From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: CB Tips
Date: 05 Oct 92 01:50:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct4.083449.3765@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> : 
> : Ummm, could you point out where "breaking and entering" was proposed.  I
> : keep on re-reading the post, but can't seem to find it.  All I see is
> : RDF in the folk causing the problems, and then confiscating their gear.
> : You can do that within the law, you know.  Frankly, though, just RDFing
> 
> You can? How. Sounds like theft of private property. A policeman may be
> able to confiscate the equipment - a private citizen certainly cannot.
> Nor can you legally disable the equipment. That is called destruction
> of private property.
> 
> : them is enough.  If they know that you know where they live, then they
> : are less likely to make jerks of themselves.  It's not against the law
> : to park, so why don't you get a bunch of your buddies with large trucks,
> : and park in front of their house sometime.  Just sit there.  
> 
> Might work. It is also call harrasment or intimidation. You just might
> find the police telling you to move on.

It is only called harrasment or intimidation if someone reports it as such.
How likely is it fo one of these linear jockies to call the police, have
them come to their house, and then try to explain why these people are
in a harrasing mood.  That's the magic of this kind of solution, it's
not illegal until someone complains, and they are not likely to.

> 
> : > You have no right to break the law, serious ones at that, just because the
> : > government is not enforcing other laws. 
> : What laws were proposed to be broken?
> 
> I listed them. Such things as destruction/theft of private property.

The only word in the post that is even close to what you claim is the
word "confiscation".  There was NO mention of destruction or theft,
you read that into the post yourself.

> 
> : > Write to your congressmen, talk to the newspaper - anything is better than
> : > becoming a common thug.
> : Yeah, Right, Like these would work.  (okay, maybe I'm a bit cynical).
> 
> I agree that it would do little except allow you to relieve some of your
> frustrations. However, breaking the law to stop someone else from breaking
> the law does not make your action right.

Correct.  However, it is quite common for people to vent their frustrations
by threatening illegal action.  Threatening is not taking the illegal action,
and for the most part, that is not illegal.  Would you not have people
vent their frustrations on the net or CB, but actually go and carry
these threats out?

And also, don't judge things to be illegal until you are sure they are
illegal.  Innocence until proven guilty, wasn't that the saying.

> 
> : it's really too bad that CB isn't like the net.  All Tiffany did was post
> : something that could be carried out in an illegal way, and all of a sudden
> : there were a number of net-police trying to put an end to this kind
> : of though.  Why can't we do that on CB?
> 
> No, Tiffany seemed to think that such things could be done legally. Apparently,
> you do also. I suggest you talk to your lawyer first.
Frankly, I don't care whether they're legal or not.  I don't plan to do them.
By "such things", though, I suspect you are talking about breaking and
entering, and destruction of private property.  Those are illegal, and
I don't need a lawyer to tell me that.  However, those were not mentioned
in the post, and were read into the post by a few people.

> 
> The thoughts are fine. There are a couple of idiots in this town that I would
> like to shut down that way. However, I realize that it could get me into very
> serious trouble.
Go find those idiots, and let them know you found them. That is usually 
enough to shut someone up.  And just finding someone is not illegal.
It's kind of fun...

> 
> Bill
petesk@microsoft.com