Dr. Thompson I presume
Anton Berlin
RicodJour
> In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.
>
> http://velonews.com/article/99513
http://velonews.com/article/99685/la-road-rage-trial-closing-arguments-wrap-up
I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily
basis.
R
DirtRoadie
> On Oct 30, 8:28 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.
>
> >http://velonews.com/article/99513
>
>
> I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily
> basis.
It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the
reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same
impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs.
I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a
paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it
quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but
innocent and could easily end up being deadly.
DR
MagillaGorilla
The cyclists deserved what they got.
First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? A bike can
stop faster than a car.
Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride
2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes
you.
If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your
fault. I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different.
Thanks,
Magilla
Paul B. Anders
> First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? A bike can
> stop faster than a car.
Wrong.
Brad Anders
MagillaGorilla
A bike can stop quicker. However, these guys obviously weren't talented enough
and didn't have the reactions to do it. They were evidently too busy acting
arrogant and flipping off a law-abiding driver who wanted to go to work.
And they kissed the back of the car because they were not in control of their
bikes. I bet you they won't be giving the finger to drivers in the
future...especially that smart-ass with the dead nose.
You SoCal riders got a little beatdown that day. And there's more where that
came from unless you start riding single file.
Thanks,
Magilla
RicodJour
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 7:18 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 30, 8:28 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.
>
> > > >http://velonews.com/article/99513
>
> > >http://velonews.com/article/99685/la-road-rage-trial-closing-argument...
>
> > > I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily
> > > basis.
>
> > It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the
> > reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same
> > impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs.
>
> > I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a
> > paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it
> > quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but
> > innocent and could easily end up being deadly.
>
>
> First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? A bike can
> stop faster than a car.
Where exactly does reaction time enter into your non-existent math
skills analysis? Does expectation play any part in reaction time?
> Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride
> 2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes
> you.
>
> If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your
> fault. I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different.
You don't see many things. Do you agree with the assessment of the
defense douchebag that a bike is inherently stable (at any speed (with
apologies to Ralph "Magilla is a twit" Nader)?
If you weren't so cuddly I'd call you a twit, and Nader already did.
R
Tom Kunich
news:016bdef6-43d1-4055...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
He demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge of the stopping power
of a bike. And for those others who aren't aware and don't want to look like
the fool that MG is - a bicycle can stop roughly half as fast as an
automobile because if you stop faster than about a half gee you roll over
the front wheel. A bicycle's center of gravity is too high for rapid stops.
MagillaGorilla
> On Oct 31, 2:30�pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > DirtRoadie wrote:
> > > On Oct 30, 7:18�pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 30, 8:28�pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.
> >
> > > > >http://velonews.com/article/99513
> >
> > > >http://velonews.com/article/99685/la-road-rage-trial-closing-argument...
> >
> > > > I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily
> > > > basis.
> >
> > > It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the
> > > reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same
> > > impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs.
> >
> > > I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a
> > > paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it
> > > quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but
> > > innocent and could easily end up being deadly.
> >
> > The cyclists deserved what they got.
> >
> > First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? �A bike can
> > stop faster than a car.
>
> Where exactly does reaction time enter into your non-existent math
> skills analysis? Does expectation play any part in reaction time?
Of course it does. The person behind is always suppose to expect it. It's
called being attentive.
>
>
> > Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride
> > 2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes
> > you.
> >
> > If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your
> > fault. �I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different.
>
> You don't see many things. Do you agree with the assessment of the
> defense douchebag that a bike is inherently stable (at any speed (with
> apologies to Ralph "Magilla is a twit" Nader)?
Yes, I agree that a bike is stable.
Thanks,
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your
> fault. I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different.
I'll have to remember that. So that I can pull in front of somebody,
slam on my brakes and then collect big bucks from their insurance
company when they hit me. I'll tell them its the "Magilla Rule." No
exceptions, and recognized in most jurisdictions right?
C'mon, your trolling skills are weak if not non-existent.
Let's see what the jury says.
DR
bjwe...@gmail.com
Trollboy,
I know you're just looking for love and attention,
but don't be ridiculous. There's a presumption, when
driving or cycling on the road, that other people aren't
going to deliberately try to cause an accident or hurt you.
This presumption is the only thing that makes roads
usable for either cars or bikes. "Defensive driving"
means watching out for other people's screw-ups,
not defending yourself against someone who tries to
cause accidents, because there really is very little
you can do about that.
In particular, because everyone including drivers follows
at closer than the real safe stopping distance, it is
possible to cut someone off. The presumption that
the driver who rear-ends someone is at fault goes
out the window (or through the window, in this case)
when the leading driver deliberately tries to cause
the accident.
In your crusade against idiots, you should be against
Dr. Thompson. Why? He confessed to the crime.
If he had told the traffic investigator he'd done nothing
wrong, rather than bragging about teaching them a
lesson, he might have got away with it.
Ben
MagillaGorilla
The cyclists should have followed at a safe distance and maintained control
of their bicycles. They did neither. They also should have expected the
driver would stop after flipping him off and calling him names simply because
he wanted to pass them.
That fella who has the dead nose.....that's his fault. He wanted to start a
fight and that's exactly what happened. I bet you he won't be obstructing
traffic, flipping off drivers, and saying "Fuck you" anymore.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
wrote:
> He confessed to the crime.
> If he had told the traffic investigator he'd done nothing
> wrong, rather than bragging about teaching them a
> lesson, he might have got away with it.
Well we don't actually know yet whether he will get away with it.
Let's hope the jury has at least a bit of common sense.
DR
Bob Schwartz
> Yes, I agree that a bike is stable.
No, they behave unpredictably in velodrome corners.
Bob Schwartz
MagillaGorilla
I agree, but not after blocking, and then antagonizing with profanity and
gestures. At that point, you're provoking a reaction. You're looking for a
fight. And they found one. And they lost. In this case, the one guy lost his
nose.
>
> This presumption is the only thing that makes roads
> usable for either cars or bikes. "Defensive driving"
> means watching out for other people's screw-ups,
> not defending yourself against someone who tries to
> cause accidents, because there really is very little
> you can do about that.
The cyclists intentionally blocked this guy by riding 2-abreast, by going slow
(30 mph downhill is slow for a car). And then when this guy simply wanted to
pass, they flipped him off and used the F-word. The doctor got pissed and
jammed on his brakes. He probably thought he would cause them to brake hard and
lose their momentum. It's very unlikely he expected them to go through his rear
window given that it never happened before.
If you blocked me, flipped me off, and then gave em the finger, I'd do the same
thing. You SoCal guys got a beat down that day. It was long overdue.
>
> In particular, because everyone including drivers follows
> at closer than the real safe stopping distance, it is
> possible to cut someone off. The presumption that
> the driver who rear-ends someone is at fault goes
> out the window (or through the window, in this case)
> when the leading driver deliberately tries to cause
> the accident.
>
> In your crusade against idiots, you should be against
> Dr. Thompson. Why? He confessed to the crime.
> If he had told the traffic investigator he'd done nothing
> wrong, rather than bragging about teaching them a
> lesson, he might have got away with it.
>
> Ben
I am entitled to not believe the testimony of the investigator. I have a right
to believe that Dr. Thompson didn't say that. You have no right to tell me that
I must believe the investigator. Most cops are corrupt and have no credibility
anyway, especially Calif. cops. Also, most cyclists are known liars such as
Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton. I would ask these SoCal cyclists if they
donated to the Fraud Fairness Fund to see if they had any credibility. I bet you
they did.
I would also like to start a defense fund for Dr. Thompson called the Doctor
Fairness Fund.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
I'm gonna clean everyone's clock in here in this thread, just like I did
in the van Impe thread and others. I'm the only chimp in here capable
of taking on you riff-raff cyclists. I got the guts to do it. I don't
even want any supporters or help.
I'm like Prefontaine...a front runner. I don't take my cue from any of
you slackers. I run my own race.
Everyone else in here is a pussy...a bunch of lemmings who seek safety
in numbers.
Not this grape ape,
Premagilla
Tom Kunich
news:92382a0f-e4b5-4f94...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
What's strange is that originally I'd understood the Chimp to be educated.
But the guy writing this stuff doesn't appear to have even high school
driving class nor high school physics.
Tom Kunich
news:f8ec0be5-3592-4290...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> In particular, because everyone including drivers follows
> at closer than the real safe stopping distance, it is
> possible to cut someone off. The presumption that
> the driver who rear-ends someone is at fault goes
> out the window (or through the window, in this case)
> when the leading driver deliberately tries to cause
> the accident.
Hmm, consider this - when a vehicle PASSES he is required to pull back in at
a safe distance. It would also be assumed that a car would be significantly
faster than a line of bicyclists.
So Mongozilla or whatever his name is doesn't seem to have noticed that the
good doctor in his car assaulted the line of cyclists with a deadly weapon.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maggie is trying to incite the natives.
Fred Fredburger
I might also add that the amount of rubber making contact with the road
on a bicycle is miniscule compared to a car, that's where all the
stopping power is. Friction is dependent on the size of the contact patch.
On the other hand, I've never rear ended a car. That's an interesting
enough trick that I wouldn't draw any conclusions based upon the limited
information I've seen so far. Emotionally, I'd like to see them lock the
driver up and throw away the key. That's not necessarily justice, however.
Fred Fredburger
> The cyclists intentionally blocked this guy by riding 2-abreast, by going slow
> (30 mph downhill is slow for a car). And then when this guy simply wanted to
> pass, they flipped him off and used the F-word. The doctor got pissed and
> jammed on his brakes. He probably thought he would cause them to brake hard and
> lose their momentum. It's very unlikely he expected them to go through his rear
> window given that it never happened before.
>
> If you blocked me, flipped me off, and then gave em the finger, I'd do the same
> thing. You SoCal guys got a beat down that day. It was long overdue.
>
The old "beat down" defense. Also known as the "but they PISSED ME OFF"
defense. Yeah, that'll win the jury over.
marco
> That fella who has the dead nose....... I bet you he won't be obstructing
> traffic, flipping off drivers, and saying "Fuck you" anymore.
Actually, he probably will keep saying it, only now it will sound more like
"Funk nyu"
Ron Peterson is a good guy, and this shouldn't have happened to him. If the
car passes, swerves in front, and slams on its brakes, how can you follow at
a safe distance? Dr. Thompson is has anger-management issues and needs
psychological help.
DirtRoadie
noted.
"They called me names and were blocking MY road - I was ENTITLED to
try to kill them."
One account has already described how the jury was half asleep as the
defense "expert" discounted the eyewitness testimony, simply because
it WAS eyewitness testimony. "Trust me - I'm an expert. You can't
believe anyone."
Anton Berlin
PreMaggie if you're really like Prefontaine why don't you die a
Premature death? Because we all know you have yet to reach maturity.
DirtRoadie
> Maggie is trying to incite the natives.
If he's going to argue with you he must take up a contrary position
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y @~2:18
DR
Tom Kunich
>
> "They called me names and were blocking MY road - I was ENTITLED to
> try to kill them."
Which is what MonasticSucker thinks is perfectly logical.
> One account has already described how the jury was half asleep as the
> defense "expert" discounted the eyewitness testimony, simply because
> it WAS eyewitness testimony. "Trust me - I'm an expert. You can't
> believe anyone."
>
> Let's see what the jury says.
Indeed. But let's remember that MorganMonkey thinks that bicycles can stop
faster than cars. I find it impossible to believe that he rides.
z
WTF is a MorganMonkey?
MagillaGorilla
These guys rear-ended the car because instead of keeping their fingers on the
brake levers and expecting this guy they just harassed to stop, they were off
the bars flipping off the driver and verbally harassing someone who just
wanted to go to work. Personally, I thought that was a nice move by the
doctor. He's entitled to stop his car on the road.
I bet you that guy with the Michael Jackson nose thinks twice before blocking
cars and flipping them off.
Please donate to the Doctor Thompson Fairness Fund.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Only if you name a velodrome after me willl I do that.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Ron Peterson got a nose job by the resident Dr. Windshield because he was a
smart aleck that day. It's just like that guy who wrote into Velonews
said...he goes to innocently pass cyclists to go on his way, and the next thing
you know he's being verbally assaulted and flipped off by some arrogant
cyclists.
http://velonews.com/article/99687/mailbag-velonewscom-readers-debate-way-to-curtail-future
If you flip me off when I'm driving my car, I'll give you some ABS disc brake
action too. Peterson got a little street justice that day. Now he has a
Michael Jackson nose for the rest of his life....
Magilla
---
I Said You Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'
You Got To Be Startin' Somethin'
I Said You Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'
You Got To Be Startin' Somethin'
It's Too High To Get Over (Yeah, Yeah)
Too Low To Get Under (Yeah, Yeah)
You're Stuck In The Windshield (Yeah, Yeah)
And The Pain Is Thunder (Yeah, Yeah)
It's Too High To Get Over (Yeah, Yeah)
Too Low To Get Under (Yeah, Yeah)
You're Stuck In The Windshield (Yeah, Yeah)
And The Pain Is Thunder (Yeah, Yeah)
I Took My Baby To The Doctor
With A Fever, But Nothing He Found
By The Time This Hit The Street
They Said She Had A Breakdown
Someone's Always Tryin' To Start My Baby Cryin'
Talkin', Squealin', Lyin'
Sayin' You Just Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'
MagillaGorilla
Peterson has a Michael Jackson nose because he was acting like a punk. No matter
what the jury does, he'll always have that Michael Jackson nose to remind him not act
like a punk on group rides.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
According to the Innocence Project, counselor, eyewitness testimony is some of the
most unreliable testimony there is in the justice system.
Take care,
Magilla
P.S. As soon as I'm done watching the NYC marathon, I'm gonna go in my garage and top
off my brake fluid reservoir in my car.
MagillaGorilla
Only if I'm riding the bike can it stop faster. If someone like you or Ron
"the shaft" Perterson were riding it, you guys are slow-reaction spazzes who
would kiss the glass.
I have more respect for the two other guys...that guy that avoided the car
and bunny hopped the curve. That's how a pro would handle it. Peterson
handled it with Liz Hatch-like bike handling skills. Now he has a Michael
Jackson nose.
Magilla
William R. Mattil
>
> I agree, but not after blocking, and then antagonizing with profanity and
> gestures. At that point, you're provoking a reaction. You're looking for a
> fight. And they found one. And they lost. In this case, the one guy lost his
> nose.
>
Hey Furball,
Shouting Obscenities or flipping someone off does not justify the use of
"deadly force". And Calif State Law considers a vehicle to be a weapon
when used in such a manner.
You skip common sense classes there at the Zoo ?
>
> The cyclists intentionally blocked this guy by riding 2-abreast, by going slow
> (30 mph downhill is slow for a car).
>
Not Proven ...... Absolutely *not* proven. And the speed limit on that
stretch of road is the speed that the cyclists were traveling.
> And then when this guy simply wanted to
> pass, they flipped him off and used the F-word. The doctor got pissed and
> jammed on his brakes.
No you Moronic Monkey. He swerved in front of them, then jammed on his
brakes. Had he not been in front of them we wouldn't be in the trouble
he is in.
> He probably thought he would cause them to brake hard and
> lose their momentum. It's very unlikely he expected them to go through his rear
> window given that it never happened before.
>
I think that most of us would agree that you seem to know very well what
was going through his mind since you and he possess such similar Simian
attitudes.
Now leave this thread. I am tired of your drivel.
You're Welcome
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
DirtRoadie
> According to the Innocence Project, counselor, eyewitness testimony is some of the
> most unreliable testimony there is in the justice system.
Yep, and 911 recordings are notoriously inaccurate, too.
http://www.velonews.com/article/99475
It couldn't possibly be that he actually "slammed on" his brakes and
admitted it, could it? And of course the cop on the scene is
unreliable, he merely "heard what he wanted to hear," probably WAY too
emotionally involved.
I'm sure the jury will conclude that the doc was just slowing so that
he could have a pleasant chat with the cyclists about the weather.
When he really meant to say was that he "wanted to get even," since he
knew it was unfair to be driving "ahead" of them so he slammed on his
brakes to drop back "even" with them as quickly as possible. He's such
a fair-minded kinda' guy.
I suspect that what will happen is that the jury will throw the book
at him but the judge will back away a bit and impose minimal jail time
but a heap of community service or similar sanction. In any case it
will leave the doctor without a viable defense in any subsequent civil
lawsuit.
I hope the cyclists take him to the cleaners.
DR
DirtRoadie
> The cyclists intentionally blocked this guy by riding 2-abreast, by going slow
> (30 mph downhill is slow for a car).
Good point, but it was the speed limit.
That's obviously why the doctor slowed so suddenly - he realized that
he was breaking the law and he slowed as quickly as possible so as to
not be driving illegally.
What a guy! An absolute saint and model citizen!
DR
Fred Fredburger
> marco wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>> That fella who has the dead nose....... I bet you he won't be obstructing
>>> traffic, flipping off drivers, and saying "Fuck you" anymore.
>> Actually, he probably will keep saying it, only now it will sound more like
>> "Funk nyu"
>>
>> Ron Peterson is a good guy, and this shouldn't have happened to him. If the
>> car passes, swerves in front, and slams on its brakes, how can you follow at
>> a safe distance? Dr. Thompson is has anger-management issues and needs
>> psychological help.
>
> Ron Peterson got a nose job by the resident Dr. Windshield because he was a
> smart aleck that day. It's just like that guy who wrote into Velonews
> said...he goes to innocently pass cyclists to go on his way, and the next thing
> you know he's being verbally assaulted and flipped off by some arrogant
> cyclists.
>
> http://velonews.com/article/99687/mailbag-velonewscom-readers-debate-way-to-curtail-future
>
How about that. It's a letter to VeloNews with an actual point.
Anton Berlin
Perhaps the Dr becomes aroused from being behind cyclists and to keep
his sexual preversions at bay he must pass them and stay in front.
Just like Eddy?
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
California Vehicle Code
21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another
vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction
shall pass to the left at a safe distance without
interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken
vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and
exceptions hereinafter stated.
22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the
speed of a vehicle on a highway without first giving an
appropriate signal in the manner provided in this
chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the
rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
Do you meet verbal abuse with physical assault?
Do you throw the first punch?
--
Michael Press
RicodJour
> In article MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree, but not after blocking, and then antagonizing with profanity and
> > gestures. At that point, you're provoking a reaction. You're looking for a
> > fight. And they found one. And they lost. In this case, the one guy lost his
> > nose.
>
> Do you meet verbal abuse with physical assault?
> Do you throw the first punch?
No, he throws his feces from the safety of the trees.
Perhaps we're being too hard on the boy. He has shown wit and a
modicum of intelligence when the meds are taken, but he's out on a
limb at the moment, and he knows it. It's hard to pretend you have
something intelligent, funny or even outrageous to say when it is,
but, well....there's always tomorrow.
R
Michael Press
<844bbb06-6b01-481c...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
Agree. And when I agree with the Gila Monster it does not please him.
Lafferty is/was like that.
--
Michael Press
RicodJour
Life, when it inhabits some people, is strange.
Nice move BTW, quoting the California Vehicle Code. A bit dirty,
throwing facts in the way of someone trying to work up a good head of
steam, and probably against the RBR charter, but effective.
R
bjwe...@gmail.com
> >
> > Trollboy,
>
> > I know you're just looking for love and attention,
> > but don't be ridiculous. There's a presumption, when
> > driving or cycling on the road, that other people aren't
> > going to deliberately try to cause an accident or hurt you.
>
> gestures. At that point, you're provoking a reaction. You're looking for a
> fight. And they found one. And they lost. In this case, the one guy lost his
> nose.
>
> > usable for either cars or bikes. "Defensive driving"
> > means watching out for other people's screw-ups,
> > not defending yourself against someone who tries to
> > cause accidents, because there really is very little
> > you can do about that.
>
> pass, they flipped him off and used the F-word. The doctor got pissed and
> lose their momentum. It's very unlikely he expected them to go through his rear
> window given that it never happened before.
>
> thing. You SoCal guys got a beat down that day. It was long overdue.
Moof,
A car, being 3000 pounds of metal, plastic, and cupholders
that can accelerate to a high rate of speed, as state troopers
like to call it, is a deadly weapon. If you wave a gun at someone
to teach them a lesson and it goes off and shoots them,
you can get sent up for anything from assault with a DW to
involuntary manslaughter to homicide. "I didn't expect it to
go off or I thought they could get out of the way in time" is
not a good defense, although the legal system can consider
intent when deciding which charge to bring. If you have
intent to pull the trigger but only to scare somebody, you're
still liable for killing them if you kill them.
I think people take cars way too lightly because we all use
them often. How many of us have sat behind the wheel
of a car and lost our cool, yelling "Fuck you, asshole!" in the
direction of some other driver? Probably all of us. Now how
many of us have yelled "Fuck you, asshole!" while brandishing
a handgun? The latter is considered dangerous low-class
behavior that will get you a starring role on "COPS" if you're
lucky.
People should take cars and the privilege of operating
them more seriously. And if you fuck up seriously, you should
lose the privilege. I don't really think it will gratify me if Dr.
Thompson goes to jail. However, I would like to see him lose
privileges to operate a motorized vehicle for life. That means
anything: car, 747, Kawasaki, electric old-lady scooter,
riding mower. Let him walk to work. Or ride a bike.
> > In particular, because everyone including drivers follows
> > at closer than the real safe stopping distance, it is
> > possible to cut someone off. The presumption that
> > the driver who rear-ends someone is at fault goes
> > out the window (or through the window, in this case)
> > when the leading driver deliberately tries to cause
> > the accident.
>
> > In your crusade against idiots, you should be against
> > Dr. Thompson. Why? He confessed to the crime.
> > If he had told the traffic investigator he'd done nothing
> > wrong, rather than bragging about teaching them a
> > lesson, he might have got away with it.
>
> > Ben
>
> I am entitled to not believe the testimony of the investigator. I have a right
> to believe that Dr. Thompson didn't say that. You have no right to tell me that
> I must believe the investigator. Most cops are corrupt and have no credibility
> anyway, especially Calif. cops. Also, most cyclists are known liars such as
> Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton. I would ask these SoCal cyclists if they
> donated to the Fraud Fairness Fund to see if they had any credibility. I bet you
> they did.
>
> I would also like to start a defense fund for Dr. Thompson called the Doctor
> Fairness Fund.
You're entitled to believe whatever you want, however
I don't get why you say I have no right to tell you to believe
the investigator. You are confusing rights with some kind
of legal compulsion - You have a right to believe
the moon is made of banana-flavored cheese, I have a
right to tell you it's not, I don't have a right to compel or
coerce you into denying your steadfastly held belief.
Ben
MagillaGorilla
He didn't physically assault the cyclists. he stopped his car and the potty mouth
cyclists ran into his car...most likely because they were giving him the finger and
had their hands off the brake levers. And they were probably sprinting to catch up
to him to curse at him some more. So the doctor stopped his car and they rammed him.
How is that an assault?
Magilla
RicodJour
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > Do you meet verbal abuse with physical assault?
> > Do you throw the first punch?
>
>
It is ever so much more fun when you have an idea of what a word means
before you start bandying it about. Reading is fundamental.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
In a nutshell:
"Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any
physical contact with another person without their consent."
Do you believe that the guys on the bike wanted to smack into the back
of a car?
> He stopped his car and the potty mouth
> cyclists ran into his car...most likely because they were giving him the finger and
> had their hands off the brake levers. And they were probably sprinting to catch up
> to him to curse at him some more.
Most likely...probably. Who takes both hands off of the bars to flip
someone off? Sprinting after a car to catch up to curse at him? Lots
of ASS-umptions that have no bearing with reality.
> So the doctor stopped his car and they rammed him.
> How is that an assault?
Seriously, just take the fucking pills, okay? Sheesh.
A person is riding along on a bike, you jump out in their way and hold
your fist up at their face level and they ride into your fist. You're
saying you didn't do anything, I'm saying you're a sphincter for
believing that.
You've pretty much destroyed the funny/thinking/sarcastic monkey thing
you had going on, to make the point that you don't know what the fuck
you're talking about. Isn't there another cycling/racing thread that
interests you? Give it a shot. Just let this one go and I promise no
one will think any the worse of you.
R
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
If we all rode like Maggie writes, it would be OK to pull in front of
a paceline and lock up your brakes anytime you felt like it.
Thankfully Maggie was never strong enough to ride at the front and his
riding style resembles his sex life - sucking the ass of other men.
MagillaGorilla
You must think that I don't really have a fucking clue.
But since we're all here making fun of the monkey, I'd be more than happy to
address those 2 statutes you cite, counselor, in the context of this case. I'm an
educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak for why the district attorney in this
case did what she did.
You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
of to defend against them. It's called Law School 101. Perhaps that's a question
you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
statutes applied. But let me give you some insight into why she might have done
what she did, since this heat is fucking killing me.
In 22109, the code does not mention anything about a driver of a vehicle not being
allowed to abruptly stop in front of a cyclist. It only says "driver of any
vehicle immediately to the rear." Since the wording in the first statute under
the same chapter in law clearly makes a legal class distinction between a vehicle
and a bicycle (called class identity nomenclature), the lack of express mention of
a bicyclist as an identified protected class under 22109 - the second statute in
the same chapter of law - therefore means that 22109 was not intended to apply to
stopping in front a cyclist as a matter of law. Not sure if they taught you this
in law school, but statutory interpretation must be done literally. Otherwise,
laws can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. Perhaps the legislature who
wrote the law didn't want it to apply to skateboarders, runners, or cyclists. I'm
afraid I can't speak for the motivations of California politicians anymore than
the district attorney who apparently read that statue the same way as I did in
deciding it did not apply to this case.
As for the first statute (21750.), I'd love to help you out once again, but I
couldn't help notice you failed to list the "limitations" and "exceptions" as
called for by the statute, so I am not inclined to comment until I know what those
limitations and exceptions are, as they are germane to its enforcement. You
believe I'm here to help you, Lt. Press, don't you? Because I'm here to help you,
Michael boy.
But even without knowing what those critical legal exceptions and limitations are
that you omitted, I don't see this statute applying either because Dr. Thompson
indeed successfully executed a safe pass of those 2 cyclists. Proof of this is
contained in the photographic evidence submitted at trial which clearly shows that
the collision occurred when the cyclists drove their bicycles into the rear of Dr.
Thompson's car, indicating that his vehicle was in front of thge cyclists at the
time of the collision. It would therefore appear to me that based on the
incontroverable photographic evidence submitted at trial that Dr. Thompson had
indeed successfully completed a safe pass as required by this statute.
In fact, the evidence appears to show it was the cyclists who failed to execute a
safe pass since they were clearly traveling behind Dr. Thompson's vehicle and
going much faster than his vehicle located in front of them when they collided
with the rear of Dr. Thompson's car, thus failing to pass the good doctor's
vehicle in a safe manner as would seem to be called for in this statute.
Now are these really the questions I was called here to answer - questions about
bicycles failing to make safe passes or stop in time because their riders admitted
under oath in their testimony that they failed to use their brakes since they were
too busy giving profane hand signals to Dr. Thompson using those same hands that
should have been on their brakes? Please tell me you've got something more,
Lieutenant Press. Please tell me there's an ace up your sleeve. These two
cyclists - one with a Michael Jackson nose he cannot even feel or smell out of -
are on trial for their lives. Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned the hopes
of the entire SoCal cycling community to alleged violations of law that Dr.
Thompson wasn't even charged with by the district attorney's office...one of which
doesn't even apply to cyclists...and a second one which would seem to indicate it
was the cyclists who failed to execute a safe pass and thus violated the very
spirit of this very statute themselves that you seem to think Dr. Thompson
violated.
Do you have any other questions for me, counselor?
Colonel Magilla
RicodJour
>
> Do you have any other questions for me, counselor?
I do. Will you please take the pills? Please? I don't care how many
you take - take a handful...with a tumbler or two of whiskey. It's
painless, I promise.
http://transport.tamu.edu/bicycles/statelaw.aspx
The exceptions are in there. At worst, even if they were road-raging
cyclists, acting in tandem to ram the back of the car and run it off
the road, it's still a misdemeanor. The doctor...? Well, that's
assault with a deadly weapon. As an emergency room doctor he has no
leg to stand on. He will have some lonely guy's third leg inserted in
him in prison, so it all works out.
Karma is a bitch.
R
Paul B. Anders
<Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> The old "beat down" defense. Also known as the "but they PISSED ME OFF"
> defense. Yeah, that'll win the jury over.
You bring up an interesting point. Seems like current thinking out
there is that if I yell "FU" at you or flip you off, that's all that's
needed to justify your beating the shit out of me, running me over,
etc. It even seems to be regularly presented as a defense for such
actions in court, anecdotally. Fact is, someone yelling at a person or
flipping them off isn't justification for much of anything.
That said, it's obviously a stupid thing to do. I'm reminded of Chris
Rock's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
BTW, anyone who wants to try to outbrake my M3 or Boxster on their
bike at typical cycling speeds, I'd like to see you try it.
Brad Anders
MagillaGorilla
Hey dumbass,
The exceptions are irrelevant because Dr. Thompson wasn't charged with
violating either of those 2 laws by the district attorney in the
case....so there is no need to defend against it.
As to assault with a deadly weapon, the jury is still out. I don't think
he's going to be convicted of that.
Thanks,
Magilla
Paul B. Anders
> In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.
>
> http://velonews.com/article/99513
http://www.velonews.com/article/99685
The jury may surprise me, but I'll bet the doc gets off.
Brad Anders
DirtRoadie
> You must think that I don't really have a fucking clue.
You said it, we didn't. But at least we agree on something.
> But since we're all here making fun of the monkey, I'd be more than happy to
> address those 2 statutes you cite, counselor, in the context of this case.
I believe MP originally provided those in response to your erroneous
suggestion that "If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of
someone's car, it's your fault."
>I'm an
> educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak for
> why the district attorney in this case did what she did.
And here we thought you were merely a monkey/ape, a poorly trained one
at that.
> You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
> misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
> of to defend against them. It's called Law School 101. Perhaps that's a question
> you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
> statutes applied.
So sorry you didn't actually get as far as the 101 level. Whether
those two statutes apply or is really unimportant. They do not, in
fact, relate to misdemeanors but merely "infractions" which by
themselves are not punishable by jail time and would normally be
enforced by the officer issuing a citation, not by the DA's office.
See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm
It's hardly a surprise that the DA is not wasting time trying to
collect the $100 fine.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42001.htm
But the DA had no problem getting to the heart of the matter by
properly bringing felony charges for reckless driving causing injury
and battery with serious bodily injury, charges which have the
potential for putting the doctor behind bars where he belongs.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/complaint-again.html
> Do you have any other questions for me, counselor?
I don't, at least none that you could answer.
Well one. Do you really believe what you are saying? Hard to imagine
unless you truly are suffering the limitations of an under-developed
simian thought process.
DR
RicodJour
You're on. A virtual micro-brew to the winner.
If the dicktor hadn't made a habit of harassing cyclists on "his"
road, he very well might have gotten off. Forrest Gump could see the
pattern and the likely consequences of such behavior. The jury surely
will.
R
Paul B. Anders
I'll accept, and hope you win. And no, only RJ gets paid off it the
doc gets nailed. I'm betting that the pervasive hatred of cyclists by
most drivers will negate the evidence here.
Brad Anders
RicodJour
If you have a history of harassing cyclists, gobs of insurance, have
anger management issues and don't mind some scratches on the back of
your nice car, okay!
R
DirtRoadie
> The exceptions are irrelevant because Dr. Thompson wasn't charged with
> violating either of those 2 laws by the district attorney in the
> case....so there is no need to defend against it.
True.
> As to assault with a deadly weapon, the jury is still out. I don't think
> he's going to be convicted of that.
Also true - he wasn't charged with that either.
I do hope the jury is slightly smarter than the average ape.
DR
MagillaGorilla
On Nov 2, 8:08�am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> You must think that I don't really have a fucking clue.You said it, we didn't. But at least we agree on something.
> But since we're all here making fun of the monkey, I'd be more than happy to
> address those 2 statutes you cite, counselor, in the context of this case. �I believe MP originally provided those in response to your erroneous
suggestion that "If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of
someone's car, it's your fault."
In 99.99% of the cases, it is your fault if you hit the back of
some else's car. That's what I meant. These 2 statutes
do not disprove that in any way.
> You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
> misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
> of to defend against them. �It's called Law School 101. �Perhaps that's a question
> you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
> statutes applied.So sorry you didn't actually get as far as the 101 level. Whether
those two statutes apply or is really unimportant. They do not, in
fact, relate to misdemeanors but merely "infractions" which by
themselves are not punishable by jail time and would normally be
enforced by the officer issuing a citation, not by the DA's office.
See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm
Infractions are misdemeanors, cunt. By the way, a cop does
not enforce the statute in court...only a prosecutor could, so it would
go back to the DA's office or local prosecuor. Just because
a cop give you a citation does not mean you have to plead guilty to it.
And when it goes to court, guess who is going to be there? The district
attorney/local prosecutor. Dr. Thompson pled not guilty, which is
why he's in court. He could have been charged with those violations
as well, but the DA evidently did not think they would apply.
Also, it is common for traffic tickets to be grouped into felony charged
cases involving motor vehicle accidents. Generally, the trial court
judge would adjudicate them after the more serious charges are adjudicated
by the jury so as not to prejudice the jury on the more serious counts.
A person is not entitled to a jury trial for misdeamnors, only felonies,
which is why defendants usually get a bench ruling on the underlying lesser
included offenses of the traffic tickets.
It's hardly a surprise that the DA is not wasting time trying to
collect the $100 fine.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42001.htmBut the DA had no problem getting to the heart of the matter by
properly bringing felony charges for reckless driving causing injury
and battery with serious bodily injury, charges which have the
potential for putting the doctor behind bars where he belongs.
Fuck the DA. She's a cunt. You should ask the DA's office
how come their sister DA reached a plea aggreement with Sheriff's Deputy
James Council for house arrest after he killed 2 cyclists with his "Deadly
weapon?" All Dr. Thompson did is react to harassment from some potty
mouthed cyclists who flipped him off.
http://fugitive.com/archives/7825
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/complaint-again.html
> Do you have any other questions for me, counselor?
I don't, at least none that you could answer.
Well one. Do you really believe what you are saying? Hard to imagine
unless you truly are suffering the limitations of an under-developed
simian thought process.DR
I do as I please, and I do it with ease.
Magilla
P.S. The guy with the Michael Jackson nose - Ron "Kiefel" Peterson - will have to wake up every day knowing he has aMichel Jackson nose because he's a foul-mouthed smart-ass who got some street justice that day. Dr. Thompson put the hurt down on him that day and taught him a lesson he will never forget.
MagillaGorilla
I'd like to give it a try. Let's meet at the Sausalito cafe. Leave the
Tegaderm� at home, because unlike Ron "Kiefel" Peterson and his female buddy
who vandalized that beautiful maroon Infiniti, I don't ride like Liz Hatch
and crash myself in a pile of leaves or into the back of some Yuppie
bastard's M3 just because he stomps on the middle pedal.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
I think it's important to remember that whatever happens in the criminal case,
that to never forget a nice Infiniti was damaged in this tragedy. Ron "Kiefel"
Peterson's nose can always heal, but that Infiniti will never be repaired to
the exact specifications of the original factory seal of the rear window.
So let's all say a prayer for the Infiniti - the true victim in this tragedy.
Thanks,
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> In 99.99% of the cases, it is your fault if you hit the back of some else's car.
> That's what I meant. These 2 statutes do not disprove that in any way.
Often that is true, that isn't what you said. And that other .01%
would certainly include deliberate illegal actions by the leading
driver.
> Infractions are misdemeanors, cunt.
Wrong, by definition.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd17c1a1.htm
>By the way, a cop does not enforce the statute in
> court ...
Wrong again. For an offense charged as an "infraction" the DA does not
get involved unless it is tied to another offense charged as a
misdemeanor.
(If you challenge a simple speeding ticket in court there will NOT be
a DA present)
> A person is not entitled to a jury trial for
> misdeamnors, only felonies, which is why defendants usually get a bench ruling on the
> underlying lesser included offenses of the traffic tickets.
Strike 3. There IS a right to a jury for any offense, including
misdemeanors, if it involves potential jail time.
> Fuck the DA. She's a cunt.
> All Dr. Thompson did is react to
> harassment from some potty mouthed cyclists who flipped him off.
You mean being "potty mouthed" is a basis for physical aggression
against the offender?
Hmmm ... I think I hardly need to describe what first comes to
mind ...
> I do as I please, and I do it with ease.
Ah, yes. Ignorance is bliss
> Dr. Thompson put the hurt down on him that day
> and taught him a lesson he will never forget.
And that is exactly why the doctor is on trial.
DR
Paul B. Anders
> I think it's important to remember that whatever happens in the criminal case,
> that to never forget a nice Infiniti was damaged in this tragedy.
"nice Infiniti"? Just a re-branded Datsun. If the guy had been driving
something decent, I might have some sympathy.
Brad Anders
DirtRoadie
> How is that an assault?
I suppose you would also argue that if you strung piano wire about
neck high across a bike path and decapitated a cyclist that it would
be THEIR fault because their eyesight was not good enough to see the
obvious obstacle and their brakes are inacapable of stopping
sufficiently quickly to avoid the danger.
DR
William R. Mattil
>
> If the dicktor hadn't made a habit of harassing cyclists on "his"
> road, he very well might have gotten off. Forrest Gump could see the
> pattern and the likely consequences of such behavior. The jury surely
> will.
>
I wonder that even if he gets off scot free on these charges, undeserved
though that may be, what the actual impact to this Bozo was and will be ?
I'm sure that there have already been financial repercussions and likely
there will be more. Anyone know if the Defense Atty is the Public
Defender ? or hopefully some very high priced mouthpiece that bills
$450.00 an hour ?
Then there will be the civil trial that is almost a certainty.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Ronko
rub...@pacbell.net says...
>
>
>In article <4AED722C...@sandiegozoo.com>,
> MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>
>> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > "Paul B. Anders" <pban...@gmail.com> wrote in message
6891ab...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
in the Mandeville Canyon situaiton, both drivers and cyclists should be
aware of VC 21202 in California:
Operation on Roadway
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time
shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road
or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals,
surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to
continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of
Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a
lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by
side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which
highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked
traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as
practicable.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.
DirtRoadie
> I wonder that even if he gets off scot free on these charges, undeserved
> though that may be, what the actual impact to this Bozo was and will be ?
>
> I'm sure that there have already been financial repercussions and likely
> there will be more. Anyone know if the Defense Atty is the Public
> Defender ? or hopefully some very high priced mouthpiece that bills
> $450.00 an hour ?
Very clearly a high priced mouth piece and orchestrator.
http://www.superlawyers.com/california-southern/lawyer/Peter-C-Swarth/96ccbb09-471d-408e-8f54-682712586cd0.html
See him here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPNjJ4crrNM
And high dollar defense experts - an "accident reconstruction
specialist" and a forensic psychologist.
> Then there will be the civil trial that is almost a certainty.
Trial? Maybe not, depending upon the outcome of the criminal case.
A guilty verdict probably means a quick negotiated settlement.
But a lawsuit has been filed.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_13675904
DR
DirtRoadie
Noted, but not at all applicable in this case.
Operative words: "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time."
The speed limit was 30 and that, by all accounts, is roughly the speed
Peterson was traveling.
DR
bjwe...@gmail.com
> misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
> of to defend against them. It's called Law School 101. Perhaps that's a question
> you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
> statutes applied. But let me give you some insight into why she might have done
> what she did, since this heat is fucking killing me.
>
> In 22109, the code does not mention anything about a driver of a vehicle not being
> allowed to abruptly stop in front of a cyclist. It only says "driver of any
> vehicle immediately to the rear." Since the wording in the first statute under
> the same chapter in law clearly makes a legal class distinction between a vehicle
> and a bicycle (called class identity nomenclature), the lack of express mention of
> a bicyclist as an identified protected class under 22109 - the second statute in
> the same chapter of law - therefore means that 22109 was not intended to apply to
> stopping in front a cyclist as a matter of law. Not sure if they taught you this
> in law school, but statutory interpretation must be done literally. Otherwise,
> laws can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. Perhaps the legislature who
> wrote the law didn't want it to apply to skateboarders, runners, or cyclists. I'm
> afraid I can't speak for the motivations of California politicians anymore than
> the district attorney who apparently read that statue the same way as I did in
> deciding it did not apply to this case.
Banana brain,
CVC section 21200:
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all
the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the
driver
of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to,
provisions
concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or
drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section
27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17
(commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing
with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very
nature
can have no application.
Your bullshit about "class identity nomenclature" is just
showing off monkey vocabulary.
Further, generally when someone is charged with a felony
for a driving incident, it implies a claim that they violated
the vehicle code in some way. If you didn't violate the
vehicle code, you're unlikely to get brought up on serious
charges. But once you're up on a felony, they're not going
to be putting the misdemeanor charges in front of the
jury as well.
You need to go back to Monkey Law School and ask for a
refund, because at this rate, Lawgirl is going to clean your
clock _and_ empty your wallet if you ever meet. And that
would be embarrassing not just for you, but all of us who
hang out at the rbr Starbucks in Sausalito, and I don't want
to see it.
Ben
DirtRoadie
wrote:
> CVC section 21200:
(Relevant Statute, probably controlling AND Effective January 1,
1995.)
> Your bullshit about "class identity nomenclature" is just
> showing off monkey vocabulary.
As much as it displeases me to say so, MG's interpretation finds some
support in the code under the following:
100. Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these
definitions shall govern the construction of this code
"Bicycle"
231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled
exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having
one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the
provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.
"Vehicle"
670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks. (Effective January 1, 1976)
So note that a bicycle as we know it (human propelled) is not, by
strict definition a "vehicle." But sec. 100 allows "context" to be
taken into account and the definition of vehicle has not been updated
since 1976 so it would seem to have been inherently modified by 21200
in 1995.
Why is this relevant?
Back to 22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of
a vehicle on a highway without first giving an appropriate signal in
the manner provided in this chapter to the driver of any VEHICLE
immediately to the rear ... (MG says that a driver has no obligation
to warn cyclists)
But I agree with you that in the context of 21200, 22109 can only be
construed to apply to cyclists as well.
> Further, generally when someone is charged with a felony
> for a driving incident, it implies a claim that they violated
> the vehicle code in some way. If you didn't violate the
> vehicle code, you're unlikely to get brought up on serious
> charges. But once you're up on a felony, they're not going
> to be putting the misdemeanor charges in front of the
> jury as well.
Not true. In fact in the case being discussed the doctor is charged
with 3 felonies and one misdemeanor.
But violating 22109 is not even a misdemeanor, it's an "infraction"
with a maximum penalty of a $100 fine - like speeding or running a
stop sign. Hardly any point in even bothering with that.
DR
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Mr "You must think that I don't really have a fucking clue." Two
more questions. With the speed limit at 30 MPH and the bicyclists
were traveling at the speed limit, what was the reason for the doctor
to be passing in the first place? Also, was it a passing zone? It
appears that the ol' doc was passing illegally even before the
confrontation began.
DirtRoadie
> In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.
>
> http://velonews.com/article/99513
Velonews Tweets:
Verdict expected within the hour in LA Road Rage case. Stay tuned.
Ryan Cousineau
<5511acfc-a3ba-4312...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think people take cars way too lightly because we all use
> them often. How many of us have sat behind the wheel
> of a car and lost our cool, yelling "Fuck you, asshole!" in the
> direction of some other driver? Probably all of us. Now how
> many of us have yelled "Fuck you, asshole!" while brandishing
> a handgun? The latter is considered dangerous low-class
> behavior that will get you a starring role on "COPS" if you're
> lucky.
You said the secret word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kndm4wX3g0&feature=player_embedded
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
bjwe...@gmail.com
> In article
> <5511acfc-a3ba-4312-a3fb-3db142a33...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think people take cars way too lightly because we all use
> > them often. How many of us have sat behind the wheel
> > of a car and lost our cool, yelling "Fuck you, asshole!" in the
> > direction of some other driver? Probably all of us. Now how
> > many of us have yelled "Fuck you, asshole!" while brandishing
> > a handgun? The latter is considered dangerous low-class
> > behavior that will get you a starring role on "COPS" if you're
> > lucky.
>
> You said the secret word.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kndm4wX3g0&feature=player_embedded
Ugh. I didn't really need to see that. It's like being
Rickrolled by a posse from Deliverance.
Hey, I know one of those people!
Okay, so it's Neil Tyson ...
Ben
Paul B. Anders
wrote:
The guy on the sofa reminds me of Jeff Gordon.
Brad Anders
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <4AED722C...@sandiegozoo.com>,
> > MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > "Paul B. Anders" <pban...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:016bdef6-43d1-4055...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > 22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the
> > speed of a vehicle on a highway without first giving an
> > appropriate signal in the manner provided in this
> > chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the
> > rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.
>
> You must think that I don't really have a fucking clue.
>
> But since we're all here making fun of the monkey, I'd be more than happy to
> address those 2 statutes you cite, counselor, in the context of this case. I'm an
> educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak for why the district attorney in this
> case did what she did.
>
> You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
> misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
> of to defend against them. It's called Law School 101. Perhaps that's a question
> you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
> statutes applied. But let me give you some insight into why she might have done
> what she did, since this heat is fucking killing me.
>
> In 22109, the code does not mention anything about a driver of a vehicle not being
> allowed to abruptly stop in front of a cyclist.
Did you look up the definition of `vehicle' in the
California Vehicle Code? Motion denied with extreme prejudice.
You said "He's entitled to stop his car on the road".
Dr. Thompson does not have a blanket right to stop in
any manner he sees fit. I proved this conclusively.
[...]
I did not read the rest of your message as you have
been proved wrong on the point I raised. If you have
something cogent and constructive to say please do so concisely.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> A person is not entitled to a jury trial for
> misdeamnors, only felonies, which is why defendants usually get a bench ruling on the
> underlying lesser included offenses of the traffic tickets.
A person is entitled to a jury trial for misdemeanors.
You are wrong again.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<0a909f25-baaf-4d4e...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote:
The only point is that Gila Monster says Dr. Thomson is
"entitled to stop his car on the road".
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 11:30 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > > DirtRoadie wrote:
> > > > On Oct 30, 7:18 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 30, 8:28 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.
> > >
> > > > > >http://velonews.com/article/99513
> > >
> > > > >http://velonews.com/article/99685/la-road-rage-trial-closing-argument...
> > >
> > > > > I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily
> > > > > basis.
> > >
> > > > It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the
> > > > reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same
> > > > impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs.
> > >
> > > > I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a
> > > > paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it
> > > > quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but
> > > > innocent and could easily end up being deadly.
> > >
> > > > DR
> > >
> > > The cyclists deserved what they got.
> > >
> > > First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? A bike can
> > > stop faster than a car.
> > >
> > > Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride
> > > 2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes
> > > you.
> > >
> > > If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your
> > > fault. I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different.
> >
> > Trollboy,
> >
> > I know you're just looking for love and attention,
> > but don't be ridiculous. There's a presumption, when
> > driving or cycling on the road, that other people aren't
> > going to deliberately try to cause an accident or hurt you.
>
> I agree, but not after blocking, and then antagonizing with profanity and
> gestures. At that point, you're provoking a reaction. You're looking for a
> fight. And they found one. And they lost. In this case, the one guy lost his
> nose.
Do you meet verbal abuse with physical assault?
Do you throw the first punch?
--
Michael Press
DirtRoadie
> Did you look up the definition of `vehicle' in the
> California Vehicle Code? Motion denied with extreme prejudice.
Now that the good doctor has been convicted on all counts this may be
moot, but my first thought upon reading the ape's tirade was also to
check the definition of "vehicle."
Alas, that ancient remnant of the vehicle code supports the ape if no
other provisions (like the more recent 21200) are taken into account.
See my response to BJW about two posts prior to this on the threaded
list.
670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks. (Effective January 1, 1976)
But, otherwise, thanks for pointing out the CA vehicle code in the
first place and helping to make a monkey out of Magilla, not that he
needs much help.
DR
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <4AECB65C...@sandiegozoo.com>,
> > MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Oct 31, 11:30Â am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > DirtRoadie wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 30, 7:18Â pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 30, 8:28Â pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >http://velonews.com/article/99513
> > > > >
> > > > > > >http://velonews.com/article/99685/la-road-rage-trial-closing-argument...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily
> > > > > > > basis.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the
> > > > > > reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same
> > > > > > impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a
> > > > > > paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it
> > > > > > quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but
> > > > > > innocent and could easily end up being deadly.
> > > > >
> > > > > > DR
> > > > >
> > > > > The cyclists deserved what they got.
> > > > >
> > > > > First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? Â A bike can
> > > > > stop faster than a car.
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride
> > > > > 2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes
> > > > > you.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your
> > > > > fault. Â I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different.
> > > >
> > > > Trollboy,
> > > >
> > > > I know you're just looking for love and attention,
> > > > but don't be ridiculous. There's a presumption, when
> > > > driving or cycling on the road, that other people aren't
> > > > going to deliberately try to cause an accident or hurt you.
> > >
> > > I agree, but not after blocking, and then antagonizing with profanity and
> > > gestures. At that point, you're provoking a reaction. You're looking for a
> > > fight. And they found one. And they lost. In this case, the one guy lost his
> > > nose.
> >
> > Do you meet verbal abuse with physical assault?
> > Do you throw the first punch?
>
> He didn't physically assault the cyclists.
He is charged with felony battery.
Are you speaking in every day parlance,
or legally?
Do you throw the first punch?
Do you consider abusive language grounds for physically attacking someone?
--
Michael Press
DirtRoadie
> The only point is that Gila Monster says Dr. Thomson is
> "entitled to stop his car on the road".
I think we agree that Maggie makes a lot of noise and little sense.
DR
Tom Kunich
news:rubrum-DFD542....@news.albasani.net...
You mean he's wrong "as usual". Has he EVER been right?
Tom Kunich
news:2e32867c-a9fe-44c9...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
From his comments it's pretty clear that he's not a cyclist.
Tom Kunich
>
> Now that the good doctor has been convicted on all counts this may be
> moot, but my first thought upon reading the ape's tirade was also to
> check the definition of "vehicle."
>
> Alas, that ancient remnant of the vehicle code supports the ape if no
> other provisions (like the more recent 21200) are taken into account.
> See my response to BJW about two posts prior to this on the threaded
> list.
Psst - the later laws correct that. Bicycles ARE to be treated as vehicles
by law.
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights
and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle
by this division
And it doesn't matter since it would be illegal for that sniper to do the
same thing to a jogger.
MagillaGorilla
It depends on the state and only for certain misdemeanors. Generally speaking, traffic
tickets are not trial-by-jury offenses.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
You fucking liar. I was clearly referring to Dr. Thompson, not Dr.
Thomson.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
So you're telling me you never went above the speed limit? Is that really what you're
trying to tell the jury, sir?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Dr. Thompson had ineffective counsel. He should have brought me in as an expert
witness. I would have recreated the accident on videotape and shown that the only
reason the cyclists couldn't have stopped was because they were giving the shaft to the
doctor and trying to chase him down. The doctor didn't believe the cyclists would go
through his windshield, since it had never happened before. He only believed they
would have to lock up their brakes and get annoyed, just like had occurred in the two
previous incidents.
In the third incident involving Ron "Kiefel" and his buddy, Dr. Thompson had no idea hw
was encountering riders with Cat. 5 bike handling skills. I would have introduced
evidence to the jury that shows these two cyclists stack it routinely on training rides
and ride like shit in local crits. In fact, they were behind the other cyclists in the
group that day due to an accident by one of them, no?
I would also make sure to get some cyclists on the jury and then my closing argument
would be, "How was Dr. Thompson - a man who devoted his life to helping people in t he
ER - how did he know that he was stopping in front of two riders with the bike handling
skills of Rasmussen and Liz Hatch? (the jury would nod in affirmation as I played
Rasmussen's time trial from the 2005 Tour)
And then I would cross examine the cyclists and ask them if they donated to the Fraud
Fairness Fund to show the jury they were a bunch of liars who band together to try to
subvert the system and attack innocent people with false accusations. I would liken
Dr. Thompson to the female lab techs at the LNDD.
Dr. Thompson should of had me as his lawyr and he would have gotten off. I would have
beaten those cyclists down just like I beat you people down in here week in and week
out like a dirty doormat on a Kansas porch.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Of course I was right. Did you actually think the code would use the
word "vehicle" to mean a bicycle when the same code clearly uses the
word bicycle to mean something other than a vehicle and in the same
sentence as "vehicle?"
HELLO.
Believe it or not, an ocean liner isn't a skateboard either. No real
need to look it up, but you can if it makes you feel better.
Tomorrow we're going to learn that a dog does not mean a cat. Please
bring your Speed Racer lunchbox to school as it will be a full day and
you'll need to eat lunch.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Nov 2, 6:51�am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How is that an assault?
>
> I suppose you would also argue that if you strung piano wire about
> neck high across a bike path and decapitated a cyclist that it would
> be THEIR fault because their eyesight was not good enough to see the
> obvious obstacle and their brakes are inacapable of stopping
> sufficiently quickly to avoid the danger.
>
> DR
Correct. Not touching you..not touching you......totally legal...
Magilla
Age: 6
MagillaGorilla
Was the abusive language considered inciting a riot or "fighting words" or "threatenting
words?" If so, one has a right to defend themselves.
Magilla
William R. Mattil
>
> It depends on the state and only for certain misdemeanors. Generally speaking, traffic
> tickets are not trial-by-jury offenses.
>
>
Still trying to recover from the "Beat Down" you suffered in this thread ? ?
Thanks
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
DirtRoadie
Don't you get tired of having to constantly be corrected?
California Penal Code 240 - 248 :
240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
Lemme 'splain in simple terms - no touching required.
DR
MagillaGorilla
Since you put a question mark at the end of your sentence, it means you don't know the
answer. So I'll tell you: No.
Thanks,
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> Was the abusive language considered inciting a riot or "fighting words" or "threatenting
> words?" If so, one has a right to defend themselves.
Hardly. It takes a whole lot more than that, like a "reasonable fear
of imminent bodily injury" and use of ONLY the force necessary to
prevent the injury.
But you knew that and are just engaged in your continuing
monkeyshines.
MagillaGorilla
DirtRoadie wrote:
Oh, okay, so you agree then that the U.S. government and Barack Obama
commit assaults on children in Iraq and Afghanistan that result in their
death. By the way, who did you vote for in last year's presidential
election?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
DirtRoadie wrote:
So if, according to you I'm wrong, go up to a cop and say, "I'm gonna kill you with this
knife, motherfucker." See what happens and then come back in here and let us know. They
might have wirelsss in county jail.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> Oh, okay, so you agree then that the U.S. government and Barack Obama
> commit assaults on children in Iraq and Afghanistan that result in their
> death. By the way, who did you vote for in last year's presidential
> election?
Are you suggesting California law applies in Afghanistan?
DirtRoadie
> So if, according to you I'm wrong, go up to a cop and say, "I'm gonna kill you with this
> knife, motherfucker." See what happens and then come back in here and let us know.
How did the hypothetical suddenly jump from "abusive language" to
brandishing a weapon?
MagillaGorilla
No, the Geneva Convention. You're not allowed to assault children and
non-strategic targets under the Geneva Convention. Ever hear of it?
Answer my fucking question: Who did you vote for?
You wanna get righteous on me, but you're not gonna get righteous on me,
motherfucker. You help kill children. You voted for a guy (Bush Lite) whose
orders help kill children. And just because they're from Iraq or
Afghanistan, you don't give a fuck because in your eyes they're 'sand
niggers' or 'diaper heads' who don't ride a bike with an SRM. But then you
wanna get righteous with me about some snot-nosed Cat 2's who have Liz Hatch
bike handling skills and stacked it after harassing local drivers on their
way to work?
You point a finger at me but you got 3 more fingers pointing back at you on
the same hand.
Let me tell you something, brother...you got far more blood on your hands
than what was on the trunk of that Infiniti.
Magilla