PDA

View Full Version : Pervert on Oaks Bottom Park Trail


Jo
07-31-2007, 07:46 PM
Wanted to warn all females that use the Oaks Bottom Park Trail to get from the Springwater up to Milwaukie Ave. Tonight at 7pm as I was making my way up the hill, there was a guy sitting on one of the benches. As I started to pass, he started asking me VERY lewd questions. I had words with him and when he continued to make sexual comments at me, I called 9-1-1. Once he realized I was seriously pissed and was taking action he biked away towards Springwater Corridor. The guy is about 6' tall, probably in his early 50s. He has medium-short hair that is greying. Slight receding hairline. He took off on a metallic kelly green road bike, older model and in good condition. He was wearing a black zip up jacket with collar, black pants/jeans. Please be aware and use caution!

wyeast
07-31-2007, 09:00 PM
That's terrible that you had to go through that. :( Thanks for the warning, Jo.

Jakelin
07-31-2007, 09:40 PM
I have to commend you on not only how you handled the situation, but the attention to detail that you paid to the guy. You may have saved someone else an escalated situation with this guy since he knows that you were not putting up with his behaviour and were possibly reporting him.

steelsreal
08-01-2007, 11:11 AM
Couple of questions.

Does anyone know if it is even illegal to make rude/sexist/idiotic comments to someone? I know that you can not physically threaten a person but is there even a statute against talking like a perv?

Secondly, if you were so traumatized/threatened by his language, or so concerned for your safety, why on earth would you stop and 'have words' with him?

I am honestly curious because the scenario that you describe does not make sense to me. I am sure I am missing something though!

SpeedRacer
08-01-2007, 12:26 PM
Well it could be worse...

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/13794180/detail.html?rss=dfw&psp=news

wsbob
08-01-2007, 01:05 PM
Next time, have your cell phone ready if you've got one (I don't) and take the dude's picture. There's a lot of wack jobs out there. He might have been basically harmless or he might have been prepared to drag you off into the bushes. Sometimes it's hard to tell. File a report with the police too. I bet they love to bust those guys.

cecilanne
08-01-2007, 04:36 PM
It is not illegal to make rude/sexist/idiotic or lewd comments - such a law would violate both the federal and Oregon constitutions. If said perv were exposing himself at the same time, then that could possibly be a crime (depends on whether said exposure was for the purpose of sexual gratification - if not, then it's not a crime, it's merely "free expression"). As a woman who frequently rides alone, I have encountered all sorts of losers on the paths, especially on secluded and semi-secluded ones like Oaks Bottom. In my experience, stopping to engage with them is a waste of energy and only helps to fulfill their need for attention. Unless the loser is blocking my path, I just ignore him and keep on riding. I usually don't even speed up, since that alone could gratify him by indicating fear. Of course, if he is on a bike and starts after me, then I speed up.

Couple of questions.

Does anyone know if it is even illegal to make rude/sexist/idiotic comments to someone? I know that you can not physically threaten a person but is there even a statute against talking like a perv?

Secondly, if you were so traumatized/threatened by his language, or so concerned for your safety, why on earth would you stop and 'have words' with him?

I am honestly curious because the scenario that you describe does not make sense to me. I am sure I am missing something though!

Rixtir
08-01-2007, 05:27 PM
Cecilanne, I was under the impression that lewd comments are not protected speech, at least under the U.S. Constitution. Whether that makes them illegal is a different question. Can you elaborate?

SpeedRacer
08-01-2007, 08:52 PM
Wanted to warn all females

How about you be honest - probably the "dude with metallic kelly green road bike" is your ex-boyfriend.

There's no proof of anything, and I recommend you don't slander people, even online.

cecilanne
08-01-2007, 09:02 PM
Cecilanne, I was under the impression that lewd comments are not protected speech, at least under the U.S. Constitution. Whether that makes them illegal is a different question. Can you elaborate?

Obscenity is not protected under the federal constitution, which means that laws regulating it are subject only to a rational basis standard of scrutiny (in other words, if the legislature had a rational basis for passing the law, then the constitution is not offended) instead of the strict scrutiny applied to laws regulating "protected" speech (such as campaign donations to soft money funds). Strict scrutiny requires that the law be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest).

What constitutes "obscene" for federal purposes is hotly debated and constantly redefined (just ask Lenny Bruce). Regardless of the federal standard, however, the Oregon constitution protects expression to a degree unparalleled in the country. Sex toy and "adult" video stores next to a grade school or church? Go for it. Live sex on stage? You betcha. Big fat LED advertising signs? Sure thing. Accordingly, unless the speech in question is a direct threat of imminent bodily harm, it's protected and attempts to regulate it will run afoul of the state constitution.

cecilanne
08-01-2007, 09:03 PM
Wow, that's a weird jump to an unfounded conclusion.

How about you be honest - probably the "dude with metallic kelly green road bike" is your ex-boyfriend.

There's no proof of anything, and I recommend you don't slander people, even online.

Jakelin
08-01-2007, 10:14 PM
How about you be honest - probably the "dude with metallic kelly green road bike" is your ex-boyfriend.

There's no proof of anything, and I recommend you don't slander people, even online.

??

I don't know how you reached that conclusion from the original post. Please explain.

Jo
08-01-2007, 11:05 PM
I can assure you SpeedRacer that all my ex-boyfriends still reside on the East Coast.

As for why I replied to him, steelsreel, I was walking up the hill with my bike so it was a little hard to ignore this guy. And frankly, he really pissed me off and I didn't want him to verbally assault another female rider. Perhaps it was a waste of my time, but I couldn't just let it go. It probably wasn't the most rational thing to do, but like I said, he just really ticked me off. I did provide the police with a full description, fyi.

Rixtir
08-01-2007, 11:19 PM
Jo, I'm glad you're safe, and I'm glad you gave a description of this guy to the police. My first thought wasn't that talking with him was a waste of time, it was that it was dangerous for you to talk with him. You're obviously very brave to not be intimidated by this guy, but wow, when I was reading that, I was just breathing a sigh of relief that you didn't get hurt.

wsbob
08-01-2007, 11:54 PM
SpeedRacer's comment doesn't really deserve any dignified response, and any further elaboration on the reason for raising the boyfriend rationalization would probably be pointless. That's because this sort of response just sounds so much like a tired, crusty sexist lob thrown out there to degrade and intimidate women from making issues about these sort of incidents.

If it really was her boyfriend, why on earth would she waste everybody's time reporting this incident as one in which the identity of the person was not known to her? If it really was her boyfriend, she could have went straight to the police with personal info, probably even a picture, and they could have promptly proceeded to round him up.

I'm glad to hear Jo reported this incident to the police. Even though in this setting and on this occasion, the guy didn't do anything other than verbally abuse, that might not be the case sometime in the future, perhaps in another kind of place. It's hard to know what a person that's doing this sort of thing is up to until someone has an opportunity to nail him with some serious questions.

karmat
08-02-2007, 09:14 AM
Accordingly, unless the speech in question is a direct threat of imminent bodily harm, it's protected and attempts to regulate it will run afoul of the state constitution.

It's fairly easy to extrapolate that lewd threats, alone, on a dark path are a direct threat of bodily harm depending on the subject of the comments. Hard to get a conviction perhaps, but I doubt you would find any police officer who wouldn't respond to this kind of 911 call.

I don't know what was said, but I think Jo did exactly the right thing, hopefully discouraged the guy, and at a minimum protected herself in what could have been an escalating situation. Since the guy had a bike, outrunning him might not have been an option and might have made the situation worse.

K

Jonathan Maus
08-02-2007, 01:23 PM
How about you be honest - probably the "dude with metallic kelly green road bike" is your ex-boyfriend.

speedracer, that is a very insensitive thing to say. if you have a point to make about slander that's one thing, but to say the guy was her ex-boyfriend is not cool.

do you have any proof?

please be more sensitive in the future.

thanks.

misc.
08-02-2007, 06:34 PM
Speedracer's comment didn't strike me as insensitive, it struck me as overly-sensitive.

What's wrong with a woman challenging a loser incapable of viewing her as anything other than a sexually-objectified object?

Sure, she willingly took a risk, but I doubt Speedracer's comment was prompted by concerns about her safety.

wrinkles
08-02-2007, 07:51 PM
misc., did you actually READ SpeedRacer's posted words!!!??? Or did I miss something?

misc.
08-02-2007, 07:59 PM
I read this:

How about you be honest - probably the "dude with metallic kelly green road bike" is your ex-boyfriend.

There's no proof of anything, and I recommend you don't slander people, even online.

I'm pretty sure I'm not missing anything.

SpeedRacer
08-02-2007, 09:16 PM
do you have any proof?




No and that was my point. Neither does the OP have "proof". If you want your site to be a conduit for unproven allegations like this, that's your biz. I for one do not think it's a good idea.

misc.
08-02-2007, 09:51 PM
No and that was my point. Neither does the OP have "proof". If you want your site to be a conduit for unproven allegations like this, that's your biz. I for one do not think it's a good idea.

Do you similarly disagree about the "close calls" section of this forum?

Or is the standard of proof higher when a woman is involved?

wsbob
08-02-2007, 11:39 PM
"There's no proof of anything, and I recommend you don't slander people, even online." SpeedRacer

This is ridiculous. Proof of what? proof that Jo's hearing is up to snuff? Proof that Jo heard this loser moron go off all verbally horny on her to the extent she felt compelled to file a police report and post a warning with the title "Pervert on Oaks Bottom Trail" to readers?

Jo openly described the situation as one occurring with only the two of them there. That should make it pretty clear to most people that her use of the term "pervert" is her own opinion based on that experience, and not misuse of an official designation.

I can imagine the tables turned just slightly: Instead of a perv on the bench making lewd comments to gals, it's a perv on the bench making lewd comments to guys. It's almost a certainty that relating such an account would not let some crackpot feel comfortable enough to bring up the boyfriend rationale, as happened here when a gal was offended by a loser pervert.

pidamos
08-02-2007, 11:40 PM
it's called mental illness and theres lots of it on the internet

Jakelin
08-03-2007, 12:20 PM
No and that was my point. Neither does the OP have "proof". If you want your site to be a conduit for unproven allegations like this, that's your biz. I for one do not think it's a good idea.

This is the weakest response ever. What proof do you want? Should we all carry cameras and recording devices so that we might catch someone who is possible dangerous or at the least improper and intimidating? How about the close calls section? There is no proof there, perhaps it should be gone.

Do you not realize when police look for proof they talk to witnesses? This person witnessed something and came on here to tell people to be careful and your best response was, in my opinion, way off base.

Duncan
08-03-2007, 12:43 PM
I think its also important to talk about these tings openly because most people who go on to perpitrate sexual assaults start out with minor "infringemnets" of the social code... abusive langauge, lewd behavior etc.

steelsreal
08-03-2007, 03:26 PM
Duncan, your numerous spelling errors aside, you are totally talking out of your rear end. You just made an assumption and stated it as fact. It could be true, though you do not know that. Most sexual abuse actually occurs amongst family members and persons known to the victim.

The clearest sign that there was no imminent threat from this individual, is that Jo stopped to have an altercation with him. I am glad she had words with him. Sounds like he deserved to be confronted.

I think it is odd to post on here, and equally bizarre to call the police. Both of those efforts are a waste of everyones time and in the case of the 911 call, a waste of public resources. He clearly was not a threat, nor violating any laws.

Her chewing this dumbass out is an excellent use of time and energy. Attempting to escalate it into something larger and more dramatic, is a bit silly in my opinion.

toddistic
08-03-2007, 03:31 PM
i agree with steelsreal and since she stopped to argue back she obviously wasnt feeling threatened.

maybe the guy was drunk or italian.

Rixtir
08-03-2007, 04:15 PM
Jo seems to be a f-wit magnet. My sympathies, Jo.

misc.
08-03-2007, 06:37 PM
Duncan, your numerous spelling errors aside, you are totally talking out of your rear end.

Spoken like someone who successfully jumped through the hoops of higher education, only to exit as a dumb-shit.

Successful violations of the social norm are exactly how predators progress.

Attempts to violate serve as a warning sign.





And the Italians have nothing to do with it.

wsbob
08-03-2007, 06:43 PM
"Attempting to escalate it into something larger and more dramatic, is a bit silly in my opinion." steelsreal

I don't see that there was any escalation of this event towards something larger or more dramatic than it was. The original post sounded like a straight report. Jo didn't say she thought the dude was rapist or a murderer ready to jump her except for the fact that she vocally intimidated him in return. Essentially, she just described exactly what he did, calling him a pervert, and reported it here, letting it stand for whatever it meant, for the welfare of anyone that might chance to encounter this person themselves.

Just because he only offended her in a degrading way, and didn't threaten her, doesn't mean this isn't a dangerous person as Duncan suggests might be the case. The perv did something totally inappropriate for the setting. It was a bike path on a publc throughway, not a bar, a porn shop, a strip club or anyplace else where that kind of behavior might have been received far differently. This alone raises red flags for me.

Attornatus_Oregonensis
08-03-2007, 07:16 PM
I don't think we know exactly what happened on the trail, but we do know that, based on the original description, nothing illegal took place. So it's pretty far from clear why 9-1-1 was called. Sorry but you don't have the right not to be offended. Also, we know that SpeedRacer has no idea what slander is. My view is that it's really good for women to have this kind of information.

donnambr
08-03-2007, 08:34 PM
My view is that it's really good for women to have this kind of information.
I agree. I am very relieved that the women who reported that guy "James" who was harassing women around the Broadway Bridge back in the spring of 2006 didn't share SpeedRacer's point of view. Who knows when he would have been caught if everyone had kept silent. I'm also glad that Officer Pickett didn't assume that he was someone's ex-boyfriend.

Jo, thank you for the heads' up. :)

wsbob
08-03-2007, 08:38 PM
"I had words with him and when he continued to make sexual comments at me, I called 9-1-1." Jo

What that says to me, is that the person calling 911 didn't do so just because they might have been annoyed by the offensive though not necessarily illegal behavior of the perpetrator. It says to me that the person calling, Jo, did so out of fear that the behavior displayed suggested that the perpetrator might represent a greater danger to a person responding differently than Jo, the victim in this incident did.

911 is supposed to be for emergencies. Since the perp didn't physically assault, threaten bodily harm or brandish a weapon, the situation might not have called for that kind of attention, but I definitely think filing a police report was in order, and so was posting the notice here.

misc.
08-03-2007, 08:41 PM
Sorry but you don't have the right not to be offended

It sounds like you're conflating threatening behavior with offensive behavior. Is there no legal distinction between the two?

SpeedRacer
08-03-2007, 09:50 PM
Do you similarly disagree about the "close calls" section of this forum?

Or is the standard of proof higher when a woman is involved?

I have seen the bullshit in the "close calls" section, but I only have so much time to reply to bullshit.

There's even license plate #'s being posted there. What's that supposed to accomplish? I wonder what would happen if I made up some story and posted Maus' license plate along with it.

Do you think the post would be deleted? Yet random peoples info is posted there with no problem. Oh well, his site, even if he does want to administer it like a dumbass.

misc.
08-03-2007, 10:12 PM
I have seen the bullshit in the "close calls" section, but I only have so much time to reply to bullshit.

If it's only so much bullshit, then why do you waste your time in this forum?

BeerdedOne
08-03-2007, 11:50 PM
maybe the guy was drunk or italian.

:confused: I'll assume that you are not a bigot and that this was an attempt at humor, but it is in poor taste. Just my two cents, FWIW.

wsbob
08-04-2007, 01:04 AM
Now why would a person so persistently argue that, a male pervert, verbally offending an unfamiliar female cyclist passing alone through a wild place like Oaks Bottom, is not an incident of sufficient concern to justify filing a police report and additionally, warning other women cyclists through a public forum like this? Why? Carefully draw your own conclusions.

Based on one person's report alone, the police are not going to go rounding up every guy meeting the following description supplied by Jo in the original post:

"The guy is about 6' tall, probably in his early 50s. He has medium-short hair that is greying. Slight receding hairline. He took off on a metallic kelly green road bike, older model and in good condition. He was wearing a black zip up jacket with collar, black pants/jeans. Please be aware and use caution!"

Of course, if they were to receive a number of independent reports of incidents consistently describing what appeared to be one particular individual, absolutely, they might go and check the person out.

I see no problem with people in the close calls forum providing personal information including license plate numbers, for the same reason. The police aren't going to act on only one allegation. I'm not sure they could do much even if they had multiple allegations of crummy driving behavior, but with that many, they might have the pretext to go visit and run such a person's license for the usual.

Attornatus_Oregonensis
08-04-2007, 11:22 AM
It sounds like you're conflating threatening behavior with offensive behavior. Is there no legal distinction between the two?

There is a distinction. I'm not conflating it -- it's just not clear to me that Jo was describing the former as opposed to the latter. I want to emphasize that we don't know what was said. Jo didn't report that. She just described her impressions of what was said.

Attornatus_Oregonensis
08-04-2007, 11:25 AM
There's even license plate #'s being posted [in the "close calls" section]. What's that supposed to accomplish? I wonder what would happen if I made up some story and posted Maus' license plate along with it.

We're a community of cyclists and we want others to know about those who assault other cyclists. So that's what it's supposed to accomplish. I don't really think false reports are much of a risk. You probably don't even know that you can't get someone's identity from their license plate number. Again, if you knew what slander actually was, you might understand why.

Duncan
08-04-2007, 12:05 PM
I may be off base but I was always of the opinion that:

If some one tells you to leave them alone and you persue them, that would be harrasment.

If you threaten someone with physical force, whether or not you intend to carry through on it, that would be assault.

While the exact nature of the conversation isnt obvious from the post, I would be curious to know if the man crossed either of these two lines.

Attornatus_Oregonensis
08-04-2007, 02:26 PM
I may be off base but I was always of the opinion that:

If some one tells you to leave them alone and you persue them, that would be harrasment.

If you threaten someone with physical force, whether or not you intend to carry through on it, that would be assault.

While the exact nature of the conversation isnt obvious from the post, I would be curious to know if the man crossed either of these two lines.

Duncan, I think it is pretty clear from Jo's description that the man did not cross these lines, but as you say we can't tell from what she said. So all we can do is speculate. My guess is that, if he had made a specific threat of bodily harm, she would have mentioned it. But she didn't. Perhaps we can find some intrepid bikeportlander to look up the statutes for us, but harassment is not as simple as you put it, nor is assault.

Rixtir
08-04-2007, 04:24 PM
Duncan, I think it is pretty clear from Jo's description that the man did not cross these lines, but as you say we can't tell from what she said. So all we can do is speculate. My guess is that, if he had made a specific threat of bodily harm, she would have mentioned it. But she didn't. Perhaps we can find some intrepid bikeportlander to look up the statutes for us, but harassment is not as simple as you put it, nor is assault.You're looking at this from a legal perspective, which is understandable. But from a criminal psychology perspective, what this guy was doing is sizing her up for an attack:

Men often test a woman's boundaries, both verbally and physically, to determine whether or not she will prove an easy victim. (http://www.womenscenter.emory.edu/escape.htm)

The Interview: This is where the criminal decides if you are safe to attack. (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html)

Yes, with all violence, the assailant's safety is a critical factor in deciding whether or not to attack. If a criminal was truly mentally ill, he would feel compelled to act, even if there was no chance whatsoever of success. If someone is so emotionally outraged that he were truly "out of control" he would not hesitate to physically assault ten Hells Angels. The fact that he doesn't indicates that there is still a part of them that is calculating risk to themselves.

"Can I get away with it?" is a major motivation for what people decide to do -- or not do. Hence, the interview.

This is one interview you want to fail. If you fail, the assailant decides that he cannot successfully, or easily, attack you. Then if he is a criminal, he will proceed to seek easier prey. In the case of an emotionally upset individual, he will change tactics. For example instead of physically assaulting you he will proceed to stand back and proceed to verbally abuse you. This allows him to 'win' without putting himself at physical risk.

There are five basic types of interviews. The one a criminal uses depends more on his personal style than anything else.

· Regular - This is the most common form of interview for muggers. The criminal will approach you under the guise of normalcy, i.e., needing information or small item (e.g. matches). This is a distraction. While he is talking, he is not only getting in position to attack, but a) checking your awareness about what he is doing and b) your commitment to defending yourself.

This is why you should always be careful when someone approaches you in a fringe area and asks for something. Your answer should always be "no" and insist on him keeping his distance. Both muggers and stranger rapists often use this technique.

· Hot – Hot interviews are sudden and unexpected emotional blitzkriegs against you. They just "pop out of nowhere." You are minding your own business one minute, and the next you have a threatening, obscenity-spouting, screaming person charging down on you. The success of this strategy relies on you not being accustomed to dealing with extreme emotional violence and reacting in a stunned and confused manner. You must be willing to immediately shift into an extreme of physical violence to fail such interviews. Paradoxically, if you can immediately display this commitment, the attacker will often abort.

· Escalating - Unlike a hot interview, which starts out immediately hostile, an escalating interview starts out normally but it rapidly turns hostile. The person or people test(s) your boundaries by escalating outrageous behavior. Every time he is not slapped down (i.e., he is successful), his behavior becomes more and more extreme until finally he attacks. This is very common interview for date rapists. It is also common when you walk into the middle of a group of loitering young thugs, what "supposedly" starts out with them "jes messin' witcha" escalates into a robbery or assault. Sometimes both.

· Silent – A silent interview is when a criminal puts himself in a position to observe you. He may never speak until the attack, but he has been watching all along. He may position himself out of sight in a parking structure and follow you. Or he may make his presence known and decide to attack if you show fear of his presence

· Prolonged - An interview can take anywhere from mere moments (hot) to weeks (prolonged). Prolonged interviews are often combined with other types Being stalked is prolonged escalation. A serial rapist can silently watch a victim for days. Whereas a bunko scam would be prolonged regular interview while the con artist attempts to win your trust. With prolonged interviews, the intent is seldom obvious from the beginning, therefore having the first four levels of the Pyramid of Personal Safety in place becomes of critical importance.

If he's a criminal, that is. He could just be some guy who enjoys harassing women. But since nobody, including Jo, knows what this guy's intentions were, we can't just assume that he's some obnoxious but harmless guy.

toddistic
08-04-2007, 05:10 PM
And the Italians have nothing to do with it.

you obviously missed my touch in cheek humor as italian men (men in italy) are known to be agressive and suggestive towards women they find attractive.

misc.
08-04-2007, 08:15 PM
Obviously so.

I'm of Irish heritage myself, so I generally need to be rip-snortenly drunk before I realize a woman is sexually available.

wsbob
08-04-2007, 10:11 PM
Rixter, excellent post.

donnambr
08-04-2007, 11:52 PM
Thank you, Rixtir, for finding and sharing that article. Sharing our experiences and warning each other about problem people and places are just 2 of the ways women keep themselves safe from violence.

As for myself, I've been unwilling to leave the main Springwater path while alone ever since that jogger was raped by the teenagers 3 years ago in broad daylight. That incident wasn't the first time I'd heard about scary experiences in that area, and I doubt Jo's encounter will be the last.

Attornatus_Oregonensis
08-05-2007, 11:16 AM
You're looking at this from a legal perspective, which is understandable. But from a criminal psychology perspective, what this guy was doing is sizing her up for an attack[.]

Rixter, I appreciate this and I agree with you that this may well have been the case here. That's why I said I thought it was good for women to have this information. Certainly *everyone* who uses the path should be aware of this and prepare accordingly. But I'm not quite willing to accuse someone of a crime before they commit it. We have one side of the story, no specific description of what was said, and a pretty tenuous shared grasp of what crimes are implicated here.

wsbob
08-05-2007, 01:14 PM
I don't think the OP, Jo, accused the perv of having committed a crime. She described his behavior and her response to it, which included a call to 911, a police report, and a warning notice on this fourm.

A person calling 911 or filing a police report because they were especially concerned about somebody's inappropriate behavior for the danger it implied and may potentially have represented to others in future, is not the same thing as charging or necessarily accusing that somebody with a crime.

Calling 911 would ideally be initiated out of an urgent need for help. The police report would be the start of a process that might lead to charging a person with a crime.

Duncan
08-05-2007, 02:25 PM
It seems that the answer is to have more people use the sprinwater corridor- because the more people are around, the less likely something bad is to happen. But how?

bikey3
08-06-2007, 05:16 PM
It seems to me that Jo responded as well as she could have in this situation..In similar situations I ignore the obnoxious person and go on my way, which I think is generally the best strategy. But if the person is close enough or threatening enough, I think an appropriate response is to let them know that you are absolutely not a victim. Yelling at what may be a pervert, or a misguided dipsh*t desperately trying to get some kind of female interaction, is usually enough to send them scurrying back to the shadows if ignoring doesn't work. It also asserts that you won't be intimidated, because if they have ill intentions they're looking for someone who is easily victimized. If he's just a squirrely d-bag without a clue, maybe he'll think better of that type of behavior in the future.

If this person really is a threat, which he may or may not be, this forum is a perfect place to send out a warning. Ditto with making a police report - again asserting that you will not be intimidated into submission. It may be useless/unneccesary, or it may be the beginning to stopping a sexual predator.
I've been considering a commute via the springwater, but stuff like this makes me nervous about it. Shady, lonely pathways sometimes seem worse than braving it with cars. I'll just have to learn jiu-jitsu, I guess.

Rixtir
08-06-2007, 05:30 PM
I'll just have to learn jiu-jitsu, I guess.When all else fails, you need something to fall back on. If you don't already know how to defend yourself, you should definitely learn. Jiu-jitsu is a good idea.

bikey3
08-06-2007, 05:32 PM
I think it is odd to post on here, and equally bizarre to call the police. Both of those efforts are a waste of everyones time and in the case of the 911 call, a waste of public resources. He clearly was not a threat, nor violating any laws.

Her chewing this dumbass out is an excellent use of time and energy. Attempting to escalate it into something larger and more dramatic, is a bit silly in my opinion.

How was he clearly not a threat? Making repeated obscene comments to a woman by herself, on a deserted trail? That sounds scary to me, even if it falls in a gray area of protected speech legally. I would be very scared in that situation. Making the 9-1-1 call was likely the only ammunition she felt she had, since telling him to stop & chewing him out wasn't enough. Luckily it had the effect of making him leave.

Attornatus_Oregonensis
08-06-2007, 05:33 PM
For whatever it's worth, I ride the Springwater twice nearly every single day between Sellwood and downtown and, if I ever see something like this going on, I will stop and I will help. I will defend any victim of physical violence with the necessary force. After all, we're all in this together.

Erica
08-13-2007, 09:53 PM
Apparently this is a trend in Portland...

http://bikeportland.org/forum/showthread.php?t=203

mizake
08-14-2007, 08:36 AM
Apparently this is a trend in Portland...

http://bikeportland.org/forum/showthread.php?t=203

This actually happens just about everywhere. Portland isn't nearly as bad as some other cities though. Small consolation though it is.

PoPo
08-25-2007, 12:26 AM
Jo's actions are perfectly appropriate and appreciated. Thank you for thinking of others in our community by posting this information, Jo.

jami
08-25-2007, 05:43 PM
thanks for the heads-up, jo. that kind of thing is annoying at best, and when you're alone, it's downright scary. kudos on standing up to him anyway.