Holy mackerel my kids & grands were/are total angels compared to what I’m reading here!
That’s not true at all. Insurance companies certainly pay out less than they receive in premium, but I guarantee that nearly every homeowner with a major loss like in the OP was paid out FAR more than they paid in. Insurance companies profit by spreading risk their risk out.
A home that burns down and loses everything pays out on Coverage A and Coverage C. Coverage A is the structure. Coverage C is the contents. Some people don’t get Coverage C, like the person in the OP.
I wonder who called them to tell them who did it, and what was said and how they knew about it.
I’m spoilering this because I know I would be criticized for saying this, but does anyone else wonder if this was some kind of setup?
A more likely explanation is they knew exactly which neighborhood kids are trouble. As in they’d had minor run-ins before.
That sounds plausible. The amount of damage seems malicious.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the kids bragged about it to their friends, either in person or via text messages and social media.
This.
I guess they learned that trick from their parents who visited the Capitol on Jan 6.
They were probably covered in glitter and god-knows-what-all from head to toe.
Why would that matter? It sounds like the police know who was responsible.
The latest question is how the police or victims first learned who the perps were. The speculation being the perps bragged on social media or to IRL friends and so outed themselves.
So, any more information about this?
Of course kids can be charged with crimes in SC. That’s why there’s a juvenile justice system there. To wit,
Any person, including law enforcement, who believes that a child has committed a criminal or status offense, may initiate a family court proceeding involving the child. Under most circumstances, the solicitor or someone authorized by the family court will prepare a petition and file it with the family court. A petition, which is similar to an indictment in the adult system, is a formal document alleging that a child committed a delinquent act.
After the petition is filed, the child and the child’s parents or guardian are notified of
the charges against the child. The court will then set a date and time for the
ajudicatory hearing, which is the hearing where the judge decides whether the juvenile is “guilty” or “not guilty” of the alleged offense(s).
I don’t understand why the sheriff says they can’t be charged.
Children under the age of responsibility can’t be charged, even in the juvenile delinquency system. If they’ve done something serious, there could be a juvenile dependency case against the parents based on a failure to supervise, if it is putting the child at risk.
The Daily Mail picked up the story; they interviewed the couple and ran a bunch of additional pictures of the wreckage. The Kennys are suing the parents of the vandals, but (as noted earlier in this thread) their liability is limited to $5,000.
The GoFundMe set up for the family has raised just over $10,000.
Daily Mail says the ages have not been released by the police.
But South Dakota is one of 34 states that have not specified a lowest age for either delinquency or status offenses. (Status offenses are conduct charges that would not be a crime if committed by an adult, such as truancy or alcohol consumption.)
See here.
Your link says SD has a lower age limit of 10 for delinquency charges.
ETA:. Hang on, you meant South Carolina. Let me have a look. But you don’t need to specify it by statute for police and prosecutors to know they can’t charge.
Sorry, that was a tired typo. Yes, South Carolina. If it’s not specified by statute, why can’t police and prosecutors charge? (I’m not saying they should charge. I’m trying to understand why the sheriff said children cannot be charged.)
The Sheriff and a prosecutor have responsibilities not to charge people if they know the person can’t be held responsible. Prosecutors have ethical obligations not to charge someone if they don’t think they can prove the charge.
Even if there’s no lower age limit, to hold a child responsible in the delinquency system, prosecutors would have to deal first with competency to stand trial, and then would have to deal with the applicable criminal intent as an element of the offense. I believe that there would be a probable cause hearing early on to see if the state could establish sufficient evidence of the ability to form criminal intent.
Imagine that a charge of criminal mischief requires the intent to permanently deprive someone of property. Less mature kids don’t even understand what “permanent” means, let alone think ahead to understand that breaking something means the owner of that thing is deprived of it permanently.