Dr. Thompson I presume

RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 2, 10:08*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Do you have any other questions for me, counselor?

I do. Will you please take the pills? Please? I don't care how many
you take - take a handful...with a tumbler or two of whiskey. It's
painless, I promise.

http://transport.tamu.edu/bicycles/statelaw.aspx
The exceptions are in there. At worst, even if they were road-raging
cyclists, acting in tandem to ram the back of the car and run it off
the road, it's still a misdemeanor. The doctor...? Well, that's
assault with a deadly weapon. As an emergency room doctor he has no
leg to stand on. He will have some lonely guy's third leg inserted in
him in prison, so it all works out.

Karma is a bitch.

R

Hey dumbass,

The exceptions are irrelevant because Dr. Thompson wasn't charged with
violating either of those 2 laws by the district attorney in the
case....so there is no need to defend against it.

As to assault with a deadly weapon, the jury is still out. I don't think
he's going to be convicted of that.

Thanks,

Magilla

On Oct 30, 5:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.

http://velonews.com/article/99513

http://www.velonews.com/article/99685

The jury may surprise me, but I'll bet the doc gets off.

Brad Anders

On Nov 2, 8:08*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
You must think that I don't really have a ****ing clue.

You said it, we didn't. But at least we agree on something.

But since we're all here making fun of the monkey, I'd be more than happy to
address those 2 statutes you cite, counselor, in the context of this case.. *

I believe MP originally provided those in response to your erroneous
suggestion that "If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of
someone's car, it's your fault."

I'm an
educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak for
why the district attorney in this case did what she did.

And here we thought you were merely a monkey/ape, a poorly trained one
at that.

You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
of to defend against them. *It's called Law School 101. *Perhaps that's a question
you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
statutes applied.

So sorry you didn't actually get as far as the 101 level. Whether
those two statutes apply or is really unimportant. They do not, in
fact, relate to misdemeanors but merely "infractions" which by
themselves are not punishable by jail time and would normally be
enforced by the officer issuing a citation, not by the DA's office.
See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm

It's hardly a surprise that the DA is not wasting time trying to
collect the $100 fine.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42001.htm

But the DA had no problem getting to the heart of the matter by
properly bringing felony charges for reckless driving causing injury
and battery with serious bodily injury, charges which have the
potential for putting the doctor behind bars where he belongs.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bott...int-again.html

Do you have any other questions for me, counselor?

I don't, at least none that you could answer.
Well one. Do you really believe what you are saying? Hard to imagine
unless you truly are suffering the limitations of an under-developed
simian thought process.

DR

On Nov 2, 12:38*pm, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:
On Oct 30, 5:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:

In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.

http://velonews.com/article/99513

http://www.velonews.com/article/99685

The jury may surprise me, but I'll bet the doc gets off.

You're on. A virtual micro-brew to the winner.

If the dicktor hadn't made a habit of harassing cyclists on "his"
road, he very well might have gotten off. Forrest Gump could see the
pattern and the likely consequences of such behavior. The jury surely
will.

R

On Nov 2, 10:46*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:38*pm, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:

On Oct 30, 5:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:

In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients..

http://velonews.com/article/99513

http://www.velonews.com/article/99685

The jury may surprise me, but I'll bet the doc gets off.

You're on. *A virtual micro-brew to the winner.

If the dicktor hadn't made a habit of harassing cyclists on "his"
road, he very well might have gotten off. *Forrest Gump could see the
pattern and the likely consequences of such behavior. *The jury surely
will.

R

I'll accept, and hope you win. And no, only RJ gets paid off it the
doc gets nailed. I'm betting that the pervasive hatred of cyclists by
most drivers will negate the evidence here.

Brad Anders

On Nov 2, 12:27*pm, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38*pm, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
The old "beat down" defense. Also known as the "but they ****ED ME OFF"
defense. Yeah, that'll win the jury over.

You bring up an interesting point. Seems like current thinking out
there is that if I yell "FU" at you or flip you off, that's all that's
needed to justify your beating the **** out of me, running me over,
etc. It even seems to be regularly presented as a defense for such
actions in court, anecdotally. Fact is, someone yelling at a person or
flipping them off isn't justification for much of anything.

That said, it's obviously a stupid thing to do. I'm reminded of Chris
Rock's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

BTW, anyone who wants to try to outbrake my M3 or Boxster on their
bike at typical cycling speeds, I'd like to see you try it.

If you have a history of harassing cyclists, gobs of insurance, have
anger management issues and don't mind some scratches on the back of
your nice car, okay!

R

On Nov 2, 10:33*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

The exceptions are irrelevant because Dr. Thompson wasn't charged with
violating either of those 2 laws by the district attorney in the
case....so there is no need to defend against it.

True.

As to assault with a deadly weapon, the jury is still out. *I don't think
he's going to be convicted of that.

Also true - he wasn't charged with that either.

I do hope the jury is slightly smarter than the average ape.

DR

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 2, 8:08Ýam, MagillaGorilla wrote:
You must think that I don't really have a ****ing clue.

You said it, we didn't. But at least we agree on something.

But since we're all here making fun of the monkey, I'd be more than happy to
address those 2 statutes you cite, counselor, in the context of this case. Ý

I believe MP originally provided those in response to your erroneous
suggestion that "If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of
someone's car, it's your fault."

In 99.99% of the cases, it is your fault if you hit the back of some else's car.
That's what I meant. These 2 statutes do not disprove that in any way.





You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
of to defend against them. ÝIt's called Law School 101. ÝPerhaps that's a question
you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
statutes applied.

So sorry you didn't actually get as far as the 101 level. Whether
those two statutes apply or is really unimportant. They do not, in
fact, relate to misdemeanors but merely "infractions" which by
themselves are not punishable by jail time and would normally be
enforced by the officer issuing a citation, not by the DA's office.
See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm

Infractions are misdemeanors, ****. By the way, a cop does not enforce the statute in
court...only a prosecutor could, so it would go back to the DA's office or local
prosecuor. Just because a cop give you a citation does not mean you have to plead
guilty to it. And when it goes to court, guess who is going to be there? The district
attorney/local prosecutor. Dr. Thompson pled not guilty, which is why he's in court.
He could have been charged with those violations as well, but the DA evidently did not
think they would apply.

Also, it is common for traffic tickets to be grouped into felony charged cases
involving motor vehicle accidents. Generally, the trial court judge would adjudicate
them after the more serious charges are adjudicated by the jury so as not to prejudice
the jury on the more serious counts. A person is not entitled to a jury trial for
misdeamnors, only felonies, which is why defendants usually get a bench ruling on the
underlying lesser included offenses of the traffic tickets.




It's hardly a surprise that the DA is not wasting time trying to
collect the $100 fine.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42001.htm

But the DA had no problem getting to the heart of the matter by
properly bringing felony charges for reckless driving causing injury
and battery with serious bodily injury, charges which have the
potential for putting the doctor behind bars where he belongs.

**** the DA. She's a ****. You should ask the DA's office how come their sister DA
reached a plea aggreement with Sheriff's Deputy James Council for house arrest after he
killed 2 cyclists with his "Deadly weapon?" All Dr. Thompson did is react to
harassment from some potty mouthed cyclists who flipped him off.

http://fugitive.com/archives/7825



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bott...int-again.html

Do you have any other questions for me, counselor?

I don't, at least none that you could answer.
Well one. Do you really believe what you are saying? Hard to imagine
unless you truly are suffering the limitations of an under-developed
simian thought process.

DR

I do as I please, and I do it with ease.

Magilla

P.S. The guy with the Michael Jackson nose - Ron "Kiefel" Peterson - will have to wake
up every day knowing he has aMichel Jackson nose because he's a foul-mouthed smart-ass
who got some street justice that day. Dr. Thompson put the hurt down on him that day
and taught him a lesson he will never forget.

"Paul B. Anders" wrote:

On Oct 31, 4:38*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
The old "beat down" defense. Also known as the "but they ****ED ME OFF"
defense. Yeah, that'll win the jury over.

You bring up an interesting point. Seems like current thinking out
there is that if I yell "FU" at you or flip you off, that's all that's
needed to justify your beating the **** out of me, running me over,
etc. It even seems to be regularly presented as a defense for such
actions in court, anecdotally. Fact is, someone yelling at a person or
flipping them off isn't justification for much of anything.

That said, it's obviously a stupid thing to do. I'm reminded of Chris
Rock's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

BTW, anyone who wants to try to outbrake my M3 or Boxster on their
bike at typical cycling speeds, I'd like to see you try it.

Brad Anders

I'd like to give it a try. Let's meet at the Sausalito cafe. Leave the
Tegaderm™ at home, because unlike Ron "Kiefel" Peterson and his female buddy
who vandalized that beautiful maroon Infiniti, I don't ride like Liz Hatch
and crash myself in a pile of leaves or into the back of some Yuppie
*******'s M3 just because he stomps on the middle pedal.


Magilla

"Paul B. Anders" wrote:

On Nov 2, 10:46*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:38*pm, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:

On Oct 30, 5:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:

In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.

http://velonews.com/article/99513

http://www.velonews.com/article/99685

The jury may surprise me, but I'll bet the doc gets off.

You're on. *A virtual micro-brew to the winner.

If the dicktor hadn't made a habit of harassing cyclists on "his"
road, he very well might have gotten off. *Forrest Gump could see the
pattern and the likely consequences of such behavior. *The jury surely
will.

R

I'll accept, and hope you win. And no, only RJ gets paid off it the
doc gets nailed. I'm betting that the pervasive hatred of cyclists by
most drivers will negate the evidence here.

Brad Anders

I think it's important to remember that whatever happens in the criminal case,
that to never forget a nice Infiniti was damaged in this tragedy. Ron "Kiefel"
Peterson's nose can always heal, but that Infiniti will never be repaired to
the exact specifications of the original factory seal of the rear window.

So let's all say a prayer for the Infiniti - the true victim in this tragedy.

Thanks,

Magilla