# The legality of deterring mailbox baseball **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 22, 2011, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646 "2011-08-22T12:24:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/561 "2021-09-05T18:18:39Z")
And at the end of the day, in my car buying scenario, it’s still a legally purchased car. And yet intent can be taken into account by the law, and you could be held liable for your own actions which were intended to lead to harm and did so. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/562 "2021-09-05T18:18:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Are you seriously arguing that no lawyer would take that case, or no judge would allow it to proceed? Because that sounds crazy. Anything’s possible. But the person driving the car and the person swinging the bat will be charged with endangerment. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/563 "2021-09-05T18:19:13Z")
So what? This doesn’t take away your personal liability for your own actions. However at this point, I’ll rest my case. We can pack it up, boys! Magiver has admitted that a lawsuit might possibly proceed, and the plaintiff might possibly win, if someone gets hurt in this mailbox scenario. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/564 "2021-09-05T18:19:47Z")
Yes, it does. As long as it’s a legal mailbox. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/565 "2021-09-05T18:26:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > However at this point, I’ll rest my case. We can pack it up, boys! Magiver has admitted that a lawsuit might possibly proceed, and the plaintiff might possibly win, if someone gets hurt in this mailbox scenario. Sarcasm is lost on you. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2021, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/566 "2021-09-05T20:21:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Imagine you pour concrete in your mailbox. And you email your neighbor telling them that you’re doing this because you want the mailbox baseball kid to have his arm broken. And then the kid hits your box and breaks his arm. Are you really arguing that there’s no chance you could face legal liability for this? How many times do people in this thread have to say we agree with this strawman you and ultravries are creating. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/567 "2021-09-06T05:36:22Z")
Then I have misunderstood. How is it a strawman? I thought the argument was that some little bastard kids have been destroying my mailbox, and several times. So I’ll show them. I’ll fill one up with concrete each night. I do. They hit it, and get hurt beyond what they would have if they hit my regular mailbox. What was you real argument I strawmanned against? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/568 "2021-09-06T11:13:45Z")
I’m going to list a few of the situations that have been described, as we seem to mix situations a bit freely: Homeowner has replaced his destroyed mailbox with: 1. A strong mailbox that will resist damage from being hit 2. A strong mailbox that is disguised as a fragile mailbox 3. An inert object that appears to be a mailbox but is actually solid concrete Noting here that for #1, the purpose is to eliminate damage from vandals, and #2-3 the purpose of the new installation’s design is to shock or harm vandals when they attack your mailbox. I believe that everyone so far has argued #1 is perfectly fine. #3, I would say suffers from the fact that if the object isn’t a functional mailbox, it doesn’t need to be there at all and the purpose of putting it roadside is to induce harm. #2 is the grayest of the gray areas, it’s designed to teach the bastards a lesson, but is technically a perfectly legal choice. ---
**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:** [September 6, 2021, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/569 "2021-09-06T12:28:13Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What was you real argument I strawmanned against? Are you serious?! We’ve said it over and over. A reinforced **functional** mailbox that resists vandalism is not a trap. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/570 "2021-09-06T13:02:09Z")
Depends on the intent (and result). If you announce and email your neighbor “I’m strengthening my mailbox because I want the kid down the street to break his arm”, and then that kid breaks his arm hitting your mailbox, then the parents might well have a good lawsuit against you. ---
**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:** [September 6, 2021, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/571 "2021-09-06T14:18:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If you announce and email your neighbor “I’m strengthening my mailbox because I want the kid down the street to break his arm”, and then that kid breaks his arm hitting your mailbox, then the parents might well have a good lawsuit against you. Again another strawman. No one here except you and ultravries has brought up people **admitting** they hope the vandal gets injured. Guess these continual stuffymans means you and ultravries now agree that a functional mailbox reinforced to resist vandalism and only intended to not be damaged is perfectly legal and not a trap. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/572 "2021-09-06T14:30:16Z")
It might be, it might not be. Depends on the circumstances. But I’m glad to see we all appear to agree - if someone has the intent to cause harm, and modifies their mailbox for this intent, and then that harm occurs, they may be held liable for their actions if this intent can be proven. Great discussion! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/573 "2021-09-06T14:44:25Z")
Amazing that this is still going on. By the way, the USPS has guidelines for mailbox construction and installation, including this: "### Installing the Mailbox Post The best mailbox supports are stable but bend or fall away if a car hits them. The Federal Highway Administration recommends: - A 4″ x 4″ wooden support or a 2″-diameter standard steel or aluminum pipe. - Avoid unyielding and potentially dangerous supports, like heavy metal pipes, concrete posts, and farm equipment (e.g., milk cans filled with concrete). - Bury your post no more than 24″ deep." > **[How to Install a Mailbox | USPS](https://www.usps.com/manage/mailboxes.htm)** > > Follow Postal Service regulations to buy, make, and set up a mailbox so you don't have any interruption in mail service. It’s doubtful one could be charged with a legal violation for a non-conforming mailbox (at least, by a federal marshal), but not inconceivable that a mailbox not meeting guidelines could be fodder for a plaintiff’s attorney. ---
**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:** [September 6, 2021, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/574 "2021-09-06T14:47:12Z")
And would you like to address the real point of this thread? That is that reinforcing your FUNCTIONAL mailbox intended it to avoid being destroyed is in fact not a trap. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/575 "2021-09-06T14:48:28Z")
If there’s no intention of harm at all, then that sounds reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/576 "2021-09-06T15:16:57Z")
It wouldn’t pass any kind of logic test. Based on your logic the homeowner could install an exact copy of everything destroyed with the intention of harming the vandals knowing that eventually the dangerous act of mailbox baseball will end badly. The court will look at who is responsible for the injury of someone hitting a legal mailbox and THAT is the person or persons who will get prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/577 "2021-09-06T15:17:17Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > No one here except you and ultravries has brought up people **admitting** they hope the vandal gets injured. The admission is just an evidentiary point. As I said earlier, the evidence will tell the tale. Maybe a person gets away with an intention to injure. Maybe a person who didn’t intend to injure is wrongly thought to have set the trap. But nothing requires a full admission, it is the intent to harm, and the specific mailbox setup, one needlessly strong for its purpose, is evidence of intent. ---
**Author:** ![mjmartin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3d9bf3/32.png) [@mjmartin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmartin)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/578 "2021-09-06T15:20:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If there’s no intention of harm at all, Let’s say your are the deciding juror, and there has been evidence that John Doe put up a really solid, but functional mailbox. On the stand he testified: “I had lost 3 mailboxes in the past year. I wanted to put up something I wouldn’t have to replace again. I didn’t care much if anyone that hits it with a bat gets hurt. If they are going to be jerks, that’s on them. It’s too bad the little shit broke both arms, but it’s not keeping me up at night.” Would you access liability to him? If its a comparative liability state, what percentage of liability goes to John Doe and what to the little shit? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/579 "2021-09-06T15:24:08Z")
That would be one piece of evidence that looks poorly on the homeowner. But as a properly instructed juror, I would look at all of the other evidence to see if he set a trap. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646/580 "2021-09-06T15:46:40Z")
In a criminal trial Not Guilty. In a civil trial Liable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-deterring-mailbox-baseball/593646.md?page=30)