Teen doorbell pranks gets homeowner arrested

13»

Comments

  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Did you read the article by any chance? It was night time, the guy had a family (wife and 2 kids under 6yrs old), the kids not only rang the front bell, but the back door as well, then were yelling curses at them all.. this wasn't simply "ring and run".
    nuffingman wrote:
    Seems like the teenager's prank was pretty harmless but if you decide to mess with someone and piss him off don't be surprised if they retaliate. As kids we used to do daft things like this and accepted it if some irate guy gave us a smack. Today we'd be encouraged to sue him.

    Surely the police and courts have better things to do than deal with a guy running around in his jockeys.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • nuffingman
    nuffingman Posts: 3,014
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Did you read the article by any chance? It was night time, the guy had a family (wife and 2 kids under 6yrs old), the kids not only rang the front bell, but the back door as well, then were yelling curses at them all.. this wasn't simply "ring and run".
    nuffingman wrote:
    Seems like the teenager's prank was pretty harmless but if you decide to mess with someone and piss him off don't be surprised if they retaliate. As kids we used to do daft things like this and accepted it if some irate guy gave us a smack. Today we'd be encouraged to sue him.

    Surely the police and courts have better things to do than deal with a guy running around in his jockeys.
    The article was pasted into the OPs post. Nothing about yelling and cursing or the kids ages in the article linked.
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Teen-prank-ends-in-scuffle-man-s-arrest-584905.php
    nuffingman wrote:
    The article was pasted into the OPs post. Nothing about yelling and cursing or the kids ages in the article linked.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    We used to tennis ball cars as a kid. Pretty harmless in our eyes, but I suppose we probably dented a few cars, and terrified a few drivers. Knowing what I know now, I would have punched me in the face. As far as I am concerned the kid got off lucky. Wrong home owner under the wrong circumstances and he may have been seriously hurt.

    also as a side note, I love how someone above me had to make sure to say that he was a scared old republican...what the fuck does that have to do with ANYTHING...
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • markin ball
    markin ball Posts: 1,076
    Kids should be in trouble but so should the underwear vigilante. You can't hold someone in your home against their will and cite "family security" as a reason.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    He was holding the kid there til the police arrived. If that happened to any normal persons' family, it's a very likely result... and quite frankly these kids are lucky something worse didn't happen. Imagine you had some trigger happy gun owner...
    markin ball wrote:
    Kids should be in trouble but so should the underwear vigilante. You can't hold someone in your home against their will and cite "family security" as a reason.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,420
    FiveB247x wrote:
    He was holding the kid there til the police arrived. If that happened to any normal persons' family, it's a very likely result... and quite frankly these kids are lucky something worse didn't happen. Imagine you had some trigger happy gun owner...
    markin ball wrote:
    Kids should be in trouble but so should the underwear vigilante. You can't hold someone in your home against their will and cite "family security" as a reason.
    The kid is lucky compared to this peeping tom who was caught in a couple's patio by the wife of a MMA figher. Oops.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/ireneusz-fajkis-mma-fight_n_578384.html

    s-IRENEUSZ-FAJKIS-MMA-PEEPING-TOM-KENNETH-PARKERSON-large.jpg

    The perp was charged with six crimes while the home owner who used ground-and-pound submission techniques to subdue the perp was given a hero's nod. Now, does anyone think that it should be illegal to hold somebody down until police get there in this case?

    Although the intent of the peeping tom is much more malicious then the kid ringing doorbells, the crimes they actually committed up to the point of detention are quite similar. Thoughts?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • markin ball
    markin ball Posts: 1,076
    Jason P wrote:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    He was holding the kid there til the police arrived. If that happened to any normal persons' family, it's a very likely result... and quite frankly these kids are lucky something worse didn't happen. Imagine you had some trigger happy gun owner...
    markin ball wrote:
    Kids should be in trouble but so should the underwear vigilante. You can't hold someone in your home against their will and cite "family security" as a reason.
    The kid is lucky compared to this peeping tom who was caught in a couple's patio by the wife of a MMA figher. Oops.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/ireneusz-fajkis-mma-fight_n_578384.html

    s-IRENEUSZ-FAJKIS-MMA-PEEPING-TOM-KENNETH-PARKERSON-large.jpg

    The perp was charged with six crimes while the home owner who used ground-and-pound submission techniques to subdue the perp was given a hero's nod. Now, does anyone think that it should be illegal to hold somebody down until police get there in this case?

    Although the intent of the peeping tom is much more malicious then the kid ringing doorbells, the crimes they actually committed up to the point of detention are quite similar. Thoughts?

    The MMA fighter doesn't get to decide legally if this dude is guilty or not or what punishment he deserves. The peeping tom and all citizens are entitled to a fair trial and due process. That's supposed to be what seperates our country from the others. We have to protect everyone else's rights if we expect our own rights to be upheld as well.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • eyedclaar
    eyedclaar Posts: 6,980
    markin ball wrote:

    The MMA fighter doesn't get to decide legally if this dude is guilty or not or what punishment he deserves. The peeping tom and all citizens are entitled to a fair trial and due process. That's supposed to be what seperates our country from the others. We have to protect everyone else's rights if we expect our own rights to be upheld as well.

    So, if the homeowner doesn't take it upon themselves to detain a trespasser, then the perp just runs off and nothing happens to them. Sounds like great advice. If you are trespassing on my property, or peeping on my wife, you will be fortunate if all I do is detain you. Rights, schmights, you lost them when you decided to trespass and piss me off.

    Hell, if I see a stranger walking up my driveway, I slip out my side door and follow them up the walk to my front door. I just love watching them jump out of their skin when they ring the doorbell and I say, "What do you want?" right in their ear. :twisted: mmwahahahahahaha
    Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer

    Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:

    https://www.createspace.com/3437020

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696

    http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
  • markin ball
    markin ball Posts: 1,076
    eyedclaar wrote:
    markin ball wrote:

    The MMA fighter doesn't get to decide legally if this dude is guilty or not or what punishment he deserves. The peeping tom and all citizens are entitled to a fair trial and due process. That's supposed to be what seperates our country from the others. We have to protect everyone else's rights if we expect our own rights to be upheld as well.

    So, if the homeowner doesn't take it upon themselves to detain a trespasser, then the perp just runs off and nothing happens to them. Sounds like great advice. If you are trespassing on my property, or peeping on my wife, you will be fortunate if all I do is detain you. Rights, schmights, you lost them when you decided to trespass and piss me off.

    Hell, if I see a stranger walking up my driveway, I slip out my side door and follow them up the walk to my front door. I just love watching them jump out of their skin when they ring the doorbell and I say, "What do you want?" right in their ear. :twisted: mmwahahahahahaha

    "Legal Detention" and "beat the shit out of" are very different things. Hey, I'm on your side emotionally. I would want to kick the crap out of that guy, too. But it is not our legal right to administer a guilty verdict and punishment to this dude.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    markin ball wrote:
    The MMA fighter doesn't get to decide legally if this dude is guilty or not or what punishment he deserves. The peeping tom and all citizens are entitled to a fair trial and due process. That's supposed to be what seperates our country from the others. We have to protect everyone else's rights if we expect our own rights to be upheld as well.


    The fighter, just as anyone else has the right (in most states) to place someone under citizen's arrest if they witness a crime being committed. The fighter didn't decide guilt or innocence, he subdued an alleged criminal until the police arrived. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Judging by the marks on his face, there was definitely a struggle between the two.
    markin ball wrote:

    "Legal Detention" and "beat the shit out of" are very different things. Hey, I'm on your side emotionally. I would want to kick the crap out of that guy, too. But it is not our legal right to administer a guilty verdict and punishment to this dude.

    The fighter more than likely used only the tools necessary to subdue the perp. ;) in all seriousness, contrary to popular belief, Mixed Martial Artists aren't just meat heads who try to pick fights all the time. In my experience at my gym, the guys who actually fight are the most mild mannered and respectful of all the people that come through. No fighter wants to hurt themselves, especially when they aren't getting paid and even more so on a knuckle head like this guy.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,420
    markin ball wrote:
    The MMA fighter doesn't get to decide legally if this dude is guilty or not or what punishment he deserves. The peeping tom and all citizens are entitled to a fair trial and due process. That's supposed to be what seperates our country from the others. We have to protect everyone else's rights if we expect our own rights to be upheld as well.
    I don't completely agree with protecting everyone's rights but I guess it's in our rulebook. Damn the ACLU!
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,998
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    The fighter more than likely used only the tools necessary to subdue the perp. ;)in all seriousness, contrary to popular belief, Mixed Martial Artists aren't just meat heads who try to pick fights all the time. In my experience at my gym, the guys who actually fight are the most mild mannered and respectful of all the people that come through. No fighter wants to hurt themselves, especially when they aren't getting paid and even more so on a knuckle head like this guy.
    exactly. i had 14 fights in 2 years, with only 3 losses and have not been in a streetfight since i was in 8th grade. i am a pretty mild mannered dude, and will do whatever it takes to avoid throwing an elbow or punch. i, like most guys that have done MMA know how to hurt someone but i know how to use restraint. if a guy enters my house and videotapes my wife doing something i have every right to defend her and my family and hold them there until police arrive. it is all about not being a victim and making your would be attacker the victim. the voyeur was an adult. the ding dong dtich kids were minor children, and i am absolutely against using violence against minor kids.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    when I was 14, I was out with friends walking around and drinking vodka. My douchebag friend decided to chuck the glass bottle onto the pavement of an elementary school. there was a guy and his friends at the house next to the lot outside chatting,and when we walked by (with me yelling at my friend for being so stupid) they all grabbed us and detained us. Did he tackle us? No, but the way this guy was acting,I'm sure he would have. He called the cops and the cops came and drove us home to our parents and let them deal with us.

    Did I sue the guy for "assaulting" us, or illegally detaining us? No, because what my friend did was wrong. If he had tackled me because of it, so be it. My buddy was the dumbass, not the homeowner.

    Arresting this guy is pure BS.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    where did it say that this guy was violent towards the kid? He apprehended him via a tackle. Cops and citizens alike do this all the time as means of arrest. I don't call that violence, if that's what you meant.
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    The fighter more than likely used only the tools necessary to subdue the perp. ;)in all seriousness, contrary to popular belief, Mixed Martial Artists aren't just meat heads who try to pick fights all the time. In my experience at my gym, the guys who actually fight are the most mild mannered and respectful of all the people that come through. No fighter wants to hurt themselves, especially when they aren't getting paid and even more so on a knuckle head like this guy.
    exactly. i had 14 fights in 2 years, with only 3 losses and have not been in a streetfight since i was in 8th grade. i am a pretty mild mannered dude, and will do whatever it takes to avoid throwing an elbow or punch. i, like most guys that have done MMA know how to hurt someone but i know how to use restraint. if a guy enters my house and videotapes my wife doing something i have every right to defend her and my family and hold them there until police arrive. it is all about not being a victim and making your would be attacker the victim. the voyeur was an adult. the ding dong dtich kids were minor children, and i am absolutely against using violence against minor kids.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,998
    Paul David wrote:
    where did it say that this guy was violent towards the kid? He apprehended him via a tackle. Cops and citizens alike do this all the time as means of arrest. I don't call that violence, if that's what you meant.
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    The fighter more than likely used only the tools necessary to subdue the perp. ;)in all seriousness, contrary to popular belief, Mixed Martial Artists aren't just meat heads who try to pick fights all the time. In my experience at my gym, the guys who actually fight are the most mild mannered and respectful of all the people that come through. No fighter wants to hurt themselves, especially when they aren't getting paid and even more so on a knuckle head like this guy.
    exactly. i had 14 fights in 2 years, with only 3 losses and have not been in a streetfight since i was in 8th grade. i am a pretty mild mannered dude, and will do whatever it takes to avoid throwing an elbow or punch. i, like most guys that have done MMA know how to hurt someone but i know how to use restraint. if a guy enters my house and videotapes my wife doing something i have every right to defend her and my family and hold them there until police arrive. it is all about not being a victim and making your would be attacker the victim. the voyeur was an adult. the ding dong dtich kids were minor children, and i am absolutely against using violence against minor kids.

    i am not saying or implying he was violent against the kids. i am saying the ME, I am against violence against kids. it was a general statement meaning if you are an adult i might roll you, if you are a kid, i won't. i think that clarifies my point.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    My assessment... with all of the information available from this thread... so far...
    A. There is no law against the Ding-dong Dash... unless someone can post the statute and let us know otherwise.
    B. 14 year old kids are typically stupid 14 year old kids. 14 year old kids do stupid shit because they are Ninth Grade/Jr. High School dumb fucks at age 14.
    C. Kids should be held accountable for their actions... if there is a Ding-dong Dash law, then the law enforement and courts systems can deal with them... otherwise, the kid's parents need to deal with it.
    D. Pharmacutical executives (any business executive) make strategic and tactical business decisions at work and should not lower their critical decision skills to the competative level of a 14 year old dumb fuck. Apparently, this is not necessarily the case at home.
    E. A 28 year old peeping tom is way different than the Eric Cartman of the herd... and yeah, the 28 year old is an adult and should know better... and should be grateful a beatdown was all he got when fucking with an MMA Fighter.
    ...
    After further review... my ruling... off-setting penalties... repeat third down.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    when did the authorities get involved?


    that is the question.
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,420
    Cosmo wrote:
    My assessment... with all of the information available from this thread... so far...
    A. There is no law against the Ding-dong Dash... unless someone can post the statute and let us know otherwise.
    B. 14 year old kids are typically stupid 14 year old kids. 14 year old kids do stupid shit because they are Ninth Grade/Jr. High School dumb fucks at age 14.
    C. Kids should be held accountable for their actions... if there is a Ding-dong Dash law, then the law enforement and courts systems can deal with them... otherwise, the kid's parents need to deal with it.
    D. Pharmacutical executives (any business executive) make strategic and tactical business decisions at work and should not lower their critical decision skills to the competative level of a 14 year old dumb fuck. Apparently, this is not necessarily the case at home.
    E. A 28 year old peeping tom is way different than the Eric Cartman of the herd... and yeah, the 28 year old is an adult and should know better... and should be grateful a beatdown was all he got when fucking with an MMA Fighter.
    ...
    After further review... my ruling... off-setting penalties... repeat third down.
    nflreplay.jpg
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    yes, yes it does.
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i am not saying or implying he was violent against the kids. i am saying the ME, I am against violence against kids. it was a general statement meaning if you are an adult i might roll you, if you are a kid, i won't. i think that clarifies my point.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014

Categories