Alleged Chisholm teen grots to face the court

chewy14 said :

So what you’re suggesting is that the government should step in and remove these children from these dysfunctional households?
That the government should actively work to prevent these types of people from having kids in the first place instead of promoting and helping them to have children through various welfare initiatives?

I agree.

I might not word it exactly this way, but basically, yes. Though it’s hard to prevent people having kids (forced sterilisation went out of fashion after Hitler and Stalin, though it may still be in fashion China; I don’t know), you can look at the financial and social incentives and disincentives. But note from my post that it’s not all about money – well-off people also abuse their partners in front of the children, or sexually and/or physically abuse the children. None of which is good for the kids’ development of empathy. And without empathy, what would stop you trashing someone’s house for fun? “No-one cares about me, so why should I care about anyone else?”

IP

mareva said :

Ben_Dover said :

mareva said :

On the first page of this topic there is so much factual inaccuracy about why these kids were charged with aggravated burglary. A solid number of bullshit posts later, someone finally quotes the statutory provisions about aggravated burglary.

And the same people who get basic factual details so hideously wrong, are throwing around lofty opinions about how limp wristed and rubbish the system is.

Gasp, not every Riot Act member has an encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant statutes, ban them all from posting their views and opinions until they do. Otherwise, they may show emotion.

(Isn’t it funny how the lefty; “get in touch with your emotions” types are always anti-emotion if it’s shown by a person with a different viewpoint to theirs?)

mareva said :

Ben Dover – I am not a social worker, but that joke was truly hilarious. Oh wait no. It sucked.

No one expects those on the left to have a sense of humour.

Mate are you on the ganja. Left and right are political affiliations. I have not posted about my political affiliations. You sound paranoid as hell.

What frustrates me is when people attempt to make what is actually quite a sound argument, but they make it so stupidly that it totally undermines the argument and embarrasses me that I actually share, to some extent, their point of view. The difference is I do not make shit up to support my position.

And if you do not have knowledge on something, go right ahead and spout your opinion. But ain’t nobody listening, the moment you start getting some very basic sh*t wrong. So what’s the point even saying it. But look, go right ahead.

So what you are basically saying is: you cannot condemn these pos because you do not know the laws or how things should be worded???

If you are a pos that breaks into peeps houses, you do not get redeemed Bcoz someone did not use the right term when calling the, a pos.

mareva said :

And if you do not have knowledge on something, go right ahead and spout your opinion. But ain’t nobody listening, the moment you start getting some very basic sh*t wrong. So what’s the point even saying it. But look, go right ahead.

“But ain’t nobody listening”, said the person who has replied to, and quoted, my every post.

Now, here’s a trick, see if you can point out this; ” very basic sh*t[sic] which I have got “wrong”. Because, as far as I can see, I have only posted opinion and humour here.

In your own time….

Ben_Dover said :

mareva said :

On the first page of this topic there is so much factual inaccuracy about why these kids were charged with aggravated burglary. A solid number of bullshit posts later, someone finally quotes the statutory provisions about aggravated burglary.

And the same people who get basic factual details so hideously wrong, are throwing around lofty opinions about how limp wristed and rubbish the system is.

Gasp, not every Riot Act member has an encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant statutes, ban them all from posting their views and opinions until they do. Otherwise, they may show emotion.

(Isn’t it funny how the lefty; “get in touch with your emotions” types are always anti-emotion if it’s shown by a person with a different viewpoint to theirs?)

mareva said :

Ben Dover – I am not a social worker, but that joke was truly hilarious. Oh wait no. It sucked.

No one expects those on the left to have a sense of humour.

Mate are you on the ganja. Left and right are political affiliations. I have not posted about my political affiliations. You sound paranoid as hell.

What frustrates me is when people attempt to make what is actually quite a sound argument, but they make it so stupidly that it totally undermines the argument and embarrasses me that I actually share, to some extent, their point of view. The difference is I do not make shit up to support my position.

And if you do not have knowledge on something, go right ahead and spout your opinion. But ain’t nobody listening, the moment you start getting some very basic sh*t wrong. So what’s the point even saying it. But look, go right ahead.

mareva said :

On the first page of this topic there is so much factual inaccuracy about why these kids were charged with aggravated burglary. A solid number of bullshit posts later, someone finally quotes the statutory provisions about aggravated burglary.

And the same people who get basic factual details so hideously wrong, are throwing around lofty opinions about how limp wristed and rubbish the system is.

Gasp, not every Riot Act member has an encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant statutes, ban them all from posting their views and opinions until they do. Otherwise, they may show emotion.

(Isn’t it funny how the lefty; “get in touch with your emotions” types are always anti-emotion if it’s shown by a person with a different viewpoint to theirs?)

mareva said :

Ben Dover – I am not a social worker, but that joke was truly hilarious. Oh wait no. It sucked.

No one expects those on the left to have a sense of humour.

IrishPete said :

How about if stepdad is beating you to sleep each night? Or your parents are both bombed out on Ice and you haven’t had a proper meal since last week? Would any of these kinds of things explain a child with poorly developed social skills, empathy, behaviour?
..IP

Yes, I know a hard upbringing means kids *have* to B&E houses and trash them. It’s nature, and thus no one should mind at all…. If you do mind, you’re shallow and have no empathy.

IrishPete said :

Ben_Dover said :

With recidivism so very high in Australia in general and the ACT in particular, it is difficult to see any substantial decrease in the crime rate, particularly among youth, when the underlying social and economical issues are skirted around, rather than addressed.

Which “underlying social and economical issues”?

How should they be addressed?

How would their being “addressed” prevent these scumbags from becoming even more scumbaggy?*

* if you actually believe that addressing these “issues” would prevent this, I have some homeopathic, organic, powdered unicorn hoof you may want to buy, guaranteed allergy free, cures everything, (apart from stupidity.)

How about if stepdad is beating you to sleep each night? Or your parents are both bombed out on Ice and you haven’t had a proper meal since last week? Would any of these kinds of things explain a child with poorly developed social skills, empathy, behaviour?

I don’t expect everyone on Riot Act to be a Child Psychologist. However, if you can type, I kind of expect a basic level of intelligence. There are current threads about a pregnant prisoner, and about the Brendan Welsh subculture. Do you think that these people always raise well-adjusted children? Do you think that middle-class child sexual abusers raise well-adjusted children? That the off duty cop who beats his wife is a good dad? Or the crazy procrastinating and prevaricating judge? Now make up your own examples, fictional or not.

In fact, with the lack of understanding and humanity of many users on on Riot Act, I’m inclined to think that your parents or guardians didn’t raise well-adjusted children.

(P.s. sometimes you don’t need trolls, you just need intelligent comment, and the blogosphere foams…)

IP

So what you’re suggesting is that the government should step in and remove these children from these dysfunctional households?
That the government should actively work to prevent these types of people from having kids in the first place instead of promoting and helping them to have children through various welfare initiatives?

I agree.

Post 37, people. Read it.

I personally think an appropriate way to deal with these teens would be restorative justice, which makes perps face the victims around a table and see what pain they have caused (and possibly have to clean up the mess). Hopefully all parties will be strongly encouraged to do so.

http://www.justice.act.gov.au/criminal_and_civil_justice/restorative_justice/information_for_offenders

Ben_Dover said :

With recidivism so very high in Australia in general and the ACT in particular, it is difficult to see any substantial decrease in the crime rate, particularly among youth, when the underlying social and economical issues are skirted around, rather than addressed.

Which “underlying social and economical issues”?

How should they be addressed?

How would their being “addressed” prevent these scumbags from becoming even more scumbaggy?*

* if you actually believe that addressing these “issues” would prevent this, I have some homeopathic, organic, powdered unicorn hoof you may want to buy, guaranteed allergy free, cures everything, (apart from stupidity.)

How about if stepdad is beating you to sleep each night? Or your parents are both bombed out on Ice and you haven’t had a proper meal since last week? Would any of these kinds of things explain a child with poorly developed social skills, empathy, behaviour?

I don’t expect everyone on Riot Act to be a Child Psychologist. However, if you can type, I kind of expect a basic level of intelligence. There are current threads about a pregnant prisoner, and about the Brendan Welsh subculture. Do you think that these people always raise well-adjusted children? Do you think that middle-class child sexual abusers raise well-adjusted children? That the off duty cop who beats his wife is a good dad? Or the crazy procrastinating and prevaricating judge? Now make up your own examples, fictional or not.

In fact, with the lack of understanding and humanity of many users on on Riot Act, I’m inclined to think that your parents or guardians didn’t raise well-adjusted children.

(P.s. sometimes you don’t need trolls, you just need intelligent comment, and the blogosphere foams…)

IP

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

How_Canberran said :

Genie said :

I can’t see a single response to my suggestion that people put their hands up if they didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. You almost certainly did. I did. That crime had a victim. But now you are Holier Than Thou.

IP

I will admit to breaking the law as a teenager. However, drinking a flagon of fruity lexia in a park is a victimless crime (except for me when my folks found out), destroying someones hard earned possessions is not. At 13/14 you do know right from wrong, you do know that breaking into someones house and trashing it is against the law. If, at this age you don’t realise that these actions are reprehensible you probably should not be allowed out unsupervised.

Yes, key point – “should not be allowed out unsupervised”. Not all 13 year olds are the same, and if yours isn’t as mature as they should be, then you should be supervising them more closely. It’s called parental responsibility – don’t blame the child, consider blaming the parents.

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

mareva said :

So much emotionally-charged ignorance in this thread. Thank the lord none of you are magistrates or judges.

Explain

On the first page of this topic there is so much factual inaccuracy about why these kids were charged with aggravated burglary. A solid number of bullshit posts later, someone finally quotes the statutory provisions about aggravated burglary.

And the same people who get basic factual details so hideously wrong, are throwing around lofty opinions about how limp wristed and rubbish the system is.

Get a grip people. If you want anyone to take you seriously, do your damn homework before coming to the table with some big mouth opinion. Otherwise you do your own cause massive disfavours.

Ben Dover – I am not a social worker, but that joke was truly hilarious. Oh wait no. It sucked.

mareva said :

So much emotionally-charged ignorance in this thread. Thank the lord none of you are magistrates or judges.

Oh come on there’d be quite a few rioters more than happy to put their hand up for that role,besides there’s a real shortage of hanging judges 🙂

mareva said :

So much emotionally-charged ignorance in this thread. Thank the lord none of you are magistrates or judges.

Explain

So much emotionally-charged ignorance in this thread. Thank the lord none of you are magistrates or judges.

Indeed, we wouldn’t want any justice being meted out. Let’s give them a big hug instead. Oh, and let’s prioritise solving their underlying social and economical issues first.

Two social workers are walking down the road, when they see an elderly woman lying bleeding and battered in the road, she’s obviously been the victim of a savage beating. One social worker one turns to the other and says; “We must find out who did this, they need our help…”

So much emotionally-charged ignorance in this thread. Thank the lord none of you are magistrates or judges.

With recidivism so very high in Australia in general and the ACT in particular, it is difficult to see any substantial decrease in the crime rate, particularly among youth, when the underlying social and economical issues are skirted around, rather than addressed.

Which “underlying social and economical issues”?

How should they be addressed?

How would their being “addressed” prevent these scumbags from becoming even more scumbaggy?*

* if you actually believe that addressing these “issues” would prevent this, I have some homeopathic, organic, powdered unicorn hoof you may want to buy, guaranteed allergy free, cures everything, (apart from stupidity.)

Heavs said :

How_Canberran said :

“Nothing like a nice piece of hickory”.

How Canberran

Yay for the return of the retarded catchphrase. I’ve missed it so much.

Most monotonously retarded, that is….

Could be worse, could be krats…

How_Canberran said :

“Nothing like a nice piece of hickory”.

How Canberran

You’re not even trying .. Nothing you’re putting forward is very Canberran at all!

Interesting comments in this thread.

We run a program at Bimberi Youth Justice Centre ( http://bigbangballers.org/?p=408 ) and have run similar programs in 3 other countries. Without fail we find a mix of young people who genuinely don’t understand the concept of right vs wrong, young people who simply don’t care and finally young people who understand, care yet for one reason or another cannot make the right choices.

The frustrating aspect of the continuous debate over the state of young people in our communities is the extremism at both sides of the spectrum. Those advocating locking up kids and throwing away the keys and those advocating nothing but counselling are both missing what many of the commentators on this post are pointing out; there is never just 1 simple reason for this kind of behaviour, therefore there cannot be 1 simple solution, as wonderful and helpful that would be.

With recidivism so very high in Australia in general and the ACT in particular, it is difficult to see any substantial decrease in the crime rate, particularly among youth, when the underlying social and economical issues are skirted around, rather than addressed.

13 and 14 years old… it’s as frustrating as it is sad.

BimboGeek said :

Juvenile detention could be a good thing in this case. Proper counselling and access to support services along with a break from whatever disruptive influences are borking their childhood.

Parents definitely should be charged with something in these cases. Did you know where he was? Had he ever shown violent or antisocial tendencies? What steps did you take to get him set straight? The parents might benefit from classes, could be forced to help pay (if they have any money which I doubt) and maybe the kids should be sent to Foster care?

These kids have done tens of thousands of damage. In Chisholm. It’s not an area where you can just people to have tens of thousands lying around just for a rainy day. If they were a working family already struggling and let the insurance lapse they would have no way to fix it and would have to sell the house for much less than its mortgage value. I hope this extreme example is not the case!

Here’s the thing, while all good in “theory” that is not how juvenile detention works. They will be mixing with people A LOT worse then they are. 1 month in there and they will be out following the same footsteps as Clea Rose’s killer, or the infamous Germaine Goolagong, I for one would think strict supervision in the community would be a far better option, both for the young people and the community.

Juvenile detention could be a good thing in this case. Proper counselling and access to support services along with a break from whatever disruptive influences are borking their childhood.

Parents definitely should be charged with something in these cases. Did you know where he was? Had he ever shown violent or antisocial tendencies? What steps did you take to get him set straight? The parents might benefit from classes, could be forced to help pay (if they have any money which I doubt) and maybe the kids should be sent to Foster care?

These kids have done tens of thousands of damage. In Chisholm. It’s not an area where you can just people to have tens of thousands lying around just for a rainy day. If they were a working family already struggling and let the insurance lapse they would have no way to fix it and would have to sell the house for much less than its mortgage value. I hope this extreme example is not the case!

IrishPete said :

How_Canberran said :

Genie said :

I can’t see a single response to my suggestion that people put their hands up if they didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. You almost certainly did. I did. That crime had a victim. But now you are Holier Than Thou.

IP

I will admit to breaking the law as a teenager. However, drinking a flagon of fruity lexia in a park is a victimless crime (except for me when my folks found out), destroying someones hard earned possessions is not. At 13/14 you do know right from wrong, you do know that breaking into someones house and trashing it is against the law. If, at this age you don’t realise that these actions are reprehensible you probably should not be allowed out unsupervised.

Lookout Smithers said :

bundah said :

LSWCHP said :

IrishPete said :

I can’t see a single response to my suggestion that people put their hands up if they didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. You almost certainly did. I did. That crime had a victim. But now you are Holier Than Thou.
IP

OK. I didn’t break the law as a teenager. But who cares? It’s not about breaking any laws it’s about breaking laws related to aggravated burglary If you asked “Who didn’t break into houses and smash them up as a teenager” then you I imagine you would have got a pretty large response.

At the age of 14 I knew that going into peoples houses and stealing and destroying their property was The Wrong Thing To Do, so I didn’t. These clowns should know that as well.

Unless they’re totally braindead i’m sure they’re fully aware that they’re doing the wrong thing however identifying the reasons for their behaviour is problematic for who really knows why they’re motivated to be anti-social?

Or if in fact they are even motivated by anything. But why is it problematic? Im sure there has to be a reason, even if they don’t know it. No one is just born anti social, but for maybe yourself.

Who me,antisocial? surely you jest for those that know me say i’m very sociable although i do find some,intolerable!

How_Canberran said :

“Nothing like a nice piece of hickory”.

How Canberran

Yay for the return of the retarded catchphrase. I’ve missed it so much.

bundah said :

LSWCHP said :

IrishPete said :

I can’t see a single response to my suggestion that people put their hands up if they didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. You almost certainly did. I did. That crime had a victim. But now you are Holier Than Thou.
IP

OK. I didn’t break the law as a teenager. But who cares? It’s not about breaking any laws it’s about breaking laws related to aggravated burglary If you asked “Who didn’t break into houses and smash them up as a teenager” then you I imagine you would have got a pretty large response.

At the age of 14 I knew that going into peoples houses and stealing and destroying their property was The Wrong Thing To Do, so I didn’t. These clowns should know that as well.

Unless they’re totally braindead i’m sure they’re fully aware that they’re doing the wrong thing however identifying the reasons for their behaviour is problematic for who really knows why they’re motivated to be anti-social?

Or if in fact they are even motivated by anything. But why is it problematic? Im sure there has to be a reason, even if they don’t know it. No one is just born anti social, but for maybe yourself.

bundah said :

The Dark said :

To those that don’t understand why this was an “Aggravated Burglary”, its a burglary because they illegally entered a residence and its aggravated by there being more than one of them. A Burglary could also be a person who opens your front door with a key he found under your doormat, walks in, sits down at your dinner table, so far has caused no damage or harm, but still burglary, if hes then found to have a weapon on him, have one or more other persons with him or the house is the residence of a pregnant woman, then it becomes an Aggravated charge.

According to the ACT Criminal Code:

Aggravated burglary
A person commits an offence (aggravated burglary) if the person—
(a) commits burglary in company with 1 or more people; or
(b) commits burglary and, at the time of the burglary, has an
offensive weapon with him or her.

Perhaps you can tell us more about the offence insomuch as what else constitute aggravated burglary? (Hint – there are literally thousands of things). ?? Is it possible to commit this offence and yet never enter the building or part of it? Picking on teenagers is hardly useful big guy.

LSWCHP said :

IrishPete said :

I can’t see a single response to my suggestion that people put their hands up if they didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. You almost certainly did. I did. That crime had a victim. But now you are Holier Than Thou.
IP

OK. I didn’t break the law as a teenager. But who cares? It’s not about breaking any laws it’s about breaking laws related to aggravated burglary If you asked “Who didn’t break into houses and smash them up as a teenager” then you I imagine you would have got a pretty large response.

At the age of 14 I knew that going into peoples houses and stealing and destroying their property was The Wrong Thing To Do, so I didn’t. These clowns should know that as well.

Unless they’re totally braindead i’m sure they’re fully aware that they’re doing the wrong thing however identifying the reasons for their behaviour is problematic for who really knows why they’re motivated to be anti-social?

The Dark said :

bundah said :

The Dark said :

To those that don’t understand why this was an “Aggravated Burglary”, its a burglary because they illegally entered a residence and its aggravated by there being more than one of them. A Burglary could also be a person who opens your front door with a key he found under your doormat, walks in, sits down at your dinner table, so far has caused no damage or harm, but still burglary, if hes then found to have a weapon on him, have one or more other persons with him or the house is the residence of a pregnant woman, then it becomes an Aggravated charge.

According to the ACT Criminal Code:

Aggravated burglary
A person commits an offence (aggravated burglary) if the person—
(a) commits burglary in company with 1 or more people; or
(b) commits burglary and, at the time of the burglary, has an
offensive weapon with him or her.

Whats your point? that’s what I said

Indeed although perhaps you can tell me where your reference to pregnant women in relation to aggravated burglary can be sourced?

IrishPete said :

I can’t see a single response to my suggestion that people put their hands up if they didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. You almost certainly did. I did. That crime had a victim. But now you are Holier Than Thou.
IP

OK. I didn’t break the law as a teenager. But who cares? It’s not about breaking any laws it’s about breaking laws related to aggravated burglary If you asked “Who didn’t break into houses and smash them up as a teenager” then you I imagine you would have got a pretty large response.

At the age of 14 I knew that going into peoples houses and stealing and destroying their property was The Wrong Thing To Do, so I didn’t. These clowns should know that as well.

How_Canberran said :

Genie said :

Pfft 13 & 14…. All they’ll get is a slap on the wrist.

The should be made liable for the costs to repair the home they trashed… Maybe they’ll learn some respect and the value of money and possessions..

Perhaps consideration should be given to making mummy and daddy pay. Parental responsibility for the ‘kids’ would suddenly take on a whole new meaning.

How Canberran.

Yes, great idea. Where did you think your kids were? Parental responsibility is what should be being discussed here, not the responsibility of kids barely old enough to understand the gravity of their actions. Google Doli Incapax.

By the way, to everyone else – yes I have been burgled. Yes I have had a car stolen. Yes I have been randomly assaulted by a stranger. No, none of that means I believe in the death penalty or the stocks for young teenagers engaged in stupid, selfish behaviour. Teenagers, especially boys, test the limits, take risks – these boys (not “young men”) will almost certainly have learned where the limits are now, and like most teenagers will “grow out of” crime and risk-taking. But if you lock them up in a juvenile detention centre with hardened offenders, older than them, I can virtually guarantee they will not grow out of it.

I can’t see a single response to my suggestion that people put their hands up if they didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. You almost certainly did. I did. That crime had a victim. But now you are Holier Than Thou.

IP

buzz819 said :

It’s pretty simple, aggravated just means with a weapon or in the accompany of one or more people.

Correct. I think someone being home counts too. (and violence, even without a weapon – violence to property is not violence, and trivialises the term “violence”).

IP

Genie said :

Pfft 13 & 14…. All they’ll get is a slap on the wrist.

The should be made liable for the costs to repair the home they trashed… Maybe they’ll learn some respect and the value of money and possessions..

Perhaps consideration should be given to making mummy and daddy pay. Parental responsibility for the ‘kids’ would suddenly take on a whole new meaning.

How Canberran.

bundah said :

The Dark said :

To those that don’t understand why this was an “Aggravated Burglary”, its a burglary because they illegally entered a residence and its aggravated by there being more than one of them. A Burglary could also be a person who opens your front door with a key he found under your doormat, walks in, sits down at your dinner table, so far has caused no damage or harm, but still burglary, if hes then found to have a weapon on him, have one or more other persons with him or the house is the residence of a pregnant woman, then it becomes an Aggravated charge.

According to the ACT Criminal Code:

Aggravated burglary
A person commits an offence (aggravated burglary) if the person—
(a) commits burglary in company with 1 or more people; or
(b) commits burglary and, at the time of the burglary, has an
offensive weapon with him or her.

Whats your point? that’s what I said

The Dark said :

To those that don’t understand why this was an “Aggravated Burglary”, its a burglary because they illegally entered a residence and its aggravated by there being more than one of them. A Burglary could also be a person who opens your front door with a key he found under your doormat, walks in, sits down at your dinner table, so far has caused no damage or harm, but still burglary, if hes then found to have a weapon on him, have one or more other persons with him or the house is the residence of a pregnant woman, then it becomes an Aggravated charge.

According to the ACT Criminal Code:

Aggravated burglary
A person commits an offence (aggravated burglary) if the person—
(a) commits burglary in company with 1 or more people; or
(b) commits burglary and, at the time of the burglary, has an
offensive weapon with him or her.

To those that don’t understand why this was an “Aggravated Burglary”, its a burglary because they illegally entered a residence and its aggravated by there being more than one of them. A Burglary could also be a person who opens your front door with a key he found under your doormat, walks in, sits down at your dinner table, so far has caused no damage or harm, but still burglary, if hes then found to have a weapon on him, have one or more other persons with him or the house is the residence of a pregnant woman, then it becomes an Aggravated charge.

I can see it from both sides. On the one hand, I can see myself doing something like this when I was that age. A time when excitement and fun didn’t come in a bottle, when you wanted to appear cool and impress the older kids, and those older kids could easily influence you.

Most importantly, though they definitely knew right from wrong, I don’t think these kids would really understand the consequences of their actions from the perspective of the home owners. I think that kind of empathy is lost on kids of that age, because of their limited experiences and because of their lack of emotional development.

On the other hand, I know that if some kids broke into my house and destroyed my belongings and my sense of space for nothing more than the thrill of destruction, I would be livid. I would probably want nothing more than to go to their rooms and destroy every single thing that they own.

So yeah, I’m torn. The easy way out is to simply be angry. The hard way out is to see it from their perspective and to try and understand it. These kids probably have the potential to be just as sane and rational as you or I, but because of many factors that we don’t know they’ve done something like this. And YOU might have done the same thing if your upbringing and experiences were the same as theirs.

Pfft 13 & 14…. All they’ll get is a slap on the wrist.

The should be made liable for the costs to repair the home they trashed… Maybe they’ll learn some respect and the value of money and possessions..

It’s pretty simple, aggravated just means with a weapon or in the accompany of one or more people.

But let’s not forget, they are from bad homes, never had a chance, mentally ill probably, been let down by the education system, not had sufficient social support and mentoring, ‘substance abuse issues,” daddy didn’t hug them enough..etc etc ad nauseum.

Better let them go free, with a warning not to do it again…

IrishPete said :

A couple of kids broke into a house and did some puerile damage. Now they’re charged with Aggavated Burglary and are labelled “young men”.

Hands up anyone who didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. Yep, breaking into a house is probably at the more serious end, but they’re hardly mass murderers (though The System might try to fix that).

It would be interesting to know who phoned the police and said “I’m reporting an aggravated burglary”. I sounds like it was Aggravated only by dint of there being two of them. It used to be that Aggravated meant “with violence” or “armed”. Now the majority of burglaries are classified as Aggravated because the definition has been widened so much.

IP

So it should all be put down to teenage hijinks, just a couple of lads out for a bit of fun?

Coming home to holes punched in walls, graffitti and paint poured on the floor and walls would be a traumatic experience for the owners. It was senseless destruction on the part of the little sods and I, for one, would like to see them publicly pilloried before a trip to the big house.

IrishPete said :

A couple of kids broke into a house and did some puerile damage. Now they’re charged with Aggavated Burglary and are labelled “young men”.

Hands up anyone who didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. Yep, breaking into a house is probably at the more serious end, but they’re hardly mass murderers (though The System might try to fix that).

It would be interesting to know who phoned the police and said “I’m reporting an aggravated burglary”. I sounds like it was Aggravated only by dint of there being two of them. It used to be that Aggravated meant “with violence” or “armed”. Now the majority of burglaries are classified as Aggravated because the definition has been widened so much.

IP

Have you ever been burgled?

Having someone violate your personal space is quite confronting. Add to that the fact that these little darlings broke in purely to trash the place, including many of the owners personal posessions, no doubt.

That is the reason, I think, that the charges were “aggravated burglary”. Violence against the owners of the house, via the house itself.

While I agree that they’re not exactly mass murderers, I’m not sure if you’d be so quick to label the damage “purile” if it was your house, and you’d probably be calling for the book to be thrown at them.

LSWCHP said :

I can understand straight burglary for profit, but pointless destruction like that described is simply beyond my ken. In my mind in removes these critters from the realm of humanity into the arena of those who look like humans but aren’t. The American firearms authority Jeff Cooper used to refer to them as Goblins, and I tend to agree with him.

Similarly bemused.

I was burgled once by a very considerate thief (theives?). It could hardly be described as breaking and entering because they didn’t do any damage on the way in, removed a wallet with some cash and a phone, and then left without making a mess. Didn’t even twig I’d been robbed until around 10 hours later.

Contacted the cops, really just in case I needed to file an insurance claim. They didn’t seem too interested, fair enought they have serious crimes to investigate.

Overall I didn’t leave the situation bearing any particular malice to the perp(s).

By contrast, if they’d deliberately inflicted pointless property damage like throwing paint on the walls etc then I’d want blood.

IrishPete said :

A couple of kids broke into a house and did some puerile damage. Now they’re charged with Aggavated Burglary and are labelled “young men”.

Hands up anyone who didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. Yep, breaking into a house is probably at the more serious end, but they’re hardly mass murderers (though The System might try to fix that).

It would be interesting to know who phoned the police and said “I’m reporting an aggravated burglary”. I sounds like it was Aggravated only by dint of there being two of them. It used to be that Aggravated meant “with violence” or “armed”. Now the majority of burglaries are classified as Aggravated because the definition has been widened so much.

IP

It is aggravated because they attempted to destroy the house in the process of stealing stuff. Had they left the walls and carpets intact and unmarked it wouldn’t have been as bad. If the same youths had been shoplifting and got nabbed it would be a good talking to. If they shoplifted and threw items from shelves, spilled tomato sauce all over the aisles and broke the windows on the way out it makes it much more severe due to the cost of cleanup.
Kids or not, nobody goes and does this without knowing the consequences of their actions. Or maybe they do and therein lies the problem, the law can’t touch ’em. I hope the kids’ parents have to foot the repair bill and bring their wrath upon these lowlifes. I know the magistrate won’t, so someone has to.

IrishPete said :

A couple of kids broke into a house and did some puerile damage. Now they’re charged with Aggavated Burglary and are labelled “young men”.

Hands up anyone who didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. Yep, breaking into a house is probably at the more serious end, but they’re hardly mass murderers (though The System might try to fix that).

It would be interesting to know who phoned the police and said “I’m reporting an aggravated burglary”. I sounds like it was Aggravated only by dint of there being two of them. It used to be that Aggravated meant “with violence” or “armed”. Now the majority of burglaries are classified as Aggravated because the definition has been widened so much.

IP

You aren’t seriously trying to trivialise what these little scumbags did, are you?

IrishPete said :

A couple of kids broke into a house and did some puerile damage. Now they’re charged with Aggavated Burglary and are labelled “young men”.

Hands up anyone who didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. Yep, breaking into a house is probably at the more serious end, but they’re hardly mass murderers (though The System might try to fix that).

It would be interesting to know who phoned the police and said “I’m reporting an aggravated burglary”. I sounds like it was Aggravated only by dint of there being two of them. It used to be that Aggravated meant “with violence” or “armed”. Now the majority of burglaries are classified as Aggravated because the definition has been widened so much.

IP

what a load of rubbish

Im sorry, but have you thought about the real offenders in this matter?i mean those people who live at the house deserve to have there house broken into by these two ‘young men’. they also deserve to have there possessions stolen and the rest of there house trashed.Who needs walls without holes in it?And im sure the walls needed another coat of paint on them. And im sure the beautiful artwork they did on the floor will be worth thousands some day! Selfish scrumbags home owners

or real world. The little kids broke into the house with the apparent intent to cause as much damage as possible and are little shits. they are 13 and 14, they are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and the excuse of ‘they are just kids’ isnt good enough to the rest of society. yes they arent murders, but they are shits. And yes they were probably charged with aggravated burglary because they were together. Its the law, but hey, lets not that get in the way of a good story.

IrishPete said :

A couple of kids broke into a house and did some puerile damage. Now they’re charged with Aggavated Burglary and are labelled “young men”.

Hands up anyone who didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. Yep, breaking into a house is probably at the more serious end, but they’re hardly mass murderers (though The System might try to fix that).

It would be interesting to know who phoned the police and said “I’m reporting an aggravated burglary”. I sounds like it was Aggravated only by dint of there being two of them. It used to be that Aggravated meant “with violence” or “armed”. Now the majority of burglaries are classified as Aggravated because the definition has been widened so much.

IP

Wow I have seen you make some pretty outlandish comments before, ip, but this takes the cake. Break and enter then do malicious damage is not far off rape or murder. The home owners have been completely violated.

Honestly dude, if you think it’s no big deal then why not advertise your address for any future scum thinking of doing this can just come to yours while you happily watch knowing that these poor souls are just *doing some puerile damafe*

Would you just sit their and let them trash you house?

ScienceRules said :

Prepare the WristSlapper 3000 with Wet Noodle Flickatron accessories.

Lol but not lol.

You have pretty much explained exactly whats gonna happen. Sadly.

A couple of kids broke into a house and did some puerile damage. Now they’re charged with Aggavated Burglary and are labelled “young men”.

Hands up anyone who didn’t break the law when they were a teenager. Yep, breaking into a house is probably at the more serious end, but they’re hardly mass murderers (though The System might try to fix that).

It would be interesting to know who phoned the police and said “I’m reporting an aggravated burglary”. I sounds like it was Aggravated only by dint of there being two of them. It used to be that Aggravated meant “with violence” or “armed”. Now the majority of burglaries are classified as Aggravated because the definition has been widened so much.

IP

“Nothing like a nice piece of hickory”.

How Canberran

I can understand straight burglary for profit, but pointless destruction like that described is simply beyond my ken. In my mind in removes these critters from the realm of humanity into the arena of those who look like humans but aren’t. The American firearms authority Jeff Cooper used to refer to them as Goblins, and I tend to agree with him.

They’ll be sent to bed without their supper!

Kim F said :

I wouldn’t describe 13 & 14 year olds as “young men”!

Quite right,more like budding bastardos!

Prepare the WristSlapper 3000 with Wet Noodle Flickatron accessories.

I wouldn’t describe 13 & 14 year olds as “young men”!