Originally posted by KazetNagorraAssaulting Teenage "children",one of whom grabbed him from behind? Actually, i think these "children" needed to have the punk kicked out of them. In the US you have the right to defend your "property", not just your person. This man is getting a raw deal. A little piss in their face seemed appropriate.
Well, clearly "mess" isn't a serious enough threat to a person's safety that it warrants assaulting children.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by spruce112358They were on his property with the intent to vandalize. I'm with Granny.
How would you rule in the following situation: a man sprays fox urine on youths attempting to festoon his house with toilet paper. The man was charged with misdemeanor assault. I'd be tempted in the opposite direction -- give the man a medal and a public commendation.
Hasn't the pendulum of punishing 'reaction to provocation' swung far enough? Isn't ...[text shortened]... urine
but more fully:
http://www.wctrib.com/articles/index.cfm?id=44888§ion=News
Originally posted by smw6869Why do Americans have so little faith in the juridical system?
Assaulting Teenage "children",one of whom grabbed him from behind? Actually, i think these "children" needed to have the punk kicked out of them. In the US you have the right to defend your "property", not just your person. This man is getting a raw deal. A little piss in their face seemed appropriate.
GRANNY.
I suppose juries are to blame.
In any case, if all they did was cause a mess, his property was not in danger, if he was grabbed, the teenager can be punished appropiately without the need to take the law in one's own hands.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"ALL they did was cause a mess"?????? In the US you can take action to Not have your property be Messed up. The man wanted his property to look UN MESSED. The punks wanted his property to be messed up. Go figure! His property Was in danger of being Messed Up. Our Judicial system is a mess because of liberal thinkers like you. Poor chillun! Why should the have to learn respect.
Why do Americans have so little faith in the juridical system?
I suppose juries are to blame.
In any case, if all they did was cause a mess, his property was not in danger, if he was grabbed, the teenager can be punished appropiately without the need to take the law in one's own hands.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869I see, so spraying someone with fox urine teaches someone to respect others and their property.
"ALL they did was cause a mess"?????? In the US you can take action to Not have your property be Messed up. The man wanted his property to look UN MESSED. The punks wanted his property to be messed up. Go figure! His property Was in danger of being Messed Up. Our Judicial system is a mess because of liberal thinkers like you. Poor chillun! Why should the have to learn respect.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou are trying to dodge the issue by making it sound like the man was harming the children in some way. All he was doing was giving them an unpleasant experience to remind them that their actions were wrong (which they already knew).
Well, clearly "mess" isn't a serious enough threat to a person's safety that it warrants assaulting children.
But I still want to know how you think the mess is to be cleaned up. Does the man do it himself? Who pays for any damages?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYES! it will teach them if they don't want to be pissed on, don't piss on others. Some have to be hit over the head with a hammer to teach such simple concepts. Some have to be pissed on.
I see, so spraying someone with fox urine teaches someone to respect others and their property.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by spruce112358Not just unpleasant but also potentially harmful. It's not very hygienic.
You are trying to dodge the issue by making it sound like the man was harming the children in some way. All he was doing was giving them an unpleasant experience to remind them that their actions were wrong (which they already knew).
But I still want to know how you think the mess is to be cleaned up. Does the man do it himself? Who pays for any damages?
But I still want to know how you think the mess is to be cleaned up. Does the man do it himself? Who pays for any damages?
Yes, I suppose he does have to clean it up, unless the kids' parents or a judge can force the teenagers to do so. As for the damages: that's why there is insurance, though there didn't appear to be any damage from what I've read. If your property is being damaged you have the right to defend it to some extent.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere is insurance IF you pay for it. Some people cannot afford such, or, there is a large deductible. Going to court also costs money, or time -- for which one is not compensated.
Not just unpleasant but also potentially harmful. It's not very hygienic.
[b]But I still want to know how you think the mess is to be cleaned up. Does the man do it himself? Who pays for any damages?
Yes, I suppose he does have to clean it up, unless the kids' parents or a judge can force the teenagers to do so. As for the damages: that's why ...[text shortened]... 've read. If your property is being damaged you have the right to defend it to some extent.[/b]
So again, I think your solution is impractical because it does not address basic justice. If there is anything modern history teaches us, it is that the surest way to peace is through justice, not appeasement.
Admitting that the government does not have the resources to ensure justice in this case, by what right does the government presume to prohibit someone from obtaining justice -- which he has every right to -- by other means?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo, what taught the poor chillun to mess up the man's property? Property "mess up" is a form of violence.
Violence teaches violence.
Yes, insurance would cover the mess clean up to the extent that the clean up exceeded the home owners deductible. The home owner is still responsible for 500-1,000 dollars or more, but i guess that's only fair to your way of thinking. And besides the insurance Co. could just increase the man's premium.
GRANNY.
Gotta give Granny the point on this one, Kaz. Maybe it's an American thing, but I rather doubt it. It's just human nature to protect and defend what is yours. People who infringe on the rights of others, whether it be their property, their "space", their rights to freedom of speech, movement, etc.---these people all fall into one category: bullies. And, as the lowest form of life on the planet, bullies simply cannot be tolerated. In the case of the fox urine, you may feel the punishment was too great for the crime. personally, had it been my call to make, I'd have called for lethal injection.
Originally posted by spruce112358There was a case about 10 or 12 years ago in Britain. A somewhat eccentric man living in a converted farmhouse came downstairs to find a couple of kids grafittiing his wall. He shot one of them dead point blank with a shotgun (that he didn't have a licence for). The whole thing was seen as a grotesque tragedy rather than a moral conundrum. The Daily Telegraph, however, argued that the case "proved" that everybody should have guns.
How would you rule in the following situation: a man sprays fox urine on youths attempting to festoon his house with toilet paper. The man was charged with misdemeanor assault. I'd be tempted in the opposite direction -- give the man a medal and a public commendation.
Not so long after that there was a case where a pub landlord came downstairs in the night to find that a couple of 14 year old scamps stealing potato chips and chocolate bars from behind his bar having made their way into his pub through a toilet window. He caved one of the boy's skull in with a crowbar, killing him. The other had his jaw smashed in a way that required surgery. The whole thing, again, was seen as a grotesque tragedy rather than a salient illustration of anything much - apart from the deviance of youth and the horror of violence. However, the Daily Telegraph pointed out admiringly that the Americans are not squemish about these things and that the whole 'principle' of an Englishman's home is his castle trumps 'proportionality' and that lethal force should be a right in the case of any kind of tresspass.
Originally posted by FMFIn the US you can only use lethal force if your life is in danger. You can't kill someone just because they're on your property. However, you may use lethal force in Castle states if someone breaks Into your house for Any reason. You need not give a warning and the person need not be armed. The guy who killed the graffiti kid should have been hung. The landlord most likely couldn't see in the dark. Didn't know the age of the kids and didn't know what they had stolen. This was a tragedy,but legal.
There was a case about 10 or 12 years ago in Britain. A somewhat eccentric man living in a converted farmhouse came downstairs to find a couple of kids grafittiing his wall. He shot one of them dead point blank with a shotgun (that he didn't have a licence for). The whole thing was seen as a grotesque tragedy rather than a moral conundrum. The Daily Telegraph, h ...[text shortened]... ionality' and that lethal force should be a right in the case of any kind of tresspass.
GRANNY.