Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike Vandeman
Apr 9, 2012, 10:10:44 PM4/9/12
to
Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
Mike
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
NICOLE MATHEWSON
Last updated 15:33 09/04/2012
IDENTITY SOUGHT: This mountainbiker is alleged to have assaulted
another mountainbiker on a Port Hills track in Christchurch yesterday.
Relevant offers
A video of a mountainbiker allegedly assaulting another Christchurch
cyclist on a Port Hills track has gone viral online.
The incident was caught on film using a helmet video camera by
mountainbiker Jordan Brizzell.
Brizzell, 24, said the incident began when he asked another cyclist to
give him room to pass on the Flying Nun track on Sunday afternoon.
The man said "yes" but allegedly would not give Brizzell space to
pass.
"Trail etiquette says you pull over to let faster riders by," Brizzell
said.
He said he was polite at first but "got less polite as he refused to
stop".
Brizzell told the man he was rude for not allowing him to pass, and
"that set him off".
A scuffle ensued in the course of which "he put his hand over my nose
and mouth", Brizzell said.
Brizzell said he "did the only thing I could do without letting go of
the camera bit down on his finger".
After "a bit more struggling", Brizzell said, he managed to get away.
"I rolled down the road and spoke to a couple other guys at the car
park," he said.
"They said I should ring the police, so I got my phone out and that's
when the guy showed up again, so that's when I took a photo."
Brizzell said he suffered bruising on his neck and jaw from where the
helmet strap was pulled, along with sore neck muscles and grazes on
his ankle and arm.
He posted the video online on Sunday to see if anyone could identify
the man.
Most responses had been positive, but some people had tried to blame
him for the incident, he said.
"I'll admit I didn't act in a textbook fashion and I have learnt from
this, but I still don't think that anything I said or did was
unreasonable or out of line," he said.
He had given a statement to the police and was waiting to receive more
information.
"Nothing like this has happened to me before," he said.
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
Mike
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
NICOLE MATHEWSON
Last updated 15:33 09/04/2012
IDENTITY SOUGHT: This mountainbiker is alleged to have assaulted
another mountainbiker on a Port Hills track in Christchurch yesterday.
Relevant offers
A video of a mountainbiker allegedly assaulting another Christchurch
cyclist on a Port Hills track has gone viral online.
The incident was caught on film using a helmet video camera by
mountainbiker Jordan Brizzell.
Brizzell, 24, said the incident began when he asked another cyclist to
give him room to pass on the Flying Nun track on Sunday afternoon.
The man said "yes" but allegedly would not give Brizzell space to
pass.
"Trail etiquette says you pull over to let faster riders by," Brizzell
said.
He said he was polite at first but "got less polite as he refused to
stop".
Brizzell told the man he was rude for not allowing him to pass, and
"that set him off".
A scuffle ensued in the course of which "he put his hand over my nose
and mouth", Brizzell said.
Brizzell said he "did the only thing I could do without letting go of
the camera bit down on his finger".
After "a bit more struggling", Brizzell said, he managed to get away.
"I rolled down the road and spoke to a couple other guys at the car
park," he said.
"They said I should ring the police, so I got my phone out and that's
when the guy showed up again, so that's when I took a photo."
Brizzell said he suffered bruising on his neck and jaw from where the
helmet strap was pulled, along with sore neck muscles and grazes on
his ankle and arm.
He posted the video online on Sunday to see if anyone could identify
the man.
Most responses had been positive, but some people had tried to blame
him for the incident, he said.
"I'll admit I didn't act in a textbook fashion and I have learnt from
this, but I still don't think that anything I said or did was
unreasonable or out of line," he said.
He had given a statement to the police and was waiting to receive more
information.
"Nothing like this has happened to me before," he said.
Mike Vandeman
Apr 9, 2012, 10:04:10 PM4/9/12
to
Len McGoogle
Apr 10, 2012, 1:54:39 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 10:10 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> Mike
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
>
> Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> Mike
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
>
> Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
cams.
Mike Vandeman
Apr 10, 2012, 9:28:43 PM4/10/12
to
JVaughn
Apr 11, 2012, 4:20:28 PM4/11/12
to
Were you tried in court for this?
Were you found guilty?
Len McGoogle
Apr 11, 2012, 4:50:17 PM4/11/12
to
Mike Vandeman
Apr 11, 2012, 10:03:37 PM4/11/12
to
you.
Mike Vandeman
Apr 11, 2012, 10:04:35 PM4/11/12
to
Bob Berger
Apr 12, 2012, 1:24:06 AM4/12/12
to
In article <bf75a720-326f-4672...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 11, 1:20=A0pm, JVaughn <justinvau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 8:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 10, 10:54=A0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:
see:
>http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defendant/
>
>which contains in part:
>
>For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike tire: not guilty.
>
>Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards’ word
>against Vandeman’s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At this news,
>Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
>For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
>In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At one
>point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was quite
>nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >arguments,
>Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a threat,
>intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >argument
>stuck.
>
>For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
>For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
>The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcala, >just
>his bike.
>
>For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
To which you replied:
>BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>you.
So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not
all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part "charge
dismissed", to what were you referring?
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 11, 1:20=A0pm, JVaughn <justinvau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 8:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 10, 10:54=A0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
>> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> > > > Mike
>>
>> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-cl=
>> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
>> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> > > > Mike
>>
>ash
>>
>> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
>> > > cams.
>>
>> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> Were you tried in court for this?
>> Were you found guilty?
>
>No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
>you.
From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thread,
>>
>> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
>> > > cams.
>>
>> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> Were you tried in court for this?
>> Were you found guilty?
>
>No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
>you.
see:
>http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defendant/
>
>which contains in part:
>
>For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike tire: not guilty.
>
>Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards’ word
>against Vandeman’s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At this news,
>Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
>For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
>In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At one
>point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was quite
>nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >arguments,
>Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a threat,
>intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >argument
>stuck.
>
>For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
>For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
>The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcala, >just
>his bike.
>
>For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
To which you replied:
>BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>you.
So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not
all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part "charge
dismissed", to what were you referring?
Mike Vandeman
Apr 12, 2012, 7:39:59 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11, 10:24 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <bf75a720-326f-4672-a695-48d5673eb...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
Assault.
> In article <bf75a720-326f-4672-a695-48d5673eb...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
> Mike Vandeman says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 11, 1:20=A0pm, JVaughn <justinvau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=A0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> >> > > > Mike
>
> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-cl=
> >ash
>
> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> >> > > cams.
>
> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> >you.
>
> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thread,
> see:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 11, 1:20=A0pm, JVaughn <justinvau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=A0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> >> > > > Mike
>
> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-cl=
> >ash
>
> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> >> > > cams.
>
> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> >you.
>
> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thread,
> see:
>
>
>
>
>
Bob Berger
Apr 12, 2012, 2:10:36 PM4/12/12
to
In article <2fefb0fb-0cf2-4b11...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <bf75a720-326f-4672-a695-48d5673eb...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.=
>> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
>-cl=3D
>>
>> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
>word
>> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
> one
>> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
>ite
>> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
>guments,
>> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
>reat,
>> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
> not
>> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <bf75a720-326f-4672-a695-48d5673eb...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn <justinvau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
>! I
>> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> >> > > > Mike
>>
>> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists=
>> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> >> > > > Mike
>>
>-cl=3D
>> >ash
>>
>> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
>>
>> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>et
>> >> > > cams.
>>
>> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> >> Were you tried in court for this?
>> >> Were you found guilty?
>>
>> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
>> >you.
>>
>> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
>> >> > > cams.
>>
>> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> >> Were you tried in court for this?
>> >> Were you found guilty?
>>
>> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
>> >you.
>>
>ad,
>> see:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>>
>> >which contains in part:
>>
>> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>> see:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>>
>> >which contains in part:
>>
>>
>> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
>word
>> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
>is news,
>> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>>
>> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
>> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
>> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>>
>> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
> one
>> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
>ite
>> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
>guments,
>> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
>reat,
>> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
>gument
>> >stuck.
>>
>> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
>> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
>> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
>> >stuck.
>>
>> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
>> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
>a, >just
>> >his bike.
>>
>> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>>
>> To which you replied:
>>
>> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>> >you.
>>
>> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
>> >his bike.
>>
>> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>>
>> To which you replied:
>>
>> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>> >you.
>>
> not
>> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
>"charge
>> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
>Assault.
Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
>> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
>Assault.
politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
Len McGoogle
Apr 12, 2012, 8:18:36 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 2:10 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <2fefb0fb-0cf2-4b11-9fa4-6039fe686...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
The environmental movement doesn't want him. They prefer to distance
themselves from kooks and extremists.
> In article <2fefb0fb-0cf2-4b11-9fa4-6039fe686...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
themselves from kooks and extremists.
Mike Vandeman
Apr 12, 2012, 8:13:07 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 11:10 am, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <2fefb0fb-0cf2-4b11-9fa4-6039fe686...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
"Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").
> In article <2fefb0fb-0cf2-4b11-9fa4-6039fe686...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").
Bob Berger
Apr 12, 2012, 8:29:49 PM4/12/12
to
In article <01d91ee3-49ff-4fb4...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 12, 11:10=A0am, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <2fefb0fb-0cf2-4b11-9fa4-6039fe686...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups=
>> >> In article <bf75a720-326f-4672-a695-48d5673eb...@h4g2000pbe.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3D3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3D3DA0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3D3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.co=
>m> wr=3D
>> >ote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bik=
>ers=3D
>sts=3D
>> >-cl=3D3D
>elm=3D
>t
>> >> >you.
>>
>> >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" t=
>hre=3D
>> >ad,
>> >> see:
>>
>> >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe=
>> >word
>> >> >against Vandeman=3D92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. =
>At th=3D
> At=3D
>> > one
>> >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was=
> qu=3D
>> >ite
>> >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing =
>>ar=3D
>> >guments,
>> >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a=
> th=3D
>> >reat,
>> >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the =
>>ar=3D
>cal=3D
>and=3D
>> > not
>> >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in pa=
>rt =3D
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 12, 11:10=A0am, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <2fefb0fb-0cf2-4b11-9fa4-6039fe686...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 11, 10:24=3DA0pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> In article <bf75a720-326f-4672-a695-48d5673eb...@h4g2000pbe.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>> >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3D3DA0pm, JVaughn <justinvau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>> >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3D3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3D3DA0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3D3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.co=
>m> wr=3D
>> >ote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bik=
>ers=3D
>> >! I
>> >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> >> >> > > > Mike
>>
>> >> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cycli=
>> >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> >> >> > > > Mike
>>
>sts=3D
>> >-cl=3D3D
>> >> >ash
>>
>> >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>> >> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those h=
>>
>> >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>elm=3D
>> >et
>> >> >> > > cams.
>>
>> >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
>> >> >> Were you found guilty?
>>
>> >> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoin=
>> >> >> > > cams.
>>
>> >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
>> >> >> Were you found guilty?
>>
>t
>> >> >you.
>>
>> >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" t=
>hre=3D
>> >ad,
>> >> see:
>>
>> >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe=
>...
>>
>> >> >which contains in part:
>>
>> >> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=3D92 bike tire: not guilty.
>>
>> >> >which contains in part:
>>
>>
>> >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=
>=3D92 =3D
>> >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=
>> >word
>> >> >against Vandeman=3D92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. =
>At th=3D
>> >is news,
>> >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>>
>> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
>> >> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge.=
>> >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>>
>> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
> At=3D
>> > one
>> >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was=
> qu=3D
>> >ite
>> >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing =
>>ar=3D
>> >guments,
>> >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a=
> th=3D
>> >reat,
>> >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the =
>>ar=3D
>> >gument
>> >> >stuck.
>>
>> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
>> >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
>> >> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Al=
>> >> >stuck.
>>
>> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
>> >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
>cal=3D
>> >a, >just
>> >> >his bike.
>>
>> >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>>
>> >> To which you replied:
>>
>> >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>> >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>> >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>> >> >you.
>>
>> >> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court =
>> >> >his bike.
>>
>> >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>>
>> >> To which you replied:
>>
>> >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>> >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>> >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>> >> >you.
>>
>and=3D
>> > not
>> >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in pa=
>rt =3D
>> >"charge
>> >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>>
>> >Assault.
>>
>> Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
>> politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
>
>"Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
>incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").
Best you can do? Figures.
>> >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>>
>> >Assault.
>>
>> Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
>> politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
>
>"Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
>incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").
Len McGoogle
Apr 13, 2012, 1:25:21 PM4/13/12
to
cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
or offensively touching someone against his or her will.
So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.
Mike Vandeman
Apr 16, 2012, 11:24:08 PM4/16/12
to
your utter ignorance, once again.
JVaughn
Apr 16, 2012, 11:38:30 PM4/16/12
to
On Apr 16, 10:24 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
> your utter ignorance, once again.
Is that what the court found?
> BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
> your utter ignorance, once again.
Len McGoogle
Apr 17, 2012, 4:37:29 PM4/17/12
to
Mike Vandeman
Apr 18, 2012, 12:07:20 AM4/18/12
to
is.There's no cure for that, you know.
0 new messages