(image via Bull City Rising)
I saw this sign (or rather, one exactly like it) on my commute this morning, and it made me smile like few things can on a Monday morning. The one I saw was near the corner of Roxboro and Knox, a corner where pedestrian right-of-way laws and the laws of physics have a nasty tendency to face off with some frequency, no thanks to those charged with enforcing the former.
For the record, I have nothing to do with this, but I do wish I'd thought of it. God, I love Durham.
Kevin and Barry have more.
UPDATE--Based on the comments on the two news outlets who've picked up on this so far (WDTV and WRAL) I can't wait to see the crazy come out over at the N&O...
11 comments:
You'll be happy to hear it made the 11pm local news here last night.
Yeah it got picked up by Drudge today, too.
It's so freaking brilliant I am in awe. All they did was make three signs and put them up in a couple of spots in the neighborhood, and send an email to a few neighborhood list serves. Word of mouth did the rest.
The signs were gone this morning, BTW. And nobody's been paintballed. And everyone is talking about the problem of speeding in residential neighborhoods in Durham.
I have emailed the "Angry Neighbors" and requested a sign...they agreed to drop it off at my address but insist on staying anonymous. I expect it to come in the middle of the night sometime soon.
I can't say I'm one for vigilante justice, especially in victimless crimes. If the residents are serious enough to risk charges of criminal trespass, assault with a weapon, etc. then perhaps their efforts and financial resources would be better spent on purchasing speed humps or those automated speed detection displays. It'd sure beat going to jail and/or getting sued over something as stupid as playing Batman. I'm also not a fan of terrorism even if it's simply idle threats.
Ugh. Please dilute the definition of terrorism somewhere else.
I have no problem with vigilante justice, in principle. (I reserve the right to have a problem with it in practice.)
I have to take issue with your characterization of speeding in a residential neighborhood as a "victimless crime". Doing 45 in a 25 in a high-density urban neighborhood with pedestrians, cyclists, kids, dogs, etc., is a world different from from doing 75 in a 55 on a freeway actually engineered for 75. It's only "victimless" in the same way that discharging a firearm into the air is...there may not typically be anyone harmed most of the time, but it is an extremely negligent thing to do.
Another thing (which is missed completely by pretty much everyone who doesn't live right around here, and perhaps understandably so) is that the traffic circle in Duke Park is often used for various displays of artistic/creative/political expression. Just a couple of weeks ago someone put up a sign saying "Don't be fooled! Sun-Ra is a right-wing Republican!" which was basically a retread of a popular slogan from the last mayoral election being used to promote the Sun Ra parade we had around here.
I don't know who specifically is behind this, but I do know enough of the neighborhood activist types in the area to feel pretty confident is saying no one is (or ever was) seriously contemplating shooting anything at anyone. They did this to bring attention to the issue.
And it's worked, for the cost of printing three signs.
Re: use of "terrorism" (scare quotes intended)
I apologize for trying to use the actual definition of a term rather than a severe modern interpretation where actual implementation of violent acts are required to qualify. And you're right, there is no way for me to verify that they were wearing turbans.
As soon as the speeding transgression becomes a crime against a person, I'll be the first one in line demanding that the responsible party accept the consequences. As it is, stupidity is not a crime. I'd hesitate to confer reckless endangerment in the absence of an actual person (pedestrian, biker, etc.) being assaulted.
I suppose anything goes in your neighborhood as long as the end justifies the means?
Oh come on, now, you know what I mean. The modern connotation of "terrorism" is the use of violent tactics against a non-military population with the objective of pressuring a government to change its policies. It isn't screaming at politicians and it isn't putting up an a sign that threatens a highly improbable form of reprisal.
More to the point, if any non-credible threat of violence is terrorism, then there is a hell of a lot of terrorism going on on the bumpers of cars. ("From my cold dead hand..." "keep honking, I'm reloading" etc.)
As soon as the speeding transgression becomes a crime against a person, I'll be the first one in line demanding that the responsible party accept the consequences...I'd hesitate to confer reckless endangerment in the absence of an actual person (pedestrian, biker, etc.) being assaulted.
What point is that, exactly? If I have to jump onto a curb and yank my dog with me, is that enough? Or does one of us actually have to get hit?
There is no "right" to drive at all, and there is certainly no right to drive as you damn well please as long as you don't hurt anyone.
As it is, stupidity is not a crime.
No, but speeding in excess of 15 mph over the posted limit (i.e., 40 mph in a residential zone, which happens all the time here) is, in fact, a criminal offense in the state of North Carolina.
I suppose anything goes in your neighborhood as long as the end justifies the means?
Again, we're talking about signs, that were up for maybe 24 hours. And a "threat" which if actually carried out (which is wasn't, won't be, and was never going to be), would result in the need for a $2 car wash. I've been shot in the stomach with a paintball gun at a range of about 10 feet...that'll teach you to go around a blind corner in a hurry, but it's really not that big of a deal.
Oh come on, now, you know what I mean.
Yes, I did know what you meant hence my tongue-in-cheek reference to bad guys wearing turbans.
More to the point, if any non-credible threat of violence is terrorism, then there is a hell of a lot of terrorism going on on the bumpers of cars. ("From my cold dead hand..." "keep honking, I'm reloading" etc.)
The difference we have here is in the assessment of threat. We are both fairly reasonable in judgment when it comes to someone "reloading" in the car when you honk at them. We just seem to differ in our opinion of what some folks deem reasonable behavior with a less deadly weapon in their hand. The probability of road rage violence is non-zero but somewhat close to zero. You'd probably have a better chance of winning a large jackpot lottery. But if you asked me to compare those odds with the chance of some half-cocked, hometown, self-appointed superhero with a paintball gun having the balls to fire at neighborhood speeders then I'd place my wager on Batman.
I'd hesitate to confer reckless endangerment in the absence of an actual person (pedestrian, biker, etc.) being assaulted.
What point is that, exactly? If I have to jump onto a curb and yank my dog with me, is that enough? Or does one of us actually have to get hit?
That's exactly the point where it becomes endangerment and also the point where you need the services of an agent with the authority to enforce law.
There is no "right" to drive at all, and there is certainly no right to drive as you damn well please as long as you don't hurt anyone.
You're right. Driving is not a "right." It's most definitely a privilege. And as you and I both know, having privileges also means being responsible when exercising them. I understand physics pretty well and that's why I'm always wary when on foot faced with a moving motor vehicle. It's this same understanding that causes me to slow significantly (and watch them like I think they're dumb enough to step in front of me) when approaching pedestrians, even if they're on a sidewalk. Unfortunately, not everyone quite understands the risks involved with being behind the wheel. But you'd just as soon punish those dumb people beyond the law simply because you find their judgment lacking?
...speeding in excess of 15 mph over the posted limit (i.e., 40 mph in a residential zone, which happens all the time here) is, in fact, a criminal offense in the state of North Carolina.
Once again, you need better law enforcement or better traffic control devices (or sidewalks?), not a masked man with a paintball gun. (or just a sign as you point out repeatedly, though we still differ in opinion on the seriousness of the threat)
And a "threat" which if actually carried out (which is wasn't, won't be, and was never going to be), would result in the need for a $2 car wash. I've been shot in the stomach with a paintball gun at a range of about 10 feet...that'll teach you to go around a blind corner in a hurry, but it's really not that big of a deal.
And here again we have you downplaying the seriousness of the threat and I hope that you're very correct with that assessment. I've found that many people are particularly protective of their homes, their loved ones, and their cars. Remember, it's all fun and games until the other guy pulls out a real gun.
Yes, yes, all true. Like I said (or perhaps meant to say) I'm not actually promoting the use of a paintball gun as extrajudicial traffic enforcement. But the signs are (were) pretty damn funny, and clearly effective in getting the attention of the city.
We absolutely do need better enforcement...that is one of the main points of this (admittedly unconventional) campaign.
do you two argue like this when yer drinking,too?
personally, i endorse the full use of paintball guns in these circumstance, rather than just the threat of one.
Nah, it's all hugs and kisses in person.
do you two argue like this when yer drinking,too?
Nah. It's probably the lack of drink that allowed this banter to go this far!
But I am outnumbered when it comes to allowing Police Academy 3 to become a reality. Who's going to play Bobcat? Not it on Gutenberg!
Post a Comment