From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman  wrote, quoting me:   
      
   >>>>But the parents are suing the homeowner who erected the wire the   
   >>>>boy got caught on, a wire that was not blocking the pavement. And   
   >>>>they are doing it selflessly so no one else ever again erects a   
   >>>>hazard in a place that one is not allowed to drive.   
      
   >>>It's a little more complicated than "You aren't allowed to drive   
   >>>here, so I can set a trap to kill or maim anyone who tries." That's   
   >>>not actually a thing that's allowed, legally, in the U.S. (or   
   >>>probably anywhere).   
      
   >>[...]   
      
   >>You just described a crime of intent that could have been charged as   
   >>depraved indifferent homicide, possibly first or second degree   
   >>murder, depending on the state criminal code.   
      
   >>THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.   
      
   >I said it was *more complicated* than the formulation I posed. I'm not   
   >condescending to you, or at least not intentionally; I was giving my   
   >opinion of the situation. My professional opinion, if that makes a   
   >difference. (But I'm hedging, as I don't know all of the facts.)   
      
   A cable wire was strung between a fence post and a bollard. You are   
   acting like I'm too stupid to understand the difference between a   
   hazard, which it could be argued that the wire was, and a trap that was   
   set to kill or maim.   
      
   >The homeowner *may* have committed a crime -- though probably not   
   >rising to the level of homicide -- depending on circumstances that I   
   >don't know. But you can't just go around setting "man-traps."   
      
   And you said it again.   
      
   >>[snip description of circumstances]   
      
   >The totality of the circumstances here isn't especially illuminated by   
   >the additional facts you adduced. Not that it matters.   
      
   It's fascinating that facts don't matter to you. Since facts don't   
   matter, you felt free to make shit up and assign criminal intent to the   
   homeowner.   
      
   >I'd have to study the actual record of facts before coming to a real, final   
   >conclusion about the legality of that situation.   
      
   No shit, Sherlock. Feel free to make a comment on the record as opposed   
   to a comment in which you've contributed bullshit.   
      
   >Intent matters, but it also isn't the final word, either for criminality   
   >or civil liability.   
      
   And yet you felt free to impugn the homeowner's motive so bad that you   
   accused the homeowner of a criminal act using lots of weasel words so   
   you can't be accused of libel.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)