• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Enraged store owner flips out on skateboarder, and calls police

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Damaging someone's private property in the process = vandelism.

Then again, that's always been vandelism!

The store owner called it "criminal mischief." I don't know what jurisdiction he is in, and whether the crime is specifically criminal mischief, malicious mischief, or vandalism. In any event, it is likely a misdemeanor.

The thug demonstrates a lack of respect for the law and for other people's property. He thinks that the only consequence for his actions is to pay for the bush when he gets caught. He doesn't understand that he not only civilly injured this man (several times without being caught), he has damaged society, which is why there are criminal penalties in addition to any civil restitution.

I hope a judge makes it really hurt for this guy. That is the only way a 20-year-old is going to learn. Clearly, he doesn't care about others around him or society at large. He cares only about his immediate desires (like a child). The only way to correct an adult who thinks like this is to convince him that his antisocial behavior will hurt him himself. He doesn't care about anyone else.

He is a thug.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
He had no business touching that kid. The kid would have been justified if he had fought back and decked him in the face, the kid was just standing there then the old guy goes all psycho and grabs him. Unnecessary force plain and simple. I woulda clocked em if I were the kid. Though, I don't go around vandalizing property, so I really wouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. lol

Sorry but if I was that kid and that storekeeper was touching me and screaming in my face.. Mr. Skateboard would have gotten real close and personal with his noggin.

Agreed, the store owner laid hands on the skateboarder. Someone (non-LEO) lays hands on you, you got the right to self-defense. That is a well settled and recognized right on this forum. I'm rather amazed (No, I'm not) that a few, like KBC, somehow cannot "see" the contact by the store owner.

Seems to me that this kind of event, if real, is a reasonably good example of how a gun in the mix could have made things MUCH worse.

The interaction/confrontation was intense, problematic and overly emotional (the older man). Probably some laws violated on both sides.

Yet no major injuries or trauma resulted.

Throw a gun in this mix, say with the 20-year old CCing his GLOCK or store owner OCing his Kimber and .... it conceivably would have exploded into a violent ending.

Situation like this . . . better off with no pistolas . . .that much is fer sure . . .

I gotta sympathize with the store owner--those skateboarders, as a group, are pretty much trouble-makers on public streets and, often, private property.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Agreed, the store owner laid hands on the skateboarder. Someone (non-LEO) lays hands on you, you got the right to self-defense. That is a well settled and recognized right on this forum. I'm rather amazed (No, I'm not) that a few, like KBC, somehow cannot "see" the contact by the store owner.

Seems to me that this kind of event, if real, is a reasonably good example of how a gun in the mix could have made things MUCH worse.

The interaction/confrontation was intense, problematic and overly emotional (the older man). Probably some laws violated on both sides.

Yet no major injuries or trauma resulted.

Throw a gun in this mix, say with the 20-year old CCing his GLOCK or store owner OCing his Kimber and .... it conceivably would have exploded into a violent ending.

Situation like this . . . better off with no pistolas . . .that much is fer sure . . .

I gotta sympathize with the store owner--those skateboarders, as a group, are pretty much trouble-makers on public streets and, often, private property.

Most states authorize the use of force when the individual has committed a crime in your presence, or on your property. Non LEO security and loss prevention use force and detain people on a regular basis.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Most states authorize the use of force when the individual has committed a crime in your presence, or on your property. Non LEO security and loss prevention use force and detain people on a regular basis.

That, and the video strongly indicates that the store owner put his hands on the thug. However, "there isn't enough video evidence to overrule the call on the field." In legal speak, there is "reasonable doubt."

The only convincing evidence of a crime on the video is the foolish admission by thug to having removed the bush on several occasions. Criminals is so dumb.
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
I went through this a couple times.. What friggin bush is he talking about the the skater damaged?

I can't say that myself in the skaters position would have stayed around to take that.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I went through this a couple times.. What friggin bush is he talking about the the skater damaged?

I can't say that myself in the skaters position would have stayed around to take that.

There is a place where a bush likely was at the bottom of the frame. I am getting from the video (what the owner says and what the thug admits) that the skate boarders pull the bush out to facilitate jumping over that part of the landscaping. I am sure that the thug has made some half-hearted effort to put the bush back, but bushes won't survive being pulled up and replanted repeatedly.

This thug shows no respect for others or their property. The store owner's actions were over-the-top, but he was dead right. If this thug tried to evade citizen's arrest in Alabama, the store owner would be justified in using any force reasonably necessary to stop him from leaving.

I don't know the law on citizen's arrest where this happened.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
The store owner called it "criminal mischief." I don't know what jurisdiction he is in, and whether the crime is specifically criminal mischief, malicious mischief, or vandalism. In any event, it is likely a misdemeanor.

Texas uses that term, and it's even included in the justification for using deadly force.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;


Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
Yeah he got way to close. if that were me as soon as he rushed me and touched me, he would have gotten decked.

What if you the owner rushed you and touched you and you were OCing?

What might you have done then?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
What if you the owner rushed you and touched you and you were OCing?

What might you have done then?

Well the context is everything. Let me set some up.

Alabama.

Thug was caught in the commission of a crime.

Store owner effects a citizen's arrest.

Thug tries to leave.

Store owner physically restrains him.

Thug pulls a gun.

Add assault with a deadly weapon to the list of charges for the thug. Self-defense cannot be used as a defense if the thug initiated the encounter with a crime and the citizen uses reasonable force to arrest him.

In other States and in other contexts, the outcome will be different. I don't know what State this was.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Texas uses that term, and it's even included in the justification for using deadly force.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;


Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.
You missed the part where it says "to prevent the other's imminent commission of". There was no danger of any crime being committed, the kid had already been cornered and was not attempting to leave when the store owner grabbed him. This akin to a cop arresting someone, then shooting them while they're handcuffed and sitting in the corner.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I hope a judge makes it really hurt for this guy. That is the only way a 20-year-old is going to learn. Clearly, he doesn't care about others around him or society at large. He cares only about his immediate desires (like a child). The only way to correct an adult who thinks like this is to convince him that his antisocial behavior will hurt him himself. He doesn't care about anyone else.

He is a thug.

I think you're grossly overstating the issue, eye95, and the individual's mannerisms, the location of the depotted plant both suggest very strongly otherwise. If he were a thug, he'd have run. He's clear in much better shape than the brow-beating store owner. His primary fault lay in his ignorance that once unpotted, you can't just replace the plant and expect it to live.

I had a roommate in college who walked out of a bar, and for little or no reason, through a small rock towards the side of a building. At least he meant to hit the side. Instead, he hit a window.

It was he who called the cops, told them what happened, offered to pay for the repair of the window.

Unfortunately, he was treated much the same as you would treat skater. He was handcuffed, charged, taken to jail, appeared in court, and was ordered to pay for the window - $75, a fine of $250, and 200 hours of community service.

The police, the judge, the building owner - indeed society at large - viewed him as a "thug" too, and that's what he was painted as, even in the newspapers.

He was no thug. He was my roommate, one of the calmest, most ameniable fellows I've ever known. He didn't get what he deserved. He was absolutely hammered to the maximum extent of the law.

Just as I'm quite sure this skateboarder will be, particularly if most people in society share the same condemning views of him to which you appear to hold firm.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I think you're grossly overstating the issue, eye95, and the individual's mannerisms, the location of the depotted plant both suggest very strongly otherwise. If he were a thug, he'd have run. He's clear in much better shape than the brow-beating store owner. His primary fault lay in his ignorance that once unpotted, you can't just replace the plant and expect it to live.

I had a roommate in college who walked out of a bar, and for little or no reason, through a small rock towards the side of a building. At least he meant to hit the side. Instead, he hit a window.

It was he who called the cops, told them what happened, offered to pay for the repair of the window.

Unfortunately, he was treated much the same as you would treat skater. He was handcuffed, charged, taken to jail, appeared in court, and was ordered to pay for the window - $75, a fine of $250, and 200 hours of community service.

The police, the judge, the building owner - indeed society at large - viewed him as a "thug" too, and that's what he was painted as, even in the newspapers.

He was no thug. He was my roommate, one of the calmest, most ameniable fellows I've ever known. He didn't get what he deserved. He was absolutely hammered to the maximum extent of the law.

Just as I'm quite sure this skateboarder will be, particularly if most people in society share the same condemning views of him to which you appear to hold firm.

Regarding the thug (not your roommate): He is not ignorant. He didn't care. He showed no respect for others. He showed no respect for their property. That makes him one of two things: a not-yet-disciplined child, or a thug. He is 20. He is a thug.

His moral sense is locked in. It won't change. The only way to stop folks from doing things that they do not perceive as morally wrong is to make them see how it will hurt them. This thug does not care about how his actions affect others, so make him care about how it affect him.

Some time in jail (it doesn't have to be a lot) and a fairly sizable fine should be the first step. If he is too stupid (we already know that his morals are severely lacking) to change, escalate the consequences. Eventually, he either gets the message or is physically separated from law-abiding citizens for massive periods of time.
________________________

Your roommate was not an admitted repeat offender. He didn't regularly break out this window and get finally caught by the owner of the window. So, the analogy is inapt. IMO, your roommate, if the facts you relate are correct, should have paid any damages to the owner AND then some, possibly a violation and a fine. We are responsible for the "accidents" that we create. Adults are willing to suffer the consequences for our actions, even beyond actual costs and including fines, even if there was no malicious intent, just negligence.
 
Last edited:
Top