5

This XKCD comic jokingly suggest training wildlife to harass people playing music too loud in their car:

enter image description here

I'm pretty sure no one is actually considering a solution like this, but it made me curious what would happen if someone tried it. I'd consider training wildlife to harass individuals to be generally antisocial, even if they were playing annoying music, and conditioning to harass someone who is driving when it could potentially lead to an accident would be doubly so. Thus it would presumably be something the government, and thus legal system, would want to discourage. The question is rather the legal system has any rules about this particular situation.

Thus I'm wondering if someone tried this and it lead to a driver being harassed by animals could there be any legal repercussions, and if so what would they be? I'd count both civil or criminal actions here. If jurisdiction matters the creator of the comic is located in Massachusetts, USA.

For now lets ignore any potential disturbing the peace issues that may come up with playing music when food is dispensed.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7

The means and motivation by which you intentionally harass people are no defense.

There is no material difference whether you harass someone yourself, ask someone else to harass, use a drone or trained/tamed animals. Whether you harass because the target may subjectively deserve so also makes no difference.

The legal repercussions stay the same: charge, trial, conviction, sentence.

Improve this answer
5
  • 2
    Depending on how it's done it may also come out to : charge, trial, being laughed out of court.
    – Hilmar
    Mar 10, 2020 at 16:41
  • 3
    How would you prove in court that wildlife has been conditioned by the OP? Subpoena pigeons to testify?
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Apr 11, 2020 at 6:31
  • 1
    @RodrigodeAzevedo that's a separate question. Of course the list of repercussions assumes that there is enough evidence to prove facts beyond reasonable doubt.
    – Greendrake
    Apr 11, 2020 at 7:45
  • 2
    The "beyond reasonable doubt" part may be hard. Unlike in the case of human accomplices, wildlife cannot be granted immunity in exchange for testimony. Perfect omertà.
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Apr 11, 2020 at 7:58
  • @RodrigodeAzevedo could the existence of that XKCD comic, or it being in the trainer's browser history, be evidence?
    – Someone
    Aug 25, 2022 at 0:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .