Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

meelk · Mar 21, 2006, 01:05 AM

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2608795.html
http://www.wcpo.com/video/podcast/mp...20_911tape.mp3

I Bent My Wookiee · Mar 21, 2006, 01:36 AM

"Neighbors said Martin lived alone quietly, often sitting in front of his one-story home with its neat lawn, well-trimmed shrubbery and flag pole with U.S. and Navy flags flying. "

Somehow I pictured it before I even read it.

cpt kangarooski · Mar 21, 2006, 01:38 AM

His lawn doesn't look that impressive to me.

torsoboy · Mar 21, 2006, 01:39 AM

wow. the guy sounds very level headed on the phone. that is one mistake he will never be able to forget or get away from. he probably did it and then thought, "oh crap, what did I do."

sad situation.

hickey · Mar 21, 2006, 01:41 AM

my friend wants to grow up and be a creepy old man who shoots kids with paintballs if they walk on his lawn. But he would never use a real gun, hes not that intense.

FireWire · Mar 21, 2006, 06:05 AM

Where's what_the_heck and his "He got what he deserved. This punk deserved to die!" comment when we need him?

Cody Dawg · Mar 21, 2006, 08:10 AM

That guy needs to go to jail forever, where there are no lawns. It's not premeditated murder and maybe he doesn't deserve the death penalty, but he needs to go to jail and never get out.

Unbelievable and a tragedy.

If he was going to shoot someone why did he shoot to kill? Why not shoot the kid in the leg?

Asshole.

wallinbl · Mar 21, 2006, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

wow. the guy sounds very level headed on the phone. that is one mistake he will never be able to forget or get away from. he probably did it and then thought, "oh crap, what did I do."

sad situation.

He sure didn't sound like "oh crap, what did I do"! He sounded like "I took care of that problem".

Kevin · Mar 21, 2006, 08:36 AM

Sickening.

One of the very few murders that have happened in my town happened similarly.

The guy was drunk, and was sick of "kids" in his yard. So he got the shotgun out and shot at them, killing their mother.

I personally knew her as well.

He got taken out by the neighbor.

One reason I don't live up in the hills.

Those country folk mean business.

FireWire · Mar 21, 2006, 08:40 AM

He sure has a loose bolt or two

We should wait for the rest of the story, but in his mind, he was probably right because he warned them he was gonna do it one day, and finally put his threat at execution (no pun). Of course, no offense allows someone to shoot someone else, but senility + harassing neighbors = problem.

"I've been harassed by him and his parents for five years. Today just blew it up." (From this CNN article)

Beside, it wasn't a really wonderful grass:

[Edit] At first, when I heard about this story, I was sure it had taken place in Florida, with their new law about gun usage! It would have been a big blow to the bill!

Doofy · Mar 21, 2006, 09:00 AM

Was this shooting on his property? Had he warned the kid not to trespass? If so: his property, his rules.

Of course, he should have used salt peter pellets or something else non-lethal, but the principle stands. Otherwise you end up with a situation like the UK... ...where, for example, a guy got arrested for punching two burglars. The moment society deems you can't protect your home in any way you like is the exact moment you essentially lose all your liberty.

ghporter · Mar 21, 2006, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by FireWire

At first, when I heard about this story, I was sure it had taken place in Florida, with their new law about gun usage! It would have been a big blow to the bill!

That "bill" is now law. And it wouldn't apply in this case anyway, as the kid was in no way even slightly characterized as being a threat to the shooter.

The old guy screwed up, knows it, and "fessed up" on the phone to 911. The only thing about this that's at all interesting is that Cincinatti must have had a really slow news day for this to make the national wires. This is not a new thing at all, but with the advent of "news gatherers" scouring the countryside for something, even the idiotic or extremely sad, to write about, it becomes national news. People have had feuds over tresspass and the like forever.

jlfspook · Mar 21, 2006, 09:10 AM

Was this shooting on his property? Had he warned the kid not to trespass? If so: his property, his rules.

Actually, most jurisdictions (with the exception of TX and FL, I think) don't allow the use of lethal force (lethal meaning causing death or serious bodily injury) to protect property, no matter how valuable. The system has made a judgment: life, even the one of a criminal, is more valuable than any and all chattel.

The only time lethal force is sanctioned is when the trespassers threaten the owner's life and limb, and even then the justification is more about the danger to the person.

Under British and American common law, the only right an owner has against an occupier is kindly asking them to leave. After that, he/she can only use as much force as necessary to expell them from his/her property (i.e., carrying them out). If the owner uses unreasonable force (i.e., punching them in the face), the trespassers have a right of self-defense against the owner.

FireWire · Mar 21, 2006, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

That "bill" is now law. And it wouldn't apply in this case anyway, as the kid was in no way even slightly characterized as being a threat to the shooter.

Oops, I tought the two were interchangeable : in Canada, a bill is a law

[Edit: I'm now unsure about that, any English-speaking Canadian to the rescue?

]

No, it wouldn't have been applicable, and would have certainly made people think twice about that law, because people were starting to abuse it, confusing threat with trespassing.

macroy · Mar 21, 2006, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

That guy needs to go to jail forever, where there are no lawns. It's not premeditated murder and maybe he doesn't deserve the death penalty, but he needs to go to jail and never get out.

Unbelievable and a tragedy.

If he was going to shoot someone why did he shoot to kill? Why not shoot the kid in the leg?

Asshole.

They should chain his sorry ass to a chair on his porch... and invite kids to play football with 1" cleats on his lawn - And make him watch it.

Doofy · Mar 21, 2006, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by jlfspook

Actually, most jurisdictions (with the exception of TX and FL, I think) don't allow the use of lethal force (lethal meaning causing death or serious bodily injury) to protect property, no matter how valuable. The system has made a judgment: life, even the one of a criminal, is more valuable than any and all chattel.

I disagree with the system here, because the system doesn't realise that ownership of property extends far beyond the simple outward appearances - it extends into peace of mind, quality of life, etc., etc..

Originally Posted by jlfspook

The only time lethal force is sanctioned is when the trespassers threaten the owner's life and limb, and even then the justification is more about the danger to the person.

This assumes that the trespassers aren't damaging the homeowner's quality of life.

Originally Posted by jlfspook

Under British and American common law, the only right an owner has against an occupier is kindly asking them to leave. After that, he/she can only use as much force as necessary to expell them from his/her property (i.e., carrying them out).

So, what force does it take for a perhaps-frail 66 year old guy to remove a young, strapping lad from his property? The problem with this law is the same as it's always been: it doesn't take into account physical disparity between homeowner and perp.

Originally Posted by jlfspook

If the owner uses unreasonable force (i.e., punching them in the face), the trespassers have a right of self-defense against the owner.

During that incident in the UK I mentioned earlier where the homeowner was arrested for punching the intruders, while he was down at the police station the rest of the intruders' team broke into his house and trashed everything, forcing his wife and kids to run for their lives.
So, is that a good law? Or is it stupid?
Fact is, governments don't want people to be able to defend themselves - because defending yourself leads to the government being more than a little pointless.

ghporter · Mar 21, 2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by FireWire

No, it wouldn't have been applicable, and would have certainly made people think twice about that law, because people were starting to abuse it, confusing threat with trespassing.

Got any facts to back that up? The old law in Florida basically said that the legitimate homeowner HAD TO RETREAT in the face of an attacker-and crime in Florida got pretty bad. Today, there has been a documented and real serious DROP in crimes committed against homeowners because of this particular law. All it does is put the criminal on notice that he or she cannot expect to walk into a home and chase the occupants out with impunity.

This is a lot like Florida's (and Texas' for that matter) concealed carry laws. A lot of wags said such laws would cause a huge upsurge in shootings and criminal behavior by concealed carry licensees. The opposite occured. Crimes against persons fell sharply in every state that instituted concealed carry, and there have been only a tiny number of crimes committed by licensees. Meanwhile, crimes committed by NON-licensees with concealed weapons have also declined because these bad guys don't know who else around them might LEGALLY have a gun...

Doofy · Mar 21, 2006, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by FireWire

No, it wouldn't have been applicable, and would have certainly made people think twice about that law, because people were starting to abuse it, confusing threat with trespassing.

How does one define where trespass ends and a threat begins?

As the law stands in the UK, if someone is trespassing on my land and they accidentally hurt themselves, I'm liable for a lawsuit from them. Yep, you read that right - if a trespasser trips (in the dark) on an uneven step (for example) on my land and damages themselves, they can sue me. Since losing a lot of money from being sued might result in my not being able to pay for adequate private healthcare for an ill family member (which may result in them dying), that's a threat.

jlfspook · Mar 21, 2006, 09:37 AM

Sorry, I'm not very good at this posting thing, so here goes:

Doofy:
I disagree with the system here, because the system doesn't realise that ownership of property extends far beyond the simple outward appearances - it extends into peace of mind, quality of life, etc., etc.... This assumes that the trespassers aren't damaging the homeowner's quality of life.

Well, that's the law. Any harm done to the property can be collected after the fact, through legal damages.

Doofy:
So, what force does it take for a perhaps-frail 66 year old guy to remove a young, strapping lad from his property? The problem with this law is the same as it's always been: it doesn't take into account physical disparity between homeowner and perp.

Actually, it does take into account the physical handicaps of the owner. The force is always reasonable and proportional, which implies under the law that it's the requisite amount of force that a reasonable person (i.e., a reasonable person who is frail and 66 years old) would use if he were in such a situation.

Doofy:
During that incident in the UK I mentioned earlier where the homeowner was arrested for punching the intruders, while he was down at the police station the rest of the intruders' team broke into his house and trashed everything, forcing his wife and kids to run for their lives.

I agree with you, it is unjust--especially since the intruders are surely judgment proof. There's no way that homeowner will get damages through court action. That's how the cookie crumbles

. It seems that the onus here is on the police. Perhaps charges of negligence against the state?

Doofy:
So, is that a good law? Or is it stupid? Fact is, governments don't want people to be able to defend themselves - because defending yourself leads to the government being more than a little pointless.

You're right. The government wants to limit the use of self-help in these situations. The only time that the government will allow people to use deadly force is when deadly force is in turn used against them. Any other time they want you to call the police. Why? Because we pay taxes in order to have a trained, professional police force.

I'm not saying that it's the best law, but it's been the law (at least in Britain) for over 300 years and in American since it became independent.

FireWire · Mar 21, 2006, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Got any facts to back that up?

Nope. In fact, I was backing you up

I didn't think I had stated anything new! It was my understanding that you could use deadly force in defense to a physical and immediate threat, thus making this particular case unsuitable for protection under that law.

Doofy · 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by jlfspook

Me: well, that's the law. Any harm done to the property can be collected after the fact, through legal damages.

This is incorrect. I have items which are irreplaceable (short of owning a time-machine) and no quantity of "after-the-fact" recompense could replace.

Originally Posted by jlfspook

Perhaps charges of negligence against the state?

That'd be a long, long trial!

Originally Posted by jlfspook

Me: you're right. The government wants to limit the use of self-help in these situations. The only time that the government will allow people to use deadly force is when deadly force is in turn used against them. Any other time they want you to call the police.

Actually... ...the current law in the UK doesn't allow you to use deadly force to defend yourself even against deadly force - they expect you to call the police no matter what. So if you are able to hold on for three days while the police get to you, you'll be fine.

(BTW: Posting and quoting. Click "reply" by the post you want to reply to. You'll see the original post encased with <quote=poster>post</quote> (but with square brackets). Copy and paste those tags to enclose each section of the original post you want to quote. HTH)

ghporter · Mar 21, 2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by FireWire

Nope. In fact, I was backing you up

I didn't think I had stated anything new! It was my understanding that you could use deadly force in defense to a physical and immediate threat, thus making this particular case unsuitable for protection under that law.

Unfortunately it's still possible for a burglar to sue a homeowner for hurting him while he's committing his crime in the homeowner's home. The law has been far too "soft and cushy" in terms of defending one's home up until recently. When the Supreme Court ruled that there is no reasonable expectation that the police will respond to every attack, they basically shot down an argument that citizens shouldn't defend themselves because that's what the police were for, and that is why states are now looking at their statutes for when and where deadly force is warranted.

And yes, this is a sore spot for me.

jlfspook · Mar 21, 2006, 09:57 AM

Aha! Thanks man!

Originally Posted by Doofy

This is incorrect. I have items which are irreplaceable (short of owning a time-machine) and no quantity of "after-the-fact" recompense could replace.

But the law doesn't allow you to make that judgment by/for yourself. That's the issue at hand here, I guess. The law doesn't want people to be able to legislate by themselves. I'm sure you're a reasonable person, but as we can see in this specific case, some people fly off the handle and shoot a child.

Originally Posted by Doofy

That'd be a long, long trial!

Indeed... Keeps us lawyers (or law students for that matter) employed! It's not very satisfactory, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Actually... the current law in the UK doesn't allow you to use deadly for to defend yourself even against deadly force - they expect you to call the police no matter what. So if you are able to hold on for three days while the police get to you, you'll be fine.

At least in America, the law of self-defense hinges on proportionality. You can only use as much force as necessary to stop your attacker. That can range from pushing to shooting them in the face. The law gives people a lot of leeway in perilious situations because we're excited and not necessarily in the clearest of minds when attacked.

As to being responsible for the injuries of intruders... That is a sorry state of affairs. Trespassers should assume the risk of injury when trespassing under the law. Most states haven't collapsed the distinctions, but I know for a fact that both DC and CA have. You can try to defend yourself and you'd probably have a good case since the charge is one of negligence, but it's ridiculous that you should even have to spend money on such a trial. I guess the law is presuming Robber McThief won't sue you... I'd hate to be on the wrong side of that presumption.

It's a pendellum, as ghporter rightly observed... Hopefully it'll swing back in favor of property rights instead of expanding liability rules.

Cody Dawg · Mar 21, 2006, 10:16 AM

Locally, this guy was fined $620 and spends weekends in jail for one year after shooting a teenager in the back for ringing his doorbell.

If that had been my son that guy would be history. No doubt about it. Even if I went to jail forever for it.

torsoboy · Mar 21, 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Locally, this guy was fined $620 and spends weekends in jail for one year after shooting a teenager in the back for ringing his doorbell.

If that had been my son that guy would be history. No doubt about it. Even if I went to jail forever for it.

That is unbelievable!! Wow.

Cody Dawg · Mar 21, 2006, 10:27 AM

Yeah, isn't it?

It's really amazing. Because the person who did the shooting lived in a community of his "peers" who are also old and crazy he gets off.

If he had done this up where I live he'd be toast. I live in a nice neighborhood but everyone here has a Midwestern mentality and blue-collar work ethic and no one would have put up with it.

Doofy · Mar 21, 2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Locally, this guy was fined $620 and spends weekends in jail for one year after shooting a teenager in the back for ringing his doorbell.

If that had been my son that guy would be history. No doubt about it. Even if I went to jail forever for it.

If that had been your son, Cody, he wouldn't have been annoying people by playing knock and run.

Questions remain in this case. How many times did the teenager ring the door bell? Once? A couple of thousand times over the course of a few months?

Now, I don't agree with shooting the dude using lethal ammo (as stated earlier, salt peter in the ass would deter most intruders) but you have to ask if the shooter was at breaking point because of the teens' actions.

wallinbl · Mar 21, 2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Questions remain in this case. How many times did the teenager ring the door bell? Once? A couple of thousand times over the course of a few months?

Now, I don't agree with shooting the dude using lethal ammo (as stated earlier, salt peter in the ass would deter most intruders) but you have to ask if the shooter was at breaking point because of the teens' actions.

No, people are free to be as obnoxious as they want, and you shouldn't be able to do anything about it. Don't you pay attention?

turtle777 · Mar 21, 2006, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by FireWire

Where's what_the_heck and his "He got what he deserved. This punk deserved to die!" comment when we need him?

If the police shot the old guy, yeah, I might have said that

-t

turtle777 · Mar 21, 2006, 11:24 AM

Alright, I know you've been waiting for it

-t

wdlove · Mar 21, 2006, 11:32 AM

A very sad and tragic incident. My prayers go out to the family and friends of the victim.

Monique · Mar 21, 2006, 11:33 AM

There are two different things here. For the first one, that guy is hillbilly, so what kids were walking on his lawn, now it would be different if they were really close to his home and peaking in his windows then it becomes invasive.

And the person who defend herself or himself would not get much hassle against an intruder. Again, it depends is the intruder and intruder or a person that got lost and rang your doorbell.

olePigeon · Mar 21, 2006, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

"Neighbors said Martin lived alone quietly, often sitting in front of his one-story home with its neat lawn, well-trimmed shrubbery and flag pole with U.S. and Navy flags flying. "

Somehow I pictured it before I even read it.

Ditto. I was thinking scruffy retired military, or old bastard with 3 dogs. Either way, it was the sitting on the poarch with the gun yelling out "Get da hell off my lawn!"

drmbb2 · Mar 21, 2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by FireWire

Oops, I tought the two were interchangeable : in Canada, a bill is a law

[Edit: I'm now unsure about that, any English-speaking Canadian to the rescue?

]

No, it wouldn't have been applicable, and would have certainly made people think twice about that law, because people were starting to abuse it, confusing threat with trespassing.

nope - in Canada, a bill is a proposed law. A bill becomes law after Royal Assent (ie. signed by the Gov. General). Even then a law (or statue) may not be in force until a later date specified in the bill.

Not sure how the law in Canada stands now (I've lived in the US for quite a few years now), but an individual could defend themself against force with like force. In other words, the defensive force could not be disproportionate to the offensive force. So, extreme example, someone attacks you with a straw and spitwads, you can't shoot them with a shotgun. But, someone attacks you with a knife, and seems intent on killing you, yes, you could shoot them (assuming you had legal access to a firearm

). See section 34-37 of the Canadian Criminal Code for all the legalize.

I Bent My Wookiee · Mar 21, 2006, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Alright, I know you've been waiting for it

-t

You need to update it so it says "only in Redneck America".

greenamp · Mar 21, 2006, 12:56 PM

Hooray for media hype.
The kid was probably your typical punk and was purposely annoying the old fart. Not that killing him was justified though. He shoulda used rock salt or a high powered paint gun.

turtle777 · Mar 21, 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

You need to update it so it says "only in Redneck America".

I'm shocked. You are defending the non-redneck America ?

-t

greenamp · Mar 21, 2006, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I'm shocked. You are defending the non-redneck America ?

-t

pretty much all of America is redneck America. In some parts they just have better grammar.

I Bent My Wookiee · Mar 21, 2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I'm shocked. You are defending the non-redneck America ?

-t

Of course. A great many of them are fine. It's the rednecks (the same weirdo's on this board) that are the problem.

TETENAL · Mar 21, 2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Locally, this guy was fined $620 and spends weekends in jail for one year after shooting a teenager in the back for ringing his doorbell.

What the kind of sick site is that that you're linking to here?

Cody Dawg · Mar 21, 2006, 01:06 PM

I think I'm a redneck.

(Turns head around to try to see...)

Yep.

I Bent My Wookiee · Mar 21, 2006, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

What the kind of sick site is that that you're linking to here?

Ya it is some flat out "we are racist" site.

turtle777 · Mar 21, 2006, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

Ya it is some flat out "we are racist" site.

Yup.

ERROR
Access Denied by SmartFilter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following error was encountered:

Access Denied by SmartFilter: Forbidden, this page (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4097) is categorized as: Hate Speech.

-t

CMYKid · Mar 22, 2006, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

\The only thing about this that's at all interesting is that Cincinatti must have had a really slow news day for this to make the national wires

it IS news when white people shoot each other in Cincy, as it's invariably t'other way 'round and is onlyincreasing.

thats what happens when you handicap your police department, but thats another thread.

ghporter · Mar 22, 2006, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by CMYKid

it IS news when white people shoot each other in Cincy, as it's invariably t'other way 'round and is onlyincreasing.

thats what happens when you handicap your police department, but thats another thread.

Actually, it's not that uncommon from what I've seen and heard from Cincy and surrounds residents. What's uncommon is for the newspapers there to pick up on the "white guy shoots white guy" incidents. There "less interesting" than what is reported because the local papers can show "their concern for minorities" by reporting how often black people get shot in and around town. Which is bull, of course; they really want the tabloid effect to increase their sales.

It's true that there are less white people than black people involved in shootings in that area, but it's more socioeconomic than racial; even the poorer white folks are typically better off than the really poor black folks.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 22, 2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Was this shooting on his property? Had he warned the kid not to trespass? If so: his property, his rules.

Of course, he should have used salt peter pellets or something else non-lethal, but the principle stands. Otherwise you end up with a situation like the UK... ...where, for example, a guy got arrested for punching two burglars. The moment society deems you can't protect your home in any way you like is the exact moment you essentially lose all your liberty.

You've asserted this point--An individual gets to decide how best to protect their own property--in many different posts but I didn't think you really believed it, bit it seems you do. So, you really believe the "his property, his rules" argument applies here?

Also, do you think this line of reasoning applies to other home-owner concerns like utilities service (water, sewer, gas, etc.) such that a property owner ought to be able to do what they want in regards to these issues without regard for any laws established to regulate them? Just wondering how far you think the "A man's home is his castle" line of reasoning should go?

dcmacdaddy · Mar 22, 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I disagree with the system here, because the system doesn't realise that ownership of property extends far beyond the simple outward appearances - it extends into peace of mind, quality of life, etc., etc..

This assumes that the trespassers aren't damaging the homeowner's quality of life.

You can't "own" peace of mind or quality of life, Doofy. Those values are too variable to allow the government to provide a way to guarantee that right to all its citizens equally. After all, my peace of mind that comes from never mowing my lawn might very well conflict with this guy's peace of mind that comes from having a well-maintained lawn. So your argument is rather specious. To put my argument in a verys implified way, if it can't be quantified, it can't be regulated. For better or worse, our laws are about regulating actions to a normative standard.

Corpse of Chewbacca · Mar 22, 2006, 12:47 PM

Clearly, the answer is to make all lawns illegal. That way this will never occur again.

jamil5454 · Mar 22, 2006, 01:14 PM

I used to play Ring and Run with my friends when I was a kid. One night one neighbor showed up with a bat and german shepherd. I took off to the neighborhood park and hid behind a slide while I watched two patrol cars circle the neighborhood. Thank god I wasn't fat.

Now I only play with a concealed weapon, just in case something like that happens again.

Doofy · Mar 22, 2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

You've asserted this point--An individual gets to decide how best to protect their own property--in many different posts but I didn't think you really believed it, bit it seems you do. So, you really believe the "his property, his rules" argument applies here?

Yep.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Also, do you think this line of reasoning applies to other home-owner concerns like utilities service (water, sewer, gas, etc.) such that a property owner ought to be able to do what they want in regards to these issues without regard for any laws established to regulate them? Just wondering how far you think the "A man's home is his castle" line of reasoning should go?

I believe the laws should be relaxed as far as is possible to allow the homeowner to do whatever he likes on his own property - provided that his activities don't spill out beyond his borders. So, polluting the sewer system is a no-no because it pollutes beyond the man's property. Playing music loudly is a no-no because it leaks beyond the property boundaries. Supply services are under contract from the supplier - the man agrees to have their equipment on his property and if he doesn't like the terms he's free not to have those supplies.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

You can't "own" peace of mind or quality of life, Doofy. Those values are too variable to allow the government to provide a way to guarantee that right to all its citizens equally.

I disagree. Peace of mind can very easily be bought for those with the resources to hire private security to protect their property. But why should only the rich benefit from this peace of mind? Why shouldn't the law be designed so that all people benefit?

If you were to decree "anyone can defend their property in any way they wish and put the heads of trespassers on poles on their front lawn for all to see" tomorrow, I guarantee there'd be no old ladies getting battered by burglars in their own homes anywhere in the US by this time next month.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

After all, my peace of mind that comes from never mowing my lawn might very well conflict with this guy's peace of mind that comes from having a well-maintained lawn.

What you do on your own property is your own business. If you like long grass, go for it. If your neighbour likes short grass, that's his deal. he has no right to tell you to cut your grass any more than you have a right to tell him to let his grow. Your house, your rules.