Four Kids Arrested for Random Assault

Four juveniles have been arrested for a Tuesday night beating of a man on West Main, the Progress reports. Along with three others, they mobbed a couple walking down the street, clotheslined the guy, and beat him. An officer tracked down the kids down on Wertland, and the victim was able to ID them. There was no robbery — just a random attack. This sounds a lot like the series of random assaults there this summer, which stopped after a pair of teenagers were arrested in July.

97 Responses to “Four Kids Arrested for Random Assault”


  • Former Second St SE Walker

    C’mon Charlottesville. I wanna be able to walk from my Venable neighborhood home to my downtown job without being suspicious of every group of youngins I come upon. Am I going to have to break out the brass knuckles?

  • I suggest you go to the Circuit Court and apply for and get a concealed weapons permit. The courts have ruled that the police have no obilgation to protect you. The decision was based upon the fact that the police can’t be everywhere at the same time.

  • Even better than a gun, how about the new TASER C-2? It retails for under $300, can drop a 200 lb. perp at 15′ and comes in a variety of neat-o designer colors to match your ensemble. So maybe it’s time to put a little “ZAP” under the tree this year. You’ll be glad you did.

  • The police are too busy ticketing people in wheelchairs who have been hit by cars while crossing the street to protect us from gangs of roving hoodlums.

  • Has the Pastor started shaking down his congregation for the legal defense fund for the perps yet?

  • I’m sure all of these kids come from loving two parent families where they are taught love and respect. JC

  • Demopublican,

    Funny you should mention that. I got finally my permit earlier this year after the random assaults started and I’d also had a little incident after work one day.

    Just this past Monday I was walking to my car behind Garrett Square at about 4:15 pm when I heard a random gunshot very close by. It sounded like it was coming from right by that clubhouse or whatever it is at the edge of the playing field. Immediately I ducked behind a car and then made my way down the street a few dozen yards using the cars as visual cover to try to see who had fired the shot and whether anyone was dead or injured. As it happened, I could not see anything useful and so headed for my car and left.

    However, I had my hand on the grip of my holstered revolver the whole time. It’s funny because just that morning I was just starting to wonder whether it was just pointlessly paranoid of me to bother carrying at all.

    I probably park there 300 days out of the year. And 299 of those days, everything is fine. But it only takes that one day where somebody randomly opens fire near me to justify legally carrying a concealed handgun every day that I’m going to be downtown.

    By the way, in my experience, don’t even bother calling the cops about that sort of thing. They’ll basically shrug and don’t even file a report. About 5 years ago I had someone actually shooting at me in my car from another car while I drove down 5th Street extended. I called 911 and when the cops showed up to meet me at the Exxon they didn’t even write anything down. They just said that people are doing stuff like this all the time and sooner or later they’d probably pick them up for something or other. Understandable, but hardly comforting.

  • Even better than a gun, how about the new TASER C-2?

    in this case, a taser would have worked fine against one of them, but what do you do about the other six?

  • Point well taken Blanco. The product info. says that if you can’t reload a new cartridge fast enough, then once the probes have been deployed the unit will function as a regular “contact” stun-gun until a new cartridge is put in. I wouldn’t want to bet my life on it, but I would hope any other malcontents would see their buddy writhing on the ground and haul-ass. The “tase” weapon just appeals to me more because there can be all kinds of “messy” legal circumstances when you shoot someone dead. Unless, of course, you live in FLA. where they have legislated some interesting “shoot first” laws.

  • And if the other “malcontents” pull a lethal weapon on you when they see their buddy writhing on the ground?

    Tasers are a great tool for police officers. Yet the cops still carry a pistol. Why do you suppose that is?

  • Come on Jack, it’s not called Garrett Square anymore, it is now the “Friendship Court” where everyone should be happy and gay, where there is no crime or social problems. We wouldn’t want anyone to know that we have a HOUSING PROJECT right near the YELLOW BRICK ROAD (Downtown Mall), now would we??

  • Alright, already. Forget the taser. It’s not like I work for the company or anything. Maybe what I’m saying is I just think it would be hard “for me” to deal with the after effects of killing someone. I just hope it never comes to that. And from what I’ve read about these kinds of “self defense” shootings, you better make damn sure you do kill the sombitch, ’cause if you just maim him, or cripple him, then you’ve really got a snoot full of trouble.

  • “And from what I’ve read about these kinds of “self defense” shootings, you better make damn sure you do kill the sombitch, ’cause if you just maim him, or cripple him, then you’ve really got a snoot full of trouble.”

    If you shoot and kill a kid – regardless of the reason – you are going to have a lot of trouble.

    And if you shoot and kill a black kid – especially in a situation like this one – you can expect no end of grief. Remember it’s a double standard, they would be “poor poverty oppressed young people,” and their shooter “a clearly racist vigilante.”

  • Don’t Tase Me Bro,

    How’s your aim with the Taser C-2? Because I just looked it up and cartridges cost about $100 for a pack of 4. It would be pretty damned expensive to get yourself to the point where you could reliably hit what you were aiming at in a stressful situation.

    You really need to shoot at least a couple hundred rounds from a hand held weapon in order to build the basic skills to hit a target at 15 feet with enough regularity to bet your life on it. Just 100 rounds would cost you $2,500.

    Sounds like a great deal for millionaires. Personally, I’d rather buy ammo for my .38 at about $10 for a box of 50 rounds and practice regularly to avoid getting rusty.

    I bet that 90% of the people who buy that thing never once practice with it given the cost of cartridges. All it’s really doing is making them feel better having it handy. In a real life or death situation, they’d be just as doomed as someone who carries a handgun and has never fired it.

  • The product info. says that if you can’t reload a new cartridge fast enough, then once the probes have been deployed the unit will function as a regular “contact” stun-gun until a new cartridge is put in.

    nice. i could see carrying one then. shoot the first one then lay out as many of the others as you can get in contact with. in a 7-on-1, you’ll probably still get your ass kicked, but at least you can take down a few of the bastards with you.

  • my friend tried to get a taser and said it was impossible to get accepted. She’s in Cali, maybe it’s different here, but you have to fill out some massive form listing every address you’ve ever had and they could never get it right.

    Might be why you don’t see more of them.

    It is a sad situation though, I had some friends coming to visit and felt compelled to warn them about walking around downtown. Welcome to Charlottesville – ha!

  • They should be immersed in barrels of ticks.

  • I made it #1 you made it 17th

    The thing is these kids are just soft, how weak can you be, jumping innocent people violates the code of the streets. They will jump the wrong person soon enough and it will be tragic.

  • Jack, if you had been shot at, and you were stil breathing and standing on two feet while talking to them, why do you think our current Police Department would care? They would only care if you had a gun and had fired back. You would be arrested, your gun confiscated, and you would never see it again. They would all sing “Another Gun Off The Street” as they go to bed that evening. And I will share a little secret with you…. the next time you call the police for any reason, DO NOT stand in or near a crosswalk while waiting for them to arrive.

  • What are you people talking about tasers for? The scum in Charlottesville will only attack citizens when the citizen is outnumbered. They are low life cowards. They won’t go one on one while committing their crimes. If you want an alternative to a handgun, I suggest you invest in some decent running shoes.

  • Here’s where the cops are and what they are doing while citizens are being mugged….

    http://www.break.com/index/dude-accuses-cops-of-illegally-parking.html

  • The kids were not arrested…….they will go to court at some later point, but were all set free and were back on the streets the next night because in Virginia juveniles can’t be detained unless they have 17 points…………..I was told by an officer this assault counts as 2………

  • You know the proverb – you reap what you sow? Well, this is the result of the give-me generation’s liberal viewpoints. We no longer teach our youth to be responsible and accountable. you can blame the cops, but the problem is much broader and deeper than that.

  • The use of lethal force is only legal when your life (or the lives of others) is in imminent risk. The laws are basically set so that you can only use equal force to defend yourself, not excessive force. Nobody has suggested or implied that you should shoot people for simple assault.

    All I’m saying is a taser is going to escalate the situation. i.e. piss them off and possibly get your ass shot.

  • the next time you call the police for any reason, DO NOT stand in or near a crosswalk while waiting for them to arrive.

    LOL Demo. Damn straight.

  • Incorrect, Lars. You can use lethal force if you fear for your life. “Imminent risk” is not an acceptable term to be preaching, in my opinion. The same applies for cops. When cops fear their life or the lives of others is in danger they shoot people point blank. Like the young kid they shot in Garrett Square a few years back. Cops are cleared of any wrongdoing simply by saying they feared for their life. The shooting of a 16-year-old boy by the game warden in Greene County recently is all the proof you need. Or are you suggesting there’s a different standard to be applied between cops and civilians? What about the recent murder on St Clair Avenue? Should the girl have feared for her life when she opened the door and the punks started forcing their way into her apartment? Looks like she should have to me. Too damn bad she didn’t have a Smith & Wesson 500 and know how to use it. If 3 or 4 low life coward thugs attack me on the downtown mall I will be in fear of my life. And I am prepared to face a jury of my peers. Period!

  • Demopublican, no offense intended but your posted video link related to the LAPD officers parking illegally is irrelevant to the discussion and can be only construed as biased and inflammatory since those officers are 3,000 miles away from Charlottesville. I welcome debate of local issues, but your post is a stretch and is stupid.

  • Could city council possibly spend some taxpayers dollars on these assault situations by calling in outside consultants to tell us what we as a community are doing wrong? ha…ha…ha…
    It’s begining to look like the wild, wild west around here. Every man for himself. The fastest gun in town wins or is it the fastest punch wins? Whatever..

  • I made it #1 you made it 17th

    If they charged the parents with a large fee like $3000 it would stop. Will they do something to make the parents accountable is the question.

  • It really went right over your head Golfer, didnt it? The LA police video is very much about local issues. The point being that cops all over the entire nation do as they damn well please because they think they are above the law. In the LA police video it was simply parking on the wrong side of the street. In Charlottesville it’s speeding, not stopping before making a right turn on red, parking their personal cars in “police car only” parking spaces while they work (beside Channel 29, 7th Street, N.E.), etc….

    One evening I had to stop and sit on 7th Street N.E. because a police car had the road totally blocked. He was going into his personal car to retrieve something out of it and parked right in the traveled portion of the roadway. If you or I had done that we would have gotten a ticket most likely. The least we would get is a poice car blowing the horn and yelling to get the hell out of the street.

  • By the way Golfer, did you see the smirk on the cops faces as the guy committed “contempt of cop” by asking why they think they are above the law? The smirk on their faces as they refused to give the guy their names. The smirk on their faces as they told the guy to have a nice day? The smirk means “F*ck You, Buddy, you’re a nobody! Why am I even wasting time talking to you?” I’m surprised the cops didn’t come right out and say that. I imagine the driver was probably suspended for 3 days without pay once LA administration reviewed the tape. Unless he lied like a dog and came up with an excuse for being parked on the wrong side of the street. You will eventually see these same smirks and attitudes in cops in Charlottesville if you get out very often.

  • Clara,

    What are you talking about? In what way is random assault connected to liberal values? You have typed words on to the screen in grammatically correct order but they don’t make any sense.

    Do you actually think that this sort of thing is a modern, post-New Deal innovation? Random assaults like that have been going on for as long as human beings have lived in large groups. There are no politics involved in a bunch of teenaged idiots deciding to attack people. The violent behavior of stupid people cannot be legislated away. The best that you can do is lock them up once they’ve been found guilty. And given that these are young offenders, by definition they don’t have long lives full of prior convictions that they should have been locked up for already.

    Quit trying to turn tragic violence into an excuse for ad hominem political attacks. If you really want to get into it, I can’t help but notice that 6 years of Republican monopoly control of the federal government did not result in any overall improvement to American crime rates.

  • Jack, I’m gonna guess at this, but I think what Clara is talking about is the fact our fathers would take a leather belt and beat our butts when we did stupid things. Parents can no longer do this. Parents can’t discipline their children the good old fashioned way any longer. There was a day and time when school administration and teachers could discipline children as well. Those days too are long gone. No pain, no gain. We have given the kiddies a free ride to do as they damn well please because of all the bleeding heart liberals who object to child abuse. My father beating my butt wasn’t child abuse, it was the best thing that ever happened. I knew better than to go out and assault somebody and take $10 off of them as they stand there bleeding. I also knew better than to force my way into a young girl’s home and kill her. I knew my father would kill me in return for my dirty deed. I didn’t have to worry about ever making it to a trial. Yes, it’s political, just as Clara says.

  • “Or are you suggesting there’s a different standard to be applied between cops and civilians?”

    Actually I am. Police (for good reason) are given more leeway than the average citizen for use of force. When a law enforcement officer uses lethal force (and is not found to have been excessive force) then it is the STATE that has used force against you, not the officer. And the state has the right to kill you for all sorts of things that you do not have the right to kill for (such as in response to someone murdering someone else i.e. the death penalty).

    It is handled on a case to case basis, but it is often legal to shoot a prison inmate or suspect simply for escape. You try getting away with that in court! :) “I had to shoot him judge! He was gettin’ away!”. Obviously cops are given more rights than us in law and in practice. IANAL so I dont care to look up the police regulations on use of force.

    Do I have to remind you of the time the state trooper shot a man right in front of what is now Jack’s office building downtown simply because he had ACCIDENTALLY MACED HIMSELF while fighting with the suspect? “well I couldn’t see cause I maced myself, so I shot an unarmed man”. You try that. :) See if you get away with it :)

    In case you are wondering about the use of deadly force laws, I would check out the website of the court of virginia. Its handled on a case by case basis, but here is the basic case law in virginia to give you an idea of how it goes:

    Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 68, 71, 435 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1993) (quoting Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92, 96, 104 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1958)) (citation omitted). In the case of justifiable homicide, “[in which] the accused is free from fault in bringing on the fray, the accused ‘need not retreat, but is permitted to stand his [or her] ground and repel the attack by force, including deadly force, if it is necessary.'” Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 466, 472, 506 S.E.2d 543, 546 (1998) (quoting Foote v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 61, 67, 396 S.E.2d 851, 855 (1990)). Where the accused is to “some [degree at] fault in the first instance in provoking or bringing on the difficulty” but “retreats as far as possible, announces his desire for peace, and kills his adversary from a reasonably apparent necessity to preserve his own life or save himself from great bodily harm,” the accused has committed excusable homicide and also is entitled to an acquittal. Bailey, 200 Va. at 96, 104 S.E.2d at 31.

    “[W]hether the danger is reasonably apparent is always to be determined from the viewpoint of the defendant at the time he acted.” McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978). However, “the test is not [merely] whether the accused thought or believed at the time of the killing that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm . . . . He [both] must have believed and must have had reasonable ground to believe, at the time, that he was in such danger.” Perkins v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 867, 877, 44 S.E.2d 426, 430 (1947). “[F]ear alone” is not sufficient to justify a person’s intentionally inflicting a mortal wound upon another; to justify taking the life of another, “there must be an overt act indicating the victim’s imminent intention to kill or seriously harm the accused.” Smith, 17 Va. App. at 71-72, 435 S.E.2d at 417 (emphasis added). “[T]he term ‘imminent’ has a connotation that is less than ‘immediate,’ yet still impending and present.” Sam v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 312, 325, 411 S.E.2d 832, 839 (1991) (construing “imminence” in the context of a duress defense). Whether a threat of harm is imminent is ordinarily a question of fact to be decided “based on all of the circumstances,” which may include “the defendant’s ability to avoid the harm.” Id. (noting other jurisdictions impose such a requirement but not addressing whether Virginia law requires such a showing).

  • OK Lars, I accept your argument. No wonder cops are looked upon as the “Biggest Street Gang” in America by more and more people now. Even you say, and I quote, “Police (for good reason) are given more leeway than the average citizen for use of force.” Just to be safe in the law’s eyes, when a person in Charlottesville is attacked by a group of thugs, he/she should fall to the ground and roll up in a fetal position hoping for the best.

  • Clara and Demopublican,

    What kind of crack are you on? The issue here isn’t what kind of parenting or values these kids were taught but most likely the absense of parenting altogether. If you want to argue the whole conservative versus liberal parenting technique thing, then I can tell you about all kinds of kids I know growing up who’s parents were extremely conservative and still turned out to be less than model citizens. In fact, in high school I found that there was a direct relationship between how conservative and religious parents were and their daughters tendancy to dress in black leather and spikes (not that there’s anything wrong with that…) Besides, it’s not really the unwillingness of parents to spank their kids that make kids go out and attack random strangers. It’s the fact that they’re being raised by gangs, because their parents aren’t bothering to do their job (if they haven’t abandonded them altogether).

  • Demopublican, it’s disturbing to think that the only reason you grew up obeying laws was out of fear of being murdered by your father:

    “My father beating my butt wasn’t child abuse, it was the best thing that ever happened. I knew better than to go out and assault somebody and take $10 off of them as they stand there bleeding. I also knew better than to force my way into a young girl’s home and kill her. I knew my father would kill me in return for my dirty deed.”

    For me, it was more that I saw my parents and the other adults in my life working hard and making good decisions; I respected them, I wanted them to be proud of me, I didn’t want to let them down. I don’t think it required the threat of physical punishment from them to inspire me to (generally speaking) make good decisions for myself.

    I tend to agree with Lonnie — kids who are going out and causing problems these days are not being parented at all — it’s not an issue of insufficient corporal punishment, but rather that their parents are not really involved or are not modeling good behavior themselves. And the fact that the schools/teachers are no longer able to deliver a “good old-fashioned” ass-whupping is irrelevant, too — a young teen who’s had years of indifferent parenting is too far gone for the threat of corporal punishment in the schools to really turn him or her around. People will read their own personal politics into this situation, of course; for me, I don’t see how poor and working-class Americans can be expected to form model families when there are no frickin’ good jobs available. Family stability depends on economic stability, and economic stability has become a luxury reserved for the few.

  • That’s exactly right, Lonnie! They are being raised by gangs because I can’t knock my children 15 feet into the next day when they come home at 1:30 a.m. in the morning. If I do, I will find myself behind bars waiting to appear before a judge for a bond hearing. Who taught these children to dial 911 if their parents lay one hand on them?

  • Whenever I go about this time of year, I take a big bag of iPods with me and hand them out to the kids I pass so that they will like me.

  • Yes, these types of crimes are only committed by the poor; and the poor are bad parents.

  • Let’s just say the next time I see one (or more) of these kids in a cross walk I will know what to do……

  • iknowcville, how will you know if those kids in the crosswalk are “these kids?”

  • The kids won’t be hanging around any crosswalks now. They know this is where cops sit around waiting to run over people.

  • The social fabric in our country sucks right now….primarily due to the policies of conservative legislatures. Relative to European nations, our national government does the absolute least to support families. Children being raised/influenced by gangs is a partial result of the fact that many economically disadvantaged parents are forced to work two or three jobs and are therefore not home. The kids committing these crimes, sadly, and in the long run, are themselves victims. I’m not saying you shouldn’t beat the stuffing out of one of these kids if they try to mug you, but blaming their behavior on “liberal values” is just plain ignorant and/or stupid.

  • And blaming their behavior on poverty is smart, huh? How does anyone on this blog know the income of the kids’ parents without knowing the identity of the kids? Or is the stereotype of black = poor working here?
    Demopublican, don’t you think some of the police have figured out who you are by now? Aren’t you afraid of being run down in a crosswalk? Remember, they carry guns and drive high-speed cars. If I don’t see your post one day, I’ll know they got you. Be careful. Maybe you ought to carry around a bag of those doughnuts you’re always talking about like my iPods.

  • You seriously don’t think there’s a correlation between economics and gangs? This isn’t rocket science.

  • No, it’s not science at all. The History Channel has a wonder show on the history of gangs in America. They may evolve into an economic engine but they do not form for economic reasons primarily. The Hell’s Angels are a good example.

  • Charlottesville……….World Class City……….

  • CVille, of course they know who I am. Frankly, I don’t give a damn. I have never said one word about the city or county cops that isn’t true. But in all fairness to the cops, I seriously doubt if they eat many donuts anymore. There’s probably not any shoppes still around that give them donuts free or half price.

  • Demopublican, I was making a joke. You don’t think I believe a police officer would run you down in the street do you? Have you checked the bakery sections at the major food stores.

  • The history of gangs has nothing to do with why kids join gangs today. The greatest single risk factor, easy enough to figure out with common sense and/or some quick research, is poverty. Period. The worst gangs in LA, for example, exist within poverty-ridden public housing projects. You also don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that conservative economic policies lend themselves to a greater disparity between the haves and the havenots…in short, more poverty.

  • You are so wrong, Cville. Yes, I think a few of them would probably run over me and hope to kill me if they ever had a chance and could justify it.

    Are you saying the major food stores give them half price or free donuts now? Learn something new every day I guess! HAHAHA!

    By the way CVille, if you get a new watch for Christmas, I can tell you exactly what time a cop goes into a local Seven-Eleven every morning to get his large free cop of coffee if you wanna set your new watch by him. Most of the time he doesn’t even speak to the clerks. He just walks in, fixes his free cup of coffee and walks out. The manager said the “arrogant little SOB” (their words) doesn’t even smile at them as he’s going out. They can’t say what they want to say to him though, it’s the owner’s orders to give ’em free coffee. Face it, it’s the cheapest additional patrol and security a little free cup of coffee can buy!

  • Cynic, your ideas are ridiculous. Your reliance solely upon myths, perceptions and stereotypes tells me that you certainly are no rocket or social scientist or any other kind of scientist. There is not one hint of your knowing anything about any kind of scientific thinking. You have no clue where these kids live. They may live in South Carolina.

  • C-ville Eye,

    You don’t have a clue. Thank you for demonstrating your lack of sense in that last response; it will help people to judge your opinions on other matters.

  • As will yours, Cynic.

  • Hold the presses, C-ville Eye. I just got off the phone with a police officer friend in South Carolina. He was in the local donut shop when I called (no surprise there, eh Demopublican), but, between bites of donut and kicking a homeless child, he was able to confirm your belief that there is a middle/upper middle class gang from South Carolina that has specifically targeted Charlottesville. Looks like they’ve been behind this from the get go. Seems they’re pissed that people confuse Charlottesville and Charleston, so they’re here in Charlottesville looking to “take back some turf one beating at a time.” It took a long time to release them back into the custody of their respective parents, as the drive from Charleston is a good seven hour haul and their parents had to postpone golf outings and whatnot. C-ville Eye, I strongly urge you to enlarge your moniker; I’m thinking “East Coast Eye” has a nice ring to it.

  • Cynic, it was so kind of you to waste your wit upon me. Really.

  • Well Cynic, if your cop friend was in a donut shoppe, it was most likely because the donut shoppe gives ’em donuts free or half price. Sounds like an intelligent donut shoppe manager, how else could he get additional and free patrol by your cop friend? Ask your cop friend if they also get free coffee too in South Carolina.

  • He says donuts are free, and will continue to be free, so long as South Carolina’s middle class gangs export their activities to C-ville. Apparently, donut sellers in S. Carolina recognize that free donuts are a small price to pay for security. Maybe you and “East Coast Eye” should open a donut shoppe together here in C-ville?

  • Can we get Cynic and Cville Eye to duke it out. That would be fun. Who’s with me. No mace, guns, or tasers allowed though. We’ll do it in a crosswalk so we can have the cops run them over when done. LOL

  • Tiger, put CVille Eye and Cynic in a crosswalk and let them fight it out during a red Don’t Walk signal. I will run over them and see if the city police charge CVille Eye and Cynic. Have about 5 or 6 witnesses present so we can see if anybody ever tells Longo that there was witnesses to my running over them. :)

  • Dandy and Demo, I’m trying to watch Christmas in Europe and you two have me laughing so hard my eyes were shut for the entire time Stockholm was on. I’ve missed a whole city. Demo, do you have insurance by the way? I’m very careful with my choice of vehicles.

  • I don’t think it is about poverty, politics or what type of discipline parents use. It is about the fact that human children need lots of involvement from both their parents and especially as teenagers, children need guidance from the same gender parent to be well socialized (lots of exceptions out there but generally true).

  • That must be one hell of a time zone difference there. It’s Christmas in Europe already? They’re 72 hours ahead of us? And I am not going to use any of my cars. I am going to borrow a police car from Chief Miller.

  • A friend told me today that his daughter’s friend was attacked by thugs near Friendship Court while walking home the other evening. She was stabbed (minor wound, fortunately), beaten badly, and is in the hospital with a broken jaw. All for the $8 she had on her.

    This one obviously didn’t make the news. Sorry, I don’t have more details as to date, time, and number of perpetrators, but I understand it just happened.

  • The police department probably didn’t even take a report on it. This is why I was telling Waldo I felt our local crime statistics aren’t even close to being accurate.

  • I made it #1 you made it 17th

    We need to find out how parents can be fined for these crimes. Is this something the City can enforce or does it have to be at the state level? I know a lot about these environments, and these kids and if some of the parents feared they would be fined large sums of money this would slow down. I mean large sums too. Your child gets caught your fined $3000-$5000 in court fees. I assure you this would help.

  • I’m sure the parents would be responsible for any judgments brought against their children by injured parties in a civil suit.

  • I made it #1 you made it 17th

    How often does that happen? How often do people even do that or know that? This needs to be stated publicly by the CA

  • Demopublican, I’m certain the police took a report. But yes, we need to find a way to make sure that the real crime stats are made public, We’ll have to fight the Chamber and Downtown Mall merchants on that one though however, because they sure don’t want that stuff publicized. They all want the cameras, but they don’t want to tell potential shoppers why they want ’em!

    Several police officers have told me that the #1 frustration they face in their jobs is the attitudes of the parents. The cops see stuff the average C’ville citizen doesn’t, and they see a lot of it!

    The cops are constantly finding these kids running around in the wee hours, fighting, etc. When they take them home at 3 o’clock in the morning, the parents are sometimes out themselves partying. Or, if they are home, the parents scream at the cops and accuse them of picking on their kids. No “thanks for finding my 13 year old and bringing him home at 4 o’clock in the morning, officer. I was really worried about him.” It’s “why are you picking on my kid, can’t you find any real criminals to arrest?” So, it’s damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

  • #1 – 17th, Charlottesville is full of self-proclaimed intelligent and well-educated people. I’m sure they know.

  • “The cops are constantly finding these kids running around in the wee hours.” Then, perhaps the police should stop taking them home and take them downtown and hold them until it is convenient for the parents to come downtown and pick them up, as the ordinance allows and intended. The police shouldn’t act a s a cab service. And, if the parents create a scene downtown, arrest them for disturbing the peace. That would make the problem of curfew violation insignificant. Oh, that’s right, it’s okay in Charlottesville to cuss police officers so maybe we ought to strike the “disturbing the peace” scenario.

  • Cville Eye, while I agree with most of what you’ve said, there are shades of gray here. Kids are picked up on curfew violations. Sometimes they’re taken straight home, and sometimes the parents have to come to the station to pick them up… when they’re home to answer the phone, that is. Many of the cops feel compassionately towards these kids and want to give them a chance to do right before launching them into the juvie system.

    True, the parents could/should be arrested for disturbing the peace, but then you’d have even more people clogging the jails due to “minor” infractions. Then everyone is yelling that the cops are concentrating on small fry and not out there catching murderers. Are you prepared for the actual manpower it takes for the arresting and processing of all these miscreants? It’s pretty staggering.

  • Doolittle, the system worked well when it was initially employed and curfew violations declined tremendously. Word of mouth got the word out fast. Unfortunately, all of the reasons you have stated were put out there by people (advocates) who did not have andy children and the system was shelved. We now have curfew problems. Who cares what the parents say? They only got to complain once because after the first time most of them made sure their children were at home. Some of them were sneaking out and others were supposed to be spending the night at friends. The good part of the program is that the kids were given several chances before being actually put into the system formally. It also helped the police and social service agencies better identify which kids were more at risk of becoming a part of the system because of inattentive parents. We must be care not to confuse compassion with enabling. Not being an expert by any means, I have always thought that program was a great prevention tool and also served to protect kids from being falsely accused of something because someone had noticed them in an area where a crime occured. Kids may hate it, their parents may hate it, but I think most kids are better off having the curfew enforced. Providing free cab rides home is for the Chandler Group and, at the price of gas today, the police need to get out of that business. Don’t worry about the possible handful of parents who may be charged with a misdemeanor (usually a citation), if they spend most of the night in a magistrate’s office verifying their citation, they will only do that once, too. And word will get around.
    If I remember correctly, it wasn’t the police that stopped enforcing the ordinance by the book, it was Council’s wish because they got tired of “advocates” complaining to them in an election year.

  • Cville Eye, agreed. I’m a strong advocate of the strict method of parenting (no hitting, though). My parents didn’t hit me, but I grew up fearing the possible consequences of my actions– mostly because they were the parents, and I was the kid, and I was accountable to them.

    But that’s all changed. Police and social workers will tell you that many children today have little respect for anyone, especially police officers. I agree with you that the parents should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law if it can be shown that were enabling this behavior.

    It’s amazing that there are people who think a curfew is “unfair” to children who want to run around in the middle of the night. Apparently, they have no problem with the police acting as a babysitting service for lazy parents. But the point I’m trying to raise here is that people are going to complain regardless of what the police do to stem this activity. They’re too hard, they’re too soft, and so on.

    I’d like to know what we, as citizens, can do to help the police solve this problem. What can we do to support them? People need to remember that some cops know more about a few of these kids than their own parents do.

  • Doolittle, you’ve got it all right. You have me thinking back to the Council discussions before they reluctantly passed the curfew ordinance. “Advocates” thought it was an infringement upon people’s rights, others thought it would interfere with teenage employment opportunities, others thought that two AM was early enough, and others pushed for 12 midnight. The police and residents who were promoting the curfew said it would help keep kids from hanging out with the street drug dealers all night, learning the trade and serving as look-outs and would help keep them safe. Finally, Council agreed on 1 AM. When I was a child growing up in Charlottesville, I remember the bell ringing at 9 PM, indicating that kids had to be close to their homes if they were out. Yes, there will be complaints, primarily by the self-appointed “advocates” but it will die down when they realize there’s no use spending a lot of time on it because there’s no money in it.
    When it was enforced initially, I did hear some parents that were irate that they were contacted in the middle of the night that their children had been picked up and, after a few surly words, they took their children home but they did not go to Council to complain, it was the “advocates.”

  • Doolittle and C-ville Eye,

    I couldn’t agree more. Enforcement, however, will be the real problem. Zero tolerance, if you don’t have the will or the manpower, will doom this sort of endeavor.

  • That’s what doomed it the first time around, lack of manpower and Council support. Another glitch was midnight basketball. Kids who were supposed to be in rotation at midnight basketball at the downtown rec center would sometimes create havoc in the downtown area on weekends, then return to the gym. There’s so many youth that the mischief makers would just blend back in and go undetected. Maybe they will move that program to the new YMCA facility. All in all, it points to a lack of leadership at the Council level in supporting a comprehensive attack on juvenile street crime.

  • The curfew was and is a terrible idea. When I was 16, if my parents wanted to let me go lay in a field and stargaze at midnight on a Friday night, that was nobody’s business but mine and my parents. If they felt I was responsible enough to have a 1am curfew, again, that’s a standard for them to establish, not the police.

    It’s ridiculous to criminalize mere existence outside of one’s home because a teeny-tiny fraction of a percentage of kids violate existing laws when doing so. According to CPD’s own data, at the time that the curfew was passed, the bulk of crime committed by juveniles took place between 3pm and 6pm. (And, hey, they’re breaking the law — I don’t think a pesky thing like a curfew will present an obstacle to them.) So why have a nighttime curfew? Go figure.

  • Yes, Waldo( where have you been, do I remember your weighing in on this issue when it was current?) the number of crimes committed by and against youth were predominantly in the timeframe that you Serious, violent crimes occurred much later. If you wanted to watch the stars with adult supervision, the code allowed for it. It was late night, unsupervised activities by groups of youth the code targeted. I must say, if I were you parent I would have been fearful for your safety and would have discouraged your doing so. After all, a primary responsibility of any parent is to protect his child and I would have worried about your being attacked by roving groups of kids in the downtown area. Rights are fine, but they don’t always extend fully to children for a good reason, their protection. Driving, drinking, and sexing (everybody knows what I mean) are all proscribed in an effort to protect and I put curfews in the same bag as protective restrictions based upon age.
    There were some good arguments against the curfew, do you remember any off-hand?

  • the number of crimes committed by and against youth were predominantly in the timeframe that you Serious, violent crimes occurred much later.

    If that is so, that point was never raised, either by the police or by the city attorney in any of the subsequent legal filings.

    If you wanted to watch the stars with adult supervision, the code allowed for it.

    I’m not talkign about adult supervision. If a parent wants to let her child leave the house at midnight, stroll into a field across the street, lay down and watch the stars, that’s between the parent and the child. If a parent wants to let his son attend a 9:30 movie, talk about it with friends at Mudhouse afterwards, and then head home, that’s between the parent and the child.

    It was late night, unsupervised activities by groups of youth the code targeted.

    No, it didn’t — the law makes no mention of supervision or groups. It simply bars anybody 16 or under (originally proposed as 17 or under) from existing outside of their home after midnight.

    must say, if I were you parent I would have been fearful for your safety and would have discouraged your doing so. After all, a primary responsibility of any parent is to protect his child and I would have worried about your being attacked by roving groups of kids in the downtown area.

    My father joined the lawsuit against the law, making clear that he disagreed entirely. I walked across the country by myself at the age of 17 — I could handle walking down the Mall.

    I cannot see how a kid at a movie theater, a friend’s house, or simply taking a late-night walk around the block miles from downtown needs to fear “roving groups of kids in the downtown area.” Incidents of child abuse (physical or emotional) are much greater than incidents of late-night random-stranger child beatings — sadly, kids are sometimes safer outside of their house than in.

    Also, only adults have been attacked in these incidents thus far. Does that mean it’s time for an adult curfew? I once proposed to Council that they a curfew for the elderly, after they too adopted the children-as-victims tack.

    Driving, drinking, and sexing (everybody knows what I mean) are all proscribed in an effort to protect and I put curfews in the same bag as protective restrictions based upon age.

    And many of these laws suck. It’s illegal for adults and children under the age of 21, and that’s led to disastrously unhealthy approaches to alcohol in the U.S. That’s why sensible parents introduce their children to alcohol gradually and in a healthy fashion. Up until last year, sex between unmarried individuals was a crime in Virginia — the state supreme court had the good sense to toss that law out of the window. Driving has been established as a privilege, and is regulated in a great many ways for people of all ages; existing in public is not a privilege, but a fundamental right.

    What’s being taken away here isn’t youth rights, it’s the right of parents to raise children not just in the way that they see fit, but in a healthy, normal ways. Some children are more mature than others at different ages, and parents have the right to give their children increasing levels of freedom over time, so that those young adults can learn responsible independence.

    There were some good arguments against the curfew, do you remember any off-hand?

    Yup.

    If kids are breaking the law, no matter the hour, then they should be arrested. If young children are wandering the streets in the middle of the nights, than existing law should be used: social service can take them home and investigate the parents as is necessary.

    The family is the fundamental unit of society. Not government. Government shouldn’t be subverting that by forcing parents to abdicate their position as the ultimate arbiter of their children’s freedom unless the parents have demonstrated that they aren’t up to the task.

  • Waldo,

    While government is not the fundamental unit of society, many governments have seen the need to enact programs to help families, something I alluded to previously. The UN did a study recently (maybe last summer) that measured the amount of support that nations provide to families. The US was just about dead last in every category. The result is that we have a large number of families that are hugely dysfunctional.

    I would argue that quite a few parents have demonstrated that they aren’t up to the task of managing their children. These are the parents described by Doolittle.

    There will always be innocent people who are penalized in order to maintain law and order in a society. I feel we are asking too much of police to suggest that they ought to differentiate between late night innocents and late night ne’er-do-wells, especially when the ne’er-do-wells are unlikely to do their crimes when the police are watching. If police allow some teens to be out but target others, the result will be accusations of bias. If we can’t stop the random attacks through our current system of policing and social working, then we may have no choice but to keep all youths off the streets for a while. Responsible parents will keep their kids home (to include being out in the backyard looking up at the stars) while irresponsible parents will allow children to wander the city. This would make policing a much easier task.

  • I would argue that quite a few parents have demonstrated that they aren’t up to the task of managing their children.

    And I agree with you, as I’ve already written: “Government shouldn’t be subverting that by forcing parents to abdicate their position as the ultimate arbiter of their children’s freedom unless the parents have demonstrated that they aren’t up to the task.”

    I feel we are asking too much of police to suggest that they ought to differentiate between late night innocents and late night ne’er-do-wells, especially when the ne’er-do-wells are unlikely to do their crimes when the police are watching.

    So you’re supporting curfews for…everybody? If not, is there something about being 16 years old that makes it difficult to make that differentiation, but being 17 that makes it simple? How about 16 and 20? Or 16 and 50?

    Responsible parents will keep their kids home (to include being out in the backyard looking up at the stars) while irresponsible parents will allow children to wander the city.

    That’s an utterly false dichotomy. There are hundreds of very good reasons why a kid could be away from home during curfew hours that do not include “wandering the city.” I’ve already named a series of them, and I don’t doubt any of us could quickly name another couple of dozen.

    Recall that the curfew has an exception for “expressing first amendment rights.” In addition to free speech, the first amendment also provides us with the right to “peaceably assemble.” In modern parlance, to hang out. How effective is a youth curfew that has an exception for hanging out or talking to others?

  • Generally speaking, I would never be in favor of a curfew. But we are unable to put police on the street and cannot convince parents to keep their ne’er-do-well children inside at night.

    Right now, these assaults seem far too frequent. I don’t want to be mugged by a gang of teens. I would be in favor of a short-term curfew…at least until our city gets a handle on this. I know there are problems with “who” and “when”…..but it’s a question of “what is reasonable?” I’d say, most law abiding people are in their homes shortly after the bars close.

  • First, I hope you, Waldo, do not think I was being snotty when I asked for you to weigh-in on this issue. After sleeping on it, I still only have vague recollections of your and some of your contemporaries’ public input. I don’t remember if I read about it or saw it on TV at a Council meeting. I have absolutely no recollection of any lawsuit concerning this ordinance. I did not intend to appear as though I was baiting you or any member of your family. I acknowledge that curfews are a sticky issue, the contsitutionality of which has been challenged.
    But, I was right, you have provided some very substantial reasons against the City’s having such an ordinance.
    Second, I apologize for the mistakes in my previous post. I corrected them and failed at pasting the corrections. I think you were able to get the meaning.
    Third, it was not my intention (I just re-read it) to imply anything about your parents’ judgment. I only know you from TV and the media and I don’t know them at all. But I think they did an awful lot right.
    I do remember someone from the police department saying that the majority of crimes involving youth occurred between 3 and 6 PM, both locally and nationally. And I do remember his following that up with the statement that some of the more serious and violent crimes occur much later. He did not give a source but I inferred he was speaking locally. Since I’ve never seen any data on the matter I probably should not have memtioned it as a point of argument. It sticks in my mind because I remember questioning it at the time.
    I agree I should not have used “drving, drinking and sexing” as examples for my argument. However, I will use statutes mandating compulsory education, circumscribing child labor, and upholding teen birth control privacy as examples of the government’s already allowed usurpation of parental rights. Substantial arguments have been made against those laws, too. I will lump curfew laws with them. My point here is society has acknowledged that rights stated in the Constitution can be restricted to some degree when considering age.
    I grew up with curfew laws and viewed them as just another layer of adult rules for supervision. I do acknowledge that others may have legitimate complaints and will continue to disagree with me.
    There has always been a disparity in the application of laws at all levels. The police officers use their judgment quite frequently in deciding which drunken pedestrian to arrest and which to allow to continue home, the Commonwealth’s Attorney decides which police citations to prosecute and which to drop, and the judges decide which charges to dismiss and which to try. It’s part of the current system. Of course there are issues of fairness inherent in that kind of a system but I feel that it is necessary to make an overloaded system work. And, too, there are issues of fairness in the application of the curfew laws. Thus, I doubt seriously if the police would have prohibited your star-gazing peacefully but would have sent kids home hanging out in the known drug area by the coal tower.
    Again, I did not mean for my comments to serve as a back door attack on the views or actions of any member of your family.

  • I made it #1 you made it 17th

    I once again suggest that we organize the City to increase fines for parents that have kids caught assaulting someone. I know these kids, and families, and in many ways I was one of them growing up in Charlottesville. I assure you that the few parents that are involved here would not want to have to pay $$ for their “dumb ass kids stupid behavior.” I can just hear their voices now. Believe me when parents are made to do their jobs somehow they do it.

  • I made it #1 you made it 17th

    One final point. When the City decided to sell out to business, and real estate and gentrify to death it created what it is getting now. The cost of living and average wage are alarming.

  • Waldo, you were an exceptional child with exceptional parents. Sadly, there are many children out there who lack the maturity you displayed in your teens. Consider the possibility that they might be in a great deal more danger than you were at that age. Also, the world has changed… even in the relatively few years since your boyhood.

    My folks gave us a lot of leeway when growing up. But when they said no, there was no negotiating allowed, and we usually did as we were told, etc. But they also let us do lots of cool grownup things that our friends’ parents wouldn’t allow them to do. For instance, we were allowed wine at the dinner table, but just one small glass, and learned to develop a sophisticated palate. Like you, we were allowed to run around in the woods and stargaze. But, and it’s a big BUT, it’s only because we’d had such a good grounding in the basics first. We had proven ourselves to be of sound enough mind to be able to handle grownup privileges: treat yourself and others with respect, be smart about potential danger, in case of trouble always let your folks know ASAP, always let someone know where you’re going, etc etc. Because of those strict parameters, we were allowed to do all kinds of outrageous stuff.

    If a 12-16 year old kid has had a completely dysfunctional craptastic upbringing, and lives in a crime-ridden neighborhood to boot, I don’t think that letting him or her roam the streets at 3am is a good idea. Especially when one considers that the kid’s parents probably aren’t allowing him to roam for his personal growth, or as an enrichment experience. Since we can’t hand out special dispensation cards for all the extra smart kids with good judgment, then I think there needs to be a curfew within city limits. And that sucks. But until we get a handle on the root causes of youth crime, rampant school truancy, etc, I can’t think of much else to do.

    And not to be an utter curmudgeon here, but what the heck is midnight basketball and why are children involved in it?

  • I’ve got to agree with Waldo. A curfew is waste of time and money at best. “Bad” kids will still be out and about doing ill, and “good” kids will pay the price in freedom. A curfew is good way to prepare future citizens for a submissive role in a well controlled fascist state.

  • “….good way to prepare future citizens for a submissive role in a well controlled fascist state….”

    Every cop shoppe in the nation has already started down this path. Why should one more little thing like a curfew make any difference?

  • We’ve had a curfew on the books for close to 10 years now and it’s not had the slightest effect on reducing crime in Charlottesville. All of the arguments in favor of the curfew may have been very interesting and sometimes well-presented. But it all adds up to zilch in the face of nearly a decade of actual proof that the curfew helped nothing.

    It kind of reminds me of DC’s handgun ban. Interesting idea, lots of arguments thrown around. They tried it for around 30 years or so and the violent crime rate did not improve in the slightest. DC remained one of the most dangerous cities in American. That’s all, folks. If these things don’t work where the rubber meets the road then all of the arguments in support of them are just a lot of irrelevant crap. There were whole stacks of books written by very brilliant people defending and promoting the Ptolemaic model of the universe. And yet we can see that the Earth has doggedly been revolving around the sun in spite of it all.

    Youth crime did not go down with the introduction of the curfew, therefore the idea is proven to be a failure which only has the effect of penalizing law-abiding people. To anyone who disagrees with me about the matter of youth crime not having improved, I invite you to take a walk through the neighborhood of my choosing at sunset tonight.

  • Jack makes some interesting points. I think we should abandon failed policies whether they come from the “right” or “left” of the political spectrum. Neither unenforced curfews or recreation activities tried in the past seem to be viable solutions. The repeated attempts of older community leaders to give male role models to these kids is not solving the problem either. How about if we start by getting the police department to welcome reports of every criminal incident in the city so we have real data? Then, instead of expensive feel good projects, target increased law enforcement. How about identifying local tipping points, a strategy which has worked elsewhere, and cracking down, whether that means an increased focus on school truants or whatever else accompanies delinquency.

  • Jack,

    There are lots of laws on the books. Has the curfew law been enforced? Has it been enforced well? In looking for some evidence that curfews work, I didn’t find much, though there doesn’t seem to be much information out there involving cities the size of C-ville. One of the issues with making curfews work seems to be how seriously the curfew is taken and how strictly it is enforced.

    Maybe we can do some sort of combo curfew/community watch gig. In this scenario, many of us could become cell phone “deputies.” There might even be free donuts in such a venture.

  • Waldo, do not think I was being snotty when I asked for you to weigh-in on this issue.

    It’s really, really hard to offend me. Generally it doesn’t cross my mind that somebody’s trying to be rude to me, and it certainly didn’t in this case.

    I agree I should not have used “drving, drinking and sexing” as examples for my argument. However, I will use statutes mandating compulsory education, circumscribing child labor, and upholding teen birth control privacy as examples of the government’s already allowed usurpation of parental rights. Substantial arguments have been made against those laws, too. I will lump curfew laws with them.

    But education is only compulsory insofar as parents choose to participate. Parents have the final word, not the state — they’re free to home school their children to whatever standard that they want. Child labor laws, again, don’t apply to parents — they can put their children to work in the home or out in the fields, harvesting corn, feeding cattle, milking goats, etc.

    Birth control privacy is in a different category — parents are as free as ever to prohibit their children from possessing birth control, but the state has determined that it’s not obligated to inform parents that their children possess it. Parents have the final word, not the state. Though this is a good example w/r/t the importance of a sliding scale of adulthood. An advantage to this arrangement is that young adults — mature enough to reproduce — are afforded the freedom to prevent reproduction. Much as nothing magical happens on a girl’s 17th birthday that makes it safe for her to stay out after midnight, nothing magical happens on her 18th birthday that renders her instantly capable of regulating her own reproduction. This affords young adults precisely the opposite of a curfew — freedom, not restrictions — which is the proper progression of rights.

    So, yes, curfews seem to dovetail nicely with your examples. :)

    Ff a 12-16 year old kid has had a completely dysfunctional craptastic upbringing, and lives in a crime-ridden neighborhood to boot, I don’t think that letting him or her roam the streets at 3am is a good idea. Especially when one considers that the kid’s parents probably aren’t allowing him to roam for his personal growth, or as an enrichment experience. Since we can’t hand out special dispensation cards for all the extra smart kids with good judgment, then I think there needs to be a curfew within city limits. And that sucks. But until we get a handle on the root causes of youth crime, rampant school truancy, etc, I can’t think of much else to do.

    Doolittle, given the random attacks downtown, wouldn’t you agree that there are a great many people for whom it’s not “a good idea” to “roam the streets at 3am”? After all, there are lots of people with bad judgement out there. Remember, half the population has a below-average IQ. :) Since “we can’t hand out special dispensation cards for all of the extra smart [people] with good judgement,” shouldn’t we have a curfew for everybody?

    At a minimum, wouldn’t you agree that we need a curfew for the elderly and the physically handicapped?

  • “But education is only compulsory insofar as parents choose to participate. Parents have the final word, not the state — they’re free to home school their children to whatever standard that they want.”

    At http://homeschool-regulations.suite101.com/article.cfm/homeschool_regulations_in_virginia “In the State of Virginia, there is a compulsory attendance law for all children in school ages (ages 6-18 years of age before September 30). Parents who decide to homeschool must file a notice of intent to homeschool each school year and meet certain qualifications.” And, “…they must file an approved curriculum that shows what they intend to teach their child including math study and language arts study. A letter of religious exemption is also acceptable.” And, “Testing must also be approved for all homeschooling families.”

    “Child labor laws, again, don’t apply to parents — they can put their children to work in the home or out in the fields, harvesting corn, feeding cattle, milking goats, etc.”

    http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:NDTScBOg6LwJ:www.doli.virginia.gov/infocenter/publications/laborlaws/guideforteens_web.pdf State of Virginia Child Labor Laws&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us limits this employment to that supervised by a parent or guardian.

    “Birth control privacy is in a different category — parents are as free as ever to prohibit their children from possessing birth control, but the state has determined that it’s not obligated to inform parents that their children possess it. Parents have the final word, not the state.”

    You’re probably right about that, so I’ll substitute that the right of adults and children to assemble has been abridged by the requirement to get a parade permit.
    I think a more fundamental question here, taking my cue from another poster and you, is just how much our society is willing to restrict first amendment freedoms? And, if we are willing to have curfews, how effective have they been? and,if they have not, do they have the potential of being effective? and, should we continue to have them on the books.? Unfortunately, Charlottesville is not generally known for these kinds of evaluations and I would be very surprised if the police or sociall services have kept the necessary data. Charlottesville used to have a committee made up of representattive from the juvenile justice agencies (don’t remember the name), but I’m not sure if they still meet. Maybe, it’s time for Council to give them another shot in the arm.

  • If any of you plan to go to the mall or around the University to celebrate bringing in the new year, you need to be especially aware of your surroundings. Especially on the side streets, going to or from an event or to or from your cars. These thugs will probably be out new years eve just like you but they will be looking for something entirely different than you, so be careful. Happy New Year to all.

  • What are the races of the perpetrators and the victim?

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog