|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-17583393
2 April 2012 Last updated at 04:36 ET Innerleithen biker injured in forest crash A mountain biker has been airlifted to hospital after a serious crash on a forest trail in the Scottish Borders. The incident happened on Sunday morning on one of the popular routes at Innerleithen. The male rider suffered a serious crash on a downhill section of the trails and is reported to have several broken bones. He remains in hospital after the accident and his condition has been described as stable. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
On Apr 3, 12:06*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-17583393 Michael J. Vandeman's life suffered a serious crash when he was arrested and put in jail. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
On Apr 3, 6:40*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Apr 3, 12:06*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-17583393 Michael J. Vandeman's life suffered a serious crash when he was arrested and put in jail. Not really. One of the charges was dismissed & I was acquitted of the other one. It's a good demonstration of what happens when mountain bikers LIE, in order to punish someone who simply tells the TRUTH about mountain biking. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
In article ,
Len McGoogle says... On Apr 3, 12:06=A0am, Mike Vandeman wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-17583393 Michael J. Vandeman's life suffered a serious crash when he was arrested and put in jail. Just as an FYI, see: http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...que-defendant/ which contains in part: “Mr. Vandeman is a very unique defendant.” I mostly try to limit the action in these updates to the proceedings themselves. I’m going to be turning this trial into a short graphic novel with artist Pyar Anderson, and writing a more complete and carefully told version of this story for BIKE Magazine. Not that I’ve been holding back important things learned outside the courtroom, (I totally have, and they’re juicy. I’m sorry.) but I needed to have some limits so I could offer something new in those stories. But, on my way to the courthouse this morning, I witnessed something that gave me a better understanding of the charges—and now the verdicts that the jury reached this afternoon. About halfway to the courthouse, I stopped to watch a fight developing at a bus stop across the street. I didn’t see what started it, but it was between a smallish guy in sweatpants and a guy in a long black trench coat. It was just a bunch of yelling at first; it seemed they were going to go their separate ways. But as they separated, some comment sparked more. They turned back at each other and kept shouting, and Trench Coat pulled a weapon. Or, he tried to. Trench Coat had to check three pockets before he found the one with the knife, but once it was out I could see it glinting in the sun across four lanes of traffic. He held it down by his side, arm straight, maybe eight inches from his body—exactly the same position that witnesses described Vandeman holding the screwdriver. It was not an imminent threat to the other guy’s life, but it sent a message. Sweatpants could keep yelling, but he had to do it from 10 to 12 feet away. Trench Coat didn’t have to say anything. I got to the courtroom around 11:00 a.m., and the bailiff told me that the jury had just finished a read-back of the handsaw incident testimony and was going to work straight through lunch. It is likely thanks to this lunch-hour effort that we know the verdicts today, since several delays once the jury was ready nearly took proceedings to the end of open-court. After lunch however, it became clear that the jury was deadlocked on one of the counts. The handsaw. A juror later told me that they’d come to unanimous decisions in all five of the other counts in about two hours and that the rest of the deliberations were devoted to discussing the question of intent in the most serious charge. One of the elements of assault with a deadly weapon is whether or not the accused meant to cause bodily harm with their action. Accidents aren’t criminal. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and several members of the jury felt that the DA had not shown intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Others on the jury felt the intent was clear, however, and several hours of deliberations only swung one vote. They were stuck. They had reached decisions, however on five of the counts and when the jury filed back into the room, none looked at Vandeman. The jury passed the big manila envelope to the bailiff, the bailiff handed it to the judge. The judge opened it and reviewed the verdict for a long, silent moment, then handed it to the clerk to read. Assault with a deadly weapon was the first charge, and they had no verdict, so Madame clerk started on count two. For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike ti not guilty. Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards’ word against Vandeman’s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At this 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 quite nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing arguments, Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is a threat, intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the argument 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 Alcala, just his bike. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. On count one, the handsaw, after asking the jury a series of questions, the judge declared a mistrial. The District Attorney’s office will have to choose whether they want to pursue that charge with another jury trial in May. Then came the question of whether or not Vandeman would be taken into custody right away. Cabanero requested a “remand” which means he go behind bars immediately, Cook argued that Vandeman had no criminal record, no history of failing to appear and that over the past year he had completely complied with the order to stay away from the trail. “I must concede that cases are few and far between when a defendant is found guilty and remains out of custody,” the judge said. “Though I do think this is a unique case and Mr. Vandeman is a very unique defendant.” He said his major concern was that Vandeman would use the interim to access the East-West fire trail. But he allowed Vandeman to stay free, since the jury had not been able to reach a verdict in the most serious charge and to the court’s knowledge he had not violated the “Stay Away” order, which there was some concern at the arraignment he would. So, Vandeman is guilty of some of the things he’s accused of, innocent of others. The handsaw is still up in the air, but it will be for another jury to decide. If there was criminal intent, the jury confirmed, it was just a flash of malice, not a premeditated attack. The deadly weapon charges come with a 30-day minimum sentence, so Vandeman will serve somewhere between a month and a year in jail, to be determined at his sentencing hearing. My last glimpse of Vandeman was over my shoulder on my way out of the courtroom. He had come to court on short notice and wore brown Dickies and a t-shirt, like he’d been working out in the sun until he’d gotten the call to come in. He was still at the defendant’s table, stoic, staring straight ahead as the room emptied. I can only guess why he wasn’t more upset. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
On Apr 4, 5:13*pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article , Len McGoogle says... On Apr 3, 12:06=A0am, Mike Vandeman wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-17583393 Michael J. Vandeman's life suffered a serious crash when he was arrested and put in jail. Just as an FYI, see: http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...ry-unique-defe... which contains in part: “Mr. Vandeman is a very unique defendant.” I mostly try to limit the action in these updates to the proceedings themselves. I’m going to be turning this trial into a short graphic novel with artist Pyar Anderson, and writing a more complete and carefully told version of this story for BIKE Magazine. Not that I’ve been holding back important things learned outside the courtroom, (I totally have, and they’re juicy. I’m sorry.) but I needed to have some limits so I could offer something new in those stories. But, on my way to the courthouse this morning, I witnessed something that gave me a better understanding of the charges—and now the verdicts that the jury reached this afternoon. About halfway to the courthouse, I stopped to watch a fight developing at a bus stop across the street. I didn’t see what started it, but it was between a smallish guy in sweatpants and a guy in a long black trench coat. It was just a bunch of yelling at first; it seemed they were going to go their separate ways. But as they separated, some comment sparked more. They turned back at each other and kept shouting, and Trench Coat pulled a weapon. Or, he tried to. Trench Coat had to check three pockets before he found the one with the knife, but once it was out I could see it glinting in the sun across four lanes of traffic. He held it down by his side, arm straight, maybe eight inches from his body—exactly the same position that witnesses described Vandeman holding the screwdriver. It was not an imminent threat to the other guy’s life, but it sent a message. Sweatpants could keep yelling, but he had to do it from 10 to 12 feet away. Trench Coat didn’t have to say anything. I got to the courtroom around 11:00 a.m., and the bailiff told me that the jury had just finished a read-back of the handsaw incident testimony and was going to work straight through lunch. It is likely thanks to this lunch-hour effort that we know the verdicts today, since several delays once the jury was ready nearly took proceedings to the end of open-court. After lunch however, it became clear that the jury was deadlocked on one of the counts. The handsaw. A juror later told me that they’d come to unanimous decisions in all five of the other counts in about two hours and that the rest of the deliberations were devoted to discussing the question of intent in the most serious charge. One of the elements of assault with a deadly weapon is whether or not the accused meant to cause bodily harm with their action. Accidents aren’t criminal. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and several members of the jury felt that the DA had not shown intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Others on the jury felt the intent was clear, however, and several hours of deliberations only swung one vote. They were stuck. They had reached decisions, however on five of the counts and when the jury filed back into the room, none looked at Vandeman. The jury passed the big manila envelope to the bailiff, the bailiff handed it to the judge. The judge opened it and reviewed the verdict for a long, silent moment, then handed it to the clerk to read. Assault with a deadly weapon was the first charge, and they had no verdict, so Madame clerk started on count two. For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike ti not guilty. Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards’ word against Vandeman’s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At this 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 quite nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing arguments, Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is a threat, intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the argument 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 Alcala, just his bike. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. On count one, the handsaw, after asking the jury a series of questions, the judge declared a mistrial. The District Attorney’s office will have to choose whether they want to pursue that charge with another jury trial in May. Then came the question of whether or not Vandeman would be taken into custody right away. Cabanero requested a “remand” which means he go behind bars immediately, Cook argued that Vandeman had no criminal record, no history of failing to appear and that over the past year he had completely complied with the order to stay away from the trail. “I must concede that cases are few and far between when a defendant is found guilty and remains out of custody,” the judge said. “Though I do think this is a unique case and Mr. Vandeman is a very unique defendant.” He said his major concern was that Vandeman would use the interim to access the East-West fire trail. But he allowed Vandeman to stay free, since the jury had not been able to reach a verdict in the most serious charge and to the court’s knowledge he had not violated the “Stay Away” order, which there was some concern at the arraignment he would. So, Vandeman is guilty of some of the things he’s accused of, 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. innocent of others. The handsaw is still up in the air, but it will be for another jury to decide. If there was criminal intent, the jury confirmed, it was just a flash of malice, not a premeditated attack. It was neither, as you well know. The deadly weapon charges come with a 30-day minimum sentence, so Vandeman will serve somewhere between a month and a year in jail, to be determined at his sentencing hearing. My last glimpse of Vandeman was over my shoulder on my way out of the courtroom. He had come to court on short notice and wore brown Dickies and a t-shirt, like he’d been working out in the sun until he’d gotten the call to come in. He was still at the defendant’s table, stoic, staring straight ahead as the room emptied. I can only guess why he wasn’t more upset. Because I was vindicated, of course. You stil haven't figured that out?! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
On Apr 4, 10:50*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:13*pm, Bob Berger wrote: So, Vandeman is guilty of some of the things he’s accused of, 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. Wow. You don't have a clue how our legal system works do you? Of course they weren't present, idiot. It was YOUR responsibility to explain YOUR side of the story to YOUR lawyer, who, in turn, presented your side to the jury. The fact that your bigoted, biased drivel didn't play in your favor in court is YOUR fault, and nobody else's. Quit trying to pawn responsibility off on someone else, you pathetic child. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
On Apr 5, 7:59*am, Shraga wrote:
On Apr 4, 10:50*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Apr 4, 5:13*pm, Bob Berger wrote: So, Vandeman is guilty of some of the things he’s accused of, 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. Wow. You don't have a clue how our legal system works do you? Of course they weren't present, idiot. It was YOUR responsibility to explain YOUR side of the story to YOUR lawyer, who, in turn, presented your side to the jury. The fact that your bigoted, biased drivel didn't play in your favor in court is YOUR fault, and nobody else's. Quit trying to pawn responsibility off on someone else, you pathetic child. You weren't there either, so what you have to say is totally irelevant, besides being libellous. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
On Apr 3, 11:27*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:40*pm, Len McGoogle wrote: On Apr 3, 12:06*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-17583393 Michael J. Vandeman's life suffered a serious crash when he was arrested and put in jail. Not really. One of the charges was dismissed & I was acquitted of the other one. It's a good demonstration of what happens when mountain bikers LIE, in order to punish someone who simply tells the TRUTH about mountain biking. For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
On Apr 7, 8:24*am, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Apr 3, 11:27*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Apr 3, 6:40*pm, Len McGoogle wrote: On Apr 3, 12:06*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-17583393 Michael J. Vandeman's life suffered a serious crash when he was arrested and put in jail. Not really. One of the charges was dismissed & I was acquitted of the other one. It's a good demonstration of what happens when mountain bikers LIE, in order to punish someone who simply tells the TRUTH about mountain biking. For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty. Thanks for demonstrating your total ignorance! The mountain biker admitted in court that I wasn't brandishing. Innocent. For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty. He simply lied. Innocent. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. He also lied. He ran into ME, so HE is the one guilty of battery, as well as violating the traffic laws. Innocent. The jury were pretty stupid. And, of course, none of them were present during the incidents, so they are just guessing. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"The male rider suffered a serious crash"
On Apr 5, 10:36*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 5, 7:59*am, Shraga wrote: On Apr 4, 10:50*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Apr 4, 5:13*pm, Bob Berger wrote: So, Vandeman is guilty of some of the things he’s accused of, 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. Wow. You don't have a clue how our legal system works do you? Of course they weren't present, idiot. It was YOUR responsibility to explain YOUR side of the story to YOUR lawyer, who, in turn, presented your side to the jury. The fact that your bigoted, biased drivel didn't play in your favor in court is YOUR fault, and nobody else's. Quit trying to pawn responsibility off on someone else, you pathetic child. You weren't there either, so what you have to say is totally irelevant, besides being libellous. Accusing the plaintiff of perjury is also a very serious charge. If this is true, you have a right to claim for damages from malicious prosecution. Have you reported this crime (i.e., perjury) to your local police to begin this process? Have you filed a bar claim against your lawyer? If you haven't done this, then YOU are the one making libelous claims about the plaintiffs. It's funny how you proudly cite the court's decisions without comment that favor your innocence, but you dismiss the guilty verdicts and make excuses about them. The FACT is that you were found GUILTY, in a court of law, of charges brought against you. Your claims of so-called "innocence" are more of your bull****. You are a known liar, and no sane person will take your word over the court's. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"MONTEREY CO.: EXPERIENCED MOUNTAIN BIKER KILLED IN CRASH DURING RACE" | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 5 | April 23rd 08 12:48 AM |
"MONTEREY CO.: EXPERIENCED MOUNTAIN BIKER KILLED IN CRASH DURING RACE" | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 4 | April 23rd 08 12:48 AM |
Wow, "Tandem and Recumbent Rider" More Interesting Reading than "RCN!" | NYC XYZ | General | 5 | March 28th 06 07:25 AM |
Wow, "Tandem and Recumbent Rider" More Interesting Reading than "RCN!" | NYC XYZ | Recumbent Biking | 2 | March 23rd 06 03:54 AM |