Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...cyclists-clash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...cyclists-clash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

On Apr 10, 8:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...cyclists-clash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
Were you tried in court for this?
Were you found guilty?

On Apr 10, 9:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...cyclists-clash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

What part of my post wasn't true?

On Apr 11, 1:20*pm, JVaughn wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...cyclists-clash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
Were you tried in court for this?
Were you found guilty?

No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
you.

On Apr 11, 1:50*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...cyclists-clash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

What part of my post wasn't true?

All of it. Including your name. DUH! Not that you give a whit.

In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...

On Apr 11, 1:20=A0pm, JVaughn wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Apr 10, 10:54=A0am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:10=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...s-cyclists-cl=
ash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
Were you tried in court for this?
Were you found guilty?

No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
you.

From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thread,
see:

http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...que-defendant/

which contains in part:

For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike ti not guilty.

Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards’ word
against Vandeman’s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At this news,
Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.

For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.

In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At one
point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was quite
nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing arguments,
Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is a threat,
intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the argument
stuck.

For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.

For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.

The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcala, just
his bike.

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

To which you replied:

BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
you.

So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not
all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part "charge
dismissed", to what were you referring?

On Apr 11, 10:24*pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...







On Apr 11, 1:20=A0pm, JVaughn wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Apr 10, 10:54=A0am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:10=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...s-cyclists-cl=
ash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
Were you tried in court for this?
Were you found guilty?

No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
you.

From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thread,
see:





http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...ry-unique-defe...

which contains in part:

For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike ti not guilty.

Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards’ word
against Vandeman’s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At this news,
Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.

For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.

In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At one
point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was quite
nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing arguments,
Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is a threat,
intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the argument
stuck.

For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.

For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.

The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcala, just
his bike.

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

To which you replied:

BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
you.

So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not
all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part "charge
dismissed", to what were you referring?

Assault.

In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...

On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article .=
com,
Mike Vandeman says...







On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman wr=
ote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...ilms-cyclists=
-cl=3D
ash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
et
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
Were you tried in court for this?
Were you found guilty?

No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
you.

From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
ad,
see:





http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...ry-unique-defe...

which contains in part:

For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike ti not guilty.

Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
word
against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
is news,
Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.

For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.

In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
one
point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
ite
nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing ar=
guments,
Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is a th=
reat,
intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the ar=
gument
stuck.

For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.

For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.

The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
a, just
his bike.

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

To which you replied:

BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
you.

So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
not
all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
"charge
dismissed", to what were you referring?

Assault.

Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.

On Apr 12, 11:10*am, Bob Berger wrote:
In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...







On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article .=
com,
Mike Vandeman says...

On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman wr=
ote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...ilms-cyclists=
-cl=3D
ash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
et
cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
Were you tried in court for this?
Were you found guilty?

No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
you.

From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
ad,
see:

http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...ry-unique-defe....

which contains in part:

For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike ti not guilty.

Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
word
against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
is news,
Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.

For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.

In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
one
point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
ite
nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing ar=
guments,
Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is a th=
reat,
intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the ar=
gument
stuck.

For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.

For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.

The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
a, just
his bike.

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

To which you replied:

BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
you.

So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
not
all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
"charge
dismissed", to what were you referring?

Assault.

Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.

"Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").