|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth? I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:08:46 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth? I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth. I fear that we will never get through to Mike V. He lives in his own world and, as far as I can tell from his writing, has real issues genuinely understanding that others could validly hold different views. Thus, despite his conviction for violent crimes, he has not in any way altered his self image. Rational people might, faced with such a wakeup call, modify their behaviour and attitudes and question themselves. No such epiphany seems to have occurred with Mike and he is therefore seeking to try and impose such a worldview on everyone else. In his mind, he is an innocent victim, wholly justified in his actions, brought low by contrary forces. In reality, he is someone prepared to countenance violence and physical confrontation in defence of his position and has provably sought such confrontations as he has admitted in his own testimony (specifically, where he refers to intentionally moving into the path of others to prevent them passing). It's kind of fun verbally jousting with him, occasionally, but I no longer take what he says in any way seriously ... and I doubt now that he will ever change. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:50:21 AM UTC-4, Blackblade wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:08:46 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth? I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth. I fear that we will never get through to Mike V. He lives in his own world and, as far as I can tell from his writing, has real issues genuinely understanding that others could validly hold different views. Thus, despite his conviction for violent crimes, he has not in any way altered his self image. Rational people might, faced with such a wakeup call, modify their behaviour and attitudes and question themselves. No such epiphany seems to have occurred with Mike and he is therefore seeking to try and impose such a worldview on everyone else. In his mind, he is an innocent victim, wholly justified in his actions, brought low by contrary forces. In reality, he is someone prepared to countenance violence and physical confrontation in defence of his position and has provably sought such confrontations as he has admitted in his own testimony (specifically, where he refers to intentionally moving into the path of others to prevent them passing). It's kind of fun verbally jousting with him, occasionally, but I no longer take what he says in any way seriously ... and I doubt now that he will ever change. I have never taken him seriously, and I have no intention of changing his mind. I am preserving his legacy in these forums. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Cure for Violence?
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:08:46 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth? I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth. Show me where I wrote "violence," liar. Clearly, the courts believe you possessed "intent to cause harmful or offensive contact." I don't care if you believe it was "just touching," because that's not what battery is, no matter how many times you write it. I don't pretend to know what happened. You are LYING about that, as usual. I am merely repeating the court's decision. I've asked you several times to present the details of your side of the story here in this forum, but you are obviously too big of a coward to comply. Whether or not you agree with the court's decision is your problem, not mine. You were arrested. You were convicted. Those are FACTS, and only a LIAR would refute them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
more violence by cyclists | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 152 | December 1st 10 09:59 AM |
Facebook incites violence | Tom Crispin | UK | 1 | January 24th 10 05:50 PM |
The Clarkson attitude to violence | Mike Causer[_3_] | UK | 30 | December 9th 09 09:09 PM |
Critical Mass is too much violence now | Jan Mobely | Social Issues | 1 | July 18th 05 06:42 AM |
CURE-C-CURE patches | IanB | UK | 15 | March 2nd 04 03:50 AM |