From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:04:07 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug26.200422.27773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.231740.9694@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.220613.7284@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> 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?
> 
> Most everyone else has figured it out.  Since I'm not writing for DC's
> benefit, I don't really care whether or not he has.  If he wants me to
> care, he'll have to provide some reasons I'm interested in.  Hostility
> is a bad start, but money might work.

Here is a penny. Go buy a life and bring back the change.

> 
>>>>> 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.
> 
> DC should reread the quoted text.  WD-40 isn't outlawed.  Doing certain
> things with WD-40 is.  One of those things is carrying it as a weapon
> for use against people, even if the use is otherwise legally justifiable.
> 
> Other people have found the statute; they were interested in it and
> the lack of a statute number was no obstacle to them.  DC either isn't
> interested enough to look in the index or has some other problem.
> Either way, that's his problem.  Pay me and I might care, but I don't
> now.

More lies Andy. I expected better from you. There is no statute which fits
here.

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Yawn.  The evidence and witnesses disagree with the newspaper interview.

Yawn yourself. How does the evidence and witnesses disagree. Does it UNIFORMILY
agree that Goetz was lying? Is it straight across the board?

Or are you picking and choosing your witnesses and facts?


> 
>>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?
> 
> His actual behavior was like that of a woman who carries WD-40 for
> self-defense and uses it that way.

Oh, a man who goes out looking for muggers to shoot is like a woman who carries
WD-40 in case someone tries to rape her so she MIGHT be able to get away?

Even for you, that is pretty shallow.


> 
>>> 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.
> 
> So?

Go pull a clue from the clue bag if you need to ask that question. 

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Really?  "Your honor, there's no permit that would let me do this, so
> let me off" works?  Where?

Your prior two sentences do not equal this most recent post. Which one are you
now claiming is your real intent?

> 
>>>>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.
> 
> And I don't CARE what DC says.

Liars usually don't. (At least that is what they claim. But for someone who
does not care what I say, you DO spend a lot of time giving rebuttal. 'Me
thinks he doth protest too much.'

> 
>>Should be real easy to prove me wrong.
>>
>>If I am.
> 
> It is easy, but proving DC wrong to DC's satisfaction doesn't interest
> me.  People who have bothered to use the information I've provided
> know he's wrong; they're my intended audience and I don't care whether
> or not he does.  If he wants me to, he's going about that a wrong way.

OH! Now I see! You are writing for the benifit of those people who believe you.
These people who you have corresponded with and you all secretly know I am
wrong.

Bullshit. There are a few people on here who would LOVE to be able to rub my
nose in that fact that I was wrong, even if just once. You once spent
considerable effort in an attempt to do just that.

If you had a statute, which you knew said what you thought it did, and you
thought I could not bring forth court decisions nullifying it back to what I
claim, you'd drag it out in a heartbeat.

Instead, you claim to have it written down, and will not share it with anyone
(except your loyal friends and followers who support you).

Puh-leaze. You surely can do better than that.

Well, O.K., maybe not. (I keep forgetting you are dealing with limited
resources. Sorry.)

DC