Ny man arrested for corralling kids who ransacked his house

[strollingbones]

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......

sooooooooooo a bunch of us are bsing about this and that....when someone is talking about someone breaking into your home and how many shots to fire....the first one....a kill shot to the intruder...then someone said....fire into the wall......i ask why would i fire into the wall.....answer: warning shot....

we live in nc

but yea if you are on my property and i ask you to leave....and you dont...i can do what i feel is needed to protect myself

 

[Coyote]

He shouldn't have been arrested.

The parents should be held liable for all the damage those brats did.

That just plain sucks - the kids weren't hurt or endangered in any way. Geez.

 

[strollingbones]

the real kick in the teeth..when the parents of the kids sue and the insurance company settles

 

[depotoo]

I understand the point. However, he was threatening children with a hammer. He was not protecting himself or the house at the time. Further, there was no point to it. He knew who the kids were and where they lived. So whether this is seen as just or not, what he did was illegal and he opened himself up to charges when he did it.

That is debatable if he threatened them! He seeked to detain them until the police arrived. This is a rural community, so it could have taken a long time.

By detaining them in the closet he adverted the chases of anyone being harmed. The kids might have tried to flee and he might have had to tackle them.

I see nothing wrong with what he had done. Look at the damage to the house. These kids need to be punished hard and get a good dosage of reality. That much heartless, cruel and destructive behavior at such a young age will not slow down when they are adults. Just a lack of morals now, will be disasterous later!

According to the story, he threatened them. I'm not saying the kids don't need to be punished or that the parents aren't fully responsible for all of the damage. The question was asked, what the man should have done instead. What he should have done was not threaten the kids with a hammer.

if he hadn't used some sort of threat I am sure they would have all fled. I would think it was his way of getting them to listen to him without doing any actual harm. And it was the kids that actually had the hammers at first.

 

[squeeze berry]

I understand the point. However, he was threatening children with a hammer. He was not protecting himself or the house at the time. Further, there was no point to it. He knew who the kids were and where they lived. So whether this is seen as just or not, what he did was illegal and he opened himself up to charges when he did it.

That is debatable if he threatened them! He seeked to detain them until the police arrived. This is a rural community, so it could have taken a long time.

By detaining them in the closet he adverted the chases of anyone being harmed. The kids might have tried to flee and he might have had to tackle them.

I see nothing wrong with what he had done. Look at the damage to the house. These kids need to be punished hard and get a good dosage of reality. That much heartless, cruel and destructive behavior at such a young age will not slow down when they are adults. Just a lack of morals now, will be disasterous later!

According to the story, he threatened them. I'm not saying the kids don't need to be punished or that the parents aren't fully responsible for all of the damage. The question was asked, what the man should have done instead. What he should have done was not threaten the kids with a hammer.

how do you know the kids did not threaten the adult?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In Texas he would have been allowed to blow their brains out

Well yeah, that that's Texass.

This is the United States.

Big difference.

 

[PratchettFan]

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......

sooooooooooo a bunch of us are bsing about this and that....when someone is talking about someone breaking into your home and how many shots to fire....the first one....a kill shot to the intruder...then someone said....fire into the wall......i ask why would i fire into the wall.....answer: warning shot....

we live in nc

but yea if you are on my property and i ask you to leave....and you dont...i can do what i feel is needed to protect myself

You really do need to read the law, not just base this on what you buddies say over a beer.

 

[PratchettFan]

That is debatable if he threatened them! He seeked to detain them until the police arrived. This is a rural community, so it could have taken a long time.

By detaining them in the closet he adverted the chases of anyone being harmed. The kids might have tried to flee and he might have had to tackle them.

I see nothing wrong with what he had done. Look at the damage to the house. These kids need to be punished hard and get a good dosage of reality. That much heartless, cruel and destructive behavior at such a young age will not slow down when they are adults. Just a lack of morals now, will be disasterous later!

According to the story, he threatened them. I'm not saying the kids don't need to be punished or that the parents aren't fully responsible for all of the damage. The question was asked, what the man should have done instead. What he should have done was not threaten the kids with a hammer.

how do you know the kids did not threaten the adult?

I don't know. It doesn't matter. They were young children.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

(My bold)

But the perps weren't unarmed - they each had a hammer, & the adult charged estimates they caused $50K in damage, plus painted obscenities. I wouldn't ordinarily strike an 8- or 10-year old, but these children were acting like pack animals.

Can the owner sue in civil court for damage to his property? I would pursue where these children got hammers & paint from. Whoever provided those (I assume they didn't come from the house that was vandalized) should be chargeable as @ least an accessory to the various crimes committed, & should be on the hook to pay for repairs & replacing goods damaged beyond repair.

Of course he can sue. That is not the point. Once again, the question was asked what should he have done. He should not have threatened them with a hammer. I don't care how outraged people are, if an adult threatens to harm or kill young children they are making a mistake. I really don't get why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

So everyone who is arrested is guilty of the crime? Wow, we have all these district attorney offices for no reason whatsoever, what a waste.....

The man was probably arrested because the parents raised holy hell at the man instead of at thier own kids. Mob rule is sooo much fun.

If the story is true, this guy is certainly guilty. But you think what you like.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clyde man arrested after corralling vandals in a closet until police arrived - The Times of Wayne County


What should he have done instead?

Call the police and seek restitution from the parents. What he shouldn't have done is threaten children with a hammer.

How do you detain and identify four kids with hammers without threatening them?

Since you don't seem to have read it.

The kids had the hammers, they broke into the father in law house of this guy named Daniels. The kids evidently did about 40-50k worth of damage. They broke windows, walls, cabinets, counters, sinks, everything, threw paint around, wrote curse words, completely trashed the insides of a nice house. According to Daniels the kids said it was in retaliation for someone telling the kids to get off the property earlier in the day. Allegedly the kids mom told the kids to trash the place in retaliation. When caught, the kids tried to run and Daniels corralled them into the closet.

Then two days later Daniels gets arrested for threatening the vandals? And you are good with that? The parent of two of the kids that wants the police to throw the book at Daniels is a real POS.

Sick how far people will go to support criminals destroying this country.

 

[Rozman]

He probably will be sued and will lose his house...

 

[Noomi]

Clyde man arrested after corralling vandals in a closet until police arrived - The Times of Wayne County


What should he have done instead?

He threatened the kids with violence if they didn't get in the closet. That is the basis for those charges.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clyde man arrested after corralling vandals in a closet until police arrived - The Times of Wayne County


What should he have done instead?

He threatened the kids with violence if they didn't get in the closet. That is the basis for those charges.

You have proof that he threatened the kids? The cops might want to talk to you. He was accused by the lying thieving felons, probably after encouragement from their POS father.

 

[Jarlaxle]

He's lucky that he wasn't charged with kidnapping. He's REALLY lucky none of the kids said, "He molested me."

 

[Noomi]

Clyde man arrested after corralling vandals in a closet until police arrived - The Times of Wayne County


What should he have done instead?

He threatened the kids with violence if they didn't get in the closet. That is the basis for those charges.

You have proof that he threatened the kids? The cops might want to talk to you. He was accused by the lying thieving felons, probably after encouragement from their POS father.

He threatened to beat them with the hammer if they didn't get in the closet.

 

[strollingbones]

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......

sooooooooooo a bunch of us are bsing about this and that....when someone is talking about someone breaking into your home and how many shots to fire....the first one....a kill shot to the intruder...then someone said....fire into the wall......i ask why would i fire into the wall.....answer: warning shot....

we live in nc

but yea if you are on my property and i ask you to leave....and you dont...i can do what i feel is needed to protect myself

You really do need to read the law, not just base this on what you buddies say over a beer.

beer? where did i mention beer?

The New Law of Self Defense? « North Carolina Criminal Law

have a read there and tell me i am wrong?

 

[strollingbones]

New G.S. 14-51.3 addresses the right to use deadly and nondeadly force to defend oneself and others. The statute appears to track the courts’ approach to these rights in most respects, but it may introduce new principles or at least clarify existing ones. For example, the statute states that a person is justified in using deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or others. The statute does not limit this principle to cases involving a home, motor vehicle, or workplace. Under current law, a person has no duty to retreat in comparable circumstances (that is, when a person is faced with a felonious assault), but the statute’s express statement of the principle may require the court to instruct the jury about it in all cases.

 

[strollingbones]

=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.

Yes. I've heard of the Castle Doctrine. Have you bothered to read any of those laws? He could gave beaten them to death, and he would have been arrested and most certainly convicted of murder. Even in the state with the most liberal Castle Doctrine law, he would have been convicted of murder.

Please don't attempt to impress me with your legal expertise. I am not impressed and you are wrong. "Everybody know"... good grief.

and yet you put things i did not say into my post? ie. beer? where did i mention beer? i did not. So why dont you shut the fuck up and read the link?

 

[PratchettFan]

sooooooooooo a bunch of us are bsing about this and that....when someone is talking about someone breaking into your home and how many shots to fire....the first one....a kill shot to the intruder...then someone said....fire into the wall......i ask why would i fire into the wall.....answer: warning shot....

we live in nc

but yea if you are on my property and i ask you to leave....and you dont...i can do what i feel is needed to protect myself

You really do need to read the law, not just base this on what you buddies say over a beer.

beer? where did i mention beer?

The New Law of Self Defense? « North Carolina Criminal Law

have a read there and tell me i am wrong?

I did read it. The actual law, not the synopsis. You're wrong.

This is the pertinent section of the new law:

(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.


Nowhere does it say anything about you telling them to get off your property.

Excuse the beer comment - poetic license.