Cyclist Payback???

[S o r n i]

David Reuteler wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No. The original post in this thread was about a cyclist slashing
>> tires; it was a later post that talked about the laughing killer.
>>
>> You don't have to quote the entire article. You could just quote
>> enough for the rest of us to know what you're talking about.
>
> i implore you not to start. please! i got it. i did. i really,
> really did.
>
> what did i get? damn, i didn't quote it. trudi's statement. the
> one about being amazed what some people do. that's just a paraphrase
> i don't remember it exactly. i clipped it. i'm sorry. next time
> i'll be a better poster.

Where did YOU come from in this? All I and then Rick were pointing out was
that Trudi (not you) didn't quote ANYTHING with her reply, so a reader might
be confused. (Especially one having server issues, like I have last few
days. Getting lots of replies without the OP showing up first.)

It would be like me replying to your comment above by just posting "Here we
go." (but after SNIPPING it so no one knew what I meant).

Bill "fine with me to let it go at that" S.

 

[David Reuteler]

S o r n i <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where did YOU come from in this? All I and then Rick were pointing out was
> that Trudi (not you) didn't quote ANYTHING with her reply, so a reader might
> be confused. (Especially one having server issues, like I have last few
> days. Getting lots of replies without the OP showing up first.)

just please don't respond to every poorly attributed post. you'll flood us.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[Rick Onanian]

We insist. We'll respond as we damn well please!
--
Rick "Get it?" Onanian

 

[David Reuteler]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> We insist. We'll respond as we damn well please!

damn, i was gonna make that same joke.

instead i think i'm gonna bail on work and drink a serving of $7 per
bottle australian red. i've had a long, long week. on bike topic. a
single serving (750ml) fits perfectly into one of my rear jersey pockets.
how cool i must look cruisin' down main with two bottles of wine stuffed
into my jersey pockets i can only imagine .. but damn.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:34:50 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc,
[email protected]etent (Trudi Marrapodi) wrote:

> Not obvious
> enough without quoting the entire article?

no.

 

[Trent Piepho]

In article <[email protected]>,
Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"frkrygow" "frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu
>
>wrote:
>
>>Maybe instead of slashing, just removing the valve core from his tires?
>> Seems a lot gentler. I _guess_ it's still illegal, though.
>>
>>(What's the charge? "Releasing captive air?")
>
>Since you ask, here in IL it would be a misdemeanor charge- "Tampering with a
>Motor Vehicle". A second conviction on that charge would make it a felony. Just
>FYI.

Would removing the skewers or loosing the brake cable on a bicycle count, or
does it only apply to motor vehicles? What do the courts consider sabotaging
bicycles? Community service?

 

[Hunrobe]

>[email protected] (Trent Piepho)

asked three questions:

>Would removing the skewers or loosing the brake cable on a bicycle count, or
>does it only apply to motor vehicles? What do the courts consider sabotaging
>bicycles? Community service?

1- No. That particular statute applies solely to motor vehicles.
2- Criminal damage to property which is a misdemeanor.
3- Community service can be part of the sentence for either charge.

Yes, I know that last is not what you were asking. You were attempting to claim
that the law considers a motor vehicle more "valuable" than a bicycle and of
course it does, but not because of any bias. It's simply a function of
economics. The most expensive bike you can name costs a good deal less than the
cheapest economy car available.
Retail theft (shoplifting) is a good analogy. Shoplift a $5000 stereo system
and it's a felony. Shoplift a $50 portable CD player and it's a misdemeanor
*unless* you have previously been convicted of retail theft. Then it's
upgradable to a felony just like a second conviction for criminal trespass to a
motor vehicle. Do you feel better now?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Trent Piepho]

In article <[email protected]>,
Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Trent Piepho)
>>Would removing the skewers or loosing the brake cable on a bicycle count, or
>>does it only apply to motor vehicles? What do the courts consider sabotaging
>>bicycles? Community service?
>
>Yes, I know that last is not what you were asking. You were attempting to claim
>that the law considers a motor vehicle more "valuable" than a bicycle and of
>course it does, but not because of any bias. It's simply a function of

No, I was claiming that the law considers people in cars more valuable than
people on bicycles. Removing skewers is like cutting the brake lines on a
car. The perpetrator is sabotaging the vehicle intending to cause serious
injury or death to the user. A felony done to a person in a car, beneath
notice if done to someone on a bicycle.

And before you say people don't do this, I've found my brakes undone and a
co-worker has discovered his front skewer was missing.

 

[Hunrobe]

>[email protected] (Trent Piepho)

wrote in part:

> Removing skewers is like cutting the brake lines on a
>car. The perpetrator is sabotaging the vehicle intending to cause serious
>injury or death to the user. A felony done to a person in a car, beneath
>notice if done to someone on a bicycle.
>
>And before you say people don't do this, >I've found my brakes undone and a
>co-worker has discovered his front skewer was missing.
>

Why do you think I'd say people don't do that? It's not common but they do. I'd
disagree with your interpretation of intent because most people don't believe
that a bike crash at less than 5 mph is "life-threatening" and that's the
expected result of such sabotage.
In any event, IIRC murderous intention was not what the discussion was about.
It was about theft and criminal damage to property. In either case though-
criminal damage or murderous intent- the law treats the *victims* if not the
mode of transportation exactly the same. When they are victims motor vehicle
operators and cyclists are treated equally shabbily in our criminal justice
system. Any attempt to make a *real* change in that regard is usually met by a
howl from the defense bar-
"[Insert proposed change here] will result in an unfair prejudice against the
accused".

Regards,
Bob Hunt