Hey, there! Log in / Register

DA: Motorist threw coins at scooter driver before cutting him off and beating him with a baseball bat

An Everett guy charged with beating a man with a baseball bat on the North Washington Street Bridge Friday morning was ordered held in lieu of $15,000 cash bail, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.

Should Travis El-Saadi make bail, he is forbidden from driving the gold Acura from which he alleged jumped out with a baseball bat and which he liked to post photos of on his Facebook page, at least until after the charges of armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon are resolved, the DA's office adds.

According to the DA's office, bystanders flagged down police at North Washington and Causeway streets shortly before 9 a.m. on Friday to help a man just lying in the middle of the intersection, blood pouring out of a deep cut in his head and other injuries:

Witnesses informed police that a gold Acura pulled in front of the victim, who was on his scooter, just before Causeway Street. A man in his 20s exited, approached the victim, and beat him with a baseball bat before returning to his vehicle and fleeing the scene. A witness recorded part of the incident on a cell phone, and additional witnesses were able to provide the license plate number of the suspect vehicle. Based on that information, police determined that the vehicle is registered to a relative of El-Saadi, prosecutors said. ...

The victim told police that the man who attacked him had been driving erratically and allegedly threw coins and attempted to spit at him prior to the incident. The victim was attempting to capture the vehicle’s license plate number when the man attacked him, prosecutors said. El-Saadi was later identified from a photo array.

Police arrested El-Saadi at the Dorchester auto-body shop where he worked later in the day, the DA's office reports.

The 49-year-old victim was taken to a local hospital and is expected to recover, the DA's office says.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Where are the "cyclists are the worst" commenters? Its always crickets from them when drivers kill people, hit 10 pedestrians on a sidewalk, shoot someone over a parking space, attempt to murder someone with a baseball bat etc. Their priorities are so messed up that they get more angry about a cyclist wearing earbuds than they do about stories like this. I say this as a pedestrian/subway rider who hasn't been on a bike in 5 years and is tired of the violence and hypocrisy coming from this group.

up
Voting closed 0

I mean, lots of people have cars.

Also, what's the value of the Acura? The guy can't (legally or practically) liquidate it to make bail?

up
Voting closed 0

"This group?"

He said it in the first line:

Where are the "cyclists are the worst" commenters?

Was it really that hard to read?

up
Voting closed 0

Can we just stick to the story at hand? Your post is like Trump yelling about Hilary every time he gets caught in a lie.

This time the driver is a big time jerk (even that's too kind a word) who deserves some long jail time.

up
Voting closed 1

Poor analogy aside, people come out of the woodwork when its a story involving a cyclist but its crickets when its yet another story about reckless driving.

We can talk about the shitty double standard of safety on the roads and still stick to the story at hand, they are not mutually exclusive.

up
Voting closed 0

Okay, Kinopio is, but when it comes to blind rage against drivers, that's a given. People come out of the woodwork routinely when there is a crash involving an automobile and all sorts of moving and inanimate objects.

That said, as a driver I think what happened was horrible, but this sounds like the kind of thing where this guy would have beaten the shit out of someone even without a drivers license.

up
Voting closed 0

People in larger vehicles get annoyed and take deliberate action to cause physical injury or even death. It happens all too frequently, sometimes subtly but sometimes overtly.

I've heard of careless cyclists accidentally causing harm to others, and I've even heard of cyclists deliberately damaging a threatening motor vehicle. But I've never heard of someone cycling (or driving a motor scooter) in such a way as to deliberately cause physical harm to the operator of a motor vehicle.

up
Voting closed 0

I would complain about them, but it would be unfeeling to imply that this person did anything wrong.

up
Voting closed 0

I have seen numerous scooters using the bicycle lane on Comm Ave. Can someone explain to these people that this is not acceptable.

up
Voting closed 4

But... it is acceptable, your ignorance to the law notwithstanding

"Mopeds may use bicycle lanes next to various ways but are excluded from off street recreational paths."

http://www.massrmv.com/Registration/MopedRequirements.aspx

up
Voting closed 0

mopeds and scooters are not equal under the law.

up
Voting closed 0

A scooter is not a moped.

up
Voting closed 0

If it's under 50cc's it's a moped. Vespa, Buddy, etc. All "scooters" but categorized by the state of Massachusetts as a moped due to the size of the engine.

up
Voting closed 0

Please do find the Massachusetts website that refutes the source I provided. 50ccs is the law.

up
Voting closed 6

But we're not talking about a 98cc engine, are we? You stated scooters were not allowed in the bike lane, that's patently false. Additionally, you're conceding the law states that a motor under 50ccs is allowed in the bike lane. I promise you 80% of the "scooters" out there are under 50ccs

You can disagree with the law, that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that a two wheeled vehicle with an engine under 50ccs is allowed to utilize the bike lane. Hard stop.

up
Voting closed 3

I said I hate them. I also said that it is not ok to make generalizations about bad scooter riders when there is no information to indicate that the victim in this story isn't a safe scooter rider.

If the engine is 50cc or less then it is a motorized bicycle not a scooter. Look at the registration. And the engine can't just be small. The motorized vehicle has to have a top speed of 30 miles per hour.

up
Voting closed 0

this 100%. Also, as a scooterist for over a decade in the city.. EVERYONE despises us. Cyclists especially. Why? I still have not figured out. There are some knuckleheads (just like in every other category) but the real enemy are the cagers on their cell phones.

up
Voting closed 0

I like this phrase, hope you don't mind if I steal it :)

up
Voting closed 0

Why? I still have not figured out.

Really?

Try riding a bike and getting passed by a scooter whilst both you and the scooter are in the bike lane. Try just standing behind a scooter idling for a minute, breathing in the exhaust.

Scooters are far more like motorcycles than bicycles. It's quite jarring for them to be driving in bike lanes. I'm not arguing the law, just the reaction in practice.

up
Voting closed 1

feel better?

up
Voting closed 0

Not all victims ride bikes.

up
Voting closed 0

Cyclists are not the worst. Car hating, city living pedestrians with a psycho car hate fetish are the worst. You're neither a driver or a cyclist, you just want to take advantage of any situation to push your own agenda with yet another inflammatory comment and group all drivers into one category. Plenty of drivers follow the rules of the road, have respect for cyclists and pedestrians and do not commit any crimes whether behind the wheel or not.

up
Voting closed 0

Huh?

up
Voting closed 0

Worship tailpipe all you want there.

Pay for it with pollution and obesity.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm missing something

up
Voting closed 2

Kinopio's lack of understanding of what a scooter is.

To be fair, if he finds out what one is, his head might explode.

up
Voting closed 0

You are stirring up an issue out of nothing. This guy's a grade A psycho and literally no one is debating that. What do cyclists have to do with any of this, and what motorists do you see defending this criminal behavior?

It's not hard to believe you managed to inject some inflammatory anti-car diatribe based on something as tenuous as what kind of comments aren't here. There could be a thread about organic broccoli and you'd have something to say about those evil people who drive.

up
Voting closed 0

Why wasn't this guy's license revoked upon arrest?

up
Voting closed 0

Enough said.

up
Voting closed 0

Do you believe that any police officer in the state should have the authority to revoke your license on his or her say-so?

up
Voting closed 0

It is called an "immediate threat" form.

up
Voting closed 0

.

up
Voting closed 3

... who needs 'em, amirite?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all in favor of an automatic, brief suspension in the case of arrests for certain motor vehicle offenses, with a prompt opportunity for a hearing to determine whether the suspension will be continued or not ... but the notion that the RMV will indefinitely suspend a license on the say-so of any police officer in the state, including one who has never seen or met the driver in question, with the burden now on the driver, seems pretty extreme.

up
Voting closed 0

The officer signs a legal document which outlines the opinion for the immediate threat. If the RMV deems that enough per state statute to temporarily revoke the license, they can do that based on the testimony of the officer and other witnesses and evidence.

(The person also has a right to a hearing)

up
Voting closed 0

I'm fine with that, which is, of course, not the same as "any police officer has the right to revoke your license on the spot."

up
Voting closed 6

They already can!

up
Voting closed 0

Any your license is automatically revoked for 90 days. This same standard should be applied for all forms of reckless driving.

up
Voting closed 0

If only there were some sort of forum, perhaps one administered by the government, in which the person accusing you of reckless driving could present the evidence, and you could present your defense, and then some neutral third party could decide whether or not you had, in fact, been driving recklessly, and then a decision regarding license suspension could be made .... that would be awesome.

up
Voting closed 0

It is a privilege. You don't need a court to revoke the privilege.

up
Voting closed 0

If it is such a privilege, then a cop could have your license revoked because you looked at him the wrong way.

Myself, I like the idea that there is a procedure to follow for suspension of a license, complete with a right to appeal said suspension.

up
Voting closed 0

Driving is not a right of the individual, but operating equitable, transparent, non-arbitrary processes are an obligation of the state. Just because driving is a privilege rather than a right, doesn't give a clerk at the RMV the right to revoke it because he/she doesn't like the way you look, for example.

up
Voting closed 0

Your license is not automatically revoked when you refuse to take a breathalyzer.

Your license is revoked when you are accused of refusing to take a breathalyzer and the RMV believes the accusation.

There is an important distinction there, one involving an administrative procedure that is reviewable and accountable.

up
Voting closed 0

Long story short the breath test machine is hooked up directly to the state and registry. When you check the "refuse" box, your license gets suspended without anyone from the RMV knowing (Again, the officer puts in his name and other information)

up
Voting closed 0