Capture Vandals Destroying Property, Get Arrested

[bainsidhe]

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3454332.html

Quote: A man who says he caught four boys vandalizing his father-in-law's home has been charged with child endangerment after corralling them in a closet until police arrived.

So he catches kids in the act of causing an estimated 40K worth of damage, he corrals them into a closet while waiting for police, and is then charged with child endangerment. Because you see, these were children and he is apparently a horrible human being for defending his family's property.

One parent claims he threatened the kids with a hammer. A hammer that he confiscated from one of the vandals, I might add. So while it's unfortunate these kids all had weapons and caused 40K worth of damage, let's forget that because OMG the adult had a hammer!!! And one parent has the nerve to say he should've sent the kids home and THEN called the police.

Good grief we've all lost our minds. I hope the parents of these little idiots have insurance to cover damages.

[Panacea]

He could have done the same thing to an adult and gotten away with it. All bets are off when it comes to kids.

I'm not feeling sorry for the kids, even if Daniels is probably wrong on a legal basis. They deserve to have the shit scared out of them. And the boy's dad is an idiot; you don't let criminals get away cold if you can contain them on the scene without endangering yourself.

[bara]

So... the kids are hurt apart from a 'mark' on a boys neck? So he had to get a little rough with them, he didnt hurt the kids and a good scare is probably one of the best things for these young criminals.

[HYHYBT]

...which is mostly undone if the one who scared them is punished for it. Especially if his punishment is greater than theirs.

[Rapscallion]

So, enganderment is more a crime of what he might have done rather than what actually happened?

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

Yet more proof that criminals have more rights in this country than morally upright citizens.

[Andara Bledin]

Technically, even when caught in the act, they are alleged criminals until convicted or they confess. Until then, they still retain full rights and it's not up to people not tasked with the upholding of the law to take it into their own hands. Even the article refers to them as "suspect vandal kids."

Considering that he already knew who the kids were, there was no reason to do more than perhaps get pictures and tell the police who it was.

[Greenday]

At what point were these kids put in danger by the adult? I don't see any evidence to prove such a charge.

[Andara Bledin]

At what point were these kids put in danger by the adult? I don't see any evidence to prove such a charge.

Do you have access to the police report?

If there's been a charge brought, then it's because the prosecutor's office has reason to believe they can make the charge stick. Just because you "don't see it" doesn't mean it isn't there, merely that it hasn't been included in the report(s) you've read.

The reports state he "corralled" the kids into the closet. Considering there were four of them to his one, I would wager there is approximately zero chance that he didn't lay hands on them.

[eta] What I find interesting is that the man claims that he was "just trying to protect his family," despite the fact that nobody actually lives on that property.

Also, one report says that he said they were swinging sledge hammers, not just regular hammers. Another comment, with him standing by the arresting officer, has him stating that he wasn't aware he couldn't "detain children." Under other circumstances, that's called kidnapping.

And, finally, there are other armchair vigilantes who are so uncivilized, that they've been threatening the family of 2 of the boys, including shooting a car on their property with a shotgun. But, hey, it's ok 'cause the kids are vandals, right?

Article at CNYCentra.com

[smileyeagle1021]

it's not up to people not tasked with the upholding of the law to take it into their own hands.

Hate to break it to you, but it totally is.
I give you Citizen's arrest

Most relevantly

Most states have codified the common law rule that a warrantless arrest may be made by a private person for a felony, misdemeanor or "breach of peace."

Further

In general, a private person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that: (1) such other person is committing a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace; and (2) the force used is necessary to prevent further commission of the offense and to apprehend the offender.

So, yes, this man (based on general US law, I haven't found anything specific to New York), had every right and based on the history of citizen's arrest (at one point in time sheriffs actively encouraged the practice in England) could be argued that he had the responsibility to arrest the (alleged) vandals.

[Nekojin]

A law saying that people "may" do something and "is justified" in something in no way suggests that people have a responsibility to do said thing. Or even that it's a good idea.

[Andara Bledin]

The fact that they're minors introduces a paradigm shift that you just don't want to be involved in.

Even if they're hoodlums, they're still kids, and much of society tends to lose it's ability to be rational when kids are involved.

According to New York state law, if they are found guilty he may have the charges against him dropped. If not, he's screwed. The fact that he's been charged is actually precisely correct procedure as a "citizen's arrest" as it stands in NY requires that the "arrested" party be found guilty in order for the "citizen's arrest" to be lawful.

[Hyena Dandy]

This sounds like it introduces a conflict of interest problem.

[BlaqueKatt]

[eta] What I find interesting is that the man claims that he was "just trying to protect his family," despite the fact that nobody actually lives on that property.

well protecting his family's financial well being is still protecting them, as protection doesn't always mean physical protection, and $40,000 in damage could spell financial ruin for some people.

[HYHYBT]

A law saying that people "may" do something and "is justified" in something in no way suggests that people have a responsibility to do said thing. Or even that it's a good idea.

It does, though, make it legal.