When Road Rage Turns to Assault, Then Stalking, Is There Anyone There to Protect You?

On February 11, a 75-year-old man was accused of physically assaulting a 23-year-old San Angelo woman in the parking lot at Walmart located at 610 W. 29^th St. The events of that day, and what occurred after, has her friends and family questioning current laws that allowed an already bad situation to turn worse.

Because of current laws in place, not only did this man punch this woman in the face and get away with it that day, but he also got a hold of her personal information from the police report and began harassing the woman and her family at their residence.

The laws that this victim and her family question are the Public Information Act and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Incident

Prior to her kids’ Valentine’s Day party, MK (she did not wish to use her full name because of the situation) was heading to Walmart early in the day to buy some items for the party.

MK said she was driving north on Glenna, in the right hand lane, while this man drove on the left.

“Well, I’m clear to get over into my left lane, so I go into my left lane,” she said.

MK signaled and moved over, and at that point, the problem begins. She managed to upset the driver, later identified as Elbert Foreman.

“I don’t know what pissed him off from there,” MK said. “He, out of nowhere, just speeds up, and I’m seeing this in my mirror. He’s full force speeding up like he’s about to hit me."

MK said she had to speed up, and after a few moments of this, she got angry and flipped Foreman off.

“[After,] I just went about my business,” she recalled. “I lowered my speed limit back down. I hit a light. I looked back, and there were other cars behind me. He wasn’t even behind me. I don’t even see his truck anymore."

Moving on, MK made her way to Walmart, and when she exited her vehicle, she noticed Foreman parked behind her.

“He jumped out of his car and was running at me,” MK said. “I’m going to close my door, and he’s like, ‘You need to learn to stay off your goddamn phone when you’re driving!’ He’s in my face."

MK said she told Foreman she wasn’t on her phone, but even of she was, that’s none of his business. That’s when things got ugly.

“He knocked the hell out of me like I was a man," stated MK.

MK said she backed up in shock, and when Foreman lunged at her again, a man who witnessed what happened jumped between them.

“He’s still trying to go at me,” she noted.

At this point, MK said she yelled, “What the hell is wrong with you?” She then told him, “You’re going to jail!” Foreman responded, “No, I’m not."

When he attempted to go at her again, the other man warned Foreman to back up or he would have to hit him.

“The man then gets into his truck and pretends he’s going to ram me. I yell, ‘Hit me! I wish you would!’ At this point, I’m angry and crying. I just got slapped and I’m cussin’ at him. He yells to me, ‘Stay off your goddamn phone!’ He didn’t even see me flip him off. He thought I was on my phone.”

MK, determined not to let the man get away with what he did, followed Foreman while on the phone with 9-1-1. When an officer arrived, MK stopped her vehicle. She said at first the man hesitated to stop, but he finally did and got out. MK said she was yelling and told the officer what happened. The officer assured her she did the right thing, but because he didn’t see what happened, he couldn’t arrest him. It didn’t matter that three witnesses also saw what took place and spoke to officers. Foreman also admitted to hitting her.

When MK mentioned to the officer she flipped Foreman off, he got angrier. As for the cell phone accusation, the cop told Foreman it’s not against the law to be on the phone.

After a heated discussion about what took place, MK learned officers had no plans to arrest Foreman. She said she felt that had to do with him being a veteran. He had a “Purple Heart” designation on his truck. However, the officers told her they could not arrest Foreman because of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

In frustration, MK left, but once the anger wore off, she felt the pain of Foreman’s hit.

“Everything’s hurting,” she said. “My teeth were hurting. He knew exactly where to hit me where I was going to feel it. At 75 years old, you would think, ‘Well, he’s a senior citizen. How hard can he hit you?’” I was hit like I was a grown man.”

Because she was hurting so bad, MK went to the hospital at the urging of her close friend and had X-rays done. According to the medical reports she provided, they show Foreman had indeed bruised the muscles in her neck and face. 

“I’ve lost a lot of sleep over this," she said.

The Situation Gets Worse

The day after the confrontation with Foreman, MK said she was determined to file charges against him, so she went to the San Angelo Police Department to get a report of the incident. That’s when she noticed Foreman’s address, phone number and date of birth. When she asked the records clerk about this, the woman told her, “He would have gotten the same thing.”

MK said she immediately feared for her life, and that of her family.

“I could understand if we knew each other, but I don’t know this man,” she stated. “He didn’t know where I live."

She immediately called her husband and told him what she learned. Although he tried to allay her fears, she couldn’t relax.

That evening, her fear became a reality when she saw Foreman parked on the corner of her street watching her as she cleaned her husband’s truck. He had a young boy in his vehicle with him.

“I knew this was going to happen," she said.

MK said she ran and told her husband, who ended up following the man to get his license plate. Foreman saw him, motioned him to come to his vehicle, and threatened MK’s husband, “I will kill you motherf****!"

The Response

Despite the threats, and despite the cops coming out multiple times that weekend because of Foreman watching and passing her home, Foreman did not get arrested.

Not only did he not get arrested, but MK said a few of the officers she dealt with were rude, and one failed to file harassment charges despite MK being told that would happen. Had he done so, when Foreman returned on Saturday, police could have arrested him.

MK also told the officers none of this would have happened had they not provided her information on the report.

“Oh. I see what you’re saying, but you can’t blame it on us," one officer told her after she showed him the report. He also told her defensively that it was MK’s word against Foreman’s because he denied being in her neighborhood and threatening her husband. She was also told it wasn’t against the law for Foreman to drive in her neighborhood.

Luckily, MK said after all the negative situations with these officers, she was able to get into contact with Sgt. Doug Thomas at SAPD. He helped get Foreman served with Stalking orders, and Foreman signed the papers stating he understood that should he go near MK or her family, he would be arrested.

Additionally, last Wednesday, SAPD officers arrested Foreman on a warrant for the assault on MK at Walmart. However, Foreman posted bond for $1,000 that day.

Now, if MK sees Foreman near her home, he will indeed be arrested and charged with a 3^rd Degree Felony; however, it took over a week for this outcome, and MK, along with her husband and close friend, said none of this would have happened had her information not been released by SAPD.

The Overall Explanation

Sgt. Cade Solsbery, public information officer for SAPD, said, because of section 552.108 of the Public Information Act, SAPD is required to provide all the information that has caused MK problems on reports. There are exceptions, however, for sexual assault, suicide, or injury to a child. 

“As far as everything else is concerned, we have to release it,” he said.

Most of the time, Solsbery said if there is a question about information being released, records officials will send it to the Attorney General’s Office, but they almost always release that information.

“It’s just the way it’s written in the Public Information Act," Solsbery stated.

When asked how this act affects officers doing their job as it could incite a more dangerous situation, Solsbery said, “At least that we know of, it’s not very often where this kind of thing happens. I can’t remember off the top of my head where somebody got a report and figured out where somebody lived. On that part, it’s still under investigation."

Solsbery said he knows the case was assigned to a detective, but he’s not sure where it stands. All he can say is, if people are a victim of a crime, or someone starts bothering them, that could turn into a possible retaliatory charge.

“There are charges in place, but it’s one of those things that the threat has to be made and something occurs,” Solsbery stated. “It could be a threat or an action.”

Solsbery added that in most Misdemeanor cases, officers don’t make an arrest because they don’t fall under the exceptions (See “The Laws”), so they have to be filed on by the victims themselves.

Solsbery noted, “Some misdemeanors do get assigned to detectives, but a lot of them don’t, simply because we have too many felonies they have to investigate. It falls back to the victim."

Solsbery said the victim has to come to SAPD and fill out a County Attorney packet. The victim provides personal information and a formal statement, and must get it notarized. Officials then send the packet to the County Attorney’s office. Solsbery said he’s not sure what the turnaround is for a warrant to be issued.

“That’s how it usually goes,” he said. “In this particular instance, considering what transpired afterwards, it was assigned to a detective, so it happened a little quicker than usual once it got to the point that they were seeking the warrant; it went a little quicker than had she done it herself."

Solsbery stated a lot of people think that because they make a report, charges will get filed. That’s not always the case.

In this situation though, that did happen, and should Foreman continue to go after MK and her family, he will be arrested on felony charges. 

The Laws

At the scene, one of the officers told MK the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure created frustration for officers, especially in situations like this. Basically, the law states law enforcement officers are restricted to make arrests on Misdemeanor offenses that do not occur in their presence.

Here is what Sgt. Solsbery said about the law according to Article 14.03:

“As far as police witnessing the attack and whether or not they can make the arrest, there are restrictions on when we can make arrests on Misdemeanors that did not occur in our presence,” he said. “They are:

(1)  persons found in suspicious places and under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony, violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, breach of the peace, or offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws;

(2)  persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an assault resulting in bodily injury to another person and the peace officer has probable cause to believe that there is danger of further bodily injury to that person;

(3)  persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an offense defined by Section 25.07, Penal Code, if the offense is not committed in the presence of the peace officer;

(4)  persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an offense involving family violence;

(5)  persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have prevented or interfered with an individual's ability to place a telephone call in an emergency, as defined by Section 42.062(d), Penal Code, if the offense is not committed in the presence of the peace officer; or

(6)  a person who makes a statement to the peace officer that would be admissible against the person under Article 38.21 and establishes probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony.

(b)  A peace officer shall arrest, without a warrant, a person the peace officer has probable cause to believe has committed an offense under Section 25.07, Penal Code, if the offense is committed in the presence of the peace officer.”

In this case, there was physical evidence that showed Foreman assaulted MK, and there were witnesses who saw everything. Also, Foreman admitted at the scene to hitting MK because he thought she was on her phone.

As for Section 552.108 of the Public Information Act, it states that “certain law enforcement, corrections and prosecutorial information held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 (public information is available to the public at a minimum during the normal business hours of the governmental body) if…click here for the exceptions.

The Change

Based on this information, it’s unclear what “information at a minimum” means; however, Solsbery said he hasn’t seen a situation like this where unrelated individuals involved in an incident use the report to get personal information. Any time there is a retaliation, there is a relationship.

“It’s not often you have a situation like this,” he noted.

As long as people request information, they can get it thanks to the Public Information Act. The only way change can be made is if citizens fight for a change in legislation. Solsbery said all victim information has to change so all information is protected and not released.

Update 1:49 p.m.

Elbert Foreman reached out to us today and declared, about the accusations made against him, "It's all lies." Foreman was booked into Tom Green County Jail Feb. 24 for Assault Causing Bodily Injury. He has yet to meet a grand jury nor has he received a formal indictment. He is out of jail on an $1,000 bond. Other than this incident, Foreman has a clear record in Tom Green County.