Message from discussion A Cure for Violence?
Received: by 10.224.223.14 with SMTP id ii14mr4901650qab.3.1352370336615;
Thu, 08 Nov 2012 02:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.37.12 with SMTP id u12mr1592578vdj.8.1352370336529; Thu, 08
Nov 2012 02:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 02:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.8.131.52;
Subject: Re: A Cure for Violence?
From: Blackblade <mcolebou...@googlemail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:25:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> If you know the traffic law (pedestrians have the right of way), then you=
know that the biker was at fault for DELIBERATELY running into me (because=
he didn't want to hear that he was there illegally). It's not brain scienc=
e. You just refuse to believe because you don't want to. Obviously, the jur=
y is irrelevant, since they weren't there. Nor were you. No HONEST person w=
ould claim to know what happened, given that they weren't there. Mountain b=
ikers are not honest. Every one of them lied under oath.
And, ta da, there we have it ... guilty from your own testimony. Based on =
your own statements in this thread I would find you guilty of battery if on=
You CANNOT use Right of Way Precedence for pedestrians to illegally detain =
someone. They are required to give way to you but have done so if they ens=
ure that you can continue on your way. If you then choose to intentionally=
change your direction and move in such a way as to occasion contact then Y=
OU are the guilty party and of a far more serious offence than trespass.
You are entitled to your views on mountain biking but no one else is obliga=
ted to stop and hear them. You are not a police officer, it is not your la=
nd and you had not been authorised by anyone with the necessary authority t=
o enforce a no biking rule. As such, you did indeed commit assault/battery=
and, potentially, illegal detention (maybe US law is a little different on=
that one). =20
You seem to think that because mountainbiking was not permitted on the trai=
l (although, by all accounts, it was the norm for bikes to use the trail) t=
hat this somehow gives you all kinds of rights over the individuals committ=
ing what is, technically, trespass. It doesn't. They are committing what =
in the US would be a misdemeanour and in the UK a civil matter. A relative=
ly trivial offence.
In forcing them to stop or touching them in any way when it has been made p=
lain to you that this is undesired you commit an offence.
This is what I suspected was the case all along; you are indeed guilty of t=
he offences for which you were convicted because you either don't understan=
d, or don't want to understand, that you may not violate others rights just=
because they are committing trespass because YOU are a private citizen and=
not authorised to conduct enforcement.
By your own words ... GUILTY !!!