Hacker News Reader

Comment by belval | Hacker News Reader

If you look past the headline, this story is almost "basic sanity". The guy's neighbour didn't want the accused's kids playing in the street (in the suburbs) because they have a yard. To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove recklessly around the kids in the street.

The accused flipped him off and (allegedly because he denies it) threatened him.

Now frankly, I don't see why this would be hackernews-worthy, but it's still a basic triumph of common sense. If I had kids and they want to draw in chalk in a slow suburbs street, having a nosy neighbour calling the police after speeding next to them to illustrate his point would likely make my blood boil.

View on HN

Did you read the whole report??? The complainant is essentially stalking his neighbour with surveillance footage, recording any time the neighbour so much as looks in his direction, and keeps a stalker-ish log book with insults. On top of that his wife and his father nearly hit the neighbour's 4 year olds with a car and then say they refuse to slow down. The report says the car was "inches away" from another person and that kid would have been run over!

And then the complainant has the audacity to file criminal suit over his neighbour giving him middle finger after he does it first! This story is about basic insanity.

I think we are in agreement here, the "basic sanity" is throwing this case out the window. There is nothing sane about the neighbour's behaviour.

Guy should lose his license for life for threatening to murder a child with a vehicle.

You’re obviously not very well acquainted with the utter lack of accountability that anyone benefits from as soon as they sit behind the wheel.

Also see the 500$ fines and slaps on the wrist for people who run over cyclists in Toronto. “Whoops didn’t see them” is a valid defense there.

For instance: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/01/15/in-our-system-yo...

The suburbs are ironically, but not so surprisingly filled with crazy assholes that feel like the world belongs to them, or otherwise have some absurd levels of entitlement. They feel like they own the sidewalks, or if there's no sidewalks, they own the street and everything on it or not on it in front of their house, they feel like they should control whether or not a marginally higher density building should be built down the street or whether a neighbor can paint their house a different colour. When there's no land left, they want more cul-de-sacs built for them because it's the suburban dream and fuck wetlands anyway, and when there's no social services left, they want new ones built for them at everyone else's expense and they don't really want to be part of a community; they want to be by themselves, on their fat asses, in front of their fucking TV, the only quality of which they understand is how big it is.

I absolutely loath that world and never want to return.

"If you look past the headline, this story is almost "basic sanity""

Actually, I think "basic sanity" would have been, if the accuser would have been charged with something - as clearly they were the aggressors and actually intentionally endangering children.

And the judge seems to think so as well, but it seems all he could do in his position, was to metaphorical throw the case out of the non existing window. (if I am ever charged with something, I hope I am to be judged by someone like him)

> And the judge seems to think so as well, but it seems all he could do in his position, was to metaphorical throw the case out of the non existing window.

Judges aren't prosecutors, by design they cannot bring charges against people. Otherwise the prosecutor/judge separation would be a nonsense.

> if I am ever charged with something, I hope I am to be judged by someone like him

Unless you're a crazed and/or paranoid nightmare neighbour :D

With respect to "sanity", I feel sure the complainant has poor mental health, perhaps a classifiable illness. IANAP.

Can we really conclude that just because he films his neighbors and tries to run down their kids in the street by never slowing for small children playing and keeps a diary about them and tells the judge the neighbor is out to murder them?

Yes, yes we can.

> I don't see why this would be hackernews-worthy

Garbage is submitted literally constantly, but some stuff is just upvote-bait, and the mods are pretty lax about pushing anything off the front page unless it particularly irks them

I would posit that common sense is the antithesis to government. Consider children whose parents are arrested for letting them walk to the park, or the woman arrested for silently praying, in her head, while standing in front of an abortion clinic.

Prosecutorial abuse is equally, if not more of a crisis in the world, than police abusing their arrest powers.

I have a conflicting opinions on this post. On one hand, I loathe the use of "the government" as though it is some sort of monoblock. There are plenty of people who get into public service as a way to tangibly improve society and the lives of the people.

OTOH, you are right that too many people get away with abusing their powers.

The "some abuses make it worth scrapping the whole thing" thesis is just pure folly.

Two parallel possible spins on that:

"Restrict the government since otherwise people will abuse government power."

"Have a lot of rules and regulations since otherwise people will abuse individual liberties."

Both of these make just as much sense on paper to me. On one hand you have examples of government harassment; on the other hand you have people literally being willing to sell other people poison to make a buck.

The problem in both cases is the people, not the system.

I've come to the thinking that you have to build societal values from the bottom up. You aren't gonna lawyer your way to a perfect system if you are still fostering an environment that encourages people to ignore that system, resist it, and take advantage of each other.

> I've come to the thinking that you have to build societal values from the bottom up.

And one way to build those values is by writing some basic rules down, communicating them to everybody, and enforce them. You will never have every single person refraining from taking advantage of something.

or the woman arrested for silently praying, in her head, while standing in front of an abortion clinic.

Hmm... Looks like this happened in the UK:

The video shows an officer asking Vaughan-Spruce if she was praying, to which she answers: “I might be praying in my head.”

She was charged Dec. 15 with four counts of breaking a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) around the abortion facility. A PSPO is intended to stop antisocial behavior.

Source: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253187/woman-arreste...

The Public Spaces Protection Order is here:

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Communities/PSPOs/Ophir-Road-a...

Some background on the protective order:

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/news-article.aspx?title=decisi...

So, they had so many problems that the local council put an order in place, with overwhelming public support. The woman then violated the order and even indicated that she was violating the order, by choice, all so she can play the victim.

Now it's being spun as "thought crime" so that they don't have to take responsibility for their abhorrent behavior and continue to pretend to be the ones who are victimized.

> abhorrent behavior

How can any sane person watch this video and say her behavior was "abhorrent?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6E105a58p8

Videos like this make me so thankful for the US constitution.

The behaviour in a vacuum might not be so bad but she was consciously trying to test how far she could go before they broke a law made specifically due to anti-abortion protesters like her intimidating woman to the point they wouldn't use the services.

Still shows what a police state the UK is, this lady is arrested and she was not causing any disturbance. Do we really want to live in a society where people who did not commit a crime are locked up?

> ... she was not causing any disturbance.

Sounds like she was definitely disturbing the clients of the abortion clinic.

Intimidation is a thing after all, thus the protection order, which she knowingly violated.

How is standing there causing disturbance? The real disturbance is apparent in what the police did to her.

I really want you and people who hold these views to reflect on what the implications are if someone standing quietly by themselves on a street corner constitutes intimidation. She said she was not part of a protest.

She said she wasn't but she was clearly linked. The anti-abortion protests that lead to the law in the first place commonly claimed to be "prayer vigils" and she went into the buffer zone, outside an abortion clinic to pray.

I can see where you're coming from but at the same time it was a clear attempt to get as close as possible to protesting without breaking the law.

How can any sane person watch this video and say her behavior was "abhorrent?"

I'm talking about the behavior that led to the protection order.

She's trying to play the "thought crime" angle in order to get the protection order repealed and pretend that they're being victimized. It's disingenuous.

Arresting someone for “playing the thought crime angle” appears no different to me than arresting someone for a thought crime

Then you are easily swayed by disingenuous actions.

It's newsworthy because Canada has taken a stance as being the arbiter of free speech in other regards, such as misgendering pronouns

https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-...

That seems irrelevant but consistent. In both scenarios they’ve affirmed that people have a right to just exist without duress against their existence. Seems obvious to me, but I’m just a he/them who doesn’t want to be hit by asshole drivers being assholes and who freely gives them the finger when they’re dangerous.

> To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove recklessly around the kids in the street.

It probably is dangerous [0] because people don’t let their kids play in the street anymore so drivers aren’t used to having them there.

Not like when I was a kid where we would get ball games going and pause to let the cars pass. People expected kids to be playing in the street so didn’t drive like complete lunatics.

Can’t even walk through parking lots anymore and everyone knows that there are going to be people walking around all over the place because that’s what they are designed for.

[0] Not advocating trying to scare the neighborhood kids

From reading the decision and looking at Google Maps: the street is a short, narrow dead-end street in the suburbs. Most of the people who live there have young children who play together.

It would be very difficult to accidentally find yourself on this street, driving quickly.

Of course, it's dangerous in the sense that anything to do with cars is dangerous. But it seems pretty safe as far as these things go.

I live in a much more built up area than this. Mostly small apartment buildings, duplexes and three-deckers. The odd single-family home, usually on the small side. People here still let their kids play in the streets. Not the youngest kids or the busiest streets, but it's not at all unusual to see some kids kicking a ball or playing hockey in the street, or just tooling around on bikes going nowhere.

> It would be very difficult to accidentally find yourself on this street, driving quickly.

As a parent of a 6 years old, I always assume all drivers are not paying attention to the road but rather to their phones when my kid is playing in the street (with supervision because I don't know if he will react quickly to a car coming his way)

It sucks, because I used to play in the street without supervision (to my best knowledge). But today, cars are faster and drivers are more distracted.

> I used to play in the street without supervision (to my best knowledge)

Bro, when I was a kid we went as far as to me intentionally walking into the street to slow cars down just to see what would happen ‘:)

Kids are crazy. Myself in the past included.

That's exactly why I'm sad of the precautions I take. Back then drivers had less distractions while driving. Of course there was the occasionally distracted driver but nowadays is more common than what it used to be thanks to the smartphone.

Teach your kids to move out of the street and stand in the sidewalk or yard. My 3 year old is trained to do this and will do it on her own, still working on doing it 100% of the time.

Neighborhoods have not gone up in speed limits it’s 25 in residential streets unless you live directly off a main road.

> Not like when I was a kid where we would get ball games going and pause to let the cars pass. People expected kids to be playing in the street so didn’t drive like complete lunatics.

In my neighborhood kids play in the street all the time. There are basketball goals up and down my street and the kids pause the ball games to let the cars pass.

Are you sure that you don't just live in a different place now?

Saw kids playing on my last walk around. It still exists in some places.

doesn't the noise from basketballs hitting concrete/asphalt drive you guys nuts?

It's not nearly as bad as the sound of children laughing.

The absolute horror.

for many people there's nothing beautiful in a child's laughter, especially if they don't have children of their own, so they are only getting the annoyance of noise without the good parts.

moreover, in my experience, when children play, 80% of their interactions is ugly insult-throwing, not laughter.

Also, why should the wishes of a group (children) be more important than those of another (those who wish to enjoy some quiet in their own home)?

In this case, it would be easy to reach a compromise. You want to play basketball? go to a proper public park. You want to sing your lungs off? go to a proper karaoke place. And so on.

Also, what's the beauty of a laughter achieved at the expense of others' pain?

If you don’t want to be exposed to other people live somewhere you can’t see your nearest neighbour.

A brief look at their comment history makes me quite sure they should be kept far away from... anyone, really. Except maybe a psychiatrist.

To the grand parent, if you're reading this: please get help. Your views on what activities are/aren't appropriate for children have no place in civil society.

9 year olds, dude.

and who are you to say what "civil society" means?

more importantly, attacking the messenger rather than rationally discuss their arguments is very suspicious...

Don't confuse "the messenger" with "the messenger's message, viewed in context with their other messages on related matters".

Or do, because they're both you.

nope, your comment is all about me personally, my mental health, not my ideas. It's the age old "argument" used to dismiss rational conversation: "no point discussing it, it comes from a crazy guy"

where? it's become nearly impossible because of overcrowding.

Way better than listening to traffic.

My old place was on a Stroad with cars flying by at 40+ mph. I hated the car noise with a passion. I'll take children having good time over traffic noise any day.

Turn up your music so you can't hear it? :)

people who dislike noise usually dislike music too

Interesting. Not sure how common that really is.

For me, I personally have times where I don't like some noises (annoying, etc). My solution at those times is generally to find some music I'm ok listening to (through headphones) and drown out the noise that way.

As you mention though, if it's "any noise at all", then that's going to be tough.

Nope! The only noise in my neighborhood that sometimes annoys me is loud music, but I like people to be able to enjoy themselves.

for many people enjoying themselves means being able to enjoy their own home without being forced to listen to other people excessive noise even through closed windows.

There are a few different places within a few blocks of me where there are basketball hoops set up facing the street, so the street is the court. All on side streets, seems like it hasn't been a big problem. Some of them have been there for years at this point.

Not even that far out in the burbs. Mixes of ~5ish story apartment buildings, commercial, and SFH homes for miles in all directions.

Seems like "are people used to people being in the street" is very area-specific. If this was all 5+ story mixed-use apartment developments, like a few miles north? Yeah, you don't see it as much there. On the other hand, if it was even less developed, with basically no non-local through traffic? I've seen even more.

If you vacate the space, you're responsible for the consequences.

> people don’t let their kids play in the street anymore so drivers aren’t used to having them there.

This must depend on where you are, because kids around here play in the street all the time, in residential areas.

My kids 3 and under play in the street multiple times a week during the summer. Our neighbors kids will come out if they see and vice versa.

There’s kids that throw footballs and baseballs most weekends during the warm months in the road. They move over.

What kind of place are you living?

> people don’t let their kids play in the street anymore

Careful not to generalise here. This will vary wildly from place to place and street to street. Here in the Netherlands with limitations on cars I see the streets busy with children year round.

I can't speak for Canada, not having been there, but I read favorable coverage on urban design channels different localities there who have committed to pedestrian friendly designs. It wouldn't surprise me if the street was quiet and designed with safety of children and other vulnerable users in mind.

Caveat: i read in another comment that the speed limit was 25 mph. That's over 40 km/hr. In .nl, speeds on roads in residential areas are typically limited to 30 km/hr (18 mph). And in woonerven, streets designed to enable kids playing on them, speed is limited to walking speed - by judicial ruling, 15km/hr (9 mph).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com