Little Boy Faces Two Felony Charges

I'm wondering if they had to charge him in order for the court to mandate treatment.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Xcathdra

And they're required to submit the report regardless of their personal feelings.

That depends on MI state law and or department policy.

Its been my experience that any investigation involving minors requires a report to be completed and kept on file. Its a cya feature for the obvious reasons. Even more so when its a minor that has been involved in multiple law enforcement contact situations.

I have submitted PC to the PA's office with notes attached with my opinion on them for consideration.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes cops don't make the final decision, but they sure as heck make the first suggestion... And in this case the DA agreed for some crazy reason.
The cops still had a big hand it the charges being felonies...
Unless they sent them over as misdemeanors or infractions and then the DA changed those charges

Law Enforcement does not have a hand in it being a felony charge. When it comes to property destruction the legislature sets the dollar amount that determines felony or misdemeanor.

If Michigan cut off is say 750 dollars, and the camera cost 1000 dollars, then the charge is a felony. With that being said the PA can reduce the charges from a felony to something less.

originally posted by: Domo1
I'm wondering if they had to charge him in order for the court to mandate treatment.

It depends on the parents.

Generally speaking parents are responsible for their children up to the age of 17+/- for criminal and 18 for civil.

Because he is a minor the parents can actually take him to get treatment and the kid has no choice. If the option is along the lines of what you are describing then its a possibility.

Also, based on the kids history, its entirely possible the PA is going down this road to force a change in the status quo so to speak. If the kid continues having the same issues week after week after week, escaping from a facility, its possible to charge the kid in order to force a change for the kids safety / well being.

I have not seen any comments about a guardian ad litem which suggests parental responsibility is not be questioned.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes cops don't make the final decision, but they sure as heck make the first suggestion... And in this case the DA agreed for some crazy reason.
The cops still had a big hand it the charges being felonies...
Unless they sent them over as misdemeanors or infractions and then the DA changed those charges

Law Enforcement does not have a hand in it being a felony charge. When it comes to property destruction the legislature sets the dollar amount that determines felony or misdemeanor.

If Michigan cut off is say 750 dollars, and the camera cost 1000 dollars, then the charge is a felony. With that being said the PA can reduce the charges from a felony to something less.

Well the only number we have for sure is 50. As that is what they are asking for.
So with that in mind, should the cops have sent the report over with a felony charge.
Or did the the DA change the charge to a felony?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Since their was damage to the police cruiser and it involved a minor I would assume it was required to be sent. Generally speaking normal law enforcement is extremely restricted in terms of what we can and cannot do involving a minor. In my state I have no authority over minors as that is relegated to juvenile officers.

Since it involves a minor I seriously doubt we are going to see the entire story of what's going on. Juvenile records are sealed and are not a matter of public record.

To the person who made the comment about obstruction / resisting -
That term covers multiple possibilities.

If I go to make a traffic stop and the car does not stop, they can be charged with resisting a lawful detention arrest or stop.

If I am dealing with a situation and an uninvolved 3rd party shows up and interferes (making comments / speaking to people present / refusing orders to back away) they can be arrested for obstruction.

If a person is in custody and begins resisting they can be charged.

Just wanted to put that out there that the statute is more than just actively / physically resisting an arrest.

Here is the reason for the felony charge -


MCL 750.377b Malicious destruction of property; property of police or fire department

Section 750.377b

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.377b Malicious destruction of property; property of police or fire department.


Sec. 377b.

Maliciously destroying or injuring certain personal property—Any person who shall wilfully and maliciously destroy or injure the personal property of any fire or police department, including the Michigan state police, shall be guilty of a felony.


History: Add. 1941, Act 209, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- CL 1948, 750.377b

As a side note it looks like the charges are contingent upon the kid going to counseling. I would imagine this is one of those if you don't get help then you will be charged type scenario.

to put a 'special needs' or autistic child in an unfamiliar [aggressive] environment and expect them not to 'act out' is about the same as putting your cat in the toilet and not expecting a purricane.

seriously, though... someone needs a 'head check' and it isn't the 'special needs' child.

some people's kids these days.

even the cops disagree with the 'charges', they simply want the $50 for the camera they allowed [by not restraining/riding with the boy] to be 'destroyed'.

* I'm quite that the police dept. have a spare 'fitty' lying around somewhere .... missing/unaccountable for from the evidence room, most likely.

damn. people/things just get crazier and crazier, anymore.

That is the part that clears him in the end, the willful intent. It has to be proven he had the willful intent to commit the felonious acts, or his motive must be determined. A motive of self defense or acting in fear would not convict him, at least not traditionally, of any felony. I doubt they can even convict him of any misdemeanor either..


above: I've been ripped up by those "purricanes" a couple times..

a reply to: alienreality

intent / culpability is based on mental status in terms of being able to hold one accountable or not being able to hold one accountable.

I don't believe anger issues will meet the requirement of "diminished mental capacity".

Secondly when did anger issues become classified as special needs?

a reply to: Xcathdra

while i realize you've likely been in a many of them, in a courtroom 'the law' often times 'goes out the window' ... in lieu of which side 'persuaded the jury better' [?]

[ETA]

if the D.A. is smart, they'll drop the charges and just seek restitution for the camera [?]

that's all the leos want, anyway.

???

It's impossible to believe that in Amerika, Land of The Free Home of The Oppressed that an 8 year old boy could be held criminally responsible for anything. Oh, forget it. Bill the family for the camera and turn him over to a higher authority, his parents.

originally posted by: Restricted
Frankly, I'm tired of reading about out of control children. If parents slapped them around when appropriate we wouldn't be having such problems.

Sir. You know not of what you speak.

1) "Special Needs" kids often do not respond to being "slapped around" in the way a typical child would (i.e. fear and "gee that was bad") so it would be pointless, 2) the idea that slapping kids around is a great way to discipline them is very old fashioned AND not supported by current data, 3) it would likely get DSS all up in your business, especially if you had a special needs kid.

HITTING DOES NOT IMPROVE BEHAVIOR
Many times we have heard parents say, “The more we spank the more he misbehaves.” Spanking makes a child’s behavior worse, not better. Here’s why. Remember the basis for promoting desirable behavior: The child who feels right acts right. Spanking undermines this principle. A child who is hit feels wrong inside and this shows up in his behavior. The more he misbehaves, the more he gets spanked and the worse he feels. The cycle continues. We want the child to know that he did wrong, and to feel remorse, but to still believe that he is a person who has value.

The Cycle of Misbehavior

Misbehavior Worse behavior Spanking Decreased self-esteem, anger

One of the goals of disciplinary action is to stop the misbehavior immediately, and spanking may do that. It is more important to create the conviction within the child that he doesn’t want to repeat the misbehavior (i.e, internal rather than external control). One of the reasons for the ineffectiveness of spanking in creating internal controls is that during and immediately after the spanking, the child is so preoccupied with the perceived injustice of the physical punishment (or maybe the degree of it he’s getting) that he “forgets” the reason for which he was spanked. Sitting down with him and talking after the spanking to be sure he’s aware of what he did can be done just as well (if not better) without the spanking part. Alternatives to spanking can be much more thought-and-conscience-provoking for a child, but they may take more time and energy from the parent. This brings up a main reason why some parents lean toward spanking—it’s easier.

Source

I am very saddened by the story.
I really wish things were better in our society.
We can make them better if we try and refuse to give up.

In response to the comment about 'slappin em around'... Discipline doesn't require violence, as that usually creates the opposite effects. It can also lead to an abusive situation if not kept in check constantly.

I have two children and what has worked for me more than threats of a spanking were actually me sitting down and talking to them and caring about their feelings and helping them directly in a loving way. I wish I could do it more often, I admit it's easy to get frustrated and just want to threaten them. But it's not the ultimate solution is it? Love and understanding seem to be the only sure-fire way to deal with behavior issues.

originally posted by: Restricted
Frankly, I'm tired of reading about out of control children. If parents slapped them around when appropriate we wouldn't be having such problems.

Umm, the little guy has SPECIAL NEEDS. He's not just an out of control child.

There's a difference.

Wow. I feel sorry for your kids.

a reply to: lovebeck


Exactly. Its not like he knows better and WILLINGLY acts out for attention or to be a little asshat. He is special needs and can not differentiate between the two!

I'll probably get flamed here, but most times, 'special needs' usually means the parents spoiled and let the kid run wild with no real punishment and now they gotta deal with it. Is that the situation here?
Yes I know about the 'time out' chair and losing his DS for life, the kid probably needs a good swat on the butt

a reply to: AboveBoard

It worked in the old days and it will work now.

a reply to: HomerinNC
a reply to: Restricted

As the parent of a child with severe autism, I can tell you that you are wrong from experience. It's not something you personally know about. My dad thought like you did, and on a visit tried to (against my will, btw) use a slap on the wrist to discipline him. He is hyposensitive (can't feel things like a normal person on his skin/body), and so he laughed so hard! What a fun game! And because my son can't read facial expressions or "the angry face/tone" very well, he had 1) no clue he was being "disciplined" or 2) what for. There would be NO connection between physical discipline like that and the action.

We use "time out" with him 1) because he does not need to learn that hitting is ok - he has impulse control and aggressive issues/self-abuse issues as it is, 2) it actually WORKS! Believe it or not, he totally gets having to be removed from everything if he starts to act out - its the one thing that teaches him, 3) it gives us as parents a break from the intensity of a situation, allows both our son and us time to regroup and start from a place of "teaching and learning," and not a place of anger/intense emotions.

Many special needs kids have sensory issues, extreme impulse control issues that have nothing to do with whether or not they CHOOSE to act out - its NOT a "choice" for them like it is for typical kids with a few years on them. Would you hit an infant? That's how developed that part of my son's brain is. Yeah, it makes for some extreme parenting. I doubt anything I will say can change your view, but this isn't "the old days." Kids like my son were put in little rooms with more meds than any human should have, given electric shocks, etc - they did not live in "normal" society.

The REAL question is WHY are there so many special-needs kids? It's NOT bad parenting, my friend - not that that doesn't happen, mind you, but making that the primary assumption is simply a lack of knowing what the reality is for families.

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with our environment and how its interacting with our genes (epigenetics) - for one small example, thallium, lead, mercury, etc. are found in significantly higher levels is kids with autism, why is this? NO ONE has solutions for parents yet. These children are ILL, not the product of permissiveness.

That myth needs to die. I'm NOT a "free-range" permissive parent - I insist on manners from my son even though he can't talk, and only knows a few hand-signs, he will ask with a "please" and say "thank you."

Anyway, I do understand that unless you've dealt with it, just like the officers in the story - you don't really know what a child will do and how they will react to situations. If my son started having a melt down in their car, a LOT more would've happened than a broken camera - he would have started hurting himself and lashing out - not pretty.

peace,
AB

a reply to: 12m8keall2c

True but in this case the op article pretty much states the charges are contingent upon the child seeing a counselor. I get the impression this is not the first time this kid has been in trouble and I am also getting the impression the PA is most likely a bit tired of excuses (that's just a guess but key words are present imo).

Also I don't think I have ever seen a jury trial when dealing with juvenile court proceedings.