Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the couple of incidents that have happened to me since I moved here, I can confirm it is the view of at least some of the police force. I got harassed by a bunch of kids who were pelting me with garbage and other projectiles (the joys of being a schoolteacher!) and the police I dealt with were sympathetic and all, but also expressed the view that it would be sad to get the kids a criminal record for that behaviour.

I can sorta see the point, but I think perhaps the UK has gone a bit too far down that road. Of course the broader question of why so many kids in the UK are such scummy yobs goes unanswered.

It's pathetic really.

I can, from a certain standpoint, understand that view, but the counter-argument is simple: The kids are being criminals, and they need to learn, very quickly, that there are consequences for their actions. Yes, it's sad, but:

1.) I dunno about the UK, but in the US, Juvenile records are often sealed upon reaching majority age, if I recall correctly, so the consequences won't be all that great, but the kid will be forced to do community service or spend time in a juvenile detention center where they should hopefully learn a harsh lesson.

2.) Perhaps the kids should try not being criminals.

Just make sure you don't use the US juvenile justice system as an example of an efficient, intelligently designed system...

Oh, not at all. I'm just saying that they should face some sort of reasonable consequences for their actions not "oh well, kids will be kids lol!1"

Again, depending on what they really did, they could be tried as an adult at 16.

Lets get real. A 16 year old isn't a kid. When you can make a baby you're not a kid any more.

I agree, at 16 you should have a pretty good idea of what sort of actions will get you into trouble. Throwing rocks at a car, for example. Though no one would have guessed that trouble would have been being bolted in the side by a crossbow. A pissed off driver getting out to give the kid gak maybe, but going medieval on him? Out of the blue.

Infreak wrote:I agree, at 16 you should have a pretty good idea of what sort of actions will get you into trouble. Throwing rocks at a car, for example. Though no one would have guessed that trouble would have been being bolted in the side by a crossbow. A pissed off driver getting out to give the kid gak maybe, but going medieval on him? Out of the blue.

Incorrect. I belive this was in Southern California, the land of drive bys. Kid was lucky he didn't get unloaded on with an AK. People take their cars seriously in California.

Yeah, San Diego. If he was shot I wouldn't have been surprised. It's the crossbow that threw me off. Unless crossbows are the weapon of choice in that area.

Infreak wrote:Yeah, San Diego. If he was shot I wouldn't have been surprised. It's the crossbow that threw me off. Unless crossbows are the weapon of choice in that area.

I guess in San Diego one must be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

kronk wrote:

gorgon wrote: Because, you know, the kid was apparently chucking VW-sized chunks of masonry around like the Hulk.

David killed Goliath with a simple stone.

How about them apples? Or stones, as it were.

This is true, although David was a freakin' superhero and used a sling, which gave him a tremendous mechanical advantage over said kid and his arm, you have to admit.

Avatar 720 wrote:The size of something doesn't make it any more or less deadly. Even a small stone can make a sound that causes the driver to jump or a similar reaction, and thus causes him to make a grave error; how would you react if a stone suddenly struck your windshield out of nowhere? I highly doubt you'd be oblivious to it.

I wouldn't attempt to kill someone in that instance though. Would you? That's the issue here...not whether throwing rocks can be dangerous. It can be, but it still doesn't justify a potentially lethal response, even if we magically inflate the size of the rocks like people are doing here in an attempt to justify their original response.

Troy wrote:The Troll King called. He wants his toilet seat back.

Tell you what. You go ahead and don your sloppy joe sauce-stained Punisher t-shirt, pop your Whitesnake 8-track in the car stereo, and patrol the city with your crossbow looking for children throwing rocks that you can shoot. See how that works out for you, champ. You can send us a postcard from prison and tell us how the repeated violations are going.

What do you against Whitesnake?

I wouldn't attempt to kill someone in that instance though. Would you? That's the issue here...not whether throwing rocks can be dangerous. It can be, but it still doesn't justify a potentially lethal response, even if we magically inflate the size of the rocks like people are doing here in an attempt to justify their original response.

You completely ignored my point. A giant chunk of metal swerving around because the driver was shocked and instinctively threw on the brakes or span the wheel like a madman can cause death too, which is what I was getting at.

I also challenge you to find where people are inflating the size of the rocks, all I can see are people who are saying it would depend on their size and people who are reminding others of previous instances where 'rocks' were thrown, but were significantly larger than made out to be.

Nobody has said what size the rocks were in this scenario, the only thing I can think of that is making you believe they are is the comments about other incidents.

Even a small rock hurled through an open window could strike and kill a child.

What the kid was doing was bad-wrong and he knew it. Shooting him with a crossbow is still over-the-top.

He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?

From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?

kronk wrote:Even a small rock hurled through an open window could strike and kill a child.

What the kid was doing was bad-wrong and he knew it. Shooting him with a crossbow is still over-the-top.

Yea but it gets extra points for cool factor.

Avatar 720 wrote:He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?

From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?

No, I would have preferred the man called the police on the kid and had him arrested.

Then contact the kid's parents about damages on his car's paint.

kronk wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?

From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?

No, I would have preferred the man called the police on the kid and had him arrested.

Then contact the kid's parents about damages on his car's paint.

I think you're overestimating what the police would do in this situation. If it is indeed small rocks, the kids would get a stern talking to and maybe a fine. If they're throwing rocks large enough to incur any serious criminal charges, they very easily could have killed someone, in which case, I would prefer they get shot with a crossbow bolt.

Think of it this way:

If someone walked up to your house, and started throwing baseballs at you, would you be justified to defend yourself?

I'm not really understanding the problem here.

A 16 year old "kid" was throwing rocks at a car. This could have not only killed the driver in a number of ways, but could have caused him to panic and hit another car.

The "kid" got off lucky in these circumstances I'd say. He's lucky this guy pulled a one-shot crossbow on him and didn't give him 4 rounds to the chest.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for this young adult.

Shrike325 wrote:

kronk wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?

From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?

No, I would have preferred the man called the police on the kid and had him arrested.

Then contact the kid's parents about damages on his car's paint.

I think you're overestimating what the police would do in this situation. If it is indeed small rocks, the kids would get a stern talking to and maybe a fine. If they're throwing rocks large enough to incur any serious criminal charges, they very easily could have killed someone, in which case, I would prefer they get shot with a crossbow bolt.

Think of it this way:

If someone walked up to your house, and started throwing baseballs at you, would you be justified to defend yourself?

That depends on whether or not they can throw the baseball at 70+ MPH. If it's fething Randy Johnson he's going to take one to the gut.

Amaya wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:

kronk wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?

From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?

No, I would have preferred the man called the police on the kid and had him arrested.

Then contact the kid's parents about damages on his car's paint.

I think you're overestimating what the police would do in this situation. If it is indeed small rocks, the kids would get a stern talking to and maybe a fine. If they're throwing rocks large enough to incur any serious criminal charges, they very easily could have killed someone, in which case, I would prefer they get shot with a crossbow bolt.

Think of it this way:

If someone walked up to your house, and started throwing baseballs at you, would you be justified to defend yourself?

That depends on whether or not they can throw the baseball at 70+ MPH. If it's fething Randy Johnson he's going to take one to the gut.

Considering the analogy... I'm going to say yes, he can and is throwing them at 70+ MPH

And that's why I'm getting the shotgun and full body armor. I wonder how much damage Randy Johnson could do with some type of throwing weapon...

Any major league pitcher with a throwing axe would probably be a dangerous man.

*Remove this post please *

Da Boss wrote:From the couple of incidents that have happened to me since I moved here, I can confirm it is the view of at least some of the police force. I got harassed by a bunch of kids who were pelting me with garbage and other projectiles (the joys of being a schoolteacher!) and the police I dealt with were sympathetic and all, but also expressed the view that it would be sad to get the kids a criminal record for that behaviour.

I can sorta see the point, but I think perhaps the UK has gone a bit too far down that road. Of course the broader question of why so many kids in the UK are such scummy yobs goes unanswered.

Basically it is because it has become so hard to get a shotgun licence if you live in an urban area.

ah,justice at its finest.

Not sure if this is threadromancy or not...

Did the bolt go through or did the kid got to the hospital with like 8" of steel sticking out of him?

A Lannister always pays his debts (to society).

Nerivant wrote:A Lannister always pays his debts (to society).

but paying those rarely helps society..but this time it did.