Shocking the Noble Boy: McCain Supporter Shocks Nine-Year-Old Boy with Electrified Campaign Sign

Just days after a McCain supporter in Ohio shot a teenager for knocking over his sign, Shawn Turschak of Chapel Hill, North Carolina shocked a nine-year-old boy after electrifying his campaign sign to protect it. What is unbelievable is that the police will not charge Turschak for this reckless act. In this case, the boy was carrying an Obama sign, but the boy’s father, Andrew Noble, insists that he just wanted to see how the sign was put together and was not trying to tear it down.

Sign thefts and destruction are being reported around the country. These acts are not only stupid but reveal people with little true commitment to or understanding of the democratic process.

Turschak had lost two signs previously.

Turschak insists that the boy was going to switch out his sign for an Obama sign. However, that does not excuse what Turschak did. He hooked the signs into a power source for an electric pet fence. Then he mounted a surveillance camera in a nearby tree and wired it to a digital recorder.

The use of electrical shock without any warning is a potential form of battery under tort and assault under criminal law. Any child could have innocently come into contact with the sign.

What is astonishing is that the video camera would have captured the culprit — as it has for Obama supporters filming misguided McCain supporters. Yet, Turschak took it upon himself to mete out his own hidden punishment.

Electrical fences have always been a matter of concern in torts. They are primarily used in rural areas with little foot traffic. In a city, it would be an invitation for a lawsuit, particularly if bystanders could easily come into contact with them and the owner placed no warning signs.

For the story, click here.

27 thoughts on “Shocking the Noble Boy: McCain Supporter Shocks Nine-Year-Old Boy with Electrified Campaign Sign”

  1. It wasn’t a big shock and it came with a warning. The child should have been arrested for trespassing. His father should also have to go to a parenting class in order to prevent him from enabling his criminal son any further. Methinks the little hoodlum learned a valuable lesson about private property and keeping one’s hands to oneself.

  2. Patty C

    I’m not one of someone’s many names on here. MAybe you should read one of my many posts. I don’t swear in my posts and I don’t refer to states as “bumble #5$@!” (insert state here).

    I do think this whole thing is being blown out of porportion.

    At age 9 yrs, a kid knows not to go on someone else’s property without permission.

    Please do not try to associate me with someone else’s trouble making ventures on here.

    I think I’ve actually agreed with you on some issues in the past, although I’ve only been on here for about two or three weeks.

    I’m not a lawyer, I’m a 25 yr old stay at home mom with two kids. So my views are not of that of someone who works in a law firm or wants to appear that they do.

  3. Even if the facts show that there is a warning sign, it is unreasonable and dangerous to put an elctrified campaign sign in your yard. Prof. Turley was correct that even an accidental touching of the sign may be possible when you set up a sign in that matter. I agree that the owner has the right to protect his property, but to take potentially dangerous steps to protect a simple political sign is unreasonable. At least in my neighborhood it would be considered unreasonable by other parents. Around here in suburban/rural Woodtock Illinois, even fences are looked down upon because they will get in the way of neighbors going from home to home.

  4. momodee,

    It is important to get the “Rest of the Story” Thanks for finding the original story.

    The man was careful when electrifying his signs:

    “Turschak, who has a degree in electrical engineering, said he tested the shock on himself while wiring the signs, and did so again while a reporter watched Wednesday, touching both signs repeatedly without flinching. Under each was a yellow sign warning that they were electrified.”

    And then after Turschak de-electrified the signs, that angry lady stole the signs!

  5. The original story states:

    “Under each was a yellow sign warning that they were electrified.”

    Therefore your “The use of electrical shock without any warning is a potential form of battery under tort and assault under criminal law” is irrelevant.

    Some stupid Democrat taught their kid to be a criminal and to trespass and steal someone’s property and the idiot kid didn’t even bother to read the damn sign saying the thing was electrified. Typical Democrat behavior, jumping in before making sure there’s water in the pool.

    You know what, if that kid was just trying to figure out how it worked, why didn’t he trot up to an OBAMA sign and inspect it? I’m sure his parents have a ton of the things to play with.

    And it was pretty funny that an “angry-looking woman” was caught stealing the McCain signs just after this boy tried to. Of course she’s angry — it’s someone who doesn’t agree with her actually exercising freedom of speech. They must be stopped — even if it means committing crimes!

    If that’s how you Democrats think you deserve to be zapped. Keep your hands to yourselves next time!

  6. Say what…?

    Don’t be so sure next time, Cro!

    Patty C 1, October 31, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    ” … I don’t understand how you shock someone with one of these units without rigging it in a way that is way outside of it’s intended use.

    I think it’s cruel and criminal to do that and not mark the area with a warning.

    That’s HOW I trained my dogs to use the fence. For several days, I had to show them the perimeter of our property via red flags on metal stakes I had planted after burying the wire. I walked around with them on leashes showing them where they could go without potentially getting shocked… “

Comments are closed.