Concrete absorbs and crushes when struck. Steel doesn’t. Steel is much stronger than concrete and the bridges you’re selling demonstrate that in the thickness of both types of construction. Concrete beams are much thicker for the same given load.
I’ve posted a video of a heavy gauge steel mailbox being hit with a bat. If that’s indestructible then what is the difference?
And what makes them more dangerous than a well secured el-cheapo mailbox?
People have a legal right to be angry victims of vandalism and to reinforce their property. Calling a stronger mailbox a trap is emotional bullshit. It’s a stronger mailbox. There is no requirement to advertise how well it’s built or attached. In fact, there’s really no way of accomplishing that. You can’t tell how well a mailbox is built when looking at it. Therefore, your claim that you know why someone installed a better mailbox is without any basis beyond not wanting it destroyed.
You’re resorting to emotional diatribes when asked simple questions.
That the angry mailbox-baseball victim deliberately rigged to look like a weaker mailbox, in order to make the anticipated repetition of the attack a substantially more dangerous proposition than it appears to be.
The “emotional bullshit” here is not in pointing out that retaliatory maliciousness. It’s in stubbornly pretending that refusing to admit to that retaliatory maliciousness can somehow make it not exist.
No, it’s not. It’s a reinforced mailbox. You refuse to answer basic questions.
How is it different than the indestructible metal one?
How is ANY mailbox visually stronger or weaker by looking at it?
What makes any mailbox dangerous when hitting it from a moving car. Be specific?
Because they’re merely attempts to distract from the core issue, and I’m not gullible enough to fall for that either.
The core issue is that the angry mailbox-baseball victim is deliberately trying to make hitting his mailbox much more dangerous, and more unexpectedly dangerous.
If nobody gets seriously hurt, and the vandals stop hitting his mailbox, then fine, it worked and he’s in the clear.
If somebody does get seriously hurt, though, and lawsuits happen, a reasonable person can reasonably judge that the angry guy’s retaliatory maliciousness and consequent mailbox-rigging was partly responsible for avoidable harm. Tough luck, angry guy.
I really haven’t seen any evidence in this thread to controvert that idea. After all, even in Texas you’re required by law to be wearing a seat belt if you’re a passenger in a car, even in the back seat. It’s pretty hard to do that with your torso hanging out the window. It seems to me that it would be impossible to perform the act in question with any degree of what could be described as safe behavior by the passenger of a motor vehicle - you’re not even using the legally required safety equipment to travel in it.
If I can poop all over my own previous argument: if the person having a swing was riding in the back of a truck and over Texas’ arbitrary age of 14 for doing so? Oof, serious gray area.
To be honest, I don’t even know “you-know-who” could be at this point. Really, anyone saying they’d be certain that they would know the outcome of a civil trial for a situation like the concrete mailbox-in-a-mailboxes described in this thread are someone I wouldn’t want to have as a lawyer. They’re not thinking about all of the different angles the other side would or could approach from, and I can do that without paying them anything.
I don’t think that the person with the concrete filled, but functional (and obviously dented, but still in service) mailbox cited in this thread is in a great danger of losing a lawsuit over it (of course, unless he’s the type to talk about how he wants to hurt folks). But I would also say that there’s probably a better way than that of accomplishing receiving mail that would look a lot better in a courtroom. It’s a cheap solution, but not the best one.
Even nature says “Do Not Touch”. I can’t take credit for thinking of this cartoon. It was brought up in the 21st post of:
This would actually be more discouraging than having mailboxes that are obviously unwhackable. Because the offenders will simply pass those by in favor of the ones they can hit. If they can’t tell which ones those are, the “game” becomes that much less appealing.
You keep saying this without dealing with the facts. I looked at the PVC pipe in cement picture and it looks like a good low-cost solution because that would rival a heavy gauge mailbox. There’s nothing inherently nefarious in it’s design.
I’ve asked questions that would be brought up in court.
-is it illegal to install property that resists damage?
-are there any specific regulations regarding design?
-is there any way of visually identifying the structural integrity of such a design?
-can the structural integrity of any production versions be visually identified?
-is hitting a mailbox with a bat dangerous?
-does hitting it from a moving car make it more dangerous?
These are not trivial questions and will be brought up in a counter suit before any of it goes before a court.
So far it’s been suggested that hitting a mailbox is safe from a moving vehicle and therefore no personal responsibility exists. And while people acknowledge it’s OK to install a heavy gauge mailbox it’s somehow illegal to make one that rivals it structurally.
The proof it’s safe falls to you. You can start with what happens when you hit the post beam a mailbox sits on. Those are usually solid wood affixed to another piece of solid wood.
Google search of “mailbox baseball injury” yields zero results for injuries as a result of hitting a mailbox with a bat from a car.
Zero.
Can you find one? A single instance of someone being injured hitting a mailbox with a bat from a car, in the entirety of human history.
Find just one and I’ll declare you publicly the winner of this debate, having soundly thrashed me with your superior intellect.
Mailbox
Bat
Car
Injury
Ok, WTF.
I’m on your side here, but I still thought you were being ridiculous and it would be easy to find examples.
Wtf. Why aren’t there any?
Probably because most people who injure themselves during illegal activity conveniently leave that out when they are reporting it.
There are many reports of people dying from hanging out car windows without a baseball bat, though. So, I’m pretty sure adding a bat doesn’t make it any safer.
Yes, but often serious injury leads criminals to getting caught. Apparently not in this case.
Well, they would conveniently already be in the getaway car.
Let’s try it this way. A 16 year old kid is in juvy court for hitting a mailbox. The judge pronounces sentence and says “Deputy, break this boy’s right arm for this offense.”
Well, we would all recoil in horror at such a grossly disproportionate punishment. So, why would we allow a homeowner to inflict the same punishment without trial?
Since this has devolved into the same few people making the same points over and over and over and over again, I think we’re done here.
If anyone has a compelling reason to re-open this, send me a PM.
Thread re-opened by request due to the recent OH Supreme Court ruling on the lawsuit discussed in this thread.
This is also a friendly reminder not to go down the same path that resulted in this thread’s closure the first time around.