Vandeman Trial/Mistrial Report Link

http://peterfrickwright.com/trial/

Now they start over with a new jury. This could go for another year.
Unlikely that the D.A. will drop the charges.

On Feb 9, 8:48*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
4Per SMS:

http://peterfrickwright.com/trial/

Now they start over with a new jury. This could go for another year.
Unlikely that the D.A. will drop the charges.

What did the guy actually do?
--
PeteCresswell

Mike Vandemann wants the police to enforce the laws about mountain
bikers ruining the countryside by riding where they are forbidden.
Now he's being railroaded on trumped-up charges brought months after
the events by unreliable witnesses. One of these unreliable witnesses
for the prosecution has already caused a mistrial, with attendant
further expense for poor Mike, by ranting at Mike in court before the
jury, so that the judge could not let the bias stand and had to call
for a new jury. You will see more of this sort of scummy behavior as
these merchants of hate, whom all cyclists should abhor, collapse the
trial again and again so that Mike has to pay ever-escaling lawyers'
fees over and over again.

André Jute
Unbiased observer & law abiding cyclist

Andre Jute wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:48 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
4Per SMS:

http://peterfrickwright.com/trial/

Now they start over with a new jury. This could go for another year.
Unlikely that the D.A. will drop the charges.

What did the guy actually do?
--
PeteCresswell

Mike Vandemann wants the police to enforce the laws about mountain
bikers ruining the countryside by riding where they are forbidden.
Now he's being railroaded on trumped-up charges brought months after
the events by unreliable witnesses. One of these unreliable witnesses
for the prosecution has already caused a mistrial, with attendant
further expense for poor Mike, by ranting at Mike in court before the
jury, so that the judge could not let the bias stand and had to call
for a new jury. You will see more of this sort of scummy behavior as
these merchants of hate, whom all cyclists should abhor, collapse the
trial again and again so that Mike has to pay ever-escaling lawyers'
fees over and over again.

André Jute
Unbiased observer & law abiding cyclist

I wouldn't be able to sit on that jury. Taking a saw for walk on the trail
in question is too close at heart to vigilante landowners stringing out
steel cable clotheslines to catch dirtbikers on public land. The question
isn't whether the mountain bikers were right or wrong, but simply whether
assault with a bladed weapon is ever warranted by a private citizen except
strictly in self defense. Mountain biking on that fire trail amounts to an
infraction of a minor local statute, a ticket offense. We reserve for our
police forces alone the power of life and death in traffic stops. Vandermann
overstepped his bounds, the same bounds that apply to each of us not so
charged to keep the public peace. Our powers of arrest stop short of abusive
language, and then only for felony offenses.

On 2/9/2011 12:48 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
4Per SMS:
http://peterfrickwright.com/trial/

Now they start over with a new jury. This could go for another year.
Unlikely that the D.A. will drop the charges.

What did the guy actually do?

He allegedly attacked mountain bikers with a saw on a fire road on
University of California land (that's the felony).

Since the road is signed for no bicycling, the mountain bikers were not
supposed to be there (the road is used a lot by cyclists, and the
signing is just for liability reasons). Of course the fact that the
cyclists were violating U.C. rules does not give anyone the right to
attack them. The U.C. police could cite cyclists on this road if they
wanted to, but again, since the bicycle prohibition is only for
liability reasons, to my knowledge they rarely, if ever, cite cyclists
for riding on it. And it should be noted that the U.C. police have been
under fire recently for excessive enforcement of bicycle laws on campus,
so it's not like they ignore cyclist's violations in general (see
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/18/local/la-me-berkeley-bikes-20101218).

If it were just a misdemeanor then I doubt the D.A. would pursue this
any more, but since there is a felony charge that may be different.

While some people would like to pursue the defendant forever, my feeling
is that if it goes to trial again it will just end up costing the county
(and the defendant) a lot more money. Whatever happens next, the
defendant has a) certainly learned his lesson, and b) can be banned by
the landowner from returning to that area. No point in spending even
more money on this.

On Feb 10, 6:53*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:48 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
4Per SMS:

http://peterfrickwright.com/trial/

Now they start over with a new jury. This could go for another year.
Unlikely that the D.A. will drop the charges.

What did the guy actually do?
--
PeteCresswell

Mike Vandemann wants the police to enforce the laws about mountain
bikers ruining the countryside by riding where they are forbidden.
Now he's being railroaded on trumped-up charges brought months after
the events by unreliable witnesses. One of these unreliable witnesses
for the prosecution has already caused a mistrial, with attendant
further expense for poor Mike, by ranting at Mike in court before the
jury, so that the judge could not let the bias stand and had to call
for a new jury. You will see more of this sort of scummy behavior as
these merchants of hate, whom all cyclists should abhor, collapse the
trial again and again so that Mike has to pay ever-escaling lawyers'
fees over and over again.

Andr Jute
Unbiased observer & law abiding cyclist

I wouldn't be able to sit on that jury. Taking a saw for walk on the trail
in question is too close at heart to vigilante landowners stringing out
steel cable clotheslines to catch dirtbikers on public land.

Whoa, feller! Now you're imputing premeditated motives to do serious
bodily damage to an innocent man who hasn't been tried yet. You don't
know what the saw was for. Perhaps he was taking cuttings for his
garden. Perhaps he was sawing off deadwood blocking the footpath.

Doesn't it strike anyone here that a saw is a particularly awkward
choice of weapon. If Vandman wanted a weapon, why not just a sturdy
walking stick. A small saw is simply a silly choice as a weapon.


The question
isn't whether the mountain bikers were right or wrong, but simply whether
assault with a bladed weapon is ever warranted by a private citizen except
strictly in self defense.

You don't know whether Vandeman assaulted them. They claim he did.
Some of them only came forward to accuse him months and months after
the alleged assault, after a hate campaign stoked everyone up. I take
it you've heard of these cases of social workers persauding the
children of perfectly good parents that they were abused? I wonder who
were working on Vandeman's accusers. The timing is most suspect, and I
expect the judge to throw out any testimony given by those, if he
doesn't simply refuse to let them testify at all.

You also don't know that they didn't assault Vandeman first for
haranguing them, and that he perhaps defended himself. They were
greater in number than he, and younger and stronger and fastter. This
entire assault by Vandeman story stinks to high heaven of a
provocation and a fabrication.

Mountain biking on that fire trail amounts to an
infraction of a minor local statute, a ticket offense. We reserve for our
police forces alone the power of life and death in traffic stops.

Like the ****head who drew a pistol on me for a speeding offense for
which I couldn't even be prosecuted because I had a diplomatic
passport.

Vandermann
overstepped his bounds, the same bounds that apply to each of us not so
charged to keep the public peace. Our powers of arrest stop short of abusive
language, and then only for felony offenses.

Wow. You know all that for a fact, do you. Where did I miss the bit
that Vandeman was making a citizen's arrest? You don't even know that
Vandeman overstepped the bounds. Perhaps all of us should be more
concerned about the damage mountainbikers do to the scenery, and
remonstrate with them when we see them, and if they then shove us
around for it, beat the **** out of them, with whatever comes to hand,
including a trailblazer's small woodsaw.

Andre Jute
Not an undesirable railroading an elderly friend of the environment

On 2/10/2011 12:53 AM, MikeWhoWhatWhereWhenWhyHow wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:48 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
4Per SMS:

http://peterfrickwright.com/trial/

Now they start over with a new jury. This could go for another year.
Unlikely that the D.A. will drop the charges.

What did the guy actually do?
--
PeteCresswell

Mike Vandemann wants the police to enforce the laws about mountain
bikers ruining the countryside by riding where they are forbidden.
Now he's being railroaded on trumped-up charges brought months after
the events by unreliable witnesses. One of these unreliable witnesses
for the prosecution has already caused a mistrial, with attendant
further expense for poor Mike, by ranting at Mike in court before the
jury, so that the judge could not let the bias stand and had to call
for a new jury. You will see more of this sort of scummy behavior as
these merchants of hate, whom all cyclists should abhor, collapse the
trial again and again so that Mike has to pay ever-escaling lawyers'
fees over and over again.

André Jute
Unbiased observer & law abiding cyclist

I wouldn't be able to sit on that jury. Taking a saw for walk on the
trail in question is too close at heart to vigilante landowners
stringing out steel cable clotheslines to catch dirtbikers on public
land. The question isn't whether the mountain bikers were right or
wrong, but simply whether assault with a bladed weapon is ever warranted
by a private citizen except strictly in self defense. Mountain biking on
that fire trail amounts to an infraction of a minor local statute, a
ticket offense. We reserve for our police forces alone the power of life
and death in traffic stops. Vandermann overstepped his bounds, the same
bounds that apply to each of us not so charged to keep the public peace.
Our powers of arrest stop short of abusive language, and then only for
felony offenses.


Who is "Vandermann" (sic)? I thought this thread was about the trial of
Michael J. Vandeman.

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

Andre Jute wrote:
Perhaps all of us should be more
concerned about the damage mountainbikers do to the scenery, and
remonstrate with them when we see them, and if they then shove us
around for it, beat the **** out of them, with whatever comes to hand,
including a trailblazer's small woodsaw.

Vandermann is on trial for assault, not his ideals or beliefs regarding
forestry and conservation. For what it's worth, I side ever so slightly with
reining in the do-good-busy-bodies.

SMS wrote:
:On 2/9/2011 12:48 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
: 4Per SMS:
: http://peterfrickwright.com/trial/
:
: Now they start over with a new jury. This could go for another year.
: Unlikely that the D.A. will drop the charges.
:
: What did the guy actually do?

:He allegedly attacked mountain bikers with a saw on a fire road on
:University of California land (that's the felony).

:Since the road is signed for no bicycling, the mountain bikers were not
:supposed to be there (the road is used a lot by cyclists, and the
:signing is just for liability reasons). Of course the fact that the
:cyclists were violating U.C. rules does not give anyone the right to
:attack them. The U.C. police could cite cyclists on this road if they
:wanted to, but again, since the bicycle prohibition is only for
:liability reasons, to my knowledge they rarely, if ever, cite cyclists
:for riding on it. And it should be noted that the U.C. police have been
:under fire recently for excessive enforcement of bicycle laws on campus,
:so it's not like they ignore cyclist's violations in general (see
:http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/18/local/la-me-berkeley-bikes-20101218).

:If it were just a misdemeanor then I doubt the D.A. would pursue this
:any more, but since there is a felony charge that may be different.

He's demanded a jury trial. The DA thinks the case is good, so he'll
get one.

:While some people would like to pursue the defendant forever, my feeling
:is that if it goes to trial again it will just end up costing the county
and the defendant) a lot more money. Whatever happens next, the

A retrial isn't about Vandemann; it's about the system. Jury trials
are expensive and time consuming. The prosecutor has an incentive to
prevent other people from asking for stupid needless jury trials.

:defendant has a) certainly learned his lesson, and b) can be banned by
:the landowner from returning to that area. No point in spending even
:more money on this.

Sorry, but assaulting someone with a deadly weapon deserves a pretty
serious custodial sentence.

--
sig 3

On 2/10/2011 7:38 AM, David Scheidt wrote:

snip

Sorry, but assaulting someone with a deadly weapon deserves a pretty
serious custodial sentence.

Whatever the outcome of the second trial (if it occurs) you should not
expect much of a custodial sentence given the state of California's
prison system and the state of the Alameda county jail, and the fact
that the injuries sustained by the victim(s) were not serious, and the
fact that this was a first offense.

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:

You don't know whether Vandeman assaulted them.

Neither is he part of the legal system or part of the
trial, so he is not obliged to keep his opinion to
himself. As for Mike V: Guilty Guilty Guilty!

--
Michael Press