Mom pushes for felony charges after elderly couple takes e-bikes from boys fishing near Jupiter (Florida)
Posted by usernamechosen999@reddit | ebikes | View on Reddit | 284 comments
bach2209@reddit
Them some high dollar e bikes for kids. I cant believe they took bikes. I cant believe the kids ignore the signs and trespassed. šš
Ada_Pearce@reddit
One crime does not give you the right to commit another crime. Also, trespassing vs felony theft? Come on, stop pretending a little trespassing gives you a free pass to steal and slap at children
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
Crimes require intent. You arenāt going to get a theft charge in these circumstances. Maybe assault but not theft. Unless they threw the bike up on Facebook marketplace after taking it.
Dunkleostrich@reddit
What are you talking about? Crime absolutely does npt require intent.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
You know you could look this up in 10 seconds and realize that many crimes DO REQUIRE INTENT.
Dunkleostrich@reddit
Because manslaughter totally requires intent.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
No it does not. But murder does. And it's intent that separates them. Congrats on ALMOST educating yourself.
Dunkleostrich@reddit
And manslaughter is still a crime buddy.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Yes, it is. But it illustrates that intent matters in the justice system.
Arson and theft both require intent.
Dunkleostrich@reddit
Yes intent matters but it does not mean you can't commit a crime without intent. Intentional crimes are usually more severe, yes, but the intent isn't inherently necessary. If you're driving along happily obeying the speed limit and you don't notice a school zone, you're still speeding, you've still committed a crime, and you still get a ticket.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Which is why I chose my words carefully: "many crimes", not all.
Dunkleostrich@reddit
Your first comment literally says "crimes require intent." that's the only thing I took issue with.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Fine to take issue with that. But I'm not the one who said it.
Dunkleostrich@reddit
Well that's entirely my fault then. Many apologies.
Dunkleostrich@reddit
Also, a very quick Google search returns numerous results that show you can I'm fact be charged with arson for unintentionally starting a fire.
beepingnoise@reddit
The hell does this mean?
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
Crime requires intent and you have to prove it. They can argue they never intended to keep the bikes and would likely get off.
beepingnoise@reddit
You think you can take someone elseās property and that isnāt intent? They knew it wasnāt their bikes and knew they were taking it from the owner.
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
You have to also acknowledge that they believed themselves to be preventing a minor from operating a bike on private property. Thatās where intent comes in. Theft would be a stretch. Iām not going to argue they were right, they shouldnāt have done any of this but charging them with letter of the law theft is kind of ridiculous.
beepingnoise@reddit
They are withholding property by the owner. If they donāt give it back, they stole it. What else happened that makes it different?
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The bikes were illegally parked on private property and they impounded them.
Tow truck drivers do that all the time and no one calls it theft.
beepingnoise@reddit
They arenāt an impound. How do the kids get their property back from these people that took their property and is holding it from them?
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Call for their parents to come pick them up, explain they were trespassing, knock on the door, apologize for trespassing, agree to never do it again, and ask that the bikes be released into the custody of the parents.
If the older couple refuses, call the police.
calamititties@reddit
They had the youthās best interest in mind, clearly. /s
maethor1337@reddit
Did you get your law degree on Google? Theft is well defined. āI didnāt mean to be a thief when I attempted to physically and permanently deprive them of their $7500 bikes!ā isnāt going to fly.
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
Ok in six months let me know how this turned out. I bet you thereās no theft on their record.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
These people are so pro-troublemaker kida and anti-senior they wouldn't know good legal takes if it bit them.
maethor1337@reddit
Okay, feel free to ping me back in 6 months when these two have felony theft charges on their records.
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
RemindMe! 6 months āwatch the criminal justice system not cater to feelings of e-bikesā
RemindMeBot@reddit
I will be messaging you in 6 months on 2026-11-19 19:26:19 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
MrGNoll814@reddit
Depriving someone of their property of even fire a moment is theft. Intent means jack shit.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Amazing how all these tow truck companies haven't been shut down yet when, according to you, they engage in theft daily.
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
No. Thatās not how it works.
MrGNoll814@reddit
Absolutely it is how it works. People have been charged with theft just for ripping a Trump sign out of someoneās hand. Just because you didnāt intend to keep the property isnāt a defense. Once deprived itās theft.
Ada_Pearce@reddit
You can easily eat a theft a charge in this circumstanceĀ
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
Youād be real hard pressed to make it stick. 12 jurors, unanimous that seizing the bikes with intent to deprive forever? I donāt think so.
Ada_Pearce@reddit
Well of course because they are lucky enough to be old white karens
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Why are you bringing race into this? All parties are white.
Substantial_Steak723@reddit
I think many of us outside of the United States of disarray are frequently thinking "it's what I've come to expect of the people's and attitudes of that hideous shi t show of a country" ...it never ends! š¤·š¤¦š©
planetbuster@reddit
theres another issue here. kids are too soft these days. why did this wussy allow his bike to be taken away? christ.
i should be rooting for this though, soft bois turn into proper beta males in the future for me to fuck their wives.
chuckwolf@reddit
Depending on the value of the bikes it's Grand theft and no they weren't tresspassing if it wasn't the land immediately surrounding a house, Lakes and the land surrounding them are public property you can't "own" a lake unless it's completely surrounded by the land of a single homeowner
buchenrad@reddit
It depends. If the waterway is considered navigable, which is legally defined as usable for commerce, then the bed of that waterway is public land, which in most jurisdictions terminates at the high water mark. Often times the high water mark is above the current water level making it legal to walk the shore in between those lines. That being said, the high water mark is not always evident and most people do not know the law anyway so it's probably not worth the hassle, because it will become one eventually.
However if the waterway is not navigable, then the bed of the waterway is private land. You are usually still allowed to float the water in a boat, but it is usually trespassing to touch the ground in a non-navigable waterway even when you're in the water.
To add to the confusion, some waterways in the more remote parts of the US have never been formally classified as navigable or not, making the risk of a trespassing charge even worse in those areas.
Legitimate-Lab9077@reddit
That may be for the rest of the United States, but Florida has its own law that basically says anything underwater is public land, unless the body of water was specifically created by the landowner
Manateekid@reddit
Iām glad to see you have access to AI, but Chuck had it right, and youāre confused. In every state Iām aware of, if a single land owner owns the land all the way around the lake I donāt care if you could sail the Titanic on it, itās private.
buchenrad@reddit
You must not be aware of very many states. I don't know the laws for all of them, but I do know the law for the majority of them. And if it's a LAKE, which means there is water flowing in and/or out, that's a public water resource. Certain lakes may have privately owned banks and beds but most have a publicly owned bed. And that determination has nothing to do with who owns the surrounding land. But in any case, the water in a lake, at last in the majority of jurisdictions, is a public resource.
However ponds, which do not have water flowing in or out, especially small ponds contained within private property are almost never navigable waterways. This means the bed of the pond is owned by whoever owns the surrounding land, as described in the deed or plat.
And I don't use AI. I do this shit every day for my job.
Manateekid@reddit
Well, you must sit at some government desk, so perhaps you will improve overtime. Iām an environmental attorney in Florida and what I just told you is absolutely the law in Florida. And by the way, most lakes do not have water flowing in or out of it unless you mean surface water runoff, which is kind of a dumb statement.
HandySavings@reddit
Well that still doesnāt mean those specific people have authority to stop people and seize property. They should call the police if they have a grievance.
buchenrad@reddit
Certainly not. You don't have the right to steal the personal property of someone tresspassing on your land.
ERTHLNG@reddit
You don't. I do. I can do anything because im special
First_Detective6234@reddit
Classic boomers being fools
Rickd7@reddit
Steal my š© youāll see more than a fool, youāll see an ICU bed.
Kennel_King@reddit
In a short bus kind of way
Rickd7@reddit
What are the tyrants gonna do? Not a damn thing this is why Iād take this into my own hands charges or not. Two old people would be wishing they never did that.
LeseMajeste_1037@reddit
Yup. If I caught someone seizing my bike, they'd learn a valuable lesson about not stealing bikes.
marigolds6@reddit
The lake is almost certainly artificially constructed by dredging and damming. That's how nearly all lakes in subdivisions are built. That would make it non-navigable in the US. (Not used for interstate commerce. Not built on a historically navigable stream used for interstate commerce.)
Only Oregon uses ordinary high water mark to mark the extent of public land. In all other states including Florida, it is mean high tide mark.
More importantly, it is trespassing to launch a boat into the non-navigable waterway. If there is a public access (e.g. a public park with a launch on one shore), then you can float the entire lake as long as you don't land or moor anywhere other than the public access. There are some really interesting precedent setting cases involving clamming and oystering on non-navigable waterways (since those do inherently use the beds).
That's the best I can remember from my ocean and coastal law classes at U of Oregon 20 years ago :D
Ol_Man_J@reddit
"In 1845, when Florida gained statehood, the federal government conveyed to Florida ownership of all lands lying beneath the navigable waters in the state, up to the ordinary high water line (OHWL).1 The state Constitution provides that navigable waters in the state must be held in public trust for the people of Florida.2 Florida statutes currently do not define the OHWL, nor do they provide any guidance for how the location of the OHWL should be determined"
As there are state owned, non-tidally influenced lakes and rivers in Florida, it also uses this. Lake Okeechobee, and the Kissimmee river are prime examples.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/1103/Analyses/h1103a.ANRS.PDF
BigNorseWolf@reddit
11), the state holds the water and the lakebed up to the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in trust for public use, such as boating, fishing, and swimming
So the boys were acting with the clear intent of the law to let people walk around the lake and fish, high water mark or no.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The lake (pond) is fully contained on private property. The kids were clearly trespassing and were issued tresspass notices by the sheriff.
BigNorseWolf@reddit
It has to be contained on the private property of ONE land owner or its fair game.
This is the 1300 block. or can you tell me where the lake is? because that looks like a "you don't belong in this neighborhood" kind of situation where old people think they own the entire place
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Wrong street. Unmistakably a private community. And no, their pond is not open to the public.
BigNorseWolf@reddit
Absolute over entitled old people thinking they own the world. There's a fucking road there you think an 11 year old is going to check a property map to see if the road is part of a public service road? Does the old lady know that the kids DON"T live in the house next door , aren't visiting or just moved in? You can't complain the law is important and then STEAL PEOPLES STUFF for probably not breaking it.
romz81481@reddit
Why not its what they have done thier whole lives with our government. Even pur current form is them just trying to squeeze a few more dollars out.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Yes I expect a 12 year old to know what this sign means. And when a teacher temporary takes a student's property to release to a parent, that is not stealing either. It's a tiny community, they know the kids didnt live there and weren't visiting. Keep grasping at straws, apologist.
marigolds6@reddit
That argument is weaker in this specific case, because the couple refused to release the bikes when contacted by the sheriff's dispatch.
If they had released the bikes when asked by dispatch, indicating they had no intent to permanently deprive the kids of their property and did just want to release the bikes to the parents, they might not be facing charges.
But that's not what they did. They refused to release the bikes when requested to by dispatch.
Northern_Explorer_@reddit
Not the same situation. A teacher is acting as a temporary legal guardian to the students in their class. The homeowners had no such relationship to the kids. Taking their bikes and slapping the kids hands is theft (possibly grand theft depending on the value of the bikes) and battery charges should be laid.
Its clear you subscribe to the "back in my day" way of doing things and that just doesn't fly in today's society from a legal standpoint.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The kids had no relationship to the private property.
The DA has discretion to drop the charges. And likely will. This is not equivalent to breaking into a bike store in the middle of the night and taking two bikes.
Northern_Explorer_@reddit
Legally it still does not give the homeowners the right to take the kids' property. I'm not arguing against the trespassing charge, just how it was handled by the homeowners.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
I didnt say they had a legal right. I said the kids instigated the situation, that there is an important distinction between what took place and theft, and that the charges will likely be dropped.
Northern_Explorer_@reddit
You claimed it "wasn't stealing" in a previous comment inferring that they were legally in the clear to take possession of the bikes. You keep saying that its like a teacher taking a kids property away temporarily (which is a legally protected action). This is not the same situation from a legal standpoint. Your arguments do indeed indicate that you think they had the legal right. The homeowners also refused a legal order to return the property, thereby escalating the situation.
What took place, by legal definition, is theft. A judicial authority has the capacity to look at the situation and still make a judgement call, but if they wanted to they could absolutely throw the book at these homeowners and charge them.
The homeowners have every right to be upset about the trespass, but the way they handled it is by "old school rules" which don't apply in today's society, like it or not. The reasonable response would be to verbally tell the kids they are trespassing and to ask them to leave. If they didnt, then it becomes a call to local police to handle it.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
First, learn the difference between "infer" and "imply".
I didn't imply they were legally in the clear. I stated I don't characterize what they did to be theft/stealing for reasons I've made clear.
The kids already knew they were tresspassing. For all we know, the seniors did tell the kids to leave first and they refused. We don't know either way. But you are being simplistic assuming they had this easy solution avaliable to them.
Furthermore, cars left on private property can be possessed and towed. So don't presume that bikes left on private property without permission cannot be similarly possessed.Ā
Northern_Explorer_@reddit
I know the difference between infer and imply and I used it correctly in this instance: based on your arguments and evidence you presented you are inferring they are legally in the clear.
A phone call to the police was not available to them? Come off it man, that's weak. The kids were not actively harming anyone.
Cars left on private property, with no ability to contact the owners to come get them, can be towed. These bikes clearly belonged to the kids. Your arguments are laughably weak
The_walking_man_@reddit
No clue why youāre getting downvoted for facts. This is private property/private road/private community.
It doesnāt excuse the people from snatching the bikes. They should have called the cops and slapped the kids with a trespass warning. Done deal.
But people arguing ākids can trespassā is kinda fucking weird.
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
Our neighborhood is currently dealing with this. Kids are trespassing and absolutely fucking up the landscaping. When approached, they get rude as fuck. I have a feeling thatās what was happening in this neighborhood too. Nobody has detained them themselves, yet but these kids are not helping themselves. Someone will eventually snap.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Downvoting idiots, dont like facts.
BigNorseWolf@reddit
You live up to your name like the democratic republic of china. Who probably programed you.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Get lost, scofflaw.
marigolds6@reddit
That's not quite correct, but any of the land owners could give permission to fish, fowl, or launch from the shore they own. And any public land could be used for access if it exists on the shore.
For these private lakes in an HOA, often the entire shore of the lake is owned by the HOA or subdivision trustees in a private trust anyway. That makes the permitting required for a privately owned dam much more simple.
superchargerhe@reddit
Dont bother with him. I already proved him wrong and he decided to block me instead. Just let the idiot ramble
buchenrad@reddit
Yes, IF it is a navigable waterway.
Not all are. And it looks like in this particular case we are talking about a pond, not a lake. Lakes are part of a river system. They have flow going in and out. Ponds do not. Ponds are almost always 100% private property. The shore, the bed, and sometimes the water itself.
marigolds6@reddit
And that's only non-tidal navigable waterways, where ordinary mean high water mark is functionally the same as mean high tide. For tidally influenced waterways, it's the mean high tide mark.
BigNorseWolf@reddit
There's a road going by it. unless the kids dragged some very expensive e bikes through the lake/mud, the old lady was trying to police "her" development / home owners association.
Kennel_King@reddit
The average right of way in the United States is 33 feet from the center of a road. Just because a road runs alongside a lake or pond doesn't mean it's public property.
The property surrounding lakes and ponds inside HOA neighborhoods is the property of the HOA, again, not public property.
buchenrad@reddit
It is possible that the road is privately owned and maintained by a HOA. In that case, the HOA does have the right to prohibit people from using the property. That does not give militant old people the right to steal the kids bikes, but that doesn't make the kids innocent either. The kids parents should 1, know where their kids are, and 2, know if that place is somewhere they are allowed to be. That's basic parenting.
Opposite_Classroom39@reddit
Florida has its share of strange laws regarding ownership in areas where land touches the water.
Legitimate-Lab9077@reddit
Even then, you technically canāt own it unless you dug it yourself Florida has a law called submerged land act that says all land underwater is public property unless the person who owns the land creates the body of water themselves
thewimsey@reddit
An HOA can own a lake and make it private for everyone who is not a member of the HOA. This is the usual approach for private lakes.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
It's amazing that 77 people (as of now) can upvote this. Others can write followup dissertations on navigable waters and access rights.
But none of you can take two minutes to look up the address on Google Maps and confirm it's just a private pond alongside a private road in a private community.
venom121212@reddit
Grand theft in Florida is only $750 so yeah, really good chance 2 bikes would hit that.
chazbrmnr@reddit
"...adding that both e-bikes were valued at more than $7,500."
Usual-Mango7775@reddit
Doesnāt matter where they were vigilante behavior is not a loud. Even if they were on her property unless she was in fear for her life she has to call the police if she has a problem
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
"wHy DoN'T kIdS pLaY oUtSiDe AnYmOrE?"
Because of rancid, hateful people like this couple.
buchenrad@reddit
Kids should not be tresspassing in order to play outside.
There is a discussion to be had about the continual loss of free public spaces, but that doesn't justify trespassing in the mean time.
Both sides committed crimes here and neither crime excuses the other crime.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Amazing that you went to great lengths to be as objective as possible by calling out both sides. But the "kids should be free to trespass wherever and whenever they want/fuck boomers" mob still downvoted you into oblivion.Ā
Mother-Apartment1327@reddit
There used to be a lot less tress-passable land back when you were a kid in the 80s compared to now because now everyone and their grandkids wants to own multiple private properties for real estate and cities cutting down forests for neighborhoods and businesses and stone quarries
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
On that, i concur.
Here, I disagree. The kids made a mistake, the adults committed several crimes. These are not equivalent.
ls7eveen@reddit
Really? I remember cutting through yards like it was nothing because nobody cared
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
That's what I'm getting at. Karen's shouldn't care that kids are "tresspassing", just let them be.
ls7eveen@reddit
You said you agreed. Its still ape shit
vita10gy@reddit
Also the amount of times we were probably technically trespassing as kids when we played in that field or these woods, etc, is probably a shit load.
The idea that all these people think that 11 year old them checked with all the appropriate/potential property owners before they played somewhere in the 70s/80s/90s is laughable.
unearthk@reddit
Sounds like a dispute about a lake. Usually they are public. We don't know for sure. What we do know is that these old folks stopped them and stole there bikes on obvious public property aka the sidewalk.
TopRepulsive4766@reddit
Well, where I live if that happened to any of my boys when they were 12, I would have gotten the sheriff (who happens to be a friend) and we would have shown up at that couple's house pronto. And I bet that couple would have left in cuffs.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Are your kids illiterate?
TopRepulsive4766@reddit
Ok buddy. I just have to add to this since you made me chuckle:
My oldest son practices law. I guess he'd have to be somewhat literate.
My second son plays and sings in a grunge metal band. And his vocals are VERY illiterate.
My third son buys and sells real estate. I guess he'd have to have some modicum of literacy also.
My fourth son washes windows on skyscrapers. So I guess he could be illiterate if he wanted to be. They pay him enough he can be whatever he wants to be.
My fifth son works in a factory. I guess if he's literate enough to follow directions, he's good to go.
My sixth is only 15. But he can cuss up a storm when he wants to...I guess you could call that a form of literacy...lol
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
So it's safe to assume that, even at age 12, your kids could read a "PRIVATE ROAD" sign and had the good sense to heed it, right?
FiniteOtter@reddit
The sign saying "Private Road" is literally meaningless the "No Trespassing" signs by the pond are what matter. You put so much emphasis on the private road sign while denigrating others intelligence and it makes you seem like a fool.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
I've emphasized both, jackass. And a Private Road sign does matter.Ā
FiniteOtter@reddit
Not in this situation. Not in the slightest lol. It doesn't mean that you can't drive down the road, it doesn't mean that you can't ride a bike down the road. Literally all it means is that it's not a publically maintained road so the only people it means diddly squat to are road maintenance crews. Jackass
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
It means it's not publicly maintained AND it's not open to public. WTF is it with all the idiots on this thread who don't understand simple terms and have no respect for private land?
It absolutely means you shouldn't ride your bicycle on it unless you know for sure otherwise.Ā
TopRepulsive4766@reddit
Yes they would have. And I'm sure they would have heeded it if it were visible. But that's inconsequential to the issue at hand: The couple's behaviour to the kids.
Stoked_Otter@reddit
My kids are taught to follow the law, not the HOA. And to tell Karens to fuck off.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
HOA private property is still private property. Your kids will end up in handcuffs with your parenting.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
For those still claiming the kids were not tresspassing, read the second full paragraph of the police report. They were issued tresspass notices by the sheriff.
Stoked_Otter@reddit
If they went back to that property now, after they received the trespass warning, they would be guilty of trespassing. Until they receive that warning they are not trespassing.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
No, Mr. internet lawyer, they were knowingly on private property with clear signage. They were trespassing. The notice from the police means next time they will face real consequences. They were still trespassing this time.
Stoked_Otter@reddit
Anybody can make a sign or say they own a piece of property. If these kids didn't hop a fence to get there then they aren't trespassing until someone with authority tells them that they are. They have no obligation to obey the commands of random boomers with attitude problems and too much spare time.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
You are part of what's wrong with society, encouraging your kids to get away with whatever they can. Clear "Private Road" sign at the only entrance in addition to the No Tresspassing/No Fishing sign.Ā
Keep your kids off private property and start being a real parent rather than blaming others for not wanting kids trampling through their yard.
Lazy_Sorbet_3925@reddit
It does not say they were issued anything from the sheriff's department. Nor does the article mention it.Ā
Can you link the full police report?
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
"I trespassed the juveniles from the property"
What more do you need to see? Who do you think wrote this report? This document was in the video.Ā
Temporary-Film-7374@reddit
trespassing someone from a property typically means they aren't allowed there again, period, and makes it easier to cite them in the future
it doesn't tend to result in anything other than paperwork
missinginput@reddit
Yes that's how that works for a first time
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
It verifies they were breaking the law.
BaxterBites@reddit
Boomer Alert!!!
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Is this what passes for debate these days? Idiot alert.
Swizzel-Stixx@reddit
āBeing president of the HOAā
That tells me everything I need to know about that man, as someone who stumbled across this post from a recommendation and has never been to this sub before, nor read the linked article.
He probably massively over reacted to some kids being in his vicinity.
Eta; read the article, yup. Fun little rabbit hole of the day.
Mayhewmasher@reddit
Florida has a law against harassing fishermen. Iām not sure if it applies in this case, but it is worth checking.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
No, it doesn't apply to people tresspassing on your private property. WTF is wrong with you all.Ā
Stoked_Otter@reddit
The appropriate way to handle somebody on your private property is to call the police, not commit felony grand theft against them.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Temporary impoundment isnt felony grand theft. Spare us the theatrics.Ā
Stoked_Otter@reddit
It absolutely is. I used to work with a guy that got charged with felony grand theft auto because he hopped into a running (but unoccupied) truck and moved it 20 feet so that he could back his own car out of a parking spot. He didn't damage or steal anything. The cop took one look at the apartment complex security footage and cuffed him right there.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Not a comparable situation.Ā
Stoked_Otter@reddit
Yeah these bikes probably have a higher retail value than the beat-ass Ford Ranger that my buddy moved.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Why are you introducing this element to my reply?
I said people trespassing on your private property aren't shielded by statutes protecting people fishing from harassment. No one should find that controversial.Ā
Stoked_Otter@reddit
If the kids stole a car from these Karens there would be no question about charging them with the maximum.
chrispark70@reddit
I'm not defending the old couple, but that "mom" is emblematic of everything wrong with kids.
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
She knew where they were going to ride them. Buying yours kids emotos in suburban areas surrounded by private property is real dumb. We are dealing with this in my area too. Thereās literally nowhere to ride them that isnāt trespassing in the area, yet, every Christmas thereās more of them.
chrispark70@reddit
Not to mention the giant no fishing allowed sign.
Dick_Nation@reddit
I don't think anyone here needs defended. This sounds like one of those situations where everyone involved is an asshole and nobody wins by being on any of their sides.
Lordly_Lobster@reddit
Doesn't seem like this really needs to be dealt with in a court of law. Could be handled with mutual apologies and leave it at that. No harm was done.
992thousand@reddit
People keep bringing up them trespassing as if that justifies the theft lol. So if the kids were killed it would be justified because they were trespassing. Come on man just call the police if you see a crime being committed. Citizens are not cops, a judge or the jury. Damn
snoogins355@reddit
Florida doesn't have a great track record with kids and strangers on a justice boner
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
The charges on the old people will get dropped. My neighborhood is private and emoto kids are wrecking the landscaping and taunting adults that tell them to stop. I canāt say itās the same as this situation but tensions are 11/10 and I wonāt be surprised when someone snaps.
romz81481@reddit
So next time some old person is driving like an idiot I should not report it i get to take thier car from them?
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
No, but you have to look at intent, the spirit of the law, and harm. How much harm was done to the kid by them taking the bike? Also realistically these people probably have money and connections. The DA has to weigh all of these things and decide if itās worth it. They made the wrong decision AND I know why they did it.
romz81481@reddit
The da should never be weighing money or connections thats called corruption. These old people should be more respectful to people who are going to pay thier bills.
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
Ok itās also a reality.
romz81481@reddit
Spirit of the law lol. You take people stuff thats illegal period. You wanna play apologist for some greedy boomer thats on you don't cha get the fact knowingly taking someone property and keeping it is illegal. Let these old shit sit in jail where they belong at least they will be a cheaper burden on society
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
Not a single police department in the country charges to the letter of the law. Not one. Otherwise theyād be cutting tickets for everyone doing 31 in a 30.
romz81481@reddit
Lol as if going 1mph over the limit is close to the Same thing as theft
SexiestPanda@reddit
No. Only kids on bikes is bad. According to this subs logic
Bad-Luck-Guy@reddit
They should be charged with a felony. Itād be a felony if they stole them from the store.Ā
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
They took temporary possession from trespassing juveniles. There's zero indication that these 70 year olds planned on keeping and riding these bikes. Their home address is known and this wasn't done covertly. No, they should not be charged with a felony.
GhostDogsInTheHouse@reddit
It was not theirs to take. Yes thatās called stealing.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
What's it called when a tow truck driver takes possession of a car on private property without authorization to be parked there?
GhostDogsInTheHouse@reddit
I didnāt realize the stealer owned an operated a business that removed and captured e-bikes that were not properly parked.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Afraid to admit that taking possession is not always equivalent to stealing?
GhostDogsInTheHouse@reddit
Are you this dim witted or are you the antagonist in the video? If you take temporary possession of anything thatās not yours then yes thatās illegal. Where are the boundaries in this kind of logic?
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
That's exactly what tow truck drivers do, dimwit.
casinocooler@reddit
Can I take temporary possession of your wallet or purse if you are trespassing? Does the Florida statute hinge on what you intend to do with the loot in felony theft or if you commit felony theft in plain sight?
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The kids were in the act of a crime, so I have zero sympathy if adults took temporary custody of their bikes. And they knew this.
Howlingmoki@reddit
Is it still "temporary custody" when one repeatedly refuses to return the item being "held"?
Are you one of the boomers in the article? One of their neighbors or relatives?
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The bikes have been returned.Ā
marigolds6@reddit
It wasn't temporary. They refused to return the bikes when asked to by the sheriff's dispatch.
marigolds6@reddit
I can't say for sure for Florida, but most states do actually hinge on what you intend to do with the loot.
As a counterexample, take the scenario where someone's wallet falls out of their pocket while they are riding past you while trespassing. It is sitting there on the ground. You pick it up and take possession of it and it is no longer possessed by the actual owner.
If you keep that wallet in your possession while you wait to see the person again to return it to them or wait for them to return and claim it, that's not theft. You have no intent to permanently deprive them of their property.
If, instead, you spend all the money in it before turning it over to the police, that is theft. If you throw it in the trash and forget about it, that's also theft. In both cases, you intend to permanently deprive them of their property.
casinocooler@reddit
You are right. I shouldnāt have used the phrasing of the above poster because these people were not merely taking temporary possession of the e-bikes that the children accidentally left. They instead knowingly obtained the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a)āDeprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. Florida 812.014
smarglebloppitydo@reddit
Donāt argue with people who donāt know how anything works. You arenāt absolutely correct that theft requires intent. No DA is going to press this and if they did it would lose in a jury of their peers.
SexiestPanda@reddit
Brb gonna go steal a car even though I have āzero means to keep and drive itā
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
That's not something you can do. Also, they weren't trespassing.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
They absolutely were trespassing.Ā Did you not watch the video with the clear as day sign next to the lake?
Less_Ambition3971@reddit
Stealing isnāt justified, even if they were trespassing. Youāre being ridiculously immature and vindictive about this.Ā
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Is it stealing when a teacher temporarily takes away a student's phone? You are being obtuse.
KaiDay11@reddit
No, the law (indirectly) says teachers can do that. It does not say that random private citizens can confiscate property from random children.
big_brothers_hd600@reddit
how is that the same?
How about I confiscate all your electronic devices, so you cant write bullshit on the web.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
If I ignore the "PRIVATE ROAD" sign leading to your house and the "No Tresspassing, No fishing" sign next to your pond, you go right ahead.
big_brothers_hd600@reddit
since you make your own rules, Ill do the same and confiscate your stuff for writing bullshit on the web.
Also, I live in a place were traspassing only exists in inclosed spaces. If there is no fence, its public.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Just another kid who has no respect for the rights of others.
Bunionzz@reddit
Students are in the care and under the authority of a teacher when they are in their class, no where near the same as some random fucking person taking a kids stuff....talk about being obtuse.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
It establishes that an adult temporarily taking a kid's property isn't automatically stealing.
big_brothers_hd600@reddit
no, it doesnt
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
You've impaired your synapses.
leaveitbettertoday@reddit
Comparing two old losers on the street to a teacher in classroom is hilarious.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Who are the idiots contesting that the kids were tresspassing?
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
The kids, the mom, the 911 dispatcher, and the police. The sign at the pond was a reference to a previous incident with the old couple, not this one.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Before I confirm that, what about the fucking "PRIVATE ROAD" sign at the only entrance to this lake?
So yes, the kids absolutely knew they were trespassing.Ā And a bunch of you are making excuses for them.
Less_Ambition3971@reddit
The boomers absolutely knew they were stealing. And youāre foolishly making weak excuses for them. Youāre an embarrassment.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Holding a bike for a parent to retrieve to explain that their kids are misbehaving isnt the same as stealing. Just like when a teacher temporarily takes the property of a misbehaving student.
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
Kids weren't at the lake. The lake was referenced due to a prior incident involving the couple.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Read the title of the article. In both print and video, the kids were alleged to be fishing. If you want to call it a pond instead of a lake, fine. But they were fishing.
The prior incident referenced involved them ALSO taking a bike.
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
My mistake on that part then. The sheriff is still charging the couple for theft and battery.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
And the sheriff issued tresspass notices against the kids.
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
Now you're making things up š¤£
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Watch the video including the document showing the police report. Tresspass notices were issued.
buchenrad@reddit
You are correct that that is not something you can do, but by all the evidence I have seen, those kids were trespassing.
Bad-Luck-Guy@reddit
They had no right to take these bikes. Itās theft. If they had concerns of trespass, they should have called the cops, not tried to do something themselves. If they wanted the kids to leave, why take the bikes?
Kids were riding bikes and fishing. Not the crime of the century.Ā
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The kids had no right to be there. They had already ignored a "Private Road" sign and a "No Tresspassing" sign clearly visible at the lake's edge.
Less_Ambition3971@reddit
They had no right to take these bikes. Nothing you said changes that fact.Ā
SassyMcNasty@reddit
Stealing. Itās called stealing.
freddbare@reddit
Harassment of fisherman is another felony
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
People fishing on private property illegally are not afforded special protections. WTF.
Rickd7@reddit
There would be a couple of old people anchored to the bottom of a river here š
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
All you apologists defending these brats, they road right past a "PRIVATE ROAD" sign and then fished next to a "NO TREASPASSING" sign. So spare us this bullshit that the adults should have simply informed the kids that they were tresspassing when they knew damn well already that they were. What a loser mom failing to take any responsibility for her kid disrespecting others' property.
superchargerhe@reddit
These signs wouldnt hold up in court. If the mailman, delivery drivers, etc can travel these roads, then it makes it quasi public. You can slap all the signs up you want but it doesn't make them legal.
The only way these signs hold true is if an HOA, company, or person owned the roads and land. But I doubt they do because they would be responsible for the insurance, maintenance, etc
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Mr. Miner is the HOA president. If you paid careful attention to the video, you would know that. Delivery drivers and mailman acting on behalf of residents with their implicit or explicit permission are entirely different.
You have zero legal background and it shows. This absolutely is sufficient to establish that they were willfully trespassing.Ā
superchargerhe@reddit
Who owns the roads?
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The HOA owns the road, genius. And the handful of homeowners on this road are members of the HOA and pay for the road maintenance.Ā
superchargerhe@reddit
Maintained by the County. Which makes it public.
ShawtySayWhaaat@reddit
I've been cruising this thread, dude that guy is not real I refuse to believe this is a real human being
superchargerhe@reddit
Dude tried telling me I didn't know the law and HOA owned the road. Lmao
buchenrad@reddit
HOAs absolutely can own roads. I don't know anything about this one in particular though.
Temporary-Film-7374@reddit
that was my thought, and some random AI result isn't gonna make me believe that it's public
ShawtySayWhaaat@reddit
He's still running with the trespassing thing. Another dude equated the kids riding the bikes as equivalent to someone waving a weapon around.
What the fuck is this thread dude lmao
superchargerhe@reddit
An idiot. Lol
ShawtySayWhaaat@reddit
That's a given
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
You have an AI response to a generic question. WTF. You have no idea how waterfront properties in Palm Beach County work, do you? They are often accessed via private roads as the sign indicates. Hence why Goole doesn't show a street view either. FFS you are a clueless apologist for tresspassers unwilling to accept hard evidence.
calamititties@reddit
Itās giving:
RevEmTee@reddit
Slayxr@reddit
Still shouldnāt have taken the bikes from the kids. Call the cops and let them deal with it.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The kids are the instigators who failed to respect the property of others. Are adults supposed to cower in their homes everything some punk kid blatantly trespasses, perhaps talks smack, and then just rides off before cops arrive?
Such_Manufacturer455@reddit
Wait so you donāt want them to leave?
Neonsharkattakk@reddit
Cool motive, still theft over $5000 and assaulting a minor. Three times the age and half the maturity is what im seeing here and defense of an old person stealing the very bike the kids would use to leave the area is laughable. No, as an adult you are not expected to cower in fear, yes you are expected not to use force and violence even if someone else is breaking the law. Unless they try to harm you first keep your hands to yourself and call the police. Doubly so if its a kid.
ConditionTall1719@reddit
I know someone who stole the CD from a thief so the thief went around his house that night and stole his motorbike, the police came round to the thieves house and he said I'm not giving him the motorbike back until he gives me my CD back and the CD was returned... I have no idea how it relates to that story but everyone's wrong frankly. Kids should be allowed to be kids.
stitek@reddit
You really are dense.. or youāre one of the two pathetic people in this article that have court on Wednesday. They stole from children because they were throwing a typical HOA member tantrum like you seem to be doing here.
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
"brats"
Your bias is showing.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The kids are brats. Disrespected the property of others and then threw a fit over their own property.
ConditionTall1719@reddit
Kids should be allowed to be kids and treated respectfully so, if you are really a miserable old brat yourself then you take his parents number and call them right away in a kind manner. If you are a bit polite you tell them they have to leave soon from their fishing, and if they come back again and you're in a bad mood you are actually allowed to call the police about it.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
No, no one is obligated to indulge kids in their tresspassing adventures because their parents failed to instill proper behavior in them.
ConditionTall1719@reddit
Firm but fair does not mean you confiscate 3,000 pounds of equipment for trespassing tiny kiddos.Ā
Children know what is fair to teach them and they react badly if clarity and fairness is not given.
Then that would be the parents fault, the kids would be doing something wrong due to an adult.Ā
it could be that they have nowhere to go fishing because of the selfish urbanisation of the river area.Ā
Obliged is technically correct.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
You use a non-localized currency unit that could refer to weight and want to fault me over "obligated" versus "obliged". Bob's your uncle.
ConditionTall1719@reddit
Sorry it's because the last person I knew that said obligated also said "verificated/justificated/qualificated".Ā
A lot of bike deaths are probably happening over there because there is no kind of certification for 12 year olds who are sharing the road with cars, cycling proficiency is less than ie France, bike infrastructure is more hostile, it's easier to get high-powered e-bikes for children, and less legal in some places...
Kids who are not with an adult learning road signs and predictable urban cycling rules have the same view as an adult of those road signs.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
12 year olds know what "PRIVATE ROAD" means. They simply chose to ignore it. Just like they ignored the sign that said "NO TRESSPASSING" and "NO FISHING".
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
Calling kids brats for an alleged minor offense while defending seniors that steal and hit kids is *wild" š¤£
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Alleged? GTFOH, there is no "alleged". They were clearly trespassing.Ā
ThelIIusion0fSeIf@reddit
My opinion is that parents should not be getting their kids ebikes and letting them be used unsupervised. It's becoming a huge issue in my neighborhood actually. Kids should be using their legs to pedal only. Soon enough we're just going to put them in mobility scooters before they even learn how to walk.
foxfirek@reddit
What does this have to do with expensive bikes being stolen?
Also itās really not about mobility in that sense. E-bikes are not making kids less active, the opposite as they get them off of couches. I do think there should be an age limit, or maybe a drivers test for kids, but thatās more to do with safety than anything else.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The bikes were being detained, not stolen and it was entirely a matter of the kids' making.
foxfirek@reddit
No private citizen has the right to take away your property, no matter what your age. A school is very different. Teachers are being paid to care for your child, they are in a level of trust and can be easily kept accountable for any wrongdoing.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Now explain what a tow truck driver does.
HOA property is private property and this guy is specifically authorized to act on behalf of the HOA. Yet another person going out of the way to try to cover for these kids.
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
If they were being "detained" (which they do not have the authority to do), why are they being charged with theft and battery by the police?
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Let's see if the charges get dropped. No one would have taken their bikes if they weren't trespassing.Ā
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
They shouldn't have been stolen the bikes or hit the kid in any case. This couple sound like repeat offenders.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Stealing usually implies intent to keep. Unlikely that applies here. I would bet the charges are dropped.
KaiDay11@reddit
Hey, I'll be detaining your car real quick, thanks.
Munster19@reddit
If I take a tv from Walmart, without paying for it, with plans to give it back later, I stole the tv. Borrowing without permission is theft.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The closer analogy is a teacher taking a student's phone and holding to return to a parent. You wouldn't claim the teacher stole a phone, would you?
Context is everything.Ā
Munster19@reddit
One problem: the geriatric thieves did not return the property after being ordered to by the police.
Context is everything.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
They have returned the bikes. And the kids were issued notices of tresspass.
Munster19@reddit
According to the article, none of what you just said was true. You just pulled that out of your ass
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Pay closer attention.Ā
Munster19@reddit
I see, the video didn't load when the page was viewed through reddit so I only had what the article said to go by. In the end, they're still criminals.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Did you want to retract your prior statement?
Munster19@reddit
No, I'm good. I said "according to the article" and not "according to the video", also I don't care for a senseless thief defender
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
I made two factual statements. You said I pulled them out of my ass. I conclusively proved otherwise. You refuse to man up. Goodbye. I don't care for people who argue in bad faith.
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
No it doesn't.
ThelIIusion0fSeIf@reddit
I knew this wouldn't be a popular opinion on this forum of all places but it needed to be said. Motivating kids to be more active means getting them involved in sports (including cycling) but not by compromising on the actual "active" part. It's like motivating kids to eat healthier by putting frosting and sprinkles on their vegetables. I'm not usually the "back in my day" type but this is where I draw the line. If you're 10 years old and discouraged from riding your bike because using your legs for 100% of the work is too much then you're missing the point of riding a bike.
foxfirek@reddit
Have you ever ridden an e-bike? Most of them you still pedal. They just donāt require as much force making hills and the ride faster. As an adult with an e-bike itās helpful because it helps me keep up with traffic so I donāt get run off the road or tailgated. Traffic is worse than āback in your dayā almost certainly making roads more crowded and dangerous for bike users. School busses are nearly a thing of the past At least where I am.
ThelIIusion0fSeIf@reddit
I'm talking about kids riding e-bikes with a full grip/thumb throttle not adults using a pedal assist bike to commute. Do you see the difference there? I live on a lake that's near a lot of walking trails and a boardwalk. The first example is what has become a major issue in my neighborhood, not the latter. In fact, I don't know a single person who has an issue with the latter.
n0neOfConsequence@reddit
I wonder if it would qualify as Aggravated Robbery and Grand Theft?
flymonk@reddit
Emoto, not ebike. The woman had no right to touch them and should be charged but the parents should also be fined for letting their children ride illegally.
DesignerFlat7108@reddit
Florida kids live like the 90s and the Karen's hate it.
Matthugh@reddit
Shit AI article.
IngsWarrior_@reddit
How old were these kids? Cause when I was a teenager if some old fart tried taking something from me they would have ended up in the water with a black eye.
LMFAEIOUplusY@reddit
Those are not e-bikes. Theyāre e-motos.
Usual-Mango7775@reddit
If they valued both the bikes together being worth less than 700 than they were dookie bikes anyway lol. Petty theft is 699 any below.
Usual-Mango7775@reddit
Thatās strong armed robbery by sudden snatching which is a fellony. Thatās like 8 felonyās between the both of them.
evilgrinz@reddit
Kids going fishing...
skima_0@reddit
They just let them take the bikes š
I would not let that fly if I were them
BigNorseWolf@reddit
Don't respond to inciteful analysis. He's just salty he needs to stay at least 1,000 feet away from anywhere kids are congregating.
superchargerhe@reddit
This post is a prime candidate for r/subreddit drama lol
ShawtySayWhaaat@reddit
Is it drama when it's just one nutcase crashing out on everyone? Lol
superchargerhe@reddit
There was more but they deleted their comments
ShawtySayWhaaat@reddit
Good thing there's tools for that lol
i__hate__you__people@reddit
Mind you, the bikes themselves are illegal in public. Soā¦ā¦ Iād say this is an easy case for the elderly couple. Itās equivalent to disarming someone whoās waving a weapon around. AND they were already breaking the law and trespassing!
This was an unsafe scenario and that old couple put a stop to it before anyone got hurt. Bravo!!!!
ShawtySayWhaaat@reddit
This HAS to be bait. Other dude is nuts but you're just clearly ragebaiting lmao
-_-Yeeter@reddit
Equating an e-bike to a weapon explains a lot about pathetic people who frequent this sub
ShawtySayWhaaat@reddit
Why do people like that even come onto the e-bike sub anyway? Lol they just need drama in their lives
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
Couple things here:
What model are the bikes? If you don't know, don't claim they're illegal.
The couple claims they were trespassing, but the kids weren't charged for it. The old couple stole the bikes and hit the kid, and are being charged for theft and battery. Ergo: the law is on the kids side, not the olds.
feed2brdswitonescone@reddit
It is not equivalent.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
Irresponsible mom who forgot to teach her son to respect others' property wants felony charges against seniors for not respecting son's property.
They obviously were not trying to steal the bikes nor were they going to ride them. They likely took custody of the bikes with the intention of releasing to parents. Probably fed up with disrespectful kids mouthing off and ignoring warnings.
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
The police told the old couple to give the bikes back, and are being charged with battery for hitting the kid. You do not have the authority to "take custody" other peoples belongings. Of you think someone is trespassing, call the police, don't take matters into your own hands.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The kids instigated this incident by WILLFULLY tresspassing.Ā
Oh no, a gentle slap on the hand to correct a kid interfering.Ā
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
Kids weren't trespassing. The couple are charged with theft and battery.
People that hit kids don't deserve sympathy.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
The fuck they weren't. There is a big ass yellow "PRIVATE ROAD" sign on the only way in. There is a "NO TRESSPASSING" sign next to the lake/pond they were fishing in. The sheriff issued tresspass notices against them.
Are all of you illiterate?
SeanMonsterZero@reddit
You're assuming the kids took that road. Very likely they didn't.
The adults are charged. The mom and kids aren't.
This isn't a question about who should be punished (the adults), but how harsh their punishment should be.
Inciteful_Analysis@reddit
There's only one way in. Look at Google Maps. Done with your ignorance and false assumptions.Ā
Already told you, the kids were served tresspass notices by the sheriff.
foxfirek@reddit
If I were her I might push for it too. I would be pissed if someone stole something that valuable from my kids and also slapped their hands.
From the article: āInvestigators say when one of the teens tried to retrieve his bike, Frederic slapped his hand away. Frederic also refused the dispatch's several requests to return the bikes.
"Nobody has the right to put their hands on young children. Nobody has a right to steal other people's property."
Melissa says she is unsatisfied with the charges filed and is pushing for harsher punishment, adding that both e-bikes were valued at more than $7,500.ā