Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you tackle one of the bastards and hold them down using the knee to the back, arm twisted to the back hand on the head move.
THATS apprehending someone phyisically. Saying "go in the closet or ill pop ya with a hammer" is not phyisical in any way, and is fine by me.
The little bastards deserved it.
And you cant threaten a child like that in the middle of the street for no reason. here there was a damn good reason, and the little punks were in the commission of a crime.
Well, it may be fine by you but it is illegal nonetheless. He shouldn't have done it.
No jury will convict him of it, and i have to assume the statue is up to interpretation.
The kids were in the middle of a commission of a crime, i doubt the writers of the statue had that as the intent.
Well, it may be fine by you but it is illegal nonetheless. He shouldn't have done it.
No jury will convict him of it, and i have to assume the statue is up to interpretation.
The kids were in the middle of a commission of a crime, i doubt the writers of the statue had that as the intent.
I agree. I doubt I would vote to convict unless there is some back story here we aren't getting. That doesn't mean he isn't going to have to pay out his backside to defend himself. The question that came up was what he should have done. He should not have threatened children. No matter what was happening, it doesn't change the fact that we are talking about young children.
No jury will convict him of it, and i have to assume the statue is up to interpretation.
The kids were in the middle of a commission of a crime, i doubt the writers of the statue had that as the intent.
I agree. I doubt I would vote to convict unless there is some back story here we aren't getting. That doesn't mean he isn't going to have to pay out his backside to defend himself. The question that came up was what he should have done. He should not have threatened children. No matter what was happening, it doesn't change the fact that we are talking about young children.
He should sue for his legal defense in the suit against the kid's parents because thier actions led to his.
So basically kids get a free pass no matter what they do because "they are kids?"
So all I can do is say "hey, stop running!!!" after a bunch of hooligans destroy the inside of a house?
Great lesson we are teaching our children these days.
These yobs will now think they are invulnerable.
I'm sure your sympathy will still be there in 8-10 years when they are boosting your plasma out of your living room.
5-2 the DA quietly drops the charges and takes the booking officer aside for a little talking to.
Clyde man arrested after corralling vandals in a closet until police arrived - The Times of Wayne County
What should he have done instead?
The parents of the kids are amazing. Instead of being embarrassed they are going after the guy who was the 'victim' of their lack of parenting.
They should be out there pleading for their forgiveness and for charges to be dropped!
In Texas he would have been allowed to blow their brains out
Wow... What a clear lack of understanding of the rule of Law.
In Texas he would have been allowed to blow their brains out
Wow... What a clear lack of understanding of the rule of Law.
My son, who is in the Army living in NC, said that in NC if someone walks in your house uninvited, you have the right to shoot him. That's about as clear as it can be......
In Texas he would have been allowed to blow their brains out
Wow... What a clear lack of understanding of the rule of Law.
My son, who is in the Army living in NC, said that in NC if someone walks in your house uninvited, you have the right to shoot him. That's about as clear as it can be......
5-2 the DA quietly drops the charges and takes the booking officer aside for a little talking to.
I doubt it. More likely it will end with a plea deal.
No jury will convict him of it, and i have to assume the statue is up to interpretation.
The kids were in the middle of a commission of a crime, i doubt the writers of the statue had that as the intent.
I agree. I doubt I would vote to convict unless there is some back story here we aren't getting. That doesn't mean he isn't going to have to pay out his backside to defend himself. The question that came up was what he should have done. He should not have threatened children. No matter what was happening, it doesn't change the fact that we are talking about young children.
He should sue for his legal defense in the suit against the kid's parents because thier actions led to his.
So basically kids get a free pass no matter what they do because "they are kids?"
So all I can do is say "hey, stop running!!!" after a bunch of hooligans destroy the inside of a house?
Great lesson we are teaching our children these days.
These yobs will now think they are invulnerable.
I'm sure your sympathy will still be there in 8-10 years when they are boosting your plasma out of your living room.
5-2 the DA quietly drops the charges and takes the booking officer aside for a little talking to.
I doubt it. More likely it will end with a plea deal.
Of course there will be a plea-deal OFFERED...which will piss off the fella's attorney, who will then counter-sue the city for false arrest and ask for actual and punitive damages, which will in turn, lead to all charges being dropped and the booking officer taken aside for a little talking to.
=PratchettFan;7391739]I doubt it. False arrest doesn't apply here since the man did break the law. Plus, you have to demonstrate gross negligence to get past sovereign immunity - which has no chance in this case. The plea deal will only irritate the man's attorney because it will reduce his fee - not because it won't be in the man's best interests. He should not have threatened children with a hammer. That was a mistake.
I doubt it. More likely it will end with a plea deal.
Of course there will be a plea-deal OFFERED...which will piss off the fella's attorney, who will then counter-sue the city for false arrest and ask for actual and punitive damages, which will in turn, lead to all charges being dropped and the booking officer taken aside for a little talking to.
I doubt it. False arrest doesn't apply here since the man did break the law. Plus, you have to demonstrate gross negligence to get past sovereign immunity - which has no chance in this case. The plea deal will only irritate the man's attorney because it will reduce his fee - not because it won't be in the man's best interests. He should not have threatened children with a hammer. That was a mistake.
[=PratchettFan;7391739]I doubt it. False arrest doesn't apply here since the man did break the law. Plus, you have to demonstrate gross negligence to get past sovereign immunity - which has no chance in this case. The plea deal will only irritate the man's attorney because it will reduce his fee - not because it won't be in the man's best interests. He should not have threatened children with a hammer. That was a mistake.
Ever heard of the Castle Doctrine? Several states have decided you can defend the interior of your home with any force necessary. He could in fact, have beaten the little savages to death and claimed Castle Doctrine. There is a clear line between "threatening" and assault without battery. His word against theirs what he did and did not do....like raising the hammer in a threatening manner....he can claim all he did was look down at his hammer and look at the kids...everybody knows what that means, but it is NOT menacing or assault without battery. Also, sovereign immunity applies to the state, but NOT a city within the state. A little legal knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Of course there will be a plea-deal OFFERED...which will piss off the fella's attorney, who will then counter-sue the city for false arrest and ask for actual and punitive damages, which will in turn, lead to all charges being dropped and the booking officer taken aside for a little talking to.
I doubt it. False arrest doesn't apply here since the man did break the law. Plus, you have to demonstrate gross negligence to get past sovereign immunity - which has no chance in this case. The plea deal will only irritate the man's attorney because it will reduce his fee - not because it won't be in the man's best interests. He should not have threatened children with a hammer. That was a mistake.
The law you think he broke does not take into account minors committing criminal acts. If a citizen witnesses a criminal act they have the right to make a citizen's arrest, and then wait for the authorities.
By the way you interpet the law, if a police officer witnesses a minor comitting a crime and places his hand on his holster and tells the minor to lay down and spread em, the police officer is also comitting a crime.
In Texas he would have been allowed to blow their brains out
No. He wouldn't have. Not unless he could convince a jury that he was in fear for his life by four, unarmed 8 - 10 year olds.
I doubt it. False arrest doesn't apply here since the man did break the law. Plus, you have to demonstrate gross negligence to get past sovereign immunity - which has no chance in this case. The plea deal will only irritate the man's attorney because it will reduce his fee - not because it won't be in the man's best interests. He should not have threatened children with a hammer. That was a mistake.
The law you think he broke does not take into account minors committing criminal acts. If a citizen witnesses a criminal act they have the right to make a citizen's arrest, and then wait for the authorities.
By the way you interpet the law, if a police officer witnesses a minor comitting a crime and places his hand on his holster and tells the minor to lay down and spread em, the police officer is also comitting a crime.
Uh huh. Which explains why the man was arrested. It's a pity the law enforcement officers don't have the clear understanding of the laws there that you have.
Funny in the past neighbors would spank and discipline and the kids didn't grow up to be sociopathic fucks like what is so common today. Parents can't even discipline
Funny in the past neighbors would spank and discipline and the kids didn't grow up to be sociopathic fucks like what is so common today. Parents can't even discipline
most parents dont want to discipline..the parents insisted on the man being charged....if my son had been involved in something like this....i would have been too busy kicking his ass from my house back to this house...where his ass would be cleaning and painting and calling everyone Sir....i would be begging the owners to work with me so my stupid ass son would not have a record....my son threatened me one damn time with calling social services....i told him to go right ahead it would take them 20 minutes or so to get here and during the 20 minutes i would beat the hell out of him and make sure they took him and put him in foster care .....and i told him i wasnt a good enough parent to get his ass back...suddenly he declined making that phone call...
my son is 30 years old....he is still not beyond my disciplining him when he is wrong...now its more a sharp tongue with a wee bit of motherly shaming....but he knows right from wrong...
being a good parent is hard damn work....you got to know where they are..who they are with and what the hell they are up too....24/7 and they are nothing but lying, mean ass kids....being a sorry parent doesnt take much effort
