There are some added complexities for this specific case (teen’s age affects prosecutable offenses, stories of teen’s father and homeowner disagree, etc.), but it made me wonder…what is the appropriate response of a resident to ‘Ring and Run’?
To me, at least for isolated incidents, it’s obvious that ignoring it is the only appropriate response. But what if it’s sporadic but somewhat frequent? A weekly event? Near-nightly? When does it become harrassment? Would minor property damage change the calculus in a substantive way? When does physical confrontation become justified (if ever)?
Again, reading the story just made me wonder a bit. Honestly, I don’t see this as a ‘Great’ debate, but didn’t want to relegate it to IMHO. Thoughts?
The appropriate response is proper landscape design.
Place the door at the end of a longish, semi-enclosed walk. Under the other end of the walk, near the archway in from the street, place the hidden trapdoor with remote release. Monitor the area with video cameras and weight sensors at the door. If the bell is rung and the visitor leaves quickly, trigger the trapdoor to receive a new occupant.
Seriously, there must be some rules governing response to this and other forms of harassment that are petty and fleeting enough to make police response useless. Especially for minors, tackling or otherwise confining them would be wildly disproportionate. On the other hand, over time the harassment (which might not all be by the same teen) could be disastrous to your quality of life.
As tempting as it might be to tag the fleeing teen with paintballs, I would likely just hope it was a neighborhood kid who could be identified by security camera.
I would think that a highly visible security camera (or even perhaps a fake one) should do the job, since no teen would want evidence to go to the police. I sometimes walk my dog past a house on a corner which has a sign stating a security camera is watching - I have no idea if this was in response to a similar problem.
There should be no charges against the homeowner, as long as he doesn’t beat the kid after he catches him. Now if the parent doesn’t beat the kid, the parent should be beaten by the homeowner.
I believe that temporarily confining a trespasser is legal. Isn’t it? Obviously one should hand them over to the proper authorites when such come asking, of course.
Though obviously you can’t unnecessarily injure them. Better make sure that pit trap is well-padded - you wouldn’t want the criminal suing you when they break their arm falling through your skylight.