Vandeman helps British Columbia business

"y_p_w" wrote in message
...
On Nov 4, 5:29 pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message

...

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...
[...]
They would have to plea bargain to the misdemeanor, he's been charged
with felony assault for swinging his tree-saw at innocent people.

What innocent people would that be? The mountain bikers? We KNOW they
were
the instigators because all mountain bikers who ride their bikes on
hiking
trails are asshole-idiots. It I had my way, they would be summarily
executed on the spot. And then we hikers and all true lovers of
wilderness
would line up to **** on their graves. I say ****'em!

Your view and the law are not aligned on this one. Your butt-buddy,
Vandeman, assaulted people with a saw. That is felony assault, if he is
convicted. Nobody gives a rat's ass how "innocent" the bike riders are,
they
didn't assault anybody.

Yeah - it's a wide fire road with signage and enforcement that's been
spotty at best as to whether or not it was actually against the rules
to ride a bicycle there. It's wide enough for large maintenance
vehicles, and hardly singletrack. I've never heard of UCPD arresting
or even citing anyone for riding a bike there.

Of course not! The whole state of California is so ****ed-up it doesn't know
whether it is coming or going. The only state more ****ed up than California
is Minnesota. Both states are infested with liberals like Tom Sherman. What
the hell do you expect?

All mountain bikers who ride their bikes on hiking trails should be drawn
and quartered. After that, they can be remanded to the Spanish Inquisition
who will know how to dispose of their rotten souls.

Ed Dolan the Great in congruence with Saint Edward the Great says ****'em!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
On 11/4/2010 9:00 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...] Otherwise I am
afraid you are a prime candidate for the dreaded Spanish Inquisition!

The Spanish Inquisition in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o.

Woe to those who do not believe in the Spanish Inquisition! Tom Sherman
believes in liberalism, socialism and communism (and maybe the unicorn fot
all I know) ... but not the Spanish Inquisition. Yea, he will surely reap
the tortures of the comfy chair and then he will be sorry!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 11/5/2010 12:55 AM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman wrote in message
...
On 11/4/2010 9:00 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...] Otherwise I am
afraid you are a prime candidate for the dreaded Spanish Inquisition!

The Spanish Inquisition in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o.

Woe to those who do not believe in the Spanish Inquisition! Tom Sherman
believes in liberalism, socialism and communism (and maybe the unicorn fot

http://mingle2.com/dating/unicorn

all I know) ... but not the Spanish Inquisition. Yea, he will surely reap
the tortures of the comfy chair and then he will be sorry!

Not the Comfy Chair!

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

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
On 11/5/2010 12:55 AM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman wrote in message
...
On 11/4/2010 9:00 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...] Otherwise I am
afraid you are a prime candidate for the dreaded Spanish Inquisition!

The Spanish Inquisition in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o.

Woe to those who do not believe in the Spanish Inquisition! Tom Sherman
believes in liberalism, socialism and communism (and maybe the unicorn
[...]

http://mingle2.com/dating/unicorn

I attribute Tom Sherman's lowly sense of humor to a scientific and technical
education (he is a civil engineer). If he had majored in the liberal arts
like me he would be totally devoid of a sense of humor. We scholars think
the universe is about as funny as warmed over death.

Yea, I have not had a good laugh since I was 12 years old. I think it was
due to a Laurel and Hardy short film about them having a fracas with their
wives. I decided then and there that I never wanted to be married. Instead
here I am 60 years later saddled with 12 cats who are eating me out of house
and home.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 4, 6:17*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message

...
[...]

They would have to plea bargain to the misdemeanor, he's been charged with
felony assault for swinging his tree-saw at innocent people.

What innocent people would that be? The mountain bikers? We KNOW they were
the instigators because all mountain bikers who ride their bikes on hiking
trails are asshole-idiots. It I had my way, they would be summarily executed
on the spot. And then we hikers and all true lovers of wilderness would line
up to **** on their graves. I say ****'em!

HEAD Dolan the GRATE ... ever the voice of reason!!!


Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 11/4/2010 3:06 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Nov 4, 11:16 am, wrote:
On 10/28/2010 1:01 PM, y_p_w wrote:

snip

I offered him free accommodation as a thank you. I doubt he ll take
me up on it but the offer stands.
**unquote**

It was nice of him to offer Vandeman free accommodation, but hopefully
the State of California will soon offer him the same deal for a much
longer period of time, in a gated community, with three meals a day.

The costs would probably be borne by Alameda County for a misdemeanor
conviction. It would either be Santa Rita Jail in Dublin or the
smaller Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland. I thought that the latter
was typically for those held awaiting trial, although they do seem to
hold a few convicted inmates.



JS
They would have to plea bargain to the misdemeanor, he's been charged with
felony assault for swinging his tree-saw at innocent people.

I checked the minimum sentence requirements for his alleged crime, and
jail is not required even for a felony conviction. He could get a fine
and probation if convicted.

On 04/11/10 9:25 PM, y_p_w wrote:

Yeah - it's a wide fire road with signage and enforcement that's been
spotty at best as to whether or not it was actually against the rules
to ride a bicycle there. It's wide enough for large maintenance
vehicles, and hardly singletrack. I've never heard of UCPD arresting
or even citing anyone for riding a bike there.

Often a property owner will put signs up to limit their liability in
case of an accident. If a cyclist got injured on a road that's signed
"No Bicycles" then the property owner isn't responsible for maintaining
the road in a condition safe for cyclists. In this case, clearly the
property owner was fine with bicycles using that road since they did not
enforce the ban. In any case, the fact that the bicyclists were breaking
UC rules has no bearing on the facts of the attack.

The question I'd like to know is why Vandeman was on University of
California property with a handsaw - likely carried in order to do
unauthorized trail maintenance?

There are signs all over campus stating that the right to pass on
University property can be revoked. I could imagine staying off of UC
property could be a condition of a sentence.

With or without a conviction, UC has the right to ban him from their
property.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/10 9:25 PM, y_p_w wrote:

Yeah - it's a wide fire road with signage and enforcement that's been
spotty at best as to whether or not it was actually against the rules
to ride a bicycle there. It's wide enough for large maintenance
vehicles, and hardly singletrack. I've never heard of UCPD arresting
or even citing anyone for riding a bike there.

Often a property owner will put signs up to limit their liability in case
of an accident. If a cyclist got injured on a road that's signed "No
Bicycles" then the property owner isn't responsible for maintaining the
road in a condition safe for cyclists. In this case, clearly the property
owner was fine with bicycles using that road since they did not enforce
the ban. In any case, the fact that the bicyclists were breaking UC rules
has no bearing on the facts of the attack.

The last time I looked UC was a governmental entity.

The question I'd like to know is why Vandeman was on University of
California property with a handsaw - likely carried in order to do
unauthorized trail maintenance?

There are signs all over campus stating that the right to pass on
University property can be revoked. I could imagine staying off of UC
property could be a condition of a sentence.

With or without a conviction, UC has the right to ban him from their
property.

Just as UC has the right to ban cyclists from using that particular trail.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"SMS" wrote in message
...
[...]
I checked the minimum sentence requirements for his alleged crime, and
jail is not required even for a felony conviction. He could get a fine and
probation if convicted.

Or how about a bottle of champagne from the hiking community to celebrate a
couple of rogue criminal asshole mountain bikers being given a proper
comeuppance. I only regret that their heads were not taken off! I think an
ax would work better for that though.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 5, 9:44*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message

...

On 04/11/10 9:25 PM, y_p_w wrote:

Yeah - it's a wide fire road with signage and enforcement that's been
spotty at best as to whether or not it was actually against the rules
to ride a bicycle there. *It's wide enough for large maintenance
vehicles, and hardly singletrack. *I've never heard of UCPD arresting
or even citing anyone for riding a bike there.

Often a property owner will put signs up to limit their liability in case
of an accident. If a cyclist got injured on a road that's signed "No
Bicycles" then the property owner isn't responsible for maintaining the
road in a condition safe for cyclists. In this case, clearly the property
owner was fine with bicycles using that road since they did not enforce
the ban. In any case, the fact that the bicyclists were breaking UC rules
has no bearing on the facts of the attack.

The last time I looked UC was a governmental entity.

No - the University of California is a quasi-governmental entity.
They maintain rights to pass similar to private landowners. They do
happen to have a special status however, which includes being subject
to public records requests including public salary information.

The question I'd like to know is why Vandeman was on University of
California property with a handsaw - likely carried in order to do
unauthorized trail maintenance?

There are signs all over campus stating that the right to pass on
University property can be revoked. *I could imagine staying off of UC
property could be a condition of a sentence.

With or without a conviction, UC has the right to ban him from their
property.

Just as UC has the right to ban cyclists from using that particular trail..

They haven't actually done that from a practical standpoint. If they
were truly interested in banning cyclists, they could easily patrol
the area and ask people to leave. The thing about UC is that they
exist in this strange legal realm. It's like a private business - for
example a shopping mall. Generally the public is allowed to pass.
However - if a "house rule" is broken that doesn't violate any
particular law, the management can ask someone to leave, then have
them arrested for trespassing if they refuse to do so.

Granted, there are some laws that define specific criminal acts on UC
property, but I've never heard of anyone arrested for simply breaking
a rule set by the University if they simply left.

I can't believe I'm arguing with him. However - I just wanted to make
a point of clarification.