Jurors are smarter than Apes - Guilty on all counts

On Nov 7, 2:00*pm, z wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:

How was Dr. Thompson a "loose cannon" during the trial? *Where you privy to
attorney-client discussions or something?

You know, I really prefer the original Magilla. This apprentice monkey
really isn't ready to be on his own yet.

I think Schwartz got bored with the Kunich bot and is having some
issues tweaking his new creation.

Hey Schwartz! The thing sucks. It can't keep track of its own spiel,
it reverses position, uses terminology loosely, trolls are for **** -
seriously, not your best effort.

Wait a minute...is it possible...? Could it be...? Did Schwartz bot
himself and the Schwartz bot bot-ched the Girla bot? I don't think
there's any doubt a-bot it!

I take it back - nice work, dude!

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:00 pm, z wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:

How was Dr. Thompson a "loose cannon" during the trial? Where you privy to
attorney-client discussions or something?
You know, I really prefer the original Magilla. This apprentice monkey
really isn't ready to be on his own yet.

I think Schwartz got bored with the Kunich bot and is having some
issues tweaking his new creation.

Hey Schwartz! The thing sucks. It can't keep track of its own spiel,
it reverses position, uses terminology loosely, trolls are for **** -
seriously, not your best effort.

Wait a minute...is it possible...? Could it be...? Did Schwartz bot
himself and the Schwartz bot bot-ched the Girla bot? I don't think
there's any doubt a-bot it!

I take it back - nice work, dude!

R

I'm just glad he's abandoned the helmet thread for the gun thread.
Is that acceptable? I think it is.

Bob Schwartz

On Nov 7, 11:36*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Case in point is that everyone in here would have convicted the doctor
except me and Anders. *

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.

IMO, the whole thing was totally avoidable by both sides of the case.
I've never had the slightest problem driving around individual
cyclists or group rides in CA or AZ. My maximum delay by any cyclist
or group of cyclists could be measured in the tens of seconds. The doc
was a hothead asshole and an incompetent driver if he couldn't have
passed those guys without a problem, he's just an intolerant prick.
The cyclists are just like the rest of us, they've encountered
zillions of drivers, they know what to do when yelled at, just blow it
off and get out of the way. Escalating it did them no good,
obviously.

Debating this ad nauseum won't change anything. It reinforced to me to
when I get ****ed off on the bike or in my car, I need to calm down
and think about what I'm about to do.

Brad Anders

On Nov 7, 5:25*pm, "Paul B. Anders" 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.

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)

IMO, the whole thing was totally avoidable by both sides of the case.
I've never had the slightest problem driving around individual
cyclists or group rides in CA or AZ. My maximum delay by any cyclist
or group of cyclists could be measured in the tens of seconds. The doc
was a hothead asshole and an incompetent driver if he couldn't have
passed those guys without a problem, he's just an intolerant prick.
The cyclists are just like the rest of us, they've encountered
zillions of drivers, they know what to do when yelled at, just blow it
off and get out of the way. Escalating it did them no good,
obviously.

Debating this ad nauseum won't change anything.
Nope, the Doc IS a presently convicted felon,

It reinforced to me to
when I get ****ed off on the bike or in my car, I need to calm down
and think about what I'm about to do.

Ah yes, but isn't that true for much human behavior -yours and
everyone else's?
DR

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 6, 2:06ÂÂ*am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

One lunatic (who is also a skilled ER doctor) has very probably pulled
his last extreme-dumbass cyclist-hurting stunt, and will, given the
profile of this case, very likely encourager les autres to think twice,
too.

Morose moments like this are the perfect time to remind yourself of the
purpose of the justice system. Its effects on the indicted are arguably
the least important.

Right. It is the unwise felon who lands themselves in a high-profile
case where the legal system uses it to send a "don't try this at home"
message. Better to quietly plead out.

You know who I really feel sorry for?
His attorney. Imagine having a loose cannon
such as Thompson for a client. Sad. So Sad.

How much do you want to bet that Dr. Thompson will claim ineffective counsel
on appeal? His attorney was a ****ing idiot.

Attorney has an air-tight defense: client is a convicted felon.

--
Michael Press

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 7, 5:25*pm, "Paul B. Anders" 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.

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)

I don't think brake-checking two "experienced" cyclists should cause them
to slam into the back of a car...especially when Dr. T did it 2 prior times
and it resulted in no injury. The jury should have concluded that Dr. T's
conduct was not likely to cause injuries....just to harass them and teach
them a lesson to ride single file. There's no way he intended to hurt
them. That crash part was an accident. The doctor didn't judge the risks
correctly but nevertheless he didn't think injury was likely.

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.




IMO, the whole thing was totally avoidable by both sides of the case.
I've never had the slightest problem driving around individual
cyclists or group rides in CA or AZ. My maximum delay by any cyclist
or group of cyclists could be measured in the tens of seconds. The doc
was a hothead asshole and an incompetent driver if he couldn't have
passed those guys without a problem, he's just an intolerant prick.
The cyclists are just like the rest of us, they've encountered
zillions of drivers, they know what to do when yelled at, just blow it
off and get out of the way. Escalating it did them no good,
obviously.

Debating this ad nauseum won't change anything.
Nope, the Doc IS a presently convicted felon,

It reinforced to me to
when I get ****ed off on the bike or in my car, I need to calm down
and think about what I'm about to do.

Ah yes, but isn't that true for much human behavior -yours and
everyone else's?
DR

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


Magilla

Bob Schwartz wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:00 pm, z wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:

How was Dr. Thompson a "loose cannon" during the trial? Where you privy to
attorney-client discussions or something?
You know, I really prefer the original Magilla. This apprentice monkey
really isn't ready to be on his own yet.

I think Schwartz got bored with the Kunich bot and is having some
issues tweaking his new creation.

Hey Schwartz! The thing sucks. It can't keep track of its own spiel,
it reverses position, uses terminology loosely, trolls are for **** -
seriously, not your best effort.

Wait a minute...is it possible...? Could it be...? Did Schwartz bot
himself and the Schwartz bot bot-ched the Girla bot? I don't think
there's any doubt a-bot it!

I take it back - nice work, dude!

R

I'm just glad he's abandoned the helmet thread for the gun thread.
Is that acceptable? I think it is.

Bob Schwartz

How about we merge the two threads and shoot a ****ing helmet at the gun range and
post it on YouTube?

Magilla

On Nov 9, 3:38*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:00 pm, z wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:

How was Dr. Thompson a "loose cannon" during the trial? *Where you privy to
attorney-client discussions or something?

You know, I really prefer the original Magilla. This apprentice monkey
really isn't ready to be on his own yet.

I think Schwartz got bored with the Kunich bot and is having some
issues tweaking his new creation.

Hey Schwartz! *The thing sucks. *It can't keep track of its own spiel,
it reverses position, uses terminology loosely, trolls are for **** -
seriously, not your best effort.

Wait a minute...is it possible...? *Could it be...? *Did Schwartz bot
himself and the Schwartz bot bot-ched the Girla bot? *I don't think
there's any doubt a-bot it!

I take it back - nice work, dude!


I'm just glad he's abandoned the helmet thread for the gun thread.
Is that acceptable? I think it is.


How about we merge the two threads and shoot a ****ing helmet at the gun range and
post it on YouTube?

All for it, Skippy, if you're wearing the helmet.

R

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?

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.

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

"--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.