home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.rape
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!andy
- From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
- Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
- Message-ID: <1992Aug26.195717.27603@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
- Organization: nope
- References: <9208251917.AA03130@ros6.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1992Aug25.230049.9693@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:57:17 GMT
- Lines: 71
-
- In article <1992Aug25.230049.9693@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
- >In article <9208251917.AA03130@ros6.gsfc.nasa.gov>, alan@ROS6.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Alan Smale) writes:
- >> What do all the following people have in common?
- >>
- >> Kathi. Ataylor. Sam. Kim Posey. Rolfe. More than one Susan. Synth.
- >> Tim, I think. Probably a few other people I've forgotten about.
- >
- >As much as I can appreciate what you are trying to achieve here, let's
- >clear something up. Out of your list of people I have 'attacked', there
- >are a few errors.
-
- DC is the only person between talk.rape and complete anarchy. NOT!
-
- I wrote:
- >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.
-
- DC's "spin" is:
- >At no point did Andy pose ANY of this as a question or possible alternative.
- >He stated flat out that my post was wrong and that the DA would cut a deal
- >with a rapists to nail the victim.
-
- No, I didn't say that DAs WOULD prosecute. DC claimed "it would be
- difficult to be prosecuted for." My "Not really" is a response to
- that. I pointed out that it wouldn't be difficult, it would be rather
- easy. That doesn't imply that DAs would necessarily do it, only that
- they COULD. Since then I've been discussing the relevant charges.
-
- >I know that Andy was talking off of the top of his head with NO references,
-
- Actually, Andy wasn't. Go the library and LOOK at the CA penal code.
- Then look at weapon statutes in other jurisdictions. Most outlaw
- poisons/noxious substances when used as weapons, even if the very same
- substances can be legally owned and used for other purposes. It's
- the same with clubs.
-
- If you're not going to look at the penal code, statute numbers are
- useless, and if you are, they're unnecessary. That's why I often
- don't bother. Sometimes I do provide them. It depends on the
- discussion. In this one, I've no interest in making life easy for DC.
-
- >Tough shit if I can work the words
- >better than you---that is no reason for me to hold back to your level.
-
- As the "spin" demonstrates, DC's reading comprehension is lacking.
-
- >Andy COULD have ASKED if mace laws cover WD-40. I would have looked it up.
-
- Andy knows that they DO, when WD-40 is carried as a self-defense
- against people weapon, as DC advised. DC hasn't looked it up and
- assumes that they don't.
-
- >> OK, you "do research", and pride yourself on getting your facts straight.
-
- While DC may pride himself on that, his record is somewhat different.
-
- -andy
- --
- UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
- ARPA: andy@cs.stanford.edu
-