On 2 Mar 2004 06:16:33 -0800, (Don) wrote:

I've followed this thread with some interest.

I certainly understand the annoyance of having one's property
repeatedly trashed by careless motorists, , but I'm a bit dismayed by
some of the responses. Talk of Claymores, obstacles contrived to
wreak maximum damage, how bad can you hurt the miscreant and hope to
escape lawsuit, etc.

I hope it's all in jest and tongue-in-cheek, expressions of pent-up
frustration with bureaucratic bull**** that dodges such issues as a
matter of political priority. That could indeed make a guy wanna set
a few field-expedient charges if Wal-Mart is outta Claymores last
visit.

I hope that anyone who would employ deadly force or create risk to
life in response to ruts in the grass or damaged shrubbery would be
curbed by the full extent of both criminal and civil law, and I say
that with every bit of the contempt many of us feel for the ways in
which law is abused by civil and criminal defense lawyers and scumbag
scofflaws.

Reasonable response should be commeasurate with threat. Veterans
have fought to preserve that right, liberty, and defense of a civil
structure *we* choose, however faulted it might be in the view of
others.

We've fought and continue to fight for the individual right to meet
deadly threat with deadly force. I'm quite prepared to bear
redecoration cost should we have a nighttime intruder.

If we would tolerate killling or maiming another for damage to a lawn,
we're in deep trouble. Even the idea of creating hazard that would
maximize cost to the errant motorist is offensive, though I certainly
understand the motivation and won't say I'd feel otherwise. It's
still wrong..