3 ms·

> If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. If he doesn't have the money to sue, how will he get a loan? A lawsuit against the city is not some

> If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. If he doesn't have the money to sue, how will he get a loan? A lawsuit against the city is not something a bank will lend against, so he'd have to be able to fully collateralize that loan. > He can sell his business and move away Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. But this is a solution that is incredibly harmful to him - you're suggesting that he should change his entire life to resolve this. Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them?

John23832 4y ago
> If he doesn't have the money to sue, how will he get a loan? A lawsuit against the city is not something a bank will lend against, so he'd have to be able to fully collateralize that loan. He owns a business which has value. > Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. It's not, he can work a lawsuit through the courts. > Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them? This is nonsense and ignores everything I've previously said.

John23832 4y ago

> If he doesn't have the money to sue, how will he get a loan? A lawsuit against the city is not something a bank will lend against, so he'd have to be able to fully collateralize that loan. He owns a business which has value. > Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. It's not, he can work a lawsuit through the courts. > Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them? This is nonsense and ignores everything I've previously said.