I think this is quite possibly the funniest news clip ever. This is not a fake clip like the Onion clip I posted a few days ago, this is a real news clip.
i hope the kid doesnt get fined, i mean, he’s right, although it was his party, he should not be held responsible for the actions of others. what happened to personal responsibility?
the kid is a total douche too, but what a badass! and that confidence and sense of self identity might get him somewhere some day.
i started grinning after the first few secs … well…seems that certain -people- like to trow accusations around and to grab the nearest person available and point fingers at him because the others are away …
the funniest was the one were they reported of a police man who had baken confiscated marihuanna into brownies and then called the intoxication hotline
That kid is badass. I have a sneaking suspiscion that’s not exactly how he acts in real life, and some of that was just a little fun for the camera. My favorite part is when she tells him to take a good hard look at himself and he says. “I have. Everyone has, they love it.”
I agree with you on this one Dan, hahaha. If that was me, I would’ve acted difficult as well. That woman was being really annoying, and was asking for it, acting all high and mighty as she was. He seemed like a pretty cool dude, in any case. It wasn’t his fault that the other kids were making asses of themselves.
Damn that was hilarious! At times I wish I had the guts to do that sort of thing. A few of my friends have talked that way to teachers but I don’t dare!
I’ve been aware of this story for some time now (given that it happened over here and is in all the newspapers), and I personally think this idiot should be locked up for a year. It would make me quite sad to hear that they’ve decided not to issue charges, considering the cost incurred by his little party to the city officials. There was talk of a $10,000 fine to pay for the various police teams that needed to attend, and I sincerely hope they follow through with that threat.
This guy is a coward. He ran away from home because he didn’t want to face his parents after the party, and is now acting like he’s the coolest person on Earth because he’s in trouble with the law. He didn’t even help to clean up his parents’ house, which is now trashed. And he has such a pathetic, smug grin in every one of the pictures I’ve seen. I just hope he suffers severely for this.
hahahaha, definitely, a coward, completely agreed. People like this should face up to responsibility for the parts of the damage he did, but I don’t really get how it was his absolute fault for causing all of the damage. Like, is fining one kid as a person, who isn’t completely responsible, for the complete $10000 justice? Maybe he should pay for 5000, because he is at least somewhat responsible for calling in the party, but it also wasn’t him doing the trashing of the neighborhood, that was done by the other kids. I say he should get a slight fine, like 5000, maybe 7500 dollars, and let it go. I think there are two extremes here, letting him off without any charges, or giving him all the punishment, the fine, for him alone. I think the middle path in this instance is justifiable and right.
Have either of you ever thrown a party? Like not a get together or a dinner party, but a wild, high school/college age, party? Most of them are fine, 75 or 100 people show up and get good and twisted, have a good time, listen to music, try and get laid, the typical stuff. Not my bag, I’d rather have a good discussion with a couple friends and keep the drinking to just 2 or 3 beers, but some people like to get real wild like that. Anyway, most parties go in the direction I just described above, but sometimes, and most of those times there is no way to tell at first it will turn out like this, but sometimes too many kids hear about the party, the wrong crowd of kids hears about the party, and hundreds of people show up and get to wild, and something like this happens.
The state or city or whatever should fine the living hell out of those kids who were caught causing trouble and damage, but the kid who had the party was inside, not causing damage.
If a guy gets really drunk at a bar and goes outside and smashes a store window or car, does the bar get fined? No. Because it is the fault of the person who actually did the damage, not the fault of the person that brought them to the area where the damage was done.
Perhaps ten thousand dollars is a little steep for a teenager whose career is probably going to involve standing next to a loud machine with safety goggles on. And yet, I still tend to think the majority of the blame rests with him, as the host of any party is responsible for the behavior of the guests. He already admitted that he expected his “open” invitation to result in at least 200 attendees, and given that his house is on a small property in a suburban street, he must have known that it would cause a serious domestic disturbance.
He probably could have side-stepped the blame by insisting that he only invited a handful of people, and that the others were uninvited party-crashers whom he didn’t know. But he missed that chance because he’s a cocky little kid who was proud of the fact that his party was so large. He fully admitted to arranging the event and promoting the consumption of alcohol, and in my eyes, that makes him responsible.
Wait wait, you people are confusing two things. And I think this is where the whole thing becomes tricky, legally. He can’t be held responsible for what others did, even if he’s the one who started it. He can’t, it’s against every single jurisprudence one could think of. Responsibility is a legal construct which is bound to an individual: you can’t hold someone personally responsible for another individual’s actions, except in very extreme cases which this one bears no resemblance to.
In that sense, I agree with Daniel, it’s outrageous that he’s being treated and prosecuted the way he is. On the other hand, I couldn’t agree more with Ath in that he is a moron who thinks he can get away with it all by claiming none of what happened is his fault. Which is also not true. He must be held responsible for something. He cannot be, and I’d be seriously concerned if he was, prosecuted for all the damage that has happened, because he is not responsible for it. But accepting the whole modern justice system for the sake of discussion (as everyone here, by now, probably knows that I don’t agree with any of it), he must be held responsible for what he did, and be punished too.
But fining for what all the other 99 hooligans did to the city and locking him up? That’s insane, and inhumane.
No, I haven’t. I would have been strangled to death if I did that to my parents’ house without their permission, and since I moved out, I’ve lived in apartments that wouldn’t be suitable for that kind of event. However, I’ve been to plenty of the aforementioned parties, and you do have a point; the people causing the damage should (in theory) be held responsible for their actions. But things just don’t work that way. There’s absolutely no way to track down the specific people who broke the neighbour’s window, or kicked over the bird bath. It’s not as though these people are going to be approached and made to pay for the specific damage they caused. Instead, we have to point the finger at the person who arranged for such a large group to convene in the first place.
Yes, they can. It’s an offense to sell alcohol to someone who is clearly already intoxicated (here, at least), so the bar can in some circumstances be held liable for damage to nearby properties by patrons who shouldn’t have been allowed to drink that much. But again, you have a point. The difference is that bars are typically located outside of residential neighbourhoods, so their level of disturbance is limited. Inviting a hundred people to a party in and outside your house on a residential street is already going to cause a disturbance, even if they’re all staying within the property boundaries. From what I hear, half of the neighbourhood in this particular case were too afraid to go to sleep for that entire night, not that they could have even if they wanted to. Families stood in their living rooms with baseball bats, trying to calm their children while preparing to defend them against a drunken teenager who forced their door open.
Are you honestly saying this isn’t directly the fault of the person who specifically set out to have hundreds of people converge on his parents’ house without their permission?
As usual, Bruno, you’ve provided some interesting insights into the issue. In this case, though, I find that I cannot agree with you. I fully believe that the host of the party should be held responsible for the trouble his guests cause. If he invites so many people that he can’t control them, then he has willfully created a problem. He realized beforehand that this party would be large enough to cause a domestic disturbance, and he made no effort to prevent that from happening. You can’t invite hundreds of people to a house you don’t own, and then claim the next day that any damage or disturbance is the fault of some random participants.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the individuals who caused the damage should be made to pay for it. There is no inherent allowance for party-goers to avoid the consequences of their actions solely because it’s not their party. Unfortunately, however, most of the time there simply isn’t any chance of identifying who those people were from such a large crowd, especially when they were all drinking and might not remember exactly what happened. In that instance, it would be absurd to dismiss the event and not have somebody compensate those who were affected. We’re left with only one choice: to hold the kid who arranged an illegal party responsible for the aftermath of that party.
He’s free to track down those people who caused the damage and insist that they pay their share of the fine, but he’ll probably have as much luck doing so as the police would have.
This discussion looks as if it’s come to the point of having to agree to disagree. I think the best points have been made, and it all comes down to morals. I think the fact that you have no control over another individual should be enough to not fine the kid. I mean, if you threw a party with only 20 people and one of those people brought a boy/girlfriend who was in an angry, destructive mood, got a drink or two in them, and they went out and smashed up a car, would you feel it is fair for you to be responsible?
on to another thing about this i think is interesting.
I don’t know if the kid did this on purpose, I think it’s totally possible, but then again he might be a little dull for this sort of thing, but, by not taking off his glasses he made himself into a character rather than a person. There’s something about seeing someone’s eyes that makes them real, that gives you clues to their emotions and moods. By not removing the glasses, he kept himself looking cartoonish and emptionless, because if he is seen as a funny character rather than a person people’s opinions on him will not be so harsh.
Though I do feel inclined to comment on your follow-up example, with the party of only 20 people. I see this as an entirely different situation. A small number of people are much more manageable, and if one person started destroying property, it would be easy to identify them and force them to take responsibility for their actions. On the other hand, intentionally inviting hundreds of people to a small house in a suburb is a guarantee that the event is going to be loud, and will disturb neighbours (which is illegal). That doesn’t give anyone the right to act inappropriately, of course, but it kinda does make it an inevitability that they will–especially when you’re serving alcohol.
I won’t continue this, though. We have different opinions, and that’s fine.
… well…seems that certain -people- like to trow accusations around and to grab the nearest person available and point fingers at him because the others are away …
Truly is the funniest news clip ever.
