And for the record, police calls do not generally work for noise violations for several reasons:
If a law can't be enforced, or isn't enforced, it effectively does not, and should not, exist.
Also, if Hungry Joe were targeting only the kids being a nuisance only after they had been a nuisance, there would be no problem. The problem is that such a machine targets all people with good hearing, and it reaches onto public property. It doesn't have some magical ability to only bother the kids who are vandalizing you, and not the other innocents. If there's a mugger on the street, we can justify beating them up. We can't justify dropping a bomb on the neighborhood. Even if there are 100 kids, and 99 of them are bad, I would still say it is wrong. Better that infinity guilty men go free than one innocent suffer, and all that.
Actually, Quiet enjoyment of our own house IS a right. It's covered in Trespass law, as Joe linked above.
"If the kids were vandalizing you, and you didn't retaliate, we would be giving you sympathy. Because you choose to retaliate against them, you are no better than they are, and that is why you are meeting so much opposition here. Because you are retaliating we see you in the same light you see the annoying kids. As soon as you start to fight back, you give up your victim status." - Apreche
I think this is bull. Saying you shouldn't fight back when someone or something goes up against you is a pretty bogus argument for anything. It's the METHOD of retaliation that is important...whether you use violence or logic or some other method. If you suggest that he call the police, then you cannot use the argument that it is inherently bad to retaliate. That is yet another method of retaliation. It seems to me that what you have a problem with is the method.
And for the record, police calls do not generally work for noise violations for several reasons:
If a law can't be enforced, or isn't enforced, it effectively does not, and should not, exist.
Completely and utterly true. The underlying problem here is that there are way more inconsiderate people than there are officers to enforce the laws that we have in place to protect people's rights on their own private property. The government is broken, so we often have two choices; fix it ourselves, or don't fix it. Some people choose the first, some people the second. I am not going to criticize either choice as long as they are reasonable about it.
Ideally, the fact that the noise could extend onto public property would render it bad. However, I don't believe we live in an ideal world. In this case, I am inclined to say that the damage it would cause to innocent bystanders would be insignificant. In short, it is what I would deem an acceptable loss. Of course, I also acknowledge that I am often a cold-hearted analytical bitch.
If these punk kids are as prone to threats and violence as you seem to believe, annoying them will only encourage them to retaliate more.
Fuck that, should he let them kill their dogs? Damage their property? Calling the cops is not going to do any good at all. Why do you think these kids are like this, one little sign of problem and their mommy and daddy is going to be right there to bail them, and threatening to sue you.
I'm with you on this Joe, it it s a fucking pain in the ass when you cannot live in peace because of your neighbors. It is your own goddamn house, if you can mod the device into a concentrated noise gun, do it.
Each incident is separate. Past incidents do not justify pre-emptive action in the future. If you act pre-emptively, then further incidents could be interpreted as the kids retaliating against Joe. In each and every separate incident, you must act reactively, not pro-actively.
As long as the retaliation is only against people who are actively and presently vandalizing, trespassing, etc., and as long as it is reactive, and not pro-active, then I can let it slide.
Calling the police, and forcing them to handle it, is still preferable to vigilantism.
Property law is as it is partly because that's an extremely onerous proposition with far-reaching consequences. You can't "just move" with any speed, and there are usually economic disincentives to doing so.
[Quite enjoyment] shouldn't be [a right].
So I can park a semi on the street outside your house, goatse painted on the side, blaring extremely loud triangle waves 24/7?
You wouldn't react pre-emptively? So if the last time you front door got smeared in dog crap, you would install a movement-sensing alarm?
Also you are assuming that this thing works far better that it probably does, even if it has a range of 60 feet, There is noise interference and I highly doubt that it will barely get out his front lawn.
We did move. In fact, those kids were one of the reasons we moved. We still have that house, though. We have tried very hard to sell it, but so far we've not had any luck. Since we still have it, we use it whenever we go back to Louisville to visit, which is about once every two months now. So that's another thing - if this machine works, the kids are only going to be inconvenienced once every sixty days or so. The horror!
[Quite enjoyment] shouldn't be [a right].
So I can park a semi on the street outside your house, goatse painted on the side, blaring extremely loud triangle waves 24/7?
Aparrently, if you're a teenager and you're having fun you can do anything you damn well please.
So I can park a semi on the street outside your house, goatse painted on the side, blaring extremely loud triangle waves 24/7?
The goatse is fine, and the semi is fine. The triangle waves become assault at some point. It's all about where you draw the line in terms of decibels.
As for installing an alarm, that's fine. It might be pre-emptive, but it's not pre-emptive retaliation. There is a difference between a motion sensor that tells you someone is coming, and a motion sensor that controls a sentry gun.
The triangle waves become assault at some point. It's all about where you draw the line in terms of decibels.
As for installing an alarm, that's fine. It might be pre-emptive, but it's not pre-emptive retaliation. There is a difference between a motion sensor that tells you someone is coming, and a motion sensor that controls a sentry gun.
Assault is an act that places you in imminent apprehension of physical contact. Sound alone isn't assault.
This is a machine that makes an annoying sound. It's not a sentry gun.
Assault is an act that places you in imminent apprehension of physical contact. Sound alone isn't assault.
Again, I'm not talking about what is legal, but what is right. Sound can cause physical damage if powerful enough. Sound below a certain number of decibels is ok. Above a certain number is not ok.
Heh heh. I believe the term is "unwanted touching." I wonder if an argument could be made about the physical impact of the sound waves on your eardrums?
Assault is an act that places you in imminent apprehension of physical contact. Sound alone isn't assault.
Again, I'm not talking about what is legal, but what is right. Sound can cause physical damage if powerful enough. Sound below a certain number of decibels is ok. Above a certain number is not ok.
So the argument is about what is right. So Joe can’t really use law enforcement to handle the situation for various reasons. He does not seem to be imposing enough to threaten the kids to stop. He appears to have no other tools at his disposal to stop a group of people from infringing on his rights. (Once again under the assumption that the kids are making a lot of noise not just standing outside talking. Like you often word your arguments to make it sound like) So what is the right thing to do. It seems that the only right thing to do is for Joe to leave his property. The right thing to do is to be driven of your land due to the fact that someone else is imposing on your rights?
Assault is an act that places you in imminent apprehension of physical contact. Sound alone isn't assault.
Again, I'm not talking about what is legal, but what is right. Sound can cause physical damage if powerful enough. Sound below a certain number of decibels is ok. Above a certain number is not ok.
So the argument is about what is right. So Joe can’t really use law enforcement to handle the situation for various reasons. He does not seem to be imposing enough to threaten the kids to stop. He appears to have no other tools at his disposal to stop a group of people from infringing on his rights. once again under the assumption that the kids are making a lot of noise not just standing outside talking. Like you often word your arguments to make it sound like) So what is the right thing to do. It seems that the only right thing to do is for Joe to leave his property. The right thing to do is to be driven of your land due to the fact that someone else is imposing on your rights?
That's what it sounds like. The teenager's rights are a lot more important than mine.
Someone who was more virtuous than any of us, like maybe Ghandi, would just ignore the kids and take the hits with no desire for revenge or retaliation. The closer you can get to that ideal, the better.
Have you considered purchasing a used police vehicle and parking it in the driveway? If the teens see something that looks like an unmarked car they may decide to go elsewhere.
What happens at the house when you are not there? Does a neighbor or family member check the house every few days?
Have you considered purchasing a used police vehicle and parking it in the driveway? If the teens see something that looks like an unmarked car they may decide to go elsewhere.
Someone who was more virtuous than any of us, like maybe Ghandi, would just ignore the kids and take the hits with no desire for revenge or retaliation. The closer you can get to that ideal, the better.
Still there are limits. Like say if they really do kill his dogs. Fuck Ghandi! Time to fight!
Anyway on this whole thing (long read BTW) I'm on the side of do it as long as you don't go into public territory. Seeing at it is and will cause a nuisance then drop it. At the same time since there are so few ways to deal with rowdy teens that affective that is still inside the law. Is there any solution beside the sound device to take?
Still 12,000 dollars. No way. I'd stay somewhere else.
Hang on. Aren't you torturing your own dogs (the ones the kids threatened) by installing this thing?
We would never do that. The device will be outside. Our dogs are always inside. Also, the device is not on all the time. I believe that it has a twenty minute timer.
Hang on. Aren't you torturing your own dogs (the ones the kids threatened) by installing this thing?
We would never do that. The device will be outside. Our dogs are always inside. Also, the device is not on all the time. I believe that it has a twenty minute timer.
Have you considered connecting it to a motion sensor?
Comments
Also, if Hungry Joe were targeting only the kids being a nuisance only after they had been a nuisance, there would be no problem. The problem is that such a machine targets all people with good hearing, and it reaches onto public property. It doesn't have some magical ability to only bother the kids who are vandalizing you, and not the other innocents. If there's a mugger on the street, we can justify beating them up. We can't justify dropping a bomb on the neighborhood. Even if there are 100 kids, and 99 of them are bad, I would still say it is wrong. Better that infinity guilty men go free than one innocent suffer, and all that.
Actually, Quiet enjoyment of our own house IS a right. It's covered in Trespass law, as Joe linked above.
"If the kids were vandalizing you, and you didn't retaliate, we would be giving you sympathy. Because you choose to retaliate against them, you are no better than they are, and that is why you are meeting so much opposition here. Because you are retaliating we see you in the same light you see the annoying kids. As soon as you start to fight back, you give up your victim status." - Apreche
I think this is bull. Saying you shouldn't fight back when someone or something goes up against you is a pretty bogus argument for anything. It's the METHOD of retaliation that is important...whether you use violence or logic or some other method. If you suggest that he call the police, then you cannot use the argument that it is inherently bad to retaliate. That is yet another method of retaliation. It seems to me that what you have a problem with is the method.
Ideally, the fact that the noise could extend onto public property would render it bad. However, I don't believe we live in an ideal world. In this case, I am inclined to say that the damage it would cause to innocent bystanders would be insignificant. In short, it is what I would deem an acceptable loss. Of course, I also acknowledge that I am often a cold-hearted analytical bitch.
I'm with you on this Joe, it it s a fucking pain in the ass when you cannot live in peace because of your neighbors. It is your own goddamn house, if you can mod the device into a concentrated noise gun, do it.
As long as the retaliation is only against people who are actively and presently vandalizing, trespassing, etc., and as long as it is reactive, and not pro-active, then I can let it slide.
Calling the police, and forcing them to handle it, is still preferable to vigilantism.
Also you are assuming that this thing works far better that it probably does, even if it has a range of 60 feet, There is noise interference and I highly doubt that it will barely get out his front lawn.
As for installing an alarm, that's fine. It might be pre-emptive, but it's not pre-emptive retaliation. There is a difference between a motion sensor that tells you someone is coming, and a motion sensor that controls a sentry gun.
This is a machine that makes an annoying sound. It's not a sentry gun.
What happens at the house when you are not there? Does a neighbor or family member check the house every few days?
Anyway on this whole thing (long read BTW) I'm on the side of do it as long as you don't go into public territory. Seeing at it is and will cause a nuisance then drop it. At the same time since there are so few ways to deal with rowdy teens that affective that is still inside the law. Is there any solution beside the sound device to take?
Still 12,000 dollars. No way. I'd stay somewhere else.