An ethical question...

[Jackpine Radical]

Purely hypothetical, you understand.

Suppose you had a couple of yard signs up down where your property abuts a county highway, and suppose you found those signs had been run over by a passing motorist--let us suppose the signs ar so far off the paved portion of the road that said motorist had to drive his car entirely off the pavement to hit them. You straighten the signs back up. A week or 2 later they are again knocked over by the same method. You again right the signs.

Now the question--would it be terribly wrong to, like, reinforce one of those signs with a piece of steel rebar stuck into the ground and angled upward sorta like a spear so it is concealed by the sign but positioned in such a way as to maybe puncture a tire or damage the underside of any car unwary enough to drive over it?

Again I emphasize this question is merely hypotherical. In the remote possibility that somebody might ask me a question like that, I would want to know what to tell them.

[leftofthedial]

1. as long as you don't use explosives

I'd think that would be a prudent measure

[Eric J in MN]

2. It would be unethical because...

...a car problem could cause a crash.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Hypothetically, if said tactic caused the driver to crash and died

You could, hypothetically, be on the hook for a criminal prosecution, despite the driver's violation.

Even if this didn't happen, hypothetically, you would feel hypothetically inutterable guilt for the rest of your hypothetical life, I'd expect. Perhaps a hypothetical video camera would be hypothetically better?

[spoony]

8. Hypothetically spot on n/t

[karlrschneider]

14. Who is hypothetically liable when someone runs off the road into a TREE?

jeezus...

[VeggieTart]

24. More hypotheticals

I'm guessing that the signs are far enough off the road that the miscreant running them over is very obviously deliberately doing so. If the car needs to swerve off the road to avoid hitting something or loses control, presumably the driver would have enough time to correct before hitting the sign. But try to find something less damaging in the event the worst happens and someone does have an accident and can't correct in time.

[shaniqua6392]

4. Go for it.

I don't like looking at all the Republican signs around my home, especially the gigantic ones. Sometimes I feel like driving right through the center of one of those 8 foot by 10 foot ones with Dick Devos' name on it, but I would never do it. All candidates have a right to put up their signs. I would never destroy one. But, obviously someone out there has different ideas regarding your signs. If I were you, I would do it in a heartbeat. The rebar would never harm a thing unless someone drives over your signs which they should not do.

[BuyingThyme]

5. Find a way that doesn't cause harm to people or property.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. or hypothetically...

a tire strip running underneath the signs.

quickly disabled, not likely to cause a crash. hypothetically.

[NanceGreggs]

7. Hypothetically speaking ...

... you would be liable for any damage to said hypothetical car.

The driver of said hypothetical car could (a) claim that he pulled off the road deliberately to avoid a collision with another vehicle, an animal or a pedestrian, or (b) pulled off the road due to car trouble.

The other issue would be that a motorist could wind up having his car damaged due to (a) or (b) legitimately - in which case not only would you be financially responsible, you would (I am sure) feel guilty as hell for causing damage -- and/or possible injury -- to someone who knocked down the sign with no untoward intent in doing so.

Hope that hypothetically helps!

[karlrschneider]

15. You're wrong there, Nance. You run off the road for ANY reason,

whatever consequences you suffer are due to your own action. Period.

[NanceGreggs]

19. Not if your damage is caused by what could be construed ...

... as a deliberate 'trap' meant to cause damage that would not otherwise have occurred. That is the legal argument a driver (or, more likely, his insurance company) would pursue in the circumstances described here, because the full extent of the damages would arguably not have been caused by normal 'off-road' conditions.

The obvious tack would be to launch a suit against the party causing a situation that led to damages above and beyond those that would have been caused under 'normal' conditions, had the motorist simply pulled off the road.

The hypothetical proposed in the OP is just NOT a good idea. As a court reporter of twenty-two years' experence, I can assure you that most judges or juries would not look kindly on anyone who had deliberately created a situation wherein such damage would be maximized.

To defend such a legal proceeding would cost time and effort, not to mention lawyers' fees, court fees, et cetera.

Better to err on the side of caution.

[karlrschneider]

20. I respect you eormously but that's just silly. Any number of natural

or otherwise innocuous yet potentially dangerous obstacles exist on most everyone's private property.
Your position would seem to suggest that one of my fence posts could present a hazard to a wayward driver who leaves the roadway and gets impaled on it. What about culverts? Do you seriously believe
a county or state government would ever have to pay damages for injury suffered by a driver who
hit one? I've never heard of a utility company being found liable for a pole that some motorist
struck after veering off the road. Sure, anyone can sue anybody else but winning frivolous lawsuits
is pretty rare. And "pulling off the road" is vastly different from somebody who obviously and deliberately left the roadway and CONTINUED onward after.

[NanceGreggs]

31. There is a vast difference between 'innocuous yet ...

... potentially dangerous obstacles' and an obstacle that has been deliberately placed to cause and/or maximize damage.

I am assuming your fence posts were not placed to deliberately cause damage or harm?

As for "pulling off the road is vastly different from somebody who obviously and deliberately left the roadway and CONTINUED onward after", exactly how do you prove in a court of law that pulling off the road was an 'obvious' attempt to knock down a political sign as opposed to an accident?

RE "winning frivolous lawsuits is pretty rare", (a) you'd be amazed at how many truly frivolous lawsuits are brought (and won) every day, and (b) if someone were seriously hurt hitting a sign that had been 'rigged' to cause maximum damage, there would be nothing 'frivolous' about bringing suit - not to mention the non-frivolous nature of a wrongful death suit, should the worst happen -- which is, unfortunately, always a possibility.

In view of the aforementioned, the OP's hypothetical endeavour is not worth the possible, and very real, consequences that could result.

[Yupster]

28. Not if a court finds you were negligent

Putting up something you know could do damage would be negligent.

Nt worth it. You can always get new signs.

If you want to catch the guys, then stay out one night with a videotape.

[yewberry]

9. Is there a way

that you could attach a hypothetical balloon filled with a hypothetical liquid that might stink to high heaven to said signs?

They do make synthetic skunk spray. Sewage also smells very bad.

Also, you could collect a week's worth of dog poo, water it down a bit, and make a large puddle just behind the signs.

No one should get hurt, but a little stink washes off.

[sweetheart]

10. claymores

a 1 foot deep trench might serve you.

[FloridaPat]

11. My question when creeps were banging up my mail box. Forget the

unethical part - it's probably illegal and would put you in jail. Or sued if the idiots' car went out of control and they got hurt. Maybe a video camera to catch them doing it and have them arrested.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I wouldn't have any problem with it.

I think the hypothetical person in this case should go for it.

[karlrschneider]

13. I would hypothetically put THREE rebars behind them.

If I weren't a nice guy, I'd say put 5 of them there.

[Horse with no Name]

16. Since the signs are technically on your property

They would be technically trespassing to keep running them over.
Not sure about anything that would cause a wreck to a vehicle or advocate harming someone--but would figure out a way to have indelible paint squirt all over said culprit's vehicle.
Perhaps placing balloons filled with this paint sandwiched between the signs, or on the ground.
Would figure out a workable idea for this.

[blogslut]

17. Hypothetically, here's what I would do

Keep righting the signs. Get backup signs if need be.

That fact is, this person is already risking his/her life by driving in such a reckless manner. Chances are, if he/she keeps it up, he/she will probably hurt his/her self doing it - or at least ruin his/her tires.

To steal a quote from Batman Begins:

"You don't have to hurt them. But you don't have to save them either"

[wuushew]

18. A better plan of action would be to buy a camera

and then sue the offender for an amount much greater than the original cost of the sign or the reinforcement materials.

The plaintiff would come out ahead financially and the defendant would most likely be more pissed off emotionally than that from solely having a damaged vehicle. Any ways the offending vehicle may have been a beater with little value to the offender.

[KoKo]

21. My first instict would be to do what you were hypothesizing.....my next

would have been to put three of what you said out...(like one poster said) and my pacifist side would have said to do what the poster said about taking a photo of it or something and not do "VIOLENCE."

I had a similar dilemna. Here in my state a person in my large suburban neighborhood put out a sign on "right of way property" on a main street for a RW EVANGELICAL Paid Off Friend of Bush who has run trash ads against the candidate whose sign I have on MY front LAWN. I rode by that jerks house every day with that sign for the Racist RW Repug and wanted to get out of my car and remove the sign into the back of my mini-van since the sign was on "right of way" property" (my tax payer money). After two weeks ...one day riding by I saw the offending sign was gone. I figured either the County Government or someone who took "Law into his/her Own Hands" had REMOVED the offending sign. I'm not sure I could have gone longer without ripping that sign out of the ground myself...but I was in a moral conundrum myself about whether to steal it or not.

:shrug: It's a hard issue to deal with...but..maybe it's best to be a "pacifist" so you don't get yourself into trouble. :shrug: Or...let it be and figure other's will tack action and it will be a better way than causing harm.

[boolean]

22. Yeah. Hypothetical. Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrreeee...

:rofl:

[Cleita]

23. I wouldn't be that subtle.

I would lay one of those strips with nails in it that the cops use to stop car chase idiots right in front of the signs for him to see. I would also put up another sign that states running over your signs will result in punctured tires. That wouldn't be unethical. If he runs over it anyway, well he's stupid.

[boolean]

25. You realize agent Mike is watching, right?

:rofl:

[donco6]

26. I don't see anything wrong with it.

In this hypothetical case, I mean.

[scarletwoman]

27. Hmmmm... Why not just very visible pointed stakes? & a warning sign?

Why be subtle at all? I would think that one could hypothetically build up effective defenses that are clearly visible and achieve a similar hypothetical result: discouragement of the offending activity. If one put up a warning sign as well, it seems as though one might then be off the hook for any damages incurred by someone ignoring the clearly posted warning.

Oddly enough, your hypothetical situation is rather similar to my own real-life political-sign-along-a-highway experience in 2002. My Wellstone signs, posted on my property line alongside a rather heavily-traveled highway, never lasted more than 2 weeks before someone saw fit to steal them, or pull them up and fling them into the trees, or simply rip through them with an ATV.

I just kept putting up replacements -- until the last time which happened 2 days before his plane crashed -- I had run out of replacement signs.

sw

[hyde]

30. It sounds like a plan to me...hypothetically speaking.

I'd say go with the cameras too, so you can post the video and we can all watch some repub idiot blow their tires.

[Change has come]

29. Such a person may have to repaint the damaged signs.

Some people may misplace the partially closed paint container. Hopefully such a container was not left on top of the sign. The resulting splatter would really make a mess for the hapless vandal. :shrug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. Well, hypothetically, you NEEDED that rebar to hold up the signs

because some motorist kept running over them and they wouldn't stay up anymore. The rebar was for support, hypothetically. ;)

[Catherine Vincent]

33. Go for it!

Get those bastards! :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Yes, It Would Be Not Only Terribly Wrong, But Also Terribly Stupid.

By doing such a hypothetical act, you'd be putting multiple peoples' lives in danger. The driver could easily lose control thereby causing fatal injury, or they could end up veering into somebody else causing a fatal or life changing injury.

Some inconsequential political signs are not worth such reckless risk.