again?

[joaquinmurieta]

I think 'accountable' might be a stretch, but if my tires got slashed 'twice' I could either:

1. Put the car in the garage (cost = $0)
risk - they could break into the garage and do the same
2. Buy a camera and monitor system (cost approx $500 at Costco)
risk - they could still break in the garage and do the same to the other car bummer, because I did not have a camera in the garage.

[feistylady]

DB, I agree with JM in this way. Mama and I suggested after the first tire slashing to move the SUV to the Maintenance Yard, and he scoffed at that. His suggestion was to park it near the street. Well, he didn't do either one of those, and although I do agree with you that he didn't ask for his work vehicle tires to be slashed, in life, there are times that alternative behavior is warranted, to protect ones life or ones stuff. Haven't you changed your behavior after you have figured out that doing something different might make more sense?

[akulasquirrel]

What I meant by holding Ian accountable in some way is not in a punitive sense, rather in an RMA directive to him along the lines of "you shall park the car over there". You see, the tires on "his" car got slashed once, and it was suggested that he park in a more secure location. As MM stated, if he then said he'd park near the street, didn't do that and the tires get slashed again, now that's more $$$ spent by the RMA on new tires. It appears to me that he needs to be directed by RMA to park elsewhere. DB, what's lunacy is that you think that Ian shouldn't be held accountable at all. The vehicle tires got slashed twice in a week. Ian apparently didn't learn the first time. Now, if he hasn't learned from the second time, I think he would need to be told where to park that vehicle. If he refuses to follow that direction, then that's when and what he'd be accountable for.

Do you understand what I meant now? This isn't blaming the victim. This is holding someone accountable for failing to do some basic, low cost things to reduce the risk of further vandalism.

There are things that Ian could do that don't cost much (like near zero dollars) that would help further prevent this kind of thing from happening.

[walkthedog]

I read we (RMA) is going to be trading the green Compliance Explorer in on the new vehicle. I just bet we will get a much better trade in with these new tires.

[DBCooper]

Originally Posted by akulasquirrel

What I meant by holding Ian accountable in some way is not in a punitive sense, rather in an RMA directive to him along the lines of "you shall park the car over there". You see, the tires on "his" car got slashed once, and it was suggested that he park in a more secure location. As MM stated, if he then said he'd park near the street, didn't do that and the tires get slashed again, now that's more $$$ spent by the RMA on new tires. It appears to me that he needs to be directed by RMA to park elsewhere. DB, what's lunacy is that you think that Ian shouldn't be held accountable at all. The vehicle tires got slashed twice in a week. Ian apparently didn't learn the first time. Now, if he hasn't learned from the second time, I think he would need to be told where to park that vehicle. If he refuses to follow that direction, then that's when and what he'd be accountable for.

Do you understand what I meant now? This isn't blaming the victim. This is holding someone accountable for failing to do some basic, low cost things to reduce the risk of further vandalism.

There are things that Ian could do that don't cost much (like near zero dollars) that would help further prevent this kind of thing from happening.

Sounds like a personell issue between RMA and Ian. It implies that the response to vandalism here since we are vastly and adamently against having a police force is simply to make sure that vandals have fewer targets, correct? What happens to the expensive bikes that by definition RMA is requiring owners to park out front? I dont argue with the advice to park the vehicle elsewhere that looks like what has happened but getting in the middle of what is a management issue at RMA is improper and unwarranted. Holding the victim responsible for something that shouldnt be happening is lunacy in a gated community.

[walkthedog]

okay question for the legal crowd. If RMA requires that motorcycles be parked at the Gazebo parking area, does RMA have a responsibility to see to the maintaing of that parking area to be safe for the motorcycles?

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by walkthedog

okay question for the legal crowd. If RMA requires that motorcycles be parked at the Gazebo parking area, does RMA have a responsibility to see to the maintaing of that parking area to be safe for the motorcycles?

I think not, but the plaintiff's bar are a very creative bunch and I don't keep up with that game. Conceptually landowners rarely have a duty to affirmatively protect, but do have a duty to prevent dangerous conditions of the land - a distinction which can get kind of metaphysical and can be gamed. I do remember that when I represented apartment landlords back in the Pleistocene era there was litigation going on over whether landlords could be held liable for third party crime for e.g. assertedly failing in a duty to keep an area known to be a problem area well lit. Though not a "landlord" per se RMA could still be held to similar Rowland v. Christian standards of duty as a commercial operator of a real estate facility, but I don't know how the law has evolved re: duty to protect against conditions allegedly enabling or facilitating foreseeable third party crime.

OK, tort folks, there's the straight line, take it away......

[Wilbur]

I take it, then, that Ian and I are the only ones who were surprised that somebody came right back and did it again? Everybody else saw this coming?

Parking it at the secure maintenance lot is a good idea. But it's a heck of lot more self-evident in hindsight than it was after the one event, and more of a managerial decision than one that is the employee's duty to make.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by walkthedog

I read we (RMA) is going to be trading the green Compliance Explorer in on the new vehicle. I just bet we will get a much better trade in with these new tires.

Should have turned the Explorer around though so that the driver's side was hidden instead of the passenger side. That way the slasher(s) could have got the other set, and presto, a brand new set of 4 tires.

[walkthedog]

Originally Posted by Luke

Should have turned the Explorer around though so that the driver's side was hidden instead of the passenger side. That way the slasher(s) could have got the other set, and presto, a brand new set of 4 tires.

I have rotated tires many times, but never saw in a manual about rotating the vehicle.