If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Former NFL player Brian Holloway, after giving the hundreds of kids who trashed his house the chance to own up to their actions and be forgiven and only four showed up: "Okay, fine, let's start arresting people"   (realclear.com) divider line 322
    More: Followup, Brian Holloway, NFL, Los Angeles Raiders, broken windows  
•       •       •

15536 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2013 at 10:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-27 04:11:52 PM

Ned Stark: yves0010: super_grass: theflatline: super_grass: I get his frustration, but this is just too close to vigilanteism. They're just kids, and posting their pics online is only going to lead to harassment and mistaken identities. Combine that with the attractive nuisance and unsupervised (read: unsafe) condition of his house I'd say things are pretty damned even.

Human safety is worth more than your McMansion, I'm afraid.


So every one who has a summer house, or even leaves their house unattended can not hold anyone liable for breaking in and trashing it because no one was home at the time?

So if 300 kids pop by your house when you are out of town, destroy it, you are going to let bygones be bygones?

Plus these kids posted their own pics online, that is where he got them from.  They are the ones that put it out there.

How are these kids endangered by their pics online?  That the cops will arrest them for a crime they committed, that they themselves posted?

Guy gave them a chance to own it, even threw a big lunch and provided all the stuff necessary to clean up the joint, and only four people showed.

IF you're some 1%-er with a house that you don't live in all year, don't be surprised when people take advantage of the situation. Get some insurance and move on.

The LAW was broken here. They BROKE into the man's house. They DESTROYED his property. He is in his RIGHT to protect his property and livelihood. These kids, even those ignorant of whose house it is, still BROKE THE LAW! This means there is a CONSEQUENCE to THEIR actions The idea that because someone does not use their home(s) all the time does not mean they can not charge someone for breaking and entering.

/Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
//Punishment for every kid who did not show up to help clean up.

Ignorance actually is an excuse for trespassing. Sorry to bust your jailboner.


No it isn't. Do you live there? No. Do you know anyone who currently lives there (I.E. The owner invited you over)? No... Then your trespassing. By definition of the word.

Trespassingn. entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property. Trespass includes erecting a fence on another's property or a roof which overhangs a neighbor's property, swinging the boom of a crane with loads of building materials over another's property, or dumping debris on another's real estate. In addition to damages, a court may grant an injunction prohibiting any further continuing, repeated or permanent trespass. Trespass for an illegal purpose is a crime.

They broke the law and ignorance of said law is still NO EXCUSE!
 
2013-09-27 04:23:48 PM

Ned Stark: Which do you think is more likely, a conspiracy of 300 teenagers who picked out a house and planned a party and maintained perfect secrecy up until the moment the party started and then as a group went immediately full retard and posted pics everywhere -or- a grouop of 8 or so teenagers who planned a party and broke the locks plus 292 teenagers who got a text saying "my c-razy uncle says we got the house for this weekend! Tell all your friends!"


Here's the thing; that excuses the trespassing charges for some of them, maybe.

But does nothing for the vandalism.  I highly doubt anyone thought, "Yeah, this guy's uncle will be fine with kicking holes in walls, breaking windows, and peeing on the rug."
 
2013-09-27 04:25:39 PM

yves0010: Ned Stark: yves0010: super_grass: theflatline: super_grass: I get his frustration, but this is just too close to vigilanteism. They're just kids, and posting their pics online is only going to lead to harassment and mistaken identities. Combine that with the attractive nuisance and unsupervised (read: unsafe) condition of his house I'd say things are pretty damned even.

Human safety is worth more than your McMansion, I'm afraid.


So every one who has a summer house, or even leaves their house unattended can not hold anyone liable for breaking in and trashing it because no one was home at the time?

So if 300 kids pop by your house when you are out of town, destroy it, you are going to let bygones be bygones?

Plus these kids posted their own pics online, that is where he got them from.  They are the ones that put it out there.

How are these kids endangered by their pics online?  That the cops will arrest them for a crime they committed, that they themselves posted?

Guy gave them a chance to own it, even threw a big lunch and provided all the stuff necessary to clean up the joint, and only four people showed.

IF you're some 1%-er with a house that you don't live in all year, don't be surprised when people take advantage of the situation. Get some insurance and move on.

The LAW was broken here. They BROKE into the man's house. They DESTROYED his property. He is in his RIGHT to protect his property and livelihood. These kids, even those ignorant of whose house it is, still BROKE THE LAW! This means there is a CONSEQUENCE to THEIR actions The idea that because someone does not use their home(s) all the time does not mean they can not charge someone for breaking and entering.

/Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
//Punishment for every kid who did not show up to help clean up.

Ignorance actually is an excuse for trespassing. Sorry to bust your jailboner.

No it isn't. Do you live there? No. Do you know anyone who currently lives there (I.E. The owner invited you over)? No... Then your trespassing. By definition of the word.

Trespassingn. entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property. Trespass includes erecting a fence on another's property or a roof which overhangs a neighbor's property, swinging the boom of a crane with loads of building materials over another's property, or dumping debris on another's real estate. In addition to damages, a court may grant an injunction prohibiting any further continuing, repeated or permanent trespass. Trespass for an illegal purpose is a crime.They broke the law and ignorance of said law is still NO EXCUSE!


So you demand to see the deed and a photo ID the first time you ho to anyone's house, right?
 
2013-09-27 04:29:53 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Ned Stark: Which do you think is more likely, a conspiracy of 300 teenagers who picked out a house and planned a party and maintained perfect secrecy up until the moment the party started and then as a group went immediately full retard and posted pics everywhere -or- a grouop of 8 or so teenagers who planned a party and broke the locks plus 292 teenagers who got a text saying "my c-razy uncle says we got the house for this weekend! Tell all your friends!"

Here's the thing; that excuses the trespassing charges for some of them, maybe.

But does nothing for the vandalism.  I highly doubt anyone thought, "Yeah, this guy's uncle will be fine with kicking holes in walls, breaking windows, and peeing on the rug."


And go ahead and throw the book at the ones who you can prove did that shiat. Its not anywhere near a 1:1 ratio with "people who were at the party"
 
2013-09-27 04:36:40 PM
He really went out of his way to try and give them an easy way out after they trashed his house.  Four apologies, and the rest either did nothing or started making threats.  He was nicer to them than they deserved.
 
2013-09-27 04:42:34 PM

Ned Stark: yves0010: Ned Stark: yves0010: super_grass: theflatline: super_grass: I get his frustration, but this is just too close to vigilanteism. They're just kids, and posting their pics online is only going to lead to harassment and mistaken identities. Combine that with the attractive nuisance and unsupervised (read: unsafe) condition of his house I'd say things are pretty damned even.

Human safety is worth more than your McMansion, I'm afraid.


So every one who has a summer house, or even leaves their house unattended can not hold anyone liable for breaking in and trashing it because no one was home at the time?

So if 300 kids pop by your house when you are out of town, destroy it, you are going to let bygones be bygones?

Plus these kids posted their own pics online, that is where he got them from.  They are the ones that put it out there.

How are these kids endangered by their pics online?  That the cops will arrest them for a crime they committed, that they themselves posted?

Guy gave them a chance to own it, even threw a big lunch and provided all the stuff necessary to clean up the joint, and only four people showed.

IF you're some 1%-er with a house that you don't live in all year, don't be surprised when people take advantage of the situation. Get some insurance and move on.

The LAW was broken here. They BROKE into the man's house. They DESTROYED his property. He is in his RIGHT to protect his property and livelihood. These kids, even those ignorant of whose house it is, still BROKE THE LAW! This means there is a CONSEQUENCE to THEIR actions The idea that because someone does not use their home(s) all the time does not mean they can not charge someone for breaking and entering.

/Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
//Punishment for every kid who did not show up to help clean up.

Ignorance actually is an excuse for trespassing. Sorry to bust your jailboner.

No it isn't. Do you live there? No. Do you know anyone who currently lives there (I.E. The owner invi ...


I only go to peoples houses I actually know. And seeing that most of the parties I go to are usually hosted by me. I see no need. But it is still part of the law. And the law can not be ignored. It kinda doesn't work that way.
 
2013-09-27 04:55:47 PM

yves0010: Ned Stark: yves0010: Ned Stark: yves0010: super_grass: theflatline: super_grass: I get his frustration, but this is just too close to vigilanteism. They're just kids, and posting their pics online is only going to lead to harassment and mistaken identities. Combine that with the attractive nuisance and unsupervised (read: unsafe) condition of his house I'd say things are pretty damned even.

Human safety is worth more than your McMansion, I'm afraid.


So every one who has a summer house, or even leaves their house unattended can not hold anyone liable for breaking in and trashing it because no one was home at the time?

So if 300 kids pop by your house when you are out of town, destroy it, you are going to let bygones be bygones?

Plus these kids posted their own pics online, that is where he got them from.  They are the ones that put it out there.

How are these kids endangered by their pics online?  That the cops will arrest them for a crime they committed, that they themselves posted?

Guy gave them a chance to own it, even threw a big lunch and provided all the stuff necessary to clean up the joint, and only four people showed.

IF you're some 1%-er with a house that you don't live in all year, don't be surprised when people take advantage of the situation. Get some insurance and move on.

The LAW was broken here. They BROKE into the man's house. They DESTROYED his property. He is in his RIGHT to protect his property and livelihood. These kids, even those ignorant of whose house it is, still BROKE THE LAW! This means there is a CONSEQUENCE to THEIR actions The idea that because someone does not use their home(s) all the time does not mean they can not charge someone for breaking and entering.

/Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
//Punishment for every kid who did not show up to help clean up.

Ignorance actually is an excuse for trespassing. Sorry to bust your jailboner.

No it isn't. Do you live there? No. Do you know anyone who currently lives there (I.E. The owner invi ...

I only go to peoples houses I actually know. And seeing that most of the parties I go to are usually hosted by me. I see no need. But it is still part of the law. And the law can not be ignored. It kinda doesn't work that way.


There has to have been a first time you went to any house you've ever gone to. Don't care if you knew them. Did you demand proof they owned it or just take em at their word?

Does anyone who come to parties you throw demand proof you have the right to the place?

Has anyone in the world ever done this ridiculous bullshiat?
 
2013-09-27 04:58:07 PM
Ned Stark is arguing very hard that these thugs had a right to trash the guys house.  It's amusing.
 
2013-09-27 05:00:05 PM

yves0010: Ned Stark: yves0010: Ned Stark: yves0010: super_grass: theflatline: super_grass: I get his frustration, but this is just too close to vigilanteism. They're just kids, and posting their pics online is only going to lead to harassment and mistaken identities. Combine that with the attractive nuisance and unsupervised (read: unsafe) condition of his house I'd say things are pretty damned even.

Human safety is worth more than your McMansion, I'm afraid.


So every one who has a summer house, or even leaves their house unattended can not hold anyone liable for breaking in and trashing it because no one was home at the time?

So if 300 kids pop by your house when you are out of town, destroy it, you are going to let bygones be bygones?

Plus these kids posted their own pics online, that is where he got them from.  They are the ones that put it out there.

How are these kids endangered by their pics online?  That the cops will arrest them for a crime they committed, that they themselves posted?

Guy gave them a chance to own it, even threw a big lunch and provided all the stuff necessary to clean up the joint, and only four people showed.

IF you're some 1%-er with a house that you don't live in all year, don't be surprised when people take advantage of the situation. Get some insurance and move on.

The LAW was broken here. They BROKE into the man's house. They DESTROYED his property. He is in his RIGHT to protect his property and livelihood. These kids, even those ignorant of whose house it is, still BROKE THE LAW! This means there is a CONSEQUENCE to THEIR actions The idea that because someone does not use their home(s) all the time does not mean they can not charge someone for breaking and entering.

/Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
//Punishment for every kid who did not show up to help clean up.

Ignorance actually is an excuse for trespassing. Sorry to bust your jailboner.

No it isn't. Do you live there? No. Do you know anyone who currently lives there (I.E. The ...


You are completely wrong about Trespassing. You have to KNOW you are on land where you are not invited. This is why NO TRESPASSING signs were created and why they are posted like every 50 feet or whatever to make it as simple as possible for there to be no illusions about you being where you are not supposed to be. That is why you have to be asked to leave in most circumstances where this is ambiguous, and it isn't Trespassing until you REFUSE.
 
2013-09-27 05:25:34 PM

JuggleGeek: Ned Stark is arguing very hard that these thugs had a right to trash the guys house.  It's amusing.


The rest of y'all are arguing pretty had that a couple hundred teenagers need to do hard time because they were in the general vicinity of some place where vandalism happened.

More frightening than amusing, really.
 
2013-09-27 05:32:11 PM

Ned Stark: Does anyone who come to parties you throw demand proof you have the right to the place?

Has anyone in the world ever done this ridiculous bullshiat?


Do people come to the parties you throw and start breaking windows, punch holes in walls, spray graffiti etc?  Who in the heck goes to somebody's home and does that? What type of idiot sticks around and tweets about it others doing it.
 
2013-09-27 06:15:09 PM
i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-27 07:38:22 PM

Ned Stark: he rest of y'all are arguing pretty had that a couple hundred teenagers need to do hard time because they were in the general vicinity of some place where vandalism happened.


In the vicinity is quite different from "The thugs thought it was funny to post pictures from inside the house they were destroying".

And "take responsibility for your actions" is quite different than the "50 years breaking rocks" that you are pretending people are asking for.

The damages are supposed to be around $20,000.  There are supposedly over 300 kids involved.

If 300 kids kick in $67 each, that covers the 20,000.  But in your world, the guy that owned the house should be the one that has to shell out, because kids have a right to tear up other peoples houses.
 
2013-09-27 07:40:39 PM

Krieghund: If it was my kid, I would tell them not to come forward and apologize.

I'm sure Holloway will stand by his word and won't press charges on the kids that confess, but I wouldn't want to take that chance. And just because he doesn't press charges it doesn't mean the police won't. You know they took the kids that confessed and told them to start coughing up names or they'd be charged with underage drinking, etc.

Even if my kid was in pictures taken at the party, good luck proving the jackass kid in the picture was actually my jackass kid.

The right thing is not necessarily the smart thing.


The right thing is always the right thing. What kind of person are you raising when you teach them that avoiding responsibility is more important than being a quality person?
 
2013-09-27 09:04:05 PM

I_C_Weener: pueblonative: Wonder what the DA who has to prosecute these cases thinks of Mr. Holloway trying this case in the public like this. I'm sure the defense won't try to use that.

Defense: Your honor, I must protest these charges by the State. That man, not the State, made my client feel shame and angst and worry that he might..um...face charges...and stuff.

  the fact that alleged photos of my clients behavior without any context have been spread throughout the potential jury pool, hindering my client's chances for a fair trial.


FTFY.

I know, due process sucks.
 
2013-09-27 09:07:40 PM

scubamage: pueblonative: Wonder what the DA who has to prosecute these cases thinks of Mr. Holloway trying this case in the public like this. I'm sure the defense won't try to use that.

More than likely it will be used against the defense, because it shows that the defendants don't regret their actions.


Do they have a photo of these kids filing past a line that says, "Party at Brian Holloway's place.  Oh, and yeah, we don't have permission of Mr. Halloway to be in here  But that doesn't matter just go in here and trash the home of a man who never consented to have you on his property"?  And does he have 300 faces to go with those 300.  If those don't match up, he has one fark of a defamation suit on his hand, and all the kids would have to prove is negligence.
 
2013-09-27 11:24:57 PM
www.birthdaydirect.com
 
2013-09-28 12:13:19 AM
Good for him. I might have had mixed emotions if he put out for all the arrests first thing, but having given them a fair chance to come forward, I say go ahead and charge every one of those brats you can identify in those pics.
 
2013-09-28 12:39:59 AM

Slappy McLongstockings: Well at the very least this thread sorted out the people that can face up to the damages they cause support certain things...and the ones too afraid to.

Fortunately you can just remove people that don't care to even try and imagine the rivers of chemical waste they help cause with their rampant consumerism...eventually you may be left with a handful of people willing to at least tackle the issue.


Show us on the doll where Monsanto touched you.
 
2013-09-28 02:02:19 AM

freak7: Priapetic: No.  But all parents should raise their kids with some basic concepts of decency so when their friend says, "Hey, we're gonna go to some party Seth's throwing in some house he broke into and trash the place!" their children say no.  This is not that hard a concept.

Yes, all teenagers always do the right thing if they've been raised correctly. Get the fark out of here with that fantasy world shiat.


Take a look in the mirror, you're part of the problem.  Most teens know better than to do this - it's your morality that's suspect.  Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you that you're the asshole.
 
2013-09-28 06:55:36 AM

Walker: dittybopper: SilentStrider: Pocket Ninja: He needs to expand his website to start publicly shaming the worthless enablers those kids have as parents as well.

Second.

Third.  Any objections?

No objections. The motion passes.


Aye.
 
2013-09-28 03:31:28 PM

pueblonative: scubamage: pueblonative: Wonder what the DA who has to prosecute these cases thinks of Mr. Holloway trying this case in the public like this. I'm sure the defense won't try to use that.

More than likely it will be used against the defense, because it shows that the defendants don't regret their actions.

Do they have a photo of these kids filing past a line that says, "Party at Brian Holloway's place.  Oh, and yeah, we don't have permission of Mr. Halloway to be in here  But that doesn't matter just go in here and trash the home of a man who never consented to have you on his property"?  And does he have 300 faces to go with those 300.  If those don't match up, he has one fark of a defamation suit on his hand, and all the kids would have to prove is negligence.


So, if I don't explicitly know that the owner of the house doesn't want me to pee on his carpet, break and steal his stuff, and spray paint graffiti inside the house, it is OK?

How is it defamation if all he is doing is reposting the content others have posted?

And I am not even sure what your '300 faces' comment was supposed to mean. He has pictures, I imagine the most important thing in those pictures is the faces.

The DA may have a hard time proving who did each criminal act, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try and create some level of accountability.  If it hurts some of the kids future chances...well, actions do have consequences.
 
Displayed 22 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report