From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:45:38 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug22.215948.18120@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug22.012421.9638@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug22.015529.4582@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> -andy
>>
>>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.

> 
>>Defense stands up, "Objection your honor. This line of speculation is NOT
>>relevant as it is not a crime to carry said item as a weapon of self-defense."
> 
> 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.

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!

> 
> While the "specific approval" process may differ, I suspect that other
> states have similar laws that would apply to WD-40.

IF CA even has one that applies to WD-40. But, you will clear that up in no
time with the proper cite.

> 
>>but it is unlikely she would be proescuted for it as the DA would face a
>>SCANDAL like no tomorrow, further, and DAs YOU know willing to cut a deal
>>wiith a rapist to prosecute his victim for defending herself, but it is
>>NOT A CRIME FOR HER TO CARRY ANYTHING FOR SELF-DEFENSE NOT SPECIFICALLY
>>SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE!
> 
> 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.

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?

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

Tell me, WHERE have prosecutors "pull[ed] this stuff."???

> 
>>you KNOW I am going to correct you on legal matters.
> 
> I know that you blow a lot of smoke.
>
> -andy

From the way you and Sam get burned, I would say where there is smoke...

DC

PS Seriously, is it asking TOO much for you to know a little bit about what you
are talking about BEFORE you start giving out your 'expert' opinions?