From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
      
   >>>>It's fascinating that facts don't matter to you. Since facts don't   
   >>>>matter, you felt free to make shit up and assign criminal intent   
   >>>>to the homeowner.   
      
   >>>I didn't do that. Just on the subject of facts, you know,   
   >>>*mattering* and stuff.   
      
   >>You did it multiple times. Here is the second time you accused the   
   >>homeowner of having committed a crime of intent, that is,   
   >>intentionally setting a trap so that the e-bike motorist would be   
   >>injured or killed.   
      
   >> 	The homeowner *may* have committed a crime -- though probably   
   >> 	not rising to the level of homicide -- depending on   
   >> 	circumstances that I don't know. But you can't just go around   
   >> 	setting "man-traps."   
      
   >I raised a hypothetical possibility based on my knowledge of the law   
   >and some assumptions you seemed to be making about how a desire to   
   >prevent cars from going somewhere justified erecting a hazard. (I   
   >assume you don't dispute that it was, in fact, a hazard.)   
      
   Nice backpedal. But you aren't getting away with changing the topic. In   
   multiple posts, you accused the homeowner of setting a trap, which would   
   have been a crime of intent.   
      
   Here, you accuse me of having JUSTIFIED the homeowner's action. I did no   
   such thing. The REASON the homeowner did it, according to news reports,   
   was not a crime of intent which setting a trap would have been.   
      
   You dug yourself into a hole and keep digging it deeper and deeper.   
      
   Crapsnip   
      
   >>. . .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)