Originally posted by spruce112358I disagree with your idea. A bunch of youths putting toilet paper on a house is not going to harm the house or the owner. It's just going to make a minor mess. This homeowner clearly over reacted. I would not file charges aginst the homeowner however if none of the youths were injured. This is a case of both sides making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'd forget about it and go work on your endgames. Come to think of it, I need to work on my endgames as well! 😏
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]... fox_urine
but more fully:
http://www.wctrib.com/articles/index.cfm?id=44888§ion=News
Originally posted by dystoniacYes, rock salt was a remedy from an earlier time. I thought the employment of night-vision goggles and a Super-Soaker loaded for rodents was high-tech and showed admirable restraint.
The man should have sprayed them with rock salt from a shotgun...their stinging behinds would have reminded them to never again participate in such foolishness.
To be that well prepared also shows that the homeowner was obviously expecting something -- as if this was a repeating performance, perhaps?
Yes, the kids from the high school have been doing this for some time according to the news report I saw last night.
Of course the man was suffered some sort of legal action against him, but none of the kids were punished. It had something to do with not having evidence that the kids were on his property.
If no kids were on his property, then no kids would have been sprayed. If no kids got sprayed, then why did he get in trouble?
One last high tech thing he should have done was video tape the kids doing it.
Originally posted by EladarBut he did spray them, yes? Perhaps he sprayed them OFF his property?
It had something to do with not having evidence that the kids were on his property. If no kids were on his property, then no kids would have been sprayed. If no kids got sprayed, then why did he get in trouble?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe get bigger and more invasive policing, and in general slower responses to those critical calls when police are really needed.
The monopoly on violence needs to be in the hands of government. Only if police cannot reasonably be expected to be able to intervene in time, self-defense should be allowed to a limited extent. In this case, the man could have easily called the police so I don't see why he should get a medal.
Self defense is not only a right, but a duty. Police are not hired to "protect" individuals.
By the time police were called, the damage would have been done, and could not be undone by a police report, and probably would have slipped under insurance deductability.
The response was measured, and harmless to the boys.
"The monopoly on violence needs to be in the hands of the government"??? Yeh right! Governments have been responsible for the slaughter of millions of the citizens they were supposed to be protecting, and abuse of government power is legendary almost everywhere.
For me the government with it's monopoly on violence is who I really worry about my right to self defense.
Originally posted by bill718Have you seen a TPing? It is a mess, and no small matter tio clean up. There is another solution. That of the video camera and law suit. When the kid's parents get summoned to court, and have to pay real and punitive damages for their wayward kids, as well as defend them in court for misdemeanor vandalism, they would get the point.
I disagree with your idea. A bunch of youths putting toilet paper on a house is not going to harm the house or the owner. It's just going to make a minor mess. This homeowner clearly over reacted. I would not file charges aginst the homeowner however if none of the youths were injured. This is a case of both sides making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'd fo ...[text shortened]... t and go work on your endgames. Come to think of it, I need to work on my endgames as well! 😏
On the other hand, my probable response would have been just a good old fashioned ass kicking.
According to accounts, there were up to a dozen tp'ers, armed with sharpended drumsticks and screwdrivers; a fifty-year-old man might have trouble ass-kicking them all. Anyway, after the first skirmish, the kids called the police, evidently certain the police would take their side against the 'evil hermit'. So far, they're right.
Originally posted by smw6869You don't have to tell me there is something wrong with the US insurance legislation.
So, what taught the poor chillun to mess up the man's property? Property "mess up" is a form of 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.