NY man faces charges after tackling teen prankster

yizuman

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
2
BETHLEHEM, N.Y. — A homeowner in his underwear chased down and tackled one of four teens who rang his doorbell and fled in a late-night prank called "ding dong ditch," leading to charges against the homeowner but not the boy.

The teen was bloodied by the takedown. The homeowner, Daniel Van Plew, and the boy's family disagree over the amount of force used and about where the tackle occurred, which could make a difference under the laws that define self-defense.

Van Plew, 37, told police in this upscale suburb south of New York's capital that he was preparing to go to bed shortly after 10 p.m. Saturday when four teenagers pounded on his back door, rang his front doorbell and then ran.

Van Plew said he feared for the safety of his two children and his wife. He chased after the teens, caught the 14-year-old and then made him wait in his home while he called police. The teen suffered a cut on his elbow, a bruise over his eye and a bloody lip, according to the police report.

"There's no winner in this kind of a thing, right? It's just a bad deal," Van Plew told WCBS-TV.

Van Plew caught the boy on his property, according to a police report, but the boy's father told a newspaper that the boy was tackled off the property. New York self-defense laws give people more leeway when defending themselves on their own property.

There is also a discrepancy between Van Plew and the father over how much force was used and why.

The boy's father told the Times Union of Albany that Van Plew pinned his son's arm behind his back, applied pressure and threatened to kill him if he tried to escape. Van Plew's lawyer told the newspaper that the boy claimed to have a knife in his pocket and threatened to kill the homeowner. The boy didn't have a knife.

Van Plew, a pharmaceutical executive, has been charged with endangering a child and harassment. He must answer the misdemeanor and violation charges in town court on Aug. 3. He wasn't charged with assault because the boy's injuries were not serious enough, Bethlehem police Lt. Robert Berben said.

The teen, who is not being identified, faces no charges. He initially was charged with trespass, but that's a violation- level offense that can't be pursued against juveniles in family court, according to Berben.

The case has been referred to the Albany County District Attorney's office.

The home is in a relatively new subdivision of small but upscale homes that sell for $350,000 to $400,000. There was no answer at Van Plew's two-story house on Thursday.

Source: NY man faces charges after tackling teen prankster - U.S. news - msnbc.com

There ya go, criminals have more rights than a law abiding citizens.

Another news source says that the homeowner is being sued by the boy's family.

This makes me sick.

Yiz
 
so you're ok with a homeowner shooting at the unarmed boy too?
 
so you're ok with a homeowner shooting at the unarmed boy too?
There was no shooting or guns involved.

The boys also vandalized property in the neighborhood.
 
There was no shooting or guns involved.

The boys also vandalized property in the neighborhood.

His house was not vandalized. It was just a "ding-dong" prank. I'm arguing about yizuman's comment - "There ya go, criminals have more rights than a law abiding citizens."

My point is - I don't support vigilantism or use of disproportionate force. I'm wondering if yizuman would say same thing if this happened in gun-friendly state where the boy would get shot by homeowner.
 
His house was not vandalized. It was just a "ding-dong" prank. I'm arguing about yizuman's comment - "There ya go, criminals have more rights than a law abiding citizens."

My point is - I don't support vigilantism or use of disproportionate force. I'm wondering if yizuman would say same thing if this happened in gun-friendly state where the boy would get shot by homeowner.
It was after 10 p.m., and the boys pounded on the door in addition to ringing the bell. How did the homeowner know it was just a prank at the time that it happened? Also, his family was inside the house.

If that happened to you, what would you do?
 
It was after 10 p.m., and the boys pounded on the door in addition to ringing the bell. How did the homeowner know it was just a prank at the time that it happened? Also, his family was inside the house.

If that happened to you, what would you do?

He chased after the teens

would you chase after teens if you feared for the safety of your own family? I doubt he feared out of safety and he knew what he saw. Therefore - he acted out of legal boundary by chasing him and tackling him outside his property. Sucks I know but he should know better especially living in a state with ridiculous legal implications.
 
I wouldn't shoot him unless I saw first hand that he is armed.

If he's on my property after 10 PM (curfew in most states during school nights and weekdays during summer. Kids should not be out after 10 PM anyway, especially for a 14 year old boy. Where was the parents in all this?), if I catch him WHILE on my property, I'm well within rights to detain him and call the cops to have him charged of trespassing.

That's my take on it.

Yiz
 
I wouldn't shoot him unless I saw first hand that he is armed.

If he's on my property after 10 PM (curfew in most states during school nights and weekdays during summer. Kids should not be out after 10 PM anyway, especially for a 14 year old boy. Where was the parents in all this?), if I catch him WHILE on my property, I'm well within rights to detain him and call the cops to have him charged of trespassing.

That's my take on it.

Yiz

the teen cannot be charged with trespassing.

The teen, who is not being identified, faces no charges. He initially was charged with trespass, but that's a violation- level offense that can't be pursued against juveniles in family court, according to Berben.
 
would you chase after teens if you feared for the safety of your own family? I doubt he feared out of safety and he knew what he saw. Therefore - he acted out of legal boundary by chasing him and tackling him outside his property. Sucks I know but he should know better especially living in a state with ridiculous legal implications.
So what would you have done?
 
I don't follow. He's not going to be criminally-charged.
Family court and criminal court are not the same thing. Very different criteria and procedures.

I don't know why they can't pursue it in criminal court. :dunno:
 
same as rest of us around here - yell at them and call 911. and consider upgrading the security system.
If you didn't think they were a threat would you really call 911?
 
Family court and criminal court are not the same thing. Very different criteria and procedures.

I don't know why they can't pursue it in criminal court. :dunno:

again....

The teen, who is not being identified, faces no charges. He initially was charged with trespass, but that's a violation- level offense that can't be pursued against juveniles in family court, according to Berben.

that's just the way it is in NY-NJ. This homeowner acted out of legal boundary. If you don't like it - simply move to somewhere that makes sense to you.
 
If you didn't think they were a threat would you really call 911?

why not? they come within a couple minutes. The teens would not get very far during that timeframe. The cops will be looking for them.
 
If you believe it to be a prank and not a dangerous threat then you're not supposed to use the 911 line.

majority of 911 calls are based on false alarm. it happens. they don't get criminally charged. beside - this homeowner.... see profile on him - Daniel P. Van Plew Profile - Forbes.com

big money chasing bunch of hoodlums in his underwear. what does that say about the guy? above the law, perhaps?
 
That's the keyword. He can be in Juvenile court, but not family court. Gotta watch the wording coming from sneaky reporters.

Yiz

due to nature of his crime - it's not enough to have it taken to juvenile court.

I'm not supporting either party but I agree with this quote -

"There's no winner in this kind of a thing, right? It's just a bad deal," Van Plew told WCBS-TV.
 
Back
Top