Yes, but it is NOT a mailbox. It has no mailbox function, it cannot hold mail. It is a block of concrete. A block of concrete made into an attractive target by fashioning it to look like a mailbox, and placing it on a mailbox post.
No, it is not a lure, it’s a mailbox.
Q: Why did you put that object (indestructible mailbox) on your mailbox post?
A: Because I wish to receive mail. My old mailbox had been destroyed multiple times, making it hard to get mail, so I bought one that would no longer be destroyed.
Q: Why did you put that object (block of concrete disguised as a mailbox) on your mailbox post?
A: (Is there an answer that does not involve some baseball bat wielding punk whacking it?)
Near my grandmother’s house is a very old, rather rich neighborhood, where ALL the mailboxes are set into those brick pillar-box-miniature guardhouse things. Close by was much more rural area, with lots of ponds, and a very large lake. (It’s all gone gentrified now.)
When my mother was in high school, apparently one night it got decided that dynamiting those particular mailboxes would be a lovely idea, and most of them were in rubble by morning. According to my mom, no one ever got charged for it.
I have a hard time imagining something like that happening today, with all the bomb and terrorist worry that we have now. A kid doing that now would likely end up jailed for the forseeable future.
Another angle: I think there are Post Office rules about approved mailboxes, and violation of those might be a federal offense. Probably any of the modified boxes in this thread would fall afoul of that, though I can’t see them prosecuting for the functional ones.
I’d have to see the rules, but I was under the impression that as long as the opening was at the correct height and setback from the curb, you’re in the clear. I didn’t think the USPS particularly cared what the supporting structure looked like that kept the opening at the proper place.
Here’s the most vague thing I’ve ever read that basically says that as long as the postmaster okay’s it, you’re good to go…I’m pretty sure there’s more to it then that.
Because in these cases, the consequences are wildly disproportional to the trespass. Do you really think that serious bodily harm or death is a fair consequence of minor vandalism?
I would hope that property owners who are plotting to kill people for mailbox damage would get little sympathy. Wouldn’t you?
Furthermore, I don’t believe in any kind of extrajudicial punishment or vigilante retribution. That’s what makes us a civilized society.
I’ve got a better idea. I’m going to invent a mailbox that’s designed so when someone hit’s it, it’ll automatically charge $300 to their credit card. That should cover a new box, the labor and parts to install it, plus be a nice deterrent…and as a bonus, no one gets physically injured.
Well, you’re not killing or maiming anyone. That’s a start. But I wonder why you posted this as a response specifically to my comments. Are you being sarcastic?
Right, in the hypothetical “lure” example, it’s a question of intent. But nobody actually does that, right? People build super-sturdy mailboxes in order to receive mail and not worry about their box being bashed in or knocked over. My brother and I did that at the family place. We’ve found broken car parts around it a couple times (the mailbox was scratched). I presume that nobody has actually been killed hitting it, but if they were to be, it sure wouldn’t be our fault.
The rules govern the construction, dimensions and placement (relative to the roadway) of the box, not the structure surrounding and supporting it.
But he’s not going to hit the mailbox hard enough to injure himself unless he hits the mailbox hard enough to injure himself.
ISTM that what the critical issue is, who supplied the injurious force? If I set up a man trap that employed electricty or gunpowder or gravity to cause injury, I’m responnsible for placing a hazardous force near the public. But a passive concrete-filled mailbox projects no force. All the force in this situation was supplied by the vandal. He simply made a mistaken assumption as to how much of his own force would be reflected back onto himself.
For a vandal to injure himself very strongly, he’d have to have struck a very strong blow with very strong destructive intent and thus only increases his own liability.
One resident down the street of Mt. Vernon High School (Virginia) had made a mailbox out of industrial heat-sink material (1/2" thick, with fins all over). Theirs was the only box within a mile on that road that had no baseball bat damage. :D:D
The law isn’t going to let you dick around with these semantic games. The fact of the matter is that the mailbox owner knows that it’s likely that someone is going to hit that mailbox and is replacing the mailbox precisely for that reason. Serious bodily injury is reasonably foreseeable in this situation.
Fucking around with disingenuous bullshit like “For all I knew, no one would ever hit my mailbox again” or “For all I knew from this day forward only garden gnomes with weak upper body strength would hit my mailbox with leeks” isn’t going to help you. The fact is that you are doing it with the knowledge that someone is going to hit it hard enough to try to knock it down. That means you intend the consequences, the same as if you had done it with your own hands.
No, that’s not the critical issue. The critical issue is your knowledge and your intent.
Acsenray, it sounds like you are suggesting that someone who replaces a flimsy mailbox with a strong functional one–intended to survive impacts, so that it may continue serving as a receptacle for mail–is also liable for a vandal, or bad driver, hurting himself on it?
That’s not what happened in the CSI episode referenced by the OP. The guy went out each night and replaced his real mailbox with a dummy, which has no such function.
And to the extent that the strengthening of the mailbox is evident to a viewer, then I see no problem.
However, the more you get to the line that it looks like you’re taking steps to disguise the mailbox, thereby inviting misperception, that’s where you start to lose firm ground.
I’d think that the replacing bit is the key point. As the prosecutor, I’d suggest that if he were willing to take the real box in every night, there was no purpose, beyond an attempt to injure someone, in putting the dummy in place.
Ascenray, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. The kids are trespassing. Assuming they’re not actually minors, the homeowner owes no duty to them, does he?
That’s not universally true. For example, property owners have a duty with respect to “attractive hazards.”
But the issue of a duty of care is relevant to negligence law. In this case, we’re talking about an intentional act, so the existence of a duty of care is not relevant.
If you engage in a voluntary, intentional act (putting a fake mailbox in front of your house) with the knowledge that it’s likely that someone’s going to try to hit it (the fact that it’s happened repeatedly before and the fact that it’s the very reason you’re doing it establish that) and it is reasonably foreseeable that that person is going to suffer serious bodily injury, then you’re potentially liable.
The fact that those people happen to be trespassers or vandals doesn’t get you off automatically. You can’t take a series of steps that are virtually guaranteed to cause someone harm and pretend that you didn’t intend for that harm to happen. It’s no different than a man trap. You can’t set up a booby trap that seriously harms or kills someone just because they’re trespassing.
