# Taking "You kids get off my lawn" a step too far **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 16, 2011, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662 "2011-06-16T04:16:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/101 "2011-06-16T21:39:53Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The problem is not the “slippery slope” _per se_. The problem is that gun control efforts have been made by gun control advocates every single year. Something is taken away, and then that becomes the baseline for something else to be taken away. After the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 gun rights people simply said “enough”, and resistance became reflexive. Not everything that they claim is “reasonable” actually is. [Look at what it takes to get a handgun in Washington, DC](http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-washington-dc/how-to-buy-and-register-a-handgun-the-district-of-columbia-a-survival-guide), for example. I consider that to be grotesquely unreasonable, in both time and money. Anything even remotely resembling that is a nonstarter. But that is “reasonable” gun regulation to some. Thus the disconnect. I agree that these restrictions are unreasonable (and unconstitutional). In my opinion, the presumption should be that any adult is entitled to purchase, own, and carry a firearm with minimal burdens. The government should have to prove any exception that are made on an individual basis with full due process. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/102 "2011-06-16T21:40:55Z")
> [@randomface](#): > > I think the whole concept of “free speech zones” for protesters, the Patriot Act, and the recent and ongoing attempts to regulate the internet should make people a little concerned. And they do. The best method of having both reasonable regulation and protections of rights are for the moderates and pro-rights groups to be politically active and aware enough to put a roadblock on the slippery slope, as it were. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/103 "2011-06-16T21:40:57Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Question: Is it illegal to use “rock salt” shotgun ammo against people? (James Bond reference.) No, Granny Clampett reference. 😃 Another, Non-Huffington, newslink, from a local source. > **[Boy shot during prank recovering in hospital; alleged shooter out on bond](https://www.wave3.com/story/14917662/boy-shot-during-prank-recovering-in-hospital-alleged-shooter-out-on-bond/)** > > A 12-year-old Louisville boy is still in the hospital after police say he was shot by a neighbor while playing a prank. The neighbor, 56-year-old Michael Bishop, is no longer behind bars after posting bond. Family members say Jacob Eberle and a group... ---
**Author:** ![blueskiesfrompain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@blueskiesfrompain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blueskiesfrompain)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/104 "2011-06-16T21:43:58Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > I sentence him to a jail cell without windows but with a door buzzer, directly across from a daycare center in which the children are encouraged to go push the botton over there. > > “Did you push the button today Timmy? You did? Awesome. Here’s an icecream cone!” Preparing the next generation of ding dong ditchers for the next generation of Michael Bishops? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/105 "2011-06-16T22:18:38Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Question: Is it illegal to use “rock salt” shotgun ammo against people? (James Bond reference.) My understanding is that it is as illegal as shooting them with shot. Similarly, purpose-designed less-lethal shells like beanbag rounds are also as illegal as regular lead shot. The idea is that even less-lethal rounds can kill with luck or at sufficiently short range, so there’s no good sense in making them available and risking that people will presume “less-lethal” means “I should shoot at people on my property more often” or “I’m going to shoot my buddy in the ass to be funny”. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/106 "2011-06-17T02:28:02Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > and the test made proper accommodations for people who can’t read, for instance. Who can’t read? ☹ The blind? Toddlers? Mentally retarded people? These people need to be armed? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/107 "2011-06-17T02:32:20Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > Who can’t read? ☹ The blind? Toddlers? Mentally retarded people? These people need to be armed? Amazing how cheap straw must be these days. I don’t see why an adult, otherwise of sound mind and a good citizen, should be denied a Constitutional right merely due to the fact s/he is illiterate. Heck, many states will allow illiterate people to take a drivers test orally (one of the reasons road signs have highly distinctive shapes and colors, and rarely rely on words except for redundancy) and that’s not even a Constitutional right. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/108 "2011-06-17T02:35:59Z")
Believe it or not, there are in fact many adults in the United States who are illiterate or only semi-literate. This doesn’t mean that they are retarded or that they can’t understand concepts, just that they can’t decipher the written language. Some of them were never taught how to read, and others have problems like dyslexia. But it is entirely possible for someone to not know how to read/write and yet still be very capable in other areas of life. If a person like that has a legitimate need for a firearm, whether it’s for self defense or protecting crops or other uses, they should be able to get it. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/109 "2011-06-17T02:41:22Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Believe it or not, there are in fact many adults in the United States who are illiterate or only semi-literate. This doesn’t mean that they are retarded or that they can’t understand concepts, just that they can’t decipher the written language. Some of them were never taught how to read, and others have problems like dyslexia. But it is entirely possible for someone to not know how to read/write and yet still be very capable in other areas of life. > > If a person like that has a legitimate need for a firearm, whether it’s for self defense or protecting crops or other uses, they should be able to get it. Yeah after I posted that I sat back and thought for a bit - there must be subsistence hunters, and others, out there who can’t read. I agree it doesn’t make them stupid or dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/110 "2011-06-17T02:42:45Z")
Nm He saw the error of his ways. ---
**Author:** ![Severian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Severian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Severian)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/111 "2011-06-17T03:38:44Z")
> [@randomface](#): > > Moderate? Yes. Foolish? Also yes. Those restrictions would lead to a virtual ban on firearm ownership within 50 years. Conversely, not passing those restrictions will undoubtedly eventually lead to every American citizen being given a fully automatic assault rifle and a supply of ammunition every July 4th. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/112 "2011-06-17T03:41:34Z")
> [@Severian](#): > > Conversely, not passing those restrictions will undoubtedly eventually lead to every American citizen being given a fully automatic assault rifle and a supply of ammunition every July 4th. I usually insist, when proposing that specific set of regulations, that the bans on fully automatic weapons be repealed as a quid-pro-quo (especially since a legally owned/registered machine gun has been used in crime exactly twice since 1938, if memory serves) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/113 "2011-06-17T04:31:58Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Well, _I’m not suggesting that they aren’t._ They are obviously pushing the viewpoint that guns are useful tools for self defense. And a butter knife is a useful tool for eating buttered toast for breakfast. And an anti-shark cage is a useful tool for studying sharks up close. Obviously, those three applications, and the need to deploy those tools do not come up with the same frequency in the life of the average person. > [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > But that is not the same thing as pushing the idea that “the world is a dangerous place where…ordinary people are constantly under attack from criminals who are laying in wait to do harm in every semi-shady place.” Not the “same,” granted. But neglecting to point out that the relative frequencies of the needs are different (and to what degree they are different) comes pretty close (to the extent that doing so obscures the issue). ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/114 "2011-06-17T04:52:42Z")
Okay, I understand the guy wanted to protect his lawn. Who doesn’t? I assumed that if the kid died he would have removed the body to prevent damage to a big patch of grass. Surely a rotting corpse would be bad for the short term at the least, lawn-care wise. But, what does blood do to a lawn? Would the kid bleeding all over the lawn do more damage than the kid tromping over it? Or was this in fact a brilliant scheme for an especially lush lawn this season? Should I be thinking about wounding children rather than buying fertilizer? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/115 "2011-06-17T05:07:47Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Is what the kids are doing qualify as trespassing? (They run, so they must feel that they are doing something “wrong”…) That turns out to be a surprisingly difficult question. Here’s the relevant law: > [@](#): > > 511.080 Criminal trespass in the third degree. > > (1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises. So the law seems to be saying that it’s illegal to enter a property unlawfully. Which isn’t real helpful. But I also found this: > [@](#): > > 503.080 Protection of property. > > (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent: > (a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or > (b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts. > > (2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is: > (a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or > (b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or > (c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession. > > (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be. So assuming ringing a doorbell could be defined as criminal mischief, Bishop might have been justified in kicking Eberle off his property (although he’d have to argue he was preventing the act rather than just retaliating for it). But shooting Eberle for ringing his doorbell is, not surprisingly, illegal. Eberle was not committing burglary, robbery, arson, a forcible felony, or trying to kick Bishop out of the house. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/116 "2011-06-17T05:27:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That turns out to be a surprisingly difficult question. > > Here’s the relevant law:So the law seems to be saying that it’s illegal to enter a property unlawfully. Which isn’t real helpful. > > But I also found this:So assuming ringing a doorbell could be defined as criminal mischief, Bishop might have been justified in kicking Eberle off his property (although he’d have to argue he was preventing the act rather than just retaliating for it). > > But shooting Eberle for ringing his doorbell is, not surprisingly, illegal. Eberle was not committing burglary, robbery, arson, a forcible felony, or trying to kick Bishop out of the house. Presumably the “entering or remaining” part if trespass is because an owner might invite someone onto the property and then tell them to leave. So, he could have told the kid to get off the lawn, and then kicked him off, but apparently the ass was retreating too fast to be kicked. So, really, the shotgun was like a kind of leg stilt, to increase the range of the “kick”. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/117 "2011-06-17T07:06:23Z")
Wouldn’t landmines in the lawn or a claymore hooked up to the doorbell have been more effective? ---
**Author:** ![Southern\_Yankee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/southern_yankee/32/2800_2.png) [@Southern\_Yankee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Southern_Yankee)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/118 "2011-06-17T11:27:14Z")
Serious question for gun rights supporters: Do you admit that there are irresponsible gun owners, and if so, is it a concern of yours? How do you propose that issue is addressed? I am not a gun owner\*. I’m not anti-gun ownership at all. My problem is with the fringe group of people noted above. It comes down to a question of regulation of some sort vs. some level of danger to innocent people. What’s the compromise? \*Except for a pellet rifle I plink cans with in the backyard. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/119 "2011-06-17T12:04:20Z")
> [@SeaDragonTattoo](#): > > Sheesh. Ding dong ditchers might be annoying, but just showing up with the gun at the door would have been plenty to deter the kids from doing his house again. That too would be a crime in many jurisdictions… though not in Kentucky, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662/120 "2011-06-17T13:00:10Z")
> [@Southern\_Yankee](#): > > Serious question for gun rights supporters: Do you admit that there are irresponsible gun owners, and if so, is it a concern of yours? How do you propose that issue is addressed? > > I am not a gun owner\*. I’m not anti-gun ownership at all. My problem is with the fringe group of people noted above. It comes down to a question of regulation of some sort vs. some level of danger to innocent people. What’s the compromise? > > \*Except for a pellet rifle I plink cans with in the backyard. Of course there are irresponsible, and criminal, gun owners. Numbers don’t lie, and the number of gun deaths we have are entirely too high. It is always a concern of mine. However, the “problem” is that in this country we (theoretically) have a belief that people are innocent until proven guilty. A person simply has to be trusted until he/she demonstrates that he/she cannot be trusted. The alternative is that we start arbitrarily denying rights to people we don’t trust before they ever have the opportunity to do something to convince us that this is so. That leads to a serious philosophical/legal issue: who do we trust? This is not a road that we should go down, in my opinion. Arbitrary discrimination is bad. Do you really want to give Sheriff Cletus T. Redneck the right to decide who can or cannot exercise their rights based on their judgment? I hope not. It’s an imperfect system, though. We have the instant check system, but even that is only a snapshot of what you have done to that point. There’s no guarantee that you won’t snap due to some incredible stress you’ll have to deal with in the future. The police do not have the ability to arrest you because you’re forgetful and you left your gun out. We simply cannot convict people of crimes they have not yet committed unless we let police kick in doors at random, and even then they can’t see into your mind. All we can do is check people out when they buy the weapon, do our due diligence, and trust them to do the right thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn-a-step-too-far/585662.md?page=7)