Whiteface Gondola incident - Hoodlums threatened to push passenger out

[billski]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

See below. Maybe, but its not advisable.

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...

..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]

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]

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!"

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

what he said.

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

 

[Dr Skimeister]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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