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.
Touching a person against their will is battery.
Sounds like you dont like the long established legal definitions of these terms but I recommend not breaking these laws or you will go to jail too.
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!
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).
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.
You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. And fortunately for you, in that case, the law would be thoroughly on your side (depending on where you lived). Assault, in most places, is broadly defined as "unwanted physical contact". It's about personal sovereignty, regardless of risk of bodily harm.
Other forms of assault include throwing your drink at someone, spitting on them, or pantsing them. I hope we can agree that these things 1) are largely without risk of bodily harm, and 2) deeply intrusive and absolutely worthy of prosecution.
I promise you I wouldn't. My neighbor's sprinklers hit me not infrequently (they hit parts of the sidewalk). I've had a drink thrown on me in anger. It is absolutely not intrusive or worthy of prosecution. It's annoying, but there's no permanent harm other than a bit of resentment that it happened.
None of it even comes close to the line of being worth having armed men show up to lock the other person in a cell. That whole process is deeply intrusive and violates personal sovereignty to a far higher level than getting wet ever could.
I think we may just fundamentally disagree on the level to which the government should interfere in interpersonal issues. My view is that anything that lacks some form of permanent harm (be it bodily, financial or emotional) doesn't require the government's involvement. Two adults quibbling and annoying each other doesn't rise to that level. Someone throwing a drink, or spraying a hose, or playing a song the other person really hates just doesn't meet that bar and doesn't require sending anyone to jail. It's a silly use of government time and resources, and it feels like a waste of my tax dollars.
He did not set out to hurt her. He probably passed by a dozen objects far more capable of causing harm than a hose. Pens, staplers, frames for art, a statue, hell even his fists are all more harmful. I struggle to think of something that causes less harm than tap-pressure water. I would say he explicitly set out trying not to cause any harm, or he would've reached for a more obvious and harmful option.
Neither of us knows what his state of mind was, but I don't see anything outright implying contempt. Doing something bad to someone doesn't require contempt, it can be a practical means to an end. Based on him calling social services, I would say he didn't have contempt, he just realized the government wasn't going to help and took it into his owns. Similar to managers when they have to fire someone; doing so doesn't imply or require contempt, it's just a means to an end.
Well he did, it's the only reason he was arrested.
How would you feel about a stranger purposely and repeatedly drenching your sick grandmother or elderly immuno-vulnerable mother with a water hose in the middle of winter?
Sure, in an abstract, philosophical way that will get 0 steps closer to an actual solution. 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"?
This wasn't the ideal outcome, but I would call it a measured response to the woman's refusal to stop and the government's refusal to intervene. She annoys him by vandalizing the business, he annoys her by getting her wet. Everyone involved probably deserves a small fine as a slap on the wrist and a reminder that this isn't how this was supposed to go.
I can't fathom how this rises to the level of misdemeanor battery and requires an arrest. It's a garden hose, children play in them all the time, the threat posed is basically non-existent. It's a nuisance for sure, but so is playing music too loud and we don't arrest anyone for that.
> That doesn't give you the right to spray anyone with water. Bad behavior by one party (short of violence) does not excuse bad behavior by another.
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.