OT USA. Cyclist breaks empty, parked, car window and gets shot at

On 12/09/2014 16:27, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Tarcap" considered Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:08:07
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"TMS320" wrote in message ...


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2014 20:19, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2014 15:57, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message

"Alamo Heights Police say the bicyclist apparently became upset that
a
white 4-door vehicle was parked in a bicycle lane and broke the
vehicle's windshield".

Just like that, eh?

Well, it might be useful to know whether he actually broke the
'windshield'

The report says he did.

The report says that the witnesses thought he did.

The police were your "witnesses". They are unlikely to have been doing
anything except quoting what he told them.

Read it again. "A person who witnessed the act..."

Since he will be the complainant in the matter being dealt with by the
police, he ought to know.

I see you are unable to suggest how it could be broken.

In matters of criminal damage, I readily defer to those practiced in it.
You seem to know a lot about it.

I only know thar windscreens are extremely robust. Unless a credible
suggestion is put forward then a report of damage caused also cannot be
credible. Damage found could have been pre-existing.

A swung d-lock (as advocated by psycholists here) is easily enough to
break any car windscreen.

Is it? I accept that a swung d-lock would make an alarming bang to someone
inside a car. I expect that is the motive of any advocate. Easily break? A
ridiculous statement.

Why would the witnesses say that the cyclist broke the windscreen, unless
he did?

Because their attention was attracted by some sort of affray. They would
have been unaware of condition beforehand.

Wow! Not many straws left to clutch at now. Better keep hold of the few
you've got.

it's no great difficulty acquiring an apparently inexhaustible supply
by dismantling the strawmen you keep providing.

Competition:

Re-arrange the words in that string: "it's no great difficulty acquiring
an apparently inexhaustible supply by dismantling the strawmen you keep
providing" in order to create a sentence that makes sense.

Because that particular arrangement makes none at all.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Tarcap" considered Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:08:07
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"TMS320" wrote in message ...


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2014 20:19, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2014 15:57, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message

"Alamo Heights Police say the bicyclist apparently became upset
that
a
white 4-door vehicle was parked in a bicycle lane and broke the
vehicle's windshield".

Just like that, eh?

Well, it might be useful to know whether he actually broke the
'windshield'

The report says he did.

The report says that the witnesses thought he did.

The police were your "witnesses". They are unlikely to have been doing
anything except quoting what he told them.

Read it again. "A person who witnessed the act..."

Since he will be the complainant in the matter being dealt with by
the
police, he ought to know.

I see you are unable to suggest how it could be broken.

In matters of criminal damage, I readily defer to those practiced in
it.
You seem to know a lot about it.

I only know thar windscreens are extremely robust. Unless a credible
suggestion is put forward then a report of damage caused also cannot be
credible. Damage found could have been pre-existing.

A swung d-lock (as advocated by psycholists here) is easily enough to
break any car windscreen.

Is it? I accept that a swung d-lock would make an alarming bang to someone
inside a car. I expect that is the motive of any advocate. Easily break? A
ridiculous statement.

Why would the witnesses say that the cyclist broke the windscreen, unless
he did?

Because their attention was attracted by some sort of affray. They would
have been unaware of condition beforehand.

Wow! Not many straws left to clutch at now. Better keep hold of the few
you've got.

It's no great difficulty acquiring an apparently inexhaustible supply
by dismantling the strawmen you keep providing.

You consistently provide proof that you have already got an endless supply
of straw. Unfortunately, it's already used and heavily contaminated by male
cattle excreta.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com