snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Petty Bickering » Not that I approve of vigilantism, but... (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Not that I approve of vigilantism, but...
Wintermute
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wintermute     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
You'd quickly consult Wintermute's Official Guide to Force vs. Crime and check that a headlock is "appropriate" force for this crime.

No, I would use my training that my department, the state of california has required and my experience to determine what the proper use of force is for the situation. I have been trained to know what the proper use of force is for a particular situation.

quote:
You forget a simple point about all of this - make a citizen's arrest and be *wrong* about it - and then what?
It depends on the crime. If you had taken time to read the penal code you would see the criteria is not that they did commit the crime. It is that they beleive a crime has been commited. This is why people like you should never try enforce laws they do not understand.
quote:
And you shrug your shoulders and think that you did the right thing because it would be worse to do nothing.
Nice Strawman.

quote:
If you ever try to pull this on someone, I hope that they perform a "citizen's arrest" on you for assault and "false arrest".
Do you even have a clue? I have taken several citizens arrest by people into custody. Sure, I personally do not encourage it, but it is required by law to them into custody. If someone tried to pull your childish games on me they would at least have a 148 for getting in my way.
So, Mike the lesson here is a person like you should not ever try to do a CA. Let the people that are trained to be peace officers handle the situation. The average citizens has the right to detain you if a crime has happened. They have the right to use the amount of force necessary to protect themselves, and to keep you there. Personally, I think the average citizen should pick up the phone and dial 911. The only time they should try to detain a criminal is when they have no other choice.

Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
lynnejanet
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for lynnejanet     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
[HIJACK]

quote:
Originally posted by timbobmc:
Haven't you heard, Chloe? Teachers aren't allowed to discipline children. That's why the education system in this country is in such bad shape. All I can do to a kid is make him write "meaningful" punish work if he misbehaves in my class or take away his recess. That's it.

No, you could try using your leadership skills to develop a culture of respect in your classroom, as a model of adult behaviour, and as a means to help your students to develop personal responsibility.

Or, you could just make 'em write lines.

Sorry to revive an off-topic discussion, but I just couldn't let that attitude go. I hate the implication that the only means of discipline is corporal punishment. timbobmc, how on earth did you end up in teaching?

Since you felt it was appropriate to speculate about Chloe, I think I'll do some speculating myself. I suspect that you are one of those teachers who use bullying tactics as classroom management (as we were discussing in another thread).

[/hijack]

--------------------
lynne"insert appropriate punny phrase here"janet

Posts: 1460 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
You'd quickly consult Wintermute's Official Guide to Force vs. Crime and check that a headlock is "appropriate" force for this crime.

No, I would use my training that my department, the state of california has required and my experience to determine what the proper use of force is for the situation. I have been trained to know what the proper use of force is for a particular situation.

Then you aren't an average "citizen", are you? From your post, I presume that you work in law enforcement you are approaching this as a person who is trained to be a law enforcement officer and agent of the government - and not just "Joe Citizen". Your intimate knowledge of what is and isn't proper use of force, as well as your approach to the law is not from the position of an average person. I'm sorry but it's not possible for you to be objective about this any more than it is for a person who is a lawyer (or law student), police officer, justice official, active-duty military or prison guard to serve on a jury. At least that is how it works in Canada.

quote:
You forget a simple point about all of this - make a citizen's arrest and be *wrong* about it - and then what?
It depends on the crime. If you had taken time to read the penal code you would see the criteria is not that they did commit the crime. It is that they beleive a crime has been commited. This is why people like you should never try enforce laws they do not understand.

"Belief" is a strong word to throw around here. There are people who believe that the earth is flat with as much (or more) conviction than one would presume is needed to believe that a crime has been committed. Is the intent of the law that everyone should be quaking in their boots because some crackpot "believes" that a crime has been committed? I don't plan to go enforcing the law *arbitrarily* as you support. That's the problem with vigilante behaviour - it is a knee-jerk reaction to a situation where one "special" person is judge, jury and executioner. And everyone here has been trying to get you to admit what we all "believe" - that you want to be that "special" person.

quote:
And you shrug your shoulders and think that you did the right thing because it would be worse to do nothing.
Nice Strawman.

Admit your bias here - you're too close to law enforcement to not have a huge bias in this case. Think of yourself as being "special" and the rest of us aren't.

quote:
If you ever try to pull this on someone, I hope that they perform a "citizen's arrest" on you for assault and "false arrest".
Do you even have a clue? I have taken several citizens arrest by people into custody. Sure, I personally do not encourage it, but it is required by law to them into custody. If someone tried to pull your childish games on me they would at least have a 148 for getting in my way.
So, Mike the lesson here is a person like you should not ever try to do a CA. Let the people that are trained to be peace officers handle the situation. The average citizens has the right to detain you if a crime has happened. They have the right to use the amount of force necessary to protect themselves, and to keep you there. Personally, I think the average citizen should pick up the phone and dial 911. The only time they should try to detain a criminal is when they have no other choice.



Again, you aren't approaching this as a "citizen" but as a "law enforcement officer". Quote me penal codes and threaten me with a "148" all you like. You don't get it - you've crossed the line from being "Joe Citizen" and you can't come back. I don't have a problem with that - but I do object that you don't admit it and how that has been the source of this argument all along.

I pity the people you try to "serve and protect". You really sound like a "Judge Dredd" wannabe and you can't admit your personal bias and how you're just all fired up for people being punished - instantly and without a chance to defend themselves - if someone "believes" they have committed a crime. A person like you should have nothing to do with the law whatsoever. It's scary to think that you're probably not alone in this kind of attitude.

In the end, why would a law enforcement officer support vigilante punishment? Frustrated with the courts and legal system? Disappointed that punishments aren't strict or harsh enough? Wouldn't your life and job be a lot easier if everyone took the law into their own hands and police (and the rest of the law enforcement sector) never even got involved? Wouldn't that be perfect?

This may be a "strawman" to some but it's like the argument I use about laws which prohibit excessive corporal punishment (so-called "anti-spanking" laws). The fact is that at least one parent has beaten their child to death. How many dead children are acceptable if we don't have a law to *deter* such behaviour? You'd think that such deaths happen in the heat of the moment, so no deterrent is sufficient. But does that mean that we shouldn't try?

If you support *any vigilante behaviour and you support *all* vigilante behaviour, including lynchings. You can't just draw a line and say it's okay to humiliate someone and maybe beat them up "a bit".

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Four Kitties:
Nicely put.

Now let's take it a step further in our hypothetical: the parents of the child with the paintball gun and pellets should be held responsible under your scenario, since their actions in giving the stuff to their kid directly contributed, right?

No more than if they gave the kid a baseball bat for Christmas. I would say that in this case, their actions were indirect because there is a legitimate reson for the child to have the marker. The child more than likely knew how to use it properly and safely. The only mistake that the parents made was in not supervising the child while the marker was in use. There is a time and a place for using this type of sporting equiptment and it has no reason to be out of the house otherwise. Perhaps the parents weren't home at the time and didn't know Junior took it out. It is not a firearm and would not normally warrant the same precautions that a firearm would in terms of storage. If the parents routinely and knowingly alloew the kid play with it in the neighborhood, OTOH, there could be some liability for their negligence.
As I said, the parents of teenager cannot be expected to know what the kid is doing every second. They also cannot keep every potentially dangerous peice of sporting equiptment out of a 15 year old's hands. A baseball bat or a hockey stick can do considerable damage. IMO, paintball markers are givin a bad rap due the passing resemblance to a firearm.
This should be treated the same as any other vandalism commited with any other peice of sporting equiptment. The parents should pay for damages and the child should clean or repair the damages. The item should also be confiscated.

quote:

How about the parents of the other two kids, who did not give them such stuff? Are they responsible for their children's actions, and to a lesser or greater degree than the parents of delinquent #1?

Four Kitties

They are responsible to an extent and the liability should be limited. A paintball marker is like any other peice of sporting equiptment - it is perfectly safe when used correctly and surprisingly destructive when it isn't.
The parents have no way of knowing what sports the friends of thier kids play. They cannot possibly know what their kids are doing every second, but they do bear some responsibility and limited liability.
They are responsible to teach the child right from wrong. When that child makes mistakes, they are responsible for disciplining the child and making reparations for the damages.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wintermute
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wintermute     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
And everyone here has been trying to get you to admit what we all "believe" - that you want to be that "special" person.

Which personally I find funny. if you have followed any thread you will see I have always been against citizens using force on other citizens. The only time I think a citizen should use force is when they are forced into that situation. I have never said anything different then that. I think you are trying to confuse the concepts of CAN and SHOULD. A citizens can do a citizens arrest, but in MOST cases I do not think they should.

[qb]
quote:
Admit your bias here - you're too close to law enforcement to not have a huge bias in this case.
Actually, there is very little bias here. I see a group of people here who all did very stupid things.

quote:
You really sound like a "Judge Dredd" wannabe and you can't admit your personal bias and how you're just all fired up for people being punished - instantly and without a chance to defend themselves - if someone "believes" they have committed a crime.[QUOTE}
So, Mike do you always have delusional thoughts? In CA the LEO does not 'punish' anyone. The LEO arrest a person. THe courts decide guilt, and the department of corrections punishes a person. Never in my statements did I say the LEO should 'punish' a person for their crimes.
[QUOTE] end, why would a law enforcement officer support vigilante punishment?

You would have to find one who does to answer you question.
quote:
You can't just draw a line and say it's okay to humiliate someone and maybe beat them up "a bit".
Whew.. good thing I never said anything you are ranting about other wise you may have made a point.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
CatJuggler
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
You forget a simple point about all of this - make a citizen's arrest and be *wrong* about it - and then what?


I agree with Wintermute's answer to this. I think he was misunderstood. If you make a citizen's arrest in "good faith" --- believing the alleged perpetrator had in fact committed a crime --- you can't be *wrong*. It sort of goes hand in hand with the "Good Samaritan" law.

I've been in law enforcement twenty years. A lot is being made about citizen's arrests. I've yet to come across someone holding someone for me when I roll up to a scene. It's really not that common.

Someone will probably google this to prove me wrong. More often than not I encounter primarily deaf/mute people. 'Tis very sad.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hey Wintermute - you said this above...

Actually, there is very little bias here. I see a group of people here who all did very stupid things.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You really sound like a "Judge Dredd" wannabe and you can't admit your personal bias and how you're just all fired up for people being punished - instantly and without a chance to defend themselves - if someone "believes" they have committed a crime.[QUOTE}
So, Mike do you always have delusional thoughts? In CA the LEO does not 'punish' anyone. The LEO arrest a person. THe courts decide guilt, and the department of corrections punishes a person. Never in my statements did I say the LEO should 'punish' a person for their crimes.
[QUOTE] end, why would a law enforcement officer support vigilante punishment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either you've made a mistake in your in-line reply or you are trying to add something to change the subject. We haven't been talking about law-enforcement officers doing anything here - we were talking about vigilantes who capture, judge and punish people whom they believe are criminals.

I am implying that you support vigilanteism - which I find odd because I infer from your posts that you are involved very closely with law enforcement. More on that later...

Where this train derailed was talking about what the original vigilantes should have done - and how that "citizen's arrest" may include violent or otherwise illegal actions on the part of the arrestors. Yes, the law does allow for a person to use force to enact a citizen's arrest, but where I'm critical about this is the use of force, arbitrarily, by *any* citizen. I don't support that except in the case of self defense or preventing a crime in progress. Pulling a gun on someone you think - *even in good faith* - is wearing your Rolex, is wrong.

And furthermore, you can't make vague references to charging me with a "148" or the "special training" that you received from your "department" or that you have taken people into custody after a citizen's arrest, and then say that you aren't in law enforcement. Well, why would you threaten to charge me with a crime if you weren't a cop? Do you work in law enforcement or don't you?

If you don't, stop making threats about charging people with crimes. It's another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude that is just way too prevalent around here.

I personally prefer more equality - I don't think that good faith and belief are enough to allow someone to threaten me and detain me, especially when - as you imply - there is no accountability for being wrong. Civil suits aside, what is the penalty for making a citizen's arrest under false pretenses? How about using excessive force? As rare as it may seem, it can happen, and there should be something to deter it from happening.

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Deirdre
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deirdre   E-mail Deirdre   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder if the fact that everyday citizens responded like this will have a greater impact on the vandals' behavior than getting caught by the police? Fear of immediate retribution by the real victims may result in the vandals thinking twice before acting like this again.

Also, although it was not detailed in the story -have you ever tried to remove paintball stains from your car or home? Not easy, sometimes not cheap and the damage remains. I can understand the rage of the vigilantes...

Unfortunately, in our community, a teen in this position would become part of a team with his/her parents as they battled the police and the judicial system to beat the charges and get "off". This aligns the parent with the vandal and gives him/her a false sense of righteousness that the system is out to get them, rather than leading them to an understanding of the necessity for consequences.

--------------------
Sweetheart, Remember never squat with your spurs on. Love, Mama
Slainte!

Posts: 42 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Matt H.
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Matt H.     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deirdre:
Also, although it was not detailed in the story -have you ever tried to remove paintball stains from your car or home? Not easy, sometimes not cheap and the damage remains.

You've never had to do it, then. Paintballs (if they break, which most likely would not have happened in the OP) are very easy to remove from cars or painted houses. They're water-soluble, so I use rubbing alcohol.

--------------------
"Who needs the Bible? I've got this magic 8-ball."

Posts: 354 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ASL
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ASL   E-mail ASL   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem with the kids and the "adults" who abducted and stripped one of them is the same: immaturity and stupidity combined with a lack of respect for the law. What the hell did they think was going to happen, forcing a minor to strip in their car? He'd just walk home in his underwear, tell his parents what he'd done, and then they'd admonish him for being a bad little boy and do nothing about the fact that a group of three 20-somethings directed their child into the back of a car and then made him take his clothes off?

Let's take it a step further. Say you or I are a responsible citizen, who takes his constitutional right to bear arms seriously, and we see a group of young men take some kid off the street, put him in their car, and start having the kid take his clothes off. Some mgiht say I am justified in shooting them because I perceive that a threat exists to this minor, now almsot naked in the back of a car with three other men. In fact, shooting them might even be legal depending upon what state you live in. At the very least, you'd be morally obligated to call the police and try to stop them. If you're as immature and stupid as these "adults," you might even turn vigilante yourself, not knowing the full situation.

PS: All that aside, I couldn't help but crack a smile when I read this... Did anyone else think of that Pulp-Fiction-style Simpsons episode where Nelson laughs at a guy because he's too big for his car?

Aoi "Now march!" SonLee

--------------------
"Dear Lord, please protect this rockethouse and all who dwell within..."

Posts: 1093 | From: Japan | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dropbear
Angels from the Realms so Glurgy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dropbear     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Deirdre
I wonder if the fact that everyday citizens responded like this will have a greater impact on the vandals' behavior than getting caught by the police? Fear of immediate retribution by the real victims may result in the vandals thinking twice before acting like this again.

start irony mode
It might have a greater impact but then again so might breaking their arms, or tieing them up and putting out cigarettes on the soles of their feet. Why stop at simply abducting and terrifying them for hours? The only way to really be sure they won't do it again is to simply hang 'em. Their gently swaying bodies would also serve as a warning to others. This would save police time and effort.
end irony mode

3 points needs to be made here.
1. They were KIDS, children, juveniles - people who have not yet developed the maturity to fully make judgements in regard to their behaviour both in the eyes of the law and by psychological development.
2. The vigilantes did not just hold the kids - they put them in real fear for their health and safety. The action towards the KIDS consisted of kidnapping & assault at the very least.
3. The failure of the police to respond effectively to these types of incidents is not a justification for people to take personal punitive action - the debate on citizens arrest above notwithstanding.


Dropbear

--------------------
" The villagers had said justice had been done, and she'd lost patience and told them to go home, then, and pray to whatever gods they believed in that it was never done to them. -- (Terry Pratchett)

Posts: 823 | From: Hobart, Tasmania | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
CatJuggler
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hero Mike said:

I personally prefer more equality - I don't think that good faith and belief are enough to allow someone to threaten me and detain me, especially when - as you imply - there is no accountability for being wrong. Civil suits aside, what is the penalty for making a citizen's arrest under false pretenses? How about using excessive force? As rare as it may seem, it can happen, and there should be something to deter it from happening.


Mike -- I said all of the above not Wintermute.

Of course there's accountability. I wasn't trying to give the impression of blanket immunity for bad acts.

Honestly?? I don't know the criminal punishment for making a bogus citizen's arrest. I'm sure there is one though. I've just never encountered this scenario.

Equality. That's a toughie. It's like you want people to make decisions on a dime. And be right at the same time. It's not gonna happen. Mistakes will be made.

It's such a delicate line. When I said "good faith" I meant: they truly believed a crime was or is being committed. How could you fault that?

If they're just being capricious and vindictive I would think that would be fairly obvious.

I will repeat my earlier reaction to this story since I feel it's getting a little off-track: the taking of this teen into a car and stripping him of his clothes was totally wrong. That is a crime.

If they had held him for the police? That's a citizen's arrest.

Personally? I think they were trying to scare the kid and it all went horribly wrong. I don't think they meant for the police to get involved and BOOM..... now everyone is getting charged.

They probably wish they had made a citizen's arrest. Let the courts meddle it out. That's what they're there for.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wintermute
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wintermute     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
I am implying that you support vigilanteism - which I find odd because I infer from your posts that you are involved very closely with law enforcement.

So, you can back up where I support vigilantes? I have said in numerous posts that I believe the average person should not interfere, and that I do not believe in vigilantes. So, I will have to ask you to put or shut up.
quote:
Where this train derailed was talking about what the original vigilantes should have done - and how that "citizen's arrest" may include violent or otherwise illegal actions on the part of the arrestors.
]
The train only derails because you are taking it down the wrong path. I never talked about what the original people should have done. Interesting, no one has said anything about a CA containing illegal actions. Could it possibly be your lack of understand of what a CA is?
quote:
Yes, the law does allow for a person to use force to enact a citizen's arrest, but where I'm critical about this is the use of force, arbitrarily, by *any* citizen.
You are allowed to be citical but the law gives people the right. I am not sure why you find that so confusing.
quote:
Civil suits aside, what is the penalty for making a citizen's arrest under false pretenses?
As long as the persons acts in good faith I am not aware of any. Only if the person intentionally does a false arrest. Normally, you see CA used for shoplifting.
quote:
How about using excessive force?
You have to look at the totality of the situation whenever force is used.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Tzarina
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tzarina     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok..here are my $0.02. YMMV

I think the guys were way over the line in kidnapping the kid. But I think the message is clear, People are tired of "kids" tearing up their stuff. The excuse "kids will be kids" works when you see someone's shorts on a flagpole...however, when they vandalize property it's no longer a cutesy thing.

The kids are damn lucky, there have been 2 recent incidents where kids were winging stuff at cars and got shot for their troubles.

The kid wasn't sexually assaulted, that's a hefty charge, not to be tossed about. He took his own clothes off and got booted from the car. There was also no mention that he was driven around for "hours". For all we know they took him about a block.

All 4 kids got the crap scared out of them. The guys over reacted and did something way stupid. Fully agreed. There is never a good reason to snatch someone's kid and throw him in a car.

But I won't be surprised if we see more of people taking things into their own hands. People are tired of working hard for the things they own, just to have someone destroy it.

Posts: 1359 | From: Akron, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mistletoey Chloe
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 503 posted      Profile for Mistletoey Chloe     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It doesn't seem to have been sexual assault, but forcing or threatenting someone to do something sexualized against their will can translate to indecent assault under some statutes.

Case in point, regarding sex crimes in Kosovo: "In many interviews, women spoke of being forced to strip naked, clean houses, and serve coffee to soldiers and policemen. A broad definition of sexual violence has been established as a precedent in the Akayesu Judgment. There, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) held, "Sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact," including forced nudity."

--------------------
~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~

Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Tzarina
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tzarina     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess because the kid kept his boxers, it just doesn't seem like a sexual thing to me. I see where it could be interpreted that way. And with the right attorney's (which I'm sure the parents already have on retainer) it will be.

But he wasn't forced to get nude. There's a huge difference between undies and no undies.

Posts: 1359 | From: Akron, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tzarina:
I guess because the kid kept his boxers, it just doesn't seem like a sexual thing to me. I see where it could be interpreted that way. And with the right attorney's (which I'm sure the parents already have on retainer) it will be.

But he wasn't forced to get nude. There's a huge difference between undies and no undies.

Let's put it this way: If I forced your daughter or wife to strip down to her undies would you consider it sexual assault?
If so, what makes thet different from the case in the OP?
Both were forced to undress against their will. Both were humiliated by being forced to show their bodies.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
quote:
Originally posted by Tzarina:
I guess because the kid kept his boxers, it just doesn't seem like a sexual thing to me. I see where it could be interpreted that way. And with the right attorney's (which I'm sure the parents already have on retainer) it will be.

But he wasn't forced to get nude. There's a huge difference between undies and no undies.

Let's put it this way: If I forced your daughter or wife to strip down to her undies would you consider it sexual assault?
If so, what makes thet different from the case in the OP?
Both were forced to undress against their will. Both were humiliated by being forced to show their bodies.

That was exactly what I was thinking. I don't know why we expect that by the fact the boys are male they shouldn't have any modesty.

If it has been one of my daughters in that situation may lord have mercy on the souls of the people who did it.

Beach...I'd show 'em some vigilantism...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 600 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife:
If it has been one of my daughters in that situation may lord have mercy on the souls of the people who did it.

Beach...I'd show 'em so vigilantism...Life!

Amen! Sing it, brother!

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Tzarina
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tzarina     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Not to be snarky, but I'm a girl, so I'll skip the what if it was my wife thing.

If it was my daughter, there would have been 2 stories of vigilantism in the paper.

I have a feeling, however...and as always YMMV, but had it been 4 girls running about chucking paintballs at cars, the 3 20-something guys would not have picked them up.

And again, what my original post said was that I thought the guys were wrong, but I didn't see it as sexual assualt. A kid in their underwear, which is generally the same or more than an average person wears to the beach...I don't see it as a sexual assault. Embarassing? Yes. Sexual Assault? No. Not even for a girl.

Posts: 1359 | From: Akron, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sylvanz
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sylvanz   E-mail Sylvanz   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I've read this whole thread and something stands out for me:
quote:
Originally posted by Tzarina:But I won't be surprised if we see more of people taking things into their own hands. People are tired of working hard for the things they own, just to have someone destroy it.
More than one person has made a similar comment. Where does it say that the vigilantes owned anything that the kids were throwing stuff at? I think at least a couple of unwarrented assumptions are being made without enough information to back them up.
A)These were "bad" kids whose parents allow them to run roughshod over the neighborhood covering for them when they do wrong.
B) The vigilantes were upright citizens who owned the property being vandalized and wanted to teach the kids a lesson.
I'll make a couple of assumptions that have just as much chance of being correct.
A) The teens were basically good kids whose parents will/are very pissed off and will punish severely (possibley not as much punishment now since the kids are traumatized)
B) The vigilantes were a bunch of bored (possibley drinking?) twentysomethings who saw the kids doing something they might have done themselves given the equipment and similar inspiration and they perceived it as an opportunity to have some "fun."

I've mentioned in other topics how late teens early twenties aren't necessarily mature as far as forebrain developement goes, and these guys seem to want to prove me right. [Roll Eyes]

I can't think how anyone could possibley think it was ok, justified, explainable, or understandable for three adults (no matter how immature or forebrain challenged they are) to snatch, and bully a little kid (he was only 13...barely a teen) into taking his clothes off in their car. It might not be sexual assault, but as far as that kid was concerned it must have been humiliating and absolutely terrifying. Imagine his fear, considering the stuff in the papers and how kids are warned about stranger danger. Also, imagine the fear and horror the parents must have experienced seeing his clothes strewn on the street with no sign of him.

One last thing: I'm only a substitute (non-certified) teacher, and I can manage a classroom without resorting to spanking (not legal here anyway) or tying them to trees. [Roll Eyes] Gee, I'm also a parent, and my kids are neither ADHD nor do they get in trouble in or out of school. I can't imagine how that happens. (I realize the suggestion wasn't tying them to trees as classroom discipline but geez!)

P&LL, Syl

--------------------
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire

Posts: 1944 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
jtelson
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jtelson   E-mail jtelson   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It doesn't much matter if the vandal was a good kid led astray by the siren's call of loose paint balls or a known hellion on the fast track to juvie.

It doesn't much matter if the vigelantes were good young christians coming home from evening prayers or half-drunk neo-nazis.

This still pretty much all boils down to a vandal got pants-ed. No one got beaten, raped, murdered, or in any way seriously injured.

Was the vigelantes' behaivior appropriate, proper, or legal, no. Should anyone be making a big deal out of this specific incident, no.

--------------------
"Eternal pain and damnation await those who question the unconditional love of God."-Bill Hicks (1961-1994)

Posts: 168 | From: Albany, NY | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sylvanz
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sylvanz   E-mail Sylvanz   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, jtelson I guess we just have to agree to disagree here. I think the kids should be punished by parents and/or police. I think the "vigilanties" should go to jail for assault, kidnap, and (sexual assault???) What disturbs me is those who will defend the actions of the vigilanties. What they did was far worse than what the boys were doing yet there are people here (yourself?) who seem to think that scaring the kids and their parents in ways I don't even want to imagine and breaking several serious laws is (yawn) no big deal because, after all, the kids were doing something wrong. I just have trouble wrapping my head around this concept.

P&LL, Syl

--------------------
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire

Posts: 1944 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
STF
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for STF   Author's Homepage   E-mail STF   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Sylvanz, I got to agree with you. Now I like seeing punks get taught a lesson, but this isn't the way. The parents and authorities need to deal with the kids, but the authorities also need to deal with the vigilantes. We cannot allow them to break the law just because they feel that they have the moral authority to punish those kids.

--------------------
STF on MySpace

Posts: 5186 | From: Coweta County, GA | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mickey Blue
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mickey Blue     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow.. It boggles my mind that this topic has gone as far as it did.. Seriously.. I'm boggling..


I read this when it was at one or two posts and figured it would make it to ten or fifteen at best.. But here we are on page four (unless I end up on page five).

I cannot imagine (no matter what people say) that the reaction would be the same if it were a girl in the car instead of a boy.. But thats nothing new really (see also: 'Teacher sleeping with student' threads).

Best I can figure, the kids were doing some relativly minor vandalism (not that I'm excusing it) by throwing paintballs which means they aren't likely to hit too hard and aren't likely to break (and as somebody said, they really aren't that hard to clean if they do actually break).

Now I suppose they did intend to use the gun, so its not like they didn't plan to do more, but still..

But the response.. Wow.. I mean talk about over the top. Heck if they just slapped the kid around a bit I would probobly be more sympathetic (not saying that would be ok, just IMO a more resonable response). I don't know how you get in your mind that an appropriate 'punishment' for vandalism (or attempted vandalism) is to kidnap the kid, make him strip to his underware, then drive around a bit and drop him off.


As for citizens arrests.. I cannot see how they could exist if nobody can fight back.. I mean otherwise (as has been said) how would I know if somebody is trying to perform a citizens arrest.. Or just mug me?

I do know that if somebody grabs me and says "citizens arrest" i'm gonna fight back. Unless your in some kind of a uniform I'm not gonna just take it. Of course I would have the benifit of knowing I hadn't done anything wrong, which I think would play well in court.

If I HAD done something wrong I would probobly fight back too, but for different reasons (escape, for one).


As far as whether they are allowed in teh first place.. I can understand a citizens arrest if a crime is being committed. You see somebody robbing your house, you pull a gun on them and say "freeze, lay down with your hands on your head, stay that way until the cops arrive". That makes sense to me, one less crook on the street. But if you don't know its a crook (or at least have a very very very good idea its one, as people don't normally sneak into your house and rummage through your stuff) you really shouldn't, cause like I said, if somebody runs up screaming 'citizens arrest' and grabs me.. There's gonna be a fight.

--------------------
"All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do"

Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wintermute
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wintermute     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvanz:
I think the kids should be punished by parents and/or police.

Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree here. The police should not be the ones to punish the children unless you are advocating that the police should break the law. The children should be arrested by the police, tried by the court systems, and if needed punished by the corrections system.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TuFurg
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TuFurg   E-mail TuFurg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Another unfortunate thing (whether one blames the parents or not) is what the parents went through, even if for a short time. [I just made is through the 4 pages so forgive is it's been brought up.]

Your kid is missing after having been chased and caught by some men and as you look for him, you find his clothes strew along the road. What a freakin' nightmare for any parent- even if for a short time.

No parent deserves that.

Posts: 687 | From: Grand Rapids, Michigan | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sylvanz
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sylvanz   E-mail Sylvanz   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree here. The police should not be the ones to punish the children unless you are advocating that the police should break the law. The children should be arrested by the police, tried by the court systems, and if needed punished by the corrections system.
Ah Wintermute always the king of ignoring the point for the fun of pointing out the non-sequiter. I, of course, meant the law and or parents but mis-typed myself, but you knew that...didn't you?

P&LL, Syl

--------------------
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire

Posts: 1944 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ctown28
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ctown28   E-mail ctown28   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The way I see this whole thing is that both ends were wrong. (I don't think thats being debated here) But to say the kid got what he deserved because some vigilantes were the ones to catch him is ludicrous. Let's look at another scenario, say the cops caught him and decided to "teach him a lesson" and subject him to all of that, what would happen to those officers?
Posts: 143 | From: Cleveland, OH | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dropbear
Angels from the Realms so Glurgy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dropbear     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd like to just add some comments in regard to the comparisons of the vigilantes actions to "pants-ing".

Generally when pantsing occurs its by one's peers. Not only that, but there's a clear message generally that the point is to simply embarass the person, not to physically harm them. There may be accompanying yells of "pants him!" or something similar which emphasises the point that the removal of the pants is going to be the limit of the behaviour and is the point of the action.

Now compare with what actually happened to the boys. Forced into a car by strangers, forced to remove clothing through threat of further force, isolated from parents by being driven around without knowing what would happen to them, whether they would be raped, beaten or murdered (or do we imagine that the vigilantes were calmly explaining their overall plan to the kids and constantly assuring them they were safe?)

The two are in no way equivalent. One is bullying (and not acceptable in any case) the other is kidnap and sexual assault. (If you doubt the sexual assault can you tell me what you would think if you were abducted by 3 strange men, outnumbered and ordered to take off your clothes while being driven to god knows what destination?)

--------------------
" The villagers had said justice had been done, and she'd lost patience and told them to go home, then, and pray to whatever gods they believed in that it was never done to them. -- (Terry Pratchett)

Posts: 823 | From: Hobart, Tasmania | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
jtelson
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jtelson   E-mail jtelson   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Well, jtelson I guess we just have to agree to disagree here.
And so we shall - as is the proper and inevitable end to most morally-centric discourse. It has been a pleasure.

As an off topic aside I would like to say that in circumstances like this where two reasonable people agree to disagree I find it delightfully refreshing when no one feels obligated to use that agreement as a venue to restate their case. You'd be amazed how often I've seen sarcasm and spurious logic used in these situations which, for the most part, preclude reply.

--------------------
"Eternal pain and damnation await those who question the unconditional love of God."-Bill Hicks (1961-1994)

Posts: 168 | From: Albany, NY | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Snow-Dog
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Snow-Dog   E-mail Snow-Dog   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
This is actually a prime example of why vigilantism is a bad idea.

These kids commited an extremely minor form of vandalism, throwing rubber balls filled with water soluble dye, the worst they could do with this would pale in comparison to a flock of pigeons. In response a group of men abducted one of them, forced him to strip to his boxers and abandonded him in the middle of the night.

Now I'm no fan of beurocracy, but this is the opposite end of the spectrum, action without thought, there was no way to weigh the circumstances, these men just decided they would decided the crime and punishment all in one fell swoop.

Snow-a follower of the middle way-Dog

Posts: 474 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Roadie
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Roadie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
In CA resisting a citizens arrest is against the law.

Wintermute, do you have a cite for this? I am unable to find one. Thanks.

--------------------
"The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)

"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus)

Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wintermute
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wintermute     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Roadie4JCM.:
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
In CA resisting a citizens arrest is against the law.

Wintermute, do you have a cite for this? I am unable to find one. Thanks.
Look as sections 837, 838, and 839 for general sections of CA. 851 deals with what you need to tell the person when you arrest them. If you want the more interesting things look in the 840 where it gives citizens the right to kick down your door to capture you in a felony situation. Assault (PC 240) and Battery (pc 242) is normally what you would charge someone with who tried to resist a citizens arrest.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Roadie
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Roadie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
Look as sections 837, 838, and 839 for general sections of CA.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

838. A magistrate may orally order a peace officer or private person to arrest any one committing or attempting to commit a public offense in the presence of such magistrate.

839. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

quote:
851 deals with what you need to tell the person when you arrest them.
851. Every officer causing telegraphic copies or abstracts of warrants to be sent, must certify as correct, and file in the telegraphic office from which such copies are sent, a copy of the warrant, and must return the original with a statement of his action thereunder.

Do you mean 841?

841. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it, except when the person making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its commission, or after an escape.
The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being arrested.

quote:
If you want the more interesting things look in the 840 where it gives citizens the right to kick down your door to capture you in a felony situation.
840. An arrest for the commission of a felony may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. An arrest for the commission of a misdemeanor or an infraction cannot be made between the hours of 10 o'clock p.m. of any day and 6 o'clock a.m. of the succeeding day, unless:
(1) The arrest is made without a warrant pursuant to Section 836 or 837.
(2) The arrest is made in a public place.
(3) The arrest is made when the person is in custody pursuant to another lawful arrest.
(4) The arrest is made pursuant to a warrant which, for good cause shown, directs that it may be served at any time of the day or night.

Do you mean 844?

844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.

quote:

Assault (PC 240) and Battery (pc 242) is normally what you would charge someone with who tried to resist a citizens arrest.

240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

242. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.

I'm still not finding where this says resisting a citizen's arrest is illegal. Perhaps it is case law?

--------------------
"The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)

"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus)

Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2