From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Organization: nope
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.194538.9655@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.215948.18120@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>From the legal expert himself. How, pray tell, are you, Mr. Prosecutor,
>>>going to PROVE why someone was carrying a canister of WD-40??? 
>> 
>> The same way they prove intent in other cases.  It obviously isn't
>> a significant burden, as they do it all the time.
>
>They do it all of the time. In cases where they are prosceting a owman
>for defending herself, with say, her keys, or by swinging her purse.
>Yeah, that one is real easy to prove. Go study burden of production
>and burden of pursuasion and come back.

Proving that a woman carried a purse or keys as a weapon may be hard,
but not particularly relevant.  There's physical evidence, statements
of witnesses, and so on.

>> It turns out that it may well be.  For example, carrying a baseball
>> bat as a weapon (even for self-defense) is different than carrying it
>> for playing baseball.  In one case, it's a forbidden club, in the
>> other, it's sporting equipment, even though it's the same hunk of
>> wood/metal.
>> 
>> In particular, carrying noxious substances AS weapons is generally
>> prohibited in CA.  There's an exception for specifically approved
>> Mace-like products under certain circumstances, but WD-40 isn't
>> specifically approved as a weapon under ANY circumstances.  If the DA
>> can prove you carried it as such, you're hosed.
>
>Since you cite to a relevant CA statute, I take it you have read it, and are
>not merely speaking from the grapevine. Please provide the proper cite so we
>may all read it.

Yes, I have read it.  I'm not typing it in, so interested parties are
going to have to get a copy.  There aren't many ways to get such a
copy that don't make it very easy to look at the relevant index.
Thus, a cite is unnecessary for anyone literate enough to use an index
or to ask a reference librarian for assistance.  The ability to
understand the law implies the former, so it isn't a real obstacle.

>Further, how on EARTH is a DA gonna prove you carried it in your purse as
>a weapon, and were not merely taking it your purse to fix your sqeuaky chair
>at work? Do not say it is easy, tell us ALL how it can be done!

The person carrying it may admit it, not realizing that that's a bad
move.  There are other ways.

>> Ah, but it is prohibited in CA.  Moreover, DAs do pull this stuff.
>> They prosecute victims who had the temerity to defend themselves and
>> in doing so violated weapons statutes.  Does Goetz ring any bells?
>
>Yes, he was carrying a loaded gun in a subway. He walked over to his already
>shot panhandlers, and while one of them was bleeding on the ground, he said,
>"You don't look like you are hurt bad enough." and fired some more slugs into
>his back.

Try again.  The physical evidence AND the testimony of EVERY witness
disagrees.  (I've read the transcripts.)  The only "evidence" for that
version is an interview Goetz gave to newspapers.  There's no reason
to believe it, and plenty of reasons to not believe it.  BTW - they
weren't panhandlers, they were armed robbers, at least at the time in
question.

>Jury acquited him at least once, didn't they? Second time he got, what kind of
>penalty was it? For pumping lead into a defenseless human?

He was convicted of carrying without a permit.

>And you equate that with a prosecutor going after a woman who sprayed a
>lubricant into her attacker's face???

Since justifiable use while carrying without a permit is justifiable
use while carrying without a permit, yes, I do equate the two.  The
fact that there may not be a permit for carrying WD-40 as a weapon
doesn't change that.

>>>you KNOW I am going to correct you on legal matters.
>> 
>> I know that you blow a lot of smoke.
>
>From the way you and Sam get burned, I would say where there is smoke...

you'll find DC making smoke, at least in cases involving me.  No burn
at all.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu