Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

On Apr 12, 2:10*pm, 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.

The environmental movement doesn't want him. They prefer to distance
themselves from kooks and extremists.

In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...

On Apr 12, 11:10=A0am, Bob Berger wrote:
In article =
.com,
Mike Vandeman says...







On Apr 11, 10:24=3DA0pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article =
ps.=3D
com,
Mike Vandeman says...

On Apr 11, 1:20=3D3DA0pm, JVaughn wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:28=3D3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman w=
rote:

On Apr 10, 10:54=3D3DA0am, Len McGoogle wro=
te:

On Apr 9, 10:10=3D3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman =
m wr=3D
ote:

Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bik=
ers=3D
! I
guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!

Mike

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713...m-films-cycli=
sts=3D
-cl=3D3D
ash

Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those h=
elm=3D
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 disappoin=
t
you.

From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" t=
hre=3D
ad,
see:

http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...y-unique-defe=
...

which contains in part:

For vandalizing Ian Richards=3D92 bike ti not guilty.

Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=
=3D92 =3D
word
against Vandeman=3D92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. =
At th=3D
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=3D
one
point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was=
qu=3D
ite
nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing =
ar=3D
guments,
Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is a=
th=3D
reat,
intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the =
ar=3D
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 Al=
cal=3D
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=3D
not
all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in pa=
rt =3D
"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").

Best you can do? Figures.

On Apr 12, 8:13*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
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").

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

Battery: Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a
cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.

On Apr 13, 10:25*am, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:13*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





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").

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

Battery: Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a
cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.

BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
your utter ignorance, once again.

On Apr 16, 10:24*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
your utter ignorance, once again.

Is that what the court found?

On Apr 16, 11:24*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 13, 10:25*am, Len McGoogle wrote:









On Apr 12, 8:13*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

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").

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

Battery: Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a
cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.

BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
your utter ignorance, once again.

I notice you didn't deny touching his pee-pee. Interesting...

On Apr 17, 1:37*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:24*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Apr 13, 10:25*am, Len McGoogle wrote:

On Apr 12, 8:13*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

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")..

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

Battery: Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a
cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.

BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
your utter ignorance, once again.

I notice you didn't deny touching his pee-pee. Interesting...

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, where your mind (such as it is)
is.There's no cure for that, you know.