# Trail Rage - Jogger pepper sprays two cyclists..



## Fixeyfreeride (Jan 13, 2004)

Interesting article in the Washington Post yesterday:

It's a read but here you go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52836-2004May24.html

A Trail of Rage 
Sure, Mountain Biking on That Path Was Against Park Rules. But Then, So Was What the Jogger Did to the Rider

By John Briley
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, May 25, 2004; Page HE01

My friend Bill and I look up a steep, heavily wooded footpath in Rock Creek Park. We're finishing an hour of fast mountain biking on a crisp Saturday. We figured we'd have one more lung-burner before heading home. Not today.

We are riding slowly, almost at walking speed along a flat, wide path that runs along the creek about a half-mile south of the U.S. Park Police's Rock Creek substation. Bill and I know mountain biking on these trails is illegal and we therefore don't do it often, although the dirt, root-bridled paths are ideal for high-speed rides.

"That's the same guy," Bill says. I glance up ahead and see a shirtless runner slowing, about 100 feet in front of us.

I think little about this. We had passed the guy earlier in our ride on another trail and he apparently had said something to Bill about not biking on the trails. Such minor exchanges between hikers, joggers, bikers and dog-walkers are common, and Bill said this guy had been neither incendiary nor especially adamant.

I pedal onward. Bill drops back. But as I approach, the runner is standing still in the middle of the trail. I begin moving to my right -- conscientious lawbreaker that I am -- to indicate that, hey, we may carp at each other, but we're all out here to have fun.

In the 1990s, I frequently rode my mountain bike illegally on Rock Creek Park's hiking trails, especially after learning while researching an article in 1994 that biking does no more trail damage than hiking -- at least on dry trails -- and far less damage than horseback riding. Older and at least slightly wiser, I now do most of my biking on the legal trails of the Schaefer Farms trail system in Germantown, Patapsco Valley State Park in Ellicott City and Gambrill State Park, west of Frederick. But every now and then, when I crave a ride and am pressed for time, I duck into Rock Creek for a quick hit.

Park Police don't have an estimate of how many people pedal the trails. Based on my observation over 15 years (since mountain biking began flourishing) I'd call it no more than a few dozen. Whether biking, running or walking, I rarely see another rider on the trails, but I do see numerous mountain bike tire tracks that I know are not my own.

I also know from experience that many Rock Creek Park walkers and joggers view trail bikers with disdain, and thus I am always polite -- slowing down when approaching people, ensuring they see and hear me before I pass, offering a casual greeting. That is my strategy today.

But the jogger steps to his left, toward me. I move further right. He shifts further left. We are now three feet from each other and it now appears he wants to do more than talk. Aside from being a generally peaceful guy, I have another issue: I am still clipped into my bike pedals (damn high-tech shoes!) and have slowed to a crawl.

It is suddenly clear from this guy's body language that he has decided to attack me. But deep down I still don't believe it will happen. As I move yet further to my right -- off the trail and into the brush -- he starts coming at me.

"What's the problem, Ashcroft?" I ask, but he is already lunging, leading with his shoulder. I turn my shoulder in to meet him and just like that, we are fighting. I roll with my bike and somehow click out of my pedals. Looking up, I see the jogger in full flight above me, headed for my torso with a pointy knee and fists flailing.

I also notice something odd. This grown man has not a single hair on his body, like some alien attack mannequin. Nor does he appear to have much in the way of muscles, an observation confirmed when he punches me in the face. I barely feel it. But I do feel his knee as it connects with my ribs.

Still on my back, I repel him with two kicks and spring to my feet ready for a real brawl, the type I haven't engaged in since high school almost 25 years ago. My heart rate is up, pupils dilated. The fight-or-flight verdict is in. I start to charge.

But I am stopped in my tracks by a stream of burning spray -- do I taste cayenne? -- that floods my eyes and nostrils. I pause just as Bill sprints up to help out; he too is blasted with the pepper spray. Even as my eyes sear with the fiery pain, I realize that this confrontation was not unplanned.

Now standing about eight feet away, our adversary methodically shifts the spray from Bill's face to mine, alternating the blasts for about 20 seconds before sprinting off.

We are bewildered more than anything. Bill and I yell unprintables at the fleeing coward and walk over to the creek to rinse the pepper spray from our faces. I don't feel injured (though after the adrenaline recedes, I realize I have a bruised rib and a jammed thumb from rolling off the bike). We pedal slowly to the cop station to file an assault report.

Can't We Get Along?

This is my first physical encounter in 30 years of use of dozens of trail systems in the area: Rock Creek Park, the C&O Canal towpath, the Billy Goat trail along the Potomac River, the Cabin John trail, the multi-use trails mentioned above. My activities span the gamut, from mountain biking, jogging and dog walking to taking photographs and strolling to relieve a hangover.

I have had words with other trail users -- spawned by my illegal mountain biking or by someone's failure to control an aggressive dog -- but I rarely feared that any of those verbal snipes would escalate to a real fight. And I never imagined that, out there along the woodsy paths with the chirping birds and docile deer, were trail users so hostile or imbalanced that they spent their Saturdays armed with pepper spray, looking for trouble.

The police who take our report are flabbergasted, too, saying such outbursts without a robbery (or more sinister) motive are unheard of. U.S. Park Police in Rock Creek issue "no more than three of four" citations a year for illegal mountain biking, said Sgt. Scott Fear, the force's public information officer. "We rarely get calls about it; it is not a big issue." Park Police give verbal warnings to most trail riders because, Fear says, "most people don't know they're not supposed to be doing it."

The National Park Service bars mountain bikes from unpaved trails in Rock Creek Park "for the protection of park resources and to reduce conflict among visitors," Park Service spokesman Gerry Gaumer explained.

Fear noted that police in Rock Creek Park get many more calls about unleashed dogs, and they do reprimand people for violating the leash law. "That is a big problem -- much bigger than mountain biking," he said. Still, police issue "only a handful of tickets" per year for such breaches.

Many trails in the Washington area are multi-use, including the C&O Canal towpath: all non-motorized users are welcome and dogs must be leashed. The park does mandate that cyclists dismount when in the presence of groups of pedestrians, but the policy is rarely observed and almost never enforced. The paved Mount Vernon trail in Virginia, also non-motorized, has a stay-to-the-right policy and a 15-mph speed limit. In-line skaters, with their wide arm swings, pose the biggest problem there, said Audrey Calhoun, superintendent of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which oversees the trail.

But Calhoun, like most local trail managers, said serious conflicts on the paths are extremely rare. Most users of local trails understand that the land is public. By my observation, they do what they can to peacefully share the space.

Still, trail use has risen dramatically over the past 20 years, and that means more potential for conflict. Authorities do not keep statistics on the number of fights that stem directly from trail-use disputes, but local park managers acknowledge the potential.

"I spent a Saturday on the C&O Canal towpath pulling my granddaughter out of the way of bikers," said Naomi Manders, volunteer coordinator for natural surface trails for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. "Weekends are just too busy on that trail," she added.

Bill Justice, chief of interpretation for the C&O National Historical Park, noted a "tremendous increase in use" over past 10 years. Visitation to that park, which runs from Georgetown to Cumberland, Md., peaked at more than 4 million visitors in 2000 and has dropped only slightly since then. "Any time you have that volume, there is a potential for conflict -- between fishermen and birders, joggers and bikers, all kinds of groups." But Justice said he could not recall one incident of a physical fight erupting on a trail.

Share the Road

Scott Scudamore, president of the Mid-Atlantic Off-Road Enthusiasts (MORE), a 350-member mountain bike club for the Washington area, said shared-use trails are a necessity. "There is only so much real estate," he said. "If we gave every [activity] a separate trail, there simply wouldn't be enough to go around."

At the same time, Scudamore does not advocate what I did -- i.e., pedaling on trails that are closed to mountain biking. "We really try to discourage people from poaching. When [mountain bikers] poach, we lose credibility." He's right and I know it, but I meekly remind myself that I only do this on occasion and only in Rock Creek Park.

MORE works with land managers at 24 trail sites covering more than 300 miles of single-track trails. Only one of those trail systems -- Fountainhead Regional Park in Fairfax Station -- is bike-only; the rest are multi-use, although some of those reserve a few individual trails for pedestrians only. The group estimates that roughly 10,000 mountain bikers are active in the Washington area.

The best shared-use trails, Scudamore said, "have good sightlines and no blind corners or really steep fall lines," two features that facilitate surprise encounters between bikers, hikers, joggers and equestrians -- a recipe for conflict.

Scudamore cited the Schaefer Farms trail system as an example of a well-designed network.

"There are hills but not a lot of screaming downhills, and there are great sightlines," he observed. Schaefer Farms is popular with local bikers because it serves a variety of skill levels, with many log piles that more-advanced bikers can ride over, tight single-track trails and nice stretches of fairly flat dirt routes. The trails wend through scenic forest and open fields and across streams.

Patapsco State Park, south of Baltimore, is also fairly well designed, he said, although it has longer hills than Schaefer Farms and thus encourages more downhill speed.

Even in poorly designed multi-use parks, most conflict is avoidable, Scudamore asserted. "You see very few problems when everybody acts like they were taught to in kindergarten -- share the space."

Pete Webber, communications director for the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), said physical confrontations on trails almost never happen.

"The perception of conflict is far greater than the reality. A study in New Zealand found that people who don't use the trails -- like a lot of government regulators -- believe it is happening, but when you ask trail users they say, 'No, I don't really ever have conflicts on the trails.' "

To minimize potential for clashes, Webber advises focusing on the moment at which two trail users pass each other.

"That is the key interaction. People are not having problems when they are in there alone, and they're not having problems at the trailhead." At the moment of truth, Webber said, cyclists should "say 'Hi,' don't startle people, move to the side and pass at a reasonable rate of speed."

By his formula, I did everything right, though he declined to say whether calling an attacking jogger by the name of a government official violated protocol.

To Each, Etc.

From a trail management standpoint, IMBA advocates diverse trail networks where, for example, an expert mountain biker would not be on the same path as a parent walking a child in a stroller.

"You get seven miles into the woods on a technical, single-track trail and anybody back there will be an experienced trail user. So even if you have a hiker and a mountain biker on that trail, they both should know how to treat each other," he said. Standard trail etiquette: Bikers yield to hikers; hikers yield to equestrians.

Manders said trail users need to be especially considerate around horses, which might not recognize a cyclist or even a backpacker as a human being and thus might get spooked.

"When a horse gets unsettled it starts pumping hormones. Once that happens, you're in trouble because the animal could bolt and throw the rider," Manders said. She recalled an encounter on the C&O Canal towpath where her horse started to freak out upon seeing two people wearing big backpacks. "Luckily they were smart and quickly took off their packs. Then the horse let a big sigh -- like, 'Oh, it's just people' -- and we went along. But for a moment it was pretty scary."

Manders cites loose dogs in local parks as the biggest conflict issue facing trail users. "Even a nice big friendly Labrador can be a problem if it runs up to someone who is afraid of dogs," she said. "We have had a number of issues with horses and dogs where we were sure the dogs were going to attack. Dog owners need to show some etiquette."

That's probably true for all of us trail users. For me, it means sticking to bike-approved trails, which I have done since my memorable encounter with the jogger. And now I realize this will lead to better political footing for mountain bike advocates who say we deserve dedicated bike trails.

Either that or I'll start carrying a Tex-Mex picnic lunch -- you know, something that calls for a lot of cayenne pepper.

John Briley is author of the Health section's Moving Crew column and anchor of the Crew's bi-weekly chats on washingtonpost.com.


----------



## Wooban (Jan 1, 2003)

You have to register on that site. Can you copy/paste it here?


----------



## Duncan! (Jan 15, 2004)

What an idiot. Pepper spray? Any responsible jogger would have been packing heat. D.


----------



## MrXC (Jan 14, 2004)

A Trail of Rage 
Sure, Mountain Biking on That Path Was Against Park 
....

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[story already posted]


----------



## wookalar (Jan 30, 2004)

*It's pretty long but here you go...*

I think the story is clear by now.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

LOL, now that everyone is posting the actual text, maybe the second two people can edit theirs out!! I like reading it but not that much


----------



## Casual Observer (Jan 12, 2004)

Reader's Digest Version:

"Two bikers are illegally riding a trail. Come upon an upset and irrate hiker, who attacks one of the bikers and pepper sprays them."

I'm not a violent man, but if I was one of them bikers, I would have beat him senseless (or at least told my friends I did after asking how I got the black eye).


----------



## roadiegonebad (Jan 31, 2004)

Hmmm, kinda like when people keep the quotes, and you get the same race reports/stories complete w/pics, several times over?


----------



## NuMexJoe (Jan 12, 2004)

*A matter of degrees,...*

but the writer seems not to be accepting the consequences of his actions. Like when a thief breaks into a home and files suit 'cause he got shot. "Hey, I was only after the silver - I was no threat to the homeowner, and he shot me anyway!" Sure the jogger overreacted, but when it's your own transgression that got you in that fix, best just to buck up and take your licks, extreme though they may be. Or at least that's the side of the argument that occurs to me initially.... Just glad I live in a place where there's no shortage of trails, and the users are few.
- Joe


----------



## dr.dirt (May 4, 2004)

*Got off easy...beware of clones*

Poaching trails on a saturday in the most popular park in washington d.c is really just silly, bound to at very least p. off people. Try a moonlight poach on a tues night for something interesting. 
Now this was in Washington and he could have been a powerful man. Then again he could have been chief arsehole at the CIA and there would have been a black van waiting for you. Maybe he was an alien, a shapeshifter for that matter, apparently one with no hair. Taking on his human form for a bit of R and R from the colonization of the middle-east with evangelist cyborgs. That wasn't pepper spray, my god man he was trying to mate with you! You have been artificially inseminated by a farsi speaking evangelist cyborg. He was saying, "oh me so horny, love you long time" in farsi. Only one cure, cannabis, and lots of it. Only way Clinton escaped the clones, smoked da reefer. If your breasts start swelling, and you start puking, you may need to get on the horse (heroin that is.) Call with any questions.


----------



## bunamun (May 17, 2004)

*Wait a while*



skinny-tire said:


> Reader's Digest Version:
> 
> "Two bikers are illegally riding a trail. Come upon an upset and irrate hiker, who attacks one of the bikers and pepper sprays them."
> 
> I'm not a violent man, but if I was one of them bikers, I would have beat him senseless (or at least told my friends I did after asking how I got the black eye).


Here's what you do:

Wait about a year. He'll return to running those same trails. He'll get comfortable again and think, "I taught those guys a lesson." Select some "tools" to get the job done. Then, on a daily basis visit the trails on foot and wait. He'll come along eventually. Then you take care of that fool.


----------



## StageHand (Dec 31, 2003)

He did seem a little dismissive of his own transgressions, but he did mention that he doesn't poach there anymore. I'm still not sure if he hinders or helps the share the road/share the trails idea. He seems to say, bikers have our places, hikers have their places, we don't need to share too much. My point? I'm not sure, but I'd like it if he clarified his.


----------



## erol (Jan 12, 2004)

Fixeyfreeride said:


> Interesting article in the Washington Post yesterday:
> 
> It's a read but here you go:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52836-2004May24.html
> ...


If that guy tried to attack me, he would be boneless in addition to being hairless.
In fact, I don't let anyone even get that close to me. If someone starts to come at me, if they come within three feet that's it I unleash hell.


----------



## pedalAZ (Dec 30, 2003)

*Curious*



erol said:


> If someone starts to come at me, if they come within three feet that's it I unleash hell.


Does that mean you pass gas, or what?


----------



## Casual Observer (Jan 12, 2004)

Since when is it warranted to pepper spray somebody for poaching a trail? Would the jogger "not being accepting the consequenses of his actions" if the biker got off his bike and beat his ass? 

No offense, but it's not the jogger's responsibility to police the trail, it's the land managers and park rangers.


----------



## Dirdir (Jan 23, 2004)

*Not Foreseeable*



NuMexJoe said:


> but the writer seems not to be accepting the consequences of his actions. Like when a thief breaks into a home and files suit 'cause he got shot. "Hey, I was only after the silver - I was no threat to the homeowner, and he shot me anyway!" Sure the jogger overreacted, but when it's your own transgression that got you in that fix, best just to buck up and take your licks, extreme though they may be. Or at least that's the side of the argument that occurs to me initially.... Just glad I live in a place where there's no shortage of trails, and the users are few.
> - Joe


I disagree with your analogy. Getting assaulted and battered by a crazy muscleless albino jogger is not a consequence of illegal trail riding. To me this situation is more like when a parent attacks an umpire at a kids sporting event for making a bad call or a neighbor breaking my skull in for illegally parking my boat on the street. Yes, there was an act that was '"improper" or "illegal", but the resulting attack is not foreseeable unlike your thief analogy. Next time you walk your Chihuahua without a leash be prepared to get shot and then buck up and take your licks even if you die.


----------



## Melt (May 24, 2004)

skinny-tire said:


> No offense, but it's not the jogger's responsibility to police the trail, it's the land managers and park rangers.


I completly agree. Its just like when im driving my car and road bikers tell me to slow down, fu[k j00 buddy ... its up to the cops to decide if im mobbin too quick.


----------



## Evel Knievel (Mar 28, 2004)

dr.dirt said:


> Poaching trails on a saturday in the most popular park in washington d.c is really just silly, bound to at very least p. off people. Try a moonlight poach on a tues night for something interesting.
> Now this was in Washington and he could have been a powerful man. Then again he could have been chief arsehole at the CIA and there would have been a black van waiting for you. Maybe he was an alien, a shapeshifter for that matter, apparently one with no hair. Taking on his human form for a bit of R and R from the colonization of the middle-east with evangelist cyborgs. That wasn't pepper spray, my god man he was trying to mate with you! You have been artificially inseminated by a farsi speaking evangelist cyborg. He was saying, "oh me so horny, love you long time" in farsi. Only one cure, cannabis, and lots of it. Only way Clinton escaped the clones, smoked da reefer. If your breasts start swelling, and you start puking, you may need to get on the horse (heroin that is.) Call with any questions.


Now that was funny sht!

But really you need to organize the bikers to get up early and picket the trailhead till you get access. We deserve equal rights. No bull , you need to hook up with ( or start) a advocacy group. A petition should get the trails opened with the sympathy of the land manager and the Cops already.

Now that would be the ultimate payback for what the Hairless Vigilate did.


----------



## Christine (Feb 11, 2004)

"Poaching trails on a saturday in the most popular park in washington d.c is really just silly, bound to at very least p. off people. Try a moonlight poach on a tues night for something interesting."

Well! We tried a moonlight ride last Thursday night. Rode the one-way loop, then decided to do it backwards.

Only about four other bikers out that night (two pair) and us three. We're very consciencious (sp?) riders, aware of the issues and proper trail etiquitte. We'd never opt to do a lap in reverse during the day. At night, there are fewer people and we can see lights coming our way, so it's safer.

One of the other riders seemed gruff when we first passed him, complaining that we were riding the wrong way on a one-way trail. We were like, yes, we know, and you could see us coming. It's not like we crashed.

Second lap around, he and his buddy were headed towards me and one of my pals. He blocked my pal and started getting on our cases about how riding the wrong way causes trail erosion. I snapped back that we do trail maintenance regularly, are aware of the issues, and that by riding at night, we were minimizing the potential for head-on crashes. 

He kept throwing the "trail erosion" argument at us, and I believe he meant that by having to pass oncoming riders, it widens the trail. However, each time we passed these guys, there was plenty of room to pass w/o trampling the vegetation. Finally I got fed up with his arrogance and we rode around them (his buddy seemed embarassed.)

I'm glad other riders are so concerned about trail issues that they speak up in defense, but this guy was just belligerent. I haven't seen HIM volunteering any time at work parties. I got the impression that, for all his concern about the trails being closed b/c of wayward mtn bikers, he'd be the first to run to the police and report us. Go figure!!


----------



## Melt (May 24, 2004)

if there was a one way trail and some people came at me going the wrong way id be pissed off too. Not because of trail erosion or any logical argument, just angered that i gotta now look out and slow down for people. I guess cars should go the wrong way on one way streets too as long as its late at night to minimise the chance of a head on.


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

Animals are territorial.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Haha! cool...they won't do that again!

I love it when people get burned(pun intended) doing things they know are wrong.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

NuMexJoe said:


> but the writer seems not to be accepting the consequences of his actions. Like when a thief breaks into a home and files suit 'cause he got shot. "Hey, I was only after the silver - I was no threat to the homeowner, and he shot me anyway!" Sure the jogger overreacted, but when it's your own transgression that got you in that fix, best just to buck up and take your licks, extreme though they may be. Or at least that's the side of the argument that occurs to me initially.... Just glad I live in a place where there's no shortage of trails, and the users are few.
> - Joe


Exactly, it's all good untill you get "caught" and there are "consequences" for your actions.


----------



## SinglePivot (Dec 30, 2003)

*So...*

your saying the punishment fits the crime???

I don't follow your logic. These 2 guys were *not* doing any of the following:

-committing robbery
-malicious conduct
-assault
-trespassing on 'private' property

but they should man-up to a surprise beatdown? Yes, I agree that the writer is flanking the issue of his presence on said trail but I don't think "...you got what you deserve..." is in order here.

If you were on an illegal trail and some @ssclown jumped you, beat you and said "eff off mtbbiker!" you'd be singing the same tune, "...I got what I deserved..."?

-Sp



NuMexJoe said:


> but the writer seems not to be accepting the consequences of his actions. Like when a thief breaks into a home and files suit 'cause he got shot. "Hey, I was only after the silver - I was no threat to the homeowner, and he shot me anyway!" Sure the jogger overreacted, but when it's your own transgression that got you in that fix, best just to buck up and take your licks, extreme though they may be. Or at least that's the side of the argument that occurs to me initially.... Just glad I live in a place where there's no shortage of trails, and the users are few.
> - Joe


----------



## SDtrailblazer (Jan 25, 2004)

i woulda cut the fool


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Yeah, it's called *personal responsability* and it has nothing to do with "did it fit the crime", it has to do with doing something illegal, and eventually getting bit in the rear, which is effectively what happened.

I'm not going to try to make people understand personal responsability that have no concept of it, all I am going to say is that it is great that this guy got sprayed in the face.

Seriously, since he couldn't stop his own illegal activity himself, what was it going to take? A bunch of foul words? (probably not) Getting a ticket? (probably not) Getting sprayed in the face with pepper spray? (probably).....

All I really care about is that he is probably not going to ride those trails again. There aren't enough "realistic" consequences in our justice system.


----------



## The Prisoner (May 12, 2004)

*Joggers are the lowest form of life*

That's why I conduct all my mountain bike rides in a local bombing range that is off limits to the general public. I've yet to any joggers anywhere there.


----------



## Christine (Feb 11, 2004)

*yeah but*

Melt, the guy went out of his way to get in front of us and block us. This was a wide section of trail, about the size of one traffic lane, and at least a quarter-mile long. He saw us coming in plenty of time, and vice-versa. He didn't need to slow down!

I suspect it was his first night ride and he was just being especially cranky. It's not like we do reverse loops on every night ride.


----------



## ScottS (Feb 21, 2004)

Christine said:


> One of the other riders seemed gruff when we first passed him, complaining that we were riding the wrong way on a one-way trail. We were like, yes, we know, and you could see us coming. It's not like we crashed.


2 sets of bikers arguing about erosion and direction of travel on a trail they're not even supposed to be on, now that's entertainment.

I'm with NuMexJoe on the original topic though. It takes some nerve to flagrantly do something illegal, then publicize it because someone took revenge out on you. Seeing there were no lasting injuries, I think the guy should have manned up and let the situation slide. If one wants to ride a closed trail, I don't know that further pissing off the current users and illegally riding it is going to do anything to advance one's cause.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Christine said:


> Melt, the guy went out of his way to get in front of us and block us. This was a wide section of trail, about the size of one traffic lane, and at least a quarter-mile long. He saw us coming in plenty of time, and vice-versa. He didn't need to slow down!
> 
> I suspect it was his first night ride and he was just being especially cranky. It's not like we do reverse loops on every night ride.


See...I just don't get it, how can you do this;



Christine said:


> Well! We tried a moonlight ride last Thursday night. Rode the one-way loop, then decided to do it backwards..


And expect any sympathy?

You did it TWICE as well. I mean really, are you so special that YOU can poach the trails or ignore the rules? Big problem with society these days. Sorry I seem to be taking this out on you, but everybody thinks they are so special, and that they can break the rules and it's "ok" because of this, and then when they get bit in the a$$ from it, they go complaining how unfair and unjust it is....


----------



## Dirdir (Jan 23, 2004)

*Take Some Responsibility For Your Spelling*



Jm. said:


> Yeah, it's called *personal responsability* and it has nothing to do with "did it fit the crime", it has to do with doing something illegal, and eventually getting bit in the rear, which is effectively what happened.
> 
> I'm not going to try to make people understand personal responsability that have no concept of it, all I am going to say is that it is great that this guy got sprayed in the face.
> 
> ...


Seriously though, you can't be freaking serious. The dudes were riding bikes. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. No one, and I mean no one, deserves to be physically attacked for riding a bike on a hiking only trail. Period. Nor should one ever realistically anticipate that kind of response. How would you feel if the next time you exceeded the speed limit, some vigilante @ssclown (as SinglePivot humorously put it) kicked your @ssclown. You go to file a police report and the cop tells you to take some personal responsibility and buck up. Realistic consequences in our justice system - come on. This has nothing to do with realistic consequences and everything to do with how we wrongly bring violence where it has no place. I am pissed dammit and am going to pepper spray someone for j-walking, which by the way is illegal in many places. Maybe I can nail some kids for spitting on the sidewalk too.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Dirdir said:


> Seriously though, you can't be freaking serious. The dudes were riding bikes. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. No one, and I mean no one, deserves to be physically attacked for riding a bike on a hiking only trail. Period. Nor should one ever realistically anticipate that kind of response. How would you feel if the next time you exceeded the speed limit, some vigilante @ssclown (as SinglePivot humorously put it) kicked your @ssclown. You go to file a police report and the cop tells you to take some personal responsibility and buck up. Realistic consequences in our justice system - come on. This has nothing to do with realistic consequences and everything to do with how we wrongly bring violence where it has no place. I am pissed dammit and am going to pepper spray someone for j-walking, which by the way is illegal in many places. Maybe I can nail some kids for spitting on the sidewalk too.


Hey, you take the chance of getting caught by the police for doing something illegal if you spray someone in the face with pepper spray...but that doesn't mean that whomever got sprayed didn't deserve it. Someone riding illegaly on trails is something that really screws everything up for the rest of us, not only for that particular trail system (which will probably remain closed forever), but for perception in the minds of the public that reads the article. I don't have any sympathy for him.

We don't live in a police-state, the cops can not be everywhere all the time, that is one of the prices we pay for the freedom that we have. That means occasionally, people will take things into their own hands. Inevitable. Like I said, I bet he won't be riding any illegal trails in the near future. I could be wrong, but it probably takes very few face-fulls of pepper spray to change that kind of behavior.

Every once and a while, little lies and illegal things that you come around to bite you in the arse, and for this guy, it has happened. I can't say that I am sorry about it.

Hard lesson.


----------



## Dirdir (Jan 23, 2004)

*Bit In The A$$*



Jm. said:


> can break the rules and it's "ok" because of this, and then when they get bit in the a$$ from it, they go complaining how unfair and unjust it is....


Getting "Bit in the A$$" means crashing and burning for driving too fast. It means cheating on your taxes and then doing time and paying the fine. It means going bankrupt because you spent too much on credit. It means getting your head blown off while burglarizing a house while the owner sleeps. It means having a heart attack for eating too much junk food. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE being attacked for riding a bike. Repeat. These guys were riding their bikes and were attacked. Whether "poaching" is right or wrong and whether these guys have the wrong attitude about their actions are completely different issues.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Dirdir said:


> Getting "Bit in the A$$" means crashing and burning for driving too fast. It means cheating on your taxes and then doing time and paying the fine. It means going bankrupt because you spent too much on credit. It means getting your head blown off while burglarizing a house while the owner sleeps. It means having a heart attack for eating too much junk food. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE being attacked for riding a bike. Repeat. These guys were riding their bikes and were attacked. Whether "poaching" is right or wrong and whether these guys have the wrong attitude about their actions are completely different issues.


They weren't riding bikes, they were breaking the law, like you mentioned in every other instance. Why is breaking the law for one thing ok, and another thing wrong, just because one of those things happens to be something that we do?


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Oh please...*



Jm. said:


> Yeah, it's called *personal responsability*


 I don't equate poaching with assault. That is totally messed up. Personal responsability is getting a ticket, and maybe getting a bike impounded. The bikers accepted _that_ risk. I can see that, and that's what they were expecting, and that is the law.

So how was the jogger put out by all of this? At worst, he had to slow down, and clear the trail, and somehow that is equivalent to inflicting excruciating pain and dropping them to the ground for 15 minutes? What, are you in the middle east where they chop off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread?

Did you actually read the article? The ranger said that they basically let the bikers go because they really aren't that big a problem.


----------



## Dirdir (Jan 23, 2004)

*Well, We Completely Disagree But*



Jm. said:


> Hey, you take the chance of getting caught by the police for doing something illegal if you spray someone in the face with pepper spray...but that doesn't mean that whomever got sprayed didn't deserve it. Someone riding illegaly on trails is something that really screws everything up for the rest of us, not only for that particular trail system (which will probably remain closed forever), but for perception in the minds of the public that reads the article. I don't have any sympathy for him.
> 
> We don't live in a police-state, the cops can not be everywhere all the time, that is one of the prices we pay for the freedom that we have. That means occasionally, people will take things into their own hands. Inevitable. Like I said, I bet he won't be riding any illegal trails in the near future. I could be wrong, but it probably takes very few face-fulls of pepper spray to change that kind of behavior.
> 
> ...


I don't feel sorry for these guys either. However, they did not deserve to be attacked. I feel sorry for the loser that attacked them. My point is that no one should be attacked for what they did. This is not about poaching at all. Its about violence. Not enough peace and love in them these here parts.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> I don't equate poaching with assault. That is totally messed up. Personal responsability is getting a ticket, and maybe getting a bike impounded. The bikers accepted _that_ risk. I can see that, and that's what they were expecting, and that is the law.
> 
> So how was the jogger put out by all of this? At worst, he had to slow down, and clear the trail, and somehow that is equivalent to inflicting excruciating pain and dropping them to the ground for 15 minutes? What, are you in the middle east where they chop off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread?
> 
> Did you actually read the article? The ranger said that they basically let the bikers go because they really aren't that big a problem.


So how do you propose to keep riders from doing this? What kind of consequence will keep them from doing it? A ticket? An inpoundment? A lot of riders consider that to be a joke. A lot of riders just keep doing it. Were you the hiker? How do you know this? Maybe that person got tagged, yelled at, had to jump off the trail, all because of a biker sometime in the past? I don't know....

Hey, to use some of your own analogys, when you go to rob someones TV set, you don't expect to get shot.....hey, shooting people is illegal....


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Dirdir said:


> I don't feel sorry for these guys either. However, they did not deserve to be attacked. I feel sorry for the loser that attacked them. My point is that no one should be attacked for what they did. This is not about poaching at all. Its about violence. Not enough peace and love in them these here parts.


I understand that, but what about the mountain biker that thinks he/she is so special that THEY can poach trails, that THEY are somehow better than everyone else and that the laws don't apply to THEM. I mean where do you draw the line?

How much does it take to change that tendancy/attitude in a person?


----------



## Dirdir (Jan 23, 2004)

*Lest assume they were breaking the law*



Jm. said:


> They weren't riding bikes, they were breaking the law, like you mentioned in every other instance. Why is breaking the law for one thing ok, and another thing wrong, just because one of those things happens to be something that we do?


By your logic, its ok to kill, or maybe just seriously harm someone exceeding the speed limit of 65 by 5 mph. After all, they were breaking the law. Likely no cop is ever going to do anything about it. Without consequences, the speeding will continue. Speeding is very dangerous and actually can kill. So its ok if some a$$clown (god, I love that word, what does it mean?) pulls a Chuck Bronson and goes postal on this guy.


----------



## YuriB (Jan 12, 2004)

*You mean like this?*



Jm. said:


> Haha! cool...they won't do that again!
> 
> I love it when people get burned(pun intended) doing things they know are wrong.


Pun intended... Gotta love Karma

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0525fireworks25.html
Dennis Wagner
The Arizona Republic
May. 25, 2004 12:00 AM

The moral of the story goes something like this: If you play with fireworks, you may wind up in the hospital with serious burns and facing a criminal investigation.

Four young Phoenix men found that out the hard way Sunday when they tried launching commercial pyrotechnics while driving by a Glendale park and wound up with a hellfire in their car.

Police and fire officials say that kind of misfortune appears to be diminishing in Arizona and nationwide because strict bans on fireworks thwart the youthful temptation to mess with rockets, fizzlers, firecrackers and similar devices.

"We used to see a pretty high volume, but it's dwindled down," said Bob Khan, an assistant fire chief in Phoenix. "I just don't think the quantities are out there. It makes it a lot easier for parents, teachers and police officers when they can just say, 'They're all illegal.' "

No data were available on fireworks injuries in Arizona, but Khan said the Phoenix Fire Department has had no fireworks-related blazes in the past couple of years.

Holly Ward, a spokeswoman for Maricopa Medical Center, said only two victims of fireworks were treated at the Arizona Burn Center last year, less than 1 percent of all burn injuries.

Khan said even sparklers burn at 1,200 degrees - "like a welding rod" - and are banned under state law. A conviction for possession of fireworks is a misdemeanor that can bring a maximum six-month jail sentence and $2,000 fine. But Khan said authorities mostly want to eliminate the danger, so the Phoenix Fire Department offers an amnesty for anyone who voluntarily turns in fireworks.

It is unclear how four young men obtained commercial fireworks in Sunday's blowup. Glendale police have identified only the driver of the vehicle - Richard J. Beaver, 19, of Phoenix - who was released after treatment. He could not be reached for comment.

Michael Pena, a Glendale police information officer, said two others are in serious condition at the Arizona Burn Center, and a third is at Banner Thunderbird Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries.

Investigators said the men apparently were using a canister to launch fireworks into a park in the 5400 block of West Sweetwater Avenue about 1 a.m. when something ignited a stockpile in the back seat of their 1991 Toyota. The men were briefly trapped, absorbing the heat and explosions of mortarlike rounds, before they managed to scramble out of the car.

Detectives are conducting a criminal-endangerment investigation because the high-powered incendiaries were a threat to neighbors as well as to the men in the Toyota. He said identifying where and how the men obtained high-grade incendiaries will be a part of that probe.

Khan said most fireworks come into Arizona via Mexico vacationers who pick up firecrackers and rockets south of the border or from states such as Colorado, which have less restrictive laws. He said fireworks also may be purloined from licensed contractors or bought over the Internet and shipped illegally into Arizona by mail.

A U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission study in 2002 documented four deaths and 8,800 fireworks victims treated in U.S. emergency rooms, reflecting a decade-long downward trend. In 1992, researchers found 12,500 injuries.

The 2002 report confirmed the lure of fireworks for young boys: Males get hurt three times as often as females, and children younger than 15 account for roughly half of those injured. In Arizona, all pyrotechnics designed for audible or visual effects have been banned for at least the past decade. Khan was at the center of a late-1990s political fight in the state Legislature to legalize sparklers, string poppers, snakes and glow worms for people 16 and older.

The measure, backed by fireworks manufacturing lobbyists, failed repeatedly.

Vinnie Picard, public affairs officer for Tonto National Forest, said 12 of the 90 backcountry fires last year were attributed to "incendiary devices," but it was unclear how many of those were fireworks.

"That's something we take very seriously," Picard added. "If somebody's using fireworks, we get on it fast."


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Dirdir said:


> By your logic, its ok to kill, or maybe just seriously harm someone exceeding the speed limit of 65 by 5 mph. After all, they were breaking the law. Likely no cop is ever going to do anything about it. Without consequences, the speeding will continue. Speeding is very dangerous and actually can kill. So its ok if some a$$clown (god, I love that word, what does it mean?) pulls a Chuck Bronson and goes postal on this guy.


Actually speeding is not dangerous, loosing control is. Anyway I didn't come to argue that, you fail to remember that people will read this article and think that mountain bikers just ride "any trails and all trails", it puts our advocacy and trail-opening steps back quite a bit, perpetuates our bad name.

I'm not going to say any more on the subject, let all the whiney, "feel-good", "touchy-feely" people cry about how unfair it is to be doing something illegal and get screwed over.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

crash test dummy said:


> Pun intended... Gotta love Karma
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0525fireworks25.html
> Dennis Wagner
> ...


Yeah, I saw that one on the news


----------



## Dirdir (Jan 23, 2004)

*Poaching?*



Jm. said:


> I understand that, but what about the mountain biker that thinks he/she is so special that THEY can poach trails, that THEY are somehow better than everyone else and that the laws don't apply to THEM. I mean where do you draw the line?
> 
> How much does it take to change that tendancy/attitude in a person?


I know poaching is an issue. I have read somewhat some of the takes of both sides. I don't do it, but that is because I live in Phoenix, which has so many many legal trails, that I have never been confronted with the issue. With that preface, if forced to take a position, I say that people should not poach, although I am not convinved poaching in and of itself is really a problem. I also cannot say what I would do if I lived somewhere else. I find a lot of merit to the logic that if the trail is closed and it is known that it will never be opened to bikers no matter what, there is little damage caused by poaching. I don't know what should be done to stop poaching if that is a goal, but assuming it is, assualt and battery is way over the top. The attacker in this case is 100 times in the wrong compared to the poachers.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Ok, also, an overhead question *but i wont discuss it*;

Are any of these people that think this is so "unfair" the same kind of people that think bike-theives should be beaten?


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Dirdir said:


> I know poaching is an issue. I have read somewhat some of the takes of both sides. I don't do it, but that is because I live in Phoenix, which has so many many legal trails, that I have never been confronted with the issue. .


We are truly blessed in this state. (don't tell anyone else!)


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*well....*



Jm. said:


> So how do you propose to keep riders from doing this? What kind of consequence will keep them from doing it? A ticket? An inpoundment? A lot of riders consider that to be a joke. A lot of riders just keep doing it. Were you the hiker? How do you know this? Maybe that person got tagged, yelled at, had to jump off the trail, all because of a biker sometime in the past? I don't know....
> 
> Hey, to use some of your own analogys, when you go to rob someones TV set, you don't expect to get shot.....hey, shooting people is illegal....


 Dispite what you think, you can't just shoot somebody for tresspassing on your property or in your house. You have to show that the perp was threatening you or yours.

Around here, it's a $350 ticket for poaching and they impound your bike, and many rangers have no problem with doing just that. I dunno about you, but $350 is no joke to me. I know folks who got popped for poaching and speeding on trails. There were rangers at China Camp a few months ago with radar guns, and somebody posted their incident here, remember that? He got popped for going 35 mph when the limit is 15. The reason the rangers were out there with radar guns was because a lot of hikers were complaining about speeding knucklehead bikers. The system works.

I would propose that if the peds have an issue with poaching bikers, they should complain to the local fuzz, that is rangers, sherrif of police, depending on the area. If they get enough complaints, they will patrol the trails and issue the tickets. As it sat, the Rangers got no complaints in this case, so they were under the impression that there was no issue.

I do not propose an army of vigilantes pepper spraying anybody who is not meeting their level of lawfulness. We already have law enfocement and a criminal justice system to handle that.

Do you think that setting clothesline wire traps for bikers is just?


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> Dispite what you think, you can't just shoot somebody for tresspassing on your property or in your house. You have to show that the perp was threatening you or yours.


Sure you can. It's just not legal.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> Do you think that setting clothesline wire traps for bikers is just?


I have no problem with that if it is on a hiking trail.

BTW, it has been shown that the rangers weren't doing their jobs....


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Thanks for rmaking my point*



Jm. said:


> I have no problem with that if it is on a hiking trail.


 ^^^^^


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Survival of the fittest (or smartest).


----------



## SinglePivot (Dec 30, 2003)

*Omg...*

and poaching on a flat fireroad '...at almost a walking pace...' is???

I think you said all that is needed to say with your comment: Survival of the fittest (or smartest).

I'm going back to oogling bike/passion pics now.

-Sp



Jm. said:


> Actually speeding is not dangerous, loosing control is.QUOTE]


----------



## Zonic Man (Dec 19, 2003)

Jm. said:


> They weren't riding bikes, they were breaking the law, like you mentioned in every other instance. Why is breaking the law for one thing ok, and another thing wrong, just because one of those things happens to be something that we do?


Jim, stop trying to act smart.


----------



## MrXC (Jan 14, 2004)

As a lot of people said, the 2 guys who poached should not have been, but the thing that really amazes me about this thread (and other traffic I've seen on this) is just how much mountain bikers as a group seem to place blame on themselves for the actions of others.

The person most responsible for this is the jogger who is guilty of criminal assault. I sure hope the Park Police are looking for this hairless, alien jogger and will prosecute him. If he feels that strongly about running in the park that he'll engage in violance to prevent others from using it, I'm sure he is not going to stay away. 

IMHO, the entity next most responsible is the Park Authority itself, which insists on promulgating discrimatory policies that favor certain user groups over others. This can contribute to a vigilante mentality were the privileged feel they must protect their privelege including, at times, through confrontation (whether physical or otherwise).

The poachers of course have significant responsibility - they should not have been there - but they were merely engaging in a legitimate activity where it is unjustly prohibited.

As a resident of DC I think mountain bikers should be using this as an opportunity to try and force a change in park policy, not to shrivel up in the corner like everybody elses whipping boy.


----------



## Christine (Feb 11, 2004)

"You did it TWICE as well. I mean really, are you so special that YOU can poach the trails or ignore the rules? Big problem with society these days. Sorry I seem to be taking this out on you, but everybody thinks they are so special, and that they can break the rules and it's "ok" because of this, and then when they get bit in the a$$ from it, they go complaining how unfair and unjust it is...."

We rode the one-way loop in the regular direction, then only did one reverse loop. My point is this guy was making a huge deal out of nothing, and his argument about "increased erosion" didn't hold water in this case, so to speak. He kept repeating himself about the erosion aspect, and seemed more interested in the confrontation. 

I don't habitually break rules, and if I do, it's a calculated risk that doesn't merit somebody's silly trail rage.


----------



## erol (Jan 12, 2004)

This whole erosion argument has gotten way out of hand. If you don't ride the trails they get grown-over and disappear. If you ride them they remain, well, trails! With a little loving care they will last forever. It is when people start creating side loops and other offshoots or ride-arounds that it can become confusing and ruin the trail quality.

Anyway, it's nothing compared to haphazard development which reduces open space and scenic beauty, isolates communities and relegates people to cars (as if most people would do otherwise anyway).



Christine said:


> "You did it TWICE as well. I mean really, are you so special that YOU can poach the trails or ignore the rules? Big problem with society these days. Sorry I seem to be taking this out on you, but everybody thinks they are so special, and that they can break the rules and it's "ok" because of this, and then when they get bit in the a$$ from it, they go complaining how unfair and unjust it is...."
> 
> We rode the one-way loop in the regular direction, then only did one reverse loop. My point is this guy was making a huge deal out of nothing, and his argument about "increased erosion" didn't hold water in this case, so to speak. He kept repeating himself about the erosion aspect, and seemed more interested in the confrontation.
> 
> I don't habitually break rules, and if I do, it's a calculated risk that doesn't merit somebody's silly trail rage.


----------



## Casual Observer (Jan 12, 2004)

Jm. said:


> I understand that, but what about the mountain biker that thinks he/she is so special that THEY can poach trails, that THEY are somehow better than everyone else and that the laws don't apply to THEM. I mean where do you draw the line?
> 
> How much does it take to change that tendancy/attitude in a person?


Being Pepper Sprayed surely won't make them change their attitude should it.

Where did you get from that article that they thought they were special? The had their reasons for poaching, and there are a thousand more effective ways to get somebody to agree with your point, and one of them ain't violence.


----------



## Casual Observer (Jan 12, 2004)

Go back and read her account. 1) They were not poaching, they were riding the wrong way. That's
breaking the law?


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Zonic Man said:


> Jim, stop trying to act smart.


*yawn* morning....


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Yeah, it's called *personal responsability* and it has nothing to do with "did it fit the crime", it has to do with doing something illegal, and eventually getting bit in the rear, which is effectively what happened.
> 
> I'm not going to try to make people understand personal responsability that have no concept of it, all I am going to say is that it is great that this guy got sprayed in the face.
> 
> ...


You discuss realistic consequences. Perhaps you are a bit mixed up, the guy was riding his bike on a trail designated for hikers. He wasn't selling drugs to 6 year olds, driving drunk, engaging in armed robbery. What should be the realistic consequence for his actions?

Under your arguement, it is fine if I start shooting people who don't use their blinker, jaywalk, forget to use hand signals before turning on their bikes? All of these are requirements under most state laws and are regularly broken. Would those be realistic consequences for their actions? If you forget to use your blinker, is it okay with you if the police pull you over and beat you senseless? How about if you don't stop before a cross walk? I think you need to seriously consider what is acceptable behavior for people, starting with a private citizen is not authorized to use force to prevent an infraction of the law.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

CDMC said:


> You discuss realistic consequences. Perhaps you are a bit mixed up, the guy was riding his bike on a trail designated for hikers. He wasn't selling drugs to 6 year olds, driving drunk, engaging in armed robbery. What should be the realistic consequence for his actions?
> 
> Under your arguement, it is fine if I start shooting people who don't use their blinker, jaywalk, forget to use hand signals before turning on their bikes? All of these are requirements under most state laws and are regularly broken. Would those be realistic consequences for their actions? If you forget to use your blinker, is it okay with you if the police pull you over and beat you senseless? How about if you don't stop before a cross walk? I think you need to seriously consider what is acceptable behavior for people, starting with a private citizen is not authorized to use force to prevent an infraction of the law.


Last time I checked, pepper spray was non-leathal. You are talking about killing people.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Actually speeding is not dangerous, loosing control is. Anyway I didn't come to argue that, you fail to remember that people will read this article and think that mountain bikers just ride "any trails and all trails", it puts our advocacy and trail-opening steps back quite a bit, perpetuates our bad name.


So in your world, speeding is okay, but poaching a trail is not. Rather hypocritical of you to simply disreguard the laws you don't like and champion those you do.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

CDMC said:


> So in your world, speeding is okay, but poaching a trail is not. Rather hypocritical of you to simply disreguard the laws you don't like and champion those you do.


I didn't say that speeding was ok, I said that it wasn't inherently dangerous. It's still illegal and far from "ok".



Jm. said:


> Actually speeding is not dangerous, loosing control is. Anyway I didn't come to argue that


The funny part about this thread that peoples beliefs are so full of holes that they look like swiss cheese. Oh, I sound pretty extreme, but I've chosen many of these arguments pretty carefully.

Still, many of the people on this site have said before that they'd love to beat the crap out of a bike theif (I know one that did!). Does the bike theif deserve this? To be beaten to a bloody pulp? Hell yes. However, when talking about a mountain biker that is riding on hiking trails, where the hikers aren't expecting a mountain bike to be comming around a trail, where they might have to jump out of the way, where they might have had to in the past, whatever-somehow we feel that it's "ok". Would you rather be beaten or just sprayed with pepper spray, which doesn't last nearly as long as cuts and bruises? Not saying that you are one of these people, but there's quite a few on this site that think it's quite "ok" to beat the crap out of a bike theif. I am one of them. I'd bet that a few of the people responding in this thread are too, but they just don't like being called hypocrites.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Last time I checked, pepper spray was non-leathal. You are talking about killing people.


Okay, so if somebody doesn't use their blinker does that mean I have the right to pepper spray them (a felony in California)? What if they jaywalk? How about speeding?

You seem unable to comprehend the concept that an illegal act by one person does not justify an illegal act by another. The jogger here committed assault and battery (in California it is considered Assault with a Deadly Weapon under Penal Code 245 as pepper spray is considered a deadly weapon under Title 2 of the Penal Code) upon a person for riding his bike on a trail for joggers only!!!!! Since the biker was illegally assaulted by the man with the pepper spray, should he be allowed to defend himself by beating the man with the pepper spray silly? Under California law he is.

I get the feeling that you and logic do not exist in the same universe.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

CDMC said:


> Okay, so if somebody doesn't use their blinker does that mean I have the right to pepper spray them (a felony in California)? What if they jaywalk? How about speeding?
> 
> You seem unable to comprehend the concept that an illegal act by one person does not justify an illegal act by another. The jogger here committed assault and battery (in California it is considered Assault with a Deadly Weapon under Penal Code 245 as pepper spray is considered a deadly weapon under Title 2 of the Penal Code) upon a person for riding his bike on a trail for joggers only!!!!! Since the biker was illegally assaulted by the man with the pepper spray, should he be allowed to defend himself by beating the man with the pepper spray silly? Under California law he is.
> 
> I get the feeling that you and logic do not exist in the same universe.


I'm not saying that the jogger shouldn't be punished, but if I was the mountain biker, I'd shut my mouth and accept what happened. Hopefully the jogger realized that what he was doing was also sacrificing his own personal security because he was obviously breaking the law, but I'll break a few laws to prove a point as well, and accept the consequences, like if someone stole my bike and then I found out where they lived and came and beat the crap out of them. Hey, all you have to do is accept the responsability. Don't come and try to steal my bike. BTW, we've established that the law-enforcement doesn't always work and that they don't always do their job, as they were not handing out tickets when they should have been.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Jm. said:


> BTW, we've established that the law-enforcement doesn't always work and that they don't always do their job, as they were not handing out tickets when they should have been.


You still don't get it. So because the law-enforcement was not present enforcing the law, it entitles the jogger to engage in battery on the biker? Going back to my example of a driver not using his blinker, does that mean that if no officer witnesses it, that you are entitled to get out of your car and pepper spray him at the next stoplight?

The bottom line is there was no justification, legal or moral, for the hiker's actions. The fact that an officer was not present at the time giving citations for illegal trail riding has nothing to do with the situation.


----------



## otis24 (Apr 1, 2004)

Latley I've passed several walkers and joggers who are wearing headphones. I have a bell and always us it to warn people that I'm approaching from behind. Two headphone wearers have been pissed at me. I think in the future I'm going to hit them in the back of the head with my pump or better a rock as I pass them. That'll teach 'em to pay attention. Really that's rediculous, as is pepper spraying. Ever been sprayed with that stuff. I have and it hurts like nothing I've ever felt before. Oh that was an accidental spraying by a friend in high school and yes I did make it a point to spray him back a few days later with his own can. Anyway the point is the punishment doesn't fit the crime if that's what you believe.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

otis24 said:


> Ever been sprayed with that stuff. I have and it hurts like nothing I've ever felt before. .


No, but I've been in gas-chambers full of CS with no mask. Pepper spray or tear-gas has nothing on CS.


----------



## Casual Observer (Jan 12, 2004)

Jim, if a officer came upon the bikers and pepper sprayed them, the bikers have every right to file a compliant against the officer, and they would probably win. The use of pepper spray in this instance was not justified, no matter how you look at it. 

If I was that mt biker, no only would I have not shut my mouth, but I would have beat that hiker senseless just for acting like an ass, and not felt one bit guilty about it.


----------



## crashedandburned (Jan 9, 2004)

*Nicely put....*

And I agree. It seems to me that many people here (not all) are more than willing to dis their fellow rider with the 'ol "shouldn't have been there" or "doesn't give you the right" lines. While they are right, they often offer little advice or support for the rider. Yes, the fellow was poaching and admitted as much, but does that still give the jogger right to mace them??? Yes, I cused out a bus driver for cutting me off and admitted that I was wrong, does that still give her the right to cut me off? My point is that this is a CYCLING board. NOT a jogger, driver, diver, NASCAR racer, etc board. We could do with more support and advice when one of own gets attacked.

Mr. XC, Haven't seen or heard from ya since New Years. When we riding again????


----------



## NuMexJoe (Jan 12, 2004)

*Not what I wrote, SP*

You quoted my text, and I clearly acknowledged that the jogger's actions were extreme and that he over-reacted. Nowhere did I say that the writer "got what he deserved." (Where did that come from?) I merely observed that had the biker seemed unwilling to acknowledge that he was the first to do wrong, that it was the initiating event, and that it was clearly avoidable (i.e. he could have chosen not to be a scofflaw). Sorry you read so much more into it than was there. As an aside, it seems we've almost reached a suitable number of responses to the orignal post that it'd be interesting to see how a person's view of the incident correlates to where they live. But that's another thread.... Happy trails,
- Joe



SinglePivot said:


> your saying the punishment fits the crime???
> 
> I don't follow your logic. These 2 guys were *not* doing any of the following:
> 
> ...


----------



## Dirdir (Jan 23, 2004)

*Very Important Points Of Order!*

1. I agree, speeding is not dangerous. Jumping off a cliff is not dangerous either, but the slamming into the ground part is.

2. I have been maced myself. It sucks. In my case, I too was defending myself from an unjustified attack - sort of. Unless you have been maced, you have no idea.

3. Beating a bike thief to a pulp is wrong, period. We have rules and morals. I am never going to physically attack someone that stole my bike or other personal property. Come into my house and that is a different story because I may be naked.

4. Jm - I apologize for that spelling crack. Not justified, plus living in AZ, we might bump into one another, although I remain anonymous to all but SkinnyTire and he is well - sworn to secrecy. 

5. Lets cut to the chase about this post. After reading the article about the hairless jogger, I envisioned this: rather than this:


----------



## Zonic Man (Dec 19, 2003)

Jm. said:


> The funny part about this thread that peoples beliefs are so full of holes that they look like swiss cheese. Oh, I sound pretty extreme, but I've chosen many of these arguments pretty carefully.


The funny (erm, read: scary) part about your post on this subject, Jim, is that your arguments are so idiotic and illogical on so many levels, and yet, you still make the arguments and presumably believe in their validity.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

Jm. said:


> I have no problem with that if it is on a hiking trail.QUOTE]
> 
> What an ass!!! I hope you didnt really mean that.


----------



## triscuit (Apr 26, 2004)

Jm. said:


> I didn't say that speeding was ok, I said that it wasn't inherently dangerous. It's still illegal and far from "ok".
> 
> I am guessing you have never been to Rock Creek Park. As long as the bikers were riding in control (which is sounds like they were) what they were doing was not inherently dangerous. (actually that would be true anywhere, I just happen to know the trails in RCP). So it is very comparable to driving 70 in a 65. You are a scary guy Jm.


----------



## MrXC (Jan 14, 2004)

Good to hear from you Crashed. I'm out there pretty much every weekend, just a matter of meeting up I guess.

I don't even view the issue as a group loyalty thing, but a question of reasonableness (is that a word?). Yeah the riders broke the rules (and should be fined for doing so), but 1.) the rules are unjust and being imposed by a manager who is blatently descrimatory and, IMO, has no business managing something that belongs to the general public (See the May 2004 issue of Spokes for Ms. Coleman's take on mtbs) and 2.) they committed a very minor misdemeanor in the grand scheme of things. The jogger, on the other hand, committed a serious crime in any civilized society.

Like some other posters I agree in the concept of personal responsibity:
- The riders should be fined by the police for breaking the rules, accept the fine and pay it.
- The alien jogger should be in jail.
- And this malicious attack should force a revaluation of Ms. Coleman's policy to ensure it meets the demand of the public seeking to use it and doesn't promote conflict between potential users.

BTW, I read your post on the Metro bus and I was cheering for you. If you don't live in the DC area you really can't comment on that one. Next time I see you I'll tell you my idea for reining in those nutjobs (basically I want GPS tracking on all Metro bus's, which would be recorded off-site and if a driver is recorded getting 3 violations they're gone).



crashedandburned said:


> And I agree. It seems to me that many people here (not all) are more than willing to dis their fellow rider with the 'ol "shouldn't have been there" or "doesn't give you the right" lines. While they are right, they often offer little advice or support for the rider. Yes, the fellow was poaching and admitted as much, but does that still give the jogger right to mace them??? Yes, I cused out a bus driver for cutting me off and admitted that I was wrong, does that still give her the right to cut me off? My point is that this is a CYCLING board. NOT a jogger, driver, diver, NASCAR racer, etc board. We could do with more support and advice when one of own gets attacked.
> 
> Mr. XC, Haven't seen or heard from ya since New Years. When we riding again????


----------



## SinglePivot (Dec 30, 2003)

*somewhere in here..*

Original text here:
"Sure the jogger overreacted, but when it's your own transgression that got you in that fix, best just to buck up and take your licks, extreme though they may be. Or at least that's the side of the argument that occurs to me initially..."

mainly, the "...buck up and take your licks..." and "Or at least that's the side of the argument that occurs to me initially..."

I'm willing to bet that the jogger will do it again to someone else.

-Sp



NuMexJoe said:


> You quoted my text, and I clearly acknowledged that the jogger's actions were extreme and that he over-reacted. Nowhere did I say that the writer "got what he deserved." (Where did that come from?) I merely observed that had the biker seemed unwilling to acknowledge that he was the first to do wrong, that it was the initiating event, and that it was clearly avoidable (i.e. he could have chosen not to be a scofflaw). Sorry you read so much more into it than was there. As an aside, it seems we've almost reached a suitable number of responses to the orignal post that it'd be interesting to see how a person's view of the incident correlates to where they live. But that's another thread.... Happy trails,
> - Joe


----------



## upNdown (Jan 12, 2004)

*Why shouldn't he?*



Sasquatch said:


> Jm. said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with that if it is on a hiking trail.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## upNdown (Jan 12, 2004)

*It's just a low tolerance for whining*



MrXC said:


> As a lot of people said, the 2 guys who poached should not have been, but the thing that really amazes me about this thread (and other traffic I've seen on this) is just how much mountain bikers as a group seem to place blame on themselves for the actions of others.


One common thread I see on these boards is a general lack of patience with whiners and complainers. It's not about bikers blaming bikers, its about people who are weary of a society where nobody is willing to accept responsibilty for their own actions. This sentiment is taken to its extreme in this case.


----------



## Jim Beam (Dec 22, 2003)

*That CS explains it all....*



Jm. said:


> No, but I've been in gas-chambers full of CS with no mask. Pepper spray or tear-gas has nothing on CS.


That stuff whacked out your brain. Explains why you lost your ability to reason.


----------



## Homebrew (Jan 2, 2004)

*Two wrongs don't make a right...*

Yeah, they shouldn't have been riding there but to say they got what they deserved is ridiculous. Nothing wrong with vigalante joggers or bobby trapped trails? Jm. is way off base (again). I think he's just trying to beat out steve3 in the post count contest.

If it were me, I would be walking that trail on a daily basis to find that spineless freak with the pepper spray and give him a good dose of personal responsibility.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 22, 2004)

Well, I personally think the jogger had great success. The moron bike riders were habitual poachers. Two of only a dozen or so (according to the writer). The jogger cured them of that (again according to the writer) where as a half-dozen police reprimands did nothing. They don't poach anymore. Lesson learned. Eventually most of us realize the value of respecting laws. Some just need to be hit upside the head to get it. 

Talking to these two was obviously not working. It is funny to me that so many people here are offended that the jogger took matters into his own hands, while in the same posting bragging that they would seek retribution personally (which is exactly that - taking legal matters into their own hands).


----------



## MrXC (Jan 14, 2004)

Generally, you can count me among those that are weary of the lack of individuals taking responsibilty for their actions in our society. But that weariness doesn't justify vigilantism.

The joggers legal or societal rights were not violated by the illegitimate presence of mtb'ers in the park and, as a result, he did not have the right to resort to violence. His ideas of right and wrong may have been violated, but none of his rights were. If these guys were robbing his house, yes he could legitimately have attacked them, used tear gas against them or even shot them to protect his safety and that of his belongings. I believe in the individual's right to protect themselves, but Rock Creek Park belongs to all Americans not just this guy and as a society we hire a police force to enforce the laws and park authority rules on park grounds. The poacher's presence was not an assualt on him and they're is an legitimate and active authority for responding to those that break the rules, there for his actions were not justified.

Instead, the jogger took it upon himself to directly enforce an administrative rule (promulgated by an unelected bureaucrat) through force, despite having no legal or even moral authority to enforce this rule. If he had callen park police with a cell phone and the riders complained then I'd be on the his side, but he decided to take the law into his own hands and in doing so committed a serious crime.

In addition, in any society their is a heirarchy of legal and moral transgressions. This does not merely mean the violation of written rules, but also accepted rules of conduct. All I am say is that much of this thread, in my opinion, has flipped that heirarchy on its head by elevating the mtb'ers violation above the criminal assualter. Yes they broke the rules and they should have to pay the price, but that price should not include physical violence particularly not violance by an individual not authorized by society to resort to such measures or to enforce the rules.

I think the Park Authority should also be held responsible for the role its illegitimate, discrimatory policy. If the park had been open to everybody this wouldn't even be an issue, it would be the same as if he had assualted you or I while were were walking down the street to get a cup of coffee.

As I've already said a number of times, I think all three entities involved hold a degree of responsibility and *all* should accept responsibility for their actions: The jogger for committing assualt and battery, the mtb'ers for poaching, and the Park Authority for issuing illegitimate, discrimatory policies.

Finally, while I don't condone poaching as a means to correcting the injustice issued by the Park Authority, ask your self how many of our societal ills have been corrected by people willing to break unjust rules. If you need examples, I feel sorry for you.

.... How the He!! did I get drawn into a political debate on this board.



upNdown said:


> One common thread I see on these boards is a general lack of patience with whiners and complainers. It's not about bikers blaming bikers, its about people who are weary of a society where nobody is willing to accept responsibilty for their own actions. This sentiment is taken to its extreme in this case.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Rocky said:


> Well, I personally think the jogger had great success. The moron bike riders were habitual poachers. Two of only a dozen or so (according to the writer). The jogger cured them of that (again according to the writer) where as a half-dozen police reprimands did nothing. They don't poach anymore. Lesson learned. Eventually most of us realize the value of respecting laws. Some just need to be hit upside the head to get it.
> 
> Talking to these two was obviously not working. It is funny to me that so many people here are offended that the jogger took matters into his own hands, while in the same posting bragging that they would seek retribution personally (which is exactly that - taking legal matters into their own hands).


Word.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

MrXC said:


> If these guys were robbing his house, yes he could legitimately have attacked them, .


Um, your life still has to be in danger in most places before you can "attack" someone that is robbing you, just to point out how screwed up our laws are.


----------



## MrXC (Jan 14, 2004)

I apologize for the gramatical errors in my last post, "submit reply" was hit in haste.


----------



## MrXC (Jan 14, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Um, your life still has to be in danger in most places before you can "attack" someone that is robbing you, just to point out how screwed up our laws are.


Sorry for my lack of detailed accuracy. I'm not a lawyer nor would I ever want to be.

However, My general point still stands and is actually strengthened by your point. The jogger's safety or rights were not being violated so he did not have the right to engage in violance. If he didn't like what he saw, he should have called the park police either at a call box (which I believe the park has) or when he got home.


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

why is everyone so serious about this? Don't you guys see the humor?
"Mountain biker attacked by hairless jogger with pepper spray on restricted trail."
If you ask me, I give props to the skinny hairless jogger freak. He's got some guts to stand up to 2 mountain bikers in the middle of the woods!

also, there are always two sides to a story. I would like to see the joggers version...

DD


----------



## dante (Jan 12, 2004)

Rocky said:


> Well, I personally think the jogger had great success. The moron bike riders were habitual poachers. Two of only a dozen or so (according to the writer). The jogger cured them of that (again according to the writer) where as a half-dozen police reprimands did nothing. They don't poach anymore. Lesson learned. Eventually most of us realize the value of respecting laws. Some just need to be hit upside the head to get it.
> 
> Talking to these two was obviously not working. It is funny to me that so many people here are offended that the jogger took matters into his own hands, while in the same posting bragging that they would seek retribution personally (which is exactly that - taking legal matters into their own hands).


Hmmmmm. So if I set up a bomb under your car so that if you go one mph over the speed limit you and anyone in your car die in a fiery explosion that's ok? The biker was assaulted first, before being pepper-sprayed, and many many people have died from a simple fist-fight (one kid in my area died from one punch, he fell backwards and hit his head, doa at the hospital). I mean, I'm sick of driving the speed limit and being passed by people EXCEEDING the speed limit and subsequently breaking the law. Therefore, there only needs to be some attempted murders in the area and everybody will start obeying the law. You're either a) a f**king moron or b) just trolling. Must be a boring day...

dante
 fell for troll...


----------



## Dirdir (Jan 23, 2004)

*I am a lawyer, but*

would rather be a hairless jogger. Another thing we all need to realize is that not all things illegal are wrong and that not all wrong things are illegal. Scalping tickets was, and I think still is, illegal in California. I don't think it is wrong though. I also take exception with anyone that says that they would try to find the jogger and kick his @ss. That is also wrong. I approve of defending oneself and if attacked I will kick @ss to the extent needed to prevent further harm. Pulling a "GI Joe Mission" on hairless alien joggers armed with alien butt spray is wrong no matter what planet the dude comes from.

WARNING TO ANYONE WHO SPEEDS (even 1 mph over the limit) - you may be attacked by a mountain biking lawyer pretending to be a hariless alien jogger spraying its butt essence.


----------



## Monte (Dec 20, 2003)

NuMexJoe said:


> but the writer seems not to be accepting the consequences of his actions. Like when a thief breaks into a home and files suit 'cause he got shot. "Hey, I was only after the silver - I was no threat to the homeowner, and he shot me anyway!" Sure the jogger overreacted, but when it's your own transgression that got you in that fix, best just to buck up and take your licks, extreme though they may be. Or at least that's the side of the argument that occurs to me initially.... Just glad I live in a place where there's no shortage of trails, and the users are few.
> - Joe


Assault is assault. Poaching is not a case for some mis-guided self defense. The jogger had no right whatsoever to do what he did. "A matter of degrees, but the writer seems not to be accepting the consequences of his actions", what a silly comment.

Monte


----------



## Punker (Jan 19, 2004)

*Common Sense*

That is what this thread needs. The mountain bikers were wrong for poaching. Yes, many of us on this board have done it, including me, and we all know it is wrong. We can come up with justifications about doing it and ramble on and on about how we as mountain bikers have been wronged, but it in the end we all know it is wrong. It tarnishes our reputation with the powers that be and hurts all the hard work that goes into opening closed trails and retaining access to open trails. The jogger was also wrong for committing a battery against the mountain bikers. There was no provocation that would neccesitate that response. The mountain bikers should be fined for poaching a trail closed to mountain bikers and the jogger should be arrested for battery.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

dante said:


> Hmmmmm. So if I set up a bomb under your car so that if you go one mph over the speed limit you and anyone in your car die in a fiery explosion that's ok? The biker was assaulted first, before being pepper-sprayed, and many many people have died from a simple fist-fight (one kid in my area died from one punch, he fell backwards and hit his head, doa at the hospital). I mean, I'm sick of driving the speed limit and being passed by people EXCEEDING the speed limit and subsequently breaking the law. Therefore, there only needs to be some attempted murders in the area and everybody will start obeying the law. You're either a) a f**king moron or b) just trolling. Must be a boring day...
> 
> dante
> fell for troll...


Again, why are you people talking about killing people? Spraying pepper spray does NOT kill people...and you people claim to be afraid of US that are happy that this happened, and then you go trying to say that we condone severely injuring or killing people??? WTF?


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Again, why are you people talking about killing people? Spraying pepper spray does NOT kill people...and you people claim to be afraid of US that are happy that this happened, and then you go trying to say that we condone severely injuring or killing people??? WTF?


jm, I see your point, and I actually agree with you. Dude was on an illegal trail and got pepper sprayed by a jogger (Maybe the jogger felt threatened?). But the fact is, it was probably (and sadly) the only way this guy would stop riding illegal trails. If I'm not mistaken, he said it himself. Sometimes people need to learn the hard way. In his case, the really hard way. However, I'm not condoning the joggers actions. In my opinion, it was a little overkill, but like I said before, every story has two sides. I seriously doubt our biker friend is telling the WHOLE COMPLETE TRUTH about exactly what happened. I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time, but in a situation like that the story teller always seems to slant the truth ever so slightly to favor him/her self. Anyway, I've rambled enough here.

DD


----------



## dante (Jan 12, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Again, why are you people talking about killing people? Spraying pepper spray does NOT kill people...and you people claim to be afraid of US that are happy that this happened, and then you go trying to say that we condone severely injuring or killing people??? WTF?


read the article, then reread what I said. the biker was assaulted *first* (including punched in the face), then sprayed with pepper spray after he fought off the attacker. Here in Westchester (north of NYC) there was a story a couple months ago about a weekend party, parents were away and teen-age kid throws a beer-bash. There was an altercation, a single punch was thrown, and the kid who got hit fell backwards and was killed. Now the family of the victim is suing both the kid who threw the punch as well as the parents who's house it was. Physical violence can kill. Getting punched in the face can be fatal. Nobody should have to worry about being KILLED for something that isn't even a misdemeanor.

Even if you ignore the fact that he was physically assaulted, are you fine with being pepper-sprayed when you go 1 mph over the speed limit? Or don't come to a full and complete stop at a stop sign? Or is it ok when you break the law but not ok for other people? Hypocrit. 

dante

edit: my appologies if you actually *do* drive below (or at) the speed limit, come to a full and complete stop at stop signs, etc. and wouldn't mind getting pepper-sprayed for the slightest infraction. If that's the case then you definitely have every right to demand the same treatment of others...


----------



## jimbo (Jan 6, 2004)

*Here's the difference.*



Jm. said:


> Ok, also, an overhead question *but i wont discuss it*;
> 
> Are any of these people that think this is so "unfair" the same kind of people that think bike-theives should be beaten?


Poaching trails is a victimless crime. Stealing bikes is not. I'm not saying we should beat bike thieves, but everyone will agree that stealing bikes is wrong.

As others have said, trail closures are often for arbitrary reasons. Some of us (myself included) choose to ride on such trails on occasion. I understand there may be consequences, but my crime is victimless, much like driving without a burned out tail light. The joggers crime was not victimless.

This guy took responsibility for his actions. He admitted to the police that he was poaching, but that doesn't mean he should walk away and shut his mouth. Vigilantism leads down a slippery slope (I have lived where it is common), and to do nothing after such an incident is irresponsible.

jimbo


----------



## gopherhockey (Jun 3, 2004)

MrXC said:


> As a lot of people said, the 2 guys who poached should not have been, but the thing that really amazes me about this thread (and other traffic I've seen on this) is just how much mountain bikers as a group seem to place blame on themselves for the actions of others.
> 
> The poachers of course have significant responsibility - they should not have been there - but they were merely engaging in a legitimate activity where it is unjustly prohibited.
> .


I stumbled upon this thread while doing a search on "trail poachers". Recently we have had some nasty rains that have forced some trail closures... but as always there are some bikers that feel they know better and will ride on any trails, closed - off limits etc.

That brings me back around to this topic. I believe if you separate the issue of what this hiker did to the bikers most if not all agree it was wrong. I would hope that no biker would ever do that kind of thing on a hiker walking a biking-only trail. If we were to stoop to that level it would very much hurt our cause and you would read about it on every anti-biking site accross the Internet.

Your statement of blaming ourselves I believe comes when you separate the actions of the hiker and talk about the actions of the bikers themselves. We as a group can be our own worst enemies and we deserve to "blame" or at least discuss these matters. Two bikers poaching a trail in some other part of the country can affect us all and I feel there are some bikers that are too selfish or stupid to realize the implications of their actions.

If a trail is marked closed or off limits to bikers, for right or wrong, we should be staying off.. period. If you feel a trail should be opened back up for riding its our responsibility to work with the land managers to change the situation. Riding where not allowed will never allow this type of cooperation to happen and it only strenghtens the resolve of other trail use groups.

We fight to gain new trails here in our state. By in large we have built a strong community through our efforts and are gaining momentum with land managers all over the area. Soon we will have too much land and not enough volunteers to build trails. Having said that, all it takes are a few bikers selfish enough to decide on their own where and when they can ride to ruin this type of situation. I could give you many reasons why but this is not the thread to do so.

Hikers shouldn't be attacking bikers.. but when they do it hurts their own cause. When we make excuses for our own actions we are just following their lead. Having said that I can feel the frustration the hiker must have had - there are days when I as a trail steward feel that *nothing* can get to some of these bikers... I'm not putting everyone in this category, but there is almost nothing worse than a selfish biker who thinks he has the right to do as he chooses and doesn't see the consequences of his actions for our entire community.

Off soap box... 

John Lundell
Minnesota Off-Road Cyclists
www.morcmtb.org


----------



## mward (Apr 7, 2004)

Jm. said:


> No, but I've been in gas-chambers full of CS with no mask. Pepper spray or tear-gas has nothing on CS.


Actually having had both, the room full of cs gas (not bad, once you decide you're not going to breathe deep and the drill sargeant doesn't make you yell the company motto - ha) and pepper spray, pepper spray is worlds worse. Neither one is much fun though.


----------



## namaSSte (Dec 19, 2003)

Jm. said:


> They weren't riding bikes, they were breaking the law, like you mentioned in every other instance. Why is breaking the law for one thing ok, and another thing wrong, just because one of those things happens to be something that we do?


Jm, I believe that you are correct in the most literal sense of what happened. Where you're missing the point is where so many do when looking at our constitution and laws. Its a letter of the law vs spirit of the law kinda thing. Its common sense and I know you know what I am talking about. They broke the law, true, the punishment did not, however, fit the crime. Within the context of what you are arguing, let me ask you this...which is more dangerous to society illegal trail use or vigilante justice?

Lawbreakers do have to buck up and take the LEGAL consequences for their actions. What happened here (and what you seem to embrace) is them taking the ILLEGAL (and clearly overzealous) punishment doled out by some loser with a chip on his shoulder. I don't go around beating the crap out of people who cut me off in traffic (illegal), break the speed limit on roads I drive (illegal), or loiter in front of the convenient store when signs clearly state its illegal. Under your argument, I have the right to and they should deal with it. C'mon Jm, common sense isn't nearly as overrated as some make it out to be.

Peace,
Nam


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

namaSSte said:


> Lawbreakers do have to buck up and take the LEGAL consequences for their actions.


Evidently not, as they do not hand out tickets for lawbreakers in the park.


----------



## namaSSte (Dec 19, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Evidently not, as they do not hand out tickets for lawbreakers in the park.


Jm, why the relentless troll man? Tell you what, you're right, in fact, the hiker shoulda just capped them right then and there. That would have taught those bike riders a lesson in justice. Two wrongs, like, totally make a right.

You've clearly thought this all out (overlay sarcasm in whatever dosage you like)


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

namaSSte said:


> Jm, why the relentless troll man? Tell you what, you're right, in fact, the hiker shoulda just capped them right then and there. That would have taught those bike riders a lesson in justice. Two wrongs, like, totally make a right.
> 
> You've clearly thought this all out (overlay sarcasm in whatever dosage you like)


Once again, you people are talking about killing someone, while the jogger only sprayed the biker with pepper spray.

Why this talk of killing? I just don't understand it....


----------



## namaSSte (Dec 19, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Once again, you people are talking about killing someone, while the jogger only sprayed the biker with pepper spray.
> 
> Why this talk of killing? I just don't understand it....


ohhhhh, just sprayed them with pepper spray. in that case, its barely even assault. forget everything I said then.

I think you see my point, I'm out. Peace.


----------



## uphiller (Jan 13, 2004)

Everyone:
-Someone mentioned one very important possibility: that what the biker's article reports isn't the whole truth. This reminds of what historians do- they base their entire theories on printed sources in the assumption that what appeared in those sources is true. Big mistake. Who knows what really happened on that trail? I would be willing to bet that neither what the biker reported, nor what the hairless alien guy would presumably report, corresponds entirely to the truth. Yet here we all are, 102 posts into this debate, and only two people (including myself) have brought up the possibility that the article might not be entirely true.
Jm:
-Yes, the bikers broke the law. You seem to have a huge, even overly literal, maybe even craven respect before what you think is the letter of the law. So, with this respect for the letter of the law in mind, could you tell me where it says in the lawbooks that you can pepper spray someone for riding an illegal trail? Remember, we're talking about the law here, not your personal sense of vigilante justice.
An appropriate action might have been to simply call the police via pay- or cellphone. And Jm, again, without losing sight of your repeated appeal to the letter of the law, if the laws against biking on certain trails and the legally prescribed punishments (bike impoundment, large fines, what have you) for the same are unable to prevent bikers from continuing to break the law, well then we should just accept the fact- because there is nothing higher than the law, right?
In any case, what the bikers did was illegal, but in no way threatening to the person of the hiker. The bikers crossed a line when they rode the trail illegally, but the hiker crossed a much more important one when he did physical violence to two people who, although admittedly breaking a law, were undertaking an action which threatened neither the hiker's person, nor his property. Jm, your house-robbing scenario is as big of a violation of the facts as everyone else's misunderstanding of your argument when they think you are claiming killing a speeder is OK. Apart from the superficial issue of illegality, the house break-in scenario has very little to do with the hiker/ pepperspray/ biker on illegal trail scenario.
Again, not forgetting the law, the hiker had ZERO legal authority to pepperspray anyone. ZERO. 
And now for some open personal attacks on Jm:
You also claimed that getting hit with pepperspray is no big deal, and that you know this from having experienced much worse, being locked in a "gaschamber" full of CS. What kind of attitude are you trying to put on? Are you trying to make yourself out to be some kind of tough guy or what? You must have really walked the coals in the USMC, man. What's lurking under your innocent-looking pile of Soldier of Fortune and Hustler back-issues, man?
You are the kind of person that made me leave the US, and the kind that reminds of why I have so little desire to go back. You and your ilk totally square with a lot of the world's dim view of the US as the nation of those who appeal to the law while openly breaking it themselves, as a group of people mentally ill-equipped to distinguish between the law and vigilanteism. I am not saying that view is correct, but people like you certainly confirm and strengthen it.


----------



## konaaah (Jul 13, 2004)

*Multi use trails ???*



NuMexJoe said:


> but the writer seems not to be accepting the consequences of his actions. Like when a thief breaks into a home and files suit 'cause he got shot. "Hey, I was only after the silver - I was no threat to the homeowner, and he shot me anyway!" Sure the jogger overreacted, but when it's your own transgression that got you in that fix, best just to buck up and take your licks, extreme though they may be. Or at least that's the side of the argument that occurs to me initially.... Just glad I live in a place where there's no shortage of trails, and the users are few.
> - Joe


I poached some trails last weekend, have a hard time calling it poaching though since it's not enforced by police and every hiker I met couldn't have been friendlier. My only other options to avoid a hiking only trail...a powdery soft and rutted horse only trail or several miles of washboard road with highspeed traffic on a fully rigid. I think of my nephew who has downs synd. and loves to bike everywhere, if he had been assaulted while out riding I know I'd be pulling a Charlie Bronson on on this follically challenged girlie man. If he had the ba$$s to do this once, chances are he'll be braver next time and with worse consequences to himself or those he attacks. I say undercover police bike patrols to maintain peace and harmony.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Sooner or later...you'll get "burned"..


I love this thread.


----------



## skinnydipp (Sep 8, 2004)

i don't know what the big deal is. School started last week and some blonde hair in pigtails, sesame street lunchbox blue eyed sweet heart thinks she is going to skip to her first day at school across MY lawn. Forget that, I peppered her tear stained face all the way back to her mama. 

lesson learned.


----------



## thesacrifice (Mar 12, 2004)

I'll tell you this... if someone were to pepperspray an On Duty Police Officer, they would probably be shot and rendered immbobile before the officers eyes were forced shut... that's how serious it is

I've been peppersprayed for training.. I know how long I can fight before I can't see.... In those 15-30 seconds I'd put the fear of God in the initital attacker because once it kicks in you're blind


----------



## LBmtb (Jul 29, 2004)

no freggin way!

If i was one of those two bikers I woulda washed off the spray asap and chased down that guy on the bike, then throw a helmet or rocks or something to mometarily stun him (so he isnt able to get out the spray again), rush him, take his ass down to the floor, smack him around some, then take his pepper spray and spray him for a few minutes.

GRRRRRRR. it's amazing how stupid some people can be. sometimes the only thing they understand is a good ole fashioned ass kicking.


----------



## thesacrifice (Mar 12, 2004)

upNdown said:


> Jm. is taking a beating here for a perfectly reasonable position. The trails are illegal to ride. Period. So don't ride them. And don't come around complaining about what happened to you when you were illegally riding a trail.


that's a ******** way of thinking

The hiker isn't a police officer, park ranger, security officer, or judge. It's not his job to stop crime and dish out a punishment for them. What he did is assault, a very serious form of assault.

If I was out in the woods and someone peppersprayed me, I'm going to assume the worst, that the person is trying to render my vision usless as to kick my ass, kill me, rob me, rape me... and I will I defend myself with my life or theres... that's how serious this is

For you softer edge folk, It's probably safe to assume you've never been peppersprayed...especially out in the woods where you aren't around such resources as baby shampoo, you'll be in great pain and unable to open your eyes for long long time


----------



## thesacrifice (Mar 12, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Um, your life still has to be in danger in most places before you can "attack" someone that is robbing you, just to point out how screwed up our laws are.


by definition robbery is a theft with the use or threat of use of force


----------



## Phat Tire (Aug 7, 2004)

The consequences in no way fit the crime. If the violent hairless albino had a problem, he should have taken it up with the appropriate authorities and if caught, a fine would likely have been the fitting punishment. He had no right to resort to assault.

Now we have suggestions of an escalating vigilante war. Planning on stalking the albino in order to kick to tar out of him is no better than what he did, however, one does have the right to self-defense if put into the original assault. I think the riders did the right thing by fessing up and reporting the attack.


----------



## malkavian (Aug 28, 2004)

well, that's one good thing is that there are NO JOGGERS ALLOWED AT WHISTLER RIGHT?!?!?!?

those little Freaks...


----------



## Carl in Germany (Sep 2, 2004)

*2 wrongs don't make a right,*

but 3 might...

I probably wouldn't poach, but that hairless freak would rue the day he pulled that crap on me.


----------



## iridetitus (Sep 16, 2004)

*uummm:*



Jm. said:


> They weren't riding bikes, they were breaking the law, like you mentioned in every other instance. Why is breaking the law for one thing ok, and another thing wrong, just because one of those things happens to be something that we do?


perhaps i am a little more even keel than others, but posts are running all over the spectrum from way too harsh to not accepting responsibility. jm...you are a cyclist and i can appreciate that, but you obviously have some anger issues that you might want to address.

the facts are, these guys would not have been attacked had they not been out there. they knew what they were doing was wrong and should not have been out there. on the other hand, to suggest that what the jogger did was right and just is ludicrous. one, he was not being physically attacked and he is no officer of the law. he was not retaliating in any way for any action against his person, nor was he enforcing laws he has been enlisted to enforce. he was completely out of line, way moreso than the ilegal-trail-riding cyclists.

jm, your notion that the jogger was justified in his choice of action is completely wrong, he was the sole aggressor in this situation. whether or not you want to admit to such. you need to re-evaluate things in your own life and take a step back before you commit the same type of unjustified act.

on the flip side, those who have suggested they would have beat the jogger down and such. you guys are also cyclists and i can appreciate you all as well, but you guys are really showing your immaturity. chances are you would have been wimpering and jumping in the water just like the two cyclists in the story. pepper spray? that's where i would have been.

i don't know what is worse...irrational, mis-aligned anger or the tough-guy-well-I-woulda attitude.

put down the mouse, step away from the keyboard, and go out and ride. it always fixes me.


----------



## Shockee (Jan 16, 2004)

Laws /= ethics

Some laws are bad, some are good, some are shades of grey. The World of Jm is black and white .. kinda like the World of Sharia Law. 

For example: say it is 1995 and you're a homosexual living in Texas. Some ******* jumps you with numchucks while you're (illegally) doing the nasty with a dude. Are you getting what you deserve? Should this prevent you from breaking the Law in the future and help you 'take responsibility'?

I agree my example is different that the case in question - but that's my point. The ethical value of laws varies considerably, so you can't just say 'You is bad, you break law ... get clubbed on head' like a heuristically-driven Neanderthal.


----------



## Haroow (Mar 10, 2004)

thesacrifice said:


> I'll tell you this... if someone were to pepperspray an On Duty Police Officer, they would probably be shot and rendered immbobile before the officers eyes were forced shut... that's how serious it is
> 
> I've been peppersprayed for training.. I know how long I can fight before I can't see.... In those 15-30 seconds I'd put the fear of God in the initital attacker because once it kicks in you're blind


I agree you OS a cop all bets are off....


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

*I read that they were riding on single crown Mavericks!!*

They must DIE, I say, DIE!!


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Shockee said:


> Laws /= ethics
> 
> Some laws are bad, some are good, some are shades of grey. The World of Jm is black and white .. kinda like the World of Sharia Law.
> 
> ...


*yawn*

So it's all ok as long as you don't get caught eh?


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

*I heard they were riding on Maverick single crown forks..*

They must DIE I say, DIE!!


----------



## Atty (Apr 15, 2004)

skinnydipp said:


> i don't know what the big deal is. School started last week and some blonde hair in pigtails, sesame street lunchbox blue eyed sweet heart thinks she is going to skip to her first day at school across MY lawn. Forget that, I peppered her tear stained face all the way back to her mama.
> 
> lesson learned.


ROFL.. best post of the entire thread! Congrats!!! 

Atty


----------



## RetroG (Jan 16, 2004)

*Where was this?? nm.*



Christine said:


> "Poaching trails on a saturday in the most popular park in washington d.c is really just silly, bound to at very least p. off people. Try a moonlight poach on a tues night for something interesting."
> 
> Well! We tried a moonlight ride last Thursday night. Rode the one-way loop, then decided to do it backwards.
> 
> ...


nmnmnm


----------



## wildman (Aug 21, 2004)

*hmmmmm....*

has anyone seen the post about carrying a gun??

do you carry while you ride?

wonder what would have happend then? BIGGER story i guess. not good for mtb'rs

im an off roader of all types (jeeps, trucks, motorcycles, adn mtbs, not ot mention hiking) but when i am "riding, driving, whatever", illegally, then i take extra care not ot P!$$ anyone off, not ot trash the environment and what not, adn certainly do not enter trails, go thru gates, etc that are obviously posted "keep out". typically i do not know if im illegal when im out exploring on the motorcycle or jeep, cause i came in from some other way that was not posted. but if i feel the need to ride or hit some trails that are closed to bikes, etc, then its on me the consequences. if i get shot by some crazy cause im on his land, knowingly, then its my fault.

listen guys (and gals, sorry), we are in a minority sport (just like me wiht my dirt bikes, and jeeps, etc) and its up to us to maintain a good image. us 4 wheelers, dirt bikers and mtb'rs who sit an complain that trails are closing, signs are going up nad what not, its usually due to some bad apples in the bunch. even on the road, when you see some crazy motorcyclist P!$$ing off the cars, who do you think gets the bad rap, all motorcycles! but if a car goes and P!$$es someone off, you say, dude! adn thats that. you wont find any laws trying to get cars off the road cause their the majority.

unfortuantely, we are a minority, we have very little rights and we need to maintain them!!!

stay off the trails you shouldnt be on, adn fight legally to get on them

anyway... just my 2 cents since im surfing around this immense site killing some time till i have to go do something. rather be riding.

mike, havnt felt the need to carry yet, wildman

ps always, ALWAYS, respect the hikers, no matter how rude or unfriendly they are when you pass them. its just plain "the right thing to do!"


----------



## trickten (Sep 3, 2004)

bunamun said:


> Here's what you do:
> 
> Wait about a year. He'll return to running those same trails. He'll get comfortable again and think, "I taught those guys a lesson." Select some "tools" to get the job done. Then, on a daily basis visit the trails on foot and wait. He'll come along eventually. Then you take care of that fool.


I'm with you bunamun.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Again, why are you people talking about killing people? Spraying pepper spray does NOT kill people...


Yep, incapacitating people deep in the woods never put anyone's life in danger. Nope, not once. I personally like wandering around in the woods without vision. It's fun.
Maybe the jogger should have raped them too. I mean rape unto itself is non-lethal, right? Get real fellas, we are not talking about killing people here. They'd get what they deserve then. No right to complain. I mean, seriously, they didn't die or anything.

If my sarcasm is not imediately apparent, let me be more blunt. If you attack someone in a remote location you are putting their life in danger. Throw in a substance like pepper spray and it's that much worse. There ARE deaths related to cayenne pepper spray. You can have a severe respitory reaction. How fast is that help going to arrive when you are in the woods?

Would you feel different if the two bikers were women? Children? Wrong is wrong, right? Just have to deal with what's coming to ya.

In the Jm. world of twisted logic and I guess it will be ok for the citzenry to jump mountain bikers when some yahoo decides to enforce the parks 'speed limit' of XXmph. 1 mph over and you are toast. Deal with it. Got to expect the consequences when you break the law.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> Would you feel different if the two bikers were women? .


Of course not. Are you suggesting that we give preferential treatment just because someone is a female? If the children really didn't know they were illegally riding trails, I wouldn't be for it, but the truth is these cyclists had it comming to them and they knew what they were doing. You ride illegal trails over and over and you think that you're going to get off scott-free every single time?

As I said, I bet that these cyclists don't ride these trails illegally anymore, and if that is what it takes to stop them from doing it I am all for it.

No sympathy, school of hard knocks.


----------

