NY Blogger Criticized For Posting Photos of Teen Vandals(pixiq.com)
pixiq.com
NY Blogger Criticized For Posting Photos of Teen Vandals
http://www.pixiq.com/article/ny-blogger-criticized-for-posting-photos-of-teen-vandals
14 comments
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
> Must we be accountable for every little thing we do?
Of course you're right that in general people must be held accountable for their crimes. However, it's somewhat different for children, who need and deserve some protection from the stupid things they do in their youth.
I fully support the punishment of the children, and any and all legal ramifications they receive, but I don't believe they should be help accountable forever. I suspect that when these kids go for jobs in 10 years, the first result in Google will be the post with their names and their foolish youthful actions.
Of course you're right that in general people must be held accountable for their crimes. However, it's somewhat different for children, who need and deserve some protection from the stupid things they do in their youth.
I fully support the punishment of the children, and any and all legal ramifications they receive, but I don't believe they should be help accountable forever. I suspect that when these kids go for jobs in 10 years, the first result in Google will be the post with their names and their foolish youthful actions.
Cry me a river! If the worst of the things that I did as a kid showed up in my Google results I'd still be hireable. Why? Because I was a goody two-shoes who never did anything wrong? Nope! So why, then?
Because while I was maybe mischievous, I wasn't a malicious little shit doing pointlessly antagonistic and destructive things.
Because while I was maybe mischievous, I wasn't a malicious little shit doing pointlessly antagonistic and destructive things.
For $500 I will seed the web about your accomplishments in nursing baby kittens back to health, your support for the disabled, and how green you are in your buying goats to mow your lawn instead of a gas mower.
The part were you are an arsonist, run a medicare fraud ring, and have stolen millions from investors will be so far back in the Google results it will be like it never happened.
The part were you are an arsonist, run a medicare fraud ring, and have stolen millions from investors will be so far back in the Google results it will be like it never happened.
Wasn't there a HN post a while back about how this is actually becoming a really big business? Reverse SEO or something like that.
I'm thinking that you don't subscribe the the idea that people can get a second chance to turn their life around (or that people can turn their life around).
No, that's not it at all.
I just think that someone so blatantly being a jackass, and being filmed in the act, deserves all the publicity that they get. I'm not suggesting we burn these kids at the stake or tattoo their crimes on their forehead. I just fail to see why anyone should bemoan their potentially besmirched reputation. Boo. Hoo.
I just think that someone so blatantly being a jackass, and being filmed in the act, deserves all the publicity that they get. I'm not suggesting we burn these kids at the stake or tattoo their crimes on their forehead. I just fail to see why anyone should bemoan their potentially besmirched reputation. Boo. Hoo.
At the very least, publicizing it before a trial taints the jury pool... I'm not one to champion the idea of trial by public opinion (because there are a number of cases where public opinion is wrong).
If that's the case, all crimes should be kept private.
I don't think anyone is advocating jail time for egging people. But you should at least get SOME negative repercussions from your behavior. A $200 fine should still enable people to turn "their lives around". They should at least be forced to clean up the mess they've made.
In olden times when we lived in small villages, yes people knew when someone was being an asshole. And they remembered. One more disincentive against bad behavior.
And people know they are dealing with a young person and the potential to grow out of it. All the more reason to make the consequences immediate and not have them learn they can treat badly without consequence.
In olden times when we lived in small villages, yes people knew when someone was being an asshole. And they remembered. One more disincentive against bad behavior.
And people know they are dealing with a young person and the potential to grow out of it. All the more reason to make the consequences immediate and not have them learn they can treat badly without consequence.
>I don't think anyone is advocating jail time for egging people.
I am. I don't think a fine effectively gets across the point that battery and vandalism are crimes, not minor violations like jaywalking. $200 is a speeding ticket, and to some upper-middle class teenagers, little more than pocket change. Three days in jail (or juvenile detention), on the other hand is most likely a novel and frightening experience that's actually likely to discourage similar behavior in the future.
I am. I don't think a fine effectively gets across the point that battery and vandalism are crimes, not minor violations like jaywalking. $200 is a speeding ticket, and to some upper-middle class teenagers, little more than pocket change. Three days in jail (or juvenile detention), on the other hand is most likely a novel and frightening experience that's actually likely to discourage similar behavior in the future.
> some upper-middle class teenagers, little more
> than pocket change
> Three days in jail (or juvenile detention), on
> the other hand is most likely a novel and frightening
> experience that's actually likely to discourage similar
> behavior in the future.
oh, ok then. Give them a little time in the corner. Even that is not life ending. Even Martha bounced back.
"the first result in Google will be the post with their names and their foolish youthful actions..."
Actually it won't be... Google works like the world does. If these kids were to do more valuable things with there time and be recognized for that, then these pages with fall in their ranking.
Actually it won't be... Google works like the world does. If these kids were to do more valuable things with there time and be recognized for that, then these pages with fall in their ranking.
Perhaps, but their attempts to do valuable things will be more difficult. They'll have a very hard time beating a viral video before they apply to college, and getting into college is going to be incredibly difficult once the selection committee Googles them.
"They'll have a very hard time beating a viral video before they apply to college, and getting into college is going to be incredibly difficult once the selection committee Googles them."
Are you saying that these kids should be admitted into college over kids that don't throw rocks at people and destroy other people's property?
Are you saying that these kids should be admitted into college over kids that don't throw rocks at people and destroy other people's property?
There are plenty of decent-quality state universities that have essentially mechanistic admissions by functions of GPA, class rank, & standardized test scores.
I think they'll learn more by being held accountable for their actions than being given a pass.
The only reason people are scrutinized right now is because it's a small number of people (relative to actual population) having embarrassing things archived online. Once everything stupid anyone anywhere does is online either they wont be able to find your sins for the sheer noise or they wont be able to find enough candidates who don't have similar/worse things.
exactly. but it will be all important to the person committing the crime at the time and hopefully that will be the lesson they need.
and perhaps it will be a lesson to parents to know what their kid is up to. Its the mom thats really complained here and again, its better to suffer the embarrassment when its about something minor
and perhaps it will be a lesson to parents to know what their kid is up to. Its the mom thats really complained here and again, its better to suffer the embarrassment when its about something minor
I clicked through to the link where the people in the town meeting call him a pedophile. I really enjoy watching the town meeting -- 15 minutes of chaos and whining for no reason. People continue to amuse me.
BTW, why is it OK to use "pedophile" as an insult? If you used other mental diseases as insults, it's considered offensive. ("You're a retard!")
(Incidentally, I am not sure what insult to use for someone that thinks there's a link between wanting to have sex with undeveloped children and videotaping developed teenagers committing crimes.)
BTW, why is it OK to use "pedophile" as an insult? If you used other mental diseases as insults, it's considered offensive. ("You're a retard!")
(Incidentally, I am not sure what insult to use for someone that thinks there's a link between wanting to have sex with undeveloped children and videotaping developed teenagers committing crimes.)
I suppose the good response would be "The term is pederasty, you retard!"
I suppose the best response possible would be to be waiting with predrafted legal papers for slander and ask "Sir what is your name?" when they're forced to respond simply fill out their name and say "Consider yourself served".
I suppose the best response possible would be to be waiting with predrafted legal papers for slander and ask "Sir what is your name?" when they're forced to respond simply fill out their name and say "Consider yourself served".
I clicked through to the link where the people in the town meeting call him a pedophile
I would like to hear that someone was sued for slander for that. It's an outrageous accusation as a weak "Witch!" cry because their poorly raised, nit wit, addled youth are morons.
I would like to hear that someone was sued for slander for that. It's an outrageous accusation as a weak "Witch!" cry because their poorly raised, nit wit, addled youth are morons.
Yeah, I don't understand why he even went to the meeting. Let them take him to court. Which they can't do, because he did nothing other than helping the police investigate a crime in progress.
Their "pedophile" is my "model citizen", and I think most people are on my side :)
Their "pedophile" is my "model citizen", and I think most people are on my side :)
I actually work with the NYC Law Department's juvenile crimes division. They normally would prosecute a case like this, and yes, their prosecutors are savvy enough to check the kids' Facebook pages and use it as evidence.
Of course if the police don't arrest them, the process won't start, so bringing pressure on the police through the blog and the press might get things started so they can prosecute the teens.
Of course if the police don't arrest them, the process won't start, so bringing pressure on the police through the blog and the press might get things started so they can prosecute the teens.
"My sons picture should not even be taken and put on this page with out my consent!"
In an age when almost everyone has a camera and Internet access in their pocket, I'm amazed at how ignorant people still are regarding photo/privacy rights ... and I'm not one to have high expectations of society.
In an age when almost everyone has a camera and Internet access in their pocket, I'm amazed at how ignorant people still are regarding photo/privacy rights ... and I'm not one to have high expectations of society.
That is danish law btw. I can get a court order demanding that my picture be removed from facebook, if somebody uploads it against my will, and I can sue that person under Danish law.
Man, I wish those punks would do something like that in my neighborhood. 5 or 6 guys should get together with some nice, big sticks and go patrol the streets. Let some kid throw an egg at them and then go beat the crap out of him (meaning hit him once or twice in a non-vulnerable part of the body until he cries but not cause any actual physical harm). It will only take one kid, one year. Problem solved forever.
Self defense.
Self defense.
Hm, that neighborhood is a few minutes from me. Some of the schools in that area are just foul.
I live under the 61st precinct. WORST precinct ever. Internal affairs should be all over that precinct. They don't give a damn. The best way to keep your crime stats low is to refuse to respond to any calls or file any reports.
It's not only OK to record people committing offences, it's an obligation in a modern society where all citizens should be encouraged to take an interest in the safety of their communities (without issuing summary judgments or punishments, of course). We do not deserve to be constantly "monitored" but once you break the laws and rules of a community, you waive a little of your liberty.
People who dig their heads in the sand and ignore minor crime while "leaving to the police" are screwing over their communities with their indifference. And teenagers? That's especially when people should get involved - kids who never learn what the boundaries are become shitty adults.
People who dig their heads in the sand and ignore minor crime while "leaving to the police" are screwing over their communities with their indifference. And teenagers? That's especially when people should get involved - kids who never learn what the boundaries are become shitty adults.
You have to understand the neighborhood in which this happens. This blogger has been fighting a losing battle for years now. The community is so incredibly insular that instead of Dave being a hero for what he does, he's considered to be, well, you saw the footage from the community meeting (and you don't know what he had to do to even get that far, they tried to ban him from those too when he first started, even though he's a resident and entitled to be there).
Gerritsen Beach is its own place. I'm not excusing it, but it explains so much.
Gerritsen Beach is its own place. I'm not excusing it, but it explains so much.
People in "my" country get sentences for posting security camera footage of robberies in their shops. I find that to be utterly ridiculous.
Minor remark on the quote at the end of the article:
Screenshots were available publicly therefore submitted to the public domain.
Again with the public domain? Of course that's not what the whole article is about, but I'm astonished how this kind of reasoning seems to have manifested itself.
Screenshots were available publicly therefore submitted to the public domain.
Again with the public domain? Of course that's not what the whole article is about, but I'm astonished how this kind of reasoning seems to have manifested itself.
This might be slightly off topic, but the first thing I thought was that if they were black they would have been arrested, guaranteed.
[deleted]
I will be so bold as to say this: I doubt there are many places in Texas where this would have happened without those kids getting arrested, or barring that, being rightfully assaulted.
When one attacks another's person and property, one should expect retribution.
When one attacks another's person and property, one should expect retribution.
" I doubt there are many places in Texas where this would have happened without those kids getting arrested,"
I think the problem here was that these kids are the children of local cops, who willingly turned a blind eye.
I think the problem here was that these kids are the children of local cops, who willingly turned a blind eye.
People in Texas are allowed to have guns. NY not so much.
Just ONE adult with a shiny chrome .45, 1911 frame or shotgun would have stopped all of this in its tracks.
EDIT to add: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Just ONE adult with a shiny chrome .45, 1911 frame or shotgun would have stopped all of this in its tracks.
EDIT to add: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -- Robert A. Heinlein
As a gun owner and advocate of gun rights, I feel the need to call this out as an example of an inappropriate time to use or display a firearm. Vandalism and misdemeanor battery are not cause to threaten someone with deadly force. To do so is highly irresponsible and usually criminal.
Please have another look at the article and notice that they were throwing rocks in some cases, and caused the shutdown of a couple of buses due to damage, as well as throwing items at people not inside cars, including someone out with their child in a stroller.
From the article: "An older man in his late 60′s was driving along Gerritsen Avenue when his car was hit by eggs, when he exited the vehicle he was pelted by dozens of eggs, rocks were thrown, chucks of brick, and someone tossed a hammer."
From the article: "An older man in his late 60′s was driving along Gerritsen Avenue when his car was hit by eggs, when he exited the vehicle he was pelted by dozens of eggs, rocks were thrown, chucks of brick, and someone tossed a hammer."
I read it. I consider it borderline at best. While these objects could cause serious injuries, they probably won't under those circumstances, and a retreat is probably a better option than brandishing a gun. I believe you should never brandish a gun unless you're prepared to kill somebody, and I'd be very hesitant to kill somebody for throwing rocks.
Most places would not consider this to be a weapon-brandishing situation. Furthermore, New York State has more restrictive gun laws than most states.
In Baltimore anyone dumb enough to do that deserves the bullet they'll get in their head.
<i>"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -- Robert A. Heinlein</i>
And how's that been working out lately for you Americans?
And how's that been working out lately for you Americans?
Quite well, actually. States with "shall issue"[1] laws have seen a significant reduction in violent crimes. I believe Florida is the one with the longest data.
Much like the repeal of the national 55mph speed limit, the arguments against were all FUD. Neither resulted in bloodbaths.
[1] A law which requires the state to issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon, except under specific disqualifying circumstances, which the state bears the onus showing.
Much like the repeal of the national 55mph speed limit, the arguments against were all FUD. Neither resulted in bloodbaths.
[1] A law which requires the state to issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon, except under specific disqualifying circumstances, which the state bears the onus showing.
[deleted]
Of course, I'm joking. I applaud the posting.
We had a similar thing near here where a package thief was recorded making her rounds. And the thieves among us commented how terrible it was that she was put on public display for her crimes.
This actually foreshadows a future where petty crime becomes very difficult. Not only will there be more cameras, but software will improve to the point where it can recognize suspicious behavior and unrecognized persons and anticipate crime. Maybe even zoom in on it, call other mobile cameras to the scene to capture the action from multiple angles, track the criminal until law enforcement can get to them, alerting the neighbors to steer clear.
And criminals will have their countermeasures. Burglaries may be performed by robots that fly into your garage as the door closes when you leave for the office.