Jurors are smarter than Apes - Guilty on all counts
DirtRoadie
Norman
> http://www.velonews.com/article/99800
I'll be in my bunk.
Tom Kunich
news:19d58d66-723c-4fc7...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.velonews.com/article/99800
I'd hope that the same thing happens to MagnifiedMuppet but I have serious
doubts that he even rides.
Robert Chung
> http://www.velonews.com/article/99800
Dumbass:
RBR protocol is to put the podium in the subject line.
Thanks.
DirtRoadie
wrote:
Sorry, thought I had it covered. I won't let it happen again.
DR
William Asher
> http://www.velonews.com/article/99800
In a year or two, we should all write the doctor and ask how he likes
married life in prison.
--
Bill Asher
Paul B. Anders
Excellent. Looking forward to paying RJ that bet. Hmm. Might make me
the first person to ever actually pay off a bet on r.b.r.
Brad Anders
Paul B. Anders
Oh, and I'd have loved to have seen his smug-ass face when the verdict
was read.
Brad Anders
Tom Kunich
news:b57fb725-1bc8-4566...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
He knew what was coming.
RicodJour
Really. And so much for his SuperLawyer defense attorney. Schmucks.
I'll look you up for that virtual beer next time I'm taking a virtual
tour to...where do you live again?
R
z
"Thompson, wearing a dark blue suit, bowed his head as the verdicts were
read. He faces a possible prison term."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/jury-reaches-verdict-in-cycling-case.html
Susan Walker
>> Brad Anders
>
> I'll look you up for that virtual beer next time I'm taking a virtual
> tour to...where do you live again?
Stuttgart.
RicodJour
Hmmm...do they have good beer there?
R
DirtRoadie
difficulty reaching the conclusion many of us were hoping for. A
verdict on the first day of deliberation after a three week trial is
practically an instantaneous decision. Almost a matter of "Anybody
think he's not guilty? No? OK, well let's at least talk about the
charges and fill out the paperwork properly."
DR
Paul B. Anders
It's Phoenix, but I've got to figure out a way to get that microbrew
to you more directly. Where are you?
Brad Anders
Paul B. Anders
You know, I want to amend that statement. There's nothing to be
satisfied about here. Two cyclists were injured, one with disfiguring
injuries, and skilled ER doctor, who probably fixed up a hundred
cyclists who crashed during his career, is looking at prison and has
had his career put it tatters by this incident. Nobody is coming out
ahead here. This isn't a victory, it's a tragedy.
Brad Anders
RicodJour
> On Nov 2, 6:32 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll look you up for that virtual beer next time I'm taking a virtual
> > tour to...where do you live again?
>
> to you more directly. Where are you?
I'm 16 miles east of Manhattan on Long Island. I'll hold you to that
beer - I know you're good for it. I have a brother in Phoenix who is
finishing building his guest house by the pool. :)
R
coterock
> You know, I want to amend that statement. There's nothing to be
> satisfied about here. Two cyclists were injured, one with disfiguring
> injuries, and skilled ER doctor, who probably fixed up a hundred
> cyclists who crashed during his career, is looking at prison and has
> had his career put it tatters by this incident. Nobody is coming out
> ahead here. This isn't a victory, it's a tragedy.
>
> Brad Anders
Very true Brad. Three points; He was a motorist at the time of the
incident. His being a Doctor should not matter. While there was no
winner in that case, cyclists in general benefitted that justice was
served. Read precident. Lastly, I would expect a civil suit to follow.
It was his pit-bull lawyer and his smug attitude that convicted him.
DirtRoadie
> You know, I want to amend that statement. There's nothing to be
> satisfied about here. Two cyclists were injured, one with disfiguring
> injuries, and skilled ER doctor, who probably fixed up a hundred
> cyclists who crashed during his career, is looking at prison and has
> had his career put it tatters by this incident. Nobody is coming out
> ahead here. This isn't a victory, it's a tragedy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cyclist3-2009nov03,0,761131.story
"It's sad for both sides," Stoehr said. "I lost a lot of my time and
my life, and he's losing a lot of his."
However, envision someone like the doctor doing what he did and
getting away with it. No, there is some satisfaction to be gained from
knowing and letting others know that acts such as the doctor's are not
without consequences and that even upscale citizens like the doctor
are not above the law. It is not strictly a "cycling" issue, it's a
"civilized society" issue.
DR
RicodJour
> On Nov 2, 6:24 pm, "Paul B. Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and I'd have loved to have seen his smug-ass face when the verdict
> > was read.
>
> satisfied about here. Two cyclists were injured, one with disfiguring
> injuries, and skilled ER doctor, who probably fixed up a hundred
> cyclists who crashed during his career, is looking at prison and has
> had his career put it tatters by this incident. Nobody is coming out
> ahead here. This isn't a victory, it's a tragedy.
True enough. If he had just expressed some remorse I think there
would have been some leniency. As it was his SuperLawyer (sheeesh)
was spouting bullshit and blaming someone who was injured.
None of this divisive red state blue state stuff. We've got to share
the road, right?
R
Anton Berlin
Far fucking out.
DirtRoadie
> True enough. If he had just expressed some remorse I think there
> would have been some leniency. As it was his SuperLawyer (sheeesh)
> was spouting bullshit and blaming someone who was injured.
Now we are likely to see some serious backpedaling (pun intended) on
the part of the doctor and his counsel. They played the "they flipped
me off but I never meant to hurt them" card and it backfired big
time.
Now it's full speed ahead with damage control to try to minimize the
sentence. In light of the judge ordering that he be held without bail
until sentencing (a month away), I doubt that there is much that they
can do. Even if the jurors had been swayed by the BS put on by the
lawyer (they weren't) the judge probably has a far more finely tuned
BS meter.
I had previously predicted the judge might go easy on the jail time
and heavy on community service. Now I'm not so sure. But I think it
likely that the doctor will be attempting to throw lots of money at
the problem - anything to minimize any time behind bars.
I am curious to see whether the doctor now makes any overt statement
of remorse and, if he does, whether it is credible (to either us or
the judge). His lawyers may advise him to do so simply to gain same
leniency from the judge for sentencing. Of course, if he does, he'll
look a bit less than sincere.
And I'm also curious to see if anything happens immediately with the
pending civil suit in which, liability has now been established as a
result of the conviction.
DR
Donald Munro
> I'm 16 miles east of Manhattan on Long Island.
(YABMR) Yet another Bernie Madoff relative.
MagillaGorilla
> http://www.velonews.com/article/99800
I'm glad he was found guilty. I was just trying to give him an
adequate defense in here because that's the kind of monkey I am.
But I will say this...that would never have happened to me because I
don't go around flipping off drivers just because they want to drive
faster than a snail-pace 30 mph down a hill. Only an arrogant Cat. 2
Type A-hole who probably donated to the Fraud Fairness Fund thinks they
own the road and are offended when someone wants to pass them and go to
work. And if I did flip someone off and they drove in front of me, I
would be on the brakes long before they had their foot on the brake
because I would have anticipated they would do something like that once
they acted aggressively. But these two cyclists were as clueless and
arrogant as they were uncoordinated.
The doctor was more wrong though, since he made it physical. But the
cyclists are still douchebags, not to mention have Liz Hatch skills on a
bike. I mean, at least Davis Phinney had his head down and was chasing
when he went through the back of a car windshield.
Magilla
Susan Walker
> On Nov 2, 9:08 pm, Susan Walker wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>> Brad Anders
>>> I'll look you up for that virtual beer next time I'm taking a virtual
>>> tour to...where do you live again?
>> Stuttgart.
>
> Hmmm...do they have good beer there?
I think they might. However, I'm not quite sure PBA the Porsche engineer
is our PBA.
--D-y
Reality check.
Just proof that someone can be a doctor AND a sociopath.
Docs are a dime a dozen. They're no better than anyone else and quite
a number of them are idiots.
So, one sociopath has been taken off the road, for however long that
lasts. And has multiple well-deserved felony convictions that aren't
likely to all (at least) go away on appeal. Society won, big-time. Not
just the faggots in lycra but everyone else who has had to share the
planet with that piece of shit. Especially his patients.
Reality check. Sounds to me like none of the posters in this thread
have ever had to deal with a sociopath-- who have, chief among other
endearing traits, the drive to totally control other human beings.
Their numbers are estimated to be 1 in 24 of the general population.
Many times they are given a "pass" because people are ignorant of what
they're dealing with, and/or they have "important jobs" that "require
being strict and serious".
Sound like any doctors you've dealt with? Cops? Lawyers?
"After committing a felony around age 15, where most often they escape
full legal retribution due to youth, they learn to find situations
(very much incl. "jobs") where their work is admired and rewarded".
Put the SOB in the hole so he can't fuck with anyone while he's in
there and see if he doesn't mellow out a little before he's allowed to
suck free air again. Stop making excuses-- "he probably fixed up
hundreds of cyclists". Jesus Christ!
--D-y
MagillaGorilla
> What's the best beach on Long Island?
Magilla
RicodJour
>
> > What's the best beach on Long Island?
For what? People watching? Celebrity watching beach? Getting
naked? Getting naked and watching your boyfriend blow his new
boyfriend in the sand dunes? Teenager beach? Family beach?
Accessible beach? Best proximity to {fill in the blank}? Ocean
beach? Beach where you can walk out a hundred feet and the water is
up to your knees? Surfing beach?
There are a lot of beaches, so give me something to work with.
R
MagillaGorilla
I love the people who claim to stand for justice and always seem to
endorse rape in prison as a 'good form' of extra punishment when in fact
it's a crime that has nothing to do with the justice or correctional
system's intended purpose of existence.
Ariana Huffington would never sleep with you.
Magilla
RicodJour
>
> I
> endorse rape in prison
> justice
Doesn't surprise me.
R
MagillaGorilla
I'm not sure what he did makes him a sociopath.
Since he did it previously on more than one occasion and nothing happened to
the cyclists (proving that there was more than enough time for a cyclist with
both hands on the handlebar to react), he probably thought that if he braked
again that the same outcome would result (i.e. the cyclists having to brake
hard and get annoyed). Do you really think the guy said, "I hope one of them
goes through the windshield of my $35,000 car and the police end up being
called and my insurance rates get jacked up."
There is no evidence that from age 0-60, that Dr. Thompson engaged in
sociopathic behavior or that he expected this outcome. This incident was
really just him being pissed off at the arrogant jackasses who ride that
road. There is no evidence that he went out driving the training roads of
southern California looking for innocent cyclists to run over.
So save the psycho babble for another time. Just because there's serious
injury, doesn't mean the causation was done by a sociopathic agenda. The
serious injury had to be both predictable and likely in order for that term
to apply, and there is no reason to believe that the doctor thought it would
go down like that. In fact, I believe he thought it would go down quite
differently (i.e. without serious injury). And most of those cyclists are
arrogant jackasses who probably all contributed to the Fraud Fairness Fund
and punch each other in races like the punks they are.
He's still a dick, but the cyclists are also dicks for pissing off all the
residents on that road with their jackass behavior. I bet you they all think
twice before flipping off drivers on that road.
Thanks,
Magilla
Paul B. Anders
He's a Porsche owner, does that count?
Only ex-Porsche engineer I know who posts here is Jobst.
Brad Anders
Tom Kunich
news:0dad715d-bf0f-4fe2...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> You know, I want to amend that statement. There's nothing to be
>> satisfied about here. Two cyclists were injured, one with disfiguring
>> injuries, and skilled ER doctor, who probably fixed up a hundred
>> cyclists who crashed during his career, is looking at prison and has
>> had his career put it tatters by this incident. Nobody is coming out
>> ahead here. This isn't a victory, it's a tragedy.
>
> incident. His being a Doctor should not matter. While there was no
> winner in that case, cyclists in general benefitted that justice was
> served. Read precident. Lastly, I would expect a civil suit to follow.
> It was his pit-bull lawyer and his smug attitude that convicted him.
I'd like to think that it was the evidence that convicted him.
Paul B. Anders
> Stop making excuses-- "he probably fixed up
> hundreds of cyclists". Jesus Christ!
I'm not excusing the doc in any way, just pointing out that as an ER
doc he did a tremendous amount of good for his community - and he
crapped that all away because of his intolerance for others. I don't
agree with labeling him as a sociopath. It's worse. He's just a
regular guy, who got ticked off and decided to meter out his own form
of justice. He's not some freak, he's everyone's neighbor. I hear from
people all the time, people who KNOW I'm a cyclist, tell me how they
can't stand having to deal with cyclists and how much they hate them.
They're not that different from the doc, they just haven't acted on
their desires.
When I encounter people who go off about cyclists, I try to be as
level-headed as possible when I reply to them and tell them that if
they have a problem with cyclists in their area, they need to engage
the police to handle it. If they don't like the fact that cyclists are
legally entitled to use the road, then it's their right to try and get
the laws changed, but it's not their right to impose their will on
cyclists. Does it work? I'd be happy if I even got them to think about
their attitude..
I suspect everyone here who rides regularly has had their encounters
with cars, and personally, I've yelled "FU" at more than one driver.
I've never seen it do any good, and it's stupid behavior. Behaving
like a belligerant prick isn't going to make our situation any better.
As for the doc, I hope his conviction and sentencing is widely
communicated to the driving public, and sticks in the minds of those
who think cyclists are open season on the roads.
Brad Anders
--D-y
> I'm not sure what he did makes him a sociopath.
> Since he did it previously on more than one occasion and nothing happened to
> the cyclists (proving that there was more than enough time for a cyclist with
> both hands on the handlebar to react), he probably thought that if he braked
> again that the same outcome would result (i.e. the cyclists having to brake
> hard and get annoyed). Do you really think the guy said, "I hope one of them
> goes through the windshield of my $35,000 car and the police end up being
> called and my insurance rates get jacked up."
I'll give you the point that we don't know enough to "convict" him of
being a sociopath.
"More than one" of these incidents might prove that he finally went
over the edge when the cyclists "didn't get the message" (as you refer
to below).
>
> There is no evidence that from age 0-60, that Dr. Thompson engaged in
> sociopathic behavior or that he expected this outcome. This incident was
> really just him being pissed off at the arrogant jackasses who ride that
> road. There is no evidence that he went out driving the training roads of
> southern California looking for innocent cyclists to run over.
Didn't "run over". Too overt. I'll give you "no evidence" but that
door swings both ways.
>
> So save the psycho babble for another time.
Not babble, Mr. Baboon. Loose quotes from accredited sources and if I
find the link, I will supply.
Associated with DSM material; you've made me think you've never had to
deal with one of the Unclean, either.
Well, good for you!
> Just because there's serious
> injury, doesn't mean the causation was done by a sociopathic agenda. The
> serious injury had to be both predictable and likely in order for that term
> to apply
Give you the point again, while asking the question: "How many times
could the good doc be expected to pull up short (or participate in
other reckless behavior) in front of a rider or riders, especially on
that road, before something bad happened?"
> and there is no reason to believe that the doctor thought it would
> go down like that. In fact, I believe he thought it would go down quite
> differently (i.e. without serious injury). And most of those cyclists are
> arrogant jackasses who probably all contributed to the Fraud Fairness Fund
> and punch each other in races like the punks they are.
>
> He's still a dick, but the cyclists are also dicks for pissing off all the
> residents on that road with their jackass behavior. I bet you they all think
> twice before flipping off drivers on that road.
Let's see, flipping off compared to having violent threat behavior
directed at you (with deadly weapon employed).
I share your opprobrium of dickhead cyclists. I really really do. No
excuse ("Mommy mommy!! He honked at me!!! baby shits) for rude
behavior and damned little good return can be expected, too. Which
means, "then they go for me when I, a polite (most of the time) and
considerate rider, am out there minding my own business and just
trying to get along".
Maybe we'll find out more as this progresses. And yeah, if the
cyclists are supposed to "learn something" I hope motorists do, too.
Austin just passed (ha ha) a three-foot passing law. I expect more
consideration *and* retribution. Such is life in the human cage.
--D-y
MagillaGorilla
If you think jury verdicts mean anything other than what they obviously
mean, then you also must think that OJ and Robert Blake are innocent. Dr.
Thompson got the same jury pool that decided those two cases. That's a
fact.
Take care,
Magilla
William Asher
> Ariana Huffington would never sleep with you.
For someone who beats on Liz Hatch for being "not hot" you've picked a
somewhat odd object of perceived affection for me.
The problem with the game you play is there are a finite number of issues
with sensible contrarian positions and this isn't one of them. It was all
fun and games for the doc, until he hurt someone. So I find the idea of an
arrogant prick doctor going to bed terrified each night somewhat amusing.
Think he thinks it's a lot of fun now?
Do you think he would agree with you that it was worth it to teach cyclists
a "lesson?"
--
Bill Asher
MagillaGorilla
Like I told you the day before yesterday, I topped off my brake fluid in my
car. That's how I dealt with the whole Dr. Thompson case. As for Ariana, I
never said she was hot. Nor did I say I had any affection for her. You
simply imagined all of that.
You people have an art of putting things into people's mouths that makes a
bathroom in a San Francisco gay bar look demure.
As I told you people numerous times before, I don't think Dr. Thompson meant
to assault the cyclists since he did it at least twice before and nobody
crashed. All that happened was it forced them to brake and slow down. That's
the "lesson" he was trying to teach them. This incident with Michael Jackson
nose and his lamb chops Jason Priestly friend was going to be "lesson" #3.
But instead of it going down the way he imagined, he unknowingly did it to
riders with Liz Hatch and Michael Rasmussen time trial bike handling skills.
Do you actually believe he meant to have one of them go through his back
window of his $35,000 car on the way to work? I bet you when that happened
the doc was like, "Oh shit - what the fuck." If I were a juror, I would have
convicted him on the reckless driving, but not assault with a deadly weapon
because I had reasonable doubt he was trying to even assault them let alone
kill them given that in the two previous incidents, no injuries took place let
alone death.
I honestly believe the jury got it wrong. All that blood and chicklets in
the backseat prejudiced those dumb OJ Simpson pool jurors into thinking that
just because an accident happened, he meant it to go down like that. Those
are two totally different things.
If that happened to me, there would be no case because I know how to use my
brakes...not to mention I don't go around harassing drivers who simply want to
pass me. Look at you fuckin' people...you have no idea how to defend a
nation. All you did was weaken a country today. That's all you did. You put
people in danger.
Sweet dreams, son.
Col. Magilla
Philo
The doctor was a fool to plead innocent here, and he will pay big
time. He had prior incidents of this behavior, documented by the
cops. He called 911, giving incriminating statements. He gave
incriminating statements to the cops on the scene. The cyclists were
not breaking any laws, and had GPS data to document they were
traveling at the speed limit. Any good lawyer would have advised him
to plead no-contest to lesser charges. He'd have avoided most of the
jail sentence and still have a shot at avoiding significant civil
damages (maybe even kept his license?). Now he will lose it all. I
don't think he can turn it around in his sentencing hearing. He won't
receive the maximum sentence as it is his first offense, so I expect
him to get 6 yrs, eligible for parole in 2 yrs.
Hooray for Ron Peterson (a friend, an excellent Cat 1 cyclist and
coach, and man with a very easy-going attitude), and hooray for our
justice system and hooray for us. From the tragedy we have recovered
some small amount of loss.
WTF
"MagillaGorilla" <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
You are a real callous piece of shit, and I would say it to your face. That
being said........ You are just being like Henry and yanking chains here.
Fred Fredburger
Very nice!
Michael Press
<64848634-b14f-457f...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
--D-y <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
Everyone meets them. The trick is to get out quickly;
as soon you notice there is nobody home.
--
Michael Press
Donald Munro
> Only ex-Porsche engineer I know who posts here is Jobst.
Shirley Kunich invented Porsche's.
MagillaGorilla
I believe everything I wrote in that post. Thanks for the high school rebuttal
though. You really made your case and completely disproved everything I
said when
you called me a "piece of shit."
Thanks,
Magilla
Steve Freides
>
> RBR protocol is to put the podium in the subject line.
>
> Thanks.
There is no RBR protocol. Most definitions of protocol include wording
like "correct etiquette" - uh, not here.
-S-
Ryan Cousineau
<9a660707-3040-4c30...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul B. Anders" <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 6:24�pm, "Paul B. Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 4:51�pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.velonews.com/article/99800
> >
> > Oh, and I'd have loved to have seen his smug-ass face when the verdict
> > was read.
> >
> > Brad Anders
>
> You know, I want to amend that statement. There's nothing to be
> satisfied about here. Two cyclists were injured, one with disfiguring
> injuries, and skilled ER doctor, who probably fixed up a hundred
> cyclists who crashed during his career, is looking at prison and has
> had his career put it tatters by this incident. Nobody is coming out
> ahead here. This isn't a victory, it's a tragedy.
>
> Brad Anders
One lunatic (who is also a skilled ER doctor) has very probably pulled
his last extreme-dumbass cyclist-hurting stunt, and will, given the
profile of this case, very likely encourager les autres to think twice,
too.
Morose moments like this are the perfect time to remind yourself of the
purpose of the justice system. Its effects on the indicted are arguably
the least important.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
RicodJour
>
> One lunatic (who is also a skilled ER doctor) has very probably pulled
> his last extreme-dumbass cyclist-hurting stunt, and will, given the
> profile of this case, very likely encourager les autres to think twice,
> too.
>
> Morose moments like this are the perfect time to remind yourself of the
> purpose of the justice system. Its effects on the indicted are arguably
> the least important.
Right. It is the unwise felon who lands themselves in a high-profile
case where the legal system uses it to send a "don't try this at home"
message. Better to quietly plead out.
R
Michael Press
<197012f7-77b4-4871...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
You know who I really feel sorry for?
His attorney. Imagine having a loose cannon
such as Thompson for a client. Sad. So Sad.
--
Michael Press
RicodJour
> > RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2:06 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > One lunatic (who is also a skilled ER doctor) has very probably pulled
> > > his last extreme-dumbass cyclist-hurting stunt, and will, given the
> > > profile of this case, very likely encourager les autres to think twice,
> > > too.
>
> > > Morose moments like this are the perfect time to remind yourself of the
> > > purpose of the justice system. Its effects on the indicted are arguably
> > > the least important.
>
> > Right. It is the unwise felon who lands themselves in a high-profile
> > case where the legal system uses it to send a "don't try this at home"
> > message. Better to quietly plead out.
>
> You know who I really feel sorry for?
> His attorney. Imagine having a loose cannon
> such as Thompson for a client. Sad. So Sad.
Interesting. Here I thought the lawyer was the rube/boob/noob.
SuperLawyer, indeed! Attacking an injured party when you know there
are some horrific accident photos waiting to come out. The guy
watched too many episodes of Boston Legal or some such crap.
R
Ryan Cousineau
<a2591a78-5d5e-47e0...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
Wait, the lawyer is the victim? Do you think the cheque will bounce?
I think when a lawyer mishandles a case, it probably reflects on them
professionally. If they have a hopeless client, or their client doesn't
take their advice (and seriously, how did this not get pled guilty? Was
that the doctor's mistake or the lawyer's?), I don't think their
reputation suffers much.
Howard Kveck
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
That lawyer will still get 1) paid, and 2) work. He'll make out just fine, win or
lose.
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
MagillaGorilla
How much do you want to bet that Dr. Thompson will claim ineffective counsel
on appeal? His attorney was a fucking idiot.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
RicodJour wrote:
How did the lawyer "attack" the injured party?
Magilla
RicodJour
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Here I thought the lawyer was the rube/boob/noob.
> > SuperLawyer, indeed! Attacking an injured party when you know there
> > are some horrific accident photos waiting to come out. The guy
> > watched too many episodes of Boston Legal or some such crap.
>
>
If the witness/victim was seriously injured, there are gorgeous poster
size photos of the injuries, the injured party is a cycling coach,
etc., you don't start impugning riding skill and generally abusing the
victim. There's this thing called empathy - which you should read
about someday - that will jump up from the jury and bite the
SuperLawyer, just like it did in this trial. At the very least a
lawyer should be able to call a couple or three of seven charges into
question and get a not guilty on them.
There are numerous studies that chimps have a well-developed sense of
fair play, and act on it. What do you have? Misguided indignation.
R
z
It happens all the time in divorce and child custody cases.
Howard Kveck
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:46�am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > RicodJour wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting. �Here I thought the lawyer was the rube/boob/noob.
> > > SuperLawyer, indeed! �Attacking an injured party when you know there
> > > are some horrific accident photos waiting to come out. �The guy
> > > watched too many episodes of Boston Legal or some such crap.
> >
> >
> > How did the lawyer "attack" the injured party?
>
> If the witness/victim was seriously injured, there are gorgeous poster
> size photos of the injuries, the injured party is a cycling coach,
> etc., you don't start impugning riding skill and generally abusing the
> victim. There's this thing called empathy - which you should read
> about someday - that will jump up from the jury and bite the
> SuperLawyer, just like it did in this trial.
Well, in general, that's true. However, in rape cases, the defense lawyers
frequently attack the victim. You know - "Look at how she was dressed! She was asking
for it." That kind of thing.
MagillaGorilla
> On Nov 7, 8:46�am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > RicodJour wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting. �Here I thought the lawyer was the rube/boob/noob.
> > > SuperLawyer, indeed! �Attacking an injured party when you know there
> > > are some horrific accident photos waiting to come out. �The guy
> > > watched too many episodes of Boston Legal or some such crap.
> >
> >
> > How did the lawyer "attack" the injured party?
>
> If the witness/victim was seriously injured, there are gorgeous poster
> size photos of the injuries, the injured party is a cycling coach,
> etc., you don't start impugning riding skill and generally abusing the
> victim.
The lawyer was obligated to question whether the rider's actions
contributed or caused the accident. In fact, he didn't go far enough in my
opinion. I would have pointed out that he had crashed earlier (and who's
fault was that?). I would have asked him how come if it takes a car 75
feet to stop from 35 mph, that the GPS speed shows they never slowed down
in that same 75 feet..not even by 2 mph. That's a long time not to even
grab your brake, don't you think?
"You don't attack the victim's skill"...if you're a lawyer and your client
is charged with 6 felonies, you sure as hell better or you're not doing
your job.
> There's this thing called empathy - which you should read
> about someday - that will jump up from the jury and bite the
> SuperLawyer, just like it did in this trial.
That's the problem with you - you confuse empathy with the evidence as do
most jurors. That's why OJ and Robert Blake got off...because stupid
jurors empathized with the celebrity and football player instead of looking
at the evidence.
People like you have turned the entire criminal justice system into a "who
do we like better" forum, which is not what jurors are suppose to do.
Notice how me and Anders are both cyclists and come to the conclusion the
doctor was not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, but you think that
the doctor should be convicted because his lawyer is an asshole and all
sorts of other nonsense that has nothing to do with determining his guilt.
Let me give you a jury instruction that applies to all cases: Nothing a
lawyer says is considered evidence. But here, you seem to be advocating
that because the doc's lawyer is an asshole, that you should convict his
client and are somehow trying to get me to go along with you and learn
something from your completely fucked up understanding of what a jury is
instructed to do under the law.
Guess what - I don't care which attorney is the asshole...that's
irrelevant. The doc's attorney could have done his closing argument in a
fucking clown suit, and it wouldn't have mattered to me.
> At the very least a
> lawyer should be able to call a couple or three of seven charges into
> question and get a not guilty on them.
Not if the juries are fucking idiots. Jurors tend to do whatever the
prosecutor wants (just like everybody in here and the jury out in Calif
did). Only idiots think the justice system is about juries deliberating
about the evidence and coming ot the correct solution. If you asked juries
if the earth was flat, 40% would say it is. That's scary.
Case in point is that everyone in here would have convicted the doctor
except me and Anders. And when queried, your reasons are all wrong: the
doctor's lawyer was an asshole, the cyclists were injured 'real bad, 'and
all sorts of other things that are not relevant to determining his intent
in that moment in time when he brake-checked those two riders.
You people pull the same shit when a U.S. cyclist is accused of
doping...you immediately start to call the lab techs assholes and claim
they are framing Americans because of some "French conspiracy." Then the
female lab techs come into court and say they don't even like cycling, but
you people still go on and on about that shit. You people should listen to
yourself. You sound like fucking children who have been told to put the
expensive toy back on the shelf in a toy store.
>
>
> There are numerous studies that chimps have a well-developed sense of
> fair play, and act on it. What do you have? Misguided indignation.
>
> R
I'm not a zoologist or anything, but my guess is you should have looked up
studies on gorillas, not chimps, no?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
They're not attacking the victim....that is a mischaracterization of why they are doing
it. What they are doing is showing that she was dressed in a way to attract men. This
helps show that the sex was consensual in cases where the defendant does not deny that
sex took place (or DNA evidence proves it did).
In the case of William Kennedy Smith where the woman who voluntarily came back to the
Kennedy compound after a night out of drinking and dancing and claimed rape ...he was
exonerated...Smith's defense attorney Roy Black asked her if she didn't want to have sex
with Smith how come she removed her pantyhose in the car on the ride back to Kennedy's
place. Her response was; "I don't know."
So Black continued his cross: "Do you usually remove your panty hose in people's cars?"
Answer: No.
JURY: NOT GUILTY
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
How was Dr. Thompson a "loose cannon" during the trial? Where you privy to
attorney-client discussions or something?
Magilla
z
You know, I really prefer the original Magilla. This apprentice monkey
really isn't ready to be on his own yet.
RicodJour
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> > How was Dr. Thompson a "loose cannon" during the trial? Where you privy to
> > attorney-client discussions or something?
>
> really isn't ready to be on his own yet.
I think Schwartz got bored with the Kunich bot and is having some
issues tweaking his new creation.
Hey Schwartz! The thing sucks. It can't keep track of its own spiel,
it reverses position, uses terminology loosely, trolls are for shit -
seriously, not your best effort.
Wait a minute...is it possible...? Could it be...? Did Schwartz bot
himself and the Schwartz bot bot-ched the Girla bot? I don't think
there's any doubt a-bot it!
I take it back - nice work, dude!
R
Bob Schwartz
I'm just glad he's abandoned the helmet thread for the gun thread.
Is that acceptable? I think it is.
Bob Schwartz
Paul B. Anders
> Case in point is that everyone in here would have convicted the doctor
> except me and Anders.
I don't think the doc intended to injure the cyclists, I think he
fucked up. On any of the charges against him depended on intent, I
wouldn't have convicted him. On any charge that hinged on reckless
behavior and negligence, I'd have a different opinion.
IMO, the whole thing was totally avoidable by both sides of the case.
I've never had the slightest problem driving around individual
cyclists or group rides in CA or AZ. My maximum delay by any cyclist
or group of cyclists could be measured in the tens of seconds. The doc
was a hothead asshole and an incompetent driver if he couldn't have
passed those guys without a problem, he's just an intolerant prick.
The cyclists are just like the rest of us, they've encountered
zillions of drivers, they know what to do when yelled at, just blow it
off and get out of the way. Escalating it did them no good,
obviously.
Debating this ad nauseum won't change anything. It reinforced to me to
when I get pissed off on the bike or in my car, I need to calm down
and think about what I'm about to do.
Brad Anders
DirtRoadie
> I don't think the doc intended to injure the cyclists, I think he
> fucked up. On any of the charges against him depended on intent, I
> wouldn't have convicted him. On any charge that hinged on reckless
> behavior and negligence, I'd have a different opinion.
Actually, the two are not far apart under California Law.
As I posted elsewhere, the California Supreme Court addressed the
issue (referring to assault with a deadly weapon) as follows:
"The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully
committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result
in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must
intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious
consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to
inflict a particular harm_"
People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908
(Cal. 1994)
> IMO, the whole thing was totally avoidable by both sides of the case.
> I've never had the slightest problem driving around individual
> cyclists or group rides in CA or AZ. My maximum delay by any cyclist
> or group of cyclists could be measured in the tens of seconds. The doc
> was a hothead asshole and an incompetent driver if he couldn't have
> passed those guys without a problem, he's just an intolerant prick.
> The cyclists are just like the rest of us, they've encountered
> zillions of drivers, they know what to do when yelled at, just blow it
> off and get out of the way. Escalating it did them no good,
> obviously.
>
> Debating this ad nauseum won't change anything.
Nope, the Doc IS a presently convicted felon,
> It reinforced to me to
> when I get pissed off on the bike or in my car, I need to calm down
> and think about what I'm about to do.
Ah yes, but isn't that true for much human behavior -yours and
everyone else's?
DR
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <197012f7-77b4-4871...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 6, 2:06Â am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One lunatic (who is also a skilled ER doctor) has very probably pulled
> > > > his last extreme-dumbass cyclist-hurting stunt, and will, given the
> > > > profile of this case, very likely encourager les autres to think twice,
> > > > too.
> > > >
> > > > Morose moments like this are the perfect time to remind yourself of the
> > > > purpose of the justice system. Its effects on the indicted are arguably
> > > > the least important.
> > >
> > > Right. It is the unwise felon who lands themselves in a high-profile
> > > case where the legal system uses it to send a "don't try this at home"
> > > message. Better to quietly plead out.
> >
> > You know who I really feel sorry for?
> > His attorney. Imagine having a loose cannon
> > such as Thompson for a client. Sad. So Sad.
>
> How much do you want to bet that Dr. Thompson will claim ineffective counsel
> on appeal? His attorney was a fucking idiot.
Attorney has an air-tight defense: client is a convicted felon.
--
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla
> On Nov 7, 5:25�pm, "Paul B. Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think the doc intended to injure the cyclists, I think he
> > fucked up. On any of the charges against him depended on intent, I
> > wouldn't have convicted him. On any charge that hinged on reckless
> > behavior and negligence, I'd have a different opinion.
>
> Actually, the two are not far apart under California Law.
> As I posted elsewhere, the California Supreme Court addressed the
> issue (referring to assault with a deadly weapon) as follows:
> "The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully
> committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result
> in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must
> intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious
> consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to
> inflict a particular harm_"
> People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908
> (Cal. 1994)
I don't think brake-checking two "experienced" cyclists should cause them
to slam into the back of a car...especially when Dr. T did it 2 prior times
and it resulted in no injury. The jury should have concluded that Dr. T's
conduct was not likely to cause injuries....just to harass them and teach
them a lesson to ride single file. There's no way he intended to hurt
them. That crash part was an accident. The doctor didn't judge the risks
correctly but nevertheless he didn't think injury was likely.
For all we know the Dr. could have brake checked DOZENS of cyclists (all of
hich resulted in no injury). This was probably going toeb brake-check
incident #38.
>
>
> > IMO, the whole thing was totally avoidable by both sides of the case.
> > I've never had the slightest problem driving around individual
> > cyclists or group rides in CA or AZ. My maximum delay by any cyclist
> > or group of cyclists could be measured in the tens of seconds. The doc
> > was a hothead asshole and an incompetent driver if he couldn't have
> > passed those guys without a problem, he's just an intolerant prick.
> > The cyclists are just like the rest of us, they've encountered
> > zillions of drivers, they know what to do when yelled at, just blow it
> > off and get out of the way. Escalating it did them no good,
> > obviously.
> >
> > Debating this ad nauseum won't change anything.
> Nope, the Doc IS a presently convicted felon,
>
> > It reinforced to me to
> > when I get pissed off on the bike or in my car, I need to calm down
> > and think about what I'm about to do.
>
> Ah yes, but isn't that true for much human behavior -yours and
> everyone else's?
> DR
I learned from the Dr. T incident that cyclists are real assholes and they
still need to be taught lessons out on the road.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
How about we merge the two threads and shoot a fucking helmet at the gun range and
post it on YouTube?
Magilla
RicodJour
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > RicodJour wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 2:00 pm, z <N...@not.ca> wrote:
> > >> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> > >>> How was Dr. Thompson a "loose cannon" during the trial? Where you privy to
> > >>> attorney-client discussions or something?
>
> > >> You know, I really prefer the original Magilla. This apprentice monkey
> > >> really isn't ready to be on his own yet.
>
> > > I think Schwartz got bored with the Kunich bot and is having some
> > > issues tweaking his new creation.
>
> > > Hey Schwartz! The thing sucks. It can't keep track of its own spiel,
> > > it reverses position, uses terminology loosely, trolls are for shit -
> > > seriously, not your best effort.
>
> > > Wait a minute...is it possible...? Could it be...? Did Schwartz bot
> > > himself and the Schwartz bot bot-ched the Girla bot? I don't think
> > > there's any doubt a-bot it!
>
> > > I take it back - nice work, dude!
>
>
> > Is that acceptable? I think it is.
>
>
> post it on YouTube?
All for it, Skippy, if you're wearing the helmet.
R
--D-y
> > > I don't think the doc intended to injure the cyclists, I think he
> > > fucked up. On any of the charges against him depended on intent, I
> > > wouldn't have convicted him. On any charge that hinged on reckless
> > > behavior and negligence, I'd have a different opinion.
Didja really read the passage below, Magilla?
(sorry, skipping attribution here):
> > Actually, the two are not far apart under California Law.
> > As I posted elsewhere, the California Supreme Court addressed the
> > issue (referring to assault with a deadly weapon) as follows:
> > "The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully
> > committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result
> > in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must
> > intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious
> > consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to
> > inflict a particular harm_"
> > People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908
> > (Cal. 1994)
> For all we know the Dr. could have brake checked DOZENS of cyclists (all of
> hich resulted in no injury). This was probably going toeb brake-check
> incident #38.
An ongoing antisocial behavior is a positive?
> I learned from the Dr. T incident that cyclists are real assholes and they
> still need to be taught lessons out on the road.
I'd imagine the jury considered Dr. Thompson's total lack of any
authority whatsoever to be "teaching lessons" out in public.
I'd guess that figured heavily in their decision, and I wouldn't be at
all surprised if the judge or prosecutor had words with the jury on
this subject.
Again, I see a fair amount of bad behavior by cyclists, esp. the
blocking the road thing. Done with strength of numbers and
deliberately, a baby-shit way of "getting back at drivers".
Pisses me off, but vigilanteism will get you in trouble. (Obviously)
ask Dr. T.
Looking forward to the sentencing. And the civil trial, which, again,
I hope no one succeeds in talking the cyclists out of.
BTW, I've been under the weather a little here recently, not riding
much at all, but on a few excursions, I've only been passed fairly
closely once in reaction to the new 3-foot passing law here in Austin.
Put it down to the Lance Effect, I guess. --D-y
Tom Kunich
news:cb6a3fc8-f920-4096...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Again, I see a fair amount of bad behavior by cyclists, esp. the
> blocking the road thing. Done with strength of numbers and
> deliberately, a baby-shit way of "getting back at drivers".
> Pisses me off, but vigilanteism will get you in trouble. (Obviously)
> ask Dr. T.
Let's AGAIN repeat that in THIS CASE the bicyclists were taking up the road
because it was a downhill, they were doing a minimum of the speed limit at
that point and it was a narrow road where passing wasn't safe.
> Looking forward to the sentencing. And the civil trial, which, again,
> I hope no one succeeds in talking the cyclists out of.
I'm hoping that our friend here, ManasasParnasus, shoots his mouth off at
the local coffee shop about pushing bicyclists off the road with his car. In
the group I ride with are three cops, a fireman and a retired NCI agent.
We've been places where idiots at adjacent tables have been talking about
scaring cyclists. Luckily they never tried it with us.
> BTW, I've been under the weather a little here recently, not riding
> much at all, but on a few excursions, I've only been passed fairly
> closely once in reaction to the new 3-foot passing law here in Austin.
> Put it down to the Lance Effect, I guess.
Every time someone like that dope down in southern California gets his just
deserts the drivers all drive very politely around us until the memory
weakens. Though I've got to say that aside from that fireman everyone else
rides very politely around cars.
MagillaGorilla
> On Nov 9, 2:36�pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think the doc intended to injure the cyclists, I think he
> > > > fucked up. On any of the charges against him depended on intent, I
> > > > wouldn't have convicted him. On any charge that hinged on reckless
> > > > behavior and negligence, I'd have a different opinion.
>
> Didja really read the passage below, Magilla?
> (sorry, skipping attribution here):
> > > Actually, the two are not far apart under California Law.
> > > As I posted elsewhere, the California Supreme Court addressed the
> > > issue (referring to assault with a deadly weapon) as follows:
> > > "The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully
> > > committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result
> > > in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must
> > > intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious
> > > consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to
> > > inflict a particular harm_"
> > > People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908
> > > (Cal. 1994)
>
> > For all we know the Dr. could have brake checked DOZENS of cyclists (all of
> > hich resulted in no injury). �This was probably going toeb brake-check
> > incident #38.
>
> An ongoing antisocial behavior is a positive?
Yes, because he was not charged with "anti-social beahvior." He was charged
with assault with a deadly weapon. And if in all those previous incdients of
IDENTICAL conduct resulted in no injury, he clearly had a genuine reason to
believe this final incident would result in a similar outcome. In fact, it's
almost bizarre to think he meant to assault them when that outcome had never
been reached before in identical incidents. It's certainly good enough for
reasonable doubt.
If he truly wanted to hit them with his car, why not just run them over from
behind?
>
>
> > I learned from the Dr. T incident that cyclists are real assholes and they
> > still need to be taught lessons out on the road.
>
> I'd imagine the jury considered Dr. Thompson's total lack of any
> authority whatsoever to be "teaching lessons" out in public.
> I'd guess that figured heavily in their decision, and I wouldn't be at
> all surprised if the judge or prosecutor had words with the jury on
> this subject.
Fuck the jury.
>
> Again, I see a fair amount of bad behavior by cyclists, esp. the
> blocking the road thing. Done with strength of numbers and
> deliberately, a baby-shit way of "getting back at drivers".
> Pisses me off, but vigilanteism will get you in trouble. (Obviously)
> ask Dr. T.
>
> Looking forward to the sentencing. And the civil trial, which, again,
> I hope no one succeeds in talking the cyclists out of.
>
> BTW, I've been under the weather a little here recently, not riding
> much at all, but on a few excursions, I've only been passed fairly
> closely once in reaction to the new 3-foot passing law here in Austin.
> Put it down to the Lance Effect, I guess. --D-y
Lance lives in Aspen.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Tom Kunich wrote:
It's spelled desserts, jagoff. Tell your lemon club buddies at the coffee
house that I'll kick their ass any day of the week and twice on weekends.
Magilla
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>> Every time someone like that dope down in southern California gets his just
>> deserts the drivers all drive very politely around us until the memory
>> weakens. Though I've got to say that aside from that fireman everyone else
>> rides very politely around cars.
>
>It's spelled desserts, jagoff. Tell your lemon club buddies at the coffee
>house that I'll kick their ass any day of the week and twice on weekends.
>
>Magilla
>
Not really. or at least not necessarily. Most of the more scholarly
appearing cites/sites reflect something along this:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html
-Curtis Russell
Tom Kunich
news:cjjjf51e3ipqeh7sf...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:35:54 -0500, MagillaGorilla
> <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Every time someone like that dope down in southern California gets his
>>> just
>>> deserts the drivers all drive very politely around us until the memory
>>> weakens. Though I've got to say that aside from that fireman everyone
>>> else
>>> rides very politely around cars.
>>
>>It's spelled desserts, jagoff. Tell your lemon club buddies at the
>>coffee
>>house that I'll kick their ass any day of the week and twice on weekends.
>
> appearing cites/sites reflect something along this:
>
> http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html
My question is this - originally the guy signing on as MagillaGorilla was
obviously an educated person. This poster seems a couple of quarts shy of a
pint. So what happened to the original?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Not really. or at least not necessarily. Most of the more scholarly
>> appearing cites/sites reflect something along this:
>>
>> http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html
>
>My question is this - originally the guy signing on as MagillaGorilla was
>obviously an educated person. This poster seems a couple of quarts shy of a
>pint. So what happened to the original?
Defective bot with tendencies to rotate around a single point too
long. Maybe the original starts his threads now, but doesn't check
back on the bot later.
I'm not really all that up on the latest bot technology and whether
they are susceptible to viruses or anything...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
MagillaGorilla
It's just DESSERTS...not desert. A desert is an arid place with lots of sand.
That saying makes no fucking sense if you're talking about a desert with cacti.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
I love how Tom just sides with anyone who posts in disagreement with me. Like
there's really serious debate with this saying.
Type in "just desert" in Google and the first link will be "Did you mean: just
desserts"
That's Google's way of telling you you're a fucking dumbass.
Magilla
William Asher
>
> Type in "just desert" in Google and the first link will be "Did you
> mean: just desserts"
>
> That's Google's way of telling you you're a fucking dumbass.
If you're in a hole, stop digging.
http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/deserts.asp
--
Bill Asher
Susan Walker
RicodJour
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> > Type in "just desert" in Google and the first link will be "Did you
> > mean: just desserts"
>
> > That's Google's way of telling you you're a fucking dumbass.
>
> If you're in a hole, stop digging.
He can't. The OCD kicks in and he just has to prove he's right, even
when there's overwhelming, cited evidence against him. Luckily at
some point in the thread he'll lose track of his own bullshit and
switch sides, or say that's what he was saying all along. That's the
real Secret of Nim(h) - being a waffle that goes off half-baked.*
R
* Jim Breuer's legacy movie.
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
Thompson admitted intent. Intent proven.
Now reread the decision in People v. Colantuono.
> If he truly wanted to hit them with his car, why not just run them over from
> behind?
That is attempted murder.
First degree murder if he kills someone.
--
Michael Press
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>It's just DESSERTS...not desert. A desert is an arid place with lots of sand.
>That saying makes no fucking sense if you're talking about a desert with cacti.
>
>What the fuck is wrong with you people?
>
>Magilla
We speak English? We know that the simple answer is not always the
correct answer? We had a professor or two in college that didn't let
us just use what we thought was logical by our figuring and actually
held us to a minimum level of research? That our grandad once or twice
said to us, "What the Hell makes you think you're so damned smart and
every one else is wrong?"
The latter is often when he taught me the way to say and spell
"pissant", or piss ant, if you will. Its one word in Kansas.
Donald Munro
> The latter is often when he taught me the way to say and spell
> "pissant", or piss ant, if you will. Its one word in Kansas.
Bur are Kansas sheep easy ?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
Saw a whole lot of cattle in Kansas, but never a sheep that I
remember. Then, I never went out looking for one on a Friday night.
Ryan Cousineau
<ec7a2b4c-3237-4033...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
I believe the appropriate animated clip is this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14T5wzicqw
As a bonus, it should contribute to the firearms debate.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
MagillaGorilla
Okay, I was wrong.
Magilla
Fred Fredburger
Educational AND entertaining!
RicodJour
Holy shit. I just felt the Earth lurch*!
R
* Best ever butler on a TV series.
Fred Fredburger
You must have missed this episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT57_maiAK0&feature=related
Skip to about 4:45 for the relevant part.