I have always felt that vandalism is one of the most viscious crimes, after rape, child and animal abuse. I have a higher tolerance for theft than I do for vandalism.

A severely, retributive punishment of the few perps who are caught might be a significant deterrent. Community service, fines and jail time might not mean much to these sociopaths but public beatings would instill fear in the hearts of many wannabe vandals. Beatings have the legal virtue of being cruel but not unusual so they pass constitutional muster.

This is a cowardly crime and it strikes not just at the property and pocketbook of innocents, it also strikes at the social order, which to my mind defines these as criminals of the worst sort -- those who seek to hide their undermining of society behind false moral facades.

I can't help wondering if, given that the level of damage done rises to the level of a felony in most jurisdictions, the use of force -- including lethal force -- to prevent the commission of a crime oughtn't be permissable. Or, if not lethal, at least "No permanent damage."

At some point, the legalistic dissembling has to stop. These are not just attacks on individuals or on objects, but on society as a whole. If the state won't act in defense of those minding their own business, then the citizens ought to exercise the right to -- scorn quotes -- "take the law into their own hands."

M

Hm. I think your best bet to automatically detecting keying would be vibration sensors on the back sides of the panels, listening for the scratching noise of the key.

I don't think pressure, or capacitative sensing would suffice.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed a pattern of SUV tires getting screws, perpendicular and flush to the surface, in sort of unlikely locations? I had an odd one a few years ago, and have heard of a few others. Being located near Boulder, CO, there would be no shortage of folks who would find that cute behavior.

Keying, while quick and easy, and requiring no planning, also looks clearly intentional. Sticking something in someone's tire takes planning, but looks accidental, and won't necessarily even be discovered until the next morning. (Hopefully I'm not giving anyone any ideas. :/ )

I think Grodner's status as a lawyer matters VERY much.

Of all people, he should know he was doing wrong, and that he has plenty of legal means at his disposal to try to right the wrongs of the world.

It's one thing for some fool hippie kid to say he hates war and not contain his aggressive impulse to make people who support it "pay", or use that as a pretext for having fun wrecking something nice that doesn't belong to him.

That is intolerable conduct, and also intolerable is his refusal to acknowlege obvious guilt, and make restitution.
If his reputation is damaged and now broadcast far and wide, that is the natural consequence of his refusal to deal with the matter properly. ( I might add, If anyone argues that his animus towards the military was not a "true "motivation, he's the one who brought it up and made it the issue. His motivation hardly matters to me now, his being called to account does.

At minimum he should have acknowleged his wrong and made the Marine whole. The whole matter would be done with fairly privately, if he had. It's who did this and his use of his profession to screw his victim that are my chief concerns, now.

A man who cannot regulate his impulses and commits malicious criminal acts to relieve his anger, and will not right the loss he has caused without being made to do so, must a: be made to do so, and b: face the natural consequences to his reputation and questioning of his fitness to practice law in the state of Illinois.

While the moralistic anarchist types certainly would try to tie things up all along the justice process, would it matter in a case like these? Is telling the judge that one keyed some mom's Suburban because they're getting the message out about saving the earth really going to fly? I can think of a few judges who would whip the gavel at the perp's head. (Not so sure if the keyer says it's because they didn't like the "Guns don't kill people, idiots kill people" and NRA bumper stickers.) It seems to me that they can fight tooth and nail in court but a conviction wouldn't — or shouldn't — be difficult to obtain.

I do agree with the previous commentors about vandalism being a crime of the second-highest order, after rape, murder, child abuse, etc. It's borne out of a hatred for civilization and the order of a polite society at best.

Whoops, that was me up there...! Complete anonymity isn't my style. ;)

I frequent RPG boards, and on one, someone dug out the "village of 1000 people," (you know, the one where "if the world were a village of a thousand people...") and asked what we would do if we ruled that village.

The most common responses were either: Step down (perhaps after initiating/enforcing some kind of libertarian anarchy), or dictatorial enforcement of socialist ideals. I found the ease with which people assigned themselves the role of "benevolent dictator" a little disturbing.

Someone once said something along the lines of "I prefer a man who loves his family more than he loves mankind to a man who loves mankind more than his family, as the latter will find some reason to hurt those nearby him, and the former never will." Or something like that. Regardless, people often seem to take moral superiority (especially the lefty type, but righty-religous types can get that way too) as the right to inflict damage on those around them "in the name of the greater good."

(Which is ironic, because they're the first to scoff at the notion of the greater good)

It's not so much that they think they're right, but that think they are better. Or, superior. A little like the deep south in the 20's when it came to race.
Hummm, the nazis were like that too. They were the "new man" an everybody else was an "Under man".
Nowadays these "new man" types are called liberals or progressives. What-the-hell.
It'll be interesting to see if the "new man" types win in November.

It'll be solved when juries start rendering not guilty verdicts when the state prosecutes someone who thumps a keyer. If the state is unwilling or unable to provide security in our persons, our families, or our property, the state forfeits its power. That is why the state would prosecute the thumper and not the thumpee, the act is seen as a threat to their power, while the vandal is not.

I live in Minnesota, where they salt the streets to keep down the ice. Saturns are popular cars, because they have plastic bods that just don't rust.

I guess that protects me some, against keyers. But I don't put bumper stickers on, either. Isn't it wonderful the way the Freedom Of Speech people defend us?

A developer in our town is building a shopping venter where the amenity is 20-foot tall busts of the presidents from GW to GWB. I wonder which one will be the most vandalized...Bill Clinton or GWB? I'm guessing GWB.

As is the case of most forms of terrorism, the culprits imagine that they are morally superior to the people they strike:

"Moral Superiority" is the dominant belief of the Clintons in particular and the Democrats in general. Typical for these folks, they project their own beliefs onto the Republicans in general and conservative Christians in particular. That's a huge source for the passionate hatred that the Democrats have for Republicans and the Christian right.

This is also a big reason, why I will never vote for a Democrat, unless they prove they are not of this type. The assumption must be that they are 'moral supremacists' and terrorism light supporters.

it is a crime to beat up a vandal

I do not believe it is a crime in Texas.

With property crimes, there are two components.
One is the property. That could be of considerable value, or not much. Its theft or destruction or damage could be a considerable problem, or not much.

The other is the view of the criminal. "I get to do this to you."

IMO, the latter is infinitely more important than the issue of property.

For detection of the guilty party:

There's a tool that wild-game hunters occasionally use to check out game travel patterns in remote regions.

Essentially, it's a digital camera triggered by a motion-detector. They can be found in the "expensive gizmos" section of some big-name hunting supply stores.

The hunter sets it up near his blind during the lead-up to hunting season, and gets a string of photos with dates/times of the game that moves through the area. If the hunter is casing more than area, it's great for checking out where and when the buck with the biggest rack typically walks.

Downside: costs between $100 and $800.

Downside 2: you need to be able to put it up unobtrusively in the area you park in (or inside the car).

Downside 3: you'll see everyone who walks past your parking area, and probably a few wind-blown objects.

Upside: you've got a photo to turn in for the cops to look at.

Maybe if cars had some kind of technology associated with their car-locking devices which could give a nasty electric shock to anyone who comes in contact with the car using a metallic device not related at all to it, maybe some of the car-keying will go down.

Imagine: moralist vandals like Grodner getting the shock of their lives! (Pun intended)

Pretty scary, disproportionate amounts of SUV tires getting screws stuck in them. I guess that'll teach my wife for driving an SUV and polluting the planet!! And those low-life AAA people she will have to call at 11:30 PM to fix the tire when she leaves work, too.

The car with the 3X5 flag decal being keyed really bothers me, though. I bought a Ron Paul bumpersticker for my Toyota pickup, and I also have an NRA life member sticker that I haven't stuck on there yet. Now I'm scared to put them on. By the way, I'm a lawyer, and my other car is a Porsche -- wonder what would happen if I put both stickers on that.

Heck, in Texas, we have the right to shoot people in defense of our property. We also don't seem to have much car keying. Connected? Could be! ;-)

This wasn't vandalism. This was an act of destruction carried out on the property of an active serviceman in order to discourage his continued service and therefore make him combat ineffective.

This was sabotage.

It needs to be treated as sabotage.

I think the most effective way to stop moralistic vandals is to do as you suggest, stake out a tempting car as a target, and then film the vandals in the act. Then publish the videos on forums such as YouTube, and publicize them. Sure, the vandals' friends would all be congratulatory, but there are plenty of other people who would see the vandals for what they are and cease to have contact with them, i.e., patronize their businesses or practices. Public embarrassment and hitting the pocketbook can be very effective toward deglamorizing moral vandalism.

"Aside from its outrageous anti-military nature"

You know this exactly how?

sobeit, follow the link, that's what it's for.

So Eric believes that most car keyings are politically motivated, and that only leftwingers engage in it? Here is the true breakdown, IMO.
90% are over parking disputes or road rage.
9.99% are personal disputes over love or money.
.01% are politically motivated, and those are just as likely to be perpetrated by angry rightwingers.
And how many of the people here who believe this type of vandalism is a high level crime, would be as adamant if after a political dispute, a rightwinger keys a liberal's car? What if the marine in question had keyed Grodner's car after a political argument? Wouldn't most of you say he had it coming? What if Grodner then posted the marine's home address or other personal information on the internet?

Would I be as adamant if after a political dispute, a rightwinger keys a liberal's car? Pretty much, yeah.

What leads you to believe any one would tolerate a right wing attorney keying anybody's car because of the bumpersticker or vanity plates?
And getting caught and refusing to pay for the damage?

Especially if the victims sticker was a sign the person was performing or had performed a significant public service, particularly a dangerous one? For which the hypothetical attacker cursed and abused his victim?

Given Grodner's crap reputation and the decent behaviour of the soldier, and the witness, and the contemporansous police account including Grodner's reaction to questioning, if there were a similar cirmcumstance in the other case, I think reaction would be just as strong to a lawyer acting like a crummy scuz sociopath in a matching case.

And if that seems like overqualifying, this case is egregious because of who the perp is, what his duties are, his treatment of his victim, and who the victim is, and what he does on behalf of us all, and how the victim has acted.

But I can't think of any case where deliberately scraping up someone's car is remotely acceptable - or even forgiveable, without at least apology and full restitution.

Anonymous · January 4, 2008 04:49 PM

above is me

I've been saying this for a while: liberals in this country are working themselves up to something genuinely horrifying. The coming election's going to be very dirty. Expect lots of vandalism against Republicans, and I'm afraid it might be worse than that. Listen to their violent rhetoric, and think about how much they fetishize mass murderers like Che and Arafat.

It shows up in leftist literature too. It's all OK, as long as it happens to the right people.

Thanks Mrsizer, I have followed the link. Just about all of 'em, in fact.

I ask again, how exactly do you or anybody else know that this incident was "anti-military in nature" ?

Other than the one side of the story we've heard, that is.

sobeit:

it is your choice to refrain from making conclusions with the evidence given you.

however, I must ask: are you refraining from conclusion, or are you refusing to admit the evidence given?

if the former, consider the OP to be a simple application of occam's razor to the available evidence. if the latter, identify why you suspect the accounts presented.

What other story do you expect to hear, Sobeit? The one he gave in the incident report and to investigating officers does not support his version of events, and if there is confusion on the point of his anti-military feeling, Grodner created this confusion himself. His first words to the Marine indicated contempt for his victim's military ties... and it really doesn't matter what his motive was, whether it was percieved arrogance (in driving)of a soldier, or hatred of military, or both, or something else chapping Grodner's hide.

He's gone out of his way to abuse the marine for being a soldier, at nibimum used it to justify his refusal to accept responsibility for scraping the car, and used the fact of the Marine's imminent deployment ( which he is aware of) to try to avoid accepting responsiblity for scraping up the car.

kristan:

The "available evidence" is one side of the story. You can apply Occam's razor to that side of the story all you want, but you're still basing your conclusion on one side only.

Anonymous:

His "first words to the Marine"? Uh, I believe that's AS REPORTED BY THE MARINE. Hello?

Your only evidence that this incident had anything whatsoever to do with the car owner being a Marine is the version of the story told by the Marine.

What about that simple fact is so difficult for you people to grasp?

If I caught someone keying my vehicle they'd very quickly find themselves looking closely at asphalt and probably tasting it.

Sobeit, a few points -

one, the Marine has made a statement under oath to the court about the incident.
two, there is another witness to the anti-military raving of Grodner, and the reaction of the Marine to the damage to the car.
three, the reporting officer did not himself, after hearing Grodner's "side" , found that side "not reasonable"..

He admitted rubbing up against the car to the officer, as the Marine described, implausibly denying the scratching that was coincidental with the rubbing.

four, Grodner has a history of fraud, fraud allegations, lackadaisical or shady business practices sufficient to expose him to involuntary dissolution of his corporations - twice.

Marines have a strong code of honor, and the marine in this case has behaved decently and respected the law, and no reasonable person would assume he has perjured himself.

Sobeit, do you really think would be some other "side" that would excuse Grodner, a lawyer, no less, scratching up the car?

Grodner has continued to act badly, and tried to use McNulty's military service to get out of paying for the damage he caused. He has failed to give any deference to the soldiers situation or service, and failed to to man up and pay for the damage he caused, apologising and accepting culpability.

Grodner was caught red handed, really, and the case against him in court will be rather strong, and his crime shocks not only in it's malicious sociopathy but how far beneath he has fallen from what is expected of HIM. He's an officer of the court, and he has a duty to comport himself in a civil way, and not act as some sort of petty vigilante.

Grodner can talk and has chosen not to. If he had any real defense, he would make it, loudly, Frankly, I think he needs his health examined, but perhaps his lawyer can get a softer landing for him by encouraging him to make restitution.

There is no excuse for him scratching up a car, and there can be none, If people think Grodner was partially or totally motivated by hatred of men who serve in the military, that's his doing.

To Anonymous:

Unless the Marine was called as a witness, I don't know where or why he would have sworn to anything under oath. Maybe you can tell me where that occurred.

Grodner has made no public statement I'm aware of. Except of course his denial that he scratched the car.

We don't know which statements/responses the police officer found "unreasonable," though he did write that just after Grodner's statement that they were accusing him because he was Jewish.

Yet here you are jumping to every sort of conclusion about why he would do something it has not been proven he's done.

What about that simple fact is so hard for you people to grasp?

Unbelievable.

It's also slightly shocking that you're not the least bit embarrassed about stalking this man online.

Remind me never - but never - to reveal my identity to a wingnut on a message board.

Sobeit, McNulty appeared befort the judge a few days ago and was able to swear to his statement. so that the case could proceed despite his deployment.

What do you see as jumping? That the Marine's car was damaged by Grodner?

And what do you consider "stalking"? Looking up public records in public databases?

First of all Anonymous, if he swore to what was in the police report, he didn't actually see Grodner key his car. Grodner has not admitted it (and no, offering to settle is not an admission of guilt). It has not been proven in a court of law.

You also don't know what sort of "anti-military" comments Grodner may have made, and what they were in response to. According to the newspaper account, they seemed to be in response to McNulty's attitude.

Look, I'm not saying the guy's innocent. I'm not saying he isn't a scumbag. I'm saying that BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (as you like to say), the wingnutters have tried and convicted this man, and tried to ruin his livelihood, based on ONE SIDE OF THE STORY.

What about that simple fact is so hard to grasp????!!!!!!!!

Give me a break with the feigned innocence about the online stalking.

You people are the worst.

What feigned innocence? Isn't his background relevant? Aren't the records there for public inspection? Please state specifically what you consider stalking, if this is not what you mean, say what you mean.

And yes, Grodner admitted rubbing against the car, supporting the marine's sworn observations. He did catch Grodner in the act. No scratch at time of parking, then Grodner rubs the car and the scratch is observed.

What side of the story, what possible story, could aquit Grodner?

Oh please, what utter baloney. I find it hard to believe you don't see the complete inanity of your argument.

But maybe you don't, and that makes you a perfect target audience for the likes of bloggers who insist that this unproven event done for unknown motives doesn't QUITE "rise to the level of Kristallnacht."

Just don't wonder why people who live in the real world see you as idiots.

Buh bye.

Well, gee, don't let the screen door hit you on the way out, Sobeit.

I guess you couldn't come up with any plausible excuse for Mr. Grodner to scratch up someone elses car, and angrily react when caught, insult his victim, refuse to pay for it and try to get away with not paying for it.

That's reason enough, in my book, given who he has chosen to pick on and who he is, to make sure this doesn't drop of the radar for lack of attention.

You didn't say what part of the arguments above you believe are inane. Once a person gets past the point of believing Grodner scratched the car, that's reason enough to believe him a liar. There's no excuse for him, and he can not be allowed to escape because he picked on someone about to be deployed to Iraq.