wrote in message
...
sit ouside and wait for them , get some pics or catch em and call police
or take them to their parents..... big dog might work.

But then, you'd have a much worse problem: A dog.

I notice there are quite a few responses here to the question of "Teenagers
pulling pranks".

Seems to be a lot of "first hand" knowledge here about this topic! Note that
I was a "perfect" angel and never would have done such a thing :-)

wrote in :


Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY

What does this have to do with someone toilet papering a house?

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME (emphasis added);

Shooting someone toilet papering is not protected. It's murder or
attempted murder.


"murder" is the WRONGFUL killing of a person.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in :


Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY

What does this have to do with someone toilet papering a house?

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME (emphasis added);

Shooting someone toilet papering is not protected. It's murder or
attempted murder.

suppose they are just spray-painting your garage door with KKK garbage?
(and you happen to be black)

Or maybe torching a cross in your yard?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

nick hull wrote in
:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Warning: If you kill the goblin, the cops will sequester your weapon
until their investigation completes. We had a 70-year old fellow in
Dallas last week who had to buy a THIRD goddamn shotgun because the
cops keep confiscating his weapon every time he kills a burglar!

Least the cops could do is provide a "loaner." It's not like they
don't HAVE any shotguns! Bah.

The cops should provide a 'loaner' for anything they take before you
are convicted; guns, cars, money, etc. You keep the loaner until they
convict you or return your goods. Too often the cops confiscate your
bank account so you can't get a lawyer to fight for your rights.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/


IMO,any time a person gets a restraining order against another person,they
should be able to get a "loaner" handgun from the police,maybe from the
confiscated guns they melt down or toss in the ocean.
(along with a temporary carry permit and the usual training.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Phisherman wrote:
This week school's out and houses in my neighborhood are getting
toilet papered. Originally, I thought these houses had someone in
school sports or the house has a coach, but this is not the case. I
guess toilet papering a house is not vandalism, but certainly can be
classified as littering (a $50 fine, max). At one house they
spray-painted "Ha Ha " on their concrete driveway. What can be
done? What can one do to prevent their house/trees to be toilet
papered?

Wow. TP'ing trees is one thing but graffiti is quite another. Your
local gendarme needs to be patrolling more. You and your neighbors may
want to 'talk' to the authorities. Or patrol it yourself for a time.
This kind of thing rarely goes on for long, especially once the brats
know they're being watched.

On 24 Oct 2007 14:42:43 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

wrote in :


Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY

What does this have to do with someone toilet papering a house?

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME (emphasis added);

Shooting someone toilet papering is not protected. It's murder or
attempted murder.


"murder" is the WRONGFUL killing of a person.

And, apparently, not when the government does it. That makes the word
"murder" less meaningful than it should be.
--
62 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:29:52 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 24 Oct 2007 14:42:43 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

wrote in :


Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY

What does this have to do with someone toilet papering a house?

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME (emphasis added);

Shooting someone toilet papering is not protected. It's murder or
attempted murder.


"murder" is the WRONGFUL killing of a person.

And, apparently, not when the government does it. That makes the word
"murder" less meaningful than it should be.

Courts have ruled; for an Agency not to "terminate" the employee, but
to only "remove them from their position".

Terminate - was to harsh. It implied the agency would kill the
employee ... according to the review board


--
Oren

"I wouldn't even be here if my support group hadn't beaten me up."

Jim Yanik wrote:
wrote in
:


Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY

What does this have to do with someone toilet papering a house?

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME (emphasis added);

Shooting someone toilet papering is not protected. It's murder or
attempted murder.


"murder" is the WRONGFUL killing of a person.

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant
* Killing of an enemy in time of war
* Self defense or defense of another against several offenses
* Criminal mischief during the nighttime
* "Yer honor, he needed killin'"

EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE
* Act of God or mistake with no showing of negligence or malice,
while engaged in a lawful act

Consider a man dressed as a deer in the forest:
1. If the "deer" shoots at you first and you kill him = Justifiable homicide
2. If you think its a real deer and shoot = Excusable homicide

Jim Yanik wrote:

IMO,any time a person gets a restraining order against another
person,they should be able to get a "loaner" handgun from the
police,maybe from the confiscated guns they melt down or toss in the
ocean. (along with a temporary carry permit and the usual training.)

Consider the admonition:

"You have a right to have a gun. If you cannot afford one, one will be
provided for you."

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

* Criminal mischief during the nighttime

Kids egging your car when it's dark - would that qualify as criminal
mischief?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

* Criminal mischief during the nighttime

Kids egging your car when it's dark - would that qualify as criminal
mischief?

Is it illegal?

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:u2QTi.139893$th2.17657@pd7urf3no...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

* Criminal mischief during the nighttime

Kids egging your car when it's dark - would that qualify as criminal
mischief?

Is it illegal?


Yes. Let's wait and see what HeyBub says, though. Shhhh.....

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
wrote in
:


Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY

What does this have to do with someone toilet papering a house?

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME (emphasis added);

Shooting someone toilet papering is not protected. It's murder or
attempted murder.


"murder" is the WRONGFUL killing of a person.

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.
Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

[snip]
--
62 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:29:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

* Criminal mischief during the nighttime

Kids egging your car when it's dark - would that qualify as criminal
mischief?


Only if the eggs are fertile :-)

"Noozer" wrote in
news:u2QTi.139893$th2.17657@pd7urf3no:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

* Criminal mischief during the nighttime

Kids egging your car when it's dark - would that qualify as criminal
mischief?

Is it illegal?




do it to a black-owned car or house,and it's a hate crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Manster wrote in
:

Phisherman wrote:
This week school's out and houses in my neighborhood are getting
toilet papered. Originally, I thought these houses had someone in
school sports or the house has a coach, but this is not the case. I
guess toilet papering a house is not vandalism,

the HELL it's not. it takes time and effort to clean it up.

wet TP across a power line can start a fire.

but certainly can be
classified as littering (a $50 fine, max). At one house they
spray-painted "Ha Ha " on their concrete driveway. What can be
done? What can one do to prevent their house/trees to be toilet
papered?

Wow. TP'ing trees is one thing but graffiti is quite another. Your
local gendarme needs to be patrolling more.

You HAVE to be kidding.
Do you believe police can be everywhere,protecting everyone and
everything,at all times? Are you naive?


You and your neighbors may
want to 'talk' to the authorities.

Now,just what do you mean by putting "talk" (in parentheses!!)??
Be specific and clear.

Or patrol it yourself for a time.
This kind of thing rarely goes on for long, especially once the brats
know they're being watched.


Yeah,and they just wait until you're done patrolling.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are
well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so precisely
because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"
"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."
"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your perception
of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the question of whether any
particular act is, or is not, within the law.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Or maybe torching a cross in your yard?

Isn't that just providing free illumination?

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

You and your neighbors may
want to 'talk' to the authorities.

Now,just what do you mean by putting "talk" (in parentheses!!)??
Be specific and clear.

He didn't put "talk" in parentheses. He did, however, put it between single
quotation marks for no particularly good reason.

Jim Yanik wrote:
Manster wrote in

Wow. TP'ing trees is one thing but graffiti is quite another. Your
local gendarme needs to be patrolling more.

You HAVE to be kidding.
Do you believe police can be everywhere,protecting everyone and
everything,at all times? Are you naive?

Easy there Jim. of course the PD can't do that but with a little
pressure from a grou of neighbors they may step up their patrols.

Hence, my next statement.

You and your neighbors may
want to 'talk' to the authorities.

Now,just what do you mean by putting "talk" (in parentheses!!)??
Be specific and clear.

I didn't but it seems to have put you over the edge... Relax, the veins
are popping out of your forehead. LOL

(Doug Miller) wrote in
et:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten
are well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in
my experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so
precisely because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"
"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."
"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who
puts another to death."

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your
perception of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the
question of whether any particular act is, or is not, within the law.


well,for liberals,the law means different things at different
times,according to popular opinion at the time.
"people" in one Amendment does not necessarily mean the same in another
Amendment,according to liberals/"progressives".
To them,the Constitution is a "living,breathing document" whose meaning
changes with the times.
That's why they want judges to decide on everything.
(liberal judges,of course)

Of course,judges are not responsible to anyone,generally,in power for life.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

well,for liberals,the law means different things at different
times,according to popular opinion at the time.
"people" in one Amendment does not necessarily mean the same in another
Amendment,according to liberals/"progressives".
To them,the Constitution is a "living,breathing document" whose meaning
changes with the times.
--
Jim Yanik

So, you're saying the current administration consists of liberals.

On 25 Oct, 08:00, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are
well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so precisely
because they understand that *very* clearly.



BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"
"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."
"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your perception
of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the question of whether any
particular act is, or is not, within the law.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

-- Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

In article . com, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

Do you?

"unlawful: not lawful; in violation of law; illegal."
[American Heritage Dictionary]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:04:35 GMT, Phisherman wrote:

This week school's out and houses in my neighborhood are getting
toilet papered. Originally, I thought these houses had someone in
school sports or the house has a coach, but this is not the case. I
guess toilet papering a house is not vandalism, but certainly can be
classified as littering (a $50 fine, max). At one house they
spray-painted "Ha Ha " on their concrete driveway. What can be
done? What can one do to prevent their house/trees to be toilet
papered?


This seems like an annual affair. The easy and cheap way is to have a
video camera running on automatic to record the going ons while you
are asleep or away from the house. You have proof. Get them to clean
up afterwards. No police, no fines, etc.

On Oct 25, 4:43 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, DerbyDad03 wrote:

-- Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

-- Do you?

Yep!

unlawful: not lawful

illegal: a sick bird

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:04:35 GMT, Phisherman wrote:

This week school's out and houses in my neighborhood are getting
toilet papered. Originally, I thought these houses had someone in
school sports or the house has a coach, but this is not the case. I
guess toilet papering a house is not vandalism, but certainly can be
classified as littering (a $50 fine, max). At one house they
spray-painted "Ha Ha " on their concrete driveway. What can be
done? What can one do to prevent their house/trees to be toilet
papered?


This seems like an annual affair. The easy and cheap way is to have a
video camera running on automatic to record the going ons while you
are asleep or away from the house. You have proof. Get them to clean
up afterwards. No police, no fines, etc.
Easy? Cheap? Do you have a time lapse or motion-activated camera laying
around, and a long-play VCR or hard drive recorder handy? I don't. It
would cost me several hundred bucks to buy even a low-end model like
Sams sells, much less a commercial-grade one. Not to mention, what
weather-protected locations do you have to place them in that will
provide any useful coverage? There is a reason few ma'n'pa places have
cameras anywhere but over register- a system that will do any good is
expensive, even using IP cameras and computers as recorders.

And just how do you get them to clean it up, assuming you even recognize
the kids to know what house they live in (assuming they are from
immediate neighborhood, seldom true in my experience), and further
assuming the parents don't slam the door in your face? The tissue will
rot off the trees before that happens, I fear. When you get papered,
speed is essential, before the paper bonds to the trees. When it
happened to me, I said aw ****, put on some clothes, got some long poles
out of the garage and duct-taped them together, and had it pretty well
cleaned up in less than an hour. Figuring out how to coax the short ends
off the tall branches was almost fun, once I decided to treat it as a
challenge.

aem sends...

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are
well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so precisely
because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"

Common usage. Not the actual meaning of the word.

"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."

A very SPECIFIC definition.

"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."


By executing (carrying out) the death sentence.

[American Heritage Dictionary]


Realize that dictionaries follow common use, not necessarily correct
use. "execute" means "do".

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.


THAT is nonsense. You've just defined one thing 'lawful" in terms of
an equally vague and inconsistently defined thing.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your perception
of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the question of whether any
particular act is, or is not, within the law.

If IS relevant to something having an actual meaning or not.
--
61 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On 25 Oct 2007 16:52:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. net:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten
are well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in
my experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so
precisely because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"
"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."
"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who
puts another to death."

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your
perception of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the
question of whether any particular act is, or is not, within the law.


well,for liberals,

Note that "liberal" and "conservative" are BOTH desirable qualities in
limited amounts. Unconditionally favoring one over the other makes no
sense. The use of such labels are necessarily incorrect (there are no
absolutes) and effectively limit people's thoughts and actions.

the law means different things at different
times,according to popular opinion at the time.

Proving it's lack of correspondence with reality.

"people" in one Amendment does not necessarily mean the same in another
Amendment,

And none of those are necessarily the same as actual people.

The law is in no way, in control of reality.

according to liberals/"progressives".
To them,the Constitution is a "living,breathing document" whose meaning
changes with the times.

Note that can be used as an excuse for anything. In effect, you are
saying it means nothing at all.

That's why they want judges to decide on everything.
(liberal judges,of course)

Of course,judges are not responsible to anyone,generally,in power for life.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:34:03 -0700, DerbyDad03
wrote:


[snip]

-- Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.


That's as useful as saying a "snaxgluff" is the same thing as an
"emwoozle". This could be 100% true, but is still meaningless Defining
an undefined word by reference to another undefined word doesn't
define anything.

Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

It's amazing that some people spend so much time on artificial
constructs such as "unlawful" and "illegal", yet appear to have no
concept of the world they inhabit where things can be "wrong" or
"harmful" (something which is entirely independent of laws).

If I hit you on the head with a brick, it'd hurt. This has nothing to
do with any laws. I won't hit you on the head with a brick because it
does harm. This has nothing to do with any laws.
--
61 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:40:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .

You and your neighbors may
want to 'talk' to the authorities.

Now,just what do you mean by putting "talk" (in parentheses!!)??
Be specific and clear.

He didn't put "talk" in parentheses. He did, however, put it between single
quotation marks for no particularly good reason.

Quotation marks are "supposed" to indicate that the thing between them
has a meaning other than the apparent one. Sometimes it can be
difficult or impossible to determine what that meaning is.
--
61 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:30:20 GMT, PaPaPeng wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:04:35 GMT, Phisherman wrote:

This week school's out and houses in my neighborhood are getting
toilet papered. Originally, I thought these houses had someone in
school sports or the house has a coach, but this is not the case. I
guess toilet papering a house is not vandalism, but certainly can be
classified as littering (a $50 fine, max). At one house they
spray-painted "Ha Ha " on their concrete driveway. What can be
done? What can one do to prevent their house/trees to be toilet
papered?


This seems like an annual affair. The easy and cheap way is to have a
video camera running on automatic to record the going ons while you
are asleep or away from the house. You have proof. Get them to clean
up afterwards. No police, no fines, etc.

I have a little device that connects to a video camera. When it
detects motion it saves an image to a SD card. A useful thing I got at
Wal-Mart.

Most of the saved images are pictures of passing cars, but some are
useful.
--
61 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:40:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
. ..

You and your neighbors may
want to 'talk' to the authorities.

Now,just what do you mean by putting "talk" (in parentheses!!)??
Be specific and clear.

He didn't put "talk" in parentheses. He did, however, put it between
single
quotation marks for no particularly good reason.

Quotation marks are "supposed" to indicate that the thing between them
has a meaning other than the apparent one. Sometimes it can be
difficult or impossible to determine what that meaning is.

In the message we're talking about, I don't see any meaning other than the
obvious one. Now, if he had said "You should jack the kid up on the wall and
have a little 'talk" with him", I would've interpreted that to mean that
talk might not have been the chosen method of getting one's message across.

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are
well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so precisely
because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"

Common usage. Not the actual meaning of the word.

LOL -- what do you mean, "not the actual meaning of the word"?? That's
straight out of a dictionary.

But I guess you know more about the "actual meaning" than the people that put
the dictionary together. Riiiiiiiiight.

"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."

A very SPECIFIC definition.

"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

By executing (carrying out) the death sentence.

By executing the prisoner.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Realize that dictionaries follow common use, not necessarily correct
use. "execute" means "do".

It *also* means "to subject to capital punishment" (cited above).

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.

THAT is nonsense. You've just defined one thing 'lawful" in terms of
an equally vague and inconsistently defined thing.

More nonsense. Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your perception
of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the question of whether any
particular act is, or is not, within the law.

If IS relevant to something having an actual meaning or not.

Like that sentence? ROTFLMAO!

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:34:03 -0700, DerbyDad03

-- Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

That's as useful as saying a "snaxgluff" is the same thing as an
"emwoozle". This could be 100% true, but is still meaningless Defining
an undefined word by reference to another undefined word doesn't
define anything.

Actually, most adults are capable of understanding the difference between real
words and made-up nonsense, and that the former have real meaning while the
latter do not.

Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

It's amazing that some people spend so much time on artificial
constructs such as "unlawful" and "illegal", yet appear to have no
concept of the world they inhabit where things can be "wrong" or
"harmful" (something which is entirely independent of laws).

"Artificial constructs" or not, those words do have meaning. And that is not
altered by your perceptions of whether they correspond to your perceptions of
right and wrong.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Yeah, that's why so many people make their living debating how to
interpret law.

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Yeah, that's why so many people make their living debating how to
interpret law.

Actually, the vast majority of those debates do not involve what the law
means, but rather whether it is applicable to a particular situation.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

* Criminal mischief during the nighttime

Kids egging your car when it's dark - would that qualify as criminal
mischief?

Certainly. As is up-rooting mail boxes, doing wheelies on someone's lawn,
putting a burning sack of dog poo on the front porch, soaping screens, or
discovering the hot date you scored at the tavern is of the wrong sex.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That implies there are RIGHTFUL killings of a person.

Well, yes there are. In my state (Texas), there are two:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

* Criminal mischief during the nighttime

Kids egging your car when it's dark - would that qualify as criminal
mischief?

Certainly. As is up-rooting mail boxes, doing wheelies on someone's lawn,
putting a burning sack of dog poo on the front porch, soaping screens, or
discovering the hot date you scored at the tavern is of the wrong sex.


So, do you think the law in TX allows you to kill a kid for doing things
like that when it's dark?