info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Cure for Violence?
105 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike Vandeman
Oct 10, 2012, 12:52:48 AM10/10/12
to
To the Editor:
The Oakland Police Department is being threatened with being put
under court control ("receivership"), due to its history of abusive
behavior. But police work is dangerous! I can easily understand why a
policeman would sometimes, in an atmosphere of fear, make a bad
decision.
But maybe there is another solution! Where does violence come from?
Doesn't most of it revolve around money? Let's assume that it does.
There are two possible solutions to the money problem: (1) get more
or (2) spend less. There are plenty of people working on the former.
Let's look at the latter.
There are many simple ways that homeowners can reduce their expenses:
(1) convert incandescent (old-fashioned) light bulbs to compact
fluorescents; the latter use far less electricity, as well as lasting
much longer; (2) insulate your home, reducing heating costs in the
winter and cooling costs in the summer; the gas company and the
government will often subsidize this; (3) put all consumers of
"vampire power" (appliances that consume electricity even when they
are allegedly "off": TV, stereo, microwave, etc.) on switches or
power strips, so they can be turned completely off when not used; (4)
grow fruits and vegetables (and even chickens, rabbits, etc.) in your
own garden, saving on food costs; (5) sell all your motor vehicles
and get a bicycle -- bike riding is free; (6) we use too much water
for bathing; get wet and turn off the water; then wash and turn the
water back on to rinse; this will greatly reduce your water
consumption (you may have to convince the water company to base all
charges on consumption levels; currently, many charges are fixed, and
not proportional to usage).
People who don't own their home, or pay for their utilities directly,
should be able to negotiate a lower rent, when they reduce their
water and power consumption.
Instead of focusing on the downstream effect -- crime -- let's help
each other reduce the cause of crime: the need for money! Maybe the
police department would even offer to help! Anything that reduces
violence and crime would make their job easier, so they should be
willing to help....
Mike Vandeman
The Oakland Police Department is being threatened with being put
under court control ("receivership"), due to its history of abusive
behavior. But police work is dangerous! I can easily understand why a
policeman would sometimes, in an atmosphere of fear, make a bad
decision.
But maybe there is another solution! Where does violence come from?
Doesn't most of it revolve around money? Let's assume that it does.
There are two possible solutions to the money problem: (1) get more
or (2) spend less. There are plenty of people working on the former.
Let's look at the latter.
There are many simple ways that homeowners can reduce their expenses:
(1) convert incandescent (old-fashioned) light bulbs to compact
fluorescents; the latter use far less electricity, as well as lasting
much longer; (2) insulate your home, reducing heating costs in the
winter and cooling costs in the summer; the gas company and the
government will often subsidize this; (3) put all consumers of
"vampire power" (appliances that consume electricity even when they
are allegedly "off": TV, stereo, microwave, etc.) on switches or
power strips, so they can be turned completely off when not used; (4)
grow fruits and vegetables (and even chickens, rabbits, etc.) in your
own garden, saving on food costs; (5) sell all your motor vehicles
and get a bicycle -- bike riding is free; (6) we use too much water
for bathing; get wet and turn off the water; then wash and turn the
water back on to rinse; this will greatly reduce your water
consumption (you may have to convince the water company to base all
charges on consumption levels; currently, many charges are fixed, and
not proportional to usage).
People who don't own their home, or pay for their utilities directly,
should be able to negotiate a lower rent, when they reduce their
water and power consumption.
Instead of focusing on the downstream effect -- crime -- let's help
each other reduce the cause of crime: the need for money! Maybe the
police department would even offer to help! Anything that reduces
violence and crime would make their job easier, so they should be
willing to help....
Mike Vandeman
Blackblade
Oct 26, 2012, 4:20:48 AM10/26/12
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> Mike Vandeman
I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives !
>
> Mike Vandeman
I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives !
Mike Vandeman
Oct 27, 2012, 11:20:32 AM10/27/12
to
Blackblade
Oct 29, 2012, 9:32:27 AM10/29/12
to
So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ?
Mike Vandeman
Oct 30, 2012, 3:30:06 PM10/30/12
to
On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Vandeman > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! > > > > Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ?
There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick.
> On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Vandeman > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! > > > > Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ?
shrag...@hotmail.com
Oct 30, 2012, 9:46:55 PM10/30/12
to
"The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff."
Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?
Mike Vandeman
Oct 31, 2012, 1:08:46 AM10/31/12
to
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Vandeman > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! > > > > Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? > > > > There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?
I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth.
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Vandeman > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! > > > > Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? > > > > There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?
Blackblade
Oct 31, 2012, 6:50:21 AM10/31/12
to
Thus, despite his conviction for violent crimes, he has not in any way altered his self image. Rational people might, faced with such a wakeup call, modify their behaviour and attitudes and question themselves. No such epiphany seems to have occurred with Mike and he is therefore seeking to try and impose such a worldview on everyone else.
In his mind, he is an innocent victim, wholly justified in his actions, brought low by contrary forces. In reality, he is someone prepared to countenance violence and physical confrontation in defence of his position and has provably sought such confrontations as he has admitted in his own testimony (specifically, where he refers to intentionally moving into the path of others to prevent them passing).
It's kind of fun verbally jousting with him, occasionally, but I no longer take what he says in any way seriously ... and I doubt now that he will ever change.
shrag...@hotmail.com
Oct 31, 2012, 10:57:01 AM10/31/12
to
I am preserving his legacy in these forums.
shrag...@hotmail.com
Oct 31, 2012, 11:06:11 AM10/31/12
to
Clearly, the courts believe you possessed "intent to cause harmful or offensive contact." I don't care if you believe it was "just touching," because that's not what battery is, no matter how many times you write it.
I don't pretend to know what happened. You are LYING about that, as usual. I am merely repeating the court's decision. I've asked you several times to present the details of your side of the story here in this forum, but you are obviously too big of a coward to comply.
Whether or not you agree with the court's decision is your problem, not mine.
You were arrested. You were convicted. Those are FACTS, and only a LIAR would refute them.
Mike Vandeman
Nov 1, 2012, 8:07:13 AM11/1/12
to
shrag...@hotmail.com
Nov 1, 2012, 11:22:17 AM11/1/12
to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:07:13 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:06:12 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You continue missing the point, proving what an idiot you are: Regardless of the "facts", which you have ZERO personal knowledge of, and so are presenting only HEARSAY, I did absolutely nothing criminal or wrong. I HAVE presented my side, numerous times. You just choose to ignore it: "brandishing" in self-defense is not a crime. The mountain biker ran into ME, so HE, not I, is guilty of battery. Now tell me again ow I fail to give my side of the story, LIAR! DUH!
Well, Mike, by your own arbitrary "forgot to mention" criterion established in the parallel thread, you obviously just lied about your side of the story.
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:06:12 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You continue missing the point, proving what an idiot you are: Regardless of the "facts", which you have ZERO personal knowledge of, and so are presenting only HEARSAY, I did absolutely nothing criminal or wrong. I HAVE presented my side, numerous times. You just choose to ignore it: "brandishing" in self-defense is not a crime. The mountain biker ran into ME, so HE, not I, is guilty of battery. Now tell me again ow I fail to give my side of the story, LIAR! DUH!
Try again, liar.
You claim I'm presenting hearsay, but anyone who reads these threads can see that the "hearsay" I'm posting is a crime alert hosted by the UCPD. All I'm doing is pointing out that the record exists, along with the subsequent convictions. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the UCPD and the courts.
http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm
It's interesting how you feel there is more to your story than what's in the arrest record and the follow-up articles in the local press. I wonder what those involved would say about all the "hearsay" you so gleefully post here about "evolution in action." I wonder if there's more to those stories that you "forget to mention" or "choose to ignore," bigot.
Regardless... You're the one missing the point. I couldn't care less that you believe you're innocent, but feel free to keep bringing it up anyway.
Mike Vandeman
Nov 1, 2012, 10:19:33 PM11/1/12
to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:22:17 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:07:13 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:06:12 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > You continue missing the point, proving what an idiot you are: Regardless of the "facts", which you have ZERO personal knowledge of, and so are presenting only HEARSAY, I did absolutely nothing criminal or wrong. I HAVE presented my side, numerous times. You just choose to ignore it: "brandishing" in self-defense is not a crime. The mountain biker ran into ME, so HE, not I, is guilty of battery. Now tell me again ow I fail to give my side of the story, LIAR! DUH! Well, Mike, by your own arbitrary "forgot to mention" criterion established in the parallel thread, you obviously just lied about your side of the story. Try again, liar. You claim I'm presenting hearsay, but anyone who reads these threads can see that the "hearsay" I'm posting is a crime alert hosted by the UCPD. All I'm doing is pointing out that the record exists, along with the subsequent convictions. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the UCPD and the courts. http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm It's interesting how you feel there is more to your story than what's in the arrest record and the follow-up articles in the local press. I wonder what those involved would say about all the "hearsay" you so gleefully post here about "evolution in action." I wonder if there's more to those stories that you "forget to mention" or "choose to ignore," bigot. Regardless... You're the one missing the point. I couldn't care less that you believe you're innocent, but feel free to keep bringing it up anyway.
You just lied again. First you asked me to tell my side of the story, proving that you care about it. Then when it didn't please you, you said you don't care. You are nothing but a common liar, starting with your name.
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:07:13 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:06:12 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > You continue missing the point, proving what an idiot you are: Regardless of the "facts", which you have ZERO personal knowledge of, and so are presenting only HEARSAY, I did absolutely nothing criminal or wrong. I HAVE presented my side, numerous times. You just choose to ignore it: "brandishing" in self-defense is not a crime. The mountain biker ran into ME, so HE, not I, is guilty of battery. Now tell me again ow I fail to give my side of the story, LIAR! DUH! Well, Mike, by your own arbitrary "forgot to mention" criterion established in the parallel thread, you obviously just lied about your side of the story. Try again, liar. You claim I'm presenting hearsay, but anyone who reads these threads can see that the "hearsay" I'm posting is a crime alert hosted by the UCPD. All I'm doing is pointing out that the record exists, along with the subsequent convictions. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the UCPD and the courts. http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm It's interesting how you feel there is more to your story than what's in the arrest record and the follow-up articles in the local press. I wonder what those involved would say about all the "hearsay" you so gleefully post here about "evolution in action." I wonder if there's more to those stories that you "forget to mention" or "choose to ignore," bigot. Regardless... You're the one missing the point. I couldn't care less that you believe you're innocent, but feel free to keep bringing it up anyway.
shrag...@hotmail.com
Nov 2, 2012, 10:52:46 AM11/2/12
to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:19:33 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:22:17 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You just lied again. First you asked me to tell my side of the story, proving that you care about it. Then when it didn't please you, you said you don't care. You are nothing but a common liar, starting with your name.
Read what I wrote again.
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:22:17 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You just lied again. First you asked me to tell my side of the story, proving that you care about it. Then when it didn't please you, you said you don't care. You are nothing but a common liar, starting with your name.
"I couldn't care less *that you believe you're innocent*."
Do you need me to use smaller words, dolt?
Mike Vandeman
Nov 2, 2012, 11:20:28 PM11/2/12
to
Blackblade
Nov 5, 2012, 5:16:26 AM11/5/12
to
> > > You just lied again. First you asked me to tell my side of the story, proving that you care about it. Then when it didn't please you, you said you don't care. You are nothing but a common liar, starting with your name.
>
> > Read what I wrote again.
>
> > "I couldn't care less *that you believe you're innocent*."
>
> > Do you need me to use smaller words, dolt?
>
> You were lying then, same as always. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have asked me about it. DUH! You guys are TRANSPARENT.
And you are getting senile it appears. He said he didn't care what you believe about your innocence or guilt. He did not say he was uninterested in hearing what you had to say.
>
> > Read what I wrote again.
>
> > "I couldn't care less *that you believe you're innocent*."
>
> > Do you need me to use smaller words, dolt?
>
> You were lying then, same as always. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have asked me about it. DUH! You guys are TRANSPARENT.
I would be interested in hearing a real narrative ... but I guess you won't provide one since your testimony in court probably lead to the battery conviction.
Mike Vandeman
Nov 5, 2012, 11:29:56 PM11/5/12
to
Blackblade
Nov 6, 2012, 4:44:48 AM11/6/12
to
> > I would be interested in hearing a real narrative ... but I guess you won't provide one since your testimony in court probably lead to the battery conviction.
>
>
>
> I already did. I guess you don't like hearing the (inconvenient) truth.
That is simply a denial ... which, as I said, I am highly disinclined to believe given that a court of law found you unconvincing as a witness.
Also, given your testimony (as reported by Peter Frick-Wright - just to be clear on sources) was that you intentionally moved into the biker's path any subsequent collision would be viewed, by most reasonable people, as being caused by you. As I said earlier, given that you are a private citizen you are not permitted to physically contact anyone ... irrespective of whether they should have been riding on the trail or not.
I think this cuts to the core of the matter; you think that because bikes are not permitted on the trail that your actions in trying to prevent such access are justified. However, as you are a private citizen, the law holds that you may not physically contact or restrain other citizens and, to do so, makes you guilty of battery. I could be wrong, given that I only have your simple claims of 'they all lied' and Peter Frick-Wright's reporting of your testimony, but absent anything else this is what I surmise.
So, would you care to elaborate and actually provide something interesting ... or are you going to retreat back to assertions without any facts to back them up. Which does seem to be your normal style.
Mike Vandeman
Nov 6, 2012, 5:36:30 AM11/6/12
to
shrag...@hotmail.com
Nov 6, 2012, 8:31:56 AM11/6/12
to
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:36:30 AM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 1:44:48 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
>
> > > > I would be interested in hearing a real narrative ... but I guess you won't provide one since your testimony in court probably lead to the battery conviction.
>
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 1:44:48 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
>
> > > > I would be interested in hearing a real narrative ... but I guess you won't provide one since your testimony in court probably lead to the battery conviction.
>
> If you know the traffic law (pedestrians have the right of way), then you know that the biker was at fault for DELIBERATELY running into me (because he didn't want to hear that he was there illegally). It's not brain science. You just refuse to believe because you don't want to. Obviously, the jury is irrelevant, since they weren't there. Nor were you. No HONEST person would claim to know what happened, given that they weren't there. Mountain bikers are not honest. Every one of them lied under oath.
Wait... What?
First you wrote this:
"... you know that the biker was at fault..."
Then you wrote this:
"No HONEST person would claim to know what happened, given that they weren't there."
See why nobody wants to take you at your word? You are completely deranged.
Mike Vandeman
Nov 6, 2012, 9:35:53 PM11/6/12
to
If a mountain biker riding ILLEGALLY hits a hiker, OF COURSE that is the biker's fault! Even admitted scofflaw mountain biker Peter Frick-Wright admitted they were there illegally. Your brain is seriously defective, including the moral part, if any.
Mike Vandeman
Nov 6, 2012, 9:36:30 PM11/6/12
to
Blackblade
Nov 8, 2012, 5:25:36 AM11/8/12
to
> If you know the traffic law (pedestrians have the right of way), then you know that the biker was at fault for DELIBERATELY running into me (because he didn't want to hear that he was there illegally). It's not brain science. You just refuse to believe because you don't want to. Obviously, the jury is irrelevant, since they weren't there. Nor were you. No HONEST person would claim to know what happened, given that they weren't there. Mountain bikers are not honest. Every one of them lied under oath.
You CANNOT use Right of Way Precedence for pedestrians to illegally detain someone. They are required to give way to you but have done so if they ensure that you can continue on your way. If you then choose to intentionally change your direction and move in such a way as to occasion contact then YOU are the guilty party and of a far more serious offence than trespass.
You are entitled to your views on mountain biking but no one else is obligated to stop and hear them. You are not a police officer, it is not your land and you had not been authorised by anyone with the necessary authority to enforce a no biking rule. As such, you did indeed commit assault/battery and, potentially, illegal detention (maybe US law is a little different on that one).
You seem to think that because mountainbiking was not permitted on the trail (although, by all accounts, it was the norm for bikes to use the trail) that this somehow gives you all kinds of rights over the individuals committing what is, technically, trespass. It doesn't. They are committing what in the US would be a misdemeanour and in the UK a civil matter. A relatively trivial offence.
In forcing them to stop or touching them in any way when it has been made plain to you that this is undesired you commit an offence.
This is what I suspected was the case all along; you are indeed guilty of the offences for which you were convicted because you either don't understand, or don't want to understand, that you may not violate others rights just because they are committing trespass because YOU are a private citizen and not authorised to conduct enforcement.
By your own words ... GUILTY !!!
0 new messages