3 ms·

>I can't fathom how this rises to the level of misdemeanor battery and requires an arrest. It's a garden hose, children play in them all the time, the threat po

by dTal 4y ago

>I can't fathom how this rises to the level of misdemeanor battery and requires an arrest. It's a garden hose, children play in them all the time, the threat posed is basically non-existent. It's a nuisance for sure, but so is playing music too loud and we don't arrest anyone for that. You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. And fortunately for you, in that case, the law would be thoroughly on your side (depending on where you lived). Assault, in most places, is broadly defined as "unwanted physical contact". It's about personal sovereignty, regardless of risk of bodily harm. Other forms of assault include throwing your drink at someone, spitting on them, or pantsing them. I hope we can agree that these things 1) are largely without risk of bodily harm, and 2) deeply intrusive and absolutely worthy of prosecution.

everforward 4y ago
> You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. I promise you I wouldn't. My neighbor's sprinklers hit me not infrequently (they hit parts of the sidewalk). I've had a drink thrown on me in anger. It is absolutely not intrusive or worthy of prosecution. It's annoying, but there's no permanent harm other than a bit of resentment that it happened. None of it even comes close to the line of being worth having armed men show up to lock the other person in a cell. That whole process is deeply intrusive and violates personal sovereignty to a far higher level than getting wet ever could. I think we may just fundamentally disagree on the level to which the government should interfere in interpersonal issues. My view is that anything that lacks some form of permanent harm (be it bodily, financial or emotional) doesn't require the government's involvement. Two adults quibbling and annoying each other doesn't rise to that level. Someone throwing a drink, or spraying a hose, or playing a song the other person really hates just doesn't meet that bar and doesn't require sending anyone to jail. It's a silly use of government time and resources, and it feels like a waste of my tax dollars.
- agdasdigonio 4y ago
  The fact that you compare having a drink thrown on you or getting hit with a sprinkler to this attack shows how little you understand the situation. The water is not the issue. The issue is that this man treated a vulnerable woman with absolute contempt and set out to hurt her. Maybe you don't have enough empathy to understand how that feels, but the rest of us do.
  - everforward 4y ago
    Did you not read the top level comment on this? The guy called social services and the cops a dozen times over two weeks. He tried to get her the help that he's not qualified to provide, and when that failed, he tried to solve his own problem. He did not set out to hurt her. He probably passed by a dozen objects far more capable of causing harm than a hose. Pens, staplers, frames for art, a statue, hell even his fists are all more harmful. I struggle to think of something that causes less harm than tap-pressure water. I would say he explicitly set out trying not to cause any harm, or he would've reached for a more obvious and harmful option. Neither of us knows what his state of mind was, but I don't see anything outright implying contempt. Doing something bad to someone doesn't require contempt, it can be a practical means to an end. Based on him calling social services, I would say he didn't have contempt, he just realized the government wasn't going to help and took it into his owns. Similar to managers when they have to fire someone; doing so doesn't imply or require contempt, it's just a means to an end.
    - ashwagary 4y ago
      > He did not set out to hurt her. Well he did, it's the only reason he was arrested.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  > I promise you I wouldn't. How would you feel about a stranger purposely and repeatedly drenching your sick grandmother or elderly immuno-vulnerable mother with a water hose in the middle of winter?

by dTal 4y ago

everforward 4y ago

> You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. I promise you I wouldn't. My neighbor's sprinklers hit me not infrequently (they hit parts of the sidewalk). I've had a drink thrown on me in anger. It is absolutely not intrusive or worthy of prosecution. It's annoying, but there's no permanent harm other than a bit of resentment that it happened. None of it even comes close to the line of being worth having armed men show up to lock the other person in a cell. That whole process is deeply intrusive and violates personal sovereignty to a far higher level than getting wet ever could. I think we may just fundamentally disagree on the level to which the government should interfere in interpersonal issues. My view is that anything that lacks some form of permanent harm (be it bodily, financial or emotional) doesn't require the government's involvement. Two adults quibbling and annoying each other doesn't rise to that level. Someone throwing a drink, or spraying a hose, or playing a song the other person really hates just doesn't meet that bar and doesn't require sending anyone to jail. It's a silly use of government time and resources, and it feels like a waste of my tax dollars.

agdasdigonio 4y ago
The fact that you compare having a drink thrown on you or getting hit with a sprinkler to this attack shows how little you understand the situation. The water is not the issue. The issue is that this man treated a vulnerable woman with absolute contempt and set out to hurt her. Maybe you don't have enough empathy to understand how that feels, but the rest of us do.
- everforward 4y ago
  Did you not read the top level comment on this? The guy called social services and the cops a dozen times over two weeks. He tried to get her the help that he's not qualified to provide, and when that failed, he tried to solve his own problem. He did not set out to hurt her. He probably passed by a dozen objects far more capable of causing harm than a hose. Pens, staplers, frames for art, a statue, hell even his fists are all more harmful. I struggle to think of something that causes less harm than tap-pressure water. I would say he explicitly set out trying not to cause any harm, or he would've reached for a more obvious and harmful option. Neither of us knows what his state of mind was, but I don't see anything outright implying contempt. Doing something bad to someone doesn't require contempt, it can be a practical means to an end. Based on him calling social services, I would say he didn't have contempt, he just realized the government wasn't going to help and took it into his owns. Similar to managers when they have to fire someone; doing so doesn't imply or require contempt, it's just a means to an end.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    > He did not set out to hurt her. Well he did, it's the only reason he was arrested.
ashwagary 4y ago
> I promise you I wouldn't. How would you feel about a stranger purposely and repeatedly drenching your sick grandmother or elderly immuno-vulnerable mother with a water hose in the middle of winter?