Seriously, this is a no brainer. Let me guess, the parents disagreed with making the children be responsible. Another fine example of no-parenting. Thank you Connecticut SC.
He may not have directly caused any damage (if you believe that I’ve got a bridge to sell you), but he participated in the party. He did not call the police or try to stop these criminals from destroying someone’s home. The kid was an accessory to the crime and he’s just as guilty as the others.
Heidi,
If you’re there when a crim is comitted, you are an accessory. Maybe the kid will learn an important lesson. How would you feel if a bunch of young punks did $36,000 damage to your house?
Seriously, this is a no brainer. Let me guess, the parents disagreed with making the children be responsible. Another fine example of no-parenting. Thank you Connecticut SC.
This is just good common sense. You damage you pay.
But he didn’t damage…the article says he was ordered to pay “even though he did not participate in the vandalism.”
He may not have directly caused any damage (if you believe that I’ve got a bridge to sell you), but he participated in the party. He did not call the police or try to stop these criminals from destroying someone’s home. The kid was an accessory to the crime and he’s just as guilty as the others.
Heidi,
If you’re there when a crim is comitted, you are an accessory. Maybe the kid will learn an important lesson. How would you feel if a bunch of young punks did $36,000 damage to your house?
Being there does not make him an accessory. NOT doing something to either stop or minimize the vandalism does.
At any rate, he was a PARTY to the crime.