/townhall/ - Townhall

Kind of reminds of a question on whether it should be legal to boobytrap your property and what it applies on collateral.

If I throw a grenade in my backyard and the shrapnel kills / injures my neighbour, am I to be held responsible for that?

>>11736
>If I throw a grenade in my backyard and the shrapnel kills / injures my neighbour, am I to be held responsible for that?
Yes.

>>11734
>attempting to be respectful to the state.
I believe this post is covered under the free speech amendment and is legal, even though it proposed a disagreement with current law.  Advise if otherwise.

>>11734
>debate question
While walking to work, I can already feel a confusion.  The debate question is not also: all deployment of grenades not directed at a person or in an occupied space should be legal (eg. denotation of a grenade in a closet adjacent a bedroom where a child is sleeping), or the converse of the converse: all use of explosives should be illegal (fireworks, mining, building demolition).  The debate is only the specified case.

>>11734
Should follow the same rules as any other weapon.
If you frag innocent people, expect at least manslaughter charges.

>>11736
Is he trespassing and has been told not to, or was the blast going into his yard?

>>11743
Thank you for entering this contentious debate.  I think that is mostly agreement with the question.  Does "frag" include injury or attempted murder?  I don't feel like digging too much into "innocent," and am content to take it to mean not an imminent threat.

>>11745
Sure. Again, same as any other weapon.

>>11747
Not to labor the point, but here's something that might change your mind: some grenades are non-lethal.  They can still almost kill people, but probably won't cause death.  One kind is a stun grenade.

>>11753
There's a lot of things that are nonlethal.
Nonetheless, they follow the same rules.
I don't see why that ought change.

>>11754
Excellent.  I think our opinions are similar.  Now I guess we wait for representatives of the conventional opinion.

>>11754
I think what I really want to argue is that police should not have special privilege to cause harm at their prerogative, in ways that would put someone in prison for a long time if the roles of police officer and non-police officer were reversed.  For hypothetical example it being legal (or not a crime, not punishable -- something like that) for police to denote a stun grenade in a residence that causes serious harm to an infant, or to beat an old man and cause a concussion and loss of hearing in one ear.  I feel that the standards should be symmetric, I guess.