# Whiteface Gondola incident - Hoodlums threatened to push passenger out



## Rambo (Mar 9, 2009)

I was reading about a few teenage hoodlums who tried to scare the crap out of a passenger on their Gondola and filmed the incident and posted it on youtube before it was pulled. The kids threatened to push the man out of the Gondola. The kids now are facing charges. What is wrong with people nowdays? (this was posted on the Whiteface portion of the skiADK forum).

Here is a portion of the pulled youtube video: Warning contains Profane Language:
http://www.wptz.com/video/18863733/index.html

The TV news coverage:
http://www.wptz.com/news/18863784/detail.html

Here is a newspaper article about it:
http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/505344.html?nav=5008


----------



## boston_e (Mar 9, 2009)

bad parenting....


----------



## hardline (Mar 9, 2009)

thats just wrong. that being said if i had been in the car and it had been me. one if not two of them would be dead or serriously injured. if you threaten my life i will very simply remove you from the face of the earth and the wonderfull thing is the law is on my side because its self defense. that is just .... im speachless.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 9, 2009)

Throw  the book at these little pukes !!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 9, 2009)

hardline said:


> thats just wrong. that being said if i had been in the car and it had been me. one if not two of them would be dead or serriously injured. if you threaten my life i will very simply remove you from the face of the earth and the wonderfull thing is the law is on my side because its self defense. that is just .... im speachless.




Times two..I'm not a violent person but if provoked, I get superhuman strength and would break some necks in self defence..


----------



## TheBEast (Mar 9, 2009)

regoddamndisculous......those kids should get the max!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 9, 2009)

Karma will catch up to them..


----------



## drjeff (Mar 9, 2009)

Future leaders of America there  I so hope that their parents see that vid and then knock some sense into those winners! :uzi:


----------



## Johnskiismore (Mar 9, 2009)

WTF!?!!!  The punk who did the most talking I want to stomp his face!  Real brave outnumber someone else and make threats.

Let's keep an eye on this, and let me be the first to guess...... the punks' parents will try to bail them out and say they're depressed, they were instigated, they were just 'being boys', they are victims of society, or some line of BS!!!

Crap like this really pisses me off :angry:


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 9, 2009)

not a violent guy here, but would've been nice to see a bit of poetic justice.  Guy kicks their ass, resumes the videotape of them crying and posts it on youtube to have the punks friends ridicule them.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 9, 2009)

If they're high school kids, I'll bet nothing is going to happen.  The resort should step in and administer the true punishment.  They should be banned for life from Whiteface.


----------



## 2knees (Mar 9, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> not a violent guy here, but would've been nice to see a bit of poetic justice.  Guy kicks their ass, resumes the videotape of them crying and posts it on youtube to have the punks friends ridicule them.



ok chuck norris


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 9, 2009)

2knees said:


> ok chuck norris



:lol:

I've been known to sleep with my eyes open...or rather wait.


----------



## hardline (Mar 9, 2009)

a few hours later this has me still kinda steamed. i was a crazy kids but my parents taught me right from wrong. you just dont do things like that to another human being.


----------



## Skimaine (Mar 9, 2009)

How about the Singapore option - public caning across the bare backside.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 10, 2009)

I would put them in the military (preferably the Marines). That would teach them. Were they trying to make a snuff film? "Revenge is a dish best served cold".


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Mar 10, 2009)

Johnskiismore said:


> WTF!?!!!  The punk who did the most talking I want to stomp his face!  Real brave outnumber someone else and make threats.



Very true they are cowards.



Geoff said:


> They should be banned for life from Whiteface.



I hope that happens. I also hope they can be punished by the law.


----------



## SkiDork (Mar 10, 2009)

Agreed these putzes were acting like spineless bullies because they outnumbered the guy.

One thing I'd like to know:

What happened prior to the filming?  Do we know for sure that the guy that got harrassed was just sitting there minding his own business?  Or maybe he did or said something to provoke that?


----------



## Rambo (Mar 10, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> I would put them in the military (preferably the Marines). That would teach them. Were they trying to make a snuff film? "Revenge is a dish best served cold".



I do not think they were really going to push the man out of the Gondola. I imagine they wanted to scare the living crap out of him and post their video on youtube. Maybe it was the idiot kids way of making a "horror film".


----------



## jaywbigred (Mar 10, 2009)

hardline said:


> thats just wrong. that being said if i had been in the car and it had been me. one if not two of them would be dead or serriously injured. if you threaten my life i will very simply remove you from the face of the earth and the wonderfull thing is the law is on my side because its self defense. that is just .... im speachless.





GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Times two..I'm not a violent person but if provoked, I get superhuman strength and would break some necks in self defence..



Throw the book at these kids, whatever the book may be.

Hardline and GSS...be careful if you ever find yourself in the situation where you actually feel like getting involved physically, self-defense laws are not as powerful as you might think.


----------



## woody (Mar 10, 2009)

Hearing about this brings back bad memories of highschool.I wouldn't blame the parents.The kids are soley responsible for thier actions.Hopefuly all this media attention will bring some sort of punishment,but not enough.


----------



## rsf0000001 (Mar 10, 2009)

If this was me and it was five years ago this kid would have ended up crying on the ground 50 feet below the gondi.  Now that I'm a dad I am a little more mellow and I don't know what I would have done.  Most likely I would have just pulled out my cell and called 911while still on the lift.  

If I ever found out that my kid was doing something like this I can honestly say that he would be in for the ass whooping of his life.  We don't hit or spank in our household but I have reserved the right to dish out a little parental justice if my teenager ever pulls crap like that.


----------



## twinplanx (Mar 10, 2009)

jaywbigred said:


> Throw the book at these kids, whatever the book may be.
> 
> Hardline and GSS...be careful if you ever find yourself in the situation where you actually feel like getting involved physically, self-defense laws are not as powerful as you might think.



...Now if this would of happened in Texas the lifties might have quite the mess to clean


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 10, 2009)

Nip this in teh Bud Whiteface ban these pricks for life  and if any of you think these little bastards were just effin around think again -- little pukes who get away with shit bcuz well after al lthey're just kidz  have a way into turning into bigger pukes later on  

Bottom line BEHAVIOR MUST HAVE CONSEQUENCES  ..

Ban these pukes and MAKE AN EXAMPLE  OF THEM  or we'll see more of this crap


----------



## RENO (Mar 10, 2009)

There definitely would've been some fists flying if that was me. Maybe they would've kicked my ass, but they would've experienced some pain before it was over...


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 10, 2009)

those punks are lucky they didn;t end up with their video camera or phone smashed up or dropped from the gondola.  hope they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


----------



## hardline (Mar 10, 2009)

jaywbigred said:


> Throw the book at these kids, whatever the book may be.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardline and GSS...be careful if you ever find yourself in the situation where you actually feel like getting involved physically, self-defense laws are not as powerful as you might think.





the only reason i say that is because when i was in highschool something very similar (not on a gondola) hapened to me. i was jumped by three kids. i was able to break one kids knee, knock the second out befor the third kids hit me with billy club. the cops showed right after that. the three kids parents tried to press assualt charges. because i had beet their kids so bad. when we went to court the judge just laughed at them as my lawyer played the video from the parking lot security cam. basiclly from what i understant of the law and that is limited. if another person threatens you with bodily harm you have every right to defend youself. now they atacker can turn around and try to  bring a civil case against you but if you have decent lawyer and your life was really in peril most judges would toss it out.


----------



## icedtea (Mar 10, 2009)

I regards to self- defense, in most states you are allowed to defend yourself with reasonable force to protect yourself or others. The problem comes in if, say you are attacked my an older, frail individual and you could easily restrain this individual with minimal effort, but instead decide to end the old guy's life, you will probably be charged.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 10, 2009)

I know if there's a burgler you can be charged with murder if you kill them..and my first instinct would be to shoot a burgler in the head..


----------



## skiing is life (Mar 10, 2009)

i hate these kinds of kids. theyre type is always on the stratton gondola too acting hard and bitching at people..... f**k!:angry:


----------



## legalskier (Mar 10, 2009)

Rambo said:


> I imagine they wanted to scare the living crap out of him and post their video on youtube.




This might be a new snowsports version of happy slapping, which reportedly originated in London and involves physical violence, unlike this case.  However, certain verbal threats are actionable nonetheless under the criminal laws. It will be interesting to see how this case  resolves itself.  Here's a link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 10, 2009)

If you catch a burglar with your valuables in his hands you can't kill him. If you catch him with a weapon in his hands, you can kill him. It's called "justifiable force". If you catch someone on your property trying to commit arson, you can kill him.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 10, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> If you catch a burglar with your valuables in his hands you can't kill him.



semi-serious question, can you shoot him but not kill him and not be prosecuted?


----------



## tommy5402 (Mar 10, 2009)

Hope the resort steps up and gives them a permanent time out.


----------



## gladerider (Mar 10, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Very true they are cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that happens. I also hope they can be punished by the law.



+2  if WF does ban these kids, it would be setting a great example for other ski resorts to follow. i've seen some rude kids in many resorts and they can ruin your experience. if i see one too many of these hoodlums in a resort, i'd definitely think twice about taking my family there again.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 10, 2009)

And I thought the captain of the ski team from Better Off Dead was a punk..


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 10, 2009)

A lawyer friend of mine gave me some advice after the Heroin addict who moved in next door to me robbed us. Stick a knife in his hand. Yes, you can beat the crap out of someone if they are caught in your house. You can research the law in your state on these matters under penal law. The junkie went for a little vacation after that, to the "gray bar hotel". He moved out shortly after he robbed us. I made sure of it. On the ski angle, I caught a guy stealing my skis back in high school. Caught up to him in the parking lot and broke his jaw. Then I said "go ahead, get the cops". The people who saw me do it started clapping.


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 10, 2009)

i am amazed how often people don;t abide by the golden rule-treat others the way you;d like to be treated.  so maybe these punks ought to be dangled from outside a moving gondola car so they can full effect of it;s consequences.  and they ought to be video taped peeing in their pants and posted on youtube.

the resort ought to crack down hard on those punks.  no mercy.  if they let them get away with it, how soon before these punks graduate to stealing skis and vandalizing cars?


----------



## billski (Mar 10, 2009)

It's too bad they're underage.  I'd make sure their names were in all the local paper, a bit of public humiliation never hurt.  Oh and yeah, take away all their equipment too.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Mar 10, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> A lawyer friend of mine gave me some advice after the Heroin addict who moved in next door to me robbed us. Stick a knife in his hand.



A hand seems like a very difficult target for someone not skilled at wielding a knife. I think Id aim for a face or chest if it really was a self-defense situation.  But can you elaborate why hitting the hand makes you less prosecutable, since the advice comes from a lawyer?


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 10, 2009)

funny thing is that I know the converse argument will be "they are young kids, boys will be boys, don;t ruin their lives over a stupid incident".   
i doubt this is their first time doing something like this too.  wanting to put something like this up on the web suggest some premeditation on someone's part.  that;s a pattern for future issues that ought to be remedied right now.

you are never too young to have a reality check.  younger the better.


----------



## hardline (Mar 10, 2009)

icedtea said:


> I regards to self- defense, in most states you are allowed to defend yourself with reasonable force to protect yourself or others. The problem comes in if, say you are attacked my an older, frail individual and you could easily restrain this individual with minimal effort, but instead decide to end the old guy's life, you will probably be charged.





GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I know if there's a burgler you can be charged with murder if you kill them..and my first instinct would be to shoot a burgler in the head..



in this case they where threating to throw him out a gondola which would constitute a life threating situation. so the use of deadly force would be justified. its not like they where going to push him off a curb. what ever the case these kids should be put down and have thier procreation card pulled.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 10, 2009)

I didn't mean to physically stick the knife into a hand, what my friend meant was to get a knife and put it in his hand (grip) to get prints on it. GEEZ! The point of this is, if some punks threatened me like that, I would physically subdue them and teach them a lesson. On a gondola or anywhere. Especially if they had a video camera running. To threaten someone with bodily harm or death is called menacing. I would've beat them silly.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Mar 10, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> I didn't mean to physically stick the knife into a hand, what my friend meant was to get a knife and put it in his hand (grip) to get prints on it. GEEZ!



mmm-kay, sorry I misread.  But it still doesnt seem like the best advice, I mean if someone broke into my house, amped up on heroin, looking for money to go buy his next fix... I don't think I'd be too inclined to hand him a knife.


----------



## icedtea (Mar 10, 2009)

I think he means after you knock the f*cker out, put the knife in his hand.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Mar 10, 2009)

Sorry, but I have to call BS on all the "I would have <beat them silly><kicked the crap out of them><xyz whatever> comments".  I'd bet money any of us (myself included), in the situation of trapped in a gondola car with 4 punks taunting us and no one else around for backup would have just tried to de-escalate the situation unless they actually made an attack.  No one in their right mind picks a fight outnumbered w/ no escape route.  Unless you have a gun in your pocket I guess.  Now if that poor guy did have a gun, and let's say he was a bit imbalanced mentally... :smile:


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Mar 10, 2009)

icedtea said:


> I think he means after you knock the f*cker out, put the knife in his hand.



Ok now that does make sense.  Probably wanna wash your hands first too so you dont get fingerprinte on the knife...


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 10, 2009)

Okay, I'll be patient. Kill him, then PUT a knife in his hand. AFTER you kill him if you want to. I wouldn't kill the jerk though, I'd knock him out then call the cops. They can't prosecute you for that. You wouldn't have to get your prints off of the knife from your kitchen, he would've been using a "weapon of opportunity".


----------



## icedtea (Mar 10, 2009)

bigbog said:


> The problem in the NE, with middle-to-upper_middle class people is...noone will have the backbone and conviction to show as a witness for _anyone_ who wouldn't stand for that crap....
> 
> $.01




NE? I don't think I am following you here. But, yeah a lot of people will not go out of their way to help another out.


----------



## hardline (Mar 10, 2009)

skifastr said:


> Sorry, but I have to call BS on all the "I would have <beat them silly><kicked the crap out of them><xyz whatever> comments".  I'd bet money any of us (myself included), in the situation of trapped in a gondola car with 4 punks taunting us and no one else around for backup would have just tried to de-escalate the situation unless they actually made an attack.  No one in their right mind picks a fight outnumbered w/ no escape route.  Unless you have a gun in your pocket I guess.  Now if that poor guy did have a gun, and let's say he was a bit imbalanced mentally... :smile:



i guess you never got the crap kicked out of you as a kid. it sucks and you do everything in you power to never let it happen to you or anyone you know. if you actually watched the video there was no de-escalating that situation. thats mob mentality there.while i agree that best course of action would be to diffuse the situation you really have no idea what you are talking about. let me know the next time you are atacked by two or more people. i have been atacked no less than three times by groups of more than three people. hell with a set of keys i could have cut his jugular or one shot to his adams apple and suffacation. mob mentality is a very very dangerous thing. people do things they would never do and inocent people get hurt.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 11, 2009)

Somebody just hit the proverbial nail on the head. A bully is essentially a coward, so flatten the big mouth and then they'll all run. And heroin addicts are not "amped up". They need their fix because they are sicker than a dog. That jerk who ripped us off would sit on the porch wrapped in a blanket jonesing while looking like he had the flu. He was collecting workmen's comp for a back injury, so I got pictures of him mowing the lawn and moving rocks around so I sent then in and he got he money cut off. You are thinking of speed freaks.


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 11, 2009)

boston_e said:


> bad parenting....



You nailed it!!!!!

As a young adult my Father would have kicked my ass 3 way's to sunday if I ever acted like that. You hear about and talk about "kids these days" and how they've changed. Well here's a twist----At diner the other night with firends and family my Dad was asked the question: "After teaching school for 35 yrs what's the biggest change in kids that you've noticed". Dad, "I've noticed a bigger change in the parents than in the kids". 

How true is that----seems to me parents nowadays back their kids more than authority.


----------



## icedtea (Mar 11, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> You nailed it!!!!!
> 
> As a young adult my Father would have kicked my ass 3 way's to sunday if I ever acted like that. You hear about and talk about "kids these days" and how they've changed. Well here's a twist----At diner the other night with firends and family my Dad was asked the question: "After teaching school for 35 yrs what's the biggest change in kids that you've noticed". Dad, "I've noticed a bigger change in the parents than in the kids".
> 
> How true is that----seems to me parents nowadays back their kids more than authority.



I blame the kids. At no time during my childhood did I think it was appropriate to treat another human being that way.


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 11, 2009)

icedtea said:


> I blame the kids. At no time during my childhood did I think it was appropriate to treat another human being that way.



Don't you think that may have had something to do with the way you were brought up by your parents???


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 11, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Don't you think that may have had something to do with the way you were brought up by your parents???




Well then blame the teachers and society while you are at it..no I blame the kids..


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Mar 11, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> You nailed it!!!!!
> 
> "After teaching school for 35 yrs what's the biggest change in kids that you've noticed". Dad, "I've noticed a bigger change in the parents than in the kids".



One of the best quotes I've read in a while. No doubt that parents of ill-mannered kids have to be looked at as enablers. Perhaps it's a function of parents passing off their parenting chores to poorly paid teachers or the general "not my fault for my actions" attitude that has become acceptable in our society.


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 11, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Well then blame the teachers and society while you are at it..no I blame the kids..



Teacher and society???? Right, whens the last time you sued a teacher??? That shit never happend back in my day---now teachers cant even discipline a student for fear of getting arrested or what have you. There's a bigger picture GSS


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 11, 2009)

Parental abrogation of responsibility has been endemic since the  mid 80's . . 

The SELF ESTEEM "movemen"  which overly praises the most pedestrian of behaviours has been a significant  contribution as has the seeming willingness among many , not all parent s to shove stuff , $$$ and unwarranted sugary sappy sappy praise  to assuage their own shortcomings .. Many parents today live vicariously thru their offspring -- SAD but True 

Parenting is NOT about being your kid's buddy  -- if one EXPECTS alot they'll get Alot in terms of performance ( in any thing ) , especially if REAL progress and achievement is recognized and rewarded -- but this over-abundant praise FOR THE TRIVIAL  creates  a FALSE sense of accomplishment AND franklly cheapens performance both on expectation s and in actual behavior


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 11, 2009)

so are you guys saying that parents today are generally more lenient??  I know parents were allowed to hit kids back in the day and now it's considered child abuse..


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 11, 2009)

GSS it not about physicality,  its about HOW ONE MANAGES expectations ! as a parent


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Mar 11, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> so are you guys saying that parents today are generally more lenient??  I know parents were allowed to hit kids back in the day and now it's considered child abuse..



Corporeal punishment has nothing to do with how effective one is as a parent. IMHO, hitting kids is as cowardly as is a kid that bullies.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 11, 2009)

Warp Daddy said:


> GSS it not about physicality,  its about HOW ONE MANAGES expectations ! as a parent



I'm surprised they don't require parenting classes..I would have no idea how to be a parent.


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 11, 2009)

Warp Daddy said:


> GSS it not about physicality,  its about HOW ONE MANAGES expectations ! as a parent



OH HOW TRUE!!!

As a kid the last thing I EVER wanted to do was to let my parents down.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 11, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> Corporeal punishment has nothing to do with how effective one is as a parent. IMHO, hitting kids is as cowardly as is a kid that bullies.



Hitting is NOT acceptable behavior  again  it's how you define , measure  manage and reward behavior that gets results . ONE CANNOT MOTIVATE another human being -- HOWEVER you CAN  create an ENVIRONMENT in which motivation is LIKELY to occur. Expect alot get alot -- expect a little-- get little \


Many fine teachers and coaches ( Active teaching )  and Managers aren't necessarily your buddy

They have several things in common tho : ----high standards, monitor performance for REAL progress-- GIVE positive feedback ONLY when performance warrant s same  and use FEEDBACK  that corrects performance but doesn't praise when performance is SUB PAR or NOT TO EXPECTATION .


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 11, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> Corporeal punishment has nothing to do with how effective one is as a parent. IMHO, hitting kids is as cowardly as is a kid that bullies.



True----Dad after punishing us would like to say---"I'd never hit my kids....but I understand it"


----------



## icedtea (Mar 11, 2009)

What about throwing objects at the rugrats?


----------



## billski (Mar 11, 2009)

Who took the video?  The kids or a party to the victim?


----------



## Beetlenut (Mar 11, 2009)

After following this thread, I have the following observation. Not making excuses for parents, but a lot of parents both have to work to make ends meet, so the kids are not supervised or getting the one on one time they need. Enter technology to the rescue, the video babysitter. Kids spend way to much time playing video games, most of them just senseless violence, that ends up desensitizing them to violent acts with no reguard to the pain that is inflicted or the burden of responsibility of their actions. Kids are bombarded by violence from the time they are born. Violence in our society is glorified on TV, movies, video games, computer games, etc.... For a parent these days, it's a real up-hill battle to compete with all that stimulation and still get the message across. That doesn't mean that parents can't instill a good set of values and morality into their kids when they are around though. As far as these guys in the video, it's time for them to learn what happens when you take those misguided ideas of youth out into society.


----------



## billski (Mar 11, 2009)

It would be really interesting to see how a thread like this would go down on skidiva.com.  I'll bet they reach different conclusions.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 11, 2009)

billski said:


> It would be really interesting to see how a thread like this would go down on skidiva.com.  I'll bet they reach different conclusions.



how so??  Something to do with the estrogen?


----------



## freezorburn (Mar 11, 2009)

hardline said:


> thats just wrong. that being said if i had been in the car and it had been me. one if not two of them would be dead or serriously injured. if you threaten my life i will very simply remove you from the face of the earth and the wonderfull thing is the law is on my side because its self defense. that is just .... im speachless.




Yes well they are punks and they PICKED THERE MARK. They would not have done anything if it was you or anyone else that would have taken there heads off.  

They targeted and knew they could intimidate this person.  Gets my blood boiling, makes you wish you where there and pound there faces in when they tried to grab his poles.:angry:


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 11, 2009)

Beetlenut said:


> After following this thread, I have the following observation. Not making excuses for parents, but a lot of parents both have to work to make ends meet, so the kids are not supervised or getting the one on one time they need. Enter technology to the rescue, the video babysitter. Kids spend way to much time playing video games, most of them just senseless violence, that ends up desensitizing them to violent acts with no reguard to the pain that is inflicted or the burden of responsibility of their actions. Kids are bombarded by violence from the time they are born. Violence in our society is glorified on TV, movies, video games, computer games, etc.... For a parent these days, it's a real up-hill battle to compete with all that stimulation and still get the message across. That doesn't mean that parents can't instill a good set of values and morality into their kids when they are around though. As far as these guys in the video, it's time for them to learn what happens when you take those misguided ideas of youth out into society.





 I realize how difficult it is having raised children and my wife and i were professionals . 

HOWEVER Choices and sacrifices are often necessary to achieve Real  results as parents 

Strongest word in a parents lexicon is often   NO  or at least LIMIT   kids time with these DISTRACTIONS which frankly add LITTLE or NO Value to substantive learning . Use these as rewards FOR REAL MEASUREABLE PROGRESS 

Better to get the kids to EXERCISE physically and limit the time of these mind numbing distractions 

AS far as TV is concerned it is a wasteland


----------



## Beetlenut (Mar 11, 2009)

Warp Daddy said:


> I realize how difficult it is having raised children and my wife and i were professionals .
> 
> HOWEVER Choices and sacrifices are often necessary to achieve Real results as parents
> 
> ...


 
I hear ya. Just be glad you weren't raising those kids in todays enviroment. At times it seems like every aspect of today's reality is in opposition to what we as parents are trying to instill in our children. Like getting through wasn't hard enough already!


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 11, 2009)

I can;t speak for the victim;s circumstance but i might have chosen to simply avoid the situation and take the next car up if i saw some rowdy kids on the lift line.  sometimes the better part of valor is "annoyance avoidance".  

the punks that perpetrated this sound like typical bullies and it sounds like it was premeditated.  However, if you corner me in an enclosed space, maybe they should worry about themselves.  I am wearing heavy ski boots and a helmet.  if you point your expensive video camera or camera phone at me, you might not have it in one piece.

what pisses me off about this is that we are all guests of the resort.  we all pay good money to enjoy ourselves skiing the outdoors...including the victim.  that these punks felt entitled to a little extra curricular "fun" just pisses me off.   what I want out of this is for these punks to realize that there are consequences to their actions.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 11, 2009)

*...parents..*

I think too few parents are _DOers_ ...ie planning activities(indoor/outdoor)..where the parent(s) is/are just [a] partner(s) with more experience....not acting as prison commandant(s).   ..Only showing up when discipline is to be admonished isn't the way to go...
Warp Daddy's ...more Exercise is a definite!  Combining it with something outdoors makes it unnoticed...

$.01


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 11, 2009)

Warp Daddy said:


> AS far as TV is concerned it is a wasteland



It's good entertainment..especially reality TV..I watched alot of TV as a kid and I turned out OK.


----------



## Beetlenut (Mar 11, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I watched alot of TV as a kid and I turned out OK.


 
The jurry's still out on that one!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 11, 2009)

Beetlenut said:


> The jurry's still out on that one!



lol...there were so many good TV shows when I was growing up..there was no way I was going to miss..Mr. Belvidere..anyway I hope bad things happen to those kids..


----------



## Geoff (Mar 11, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> It's good entertainment..especially reality TV..I watched alot of TV as a kid and I turned out OK.



How did you ever have time to watch TV?  Between school, the mighty Blue Mountain, and all those posts on Rec.Skiing.Alpine, SkiVT-L, and all the RSN message boards, you had no time to watch TV.  ...or was TV your off season activity?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 11, 2009)

Geoff said:


> How did you ever have time to watch TV?  Between school, the mighty Blue Mountain, and all those posts on Rec.Skiing.Alpine, SkiVT-L, and all the RSN message boards, you had no time to watch TV.  ...or was TV your off season activity?



Well I didn't have the internet until I was 14..and that was Prodigy..I wasn't on the World Wide Web until a little later and really didn't ski alot until I got a car when I was 16.  But I was always opposed to afterschool activities so I would go home from school and watch TV and eat steezy poofs.  Now I hardly watch any TV..but this is not about me..it's about a couple of punks and I hope they all get hit by a car or mauled by a Grizzly Bear..Karma will catch up to them..


----------



## billski (Mar 11, 2009)

Beetlenut said:


> I hear ya. Just be glad you weren't raising those kids in todays enviroment. At times it seems like every aspect of today's reality is in opposition to what we as parents are trying to instill in our children. Like getting through wasn't hard enough already!



So I do have three teens I'm trying to raise in today's environment.  The reality is that the thought processes are not fully developed in adolescents, and it causes them to engage in risky behavior regardless.   

You can't write off the parents until you hear both sides.   It's a catch-22 for parents.  The kids want to breakaway from the apron strings and the parents want to give them some liberties to do so.  But teens make mistakes.  Some kids make huge mistakes, but often they can be brought back onto the straight.
The problem with giving them independence, ask any parent, is that we fret about what they are doing, who they are with, etc. etc.  since we can no longer monitor them minute by minute.

I will be you that if word could get back to the kids parents about what had happened, 98% of the parents would really put the punishment hammer down.  The kids are still learning, they are still pushing the envelope, it's the parent's job to push it back.  In the gondola case, they have no clue.  So the right thing to do is seek out the parents and the punishment should be something that really hurts them.  It can't be dismissed.

What makes it worse is that peer pressure is huge with teens and causes them to do things they never would otherwise.  How many other confrontations go unreported?  Kids are influenced by so many other channels today than when I was a kid.  It's damn hard being a parent today, but you can't write off either side until you hear both sides.

Having said all that, there are a very very few kids 1% who are just plain evil and have to be dealt with more severely.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 11, 2009)

I'd say in general kids are products of their environment -- a parent's role  is to actively manage that environment  for results.  By all means reward performance, but do not deflect the responsibility to provide negative feedback and appropriate consequences .. Its about building character not  enabling emotional cripples 

 Bill:  iat one point in my career for about 10 years  in addition to my NORMAL job responsibilties   i spent innumerable evenings  approximately 1-2 evenings /week  adjudicating disciplne at the  college level. Even had death threats etc and these so called responsile ADULT s 

 I can tell you from experience the offenses only esculate if they are not dealt with and dealt with swiftly and with seriousness of purpose .

 Peer pressure has always been around it isn't something new -- what has changed and changed  dramatically within the last 20 years is  the ENABLING attitude that hell the  kid is only a kid and MY kid is an Angel  even tho  it may be an assault , battery and yes even attempted murder case ( had a few of those too ) 


I do not look at these incidents with Rosy lens.  these people acted in a threatening manner  and should be prosecuted and Whiteface management should ban them


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 11, 2009)

what;s farked up about all this is that kids nowadays are desensitized to violence and unruly behavior.  it's almost celebrated.  that they would have the forethought to whip out a video camera to "get famous" shows where their morals are.

what these kids need is a swift reality check....to the side of the head- there are consequences to your actions.  if you don;t want it done to you, don;t do it to anyone else.

would be ironic of they were season pass holders and they got banned for life.


----------



## WJenness (Mar 11, 2009)

skifastr said:


> A hand seems like a very difficult target for someone not skilled at wielding a knife. I think Id aim for a face or chest if it really was a self-defense situation.  But can you elaborate why hitting the hand makes you less prosecutable, since the advice comes from a lawyer?



I think the point was subtler... 

After you kill the heroin addict who broke into your house, THEN you put the knife in his hand. "Hey, he grabbed this from the kitchen and was coming after me."

-w


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Mar 11, 2009)

WJenness said:


> I think the point was subtler...
> 
> After you kill the heroin addict who broke into your house, THEN you put the knife in his hand. "Hey, he grabbed this from the kitchen and was coming after me."
> 
> -w



Yep, that was clarified a few pages ago.  And then some of my followups were taken a bit more seriously than I expected them to be


----------



## yaraj (Mar 11, 2009)

A while ago I went up in the gondola at Stratton with 2 young teens and they took the mickey out of this lone skier. To be fair, it was funny and I think the guy saw the funny side.

The thing is, they know the difference between right and wrong and what is acceptable in society. These morons clearly don't and should be banned from ALL ski resorts for a while in my opinion as well as community service.

Having a laugh = good

Having a laugh by physically threatening someone and going against the general consensus of polite society = not good.

Think it's as simple as that really.


----------



## Euler (Mar 11, 2009)

yaraj said:


> A while ago I went up in the gondola at Stratton with 2 young teens and they took the mickey out of this lone skier. To be fair, it was funny and I think the guy saw the funny side...



What does it mean to _take the mickey out_??


----------



## jaywbigred (Mar 11, 2009)

hardline said:


> the only reason i say that is because when i was in highschool something very similar (not on a gondola) hapened to me. i was jumped by three kids. i was able to break one kids knee, knock the second out befor the third kids hit me with billy club. the cops showed right after that. the three kids parents tried to press assualt charges. because i had beet their kids so bad. when we went to court the judge just laughed at them as my lawyer played the video from the parking lot security cam. basiclly from what i understant of the law and that is limited. if another person threatens you with bodily harm you have every right to defend youself. now they atacker can turn around and try to  bring a civil case against you but if you have decent lawyer and your life was really in peril most judges would toss it out.


 True enough, hardline (and I am happy you were able to defend yourself!), but you have to see below about whether the threat of bodily harm is a type of threat that justifies the defensive use of force/deadly force. Words, actions, gestures, weapons brandished (if any) etc...all play a role.



icedtea said:


> I regards to self- defense, in most states you are allowed to defend yourself with reasonable force to protect yourself or others. The problem comes in if, say you are attacked my an older, frail individual and you could easily restrain this individual with minimal effort, but instead decide to end the old guy's life, you will probably be charged.


 Correct, and good point.



GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I know if there's a burgler you can be charged with murder if you kill them..and my first instinct would be to shoot a burgler in the head..


 Depends a lot on the situation...if he was just stealing your stuff, then you probably cannot plead self defense, most likely. If you thought he might hurt you (and that threat was deemed reasonable by the jury/judge) then maybe you could, but it would depend on the type of "hurt" we are talking about. See below. 



legalskier said:


> However, certain verbal threats are actionable nonetheless under the criminal laws.


 True, but this is usually the exception, not the rule.



ed-drum said:


> If you catch a burglar with your valuables in his hands you can't kill him. If you catch him with a weapon in his hands, you can kill him. It's called "justifiable force". If you catch someone on your property trying to commit arson, you can kill him.


 Probably all true, though the arsonist would probably have to be committing arson on a building where you or someone else is inside. If you happen upon a teenager lighting a fire to an empty barn, you cannot shoot him. See below.



gmcunni said:


> semi-serious question, can you shoot him but not kill him and not be prosecuted?


 See below. Maybe, but its not advisable.



hardline said:


> in this case they where threating to throw him out a gondola which would constitute a life threating situation. so the use of deadly force would be justified. its not like they where going to push him off a curb. what ever the case these kids should be put down and have thier procreation card pulled.


 Well, this brings up the same issue as your other comment above...a purely verbal threat might not be enough, but it might be. It would depend on the jury. The jury would have to decide whether it was reasonable or not for a grown man, faced with a group of teenagers, being verbally threatened, in an enclosed space, while being filmed, to respond to those verbal threats with deadly force. My guess is, he might be in trouble if he, e.g., pulled a gun and shot them. Reasonable to be scared? Yes. Reasonable to think they were actually going to throw him out the door? Prob not. Now if they started roughing him up, attacking him, thats different...

_______________________________________________________________________

Let me draw upon the B I got in criminal law, and try to clear some stuff up about self-defense. I am a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer.

First of all, what the lay person calls "Self-defense" is usually one of 3 separate legal doctrines: True self-defense, defense of a third party, or defense of property.

True self-defense, via the use of force, is what we would have been looking at in the gondola here, had the targeted skier reacted physically. This actually makes for a very interesting case, for a number of reasons.

First, there are generally two types of force within self defense: the use of physical force and the use of deadly physical force. Generally speaking, the use of force must be justifiable on a "reasonable person" standard (which standard is interpreted by the trier of fact, i.e. the judge or jury)...you can use physical force when there is a reasonable fear of imminent physical injury. But to employ the use of DEADLY force, there must be a greater level of fear, the reasonable fear of imminent SERIOUS physical injury or DEATH. Many states also include a duty to retreat, though that is somewhat inconsequential, here, where there was no escape route whatsoever. Additionally, the lack of an escape route might play a role in the "reasonableness" query, as the feeling of being trapped certainly could add to the severity of the threat. On the other hand, a lot of the time (but not always), if the threat is expressed exclusively in words/verbally, the use of force in defense might not be justified, and this especially true for the use of deadly force. This might make the act of grabbing the ski poles a key component, were self defense evoked. If my memory serves, escalating a verbal threat by introducing physical contact, even when that contact is, in itself, not harmful, is often times a key component to succesfully using self defense as a true defense.

I haven't mentioned the so called "castle" doctrine, which varies from state to state, but generally takes away the duty to retreat when the threat of force is introduced within one's own home. I.e. you do not need to abandon your own house. Often times, however, you run into issues, here, of confusing defense of self from defense of property. In defense of property, the use of lethal force is rarely, if ever, justifiable.  

Some of the most interesting self-defense cases arise in the situation where the self-defender is trying to use a form of force that is often perceived as "lethal force" (a gun, for instance) in a non-lethal way (incapacitating the perceived threat without killing), or the use of non-lethal force in a way that winds up being lethal. My memory is that these cases generally do not come out in favor of the self-defender, mostly because their attempt to use the gun in a non-lethal way often fails, and they wind up killing the perceived threat/ or because the eventual death of the perceived threat at the hands of their use of what they perceive as non-lethal force (a punch or a bat, perhaps) is good evidence that their perception was wrong, and the form of force they used was, in fact, lethal (and they should have realized this).

This discussion is all in the context of a criminal trial. How self-defense effects a civil trial, and what the standards, there, are, I have never studied...

Also, sorry for the long post...in an area of law I did not find that interesting, self-defense was one of the only topics that intrigued me...



GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> ..Karma will catch up to them..


 I read somewhere that saying that "karma will get them" is often misconceived, because its based on the concept of reincarnation. So karma might catch-up to them, but not in this lifetime, only during the next...


----------



## SkiDork (Mar 11, 2009)

Euler said:


> What does it mean to _take the mickey out_??



Interesting phrase (I had never heard of)

Take the Mickey out of:

 This phrase is not new; the full phrase is "to take the Mickey (out of someone)" 
Britons have been using this figure of speech for decades, if not centuries. A "Mickey" of course, is a "Mick": a pejorative, racist term for an Irishman (so nicknamed because so many Irish surnames begin with Mc- or Mac-) It is a common stereotype, in both the UK and USA, that Irish men have volatile tempers, like to brawl, and make good boxers. So, To "take the Mickey (out of someone)" means to take the fight, the vigor, the gravity, the self-importance out of them, by mocking them, usually in a very subtle way. 

Headmaster: "...so I expect you boys to comport yourself with the full dignity befitting students of this establishment of secondary learning." 

Student: "Oh yes, we will sir. We'll even wear our school blazers to bed." 

Headmaster: "If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to take the Mickey out of me!"


----------



## yaraj (Mar 11, 2009)

SkiDork said:


> Interesting phrase (I had never heard of)
> 
> Take the Mickey out of:
> 
> ...



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

what he said.

I was gonna say "take the piss" or "slag off" but didn't think anyone would understand!!!


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Mar 11, 2009)

jaywbigred said:


> True enough....
> ..... not in this lifetime, only during the next...



Interesting responses..thanks.

I'll admit to being appalled by the video that is the foundation for this thread, but almost as upset by the chest-thumping by lots of the responses. It's that adolescent macho that so many of the respondents imply that seems to be what the original "bad boys" were pulling on the gondola-riding victim in the first place.

As far as the "rights" of the vigilante response to the perception of a pending attack-wasn't this legally covered in the Bernhardt Goetz case in NYC some years ago? Just to refresh your memories, that was where a guy riding the subway was about to be mugged by a group of hoods and he took out his unregistered handgun and put a cap or two into each of his five potential assailants. He was cleared of any wrongdoing other than the unregistered gun charges.


----------



## legalskier (Mar 11, 2009)

tekweezle said:


> that they would have the forethought to whip out a video camera to "get famous" shows where their morals are......what these kids need is a swift reality check



A reality check is what the D.A. is looking into now, and her job has been made that much easier because someone was "smart enough" to hand over the proofs on a silver platter. That these actors had a camera not only reflects on their morals but also suggests premeditation. Unfortunately, we may never find out how this case gets resolved--if they are juveniles, the court normally will be closed to the public unless the judge can be persuaded to permit media access. (This might be the reason the video was taken down.)  Assuming a conviction is sustained, and in addition to the normal penalties (including being restrained from WF), wouldn't it be nice to see another video posted on the web (shielding their identities) in which these actors sincerely apologize to the victim?


----------



## jaywbigred (Mar 11, 2009)

legalskier said:


> A reality check is what the D.A. is looking into now, and her job has been made that much easier because someone was "smart enough" to hand over the proofs on a silver platter. That these actors had a camera not only reflects on their morals but also suggests premeditation. Unfortunately, we may never find out how this case gets resolved--if they are juveniles, the court normally will be closed to the public unless the judge can be persuaded to permit media access. (This might be the reason the video was taken down.)  Assuming a conviction is sustained, and in addition to the normal penalties (including being restrained from WF), wouldn't it be nice to see another video posted on the web (shielding their identities) in which these actors sincerely apologize to the victim?



Well the flip side is that, if the target here happened to respond with deadly force in supposed self defense, the use of the camera and the fact that they filmed the whole incident might be a key piece of evidence showing that they had no real intention to carry out their threats, and that the point was that it was a (horrible, horrible) attempt at a joke. After all, if you are going to murder someone, willfully videotaping it yourself would be a really dumb idea.


----------



## jaywbigred (Mar 11, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> Interesting responses..thanks.
> 
> I'll admit to being appalled by the video that is the foundation for this thread, but almost as upset by the chest-thumping by lots of the responses. It's that adolescent macho that so many of the respondents imply that seems to be what the original "bad boys" were pulling on the gondola-riding victim in the first place.
> 
> As far as the "rights" of the vigilante response to the perception of a pending attack-wasn't this legally covered in the Bernhardt Goetz case in NYC some years ago? Just to refresh your memories, that was where a guy riding the subway was about to be mugged by a group of hoods and he took out his unregistered handgun and put a cap or two into each of his five potential assailants. He was cleared of any wrongdoing other than the unregistered gun charges.



Just to clarify, Bernhardt Goetz was a controversial case, often studied in law classes for a number of reasons: jury nullification (when a jury ignores the law and acquits a defendant because they believe his actions were morally justified); race and law (mostly white jury, 6 of whom had themselves been prior victims of crime in the criminal case compared against a more diverse civil jury); criminal vs. civil contexts (while acquitted of criminal charges [other than gun charges], Goetz was found guilty in a civil trial brought by one of the 4 guys he shot, Cabey, and the jury awarded $43 million, resulting in Goetz' subsequent bankruptcy); and the modernization of the Model Penal Code. The NY statute he was tried under, in the mid-80s, has been modernized, as have the self-defense laws. NY is a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, and my above discussion is based in the MPC definitions of self-defense, which would be applicable to a current case, such as the Gondola. My law school criminal law professor was of the opinion that if Goetz was tried today, under the modern MPC, he would have been convicted of at least 1 count of murder (against Cabey, the guy who won the civil award against him) and possibly the rest of the charges too.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 11, 2009)

Article 35.20 sub 2 Penal law NY." ....may use deadly physical force in order to terminate the commission of arson as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the case of a burglary or attempted burglary as prescribed in subdivision three." That means arson to a building. Occupied or not. Yes, you can kill someone if they are trying to burn down your barn. The law is specific about this. You don't have to have the victim (burglar, arsonist) displaying a weapon. But it would help clarify matters. You can't chase him into the street and whack him, though. "I and the public know, what all school children learn, those to whom evil is done, do evil in return".  W.H. Auden


----------



## hardline (Mar 11, 2009)

jaywbigred said:


> True enough, hardline (and I am happy you were able to defend yourself!), but you have to see below about whether the threat of bodily harm is a type of threat that justifies the defensive use of force/deadly force. Words, actions, gestures, weapons brandished (if any) etc...all play a role.



this is a little close to home so i am a little reactive. because of my past experiance i would see as a threat on my and act acordingly but i think we all agree that this is un-acceptable behavior.


----------



## legalskier (Mar 11, 2009)

jaywbigred said:


> Well the flip side is that, if the target here happened to respond with deadly force in supposed self defense, the use of the camera and the fact that they filmed the whole incident might be a key piece of evidence showing that they had no real intention to carry out their threats, and that the point was that it was a (horrible, horrible) attempt at a joke. After all, if you are going to murder someone, willfully videotaping it yourself would be a really dumb idea.




It’s safe to say that the target here did not respond with deadly force, as no one was actually killed  (http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/505344.html?nav=5008).  Additionally, the media already are referring to him as a “victim,” for what it’s worth.  As far as “dumb ideas” go, you may have missed my earlier post with this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping  Check out the “Media-reported incidents” cited therein.  Dumb, no?


----------



## darent (Mar 11, 2009)

gmcunni said:


> semi-serious question, can you shoot him but not kill him and not be prosecuted?


depends on your state law, if you catch him at night in your house  most states allow you to shoot him, then their is the greator force states, you can't shoot him if he threatens you with a bat, daytime is a different deal, if you have a chance to leave and you hurt  the bad guy you might be in trouble, I think the laws are on the bad guy side


----------



## jaywbigred (Mar 11, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> Article 35.20 sub 2 Penal law NY." ....may use deadly physical force in order to terminate the commission of arson as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the case of a burglary or attempted burglary as prescribed in subdivision three." That means arson to a building. Occupied or not. Yes, you can kill someone if they are trying to burn down your barn. The law is specific about this. You don't have to have the victim (burglar, arsonist) displaying a weapon. But it would help clarify matters. You can't chase him into the street and whack him, though. "I and the public know, what all school children learn, those to whom evil is done, do evil in return".  W.H. Auden



Wow, I've now read through the pertinent NewYork statutes. Very interesting, and certainly has to be among the most gun/home owner friendly statutes in the country. I've always read that NY was a Model Penal Code state, but this is decidedly a departure from the MPC. Their regular self-defense statute (outside of the home--see Penal Law article 35.15)  does follow the MPC...but this 35.20 tack-on is very interesting.

Should be noted, though, that a person "may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson."  

So you have to ask yourself, would a jury find it "reasonably necessary" for you to shoot a teenager about to set fire to your barn, in order to prevent him from doing so? I'd worry that most juries would agree that calling the cops, firing a shot in the air, or something of that nature might be deemed "reasonably necessary," but that killing him might not be. Would make an interesting case.

Compare to the ability to use deadly force to stop robbery:

A person in "a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary."

So they require it to be a house or occupied building for burglary but not for arson. This is v. strange. I'd wonder what the legislature had in mind when they did this!

My memory is that in most states, using deadly force as a reasonably necessary way to prevent arson usually requires the building to be occupied. NY, I would guess, is an outlier here, but I don't really know, as you have proven


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 11, 2009)

Yes whenever this topic arose over casual conversation our campus chief of security always said if he's INSIDE your  home at nite and you believe you need to shoot the perp to  ensure your personal safety ------------ make damn sure he's INSIDE the  home when found


----------



## mondeo (Mar 11, 2009)

Warp Daddy said:


> Yes whenever this topic arose over casual conversation our campus chief of security always said if he's INSIDE your  home at nite and you believe you need to shoot the perp to  ensure your personal safety ------------ make damn sure he's INSIDE the  home when found


And if you catch him stepping in through the window, wait for him to get fully in the house, or drag him into the house after you shoot him.


----------



## faceplant (Mar 11, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> Interesting responses..thanks.
> 
> I'll admit to being appalled by the video that is the foundation for this thread, but almost as upset by the chest-thumping by lots of the responses. It's that adolescent macho that so many of the respondents imply that seems to be what the original "bad boys" were pulling on the gondola-riding victim in the first place.



if feel ya doc- i do

but the way i see it- if i'm going out that gondy door i wont be alone- nuthin machoabout it just self defnse- see id need a good cushion to brake my fall at the botom-  that'd be article 35.20 subsecton wtf of FPC (faceplants penal code 

and if somebody sticks a camera in my face the next thing he'll have a nice video of his inside nostril hairs and all


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 12, 2009)

Most burglaries are committed during the day. What does catching someone at night have to do with anything? People should not be presumptuous about law. I warn people not to "smoke" anything in public here in N.Y., for they will (that's mandatory) lose their drivers' license for 6 months and can go to jail for up to 3 months if caught. It's not just a ticket, but they can knock it down to a violation, IF they want to. Hunter has cops watching the parking lot. The point of this discussion is that if you are threatened with bodily harm anywhere, defend yourself. Don't wimp out. What do you have to lose?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 12, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> The point of this discussion is that if you are threatened with bodily harm anywhere, defend yourself. Don't wimp out. What do you have to lose?



I have had physical confrontations in life. I have also walked away from situations where I've been threatened with bodily harm plenty though.  I will only throw a punch if it's the last possible resort...and I don't consider that 'wimping out'.


----------



## Euler (Mar 12, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> Interesting responses..thanks.
> 
> I'll admit to being appalled by the video that is the foundation for this thread, but almost as upset by the chest-thumping by lots of the responses. It's that adolescent macho that so many of the respondents imply that seems to be what the original "bad boys" were pulling on the gondola-riding victim in the first place.



+1


Also, it's hard to believe that anyone would suggest that if I saw someone setting an outbuilding of mine on fire that a reasonable response would be to shoot him dead? Most civilized societies have moved forward from the old "an eye for an eye" code of vengeance, and this is a big step backwards from that isn't it?


----------



## RENO (Mar 12, 2009)

faceplant said:


> if feel ya doc- i do
> 
> but the way i see it- if i'm going out that gondy door i wont be alone- nuthin machoabout it just self defnse- see id need a good cushion to brake my fall at the botom-  that'd be article 35.20 subsecton wtf of FPC (faceplants penal code
> 
> and if somebody sticks a camera in my face the next thing he'll have a nice video of his inside nostril hairs and all








I'd go Rambo on them. Pull out my knife and start slicing and dicing. Blood would be splattered all over the windows. I would cut their ears off and pop out their eyeballs. Slice their throats and pull their tongues through the hole. I'd use their heads to bust the windows out and hang their bodies out the gondola. I would exit the gondola dripping in blood with a handful of ears and eyeballs and toss them at the people standing around. Then I would clip in my bindings and ride away.

Ummm... 
Well... 
Something like that... 

;-)  

:lol:


----------



## SkiDork (Mar 12, 2009)

How do you open a Gondola door from the inside?


----------



## Grassi21 (Mar 12, 2009)

RENO said:


> I'd go Rambo on them. Pull out my knife and start slicing and dicing. Blood would be splattered all over the windows. I would cut their ears off and pop out their eyeballs. Slice their throats and pull their tongues through the hole. I'd use their heads to bust the windows out and hang their bodies out the gondola. I would exit the gondola dripping in blood with a handful of ears and eyeballs and toss them at the people standing around. Then I would clip in my bindings and ride away.
> 
> Ummm...
> Well...
> ...



you inspire me sir.  i would like to hear more about your beliefs.  ;-)


----------



## jaywbigred (Mar 12, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> Most burglaries are committed during the day. What does catching someone at night have to do with anything?



Probably because the common law definition of burglary carried with it the requirement that it occur at night:

"The breaking and entering the house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not."

Not sure if that definition survives in any states (the MPC has certainly modified it to remove the "night" requirement).



ed-drum said:


> People should not be presumptuous about law....The point of this discussion is that if you are threatened with bodily harm anywhere, defend yourself. Don't wimp out. What do you have to lose?


 Your freedom? Your life? Money defending a criminal case? I.e. plenty!

This is horrible advice. In many states, including New York, if you are threatened with deadly physical force (outside of your own home), you have a legal duty to escape, if a safe escape route is available, before you can use deadly physical force in self-defense. When the threat is not of "deadly" physical force, you can stay and fight with reasonable (non-deadly) physical force of your own, but remember that a criminal jury must find your use of force to be warranted and reasonable in the situation. You are not going to have time to stop and ponder this question ("Will a jury find it reasonable for me to shoot in the face a big dude on the street who is threatening me with a butter knife?"). And sometimes, even when a criminal jury finds it reasonable, a civil jury might not, and then you go bankrupt (see Bernhard Goetz).

Query how often an act of violence is a reasonable response to mere verbal threats?

Violence should always be the last choice (unless your inside your home, in the state of NY, in which case you can pretty much kill anyone).


----------



## Grassi21 (Mar 12, 2009)

jaywbigred said:


> Query how often an act of violence is a reasonable response to mere verbal threats?
> 
> Violence should always be the last choice (unless your inside your home, in the state of NY, in which case you can pretty much kill anyone).



+1


----------



## icedtea (Mar 12, 2009)

That dude may have a case for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, especially if it has manifested in physical symptoms after this incident.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 12, 2009)

Horrible advice? You sir, are assuming that I said to kill someone in every situation. I did no such thing. A verbal threat, "I'm going to kill you" is called menacing. Read the definition of menacing and the defenses from prosecution. Obviously you have never been attacked by anyone. You obviously are not old enough to experience the abuse my friends and I were subjected to in High School at the hands of jealous morons because our hair was long. We defended ourselves out of necessity and a lot of the bullies were put in the hospital for it and us victims never got in any kind of trouble. Juries have the right to be fully informed regardless of law. In some states that's mandatory.  Jealous because the musicians' such as myself attracted girls and they didn't. And the school officials at the time did NOTHING about bullying. They finally did after the parents did something and the abuse stopped immediately. Well, look what happens at schools now when bullying is ignored. They finally recognized bullying only after the victims snap and start shooting. And your "advice" was flawed in the first place. How contentious.


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 12, 2009)

Can we adjourn for breakfast??


----------



## jaywbigred (Mar 12, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> A verbal threat, "I'm going to kill you" is called menacing. Read the definition of menacing and the defenses from prosecution.


 Okay, I did:

"§ 120.15 Menacing in the third degree

A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.

Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor."

Menacing in the 2nd and 1st degree require greater levels of threats. 2nd degree requires the threat to be repeated across a span of time, and 1st degree requires the brandishing of a weapon or of something appearing like a weapon.

I stand firm in my opinion that advising someone that if they 





ed-drum said:


> are threatened with bodily harm anywhere, defend yourself. Don't wimp out. What do you have to lose?


 is bad advice.



ed-drum said:


> Obviously you have never been attacked by anyone.


 I was mugged as a 12 year old in Central Park. I was in 2 fights in HS, both of which times I was not the aggressor. I was in 1 fight in college, where my then girlfriend's ex-boyfriend punched her in the stomach 5 feet away from me.



ed-drum said:


> You obviously are not old enough to experience the abuse my friends and I were subjected to in High School at the hands of jealous morons because our hair was long.


I'm in my 20s. Don't know what you're looking for here...



ed-drum said:


> We defended ourselves out of necessity and a lot of the bullies were put in the hospital for it and us victims never got in any kind of trouble.


 I am very glad you were able to stand up to the bullying successfully, and it is horrible that it took your school so long to respond. Unforgivable. My mother has been the head of a Pre-K-8th Grade school for 17 years, and I know bullying is among her most constant concerns/something with which she is very vigilant in dealing.



ed-drum said:


> Juries have the right to be fully informed regardless of law.


 There are extremely strict rules of civil and criminal procedure, including the rules of evidence, in every state, and they effect and restrict what a jury can and cannot hear. Further, Jury Instructions (i.e., what a Judge reads to a Jury when instructing them on the verdict they are deciding upon) are extremely intricate, and faulty implementation of same are a common basis for successful appeals.



ed-drum said:


> And your "advice" was flawed in the first place. How contentious.


 My advice was based on the Model Penal Code, which is the basis for criminal laws in most states, and I only posted it after some other quasi-misinformation was posted in this thread, as a hope to prevent anyone on here from getting in serious trouble by using poor advice. This forum is read by people in many states, so I based my response on the MPC. I was not aware that NY state has altered the MPC to the degree that it has, regarding defense of burglary and arson at one's home. Thank you for bringing that to my and all of our attentions.

It doesn't change my opinion that your advice was poor, and that violence should always be the last recourse.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 12, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Can we adjourn for breakfast??



 

AGREE  

PUCK those liitle FUKES Nail their asses to the full extent of the law  and ban them for life --------------------end of story


----------



## jaywbigred (Mar 12, 2009)

Warp Daddy said:


> AGREE
> 
> PUCK those liitle FUKES Nail their asses to the full extent of the law  and ban them for life --------------------end of story



I also agree. Ban them. If they keep acting like this, they will get their's eventually, for sure.


----------



## SkiDork (Mar 12, 2009)

SkiDork said:


> How do you open a Gondola door from the inside?



nobody answered this.


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 12, 2009)

SkiDork said:


> nobody answered this.



There is a round metal kick plate you kick and it unlocks.


----------



## billski (Mar 12, 2009)

SkiDork said:


> nobody answered this.



Just as well. don't want youse hoodlums getting ideas.


----------



## SkiDork (Mar 12, 2009)

is it at all possible?


----------



## billski (Mar 12, 2009)

SkiDork said:


> is it at all possible?


good point :dunce:


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 12, 2009)

if those punks made a verbal threat, isn;t that assault right there?  

none of us was there so we got to take what has been said at face value.  given the length of this thread and responses, this incident seems to touch a nerve with some of us.


----------

