Of course, pointing a 10,000 lumen light source at your neighbor's bedroom 24x7 would be objectively anti-social behaviour.
But all we have as evidence is the complainant's word.
Were there lights at all? Were they 10 lumen or 100,000 lumen? Were they really "aimed at his bedroom" all night?
Neither you nor I have any idea if he is telling the truth.
My own judgement, solely from the snippets of the complainant words in the judgement, is that he sounds like a crank, so I'd guess he is exaggerating and just doesn't like his neighbours. At one point he refers to them as spot lights, at another point the same lights are described as flood lights. That alone hints (to me) that he's either not all there or is just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
Regardless, nothing in my comment implied that that I thought this was normal. I was solely responding to the idea that the analysis was weak. I think you were trying to argue that since at extreme's light could resemble crimes like assault, that ignoring light's impact was shortsighted. I agree, however I am also aware that at the other extreme, people differ vastly in what they see as excessive light. Because of this variance, I suspect that a legal regime which interpreted photons as objects hitting another's property would lead to similarly absurd places.
appreciatorBus|9 days ago
But all we have as evidence is the complainant's word.
Were there lights at all? Were they 10 lumen or 100,000 lumen? Were they really "aimed at his bedroom" all night?
Neither you nor I have any idea if he is telling the truth.
My own judgement, solely from the snippets of the complainant words in the judgement, is that he sounds like a crank, so I'd guess he is exaggerating and just doesn't like his neighbours. At one point he refers to them as spot lights, at another point the same lights are described as flood lights. That alone hints (to me) that he's either not all there or is just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
Regardless, nothing in my comment implied that that I thought this was normal. I was solely responding to the idea that the analysis was weak. I think you were trying to argue that since at extreme's light could resemble crimes like assault, that ignoring light's impact was shortsighted. I agree, however I am also aware that at the other extreme, people differ vastly in what they see as excessive light. Because of this variance, I suspect that a legal regime which interpreted photons as objects hitting another's property would lead to similarly absurd places.