Forester says...

On Feb 6, 4:29*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/6/2011 7:57 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Are you saying that you
don't notice his intentional insults to anyone disagreeing with him? Fine.

Yet where are the complaints of much worse behavior? *The silence is
deafening.

The "intentional insults" are almost all imaginary. Certain people
have a tendency to make statements that are demonstrably wrong. When
a mistake is pointed out, they get testy; and when they have many
mistakes pointed out, they get very testy and begin to imagine a "tone
of voice" (for want of better words) that I'm not using.

It gets really weird when they accuse me of misinterpreting their
explicit statements, yet read all sorts of false implications into
mine, and insult me because of those false implications!

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Peter Cole wrote:

I think a good part of the disagreement in this NG is people
misunderstanding or not appreciating the local context. What seems fair
and pragmatic on the streets of Boston may not be so in a hamlet in
Ohio, or among the hog farms of Iowa.

Please keep in mind the particular "hamlet in Ohio" I write from is
part of a metro area with a population of over half a million. *

So you mean about half the size of Tulsa, Oklahoma and surroundings?

Or about two-thirds the size of Laredo, Texas plus Nuevo Laredo,
Tamaulipas?

Or about the same size as greater Mobile, Alabama?

Call it a hamlet or not, but it ain't Boston.

Chalo

On Feb 7, 3:28*pm, Chalo wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Peter Cole wrote:

I think a good part of the disagreement in this NG is people
misunderstanding or not appreciating the local context. What seems fair
and pragmatic on the streets of Boston may not be so in a hamlet in
Ohio, or among the hog farms of Iowa.

Please keep in mind the particular "hamlet in Ohio" I write from is
part of a metro area with a population of over half a million. *

So you mean about half the size of Tulsa, Oklahoma and surroundings?

Or about two-thirds the size of Laredo, Texas plus Nuevo Laredo,
Tamaulipas?

Or about the same size as greater Mobile, Alabama?

Call it a hamlet or not, but it ain't Boston.

It ain't a hamlet, either. That was the point. Austin's pretty small
compared to New York City, as I recall.

My suburban village (a legal term) is a small, separate political
entity in this balkanized metro area. But when I use the term
"village," don't visualize primitive cottages surrounded by kine
grazing the heathery moor. I'm half a mile from the biggest shopping
area around, with 40,000 cars per day driving through it.

The village's political separation has been useful for bicyclist (and
pedestrians) advocacy. It enabled me to get a toehold, so to speak,
by working with local committees, and to become pretty well known in
working with regional transportation authorities.

- Frank Krygowski

On 2/7/2011 8:41 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/6/2011 2:07 AM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/5/2011 11:59 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:51:14 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

In WI, you cannot shoot an armed intruder even if he shoots first.
That's absolute insanity besides being an affront to liberty, which
begins at the individual in his person and property.

Yes, it's insanity for a good reason. It's not fact. Self defense is
allowed in every state in the US. Although some only allow enough force
to stop the attacker. IOW's, you can't put them down, then walk up to
them and keep shooting them til they're dead. Here, one can shoot a
burglar/robber in the back while they're fleeing. It doesn't matter if
they are armed or not.

In other words, you can murder people and falsely claim they were a
thief, as long as there are no witnesses.

In Baton Rouge you apparently only need to claim that you thought they
were a thief as we found out when some idiot killed a kid looking for a
Halloween party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

I've lost track of this thread but is someone arguing for this "right"?

Wes Newell appears to believe summary execution for petty theft is
morally correct.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/7/2011 10:51 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:33 pm, wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:57 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI





$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:22 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Feb 5, 12:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private
lands -- generally given to utilites. Governments can condemn a right
of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross
on to another's property without permission. There are some
exceptions. In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law
that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a
****er for a lot of beach front property owners.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast

By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property.
If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use
property, that is called a license. You have an implied license to go
in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for
trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get
out. The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to
the highway or graze on your property. Those laws have been trimmed
way back in most range states. I am not aware of any statute or
common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private
property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always
been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. The earliest common law
actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie.

Please note that in the UK, hunting refers to chasing after foxes, not
shooting or otherwise obtaining game.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

FFS hunting is hunting, "fox hunting" with hounds is considered a
sport. Deer is wild and wildly available, should you have permission
from the landowner. We do eat the stuff along with hare, rabbit, hog,
pheasant, partridge, pigeon. It's all hunted because trapping is
mostly illegal. It's just that 98% of the poulation hun ttheir
chicken down in the supemarket. The Hunt means a fox hunt with hounds
but hunting is still widespread.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David Scheidt pointed out to me in an e-mail that the trespassing
while hunting issue is handled differently in different states. I
found this wiki-like entry that summarizings the issue:

A hunting license is not a license to trespass, but state laws treat
hunters differently when it comes to trespassing. Some states have
laws that specifically address trespassing while hunting, and others
rely simply on the general trespassing statutes of the state. In about
half of the states posting is not required to prevent trespassing;
that is, it is against the law for hunters to trespass on private
property without the landowner's permission even if the land is not
posted. Where posting is required, some states have laws specifying
how to post land. In some states, trespass while in possession of a
firearm is a FELONY punishable by IMPRISONMENT for up to five years
and/or a fine up to $5,000. A few states have laws that address
hunters trespassing to retrieve dogs or wounded animals. In most
states, however, hunters may not retrieve dogs or wounded animals if
they cannot legally hunt on that land.


Oregon law is:

ORS 498.120 provides:


“(1) No person shall hunt upon the cultivated or enclosed land of
another without first obtaining permission from the owner or lawful
occupant thereof, or the agent of such owner or occupant. No
prosecution shall be commenced under this section except upon written
complaint filed with a magistrate. The complaint shall be verified by
the oath of the owner or lawful occupant of the cultivated or enclosed
land, or the agent of such owner or occupant.

“(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, the boundaries
of ‘enclosed’ land may be indicated by wire, ditch, hedge, fence,
water or by any visible or distinctive lines that indicate a
separation from the surrounding or contiguous territory, and includes
the established and posted boundaries of Indian reservations
established by treaties of the United States and the various Indian
tribes.”

Like open range laws, it places the burden of fencing or boundary
marking on the owner. The statute is not cross-referenced in the
criminal trespass statute, which I think is a little odd. -- Jay
Beattie.

When I lived in rural Wisconsin, on a couple of occasions, armed deer
hunters [1] appeared in our yard, only a few feet from the house. They
were requested to leave, particularly the one who swung around at the
noise of the front door opening, pointing her rifle at me. Needless to
say, I was not amused.

[1] All FIBs of course, locals [2] know better.
[2] Of course, there are quite a few nutters in rural Wisconsin, that
will fire warning shots over the heads of cyclists riding on public
roads. [3]
[3] How I know what a subsonic bullet [4] sounds like in flight.
[4] Most likely 22 Long Rifle.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/7/2011 1:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
I agree that we need to remove motorists' sense of entitlement. But I
don't think it's caused entirely by transportation policies; I think
it goes both ways - that transportation policies evolved to confirm a
sense of entitlement among the early (elite) motorists. For example,
I read about a wealthy British motorist in the 1920s or 1930s who
referred to cyclists as "road lice." I imagine that someone riding in
a coach and four in 1800 would feel that the lowly peasants should
scatter when he sped through. Both policies and attitudes need to
change.[...]

In many countries, those wealthy enough to own a motorcar can run over
proletarians with relative impunity, with the family of the survivors
getting a few hundred dollars in compensation. The US has been trending
in that direction, but has not yet deteriorated to such an extent.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Feb 7, 4:51*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:33*pm, thirty-six wrote:



On Feb 6, 1:57*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:22 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Feb 5, 12:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * *wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private
lands -- generally given to utilites. *Governments can condemn a right
of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross
on to another's property without permission. There are some
exceptions. *In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law
that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a
****er for a lot of beach front property owners.http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Oregon_Coast

By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property.
If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use
property, that is called a license. *You have an implied license to go
in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for
trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get
out. *The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to
the highway or graze on your property. *Those laws have been trimmed
way back in most range states. *I am not aware of any statute or
common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private
property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always
been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. *The earliest common law
actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie.

Please note that in the UK, hunting refers to chasing after foxes, not
shooting or otherwise obtaining game.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

FFS hunting is hunting, "fox hunting" with hounds is considered a
sport. *Deer is wild and wildly available, should you have permission
from the landowner. *We do eat the stuff along with hare, rabbit, hog,
pheasant, partridge, pigeon. * *It's all hunted because trapping is
mostly illegal. *It's just that 98% of the poulation hun ttheir
chicken down in the supemarket. *The Hunt means a fox hunt with hounds
but hunting is still widespread.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David Scheidt pointed out to me in an e-mail that the trespassing
while hunting issue is handled differently in different states. *I
found this wiki-like entry that summarizings the issue:

A hunting license is not a license to trespass, but state laws treat
hunters differently when it comes to trespassing. Some states have
laws that specifically address trespassing while hunting, and others
rely simply on the general trespassing statutes of the state. In about
half of the states posting is not required to prevent trespassing;
that is, it is against the law for hunters to trespass on private
property without the landowner's permission even if the land is not
posted. Where posting is required, some states have laws specifying
how to post land. In some states, trespass while in possession of a
firearm is a FELONY punishable by IMPRISONMENT for up to five years
and/or a fine up to $5,000. A few states have laws that address
hunters trespassing to retrieve dogs or wounded animals. In most
states, however, hunters may not retrieve dogs or wounded animals if
they cannot legally hunt on that land.

Oregon law is:

ORS 498.120 provides:

“(1) No person shall hunt upon the cultivated or enclosed land of
another without first obtaining permission from the owner or lawful
occupant thereof, or the agent of such owner or occupant. No
prosecution shall be commenced under this section except upon written
complaint filed with a magistrate. The complaint shall be verified by
the oath of the owner or lawful occupant of the cultivated or enclosed
land, or the agent of such owner or occupant.

“(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, the boundaries
of ‘enclosed’ land may be indicated by wire, ditch, hedge, fence,
water or by any visible or distinctive lines that indicate a
separation from the surrounding or contiguous territory, and includes
the established and posted boundaries of Indian reservations
established by treaties of the United States and the various Indian
tribes.”

Like open range laws, it places the burden of fencing or boundary
marking on the owner. *The statute is not cross-referenced in the
criminal trespass statute, which I think is a little odd. *-- Jay
Beattie.

Very interesting. Any comments made by me have been pertinent to the
situation in the UK (Britain specifically).

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

When I lived in rural Wisconsin, on a couple of occasions, armed deer
hunters [1] appeared in our yard, only a few feet from the house. They
were requested to leave, particularly the one who swung around at the
noise of the front door opening, pointing her rifle at me. Needless to
say, I was not amused.

[1] All FIBs of course, locals [2] know better.
[2] Of course, there are quite a few nutters in rural Wisconsin, that
will fire warning shots over the heads of cyclists riding on public
roads. [3]
[3] How I know what a subsonic bullet [4] sounds like in flight.
[4] Most likely 22 Long Rifle.


Many .22 long rifle bullets exit the barrel at supersonic speed.

Subsonics can be used effectively with a silencer, supersonics cannot.

Some centerfire cartridges can be loaded to remain subsonic, but the
list is very short.

Deer hunters ought to know better than to use a .22 LR to hunt deer
(unless your deer are little bigger than a rabbit.)

Will you be making a bullet proof bicycling hat any time soon?

JS.

On 2/7/2011 8:51 PM, James Steward wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

When I lived in rural Wisconsin, on a couple of occasions, armed deer
hunters [1] appeared in our yard, only a few feet from the house. They
were requested to leave, particularly the one who swung around at the
noise of the front door opening, pointing her rifle at me. Needless to
say, I was not amused.

[1] All FIBs of course, locals [2] know better.
[2] Of course, there are quite a few nutters in rural Wisconsin, that
will fire warning shots over the heads of cyclists riding on public
roads. [3]
[3] How I know what a subsonic bullet [4] sounds like in flight.
[4] Most likely 22 Long Rifle.


Many .22 long rifle bullets exit the barrel at supersonic speed.

Well, I was probably about 100 to 120 meters from the shooter.

Subsonics can be used effectively with a silencer, supersonics cannot.

Correct.

Some centerfire cartridges can be loaded to remain subsonic, but the
list is very short.

Almost any cartridge can be subsonic with a squib load.

Deer hunters ought to know better than to use a .22 LR to hunt deer
(unless your deer are little bigger than a rabbit.)

The warning shot was fired by a person in their yard, while I was on the
public road. It was not deer season.

Some have used 220 Swift and 22-250 on deer and pronghorn. These can be
very effective, but can also just cause large surface wounds if the
bullet disintegrates prematurely. Most states (in the US) require 6-mm
or greater bullets for deer hunting.

Will you be making a bullet proof bicycling hat any time soon?

Considering the weight, no. A bulletproof Mercedes sedan comes in over
4 tons, but is very effective (Alexander Haig survived a bomb blast that
threw the car in the air in one, while he was NATO commander).

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/7/2011 8:51 PM, James Steward wrote:

Some centerfire cartridges can be loaded to remain subsonic, but the
list is very short.

Almost any cartridge can be subsonic with a squib load.

Though not at all useful, and potentially dangerous.

Deer hunters ought to know better than to use a .22 LR to hunt deer
(unless your deer are little bigger than a rabbit.)

The warning shot was fired by a person in their yard, while I was on the
public road. It was not deer season.

And some call Australia the redneck wonderland...

Some have used 220 Swift and 22-250 on deer and pronghorn. These can be
very effective, but can also just cause large surface wounds if the
bullet disintegrates prematurely.

Yes, grass or twigs can be a pain.

Most states (in the US) require 6-mm
or greater bullets for deer hunting.

That sounds sensible.

JS.