Dr. Thompson I presume

On 11/7/09 6:02 AM, in article ,
"MagillaGorilla" wrote:

"Paul B. Anders" wrote:

Goddamn, remember back in the day when MG kept his posts to just 1 or
2 lines?

My take is shorter. I agree with MG that Dr. T is a hothead prick who
thinks his **** doesn't stink, but he never intended to crash or
injure those guys. Brake-checking was his retaliation for not being
respected (because they FU'ed and flipped him off), and he probably
expected them to be alarmed and avoid him. Unfortunately, as he'd had
success with doing this previously, he was was more angry this time
and decided to escalate it by braking harder and shorter. As for MG's
claim these guys could have stopped, he wasn't there, and he's
completely off-base as to how quickly someone can avoid a car that
jukes in front of you and slams on its brakes. They were assholes for
flipping him off (aren't we all?), but their skills had nothing to do
with crashing.

Where the doc really blew it was in not immediately admittng blame and
working out a deal with the prosecutor and his insurance company to
settle with these guys and keep it out of court. His arrogance is why
he's sitting in jail. As for the cyclists, like all of us, they'd
probably yelled FU and flipped off plenty of drivers, probably with
justification, but they picked the wrong guy this time. Lesson for all
of us.

Brad Anders

Right on, brother.

Magilla



Brad has some good points. Behavior in one situation can be exacerbated by
previous situations. There is a big difference here! The riders were
concerned with their SAFETY. The doctor was concerned more with his
SCHEDULE! The LAW will tell you that SAFETY is priority over your personal
schedule unless it is a law enforcement emergency situation...

Big difference he cyclists are an INCONVENIENCE to motorists! Motorists
are an ALL EXSPENSES PAID TRIP TO THE HOSPITOL to cyclists!

Remember! GPS equipment used by the cyclists showed they were going the
SPEED LIMIT on the road at the time!!

On Nov 7, 8:10*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Anton Berlin wrote:
On Nov 6, 11:53*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Paul B. Anders wrote:
As for the cyclists, like all of us, they'd
probably yelled FU and flipped off plenty of drivers, probably with
justification, but they picked the wrong guy this time. Lesson for all
of us.

I stopped doing that years ago. My rationalization is that if
someone does something with the intention of ****ing me off,
if I react with an FU or bird than I've just confirmed that
whatever aggressive driving they did worked as intended.

Really, does anyone think that flipping off some asshole will
cause them to sink into the depths of depression?

These days I wave. All five fingers.

Bob Schwartz

9 times out of 10 I wave, the other I take down their plate, run it
through public data and then brick their windshield with a note
attached.

I usually wait a few months also just to make sure I really think they
deserve the karma.

Got a link for that license plate database, Hoss?

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maggie that would be like giving a loaded hand gun to a child.

On Nov 7, 9:28*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...224774,00.html

"Fears regarding Iran’s nuclear program have been expressed as of late in
the Arab world as well, particularly in the Gulf States and Egypt."

Thanks for the quote, Tom. * Also, do you think an amorphous adjective like
"fears" justifies starting a war? *Tell me the last time Iran attacked a
country. *Let's see, the United States attacked numerous countries in the past
20 years...none of whom posed any threat to us.

You're the type of guy who walks down the street, sees a Muslim garb and says,
"Somebody should shoot that mother****er." *That's the root of your anger
towards Iran. *And all it takes is a rumor to get you to fuel up the bombers.

You just WANT there to be a reason. *Any reason is good enough, including
"fears" from unnamed people who aren't even U.S. citizens. *Are you saying we
should attack Iran on behalf of Egypt in a preemptive war (aka the Bush
Doctrine)

According to your quote, it sounds like Egypt should attack Iran if it in fact
fears Iran, not us. *I repeat, why would the U.S. attack Iran?

Magilla

The only reason to invade Iran would be to get access to all those hot
persian girls.

Hopefully they won't be the princess bitches we have to deal with here
in America.

Well, I'm afraid I know Texas better than you....in Texas fighting words are "No prayer in school" or "Dad, I want you to
meet my black boyfriend, Jamaal" or "Your daughter didn't make the cheerleading team."

--D-y

You forgot "I don't watch Fox news" as fightin wurds. That'll **** a
TexAmerikan off faster than anything.

You're the type of guy who walks down the street, sees a woman in Muslim garb and says,

" What you going to do with all that love you've been hiding in your
underpants? "

Anton Berlin wrote:

On Nov 7, 8:10*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Anton Berlin wrote:
On Nov 6, 11:53*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Paul B. Anders wrote:
As for the cyclists, like all of us, they'd
probably yelled FU and flipped off plenty of drivers, probably with
justification, but they picked the wrong guy this time. Lesson for all
of us.

I stopped doing that years ago. My rationalization is that if
someone does something with the intention of ****ing me off,
if I react with an FU or bird than I've just confirmed that
whatever aggressive driving they did worked as intended.

Really, does anyone think that flipping off some asshole will
cause them to sink into the depths of depression?

These days I wave. All five fingers.

Bob Schwartz

9 times out of 10 I wave, the other I take down their plate, run it
through public data and then brick their windshield with a note
attached.

I usually wait a few months also just to make sure I really think they
deserve the karma.

Got a link for that license plate database, Hoss?

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maggie that would be like giving a loaded hand gun to a child.

Give it.

Magilla

WTF wrote:

On 11/7/09 6:02 AM, in article ,
"MagillaGorilla" wrote:

"Paul B. Anders" wrote:

Goddamn, remember back in the day when MG kept his posts to just 1 or
2 lines?

My take is shorter. I agree with MG that Dr. T is a hothead prick who
thinks his **** doesn't stink, but he never intended to crash or
injure those guys. Brake-checking was his retaliation for not being
respected (because they FU'ed and flipped him off), and he probably
expected them to be alarmed and avoid him. Unfortunately, as he'd had
success with doing this previously, he was was more angry this time
and decided to escalate it by braking harder and shorter. As for MG's
claim these guys could have stopped, he wasn't there, and he's
completely off-base as to how quickly someone can avoid a car that
jukes in front of you and slams on its brakes. They were assholes for
flipping him off (aren't we all?), but their skills had nothing to do
with crashing.

Where the doc really blew it was in not immediately admittng blame and
working out a deal with the prosecutor and his insurance company to
settle with these guys and keep it out of court. His arrogance is why
he's sitting in jail. As for the cyclists, like all of us, they'd
probably yelled FU and flipped off plenty of drivers, probably with
justification, but they picked the wrong guy this time. Lesson for all
of us.

Brad Anders

Right on, brother.

Magilla


Brad has some good points. Behavior in one situation can be exacerbated by
previous situations. There is a big difference here! The riders were
concerned with their SAFETY. The doctor was concerned more with his
SCHEDULE! The LAW will tell you that SAFETY is priority over your personal
schedule unless it is a law enforcement emergency situation...

Very few reckless driving cases are assault with a deadly weapon. The doc
should not have been convicted of that. What you are saying is some kind of
general driving theory that has very loose application to the specifics of
this case. In 99% of all car crashes - even when death is involved and
carelss acts of driving - nobody is charged with assault with a deadly weapon.





Big difference he cyclists are an INCONVENIENCE to motorists! Motorists
are an ALL EXSPENSES PAID TRIP TO THE HOSPITOL to cyclists!

Had the doctr been speeding and hit these cyclists and killed them, we both
know he never would have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.






Remember! GPS equipment used by the cyclists showed they were going the
SPEED LIMIT on the road at the time!!

It also showed they didn't slow down in the 75-200 feet or so it took the car
to slow down to zero. What's wrong with that picture?

Thanks,

Magilla

--D-y wrote:

On Nov 7, 8:26*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

You really think he meant to get his $35,000 car wrecked and injure those 2 guys on the way to work? *60
years of never hitting anyone with his car

Exaggerated time frame, since he didn't pop out of his mom driving; do
you know his driving record, really? Did he ever maybe hit someone and
run, and got away with it?


HIs driving record is irrelevant unless he had a serious prior, which we know he didn't. At least not one
serious enough that would cause him to lose his medical license or for the DA witch to bring up as part of a
pattern of reckless driving.






and you think that he left his driveway that day saying "I'm
gonna injure me some scumbag cyclists today with my car."

"When his earlier efforts to control the cyclists failed, he upped the
ante."

In a criminal trial, you're not allowed to guess. What evidence is there that he "upped the ante" and did
anything different this time that he didn't do in the 2 previous incidents which resulted in NO INJURY?
Remember, this is a criminal trial and you're not allowed to guess. You have to give the defendant the
benefit of the doubt. All we know is he braked in the 2 previous incidents that resulted in no injury and
this one he also braked. You're not allowed to GUESS he did it harder. Guessing isn't part of the evidence
protocol in a trial. My theory is these two cyclists were chasing him, flipping him off and in the other 2
incidents the cyclists were more guarded. I'm allowed to surmise that from the evidence. It's reasonable
doubt. You're not allowed to surmise guilt though. It's a one-way street in favor of the defendant because
the burden is on the state to PROVE it. Peterson and his buddy were already off the back because they
stacked it (or one of them did). Who the **** stacks it on training rides except for Liz Hatch types?



I don't *know* that, either, but I've had at least one
sociopath attack me physically. Which you gotta understand was
something of a suicide mission in this case. He got off very easy, but
the point is, he lost it when he couldn't control me (my behavior).
So, who says Thompson was rational, in the first place?

What's with all this hypothetical stuff? I'm arguing he was not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.
This does not mean that I can prove he was innocent, but only that I have REASONABLE DOUBT (remember the jury
instructions, Sonny) that he meant to cause deadly harm to those 2 cyclists with his car Assault with a
deadly weapon means he put in a drive and ran them over like that ****ing dentist in Texas did to her
husband. Brake checking is what every high school student does to his buddy on the way to school and then
laughs about it in homeroom. Nobody's trying to kill anyone. But accidents happen when you engage in
reckless driving.






C'mon. *The jury ****ed up because Dr. T's attorney didn't explain it like me an Anders just did. *We
established reasonable doubt right here in front of you. *Dr. T's lawyer took the asshole-lawyer
approach and opted to deny he was involved in those previous incidents (now the doctor looks like a
liar). *Me and Anders embraced those 2 previous incidents to show the outcome was NO INJURY and that's
what the doctor expected this 3rd time.

Again, one doesn't follow the other. He was playing chicken and when
the "other guy" didn't back down, he got hurt.

Dude. I am 99% sure when Ron Kiefel went through his back window, the doctor said "Oh ****...what the
hell." he didn't say, "Yeah, I got him!" Who called 911? Nobody causes a crash and then turns around and
calls 911. And the doctor was also late for work that day or wherever he was going...you just know he
didn't anticipate a collision. You people pain hi in the worst possible limelight just like those female lab
techs form the LNDD....you wanted them jailed too just because they popped one of your cycling buddies.




*And the lawyer also doesn't know the sport well enough to know
that those 2 guys were probably more pre-disposed to wrecking (we all know those people in the local
group rides...always kissing the pavement no matter what)....

That's flailing.

How do you not grab any brake in the 75 feet it took Dr. Thompson's car to go from 35+ to zero?

That's a damn good question. Do we know his brake lights were working?

It was a late model Infiniti. Don't be a douche.

Magilla

Anton Berlin wrote:


Well, I'm afraid I know Texas better than you....in Texas fighting words are "No prayer in school" or "Dad, I want you to
meet my black boyfriend, Jamaal" or "Your daughter didn't make the cheerleading team."

--D-y

You forgot "I don't watch Fox news" as fightin wurds. That'll **** a
TexAmerikan off faster than anything.

Don't get me started on Texas.


Magilla

On Nov 7, 8:38*am, --D-y wrote:
On Nov 7, 8:41*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Well, I'm afraid I know Texas better than you....in Texas fighting words are "No prayer in school" or "Dad, I want you to
meet my black boyfriend, Jamaal" or "Your daughter didn't make the cheerleading team."

If you actually live in Texas, you know I'm right.

Bah. You want a fight, go to a UT/A&M football game with a sign that
says "Aggies suck donkey dicks" and you won't even have to open your
mouth.

Goddamn, I've been waiting for any oblique reason to post this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2syY12OPkwI

Brad Anders