OT - I'm a bad neighbour

[Jay]

Don't know about where you live but here in New Mexico, fires are a big deal so anyone setting of fireworks anyplace near vegetation in any way that wasn
t really safe would really get the cops attention

[ulthar]

Personally, I think waiting is better.  You have the high ground right now; calling the cops at this point would just seem vindictive.

That he quit and has not done it again is an indication that he knows he was in the wrong.  What gets me is when people know that they are wrong and do what they want anyway.  Geeesh.

[odinn7]

Worse yet, he was probably drinking and setting the fireworks off. How else would you explain his behaviour? This is not something that an "adult" in the right frame of mind should consider as a good idea if the houses and yards are laid out as you had indicated. Moron probably sobered up and realized he had been an ass.

[Evan3]

ulthar wrote:

> Evan3 wrote:

> How in the world can they enforce THAT?  You get fined for a
> noise ordinance while you are not home, go to court.  A Judge
> will throw that one out in a second.  How in the world can you
> be charged with something you are not even there to do and had
> no part in?
>

It falls under a "good samaritan" type law which states that if you share residence, you are responsible for all actions that go there, present or not. They offer community service in lieu of a fine which my roomate last year had to do when he was fined for a violation. 2 of his roomates werent there and successfully appealed the fine it in court, but Im sure they count on the ignorance or lack of caring of the college students to pay fines/ do service.

[Eirik]

"I'm going to wreck the image all of you probably have of Canadians as gentle and polite."

No, I've seen too many hockey games to have that impression!  Actually, I have met quite a few Canadians through my job and what strikes me about them is how indistinguishable from Americans they are.  Take that as a compliment or insult as you see fit :)

Your neighbor is clearly a jerk.  Tell him everyone in America thinks so.

[Eirik]

"Better to have the cops show up while he still has the smoking tubes."

Hey, if you really want him to burn, get your hands on a video camera and film the next violation.  When the cops show up, put on the robe and slippers and walk over there.  As he insists that he wasn't doing anything, hand the cops the tape with as big a grin on your face as you can manage.,

[JohnL]

>Well, the guy next door called the cops, but he didn't know the house number,
>and it was over before they arrived.

Two words: Video Camera :)

I agree with you and everyone else, the guy was being a jerk. Around here (suburbs) people occasionally set off fireworks close to the 4th of July, like 2-3 days before, but it's usually confined to around 8-9pm or so. Nobody gets too carried away. The only other noisy neighbor is the guy next door who holds relatively loud birthday parties for his daughter in the backyard. They usually end about the time it starts getting dark though.

[ulthar]

Evan3 wrote:

>2 of his roomates werent there and
> successfully appealed the fine it in court, but Im sure they
> count on the ignorance or lack of caring of the college
> students to pay fines/ do service.
>

Exactly.  A law that counts on people not fighting it is unlawful.  At least under the US Constitution, we have a presumption of innocence, and don't have to prove we did not do something.

No self respecting prosecutor (read Police Officer for minor offenses when the cop prosecutes the case in court) would dream of charging somebody with something they did not do.  Dumb.

If it were me, and in the US, I'd be filing a Federal Title 1983 Lawsuit against that City just for trying to charge me under this nonsense.

Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer.



Post Edited (06-08-04 09:32)

[JohnL]

>Exactly. A law that counts on people not fighting it is unlawful. At least under the
>US Constitution, we have a presumption of innocence, and don't have to prove
>we did not do something.

In theory we do, but in reality, the police often tend to pick the best suspect for a crime and then work on making the evidence fit their take on the crime rather than working on finding out who the real culprit is.

For example, I recall reading about a child kidnapping case, I forget the details, where the cops spent about a year investigating and harassing the woman's ex-husband, even though they had no real evidence that he had done anything wrong. They pretty much ignored everything else and just assumed that he was guilty, so they spent all their time trying to prove it. In the end, he was proven innocent and mostly through luck, the police stumbled across the real kidnapper, who had absolutely no relation to the ex-husband.

Anyone accused of child molestation is presumed to be guilty without any proof whatsoever. They'll be arrested, locked up, have their children taken away from them, and must basically prove that they didn't do it in order to get their children back. Meanwhile, their lives will be ruined.

Then there are the wonderful Asset Seizure and Forfeiture laws which allow the cops to confiscate property that they *THINK* might have been involved in the commission of a crime, without any evidence and without charging the person with anything. I order to get their property back, people must try to convince a judge that it wasn't involved in, or gained via an illegal act. People have had money, cars, even their homes taken away without ever being charged with a crime.

[ulthar]

JohnL wrote:

>
> Then there are the wonderful Asset Seizure and Forfeiture laws
> which allow the cops to confiscate property that they *THINK*
> might have been involved in the commission of a crime, without
> any evidence and without charging the person with anything. I
> order to get their property back, people must try to convince a
> judge that it wasn't involved in, or gained via an illegal act.
> People have had money, cars, even their homes taken away
> without ever being charged with a crime.

We have similar seizure laws here, but there is a big difference in regard to the innocent-guilty aspect.  Our seizure laws are Civil, and the standard of guilt is MUCH lighter: preponderance of evidence, rather than reasonable doubt.  I've seen some applications of the seizure laws that would make you sick (like cops seizing a video camera at a drug search where no drugs were found, other than the ziplock bag of Tylenol they 'seized' to seize SOMETHING drug related, when they needed a new video camera for the drug unit....saw this one first hand).  With car seizures, it was often not even the car owner who was involved in the crime, and the owner then got to be embroiled in Civil court to try to get their car back.

Asset Seizure laws are the single biggest reason rational drug laws/enforcement will never happen:  drug law enforcement is now tied to an agency making money.  One of the departments I worked for a few years back funded a new weight room for the department with seized assets.  A whole lot of people have their fingers in the seized asset pie, and will likely never let that revenue stream go.

[jmc]

If I recall correctly  from one of my legal classes, the reasonable doubt standard is actually a higher one than preponderance of evidence, at least in the US legal system.  

Of course, that's assuming juries follow instructions, which judging from my experience serving on one, is a pretty big assumption to make.

[ED]

That was YOU?   I'm coming over!

Ok I'm kidding.  As a new home owner I am discovering the joys of annoying neighbors.   I expect you could contact the police becuase in many cities fireworks are not legal anyway.  But I don't know  exactly what  they will do.  
But I do  feel for you.  
Anyone have advice about constant streams of under-supervised teenagers  across the street?  All kinds of loud cars and people parked in front of my house leaving litter on the sidewalk.

[Jay]

Anyone have advice about...

Random Land Mines

[ulthar]

jmc wrote:

> If I recall correctly  from one of my legal classes, the
> reasonable doubt standard is actually a higher one than
> preponderance of evidence, at least in the US legal system.  


That's right.

"Our seizure laws are Civil, and the standard of guilt is MUCH lighter: preponderance of evidence, rather than reasonable doubt."

The Civil Seizure cases only have to meet Preponderance of the Evidence, whereas the Criminal (drug, or other) case has to meet the much stricter Reasonable Doubt standard.

[ulthar]

Jay wrote:

> Anyone have advice about...
>
> Random Land Mines

Good one.

Very Mean Rottweiller comes to mind, as well.