OT. Shooting at cyclist was 'street justice'

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 20/09/2014 10:23, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 20/09/2014 09:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 19/09/2014 20:20, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2014 17:20, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2014 17:05, TMS320 wrote:
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat...t-cyclist.html

So they caught the criminals. That's good.

Yes all of them, including the cyclist.

Nothing there about a cyclist apart from "a man on a bicycle who
had
allegedly damaged a car"

Sgt. Vitacco says that the cyclist broke the window of the car, I
suppose
that was not an offence? It certainly is not 'allegedly'

For some reason you did not copy the first paragraph in your leading
post:-

"Corey Lammers and Steven Krahn, both 19, are accused of carrying out
"street justice" by shooting at a man on a bicycle who had allegedly
damaged
a car outside their Northeast Side home."

Yep, it includes the word 'allegedly'.

That accusation is not a *mere* allegation (as though that phrase
meant
that it might not even have happened*). If the report is correct, it
will
be substantiated by testimony.

True. So far no testimony. So far nothing from the car owner's point of
view. No proper clue as to whether the person seen around the car
actually
broke the windscreen (damage could have been historic). And there is
still
the unresolved issue of whether a person can break a windscreen
(without
a
baseball bat). Of course, when it says "cyclist", we know that anything
is
possible and it
must be true.

[* If it hadn't happened, why the chase?]

Perhaps the observers were bored.

I wonder why the Police would say that the cyclist broke the windscreen
with a bike lock?

A far as I know, they don't yet have a time machine that allows them to
go
back and check the condition of a windscreen before the time of any
alleged
damage. At the moment, they still have to make sense of what people tell
them.

Perhaps the cyclist was never there.

Well you're welcome to think so. From my point of view, I suspect there was
some substance in the report. I only question the mechanics behind any
damage people that ride bikes are alleged to be able to cause. Or maybe
it is all true because people that ride bikes really do have superhuman
powers.

Rob Morley wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:14:02 +0100
JNugent wrote:

On 20/09/2014 00:05, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:36:36 +0100
JNugent wrote:

Unless you can point out where I stated that the cyclist had to
prove his innocence.

You wrote:
//
But unless the cyclist (and despite what TMS-thingy tries to say,
he is a cyclist) is alleging and can prove false identification
(ie, that he isn't the criminal cyclist who damaged the car), it
isn't *only* an allegation.
//
Now wriggle.

Show the string: "had/has to prove his innocence".

Really? You need me to explain the meaning of something that you
wrote? This bit, right here?
//
But unless the cyclist ... can prove ... that he isn't the criminal
cyclist who damaged the car ... it isn't *only* an allegation.
//
So if he can't prove it wasn't him, then he's culpable, according to
you, but actually the state has to prove that it was him.

It looks like you are not going to get even an acknowledgement that you
were right all along.

I guess it's true what they say...
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/3623485

On 20/09/2014 09:55, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2014 17:20, TMS320 wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat...t-cyclist.html

So they caught the criminals. That's good.

Yes all of them, including the cyclist.

Nothing there about a cyclist apart from "a man on a bicycle who had
allegedly damaged a car"

And there is absolutely no way that "a man on a bicycle who had [been seen
causing criminal damage to the property of another person]" could possibly
be a cyclist, is there?

Please rearrange that into English.

It is perfectly good English, though reading it may require an amount of
facility with the language which you do not possess.

I decline to simplify it for you. Perhaps someone else, more experienced
with the process, might re-phrase it in the "Janet and John" restricted
code which would suit you better.

On 20/09/2014 10:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/09/2014 10:23, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 20/09/2014 09:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 19/09/2014 20:20, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2014 17:20, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2014 17:05, TMS320 wrote:
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat...t-cyclist.html


So they caught the criminals. That's good.

Yes all of them, including the cyclist.

Nothing there about a cyclist apart from "a man on a bicycle who
had
allegedly damaged a car"

Sgt. Vitacco says that the cyclist broke the window of the car, I
suppose
that was not an offence? It certainly is not 'allegedly'

For some reason you did not copy the first paragraph in your leading
post:-

"Corey Lammers and Steven Krahn, both 19, are accused of carrying out
"street justice" by shooting at a man on a bicycle who had allegedly
damaged
a car outside their Northeast Side home."

Yep, it includes the word 'allegedly'.

That accusation is not a *mere* allegation (as though that phrase
meant
that it might not even have happened*). If the report is correct, it
will
be substantiated by testimony.

True. So far no testimony. So far nothing from the car owner's point of
view. No proper clue as to whether the person seen around the car
actually
broke the windscreen (damage could have been historic). And there is
still
the unresolved issue of whether a person can break a windscreen
(without
a
baseball bat). Of course, when it says "cyclist", we know that anything
is
possible and it
must be true.

[* If it hadn't happened, why the chase?]

Perhaps the observers were bored.

I wonder why the Police would say that the cyclist broke the windscreen
with a bike lock?

A far as I know, they don't yet have a time machine that allows them
to go
back and check the condition of a windscreen before the time of any
alleged
damage. At the moment, they still have to make sense of what people tell
them.





Perhaps the cyclist was never there.

We've already been told - in terms - that he wasn't there, that the
windshield was never broken by the cyclist and that (by extension) there
was no chase and were no shots fired.

We were assured that everyone involved is innocent until proven guilty.

And extrapolating slightly from that, because no-one has been found
guilty, that must mean that no offences have been committed.

On 20/09/2014 01:53, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:14:02 +0100
JNugent wrote:

On 20/09/2014 00:05, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:36:36 +0100
JNugent wrote:

Unless you can point out where I stated that the cyclist had to
prove his innocence.

You wrote:
//
But unless the cyclist (and despite what TMS-thingy tries to say,
he is a cyclist) is alleging and can prove false identification
(ie, that he isn't the criminal cyclist who damaged the car), it
isn't *only* an allegation.
//
Now wriggle.

Show the string: "had/has to prove his innocence".

Really? You need me to explain the meaning of something that you
wrote? This bit, right here?
//
But unless the cyclist ... can prove ... that he isn't the criminal
cyclist who damaged the car ... it isn't *only* an allegation.
//
So if he can't prove it wasn't him, then he's culpable, according to
you, but actually the state has to prove that it was him.

Don't be so silly.

In the absence of some gigantic conspiracy to frame him for reasons we
(except, apparently, for you) cannot know, he was seen committing the
criminal damage. The only remaining issue is whether the pursuers of the
criminal temporarily lost sight of the real culprit during the chase and
mistakenly took an exact (but innocent) double on an identical bike in
the same area at the same time, to be him.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:59:20 +0100
JNugent wrote:

On 20/09/2014 01:53, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:14:02 +0100
JNugent wrote:

On 20/09/2014 00:05, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:36:36 +0100
JNugent wrote:

Unless you can point out where I stated that the cyclist had to
prove his innocence.

You wrote:
//
But unless the cyclist (and despite what TMS-thingy tries to say,
he is a cyclist) is alleging and can prove false identification
(ie, that he isn't the criminal cyclist who damaged the car), it
isn't *only* an allegation.
//
Now wriggle.

Show the string: "had/has to prove his innocence".

Really? You need me to explain the meaning of something that you
wrote? This bit, right here?
//
But unless the cyclist ... can prove ... that he isn't the criminal
cyclist who damaged the car ... it isn't *only* an allegation.
//
So if he can't prove it wasn't him, then he's culpable, according to
you, but actually the state has to prove that it was him.

Don't be so silly.

In the absence of some gigantic conspiracy to frame him for reasons
we (except, apparently, for you) cannot know, he was seen committing
the criminal damage. The only remaining issue is whether the pursuers
of the criminal temporarily lost sight of the real culprit during the
chase and mistakenly took an exact (but innocent) double on an
identical bike in the same area at the same time, to be him.

Still you miss the point. I suppose I'm not surprised, really.

On 25/09/2014 20:00, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:59:20 +0100
JNugent wrote:

On 20/09/2014 01:53, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:14:02 +0100
JNugent wrote:

On 20/09/2014 00:05, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:36:36 +0100
JNugent wrote:

Unless you can point out where I stated that the cyclist had to
prove his innocence.

You wrote:
//
But unless the cyclist (and despite what TMS-thingy tries to say,
he is a cyclist) is alleging and can prove false identification
(ie, that he isn't the criminal cyclist who damaged the car), it
isn't *only* an allegation.
//
Now wriggle.

Show the string: "had/has to prove his innocence".

Really? You need me to explain the meaning of something that you
wrote? This bit, right here?
//
But unless the cyclist ... can prove ... that he isn't the criminal
cyclist who damaged the car ... it isn't *only* an allegation.
//
So if he can't prove it wasn't him, then he's culpable, according to
you, but actually the state has to prove that it was him.

Don't be so silly.

In the absence of some gigantic conspiracy to frame him for reasons
we (except, apparently, for you) cannot know, he was seen committing
the criminal damage. The only remaining issue is whether the pursuers
of the criminal temporarily lost sight of the real culprit during the
chase and mistakenly took an exact (but innocent) double on an
identical bike in the same area at the same time, to be him.

Still you miss the point. I suppose I'm not surprised, really.

The evidence of the cyclist's criminal actions is going to be
overwhelming. It isn't even evidence which is likely to be assailed in
court.

Still, he could always advertise on the internet for someone prepared to
attest that he was somewhere else. Or that the parked car suddenly
reared up and attacked him, meaning that he had to fight it off with a
baseball bat or other implement.

After all, he's a cyclist. He can't possibly have done anything wrong.
Or if he did, it won't count for some reason or other.