[fluoridation]

Is this vandalism, though? No actual damage is done to the car. It's even less invasive than a piece of tape, because the cone is just sitting there. It could even be done without touching the car itself. Just place a few mannequins in front and behind the car, so it can't go anywhere.

[JohnFen]

I can't imagine this counting as vandalism in any reasonable world. Vandalism involves actually damaging things. Coning damages nothing.

As you suggest, putting tape over cameras is closer to actual vandalism because it could leave tape residue on the lens.

[fluoridation]

Yup. If the car is not smart enough to realize that it can drive with a cone on its hood, or that it can run over mannequins that have been purposely placed in front of it, then that's no one's fault but the manufacturer's.

[oh_sigh]

Most human drivers would probably not want to run over a mannequin sized object intentionally for fear of damaging their vehicle.

[oh_sigh]

Imagine someone kept doing that to a car with a human driver. Do you think they would be breaking no law?

[fluoridation]

I suppose it would count as harassment, but that's because it'd be done to a person. I don't think it's possible to harass a computer program. If we ignore the harassment side of it, then I don't know what law it breaks, if the object can be trivially removed by the driver.

[oh_sigh]

Criminal law - mischief - which generally includes altering of property and isn't limited to damage or destruction of property. Common law - tortious interference - if the vehicle is a taxi being summoned by a customer, and it cannot fulfill the contract because of the interference of a third party intentionally preventing its movement.

[fluoridation]

"Altering" would have to include a permanent change or anything that's difficult to undo, such as completely repainting the car, or putting it upside down in such a way that it's not damaged. It could not include simply placing a lightweight object on top of the hood that anyone can remove at any time.

Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to being sued, depending on the circumstances under which it happens. It doesn't mean they're breaking any laws.

[dragonwriter]

> Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to being sued, depending on the circumstances under which it happens.

True.

> It doesn't mean they're breaking any laws.

Yes, it does. Civil law is law (and a larger portion of the law than criminal law is), and torts are as much violations of law as crimes.

[fluoridation]

Fair enough, but still, the violation arises from the circumstances surrounding the act, not from the act itself. You could very well place a cone on top of someone's car at every available opportunity without running into this tort issue.

[joosters]

You are not a lawyer.

[IncreasePosts]

As we all know, there is a law which says you are not allowed to talk about the law unless you are a lawyer.

[dragonwriter]

It's arguably either or both of criminal malicious mischief and/or public nuisance, and it's also pretty clearly civil trespass to chattels.