Look it is still bothersome AT FRIGGIN MINIMUM to remove egg from your car.

At worst

http://www.finishing.com/230/16.shtml

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/33952/auto_care_how_to_get_egg_off_a_car.html

http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/halloween-car-cleanup-guide/20061025164309990002

http://www.advicenators.com/qview.php?q=443185

http://www.wikihow.com/Remove-Egg-Stains-from-Car-Paint

EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT --------- EGGS DAMAGE PAINT ---------

Vandalism is never innocent.

This is an example of a person committing a crime becoming the victim of a crime for having done the first crime!

CRIME SUCKS

DO NOT BE A CRIMINAL

DO NOT BE A SINNER

DO NOT BE A JERK

DO NOT BE AN {AHOLE}

JUST DO NOT DO CRIME!

in th' end it only shows that far not every american is able/mature/intelligent/smart enough t' use a gun.

so simply far not every american should have th' right t' posses a gun.

Obviously I think th' kid is wrong in eggin' while some scallywags think minnows should be allowed t' egg freely, but let's drop that fer a bit.

""Police said 16-year-auld Garrett Burton were bein' ...  in th' backyard o' a home when someone shot that scurvey dog in th' head just before 3 a.m."

I thought 'tis not against th' law t' shoot intruders o' yer property."

Is it or is it not (in th' US)?

In some states th' USA I think it is legal t' actually shot anyone who just walks across yer yard.

Crazy country indeed.

And Simon...  yes ye shouldn't throw an egg at someone.  But it is NOT criminal t' do so.

Oh, is that why Cheney got away with it, avast? 

it is a crime if the egg damages the car.  which an egg will do.  It badly damages the paint job as einstein pointed out  it could cost several thousand dollars to fix.

I did not want to touch this topic with a stick but please... this is just about common sense.

Yes, it is probably technically legal to shoot someone who trespasses your property, the more so if he is in to do harm (not reffering to egg throwing).

But in any sane brain, this is murder.

Technically, if a drunk kid enters your courtyard on his bike, falls and scratches your car you could also shoot him. Twice. To teach him not to scratch cars, and not to drink too much.

Come on.

> Soth wrote:

> some of you people need to read the rest of the thread before you post a comment.  no one is saying that the egg thrower deserved to be shot.  the only thing that makes me mad on this thread are people who say the egg thrower did nothing wrong which is COMPLETELY FALSE!!  both the egg thrower and the shooter were at fault.  it was an unfortunate situation.
______________________________
the egg thrower is also guilty?
that would mean when "i" also threw eggs at someone and/or something they owned, I was guilty of something even if it wasn't a crime?

shocker of shockers!!!

"I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
"I am a flexible centrist: not stuck on right-wing, not stuck on left-wing, and not stuck on centre...and I don't flip-flop either" <<< me
Fighting for peace is like stopping the raping of a virgin.

"You can't be an idiot for having a different view on morality."

- You know Justian, the Nazi's sent people to the gas chambers for that exact same thing. Your American right?

"some of you people need to read the rest of the thread before you post a comment.  no one is saying that the egg thrower deserved to be shot.  the only thing that makes me mad on this thread are people who say the egg thrower did nothing wrong which is COMPLETELY FALSE!!  both the egg thrower and the shooter were at fault.  it was an unfortunate situation."

- Flint has clearly said that it is the fault of the boy who threw the egg that he was shot. But you know, lets not blame the civilian who had no reason to possess a hand gun in the first place. Wtf does the average person need a handgun for anyway? Lock your doors and windows at night, buy a reliable security system, and your set.

BTW Theo, nice to see you back

"Wtf does the average person need a handgun for anyway? Lock your doors and windows at night, buy a reliable security system, and your set."

Locked doors and barred windows only stop honest people.

Now obviously the kid should not have thrown the egg, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as vandilism if not mischief both of which, if I'm not mistaken, can result in criminal charges.  On the other hand the guy who shot the kid was also in the wrong, you have the right to protect your property but I highly doubt anyone would consider shooting someone in the head as a rational response.

A crime is a crime, to the victim, regardless of how the perpetrator feels about it.

The vast majority of police will say it is wrong, aka criminal, to egg a car.

>Paint your cars better then, or get your chickens more healthy so they don't produce concrete eggs. I got egged once while cycling home, yet it never occurred to get those guys killed.. Flatten a tire maybe, but not killing them

And you assume everyone has cash to put the most expensive paints on, just so kids can egg cars at will? You assume that there is a paint that can resist the phosphorous in eggs?

Eggs are wrong, and it is a crime. END OF STORY.

Wrong and criminal are not the same thing.

As as I already stated, it is rare for prosecutors to launch a criminal case against car eggers, which would indicate they don't consider car eggers criminal. The usual response is the insurance company bringing a civil suit against the egger. No criminal charges means he's not considered a criminal. It's not rocket science. What the kid did was wrong no doubt, but it likely wasn't criminal.

For your information:

"Civil Law and Criminal Law are two broad categories of law with distinct differences.

Civil Law determines private rights and liabilities, whereas Criminal Law concerns offenses against the authority of the state.

Litigation is simply another term for a lawsuit, which is a dispute between two or more parties regarding civil or criminal law issues. Civil law involves disputes between private parties and defines legal rights and obligations between them. Civil litigation is the process of resolving private disputes through the court system. Unless the parties privately resolve their dispute, the litigation usually results in a trial, or hearing, where the parties present their evidence to a judge or jury. The judge or jury then decides the dispute.

Not all cases that involve litigation are considered civil litigation. Our court system is designed to handle both civil and criminal cases. Criminal law defines conduct prohibited by legislative bodies, which also presccribes the punishments for violations.

Parties in Civil Litigation and Criminal Actions
The parties to a civil lawsuit include the plaintiff, the defendant, and possibly third parties.

The plaintiff is the party that has allegedly suffered some legal wrong at the hands of the defendant, the party responsible for infringing upon the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff files a lawsuit against the defendant, using the courts as the forum to argue that the defendant should be held responsible for the plaintiff's injuries and should compensate the plaintiff for its losses.

The parties in a criminal lawsuit are different from those in a civil action. In criminal cases, the public, through the authority of the state (or, if federal, the United States), brings the accused criminal (the defendant) to court to determine his or her guilt or innocence. Of course, masses of citizens do not actually haul defendants bodily into the courtroom. Instead, the government provides the special officer, called the prosecutor or district attorney in many localities, who files criminal charges against the defendant on the public's behalf. At the state level, this official might be called the attorney general; at the federal tier, he or she would be the United States Attorney serving the Department of Justice under the United States Attorney General.

Criminal lawsuits differ from their civil counterparts in that criminal prosecutions are intended to convict and punish the criminal offender, whereas civil lawsuits are designed to settle disputes between private parties. In criminal actions, the convicted defendant may be punished by imprisonment, or fined by the government. In civil suits, however, the defendant who losses judgment to the plaintiff, must compensate the plaintiff directly.

Civil and Criminal Procedure
Civil litigation, which deals with private disputes between parties, is subject to the rules of civil litigation, sometimes referred to as civil procedure. Criminal cases, which deal with acts that are offenses against society as a whole, such as murder and robbery, as subject to the rules for criminal law, which are also known as the rules of criminal procedure.

Sometimes the same act results in both a civil and a criminal action. For example, suppose that Ann Smith drives her car while under the influence of alcohol. As a result, she crushes into another vehicle and injures the driver of that car, John Watson. Ann Smith would be arrested for the crime of drunk driving, but John Watson might also sue civilly. The civil case (Watson vs. Smith) will proceed according to the rules of civil procedure.

The criminal case, the government (in this case the state) would file an action against Ann Smith for the crime of drunk driving. If she were found guilty, the court could sentence her to jail or impose a fine payable to the state. In the civil case, John Watson would sue Ann Smith for money to compensate him for his medical bills, his lost wages, and his pain and suffering.

Although, the same act may spawn both a civil and a criminal case, the two legal cases are always kept separate. They will never be tried together. In part, this is because a different standard or burden of proof is required in criminal case. The standard of evidence used to judge the criminal case is higher than the standard applied in civil cases.

Burden of Proof in Civil and Criminal Law
Civil and crminal law may be further distinguished in terms of burdens of proof. In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff's case must be proved by a preponderance of evidence, meaning that the plaintiff must convince the judge or jury that his or her version of the facts is more likely than not and that he or she is entitled to judgment. This degree of proof is sometimes called presenting a prima facie case, or "crossing the 51 percent line", because the plaintiff must outprove the defendant by more than half the evidence.

In certain cases, such as those involving fraud, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and probate contests, the plaintiff must prove his or her case by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard and more difficult to meet that a mere preponderance.

By contrast, in a criminal lawsut the prosecutor must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that judge or jury must believe the defendant's guilt without significant reservations. This burden of proof is much more difficult than either of the proof levels required in civil cases. This heavier burden on the government exists to protect defendants from overzealous prosecutors who might succeed in convicting innocent individuals with less evidence if the proof requirements were easier to satisfy. "