Well said. =D>tanker223 wrote:As the guy who got assaulted....
I propose we drop this whole thing. I dont know who the guy is and I really dont care. We are giving this guy way to much attention. His concern was that he felt anyone should be allowed to teach there. Its not the school that makes that rule, but the park. Their concern, obviously, is the liability. He was having a bad day (which he seems to have a lot of). Anyone who can get angry that easily probably doenst belong in a sport of endless knots in line and a lack of knots in wind. Personally, I just feel bad for the guy. We are giving him way too much attention. I will never launch his kite. But beyond that, I reccomed we forget about him.
To the guy... you kinda lucky you didnt take that any further. I work bar security. One of my students was a Navy SEAL. The other one was twice your size. Thats not a threat, just beware your temper... it may get you hurt someday.
Threatening Access Idiots!!!
-
kitekarl
- Valued Contributor
- Posts:83
- Joined:Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:10 pm
- Location:Stockton, California
- Contact:
-
gomez72
- Valued Contributor
- Posts:68
- Joined:Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:17 pm
- Contact:
-
JCoffey
- Joey
- Posts:5
- Joined:Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:43 am
- Contact:
tisk tisk
We have read the posts and found these particular statements very telling.
Greg Boington:
ìyou cant teach her at Alameda unless you work for BoardSportsî
FALSE
Greg Boington:
ìyou wont be breaking the law (BoardSports has full legal rights and consessions to ALL instruction at Alameda).î
FALSE
There is a concession ñcontract- at crown beach, There is nothing illegal about helping anyone learn to do any sport at that beach if it is not done commercially.
Greg Boington:
ìI know you may not like it, WE may not like it, but thats the way it is! If you cause another incident at Alameda, even I the most friendly and inviting guy at Alameda will shut you down.î
FALSE
We did not cause the incident.
a.k.a. pipedragon:
ìIt is illegal to teach at Alameda within 100 yards of the beach unless you work for the shack it's no joke. You will be cited if you are caught there again as I am sure they will call the police next time.î
FALSE
Don Bogardus:
ìBing an instructor at the shack gives me the right to enforce the no teaching outside of the park concession parameters, and law that is in effectî
FALSE
No enforcement rights. Not deputized with any law enforcement responsibilities. There is no such law.
Don Bogardus:
ìhowever nether myself, or to my knowledge, any of the other Instructors have
much interest in enforceing these rules if such actions take place outside of the main launch areaî
FALSE
People are continually harassed and also told not to launch anywhere else besides the launch area.
Greg Boington:
ìBoardSports has FULL legal rights to instruct at Alameda beach. They are the only ones that have instruction rights at Alamedaî
FALSE
Greg Boington:
ìThis guy should not have been launching his girls kite where he was..î
We were launching the kite in the designated area.
Greg Boington:
ìThe girl didnt have controll of her kite and swept several other people..î
FALSE
a.k.a. Scotty:
ìit was clear you were being unsafe.î
FALSE
a.k.a. Kite_Rider :
ìFlying a kite in a launch and land zone for anything other than launching and landing isÖ akin to parking your car in the middle of a busy intersection because your going to the store on the corner.î
TRUE - What we were intending to do is launch a kite in the launch area, just like everyone else. But we were accosted before we even got the lines laid out.
Don Bogardus:
ìAnyone who insists on clogging the main launch areaî
Ridiculous, we did not.
a.k.a. Tanker:
ìIt really IS illegal to teach anyone to kite there, for profit or notî
FALSE
Don Bogardus:
ìthreatening real violence with what could be described as a deadly weapon, ì
FALSE
Don Bogardus:
ìa dumbass teaching in the main launch area who assulted the instructorî
FALSE
a.k.a. Tankder:
ìIm the guy you threw the board atî
FALSE
Don Bogardus:
ì(Calif. penal code section 120 felony, GBI likely)î
CONFUSING, but perhaps quite telling - Why is it that Mr. Bogardus accuses Jan of Assault and then looks up and references a law pertaining to perjury, and giving false witness?
Calif. Penal code section 120:
ìSo much of an oath of office as relates to the future performance of official duties is not such an oath as is intended by the two preceding sections.î
The two preceding sections read ñ
Clif Penal code section 118:
(a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or subscribed within or without the State of California.
(b) No person shall be convicted of perjury where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant. Proof of falsity may be established by direct or indirect evidence.
Calif Penal code section 118.1:
ìEvery peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years. This section shall not apply to the contents of any statement which the peace officer attributes in the report to any other person. 118a. Any person who, in any affidavit taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, swears, affirms, declares, deposes, or certifies that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case then pending or thereafter to be instituted, in any particular manner, or to any particular fact, and in such affidavit willfully and contrary to such oath states as true any material matter which he knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. In any prosecution under this section, the subsequent testimony of such person, in any action involving the matters in such affidavit contained, which is contrary to any of the matters in such affidavit contained, shall be prima facie evidence that the matters in such affidavit were false.î
Clif Penal code section 119:
ìThe term "oath," as used in the last two sections, includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the truth of that which is stated.î
Kite Free!
Sandi & Jan
Greg Boington:
ìyou cant teach her at Alameda unless you work for BoardSportsî
FALSE
Greg Boington:
ìyou wont be breaking the law (BoardSports has full legal rights and consessions to ALL instruction at Alameda).î
FALSE
There is a concession ñcontract- at crown beach, There is nothing illegal about helping anyone learn to do any sport at that beach if it is not done commercially.
Greg Boington:
ìI know you may not like it, WE may not like it, but thats the way it is! If you cause another incident at Alameda, even I the most friendly and inviting guy at Alameda will shut you down.î
FALSE
We did not cause the incident.
a.k.a. pipedragon:
ìIt is illegal to teach at Alameda within 100 yards of the beach unless you work for the shack it's no joke. You will be cited if you are caught there again as I am sure they will call the police next time.î
FALSE
Don Bogardus:
ìBing an instructor at the shack gives me the right to enforce the no teaching outside of the park concession parameters, and law that is in effectî
FALSE
No enforcement rights. Not deputized with any law enforcement responsibilities. There is no such law.
Don Bogardus:
ìhowever nether myself, or to my knowledge, any of the other Instructors have
much interest in enforceing these rules if such actions take place outside of the main launch areaî
FALSE
People are continually harassed and also told not to launch anywhere else besides the launch area.
Greg Boington:
ìBoardSports has FULL legal rights to instruct at Alameda beach. They are the only ones that have instruction rights at Alamedaî
FALSE
Greg Boington:
ìThis guy should not have been launching his girls kite where he was..î
We were launching the kite in the designated area.
Greg Boington:
ìThe girl didnt have controll of her kite and swept several other people..î
FALSE
a.k.a. Scotty:
ìit was clear you were being unsafe.î
FALSE
a.k.a. Kite_Rider :
ìFlying a kite in a launch and land zone for anything other than launching and landing isÖ akin to parking your car in the middle of a busy intersection because your going to the store on the corner.î
TRUE - What we were intending to do is launch a kite in the launch area, just like everyone else. But we were accosted before we even got the lines laid out.
Don Bogardus:
ìAnyone who insists on clogging the main launch areaî
Ridiculous, we did not.
a.k.a. Tanker:
ìIt really IS illegal to teach anyone to kite there, for profit or notî
FALSE
Don Bogardus:
ìthreatening real violence with what could be described as a deadly weapon, ì
FALSE
Don Bogardus:
ìa dumbass teaching in the main launch area who assulted the instructorî
FALSE
a.k.a. Tankder:
ìIm the guy you threw the board atî
FALSE
Don Bogardus:
ì(Calif. penal code section 120 felony, GBI likely)î
CONFUSING, but perhaps quite telling - Why is it that Mr. Bogardus accuses Jan of Assault and then looks up and references a law pertaining to perjury, and giving false witness?
Calif. Penal code section 120:
ìSo much of an oath of office as relates to the future performance of official duties is not such an oath as is intended by the two preceding sections.î
The two preceding sections read ñ
Clif Penal code section 118:
(a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or subscribed within or without the State of California.
(b) No person shall be convicted of perjury where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant. Proof of falsity may be established by direct or indirect evidence.
Calif Penal code section 118.1:
ìEvery peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years. This section shall not apply to the contents of any statement which the peace officer attributes in the report to any other person. 118a. Any person who, in any affidavit taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, swears, affirms, declares, deposes, or certifies that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case then pending or thereafter to be instituted, in any particular manner, or to any particular fact, and in such affidavit willfully and contrary to such oath states as true any material matter which he knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. In any prosecution under this section, the subsequent testimony of such person, in any action involving the matters in such affidavit contained, which is contrary to any of the matters in such affidavit contained, shall be prima facie evidence that the matters in such affidavit were false.î
Clif Penal code section 119:
ìThe term "oath," as used in the last two sections, includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the truth of that which is stated.î
Kite Free!
Sandi & Jan
-
Blackbird
- Regular
- Posts:398
- Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:03 pm
- Contact:
I cannot help but to respond to all the commotion. I too was on the beach that day. It was the cusiest I have seen Alameda. We all know the addition of lots of kites and lots of beginners causes some confusion and commotion. Here's the way I see it:
First, I also had a feeling of the vibe from the shack that day. I had launched, had a great session, came in and gotten a great sausage dog cooked up on the shack grill, chatted briefly with the shack girls, and started to head back out. I went to help a friend setup his new kite for a session, just to make sure he got it right. He's an intermediate kiter, able to stay upwind, etc. My bad, we setup the kite/lines in reverse order from everyone else as it made more sense with the limited room in the launch area at the time. What we ended up with was one of the shack ladies very, very heatedly pointing out to us our lack of 'conformity' to the rules, and that we MUST comply with the regulations. I felt berated, accosted, and rudely approached. If it were I in her shoes, I would have calmly approached and pointed out the suggested rules, and helped move their kite to the other end of the launch area. I passed it up as just a hectic, overworked, patience lacking individual on a very busy day.
Second, I was witness to the 'aftermath' only of the incident in question with Jan/Sandy/park service. Everyone around was gossiping. I went and asked from the horses mouth, the park service police, what was going on. They said they were trying to figure that out. Hmm. So, seems to me the gossip column had the reigns...
Third, Just by reading the posts of everyone here, whom would you believe? A very level headed, researched response from Jan? Or would you believe the hot headed irate attitudes of just about everyone else here? Perspective tells a lot.
Lesson? If all the gossipers are correct, you should take a look at Jan's approach and see how you can adapt and use it to your favor. He has the upper hand in calm approach, research, and general good nature.
Why do I care? Because the points Jan makes are all true in respect to the rules of Alameda. They are guidelines. They should be enforced in a civil, friendly manner. It is a public beach that you now PAY to access. The shack has concession rights only. They are the only ones who may teach on the beach and get PAID to do so. There is a lot of political and emotional tension with that shack. It seems to be going to everyone's head. For a first line of introduction to the sport, Crowne Beach needs to be the best PR campaign around. Friendly people, good suggestions, help, encouragement, etc. I love Alameda. Everyone that shows up there to kite makes me love it more. This shows the good work all shops have done in the area to bring so many people into the sport.
Jan/Sandi, I encourage you to keep coming to Alameda.
Everyone else, you should encourage them as well, and if you feel they are doing something wrong, calmly discuss a better option and why.
I have seen MUCH worse at that beach, with NOBODY saying anything. Including myself. I am just as much a problem as a solution. I tend to stay out of a conflict if there are already too many chefs tossing in cayenne...
First, I also had a feeling of the vibe from the shack that day. I had launched, had a great session, came in and gotten a great sausage dog cooked up on the shack grill, chatted briefly with the shack girls, and started to head back out. I went to help a friend setup his new kite for a session, just to make sure he got it right. He's an intermediate kiter, able to stay upwind, etc. My bad, we setup the kite/lines in reverse order from everyone else as it made more sense with the limited room in the launch area at the time. What we ended up with was one of the shack ladies very, very heatedly pointing out to us our lack of 'conformity' to the rules, and that we MUST comply with the regulations. I felt berated, accosted, and rudely approached. If it were I in her shoes, I would have calmly approached and pointed out the suggested rules, and helped move their kite to the other end of the launch area. I passed it up as just a hectic, overworked, patience lacking individual on a very busy day.
Second, I was witness to the 'aftermath' only of the incident in question with Jan/Sandy/park service. Everyone around was gossiping. I went and asked from the horses mouth, the park service police, what was going on. They said they were trying to figure that out. Hmm. So, seems to me the gossip column had the reigns...
Third, Just by reading the posts of everyone here, whom would you believe? A very level headed, researched response from Jan? Or would you believe the hot headed irate attitudes of just about everyone else here? Perspective tells a lot.
Lesson? If all the gossipers are correct, you should take a look at Jan's approach and see how you can adapt and use it to your favor. He has the upper hand in calm approach, research, and general good nature.
Why do I care? Because the points Jan makes are all true in respect to the rules of Alameda. They are guidelines. They should be enforced in a civil, friendly manner. It is a public beach that you now PAY to access. The shack has concession rights only. They are the only ones who may teach on the beach and get PAID to do so. There is a lot of political and emotional tension with that shack. It seems to be going to everyone's head. For a first line of introduction to the sport, Crowne Beach needs to be the best PR campaign around. Friendly people, good suggestions, help, encouragement, etc. I love Alameda. Everyone that shows up there to kite makes me love it more. This shows the good work all shops have done in the area to bring so many people into the sport.
Jan/Sandi, I encourage you to keep coming to Alameda.
Everyone else, you should encourage them as well, and if you feel they are doing something wrong, calmly discuss a better option and why.
I have seen MUCH worse at that beach, with NOBODY saying anything. Including myself. I am just as much a problem as a solution. I tend to stay out of a conflict if there are already too many chefs tossing in cayenne...
-
Blackbird
- Regular
- Posts:398
- Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:03 pm
- Contact:
-
dewey
- Old School
- Posts:1079
- Joined:Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:28 am
- Contact:
-
Don Bogardus
- Valued Contributor
- Posts:218
- Joined:Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:05 am
- Location:Bay Area
- Contact:
-
konakiter
- Contributor
- Posts:11
- Joined:Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:19 am
- Location:san diego
- Contact:
-
wavie_gravie
- Contributor
- Posts:20
- Joined:Tue May 10, 2005 10:59 pm
- Contact:
Alameda truly had a good vibe a few years ago, I agree...sadly...it's gone.
Some great folks ride there, but the general attitude is just plain bad juju
I hear yelling EVERY time I go there (i rarely go though).
Not just from the shack folks either. One guy in particular seems to think he owns the place.
I also think that Maui has the correct way to launch...kite at water...not the way alameda does (no need to chime in on this, I have heard the arguments over and over...still disagree)...that guy who died last week hit a car....not a boat.
This thread is identical to last years, it will not change out there. It is the best place in the bay area to learn too. Kite Wind Surf folks are great.
On the bright side! alameda is stilla great place to steal cars, grow weed etc.....
Some great folks ride there, but the general attitude is just plain bad juju
I hear yelling EVERY time I go there (i rarely go though).
Not just from the shack folks either. One guy in particular seems to think he owns the place.
I also think that Maui has the correct way to launch...kite at water...not the way alameda does (no need to chime in on this, I have heard the arguments over and over...still disagree)...that guy who died last week hit a car....not a boat.
This thread is identical to last years, it will not change out there. It is the best place in the bay area to learn too. Kite Wind Surf folks are great.
On the bright side! alameda is stilla great place to steal cars, grow weed etc.....
-
Don Bogardus
- Valued Contributor
- Posts:218
- Joined:Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:05 am
- Location:Bay Area
- Contact:
I offer my sincere apologe for starting this Inflamatory thread.
I did not witness the altercation, but from what I have read on the forums
so far, there are some people who don't see the bigger picture.
I am not so sure I do ether to be honest.
Be safe ALL, and enjoy this cool sport @ Alameda.
Season is short here, no time to waste energy on negative things when
the water is 76 degrees and the wind is calling!
I did not witness the altercation, but from what I have read on the forums
so far, there are some people who don't see the bigger picture.
I am not so sure I do ether to be honest.
Be safe ALL, and enjoy this cool sport @ Alameda.
Season is short here, no time to waste energy on negative things when
the water is 76 degrees and the wind is calling!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests