Kids trashed house, parents want to sue?

[Wheres Toto]

I haven't seen this discussed on here yet.  Anyone heard about the kids who trashed a house with a wild party, the owner tried to give them a chance to come clean up, and now the parents want to sue him for re-posting the pictures their kids had already put online?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-lynch/an-open-letter-to-the-parents-of-the-stephentown-300_b_3983962.html

[Parrothead]

Wow!  That is just awful.  What are those people thinking to threaten to firebomb someone's house?

[kitten18]

Wow, nice lesson, wow...

[MomtoCandJ]

Oh what the crap, stupid people. If the kids are gonna be stupid then they deserve to have it plastered on line since they put out there anyway. As for the homeowner, I feel bad for him, having his home destroyed by these punks and then having said punks parents trying to sue him :( If any thing he should be sueing the parents for the destruction of his home.

[Cinder]

Despicable. :glare:

[swellmomma]

You know 3 years ago my oldest broke the law and when I found out it was him I handed him over to the police to face the penalty.  In the end the owners agreed to not press charges if he paid for the window to be fixed because I did that.  It took him 3 years to earn enough to pay it off.  The owners grumbled about how long it was but I refused to pay for it for him.  He has $2 left and his debt it done.  When the police were doing up thier report on this I had 2 come over and shake my hand and tell me they wanted to thank the mom that made her kids face their own consequences.  I was shocked to hear that even with over whelming evidence parents will still let their kids hide behind them and claim their innocence.  There was no witnesses and no evidence that ds was the culprit in this case, but there was no way I was letting him off the hook.  I was called a whole lot of names by other parents in this town, some for turning ds in and therefore I was a bad parent, and some for ds doing it in the first place so I was a bad parent.  In the end though ds learned his lesson and has not done something like that again.  I could not imagine threatening to sue the victim of my child's crime. 
 

If he had been in this group of partying kids he would have been scrubbing his mess even if he was the only kid that showed up to do so.  There are consequences to your actions and kids best be learning that young and not learning they can do what they want because mommy and daddy will back them up. My kid may have issues and be labelled the bad kid in town, he may have made some big screw ups in the past but he is faced the consequences and repaid his debt (the other time was his involvement with some boys and a fire that was started, He had to attend a fire safety lecture, and put in community service and the town did not charge them with arson (it was town land they burned)-he was the only one out of the 4 boys that did all aspects of his terms and I was the only parent that stood right there and made sure he did his community service right- I may not have supervised enough to prevent the fire the started but I sure as heck was sure to supervise he did what he needed to).

It doesn't take a super parent to make your kids face the consequences of their actions, it just takes one dedicated to raising law abiding adults who give to society instead of taking from it.

[Moxie]

This is one of those weird things where, I think, what we think we would do might not be what we would actually do. I've seen this discussed in several places and EVERY parent has said that they would turn their child in. Yet, the reality is, 300 sets of parents did not.

[gardenmom5]

yes.  it's clear where the little darlings learned their behavior.  mommy and daddy always bailed them out.  he should counter sue for the value of his $1.5M trashed house.

[MomtoCandJ]

Not turning them in is bad enough, what's making my blood boil is the fact they threatened him and want to sue him. He doesn't want to press charges, he wants to help these kids find something better to do with themselves.

[Guest submarines]

Teens drinking and trashing a house, I can understand, sort of--kids to stupid things when drunk. Not wanting to make amends, when so generously offered? Suing? This is the worst of the worst. These children are so lost and as a society we are powerless.

 

The saddest part is that they didn't understand that finally someone cared about them. Finally someone wanted to help them grow, help them do the right thing. What an opportunity they were given. 

[Just Kate]

This is one of those weird things where, I think, what we think we would do might not be what we would actually do. I've seen this discussed in several places and EVERY parent has said that they would turn their child in. Yet, the reality is, 300 sets of parents did not.

I keep wondering if there could be more to the story? If I found my teen in a situation like this, I think I'd be relieved that the homeowner didn't press charges and would be willing to do whatever do teen could make amends. Weird.

[clarkacademy]

Everyone of those parents need a big old sticker on their bumper saying.......My kid is what's wrong in the world today and I helped!!

[Lara in Colo]

Daily mail did a decent job on this story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429747/Brian-Holloways-house-trashed-4-300-teens-trashed-NFL-stars-house-help-fix-up.html

[Lara in Colo]

With the stakes being so high (money and college future) I see the parents doing this---

 

but I think the tide will turn and colleges will smarten up and look for people who have some scrapes on their record.  to look for character traits instead of perfection.

[swellmomma]

This is one of those weird things where, I think, what we think we would do might not be what we would actually do. I've seen this discussed in several places and EVERY parent has said that they would turn their child in. Yet, the reality is, 300 sets of parents did not.

 

Well I know I would because I did, but the police here did say it was very rare for it to happen.  Teens do stupid crap especially when drinking.  But for parents to let them get away with it and then to threaten to sue is so horrible.  The teens should feel guilty for what they did and fix it, but the parents should be down right ashamed of themselves for not only allowing this behaviour but then trying to sue the victim.  WTH is wrong with people?

[Χά�ων]

With the stakes being so high (money and college future) I see the parents doing this---

 

This. But I think a college would look more kindly on the kids if they were to admit they were stupid and help clean up then turn their life around.

[BYE]

.

[Word Nerd]

One of the tweets about the party said: "So glad my parents don't give a f**k what I do."

[Jean in Newcastle]

Everyone of those teens should have been arrested.  Where were the police in all of this?  And yes, the teens who showed up should have been given credit for community service and for owning up to their crime.  

[BYE]

One of the tweets about the party said: "So glad my parents don't give a f**k what I do."

Wow! That's horrible.

[Word Nerd]

Wow! That's horrible.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem too far from the truth. (They don't care unless the kid gets called out for his bad behavior, that is.)

[Renee in NC]

He only re-posted what was already on Twitter and Instagram.  Colleges could already see those, so those parents need to talk to their moronic kids about the internet being public.

 

What a bunch of crap.  I know what I would do without a doubt.  My child would have been there to help clean that day, and every spare moment from then until it was done.

 

I can be laid back about many, many things, but destroying others' property is NOT one of them.

[bolt.]

I'm sorry, but aren't there two separate issues here?

 

The homeowner is being sued for publication (re-publication) of the kids' photos on his own website, which was used to sort-of "characterize" them -- either that's legal, or it's illegal, or nobody knows and the courts need to set a precident.

 

There are no grounds for "they deserved it" -- and certainly no reason for the idea that its ok because "they posted it themselves first" (since, obviously, there are many things you can legally do to yourself, which remain illegal for other people to do to you).

 

The homeowners actions with the website and photos might or might not have been defamation/libel/slander/copyright violation/who knows -- but whether or not that's the case, it doesn't matter why he did it, or that his home was ransacked by hooligans. Hooligans don't loose the basic protections of law just because its completely understandable that their actions make their victims justly angry. Angry victims need to respect laws: or they might get sued.

[kitten18]

One of the tweets about the party said: "So glad my parents don't give a f**k what I do."

Nice.

[gardenmom5]

It could be their essay topic! <insert vomit emote> "I trashed a house, got caught, publicly shamed, parents embarrassed, forced to do community service... it's all been such a trying time for ME."

 

ETA: Sorry. I'm feeling slightly snarky tonight. I do hope they do realize how stupid and self-centered they are. I'm just not feeling like they are going to fully understand that until they get much older. 

probably not until they are grown ups with a house that gets trashed by a bunch of drunk and partying teens.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem too far from the truth. (They don't care unless the kid gets called out for his bad behavior, that is.)

worse - the kid gets public attention and embarrasses *them* for being the parent to a dweeb. 

[Joanne]

Great open letter.

 

I think the mob/group think parents acted on the lowest common denominator and saw $$ signs.

[mathmarm]

Wow...just, wow. That Mr. Holloway is a class act, I'd have called the police on them and pressed charges on each and everyone one those kids that could be identified.

[FriedClams]

This is one of those weird things where, I think, what we think we would do might not be what we would actually do. I've seen this discussed in several places and EVERY parent has said that they would turn their child in. Yet, the reality is, 300 sets of parents did not.

I read a couple of articles on this. The homeowner didn't want to press charges - he wanted his home fixed and the kids to learn something. He had a clean up day and ONE kid showed up, their parents in tow. It's shameful to me. The parents are more concerned with liability than character. It's despicable to me.

[kitten18]

I read the blog/website he set up. He was so incredibly kind and generous. It is unbelievable to me that these families turned around and slapped him in the face again!!!

[creekland]

One of the tweets about the party said: "So glad my parents don't give a f**k what I do."

More proof that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

And now some might profit off of it all.

 

There's something incredibly wrong with going by the letter of the law rather than common sense and it's driving our country into a deep pit that I doubt we will be able to recover from.

[Kathryn]

I'm sorry, but aren't there two separate issues here?

 

The homeowner is being sued for publication (re-publication) of the kids' photos on his own website, which was used to sort-of "characterize" them -- either that's legal, or it's illegal, or nobody knows and the courts need to set a precident.

 

There are no grounds for "they deserved it" -- and certainly no reason for the idea that its ok because "they posted it themselves first" (since, obviously, there are many things you can legally do to yourself, which remain illegal for other people to do to you).

 

The homeowners actions with the website and photos might or might not have been defamation/libel/slander/copyright violation/who knows -- but whether or not that's the case, it doesn't matter why he did it, or that his home was ransacked by hooligans. Hooligans don't loose the basic protections of law just because its completely understandable that their actions make their victims justly angry. Angry victims need to respect laws: or they might get sued.

They publicly posted the tweets/photos. People retweet, link to tweets and photos, and repost those things all the time on blogs, social media, and news articles. No, they don't have any basic protection of law from publicly shared information being shared by others. If he had hacked into someone's account to get it, yes. But, people reshare every second now.

[bolt.]

They publicly posted the tweets/photos. People retweet, link to tweets and photos, and repost those things all the time on blogs, social media, and news articles. No, they don't have any basic protection of law from publicly shared information being shared by others. If he had hacked into someone's account to get it, yes. But, people reshare every second now.

 

So, you don't think the general concept of "re-sharing with characterization" needs to be explored by our legal systems as-to the possibility of it being libel, slander or defamation? Or even simple copyright violation? Particularly in cases regarding images of minors?

 

If it's something people do every second now, surely there should be some kind of lines drawn in the legal sand over these things? (Unless they already have been drawn, and simply need to be applied?)

 

Laws around libel, slander, and defamation were formed because the advent of print media created the need for print activity to be regulated in those ways. Is anyone truly of the opinion that digital media needs no similar regulation? That it should be exempt because it is a different medium for sharing information?

[Word Nerd]

So, you don't think the general concept of "re-sharing with characterization" needs to be explored by our legal systems as-to the possibility of it being libel, slander or defamation? Or even simple copyright violation? Particularly in cases regarding images of minors?

 

If it's something people do every second now, surely there should be some kind of lines drawn in the legal sand over these things? (Unless they already have been drawn, and simply need to be applied?)

 

Laws around libel, slander, and defamation were formed because the advent of print media created the need for print activity to be regulated in those ways. Is anyone truly of the opinion that digital media needs no similar regulation? That it should be exempt because it is a different medium for sharing information?

 

There are numerous websites and blogs that repost publicly available social media photos and statuses, and (unlike this man's website) many of them characterize the people as being worthy of ridicule for making a duck face, posting an ignorant Facebook status, etc. Look at how many people have their faces become memes. I can't imagine that this case would break any new ground or set legal precedent, though I suppose it's possible.

[swellmomma]

What I think is if someone illegally enters my home and vandalizes it, and then refuses to adhere to my very lenient terms to avoid prosecution they deserve to have their images that they already posted used as evidence against them.  There is nothing slanderous or libelous about the website or images.  The proof is in the pudding so to speak.  If he had posted their names and actions without the images he ran the risk of it being thought to be those things, but with the pictures that THEY posted it showed proof of their actions.  SHould there be regulations sure, but I do not believe this to be the case to set the precedent, and if a judge supports the actions of these parents and teens I hope someone has the good sense to make that publically known as well.  If those parents made their kids stand up and do what was right in the first place those images would have never been on his website ever.  So in the end I still place the responsibility of this squarely on the parents.  Their kids were out partying without any adults knowing what was going on.  Once it was discovered only 1 family made their child serve the restitution, the rest covered it up, and then they decided that they would cash in on the lawlessness of their children.  And these children are supposed to be the future of that town, it's leaders.  I don't think so. I think having your image and reputation besmerched by images of your own unlawful actions that you refused to make right are a logical and natural consequence.  If you don't want your image out there trashing someone else's property don't be a punk and trash it.  If you don't want your reputation ruined then don't do actions that ruin it.  If these families had made their kids face the consequences in the first place it would have been nothing more than a blip in their reputation that would have been made right by them correcting their error, it would have shown it was a stupid teenaged act but their character was more than that.  Instead they opted to prove their lack of character, their lack of integrity and yes ruined their own reputations with the assistance of the whole family. 

the only precedent this case should set is that you can not sue the victim after you commit a crime. 
 

 

Image sharing laws should be created BUT I do not think that criminals caught on camera or who are stupid enough to post the images themselves should apply.  Hacking someone's account and taking pictures from it to post and share should be illegal.  Sharing an image in a public domain, particularly when the images can be used as evidence of a crime against you should be just fine to link to your own site to preserve them as evidence and show what happened to YOU.  He wasn't posting images of thing that happened to someone else down the street.  These were images taken inside his own home.  To me that does allow for him to share them, just as it would be fine for him to share images captured on his own home security feeds if he had them.

The parent's are po'd that their own reputations have been tainted, but that is how it is. If you as the adult do nothing to set the kid straight then frankly you deserve your not so good name to be thrown in the dirt, because you just proved that the family supports these actions.  You ruined your own reputation long before someone else posted about it.

[creekland]

I read an update today that he is now pressing charges against all of them they can identify (through any means) who didn't come (supposedly 4 came forward).

 

Hopefully they will learn a lesson.

 

The same report only talked about parents threatening a lawsuit - not that one had been filed.  It could all just be a threat rather than anything planned in reality.

[Alexigail]

libel, slander or defamation? 

 

 

 

These things only apply if the information put out it false.  You can't win a lawsuit on these grounds if the person you're suing can prove he or she is telling the truth.  

[shawthorne44]

I read that the ringleader was a friend of the victim's son and had lived with them during some "difficulties". 

Happily he is over 18 and therefore will be charged as an adult.  Hee Hee Hee

[Matryoshka]

Laws around libel, slander, and defamation were formed because the advent of print media created the need for print activity to be regulated in those ways. Is anyone truly of the opinion that digital media needs no similar regulation? That it should be exempt because it is a different medium for sharing information?

 

I thought it was only libel or defamation if the person didn't actually do the thing they were accused of (even in the dark ages of print media).  If they actually did it (and posted about it!) they defamed themselves.

 

I don't think it's ever been libel to call a pig a pig.  No law change needed.

 

Nixon didn't get to sue Bernstein and Woodward for libel...

[gardenmom5]

The parent's are po'd that their own reputations have been tainted, but that is how it is. If you as the adult do nothing to set the kid straight then frankly you deserve your not so good name to be thrown in the dirt, because you just proved that the family supports these actions.  You ruined your own reputation long before someone else posted about it.

 

exactly!  they're embarrassed their little darlings were exposed to be spoiled brats who think they can do whatever they want.  even trash someone else's house.

I read an update today that he is now pressing charges against all of them they can identify (through any means) who didn't come (supposedly 4 came forward).

 

Hopefully they will learn a lesson.

 

The same report only talked about parents threatening a lawsuit - not that one had been filed.  It could all just be a threat rather than anything planned in reality.

good, both the parents need the wake-up call of their darlings having charges brought against them.  if they were embarrassed by their children before . . . . .

first they have to find a lawyer to take their case.  most lawyers will not bother with a case they don't think they can win. (AND get their payout at the end.)

[gardenmom5]

update: six people (five adults, one minor) have been arrested so far.  (that number is likely to skyrocket.)

 

gee, in retrospect, cleaning the house and repairing damages is looking pretty good . . . . .

[gardenmom5]

the parents are threatening to sue him for *naming* their children.  he didn't.  he didn't know any of their names.  

[Moxie]

update: six people (five adults, one minor) have been arrested so far. (that number is likely to skyrocket.)

 

gee, in retrospect, cleaning the house and repairing damages is looking pretty good . . . . .

Dang, I wish I lived close enough that I could go to the courthouse to point and laugh as these kids and their parents are brought in. That would be fun!

[Miss Mousie]

At least they are finally coming around to doing the right thing. They'll probably get a lighter sentence for turning in others who were there. 

 

I followed your link and was surprised to see that the ages ranged from 17 to 21.  21?!  That's well outside the "stupid teenage prank" realm, IMO. 

[Ravin]

Of course someone was 21, they probably brought the booze (assuming they didn't just steal it from the homeowner).

 

In my state, having come to the cleanup party would not prevent the state from pressing charges--that isn't the victim's decision. It could be mitigating for sentencing/disposition, though, especially if the victim speaks on their behalf.

 

Most of the kids are likely not going to get anything worse than juvenile misdemeanors for drinking, trespassing, etc. Trespassing might not stick on the (likely majority) who didn't actually know the place had been broken into.

[Mrs Mungo]

The homeowner is being sued for publication (re-publication) of the kids' photos on his own website, which was used to sort-of "characterize" them -- either that's legal, or it's illegal, or nobody knows and the courts need to set a precident.

 

There are no grounds for "they deserved it" -- and certainly no reason for the idea that its ok because "they posted it themselves first" (since, obviously, there are many things you can legally do to yourself, which remain illegal for other people to do to you).

 

The homeowners actions with the website and photos might or might not have been defamation/libel/slander/copyright violation/who knows -- but whether or not that's the case, it doesn't matter why he did it, or that his home was ransacked by hooligans. Hooligans don't loose the basic protections of law just because its completely understandable that their actions make their victims justly angry. Angry victims need to respect laws: or they might get sued.

 

Did you actually look at the website? There is nothing posted there except re-posts from Twitter and Instagram that the kids posted to their public feeds. It would be like someone here suing someone for quoting them in a thread.

[Laurie4b]

This is one of those weird things where, I think, what we think we would do might not be what we would actually do. I've seen this discussed in several places and EVERY parent has said that they would turn their child in. Yet, the reality is, 300 sets of parents did not.

 

I think that's a very interesting point.

 

On the other hand, if these kids are from affluent families, the "entitlement" factor might be what is driving all this--both the kids behavior and the parents upset about their kids' photos being posted online.

 

But back to Moxie's point. I think it can be hard to imagine what you would do. If my teen was involved, I would definitely be mad at my kid and insisting on restitution. I might, however, be upset at the privacy issue and wish he would have contacted me privately. If they had been arrested and were not 18, their names would not be published. (I know they self-published, too. So glad I wasn't a teen in the digital age.)  I am guessing I would have had both those things in my head. But I'm pretty sure I would have ended up with the kid doing restitution and with the message that you face the consequences including violation of your privacy for your actions----even if "all your friends were doing it."  I would probably ask that the website be taken down though.

 

ETA: just read that the ages ranged from 17-21, so that shoots down the juvenile protection of privacy part for most of them.

[gardenmom5]

On the other hand, if these kids are from affluent families, the "entitlement" factor might be what is driving all this--both the kids behavior and the parents upset about their kids' photos being posted online.

 

On the other side of the issue, if the kids were underage and arrested, their names would be withheld because they were juveniles, so I do think that is a legitimate take on this. I just don't think it overrides the fact of their wrongdoing.

the homeowner did not name any of them.  He signed the waiver for the sheriff's office to charge them.

the youngest charged so far was 17.

they have been charged with:

criminal trespass

criminal mischief

grand larceny

endangering the welfare of a child

 

some of those are felonies.

[Laurie4b]

One of the tweets about the party said: "So glad my parents don't give a f**k what I do."

 

Well, there ya go!

 

[HRAAB]

One of the tweets about the party said: "So glad my parents don't give a f**k what I do."

How nice. Somebody had better giving a f*** what he/she does.

 

I just can't wrap my ahead around parents who would behave this way.

[gardenmom5]

actually - the parents do care.  they care when their little darlings embarrass them and they have to cover their behinds.

 

eta: I recall reading a local report about at risk youth.  one of the highest scoring groups was from a very expensive suburb because the parents were too busy to pay attention to their children.  they were affluent enough, they gave their kids what they wanted - and ignored them.