[morganvachon]

Pejorative it may be, but it's accurate in this case. It was also used by the article's author.

I'm normally one to champion a homeowner's rights to reduce trespassing, loitering, and destruction of property, and I do understand where the homeowners in this case are coming from. I have a little turd of a neighbor who revels in illegally driving his four wheeler across my yard but the police say I'm in a catch-22; unless they are camping out in my driveway waiting to catch him, they can't arrest him for it, and of course they don't have the resources to dedicate to that. He knows this of course, and rides by at random times, flipping me off if I'm outside at the time and tearing mud holes across the lawn.

My point being, the folks in Hollywoodland who are threatening the author and coercing Google and Garmin are barking up the wrong tree. They should be seeking a solution that reduces traffic in their neighborhood without limiting the public's right to visit the park, and without threatening some guy who is already trying to do the right thing by steering tourists away from the neighborhood and towards the approved viewing areas. Just as I can't erect tire-gouging spikes in my yard or hire a thug to intimidate my neighbor into submission, these folks shouldn't be threatening people and illegally marking their curbs and signs to discourage tourists.

[isaacdl]

Small nitpick - why can't you erect tire-gouging spikes in your yard? It's your yard, is it not?

[anon4]

Or a small fence? Not tall enough to stop someone from walking over, but enough that it would be damaged by him driving over it. Together with a security camera.

[noxToken]

IANAL, nor am I directly citing anything. However, I believe that you cannot willfully setup something with intent to cause damage or harm to people or property that isn't your own.

I believe it's akin to drenching your sandwich with Dave's Insanity Sauce to catch the co-worker who has been stealing your lunch. If your enjoy eating your hot sauce with a side of sandwich, that's fine. It's the intent of how you're using the sauce that matters.

[JackFr]

IANAL either, but I think the prohibition is on items that threatan life and saftely rather than trespassers property.

From Wikipedia:

> Mantraps that use deadly force are illegal in the United States, and there have been notable tort law cases where the trespasser has successfully sued the property owner for damages caused by the mantrap. There is also the possibility that such traps could endanger emergency service personnel such as firefighters who must forcefully enter such buildings during emergencies. As noted in the important US court case of Katko v. Briney, "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property."

Thinking in those terms, a few spike strips on your lawn should be fine.

[abruzzi]

Unless someone walks across the lawn, steps on a spike, and develops tetanus. The point is it might be legal but you run the risk that it could blow back pretty badly.

[kaybe]

Or how about, let's say, a full-concrete birdbath on a column?

[morganvachon]

He rides over it, blows a tire, his vehicle throws him into the road alongside his usual path, and he is struck and killed by a passing car. I just caused his death and can be criminally charged and civilly sued. Not to mention I don't want to impede regular pedestrians who are welcome to walk along the perimeter of my yard to avoid traffic (there is no sidewalk since it's semi-rural and it's a busy road).

[Retra]

That's exactly the kind of behavior a lawful, civilized society is aiming to prevent.

[x1798DE]

Why would they need to physically see him? Can't you just set up a camera?