Do you think the property was cut off 1 month in order to control high-altitude parabolic?

According to media reports, on September 29th, a man in Jiaozuo, Henan Province was drinking at night, and fell from the 13 floor. Since then, the residential property company has imposed a 30-day penalty on the man's house according to the owner's statute. After more than ten days, the man's wife couldn't stand the power outage, so she called 1 10 to ask the police to plead with the owner. The property said that if there is any objection, you can sue, and the power supply of this household has been restored in advance. Fortunately, I didn't hit anyone. The response of this property surprised netizens!

"The child's father drank too much and threw the bottle on the ground. It didn't cause any consequences ... now cut me off, even if I want to watch TV. How can people live without power? "

The property does not give in to this, saying: throwing objects at high altitude will make the whole building suffer! "If you want to charge, you can come to the property. If there is any objection, you can sue. "

It is also clearly written in the "Owner's Statute" posted in the community: after the owner checked in, he found that he was littering indoors and gave him a power outage 1 month. This statute requires the consent of more than 90% of the owners, which is mandatory and can be amended after more than 90% of the owners agree. After understanding the situation, the local police said that this is the regulation of the community and the owners should abide by it.

But from the procedural point of view, it is not arbitrary to use the owner's statute to treat high-altitude parabolic objects-according to the staff of the property company, the owner's statute is mandatory and can be revised every three to four years, which requires the consent of more than 90% of the owners in the community. From the original intention, this approach is also quite well-intentioned: many problems in the community also need owner autonomy to restrain.

Constraints belong to constraints, but as far as punishment is concerned, from a rational point of view, this is a legal proposition, which has exceeded the "jurisdiction" of a paper owner's statute. In other words, the property company has no right to punish the owners.

The action of the property involved can win the applause of netizens, perhaps more because it is in line with the psychological expectation of the society to severely punish high-altitude parabolic objects. The pleasure brought by the self-empowerment of property "punishing evil with punishment" hits the soft spot of "double absence" in the connection between punishing laws and regulations according to law and managing communities according to law.