iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Newsletter Advertising
Visit Twellow.com
Text: Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size | Print Print Article | Share: Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Post to Twitter Post to Facebook
3 commentsThursday, April 3, 2008

Web Info Leads To "Shocking" Crime

14 year old arrested for prank

3 Comments

Camera

If we can't laugh about this prank, then the terrorists are winning!

Errors in this story

PLEASE watch the video at wtnh.com.  This news station local to this incident shows that much of the "facts", as written above, are incorrect.

The video, as is on WTNH.com, shows the camera / "weapon" at the police station (shown on counter top).  The Sergeant at the Clinton Station goes on to say this is a modified camera.  One look at the camera and what you see is an open and UNMODIFIED CAMERA.  No add ons, no nails or paper clips, no soldering added to the circuit board, no tape, no stripped wires, no added capacitors or power . . . NOTHING changed.  When a story like this gets sent literally around the world and you do not go back to the source to check on the "facts", you make mistakes. 

In this video, the boys dad shocks himself just as the children actually did voluntarily at the school.  He is just touching the circuit board.  There you see the lack of information that the police have regarding this incident.  This is alarming given the police invited the media into the station to view the weapon, put it on the air, after booking a 14 year old on a Class D felony.   One would think that the police might research what the modifications of a disposable camera would be to make a stun weapon.  One look at the camera and you see none of these. 

Please Fix this on your site.  Consider if you were this kid.  In your town, everyone "knows" or thinks they "know" because so many web sites picked up the story from AP, MSNBC, FOX and the like. 

Maybe the right lead on this article should be "Police mistake consumer electronics for weapon!"    Here is the page WTNH.com/global/story.asp?s=8108621.  Click at top of story for the video.

ok

The information about the case came from the AP article which is linked. The student's name and gender were not in that article, just the town. For our purposes, the focus was not on the arrest so much, or the greater issue of appropriate punishment or details of the case, but on the liability of websites for posting potential harmful information. Otherwise, it wouldn't be relevant to our site. If you dispute the facts, contact the AP. I'll be glad to watch the vid and update this article where appropriate, though. Personally, I thought arrest was a little harsh and thought maybe they were just making an example of the kid in dangerous times. I didn't think they'd actually prosecute. If it's true what you're saying, then they don't have much of a case do they?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Add new comment

SEARCH
Popular WPN Business Resources












Subscribe to WebProNews


Send me relevant info