the above link:

This NH teen convicted of running motorcyclist off road because he didn't want to be passed. Of course this is Live Free or Die NH so the convict keeps his license. Mommy must be the judges sister.

Since when is "road rage" an excuse for anything?

Is road rage now some sort of an automatic temporary insanity plea?

That kid should have lost his license for the rest of his life. What if he goes temporarily insane with road rage again?

My story (non-motorcycle):

Passed by a vehicle and forced off the pavement onto the road shoulder with some vehicle damage (enough to need towing). I sued the perpetrator (and his Ins. Co.) in small claims court. I came alone and he came with support (including a para-legal) -- I called my Ins. Co. and they said I'd probably be better-off just by myself.

I presented my case to the judge with a few photos of the area where it happened and a damage estimate for my vehicle. I claimed that it appeared to me to be a case of road rage.

When the judge questioned the defendant he 'lost it' and started shouting (might've even cussed some...?).

That was it -- the judge decided in my favor and gave them 30 days to compensate me (I got the check on the 30th day...).

I don't know if that cured him or not? It may have had some (future) effect...?