What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
276 Comments
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -45/+266So if some random parent (of six!) can do this legwork to track down vandals, how come the police can't be bothered to do it? I can guarantee the police have more time to figure that out than a mother of six.
- Thujone, on 10/12/2007, -22/+237If they investigated crimes they wouldn't have time to set speed traps, or is that fundraisers...
- Knullare, on 10/12/2007, -38/+181There are more serious crimes committed that police have to solve, giving them less time than a mother of six.
- Fish123456, on 10/12/2007, -5/+127From the article:
"Base then ... used online databases to get the name, phone numbers and addresses of the teens on the store tape."
Who wants to bet "online databases" is myspace? - slackerhobo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+105Yay to her … I mean if it was just the TP it might have not been worth it but landscaping lamps are expensive and car paint jobs are REALLY expensive, they could have very easily caused a couple thousand in damages if it is more then one care there… Those kids deserve to pay every cent of that back too.
- Peacedog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+78From fish123456:
"Who wants to bet "online databases" is myspace?"
Funny thing you should mention that. I had some teenagers vandalize my yard. By the next morning they had the pictures posted on their Xanga sites. Now here comes the funny/sad part...
I decided to call the parent's to JUST inform them of what their children had been out doing. I was not asking for any compensation, not asking for them to come clean it up, not even asking for an apology. Basically, my message to the parent's was to just inform their kids that there is a lot of strange people in the world today and they could get hurt if they vandalized the wrong house some night. Hell I tp'ed a few houses in my day and it really wasn't that big of a deal.
You would not believe the reactions of the parents. From complete anger (at me), namecalling (I never changed my polite tone of voice), and one parent continued to deny her daughter's involvement even after I directed her to the incremenating photos. Although she did make the comment that it couldn't have been her daughter since her daughter was forbidden from Xanga. Her suprise was definitely audible when she discovered her daughter was not obeying her wishes regarding creating a Xanga site, but she still denied her involvement (yes with her picture and subsequent journal entry admitting everything on the front page).
Due to the frustration of the whole ordeal (dealing with the parents) I've decided next time to just turn it over to the authorities and let them deal with em. - peteophile44, on 10/12/2007, -4/+79You do have a reasonable right to privacy. If I walked in and asked the store manager what purchases were made with your credit card in the last month, I suspect he'd deny my request. But if I walk in and ask "Did anyone buy an unusual amount of eggs, shaving cream, and spray paint recently?" and he responds by saying "Funny you should ask..." and showing me a videotape of something anyone in the store could have witnessed first hand, how is that a privacy violation? There was no expectation of privacy. The kids were in a store where, presumably, dozens of people saw them. People don't seem to understand a) the definition of privacy and b) when they have a right to it. Believe me, I am a very strong objector to the PATRIOT Act, the NSA, the private sector (*cough* AT&T *cough*) cooperating with the NSA without a subpoena, and data mining of all kinds, but no one's rights were violated here.
- noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -19/+86policework is suprisingly full of paperwork, and there really aren't enough police to do everything. there's a shortage of funds to be able to support the number of detectives necessary to do everything.
cases like this which lack direct evidence or suspects sometimes fall through the cracks in order to work the higher priority cases. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+70I know the police are busy but I think the mom's approach was very clever and I hope the police in her town learned something from her approach.
- xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -3/+67"maybe they do deserve some punishment."
of course they do. The damaged private property. What they deserve is to have to pay for the damage. - jrizzo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+71I say we stop every friggin meter maid and make them solve minor cases like this. That will take care of their personnel problems and save me the trouble of killing the next meter maid I see.
- noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+59yyyes?
if the store gave it to her willingly and wanted to help out, more power to her.
its not legal, however, for an officer to take video like this against a store owner's consent without a warrant. perhaps thats what you're thinking of. - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+56hahaha...reminds me of the scene in Pulp Fiction when Travolta goes on his rant about his car being keyed. "Man I wish I coulda caught him doin it..." In this case, she did.
Digg++ for the mom. Why anyone would waste time vandalizing anything is beyond me.... - stranflow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+53Well, if the lawn was strewn with donuts...
- enclave2, on 10/12/2007, -56/+98I hope some one makes it harder for the mothers of six to figure these things out. I'm all for snotty kids getting caught, but this lady was given access to information she shouldn't have.
What if she wasn't trying to find these kids for messing with her lawn, but was instead (and I know this is a stretch) a serial killer that was trying to find them. Lets say the kids used a debt card. Would she have been given that information? She was allowed to look at the surveillance camera footage and find out the car they drove.
I find this story scary. If any random person can find out what I buy from a grocery store, when I bought it, how I paid for it, and watch the tapes of me leaving, I'm worried.
I wasn't aware my shopping records were public information. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43@Popdmb -
Because most teenagers are stupid and think it's fun to destroy other people's property, when if this happened to them they'd be all over the court system with Mommy and Daddy's money. - stan205, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47Yeah, it's one thing to just tp a house as a joke, but to maliciously destroy property is another.
- Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -7/+46all your base are belong to us
- zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40store cooperation?
- naughtymonkey69, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46I wouldn't bother playing their tricks back on them...I would kick their asses! She should get her six kids baseball bats and jump them punks.
- chandrasonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31Check out the video to see the mess: http://www.pe.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=78571&catId=293
Original story: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060801-010445-1185r - AlanLivingston, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33@xenuxenuts:
Actually, they are alleged to have committed a crime. If convicted, they deserve punishment above and beyond restitution. FTA, the penalties they are facing include restitution and probation. Sounds appropriate for juveniles. - n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Not if it is used to commit a crime.
- 955701, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35@enclave2
Well, the info wasn't public information, it belonged to the supermarket. And the supermarket did not disclose personal information about the kids. If you can step outside your house, you can see someone's license plate. The mom performed a very good human hack by persuading the supermarket to help her informal investigation.
The police aren't perfect and in possession of an infinite amount of time. I'd argue that several forces are suffering from denial of service attacks by having too many trivial things thrown at them. keep in mind, if you can't pursue something yourself and you can't rely on the authorities, then in effect it isn't a crime.
- nlatimer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Expecting to have privacy of the things you bought after using them in a crime is not reasonable.
- guaigean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28TPing a house of someone isnt even that much of a joke. It may be funny to the kids doing it, but who wants to clean that mess up? Mostly, it is just idiotic juvenilism, and maybe this will teach them a lesson. Having fun is one thing. Go out, get trashed, do what you want. The second you bring other people, and their property, into it, you get what you deserve.
- Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29If it was only TP, I would have felt bad for them.
But they went too far. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33After reading the artice:
***** OWNED. I applaude Base for being so awesome. - p1mpjuice, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30Did you think you did?
You don't even have privacy in your house anymore. *cough* Patriot Act *cough* - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25@funkpucker -
Because obviously you are the authority on putting words into other people's mouths. Because obviously tone is perfectly interpreted from text. Because obviously you are the ultimate authority on letting people know when they've said something stupid, and are the judge, jury and executioner because you had a happy little thought of your own. Because you are really good at ignoring qualifying statements, like "most." Because apparently you think there is a rational reason to vandalize someone's property. Because obviously you have never looked up the word "irony". - nmathew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20This is directed towards people who seem to think that a breach of privacy occurred.
Why would a warrant be needed for a private citizen to turn over his records to another private individual? Shoot, the police can ask nicely for records without a warrant. They just can't force you to turn them over without one.
Can someone explain to me exactly what, if any, violations of privacy occurred (or might have occurred) here? These people went onto private property, almost certainly with those lovely surveillance tape warnings posted, and purchased goods in full view of the public present. Why on earth would you expect privacy in such a transaction? If you think the store owner shouldn't have shared that information, what about the person behind them in the checkout line?
Inplace of digging me down again, could someone please address my questions asked in good faith? - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30You do have the right to privacy...unless you are a punkass little bitch like the kids in the story.
- NICU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Shop at stores without surveillance cameras... Stores don't spend thousands of dollars on that kind of equipment for the purpose of never showing anyone. I'm glad the store helped those kids need to be taught a very big lesson, too bad they'll just get a slap on the wrist.
- flobee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@bobothn, if it were your house, I think you'd be singing a different tune. As for what she did, who knows? Maybe she didn't do anything. But even if she did, two rights don't make a wrong.
- argblat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20"Base awoke one February morning to find her front lawn strewn in white two-ply toilet paper." ... They used 2-ply ... Those BASTARDS!
- paperhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16In a title, all words should be capitalized, except for prepositions and articles. But there are better forums than this to work out the rules of capitalization.
- fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I have read your comment 3 times and I think I almost kinda vaguely understand what you are trying to say.
- SpencerMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16 "The Bases believe the teens targeted them because they complained about a teenage neighbor's dog to her family. The girl's dog had been getting loose and digging up their plants and defecating on the lawn, they said.
...
On the morning they found the vandalism, the Bases got out their camcorder to record their daughters exploring the streamers of TP. The couple figured some neighborhood teens had accidentally TP'd the wrong house.
The tape captured their dawning disillusionment.
At first, Ken Base cracks jokes about free toilet paper. He mistakes the flour for frost on the lawn. Then they notice the broken light fixtures, their cars shrink-wrapped with flour underneath to erode the top coat of gloss, the broken automated front gate and forks jammed into the grass in the shape of a cross.
"Oh, look. They stuck forks in the ground. That's weird," he says on the tape. "This is malicious."
In the background, 7-year-old Kendra gets scared. "Why did they do this, Daddy?" she asks. "They hate us." "
This wasn't a simple youthful prank, as some have suggested. It was a disproportionate response, an attempt at revenge against a woman who may have been somewhat bitchy, but had a legitimate complaint. The fact that they shrinkwrapped the cars with flour underneath shows that they clearly had malicious intent in mind. Had it simply been a prank, the mother would not have acted such. Indeed, it's stated that they got out the camcorder so that they could film the little girls "exploring the white streamers".
In short, the kids got what they deserved.
...and besides, the guy was wearing a letterman jacket. Everyone hates jocks. : ) - jjkurtz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21@enclave2
Hire someone to do your shopping for you if you want it harder for people to trace. It's not like she put the store owner at gunpoint to get the video footage. For all we know, she knew the store manager either firsthand or through a friend.
Take off your tinfoil hat and relax. This hardly qualifies as NSA wiretapping. - p1mpjuice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Darn, I thought this was a story about a Mom pawing her teens for cash.
- Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I wouldn' t bother playing tricks on them or beating them up...I'd take them to the police and get some compensation for me and some punishment for them. Yay for Sleuth-Mom!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17or rather... all your us are belong to base...
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+151. If you knew anything about the legal system, you wouldn't wonder.
2. If you knew anything about privacy, you wouldn't wonder.
3. If you knew anything about justice, you wouldn't ask either question in the first place. - peteophile44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Donnie, you're out of your element.
- dwtd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I'm not sure why so many people are supportive of enclave2's understanding of privacy in a grocery store. A grocery store is a very public place. Someone standing behind you in line will know every bit as much (and possibly more) as someone who is watching what is most likely going to be a low quality, silent security tape.
Read the CCTV signs when you enter a public supermarket. They give you fair warning that there should be no presumption of privacy inside of their store. If the teens were smarter, they would have split up and bought different items at different stores in quantities that wouldn't have triggered any red flags.
Congrats to this mom for not allowing some kids to walk all over her and her family. - paperhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13After watching that video and hearing the little girl say "why did they do this?" and "they hate us", I understand the mother's motivation for tracking down the vandals.
- Matadon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14No, because the surveillance footage is the property of the store, and so it is up to the store whether or not they want to disclose it. Since the manager went along voluntarily, a warrant is not required.
As far as 'showing the footage to anybody', well, no, that's not the case. The woman came in and asked a very specific question (has anyone purchased a very large amount of toilet paper in the past X days) to which the answer was, 'Yes'. After that, I'll wager that the store manager dug up and looked over the camera footage himself, and when he saw a bunch of high school kids purchasing the complete list of things used to vandalize her property, gladly turned over the evidence.
Personally, I'm glad she did it, because this is the sort of thing people need to do. The police can't be everywhere, and they have to deal with an incredibly high *****-to-actual-crime ratio when answering calls; the number of people who will call the cops on their neighbors for things that end up being legal is very high.
This is the way to take justice into your own hands. Build a case with solid evidence, and then hand the whole kit-and-caboodle to the cops, because at that point, the police *can* do something, because you've handed them the perp on a silver platter.
As to one submitter's suggestion that they take baseball bats to the perps, well, no, because that's 'assault with a deadly weapon'. You don't fight crime by becoming a criminal; you fight crime by making it easy for the cops to do their jobs. - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15TP'ing someones house is one thing, but tearing stuff up and damaging cars is WAY beyond a simple prank. I hope they spend alot of time in jail, little punks.
- Phaedruss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@bobothn:
"At 7:30 p.m. Feb. 17, someone bought 144 rolls of toilet paper, cheese, dog food, flour and plastic forks, the same items found on her lawn and house."
If it were just toilet paper, then yes... her methods would be questionable. There is also the fact that there was actual damage done.
As to why... well, you may not be aware of this, but not everyone in the world is nice. - flobee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@thewebguy, you've been watching too much TV. The only people who need warrants are non-civillian agencies when performing their duties. Ordinary people don't need warrants to get information that is not protected by any kind of law. When you go shopping in a public place and buy things that other people can see you purchasing, you're not protected.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 277 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is