From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:31:26 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug27.144712.9735@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>Who is peddling it for self-defense??? It is a spray lubricant, sold as a spray
>lubricant and rust dissolver. At no time have I ever seen it sold for
>self-defense. Now, if someone were to walk into a store and say, "I'd like to
>buy some WD-40 for self-defense, to spray in my attacker's face." sure, THEN
>both seller and buyer might be covered by the staute.

Wrong.  Read the statute.

>Use your brain first year! If you sold baseball bats outside a rap concert as
>"skull-busters" for "killing cops" you'd probably be outside the law. If you
>sell it as a baseball bat or lousy hammer or short and rigid pogo stick, you ar
e
>doing fine. (Although intent might be easily proved if you sold it under these
>titles out side the rap concert.)

Boy, you're lucky Ed Nilges isn't deconstructing that paragraph.  (And I
used my brain first year.  That's why I'm on law review.)

>Didn't they ever theach you ANYTHING about burden of pursuasion or
>jurisprudence or evidenciary rules?
>
For one thing, they taught me how to spell "teach," "persuasion," and
"evidentiary."  What law school did you say you went to?
>
>As for finding the staute, I know where to find it. It would take me about as
>little time as it took you (Actually, less if I use Lexis. After all, "noxious
>or poison or caustic w/12 weapon or defense or assault" does not take that long
>to type). 

It would take you much longer if that was your search code, because it
wouldn't find it.  Which leads me to believe that you haven't read the
statute, and, as with the issue of self-defense within the home, or the
applicability of Rule 401 to California state courts, you are making this
up as you go along.  (And you don't know how long it took me to find the
statute.  I said "under 15 minutes," so you have no way of knowing whether
you can find it in less time.)

>I am just waiting for Ataylor to commit himself to a specific
>section of code so I can bring out the annotation and case law cases that
>nullify what he is saying. If I post a law which kind of fits into what he is
>saying, he is just gonna say, "Wrong! That ain't the right one! Ha-ha!"

Given that there's only one California law (and that you can't tell
the difference between Ataylor and Andy Freeman) that's remotely applicable,
I find that hard to believe.  Why is it that you, who haven't read the
statute, are right and those of us who have read the statute and the
case law and the annotations, are wrong?

>No, if he or you claim that there is a law out there which proves me worng, you
>get to parade it and then we'll all see how well it holds up the the harsh
>light of public scrutiny.
>
Anyone who wants the statute can e-mail me.  After dc's insults, I
have no desire to do his research for him.  It's clear that he doesn't
know what he's talking about.

>> You're quick to call names.  Does your blatant mistake regarding California
>> law make you a liar?
>
>What mistake? I have made no mistake. 

Well, you're dead wrong on your assertion regarding self-defense in
the home (unless you'd like to present a statute supporting your assertion --
self-defense is the one legal issue that's very well hashed out on the
net, and it's pretty much agreed that you're wrong.)  You were also
wrong in calling up Federal Rule 401 in a California state court.

>What mistake? I have made no mistake. (Claiming I have made one without showing
>where I have made one proves only you value your hand so little that even after
>your bluff has been called, you'd prefer to walk away with the cards. Mine are
>on the table--there is no CA staute which prevents a person from using
>household items for self-defense when attacked. No, where is your alleged 
>staute which would convict someone who happens to pull out handy item and use
>it when attacked? Hmmm???)

Dar, you're encouraging people to break the law, and then perjure themselves.
Neither is ethical behavior.

>> My attitude's the same as Andy's.  I don't get paid to do your research for
>> you, Darrell.  If you're too lazy to do a "tear gas" and "self-defense"
>> search on CA-ST, that's your problem.
>
>You KNOW perfectly well it is not laziness. 

Okay, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe it's just
obstinance and intentional ignorance, and aiming for a malpractice suit
and a disbarment.  Who am I to call it mere laziness?

>stautesBut you and Andy have been such immature nuisances that I want, very
>much, to have you place your bets and show your hand, because I know how to
>provided annotations which will modify the staright code into what I have been
>claiming all along.

Actually the straight code is arguable -- it's when you get into the
annotations and case law that it becomes clear cut.

>I want to humiliate you two. 

So?  Look up the statute.  Only one matches the search code I gave you.
I even said where it's located.  What more could you want?

>And I will continue to do it either by CONSTANTLY
>pointing out your fear of posting this alleged statute, or by pointing out what
>judges have said about it after you produce it.

And I have nothing to fear, but I don't have any problem in attempting
to expose your complete lack of research skills, or your attempts to
intimidate by incorrectly using legal terminology.

Once again, anyone who wants the statute can e-mail me for it.  Dc will
have to find it for himself.

>And you are gonna be a lawyer? Christ. You are afraid of being proven worng! 

I'm very frightened of being proved a worng.  I don't even know what a
worng is.

>You
>are definetly in the wrong field. Make sure you get into something which does
>not require you to actually go into a courtroom, because clients depend upon
>their counsel to not curl up with tail 'twixt legs.

You're the one that seems to be backing down -- you refuse to cite caselaw
backing you up on this issue, you cited the wrong evidence code in your
response to Rolfe, and you have yet to show the state statute or case that
backs you up on your claim regarding self-defense in the home.  You're
oh for three so far.  And not particularly literate about it, either.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood