Dumb kid has wild party, charged $20,000 call-out fee

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-01-15 03:24pm

That kid looks just like Mello from Death Note.

The_Saint · Post by **The_Saint** » 2008-01-15 06:59pm

I believe it's been mentioned in a few articles that he wasn't even supposed to be at home.. his parents had arranged with him for him to stay at a mates place while they were away.. so the fool went and put a party invite on myspace for a party he shouldn't have had at a house he shouldn't have been at...

Add to that he's cashing in on the notoriety...

Having police try and recoup costs seems to be a new thing here in Aus... the police seem to be pushing it more and more recently but it's getting a lot of resistance.

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2008-01-15 07:21pm

SCRawl wrote:From the sounds of things, I'm not quite sure what I'd do if I were in the place of his parents. They could ground him -- and they probably will -- but I suspect that he'd just ignore the restrictions and live with all of the people who now think he's cool. They can't realistically just keep him locked in the house until he's 18, and with his "fuck you" attitude he'll just do whatever he pleases, as long as he's able to do so.

The best way I can think of to turn his brain onto reality would be to find some laws he's broken in the process of his stunt, and have him arrested for it.

Too bad you can't make him personally pay for the cost of any damage the party caused, along with fines for every single tiny law he broke, which might make up a total so massive that, if given the minimum time he could ever have to scrounge up enough cash to pay it, he could be spending all his time outside of school working his ass off. At least, I don't think you can do that to him.

If he refuses to pay any money he owes, what could the courts do to him?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2008-01-15 07:42pm

He was drunk right? The court could force him to take a rehab course at his expense and attend AA for a year.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2008-01-15 08:04pm

The_Saint wrote:Having police try and recoup costs seems to be a new thing here in Aus... the police seem to be pushing it more and more recently but it's getting a lot of resistance.

Why the hell would people resist it? Is the average person likely to be planning on vandalising police property?

The_Saint · Post by **The_Saint** » 2008-01-15 08:20pm

It appears a lot of the damage had nothing to do with him... it was caused by the 400 party goers he didn't know...

Essentially from the media here the major fuck up (apart from apparently just being a garden variety dickhead) was in putting an open invite on myspace... of which there isn't specifically anything wrong.

1) he wasn't supposed to be home,
2) he's underage and not supposed to have alcohol,
3) he organised a party at a residence he wasn't supposed to be at,
4) somewhere along the line alcohol got invited;

Those are the in-family fuck ups.

1) Due to the open invite a few extra's showed up... hundred's of 'em in fact,
2) aforementioned crowd rioted, police arrived, crowd trashed police vehicles;

and THAT is what the police took exception to and want their money for.

Now's he's just being a dick, in no way repentant and trying his very hardest to get famous in the media.

Police need to put out a warning that open invites on mypsace are stupid (they won't, who can understand what a set of tubes have to do with this) and hand the lad the $20,000 fine (they won't, they know he doesn't have the cash so they'll go for the parents as a warning to other parents to keep closer eye's on their kiddies).

The_Saint · Post by **The_Saint** » 2008-01-15 08:46pm

Lusankya wrote:
The_Saint wrote:Having police try and recoup costs seems to be a new thing here in Aus... the police seem to be pushing it more and more recently but it's getting a lot of resistance.
Why the hell would people resist it? Is the average person likely to be planning on vandalising police property?

It's not specifically police property but any costs the police incurred during any actions they took. A recent case in my state involved police retrieving a protester from the top of a fairly tall tripod where she was blocking forestry operations. When the police charged her (with being a nuisance) and it went to court they tried to argue that along with a fine she should pay them what it cost to get her into custody.

What the "person on the street" took objection to was that we already pay taxes to the government to pay police to go around arresting people and that this would become a defacto fine on top of anything else a defendant would be required to pay.

It doesn't help that almost everytime the police seem to try and recoup costs it's always against people who have almost no money themselves and in cases where a good proportion of the public feel sympathy to the defendant.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-01-15 08:55pm

weemadando wrote:Well, he's making a fortune now selling his story to all the tabloids.

Cunt.

You can be happy in the knowledge he'll use the money to acquire a massive drug habit and kill himself?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2008-01-15 11:50pm

In the video, it sounds like the idiot still is wasted.

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2008-01-16 01:51am

No kidding.

The parents could potentially confiscate all his worldly possessions and sell them to cover the costs. That might be suitable punishment, barring any real laws broken.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-16 02:53pm

Ah, schardenfreude.

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Australian police on Wednesday arrested and charged a teenager who became a controversial media star after a wild party at his parents' house became a near riot, forcing police to call in a helicopter and the dog squad.

The 16-year-old, who cannot now be named, decided to throw a party while his parents were on holidays. He posted a notice on his MySpace site about the party and 500 people turned up to his suburban home in Melbourne on Saturday.

The party turned sour after revellers clashed with police called in by frightened neighbours. Party goers threw bottles at police cars until the arrival of reinforcements including a helicopter and the police dog squad.

Police on Wednesday laid charges against the teen, including creating a public nuisance and producing child pornography. Although his name has been widely published, he could not now be named under privacy laws for Australia's children's court.

Police told Australian Associated Press the teen had been bailed to appear in court in February, while a second boy was also being interviewed. Images of the widely-photographed teen were pixelated after his charging.

The unrepentant teenager has become a controversial media star since the party, with his exploits making it to global television networks, including the BBC and CNN.

He has been offered thousands of dollars to organise more teen parties, while police have been considering presenting him with a A$20,000 (9,034 pounds) bill for cost of the melee.

His Web site, which has attracted hundreds of comments, says he is a "swinger" and "indignant", and that he remains in hiding with friends. The site jokingly offers to arrange parties for a fee with "a strippa".

"For $20,000 (10,210 pounds) I'll make you internationally famous by getting 500 idiots to attack police cars. Of course, you will have to pay $20,000 to clean up the mess," the profanity-filled site says alongside photos of teenage girls.

link

I suppose if he's 16, and some of the people who came to the party were 15, and they were photographed in "compromising" situations, you could theoretically call it "child pornography". Or it could be genuine kiddie-porn.

If it's the former I can't think of a better person for such a miscarriage of justice to be perpentrated on.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-01-16 03:26pm

You kinda get the feeling there was a bunch of attorneys sitting in a back room, brainstorming things to charge him with.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-01-16 05:45pm

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2008-01-16 07:32pm

Androsphinx wrote: I suppose if he's 16, and some of the people who came to the party were 15, and they were photographed in "compromising" situations, you could theoretically call it "child pornography". Or it could be genuine kiddie-porn.

If it's the former I can't think of a better person for such a miscarriage of justice to be perpentrated on.

I think the moral of the story is really to not piss off the police department.

It's sort of like the time this accountant went on radio and called the tax department a bunch of morons. Needless to say, they created a crack team of tax officers to, shall we say, "deal with him" Al Capone style.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-01-16 08:24pm

I'm hoping there's more to that story, Lusankya, because the notion of a nation condoning the tax collectors to form a team specifically targeted at an individual, solely on the basis of that individual publically insulting said tax collectors, is pretty disturbing.

Androsphinx wrote:I suppose if he's 16, and some of the people who came to the party were 15, and they were photographed in "compromising" situations, you could theoretically call it "child pornography". Or it could be genuine kiddie-porn.

If it's the former I can't think of a better person for such a miscarriage of justice to be perpentrated on.

Right, a teenager being an utter asshole totally warrants being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life. And not even the "oh yeah I got that from urinating in public" kind of sex offense you can get people to calm down about, but the kind where people on this very forum frequently express hopes for brutal sexual assault, physical injury, and death to be visited on the perpetrator in prison.

Seriously, don't you think that's somewhat disproportionate?

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-16 08:35pm

Of course I do. I described it as a "miscarriage of justice" (if it is in fact spurious), and I have no doubt that the kid will get off - unless they want to imprison every 15-year-old who takes pictures of his girlfriends' tits. But the kid is clearly somewhat of an arsehole, and the experience may do him a little good - he certainly doesn't seem very repentant at the moment.

I'd also note that the kid is being charged in addition with public nuisance charges, which from what seems to have happened he certainly deserves.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2008-01-17 09:48am

Does the Australian Army have a deal with the courts that allow them to take "troubled individuals" as an alternative to conviction? If so, put him in the Army as a steward. That should be a pretty good punishment.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-17 09:52am

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm hoping there's more to that story, Lusankya, because the notion of a nation condoning the tax collectors to form a team specifically targeted at an individual, solely on the basis of that individual publically insulting said tax collectors, is pretty disturbing.

If the guy did in fact evade taxes, why is it disturbing? The fact that a lot of people get away with casual tax evasion doesn't mean it should be disturbing if the government sets up a team to nail a particular individual for doing it, regardless of the motives.

Right, a teenager being an utter asshole totally warrants being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life. And not even the "oh yeah I got that from urinating in public" kind of sex offense you can get people to calm down about, but the kind where people on this very forum frequently express hopes for brutal sexual assault, physical injury, and death to be visited on the perpetrator in prison.

Seriously, don't you think that's somewhat disproportionate?

Why shouldn't they throw the book at him? If there's a problem with the book in this case, I'm all for reforming the law for everyone, but there's nothing wrong with throwing the book at someone like this.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-01-17 10:56am

Androsphinx wrote:Of course I do. I described it as a "miscarriage of justice" (if it is in fact spurious), and I have no doubt that the kid will get off - unless they want to imprison every 15-year-old who takes pictures of his girlfriends' tits. But the kid is clearly somewhat of an arsehole, and the experience may do him a little good - he certainly doesn't seem very repentant at the moment.

I'd also note that the kid is being charged in addition with public nuisance charges, which from what seems to have happened he certainly deserves.

Underage guys taking nudie pictures of their underage girlfriends have gotten convicted of child porn charges before. Hell, I think I remember a case where an underage girl was charged with production of child porn when she posted her boobs on the internet! You really don't think it's likely that that kind of charge will stick? And if you really think it's an unwarranted charge, that's malicious prosecution; the prosecution isn't there to hassle people we don't like.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem whatsoever fining him the $20,000, or with charging him with public nuisance or instigating a riot or whatever other charges are genuinely warranted by the events, but the prosecution should not go around attempting to inflict, in your words, miscarriages of justice. That is totally contrary to their purpose.

Darth Wong wrote:If the guy did in fact evade taxes, why is it disturbing? The fact that a lot of people get away with casual tax evasion doesn't mean it should be disturbing if the government sets up a team to nail a particular individual for doing it, regardless of the motives.

If he actually did evade taxes and suggested as such in his diatribe, then I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the government's actions. It was the implication that he had been harassed by tax authorities solely on the basis of him calling them idiots that I found to be a potential abuse of power. My post did begin with wondering if there wasn't more to the story, which it sounds like there was.

Why shouldn't they throw the book at him? If there's a problem with the book in this case, I'm all for reforming the law for everyone, but there's nothing wrong with throwing the book at someone like this.

If the charge is not unwarranted, then there's obviously no controversy there. It was the sentiment of "he's a jerk so we should hit him as hard as we could" that I was responding to, because society can hit him so hard as to cripple him for the rest of his life. "Being an unrepentant asshole" is not a criminal charge, and we should not resort to spurious charges in order to punish someone just because we don't like their attitude.

As you say, if there's a problem with the book in this case (this case being that there is no law providing for the appropriate punishment of a teenager hosting an unsupervised and unauthorized party) then there ought to be some reform of the book.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-17 01:36pm

Underage guys taking nudie pictures of their underage girlfriends have gotten convicted of child porn charges before. Hell, I think I remember a case where an underage girl was charged with production of child porn when she posted her boobs on the internet! You really don't think it's likely that that kind of charge will stick? And if you really think it's an unwarranted charge, that's malicious prosecution; the prosecution isn't there to hassle people we don't like.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem whatsoever fining him the $20,000, or with charging him with public nuisance or instigating a riot or whatever other charges are genuinely warranted by the events, but the prosecution should not go around attempting to inflict, in your words, miscarriages of justice. That is totally contrary to their purpose.

What can I say, you're right. The schadenfreude is delicious, but it'd be a disgrace if the went ahead with child pornography charges (always assuming that he doesn't in fact have real child porn).

Korto · Post by **Korto** » 2008-01-18 03:57am

After reading about this on Crikey I have to say... Settle down, guys. This "news item" has been pushed along by Today Tonight and A Current Affair, two "news programs" with all the balance and accuracy of The O'Rielly Factor.
As far as I can see, this kid's mistake was to issue an open invite on the web, not realising how many people that would attract. A sixteen year old who made a mistake. Quick! Alert the media! Call Ripley's Believe It Or Not!
After that, he didn't say things that were properly apologetic. Of course, he was under pretty serious attack by the usual right-wing reactionary suspects. A sixteen year old under pressure who said some things he probably shouldn't? Wow, that's unusual.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-18 04:02am

Korto wrote:After reading about this on Crikey I have to say... Settle down, guys. This "news item" has been pushed along by Today Tonight and A Current Affair, two "news programs" with all the balance and accuracy of The O'Rielly Factor.
As far as I can see, this kid's mistake was to issue an open invite on the web, not realising how many people that would attract. A sixteen year old who made a mistake. Quick! Alert the media! Call Ripley's Believe It Or Not!
After that, he didn't say things that were properly apologetic. Of course, he was under pretty serious attack by the usual right-wing reactionary suspects. A sixteen year old under pressure who said some things he probably shouldn't? Wow, that's unusual.

Personally, at any rate, it was less the unapologetic stance as the taking money for interviews which got me.

Korto · Post by **Korto** » 2008-01-18 04:25am

Androsphinx wrote: Personally, at any rate, it was less the unapologetic stance as the taking money for interviews which got me.

I can understand that, but it's not the kid's fault. A Current Affair and Today Tonight will physically prise your mouth open and shove money down your throat if it means scooping the other, and whoever loses out of the two then acts as spiteful as an unpaid whore.
The newspapers aren't any better.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2008-01-18 04:40am

Sidewinder wrote:I take it Australian cops charge the responsible party, i.e., the perps, for the expenses incurred when they go bust the perps' asses? (Sounds like something the US should implement.)

In the city I work in we do something like that. $100.00 an hour if we're called out to a loud party a second time.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-01-18 08:17am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Sidewinder wrote:I take it Australian cops charge the responsible party, i.e., the perps, for the expenses incurred when they go bust the perps' asses? (Sounds like something the US should implement.)
In the city I work in we do something like that. $100.00 an hour if we're called out to a loud party a second time.

Is that per officer, or a flat rate? If the latter, it's pretty cheap, unless you have to start cracking heads.