A Cure for Violence?

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:31:57 AM UTC-8, wrote:
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.



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."



So you assert that he *knows* it was the rider's fault, and then in the same paragraph you write that someone who wasn't there can't reasonably claim to know what happened.



See why nobody wants to take you at your word? You are completely deranged.

Liar. You know NOTHING about "nobody", having never even done a survey.

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.

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:52:48 PM UTC-7, Mike Vandeman wrote:
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

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.

And, ta da, there we have it ... guilty from your own testimony. Based on your own statements in this thread I would find you guilty of battery if on a jury.

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 !!!