12 Year Old Boy Ordered To Pay $200,000.00 For Vandalism At University

[matcom]

<snip>

PUBLIC SAFETY: The 12-year-old boy must pay $200,000 in restitution and will be on probation until he is 18.

BY MARK STODGHILL

NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

A 12-year-old boy who took part in the $8.2 million vandalism of the University of Minnesota Duluth's James I. Swenson Science Building last year made a tearful apology Monday before being placed on probation and ordered to pay $200,000 restitution.

The boy pleaded guilty in St. Louis County juvenile court in January to first-degree criminal damage to property andsecond-degree burglary in the Nov. 13-14 incidents.

The 12-year-old, his 13-year-old brother and a 14-year-old friend drove mechanical lifts into walls, broke doors and windows, spray-painted walls, and dumped cans of paint and glue onto floors of the building.

Their most destructive act was to turn on 30 to 40 faucets on the third floor of the research wing, using hoses to direct water onto the floor.

"Your honor, I am truly sorry for what I did. I thought it was a joke then but now I know it is really serious," the boy told Judge John T. Oswald on Monday before starting to cry and being unable to continue.

The News Tribune generally does not name juveniles charged with or convicted of crimes.

Public defender Susan Ginsburg told the court that her client wrote the apology himself. She read the rest of it to the court:

"I don't know why I did it. Probably because I thought it was cool or just to make me cool, but it didn't. It really got me thinking what was going to happen to me or where I was going to go. It messed up my life and all my plans for what I was going to do for college.

"I know that I am in serious trouble and I am truly sorry for what I did."

Oswald placed the boy on probation until he is 18 years old.

As conditions of probation, Oswald sentenced the boy to 120 days in Woodland Hills' Chisholm House Program, which is designed to teach problem-solving skills and to develop life and interpersonal skills. Oswald ordered that the boy take part in any counseling or aftercare deemed necessary.

Assistant St. Louis County Attorney Angie Shambour said one of the prosecution's goals is to restore the boy to "law-abiding behavior and make him a productive member of society."

Ginsburg called the boy a "good kid," who has the potential to be productive.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/11665821.htm

[MattPSU]

1. Wow

If driving mechanical lifts into walls is his idea of a joke I'd hate to see what he thinks a laugh riot.

[BikeWriter]

3. No shit! Hopefully he will learn some respect for property!

[Zuni]

16. that is unbelievable

that isn't just vandalism----that is wanton destruction

[Mizmoon]

2. $8.2 million in damage?

somehow I find that figure hard to believe.

[elehhhhna]

5. Halliburton must have gotten the contract for repair.

[LisaL]

8. Did you read the description of what they did?

:eyes:

[Mizmoon]

12. yep and it sounds like the dollar amount is exaggerated to me

highly exaggerated.

[LisaL]

21. Well, clearly because you have no clue of how much

the scientific equipment costs.

[Mizmoon]

27. Did you bother to read the article because it says right in the text

"Rashid said equipment and some faculty will probably be moved into the $33.1 million building the first week of June. The building will house UMD's College of Science and Engineering."

There was no equipment in the building.

And BTW my father is an AIDS research scientist with his own lab at a major university. So there.

edit for spelling error

[Orangepeel]

10. that does sound really high...

but the article does say that the most destructive act was to turn on 30 to 40 faucets in the "research wing". It is possible that they ruined a lot of really expensive equipment.

[northzax]

25. not just equipment

but also potentially research, I would think, if this was an operating research facility that there was easily several million dollars of experiments contaminated or destroyed. If someone gives you a million dollar grant to do a study, and it's destroyed near the end of the cycle, that's a million dollars in damages. The foundation and or government wants the research they've paid for, or their money back.

[Zuni]

18. they didn't just throw toilet paper around or spray paint some shit

they drove bulldozers through walls and dumped paint all over stuff and destroyed the floors by flooding the building...

[Mizmoon]

23. The whole building cost 33.1 million to build

the kids came in and vandalized the place allegedly causing $8.2 million in damage. That's about 1/4 of the total cost of the building.

Yet, despite the fact that the kids allegedly destroyed 1/4 of it, the building's opening was only delayed by 2 months.


The article also says, "Rashid said equipment and some faculty will probably be moved into the $33.1 million building the first week of June. The building will house UMD's College of Science and Engineering."

So there was no expensive science equipment to replace either. This dollar amount sounds like phoney-baloney to me.

[Zuni]

28. but the kids aren't being charged 8.2 million

there was probably plenty of stuff that isn't nessecarily science equitment in there.
Think of it like a car---it often costs more to repair or replace certain parts than they are in the cars original value

[Mizmoon]

34. True, but $200,000 ain't small change

and I'm sure the damage wasn't cheap by any means. Millions just seems crazy.

[LisaL]

36. Did you have any flood damage to your home?

If the insurance company agreed that the damage was that much-well, I would say the damage was that much, cause I don't think the insurance companies are in the habit of overpaying for damages. The kid was not asked to pay the whole amount, but just the deductible from the insurance. So, if the damage was 800,000$, or 8,000,000,000$, the kid would still be asked to pay 200,000$.
:eyes:

[Mizmoon]

39. yep, but this isn't a small home situation

this is big business, and someone is screwing these people in my opinion.

[LisaL]

44. You have nothing to support your opinion with.

If the insurance company is paying for the damage, then they would not pay 8.2 millions if there was not 8.2 millions in damage. The kid is asked to pay the deductible from the insurance, which means that if the damage was 200,001 $ he would still have to pay 200,000 $. The amount of damage to the building has nothing to do with the amount of money he is asked to pay, as he is only asked to pay the deductible. So, how is this family getting screwed? And if they paid better attention to raising of this kid, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in anyway.

[Mizmoon]

53. Liz, I think the estimate for the damage is way too high

and you're just going to have to live with it.

[Zuni]

You think the insurance company would estimate so they can pay

more out? You obviously have never had to try to get those greedy fucks to pay out.

[LisaL]

61. Tell me about it. I just finished remodeling from the water

damage and it was a nightmare to get anything out of the insurance company. I still haven't gotten the whole amount as the contractor said it took them more to fix the damage then the estimate was. It's an absolute nightmare to deal with the water damage and insurance companies.

[Zuni]

74. Insurance companies of all stripes are EVIL

they are one of the worst things in the US. They are responsible for the healthcare crisis---and they are greedy bloodsuckers. They are among my top 5 pet peeves. I am not even going to go into the problems I have had with my Health insurance about seeing a certain specialist for a long term condition....and I have what would be considered a pretty darn good health plan from my work.

What really pisses me off is that the GOP, who is ramming legislation through, is deep in the Insurance industry pocket

[MadHound]

92. Actually I doubt that the damage is being overestimated.

First off these kids turned on thirty to forty faucets on the third floor. A normal faucet averages an output of five gallons a minute, so we're talking about aprox 150 gallons being let loose in the first minute. If they left those faucets on for any length of time, there is going to be major damage, not just on the third floor, but the other two floor underneath. Drywall to be replaced, ceiling tiles, carpeting, electrical damage, sub flooring, light fixtures, etc etc, the list is long.

Secondly, it is always more expensive on a sqare foot basis to repair or remodel a building rather than to build it. You have to be careful in removing damaged sections without harming the good, you have to make things fit a preconcieved area, all this expense adds up.

Third, I doubt that the insurance company, nor the university lawyers would let the repair bill be overestimated. The insurance company wants to pay as little as possible, the university doesn't want to have to face a turn around lawsuit on fraud charges.

[Zuni]

29. it is more expensive to repair damage than it is to put it in brand new

and more difficult, requiring different contractors and such


and I am sure the building wasn't empty of other things

[RubyDuby in GA]

71. This is quite true

I work in construction administration and we're currently renovating a building at Duke University. In almost all cases of renovation of major buildings like this, it would just about be cheaper to bulldoze the whole thing and start over from the ground up. To come in a repair or renovate one portion of an established building usually uncovers some hidden problems that add to the cost.

Just a professional opinion.

Personally speaking, 12 years old and being that destructive? Just despicable.....

[LisaL]

30. What's in it to you? The kid wasn't asked to pay

8.2 millions. I doubt they would ever get the 200,000 out of him either. If the insurance company agreed to pay 8.2 millions for damage, I am pretty sure they send an adjuster to observe the damages. You were not there, so how in the world do you know there were not that much in damage?

[Mizmoon]

32. I call em like I see em

This is a board for opinions, is it not? I think the kid and his family are being screwed and I'm not afraid to say it.

I also think you're just being pissy because you were wrong about the science equipment.

[LisaL]

35. Kid and his family are being screwed? For the horrible damage

this 12 year old did? How exactly did these parents raise him, that he would go into the building and destroy it? He could have better manners if he was raised by a pack of wolves, IMO. I have no clue what would possess someone to do that much damage, but I think this kid get off easy. Furthermore, they would never recover the 200,000 out of him.

[Mizmoon]

38. that's why they put a renewable judgement on him

because they're never going to get their money. Riiiiiiiight.

This was a child of 12 and he did somethings that were very wrong - now he's being totally screwed for it. That's how I see it.

[LisaL]

40. Well, clearly, they won't get any money any time soon-

as he doesn't have any income. And I do hope they collect the money even if it means they will subtract 50$ or whatever from his paycheck for the next 50 years. When you do that much damage on purpose, I don't care if you are 12-you have got to pay the price.

[Misunderestimator]

43. I see it the same way, Miz.

[indepat]

4. Restitution should be part of every sentence involving theft, burglary,

robbery, and willful destruction of property, IMHO.

[DS1]

6. Damn, I did something similar

although not nearly on that scale in middle school and got suspended for a week :shrug:

and no, I didn't learn my lesson and did something ELSE in high school :D

[LisaL]

9. Well, I bet you would have learn your lesson if you were

made to pay 200 grand.

[DS1]

11. I'll bet I would have too

[amazona]

94. I'd be curious how a 12 year old could pay this

I don't see anyway this can be paid by a teen-ager without additional crimes being committed such as illegal drug sales or robbery.

Since it's a juvenile sentence, doesn't it get written off when he turns 18?

Why pay any of it?

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[ronnykmarshall]

90. Where you pregnant at the time?

Oh, wait that's when you where in High School!!

:silly:

[Shell Beau]

7. I'm sure that is just pocket change!

:sarcasm:

[MsAnthropy]

13. His parents only have to pay $1,000

some law states that's the extent of their liability. I'd believe the $8.2 million in damage if the building has to be rebuilt because it was moved off the foundation. I've read they made an INCREDIBLE mess. How they plan to get the money out of him is questionable. They're going to have to garnish his wages until he retires!

[LisaL]

20. Scientific equipment costs an obscene amounts of money-

the fact of which you seem clearly completely unaware of. If they flooded some of the building, as described in the article, they could have easily destroyed that much in equipment. One machine, such as nuclear magnetic resonance machine, could cost million of dollars alone.

[Zuni]

26. As a person who had bad damage done by flooding

caused by sprinklers during a fire in my apartment last year---floods cause enormous damage. The fire gutted my kitchen, but a whole lot of my furniture, the floor, the carpets and my computer, as well as my CD player and my cable box and one wall were ruined by flooding. The flood damage was far more extensive than anything else

[sexybomber]

33. Yeah, exactly.

1. Take any electronic equipment.
2. Add water.
3. Wait for Very Bad Things to happen.

[jswordy]

14. The kid is 12 and he is saddled now with $200,000 to repay.

That's a pretty darned good slap, I'd say. Fits the crime, and better than juvenile detention as a lesson to be learned. He'll be paying it back for years. Good job, judge!

[Misunderestimator]

37. Saddling a child with $200,000 when adults in our economy can hardly

make ends meet? That's a GOOD thing? This pretty much destroys any college ambitions, or for that matter, life ambitions, the kid could have, if the fine ends up actually standing.

Horrible what he's done, but when insurance will likely cover all the costs of rebuilding, $200,000 makes not one lick of sense. Probation and counseling make sense for a child.

Ridiculous.

[LisaL]

41. 200,000 is the deductable on an insurance.

[Misunderestimator]

42. And collecting it from a 12 year old child will take a generation or more.

So, how does it make sense?

[LisaL]

45. Don't destroy buildings, and you won't be asked to pay.

Seem very simple to me. As for not making sense, in many cases the victim is awarded a lot of money even though there is not much chance the money can be collected. This kid is hardly in a unique situation.

[gollygee]

52. I don't understand why he wasn't fined a third of that then

since there were three of them

[Rabrrrrrr]

58. Yeah, what happened to the other two kids?

[Orangepeel]

85. it isn't clear in the article, but it looks like that might be the case.

"The restitution is structured so that the 12-year-old's two juvenile accomplices will share responsibility for seeing that it's paid."

:shrug:

I don't understand. I don't think the reporter does either, because it isn't explained clearly.

[Zuni]

46. actions have consequences

and what this kid did was incredibly malicious. This wasn't your ordinary 12 year old prank---this was wanton destruction of property on a college

a slap on the wrist would just encourage more of the same. He is not going to jail and the full amount will probably never be collected, probably not even 1/4 of it will be collected.

[Misunderestimator]

49. It was an incredibly foolish thing to do, but it was a 12 yr old who was

influenced by a 13 yr old and a 14 yr old. Yes, actions have consequences, and I think scaring the shit out of him, putting him on probation for SIX years and making him go to counseling are appropriate consequences. Destroying the rest of his life, no. He didn't destroy anyone else's life. He destroyed property. A $200,000 fine is outrageous.

[Zuni]

51. It is symbolic. It is never gonna be paid

Do you really think a 12 year old will really be forced to pay that money? They will be lucky if they get any money at all.

[gollygee]

54. No they'll just ruin his future credit and force him into the military

to try to pay it back when he turns 18

[Zuni]

62. He is a juvenile. It will be sealed when he is 18

They can't touch him for his juvenile record. Learn the law.

[gollygee]

67. So when he turns 18 the debt won't still be his? WRONG

He'll still be in a financial disaster and could still be forced into the military (by circumstance, not by the law) to pay it back.

Unless a law is made allowing courts to send debtors to the military, then he could be forced in by law I suppose.

[Zuni]

70. probably not, actually

I would like to see someone try to get him to pay 200,000$ after he is 18 for a crime he committed when he was 12.
Good luck on that

[gollygee]

72. Then he'd have to declare bankruptcy

the $200,000 debt will be there. That debt won't be just given up. That's not the way debt works.

Edited to add that there's probably interest on the debt so it'll probably be more than $200,000.

[Zuni]

76. 12 year olds cannot sign contracts

I am positive that this debt will not be paid. it is symbolic, and awarded only because they could not find for the guilty party

[gollygee]

Oh, you're positive?

that convinces me. :eyes:

Why do you think a payment ordered by a court has anything to do with a contract?

[Zuni]

80. I just talked to my boss, a laywer who does alot of financial/real estate

law.
A contract is invalided if one of the signors is a child. He could not be held to pay for money owed on a contract.
The Laywer is of the opinion that the kid cannot be forced to pay after he is 18 either, because he is a juvenile

[Mizmoon]

55. These days, you never know dude

I think these punative fucks will make a 12-year-old pay.

And why are they making a fake punishment then, if the fine isn't real?

[Zuni]

59. for precedent. Judges do that

and symbolic. In trial, who are they going to find for? The obviously guilty party or the victim? think about it.

I work in a Law office. I know how courts work

[Misunderestimator]

56. Of course I don't. But it's also outrageous that they are using this fine

as some sort of scare tactic, to make him believe that he will have to pay it. What's the point? They don't believe in counseling?

[Zuni]

63. counseling is a slap on the wrist at best

this kid will laugh about getting off with just counseling. trust me, I know. Been there.

[Misunderestimator]

65. And have you been on probation during your entire teen years?

I don't think the kid is laughing.

[Zuni]

69. probation is nothing

no, I was not on probabtion for more than a year, but it requires no serious sacrifice, other than if you break the law, you can be penalized for the prior offense.

[Misunderestimator]

73. Ok, fine, you've convinced me, let's let that kid live under a cloud of

$200,000 debt for the remainder of his childhood. (Because, whether or not they ever collect any or all of it, you bet this poor kid will be under the very real legal spectre of it, and will suffer more than his foolish act merits).

Since everything else is nothing, all the sudden it makes perfect sense to destroy the kid's life. Thanks... I feel better now.

[Zuni]

78. this kid would be worse off if no one punished him

he would get worse, not better. Some times with kids you have to lay down the law and let them know they fucked up

a slap on the wrist would be encouraging.

[Misunderestimator]

81. And you don't see the outrageousness of a $200,000 fine?

Why not $2,000? Seems to me that it would still take years for him to pay it off, and make the point sufficiently. Or community service even. Perhaps $200,000 is SO outrageous that it will have the reverse effect of no punishment, making the child resent the system that has now determined his future because of one egregious act.

[Zuni]

83. what, should the court have found that the college pay the deductible?

that was the deductible owed to the insurance company. If the court found for the kid to pay 2,000$, the college would be forced by law to pay 198,000$ to the insurance company. Do you understand now?

This removes the burden from the aggreived party to the guilty, who because of his age, would not to pay. Insurance will eat the loss now because of this.

[Misunderestimator]

87. LOL.... So, you know that they won't be able to collect the $200,000

from the kid, but you still think it makes sense for them to expect to get that money, and that somehow miraculously the college will not have to pay for any of it? That they will depend only on the earning capabilities of a 12 yr old child? And what about the older children? Is it $600,000 altogether they are being forced to pay?

The college shouldn't HAVE to pay this money, of course not. But it makes no sense to fine a child who cannot pay, who you don't expect to pay, when the only result will be to initimidate the child... for years. Who benefits from this?

[Zuni]

89. Ok...let me try again

the college would be forced to pay the 200,000$ if the kid was not found liable.
Clearly, that would be wrong, because the college did nothing wrong.
If they found that the kid was not liable for the damages, the College would have to pay out another 200,000$ because they would be liable.

Noone is going to get the money. It was a symbolic decision made for precedent and so the college would not be forced to pay.

[jswordy]

57. Here we go! Heheheheh.

Good job, judge!

[Misunderestimator]

60. I'm not sure I understand your response...

...or was it just a gratuitous insult?

[Mizmoon]

64. I love ya Misunderestimator

even if others don't see the wisdom of our ways. :loveya:

[Misunderestimator]

68. LOL... Thanks, miz

:hi:

[jswordy]

77. No, not an insult. Just "here we go," is all.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -- Sigmund Freud

[Misunderestimator]

79. Yeah, ok... crystal clear then... thanks.

[jswordy]

82. You are very welcome. n/t

[Zuni]

15. He'll have to mow alot of lawns to come up with that

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. Now seriously, I wonder about the practicality of that.

HOW do they expect to collect, really?

[Zuni]

24. I have no idea why they think a 12 year old

can just produce 200 Grand. Who do they think he is, Doogie Howser, MD?

[LisaL]

31. They will never get 200, 000 out of the kid. I think it's a given.

Many times there is a large judgment, like against OJ Simpson, even though it's unlikely that money would ever be paid to the victims.

[Zuni]

47. exactly

it is the judgement that counts. The 200,000 $ is gone and it would be a crime for the College to have to pay the deductible. And I for one am no fan of insurance companies---they are greedy bastards---

But I think the fact that the kid was found against, wether or not the money is ever produced, is important. I think he should be blamed in the eyes of the law and not given a slap on the wrist, which would only make him worse.

[LisaL]

48. How do they expect to collect money in many lawsuits?

They don't.

[DS1]

17. How much do kids these days charged for mowing lawns or shovelling snow

in driveways?

I think it was 10 bucks when I was in the biz, probably 20 now due to inflation and the excessive kid-coddling/worshipping that goes on these days? :shrug:

At 10 bucks, that would be one mowed lawn or shovelled driveway for 54 years.

[Zuni]

19. 10 bucks was the going rate when I was 12 for mowing

shovelling

Of course, now 12 year olds have to pay for cell phones, hard drugs and birth control so the price has gone up :eyes:

[madinmaryland]

88. Wow,

He'd have to shovel between 10,000 and 20,000 driveways! That's a hell of a lot of snow!

[Rabrrrrrr]

50. As a fellow child-worshiper, he should not be fined OR punished

To agree to any fine or punishment is to agree to an oppressive system that is no different than the one that wants kids to be quiet, or non-present, in restaurants.

He should also be allowed to run around and talk loudly in restaurants, because he's a child, and that's what children do. Besides, it's not like the insurance company, which is likely screwing the family, can't afford it. They have plenty money. And the school has plenty money anyway, too. They should just eat the costs, because corporate coffers, as we all know, are infinitely full of money. And I'm sure someone is lying about the $8.2 million in order to extort money from this poor, innocent family.

And what was the school doing leaving forklifts around anyway? Obviously, the fault is entirely theirs.

[ohiosmith]

66. You and I are in total agreement. This is another example of a heartless

capitalist society that values property more than people. Those poor children and their families. GMAFB!

[Mizmoon]

75. Yes, children often disturb my meals when I'm out eating

I think they should all be kept in boxes in their parent's basements until their fit for the public - like maybe at age 29.

I especially hate their crying. Crying children should never be in public because everything is about me and my comfort. I want the whole world sanatized of things that bother me. I'm going after red lights next.

Children today are always going to the doctor, the dentist, getting piano lessons and all that crap. When I was a kid our parents let us die and we were grateful to die. They had us do needlepoint - the sort of nice, quiet activities all children should do. Kids today are brats!

When I was a kid I was good and quiet and polite and honest and studious and I never did anything wrong! I've never done anything wrong to this day!

GMAFB indeed.

[ohiosmith]

86. You make a lot of sense. Especially the red light thing.

[Rabrrrrrr]

91. Absolutely! Expecting a child to be responsible, and to own up to his

or her mistakes (oops - they're not mistakes, they're "learning and growth opportunities"!) is simply, how do I say it? - barbaric!!

Barbaric I tell you!!!

How dare they sully a child. A child for god's sake!!!!!!

WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!

So, the kid does 8.2 million in damage to a filthy rich institution, and the courts have the audacity to find the child guilty - guilty of being a child, I guess, which apparently is now a finable crime - AND have the audacity to expect him to pay for his crime (oops - not a crime, his "learning and growth opportunity"). We should be applauding this child for what he did - most children will NEVER show this kind of proactive, responsible, entreprenuership to allow themselves such an extravegent learning and growth opportunity.

If anything, the court should be GIVING money to this family!!

[Catchawave]

84. When did the laws change.....?

Last I heard, parents were responsible for restitution til the kid's 18? If they couldn't pay, to jail for them.

Have the local authorities given up on the parent's then? I speak from experience....our little Lord Fauntleroy got in some trouble in the early 80's...and his ass was sent to military boarding school, which was cheaper than restitution, and we slept at night after that.

If I told you how successful he was in life right now, I'd be put on the no-fly list...LOL.

[WI_DEM]

93. It seems to be a very unrealistic punishment

First I agree with placing him on probation until he is 18. But how can he (even if the two other kids are helping) expect to pay $200,000? I assume that debt will stay with him even when he is of age and presumably begins working for a living.

[all.of.me]

95. his parents must be pleased!!!

two kids gone wrong. good lord.

this reminds me of my brother, though. it's not as extreme, but someone was building a new house next door to his best friend. they did not like the new neighbor, so they tore the foundation down block by concrete block. i think he was about 12 or 13. wow! what a scandal in our rich, flawless family! he had to empty out his savings account to pay for it. it was supposed to be a secret. my parents did NOT want me to know! hahahahaha nice try.....