A karmic beat-down on Sterling...

From the stories told by those who have had some experience with this sad old man, he seems to have come very close to threatening people to the point where self defense might be appropriate. As to whether he ever crossed over that line, I cannot say.

I do not believe though that self defense could be used as a legal defense if he kicked a dog and the owner then assaulted him. Those who decide to react in this manner may get their own karmic smackdown.

I prefer to steer clear of people like this, as today may be the day they take their actions to a new level.

As to whether karma is involved, I tend to think not. We have politicians and business leaders whose actions and policies wreak far greater violence on much larger numbers of people. Rarely do we see the karmic blowback some here believe is justified.

pima wrote: Those who decide to react in this manner may get their own karmic smackdown.

I'd say my karma would be soothed for defending a weaker sentient being.

A chance to use Philosophy 101, excellent! What would Kant say? How could one apply the Veil of Ignorance to this scenario? ...Did the crowd obtain more Utility from seeing him punched than the man suffered in pain?

Surely someone has a copy of an old paper comparing and contrasting Karma and Kant.... post it here. I want diagrams! We need decision trees!

Subject: There's a difference between your lawn and a public sidewalk

rockhound wrote: As a curmudgeonly sort myself, I suspect there is a valid reason that man is the way he is. He sounds like the ultimate "GET OFF MY LAWN" oldster.

If anyone is foolish enough to kick my pit bull I hope they get what they deserve. Does this guy actually kick pit bulls?

I don't think mine would bite him, she'd be too surprised and she's a punk. But if he kicked one of these poorly socialized pits from around here it might just bite down in the wrong place and not let go.

I'm familiar with the suburban curmudgeon who is territorial about his lawn and doesn't want it walked on, peed on or crapped on. That's fair enough. The difference here is that there is no lawn, this occurred on a public sidewalk. While some people get territorial about public sidewalks and "their" parking spaces, the fact is that the sidewalk and street parking is city property. From the story told by Sterling2000, the old man just started verbally abusing a young guy on the sidewalk, that's not being territorial and curmudgeonly, that's being a nasty old bastard. The law in NY offers some protections for householders defending their property, but if you start in on someone on a public street, you don't have much protection under the law. The old fart wouldn't want me on a jury if he tried suing the young guy for damages resulting from said assault. I'd be saying contributory negligence quicker than you could swat a fly.

Subject: Re: There's a difference between your lawn and a public side

bohuma wrote: [quote=rockhound]As a curmudgeonly sort myself, I suspect there is a valid reason that man is the way he is. He sounds like the ultimate "GET OFF MY LAWN" oldster.

If anyone is foolish enough to kick my pit bull I hope they get what they deserve. Does this guy actually kick pit bulls?

I don't think mine would bite him, she'd be too surprised and she's a punk. But if he kicked one of these poorly socialized pits from around here it might just bite down in the wrong place and not let go.

I'm familiar with the suburban curmudgeon who is territorial about his lawn and doesn't want it walked on, peed on or crapped on. That's fair enough. The difference here is that there is no lawn, this occurred on a public sidewalk. While some people get territorial about public sidewalks and "their" parking spaces, the fact is that the sidewalk and street parking is city property. From the story told by Sterling2000, the old man just started verbally abusing a young guy on the sidewalk, that's not being territorial and curmudgeonly, that's being a nasty old bastard. The law in NY offers some protections for householders defending their property, but if you start in on someone on a public street, you don't have much protection under the law. The old fart wouldn't want me on a jury if he tried suing the young guy for damages resulting from said assault. I'd be saying contributory negligence quicker than you could swat a fly.

A fine legal opinion, and the kid may not have had the legal right to punch him ...so lets focus on philosophy. This is a good thread, let's not screw it up with pesky reality.

P.S. Good to know you'd be a fine juror.