Slashdot Mirror
Teen Allegedly Broke Into a Couple's Home To Ask For Their WiFi Password, Police Say (washingtonpost.com)
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."
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.........
Everyone knows the password is written on the router.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Not at all, very obviously.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
The police said the real problem was breaking into an *occupied* house (emphasis mine). Isn't the real problem the fact that the individual broke into a house that wasn't his? The fact that the house was or was not occupied shouldn't be a mitigating circumstance.
His excuse "looking for a WiFi password" isn't a good reason to enter a home that didn't belong to him (trying to find a phone to call 911 for someone dying would be a good excuse in my opinion [if true]). Based on the other circumstances described in the article, I'm disinclined to believe that he was just looking for a WiFi password. Sounds more like a very troubled youth getting kicks acting out. Hopefully the police/justice system will give him the consequences he needs.
All of the discussion about whether or not he could have/should have been shot is moot. He wasn't (fortunately). But the event is certainly a signal that action is required to head off a future problem.
The real issue is the fact that he entered a house that was occupied.
-Sgt. Dan Pojanamat
No, Dan. The issue is the fact that he broke into a house that wasn't his. The fact the it was occupied means you can't just ignore it this time.
Fix your fucking city.
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.
Fun fact: The city of Palo Alto offers free WiFi to residents and visitors.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Honestly, the part where he specifically woke the people up makes me think this is more a case of mental illness than burglary.
Actually, Drejka most certainly should have said something. However, he should have said his piece and then moved on.
McGlockton was probably in the right to shove Drejka away since by that time he was shouting and looking like he might become violent. If Drejka actually feared things were going to go beyond a well earned shove, brandishing a weapon might have been justifiable, but simply pulling it out and shooting was going too far.
I wonder, though, about how his child and wife feel about witnessing him being killed. He was just getting his kid some candy.
You can dehumanize him by just calling him 'asshole' but he was a father, moments earlier buying his kid some candy.
Yup, that's what it means to have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
If its only a shove then yes, it shouldn't be grounds to shoot him.
But if the guy attacked him, a state with "Stand Your Ground" laws basically permits the use of firearms where there is a chance the physical attacker could grab his gun, or possibly (but not likely to) render him unconscious.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
and there is no longer any organized militia to stand against tyranny
Actually, it has happened as recently as the 1946, and I may not even be citing the correct instance I'm trying to recollect.
Fuck all political gun owners, every last Godless one of them, fuck them, every idiotic one.
Fuck you for being a liberal chump. I'm totally against "Stand Your Ground" type laws (Castle Doctrine is much more reasonable), but am in total support of the 2A. The founding father's "intent" was to ensure that any group that tried to infringe on a citizen's rights (to life) would have to be willing to die for it. It was just as much about subverting federal or local gov't oppression, and wasn't limited to foreign threats. That's why the 2A included the words "a well regulated militia".
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
being light on common sense doesn't necessarily mean you're not good for something else. There's no shortage of math experts who are also autistic you know. We shouldn't be so quick to kill something just because it's not immediately useful. We sent mother-f'ing physicists to die in the trenches of WWI before we figured out they could make bombs and rockets.
The stupid ones aren't the occasional dumb kid who does something for who knows what reason, but the folks who's response to any wrong doing is to call for blood. That kind of crap is what got the US in 8 pointless wars and counting post 9/11 (seriously, look it up).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
have you?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"the real issue is the fact that he entered a house that was occupied."
Had it been unoccupied, of course, that would be totally fine.
Yup, that's what it means to have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
Is it 1840 where you live?
And you've never shoved someone before who was shouting in a family member's face?
Not once, though I can't recall anyone ever shouting in a family members face. I'm a calm, collected person, and I tend to associate with other calm people.
To me it's akin to driving a motorcycle at 90 mph down the highway. Of course someone who does that doesn't DESERVE to die - but if they do it's just a matter of "Well, sometimes that happens. Don't do reckless things like that.".
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Yet you support trump wholesale.
Only retail, with coupons.
Ha!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Clearly he was not able to do so, possibly because he was a fucking moron who broke into someones house to ask for their wifi password. If this is not a clear case of internet addiction then I don't know what is.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
No, these laws still apply in the US because police coverage is low or non-existent, citizens need to defend themselves. When cops take 30-45m to drive somewhere (or in the case of inner cities 3h-never). It's also legal in the US to arrest someone even if you're not a police until police show up.
Also because of the British that used to come in houses to steal stuff and quarter a brigade of soldiers in the name of the Crown.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
If you have to defend yourself against hard physical measures, lethal force is the best defense, when it comes to survival you always want to be one step higher than your opponent.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Vietnam and Afghanistan especially were LOST by the US and not because some protests at home. The US military lost in a bunch of other places (eg Cuba) and history has proven that a larger, more powerful army can often be defeated by draining its resources (eg Russia-Japan and Russia-Germany to name a few).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You must be talking about some other incident. Nobody in this incident had a history of 19 arrests.
That odd sensation you feel is probably just the ears and tail growing in. Soon you'll make a loud braying sound. Don't worry, it's just a wild take, it'll all go away in the next scene.
Please folks call it by it's real name, it is the castle doctrine. Wikipedia covers it quite well.
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
Well, no. The topic that was being discuss here as a tangent was the recent shooting in Florida where someone was pushed to the ground and responded with deadly force. THAT shooting was justified under "Stand your ground" law. "Castle doctrine" applies within the home not when out and about.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
It's trite but true, but remember the old saying that you tell kids: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt.".
Shouting is not violence. It's not an attack and she was not in danger - eminent or otherwise. Granted - he was being an asshole, but you cannot physically attack someone no matter how mean you think their words are.
You can stand there all night screaming at someone. They will never, ever die from it.
You CAN however physically beat someone to death. Once you take that step to make an argument physical that person is within their right to defend themselves.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
In what universe is your hobbyist collection of firearms going to go toe to toe with the US military? That is a fantasy bordering on the absurd and is not a valid reason to jeopardize public safety. Not like it matters at this point.
Wait - I thought all these AR15's were "military grade weapons of war"? It's funny how anti gunners go from civilian guns being fully semi-automatic assault weapons complete with the shoulder things that go up when it suits them, to ineffective pea-shooters incapable of taking out a fly when that framing suits their argument.
The reality is that A) the weapons that most civilians have really aren't that bad, and B) most significant civil wars involve a decent chunk of the military also fracturing and choosing various sides as well. This is even more likely when you consider that the military as a whole tends to lean very right-wing. If anything becomes truly worth rebelling over the political group that currently has the guns in this country is likely to take the majority of the military with it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
In the old west gun fights were very rare. Nothing like what hollywood would have us believe. People had a whole lot more respect for one another.
More guns would cut down on a lot of the horseshit out there.
More guns, less crime.
BTW, The famous OK Coral fight? That was gun control. If they didn't try to push their gun control that fight never would have happened.
be against clearly reasonable stand your ground laws
There's no such thing as reasonable SYG laws. It basically lowers a shooter's responsibility for the death they chose to inflict. They're out in the public, they're not held responsible to avoid situations potentially "requiring" the use of their firearm, and they basically state "I thought my life was in jeopardy at that moment", and it doesn't matter whether the potential threat was armed.
We live in a legal system where the state must prove guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", "presumed innocent" until proven otherwise, and cannot be prosecuted for the same crime once rendered "not guilty" by the jury, regardless whether the jury, judge, or prosecutors erred. That standard should readily acquit any person firing in actual self defense. What SYG does is excuse the shooter for contributing to the shooting situation, and make any doubt argument a credible legal defense against conviction. Forget the fact that any clueless jackass can now carry a killing device, play LEO, drive a 1/4 of a mile, put himself in a dangerous situation, and kill an unarmed teen. SYG basically gives any person the right to act belligerently towards another person, in a state that gives him the right to carry a killing weapon, use it to kill the person, and then claim "I thought my life was in peril so I fired first rather than avoid a situation where I may need to kill".
Inside one's home in most states you're fine shooting an intruder without that person having committed an overt act against you because breaking in is overt act enough.
No one is getting shot accidentally when the perpetrator is breaking into a house they don't belong there. If they're too mentally compromised to avoid breaking into a house, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the homeowner. Even LEOs aren't supposed to be breaking into houses without a warrant; they're fair game to be shot by the homeowner as well.
The alternative is that you believe it's OK to have the state require you to attempt to run away from, say, an armed robber or even just one who out-muscles you. Such an action is akin to the state requiring you to attempt suicide because that's what it is.
No, it is not. In every mugging, overwhelmingly both the perp and the victim survive the encounter. Apparently, you seem to feel you have the right to shoot dead someone who attempts to mug you. Fine, but now the perpetrator can shoot you first in the parking lot if they know you're packing a gun, and say "he pulled the gun on me, so I shot him first. SYG". As long as there were no witnesses, and he didn't try to take your credit cards, he gets off scot free for murder. I'm not going to even waste my time explaining how this law gets applied for KKK members.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
It says every man has the right to bear arms to form a MILITIA, it says nothing about Joey 45 shooting someone cause he's mad.
The 2A about the implied right to self defense, from any threat (foreign invader, federal agent, town lynch mob, etc.) which necessitated the right to possess firearms uninfringed. But look, the right to own killing weapons for self defense is as spelled out in the CotUS as the "right to privacy". The CotUS doesn't give individuals the right to shoot other individuals, that's why murder is a prosecutable crime. Its also quite clear that it means the federal gov't cannot prevent any law abiding citizen from possessing firearms, and arbitrary regulation/registration of firearms on the federal level would be "infringement".
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
So it's not ok to defend my girlfriend whom I might consider in eminent danger,
With a firearm? Hell no. Except in a SYG state, where you possess a firearm, decide to get into a shoving match with a deadly weapon, and either party decides to shoot the other first and claim "I thought my life was in jeopardy".
How did we become so callous and stupid?
Speak for yourself, callous and stupid. I don't favor SYG laws.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I don't live in 1840 or in Florida today. I'm just pointing out how SYG applies to the querant's question. I do not support SYG laws or incestuous procreation.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
No, these laws still apply in the US because police coverage is low or non-existent, citizens need to defend themselves. .
Sounds like 1840 to me...
More guns, less crime.
Yet the facts say otherwise.
Look I'm not anti gun, I grew up in a family of farmers and hunters so they have a place, but guns don't solve all problems. In many cases they create problems as evidenced by the over represented gun violence statistics from the US compared to the rest of the civilised world.
Read (pdf version of more guns less crime) https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp...
They lay it all out for you. If you want more problems with guns? Pass more gun control. Well known, this goes clear back past the Roman Empire BTW with swords and knives. Same arguments. Same bullshit. Same results. Whenever they say "common sense", don't believe it.
Facts - Chicago has the toughest gun control in the country. They also have the worst problem. Do your own research if you like.
Still better than 1984 where you live.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Read (pdf version of more guns less crime) https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp...
'Site can't be reached'.
If you want more problems with guns? Pass more gun control. Well known, this goes clear back past the Roman Empire BTW with swords and knives. Same arguments. Same bullshit. Same results. Whenever they say "common sense", don't believe it. Facts
Facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Outside of a handful of crazy countries in South America, the US has the most lax firearms laws and the highest gun violence rates. Facts....
You are incorrect. The Constitution never even gets close to addressing self-defense.
So, you are against the Roe v Wade decision because there is no specific "right to privacy" spelled out in the CotUS? (Which was the whole point of my statement.) Are you also suggesting there was no intent for militias to defend the state citizenry from federal tyranny?
Their intent was for actual well-regulated citizen militias, which for the most part disappeared over a century ago making the 2nd Amendment, in most aspects today, inapplicable.
I consider a gun club sponsored by a local politician to satisfy the definition of a well-regulated militia. The National Guard ceased to be a true (state) militia when it could be federalized. The 2A is not specifically limited to foreign threats.
Our Founders did not intend for the US citizenship to be as armed as they are today.
Actually, if anything, the Founding Fathers were more likely to have intended citizens to be as abundantly armed as they are today; what they didn't believe in was a permanent standing army!
Making self-defense inclusive in the 2nd is redundant,
The 2A is not merely about enshrining self-defense as a concept (as you pointed out, is redundant). Its about the right for all citizens to possess firearms, ostensibly for self-defense, although the founding fathers were more concerned about enabling its citizens to resist outside threats (including potential federal tyranny).
But Justice Scalia shit all over the Founders because the propaganda machine that is the NRA told him.
Just like SCotUS shat over the CotUS with their Roe v Wade decision. Either you believe the CotUS to be an (inevitably) interpreted document, or you're a strict Originalist, in which case very little about today's CotUS resembles the original founders intent.
BTW, you're arguing with the wrong guy when it comes to the specifics of Scalia's interpretations of the 2A. I do believe states (and localities) can regulate or restrict access to firearms (in line with Scalia), but I also believe the CotUS can intervene when any gov't body passes arbitrary laws to undermine the use of firearms for self defense (gun locks, limitations on ammo purchase, etc.). I do not believe the 2A enshrines the access of firearms for individual self-defense, but I believe in its original intent to enable the citizenry to defend itself and its community from all threats, including the federal gov't. So whether its community defense or individual defense, the issue is moot. The CotUS enshrines the citizens' right to possess firearms (until the 2A is modified or repealed). The 2A is a failsafe for potential tyranny and abrogation of the Rule of Law by fiat. It also means I can be elderly or lacking physical prowess, but still be able to access a tool to kill anything or anyone I consider a threat; it does not mean that I am immune to the consequences of my decisions or my responsibilities inherent to firearm possession.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
You got me, SYG is different than the castle doctrine. In some states though, the SYG is included as a subset of the castle doctrine. For clarification, on the castle doctrine, it also covers you when you are in the outhouse, lean-to, garage, and dog house, ie anything that puts a roof over your head, including cars. It also covers when you are off your property but you are in your car.
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
I believe you would, it does not mean it's humane.
Ancient Code of Hammurabi "an eye for an eye ..." is by all standards considered today immoral, yet you propose "a life for a push".
Your arguments regarding privacy and Roe v. Wade are strawman fallacies.
No, not when one argues that the 2A doesn't defend an individual's right to possess firearms based on its specific wording! OP is claiming that the 2A only applies to a rigid interpretation of militia and has nothing to do with "self-defense". It should be quite obvious to anyone that's followed Supreme Court decisions that there is a difference between interpreting the document from an "Originalist" point of view (strict adherence to wording and the intent of someone dead two hundred years ago) or "Loose Construction" point of view. There is no wording about "self defense" in the 2A. There is no wording about "right to privacy" in Griswald vs CT. Is the latter decision "illegitimate" because no Originalist would consider it valid law? If its legitimate, how can you even argue the 2A is not about "self defense"? They are both based on concepts which have no basis in a strict wording interpretation of the CotUS.
The spirit of the 2nd as envisioned by the Founders was a selfless right to defend your neighbors against tyranny, foreign, domestic, either. Justice Scalia's reinterpretation made it a selfish right, every man for himself. See the difference?
Yes I do. Charming. You (actually the anti-gun rights philosopher) make up a differentiation between of "selfless" and "selfish" rights, and yet support laws that are utterly in conflict with a basic interpretation of the 2A, because you rationalize about concepts not even mentioned in the CotUS. You are the Queen of Ideological Rationalization.
Let me know when you consider "right to privacy" CotUS interpretations as legally invalid, then you can proceed to argue with me whether individual self-defense is irrelevant to the 2A. You can't have one without the other, because they use the same philosophical mechanism to argue justification for their resulting decisions. Otherwise, lets not waste each other's time.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon