"hit him back first"

Wait a second, just had a thought.

Ride in front of him and get off the bike.

As he approaches, leap over his handlebars and take him off the bike
with a flying side kick.

Lots easier than with a horse, because there's not much chance of him
rearing up suddenly like horses do when you jump over their head.

<Don't ask me how I know. You know how I know. I made that part
up.>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My question is, are you prepared for this sort
of thing, do you have your kata down?
Do you wait for the enemy to make the first
aggressive move?  Where is the point of no return?

how exactly do you hit someone back, first?  If you hit first, you
aren't hitting them back.

Those of us who actually train understood that it was a play on words,
and that he was talking about pre-emptive self-defense.

Quoted message said:

and yes, you MUST wait until someone makes the first aggressive move.

Wrong again. We can add self-defense law to the long, long list of
things that you know nothing about.

A person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is
priviliaged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and yes, you MUST wait until someone makes the first aggressive move.

Not in Canada.

Nor in the United States.

Shuurai said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My question is, are you prepared for this sort
of thing, do you have your kata down?
Do you wait for the enemy to make the first
aggressive move?  Where is the point of no return?

how exactly do you hit someone back, first?  If you hit first, you
aren't hitting them back.

Those of us who actually train understood that it was a play on words,
and that he was talking about pre-emptive self-defense.

Quoted message said:

and yes, you MUST wait until someone makes the first aggressive move.

Wrong again. We can add self-defense law to the long, long list of
things that you know nothing about.

A person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is
priviliaged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault.

but you have to prove it. You most likely will need witnesses to
corroborate your story, or perhaps not in the case of a 2 times
convicted assault felon with "kill everyone" tatooed on his forehead
with a great big nasty knife in his possession. Make no mistake about
it though, you thinking all you need do is simply say you felt
threatened and that is enough, fugeddaboutit. The burden of proof
will be on you and you will need to convince a jury you were afraid.

but perhaps that wouldn't be that hard for you.

Hal

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shuurai said:

Quoted message said:

>My question is, are you prepared for this sort
>of thing, do you have your kata down?
>Do you wait for the enemy to make the first
>aggressive move? Where is the point of no return?

how exactly do you hit someone back, first? If you hit first, you
aren't hitting them back.

Those of us who actually train understood that it was a play on words,
and that he was talking about pre-emptive self-defense.

Quoted message said:

and yes, you MUST wait until someone makes the first aggressive move.

Wrong again. We can add self-defense law to the long, long list of
things that you know nothing about.

A person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is
priviliaged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault.

but you have to prove it.

The rule varies among the states (in the USA) but generally the defendant
must raise self-defense, then the state must disprove the defense beyond a
reasonable doubt.

You most likely will need witnesses to

Quoted message said:

corroborate your story, or perhaps not in the case of a 2 times
convicted assault felon with "kill everyone" tatooed on his forehead
with a great big nasty knife in his possession. Make no mistake about
it though, you thinking all you need do is simply say you felt
threatened and that is enough, fugeddaboutit. The burden of proof
will be on you and you will need to convince a jury you were afraid.

Seems that the less people know about things the more confident they are in
espousing how much they know.

Quoted message said:

but you have to prove it.  You most likely will need witnesses to
corroborate your story, or perhaps not in the case of a 2 times
convicted assault felon with "kill everyone" tatooed on his forehead
with a great big nasty knife in his possession.  Make no mistake about
it though, you thinking all you need do is simply say you felt
threatened and that is enough, fugeddaboutit.  The burden of proof
will be on you and you will need to convince a jury you were afraid.

but perhaps that wouldn't be that hard for you.

Hal

You don't need to convince the jury that you were afraid, you need to
convince them that THEY would have been afraid.

Listen, just STFU about legal topics, ok? Stick to a topic you have
some knowledge on, like what angle is best to watch someone service
your wife.

Trav

Quoted message said:

The rule varies among the states (in the USA) but generally the defendant
must raise self-defense, then the state must disprove the defense beyond a
reasonable doubt.

That isn't true at all.

The defendant must establish that a reasonable person would have
feared imminent grave bodily harm, no more.

There is no issue of the State's burden of proof as to the commission
of the crime. An affirmative defense is an admission of the act.

Trav

Sam the Bam said:

A minor confrontation yesterday... I'm out
riding my bicycle, some nut job on another
bike chases me, screaming.  It seems I
committed the crime of running a stop sign
(guilty guilty guilty).  He pulls along side,
still yelling.  I ignore him.  He's foaming at the
mouth.  I run another stop sign, he blows another
gasket, hahaha!  It's worth the price of admission.
Finally he peels away.

Now does that constitute a 'self defense situation?'
Not that I could do much, we're both on bikes... maybe
Sakuraba could pull off some kind of move, but I'm not
him...  does mma cover this?

For a moment I thought he might try to ram me,
then I would have gone apeshit.  I wasn't carrying
anything, but I'm confident I can put my knuckles
through anyone's nose.

My question is, are you prepared for this sort
of thing, do you have your kata down?
Do you wait for the enemy to make the first
aggressive move?  Where is the point of no return?

Sam

Next time stop at the damn stop sign, or at least a "california
stop." I'm sick and tired of [censored] like you daring me to hit you
when I'm driving. I'm scared that someday I'm not going to be paying
close enough attention and actually hit one of you dickwads.

nate

(seriously, this is a HUGE problem in my area. Just obey the damn
law, [censored].)

Quoted message said:

Next time stop at the damn stop sign, or at least a "california
stop." I'm sick and tired of [censored] like you daring me to hit you
when I'm driving. I'm scared that someday I'm not going to be paying
close enough attention and actually hit one of you dickwads.

nate

(seriously, this is a HUGE problem in my area. Just obey the damn
law, [censored].)

Look, man.. We're all friends here.. Seriously, you should just come out
and say what you mean. Don't mince words like that, just go for it...

😄

P.

Pboud said:

Quoted message said:

Next time stop at the damn stop sign, or at least a "california
stop."  I'm sick and tired of [censored] like you daring me to hit you
when I'm driving.  I'm scared that someday I'm not going to be paying
close enough attention and actually hit one of you dickwads.

Quoted message said:

nate

Quoted message said:

(seriously, this is a HUGE problem in my area.  Just obey the damn
law, [censored].)

Look, man.. We're all friends here.. Seriously, you should just come out
and say what you mean. Don't mince words like that, just go for it...

😄

It did touch a nerve as I just saw two more suicyclists while driving
this AM.

Let's be honest, most cyclists would be livid if a driver ran a stop
sign into their path, and this double standard is doing nothing for
cyclist-motorist relations.

nate

N8N said:

Pboud said:

Quoted message said:

Next time stop at the damn stop sign, or at least a "california
stop." I'm sick and tired of [censored] like you daring me to hit you
when I'm driving. I'm scared that someday I'm not going to be paying
close enough attention and actually hit one of you dickwads.
nate
(seriously, this is a HUGE problem in my area. Just obey the damn
law, [censored].)

Look, man.. We're all friends here.. Seriously, you should just come out
and say what you mean. Don't mince words like that, just go for it...

😄

It did touch a nerve as I just saw two more suicyclists while driving
this AM.

Let's be honest, most cyclists would be livid if a driver ran a stop
sign into their path, and this double standard is doing nothing for
cyclist-motorist relations.

nate

it's not really a double standard.. Both types who do this are [censored].
Neither is a wonderful example of the best in vehicle/cycling.

Now, to your list, please add:
- turning without shoulder checking.
- Giving a cyclist about 3 to 6 inches of space when passing.
- Not considering cyclists when changing lanes
- Not "seeing" cyclists when cutting across traffic.

There's a reason I don't get on a bike much anymore.. some drivers seem
to assume a bike is "in the way" when it's on the road. It makes them
automatically angry. I don't get that mentality, but I *do* see the
results.. I've got the scars to prove it (Didn't pull that list out of
my butt).. I've been clipped by mirrors while being passed.. I was
within a *foot* of the curb.

Nothing above excuses a cyclist not following basic rules of the road..
Try and keep in perspective, however, that you're 'afraid of hitting one
of us dickwads'.. That would ruin your day.. There's a very real chance
that it would end ours.

Again, Looking at the realities of things, I take the bus now.

P.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The rule varies among the states (in the USA) but generally the defendant
must raise self-defense, then the state must disprove the defense beyond
a
reasonable doubt.

That isn't true at all.

The defendant must establish that a reasonable person would have
feared imminent grave bodily harm, no more.

That's pseudo-legal babble, son. As I said, the rules can vary from state to
state, but generally the defendant needs only raise a prima facie case for
self-defense (his own tx is usually enough), then the burden shifts to the
state to disprove it. I'm happy to provide a coupla cites for you. As to the
"grave" bodily harm, that type of language usually pertains to justifying
use of *deadly* force. You don't necessarily need to fear "grave" bodily
harm to justify punching someone in the face.

Quoted message said:

There is no issue of the State's burden of proof as to the commission
of the crime. An affirmative defense is an admission of the act.

Once self-defense is raised, the prosecution (generally -- remember there
are 50 states plus the fed gubmint, all of which can set different rules)
must prove all the elements of the charged offense, plus it must negate
properly raised self-defense. An affirmative defense normally admits the act
but that might not be such a big deal when no one disputes that a fight took
place. However, to convict of an assaultive offense the state still has to
prove BRD the defendant possessed unlawful mens rea/intent.

You'd be amazed at how many people go into a confrontation thinking they
understand the self-defense law only to pay dearly because they got it
wrong.

Pboud said:

N8N said:

Pboud said:

> Next time stop at the damn stop sign, or at least a "california
> stop."  I'm sick and tired of [censored] like you daring me to hit you
> when I'm driving.  I'm scared that someday I'm not going to be paying
> close enough attention and actually hit one of you dickwads.
> nate
> (seriously, this is a HUGE problem in my area.  Just obey the damn
> law, [censored].)
Look, man.. We're all friends here.. Seriously, you should just come out
and say what you mean. Don't mince words like that, just go for it...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

😄

Quoted message said:

It did touch a nerve as I just saw two more suicyclists while driving
this AM.

Quoted message said:

Let's be honest, most cyclists would be livid if a driver ran a stop
sign into their path, and this double standard is doing nothing for
cyclist-motorist relations.

Quoted message said:

nate

it's not really a double standard..

Yes it is as a) at least in my area running stop signs is SOP for
cyclists but (not yet anyway) for drivers, and b) I regularly see in
the cycling Usenet groups people defending their choice to run stop
signs, which just blows my mind.

Quoted message said:

Both types who do this are [censored].

I agree 100%.

nate

N8N said:

Pboud said:

N8N said:

On Jun 4, 2:49 pm, Pboud <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Next time stop at the damn stop sign, or at least a "california
>> stop." I'm sick and tired of [censored] like you daring me to hit you
>> when I'm driving. I'm scared that someday I'm not going to be paying
>> close enough attention and actually hit one of you dickwads.
>> nate
>> (seriously, this is a HUGE problem in my area. Just obey the damn
>> law, [censored].)
> Look, man.. We're all friends here.. Seriously, you should just come out
> and say what you mean. Don't mince words like that, just go for it...
> 😄
It did touch a nerve as I just saw two more suicyclists while driving
this AM.
Let's be honest, most cyclists would be livid if a driver ran a stop
sign into their path, and this double standard is doing nothing for
cyclist-motorist relations.
nate

it's not really a double standard..

Yes it is as a) at least in my area running stop signs is SOP for
cyclists but (not yet anyway) for drivers, and b) I regularly see in
the cycling Usenet groups people defending their choice to run stop
signs, which just blows my mind.

Quoted message said:

Both types who do this are [censored].

I agree 100%.

nate

If they're justifying it, they're [censored].. Basic rules for use applies
to *all* vehicles..

P.

Quoted message said:

That's pseudo-legal babble, son. As I said, the rules can vary from state to
state, but generally the defendant needs only raise a prima facie case for
self-defense (his own tx is usually enough), then the burden shifts to the
state to disprove it. I'm happy to provide a coupla cites for you. As to the
"grave" bodily harm, that type of language usually pertains to justifying
use of *deadly* force. You don't necessarily need to fear "grave" bodily
harm to justify punching someone in the face.

This is complete horsheshit.

The defendant MUST support his own affirmative DEFENSE. That is
because it is a DEFENSE. You cannot merely PLEAD an AFFIRMATIVE
defense then sit back and force the State to marshall evidence as to
its falsity. The State will attempt to prove your guilt as to the
charge at hand; it is up to you to prove that you rightfully availed
yourself of affirmative defenses.

Quoted message said:

Once self-defense is raised, the prosecution (generally -- remember there
are 50 states plus the fed gubmint, all of which can set different rules)
must prove all the elements of the charged offense, plus it must negate
properly raised self-defense. An affirmative defense normally admits the act
but that might not be such a big deal when no one disputes that a fight took
place. However, to convict of an assaultive offense the state still has to
prove BRD the defendant possessed unlawful mens rea/intent.

If the prosecution could not convict you of the charge you'd be
entitled to an acquittal. For example, you KO'd the material
eyewitness therefore his testimony was unreliable.

If you raise an affirmative defense, you are ADMITTING the act. These
are VASTLY different tactical positions.

Quoted message said:

You'd be amazed at how many people go into a confrontation thinking they
understand the self-defense law only to pay dearly because they got it
wrong.

Not so much as I'd be amazed at how many laypeople come on usenet
babbling about self-defense jurisprudence...

Trav

Quoted message said:

Yes it is as a) at least in my area running stop signs is SOP for
cyclists but (not yet anyway) for drivers, and b) I regularly see in
the cycling Usenet groups people defending their choice to run stop
signs, which just blows my mind.

There's nothing at ALL wrong w/ a cyclist who wants to run stop
signs. If they do so and cross your path, hit them. Simple as that.
They have it coming.

I run stop signs and red lights when I am riding and I expect drivers
to hit me if I run one foolishly. Cycling across intersections is
more like jaywalking.

Quoted message said:

I agree 100%. an

nate

Nonsense. Cars weigh 3500 lbs, bicycles weigh 20. Who's gonna win
that one? Most ppl are bikes ARE in the way on the road...if you
insist on road riding, at least be in sufficient condition to keep the
hell up.

Trav

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's pseudo-legal babble, son. As I said, the rules can vary from state
to
state, but generally the defendant needs only raise a prima facie case
for
self-defense (his own tx is usually enough), then the burden shifts to
the
state to disprove it. I'm happy to provide a coupla cites for you. As to
the
"grave" bodily harm, that type of language usually pertains to justifying
use of *deadly* force. You don't necessarily need to fear "grave" bodily
harm to justify punching someone in the face.

This is complete horsheshit.

The defendant MUST support his own affirmative DEFENSE. That is
because it is a DEFENSE. You cannot merely PLEAD an AFFIRMATIVE
defense then sit back and force the State to marshall evidence as to
its falsity.

Calm down, boy. Suggest you read what I wrote again. D generally need only
raise a prima facie case and his own testimony (since you apparently didn't
understand what 'tx' meant) is usually enough. (Tx is evidence, not a mere
pleading.)

Don't believe me. Here are a few cites:

"Self-defense is an affirmative defense, and once a defendant raises it, the
State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
did not act in self-defense, in addition to proving the elements of the
charged offense." People v. Lee, 213 Ill.2d 218, 224-225, 290 Ill.Dec. 256,
821 N.E.2d 307, 311 (2004).

"Once the defendant raises self-defense, the State has the burden to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense."
Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 843 (Miss.1991).

"Where there is a claim of self-defense, the Commonwealth has the burden to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not committed in
self-defense." Commonwealth v. Smith, 710 A.2d 1218, 1219 (Pa.Super.1998)

"[T]he prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
did not act in self-defense." People v. Tewksbury (1976) 15 Cal.3d 953, 963;
People v. Adrian (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 335, 342.

"When a defendant in a homicide prosecution asserts self-defense the State
has the affirmative burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
homicide was feloniously committed and was not perpetrated in self-defense."
State v. Patterson, 295 So.2d 792 (La.1974); State v. Pittman, 428 So.2d 979
(La.App. 1st Cir.1983).

"[T]he State has the burden of persuasion in disproving the evidence of
self-defense. [It] is not a burden of production, i.e., one which requires
the State to affirmatively produce evidence refuting the self-defense claim,
but rather a burden requiring the State to prove its case beyond a
reasonable doubt." Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

Once again. the laws can vary from state to state, and I don't claim to know
them all, but since you've ignorantly made blanket statements about your odd
version of the rule being *the* correct one, these cases squarely refute
you.

I won't waste any more time with your nonsense, but feel free to tell the
courts of the above states they're wrong about the law of self defense.

Quoted message said:

[blahblahblah]
Not so much as I'd be amazed at how many laypeople come on usenet
babbling about self-defense jurisprudence...

That would be you, blowhard.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's pseudo-legal babble, son. As I said, the rules can vary from state
to
state, but generally the defendant needs only raise a prima facie case
for
self-defense (his own tx is usually enough), then the burden shifts to
the
state to disprove it. I'm happy to provide a coupla cites for you. As to
the
"grave" bodily harm, that type of language usually pertains to justifying
use of *deadly* force. You don't necessarily need to fear "grave" bodily
harm to justify punching someone in the face.

This is complete horsheshit.

The defendant MUST support his own affirmative DEFENSE. That is
because it is a DEFENSE. You cannot merely PLEAD an AFFIRMATIVE
defense then sit back and force the State to marshall evidence as to
its falsity.

Calm down, boy. Suggest you read what I wrote again. D generally need only
raise a prima facie case and his own testimony (since you apparently didn't
understand what 'tx' meant) is usually enough. (Tx is evidence, not a mere
pleading.)

Don't believe me. Here are a few cites:

"Self-defense is an affirmative defense, and once a defendant raises it, the
State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
did not act in self-defense, in addition to proving the elements of the
charged offense." People v. Lee, 213 Ill.2d 218, 224-225, 290 Ill.Dec. 256,
821 N.E.2d 307, 311 (2004).

"Once the defendant raises self-defense, the State has the burden to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense."
Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 843 (Miss.1991).

"Where there is a claim of self-defense, the Commonwealth has the burden to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not committed in
self-defense." Commonwealth v. Smith, 710 A.2d 1218, 1219 (Pa.Super.1998)

"[T]he prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
did not act in self-defense." People v. Tewksbury (1976) 15 Cal.3d 953, 963;
People v. Adrian (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 335, 342.

"When a defendant in a homicide prosecution asserts self-defense the State
has the affirmative burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
homicide was feloniously committed and was not perpetrated in self-defense."
State v. Patterson, 295 So.2d 792 (La.1974); State v. Pittman, 428 So.2d 979
(La.App. 1st Cir.1983).

"[T]he State has the burden of persuasion in disproving the evidence of
self-defense. [It] is not a burden of production, i.e., one which requires
the State to affirmatively produce evidence refuting the self-defense claim,
but rather a burden requiring the State to prove its case beyond a
reasonable doubt." Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

Once again. the laws can vary from state to state, and I don't claim to know
them all, but since you've made blanket statements about your odd
version of the rule being *the* correct one, these cases squarely refute
you.

I won't waste any more time with your nonsense, but feel free to tell the
courts of the above states they're wrong about the law of self defense.

Quoted message said:

[blahblahblah]
Not so much as I'd be amazed at how many laypeople come on usenet
babbling about self-defense jurisprudence...

That would be you, blowhard.

On Jun 5, 10:59 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes it is as a) at least in my area running stop signs is SOP for
cyclists but (not yet anyway) for drivers, and b) I regularly see in
the cycling Usenet groups people defending their choice to run stop
signs, which just blows my mind.

There's nothing at ALL wrong w/ a cyclist who wants to run stop
signs.  If they do so and cross your path, hit them.  Simple as that.
They have it coming.

You and I both know that it doesn't work like that. The motorist is
always blamed, the cycling "community" calls for more protection for
cyclists, and nobody wants to be the crass, tasteless jerk that points
out the obvious, that he probably *did* deserve to be hit.

Besides, I don't want to be involved in the death or injury of another
human being, whether I'm at fault or not.

Quoted message said:

I run stop signs and red lights when I am riding and I expect drivers
to hit me if I run one foolishly.  Cycling across intersections is
more like jaywalking.

except you're doing it at 20 MPH not a walking pace.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree 100%. an

Quoted message said:

nate

Nonsense.  Cars weigh 3500 lbs, bicycles weigh 20.  Who's gonna win
that one?  Most ppl are bikes ARE in the way on the road...if you
insist on road riding, at least be in sufficient condition to keep the
hell up.

It's not about "winning" or "losing" it's about being predictable so
others don't bump into you.

Of course, cyclists around here *are* predictable. I expect them to
blow lights and stop signs in front of me and expect me to stop for
them.

nate

Quoted message said:

Calm down, boy. Suggest you read what I wrote again. D generally need only
raise a prima facie case and his own testimony (since you apparently didn't
understand what 'tx' meant) is usually enough. (Tx is evidence, not a mere
pleading.)

EVERYWHERE is evidence.

A pleading does not establish a prima facie case.

Quoted message said:

Once again. the laws can vary from state to state, and I don't claim to know
them all, but since you've ignorantly made blanket statements about your odd
version of the rule being *the* correct one, these cases squarely refute
you.

No, they do not.

You said all one had to do was plead self-defense and that would do.
It won't and it doesn't.

Trav