From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:47:11 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug27.143052.25877@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.000407.9721@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
>  writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.200422.27773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanfo
> rd.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> 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.
> 
> Really?  Look up California's tear gas statute, which has the unusual effect
> of making certain items even more likely to be illegal than tear gas.
> 
> Better check up on those research skills, Darr.  I found it in less than
> fifteen minutes.  The statute's been used to convict people selling
> capiscum, even though capiscum is a household substance with household
> uses not specifically prohibited by the statute.  If you tried to peddle
> WD-40 for self-defense, they'd get you just as surely.

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.

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 are
doing fine. (Although intent might be easily proved if you sold it under these
titles out side the rap concert.)

Are you allowed to purcahse WD-40? Can you carry it in your car? Can you carry
it from your car to your house or office? Can you put it in your purse while
carrying it, or must it always be outside clearly visible with you exclaiming
loudly "I am taking this to work for a legitimate purpose. As soon as I am
through using it I will place it back inside my toolbox so I do not break any
laws."???

Didn't they ever theach you ANYTHING about burden of pursuasion or
jurisprudence or evidenciary rules?

Provided she does not ever tell anyone she is carrying the WD-40 for
self-defense, there is going to be spit-little way to convict her for it. You
appear to have SOME legal training, tell us, without breaking a rule of
evidence, or a rule or crim investigation, WITHOUT her ever confessing as to
her real intent, how would YOU prove she was in violation of statute?

Remember, no confession from her to the jury or anyone else. And remember, you
have to reach the BARD standard.

And, what would happen if she puts it into her purse for the purpose of
actually fixing a squeaky chair and forgets to take it out? 

What if she were always leave it in her purse, and whenever she encountered a
squaky item, told her associates, "Oh, I have some WD-40 in my purse.", pulls
it out, and sprays the item. Three or four instances like that, you you have
habit evidence which will nullify just about any claims she was carrying it for
self-defense.

Or, haven't you gotten that far in your studies to know what habit evidence is?

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). 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!"

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.


 

> 
>>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.'
> 
> You're quick to call names.  Does your blatant mistake regarding California
> law make you a liar?

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???)

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> I haven't corresponded with Andy, but I haven't needed to.  It's not that
> hard to find the section towards the end of California's Penal Code regarding
> what is allowable for self-defense.  I see that others on the net haven't
> had trouble finding it either.
> 
> 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. You have something which looks good
provided no one points out the other statutes and case law which interprets the
stautes. But 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.

I want to humiliate you two. 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.

You might actually be fooling some of the people on here--maybe. But you do not
fool me or yourself. You are afraid that I can follow through with nullifying
your staute, and rather than prove me wrong and humiliating me, you are going
to cling to this shoddy ploy of saying "We DO have it and it is good and I know
you are wrong and we just don't want to share it with you."

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

I welcome healthy debate! I hope that you actually do have a staute in hand. I
hope you try and prove me wrong by displaying it. As of that time you will have
committed yourself to something tangible and not floating around in the 
sub-ether.

Because then, the fun will really begin.

Have a nice day!

DC