From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:17:40 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug25.220613.7284@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> 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.

What are you trying to say here? I really don't know if you are saying it is
easy to prove a woman used a purse as a weapon, in which case I say that it is
easy to prove she used ANYTHING as a weapon. We are discussing her intent in
carrying the item, right? How do you prove she selected a keychain because it
fit into her hand well and could be used like spiked brass-knuckles?

> 
>>> 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.

Your 'reasons' for not providing a cite are real hollow. Please share with ALL
of us this law which outlaws WD-40, hair-spray, and other noxious sprays.



> 
>>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.

When someone confesses to something, the DA has not proven it.

Please tell us these 'other ways' that you are thinking of.

> 
>>> 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.

Goetz admitted that at no time did they show him a weapon. He admitted to
pumping slugs into a defensless person. He admitted he was trying to murder
someone. He admitted he was carrying the gun HOPING to be mugged so he could
pump lead into someone.

And you think that his case is in the same category as a woman fighting off a
rapist with a trial size can of WD-40?

> 
>>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.

I'd be willing to bet money that most women would rather risk being convicted
of that than allowing a rapist to finish his plans.

> 
>>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.

Yes it does. It changes it HIGHLY.(At least as far as prosecutor, judge, and
jury iinstructions are concerned. ou are equating your opinion with the opinion
of the law. The two are markedly different.) Go back and re-read your codes. 

And be sure to give us the cites.

> 
>>>>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.

Where are you cites? What are you basing all of this legal expertiese on?
Why are you so afraid to post your information? I say you don't have any.
I say you are making all of this up.

Should be real easy to prove me wrong.

If I am.

DC