Forester says...

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.

"He was fleeing on his bicycle, so I ran him over with my truck."

But then, the voters in Texas have shown themselves to be moronic in
many cases.

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

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:03:00 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...ction-8-years-
probation-for-store-clerk-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is in
Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and if
I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the
probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the judge
in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted him. Would
I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it was beer,
might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent. In the
moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Wes Newell wrote:

Chalo wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...k-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is in
Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and if
I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the
probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the judge
in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted him. Would
I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it was beer,
might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent. In the
moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Your life must be very cheap, for you to measure the lives of others
so cheaply.

Your comments on cycling and motoring do seem to bear that out.

Chalo

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:07:27 -0600, 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.

If you can get away with it, yes, just like you can murder anyone, for
anything if you can get away with it.

"He was fleeing on his bicycle, so I ran him over with my truck."

That might also work, but I doubt it. If you really want to know the
conditions that warrant deadly force in Texas, why don't you just read
the laws? They are on the web for anyone to read.

http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

But then, the voters in Texas have shown themselves to be moronic in
many cases.

The same could be said of any state or country in the world. 90% of the
population is stupid IMO.

On 2/4/2011 10:22 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 1:17 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 12:24 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:32:02 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:30 am, Wes wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:46:49 -0800, Chalo wrote:
It's going to take prolonged separation from his car to break the
spell.

I drove the car yesterday for the first time in several months. So I
wonder what period you consider prolonged separation.

In your case, several months was obviously not enough. You still
suffer
from delusions of privilege, you seem unable to comprehend written
laws,
you have grossly inflated ideas on the minimal risks of bicycling,
you're ignorant of infrastructure funding, and your attitude needs
improvement. You have a LOT to learn.

I suggest giving up your car for two solid years, and spending that
time
a) riding a bike, and b) trying to learn.

- Frank Krygowski

I can now see why I was warned about you. You're arrogant, rude, and
obviously have delusions of grandeur. In reality, you're probably
just a
self centered nut with a below average IQ. Ah, a quick search shows you
as a prof of ME. That explains it.

Aside from your questionable attack on hapless MEs everywhere, I'd say
you got that pretty much straight. And in record time. It took me nearly
2 weeks to tell him to f*ck off.

The greatest Usenet offense of Frank Krygowski was that for a long
time he had his email address as his user name. All the other
complaints are people not liking having their opinions challenged by
rational argument.


You seem capable of challenging my opinions repeatedly with rational or
irrational arguments and it's not a problem. Are you saying that you
don't notice his intentional insults to anyone disagreeing with him? Fine.

On 2/5/2011 2:03 AM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/5/2011 12:49 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:22:47 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

The greatest Usenet offense of Frank Krygowski was that for a long time
he had his email address as his user name. All the other complaints
are
people not liking having their opinions challenged by rational
argument.

Rational! Giving up my car for 2 years is really rational when
there's no
public transportation here. You've got to be kidding. It's my opinion
you
are both idiots that can't comprehend the fact that there are more
places
than just your little perfect world where everyone is under 50 in the
best of physical health and there's all kind of facilities with in a few
blocks. Get lost.

So you like constructing strawmen to attack? Difficult to find things
more rude on Usenet than making false claims about what others are
writing.


Think about what you just said juxtaposed with your previous comment
included above. Do you hear a bell ringing?

On 2/5/2011 5:57 AM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:10 AM, kolldata aka AVAGADRO IV/V wrote:


LOCAL ROADS ARE STATE ROADS. What other type of road would they be ?

County and municipal.

Normally referred to as streets in non-rural areas.

On 2/4/2011 10:16 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 11:54 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:55 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be
restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was
considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I
lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio
guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside
Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. I don't have
a right to ride on the road in that case. I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar
laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. I don't remember many
lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

True. Bicyclists can be prevented from riding anywhere by statute or
ordinance. There is no constitutional right to ride a bicycle, and if
a legislature decided to ban them for legitimate safety reasons, then
they probably could.

One of the defects of the US Constitution is that allows government
too much power over individuals.

Sure. Except for rights that can't be curtailed as guaranteed by the
Constitution. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No
mention of cycling there either.

Wish there was but there isn't. All that we need are a few loonies
cycling the center of the roads at rush hour, adding to the already
horrendous commutes and we'll see what happens there.

There is a constitutional right to travel -- which the TeaBaggers must
hate because it is one of those implied rights in the First Amendment,
but even that implied right does not guaranty travel by any particular
mode -- as we all know from highway signs prohibiting non-motorized
vehicles. Bicycles are prohibited in lots of places, and so long as
those prohibitions meets the minimal scrutiny applied to health and
welfare laws, then they are enforceable.-- Jay Beattie.


In reality, the government of the US restricts the rights of the
citizens in many immoral ways.

Absolutely. So what's your point? It's one thing to wish for a right
to be guaranteed and quite another to say that it is.

On Feb 6, 7:03*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:23 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 6, 2:00 am, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""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?

There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the
user the right of legal passage on foot only. *You may not wander from
the path, if maintained. *You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. *You
must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land
itself, to make a cuppa. *Basically, if you are not actually walking
on the given route, you are trespassing. *Many landowners go out of
their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. *It
is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because
the way is not marked.

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

No such thing. *Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a
tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom
for all and sundry there has not been. *The ancient rights to the
forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not
felling) firewood nuts and berries. *Plums, quinces, pears etc will
have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these.

The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only
restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not
be drawn.

That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the
law of the land. *The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable)
which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor
who leads the hunt. *Over his own land including that occupied by
tennants. *Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event
would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. *Any
damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage
tec can legally be recovered from the hunt.

Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you
own the bees, with the protection of the law.

Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here.

The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have
enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have
limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage.

Trespass has to be shown to reocver damages.

As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to
benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:13:58 -0800, Chalo wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

Chalo wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...ction-8-years-
probation-for-store-clerk-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is
in Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and
if I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the
probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the
judge in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted
him. Would I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it
was beer, might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent.
In the moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Your life must be very cheap, for you to measure the lives of others so
cheaply.

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. I don't put a price on life.

Your comments on cycling and motoring do seem to bear that out.

I'm a very logical person. I also try and be law abiding. I see no reason
to end one life for something the law says was legal when it would have
no impact on the already dead person. That's just revenge. The thief
played russian roulette with his life and lost. The only ones I feel
sorry for are the people that were close to him. And while the whole
story is a sad one. Well, that's the way it goes. I just follow the law
of the land.