From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:50:13 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug26.195717.27603@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> 
> I wrote:
>>In article <1992Aug21.085329.9621@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>Regarding the debate over mace v. home brews, why not just get a
>>>49 cent trial sie of WD-40 or similar product and carry that?
>>>
>>>Plus, it would be difficult to be prosecuted for.
>> 
>>Not really.  The DA merely establishes WHY it was being carried and
>>then various weapons laws come into play.  The DA makes a deal with
>>the attacker (assuming best case, you're found out AFTER a justifiable
>>use) for no time or maybe even conviction, who then happily helps send
>>the WD-bandit up the river.
>> 
>>A justifiable use does not imply justifiable carry.
> 
> DC's "spin" is:
>>At no point did Andy pose ANY of this as a question or possible alternative.
>>He stated flat out that my post was wrong and that the DA would cut a deal
>>with a rapists to nail the victim.
> 
> No, I didn't say that DAs WOULD prosecute.  DC claimed "it would be
> difficult to be prosecuted for."  My "Not really" is a response to
> that.  I pointed out that it wouldn't be difficult, it would be rather
> easy.  That doesn't imply that DAs would necessarily do it, only that
> they COULD.  Since then I've been discussing the relevant charges.

You still haven't, nor has anyone else, pointed out it could be easy, or even
possible.

> 
>>I know that Andy was talking off of the top of his head with NO references,
> 
> Actually, Andy wasn't.  Go the library and LOOK at the CA penal code.
> Then look at weapon statutes in other jurisdictions.  Most outlaw
> poisons/noxious substances when used as weapons, even if the very same
> substances can be legally owned and used for other purposes.  It's
> the same with clubs.
> 
> If you're not going to look at the penal code, statute numbers are
> useless, and if you are, they're unnecessary.  That's why I often
> don't bother.  Sometimes I do provide them.  It depends on the
> discussion.  In this one, I've no interest in making life easy for DC.

I say you are making this 'code' up. I am stating that you either are:

1. Not being honest.
2. Not being aware of what you 'alleged; code says or how it has been
interpreted.

You think that makes life difficult for me?

No, it makes you look like a liar or idiot.

> 
>>Tough shit if I can work the words
>>better than you---that is no reason for me to hold back to your level.
> 
> As the "spin" demonstrates, DC's reading comprehension is lacking.
> 
>>Andy COULD have ASKED if mace laws cover WD-40. I would have looked it up.
> 
> Andy knows that they DO, when WD-40 is carried as a self-defense
> against people weapon, as DC advised.  DC hasn't looked it up and
> assumes that they don't.

Wrong, I have looked them up. But, it is real hard to find soemthing that does
not exist.

> 
>>> OK, you "do research", and pride yourself on getting your facts straight.
> 
> While DC may pride himself on that, his record is somewhat different.

Oh, where have I been wrong so far? You really think your bluff that a CA code
exists which is applicable is fooling anyone?

Just yourself if you think it is believed.

DC

Newsgroups: talk.rape,misc.legal