ITEMS
Locals react to Logan Canyon trespassing incident
Dublin Core
Title
Locals react to Logan Canyon trespassing incident
Description
Reactions from locals in the Opinion seciton of the Herald Journal discussing the aftermath of the incident at St. Anne's retreat involving trespassing legend-tripping teenagers captured by security guards.
Locals react to Logan trespassing incident
Newspaper hasn’t told whole story
To the editor:
It was with disbelief that I read the first article of the incident at St. Anne’s retreat. Who were these guardsmen, and what were they protecting?
My mind began to wander. Was it a drug ring? Were they members of some militia movement?
My disbelief quickly turned to disgust after watching the local news reports. Wait a minute! We haven’t heard the whole story. And isn’t that a reporter’s job? To get the story? The whole story?
You gleefully told us in great detail the accusations made by the teen-agers, while glossing over the fact that they were knowingly and willingly breaking the law. They didn’t just stumble across private property. Every single one of them knew as they were climbing through tall, locked chain-linked fences topped with razor wire and huge signs clearly stating “No Trespassing” that they were breaking the law.
Funny how the other side of the story is coming, not from your reporters, but by editorials and letters to the editor. Somebody at the Herald Journal is not doing their job!
The teen-agers and their parents were quick to whine and run to the press when they felt their rights had been violated. They failed to mention the actual “prank” or the “criminal act,” as it should appropriately be called, they were about to inflict on the property, its owners and the guardsmen that surely wo7uld have violated their rights!
The parents of these teen-agers have obviously failed to teach them right from wrong and the difference between “having fun” and breaking the law.
Maybe that comes from the attitudes expressed by some of these parents downplaying their children’s involvement by calling it a “prank.”
Some of these parents participated in similar “pranks” while they were in their youth. Perhaps if these same parents had been held accountable and taught the seriousness of their actions back then they wouldn’t be downplaying their children’s actions today.
Quit treating these teen-agers like they are the victims, or worse, like they’re the heroes. They haven’t done anything heroic.
I cannot condemn or condone the actions of these guardsmen. I can only imagine how I would have reacted to having 38 people breaking and entering my home in the middle of the night.
Stopping and detaining them would be a challenge. How does one do that? We do have the right in this country to protect our lives and our property. Thank goodness no one was killed.
It is ironic that the guardsmen will be legally responsible for the choices they made that night, while the teen-agers, who knowingly made the choice to break the law, are set free with no accountability whatsoever. I guess whining really does pay.
And now a suggestion to those teen-agers who were involved. Unfortunately, the charges against you were dropped. But if you would like to right those wrongs started by you, how about returning to St. Anne’s retreat, legally this time, and putting in some hours of community service repairing the damage inflicted on that property over the last couple of decades.
Maybe then this whole awful, scary and upsetting incident will be put to rest on a positive note.
Cindy Thompson
Logan
Incident a black eye for law enforcement
To the editor:
This incident in the canyon really put a black eye on some of the Sheriff Department (deputies) for their handling of the situation. Some of our friends say maybe they’d better take a refresher course at training school so they know whom and when to arrest.
Look at the scenario, police called, on arrival they find crying teens, ropes around their necks, handcuffed, with men standing over them with guns and knives, a definite hostage situation, same thing as the night before. So arrest the hostages, charge them with criminal trespassing.
Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Men with guns arrested and taken into custody and the names of the teens taken. Did they have a problem identifying the criminals? Or, as quite a few people are now suggesting, buddies of some officers?
But they go to church, one report said, fine, upstanding men. Tell me about it!
Charges should not be so hard to find. Child molesting, child abuse, death threats, kidnapping (because some of these young people had not entered the gate but were forced to enter, guns held to their heads).
If no action is taken against these men, consider what a dangerous precedent it sets. When you go to hunt, fish, hike, picnic, Halloween, some crazed landowner with a no-trespass sign could terrorize you. But maybe if such a thing happens, the right people will be arrested, charged and prosecuted.
If $100,000 damage had been done by vandals, as claimed by the owner, nothing would be left worth guarding, especially with guns, because it was stated they only paid $120,000 in the first place. How easy to justify their actions and shirk responsibility for this terror on young people.
Blame the young people for things they did not do and classify all of them as destructive and bad. These young people who came there Friday night are good, decent kids. They did not destroy his property and did not deserve the crazed treatment they received at the hands of some morons and at the hands of officers who were supposed to be in control of the situation.
I read the sheriff is trying hard to determine if these groups of frightened young people had threatened the lives of the gun-toting men. Come on, get real.
Faye Johnson
Benson
Guards roughed up by zealous media
To the editor:
The recent incident at St. Anne’s retreat brought to mind problems my husband and I endured with some youthful trespassers when we were first married.
A group of neighborhood kids continuously climbed the apple tree in our back yard and ascended to the roof of our house. They considered it their private playground. They would run around there having a grand dime until discovered.
Our pleadings, threatenings and entreatings that they could get hurt or cause damage to our roof fell on deaf ears. Their response was, “But where will we play?”
There was a public park within a block of our home with a fine playground. So the issue wasn’t really where could they play, but where else could they find excitement, danger and challenge doing something they shouldn’t, while trying to avoid getting caught?
Finally we did the only thing we could do to salvage our sanity, the roof and to keep someone’s child from ultimate serious injury. We cut down the tree. It shouldn’t have had to be.
The father of one of the “St. Anne’s 30” was reported to have said during TV coverage that if the owners wanted to keep the kids out, they could have found a better way. And what, pray tell, wo uld have been a better way? An electric fence, vicious guard dogs or land mines?
Although I can’t recommend all the actions taken by the guards, I can certainly understand their frustrations. With determined trespassers making it difficult for the caretaker to fulfill his responsibilities, and with previous vandalism and threats, can’t we understand his trepidation when 30 trespassers (the age of North Korean soldiers in my husband’s war) penetrated the security fence at 10 p.m. How are those guards to know if these night invaders onto private property were intent only on “having fun?”
These trespassers could have learned a valuable lesson concerning the law: “Want the consequences of what you want.” The incident could have been an effective deterrent for future lawbreaking fun-seekers. Instead, all charges against the teens, have now reportedly been dropped, eliminating those consequences for their actions.
Once the guards have been thoroughly manhandled by a zealous media and by a legal system seeking to appease angry parents, local floodgates will be opened, not just at St. Anne’s, but everywhere. IT’s going to take more than “No Trespassing” signs to stem the tide of disrespect for law and property.
If special consideration is to be given to trespassing teens seeking fun at someone else’s expense, then shouldn’t special consideration also be given to guards who reacted in the performance of duty to extenuating circumstances resulting from an incident they did not precipitate?
Janice H. Keeler
Nibley
Newspaper hasn’t told whole story
To the editor:
It was with disbelief that I read the first article of the incident at St. Anne’s retreat. Who were these guardsmen, and what were they protecting?
My mind began to wander. Was it a drug ring? Were they members of some militia movement?
My disbelief quickly turned to disgust after watching the local news reports. Wait a minute! We haven’t heard the whole story. And isn’t that a reporter’s job? To get the story? The whole story?
You gleefully told us in great detail the accusations made by the teen-agers, while glossing over the fact that they were knowingly and willingly breaking the law. They didn’t just stumble across private property. Every single one of them knew as they were climbing through tall, locked chain-linked fences topped with razor wire and huge signs clearly stating “No Trespassing” that they were breaking the law.
Funny how the other side of the story is coming, not from your reporters, but by editorials and letters to the editor. Somebody at the Herald Journal is not doing their job!
The teen-agers and their parents were quick to whine and run to the press when they felt their rights had been violated. They failed to mention the actual “prank” or the “criminal act,” as it should appropriately be called, they were about to inflict on the property, its owners and the guardsmen that surely wo7uld have violated their rights!
The parents of these teen-agers have obviously failed to teach them right from wrong and the difference between “having fun” and breaking the law.
Maybe that comes from the attitudes expressed by some of these parents downplaying their children’s involvement by calling it a “prank.”
Some of these parents participated in similar “pranks” while they were in their youth. Perhaps if these same parents had been held accountable and taught the seriousness of their actions back then they wouldn’t be downplaying their children’s actions today.
Quit treating these teen-agers like they are the victims, or worse, like they’re the heroes. They haven’t done anything heroic.
I cannot condemn or condone the actions of these guardsmen. I can only imagine how I would have reacted to having 38 people breaking and entering my home in the middle of the night.
Stopping and detaining them would be a challenge. How does one do that? We do have the right in this country to protect our lives and our property. Thank goodness no one was killed.
It is ironic that the guardsmen will be legally responsible for the choices they made that night, while the teen-agers, who knowingly made the choice to break the law, are set free with no accountability whatsoever. I guess whining really does pay.
And now a suggestion to those teen-agers who were involved. Unfortunately, the charges against you were dropped. But if you would like to right those wrongs started by you, how about returning to St. Anne’s retreat, legally this time, and putting in some hours of community service repairing the damage inflicted on that property over the last couple of decades.
Maybe then this whole awful, scary and upsetting incident will be put to rest on a positive note.
Cindy Thompson
Logan
Incident a black eye for law enforcement
To the editor:
This incident in the canyon really put a black eye on some of the Sheriff Department (deputies) for their handling of the situation. Some of our friends say maybe they’d better take a refresher course at training school so they know whom and when to arrest.
Look at the scenario, police called, on arrival they find crying teens, ropes around their necks, handcuffed, with men standing over them with guns and knives, a definite hostage situation, same thing as the night before. So arrest the hostages, charge them with criminal trespassing.
Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Men with guns arrested and taken into custody and the names of the teens taken. Did they have a problem identifying the criminals? Or, as quite a few people are now suggesting, buddies of some officers?
But they go to church, one report said, fine, upstanding men. Tell me about it!
Charges should not be so hard to find. Child molesting, child abuse, death threats, kidnapping (because some of these young people had not entered the gate but were forced to enter, guns held to their heads).
If no action is taken against these men, consider what a dangerous precedent it sets. When you go to hunt, fish, hike, picnic, Halloween, some crazed landowner with a no-trespass sign could terrorize you. But maybe if such a thing happens, the right people will be arrested, charged and prosecuted.
If $100,000 damage had been done by vandals, as claimed by the owner, nothing would be left worth guarding, especially with guns, because it was stated they only paid $120,000 in the first place. How easy to justify their actions and shirk responsibility for this terror on young people.
Blame the young people for things they did not do and classify all of them as destructive and bad. These young people who came there Friday night are good, decent kids. They did not destroy his property and did not deserve the crazed treatment they received at the hands of some morons and at the hands of officers who were supposed to be in control of the situation.
I read the sheriff is trying hard to determine if these groups of frightened young people had threatened the lives of the gun-toting men. Come on, get real.
Faye Johnson
Benson
Guards roughed up by zealous media
To the editor:
The recent incident at St. Anne’s retreat brought to mind problems my husband and I endured with some youthful trespassers when we were first married.
A group of neighborhood kids continuously climbed the apple tree in our back yard and ascended to the roof of our house. They considered it their private playground. They would run around there having a grand dime until discovered.
Our pleadings, threatenings and entreatings that they could get hurt or cause damage to our roof fell on deaf ears. Their response was, “But where will we play?”
There was a public park within a block of our home with a fine playground. So the issue wasn’t really where could they play, but where else could they find excitement, danger and challenge doing something they shouldn’t, while trying to avoid getting caught?
Finally we did the only thing we could do to salvage our sanity, the roof and to keep someone’s child from ultimate serious injury. We cut down the tree. It shouldn’t have had to be.
The father of one of the “St. Anne’s 30” was reported to have said during TV coverage that if the owners wanted to keep the kids out, they could have found a better way. And what, pray tell, wo uld have been a better way? An electric fence, vicious guard dogs or land mines?
Although I can’t recommend all the actions taken by the guards, I can certainly understand their frustrations. With determined trespassers making it difficult for the caretaker to fulfill his responsibilities, and with previous vandalism and threats, can’t we understand his trepidation when 30 trespassers (the age of North Korean soldiers in my husband’s war) penetrated the security fence at 10 p.m. How are those guards to know if these night invaders onto private property were intent only on “having fun?”
These trespassers could have learned a valuable lesson concerning the law: “Want the consequences of what you want.” The incident could have been an effective deterrent for future lawbreaking fun-seekers. Instead, all charges against the teens, have now reportedly been dropped, eliminating those consequences for their actions.
Once the guards have been thoroughly manhandled by a zealous media and by a legal system seeking to appease angry parents, local floodgates will be opened, not just at St. Anne’s, but everywhere. IT’s going to take more than “No Trespassing” signs to stem the tide of disrespect for law and property.
If special consideration is to be given to trespassing teens seeking fun at someone else’s expense, then shouldn’t special consideration also be given to guards who reacted in the performance of duty to extenuating circumstances resulting from an incident they did not precipitate?
Janice H. Keeler
Nibley
Source
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, FOLK COLL 32
Publisher
Rights
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Relation
Utah State University Folklore in the news collection, 1973-2012, FOLK COLL 32
http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv04849
St. Anne's Retreat
Language
Type
Identifier
http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p16944coll20/id/27
SCAFOLK032Bx003Fd07Item0018.pdf
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Locals react to Logan trespassing incident
Newspaper hasn’t told whole story
To the editor:
It was with disbelief that I read the first article of the incident at St. Anne’s retreat. Who were these guardsmen, and what were they protecting?
My mind began to wander. Was it a drug ring? Were they members of some militia movement?
My disbelief quickly turned to disgust after watching the local news reports. Wait a minute! We haven’t heard the whole story. And isn’t that a reporter’s job? To get the story? The whole story?
You gleefully told us in great detail the accusations made by the teen-agers, while glossing over the fact that they were knowingly and willingly breaking the law. They didn’t just stumble across private property. Every single one of them knew as they were climbing through tall, locked chain-linked fences topped with razor wire and huge signs clearly stating “No Trespassing” that they were breaking the law.
Funny how the other side of the story is coming, not from your reporters, but by editorials and letters to the editor. Somebody at the Herald Journal is not doing their job!
The teen-agers and their parents were quick to whine and run to the press when they felt their rights had been violated. They failed to mention the actual “prank” or the “criminal act,” as it should appropriately be called, they were about to inflict on the property, its owners and the guardsmen that surely wo7uld have violated their rights!
The parents of these teen-agers have obviously failed to teach them right from wrong and the difference between “having fun” and breaking the law.
Maybe that comes from the attitudes expressed by some of these parents downplaying their children’s involvement by calling it a “prank.”
Some of these parents participated in similar “pranks” while they were in their youth. Perhaps if these same parents had been held accountable and taught the seriousness of their actions back then they wouldn’t be downplaying their children’s actions today.
Quit treating these teen-agers like they are the victims, or worse, like they’re the heroes. They haven’t done anything heroic.
I cannot condemn or condone the actions of these guardsmen. I can only imagine how I would have reacted to having 38 people breaking and entering my home in the middle of the night.
Stopping and detaining them would be a challenge. How does one do that? We do have the right in this country to protect our lives and our property. Thank goodness no one was killed.
It is ironic that the guardsmen will be legally responsible for the choices they made that night, while the teen-agers, who knowingly made the choice to break the law, are set free with no accountability whatsoever. I guess whining really does pay.
And now a suggestion to those teen-agers who were involved. Unfortunately, the charges against you were dropped. But if you would like to right those wrongs started by you, how about returning to St. Anne’s retreat, legally this time, and putting in some hours of community service repairing the damage inflicted on that property over the last couple of decades.
Maybe then this whole awful, scary and upsetting incident will be put to rest on a positive note.
Cindy Thompson
Logan
Incident a black eye for law enforcement
To the editor:
This incident in the canyon really put a black eye on some of the Sheriff Department (deputies) for their handling of the situation. Some of our friends say maybe they’d better take a refresher course at training school so they know whom and when to arrest.
Look at the scenario, police called, on arrival they find crying teens, ropes around their necks, handcuffed, with men standing over them with guns and knives, a definite hostage situation, same thing as the night before. So arrest the hostages, charge them with criminal trespassing.
Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Men with guns arrested and taken into custody and the names of the teens taken. Did they have a problem identifying the criminals? Or, as quite a few people are now suggesting, buddies of some officers?
But they go to church, one report said, fine, upstanding men. Tell me about it!
Charges should not be so hard to find. Child molesting, child abuse, death threats, kidnapping (because some of these young people had not entered the gate but were forced to enter, guns held to their heads).
If no action is taken against these men, consider what a dangerous precedent it sets. When you go to hunt, fish, hike, picnic, Halloween, some crazed landowner with a no-trespass sign could terrorize you. But maybe if such a thing happens, the right people will be arrested, charged and prosecuted.
If $100,000 damage had been done by vandals, as claimed by the owner, nothing would be left worth guarding, especially with guns, because it was stated they only paid $120,000 in the first place. How easy to justify their actions and shirk responsibility for this terror on young people.
Blame the young people for things they did not do and classify all of them as destructive and bad. These young people who came there Friday night are good, decent kids. They did not destroy his property and did not deserve the crazed treatment they received at the hands of some morons and at the hands of officers who were supposed to be in control of the situation.
I read the sheriff is trying hard to determine if these groups of frightened young people had threatened the lives of the gun-toting men. Come on, get real.
Faye Johnson
Benson
Guards roughed up by zealous media
To the editor:
The recent incident at St. Anne’s retreat brought to mind problems my husband and I endured with some youthful trespassers when we were first married.
A group of neighborhood kids continuously climbed the apple tree in our back yard and ascended to the roof of our house. They considered it their private playground. They would run around there having a grand dime until discovered.
Our pleadings, threatenings and entreatings that they could get hurt or cause damage to our roof fell on deaf ears. Their response was, “But where will we play?”
There was a public park within a block of our home with a fine playground. So the issue wasn’t really where could they play, but where else could they find excitement, danger and challenge doing something they shouldn’t, while trying to avoid getting caught?
Finally we did the only thing we could do to salvage our sanity, the roof and to keep someone’s child from ultimate serious injury. We cut down the tree. It shouldn’t have had to be.
The father of one of the “St. Anne’s 30” was reported to have said during TV coverage that if the owners wanted to keep the kids out, they could have found a better way. And what, pray tell, wo uld have been a better way? An electric fence, vicious guard dogs or land mines?
Although I can’t recommend all the actions taken by the guards, I can certainly understand their frustrations. With determined trespassers making it difficult for the caretaker to fulfill his responsibilities, and with previous vandalism and threats, can’t we understand his trepidation when 30 trespassers (the age of North Korean soldiers in my husband’s war) penetrated the security fence at 10 p.m. How are those guards to know if these night invaders onto private property were intent only on “having fun?”
These trespassers could have learned a valuable lesson concerning the law: “Want the consequences of what you want.” The incident could have been an effective deterrent for future lawbreaking fun-seekers. Instead, all charges against the teens, have now reportedly been dropped, eliminating those consequences for their actions.
Once the guards have been thoroughly manhandled by a zealous media and by a legal system seeking to appease angry parents, local floodgates will be opened, not just at St. Anne’s, but everywhere. IT’s going to take more than “No Trespassing” signs to stem the tide of disrespect for law and property.
If special consideration is to be given to trespassing teens seeking fun at someone else’s expense, then shouldn’t special consideration also be given to guards who reacted in the performance of duty to extenuating circumstances resulting from an incident they did not precipitate?
Janice H. Keeler
Nibley
Newspaper hasn’t told whole story
To the editor:
It was with disbelief that I read the first article of the incident at St. Anne’s retreat. Who were these guardsmen, and what were they protecting?
My mind began to wander. Was it a drug ring? Were they members of some militia movement?
My disbelief quickly turned to disgust after watching the local news reports. Wait a minute! We haven’t heard the whole story. And isn’t that a reporter’s job? To get the story? The whole story?
You gleefully told us in great detail the accusations made by the teen-agers, while glossing over the fact that they were knowingly and willingly breaking the law. They didn’t just stumble across private property. Every single one of them knew as they were climbing through tall, locked chain-linked fences topped with razor wire and huge signs clearly stating “No Trespassing” that they were breaking the law.
Funny how the other side of the story is coming, not from your reporters, but by editorials and letters to the editor. Somebody at the Herald Journal is not doing their job!
The teen-agers and their parents were quick to whine and run to the press when they felt their rights had been violated. They failed to mention the actual “prank” or the “criminal act,” as it should appropriately be called, they were about to inflict on the property, its owners and the guardsmen that surely wo7uld have violated their rights!
The parents of these teen-agers have obviously failed to teach them right from wrong and the difference between “having fun” and breaking the law.
Maybe that comes from the attitudes expressed by some of these parents downplaying their children’s involvement by calling it a “prank.”
Some of these parents participated in similar “pranks” while they were in their youth. Perhaps if these same parents had been held accountable and taught the seriousness of their actions back then they wouldn’t be downplaying their children’s actions today.
Quit treating these teen-agers like they are the victims, or worse, like they’re the heroes. They haven’t done anything heroic.
I cannot condemn or condone the actions of these guardsmen. I can only imagine how I would have reacted to having 38 people breaking and entering my home in the middle of the night.
Stopping and detaining them would be a challenge. How does one do that? We do have the right in this country to protect our lives and our property. Thank goodness no one was killed.
It is ironic that the guardsmen will be legally responsible for the choices they made that night, while the teen-agers, who knowingly made the choice to break the law, are set free with no accountability whatsoever. I guess whining really does pay.
And now a suggestion to those teen-agers who were involved. Unfortunately, the charges against you were dropped. But if you would like to right those wrongs started by you, how about returning to St. Anne’s retreat, legally this time, and putting in some hours of community service repairing the damage inflicted on that property over the last couple of decades.
Maybe then this whole awful, scary and upsetting incident will be put to rest on a positive note.
Cindy Thompson
Logan
Incident a black eye for law enforcement
To the editor:
This incident in the canyon really put a black eye on some of the Sheriff Department (deputies) for their handling of the situation. Some of our friends say maybe they’d better take a refresher course at training school so they know whom and when to arrest.
Look at the scenario, police called, on arrival they find crying teens, ropes around their necks, handcuffed, with men standing over them with guns and knives, a definite hostage situation, same thing as the night before. So arrest the hostages, charge them with criminal trespassing.
Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Men with guns arrested and taken into custody and the names of the teens taken. Did they have a problem identifying the criminals? Or, as quite a few people are now suggesting, buddies of some officers?
But they go to church, one report said, fine, upstanding men. Tell me about it!
Charges should not be so hard to find. Child molesting, child abuse, death threats, kidnapping (because some of these young people had not entered the gate but were forced to enter, guns held to their heads).
If no action is taken against these men, consider what a dangerous precedent it sets. When you go to hunt, fish, hike, picnic, Halloween, some crazed landowner with a no-trespass sign could terrorize you. But maybe if such a thing happens, the right people will be arrested, charged and prosecuted.
If $100,000 damage had been done by vandals, as claimed by the owner, nothing would be left worth guarding, especially with guns, because it was stated they only paid $120,000 in the first place. How easy to justify their actions and shirk responsibility for this terror on young people.
Blame the young people for things they did not do and classify all of them as destructive and bad. These young people who came there Friday night are good, decent kids. They did not destroy his property and did not deserve the crazed treatment they received at the hands of some morons and at the hands of officers who were supposed to be in control of the situation.
I read the sheriff is trying hard to determine if these groups of frightened young people had threatened the lives of the gun-toting men. Come on, get real.
Faye Johnson
Benson
Guards roughed up by zealous media
To the editor:
The recent incident at St. Anne’s retreat brought to mind problems my husband and I endured with some youthful trespassers when we were first married.
A group of neighborhood kids continuously climbed the apple tree in our back yard and ascended to the roof of our house. They considered it their private playground. They would run around there having a grand dime until discovered.
Our pleadings, threatenings and entreatings that they could get hurt or cause damage to our roof fell on deaf ears. Their response was, “But where will we play?”
There was a public park within a block of our home with a fine playground. So the issue wasn’t really where could they play, but where else could they find excitement, danger and challenge doing something they shouldn’t, while trying to avoid getting caught?
Finally we did the only thing we could do to salvage our sanity, the roof and to keep someone’s child from ultimate serious injury. We cut down the tree. It shouldn’t have had to be.
The father of one of the “St. Anne’s 30” was reported to have said during TV coverage that if the owners wanted to keep the kids out, they could have found a better way. And what, pray tell, wo uld have been a better way? An electric fence, vicious guard dogs or land mines?
Although I can’t recommend all the actions taken by the guards, I can certainly understand their frustrations. With determined trespassers making it difficult for the caretaker to fulfill his responsibilities, and with previous vandalism and threats, can’t we understand his trepidation when 30 trespassers (the age of North Korean soldiers in my husband’s war) penetrated the security fence at 10 p.m. How are those guards to know if these night invaders onto private property were intent only on “having fun?”
These trespassers could have learned a valuable lesson concerning the law: “Want the consequences of what you want.” The incident could have been an effective deterrent for future lawbreaking fun-seekers. Instead, all charges against the teens, have now reportedly been dropped, eliminating those consequences for their actions.
Once the guards have been thoroughly manhandled by a zealous media and by a legal system seeking to appease angry parents, local floodgates will be opened, not just at St. Anne’s, but everywhere. IT’s going to take more than “No Trespassing” signs to stem the tide of disrespect for law and property.
If special consideration is to be given to trespassing teens seeking fun at someone else’s expense, then shouldn’t special consideration also be given to guards who reacted in the performance of duty to extenuating circumstances resulting from an incident they did not precipitate?
Janice H. Keeler
Nibley
Catalog Search
Search for related records in these catalogs:
Document Viewer
Embed
Copy the code below into your web page
Comments