No I am quite aware of it. But in the story the hooligan dies as a result of a wilfully reckless act by the mailbox owner. The mailbox owner took it upon himself to deal out justice. The law does not allow him to do this, and most certainly does not permit reckless endangerment of life. The mailbox owner was guilty of that even before the attack on the mailbox. You are not allowed to set mantraps. That is the law. The fact that the person trapped was acting illegally does not absolve you of these responsibilities in the law. All this is covered earlier.
The “he started it” argument is fine for two kids squabbling in the playground. It does not work in real life.
See, this is a better approach. Make the mailbox indestructible, but not dangerous.
Apart from the law, I agree with this. If my kid got caught smashing mailboxes, then I would have him out at that property personally digging a new hole and installing a new mailbox he paid for with lawn mowing money. If he didn’t have lawn mowing money, then he would start mowing lawns.
He would be out there a couple more times helping the person with household chores a la Gran Torino. He would be punished by me for doing that, no doubt.
But I fully support what you are saying. It is not a capital crime. The kid, asshole as he was acting, should not be killed or maimed for life for it. At the end of the day, its just a fucking mailbox. Put up some cameras to catch the perps and deal with it in court.
A lot of times, though, stupidity is a capital crime, by the laws of nature rather than the laws of man. Swinging a baseball bat at stationary objects from a moving car is stupid, and sometimes results in death. It can even have this effect when no attempt at all is made by the mailbox-owner with respect to preventing, deterring, or punishing this act. The solution to this is to not swing baseball bats at stationary objects.
Imagine I rigged a large rock above the roadway next to an stoplight intersection in such a way that after the light turns red the rock will fall on anybody who ran the red light.
Running red lights is stupid, and not getting squashed by my rock is simple: don’t run red lights.
I’m just being a good citizen, deterring crime.
Two problems with this “solution.”
One, is that I won’t swing a baseball bat at a mailbox or other immovable object. That doesn’t mean that some stupid teen will not. Is the solution to avoid being shot by your spring gun to not break into houses? Same logic there. You are intentionally increasing the likelihood of serious injury or death.
The other is that you are creating a hazard for people who are not swinging at your mailbox. By putting such an object up that close to the road, you endagner traffic. If someone is coming the other way and crosses the centerline, you may find yourself needing to drive up out of the road a bit to avoid a head on collision. That is in fact what we are taught in defensive driving classes, that hitting a mailbox is preferable to hitting an oncoming car.
Keep in mind that utility poles, trees and such are set back further than your mailbox, which is for necessary purposes, put as close to the road as possible.
But you’ve replaced your mailbox with an impenetrable fortress, so now I suffer much greater damage to my car, or am even killed or maimed, where otherwise, you would have suffered less than $100 worth of damages in a lost mailbox.
But you get the satisfaction of knowing that if any teenagers try to damage your mailbox, they are likely to be maimed or killed as well, so that’s a risk you are willing to take.
Seriously, you can get a cheap mailbox on Amazon for $14. If I was having a problem with my mailbox being destroyed, that’s the route I would go, rather than trying to kill or maim someone.
I really don’t think that it’s the need to protect property that is at work here, but the desire to cause harm to someone that is considered to “deserve it”, while maintaining plausible deniability.
I disagree with this. I’ve never had an issue with this, but I can surely understand the frustration of a homeowner who has had to replace a mailbox a few times. I have things to do (even if that is just drinking beer) that doesn’t include replacing my mailbox every so often because some asshole kids think it is funny.
I think where the disconnect comes in is that the person is not fully thinking through his (and yes, it is a guy, definitely) frustration and the large amount of danger that his concrete solution will cause.
I can understand the frustration enough to think about putting up such an object. But, when it actually comes to doing it, I would think that one would think about the potential consequences, both to a would be vandal, and also to drivers on the road.
In the story of the OP, fictional though it was, the person had thought about the danger, and intentionally ensured that it was as dangerous as possible.
If someone puts up such a mailbox fortress, and in the wee hours of the morning, they hear the sound of a car crash outside their home, there are going to be two reactions. Some will feel horror at the harm that their actions have contributed to, and others will feel satisfaction at having “gotten back” at them.
It shouldn’t take much to imagine the scenario as they put up their mailbox, and decide which one they would be.
I think the point being missed here too is that swinging at a reinforced mailbox from a moving car does not cause death. Instead, the bat bounces back hitting the rear passenger window, maybe the batter gets a badly sprained wrist, etc. Considering this is on the passenger side of the car, such an injury does not affect the driver unless they are startled, so theoretically the driver should not lose control. (and if they doo, they are already past the post so it is not a hazard) This is not a mantrap designed to kill stupid teenagers, it is designed to protect the mailbox and maybe give teenagers a learning experience. Someone deliberately ramming a mailbox should expect significant damage to their car, regardless of its construction. If hitting a mailbox or post at 30mph causes serious bodily harm, I would think the problem lies with the car manufacturer. Someone deliberately ramming an obstacle at higher speeds could expect a lot of problems. There’s a limit to how much stupidity you can plan to accommodate.
As for “ice”, the onus is on the driver to avoid driving beyond conditions. If they hit ice right before the mailbox, odds are the same conditions exist frequently all along the road and the driver should be ready for this.
Not sure what new bumper and possibly new hood and windshield may cost in your neck of the rural delivery woods, but a simple replacement plastic bumper, paint job, remove dent from hood, maybe new headlight assembly, maybe a new radiator - a simple accident (or deliberate) could run probably into $1000 and up.
And there are plenty of obstacles very close to the roadway that are more resistant - fire hydrants, for example. Not sure how much force is needed to knock off a hydrant, but I suspect it’s commensurate with buckling a steel pipe. Take out a hydrant and you likely need the car frame straightened too.
As I understand, in Canada this is the rule rather than the exception - loser pays the winner’s legal costs, within reason. Thus, you need good pockets or a good case to sue, and on the receiving end, it’s an incentive to settle out of court if your case is very weak.
In my neighborhood all the mailboxes are in brick pillars like this: 026e55707d1b1807b598173049cbbf7a.jpg (2048×1393) (pinimg.com)
That would seem to serve the purpose of protecting the mailbox without being a “trap” for dumb teenagers, no one is going to see that and assume it will be wise to swing a baseball bat at it from a moving car.
Are the bases solid or hollow?
I’m not sure to be honest, I wasn’t around when they were built. My presumption is they were built akin to how this shows one building them: How to Make a Brick Mailbox (with Pictures) - wikiHow
Neither does opening a door that is rigged with a spring gun.
Maybe worse.
Considering that we are talking about teens here, with limited driving experience, such an incident could well be fairly startling.
Yeah, that’s not your job. That’s called vigilantism. If the intent is to give them a “learning experience”, then the intent is to cause harm.
Where did that even come up?
There are rural roads around here that have 55 MPH speed limits. They are two lane roads that go on for miles and miles. They have mailboxes on the sides of them.
You think that the blame lies with a car manufacturer if hitting an immovable object at 55 mph causes serious bodily harm?
Ah, and in this case, a mailbox like this would teach a driver who makes a mistake in judging road conditions a lesson?
Also teach someone a lesson who veers off the road a bit to avoid an oncoming driver that has crossed the centerline, right?
And up, yeah. And medical costs can be much greater.
As I said, those are set back further than mailboxes are. Mailboxes are right on the side of the road, as close as possible.
It doesn’t take much, they are actually designed to break away.
So yeah, hitting a fire hydrant isn’t going to cause nearly as much damage as hitting your concrete bunker mailbox. It’s like the people who put fire hydrants in were concerned about safety. Not teaching drivers a “lesson”.
I can see that in a case where a suit is considered to be frivolous, but in many cases, perfectly legitimate complaints end up losing. All having the loser have to pay the winner’s costs in all cases means is that those with deep pockets have an advantage over those with less means.
Last I saw this was the plot from a fictional TV show. The actual mechanism of death, or even if it was a mailbox is immaterial. The entire point is recklessness with an intent to injure. The TV writers could have gone with a rigged shotgun in an empty house, or a pit filled with vipers, maybe poisoned apples on a tree in their yard to teach kids that stole the fruit a lesson. It doesn’t matter.
Nobody has the right to enforce extra-judicial punishment, and reckless endangerment is a crime even if nobody gets hurt.
If you behave like a dick, and your actions are not judged as reasonable by a jury of your peers, you are in a world of hurt. No amount of handwaving gets you out of this.
While your link shows specifications and limitations to mailboxes it does not prevent the mounting of a heavy gauge steel mailbox.
If someone gets hurt trying to damage a mailbox it is because they are engaging in an activity that has no practical safety parameters associated with it. It’s a dangerous act to begin with.
It’s not a function of “they deserved what they got”. It’s the consequences of a committing a dangerous act.
Read it again, it most certainly does.
cite the approved mailbox gauge.
God you’re lazy.
Sec. 102.03. - Support structure.
Every mailbox permitted within the village right-of-way shall be mounted either on a wooden post no smaller than four inches by four inches and no larger than six inches by six inches or on a light gauge hollow pipe no smaller than one and one-half inches in diameter and no larger than three inches in diameter.
Try reading what I posted and answer the question instead of insulting me.
Yes, but that is a mild crime. You do not have the right to set a trap.
You can protect your property. You do not have to leave your back door and gate unlocked so the teens can walk in and have fun. You can reinforce your mailbox- as long as it still functions as a mailbox- but you can not turn it into a trap.