From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Organization: nope
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:04:22 GMT

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.

>>>> 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.

>> 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.

>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.

>> 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?

>> 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?

>>>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.

>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.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu