|
I just happened to put my antique barbed wire and claymore mine collection all around my property.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
I don't know why, but in my head I imagined this was Colorado and did a little googling and there are a lot of people arrested for setting up booby traps that injure other people in colorado.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I don't know why, but in my head I imagined this was Colorado and did a little googling and there are a lot of people arrested for setting up booby traps that injure other people in colorado. The spirit of the killdozer is strong in that state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
The basic law is you can’t do things that will most likely hurt people and you know it. The basic corollary is you can do things that aren’t inherently harmful, but might hurt people if they intentionally do things that will result in them getting hurt, but if you know that might happen you should post a clear warning. YMMV
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
I was just wondering if the act itself was illegal. Like if I had a loaded gun on my nightstand. That might be legal in my state, but if my toddler grabbed it and shot grandma, then I'd expect there would be some criminal negligence coming my way. Is there a legal difference between a tripwire bola trap in a cornfield that is clearly marked no trespassing with signs and fences impeding access and a big hole in a construction zone with CAUTION tape wrapped around it? I guess intent might come into play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Yes lots of factors. Putting a gun on your table could be ok. Rigging a gun to shoot a person who walks in your door is not. Also “illegal” can mean many things. Does it violate a criminal statute? Will is result in civil liability?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I was just wondering if the act itself was illegal. Like if I had a loaded gun on my nightstand. That might be legal in my state, but if my toddler grabbed it and shot grandma, then I'd expect there would be some criminal negligence coming my way. There are reasons that people can lawfully trespass on your land, no matter how much it may irk you as an individual. Booby traps are not allowed. For example, you don't have a right to stop a first responder from coming onto your property for various reasons. Say a hurricane is coming, public safety officials might be going door to door to warn people to evacuate. You're not allowed to rig something up that would harm them, even if you have no trespassing signs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I don't know why, but in my head I imagined this was Colorado and did a little googling and there are a lot of people arrested for setting up booby traps that injure other people in colorado. Here's a fun one from this spring: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3akz7k/colorado-qanon-booby-trapped-house Bonus: the trap setters are Q anon sovereign citizen wackos
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 05:11
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:There are reasons that people can lawfully trespass on your land, no matter how much it may irk you as an individual. Booby traps are not allowed. Is there a definable line between "trap", "Normal construction", and "brick poo poo house"? Does Phil's response apply here: quote:The basic corollary is you can do things that aren’t inherently harmful, but might hurt people if they intentionally do things that will result in them getting hurt, but if you know that might happen you should post a clear warning. Like the folks who have their mailbox run over repeatedly by drunk/lovely drivers/bored teens with bats, so they sink it into a concrete post. It's not a trap, but it's sure gonna wreck your poo poo if you plow into it. Or the large/heavy rocks as a fence? Or a reinforced fence, not a trap, but definitely not going to get pushed over by the offroad vehicle folks. (hell, even normal/traditional pasture fences can decapitate a rider not paying attention/looking for them) Could one put up the "Severe Tire Damage, do not enter" and then have the rental car lot retractable spike strips inside the property line?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Like the folks who have their mailbox run over repeatedly by drunk/lovely drivers/bored teens with bats, so they sink it into a concrete post. It's not a trap, but it's sure gonna wreck your poo poo if you plow into it. This was going to be my question. Could you be found responsible for someone's injury if, even accidentally, they ran into your "telephone pole sunk into 50 ft of concrete" mailbox post?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Is there a definable line between "trap", "Normal construction", and "brick poo poo house"? Most of the things you described are just fine. They're not things set up to recklessly endanger someone who accidentally wanders onto your property. The spikes might be dicey and jurisdiction dependent. The issue is when you line your property in land mines or bear traps or rig a knife to stab someone walking up stairs such as this found in a flophouse in philly - https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/10u08pe/booby_trap_found_inside_house/. Building yourself a reinforced fence, so long as it complies with whatever state and local laws that might be applicable is not going to be an issue. Digging a hole filled with punji sticks is going to get you into trouble. The nuances of where your local laws interact with general principles could be explained further by a local attorney. null_pointer posted:This was going to be my question. Could you be found responsible for someone's injury if, even accidentally, they ran into your "telephone pole sunk into 50 ft of concrete" mailbox post? Ohio's supreme court recently expressly found a homeowner was not liable for someone being injured crashing into a reinforced mailbox. Premises liability, though, is a state specific question, and not all states will necessarily agree. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Nov 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:This was going to be my question. Could you be found responsible for someone's injury if, even accidentally, they ran into your "telephone pole sunk into 50 ft of concrete" mailbox post? Snay v. Burr - Supreme Court of Ohio https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2021/2021-Ohio-4113.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
The question of, "Was this OK to build, or was this Not Ok" Will have some guidance on either side in the form of case law, kind of like bumpers and a bowling lane. But when you start to try and press the notion of edge cases to see what hypotheticals get through, have to remember that first, your fact scenario will have to be picked up by a police officer who thinks it's bad enough to be referred to a DA who then decides it should be charged, criminally, in a criminal matter. From a civil, premises liability standpoint, The person who is injured on your property will have to sue you, and then we'll have to try and convince the jury of 12 strangers that y'all have never met of the unreasonableness of your behavior. And that's like everything in the law when it comes down to the gray areas between hard and fast rules: It's going to be a jury of 12 strangers who listen to all the facts and decide one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The question of, "Was this OK to build, or was this Not Ok" Will have some guidance on either side in the form of case law, kind of like bumpers and a bowling lane. On the other hand (true story) one time when I was a kid I was sitting in the front room of our house and suddenly I heard this giant WHAM A SUV had wrapped itself six inches deep around the . . . six feet of steel railroad rail . . . that my father had sunk half it's length in concrete in front of the tree out front because he was sick of people hitting his fruit trees If that railroad rail hadn't taken the hit I might nor be here posting today! So, I mean, perhaps the world would be better off, but in some ways this might be one of those judged by twelve or carried by six situations
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:A SUV had wrapped itself six inches deep around the . . . six feet of steel railroad rail . . . I'm not a lawyer but I can't imagine bollards don't have an established legal status. And I feel like with all these what ifs tye first and most minor hurdle is "does it have a use beyond being designed to hurt someone?" A mailbox no matter how strong is at least still a mailbox. A landmine is just a landmine. A chain across a driveway is a gate. A rope at neck height on a trail isn't a gate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:I'm not a lawyer but I can't imagine bollards don't have an established legal status. Sure, but it's one thing for the government to put up a bollard; it's another thing to slap one down in the middle of the public sidewalk or road in front of your house (as my father did; he had removed a tree planted by the city and planted one he preferred instead. Never got in trouble for that either. It was a very nice tree once it matured). The root issue here is that the problem to think about isn't "would I get convicted", it's "could I end up having to defend this in a courtroom, at great personal expense and difficulty". That's why the case I linked above is worth reading. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2021/2021-Ohio-4113.pdf Dude just built his mailbox so strong that a car hit it and flipped over and paralyzed the driver. Question wasn't "does mailbox builder go to jail" it was "can you sue mailbox driver for money" and it went up several levels of appeal. So if you're thinking about building an exceedingly strong mailbox, think about whether you would rather experience rebuilding an additional mailbox, or experience several years of litigation Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but it's one thing for the government to put up a bollard; it's another thing to slap one down in the middle of the public sidewalk or road in front of your house (as my father did; he had removed a tree planted by the city and planted one he preferred instead. Never got in trouble for that either. It was a very nice tree once it matured). I feel like the vast majority of bollards are put up on private property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Is there a definable line between "trap", "Normal construction", and "brick poo poo house"? Usually in the civil context the court will weigh things like utility vs. risk and foreseeability of harm, severity of possible harm, and cost of preventing harm. So for your example, is there utility to a reinforced mailbox or bollards or a fence? Sure, it protects your property from damage. Is there risk of harm? Maybe, but it doesn’t hurt anyone unless they themselves are negligent and crash into it on your property. Under ordinary circumstances it doesn’t pose a risk to anyone. Cost of preventing harm is negligible, but do we really expect people to post warnings that if you crash into their mailbox it might damage your car? Is it a reasonable expectation if someone that they can crash into your property and escape without injury? Also, when hazards are open and obvious and not an attractive nuisance (like a swimming pool or playground for instance), the law is less likely to impose liability if a person ventures onto the hazard and gets hurt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Tire spike strips seem fine to me (I would vote not guilty/not liable if I were on that jury). They're trying to intentionally damage property, it would be hard to hurt someone unless they were driving recklessly fast at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's why the case I linked above is worth reading. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2021/2021-Ohio-4113.pdf Is the specific Strong Mailbox question now settled enough by this case? (at least, in Ohio?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 02:32
|
|
|
Legal Questions: your mailbox is unlawfully strong
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Is the specific Strong Mailbox question now settled enough by this case? (at least, in Ohio?) Seems so. code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Usually in the civil context the court will weigh things like utility vs. risk and foreseeability of harm, severity of possible harm, and cost of preventing harm. So for your example, is there utility to a reinforced mailbox or bollards or a fence? Sure, it protects your property from damage. Is there risk of harm? Maybe, but it doesn’t hurt anyone unless they themselves are negligent and crash into it on your property. Under ordinary circumstances it doesn’t pose a risk to anyone. Cost of preventing harm is negligible, but do we really expect people to post warnings that if you crash into their mailbox it might damage your car? Is it a reasonable expectation if someone that they can crash into your property and escape without injury? I'm wondering how many times people have driven into his yard and hit his fruit trees that he felt is was necessary to embed a section of railroad track to protect his trees. At that point, wouldn't you start looking at the design of the road and signage indicating a curve or whatever to see if possibly the entity in charge of the road is negligent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
OMG, the poor guy's name is Cletus. I bet that was a lifetime of mockery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I'm wondering how many times people have driven into his yard and hit his fruit trees that he felt is was necessary to embed a section of railroad track to protect his trees. At that point, wouldn't you start looking at the design of the road and signage indicating a curve or whatever to see if possibly the entity in charge of the road is negligent? If he felt the need to put a fuckload of steel in the way, I don't think that the drivers were hitting it accidentally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:On the other hand (true story) one time when I was a kid I was sitting in the front room of our house and suddenly I heard this giant WHAM Basic premise that armor is ok. Shooting at incoming traffic is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Is the specific Strong Mailbox question now settled enough by this case? (at least, in Ohio?) I don't practice that area of law or in Ohio but I would probably answer "for that specific set of facts, fornow, in Ohio" but if I were advising clients I would advise them to follow the post office guidelines *strictly* and not overbuild. Because the next court to hear this might go a different way. Skunkduster posted:I'm wondering how many times people have driven into his yard and hit his fruit trees Oh in dad's case this was a public sidewalk in front of the house and just a very very busy intersection in a downtown residential area. Should dad have taken out the city trees and replaced them? Should he then have armored those trees adjacent to the public right of way? Probably not! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh in dad's case this was a public sidewalk in front of the house and just a very very busy intersection in a downtown residential area. Should dad have taken out the city trees and replaced them? Should he then have armored those trees adjacent to the public right of way? Probably not! In the Roadside Design Guide, which tells you which things / how far from roadway constitute hazards that require protection, trees and utility poles are listed as exceptions which do not require protecting on most roads. Yes, they will hurt you if you hit them, but for public policy reasons we don't consider them obstructions from an engineering point of view.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
having dealt with the aftermath of the county happily installing a sign pole in the middle of a god drat driveway in the past,Skunkduster posted:At that point, wouldn't you start looking at the design of the road and signage indicating a curve or whatever to see if possibly the entity in charge of the road is negligent? lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I'm wondering how many times people have driven into his yard and hit his fruit trees that he felt is was necessary to embed a section of railroad track to protect his trees. At that point, wouldn't you start looking at the design of the road and signage indicating a curve or whatever to see if possibly the entity in charge of the road is negligent? And in the mean time he's supposed to sit there with his thumb up his rear end?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:And in the mean time he's supposed to sit there with his thumb up his rear end? If cars are crashing into it all the time it seems like a bad place to sit with your thumb up your rear end. That's best done in private anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
sullat posted:If cars are crashing into it all the time it seems like a bad place to sit with your thumb up your rear end. That's best done in private anyway. Appreciate the advice, indeed it’s quite an improvement
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 09:41
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:Appreciate the advice, indeed it’s quite an improvement I'm sure you'd give it a thumbs-up if you could
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I'm sure you'd give it a thumbs-up if you could Just stand on your head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 13:29
|
|
|
I have a question about music licensing. I want to do an animation using a song from the Venture Brothers and sell it. Eventually. Would I need to pay a license fee to the song's creator, JG Thirlwell, or to the property owner, Adult Swim / Cartoon Network? Or is it different on a case by case basis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Waffle! posted:I have a question about music licensing. I want to do an animation using a song from the Venture Brothers and sell it. Eventually. Probably the rights holder, whoever they actually happen to be. Contacting one of the above will probably point you in the direction of whoever that is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
The existing The Venture Bros.: The Music of J. G. Thirlwell is an ASCAP licensed album. You'd license through them. https://www.ascap.com/music-users
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
whoops, sorry
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The existing The Venture Bros.: The Music of J. G. Thirlwell is an ASCAP licensed album. You'd license through them. Hmm. ASCAP says they do bulk licensing, and to contact the publisher for single songs. It sounds like I might need two licenses - one for if I put it on YouTube, and another for selling physical copies? Like anyone buys DVDs anymore, lol. I could try the "free with a donation" move like at a convention, but I know that's a gray area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Waffle! posted:Hmm. ASCAP says they do bulk licensing, and to contact the publisher for single songs. It sounds like I might need two licenses - one for if I put it on YouTube, and another for selling physical copies? Like anyone buys DVDs anymore, lol. I could try the "free with a donation" move like at a convention, but I know that's a gray area. You need a bunch of different licenses to use music with video. You’ll need licenses from the composer, then from the musicians who actually made the sound recording, and you’ll need both reproduction and public performance licenses as well as what is usually called a sync license. This is one of those things where hiring a lawyer is a really good idea - rights clearance is a complex specialty and having a lawyer involved will save you money long-term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 19:35
|
|
