Dr. Thompson I presume

On Nov 2, 10:30*pm, Michael Press wrote:

The only point is that Gila Monster says Dr. Thomson is
"entitled to stop his car on the road".

I think we agree that Maggie makes a lot of noise and little sense.
DR

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

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.

A person is entitled to a jury trial for misdemeanors.
You are wrong again.

You mean he's wrong "as usual". Has he EVER been right?

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Nov 2, 10:30 pm, Michael Press wrote:

The only point is that Gila Monster says Dr. Thomson is
"entitled to stop his car on the road".

I think we agree that Maggie makes a lot of noise and little sense.

From his comments it's pretty clear that he's not a cyclist.

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...

Now that the good doctor has been convicted on all counts this may be
moot, but my first thought upon reading the ape's tirade was also to
check the definition of "vehicle."

Alas, that ancient remnant of the vehicle code supports the ape if no
other provisions (like the more recent 21200) are taken into account.
See my response to BJW about two posts prior to this on the threaded
list.

Psst - the later laws correct that. Bicycles ARE to be treated as vehicles
by law.

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights
and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle
by this division

And it doesn't matter since it would be illegal for that sniper to do the
same thing to a jogger.

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

[...]

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.

A person is entitled to a jury trial for misdemeanors.
You are wrong again.

--
Michael Press

It depends on the state and only for certain misdemeanors. Generally speaking, traffic
tickets are not trial-by-jury offenses.

Magilla

Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 2, 2:15Â*pm, "
wrote:

CVC section 21200:
(Relevant Statute, probably controlling AND Effective January 1,
1995.)

Your bull**** about "class identity nomenclature" is just
showing off monkey vocabulary.

As much as it displeases me to say so, MG's interpretation finds some
support in the code under the following:

100. Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these
definitions shall govern the construction of this code
"Bicycle"
231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled
exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having
one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the
provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.
"Vehicle"
670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks. (Effective January 1, 1976)

So note that a bicycle as we know it (human propelled) is not, by
strict definition a "vehicle." But sec. 100 allows "context" to be
taken into account and the definition of vehicle has not been updated
since 1976 so it would seem to have been inherently modified by 21200
in 1995.

Why is this relevant?
Back to 22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of
a vehicle on a highway without first giving an appropriate signal in
the manner provided in this chapter to the driver of any VEHICLE
immediately to the rear ... (MG says that a driver has no obligation
to warn cyclists)

But I agree with you that in the context of 21200, 22109 can only be
construed to apply to cyclists as well.

Further, generally when someone is charged with a felony
for a driving incident, it implies a claim that they violated
the vehicle code in some way. Â*If you didn't violate the
vehicle code, you're unlikely to get brought up on serious
charges. Â*But once you're up on a felony, they're not going
to be putting the misdemeanor charges in front of the
jury as well.

Not true. In fact in the case being discussed the doctor is charged
with 3 felonies and one misdemeanor.
But violating 22109 is not even a misdemeanor, it's an "infraction"
with a maximum penalty of a $100 fine - like speeding or running a
stop sign. Hardly any point in even bothering with that.

The only point is that Gila Monster says Dr. Thomson is
"entitled to stop his car on the road".

--
Michael Press

You ****ing liar. I was clearly referring to Dr. Thompson, not Dr.
Thomson.


Magilla

Mark wrote:


You must think that I don't really have a ****ing clue.

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

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. * But let me give you some insight into why she might have done
what she did, since this heat is ****ing killing me.

In 22109, the code does not mention anything about a driver of a vehicle not being
allowed to abruptly stop in front of a cyclist. *It only says "driver of any
vehicle immediately to the rear." *Since the wording in the first statute under
the same chapter in law clearly makes a legal class distinction between a vehicle
and a bicycle (called class identity nomenclature), the lack of express mention of
a bicyclist as an identified protected class under 22109 - the second statute in
the same chapter of law - therefore means that 22109 was not intended to apply to
stopping in front a cyclist as a matter of law. *Not sure if they taught you this
in law school, but statutory interpretation must be done literally. *Otherwise,
laws can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. *Perhaps the legislature who
wrote the law didn't want it to apply to skateboarders, runners, or cyclists. *I'm
afraid I can't speak for the motivations of California politicians anymore than
the district attorney who apparently read that statue the same way as I did in
deciding it did not apply to this case.

As for the first statute (21750.), I'd love to help you out once again, but I
couldn't help notice you failed to list the "limitations" and "exceptions" as
called for by the statute, so I am not inclined to comment until I know what those
limitations and exceptions are, as they are germane to its enforcement. * You
believe I'm here to help you, Lt. Press, don't you? *Because I'm here to help you,
Michael boy.

But even without knowing what those critical legal exceptions and limitations are
that you omitted, I don't see this statute applying either because Dr. Thompson
indeed successfully executed a safe pass of those 2 cyclists. *Proof of this is
contained in the photographic evidence submitted at trial which clearly shows that
the collision occurred when the cyclists drove their bicycles into the rear of Dr.
Thompson's car, indicating that his vehicle was in front of thge cyclists at the
time of the collision. *It would therefore appear to me that based on the
incontroverable photographic evidence submitted at trial that Dr. Thompson had
indeed *successfully completed a safe pass as required by this statute.

In fact, the evidence appears to show it was the cyclists who failed to execute a
safe pass since they were clearly traveling behind Dr. Thompson's vehicle and
going much faster than his vehicle located in front of them when they collided
with the rear of Dr. Thompson's car, thus failing to pass the good doctor's
vehicle in a safe manner as would seem to be called for in this statute.

Now are these really the questions I was called here to answer - questions about
bicycles failing to make safe passes or stop in time because their riders admitted
under oath in their testimony that they failed to use their brakes since they were
too busy giving profane hand signals to Dr. Thompson using those same hands that
should have been on their brakes? *Please tell me you've got something more,
Lieutenant Press. *Please tell me there's an ace up your sleeve. *These two
cyclists - one with a Michael Jackson nose he cannot even feel or smell out of -
are on trial for their lives. *Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned the hopes
of the entire SoCal cycling community to alleged violations of law that Dr.
Thompson wasn't even charged with by the district attorney's office...one of which
doesn't even apply to cyclists...and a second one which would seem to indicate it
was the cyclists who failed to execute a safe pass and thus violated the very
spirit of this very statute themselves that you seem to think Dr. Thompson
violated.

Do you have any other questions for me, counselor?

Colonel Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes Mr "You must think that I don't really have a ****ing clue." Two
more questions. With the speed limit at 30 MPH and the bicyclists
were traveling at the speed limit, what was the reason for the doctor
to be passing in the first place? Also, was it a passing zone? It
appears that the ol' doc was passing illegally even before the
confrontation began.

So you're telling me you never went above the speed limit? Is that really what you're
trying to tell the jury, sir?

Magilla

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Fred Fredburger wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Paul B. Anders" wrote in message
...
On Oct 31, 11:30 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? A
bike can
stop faster than a car.

Wrong.

He demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge of the stopping
power of a bike. And for those others who aren't aware and don't want to
look like the fool that MG is - a bicycle can stop roughly half as fast
as an automobile because if you stop faster than about a half gee you
roll over the front wheel. A bicycle's center of gravity is too high for
rapid stops.


I might also add that the amount of rubber making contact with the road
on a bicycle is miniscule compared to a car, that's where all the
stopping power is. Friction is dependent on the size of the contact patch.

On the other hand, I've never rear ended a car. That's an interesting
enough trick that I wouldn't draw any conclusions based upon the limited
information I've seen so far. Emotionally, I'd like to see them lock the
driver up and throw away the key. That's not necessarily justice, however.

These guys rear-ended the car because instead of keeping their fingers on the
brake levers and expecting this guy they just harassed to stop, they were off
the bars flipping off the driver and verbally harassing someone who just
wanted to go to work. Personally, I thought that was a nice move by the
doctor. He's entitled to stop his car on the road.

California Vehicle Code

21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another
vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction
shall pass to the left at a safe distance without
interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken
vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and
exceptions hereinafter stated.

22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the
speed of a vehicle on a highway without first giving an
appropriate signal in the manner provided in this
chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the
rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.

You must think that I don't really have a ****ing clue.

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

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. But let me give you some insight into why she might have done
what she did, since this heat is ****ing killing me.

In 22109, the code does not mention anything about a driver of a vehicle not being
allowed to abruptly stop in front of a cyclist.

Did you look up the definition of `vehicle' in the
California Vehicle Code? Motion denied with extreme prejudice.

You said "He's entitled to stop his car on the road".
Dr. Thompson does not have a blanket right to stop in
any manner he sees fit. I proved this conclusively.

[...]

I did not read the rest of your message as you have
been proved wrong on the point I raised. If you have
something cogent and constructive to say please do so concisely.

--
Michael Press

Dr. Thompson had ineffective counsel. He should have brought me in as an expert
witness. I would have recreated the accident on videotape and shown that the only
reason the cyclists couldn't have stopped was because they were giving the shaft to the
doctor and trying to chase him down. The doctor didn't believe the cyclists would go
through his windshield, since it had never happened before. He only believed they
would have to lock up their brakes and get annoyed, just like had occurred in the two
previous incidents.

In the third incident involving Ron "Kiefel" and his buddy, Dr. Thompson had no idea hw
was encountering riders with Cat. 5 bike handling skills. I would have introduced
evidence to the jury that shows these two cyclists stack it routinely on training rides
and ride like **** in local crits. In fact, they were behind the other cyclists in the
group that day due to an accident by one of them, no?

I would also make sure to get some cyclists on the jury and then my closing argument
would be, "How was Dr. Thompson - a man who devoted his life to helping people in t he
ER - how did he know that he was stopping in front of two riders with the bike handling
skills of Rasmussen and Liz Hatch? (the jury would nod in affirmation as I played
Rasmussen's time trial from the 2005 Tour)

And then I would cross examine the cyclists and ask them if they donated to the Fraud
Fairness Fund to show the jury they were a bunch of liars who band together to try to
subvert the system and attack innocent people with false accusations. I would liken
Dr. Thompson to the female lab techs at the LNDD.

Dr. Thompson should of had me as his lawyr and he would have gotten off. I would have
beaten those cyclists down just like I beat you people down in here week in and week
out like a dirty doormat on a Kansas porch.

Magilla

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 2, 10:11*pm, Michael Press wrote:
Did you look up the definition of `vehicle' in the
California Vehicle Code? Motion denied with extreme prejudice.

Now that the good doctor has been convicted on all counts this may be
moot, but my first thought upon reading the ape's tirade was also to
check the definition of "vehicle."
Alas, that ancient remnant of the vehicle code supports the ape if no
other provisions (like the more recent 21200) are taken into account.
See my response to BJW about two posts prior to this on the threaded
list.

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks. (Effective January 1, 1976)

But, otherwise, thanks for pointing out the CA vehicle code in the
first place and helping to make a monkey out of Magilla, not that he
needs much help.

DR

Of course I was right. Did you actually think the code would use the
word "vehicle" to mean a bicycle when the same code clearly uses the
word bicycle to mean something other than a vehicle and in the same
sentence as "vehicle?"

HELLO.

Believe it or not, an ocean liner isn't a skateboard either. No real
need to look it up, but you can if it makes you feel better.

Tomorrow we're going to learn that a dog does not mean a cat. Please
bring your Speed Racer lunchbox to school as it will be a full day and
you'll need to eat lunch.

Magilla

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 2, 6:51*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

How is that an assault?

I suppose you would also argue that if you strung piano wire about
neck high across a bike path and decapitated a cyclist that it would
be THEIR fault because their eyesight was not good enough to see the
obvious obstacle and their brakes are inacapable of stopping
sufficiently quickly to avoid the danger.

DR

Correct. Not touching you..not touching you......totally legal...

Magilla
Age: 6