Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Teen Allegedly Broke Into a Couple's Home To Ask For Their WiFi Password, Police Say (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by msmash on from the real-needs dept.

A 17-year-old has been accused of breaking into a couple's home in Northern California and asking for their WiFi password, hours after he had asked nearby neighbors for theirs, authorities said. From a report: Police in Palo Alto said the teen, whose name has not been released, went to a home in Silicon Valley late Saturday and asked to use the residents' WiFi network "because he was out of data," before stealing their bicycle. Then just after midnight Sunday, police said, he broke into a nearby home, woke up a sleeping couple and asked them for their password. The male resident "pushed him down the hallway and out the front door of the house before calling police," police said in a statement. Palo Alto Police Sgt. Dan Pojanamat told The Washington Post on Friday that it's unclear whether the juvenile suspect was really seeking WiFi access or whether it was simply an excuse, saying that "the real issue is the fact that he entered a house that was occupied."

14 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like a good way... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ....to get shot.

    Oh, right...this is CA, where you can't really own a gun much anymore.

    Well, most anywhere else in the US, breaking in and waking the folks up is just asking for a bad case of lead poisoning.

    How fucking stupid are people getting these days?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Sounds like a good way... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ....to get shot.
      Oh, right...this is CA, where you can't really own a gun much anymore.

      Well, most anywhere else in the US, breaking in and waking the folks up is just asking for a bad case of lead poisoning.

      So you're saying that it would have been a better outcome if this teenager had been killed for this non-violent offense?

      Oh, and by the way, someone should tell Californians that they "can't really own a gun anymore", because we are the state with the second-most gun owners in the entire country.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Sounds like a good way... by werepants · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ....to get shot.

      Oh, right...this is CA, where you can't really own a gun much anymore.

      You say that as though it would be better if this kid (who is admittedly an idiot) had died. Not every crime is worthy of the death penalty. This kid deserves consequences for his actions, but it would've been an injustice if he got his head blown off for this.

    3. Re:Sounds like a good way... by krray · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > So you're saying that it would have been a better outcome if this teenager had been killed for this non-violent offense?

      Entering my bedroom (or hell, my house) without consent is a violent offense. At least it would end violently...

      So yes, he should have been killed. DAMN LUCKY to be alive IMHO.

    4. Re:Sounds like a good way... by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you're saying that it would have been a better outcome if this teenager had been killed for this non-violent offense?

      What is it with Slashdot and these science deniers who do not believe in evolution?

      Yes, stupid enough actions should get you killed. That's how evolution, and the world, works.

      P.S. How do you know it was a non-violent offense? Usually people inside of other people's homes late are night are not non-violent. You just don't know when the violence will start; this person happened to be shot before he could turn violent. Standing over someones bed as they sleep is already an inherently threatening action to start with.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Sounds like a good way... by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're obviously not familiar with castle doctrine. In a castle doctrine state (which surprisingly, California is), the mere presence of an intruder in your residence is considered a threat to your life, and you can immediately respond with deadly force. It doesn't matter if they're unarmed or not.

      This comes with a couple limitations:

      1. You generally cannot "bait" someone into the property and then shoot them. IE, you can't leave your front door open with a stack if cash sitting in the living room while you wait in the corner with a gun.

      2. Though they are immediately considered a threat, if they obviously become a threat no longer, then you cannot then use deadly force. IE, you can't tie someone up and then shoot them, or as in one case that I'm aware of, a home owner shot a teen intruder in his home, she was still alive and he walked up and shot her point blank in the head to "finish her off". The initial shot would have likely been fine - the "finishing" shot got him convicted.

      Other than that though, if you're in a castle doctrine state, if you - as a genuine surprise - find any intruder in your home or dwelling you're clear to shoot immediately.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Sounds like a good way... by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget the psychological trauma on the guy that shot him; killing another person, especially when you find out later that he was unarmed and no actual threat, is NOT something you just shrug off because the law says it was okay to do so.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    7. Re:Sounds like a good way... by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, and by the way, someone should tell Californians that they "can't really own a gun anymore", because we are the state with the second-most gun owners in the entire country.

      Well, in all fairness you're one out of fifty states but contain over 12% of the country's population. With that chunk of the population size even with a lower RATE of firearms ownership you still can end up with a pretty high total number.

      As to the situation - in hindsight, it's better that the teen is not dead. As dumb as his trespass was he didn't deserve to die for it. That being said, I certainly wouldn't have faulted the home owners if he HAD been shot. If you enter a residence the people there have no idea why you're there (and I'm pretty sure "asking for a WIFI password" is pretty far down on their list of guesses). They can respond as needed to protect themselves.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    8. Re:Sounds like a good way... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, in all fairness you're one out of fifty states but contain over 12% of the country's population.

      Yeah, it's pretty nice here. Lots of people want to come. It's why there are more songs about people who really want to go to California than any other state. People dreaming about California, people wanting to go "way out west" to find their fortune, people who just want to come for the girls.

      But still, you can't say that in a state with almost 400,000 gun owners that you can't really own a gun any more. As one of those gun owners, I can tell you that my rights here don't differ significantly than they did when I lived in Texas. The big difference is that here it's socially frowned-upon to take my gun into the street and act like an asshole with it. But since that has never been my intent, nor is it my intent to go unload my weapon into some wild animal minding it's own business, I feel pretty free to do as I please with my gun.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Sounds like a good way... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like he deliberately woke them up, which could mean actually shaking one of them awake. At that point you already ARE in close proximity, in a room that usually only has the one entry and exit, and the only course of action left is to get HIM away from YOU rather than the other way around,

      No, it just takes reading a report or two to see that they woke up with the kid in his room. The 'asking for wifi' thing was just the only excuse this kid could come up with at the time. Evidently, he's used it before. He was there to steal stuff. But because some idiots in the press seemed to believe his excuse, the write the article that way. Now seems many here believed it at well.

      He was there to steal stuff and got caught. I am laughing at the number of idiots who can't see that.

  2. Amateur by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone knows the password is written on the router.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  3. Re:You have that backwards asshole by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It wasn't murder, though it was the result of stupid actions on both sides.

    1. Party A should not have parked in the handicapped spot.
    2. Party B should not have said anything about it.
    3. Party A should not have escalated the situation to violence by coming out and shoving the man to the ground and then continuing towards him.

    Although both parties made mistakes, the reality is that when the guy came out of the store and shoved him to the ground that was a physical attack. Whether he poked his nose where it didn't belong or not, he's not legally obligated to be beat (potentially to death) over it.

    Basically everyone try to play nice, but above all keep your hands to yourself. If you take a confrontation from verbal to physical it can have consequences.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  4. He didn't care about the WiFi by bjdevil66 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He had a canned excuse ready just in case he ran into a resident while trying to burglarize the home.

    From TFA:

    Police said surveillance video showed that he had moved the bicycle from their backyard to their front yard before asking for their password. When the residents told him to leave, police said, he rode away on it.

    Did he need to move the bike to the front yard before asking for a password? The cops likely know this, and it's only newsworthy because his prepared lie was so ridiculous.

  5. Re:The real problem? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that the house was or was not occupied shouldn't be a mitigating circumstance.

    Breaking into an unoccupied building is burglary, breaking into an occupied building is home invasion. The latter is a much more severely punished crime than the former.