PDA

View Full Version : Boy, 14, fatally shot after egging SUV


Arreat
12-03-2006, 05:52 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/03/teen.shot.ap/index.html

Pie™
12-03-2006, 05:55 PM
Well, even though shooting the kid is obviously going too far, they were basically asking for getting their asses kicked. The lesson of today is "Don't be an idiot, you might get shot".

Mike Windu
12-03-2006, 06:09 PM
A very true lesson indeed.

*eggs Pie's vehicle*

Pie™
12-03-2006, 06:12 PM
*Brings out his shotgun*

Rogue Nine
12-03-2006, 06:16 PM
I have very little sympathy for teenagers with no common decency. It's sad he had to die, but perhaps he'll serve as an example to his friends.

Just goes to show that being a sophomoric idiot gets you nowhere.

Jeff
12-03-2006, 06:37 PM
Indeed. I had a few friends that got arrested for egging a police car (!), they didn't know it was a police car when they did it, it's the same lesson, just less harsh.

IG-64
12-03-2006, 07:05 PM
... He was shot for throwing an egg at a car. :|

-_-

Commander Obi-Wan
12-03-2006, 07:12 PM
You live and learn....well, in this case he didn't.

But over egging a car?

Spider AL
12-03-2006, 08:28 PM
Well, the reason egging a car is serious, is because it can cause the driver to lose control and crash. So it's no laughing matter to throw an egg at a car. It can be lethal. Of course, you can't kill someone for endangering your life AFTER the fact.

Sounds like the shooter had stolen the SUV? Says something about the car being abandoned nearby... They could have egged a car full of angry guys and gotten a beating... but they egged a car with a scummy criminal gunman in it, and got shot. Unlucky.

jebbers
12-03-2006, 08:44 PM
http://www.urbanlinkz.com/rides/urbcar312.jpg

unless the kid egged a suv like this...

Anthony
12-03-2006, 08:50 PM
Kid: -1 Moron: 0

BongoBob
12-03-2006, 08:58 PM
Sucks that he died, but it was dumb as hell for him to do it.

Before we moved, our downstairs neighbors kids egged our car. So we told the parents, and they did nothing about it. They just went "So?". So the next day, one of my friends egged their car, and I knocked on the door and said "You son missed ours this time."

We didn't see him for at least two weeks.

swphreak
12-03-2006, 09:50 PM
Yeah, that's what you get for doing stupid things. You have no idea what people will do. For all they knew, one of the cars they hit could have been full of gang members or something. Oh wait, it was.

Intelligence: 0
Dumbasses: 1

MrWally
12-03-2006, 10:54 PM
It's possible he may have just been shooting to scare them off or intimidate them?

Then when he realized he had accidentally killed one of the kids he freaked out and ran off.

Sabretooth
12-04-2006, 03:08 AM
Now the kid was pretty stupid and deserved a good beating, but the shooting went a little too far. Whoever was in the car must have been one hell of a pissed off dude.

Lynk Former
12-04-2006, 03:35 AM
Oh yeah...

North Carolina deputy kills suspected PS3 thief and his dog
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/03/north-carolina-deputy-kills-suspected-ps3-thief-and-his-dog/

jon_hill987
12-04-2006, 04:08 AM
SUV drivers should all be punished themselves, f***ing up the environment for the rest of us.

Maybe Greenpeace should start egging SUVs.

EDIT: I just mean SUV drivers who don't need one, you know the sort that get a disco for the school run.

MTV2
12-04-2006, 10:51 AM
Oh yeah...

North Carolina deputy kills suspected PS3 thief and his dog
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/03/north-carolina-deputy-kills-suspected-ps3-thief-and-his-dog/
F**king *******s, what did the dog do? I hate cops. they think they have a license to kill. just awhile ago, a (black) kid in L.A. was shot 50 times the night before his wedding for, i forget, but, he was unarmed and i think was innocent or something.

Spider AL
12-04-2006, 11:36 AM
F**king *******s, what did the dog do? I hate cops. they think they have a license to kill. just awhile ago, a (black) kid in L.A. was shot 50 times the night before his wedding for, i forget, but, he was unarmed and i think was innocent or something.I wouldn't be too hard on these cops if I were you.

The dog was a German Shepherd... that's a big dog. There's a strong possibility that the dog was acting aggressively towards the cop before the cop shot it. And the owner... he was suspected of armed robbery. So it's not so clear cut a situation as it first appears.

I heard about the kid in L.A. He wasn't shot fifty times, five officers fired fifty rounds. I think they hit several people including this kid who died. But the car the kid was in had just run over a policeman... so once again, not so clear-cut anymore.

Both cases need to have the officers involved taken out of circulation though. It's not the clear-cut case of "insane triggerhappy cops" that the press have made out... but it's certainly excessive force.

SUV drivers should all be punished themselves, f***ing up the environment for the rest of us.

Maybe Greenpeace should start egging SUVs.

EDIT: I just mean SUV drivers who don't need one, you know the sort that get a disco for the school run.I second this motion! Stupid gas-guzzler drivers.

DarthAve
12-04-2006, 05:41 PM
This happened right down in Columbus. O.O
The Model U.N. kids are going down there Thursday. O.O

Let's hope they're on a short leash. We don't want none of our smart kids getting shot after some shanagins in the ghetto's of Columbus. Especially hot choir kid.

Mike Windu
12-04-2006, 05:42 PM
Me mum drives an SUV :p

narfblat
12-04-2006, 08:33 PM
*Eggs Mike's mom's SUV*

My brother was driving me somewhere when his car was egged by a driver/passenger of a car goin the opposite direction. It didn't ruin the paint though - it went through the open driver's-side window and made a mess at the rear window. It took us a second to figure out what the heck it was. It wasn't fun to clean up, but I guess that's better than having to fix a paint job.

TK-8252
12-04-2006, 09:00 PM
Meh, as unfortunant as it was that he was killed, I have no sympathy for stupid.

I hate annoying little ****s like that kid. Maybe a nice ass-kicking would have served a better lesson.

Vikinor
12-05-2006, 01:37 AM
Sucks that the kid got shot, but you have to remember there are a lot of stupid people in the world. Hell, you could be criticizing something for being stupid then do something else that is just as stupid.

igyman
12-05-2006, 02:43 AM
I can't believe some of the comments posted here. People, he was a kid, kids do stupid things and anyone who says ''he did a stupid thing and got shot'' or ''sucks that he was shot but he was stupid to do that'' is more stupid than that poor kid. Only murderers deserve to be shot and even them only in self-defence. In my opinion, the idiot was the guy who shot the kid, not the kid himself, the kid was simply being a kid.

Ray Jones
12-05-2006, 07:31 AM
I second that. How many of you would say stuff like this if this "stupid" kid was your sibling?

Shooting at someone itself is bad enough, but because your car got err egged??

TiE23
12-05-2006, 10:32 AM
Again, he lost his life for egging a car. <_>

Darth333
12-05-2006, 10:37 AM
I can't believe some of the comments posted here. People, he was a kid, kids do stupid things and anyone who says ''he did a stupid thing and got shot'' or ''sucks that he was shot but he was stupid to do that'' is more stupid than that poor kid. Only murderers deserve to be shot and even them only in self-defence. In my opinion, the idiot was the guy who shot the kid, not the kid himself, the kid was simply being a kid.
QFE...some of the comments here almost give me the impression that human life has no value anymore...

Egging a car is dumb but come on all kids do stupid things one day. Shooting is not only out of proportion but it's totally sick! Just think of the parents of that kid!

TK-8252
12-05-2006, 04:19 PM
Meh. I never egged a car, or anything for that matter. I never got shot. If he didn't egg a car he wouldn't have gotten shot. If you do something so retarded as egg a car, you are doing it at your own risk. Just as if I go and wander into the woods around where I live, I am at risk of being attacked by a dog, or being shot by a hunter, or by someone who's pissed that I'm trespassing on their property. So I don't go into the woods. Simple as that.

When I was fourteen, I knew that doing something so stupid as egging a car was wrong - I knew that messing with the wrong people could get you beat up, or even killed. If this was a nine or ten year old, I would not be so hard on him. But fourteen? Come on. By that time, if you have no common sense, maybe you never will have any.

It may sound brutal but the kid got what was coming to him - that's just how the world works. Do something stupid, something stupid happens to you.

Spider AL
12-05-2006, 04:44 PM
One must pity the kid for getting shot, (a punishment which was not proportionate to his crime,) but as several people including myself have pointed out, egging cars is REALLY stupid and dangerous. Egg a moving car (as was done in this case, presumably) and you risk killing the occupants of the car.

And anyone who says "he was just being a kid" is incorrect. When I was a kid I respected people's safety and their property. This kid was an especially foolish kid. Dangerous too.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-05-2006, 05:08 PM
It's perfectly fair when little kids with their whole life ahead of them get shot to death for egging cars. If they've done anything at all, no matter how minor, it's not a tragedy and he should not be pitied when killed. It's the way the world works nowadays - if someone's stupid, it's OK that something bad happens to them. Now stop whining over him.

And anyone who says "he was just being a kid" is incorrect. When I was a kid I respected people's safety and their property.He was just a kid. A 14-year old with his whole life ahead of him. His stupidity doesn't change that fact.

Spider AL
12-05-2006, 05:24 PM
It's perfectly fair when little kids with their whole life ahead of them get shot to death for egging cars. If they've done anything at all, no matter how minor, it's not a tragedy and he should not be pitied when killed. It's the way the world works nowadays - if someone's stupid, it's OK that something bad happens to them. Now stop whining over him.You're the only one who's said anything this extreme, Eagle. I for instance have said that one MUST pity the kid. The punishment didn't fit the crime.

But egging a car IS dangerous. it IS stupid. He didn't get what he deserved for it, but he definitely shouldn't have done it.

As far as I'm concerned this is a news story about two criminals, one of whom (the far worse criminal) killed the other.

He was just a kid. A 14-year old with his whole life ahead of him. His stupidity doesn't change that fact.I think you'll find I said he wasn't just "being" a kid. Some in this thread have suggested that egging moving vehicles is "natural kid behaviour", and it is simply not. It is serious, dangerous, irresponsible, criminal and unacceptable.

MrWally
12-05-2006, 07:43 PM
Out of curiosity I start to wonder.

Who knows? Maybe this isn't the first time he had egged someone's car. Perhaps he had done it in the past and got a "thrill" out of it. If this were the case than he'd definitely had to deal with PO'd drivers as well, so he should have learned from his past mistakes.

Of course, it's quite possible this was his first time egging a car, but even so he would know that he would be a great annoyance to anyone he egged. Either way, I agree with Spider AL, egging a car is not just a "Kid being a kid" -it is a kid being a criminal, and while death is certainly an unjust punishment, he brought it upon himself.

Rogue Nine
12-06-2006, 12:27 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with the last five or so posts.

And for all those who are saying "he was shot for egging a car -__-", you make it seem like that was his accrued punishment for his actions, as if it had been handed down by some body of law. As if to say, "yup, you egged a car, you gonna get shot, end of story." The world doesn't really work like that with respect to actual jurisprudence, but absent that, like in this case, it is quite applicable.

People get shot and killed everyday for stupid minor things. People are shot for looking at someone the wrong way, not breathing right, not having food on the table and a whole host of other wholly inane things. Does that make it fair? No, because they are punished for doing nothing wrong. I'm not saying that this kid being killed by that wacko in the SUV was fair. It was just a case of disproportionate punishment, as AL pointed out. He deserved punishment, he just got a little more than he bargained for.

igyman
12-07-2006, 03:36 PM
I think you'll find I said he wasn't just "being" a kid. Some in this thread have suggested that egging moving vehicles is "natural kid behaviour", and it is simply not. It is serious, dangerous, irresponsible, criminal and unacceptable.
I think you misinterpreted what some people have been saying - we're not saying that egging moving vehicles is natural kid behaviour, but rather that it's natural for kids to do stupid things. Heck, when I was a kid, me and my friends loved to ocasionally throw snowballs at the side of moving cars. It was stupid and beneath-childish, but we did it. On the other hand, our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did, so my statement still stands - the kid was simply being a kid and the guy who shot him was an idiot and I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail.

TK-8252
12-07-2006, 04:47 PM
Heck, when I was a kid, me and my friends loved to ocasionally throw snowballs at the side of moving cars.

Snowballs don't typically **** up a car's paint.

igyman
12-07-2006, 05:52 PM
I think that's beside the point.

Spider AL
12-07-2006, 08:24 PM
I think you misinterpreted what some people have been saying - we're not saying that egging moving vehicles is natural kid behaviour, but rather that it's natural for kids to do stupid things. Heck, when I was a kid, me and my friends loved to ocasionally throw snowballs at the side of moving cars. It was stupid and beneath-childish, but we did it. On the other hand, our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did, so my statement still stands - the kid was simply being a kid and the guy who shot him was an idiot and I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail.I didn't "misinterpret" anything Igy. You said it again in this post: "the kid was simply being a kid"

No he wasn't. He was being a criminal kid. He was being a dangerous kid. He was risking the lives of the drivers, their passengers... and his own life!

And frankly, throwing snowballs at the side of moving cars is also pretty dangerous. And just because YOU did it and got away with it, doesn't make it "natural" or acceptable. Frankly I think you should have been punished by the law for doing something that could distract a driver and cause him to lose control of the vehicle. As this kid should have been.

And of course the guy who shot the kid should be locked up for life, he shot someone to death. I don't think that's up for debate. You're merely stating the obvious.

-

TK: Igy's right about the paintwork. Petty financial concerns are an irrelevance when it comes to this issue.

TK-8252
12-07-2006, 08:37 PM
TK: Igy's right about the paintwork. Petty financial concerns are an irrelevance when it comes to this issue.

True, but I don't know if throwing snowballs would anger someone to the point of murdering a kid over it.

Spider AL
12-07-2006, 08:40 PM
Ah, you're absolutely right. I see what you were saying now. Egging was only slightly more dangerous to the DRIVER than snowballing would be, but it was a damn sight more dangerous for the kid himself.

narfblat
12-07-2006, 09:43 PM
True, but I don't know if throwing snowballs would anger someone to the point of murdering a kid over it.
I don't know, people are getting pretty crazy these days.

I just hope the kids get less crazy fast enough to counter the adults getting more crazy.

Mace MacLeod
12-07-2006, 09:47 PM
Utterly unbelievable. I've heard of people being snuffed for some stupid things, but this...

A 14 year-old gets wasted for egging cars. If this isn't an argument for gun control, I don't know what is.

TK-8252
12-07-2006, 10:03 PM
If this isn't an argument for gun control, I don't know what is.

That's what we'd call a knee-jerk reaction. A kid gets shot, so let's take away all guns.

First of all, chances are, this gun was illegal to begin with. So even IF there was gun control, the kid still would have been shot. But anyway, this is not the topic for that debate.

igyman
12-08-2006, 04:27 AM
I didn't "misinterpret" anything Igy. You said it again in this post: "the kid was simply being a kid"

No he wasn't. He was being a criminal kid. He was being a dangerous kid. He was risking the lives of the drivers, their passengers... and his own life!
While what you're saying about risking lives may be true, you're still missing the point. When I say that he was simply being a kid, by that I mean that kids tend to do stupid and irresponsible things.

And frankly, throwing snowballs at the side of moving cars is also pretty dangerous. And just because YOU did it and got away with it, doesn't make it "natural" or acceptable. Frankly I think you should have been punished by the law for doing something that could distract a driver and cause him to lose control of the vehicle. As this kid should have been.
I was simply using this as an example which proves that kids do stupid and irresponsible things. Of course it's not acceptable, but it is natural for a kid to do. Again, I'm not talking about snowballing, or egging a moving car specifically, but rather about stupid and irresponsible things in general.

Spider AL
12-08-2006, 08:24 AM
While what you're saying about risking lives may be true, you're still missing the point. When I say that he was simply being a kid, by that I mean that kids tend to do stupid and irresponsible things.No, you're missing the point. Throwing things at moving cars isn't merely "stupid and irresponsible", it's criminal, and potentially fatal to the drivers and passengers.

When I was a kid, I didn't do criminal and dangerous things to anyone. I didn't personally know any kid who DID. Such behaviour isn't "natural kid behaviour", no matter how often you assert that it is. It's antisocial, it's potentially fatal, it's unequivocally criminal. End of story.

I was simply using this as an example which proves that kids do stupid and irresponsible things. Of course it's not acceptable, but it is natural for a kid to do. Again, I'm not talking about snowballing, or egging a moving car specifically, but rather about stupid and irresponsible things in general.Your example merely "proved" that you did criminally dangerous things when you were a kid. It didn't prove that such behaviour is "natural" to kids.

That's what we'd call a knee-jerk reaction. A kid gets shot, so let's take away all guns.

First of all, chances are, this gun was illegal to begin with. So even IF there was gun control, the kid still would have been shot. But anyway, this is not the topic for that debate.Mmm, yeah. TK is, in my opinion, entirely correct on this point.

igyman
12-08-2006, 02:19 PM
No, you're missing the point. Throwing things at moving cars isn't merely "stupid and irresponsible", it's criminal, and potentially fatal to the drivers and passengers.
I didn't miss that one, read what I posted once again and you'll see.

When I was a kid, I didn't do criminal and dangerous things to anyone. I didn't personally know any kid who DID. Such behaviour isn't "natural kid behaviour", no matter how often you assert that it is. It's antisocial, it's potentially fatal, it's unequivocally criminal. End of story.
It's very commendable that you didn't do things like that, but just because you didn't know any kids who did, doesn't mean that the vast majority of kids doesn't do something similar at least once in their life.
Again with that criminal insistance. If those kids who did (or do) those kinds of things (including me when I was a kid) do it because they want to cause a traffic accident and hurt the person(s) in the vehicle, then I would agree that their behaviour is criminal, but they don't have that intention when they do it. When they do stuff like that the only thought in their head is: ''This is gonna be fun! That driver is gonna be so pissed.'', which is why their behaviour is simply stupid and irresponsible, because they aren't thinking of all the consequences of their actions. And why aren't they thinking of all the consequences? Because they're kids, they aren't mature adult people, they have years of learning and maturing to do before that. If they are caught, they should be held accountable, not by law, but by their parents.

Your example merely "proved" that you did criminally dangerous things when you were a kid. It didn't prove that such behaviour is "natural" to kids.
It proved that I did stupid and irresponsible things when I was a kid and so did most of my friends. Again, read more carefully.

Spider AL
12-08-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by igyman:

I didn't miss that one, read what I posted once again and you'll see.Well not to put too fine a point on it, you missed it again in this very post. And seemingly, deliberately. You're not only refusing to admit that throwing things at moving cars is not "kids just being kids", you're also refusing to admit the danger these acts pose to other people and their property. Let me go deeper into it:

Originally Posted by igyman:

It's very commendable that you didn't do things like that, but just because you didn't know any kids who did, doesn't mean that the vast majority of kids doesn't do something similar at least once in their life.Well you're putting your personal childhood experience of throwing snowballs at passing cars with your friends forward as if it proves something. If your childhood recklessness "proves" something, so does my lack of recklessness (and the similar lack of recklessness among my peers). You can't have it both ways.

In MY experience, the majority of children don't do illegal things that endanger the lives, property and general wellbeing of other people. Therefore, it is NOT natural behaviour for kids to act in a criminal and genuinely dangerous manner.

If you wish to assert that it IS natural for kids to act in a criminally dangerous manner, then you really should provide evidence beyond a personal anecdote about you and some other kids acting in a criminally dangerous manner.

Originally Posted by igyman:

Again with that criminal insistance. If those kids who did (or do) those kinds of things (including me when I was a kid) do it because they want to cause a traffic accident and hurt the person(s) in the vehicle, then I would agree that their behaviour is criminal, but they don't have that intention when they do it. When they do stuff like that the only thought in their head is: ''This is gonna be fun! That driver is gonna be so pissed.'', which is why their behaviour is simply stupid and irresponsible, because they aren't thinking of all the consequences of their actions.Totally fallacious argument. You're saying that because some kids who endanger the lives and property of others "don't mean to do any harm", that means that what they did wasn't criminally dangerous. Of course it was. Their intent doesn't alter the implications of their actions.

Their intent is not relevant to the question of whether their acts endangered others. You said earlier that "our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did", but of course they were. Throwing things at moving vehicles endangers drivers, passengers and pedestrians, not to mention property. This isn't really up for debate, it's just common sense.

You seem to want to describe your actions when you were a kid in a very flattering, revisionist way. That's not right, morally speaking. You should admit that what you did when you were a kid put people's health and property at risk, and move on from there.

Do you think it's legal to throw things at random people or their property? Do you think it's not dangerous to distract the driver of a moving vehicle? (and in the case of eggs, to also damage his property, even if you didn't succeed in distracting him.)

If you DO think this, you're deluded.

Originally Posted by igyman:

And why aren't they thinking of all the consequences? Because they're kids, they aren't mature adult people, they have years of learning and maturing to do before that. If they are caught, they should be held accountable, not by law, but by their parents.The parents can deal with everyday kid problems. But when a child breaks the law, they should be held accountable under the law.

There are already provisions in law for children to be treated and punished differently than adults if they've committed crimes. But they are accountable in their own way for their own crimes. The fact that you're a kid doesn't mean you're incapable of committing a crime.

Originally Posted by igyman:

It proved that I did stupid and irresponsible things when I was a kid and so did most of my friends. Again, read more carefully.As I pointed out before, it's not relevant whether it was just you, or you and three friends, or you and your entire community... that doesn't make the behaviour any less illegal or dangerous, and it doesn't mean that it's "natural" for kids to engage in such behaviour. A lot of kids beat other kids up. Doesn't mean they're "just being kids" when they knock someone's teeth out. They're being dangerously VIOLENT kids. A lot of kids enjoy playing with fire. Doesn't mean they're "just being kids" when they burn down a building. They're being little ARSONISTS.

Yes, they're kids. Which means they get punished less severely than adults. Doesn't alter the fact that they've committed crimes and endangered others.

igyman
12-09-2006, 02:28 PM
Basically, what you're saying is that they should be sentenced to a juvenal home because they weren't thinking of all the consequences of their actions. I disagree, I think it's a matter that their parents should solve. That's all that I'm arguing about here. Our opinions differ, so let's leave it at that.

Spider AL
12-09-2006, 02:44 PM
Basically, what you're saying is that they should be sentenced to a juvenal home because they weren't thinking of all the consequences of their actions.Ugh, I consider this comment to be extremely foolish. I have never even mentioned the question of how kids who commit certain criminal acts should be sentenced. So who said anything about "juvenile homes"? Where did you get this from? :confused:

I have merely pointed out that those who commit crimes that endanger others or the property of others should be dealt with under the law, by the law. It's a very simple point.

igyman
12-10-2006, 01:22 PM
Well, you've insisted that they be held accountable by law, which lead me to believe that you considered some kind of sentence as an appropriate punishment (community service, juvenile home, etc.). If I am mistaken, then I apologize, but I would like to ask that you clarify what you meant by ''dealt with under the law, by the law.''

Spider AL
12-10-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by igyman:

Well, you've insisted that they be held accountable by law, which lead me to believe that you considered some kind of sentence as an appropriate punishmentBut you didn't say "some kind of sentence", did you Igy. You said what amounted to: "Spider wants those poor innocent kids who throw things at cars to be incarcerated in juvenile homes!!!!11"

And frankly, you must have been intentionally trying to misrepresent my position... because I certainly never mentioned the question of sentencing, let alone the specific: "juvenile homes". So, please leave the straw men indoors, eh Ig?

Originally Posted by igyman:

If I am mistaken, then I apologize, but I would like to ask that you clarify what you meant by ''dealt with under the law, by the law.''Well... what part of it is unclear to you?

Dealt with "under the law" means that legal channels should be followed in determining how they should be dealt with, and "by the law" means that the police and judiciary should be the ones to administer this legal justice.

Now that we've made that absolutely crystal clear, perhaps we can return to the question of WHY you believe that throwing things at moving cars isn't life-threateningly dangerous to drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

igyman
12-11-2006, 02:00 PM
And frankly, you must have been intentionally trying to misrepresent my position... because I certainly never mentioned the question of sentencing, let alone the specific: "juvenile homes". So, please leave the straw men indoors, eh Ig?
No, you didn't mention it specifically, but, as I've said, your posts so far lead me to believe you were supporting that attitude. I didn't intentionally try to misinterpret anything, but I do apologize for misinterpreting what you've said. I have no problem with being wrong.

Dealt with "under the law" means that legal channels should be followed in determining how they should be dealt with, and "by the law" means that the police and judiciary should be the ones to administer this legal justice.
OK, I assumed as much, but I was specifically referring to what kind of punishment would you consider appropriate, I'm sorry for not being clear with my question.

Now that we've made that absolutely crystal clear, perhaps we can return to the question of WHY you believe that throwing things at moving cars isn't life-threateningly dangerous to drivers, passengers and pedestrians.
I never said I believe it's not dangerous (though I'll admit that some of my posts could have been interpreted that way). I was simply arguing that those kids who did it (do it) did not have criminal intentions, that they were acting without considering all the consequences and that they were doing it because they thought it would be fun. Looking from that aspect, I don't consider their behavior criminal, though I agree that it could be life-threatening.

Spider AL
12-13-2006, 07:18 AM
Originally Posted by igyman:

No, you didn't mention it specifically, but, as I've said, your posts so far lead me to believe you were supporting that attitude. I didn't intentionally try to misinterpret anything, but I do apologize for misinterpreting what you've said. I have no problem with being wrong.Well it's a heck of a mistake to make, Iggster. But since you insist it wasn't an intentional stab at a straw-man, I suppose the least I can do in the christmas spirit is to accept your apology. You're forgiven. :)

Originally Posted by igyman:

OK, I assumed as much, but I was specifically referring to what kind of punishment would you consider appropriate, I'm sorry for not being clear with my question.Well your question was perfectly clear. If it wasn't the question you wanted to ask... that's another matter.

As regards sentencing for such crimes, that would be a case-by-case judgement on the part of the judiciary. If you want to give me a specific hypothetical example with more details, I might be able to make a rational judgement on how extreme the punishment for the specific crime should be.

Originally Posted by igyman:

I never said I believe it's not dangerous (though I'll admit that some of my posts could have been interpreted that way). You said earlier of you and your friends' actions in throwing things at moving cars: "our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did"

Now that's not a case of subjective interpretation on my part, it's clear and uncontestable that with this statement, you show that you consider your actions (and those of your chums) to have been non-life-threatening for drivers, passengers and pedestrians. But of course they were. Throwing things at moving cars? It's obviously dangerous to the people inside the car and outside. Any number of awful things can happen when a driver loses his or her concentration, up to and including deaths and maimings.

If you believed the statement when you typed it, you were surely in denial. If you still believe it, you still are.

Originally Posted by igyman:

I was simply arguing that those kids who did it (do it) did not have criminal intentions, that they were acting without considering all the consequences and that they were doing it because they thought it would be fun. Looking from that aspect, I don't consider their behavior criminal, though I agree that it could be life-threatening.And once again, assertions of good intent do not impact the criminality of the type of actions we're discussing. Intent matters when one is charging someone with such crimes as "attempted murder" or conspiracy charges. Intent doesn't matter a great deal when you are charging someone with recklessly throwing objects at people and property. The intent CAN matter when it comes to sentencing for such crimes.

If you throw something, your subsequent assertions that you "didn't mean any harm" don't hold a great deal of weight, either legally or morally. It's the same with any violent act, be it socking someone upside the head, setting fire to a building or setting off fireworks in ill-advised directions.

As stated before, kids already get special treatment in that they're punished more leniently for their crimes. But the crimes are still crimes.

igyman
12-13-2006, 08:18 AM
You said earlier of you and your friends' actions in throwing things at moving cars: "our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did"
When I said that I was actually trying to say that nothing life-threatening happened, to us or the drivers. I don't deny that something could have happened if one of those snowballs hit the windshield, instead of the roof, or the side of the vehicle, but as it is, nothing did happen.

If you want to give me a specific hypothetical example with more details
I was actually hoping to hear what specific punishment would in your opinion be appropriate for this type of behaviour - throwing snowballs, or eggs at moving vehicles.

As stated before, kids already get special treatment in that they're punished more leniently for their crimes. But the crimes are still crimes.
Be that as it may, but do you really think those children would learn something, if they were prosecuted and sentenced? I just don't think they deserve a criminal record for this specific situation, I don't think it would do them any good, or teach them anything about responsibility, or improve their future. That's why I think their parents should take care of the matter, I think that those children would learn much more from a talk with their parents than from a criminal proceeding.

Spider AL
12-14-2006, 04:21 AM
Originally Posted by igyman:

When I said that I was actually trying to say that nothing life-threatening happened, to us or the drivers. I don't deny that something could have happened if one of those snowballs hit the windshield, instead of the roof, or the side of the vehicle, but as it is, nothing did happen.Of course something "life-threatening" happened, you threw something at a moving car!

Nothing actually fatal happened, fortunately. But that's a different thing. The fact that you got away with it without harming anyone was most fortunate... but it doesn't alter the nature of your acts nor the risk factors involved.

And of course, it's worth remembering that even if an object doesn't hit the windshield of the car, it can distract the driver and cause an accident. The windshield would be merely the most unfortunate of the available targets.

Originally Posted by igyman:

I was actually hoping to hear what specific punishment would in your opinion be appropriate for this type of behaviour - throwing snowballs, or eggs at moving vehicles.Yeah, and as I said, you'll have to give me a hypothetical example with more specifics, as these things would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Many factors are involved in determining a sentence for such a crime, including: age of the criminal(s), criminal history of the criminal(s), number of cars attacked, weapon used in the attack, circumstances of the attack, etcetera etcetera. So think up a good example and I'll address it.

Originally Posted by igyman:

Be that as it may, but do you really think those children would learn something, if they were prosecuted and sentenced? I just don't think they deserve a criminal record for this specific situation, I don't think it would do them any good, or teach them anything about responsibility, or improve their future. That's why I think their parents should take care of the matter, I think that those children would learn much more from a talk with their parents than from a criminal proceeding.You could ask the same question about sentences for adult criminals. "Will they learn anything?" The answer is: that's up to them. But criminal sentences aren't about "what the criminals learn", (though sometimes rehabilitation is a factor) they're about a concept of justice in society in which people pay the debts that they themselves accrue.

And as regards "letting the parents take care of it", the police and judiciary should decide whether the parents can "take care of it" in a case in which laws have been broken. It's not up to parents to decide what laws their child can and cannot break. If the crime is minor enough, police can (and routinely do) allow parents to determine punishment for the child. But that doesn't alter my points at all, because the police and judiciary must still be involved.

ET Warrior
12-14-2006, 12:25 PM
If those kids who did (or do) those kinds of things (including me when I was a kid) do it because they want to cause a traffic accident and hurt the person(s) in the vehicle, then I would agree that their behaviour is criminal, but they don't have that intention when they do it.
By this logic, if I were to get ridiculously drunk, and then drive myself home because I need to get some rest and go to work tomorrow, and on the way home I slam into some innocent single mother driving to her midnight work shift and kill her, then I shouldn't be criminally prosecuted, as it was not my intention to kill her. I just wanted to get home.

Or even if I didn't kill anyone, if I just got pulled over and arrested for driving drunk. I didn't even hurt anyone, and I had no intent to hurt anyone, so why am I being punished?

I'm being punished because what I am doing is endangering the lives of others, regardless of my intent.

igyman
12-14-2006, 01:47 PM
I'm being punished because what I am doing is endangering the lives of others, regardless of my intent.
I see your point, but we are talking about children here. Children don't realise completely the consequences of their actions and I don't think they should be prosecuted unless they actually cause an accident. Even then, I don't think they should be prosecuted, but their parents, because the parents are responsible for the children's behaviour. It's their fault their child doesn't know that people can be injured, or die, if they throw stuff at moving vehicles.

Yeah, and as I said, you'll have to give me a hypothetical example with more specifics, as these things would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
OK, a specific example. I thought I gave you one, but here: A kid and a couple of his friends decide it would be fun to throw eggs at moving cars. They get the eggs and start throwing. Unfortunately for them, one of the cars they hit pulls over and the driver exits the vehicle and runs towards the kids. All but one of the kids manage to run away. If you were the driver, would you:
a) call the kid's parents and discuss the situation with them (if the eggs did any damage to the car, then agree on a damage compensation);
b) call the police and keep the kid from leaving until the police arrived?
If you chose b) and the case gets to trial (assume the kid gave up his friends who ran away and they all stand trial), if you were the judge, what sort of punishment would you deem appropriate?
I don't think I could get any more specific than this. :)

You could ask the same question about sentences for adult criminals. "Will they learn anything?" The answer is: that's up to them.
When adults are concerned, I completely agree, but we are talking about kids here and when kids are concerned, the answer is: no, it's not entirely up to them. They are kids and they need someone to explain to them why are things like that wrong and why they shouldn't do it ever again. You have to realize that teenagers mainly don't commit such acts (at least as far as I know), they have matured enough to know that it's foolish and not at all fun (there are obviously exceptions, as this boy that got shot, but I think fourteen is the top age limit). We are talking about mostly kids who are below fourteen and mostly between eight and eleven-twelve. I just don't think kids should be branded as criminals at that age, I think a criminal record would seriously hurt their future and not teach them anything about right or wrong, or about responsibility. It would simply freak them out.

ET Warrior
12-14-2006, 01:52 PM
Children don't realise completely the consequences of their actions
Neither do drunk people. Ignorance doesn't give one an exemption from the law.

igyman
12-14-2006, 02:26 PM
You cannot compare adults to children. Adults are called adults because they are considered to be responsible and mature members of human society. When an adult breaks the law he alone is responsible for his actions. A child is not mature enough to understand everything about responsibility and ''right and wrong''. It's the main reason children don't have the right to vote - they aren't self-conscious, mature and educated enough to take that responsibility.

narfblat
12-15-2006, 03:23 AM
so lets balance it out, eh? Children are ignorant, therefore they must be educated. On the first such offense, parents should be notified, and maybe bring in police just to shake the kids up a bit. :)

igyman
12-15-2006, 05:26 AM
I can live with that. Maybe even let the police explain to the kid(s) in question why they shouldn't do such things.

Spider AL
12-15-2006, 07:25 AM
Originally Posted by igyman:

I see your point, but we are talking about children here. Children don't realise completely the consequences of their actions and I don't think they should be prosecuted unless they actually cause an accident. Even then, I don't think they should be prosecuted, but their parents, because the parents are responsible for the children's behaviour. It's their fault their child doesn't know that people can be injured, or die, if they throw stuff at moving vehicles.And once again, you're not putting forward any reason for your assertion that kids should never be prosecuted.

"Kids don't realise the consequences of their actions". Well neither do a lot of adults. MOST adults, in fact. Should we not prosecute them?

And perhaps the parents should be censured... AS WELL as the child. But if it's an issue of "they should have taught the kid that throwing stuff at cars is wrong"... Should we prosecute the kid's schoolteachers too? I'll be frank with you, nobody ever had to "teach" me that throwing things at cars specifically was wrong. It was common sense that led me to this conclusion. And yes, kids have common sense too.

Originally Posted by igyman:

OK, a specific example. I thought I gave you one, but here: A kid and a couple of his friends decide it would be fun to throw eggs at moving cars. They get the eggs and start throwing. Unfortunately for them, one of the cars they hit pulls over and the driver exits the vehicle and runs towards the kids. All but one of the kids manage to run away. If you were the driver, would you:
a) call the kid's parents and discuss the situation with them (if the eggs did any damage to the car, then agree on a damage compensation);
b) call the police and keep the kid from leaving until the police arrived?
If you chose b) and the case gets to trial (assume the kid gave up his friends who ran away and they all stand trial), if you were the judge, what sort of punishment would you deem appropriate?
I don't think I could get any more specific than this. Okay. First, I can't see a case like this making it to trial. If the case got as far as a trial, the police and judiciary must have thought it was quite a bad crime.

Secondly I'd always plump for option "b", the police MUST be involved when lives are threatened and property damaged.

Lastly, say it DID make it to trial, and I was the judge: I think I would sentence the kids dependent on their ages. If they were teenagers, it'd be a community service order, for say... oh, twenty hours. If they were younger than teenagers, I might force their parents to attend some crime-prevention lectures with them or something. Also in the latter case, the parents would pay for the damage caused to the vehicles involved. In the former case, the teens would be billed.

But in both cases as you will see, the kids receive a punishment. It isn't juvenile detention in this case, but in some cases where the kids are habitual offenders, it might be.

Does that answer your question?

Originally Posted by igyman:

When adults are concerned, I completely agree, but we are talking about kids here and when kids are concerned, the answer is: no, it's not entirely up to them. They are kids and they need someone to explain to them why are things like that wrong and why they shouldn't do it ever again. You have to realize that teenagers mainly don't commit such acts (at least as far as I know), they have matured enough to know that it's foolish and not at all fun (there are obviously exceptions, as this boy that got shot, but I think fourteen is the top age limit). We are talking about mostly kids who are below fourteen and mostly between eight and eleven-twelve. I just don't think kids should be branded as criminals at that age, I think a criminal record would seriously hurt their future and not teach them anything about right or wrong, or about responsibility. It would simply freak them out.Firstly your assertion that "fourteen is the top age limit" for such behaviour is a nonsense. ADULTS commit similar acts, and worse.

Secondly if you're concerned that kids need someone to explain to them why things like that are wrong... The police and judiciary will do that. They still have to be involved.

Originally Posted by igyman:

You cannot compare adults to children. Adults are called adults because they are considered to be responsible and mature members of human society. When an adult breaks the law he alone is responsible for his actions. A child is not mature enough to understand everything about responsibility and ''right and wrong''. It's the main reason children don't have the right to vote - they aren't self-conscious, mature and educated enough to take that responsibility.To be frank, neither are most adults. I can state that YOU were more mature than some adults when you were a young kid, without fear of contradiction. I can state that I was more mature than some adults when I was a young kid, without fear of contradiction.

If a lack of maturity means one should not be prosecuted for one's crimes... we wouldn't prosecute HALF the adult criminals in the world.

And once again, kids get special treatment already. In sentencing. That's enough of an acknowledgement of their age. It's quite enough.

igyman
12-15-2006, 01:34 PM
Well, though we haven't managed to convince each other to change our opinion about these things getting to trial, at least we are both clear on each other's opinion on the matter.
The thing I said about getting the cops to explain to the kids why certain things are wrong, dangerous and criminal is as far as I'd be willing to go when police involvement is concerned.