Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "Kid Gets Electric Shock From McCain Sign" video.

i don't disagree with what you said about the mother. if that's the case, she acted irresponsibly. no doubt. i also agree that it sends a bad message about personal liberties in this country. but i'm talking about having an attractive nuisance then setting it as a trap. that's not only cruel but illegal. for instance, if it were a lawn troll or a plastic flamingo, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. but the guy who did is culpable here. political political undertones or not
1
here's an analogy since you're in NC, i can identify a little. let's say you live in charlotte on beatties ford road. let's say that since you support mccain, you have a sign that reads "don't vote for the half-breed" on your roth iron, gated lawn. let's also say that you have mean pit bulls inside said gated lawn. if someone gets hurt by your dogs, the liability is yours. which brings me back to the part about attractive nuisance...
1
it doesn't matter about the property. i'm about an attractive nuisance (which has been established already by virtue of the fact that the sign had been tampered with more than once). the notion of a child being at fault is ridiculous because parents are responsible. like i said, i don't condone what the kid did at all but the guy essentially set a potentially dangerous trap. he handled it poorly & could be held liable
1
...the fact that it's considered an attractive nuisance has been established by the fact that it had been tampered with on multiple occasions. electrifying the sign isn't a way of protecting property. he could put a banner on his roof, he could tape a sign in his window. while it's unfair to tell him what to do with his own shit, it also remedies a problem. what he did is tantamount to having a birdbath on his lawn & you have housecats.
1
...i think more than that though, if we were talking about a broken wagon wheel, a flamingo, a freestanding inflated nylon balloon, 1 of those ridiculous bent over woman's bloomer's exposed, etc., we wouldn't be having this conversation. you'd say the guy was cruel & the kid was a rotten little snot
1
you have ny analogy backward. the trap is the cat & the boy is the bird. the sign is essentially the bait. by my reasoning (which is predicated on the concept of an attractive nuisance) the guy who set the trap is culpable. again, i don't condone screwing with the guy's lawn or anything on it but electrifying a sign ain't the way to handle it. he should have talked to the parents and, if need be, talk to the authorities. anyone can agree with that
1
that guy should be prosecuted. if they keep stealing the sign it's legally considered an attractive nuisance by virtue of the fact that it was stolen or tampered with more than once. then zapping the sign is almost like a trap. it's like having a birdhouse in your yard & you have house cats in the same yard. to me, it's actually quite cruel & he needs to get sued
1
...all my examples may be a bit extreme but they are definitely applicable in the sense that they're workable analogies. i just want you to understand my point. i, in no way, condone fucking with the fella's lawn but his treatment of the situation was wrong. he could have caught the kid on video, gone to kid's parents or even gone to the authority. what if there were a power surge? what if the kid had a heart murmur?...
1