Capture Vandals Destroying Property, Get Arrested

[Nekojin]

It does, though, make it legal.

I was countering smileyeagle's point that "it could be argued that he had the responsibility" to perform a citizen's arrest. His wording suggested that he could be in trouble for NOT attempting a citizen's arrest, which is absurd on the face of it.

Is he legally justified? Maybe. Is it likely more of a legal hassle than just letting them get away? Almost certainly.

[smileyeagle1021]

I was countering smileyeagle's point that "it could be argued that he had the responsibility" to perform a citizen's arrest. His wording suggested that he could be in trouble for NOT attempting a citizen's arrest, which is absurd on the face of it.

Responsibility and obligation/requirement aren't the same thing.
I have the responsibility to change the oil in my car every 7500 miles... if I fail to do so I will have to face the possibility of expensive repairs to my car, but I will face no sanction for not doing it. I do however have the obligation to keep my brakes in good working order, failing to do that will result in fines for unsafe operation of a vehicle.
In this case, as a witness to a crime, he has the responsibility to do whatever he can to see that the criminals face justice... his obligation though is limited to filing a police report. Indeed, if he refused to make a witness statement, then he would be in trouble
Also, for the wording I chose, context is important, the reason citizens arrest exists is because back when the laws were written, about the only way a criminal was brought to justice was if they were dumb enough to commit their crime in front of a sheriff, the sheriff couldn't be everywhere, so they made it possible for anyone to act as law enforcement when needed.

Also, I think BlaqueKatt hits the nail on the head, financial injury can be just as bad as a physical injury... if someone destroyed even $4000 of my wealth, much less the $40,000, I would be living on the street, which would be worse than death... at least in death there is dignity.

[Andara Bledin]

Pardon me while I roll my eyes. A family that can afford to not live in a house at all while renovating it is not going to be "on the street" at even $40,000 worth of damage. The house wasn't being lived in before, and it will continue to not be lived in, now.

Also, your comment about the time in which citizens' arrest being put into law speaks to the idea that the concept is outdated and no longer relevant, not that it needs to be followed more often. Not in the days of surveillance, fingerprinting (you know those kids weren't wearing gloves), and the fact that they were known to the property owners already. Holding them in a closet was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Which is why he's being charged.

Plus, living on the street is worse than death? Really? You've got some terribly skewed priorities.

[Nekojin]

Responsibility and obligation/requirement aren't the same thing.

This is sophistic quibbling bullshit. They're synonyms. Now, maybe you're attempting to make a distinction between legal responsibility and moral responsibility, but you're doing a really poor job in making that distinction, if so.

I have the responsibility to change the oil in my car every 7500 miles... if I fail to do so I will have to face the possibility of expensive repairs to my car, but I will face no sanction for not doing it. I do however have the obligation to keep my brakes in good working order, failing to do that will result in fines for unsafe operation of a vehicle.

"Obligation" doesn't inherently mean legal obligation, and "responsibility" doesn't inherently mean moral responsibility. Perhaps this is where we're having a breach of communication, but even beside that, your original statement is flat-out wrong, regardless of how you're interpreting the words.

In this case, as a witness to a crime, he has the responsibility to do whatever he can to see that the criminals face justice... his obligation though is limited to filing a police report. Indeed, if he refused to make a witness statement, then he would be in trouble

This is flat-out wrong. He has no such responsibility, legal or moral. Choosing to not file a police report is not a crime. Refusing to file a police report is not a crime. There is no legal penalty for failing to do so - you can't get "in trouble" for that. Moreover, your original statement was wrong, regardless of context. Your statement was:

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.

No such responsibility exists, or ever existed. He has a moral responsibility to protect himself and his property. He may be able to do more than that (such as with Citizen's Arrest), but that's not in any way the same thing as a responsibility to do something.

Also, for the wording I chose, context is important, the reason citizens arrest exists is because back when the laws were written, about the only way a criminal was brought to justice was if they were dumb enough to commit their crime in front of a sheriff, the sheriff couldn't be everywhere, so they made it possible for anyone to act as law enforcement when needed.

Sure, but there's no responsibility or obligation, legal or moral, for people to do that, and never was. Not then, not now.

The history of a law is far less relevant than the current application of said laws, in any case, and the reality of current law regarding CA is that attempting a Citizen's Arrest opens a whole range of legal problems that may be far beyond the problem you're trying to stop... as this case is demonstrating.

[Kheldarson]

He won't be prosecuted.

[Panacea]

Good.

The father of the boy who claims the kid is "traumatized," is full of it. He's not doing his kid any favors by enabling his kids destructive behavior. What he should do is tell the kid, "you think you're traumatized now? Wait until after we get back from the woodshed. Now go find me a branch to use as a switch."

[Kheldarson]

I saw a news video which states that one of the boys declared his mother put him up to it, as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfj6T...layer_embedded

[smileyeagle1021]

Plus, living on the street is worse than death? Really? You've got some terribly skewed priorities.

Not skewed priorities, pride, and earned pride at that. My family has survived famines and depressions without losing their self sufficiency, and I will be damned if I am the first. Death is easy, once it's done, it's done, but being a stain on the family history will NEVER be washed away. I'm already the black sheep in the family for taking too long to finish college putting me on the career market at a time when entry level positions have ceased to exist making self sufficiency the best I can achieve for a long time, rather than the prosperity the rest of the family has achieved, but by God, I will at least keep my head above water and not be reduced to begging and depending on others just to survive.

[Andara Bledin]

Your reply does nothing but reinforce my stated opinion.

[Tanasi]

Maybe this having took place in yankeeland makes a difference in my AO the guy wouldn't have been charged. He caught the little bastards and they're damned lucky getting shut up in a closet was the worst that happened to them. IMO they certain deserved much worse. One article said he was charged because the kids parents thought he treated them too roughly and they demanded the charges. What he should have done was whipped the ever-lovin tar out of all fours kids and then when the parents complained done the same to them.

Had they broke into my house they wouldn't have been looking at a hammer either but the business end of a shotgun as well as four very large mastiffs.

[BlaqueKatt]

Pardon me while I roll my eyes. A family that can afford to not live in a house at all while renovating it is not going to be "on the street" at even $40,000 worth of damage. The house wasn't being lived in before, and it will continue to not be lived in, now.

And you know this how? By assumption? My MIL didn't live in her house while it was being renovated to be sold before the bank could foreclose(wasn't up to code), her "luxurious lifestyle" was sleeping on her ex-husband's sofa. It's his father-in-law's house, NOT his, the OP states this, and since he's doing the renovations himself, it's likely they aren't just wallowing in money, and more likely that the FIL who owns the house, is staying with them(from the photos It looks like it was quite run down before the vandalism.)

The house is empty while Daniels renovates it for his father-in-law.

[HYHYBT]

I saw a news video which states that one of the boys declared his mother put him up to it, as well.

Now *that* sounds a lot more like child endangerment, if true, than just keeping them from leaving until the police arrived.