Jurors are smarter than Apes - Guilty on all counts

--D-y wrote:

On Nov 9, 2:36*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

I don't think the doc intended to injure the cyclists, I think he
****ed up. On any of the charges against him depended on intent, I
wouldn't have convicted him. On any charge that hinged on reckless
behavior and negligence, I'd have a different opinion.

Didja really read the passage below, Magilla?
(sorry, skipping attribution here):
Actually, the two are not far apart under California Law.
As I posted elsewhere, the California Supreme Court addressed the
issue (referring to assault with a deadly weapon) as follows:
"The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully
committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result
in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must
intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious
consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to
inflict a particular harm_"
People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908
(Cal. 1994)

For all we know the Dr. could have brake checked DOZENS of cyclists (all of
hich resulted in no injury). *This was probably going toeb brake-check
incident #38.

An ongoing antisocial behavior is a positive?

Yes, because he was not charged with "anti-social beahvior." He was charged
with assault with a deadly weapon. And if in all those previous incdients of
IDENTICAL conduct resulted in no injury, he clearly had a genuine reason to
believe this final incident would result in a similar outcome. In fact, it's
almost bizarre to think he meant to assault them when that outcome had never
been reached before in identical incidents. It's certainly good enough for
reasonable doubt.

If he truly wanted to hit them with his car, why not just run them over from
behind?





I learned from the Dr. T incident that cyclists are real assholes and they
still need to be taught lessons out on the road.

I'd imagine the jury considered Dr. Thompson's total lack of any
authority whatsoever to be "teaching lessons" out in public.
I'd guess that figured heavily in their decision, and I wouldn't be at
all surprised if the judge or prosecutor had words with the jury on
this subject.

**** the jury.



Again, I see a fair amount of bad behavior by cyclists, esp. the
blocking the road thing. Done with strength of numbers and
deliberately, a baby-**** way of "getting back at drivers".
****es me off, but vigilanteism will get you in trouble. (Obviously)
ask Dr. T.

Looking forward to the sentencing. And the civil trial, which, again,
I hope no one succeeds in talking the cyclists out of.

BTW, I've been under the weather a little here recently, not riding
much at all, but on a few excursions, I've only been passed fairly
closely once in reaction to the new 3-foot passing law here in Austin.
Put it down to the Lance Effect, I guess. --D-y

Lance lives in Aspen.

Magilla

Tom Kunich wrote:

"--D-y" wrote in message
...

Again, I see a fair amount of bad behavior by cyclists, esp. the
blocking the road thing. Done with strength of numbers and
deliberately, a baby-**** way of "getting back at drivers".
****es me off, but vigilanteism will get you in trouble. (Obviously)
ask Dr. T.

Let's AGAIN repeat that in THIS CASE the bicyclists were taking up the road
because it was a downhill, they were doing a minimum of the speed limit at
that point and it was a narrow road where passing wasn't safe.

Looking forward to the sentencing. And the civil trial, which, again,
I hope no one succeeds in talking the cyclists out of.

I'm hoping that our friend here, ManasasParnasus, shoots his mouth off at
the local coffee shop about pushing bicyclists off the road with his car. In
the group I ride with are three cops, a fireman and a retired NCI agent.
We've been places where idiots at adjacent tables have been talking about
scaring cyclists. Luckily they never tried it with us.

BTW, I've been under the weather a little here recently, not riding
much at all, but on a few excursions, I've only been passed fairly
closely once in reaction to the new 3-foot passing law here in Austin.
Put it down to the Lance Effect, I guess.

Every time someone like that dope down in southern California gets his just
deserts the drivers all drive very politely around us until the memory
weakens. Though I've got to say that aside from that fireman everyone else
rides very politely around cars.

It's spelled desserts, jagoff. Tell your lemon club buddies at the coffee
house that I'll kick their ass any day of the week and twice on weekends.

Magilla

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:35:54 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

Every time someone like that dope down in southern California gets his just
deserts the drivers all drive very politely around us until the memory
weakens. Though I've got to say that aside from that fireman everyone else
rides very politely around cars.

It's spelled desserts, jagoff. Tell your lemon club buddies at the coffee
house that I'll kick their ass any day of the week and twice on weekends.

Magilla


Not really. or at least not necessarily. Most of the more scholarly
appearing cites/sites reflect something along this:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html

-Curtis Russell

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:35:54 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

Every time someone like that dope down in southern California gets his
just
deserts the drivers all drive very politely around us until the memory
weakens. Though I've got to say that aside from that fireman everyone
else
rides very politely around cars.

It's spelled desserts, jagoff. Tell your lemon club buddies at the
coffee
house that I'll kick their ass any day of the week and twice on weekends.

Not really. or at least not necessarily. Most of the more scholarly
appearing cites/sites reflect something along this:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html

My question is this - originally the guy signing on as MagillaGorilla was
obviously an educated person. This poster seems a couple of quarts shy of a
pint. So what happened to the original?

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:01:18 -0800, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

Not really. or at least not necessarily. Most of the more scholarly
appearing cites/sites reflect something along this:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html

My question is this - originally the guy signing on as MagillaGorilla was
obviously an educated person. This poster seems a couple of quarts shy of a
pint. So what happened to the original?

Defective bot with tendencies to rotate around a single point too
long. Maybe the original starts his threads now, but doesn't check
back on the bot later.

I'm not really all that up on the latest bot technology and whether
they are susceptible to viruses or anything...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:35:54 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

Every time someone like that dope down in southern California gets his just
deserts the drivers all drive very politely around us until the memory
weakens. Though I've got to say that aside from that fireman everyone else
rides very politely around cars.

It's spelled desserts, jagoff. Tell your lemon club buddies at the coffee
house that I'll kick their ass any day of the week and twice on weekends.

Magilla


Not really. or at least not necessarily. Most of the more scholarly
appearing cites/sites reflect something along this:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html

-Curtis Russell

It's just DESSERTS...not desert. A desert is an arid place with lots of sand.
That saying makes no ****ing sense if you're talking about a desert with cacti.

What the **** is wrong with you people?

Magilla

Tom Kunich wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:35:54 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

Every time someone like that dope down in southern California gets his
just
deserts the drivers all drive very politely around us until the memory
weakens. Though I've got to say that aside from that fireman everyone
else
rides very politely around cars.

It's spelled desserts, jagoff. Tell your lemon club buddies at the
coffee
house that I'll kick their ass any day of the week and twice on weekends.

Not really. or at least not necessarily. Most of the more scholarly
appearing cites/sites reflect something along this:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html

My question is this - originally the guy signing on as MagillaGorilla was
obviously an educated person. This poster seems a couple of quarts shy of a
pint. So what happened to the original?

I love how Tom just sides with anyone who posts in disagreement with me. Like
there's really serious debate with this saying.

Type in "just desert" in Google and the first link will be "Did you mean: just
desserts"

That's Google's way of telling you you're a ****ing dumbass.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:


Type in "just desert" in Google and the first link will be "Did you
mean: just desserts"

That's Google's way of telling you you're a ****ing dumbass.

If you're in a hole, stop digging.

http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/deserts.asp

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/deserts.asp

I did not know that.

On Nov 10, 8:24*pm, William Asher wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Type in "just desert" in Google and the first link will be "Did you
mean: just desserts"

That's Google's way of telling you you're a ****ing dumbass.

If you're in a hole, stop digging.

He can't. The OCD kicks in and he just has to prove he's right, even
when there's overwhelming, cited evidence against him. Luckily at
some point in the thread he'll lose track of his own bull**** and
switch sides, or say that's what he was saying all along. That's the
real Secret of Nim(h) - being a waffle that goes off half-baked.*

R

* Jim Breuer's legacy movie.