It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

89-year-old charged with keeping kids' ball

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Yes I did read your post. It emphasized getting your kids away from the idiot box. So where was the idiot box "GOD-TV" you speak of? Oh it was in the house, while these kids were outside. They were outside enjoying a beautiful day like so many parents can only dream their children will take advantage of. Not only were they enjoying a beaufitul day outdoors, they were actually participating in a recreational activity which emphasizes teamwork and improves physical coordination and mental calculation.

I suppose though, the parents should have been right there holding their hand right? Accidents happen, its up to a mature adult with years of experience to simply do the right thing and return property to children so they can continue participating in a recreational activity which emphasizes teamwork and improves physical coordination and mental calculation, so that they do not have to go home and fill the hours with video games and violent, sex-laden drug glamorizing television.

Your entire post virtually does not even apply to this issue, as this was not an incidient of some kid comitting some kind of offense while indoors stuffing their face playing games or watching tv.

And no the football could not be considered trespassing unless it was rigged with some type of surveillance device or motor skills that gives an actual human the ability to exert their presence wthin the property.

An RC car driven in the yard may possibly be able to be considered tresspass, but not an accidental tossing of a stationary object.




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 




Kick an old lady's used underwear into your kids' rooms.

Now .. watch their reaction


Next, kick some old false teeth into their lap when they're absorbed in something on You Tube

Observe their reaction


Keep watching

and some more


Learn anything ?


Next, get some elderly person to bang on your front door, demanding the false teeth and used underwear

Watch your kids' reaction


Now, repeat the above half a dozen times per hour

Observe your kids' reaction


Have a hand mirror

Watch your OWN reaction



Record yourself AND your kids when the elderly person bangs on your door for the seventh time, demanding their teeth and undies


Yeah ... I think you get it


Now, record yourself AND your kids when the police bang on your door


Great. I think you're really starting to understand



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
What a ridiculous story!!!

Poor granny, there's just no respect out there anymore for the elderly.
"The boys father called the cops"- what a miserable piece he is. I wonder if he told his son to leave the lady alone? I'm guessing NOT. :shk:



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Your example takes everything out of context. A football is not a personal hygiene item OR an undergarment that makes physical contact with human organs.

The kid would have to have tossed their protective cup or retainer intentionally inside of this persons home for your example to hold ground. You are using extreme examples completely out of context in relation with what happened.

The approrpiate example to use would be if a child was playing in his yard with some cars or something, and the elderly neighbor was tending to her stuff or simply walking down the sidewalk, in which the wind suddenly blows her hat off her head, or she drops her purse into the yard somehow.

I are pretty darn sure in any instance a nice innocent child would pick up the hat or pursue, and kindly hand it back. Unless of course she was in the wrong 'hood or whatever.

These kids were OUTSIDE, again OUTSIDE, not watching the idiot screen. they were participating in a constructive recreational sport. Thats completely coutner to your out of context extremes you attempt to justify this petty theft with.

I would have just approached the woman first personally. But I will be damned if she is going to steal my sons property just because she is old.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by DYepes]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
My kids were throwing balls outside. One went over the neighbors fence. They had to go and ask for it nicely, then apologize, then thank the neighbor. They were then instructed by me, to not play near that fence, because if the ball went over again, it was gone.

One went over a few days later. They have not seen it since. Not my problem. They cried to me about it, and I reiterated the rules. Do they play near that fence now?



This is what a REAL PARENT sounds like

THIS parent is raising children who'll be an ASSET to whichever community they reside in

THIS is a parent



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 



Please see the poster quoted in my above post

For the sake of whichever communities your offspring reside in once they leave your 'nuture', let's hope you actually read the post quoted. And hey ... it's such GOOD advice, and free



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 


Everyone can agree to disagree. Let us all just keep or grandmothers away from this posters rotten kids.For their protection and to avoid any run ins with the law. There, problem solved.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I do have a son. And ill be damned if some old elderly person decides it is OK to commit a crime against a child, just because of their age, regardless of how petty it is.

I want my child to understand the law clearly. Obviously too many people are willing to allow the elderly to comitt petty crimes soley on the basis of it is "taboo" to not simply allow them to carry on.

She should be happy someone in this generation is actually enjoying the outside instead of boxed inside their conditioned cell in front of a screen.

There is nothing to suggest these kids are intentionally throwning this ball in her yard. She may just happen to be close to the safest location of suitable size for this activity to occur.

It is not as if she has to go out and throw a twenty yard pass. A simple toss right over the fence is suitable. This is a neighborhood, innocent things happen. She should be the mature adult and allow the kids the opportunity to carry on with their recreational outdoor activities.

Thats clever cbass, accuse any child of making an innocent mistake while participating in recreational outdoor activities as rotten. Sound like the old lady there.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by DYepes]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DYepes

And ill be damned if some old elderly person decides it is OK to commit a crime against a child, just because of their age, regardless of how petty it is.

She did not commit a crime by owning property that the ball landed on. If there was a crime committed, it was by the child allowing their property to intrude upon hers. A person is responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions. By your reasoning, if a baseball broke her window, she would be responsible for any scratches the shattered glass did to the ball.



I want my child to understand the law clearly.

I want mine to know right from wrong, as well as the law.


Obviously too many people are willing to allow the elderly to comitt petty crimes soley on the basis of it is "taboo" to not simply allow them to carry on.

It really doesn't matter legally how old this woman was. Her age just acts as an exclamation point to how ridiculous the actions are.

As an individual in society, you are responsible for your actions. The person upon whom those actions intrude is not required to accept them. The ball was in her yard.


She should be happy someone in this generation is actually enjoying the outside instead of boxed inside their conditioned cell in front of a screen.

Jester has no legal requirement to assist, encourage, or on any way condone the actions of others, regardless of how beneficial you believe those actions to be.


There is nothing to suggest these kids are intentionally throwning this ball in her yard. She may just happen to be close to the safest location of suitable size for this activity to occur.

True, as to the lack of evidence. However, in the lack of information as to what actually occurred prior to the reported event, I suspect this is the case. It has happened many times before. Tell me there wasn't someone in your neighborhood you liked to torment when you were younger?

As to the location of her property, individuals do not have eminent domain rights which would allow them to abuse property rights of others based on convenience or even on necessity.


It is not as if she has to go out and throw a twenty yard pass. A simple toss right over the fence is suitable.

Age does matter here. My mother would be unable to even pick up the ball without taking several minutes to bend down that far. In her frail condition, should someone hit her with a ball, even a soft one, I would consider it assault.

Not everyone is able-bodied.


This is a neighborhood, innocent things happen. She should be the mature adult and allow the kids the opportunity to carry on with their recreational outdoor activities.

You started your post with a declaration of legalities. Now you are arguing morality. Which side of that fence do you stand on (or do you always shift sides as it suits your position)?

Surely, as a parent, you are aware that children are not always innocent, harmless little angels? It is the duty of the parent to teach them to become moral, not just to sit and watch them and expect them to figure it out for themselves.

I do not think it is a similar duty to teach them how to use the law to harm others.

TheRedneck


[edit on 21-10-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The kids parents said its an ongoing dispute. Hence this is not the first time nor the last time these kids are being an inconvenience to this individual.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Obviously if a ball shattered her window, that would be destruction of property and would require monetary restitution.

Obviously if she were not able bodied, that would have been discovered upon the police visitation, and the police officer would have been quite upset at the father who reported it, although I am sure he is quite upset even now.

No there was not someone "I like to torment" when I was younger, and I cannot really think of any of my regular freinds who did that. That was not something that came across our simple minds. I dont really understand what would make a child want to intentionally torment another individual.

There is nothing here to state this is the case. As far as we know, a football landed in someones yard. The owners of it requested for it back, intentionas were made that the property would not be returned. That is theft. This was not an item that was dug up underneath her yard so she gets rigths to claim treasure or whatever. By sheer chance a recreational object landed in her yard, and she refused to give it back.

Kids are not all little angles, but if someone is asking for their property back, it is unlawful to keep it. Therefore she was subjected to the law.

The whole ordeal in itself will bring lessons to all parties involved as stated earlier. I honestly do not believe the stupid father even intended it to lead to her arrest. I have no doubt that the parents in the immediate neighborhood are goign to be talking to their children about the proximity of their games to peopels yards as a result of this.

Because believe it or not, most of the people in that neighborhood are probably just as outraged as most of yall in this thread. Morals and laws go hand in hand. Thats why laws exist, they are based (at least loosely in this day) on morals.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



What a masterful post


Truly deserving of ten stars but I'm only permitted one, unfortunately



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 




I'm out of patience with you and your attempted justification


Hope I never have to encounter you or any child placed in your care



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
When I was growing up, we had a a neighbor who would NOT allow us to walk on her yard or driveway. Not even on accident....that would cause her to come out yelling at us.


Anyways, I remember a few times we would be out in our backyard throwing & kicking a ball around and it would accidently go over the fence into her yard. It was all innocent. We werent brats....we just sucked at throwing/kicking.

The first time, we knocked on her door asking if she would retrieve it for us. She said no, she would not. The 2nd, 3rd time, we never asked for it back


So this bitter ol woman had a collection of our balls. Wonder what she did with them.


I saw the interview of this woman on the news, and I found it funny
She is one tough lady!


Its just sad that this woman and the kids and their parents couldnt work something out. I dont think the police should have been called on such a trival thing.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
The police asked her to give it back, but she refused. She said she'd give it back on her own time. Then they gave her a ticket, to appear in court, which she refused to sign. So, off to the clink, granny!


welcome to the new american police state.

citizens are now enemies of the state.

there is no margin for anything but procedure.

all will comply.

have a nice day.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I am sorry dock6, but my justifiation is not attempted, it is just.

In any case, I will attempt to take this away from such personal and emotional conversation to one focused more on the facts.

From the city of Blue Ash police news.

Last week, Blue Ash Police were asked to intervene in a neighbor dispute. It is regrettable that Police were pressed to give a citation when the involved parties could not reach a compromise.

On Thursday evening, October 16, the Blue Ash Police were called to Myrtle Avenue. Responding officers were advised by Mr. Paul Tanis that his son’s football had landed in the yard of Ms. Edna Jester, and that Ms. Jester had taken the ball and would not give it back.

Officers made contact with Ms. Jester believing that they would resolve the situation by retrieving the ball; however, Ms. Jester refused to return the ball. With the property owner demanding that police resolve this issue, and with Ohio law stipulating that Ms. Jester did not have the right to keep the other person’s property, Police were pressed to give Ms. Jester a citation to Mayor’s Court for petty theft. When Ms. Jester declined to sign the citation acknowledging that she would appear in court, she was placed in a police car and taken to the station where she was processed and released. The officers, in respect of her age, did not handcuff her at any point. Even though Ms. Jester insisted the officers put handcuffs on her, officers refused and did not, despite what has been reported in various media.

This incident is the result of a series of disagreements between neighbors on this street. The police have responded numerous times to similar disputes over the past several months in this area involving the same individuals, and have attempted to address each circumstance with minimal amount of intervention.

The City sincerely hopes that similar future disputes among neighbors can be resolved without police action.


Going by the street name, I located Myrtle avenue in google Earth, can be done on maps as well.

Myrtle Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45242
39°13'54.85"N
84°22'27.94"W

The neighborhood appears to be bordered by a busy commercial street to the West and South. The east is another residential road. There is a local school only a few blocks South and East , but the closest park requires them go take a commercial street that overpasses an Interstate Highway (I-71). Besides those locations, they are pretty much lmitied to their street, or another persons street to play games.

In all fairness, I suppose there can be an agreement reached in the near future where maybe the children can get carpooled to the park with an adult supervisor. But as we all know that can be an inceasingly difficult option during tough economic times.

So there are some options on the table. They can take increased risks on heavy trafficed roads to get to the park or school, they can move to another street where accidental losses will still occur, or they can stop playing football altogether.

I just feel she should have returned the legal property, especially if the police were asking for it.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by DYepes]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Sometimes, both sides are wrong. Both sides make fools of themselves.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
i gave them a piece of my mind:

www.blueash.com...

how can it be theft, if they threw their personal effects on her property?

possession 9/10ths of the law?


It means that when there is no definitive proof of ownership, the person in possession of the item can keep it, by law. This "ownership" will remain in tact until it is proven otherwise. The term usually applies to property law.


what a society we've become, where we lock up little old ladies because some thoughtless brats have no respect for boundaries.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DYepes

Well, obviously I read you a little differently than your post was intended. I still disagree with you on certain aspects, however:


Obviously if a ball shattered her window, that would be destruction of property and would require monetary restitution.

There is also the possibility that Jester had suffered some property damage as a result. The trick here is that legal intervention is foolhardy in most cases unless that damage is severe. For instance, she may well have been tending some of her 'prize petunias' for an entire season, when that football landed smack in the middle of them. No police action or lawsuit would replace the work and care she had given those flowers; she would have had to drive several times to the local courthouse, pay court costs up front to file, argue her case (possibly against an attorney), and should she win, she gets... drumroll, please... a judgment against the parents for the cost of more petunias!

In order to collect that judgment, she probably has to go to the sheriff's office, attach their property (which does nothing unless they try to use it for collateral or sell it), garnish their wages (which requires that she know where they work), or seize a piece of property, like a car. Of course, there's a charge for this, which is added to the judgment amount. That piece of property is then sold at police auction to the highest bidder (There's you a nice return
), and the proceeds pay first for the sale costs, second to any lienholder already having a claim, and only then to you who received the judgment. Trust you me, there's usually nothing left by the time your claim gets to the front of that line.

So there's no recourse through the courts. What about the police? Sure, you call them up, they get angry because they have to witness a criminal action before they can do much (and of course, the kids are going to 'fess up to their actions
... NOT!), and so they grudgingly fill out a report and tell you to quit taking up their valuable time. No real recourse through the cops either.

And even if there had not been property damage, have you considered the possibility of future damage? The law does not discount actions which have undue potential to cause property damage. I can't build a roaring fire next door to my neighbor's house and walk away, even if I built it on my property. Why? Because it has an undue risk of damaging my neighbor's house. No damage must be done to their house for me to be in violation of the law. That football has potential to break out a window, and the children had already shown negligence in allowing it to come onto someone else's property, according to the story, many times.


Obviously if she were not able bodied, that would have been discovered upon the police visitation

Sure, we have a police officer who is going to ask this woman (who was obviously upset about the situation and argumentative at best) how hard it is for her to lob a football. Please.


No there was not someone "I like to torment" when I was younger, and I cannot really think of any of my regular freinds who did that. That was not something that came across our simple minds.

One of three things is happening here, and I do not claim to know which possibility is truthful:

  • You are lying through your teeth
  • You and your friends were unlike every other child I have ever known, and should receive awards for behavior that is so outstanding as to be unheard of in the history of modern man
  • You simply did, but since no one ever told you that it was wrong, you don't remember it.


I'd bet money on the last one, but, hey, that's just me. I was a little hellion more than once, until I learned morality (usually through the business end of a leather belt
).


As far as we know, a football landed in someones yard. The owners of it requested for it back, intentionas were made that the property would not be returned. That is theft. This was not an item that was dug up underneath her yard so she gets rigths to claim treasure or whatever. By sheer chance a recreational object landed in her yard, and she refused to give it back.

Criminal evidence. Of course, when the police responded, she should have returned it to them and filed her own complaint; that was her error.


The whole ordeal in itself will bring lessons to all parties involved as stated earlier. I honestly do not believe the stupid father even intended it to lead to her arrest. I have no doubt that the parents in the immediate neighborhood are goign to be talking to their children about the proximity of their games to peopels yards as a result of this.

As my first post stated, this was the worse way possible for this to have ended, and I wholly agree that this ordeal and its repercussions are far from over. There were so many opportunities to avoid this situation, by the parents, the kids, the police (although I have to admit I fault them less than the other parties under the reported circumstances), and finally, by Jester herself.


Morals and laws go hand in hand. Thats why laws exist, they are based (at least loosely in this day) on morals.

Supposedly, but without that one parenthesized disclaimer, I would disagree here as well. Laws are supposedly based on morality, yes, but in reality they are as often based on power and control, using morality as an excuse to such ends.

edit to add: After your last post, considering what was said in the press release, I now fault the police none at all, and stand firmly by my initial conclusion that this was the result of childish 'torment' of an old lady. You posted that while I was typing.

TheRedneck


[edit on 21-10-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 


Oh boy, you would make Walter Sobchack proud. You think you are so right that you become intolerable to everyone around you. Your sense of right and wrong is child like and has no place in a grown adult. It is not about law, it is what is right!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join