Vigilante that stops toilet paper girls pleads guilty.

[safeinOhio]

http://www.lenconnect.com/newsnow/x1508889966/One-guilty-in-toilet-paper-vigilante-case
An Adrian man who used a shotgun to detain a car full of teenage girls he thought might be burglars pleaded guilty to felonious assault Wednesday in Lenawee County Circuit Court.
Tristan Christopher Helf, 21, entered the plea in an agreement with prosecutors to dismiss more serious unlawful imprisonment and felony firearm possession charges. He remains free on a personal recognizance bond pending a sentencing scheduled for March 23.
According to Michigan State Police reports, Helf, Bogart and Black chased a car that had parked near Bogart’s home on Hodinott Road the night of Aug. 23. They used two vehicles to eventually block in the car. Helf carried a shotgun at the scene while the occupants of the car were held until troopers arrived to investigate.
Instead of burglars, the car contained four teenage girls who said they were planning to toilet-paper the lawn of a friend who lives on the rural road. Troopers reported they had a trunk full of toilet paper rolls to back up their story.


Sometimes it's better to just get a plate number and call the cops, than try to make a bust. Things are not always as they appear.

[gejohnston]

1. agreed, but I'm courious about the

felony firearm possession charge. Was he already a convicted felon?

[safeinOhio]

3. In possession of a firearm

while committing a felony.

[rfranklin]

2. If only they had been armed...

He would be road kill.

[Lefty48197]

4. Or it could have turned into a wild west shoot em up and maybe we could have 2 or 3 dead people.

The Joe Cop wannabe and perhaps a couple of the toilet paper girls.

[Glassunion]

5. This guy is an ass

I'm glad he plead guilty.

Felony charges = no longer can own firearms.

[aikoaiko]

6. Whenever you confront someone whom you think is a criminal..

... you must still do so lawfully. If not, prepare for the consequences.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. That's a shame.

I see no problem with using a car and a shotgun to hold vandals until the police arrive.

I bet those girls won't ever vandalize again.

[safeinOhio]

8. Yup, these kids had not committed any crime.

They were thinking about TPing a house. Any yahoo with a gun should have the right to hold and shoot anyone looking suspicious by your thinking. Of course all young people and minorities look suspicious at night in yur neighborhood.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. They admitted they were on their way to commit a crime.

They admitted they were on their way to commit a crime, and they had vandalism supplies in the trunk of their car.

Any yahoo with a gun should have the right to hold and shoot anyone looking suspicious by your thinking.

Nice way of putting words in my mouth there, safeinOhio. What I actually said was:

"I see no problem with using a car and a shotgun to hold vandals until the police arrive."

Yes, I have no problem with citizens using a gun to hold suspicious people until the police arrive. Turns out, this guy's hunch was right - these people were up to no good.

Of course all young people and minorities look suspicious at night in yur neighborhood.

More racist bullshit? You and Ellison need to hook up, you sound like birds of a feather. I live in a very diverse neighborhood. I'd say at least 40% of my neighbors are minorities, including African-American, Latino, and Asian. One couple is from Jamaica. The neighbors on either side of me are African-American and Spanish. 50% of my daughter's kindergarten class is African-American.

[safeinOhio]

10. One does not point a loaded gun at

a person they are not willing to shoot.

This act of vandalism is no more a crime than driving 10 mph over the speed limit. Show me any case where some teens where taken to jail for having TP in the trunk.

Perhaps you are not a anti-young and minorities, but your idea would give anyone who is the right to shoot anyone they suspect of a minor crime. These individuals did not hold these kids because they thought they were about to TP a house. They stopped them because someone, not these kids, had stolen someone's ID and feared it was these kids and they had come to their house to harm them. There was no reason they could not have got a plate number, went home and defended their home if needed, but to put some ones life in danger and be willing to kill them over these circumstances is a violation of the law and the use of a firearm. Yet, you say it is a shame they, or anyone, can't do the same.

The problem is not the TPing. These people could have done the same thing if the kids had just stop to look at a map or look for a dime some one in the car had dropped. These were people that don't know the law and had a gun. They know the law now and might find jail time to be the lesson, along with never being able to own a firearm to ever defend their homes from a real crime.

[ellisonz]

11. +1

Thank you.

“America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.” - Hunter S. Thompson.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Thank you for admitting it is vandalism is a crime.

One does not point a loaded gun at a person they are not willing to shoot.

True.

This act of vandalism is no more a crime than driving 10 mph over the speed limit.

Which is a crime. Thank you for admitting that vandalism is a crime.

but your idea would give anyone who is the right to shoot anyone they suspect of a minor crime.

And once again you put words in my mouth. Please read what I post.

I said: "I see no problem with using a car and a shotgun to hold vandals until the police arrive."

These individuals did not hold these kids because they thought they were about to TP a house. They stopped them because someone, not these kids, had stolen someone's ID and feared it was these kids and they had come to their house to harm them.

I know this. The individuals were held because they were acting suspiciously and so the guy stopped them out of fear that they were up to some criminal mischief, which they were. Yes, they were not up to what he thought they were up to, but they were up to criminal mischief.

There was no reason they could not have got a plate number, went home and defended their home if needed, but to put some ones life in danger and be willing to kill them over these circumstances is a violation of the law and the use of a firearm. Yet, you say it is a shame they, or anyone, can't do the same.

It is. When good people stand up to criminals and get punished for it, that's a shame.

[safeinOhio]

13. It is not a crime until the act is committed.

"I said: "I see no problem with using a car and a shotgun to hold vandals until the police arrive."

Point a loaded gun at a person to hold them? You don't point a loaded gun at anyone you are not willing to shoot. If the teens had decided to leave and the idiots shot them?

"It is. When good people stand up to criminals and get punished for it, that's a shame."

These kids were not criminals. No crime was committed. People that actually break the law, like these idiots, want to be cops, did break the law and are now, rightfully paying a big price for the law they DID break.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. The girls confessed that they were on their way to commit a crime.

It is not a crime until the act is committed.

Not always. Ever here of "intent to distribute"? Anyway, the girls admitted that they were on their way to vandalize a friend's house.

I don't see a problem with stopping such people.

Point a loaded gun at a person to hold them? You don't point a loaded gun at anyone you are not willing to shoot. If the teens had decided to leave and the idiots shot them?

While you don't point a gun at anyone you are not willing to shoot, this does not preclude pointing it at them to get them to do other things, like comply with orders. Police officers do it all the time.

These kids were not criminals. No crime was committed.

But they admitted that they were on their way to commit a crime. They were acting suspiciously enough to draw the attention of this armed citizen who stopped them from committing a crime.

People that actually break the law, like these idiots, want to be cops, did break the law and are now, rightfully paying a big price for the law they DID break.

And that's a shame. A good person stopped a crime and now he is being punished for it.

If he had stopped it with a pool noodle you would not have a problem with it. Your problem is that he stopped them with a gun so you think it's bad.

[safeinOhio]

17. Lets see

"And that's a shame. A good person stopped a crime and now he is being punished for it. "

A couple of guys break felony laws and it's too bad. A couple young teen girls are going to TP a friends house, haven't done it yet, and they are dangerous criminals. OK.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. I never said they were dangerous.

I never said they were dangerous - but the guy who stopped them did not know that.

Again I don't see the problem here. The guy stopped some suspicious people and held them for the police. Citizens arrest stuff here.

[BiggJawn]

32. "Intent to Distribute" toilet paper...

You know that black/white thinking is a symptom of Authoritarianism, don't you?

Been papered a few times yourself?

[Atypical Liberal]

35. Nope.

[Starboard Tack]

16. How about those window breakers you'd like to shoot?

At what level of crime would you consider not using the death penalty as a deterrent?

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Holding for the police is not a death penalty.

The police don't shoot every person they point a gun at, either. Sometimes the threat of violence is sufficient to insure compliance.

[Starboard Tack]

38. OK let's get this straight.

Do you think it is appropriate to point guns at people who break windows, throw stones at windows, have a trunk full of toilet paper or engaging in similar criminal mischief in your neighborhood?
Remember the first rule of pointing a gun at someone is DON'T, UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO SHOOT THEM!

Sometimes the threat of violence is sufficient to insure compliance.

You're a real hoot. Where did you pick up that little gem of wisdom? I sincerely hope you don't practice what you preach.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. Wrong.

Do you think it is appropriate to point guns at people who break windows, throw stones at windows, have a trunk full of toilet paper or engaging in similar criminal mischief in your neighborhood?

Yes.

Remember the first rule of pointing a gun at someone is DON'T, UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO SHOOT THEM!

Remember, this is a rule for firearm safety designed to prevent accidents.

This rule does not mean I have to shoot everything I point my firearm at. Firearms can be used for intimidation to insure compliance with orders. Police officers do it all the time. I would do it to prevent someone from vandalizing my property.

You're a real hoot. Where did you pick up that little gem of wisdom?

Why do you think criminals carry guns? To force their victims to comply through threat of violence. Sometimes the threat of violence is sufficient to insure compliance. You don't have to shoot everything you point your gun at.

[safeinOhio]

19. Would you be willing to destroy a teenage girl

for intending to pull a prank?

http://www.bullseyepistol.com/safety.htm

Basic Rules of Safe Gun Handling
1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never point a gun at anything you are unwilling to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Know your target.
5. Keep your gun at the minimum level of readiness.

See rule #2 above

[Atypical Liberal]

28. Police often point firearms at people they dont shoot.

Yes, I am fully aware of the rules of firearm safety. These rules are designed to prevent accidents, by making sure you are aware of where the firearm is pointed. It does not mean that you are required to shoot everything you point your gun at.

I am fully willing to point a firearm at someone suspicious in order to enforce their compliance with my commands. Police officers do it, too.

[Starboard Tack]

39. You are way off the grid, man.

I am fully willing to point a firearm at someone suspicious in order to enforce their compliance with my commands. Police officers do it, too.

And how would you define "someone suspicious"?

[Starboard Tack]

15. "they had vandalism supplies in the trunk of their car"

Ooooh! Scary. Toilet paper. You have got to be kidding. Jeez!

And you being so cosmopolitan and all.

[safeinOhio]

18. +1

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Vandalism is a crime.

I personally would not want to spend a weekend cleaning toilet paper out of my yard.

It's still vandalism, no matter how petty, and still a crime, and the kids admitted to planning to do it.

[Starboard Tack]

40. TPing a house is a petty misdemeanor.

Holding people at gunpoint is a felony. Let's hope your house never gets vandalized, because from what you've said on DU, you would shoot anyone who threw a stone at your window. Better be careful, because a sharp prosecutor could use that to show premeditation. I'm not trying to increase your paranoia, but you really need to chill before it all gets out of hand.

[Atypical Liberal]

43. Absolutely.

Let's hope your house never gets vandalized, because from what you've said on DU, you would shoot anyone who threw a stone at your window.

I would absolutely shoot people actively throwing stones through my windows. Especially with my children inside.

[Logical]

21. Safe, PLEASE do not think this poster is the typical gun owner!!!

[safeinOhio]

22. It'd be nice to

weed out the crazies on both sides.
Thanks

[Starboard Tack]

41. OMG - he could be a poster boy for Brady

Certainly not helping the voices of reason around here.

[Logical]

20. If you are serious then I would love to hold your ass at gunpoint for jaywalking! See you cry!

[safeinOhio]

23. Wait

You mean hold him at gunpoint for just stepping off the curb and hadn't really jaywalked yet.

[Logical]

24. Yes, just the thought of Jaywalking should be punishable by assault with a deadly weapon!

[BiggJawn]

33. No-no! Hold him at gunpoint for LOOKING like he was going to step off...

Deadly force is authorized for Thought Crimes in Authoritarian Murrika. y'know...

[Atypical Liberal]

29. You will notice that North Carolina seems to permit the detention of people by citizens.

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both private citizens and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[38] Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[39] Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_States

The question just comes down to probable cause.

[Logical]

30. TPing a house is non of those things. No sane person would think TPing was destruction of property.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. It's vandalism and requires a lot of clean-up work to fix.

The bottom line is this guy did not know what these people were up to. He had just been the victim of a robbery. He saw people acting suspiciously, and his instincts were right - these people were up to no good.

OK, they were only up to TPing a house.

I'm OK with that. Betcha those girls don't ever TP a house again.

[Logical]

34. I bet they do. They will count on the odds that most gun owners are not idiots. You...

are a paranoid person. "up to no good", jesus, what is wrong with you?

[Atypical Liberal]

36. Nothing is wrong with me. I wasn't even *there*.

I wasn't the one who noticed something suspicious going on, that turned out to be right.

Nothing is wrong with me. Turns out nothing was wrong with the guy who caught the would-be vandals, either.

[safeinOhio]

37. The guy who caught em is

now a convicted felon, his friends will see court time and the teenage girls were not charged. Justice was done, the court system works just fine. My guess the young ladies are laughing their asses off at the nut cases that held them, while the wannabe cops are spending their life savings on lawyers and court fees and will never, legally own a firearm again. While they may not see jail time, you can ask anyone in Lenawe County, probation is worse than jail time there.
FAIL

[Starboard Tack]

42. Is that what you'll tell the judge?

"North Carolina seems to permit the detention of people by citizens."

And you might want to study up on "probable cause", which is very different to suspicion. And if you get it wrong, you risk violating 4th Amendment rights which could involve a hefty civil judgement.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. I think I'll go with my instincts.

I'll worry about the consequences later.

[Starboard Tack]

46. I truly hope you're not serious, but that would indicate a bizarre sense of humor

and from your posts, humor doesn't appear to be your long suit. Pointing guns at pranksters and shooting vandals seems to be your preference. I'm sorry, but you are so out there, I'm done with trying to have a conversation with you.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. Oh good.

Pointing guns at pranksters and shooting vandals seems to be your preference.

I guarantee you, if I catch people vandalizing my neighborhood, I'll be out there with a shotgun.

I'm done with trying to have a conversation with you.

Oh, good.