> Is your expectation that he's going to launch some massive, expensive political campaign on the grounds of "I can't get this homeless woman to stop vandalizing my business"?
Uh yes. That's how you motivate your government to act.
> She annoys him by vandalizing the business, he annoys her by getting her wet.
That's one interesting way to phrase assault.
> I can't fathom how this rises to the level of misdemeanor battery.
Then you should read the battery statute.
> It's a garden hose, children play in them all the time, the threat posed is basically non-existent.
Kids play in dirt all the time. If I throw dirt in your face, that's assault.
> Philosophically, but not practically, I believe it does. The social contract effectively stipulates that the government gets a monopoly on violence in exchange for maintaining the peace. If the government fails to maintain the peace, they have failed to honor the social contract and have lost their monopoly on violence. That doesn't permit using unreasonable force, but in this case I think Mr Gwin used the smallest amount of force necessary to preserve his property rights.
None of that matters. You're given a criminal record by the Superior Court of California, not by Immanuel Kant.
> Uh yes. That's how you motivate your government to act.
That's how you get your government to change laws. They're supposed to be enforcing the existing laws as a matter of course. No one should have to launch a political campaign to receive the protections afforded to them under the existing laws.
> Then you should read the battery statute.
Believe me, I have. It's good for a laugh when I'm having a bad day. Preschools treat toddlers more like adults than that battery statute does. Even the toddlers are expected to be able to work out their issues without involving the state.
> Kids play in dirt all the time. If I throw dirt in your face, that's assault.
Then I suppose we should have a lot more children in jail, shouldn't we? If that's the line you want to take then go ahead, but the logical outcome is absurd.
> None of that matters. You're given a criminal record by the Superior Court of California, not by Immanuel Kant.
Sure, and a bunch of countries give people criminal records for being gay. Doesn't make it right, or not stupid. California is welcome to enforce those laws, and the rest of us are welcome to laugh at California for being such a nanny state they can't even tolerate the use of a garden hose in anger. Won't somebody think of the plants!
> Sure, and a bunch of countries give people criminal records for being gay. Doesn't make it right, or not stupid. California is welcome to enforce those laws, and the rest of us are welcome to laugh at California for being such a nanny state they can't even tolerate the use of a garden hose in anger. Won't somebody think of the plants
Ah yes, the man who checks notes sprays people with water in anger and is being held responsible is being persecuted like gay people.
I’d also love to know where you live. The definition of battery is pretty similar in all 50 states. Use of force against another. Not sure that makes California a “nanny state” (there are many other reason that California sucks though).
The point is not that the situations are equivalent, it's that something being illegal doesn't inherently change the morality of it.
Where I live, it would be a fine if the person were found guilty. My state does allow the use of reasonable, non-deadly force to prevent the commission of property crimes (which vandalism and trespass would fall under, and likely some other applicable laws).
In order for jail time to even be a possibility, some form of bodily harm would have to occur or be threatened, or they were a repeat offender.
My state deserves derision for entirely separate reasons, but I think their laws around this particular facet are reasonable.
This woman has no change of clothes and no place to live. It is the middle of winter. It would be battery to spray her with a hose in the middle of July, but with one night of freezing weather it could be murder.
Uh yes. That's how you motivate your government to act.
> She annoys him by vandalizing the business, he annoys her by getting her wet.
That's one interesting way to phrase assault.
> I can't fathom how this rises to the level of misdemeanor battery.
Then you should read the battery statute.
> It's a garden hose, children play in them all the time, the threat posed is basically non-existent.
Kids play in dirt all the time. If I throw dirt in your face, that's assault.
> Philosophically, but not practically, I believe it does. The social contract effectively stipulates that the government gets a monopoly on violence in exchange for maintaining the peace. If the government fails to maintain the peace, they have failed to honor the social contract and have lost their monopoly on violence. That doesn't permit using unreasonable force, but in this case I think Mr Gwin used the smallest amount of force necessary to preserve his property rights.
None of that matters. You're given a criminal record by the Superior Court of California, not by Immanuel Kant.