I hardly call THIS a crime:

User avatar
valerie
Posts: 7125
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 12:00 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by valerie »

Poor lady. Really burns me up.

89yearold

:mad:
Tamsen's Dogster Page

http://www.dogster.com/?27525



User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by spot »

If it were her property which the children repeatedly refused to return, would you think a third-party solution justified with the story turned that way about?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
Odie
Posts: 33482
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:10 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Odie »

If it were my yard and kids constantly keep throwing the ball over.........I would keep it also.

its the parents that should be watching their kids and know better than to constantly harrass that poor ol lady!

Life is just to short for drama.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

Odie;1030247 wrote: If it were my yard and kids constantly keep throwing the ball over.........I would keep it also.

its the parents that should be watching their kids and know better than to constantly harrass that poor ol lady!




I couldn't disagree more Odie Wodie...:yh_bigsmi...-- *Please don't hit me!!!!!!!* -- Hehe...:wah:...

Well not wholeheartedly...

I'd assess her state of physical integrity and upon coming to the conclusion that she were in fine physical condition I'd fine her...I wouldn't even have had to think about it...I'd fine her appropriately...For her first offense I'd fine her $50 from which I'd revoke upon a simple apology, and upon her second offense I'd fine her in excess of $150...

Wouldn't hold up in court...Private property is just that, and anything that lands in her yard without being invoked by her person is hers to keep...

I don't know of any lawyer that would not only win, but convince anyone the prosecuting case had a snowballs chance in hell of swaying the jury...Obviously small claims court doesn't have a jury so quite frankly this story is a waste of peoples time technically...

The opinion on the matter, logically speaking, is still interesting though...

Ideally; I'd fine any person who would not allow the children to retrieve their ball

Realistically, harbored by laws I feel serve a greater purpose to points; The law would stand as is and any object landing on private property is the owner's of that land's property

With a bit of "Kids can't even play football in this damn society anymore!" :mad:
User avatar
Odie
Posts: 33482
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:10 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Odie »

K.Snyder;1030280 wrote: I couldn't disagree more Odie Wodie...:yh_bigsmi...-- *Please don't hit me!!!!!!!* -- Hehe...:wah:...

Well not wholeheartedly...

I'd assess her state of physical integrity and upon coming to the conclusion that she were in fine physical condition I'd fine her...I wouldn't even have had to think about it...I'd fine her appropriately...For her first offense I'd fine her $50 from which I'd revoke upon a simple apology, and upon her second offense I'd fine her in excess of $150...

Wouldn't hold up in court...Private property is just that, and anything that lands in her yard without being invoked by her person is hers to keep...

I don't know of any lawyer that would not only win, but convince anyone the prosecuting case had a snowballs chance in hell of swaying the jury...Obviously small claims court doesn't have a jury so quite frankly this story is a waste of peoples time technically...

The opinion on the matter, logically speaking, is still interesting though...

Ideally; I'd fine any person who would not allow the children to retrieve their ball

Realistically, harbored by laws I feel serve a greater purpose to points; The law would stand as is and any object landing on private property is the owner's of that land's property

With a bit of "Kids can't even play football in this damn society anymore!" :mad:


:-5:-5 to what I said, if the kids are constantly on purpose obviously just to **** her off keep throwing it on her property...........

so you expect this 89 year old to keep running outside and throwing the ball back over to them? c'mon!

my neighbour is 87, there is no way in hell he could constantly be running outside and throwing the ball back!

this was been ongoing!





Police say one child's father complained that Jester kept the youngsters' ball after it landed in her yard. Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard.
Life is just to short for drama.
User avatar
Odie
Posts: 33482
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:10 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Odie »

valerie;1030211 wrote: Poor lady. Really burns me up.

89yearold

:mad:


Its what parents expect these days, their kids are always right! -NO 89 year old can possible continually keep throwing the ball back......my neighbour who is 87, there is no way in hell he could do that!......and those kids just expect her to?:-5:-5

shame on the kids and the parents.......sounds like its purposely being done just to harrass her!
Life is just to short for drama.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

Odie;1030287 wrote: :-5:-5 to what I said, if the kids are constantly on purpose obviously just to **** her off keep throwing it on her property...........

so you expect this 89 year old to keep running outside and throwing the ball back over to them? c'mon!

my neighbour is 87, there is no way in hell he could constantly be running outside and throwing the ball back!

this was been ongoing!





Police say one child's father complained that Jester kept the youngsters' ball after it landed in her yard. Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard.


Odie Wodie -- Sweetheart...:wah:...I'd said specifically if the woman was not in adequate physical condition to throw the balls back(Obviously I don't know why people from a majority standpoint have to be so cynical that they cannot allow the kids to go in their yard and get the ball -- If people didn't have fences it wouldn't be as much a problem as if they do otherwise -- And this sweetheart is the society we live in!!!!!!! :mad: <----I'm not mad at you I'm mad at them...And I hope you don't mind that I call you "sweetheart",..I'm harmless I promise!!!!!!!...Hehe...:yh_bigsmi...) that I wouldn't mind if she kept them...

When I was a kid we would play sports practically every day...Balls land in people's yards...

You know what the funny thing is?...Is that kids grow up hearing **** about balls landing in yards to grow up to be professional athletes and those same people cheer their guts out for them oblivious to the fact they were cynical ******** to them their entire life...
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

Good grief. Maybe these were punkass kids. Maybe this woman was tired of hearing their ball go THUNK against her living room window. A fine is not necessary though. This could be handled with some flipping communication.

She returns the ball.

The kids play elsewhere.

Everyone's happy.

How much easier can it be? :thinking:
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by spot »

RedGlitter;1030361 wrote: A fine is not necessary though. This could be handled with some flipping communication. Only if she cooperates, surely.Jester seems as amazed as everyone else that a simple neighborhood spat over kids tromping through a yard could get so out of hand, culminating last Thursday with her arrest by Blue Ash police after she refused to return the football or accept a written citation. The dispute is, after all, so common in neighborhoods across the country that it’s become an all-American cliché: The cantankerous neighbor vs. the rowdy kids.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2008 ... /310210031

Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030361 wrote: Good grief. Maybe these were punkass kids. Maybe this woman was tired of hearing their ball go THUNK against her living room window. A fine is not necessary though. This could be handled with some flipping communication.

She returns the ball.

The kids play elsewhere.

Everyone's happy.

How much easier can it be? :thinking:


The kids may be living in inner city housing developments with no parks around and the ones that are around are havens for drug dealers and rapists...

"Maybe" is relative to the point both virtues can be possible so what's left is deciding if one feels the majority of the world is good hearted individuals - AKA - People who like to play sports and have a good time - or "punkass kids" - AKA - punks...

Perhaps a vote...
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

Right so the woman is immoral/non goodhearted because she's tired of other people being irresponsible enough to repeatedly launch their ball in her yard. I expect she has asked them not to. Probably more than once or twice.

I guess I'm not good hearted either because I get on the kids who run their dirtbikes past my house at 8 AM every day.

Inner city or not, I would figure they had more than this woman's home to play in front of.

In a way I disagree with keeping their ball but I also understand "if you can't keep it out of my yard, I'll keep the damn thing for you."
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

Odie;1030299 wrote: Its what parents expect these days, their kids are always right! -NO 89 year old can possible continually keep throwing the ball back......my neighbour who is 87, there is no way in hell he could do that!......and those kids just expect her to?:-5:-5

shame on the kids and the parents.......sounds like its purposely being done just to harrass her!


From what I gather of the story the kids continuously "trespassed":rolleyes: in her yard to get their balls...

My first instinct tells me she has a garden...If she does not have a garden that the kids sort of "ruin" then my disappointment in the woman in question grows incrementally with the amount of lesser damage the children have or potentially invoke upon the integrity of her land...

If she lives in the desert with no garden and no plant life what so ever I'd personally take pleasure in telling her what a damn thoughtless, inconsiderate, ill compassionate person she is...But I give her the benefit of the doubt equal to that of the integrity of the children involved...
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

I hardly think that's right or fair. The property belongs to the woman which gives her ultimate right in deciding who if anyone sets foot on it. The notion that she's a terrible person for not wanting a bunch of kids on her land, or indeed anyone, is absurd. We are all allowed our own personal space and if you buy it, it's yours. We do not and should not have to be expected to allow people to bother us in our space.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030371 wrote: Right so the woman is immoral/non goodhearted because she's tired of other people being irresponsible enough to repeatedly launch their ball in her yard. I expect she has asked them not to. Probably more than once or twice. If she had nothing to ruin, and speaking in divination, if the children did not jeopardize the integrity of her yard then yes she's a rude, inconsiderate bitch because philosophically she does not own that land...

If, and in speaking in divination, her health is disturbed by the children entering her yard and she's warned them not to throw balls in her yard then I see no problem with her being irritated...

*Obviously the children ruining her yard would stress her upon her preference to not see them or the children's balls(No jokes please...It's late and I'm getting ready for bed...) in her yard which justifies her objection...

RedGlitter;1030371 wrote:

I guess I'm not good hearted either because I get on the kids who run their dirtbikes past my house at 8 AM every day. If the dirt bikes disturbs your health then no you're not not a good person...

RedGlitter;1030371 wrote:

Inner city or not, I would figure they had more than this woman's home to play in front of.

In a way I disagree with keeping their ball but I also understand "if you can't keep it out of my yard, I'll keep the damn thing for you." My emphasis isn't technicality but has everything to do with the question of "Why the hell is it a big deal for a child's ball to go in the neighbors yard?"...Are neighbors that vampire like they mind so much that playing children lose their ball in their yard?...

Can I ask you something?...

What damage does it cause that a ball rolls in a yard?...

Balls flying in a garden people rely on for food is one thing, but please give me a break...A damn ball?...
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030375 wrote: I hardly think that's right or fair. The property belongs to the woman which gives her ultimate right in deciding who if anyone sets foot on it. The notion that she's a terrible person for not wanting a bunch of kids on her land, or indeed anyone, is absurd. We are all allowed our own personal space and if you buy it, it's yours. We do not and should not have to be expected to allow people to bother us in our space.


I like to talk to people myself.
Milly
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:39 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Milly »

Whatever happened to compromise? :thinking:

Fair enough, kids will be kids and it would be cruel to want to stop children playing and spoiling their enjoyment, but in turn, it's also unfair to spoil this old dears life because the kids are allowed to play wherever they want regardless if it is annoying to their neighbours!..... The article said that this had been an ongoing problem so the childrens parents were aware of the nuicense the kids were making of themselves.... why couldn't the parents have either asked the kids to play closer to their own homes effecting only themselves when playing ball, or take the kids to the park!?....

The way I see it, the parents should have discussed this with their children when they initially realised there was a problem and encouraged them to play elsewhere, to have allowed this womans harrassment to continue is wrong and the penalty this woman is facing because of the parents choosing to ignore the problem is wrong too IMO
Click here to read FOC thread part 1



User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by spot »

Did nobody actually see "she refused to return the football or accept a written citation"? This isn't to do with private land or personal space, this is to do with bald-headed ornery intransigence.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Milly
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:39 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Milly »

spot;1030381 wrote: Did nobody actually see "she refused to return the football or accept a written citation"? This isn't to do with private land or personal space, this is to do with bald-headed ornery intransigence.


I wouldn't accept it either and I have a full head of hair! :wah:

Had she returned the ball or accepted the citation she would have then been admitting she was wrong and would then have to put up with more of what she's been going through... this has been an ongoing problem that could have been resolved given a little consideration to the old lady not wanting to be continually pestered by the children....
Click here to read FOC thread part 1



RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

K.Snyder;1030378 wrote: If she had nothing to ruin and speaking in divination if the children did not jeopardize the integrity of her yard then yes she's a rude, inconsiderate bitch because philosophically she does not own that land...

If, and in speaking in divination, her health is disturbed by the children entering her yard and she's warned them not to throw balls in her yard then I see no problem with her being irritated...

*Obviously the children ruining her yard would stress her upon her preference to not see them or the children's balls(No jokes please...It's late and I'm getting ready for bed...) in her yard which justifies her objection...

If the dirt bikes disturbs your health then no you're not not a good person...

My emphasis isn't technicality but has everything to do with the question of "Why the hell is it a big deal for a child's ball to go in the neighbors yard?"...Are neighbors that vampire like they mind so much that playing children lose their ball in their yard?...

Can I ask you something?...

What damage does it cause that a ball rolls in a yard?...

Balls flying in a garden people rely on for food is one thing, but please give me a break...A damn ball?...


Wow.....the woman's a bitch because she wants to be left alone in her own home? You know how I feel about men calling women bitches, but that's between us. You're not understanding that if the woman doesn't want their ball in her yard for any reason she's in the right. Its HER yard. End of! :P *hehe*
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by spot »

Milly;1030386 wrote: I wouldn't accept it either and I have a full head of hair! :wah:

Had she returned the ball or accepted the citation she would have then been admitting she was wrong and would then have to put up with more of what she's been going through... this has been an ongoing problem that could have been resolved given a little consideration to the old lady not wanting to be continually pestered by the children....


If it were her property which the children repeatedly refused to return, would you think a third-party solution justified with the story turned that way about?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Milly
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:39 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Milly »

spot;1030392 wrote: If it were her property which the children repeatedly refused to return, would you think a third-party solution justified with the story turned that way about?


I'm not saying a third party shouldn't be involved in cases that have gone on as long as the case above has.... What I am saying is that I feel in this particular case the problem lies with the children harrassing this woman and had the problem been the other way around, I would feel exactly the same....

This was all unnecessary and had the parents had the good common sense to just ask their kids to play elsewhere it would never have gotten to where it is now....
Click here to read FOC thread part 1



Milly
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:39 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Milly »

I gotta go shopping now... I'm not being a coward and running from the topic... I'll be back! :wah:
Click here to read FOC thread part 1



User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by spot »

Milly;1030397 wrote: I'm not saying a third party shouldn't be involved in cases that have gone on as long as the case above has.... What I am saying is that I feel in this particular case the problem lies with the children harrassing this woman and had the problem been the other way around, I would feel exactly the same....

This was all unnecessary and had the parents had the good common sense to just ask their kids to play elsewhere it would never have gotten to where it is now....


had the problem been the other way around, you would feel exactly the same that it was the children harassing this woman? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Milly
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:39 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Milly »

spot;1030400 wrote: had the problem been the other way around, you would feel exactly the same that it was the children harassing this woman? Or am I misunderstanding you?


AGHHHHHHHHH I gotta get ready! LOL...

I'm saying -

If the old lady was constantly 'unecessarily' chucking things into the garden of the children and then demanding they stop whatever it is they're doing and return said items causing them much upset in having to do so time after time I'd consider that harrassment too.... There's just no need for it....
Click here to read FOC thread part 1



K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030390 wrote: Wow.....the woman's a bitch because she wants to be left alone in her own home? You know how I feel about men calling women bitches, but that's between us. You're not understanding that if the woman doesn't want their ball in her yard for any reason she's in the right. Its HER yard. End of! :P *hehe*


No it's not her yard, it's everyone's yard. End of.

But the facts having been presented to the thread never at any point illustrated that anything upon her "property" were damaged and if her "property" were damaged then she would be entitled to be upset...

The facts as of yet state that she denied the child's preference to have their ball returned out of sheer spite...

Facts are the key in determining the integrity behind any given situation.

As I've stated before, upon any of her property being damaged she, in my own mind, is completely and utterly justified in being upset...

If not then she's a bitch. End of.
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

All right K. Here's a fact: if you buy something you own it. Her yard is her yard.And whether sh ewants to stick pink flamingoes in it or ban kids from it, whatever, its her right and no she isn't a bitch for it. Not everyone adores kids beyond reason and they're not bad if they don't.

What is likely is that the parents and the kids regard this woman as a cranky old sourpuss and have no regard for her feelings or her rights. Personally, having been around enough kids,I doubt the ball just kept happily rolling into her yard. Its more likely she told them to keep the ball out of her yard and then the next time it went thwacking into her kitchen wall. Then five times later she'd had enough of their sh*t and confiscated the ball. I say good. If the kids can't respect her enough to control their ball, then they lose it. Now maybe they'll learn. Wow this attitude that she's a bitch; wish you'd find a more acceptable term because I really have disrespect for that, seriously. But again I suppose thats between us.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

Milly;1030397 wrote: I'm not saying a third party shouldn't be involved in cases that have gone on as long as the case above has.... What I am saying is that I feel in this particular case the problem lies with the children harrassing this woman and had the problem been the other way around, I would feel exactly the same....

This was all unnecessary and had the parents had the good common sense to just ask their kids to play elsewhere it would never have gotten to where it is now....


I personally feel, given the current facts, that the woman is to blame for depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy.

Obviously given the current facts of course.
User avatar
mrsK
Posts: 3342
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:23 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by mrsK »

valerie;1030211 wrote: Poor lady. Really burns me up.

89yearold

:mad:


Two sides to every story.

Don't think the lady deserves the big fine or jail.

The kids need to play somewhere as well.

Mediation is needed;)
It's nice to be important,but more important to be nice.
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

K.Snyder;1030417 wrote: I personally feel, given the current facts, that the woman is to blame for depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy.

Obviously given the current facts of course.


*whacks K upside the head with wet noodle*

:-5 Give me a break, pal! These kids are no more important than this woman. Their "right to have a childhood" as demonstrated by a freaking ball, is no more important than her right to live out her days in a peaceful existence. K, don't make me fly to Ohio and show you the error of your ways, buddy. I'm crazy enough I might do it.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030413 wrote: All right K. Here's a fact: if you buy something you own it. Her yard is her yard.And whether sh ewants to stick pink flamingoes in it or ban kids from it, whatever, its her right and no she isn't a bitch for it. Not everyone adores kids beyond reason and they're not bad if they don't.


Ok first of all,..YOU!!!!...



:wah:...

I'm not being honery I swear!!!!!!!...

Ok but seriously you're defining "right" by the law of man and I am not...Both can be argued so this is argumentative.

Technically, as I've stated she has the "right" to keep the ball. I've stated that. I have no illusions about thus.

RedGlitter;1030413 wrote:

What is likely is that the parents and the kids regard this woman as a cranky old sourpuss and have no regard for her feelings or her rights. Personally, having been around enough kids,I doubt the ball just kept happily rolling into her yard. Its more likely she told them to keep the ball out of her yard and then the next time it went thwacking into her kitchen wall. Then five times later she'd had enough of their sh*t and confiscated the ball. Those weren't the facts having been presented to the thread...What I've done is placed my logic behind the information that has been presented to me...

What is your logic as to why the woman is justified in keeping the ball(s) given the current facts having been presented?...No damage has been presented to the case keep in mind...

RedGlitter;1030413 wrote:

I say good. If the kids can't respect her enough to control their ball, then they lose it. Now maybe they'll learn. Wow this attitude that she's a bitch; wish you'd find a more acceptable term because I really have disrespect for that, seriously. But again I suppose thats between us. I'm leaning towards the possibility you feel the woman should keep the ball out of sheer spite...I sincerely do not respect people who are spiteful with ill intentions. I'm sincerely as well am not implying you're spiteful.

Why do you give justification in the woman keeping the ball?...
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030424 wrote: *whacks K upside the head with wet noodle*

:-5 Give me a break, pal! These kids are no more important than this woman. Their "right to have a childhood" as demonstrated by a freaking ball, is no more important than her right to live out her days in a peaceful existence. K, don't make me fly to Ohio and show you the error of your ways, buddy. I'm crazy enough I might do it.


Easy.

All you have to do is fined which is biased towards succession.

The children were playing and having a good time. The children should expect to never see their ball again after having lost it into the woman's yard.

The woman should have no problem with children playing upon no damage being done to her yard which would ultimately give credence to her obligation to give the ball back.

I don't know how more simple it can be.

Keeping the ball out of sheer spite is not justifiable in my own mind.

To suggest children playing is not justified is the next argument. Are you prepared to do as much?
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

K.Snyder;1030428 wrote: Ok first of all,..YOU!!!!...



:wah:...

I'm not being honery I swear!!!!!!!...

Ok but seriously you're defining "right" by the law of man and I am not...Both can be argued so this is argumentative.

Technically, as I've stated she has the "right" to keep the ball. I've stated that. I have no illusions about thus.

Those weren't the facts having been presented to the thread...What I've done is placed my logic behind the information that has been presented to me...

What is your logic as to why the woman is justified in keeping the ball(s) given the current facts having been presented?...No damage has been presented to the case keep in mind...

K, you seem to think that anything goes as long as no damage is done. I disagree. I feel the woman is justified in keeping the ball because the kids did not honor her wishes of keeping it off her propwrty an dthe parents either didn't know or didn't care enough to see that it was done.

If the kids agreed to keep the ball off her yard (and held to it) and she returned the ball, then I think all would be well.

I'm leaning towards the possibility you feel the woman should keep the ball out of sheer spite...I sincerely do not respect people who are spiteful with ill intentions. I'm sincerely as well am not implying you're spiteful.

Well I do think that and I have no problem with it. The kids need to learn a lesson in coexistence. The kids show her no respect, why should she show them any? You and I differ here as we do in matters of vengeance and eye for eye. It's getting kinda hairy in here...:-3



Why do you give justification in the woman keeping the ball?...


See above please. :)
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

K.Snyder;1030430 wrote: Easy.

All you have to do is fined which is biased towards succession.

The children were playing and having a good time. The children should expect to never see their ball again after having lost it into the woman's yard.

The woman should have no problem with children playing upon no damage being done to her yard which would ultimately give credence to her obligation to give the ball back.

I don't know how more simple it can be.

Keeping the ball out of sheer spite is not justifiable in my own mind.

Putting spite aside for a minute, where we disagree most is that you feel (no this isn't speculation) this woman *should* love kids (and who said she didn't?) or else she's in the wrong just by being "a bad person."

I don't buy that.

I know lots of good people who don't care for kids. Doesnt mean they'd run them over with their cars, just means they prefer adult company. So what? All kinds of people in the world. The woman should keep the ball until the kids apologize for harassing her with it and promise not to do it again.

To suggest children playing is not justified is the next argument. Are you prepared to do as much?


Nope, I have no probs with kids playing. I even used to be one myself. But i was respectful and I expect other kids to be as well, or to *learn* how to be. It upsets me that you don't seem to have respect for this woman's right to be left alone. Damage keeps cropping up. I just do not agree with that at all.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030432 wrote: See above please. :)


Very well...

So your logic is one to teach the children to mind others' preferences and has nothing specifically to do with the ball. Fine. I understand that. Everyone should present their logic upon every instance of involvement. Thank you. :yh_kiss...:wah:...

What's next is ones opinion...

Seeing as how all of the facts haven't been presented I cannot make a specific judgment at this particular time but I'm leaning more towards the woman not being empathetic...But then again, my level of sympathy pertaining to the current matter is extremely one sided seeing as how I'm only 27 compared to 89...

I used to put dints in my neighbors siding an 1/8 the size of the diameter of a baseball...They moved out because of us we think...

:wah:...

The loud music didn't help things much either...
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

SEE?? You punkass kid!!

:wah: :-4
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030438 wrote: Putting spite aside for a minute, where we disagree most is that you feel (no this isn't speculation) this woman *should* love kids (and who said she didn't?) or else she's in the wrong just by being "a bad person."

I don't buy that.

I know lots of good people who don't care for kids. Doesnt mean they'd run them over with their cars, just means they prefer adult company. So what? All kinds of people in the world. The woman should keep the ball until the kids apologize for harassing her with it and promise not to do it again. That's just it RedGlitter she is harming them by not honoring their right to be children by keeping the ball out of sheer spite. I'm sorry but keeping the ball simply because she doesn't want it in her yard for a short period of time and not allowing the children to take :thinking: what I would figure to be no more than 30 steps, doesn't matter which leg they move first, in order to obtain their ball...

I would give her the benefit of the doubt if the report had confirmed physical damage both on her and the yard but didn't...You see the facts in every case are what's important...Even on something as small as this, facts are important before going in with a biased mind set...You cannot assume the ball hit her house or damaged her or any part of her yard because the report specifically stated "Jester kept the youngsters' ball after it landed in her yard. Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard. "...No damage. The current rational assumption is that the woman kept the ball out of sheer spite which to me helps toward which party is justified in their actions.

RedGlitter;1030438 wrote: Nope, I have no probs with kids playing. I even used to be one myself. But i was respectful and I expect other kids to be as well, or to *learn* how to be. It upsets me that you don't seem to have respect for this woman's right to be left alone. Damage keeps cropping up. I just do not agree with that at all. Very well...What is the problem in the woman allowing the children to move into her yard and get the ball without her knowing about it speaking in divination that the yard or anything involved with her person remains undamaged?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030444 wrote: SEE?? You punkass kid!!

:wah: :-4


Actually to be honest such doesn't define me as a "punk ass kid"...

Why is because they'd never once voiced their displeasure...After the fact that they had, hypothetically speaking, then and only then would I be defined as being a "punk ass kid"...

But before you call these kids "punk ass kids" you have to take into account not only accidents but the sacrifice worth taking in order to ensure these children have a potential for a healthy future...Depriving them of the playground is not only detrimental to their health but extremely, completely, and utterly rude.

:yh_bigsmi...

Obviously in this case the sacrifice is worth it thus far in the case because no damage has been reported both mentally nor physically...Spite remains to be the motivation in this case.
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

K.Snyder;1030448 wrote: That's just it RedGlitter she is harming them by not honoring their right to be children by keeping the ball out of sheer spite. I'm sorry but keeping the ball simply because she doesn't want it in her yard for a short period of time and not allowing the children to take :thinking: what I would figure to be no more than 30 steps, doesn't matter which leg they move first, in order to obtain their ball...

I would give her the benefit of the doubt if the report had confirmed physical damage both on her and the yard but didn't...You see the facts in every case are what's important...Even on something as small as this, facts are important before going in with a biased mind set...You cannot assume the ball hit her house or damaged her or any part of her yard because the report specifically stated "Jester kept the youngsters' ball after it landed in her yard. Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard. "...No damage. The current rational assumption is that the woman kept the ball out of sheer spite which to me helps toward which party is justified in their actions.

Very well...What is the problem in the woman allowing the children to move into her yard and get the ball without her knowing about it speaking in divination that the yard or anything involved with her person remains undamaged?


The problem is that it is her yard and if she doesn't want anyone in it for *any* reason, she is in the right. It doesn't have to please anybody. It is her property, she owns it. That's like saying "what's the harm in Witnesses coming into your yard to leave Watchtowers on it? They don't cause damage."

They don't have to cause damage. The *fact* is they have no right being there. Period. Reason unnecessary because it's someone else's land. That's the law. Maybe she didn't want kids traipsing on her nice grass to get their ball. WHo knows. But if these kids were asked/told to keep their ball elsewhere and they did not, then they were in the wrong. Say you're sorry and don't let it happen again, and she'll give back the ball. It's that simple. Nobody "owes" a kid a spot on their property to play. Thats what the kids backyard is for.

K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030456 wrote: The problem is that it is her yard and if she doesn't want anyone in it for *any* reason, she is in the right. It doesn't have to please anybody. It is her property, she owns it. That's like saying "what's the harm in Witnesses coming into your yard to leave Watchtowers on it? A watchtower is permanent...But if I didn't know the people were placing one up and taking it down why should I mind?...Why would you mind if you hadn't known otherwise?...

RedGlitter;1030456 wrote:

They don't cause damage."

They don't have to cause damage. The *fact* is they have no right being there. Period. Reason unnecessary because it's someone else's land. I understand that and if those kids were told to not go on her property they should expect to never see their balls again:thinking:...:confused:...:wah:...

But that doesn't excuse the person unwilling to give the ball back from not being empathetic and inconsiderate.

RedGlitter;1030456 wrote:

That's the law. Maybe she didn't want kids traipsing on her nice grass to get their ball. We're on that maybe thing again...I've placed my logic on the matter pertaining to the facts having been presented...I've stated if the yard were damaged then she'd be justified in being upset...

RedGlitter;1030456 wrote:

WHo knows. But if these kids were asked/told to keep their ball elsewhere and they did not, then they were in the wrong. Say you're sorry and don't let it happen again, and she'll give back the ball. It's that simple. Nobody "owes" a kid a spot on their property to play. Thats what the kids backyard is for.




I agree...

I also agree that people who are irritated about a child's ball landing in their yard upon no harm to themselves or their land then they're inconsiderate and a prudish, non empathetic, cynical being of unpleasant fortitude.
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

K.Snyder;1030453 wrote: Actually to be honest such doesn't define me as a "punk ass kid"...

K, you know I was funning you.

Why is because they'd never once voiced their displeasure...After the fact that they had, hypothetically speaking, then and only then would I be defined as being a "punk ass kid"...

Thank you! So presumably if this woman did indeed voice her displeasure and the kids ignored it, then....punkass kids.

But before you call these kids "punk ass kids" you have to take into account not only accidents but the sacrifice worth taking in order to ensure these children have a potential for a healthy future...Depriving them of the playground is not only detrimental to their health but extremely, completely, and utterly rude.

:yh_bigsmi...

K, therein lies the rub. This isn't a playground. This is a woman's personal home. She owes these children nothing. You are putting those kids above her right as a landowner and private human being and thats just wrong.

Obviously in this case the sacrifice is worth it thus far in the case because no damage has been reported both mentally nor physically...Spite remains to be the motivation in this case.


No it doesn't. A proper showing of respect for other people's rights is not spite.

Grr. :wah:
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

K.Snyder;1030460 wrote: A watchtower is permanent...But if I didn't know the people were placing one up and taking it down why should I mind?...Why would you mind if you hadn't known otherwise?...

I understand that and if those kids were told to not go on her property they should expect to never see their balls again:thinking:...:confused:...:wah:...

But that doesn't excuse the person unwilling to give the ball back from not being empathetic and inconsiderate.

We're on that maybe thing again...I've placed my logic on the matter pertaining to the facts having been presented...I've stated if the yard were damaged then she'd be justified in being upset...



I agree...

I also agree that people who are irritated about a child's ball landing in their yard upon no harm to themselves or their land then they're inconsiderate and a prudish, non empathetic, cynical being of unpleasant fortitude.


Hi! I'm a prudish, nonempathetic, cynical being of unpleasant fortitude because I don't like the noisy neighbor kids' crap in my yard! Now obviously you know I am not a bad person. So why not extend some empathy to this woman? My God. She's in her own damned home minding her business. Put those kids in their own yard! That would solve everything!

As for the Watchtower, Kevin are you crazy?! Are you honestly telling me I shouldn't mind when Witnesses trespass on my land and drop off their brainwash in my yard because they haven't actually damaged my grass?! Are you saying that??
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030466 wrote: No it doesn't. A proper showing of respect for other people's rights is not spite.

Grr. :wah:


Right, but the woman thus far in the case defines those kids as being "punk ass kids" because currently she's displayed that she is "a prudish, nonempathetic, cynical being of unpleasant fortitude"...

Facts...You're arguing against your own argument in saying she's more justified than the kids playing...Seeing as how at the present time I cannot justify her keeping the ball out of sheer spite this is where I'd have to leave the argument...

You've already stated that you won't "suggest children playing is not justified"...

You're opinion is that the woman is justified in keeping the ball out of sheer spite...I cannot agree with that. I'm sorry...

I'm sure I will be continuing this conversation with you at another time but for now I'm off to bed...

Goodnight.

































:yh_bigsmi...

Don't love me because I'm beautiful...:yh_kiss...

:yh_bigsmi...



:wah:
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by RedGlitter »

I think we've torn this to shreds and we're still not going to agree. But I have to get to bed too. I need to be up at 6. See ya. :-6
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030483 wrote: I think we've torn this to shreds and we're still not going to agree. But I have to get to bed too. I need to be up at 6. See ya. :-6


Auf Wedersehen...

And don't worry,..grandma is keeping it!!!!!!!...



:wah:
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by K.Snyder »

RedGlitter;1030470 wrote: Hi! I'm a prudish, nonempathetic, cynical being of unpleasant fortitude because I don't like the noisy neighbor kids' crap in my yard! Now obviously you know I am not a bad person. So why not extend some empathy to this woman? My God. She's in her own damned home minding her business. Put those kids in their own yard! That would solve everything! Yes the kids should have been equally empathetic towards the woman's preference for for the children to keep their balls out of the woman's yard. But you've already said you're not ready to not justify the children playing...Accidents are still very much a probability and seeing as how motivation is the key the children are more justified given the current facts pertaining to the case.

RedGlitter;1030470 wrote:

As for the Watchtower, Kevin are you crazy?! Are you honestly telling me I shouldn't mind when Witnesses trespass on my land and drop off their brainwash in my yard because they haven't actually damaged my grass?! Are you saying that??


I would absolutely have no problem with people placing a watchtower in my yard upon no harm being done both to myself nor my yard...

I would wonder why the hell they'd want to place a watchtower in my yard...What are they paranoid over?...They do realize this is 2008 and watchtowers are obsolete for the most part and seeing as how I live in Ohio there's no lions or bears around...
User avatar
kazalala
Posts: 13036
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:00 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by kazalala »

Where i used to live before, was a huge field at the back of me ,, kids used o play, people used to walk their dogs etc. Sometimes a ball came over in to my garden. Once a kid knocked on my dorr to ask for thier ball back,, i gfot it for them and said ther ye go be careful now. They couldnt just come in the back way as we had no gates at the back. It came over again,, i gave it back again, then went and popped my head over the back fence, they were playing footy(soccer) but had the "goalposts" facing my back fence, they saw me looking so i said,, hey lads,, why dont you turn the goalposts the other way so they are not against the fence then the ball probably wont come over as much,, if im out you migh have to wait ages for me coming back to get your ball. A lightbulb seemed to go on n their heads and they said oh,, ok with a sheepish smile.

Another time, we used to get a group of teenagers come on to the field with a bag of cans of lager, lambrini etc. they never bothered anyone, didnt make any noise and did'nt throw their empties over your fence,,,,,,but they did leave the empty cans and bottles on the field which eventually ended up smashed and cans torn in half,,, so one time they were just arriving, i went over to them,, they were trying to hide their alcohol so i said ,,, no use hiding that from me im not your mother:Dthey smiled a bit but were still unsure,, i said ,,,listen guys like i said im no your mother so im not here to lecture you, but can you do me a favour,, when you leave please put yur empties in the bag you have and take them with you, put them in a bin somewhere, Kids and dogs play onthis field and someone could get hurt badly. They apologised and said ye no bother sorry:o

Both times these things were sorted out quickly i think because i approached them in a friemdly non aggressive manner, im not saying that would work everytime,, but its worth a try innit?




FOC THREAD PART1

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

Martin Luther King Jr.
Violetmay
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:06 am

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Violetmay »

RedGlitter;1030361 wrote: Good grief. Maybe these were punkass kids. Maybe this woman was tired of hearing their ball go THUNK against her living room window. A fine is not necessary though. This could be handled with some flipping communication.

She returns the ball.

The kids play elsewhere.

Everyone's happy.

How much easier can it be? :thinking:


The simple route is not always the one first taken. Shame.
Wibble
User avatar
Peg
Posts: 8673
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:00 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Peg »

If the neighbor's ball came in my yard 100 times a day, I'd let them get it. I'd even let them play ball in my yard even if there was 50 of them. Why? Because as long as they are playing ball, they are not out on some street corner smoking a joint, busting out windows, etc.
User avatar
valerie
Posts: 7125
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 12:00 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by valerie »

Peg;1030558 wrote: If the neighbor's ball came in my yard 100 times a day, I'd let them get it. I'd even let them play ball in my yard even if there was 50 of them. Why? Because as long as they are playing ball, they are not out on some street corner smoking a joint, busting out windows, etc.


All due respect, Peg... you aren't 89 years old!! Besides which, kids

with no respect for their elders are very likely to end up being the ones

smoking joints and busting windows.

I know what these brats were doing. I've been on the receiving end of

it you might say. I've tried the nice talk and throwing it back and I've

tried telling them the dog will tear up whatever it is (she never would

have but they didn't know that) and sometimes, nothing works, they

WANT to irritate the life out of you and they will.

I've had things damaged in my yard, plenty of times. Some of you may

have seen pics of my zinnias out front, I've had kids throw stuff and

break off flowers before. I once had a football come over the fence and

break a really nice flower pot. That's not even taking into account my

physical fitness and the ability to pick up the ball and throw it back.

At EIGHTY-NINE years old, this woman probably can't do that. Maybe

she has arthritis or just not very good muscle tone. In any case, over

time, the frustration level has to be very high.

Shortly after we first moved in here, neighbor kids were chipping golf

balls off our front lawn! Huge divots everywhere. I went and pointed

out what they were doing and they said sorry and didn't do it again,

but if they had? If these particular kids were disrespectful, I'd have

had to take other action.

You never want to **** off neighborhood kids, I learned that a long

time ago (and hence giving out full sized candy bars at Halloween!)

but a lot of times, they really don't care about pissing YOU off!
Tamsen's Dogster Page

http://www.dogster.com/?27525



User avatar
Peg
Posts: 8673
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:00 pm

I hardly call THIS a crime:

Post by Peg »

SHE doesn't have to throw the ball back. She could let them come get it. Growing up, my husband lived next door to a lady like this. All they wanted was to get their ball, but she would not allow it. They never did anything destructive. Not all kids are bad just as all adults are not. I'd have to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they were destructive, that's a whole different thing.
Post Reply

Return to “Crimes Trials”