▲ 1310 ▼ Cards Against Humanity continue to bring good into the world (slrpnk.net) submitted 2 years ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 227 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] klemptor@startrek.website 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I've already mailed in my ballot. Not sure what you're suggesting in terms of stopping my neighbors from voting but that sounds highly illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Show me one law that explicitly states it's illegal to build a 10ft wide moat around my neighbor's house permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Presumably that qualifies as vandalism unless you own 10 feet of property in a ring around his house, which is an uncommon situation. Depending on the wording it might also qualify as attempted kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment or something along those lines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I just looked up the vandalism laws in my state and I didn't see the sentence "building a most around your neighbor's house is illegal" anywhere, so I think I'm in the clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, if you owned that 10' ring of property, sure. Presumably digging out 10' of public Street or 10' of his yard against his will would fall under vandalism though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago I feel like you haven't studied the pivotal case law Timberwolves v. Air Bud which clearly sets the precedent that any omission that isn't clearly and explicitly stated is inherently considered condoned by law. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Show me one law that explicitly states it's illegal to build a 10ft wide moat around my neighbor's house permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Presumably that qualifies as vandalism unless you own 10 feet of property in a ring around his house, which is an uncommon situation. Depending on the wording it might also qualify as attempted kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment or something along those lines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I just looked up the vandalism laws in my state and I didn't see the sentence "building a most around your neighbor's house is illegal" anywhere, so I think I'm in the clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, if you owned that 10' ring of property, sure. Presumably digging out 10' of public Street or 10' of his yard against his will would fall under vandalism though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago I feel like you haven't studied the pivotal case law Timberwolves v. Air Bud which clearly sets the precedent that any omission that isn't clearly and explicitly stated is inherently considered condoned by law. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Presumably that qualifies as vandalism unless you own 10 feet of property in a ring around his house, which is an uncommon situation. Depending on the wording it might also qualify as attempted kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment or something along those lines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I just looked up the vandalism laws in my state and I didn't see the sentence "building a most around your neighbor's house is illegal" anywhere, so I think I'm in the clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, if you owned that 10' ring of property, sure. Presumably digging out 10' of public Street or 10' of his yard against his will would fall under vandalism though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago I feel like you haven't studied the pivotal case law Timberwolves v. Air Bud which clearly sets the precedent that any omission that isn't clearly and explicitly stated is inherently considered condoned by law. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I just looked up the vandalism laws in my state and I didn't see the sentence "building a most around your neighbor's house is illegal" anywhere, so I think I'm in the clear permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, if you owned that 10' ring of property, sure. Presumably digging out 10' of public Street or 10' of his yard against his will would fall under vandalism though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago I feel like you haven't studied the pivotal case law Timberwolves v. Air Bud which clearly sets the precedent that any omission that isn't clearly and explicitly stated is inherently considered condoned by law. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, if you owned that 10' ring of property, sure. Presumably digging out 10' of public Street or 10' of his yard against his will would fall under vandalism though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vespair@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago I feel like you haven't studied the pivotal case law Timberwolves v. Air Bud which clearly sets the precedent that any omission that isn't clearly and explicitly stated is inherently considered condoned by law. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago I feel like you haven't studied the pivotal case law Timberwolves v. Air Bud which clearly sets the precedent that any omission that isn't clearly and explicitly stated is inherently considered condoned by law. permalink fedilink source parent
