Top notch police work by the Rock Hill, South Carolina Police Department led to the arrest of a twelve-year old boy for larceny. He was charged after his mother revealed to police that the child had, without permission, opened one of his Christmas presents early. The mother, citing the boy’s poor behavior, asked for the arrest, and the officers complied…
I guess simply bringing in the package and hiding it somewhere the kid wouldn’t see it instead of announcing “THIS IS YOUR CHRISTMAS PRESENT!!! DON’T BOTHER IT EVEN THOUGH I’M GOING TO LEAVE IT OUT HERE IN PLAIN VIEW!!!”
:smack:
message continues:
would have made too much sense :rolleyes:
“Ralphie, you know you’re not supposed to go in there! Oh why are you so fascinated with my Forbidden Closet of Mystery?”
Petty larceny? Did he really take something that didn’t belong to him? As long as it’s still in the same house, how can you tell who has posession? Furthermore, if the kid’s name was on the tag, I think that tells us who the item legally belongs to.
We already had a thread about this a few days ago. The kid had broken into his grandmother’s house (not his own) and gone searching for presents. He had also been getting in trouble previously for other petty crimes. His mother (at her wits end) called the police and asked them to arrest him to put a scare in him and they complied. Spending a little time in a police car was probably good for him. I have no problem with it.
Well, strictly speaking, the gift had not been conveyed yet, and although the mother intended to give it to the son in the future, she had not not actually conveyed the gift to him yet.
Sounds like the Garden of Eden!
If this was a piece of jewelry brought to a pawn shop, or a car taken on a joy ride, would we be questioning whether or not it was larceny? They had not yet given him the gift, therefore he does not have the right to take it and use it without permission.
This is really a lot more about a mom trying to scare a bit of discipline into her child before he winds up dead, than the police cracking down on naughty children.
Then she should have put on the tag:
Do not open until Christmas under penalty of petty larceny!!
I think I’ll be using that just to see the expressions on peoples’ faces.
Maybe breaking and entering would have been more appropriate.
This sounds like the monther is unclear on the concept of what bad boys are supposed to get at Christmas time. Why does a kid like that have a Nintendo Game Boy waiting for him under the tree in the first place?
Yep. He should definitely get coal this year.
The present was from the grandmother, not from the mother. He went into his grandmother’s house without permission and stole the present after he’d already been warned not to. How is that NOT a petty larceny?
How do you know he broke into his Grandmother’s house? That information is not in the affidavit.
And if it is true, why not add the charge of burglary?
It completely is. The kid obviously needs some kind of smackdown…hopefully, this will be the thing that does the trick with him.
It was from a CNN link in the previous thread:
Read it again. It’s not there either.
All we should assume from the facts given, is that the boy was lawfully at his grandmother’s house at the time he stole the gift. She was either babysitting him or he was just over there hanging out at grandma’s. Nothing was mentioned of him sneaking in or breaking in.
I see no reason to assume he was there lawfully, but regardless, the point was that he took the gift from someone else’s home, not his own. It WAS theft. He had also previously been in trouble for other things like shoplifting and assaulting a police officer. I really can’t see anything wrong with the mom asking the police to put a little scare into him and help him understand that his actions have consequences.
I agree with **Dio **on this one. Looks like the kid needed a lesson in tough love, so let’s hope this does the trick. From the CNN link (emphasis added):
Yes, it was theft.
Had he broken into the home to steel the gift, it would have been burglary as well.
It’s his great-grandmother and they’re neighbors. Given that fact, and the demographics, and the fact that it’s early Sunday morning… plus the fact that it doesn’t say anything about forced entry anywhere. Pleanty of reason to assume he’s there lawfully. Or, at least, enough reason to NOT assume he was there illegally.