I have the right to do what I want without prior restraint AND the responsibility to be punished when I hurt someone else?
Will your responsibility bring other people back from the dead?
It is definitely your right to have fun, but it's also other people's right to be reasonably safe on the road. The vast majority of drivers are just doing their work. They do not expect, and they do not welcome seeing a %ick in a sports car flying by them at 50 mph faster. Those drivers are not trained to handle such things, and their vehicles are not able of accepting those speeds even from others. They cannot react as a race car driver would.
Sports cars have no place on public roads when they are driven above the performance of a typical commuter car or a tractor-trailer. Sports cars should be raced on closed roads and tracks. Public roads are for the public that carries themselves and cargo from point A to point B.
The Sir in question was reluctant to amend his ways even when he was confronted by a cop. He'd just ignore the request of a school worker, just as he ignored earlier requests to not come.
I guess people started to forget that Iran is the arch-nemesis of the entire free world. An article to the rescue, about how the infinitely wise and well prepared TLA saved the day by outsmarting a dumb terrorist who is hiding in the darkest corner of the most dangerous country in the world. (No, that's not Chicago, if you wonder.)
In the really real world, "refusing to admit a mistake" is not an arrestable offense. Neither is arguing with a cop.
It makes a big difference. In one case you are an honest person who violated the law by mistake. The cop will explain the law to you, and let you go. In another case you are insisting that the law does not apply to you just because, and you are arguing with a cop who knows the law better than you do. In such case the cop will conclude that you violated the law intentionally, or with wanton disregard for rights of others - and then you will get a different treatment. Why would that be unfair? It's exactly how police officers are *supposed* to operate - to protect the innocent and to stop the guilty from doing harm. In this case the responding officer did everything by the book.
What is curious to me is your low user number, indicating a join date some time in, oh, 1997 or so? How did you last this long with such a pro-authoritarian attitude?
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
I do not automatically approve everything that the police does. Far from that. However in this case the EV owner went too far: he plugged his car into someone else's outlet, then insisted that it's his right to use the outlet, and then insisted that the cop damaged his car. If he is not one lying SOB, I don't know who would be. Conservative people value honesty and respect rights of others.
because Christianity largely believes in inherited guilt
Yes, that is yet another unreasonable burden. Nobody can be responsible for (or guilty of) something that he did not do. Anything else would be inhumane and sadistic.
no one is without sin
Which, per Jesus, means that nobody on this Earth (modulo Jesus himself, naturally) is permitted to judge others. What a bonanza for criminals! But, of course, every member of the ruling class had no issues with judging and convicting their slaves and serfs and assorted little people to harsh punishments for merely not bowing down fast enough.
The Church itself led several Crusades, created the Holy Inquisition, and spilled rivers of blood, thus judging people and dispensing the punishment. Apparently, the Pope had a special edition of the Bible where Jesus permits the Church and the aristocracy to act as judges and executioners regardless of their sins.
Even if you are not Christian, seeking retribution from the law is a hollow act that does nothing to undo the damage committed by the criminal. All it does is trade a life for a sense of satisfaction, and no justice comes from that. Two wrongs do not make a right.
A criminal can be convicted to being taken apart. His organs will be sold to the needy patients, and the money will be used to treat the criminal's victim. Many deserving people will live at expense of one defective man being killed.
The principle of nonresistance to evil is evil in itself. This empowers criminals, and turns you into obedient sheep who meekly takes the punishment. This was valuable when the Bible was written because the ruling classes wanted to have pacified slaves who did not value their earthly life. Today independently thinking people do not want to turn another cheek - they strike back. This way, when a terrorist kills one of your sons you do not offer him another. Instead you offer him every bullet that you have.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
I don't think the nightly rate on an EV plan would be 25 cents per kWh. It can't be that high. Myself, I am not on an EV plan; I am on a net metering plan.
The math may be squirrely indeed, but that's what they calculated. It would be good to ask someone who has an EV. There are a quite a few Leafs around in Silicon Valley. But buying an EV here is dangerous because of the hills (hard to estimate the range until you have driven the route.)
People are not robots that are bolted to an assembly line and do the same work over and over again. Circumstances change all the time. Sometimes you need to go to a place that you know nothing about. You are sure there are gas stations, you don't need even to check. But chargers? More than one even, mid-route? That is not even a consideration for most normal people. A geek might accept that, but a common man will not. It takes a long time to charge. What if there is no space at the charger, and all outlets are in use? What if the charger is damaged? This is the only charger, and you MUST use it to return home. A tow truck will cost you.
This means that an EV is only suitable as a second car. If you only own one car, forget it - you need to buy a universal, gas car that will take you anywhere. You also need to own a house, with a garage, if you want an EV - this is where your home charger will be mounted.
Roadside (continuous) charging is nearly impossible - not because it is a technical problem, but simply because installation of such systems will require digging up all the roads in the country. Imagine how cheap and easy that is. The question of payment for the energy will also be significant. One way to do it is simply by charging every EV owner per mile driven. But that requires that most roads are equipped with chargers. The transition phase (where only some roads have them) will be long enough for that method to not work. Then you'd have to use methods of toll roads, and your privacy will be destroyed.
The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.
PG&E has standard rate plans that vary from 11c/kWh (which is so little that you can't afford a refrigerator) to 30c/kWh. There are also special plans (time- and season-driven); one of them is specifically intended for charging EVs. In that plan, IIRC, the rate is about 5 c/kWh - but that is at night only. I do not recall what is the rate during the day. Utilities hide the actual rate tables. PG&E has a convenient calculator. I tried it with Tesla S60 and 60 miles per day. I got about $150/mo on plan EV-A.
60 miles per day * 30 = 1800 miles per month. If we convert this to a gas car, $150 pays for about 42 gallons of gas. This results in efficiency of 42.85 mpg. This not something to write home about. My own Prius does 52 mpg on flat land, and 45 mpg if you add climbing of the surrounding hills. If these calculations are correct, it is not efficient to use an EV even if you got it for free. At best it equals the hybrid that costs a third of the price of the EV.
This is a Sophists' phrase, and it is an unnecessary constraint. Why would a man who failed to pray on $holy_day be prevented from punishing a rapist? Both men are sinners.
I, personally, do not worry if the judge is a sinner. The only requirement is that he judges fairly and by the law. I do not care if he has plans on the wife of his neighbor, or that he stole a cookie when he was 5 years old. Some say that it's hard to be honest from 9 to 5 and not so honest from 5 to 9. It may be so. However if a person can do the job, that's the only thing that matters.
I disagree with the premise that violent criminals should get a stern talking to and then released to continue the mayhem. I do not insist on a particularly painful execution, though. Any execution will do, as long as it is done in a few hours after sentencing. A good part of justice is intended to give example to others. Treating robbers gently and with respect only breeds more robbers.
A school has no right to issue a citation to anyone. Only the police and the court can do that. That's why the school manager called 911. Only the police can approach an individual and initiate a possibly hostile contact. This is because they have the right to use force. You do not, generally.
The addendum to the report was added this evening, after this story came out.
I started suspecting that when I went to the middle of the discussion on Slashdot, and everyone was stuck with the same wrong facts.
Why would the officer search the car to determine the owner when there is a tag right there on the back?
Maybe there wasn't any? Maybe he wanted to make sure that the owner is not inside? Otherwise I don't know. That is a good question. But the responding officer could do that, and more, anyway - he was on an official assignment, he had a prima facie [petty] crime, so he had an investigation to investigate.
Why isn't he up for trespassing if he was told he is no longer welcome on the court?
Another good question. Maybe because the school just told him to stay away, but there was no restraining order from the judge?
Why are they spending hundreds of dollars over 5 cents?
Well, that is easy. If the minimal cost of processing a misdemeanor is $100, it doesn't mean that you can go about and commit $99 misdemeanors all you want. The society wants to prevent such behavior, no matter the cost.
I say put them in supermarkets and charge a couple bucks to charge
That would be comparable, or more expensive, than gasoline. A $2 = 0.5 gallons, or about 20 miles of travel. A 30 minute charge may not give you that much of a range boost, unless it is one of Tesla's Superchargers.
Airports and coffee shops are in business of providing services to travelers and paying customers. This is quite different from a public school - a school is not expected to provide any services whatsoever to anyone but students and staff.
If Mr. EV tripped the breaker then there would no longer be any electricity available for him - he'd unplug and call it a day.
There are far more outlets than breakers. Several outlets are often combined into one circuit, and that circuit is then protected with a 15A breaker. It is expected that the property owner will be aware of that limitation, and will not load every outlet to the max. However in this case the EV owner had no clue (nor wanted to have one) that inside the school there could be a space heater plugged into the same circuit, consuming almost all the allowed current because the property owner did not expect any additional load to show up.
It is not 5 cents to restore the power because the first thing you have to do is to understand why the breaker failed. This means you have to identify all the outlets on the circuit, and then you need to walk by them and check that nothing unusual is plugged into them. You unplug everything, then you push the breaker back into the ON position and observe. Then you need to think. If you only had one load plugged in, you must suspect that load. If you had several, this makes things easier. But in any case, finding a maintenance guy on Saturday would not be a 5 cent exercise. If you have to summon him it will easily cost you $100-200 in overtime.
I don't however, agree that putting him in jail overnight was reasonable. This should have been handled by a simple fine.
A night in jail is free, and it carries a much better lesson. A fine leaves a permanent mark on your wallet, and it does not serve as an educational tool.
Ultimately, Sgt. Ford did make the decision to pursue the theft charges, but the decision was based on Mr. Kamooneh having been advised that he was not allowed on the property without permission. Had he complied with that notice none of this would have occurred. Mr. Kamooneh's son is not a student at the middle school and he was not the one playing tennis. Mr. Kamooneh was taking lessons himself.
In other words, he stopped at someone else's tennis courts to play, and decided to plug his car into someone else's outlet. He had no particular right to be there; furthermore, he was previously denied the right to be there by the property managers - and he ignored that.
Wednesday evening, Chamblee City Manager and Police Chief Marc Johnson issued the following statement:
We received a 911 call advising that someone was plugged into the power outlet behind the middle school. The responding officer located the vehicle in the rear of the building at the kitchen loading dock up against the wall with a cord run to an outlet. The officer spent some time trying to determine whose vehicle it was. It was unlocked and he eventually began looking through the interior after verifying it did not belong to the school system.
The officer, his marked patrol vehicle and the electric vehicle were all in clear view of the tennis courts. Eventually, a man on the courts told the officer that the man playing tennis with him owned the vehicle. The officer went to the courts and interviewed the vehicle owner. The officer's initial incident report gives a good indication of how difficult and argumentative the individual was to deal with. He made no attempt to apologize or simply say oops and he wouldn't do it again. Instead he continued being argumentative, acknowledged he did not have permission and then accused the officer of having damaged his car door. The officer told him that was not true and that the vehicle and existing damage was already on his vehicles video camera from when he drove up.
Given the uncooperative attitude and accusations of damage to his vehicle, the officer chose to document the incident on an incident report. The report was listed as misdemeanor theft by taking. The officer had no way of knowing how much power had been consumed, how much it cost nor how long it had been charging.
The report made its way to Sgt Ford's desk for a follow up investigation. He contacted the middle school and inquired of several administrative personnel whether the individual had permission to use power. He was advised no. Sgt. Ford showed a photo to the school resource officer who recognized Mr. Kamooneh. Sgt Ford was further advised that Mr. Kamooneh had previously been advised he was not allowed on the school tennis courts without permission from the school . This was apparently due to his interfering with the use of the tennis courts previously during school hours.
Based upon the totality of these circumstances and without any expert advice on the amount of electricity that may have been used, Sgt Ford signed a theft warrant. The warrant was turned over to the DeKalb Sheriffs Dept for service because the individual lived in Decatur, not Chamblee. This is why he was arrested at a later time.
I am sure that Sgt. Ford was feeling defensive when he said a theft is a theft and he would do it again. Ultimately, Sgt. Ford did make the decision to pursue the theft charges, but the decision was based on Mr. Kamooneh having been advised that he was not allowed on the property without permission. Had he complied with that notice none of this would have occurred. Mr. Kamooneh's son is not a student at the middle school and he was not the one playing tennis. Mr. Kamooneh was taking lessons himself.
How many orange cords from Home Depot do you know that are guaranteed to survive repeated pressure from tires of loaded trucks of any legal weight? How many such cords are guaranteed to not get caught by passing vehicles?
If a cord is shorted or torn, a fire is quite possible. The breaker only protects the circuit - it does not protect the load. As long as the current through the load is under the breaker's limit, your fire will be arcing happily, under parked cars and in dry grass. A single spark may be sufficient in summer.
This is why electricians route high current wires in steel conduits. They protect the wire, and they ensure that there is nothing flammable in direct contact with the flame or the arc. You cannot just throw a cable on the ground and forget about it.
You can plug your own cord that is damaged. Then the cord kills a child (who would be likely to be near a school, and would be likely to touch the cord or the car.) The car owner and the school will be both responsible. Why would the school want any of that? They have neither duty to, nor benefit from letting strangers charge their cars. They would do the right thing if they install locked covers at all outlets.
I wouldn't be that upset if they sent him that bill instead of the crazy arrest.
The Leaf owner in question is a habitual troublemaker who violated orders of the property owner already (per the link to 11alive.) He also argued with the cop and refused to admit a mistake. (If he did that, the cop would let him go.)
Such a person would throw that bill away and come to that school to recharge as matter of teaching them a lesson. An arrest record is just deserts for this behavior, if the report is accurate. The society does not need antisocial egotists.
It's not like they would have hundreds of people charging though, there aren't that many outside outlets within reach of a parking space.
Expect all outdoor outlets to be locked as soon as enough EVs start charging without permission. The liability is far greater than the cost of stolen energy.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the right to do what I want without prior restraint AND the responsibility to be punished when I hurt someone else?
Will your responsibility bring other people back from the dead?
It is definitely your right to have fun, but it's also other people's right to be reasonably safe on the road. The vast majority of drivers are just doing their work. They do not expect, and they do not welcome seeing a %ick in a sports car flying by them at 50 mph faster. Those drivers are not trained to handle such things, and their vehicles are not able of accepting those speeds even from others. They cannot react as a race car driver would.
Sports cars have no place on public roads when they are driven above the performance of a typical commuter car or a tractor-trailer. Sports cars should be raced on closed roads and tracks. Public roads are for the public that carries themselves and cargo from point A to point B.
The Sir in question was reluctant to amend his ways even when he was confronted by a cop. He'd just ignore the request of a school worker, just as he ignored earlier requests to not come.
I guess people started to forget that Iran is the arch-nemesis of the entire free world. An article to the rescue, about how the infinitely wise and well prepared TLA saved the day by outsmarting a dumb terrorist who is hiding in the darkest corner of the most dangerous country in the world. (No, that's not Chicago, if you wonder.)
In the really real world, "refusing to admit a mistake" is not an arrestable offense. Neither is arguing with a cop.
It makes a big difference. In one case you are an honest person who violated the law by mistake. The cop will explain the law to you, and let you go. In another case you are insisting that the law does not apply to you just because, and you are arguing with a cop who knows the law better than you do. In such case the cop will conclude that you violated the law intentionally, or with wanton disregard for rights of others - and then you will get a different treatment. Why would that be unfair? It's exactly how police officers are *supposed* to operate - to protect the innocent and to stop the guilty from doing harm. In this case the responding officer did everything by the book.
What is curious to me is your low user number, indicating a join date some time in, oh, 1997 or so? How did you last this long with such a pro-authoritarian attitude?
I do not automatically approve everything that the police does. Far from that. However in this case the EV owner went too far: he plugged his car into someone else's outlet, then insisted that it's his right to use the outlet, and then insisted that the cop damaged his car. If he is not one lying SOB, I don't know who would be. Conservative people value honesty and respect rights of others.
because Christianity largely believes in inherited guilt
Yes, that is yet another unreasonable burden. Nobody can be responsible for (or guilty of) something that he did not do. Anything else would be inhumane and sadistic.
no one is without sin
Which, per Jesus, means that nobody on this Earth (modulo Jesus himself, naturally) is permitted to judge others. What a bonanza for criminals! But, of course, every member of the ruling class had no issues with judging and convicting their slaves and serfs and assorted little people to harsh punishments for merely not bowing down fast enough.
The Church itself led several Crusades, created the Holy Inquisition, and spilled rivers of blood, thus judging people and dispensing the punishment. Apparently, the Pope had a special edition of the Bible where Jesus permits the Church and the aristocracy to act as judges and executioners regardless of their sins.
This may be counter to your beliefs, but:
Even if you are not Christian, seeking retribution from the law is a hollow act that does nothing to undo the damage committed by the criminal. All it does is trade a life for a sense of satisfaction, and no justice comes from that. Two wrongs do not make a right.
A criminal can be convicted to being taken apart. His organs will be sold to the needy patients, and the money will be used to treat the criminal's victim. Many deserving people will live at expense of one defective man being killed.
The principle of nonresistance to evil is evil in itself. This empowers criminals, and turns you into obedient sheep who meekly takes the punishment. This was valuable when the Bible was written because the ruling classes wanted to have pacified slaves who did not value their earthly life. Today independently thinking people do not want to turn another cheek - they strike back. This way, when a terrorist kills one of your sons you do not offer him another. Instead you offer him every bullet that you have.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
I don't think the nightly rate on an EV plan would be 25 cents per kWh. It can't be that high. Myself, I am not on an EV plan; I am on a net metering plan.
The math may be squirrely indeed, but that's what they calculated. It would be good to ask someone who has an EV. There are a quite a few Leafs around in Silicon Valley. But buying an EV here is dangerous because of the hills (hard to estimate the range until you have driven the route.)
People are not robots that are bolted to an assembly line and do the same work over and over again. Circumstances change all the time. Sometimes you need to go to a place that you know nothing about. You are sure there are gas stations, you don't need even to check. But chargers? More than one even, mid-route? That is not even a consideration for most normal people. A geek might accept that, but a common man will not. It takes a long time to charge. What if there is no space at the charger, and all outlets are in use? What if the charger is damaged? This is the only charger, and you MUST use it to return home. A tow truck will cost you.
This means that an EV is only suitable as a second car. If you only own one car, forget it - you need to buy a universal, gas car that will take you anywhere. You also need to own a house, with a garage, if you want an EV - this is where your home charger will be mounted.
Roadside (continuous) charging is nearly impossible - not because it is a technical problem, but simply because installation of such systems will require digging up all the roads in the country. Imagine how cheap and easy that is. The question of payment for the energy will also be significant. One way to do it is simply by charging every EV owner per mile driven. But that requires that most roads are equipped with chargers. The transition phase (where only some roads have them) will be long enough for that method to not work. Then you'd have to use methods of toll roads, and your privacy will be destroyed.
The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.
PG&E has standard rate plans that vary from 11c/kWh (which is so little that you can't afford a refrigerator) to 30c/kWh. There are also special plans (time- and season-driven); one of them is specifically intended for charging EVs. In that plan, IIRC, the rate is about 5 c/kWh - but that is at night only. I do not recall what is the rate during the day. Utilities hide the actual rate tables. PG&E has a convenient calculator. I tried it with Tesla S60 and 60 miles per day. I got about $150/mo on plan EV-A.
60 miles per day * 30 = 1800 miles per month. If we convert this to a gas car, $150 pays for about 42 gallons of gas. This results in efficiency of 42.85 mpg. This not something to write home about. My own Prius does 52 mpg on flat land, and 45 mpg if you add climbing of the surrounding hills. If these calculations are correct, it is not efficient to use an EV even if you got it for free. At best it equals the hybrid that costs a third of the price of the EV.
the universe is not itself a caring entity? no shit. doesn't mean people shouldn't be.
The care and love can be only mutual. Otherwise you will be loving a mass murderer.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
This is a Sophists' phrase, and it is an unnecessary constraint. Why would a man who failed to pray on $holy_day be prevented from punishing a rapist? Both men are sinners.
I, personally, do not worry if the judge is a sinner. The only requirement is that he judges fairly and by the law. I do not care if he has plans on the wife of his neighbor, or that he stole a cookie when he was 5 years old. Some say that it's hard to be honest from 9 to 5 and not so honest from 5 to 9. It may be so. However if a person can do the job, that's the only thing that matters.
Jythie, you are a better person then I.
I disagree with the premise that violent criminals should get a stern talking to and then released to continue the mayhem. I do not insist on a particularly painful execution, though. Any execution will do, as long as it is done in a few hours after sentencing. A good part of justice is intended to give example to others. Treating robbers gently and with respect only breeds more robbers.
A school has no right to issue a citation to anyone. Only the police and the court can do that. That's why the school manager called 911. Only the police can approach an individual and initiate a possibly hostile contact. This is because they have the right to use force. You do not, generally.
The addendum to the report was added this evening, after this story came out.
I started suspecting that when I went to the middle of the discussion on Slashdot, and everyone was stuck with the same wrong facts.
Why would the officer search the car to determine the owner when there is a tag right there on the back?
Maybe there wasn't any? Maybe he wanted to make sure that the owner is not inside? Otherwise I don't know. That is a good question. But the responding officer could do that, and more, anyway - he was on an official assignment, he had a prima facie [petty] crime, so he had an investigation to investigate.
Why isn't he up for trespassing if he was told he is no longer welcome on the court?
Another good question. Maybe because the school just told him to stay away, but there was no restraining order from the judge?
Why are they spending hundreds of dollars over 5 cents?
Well, that is easy. If the minimal cost of processing a misdemeanor is $100, it doesn't mean that you can go about and commit $99 misdemeanors all you want. The society wants to prevent such behavior, no matter the cost.
How does that negate my underlying argument that the man stole a service?
It doesn't. I only replied to the quoted part of your comment. I agree with the rest.
I say put them in supermarkets and charge a couple bucks to charge
That would be comparable, or more expensive, than gasoline. A $2 = 0.5 gallons, or about 20 miles of travel. A 30 minute charge may not give you that much of a range boost, unless it is one of Tesla's Superchargers.
Airports and coffee shops are in business of providing services to travelers and paying customers. This is quite different from a public school - a school is not expected to provide any services whatsoever to anyone but students and staff.
If Mr. EV tripped the breaker then there would no longer be any electricity available for him - he'd unplug and call it a day.
There are far more outlets than breakers. Several outlets are often combined into one circuit, and that circuit is then protected with a 15A breaker. It is expected that the property owner will be aware of that limitation, and will not load every outlet to the max. However in this case the EV owner had no clue (nor wanted to have one) that inside the school there could be a space heater plugged into the same circuit, consuming almost all the allowed current because the property owner did not expect any additional load to show up.
It is not 5 cents to restore the power because the first thing you have to do is to understand why the breaker failed. This means you have to identify all the outlets on the circuit, and then you need to walk by them and check that nothing unusual is plugged into them. You unplug everything, then you push the breaker back into the ON position and observe. Then you need to think. If you only had one load plugged in, you must suspect that load. If you had several, this makes things easier. But in any case, finding a maintenance guy on Saturday would not be a 5 cent exercise. If you have to summon him it will easily cost you $100-200 in overtime.
So... is electric a service or a product?
Those are different items on your electric bill, and they are priced separately.
I don't however, agree that putting him in jail overnight was reasonable. This should have been handled by a simple fine.
A night in jail is free, and it carries a much better lesson. A fine leaves a permanent mark on your wallet, and it does not serve as an educational tool.
If it was a significant problem they'd have put a padlock on the outdoor socket already. Or switched it off at the circuit breaker inside.
It wasn't a problem just a year ago because nobody would need that outlet. Now more and more outdoor outlets are locked, and lockable covers are available at Home Depot.
He was there to pick up his son (a student at the school) from tennis practice.
This is not so, according to the police:
In other words, he stopped at someone else's tennis courts to play, and decided to plug his car into someone else's outlet. He had no particular right to be there; furthermore, he was previously denied the right to be there by the property managers - and he ignored that.
That is how this story should have gone down.
The police in this case agrees with you. However the subject refused to say "oh, sorry":
Huh? What exactly is "tiring" you?
How many orange cords from Home Depot do you know that are guaranteed to survive repeated pressure from tires of loaded trucks of any legal weight? How many such cords are guaranteed to not get caught by passing vehicles?
If a cord is shorted or torn, a fire is quite possible. The breaker only protects the circuit - it does not protect the load. As long as the current through the load is under the breaker's limit, your fire will be arcing happily, under parked cars and in dry grass. A single spark may be sufficient in summer.
This is why electricians route high current wires in steel conduits. They protect the wire, and they ensure that there is nothing flammable in direct contact with the flame or the arc. You cannot just throw a cable on the ground and forget about it.
You can plug your own cord that is damaged. Then the cord kills a child (who would be likely to be near a school, and would be likely to touch the cord or the car.) The car owner and the school will be both responsible. Why would the school want any of that? They have neither duty to, nor benefit from letting strangers charge their cars. They would do the right thing if they install locked covers at all outlets.
I wouldn't be that upset if they sent him that bill instead of the crazy arrest.
The Leaf owner in question is a habitual troublemaker who violated orders of the property owner already (per the link to 11alive.) He also argued with the cop and refused to admit a mistake. (If he did that, the cop would let him go.)
Such a person would throw that bill away and come to that school to recharge as matter of teaching them a lesson. An arrest record is just deserts for this behavior, if the report is accurate. The society does not need antisocial egotists.
It's not like they would have hundreds of people charging though, there aren't that many outside outlets within reach of a parking space.
Expect all outdoor outlets to be locked as soon as enough EVs start charging without permission. The liability is far greater than the cost of stolen energy.