Glen Beck fans get pranked.

[Vette73]

I've never been towed either, but if I saw a sign that's not hand-made indicating that I'm allowed to park somewhere, I'll probably assume I'm allowed to park there unless there is some strong indicator that I'm not allowed to.

Like I said before I know Frats either own their property or rent/lease it with all rights usually. My college was not very Frat friendly and I was never in one but I know that.
That and parking is usually pretty clear what should be allowed and not. Anybody can move a sign, misplace it, etc... so I don;t take chances.

That and usually campus police, or people working the event, give direction to where you can and can;t park. If in doubt find somebody and ask. Much cheaper then gettign your car towed. :awe:

 

[caspur]

Many people here have a common sense understanding of tort law. However, that does not negate assessing liability.

So for example, instead of parking, let us use a more visual example to better explain the situation.

Suppose neighbor A posts a garage sale sign on neighbor B's house while neighbor B is on vacation. Neighbor A then breaks into neighbor B's house and conducts the garage sale. Customers participating in the garage sale have a reasonable expectation that the person conducting the sale is the owner of the house.

Several days later, Neighbor B returns home to find his household items gone!!!

Of course, neighbor A has broken the law in conducting the garage sale under false pretenses. I don't think anyone would argue with that. However, what about the customers? What liability do they have?

The law in this case would suggest that despite expectations that the person conducting the sale was the owner of the items, the end result would be the items purchased were still classified as stolen. So, while the customers may avoid obstruction charges due to "reasonable expectations", their possession of those items may be forfeited. In this case, they would have to pursue legal action against the neighbor who conducted the sale in order to obtain compensation for their purchases.

So, as it relates to the parking case: Yes, these people who had their car towed were deceived. However, this does not absolve them from parking on private property. The individuals who were towed would have to pursue a legal claim against the party which falsely erected the sign to recover their fees. Hope this makes sense.

 

[robphelan]

nobody mentioned that maybe the frat had it's own special event which had special event parking. when the time came, all the GB douches were parked in their spots.

Or, maybe the signs were left over from the previous night. the university is bound to have 'special events' going on all the time.

so, we don't know if this was intentional or not.

 

[thecrecarc]

The frat has no legal problems whatsoever. From their point of view, unknown cars parked on their private lot. They got them towed. Perfectly legal.

Now the sign is a point of contention, but no one knows who put the sign up. Therefore, how can it be said it is the frats' problem? If I randomly put a sign up claiming free parking on my neighbor's property, does that make it my neighbor's problem? Of course not. So unless it is or will be proven that the sign was indeed put up by the frat, then it is not their responsibility.

 

[EGGO]

Two possible scenarios:
1. Someone from the frat did it, in which case going to court 53 times is a suitable punishment even if no one is able to get a judgment against them.
2. Someone else did it, in which case going to court 53 times would be a pretty awesome prank against the frat. Pranks are awesome, right? Not just when they're directed at crazy Glenn Beck fans.

The frat can say that they had an event and used the sign for their attendees. After seeing cars that don't belong there, they promptly took it down before any more people make the same mistake and called the towing company.

At least that would be my defense.

But we also don't know who put up the sign in the first place. We can't say it's the frat who did it, because of that. I've seen the same people use the "innocent until proven guilty" and then completely go the other way around saying "They did it" when it's not proven. Jesus christ, this board sometimes.

 

[imported_Champ]

Well played Kappa Sigma. It's funny how the Glenn Beck fan they interview in the article immediately assumes this is part of some giant conspiracy.

the fraternity will not get charged, and if they do it will get thrown out. A fraternity would not risk their house like that, but another fraternity on campus would.
#1 suspect: random GB haters
#2 suspect: other frat on campus

 

[rockyct]

Well played Kappa Sigma. It's funny how the Glenn Beck fan they interview in the article immediately assumes this is part of some giant conspiracy.

the fraternity will not get charged, and if they do it will get thrown out. A fraternity would not risk their house like that, but another fraternity on campus would.
#1 suspect: random GB haters
#2 suspect: other frat on campus

Yeah, just because a sign (which we have no idea what it supposedly said) was up in their lot does not mean that frat put it up. Also, it's not like they charged for usage of their lot and then towed them.

 

[cyclohexane]

For parking, yes it is.

Not it ain't. You just made that shit up.

 

[SlitheryDee]

But we also don't know who put up the sign in the first place. We can't say it's the frat who did it, because of that. I've seen the same people use the "innocent until proven guilty" and then completely go the other way around saying "They did it" when it's not proven. Jesus christ, this board sometimes.

That goes both ways. The same people who are pushing the "you can't say who did it" argument would be pointing the finger readily if it weren't for the fact that they don't like Glenn Beck. Someone throw up an article about any sort of alleged injustice that occurred in the deep south and see how many people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

The truth is that inside most people want the Glenn Beckers to be punished for liking Glenn Beck, and for the people who perpetrated this to get off scott free. All the rest is an attempt to arrive at that conclusion.

 

[preslove]

OK, so I read the article.

Glenn Beck put on an event for idiots exploring some crazy conspiracy theories about how mysterious forces are out to get said idiots. Some of these idiots parked illegally in a Frat's lot and were towed. Upon discovery of this fact, these idiots concocted crazy conspiracy theories blaming the frat for some mysterious plot to get them.

So, idiots who believe in whack-job conspiracy theories, apparently, tend to construct whack-job conspiracy theories in order to avoid taking responsibility for their mistakes... Whowudathunkit?

 

[preslove]

That goes both ways. The same people who are pushing the "you can't say who did it" argument would be pointing the finger readily if it weren't for the fact that they don't like Glenn Beck. Someone throw up an article about any sort of alleged injustice that occurred in the deep south and see how many people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

The truth is that inside most people want the Glenn Beckers to be punished for liking Glenn Beck, and for the people who perpetrated this to get off scott free. All the rest is an attempt to arrive at that conclusion.

The thing is, the only people who are saying that this is a conspiracy, or "prank," are the Beck-tards. Glenn Beck is a conspiracy monger. So, his fans think in terms of conspiracies and people "are out to get me."

Hell, for all we know, the signs were there for a totally different event.

 

[Blintok]

No it is not. A sign must be supported by the owner with rights to that. If I put a sign up saying free parking and I don;t own it then the sign is not legal.

How old are you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

 

[D1gger]

Many people here have a common sense understanding of tort law. However, that does not negate assessing liability.

So for example, instead of parking, let us use a more visual example to better explain the situation.

Suppose neighbor A posts a garage sale sign on neighbor B's house while neighbor B is on vacation. Neighbor A then breaks into neighbor B's house and conducts the garage sale. Customers participating in the garage sale have a reasonable expectation that the person conducting the sale is the owner of the house.

Several days later, Neighbor B returns home to find his household items gone!!!

Of course, neighbor A has broken the law in conducting the garage sale under false pretenses. I don't think anyone would argue with that. However, what about the customers? What liability do they have?

The law in this case would suggest that despite expectations that the person conducting the sale was the owner of the items, the end result would be the items purchased were still classified as stolen. So, while the customers may avoid obstruction charges due to "reasonable expectations", their possession of those items may be forfeited. In this case, they would have to pursue legal action against the neighbor who conducted the sale in order to obtain compensation for their purchases.

So, as it relates to the parking case: Yes, these people who had their car towed were deceived. However, this does not absolve them from parking on private property. The individuals who were towed would have to pursue a legal claim against the party which falsely erected the sign to recover their fees. Hope this makes sense.

Thanks Caspur, that makes perfect sense.

 

[sygyzy]

College parking is srsbsns.

Can you explain to me what srsbsns? Is it an abbreviation (if you can call it that) for "serious business"? What part of the country, or what social group uses such a term?

 

[zinfamous]

Can you explain to me what srsbsns? Is it an abbreviation (if you can call it that) for "serious business"? What part of the country, or what social group uses such a term?

the internet social group, I believe.

 

[TheVrolok]

Very rarely do I appreciate what frat boys bring to the table, but this delivers.