First off, I was replying to a comment saying that a property owner should have the right to boobytrap whatever they want on private property, so my comment was addressing that, not a Trump sign with razor blades specifically.
But since you want to focus on the sign exclusively, These signs are put out by the road. You know, where burried water and electric lines are, that a utilities worker might be servicing. So a utilities worker may need to move the sign to do their job, which was the first example I gave of someone having legitimate reasons to be on his property. Sure it got "exactly who it was supposed to hurt here" but that doesn't mean it will always go down that way. I'm very sorry your intuition is so underdeveloped that you need every last detail of a hypothetical situation spelled out for you to understand it. Try harder next time!
This is in no way similar to the "think of the children" rhetoric, and I never said anything about children, but if you want to try and change my mind, go ahead and try.
The city absolutely does not have to notify you before they dig up your yard to service underground lines. This is local government were talking about, they do whatever they want. Around here, if your tree limbs are hanging out over the road, they come trim them back. The tree is yours and is on your land, but they still do it anyway. It sounds like you advocate for a very libertarian form of land ownership, but unless you live in the absolute middle of nowhere, what you are talking about doesn't exist, and if you did live somewhere like that there would be no need for a road sign because nobody would ever drive by it and see it.
It would be nice if they were required to notify about things like this, but a few months ago, the city decided that the fire hydrants in my grandparents neighborhood were too old and needed to be replaced with a modern one. Well, wouldn't you know it, they were out there in my grandparents yard at 8am, no notice at all (retired people, they would have seen it) digging them all up. They destroyed about 5 square yards of pristine St Augustine grass with their digging and put ruts all through the front yard with their trucks and there isn't a thing that can be done about it.
As for your complaints about the use of "might" and "should" I did stop and respond briefly to your bit about this sign in this particular hurting someone in a way you feel is justified, but the big picture of this whole discussion, and why I originally responded to that guy in the first place was about his statements of what the law should be and what rights he should have. The "might" and "should" have nothing to do with this particular sign, they have to do with the repercussions of boobytraps at large. If boobytraping your property was legal and 200,000 pedes went out and did it, the arguments I made for why this is and should remain illegal come into play. Laws that are written to govern everyone have to consider what happens if everyone participates.
Also, this last bit is not aimed at you, just an observation, but for a website that has spammed "Law and Order" for months, there is a lot of advocating for unlawful behavior and pushing a very anarchist mindset in this thread.
First off, I was replying to a comment saying that a property owner should have the right to boobytrap whatever they want on private property, so my comment was addressing that, not a Trump sign with razor blades specifically.
But since you want to focus on the sign exclusively, These signs are put out by the road. You know, where burried water and electric lines are, that a utilities worker might be servicing. So a utilities worker may need to move the sign to do their job, which was the first example I gave of someone having legitimate reasons to be on his property. Sure it got "exactly who it was supposed to hurt here" but that doesn't mean it will always go down that way. I'm very sorry your intuition is so underdeveloped that you need every last detail of a hypothetical situation spelled out for you to understand it. Try harder next time!
This is in no way similar to the "think of the children" rhetoric, and I never said anything about children, but if you want to try and change my mind, go ahead and try.
The city absolutely does not have to notify you before they dig up your yard to service underground lines. This is local government were talking about, they do whatever they want. Around here, if your tree limbs are hanging out over the road, they come trim them back. The tree is yours and is on your land, but they still do it anyway. It sounds like you advocate for a very libertarian form of land ownership, but unless you live in the absolute middle of nowhere, what you are talking about doesn't exist, and if you did live somewhere like that there would be no need for a road sign because nobody would ever drive by it and see it.
It would be nice if they were required to notify about things like this, but a few months ago, the city decided that the fire hydrants in my grandparents neighborhood were too old and needed to be replaced with a modern one. Well, wouldn't you know it, they were out there in my grandparents yard at 8am, no notice at all (retired people, they would have seen it) digging them all up. They destroyed about 5 square yards of pristine St Augustine grass with their digging and put ruts all through the front yard with their trucks and there isn't a thing that can be done about it.
As for your complaints about the use of "might" and "should" I did stop and respond briefly to your bit about this sign in this particular hurting someone in a way you feel is justified, but the big picture of this whole discussion, and why I originally responded to that guy in the first place was about his statements of what the law should be and what rights he should have. The "might" and "should" have nothing to do with this particular sign, they have to do with the repercussions of boobytraps at large. If boobytraping your property was legal and 200,000 pedes went out and did it, the arguments I made for why this is and should remain illegal come into play. Laws that are written to govern everyone have to consider what happens if everyone participates.
Also, this last bit is not aimed at you, just an observation, but for a website that has spammed "Law and Order" for months, there is a lot of advocating for unlawful behavior and pushing a very anarchist mindset in this thread.