Teen Allegedly Broke Into a Couple's Home To Ask For Their WiFi Password, Police Say (washingtonpost.com) 316
A 17-year-old has been accused of breaking into a couple's home in Northern California and asking for their WiFi password, hours after he had asked nearby neighbors for theirs, authorities said. From a report: Police in Palo Alto said the teen, whose name has not been released, went to a home in Silicon Valley late Saturday and asked to use the residents' WiFi network "because he was out of data," before stealing their bicycle. Then just after midnight Sunday, police said, he broke into a nearby home, woke up a sleeping couple and asked them for their password. The male resident "pushed him down the hallway and out the front door of the house before calling police," police said in a statement. Palo Alto Police Sgt. Dan Pojanamat told The Washington Post on Friday that it's unclear whether the juvenile suspect was really seeking WiFi access or whether it was simply an excuse, saying that "the real issue is the fact that he entered a house that was occupied."
Amateur (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amateur (Score:4, Interesting)
So I wasn't the only one wondering. If you already break into a home, why not search for the fucking router. 9 out of 10 times you break into a home where the router is from the ISP and the WiFi Password is noted right on it. And that odd time when you actually manage to break into a geek's home, well, try it next door.
Re: Amateur (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)re expecting rational thinking in the middle of a highly irrational plan. Thatâ(TM)s not a very likely combination.
Re: (Score:2)
So I wasn't the only one wondering. If you already break into a home, why not search for the fucking router. 9 out of 10 times you break into a home where the router is from the ISP and the WiFi Password is noted right on it. And that odd time when you actually manage to break into a geek's home, well, try it next door.
Why would you bother with a router when you broke in the house to steal stuff? I suppose he could have stole the router.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i have an open guest wifi, its rate limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Amateur (Score:4, Funny)
nope, they were there before i got here, i just didn't want them to break into my house for the wifi password :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem? (Score:3)
The police said the real problem was breaking into an *occupied* house (emphasis mine). Isn't the real problem the fact that the individual broke into a house that wasn't his? The fact that the house was or was not occupied shouldn't be a mitigating circumstance.
His excuse "looking for a WiFi password" isn't a good reason to enter a home that didn't belong to him (trying to find a phone to call 911 for someone dying would be a good excuse in my opinion [if true]). Based on the other circumstances described in the article, I'm disinclined to believe that he was just looking for a WiFi password. Sounds more like a very troubled youth getting kicks acting out. Hopefully the police/justice system will give him the consequences he needs.
All of the discussion about whether or not he could have/should have been shot is moot. He wasn't (fortunately). But the event is certainly a signal that action is required to head off a future problem.
Re:The real problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking into an unoccupied building is burglary, breaking into an occupied building is home invasion. The latter is a much more severely punished crime than the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, home invasion is generally a form of aggravated burglary instead of an entirely separate offense, but they're not the same crime.
Again, to take Pennsylvania as an example (18 PA Cons Stat 3502), burglarizing an unoccupied building is a felony of the second degree (maximum sentence 10 years), burglarizing an occupied building is a felony of the first degree (maximum sentence 20 years).
No, Dan (Score:5, Interesting)
The real issue is the fact that he entered a house that was occupied.
-Sgt. Dan Pojanamat
No, Dan. The issue is the fact that he broke into a house that wasn't his. The fact the it was occupied means you can't just ignore it this time.
Fix your fucking city.
He didn't care about the WiFi (Score:5, Insightful)
He had a canned excuse ready just in case he ran into a resident while trying to burglarize the home.
From TFA:
Police said surveillance video showed that he had moved the bicycle from their backyard to their front yard before asking for their password. When the residents told him to leave, police said, he rode away on it.
Did he need to move the bike to the front yard before asking for a password? The cops likely know this, and it's only newsworthy because his prepared lie was so ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
He had a canned excuse ready just in case he ran into a resident while trying to burglarize the home.
From TFA:
Police said surveillance video showed that he had moved the bicycle from their backyard to their front yard before asking for their password. When the residents told him to leave, police said, he rode away on it.
Did he need to move the bike to the front yard before asking for a password? The cops likely know this, and it's only newsworthy because his prepared lie was so ridiculous.
Seems /. editors like msmash are in the very small percentage of humans that would actually fall for this excuse. The fact that he/she changed the headline to something totally false is telling.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for highlighting that point. I hadn't noticed that:
Police said surveillance video showed that he had moved the bicycle from their backyard to their front yard before asking for their password.
That adds a lot of premeditation to the event, and strongly narrows all the plausible potential ameliorating circumstances (like mental incompetence).
Fun Fact from TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Fun fact: The city of Palo Alto offers free WiFi [cityofpaloalto.org] to residents and visitors.
Sounds like mental illness (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not after getting a magazine emptied into them they won't
Re: (Score:2)
oh (Score:2)
"the real issue is the fact that he entered a house that was occupied."
Had it been unoccupied, of course, that would be totally fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Had it been unoccupied, of course, that would be totally fine.
Well then he could have found the wireless router, looked at the presumably default password in the bottom, got online and carried on.
Re: (Score:2)
Had it been unoccupied, of course, that would be totally fine.
Well then he could have found the wireless router, looked at the presumably default password in the bottom, got online and carried on.
If that was indeed his objective, which nobody can know until it is too late. (Not that that would make home invasion ok, even if it was.)
Since in reality he had moved their bicycle (which he later stole) from the back yard to the front, before he even "asked" for the wifi password, it sounds like that was a just a bizarre excuse that he had ready.
Re: (Score:2)
IN TX you can shoot.
Maybe even have an SSID with Have_gun_will_USE
Re: (Score:2)
"Armed_And_Parkinsonsy"
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying that it would have been a better outcome if this teenager had been killed for this non-violent offense?
Oh, and by the way, someone should tell Californians that they "can't really own a gun anymore", because we are the state with the second-most gun owners in the entire country.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> So you're saying that it would have been a better outcome if this teenager had been killed for this non-violent offense?
Entering my bedroom (or hell, my house) without consent is a violent offense. At least it would end violently...
So yes, he should have been killed. DAMN LUCKY to be alive IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Castle Doctrine [wikipedia.org]. It's kind of like getting modded down. Permanently.
It is funny how "shooting people hysterically" becomes logical when you give it a fancy name.
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying that it would have been a better outcome if this teenager had been killed for this non-violent offense?
What is it with Slashdot and these science deniers who do not believe in evolution?
Yes, stupid enough actions should get you killed. That's how evolution, and the world, works.
P.S. How do you know it was a non-violent offense? Usually people inside of other people's homes late are night are not non-violent. You just don't know when the violence will start; this person happened to be shot before he could turn violent. Standing over someones bed as they sleep is already an inherently threatening action to start with.
Um... no it's not (Score:4, Interesting)
The stupid ones aren't the occasional dumb kid who does something for who knows what reason, but the folks who's response to any wrong doing is to call for blood. That kind of crap is what got the US in 8 pointless wars and counting post 9/11 (seriously, look it up).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, stupid enough actions should get you killed. That's how evolution, and the world, works.
Yet you're still alive after that comment. Clearly the world doesn't work how you think it works...
Re: (Score:2)
Selecting a president was not an action of the people (who voted for Clinton) but still a national effort. And the nation has been having a long series of very bad days since.
Three guesses how much of the farm bailout will go to farmers...
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and by the way, someone should tell Californians that they "can't really own a gun anymore", because we are the state with the second-most gun owners in the entire country.
Well, in all fairness you're one out of fifty states but contain over 12% of the country's population. With that chunk of the population size even with a lower RATE of firearms ownership you still can end up with a pretty high total number.
As to the situation - in hindsight, it's better that the teen is not dead. As dumb as his trespass was he didn't deserve to die for it. That being said, I certainly wouldn't have faulted the home owners if he HAD been shot. If you enter a residence the people there have no idea why you're there (and I'm pretty sure "asking for a WIFI password" is pretty far down on their list of guesses). They can respond as needed to protect themselves.
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's pretty nice here. Lots of people want to come. It's why there are more songs about people who really want to go to California than any other state. People dreaming about California, people wanting to go "way out west" to find their fortune, people who just want to come for the girls.
But still, you can't say that in a state with almost 400,000 gun owners that you can't really own a gun any more. As one of those gun owners, I can tell you that my rights here don't differ significantly than they did when I lived in Texas. The big difference is that here it's socially frowned-upon to take my gun into the street and act like an asshole with it. But since that has never been my intent, nor is it my intent to go unload my weapon into some wild animal minding it's own business, I feel pretty free to do as I please with my gun.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you that my rights here don't differ significantly than they did when I lived in Texas
This is not remotely true. Perhaps the portion of your rights that you choose to exercise don't differ significantly, but the scope of the rights that you have differ tremendously. From the types of guns you can own, to the process of obtaining them, to where you can have them, to the conditions under which you're allowed to use them, there are tremendous differences between California and Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just not true. The differences are very minor. I'm acquainted with a range right here in my super-liberal, left-leaning town and people come in there with all the same kinds of shooting irons that I saw in Texas. Maybe you won't find drive-thru 24-hour Liquor & Guns stores here
Re: (Score:2)
Texas doesn't only have open carry, but they also have no magazine limits and you can feasibly get a concealed carry permit without being Diane Feinstein. There have been occasions where I wanted to carry concealed, but couldn't legally do so. I was going into sketchy places where I knew lots of other people had guns, and I was carrying cash. And no, the cash was not for the purpose of commission of a crime.
The purpose of the second amendment was to keep military arms in the hands of the people, and to perm
Re: (Score:2)
This got me curious. So I looked online for the gun ownership rate per state (what percentage of a state's households own a gun).
http://demographicdata.org/facts-and-figures/gun-ownership-statistics/
That was interesting, but then I was curious how that correlated with gun homicide rate. That proved to be a little harder since for some reason all the news sources include suicides in
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking into an occupied dwelling under cover of darkness generally IS considered a violent offense.
Re: (Score:2)
But not a capital offense.
Re: (Score:2)
But not a capital offense.
That concept only applies to punishment by the state after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. You should look up the meaning of "capital offense".
Asking for your WiFi password is not "threatening deadly force".
Re: (Score:2)
Because the story was not told by someone who broke into a house at night. The story was told by the couple who had their house broken into.
You could save all of us a lot of time if you would just scan the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
I like it when the Anonymous Cowards try to be internet tough guys.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about colloquially, but breaking to an occupied house has historically been considered a crime of violence, since it inherently carries with it the very real potential for a confrontation between the criminal and the occupants. Contrast with breaking into an unoccupied home, which is just a property crime.
Also, no one believes it would be better if the guy was shot. Any time a gun is used in anger is already very not good, the idea is to do so only when you are absolutely convinced that it's th
Re: (Score:2)
>"Also, no one believes it would be better if the guy was shot."
Of course, in hindsight.
>" Any time a gun is used in anger is already very not good,"
Had he been shot, it most likely would not have been in "anger", it would have been in terror and self defense... and depending on the conditions and such, 100% justified. The teenager was extremely lucky.
>"the idea is to do so only when you are absolutely convinced that it's the best of a bunch of not-good options."
Agreed, but at the same time, when
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that it would have been a better outcome if this teenager had been killed for this non-violent offense?
A home invader?
Can't say I'd shed too many tears over it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say something here: It appears that more guns have not made people feel safer. Despite declining crime, it seems like gun owners are among the most frightened people on the planet. They're preparing to defend themselves from invasion and attack and dangers that just don't exist.
Remember, only a small fraction of Americans own guns. Those who don't seem to make it through the day without wetting themselves over MS-13 breaking down their d
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, only a small fraction of Americans own guns.
About 40%.
Re: (Score:2)
That "40%" was one poll that asked if they lived in a family that owned guns. Not even a household, but a family.
The actual number of Americans that own guns is more likely under 10%.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
....to get shot.
Oh, right...this is CA, where you can't really own a gun much anymore.
You say that as though it would be better if this kid (who is admittedly an idiot) had died. Not every crime is worthy of the death penalty. This kid deserves consequences for his actions, but it would've been an injustice if he got his head blown off for this.
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the psychological trauma on the guy that shot him; killing another person, especially when you find out later that he was unarmed and no actual threat, is NOT something you just shrug off because the law says it was okay to do so.
You haven't met very many of us Americans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
have you?
I have. Including several who have killed people in perfectly justified situations. And it really messed them up, even though shooting was the best option they had. Most eventually worked through it. Others... didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
When there is a breaking/home invasion, especially in the middle of the night, I'm going to assume the worst and shoot.....I'm not going to rationally turn on the lights and try to have a discussion with a criminal who has just broken into my home to
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to rationally turn on the lights and try to have a discussion with a criminal who has just broken into my home to ascertain what their intentions are.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. In addition to the fact that this is morally indefensible behavior (they entered my home without permission, therefore murder them!?), this kind of impulsive response has often led to someone mistakenly shooting a friend, family member, or police officer. You should ALWAYS be certain of your target before firing, or even bringing a weapon to bear.
Citations:
https://www.thetrace.org/2018/... [thetrace.org]
http://www.orlandosentinel.com... [orlandosentinel.com]
https://www.vibe.com/2017/04/d... [vibe.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"they were looming over my and my wife's sleeping bodies in the dark without our knowing they were there"
Wonder why you didn't frame it that way?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they may well have had a gun in the house for all we know, but the cops certainly had guns, and they didn't shoot the kid -- so while he's a minor therefore they're not releasing his name or other details, we do know one thing for sure: he wasn't black, otherwise he'd be dead now.
Interesting. We know that, do we?
So the black incarceration rate is so high because all black suspects have been shot by police? I didn't know we incarcerated corpses.
Re: (Score:2)
This kid deserves consequences for his actions, but it would've been an injustice if he got his head blown off for this.
It would be unfortunate, but not at all an injustice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're obviously not familiar with castle doctrine. In a castle doctrine state (which surprisingly, California is), the mere presence of an intruder in your residence is considered a threat to your life, and you can immediately respond with deadly force. It doesn't matter if they're unarmed or not.
This comes with a couple limitations:
1. You generally cannot "bait" someone into the property and then shoot them. IE, you can't leave your front door open with a stack if cash sitting in the living room while you wait in the corner with a gun.
2. Though they are immediately considered a threat, if they obviously become a threat no longer, then you cannot then use deadly force. IE, you can't tie someone up and then shoot them, or as in one case that I'm aware of, a home owner shot a teen intruder in his home, she was still alive and he walked up and shot her point blank in the head to "finish her off". The initial shot would have likely been fine - the "finishing" shot got him convicted.
Other than that though, if you're in a castle doctrine state, if you - as a genuine surprise - find any intruder in your home or dwelling you're clear to shoot immediately.
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:5, Funny)
Somehow, this reminds me of the joke about the hunter calling 911.
Operator: 911. What's your emergency?
Hunter: I think I just killed my hunting partner.
Operator: Okay, first I need you to check to make sure he's dead.
[Sound of a gunshot]
Hunter: Okay. Now what?
Re: (Score:2)
While it may be legal to shoot someone, that does not always mean it is the right thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like he deliberately woke them up, which could mean actually shaking one of them awake. At that point you already ARE in close proximity, in a room that usually only has the one entry and exit, and the only course of action left is to get HIM away from YOU rather than the other way around,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Gonna go out on a limb here and say the kid has a mental illness that needs treatment. How else do you explain someone being "out of data" and deciding to pester not one, but two houses late at night for their wifi password? And when shoved out of the house, just casually rides off with one of their bikes as well. Something doesn't add up, that is way too bizarre.
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like he deliberately woke them up, which could mean actually shaking one of them awake. At that point you already ARE in close proximity, in a room that usually only has the one entry and exit, and the only course of action left is to get HIM away from YOU rather than the other way around,
No, it just takes reading a report or two to see that they woke up with the kid in his room. The 'asking for wifi' thing was just the only excuse this kid could come up with at the time. Evidently, he's used it before. He was there to steal stuff. But because some idiots in the press seemed to believe his excuse, the write the article that way. Now seems many here believed it at well.
He was there to steal stuff and got caught. I am laughing at the number of idiots who can't see that.
Re: (Score:2)
You are jumping from a possibility to a certainty. Is certainty really that important to you?
Re: (Score:2)
You are jumping from a possibility to a certainty. Is certainty really that important to you?
Is 'obvious' not important to you?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your state, but most everyone I know of and have lived in, if someone has broken into your house, especially in the middle of the night, you can readily assume they mean to do you and your family bodil
Re:Sounds like a good way... (Score:4, Informative)
WRONG !!!!!
"Between 2003 and 2007--
*A household member was home in 28% of the 3.7 million average
annual burglaries that occurred between 2003 and 2007 (table
1). "
I'll save you the trouble of doing the math :
Between 2003 and 2007, there were 1,036,000 home invasions.
From :
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
===
Seriously, if you are too lazy to back up your absurdly inaccurate claims with 15 seconds doing research, then you need to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Re: Sounds like a good way... (Score:2)
If you heard noises and went to investigate gun in hand Iâ(TM)d agree. Wake up in the middle of the night to a stranger in your own bedroom? Unless you shot him square in the back fleeing I donâ(TM)t think any jury would convict for shooting first and asking questions later.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the jursidiction. In some states, forcible entry into an occupied dwelling alone is considered enough to create a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary for the occupants. In Pennsylvania for example:
Re: (Score:2)
That's the more critical part. A linebacker sized teen could be quite threatening to a petite or young woman. A scrawny 13-something likely not threatening to a average sized adult male.
Re: (Score:3)
In Maine, this would meet the criteria for the justification of use of deadly force.
In most of California that's how it would have gone down too. Just not a lot of gun owners in the coastal affluent parts. It's important to remember that California is not a homogeneous region, but a very large state with very different parts.
If a young man entered a home in the Central Valley or Sierra Nevadas, it's like 3-to-1 odds the homeowner would point a gun at him.
Re:You have that backwards asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't murder, though it was the result of stupid actions on both sides.
1. Party A should not have parked in the handicapped spot.
2. Party B should not have said anything about it.
3. Party A should not have escalated the situation to violence by coming out and shoving the man to the ground and then continuing towards him.
Although both parties made mistakes, the reality is that when the guy came out of the store and shoved him to the ground that was a physical attack. Whether he poked his nose where it didn't belong or not, he's not legally obligated to be beat (potentially to death) over it.
Basically everyone try to play nice, but above all keep your hands to yourself. If you take a confrontation from verbal to physical it can have consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Drejka most certainly should have said something. However, he should have said his piece and then moved on.
McGlockton was probably in the right to shove Drejka away since by that time he was shouting and looking like he might become violent. If Drejka actually feared things were going to go beyond a well earned shove, brandishing a weapon might have been justifiable, but simply pulling it out and shooting was going too far.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's what it means to have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's what it means to have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
Is it 1840 where you live?
Re: You have that backwards asshole (Score:2)
No, these laws still apply in the US because police coverage is low or non-existent, citizens need to defend themselves. When cops take 30-45m to drive somewhere (or in the case of inner cities 3h-never). It's also legal in the US to arrest someone even if you're not a police until police show up.
Also because of the British that used to come in houses to steal stuff and quarter a brigade of soldiers in the name of the Crown.
Re: (Score:2)
And you've never shoved someone before who was shouting in a family member's face?
Not once, though I can't recall anyone ever shouting in a family members face. I'm a calm, collected person, and I tend to associate with other calm people.
To me it's akin to driving a motorcycle at 90 mph down the highway. Of course someone who does that doesn't DESERVE to die - but if they do it's just a matter of "Well, sometimes that happens. Don't do reckless things like that.".
Re: (Score:2)
If its only a shove then yes, it shouldn't be grounds to shoot him.
But if the guy attacked him, a state with "Stand Your Ground" laws basically permits the use of firearms where there is a chance the physical attacker could grab his gun, or possibly (but not likely to) render him unconscious.
Re: You have that backwards asshole (Score:2)
If you have to defend yourself against hard physical measures, lethal force is the best defense, when it comes to survival you always want to be one step higher than your opponent.
Re: (Score:2)
and there is no longer any organized militia to stand against tyranny
Actually, it has happened as recently as the 1946 [wikipedia.org], and I may not even be citing the correct instance I'm trying to recollect.
Fuck all political gun owners, every last Godless one of them, fuck them, every idiotic one.
Fuck you for being a liberal chump. I'm totally against "Stand Your Ground" type laws (Castle Doctrine is much more reasonable), but am in total support of the 2A. The founding father's "intent" was to ensure that any group that tried to infringe on a citizen's rights (to life) would have to be willing to die for it. It was just as much about subverting federal or local gov't oppres
Re: You have that backwards asshole (Score:2)
Vietnam and Afghanistan especially were LOST by the US and not because some protests at home. The US military lost in a bunch of other places (eg Cuba) and history has proven that a larger, more powerful army can often be defeated by draining its resources (eg Russia-Japan and Russia-Germany to name a few).
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly he was not able to do so, possibly because he was a fucking moron who broke into someones house to ask for their wifi password. If this is not a clear case of internet addiction then I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is at least decent physiological evidence for that.
Re: Sounds like a good way... (Score:2, Interesting)
New rule: no drinking, driving, sex, or voting until 25.
Nobody will pay attention to the first three, but the last one will ensure democrats never get elected again so it sounds like a good idea to me ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not clear he was planning on stealing anything, unless you call using someone's wifi after they've given you the password stealing. The bicycle happened afterwards.
I'll admit that the preponderance of the evidence is against him, but things aren't really all that clear. He may just have been acting really stupidly. (E.g., stealing the bicycle may have been petty vengeance more than theft, or maybe he wanted the wifi to call a ride.)
The evidence, such as it is, is against any innocent interpretation,
Re: (Score:2)
On later reading, it seems as if he *was* planning on stealing the bicycle. As for "people just illegally break into somebodyÃ(TM)s house to not steal stuff or murder the occupants all the time", that's literally true. E.g. my father had Alzheimer's, and would often walk into someone else's house in the middle of the night and claim it was his house. The police got quite used to taking him back home. I have no idea why the DMV didn't revoke his drivers license, not that it would have mattered.
So it
Re: (Score:3)
Not at all, very obviously.