Dr. Thompson I presume

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Nov 5, 9:01 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Who the **** are we to tell Iraq or Iran they can't acquire nuclear
weapons?

Yeah! We ought to wait until they drop a nuclear weapon on Israel as they've
claimed that they will.

Would you care to post a link showing Iran saying, "We want to drop a nuclear
weapon on Israel"? I'm not talking about something Charles Kraphammer wrote in one of
his pathetic editorials. I'm looking for a *quote* from one of Iran's leaders.

Good luck with that.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Nov 5, 7:39*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:58*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:17*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

How about violence and killing thousands of people if another person is trying to acquire nuclear weapons?

So, if one thing is unfair, everything unfair is fair. *That about sum
up your position, Zeppo?

Try again. *This time answer my question. *You know what the correct answr is.

Okay, I don't think any one person should have nuclear weapons. *Maybe
a group of people...nah, I don't think anyone should have nuclear
weapons.

R

I like how you think it's okay that we killed 800,000 Iraqi's including thousands of children. *What did they ever
do to us? * Did the Iraqi's ever touch us?

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maggie, how can you get something like Iraq right but be completely
wrong on Dr T as an example?

On Nov 4, 12:53*pm, Donald Munro wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
Here's a hint to future law breakers, and those accused of such - if
you're to be placed in front of a grand jury, do everything possible
to delay your date with the jury until they have a couple of weeks
under their belt. *It takes that long for the jury to find its voice
and figure out who the jokers in the jury are. *Until that time the
jury can be swayed by some vocal idjit who believes everybody is
guilty or the cops wouldn't have arrested them. *The **** I saw was
staggering.

On the whole you seem to provide evidence to support Magilla contention
of the general ****tiness of a jury system, particularly in religion
driven societies.

http://www.gmsplace.com/?page_id=2696

RicodJour wrote:
...outside world? Huh? STOP TALKING CRAZY IT MAKES MY HEAD HURT AND
THEY ALL START YELLING AT ME!!!!!!!

Have a donut.

Anton Berlin wrote:

On Nov 5, 7:39*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:58*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:17*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

How about violence and killing thousands of people if another person is trying to acquire nuclear weapons?

So, if one thing is unfair, everything unfair is fair. *That about sum
up your position, Zeppo?

Try again. *This time answer my question. *You know what the correct answr is.

Okay, I don't think any one person should have nuclear weapons. *Maybe
a group of people...nah, I don't think anyone should have nuclear
weapons.

R

I like how you think it's okay that we killed 800,000 Iraqi's including thousands of children. *What did they ever
do to us? * Did the Iraqi's ever touch us?

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maggie, how can you get something like Iraq right but be completely
wrong on Dr T as an example?

Well, at least you got the more important one correct. Let's go over the Dr. T chapter once again....

Dr. T was a dickhead with a bad attitude. No question. But he did not intend to assault those cyclists with his car.
I believe the evidence supports that he just wanted to brake hard and cause them to lock their brakes up and slow down
to like 0 from descent speed. I believe this because in his 2 previous incidents (which the prosecutor and everyone
else uses as evidence to show a "pattern" of behavior)...the evidence of those 2 incidents shows there was no
collision, ergo assault, in those 2 previous incidents. So if you were to believe this was a pattern of behavior (I
certainly do), you would then be required to also accept that Dr. T should have expected the same outcome in this 3rd
incident, which was NO INJURY. You have to look at it from his perspective.

I think you guys are just too prejudiced and jacked up because the victims were cyclists ( a Cat. 1, too, oh my God,
they're so fast) and you can't separate yourself from that. It's just like you can't separate yourself from the fact
that some U.S. cyclists dope even when faced with 9 positive tests. When Fraud tests positive, you people attack
innocent lab techs even though they did nothing to Fraud. You actually wanted them jailed if I recall correctly! But
you don't talk like that when a baseball player tests positive, do you?

It's the same thing with Dr. T....the guy hit his brakes. Fine. He thought the cyclists were going to do the same
thing (as was his experience in the 2 previous incidents). But something went horribly wrong on this 3rd "lesson."

The cyclists who were traveling behind him never touched their brakes according to their GPS since they never slowed
down to less than 30 mph. According to the testimony, I believe they were probably giving him the finger and then
trying to chase him down. But how can a car move from the left side of the road all the way across to being directly
in front of them and then coming to a complete stop (that would take at least 75 feet)..and the cyclists never slowed
down from their 30 mph?

Reckless driving, yes. Assault with a deadly weapon. No. The collision was unintended and was an unexpected result
given Dr. T's 2 previous incidents, which everyone agrees was part of a pattern. The collision probably had more to do
with 2 arrogant jackass cyclists who think that people who don't feel like riding 25 mph down a 3 mile hill are
assholes.

If you agree the behavior was part of a pattern of behavior, then you should also agree that the outcome he expected
would be consistent with the pattern of results he experienced in the 2 previous incidents, which was NO INJURY. How
the hell did the jury conclude he intended injury BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? Isn't the logic I just articulated
reasonable doubt?

I'm not sure about mayhem, but probably not. I'd have to know what the law said on that.

You people are confused in that you think that just because there were injuries that he INTENDED for that to happen.
Not true. Under the law, Dr. T lacked Mens rea to be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Magilla

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Nov 5, 9:01 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Who the **** are we to tell Iraq or Iran they can't acquire nuclear
weapons?

Yeah! We ought to wait until they drop a nuclear weapon on Israel as they've
claimed that they will.

Would you care to post a link showing Iran saying, "We want to drop a nuclear
weapon on Israel"? I'm not talking about something Charles Kraphammer wrote in one of
his pathetic editorials. I'm looking for a *quote* from one of Iran's leaders.

Good luck with that.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howie Mandel got my back on this one.

What's really amazing is that you people actually advocate going to war and killing
others over a ****ING RUMOR that isn't even true. If you look at Kunich's original
post he uses the pronoun "they['ve]" but he fails to mention who said it. It's because
he doesn't know, never knew, and is just repeating what he's heard others say who are
equally as remiss in their facts. So he substitutes a pronoun for that mystery person,
and then doesn't even think that's a big deal. I'm not sure this would even be
tolerated at the National Enquirer to run a story on Jennifer Aniston giving a BJ in a
bathroom to an unidentified male.

Yeah, let's just go to war and kill a bunch of people - including hundreds of
children..including little 5 year old girls with doe eyes) because I THOUGHT someone
(whose name I don't know) said they were going to nuke Israel. But I don't even have to
KNOW THE PERSON'S ****ING NAME WHO SUPPOSEDLY SAID IT.

Dude, Bush wasn't even willing to let Israel fly their jets OVER Iran to do a strategic
preemptive bombing run on Iraq. So Kunich is advocating a position that was even too
radical for Bush.

That's just crazy insane.

You people are off da hook irresponsible.


Magilla

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

On Nov 6, 8:42*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Not true. *Under the law, Dr. T lacked Mens rea to be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Silly monkey -
"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)

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

On Nov 6, 9:42*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Dr. T was a dickhead with a bad attitude. *No question. *But he did not intend to assault those cyclists with his car.
I believe the evidence supports that he just wanted to brake hard and cause them to lock their brakes up and slow down
to like 0 from descent speed. *I believe this because in his 2 previous incidents (which the prosecutor and everyone
else uses as evidence to show a "pattern" of behavior)...the evidence of those 2 incidents shows there was no
collision, ergo assault, in those 2 previous incidents. *So if you were to believe this was a pattern of behavior (I
certainly do), you would then be required to also accept that Dr. T should have expected the same outcome in this 3rd
incident, which was NO INJURY. *You have to look at it from his perspective.

I think you guys are just too prejudiced and jacked up because the victims were cyclists ( a Cat. 1, too, oh my God,
they're so fast) and you can't separate yourself from that. * *It's just like you can't separate yourself from the fact
that some U.S. cyclists dope even when faced with 9 positive tests. *When Fraud tests positive, you people attack
innocent lab techs even though they did nothing to Fraud. *You actually wanted them jailed if I recall correctly! *But
you don't talk like that when a baseball player tests positive, do you?

It's the same thing with Dr. T....the guy hit his brakes. *Fine. *He thought the cyclists were going to do the same
thing (as was his experience in the 2 previous incidents). *But something went horribly wrong on this 3rd "lesson."

The cyclists who were traveling behind him never touched their brakes according to their GPS since they never slowed
down to less than 30 mph. *According to the testimony, I believe they were probably giving him the finger and then
trying to chase him down. *But how can a car move from the left side of the road all the way across to being directly
in front of them and then coming to a complete stop (that would take at least 75 feet)..and the cyclists never slowed
down from their 30 mph?

Reckless driving, yes. *Assault with a deadly weapon. No. *The collision was unintended and was an unexpected result
given Dr. T's 2 previous incidents, which everyone agrees was part of a pattern. *The collision probably had more to do
with 2 arrogant jackass cyclists who think that people who don't feel like riding 25 mph down a 3 mile hill are
assholes.

If you agree the behavior was part of a pattern of behavior, then you should also agree that the outcome he expected
would be consistent with the pattern of results he experienced in the 2 previous incidents, which was NO INJURY. *How
the hell did the jury conclude he intended injury BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? * Isn't the logic I just articulated
reasonable doubt?

I'm not sure about mayhem, but probably not. *I'd have to know what the law said on that.

You people are confused in that you think that just because there were injuries that he INTENDED for that to happen.
Not true. *Under the law, Dr. T lacked Mens rea to be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Good arguing, Magilla. Just in case views are just joining us, I
trimmed minimally.

Quote of testimony, from VeloNews:
Tuesday's testimony began with Los Angeles police officer Dave Martin,
one of two officers who responded to a call from cyclist Patrick
Watson in March, 2008. Watson testified earlier in the trial that
Thompson had braked in front of him but he was able to avoid a
collision by bunnyhopping over a curb and off the road.

Swarth asked Officer Martin if he had suggested that Watson could file
a charge of hit and run against Thompson.

“No,” said Martin. (end)

That sounds like Thompson didn't give Watson much room-- I mean,
bunnyhopping a curb and going off the road? I'd rather stop, *if I
could*.

I've seen that GPS data supposedly shows the cyclists (Peterson and
Stoehr) didn't slow down before the accident.
I'm wondering how much of a gap (time interval) Thompson allowed, and
if Watson's adept avoidance had any influence on how close Thompson
chose to "cut it" the next time.

Note, as a resident and something of an edifice in the community-- not
by my lights, but cops tend to cut docs a lot of slack in similar
situations, IME-- did Thompson ever resort to lawful, responsible
means ("dropping the dime") of dealing with this situation?

We have a saying around he "There are no fighting words in Texas".
Meaning, you can't justify assault by claiming you were provoked
("needed to defend myself physically") by mere words, or probably
stuck-out middle fingers, either g. I don't know if it's the same in
Californicatia.

Reckless behavior. Repeated acts.Vigilanteism. Escalation.

Again, I believe "the law" has ways of dealing with these aspects of
Thompson's repeated antisocial behavior.
For instance, "armed robbery" v. plain old robbery-- again, the
question is: "How many times can a gun-toting thief hold up a
convenience store before someone gets shot?" (A: Not very many)

Or, maybe you're comfortable with the usual "robbery gone wrong"
bull**** the idiots in the media repeat? You pull a gun on someone,
that shows intent to shoot-- "give me the money or else".

OK. You can argue Thompson's unknowable "intent" all you want but the
point is, Thompson had no authority to block the road or in any other
way (besides maybe blowing his horn) "control" the actions of the
cyclists. He's not a cop, and, btw, he wasn't in his accustomed place
in the operating room where he gets to be a little tin god, either. He
put others at risk, repeatedly; at best, ignoring the danger he was
exposing other people to.

If the cyclists were breaking the law, that doesn't give him
"authority", either. You know, the usual "If I ever get a chance to
run over one of those guys I'm going to do it because they run stop
signs" mentality?

The drive to control others is sociopathic.

I keep seeing "everyone lost", "tragic situation", and other
expressions of sympathy for Thompson. Why? He used his car as a
weapon, deliberately and repeatedly, and someone finally got badly
hurt.

We see that at least one other serious complaint about him was
basically ignored, where the cops didn't at least tell Mr. Watson
(above) that he could press charges. There's a whole lot wrong with
basic attitudes here. Maybe Thompson's case will show some of the
assholes out there that they can be severely punished for hitting
cyclists, no matter who they are. That would be a huge positive.

My interest is piqued, I must admit, because I'm likely able to sit
here and peck today because yesterday my Spider Sense* warned me about
the asshole who was going too fast to stop and avoid hitting me when a
stoplight went green and I went straight while he blew by me and hung
a sharp right. He glared at me, "Get the hell out of my way" style as
he went 'round. A close one. _Another close one_, Maggie-moo, if you
know what I mean. "Bad attitudes".

(*that plus long experience, and a "never give them a shot at you"
methodology of bicycle riding).

I see Thompson is being held in jail as a "flight risk". Wow. Speaking
of: He must have really expressed some 'tude in the presence of
"officialdom", since the expectation would be that he would, as a
known and somewhat "important" person, to be granted bail, if not
released on his own recognizance.

Also, the "risk to cyclists" aspect of his being denied bail pending
sentencing? Ow! I'd love to hear a tape of his interaction with the
responding police officer. Some people call that "Failing the attitude
test". Maybe Thompson didn't think he would even "get into trouble",
that the cops would "straighten everything out" once they showed up?
Maybe some of that, if it occurred, was used at the trial? If so, good
deal!

Did Thompson "render aid"? Here in Texas, many medical professionals
are bound by law to this duty. Consequences of failure to render aid
are quite serious; maybe they'll remember to gig him for that, too, if
he in fact did not assist the injured cyclists. The more time he
serves, and the more penalties he pays, the better. Which should also
serve Peterson and Stoehr very well when they go after Thompson's ass
but good in civil court, which I hope they don't get talked out of
(IRT this "tragedy" bull**** rhetoric).
--D-y