Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Senior Prank Could Ruin the Lives of These Kids...

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Senior Prank Could Ruin the Lives of These Kids...
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
May 18, 2010 2:05 PM
The ironic part to me is that they were arrested for breaking and entering, but were unable to complete their prank because the library door was locked.

As stated above, most senior pranks involve getting into the school after hours. Why is this one different from any other year or any other school?

I'm not saying that nothing should be done. But I think the punishment should fit the crime. And a felony charge on their record for a dumb senior prank does not fit the crime.
May 18, 2010 2:05pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
May 18, 2010 2:14 PM
you don't know for a fact whether they did or didn't use an "open" door
May 18, 2010 2:14pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
May 18, 2010 2:17 PM
Indeed times have changed as stated.

I have no problem with the defined penalties being applied to the students.
May 18, 2010 2:17pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
May 18, 2010 2:18 PM
Con_Alma wrote: Indeed times have changed as stated.

I have no problem with the defined penalties being applied to the students.
Defined penalties as in felony charges?
May 18, 2010 2:18pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
May 18, 2010 2:20 PM
If a felony can be proven, yes.
May 18, 2010 2:20pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
May 18, 2010 2:30 PM
darbypitcher22 wrote: you don't know for a fact whether they did or didn't use an "open" door
A girl hid in the girl's locker room until everyone left, then opened a door for the rest of the kids.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100514/NEWS010701/305140005
May 18, 2010 2:30pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
May 18, 2010 2:34 PM
For those that feel these kids should be charged with a felony, would you agree then that ALL of the kids should face similar charges.

I think that's where I have the biggest problem with this whole situation. The 8 kids that were 16 and 17 years old were charged with misdemeanor trespassing and curfew violations.

So if this was such a heinous crime and deserves a felony charge...why not charge the younger kids with a felony, too? Why is it OK to let them off easier than the kids who are 18?
May 18, 2010 2:34pm
tsst_fballfan's avatar

tsst_fballfan

Senior Member

406 posts
May 18, 2010 2:45 PM
I Wear Pants wrote: ^^^ You don't understand the concept of a senior prank do you?
I guess not. But I do understand the concept of an adult committing a crime!

If the court decides community service is adequate punishment so be it, but it should not be predisposed for excusal or dilution simply because it was 'just for fun' or 'only a prank'.
May 18, 2010 2:45pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
May 18, 2010 2:47 PM
tsst_fballfan wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: ^^^ You don't understand the concept of a senior prank do you?
I guess not. But I do understand the concept of an adult committing a crime!

If the court decides community service is adequate punishment so be it, but it should not be predisposed for excusal or dilution simply because it was 'just for fun' or 'only a prank'.
Umm, intent is a major component of the crime to begin with. If they had a fair grand jury, they would not be indicted on felony charges due to intent.
May 18, 2010 2:47pm
tsst_fballfan's avatar

tsst_fballfan

Senior Member

406 posts
May 18, 2010 2:51 PM
sherm03 wrote: For those that feel these kids should be charged with a felony, would you agree then that ALL of the kids should face similar charges.

I think that's where I have the biggest problem with this whole situation. The 8 kids that were 16 and 17 years old were charged with misdemeanor trespassing and curfew violations.

So if this was such a heinous crime and deserves a felony charge...why not charge the younger kids with a felony, too? Why is it OK to let them off easier than the kids who are 18?
Unfortunately that is the societal line that has been drawn between a kid and an adult. The former being not as responsible and the latter being fully responsible for ones own actions.
May 18, 2010 2:51pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
May 18, 2010 3:04 PM
Con_Alma wrote: If a felony can be proven, yes.
So anytime a crime can be proven it should be prosecuted?
May 18, 2010 3:04pm
tsst_fballfan's avatar

tsst_fballfan

Senior Member

406 posts
May 18, 2010 3:04 PM
LJ wrote:
tsst_fballfan wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: ^^^ You don't understand the concept of a senior prank do you?
I guess not. But I do understand the concept of an adult committing a crime!

If the court decides community service is adequate punishment so be it, but it should not be predisposed for excusal or dilution simply because it was 'just for fun' or 'only a prank'.
Umm, intent is a major component of the crime to begin with. If they had a fair grand jury, they would not be indicted on felony charges due to intent.
That may very well be the case. It depends on the intent in question. Did they intentionally hide in a locker with the intent to circumvent building security intending to commit B&E on a secured building that did not belong to any of the perpetrators? I would say yes. Did they intend on doing damage to said building or the contents? I would say no.

Intent to commit property damage, theft, vandalism, etc., not guilty. Intent to commit B&E, probably guilty.
May 18, 2010 3:04pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
May 18, 2010 3:07 PM
So what's the problem with giving them community service?
May 18, 2010 3:07pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
May 18, 2010 3:09 PM
tsst_fballfan wrote:
LJ wrote:
tsst_fballfan wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: ^^^ You don't understand the concept of a senior prank do you?
I guess not. But I do understand the concept of an adult committing a crime!

If the court decides community service is adequate punishment so be it, but it should not be predisposed for excusal or dilution simply because it was 'just for fun' or 'only a prank'.
Umm, intent is a major component of the crime to begin with. If they had a fair grand jury, they would not be indicted on felony charges due to intent.
That may very well be the case. It depends on the intent in question. Did they intentionally hide in a locker with the intent to circumvent building security intending to commit B&E on a secured building that did not belong to any of the perpetrators? I would say yes. Did they intend on doing damage to said building or the contents? I would say no.

Intent to commit property damage, theft, vandalism, etc., not guilty. Intent to commit B&E, probably guilty.
False. In Ohio a B&E is when you break in with the intent to commit another crime.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2911.13
May 18, 2010 3:09pm
tsst_fballfan's avatar

tsst_fballfan

Senior Member

406 posts
May 18, 2010 3:10 PM
I Wear Pants wrote: So what's the problem with giving them community service?
None if that's what the court decides is appropriate punishment for the crime they did commit.
May 18, 2010 3:10pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
May 18, 2010 5:39 PM
tsst_fballfan wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: So what's the problem with giving them community service?
None if that's what the court decides is appropriate punishment for the crime they did commit.
Oh I see, you think whatever the courts decide is fair. Right.
May 18, 2010 5:39pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
May 18, 2010 5:41 PM
LJ wrote:
tsst_fballfan wrote:
LJ wrote:
tsst_fballfan wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: ^^^ You don't understand the concept of a senior prank do you?
I guess not. But I do understand the concept of an adult committing a crime!

If the court decides community service is adequate punishment so be it, but it should not be predisposed for excusal or dilution simply because it was 'just for fun' or 'only a prank'.
Umm, intent is a major component of the crime to begin with. If they had a fair grand jury, they would not be indicted on felony charges due to intent.
That may very well be the case. It depends on the intent in question. Did they intentionally hide in a locker with the intent to circumvent building security intending to commit B&E on a secured building that did not belong to any of the perpetrators? I would say yes. Did they intend on doing damage to said building or the contents? I would say no.

Intent to commit property damage, theft, vandalism, etc., not guilty. Intent to commit B&E, probably guilty.
False. In Ohio a B&E is when you break in with the intent to commit another crime.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2911.13
Is moving books to a different room a crime?

I guess it could be considered vandalism but I'm hoping the school/prosecutes don't see it as such. Make a deal for no charges in exchange for x hours of community service.
May 18, 2010 5:41pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
May 18, 2010 7:23 PM
you know its not going to be that easy for anyone. I'm sure the school district also warned the kids in advance about senior pranks, with consequences for anyone who tried to pull one(at least this is the way it used to be at my school, you could forget about walking for graduation if they caught you)
May 18, 2010 7:23pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
May 18, 2010 9:34 PM
Okay. Don't let them walk, make them do community service. But for Christ's sake don't charge them with a felony. That helps absolutely no one.
May 18, 2010 9:34pm
G

Gardens35

Senior Member

4,929 posts
May 18, 2010 9:57 PM
The 12 "Adults" were charged with B&E and Resisting Arrest, the 8 "Juveniles" were charged with Trespassing and Curfew Violation. Seems that the police took a heavy handed approach to those 18 years and older. Makes little sense.
May 18, 2010 9:57pm
GOONx19's avatar

GOONx19

An exceptional poster.

7,147 posts
May 18, 2010 9:58 PM
We were told we wouldn't be allowed to walk at graduation if we did a senior prank. That's fair. I guess it didn't really stop us though. We caught about 100 frogs and put them in random lockers, as well as filling the principles office with a couple dozen blowup dolls. No one got in trouble. That was just last year.

EDIT: We had to break in to do it, and nothing we did was destructive.
May 18, 2010 9:58pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
May 18, 2010 10:07 PM
^^^ This district/town would be trying to get you the death penalty.
May 18, 2010 10:07pm
Jughead's avatar

Jughead

Senior Member

1,261 posts
May 19, 2010 8:53 PM
Gardens35 wrote: The 12 "Adults" were charged with B&E and Resisting Arrest, the 8 "Juveniles" were charged with Trespassing and Curfew Violation. Seems that the police took a heavy handed approach to those 18 years and older. Makes little sense.
Seems like bullshit to me. You are telling me that not a single one of the 8 "juveniles" resisted arrest but yet ALL 12 of the "adults" did resist?

Once again, if the students are charged to the fullest extent of the law, this will do nothing but hurt the school. :dodgy:
May 19, 2010 8:53pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
May 20, 2010 10:27 AM
Hamilton County Prosecutor asked the Grand Jury not to go forward with the felony charges and asked the Lockland Police department to charge the kids with misdemeanor trespassing charges. The charges get dismissed from their records if they complete some sort of diversion program and do community service around the school.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100520/NEWS010701/305200027/No+felony+charges+in+Lockland+prank

My favorite quote from that article:
Tom Smith, 61, the father of Danielle Smith, 18, another student charged, said he was pleased with the decision by the prosecutor. "Them kids made a mistake, they didn’t mean to do what they did,” he said.
May 20, 2010 10:27am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
May 20, 2010 11:12 AM
I Wear Pants wrote:
Con_Alma wrote: If a felony can be proven, yes.
So anytime a crime can be proven it should be prosecuted?
You don't have to read into my post or add to it.

Take it for what is posted and not for what isn't.

Based on what I've read in this thread it's my opinion that if a felony can be proven in this case it should be prosecuted. It's unfortunate and seems a little ridiculous but at some point the message of the penalty not being worht the fun of the prank has got to resinate far and wide.

Penalties are defined and put in place fore multiple reasons. Sometimes it's for punishment. Sometimes it's for deterants. If the school does not want senior pranks to happen they may want to continue to push the penalty as far as they can and as far as they need to get them to stop.
May 20, 2010 11:12am