I read that locker story before, and I still think the principal was in the scheme and covering up for Dave and his mom. NO WAY IN HELL he could have failed to see what was happening; it has to have been intentional. The fact that the school was making a profit by charging the students for the lock changes makes me believe that even more. Also, Fluff, Dave's mom was totally in the scheme. The stolen items were found at their house, so there's no way she didn't know her son was the school thief, and this makes her an accomplice. And if Dave was a minor at the time the story took place, then the mother can be held accountable for his crimes.
Unfortunately, it's entirely possible that the principal did not "know" what was happening and either was just simply incompetent or had a "not my problem" attitude.
@@heathmcconnell3901 I'd agree, but the obstructionism about showing the security footage to the law enforcement officers WHO HAD A WARRANT makes me absolutely believe that he KNEW what was going on and was trying to hide the evidence.
@@heathmcconnell3901 Why obstruct investigations, then? If anything, he should've been the first person to want the stealing to stop, as it's his responsibility.
Okay, as for the last story, shouldn't the brat have been removed the moment he started picking on other campers? Why did it take OP's direct intervention if it got so bad that the girl wanted to go home? The other counselor who'd been dealing with it needs to be fired for allowing that to go on.
When I was 7 I went to a summer camp where my mom was a counselor but for a different group. I got a stomach bug and my counselor refused to let me see my mom. I was sick the whole night and at breakfast when we all gathered I rushed to my mom, told her everything, and refused to leave her side. Luckily there was just one day left and she insisted on me sleeping in her cabin that night but I don't know if my counselor got in trouble. Neither of us ever went back to that camp. These people don't really care about camper safety, just getting money from parents.
@Brian Hall I’m with you, though I don’t agree that OP did the right things regarding the brat. That being said, OP was a child, too, and shouldn’t have felt the need to take matters into their own hands. The adults involved didn’t keep the children in their care safe and didn’t assist the brat by guiding them via caring discipline to understand what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. If the brat had special emotional needs, they needed 1:1 guidance rather than being left out to be victimized in retaliation. Too often, camp is used as a place to toughen up kids through exposure to unacceptable behaviors.
WHAT PART ABOUT I CHILD THRETNING TO MURDER EVERYONE DONT YOU UNDERSTAND?! A BAD SUNBURN IS HIS PUNISHMENT NOW, I DONT WANT TO SEE WHAT HES GONNA BE LIKE WHEN HES OLDER?!?!
@Brian Hall, Absolutely. I use to work to work at a kids church camp out of high school, and that shit would have NOT flown there. Parents would be called and kid ejected.
Story 2: Given that the School charged the students money for every time the lockers were broken into and fought a search warrant in court to keep the camera footage from getting out makes me think that they did this on purpose
Mom received stolen property, she and principal knew what was going on and covered it up. Trial had school camera video of kid breaking into lockers, thus staff, ie principal and vice principal had evidence of kids deeds and did nothing! Fighting warrent, more proof school staff knew of situation. Should have charged at least principal as an accessory. Sentences where justified and reasonable. Mother and principal should have had all credentials revoked, but was never mentioned. Both mother and son now are convinced felons, have fun getting decent jobs. District and superintendent should have been sued for not responding to thefts. Class action suit was epic though
I've worked in schools the past 15 years and have literally changed hundreds of locker combinations. It does not cost $150 nor does it even take a locksmith. Combination changes are done yearly by school staff.
It feels like the students and parents got screwed over again as they didn't get a full refund having to pay lawyers fees. The district should paid full costs plus lawyers cost.
In the second story, the principal should have been charged as well for aiding and abetting and/or obstruction of justice, and shoul. The only reason to fight providing the security footage that hard is if he knew someone connected to the school was the thief and was trying to cover it up, and as soon as they mentioned his reaction to the footage being requested, I knew he was in on it. The fact that the security footage proved that Dave committed the crime only confirms this. IMO, the principal deserved the most punishment out of anyone involved---a teenager going on a theft spree is not as evil as someone who is entrusted with authority over hundreds of children deliberately betraying them (there is no greater treason than treason by authorities against those they are sworn to protect) by actively helping criminals victimize children. Complete and utter scum.
a true story: in 2013 a california high schooler hid in their locker to find out who was stealing cash from student backpacks... and films the gym teacher committing the crimes. she actually hid twice, the first time she didnt have a cell phone to record with and no one believed her so she hid second time with a cell phone. when it was taken to the principal it was promised to be investigated and told her to delete the footage. I do not know if the principal was charged with anything but they should have for attempting to tamper with evidence. the gym teacher was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. thats all I could find on it at this time
Last story, threats of bodily harm requires police intervention regardless if it is a vague threat, kid says he will gut everyone at the camp should be seen as a valid threat and not be taken lightly especially if the kid has a history of behavior issues
Ex Home Depot employee here! That's definitely the orange store, I recognize every department. Also I've never met an employee that cared about their job at Home Depot. I witnessed so many crazies in my 6 months there!
I don't like that the camp staff didn't do anything to curb the kids aggression. It shouldn't have taken a staff member who had a personal stake to bring the kid in line.
In the last story it's not so much torturing as creative punishment. OP even OFFERED to give the boy sunscreen. If it was torture that wouldn't have been offered. The brat deserved the punishments and humiliation for what he did.
I think allowing the kid to get a severe sunburn was unwise. There can be serious health consequences from overexposure to the sun, like heat stroke or dehydration which can necessitate a trip to the ER. A tuna sandwich on the other hand is a common lunch option, if a bit odorous and unappetizing when it's warm.
😲 that bully entitled kid really deserved some punishment and serious therapy!!!!!!! One can only imagine how entitled one or both his parents were!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Story 3: I think what OP did for his sister was perfect. I'm the youngest of three girls and growing up, I was quite small for my age. I could handle myself in arguments but got picked on physically by a couple of older (and much bigger) boys. Well, my sisters weren't having any of that. They each confronted the boys, gave them a taste of their own bullying, and I was very grateful knowing they had my back.
Story 1: Well the ASM had her 15 minutes of fame and time on the throne. She had no doubt believed every defamation of character and right to threaten the employees was in "the best interest" of the company. Now she won't even have a job to pay the compensation she'll be forced to pay. This isn't high school after all.
The locker theft story: The mother got 18 years because she was a public official, or governmental worker, whose son stole from children in her charge. She would have been under law pertaining to "In loco parentis" (In the place of a parent) which means everyone working at a school has to take some form or responsibility to the safety of the children they look after/teach. Most people think of only teachers being under these laws, but technically everyone who works at a school would be as well in some way.
My guess on why the case went quickly was because it was only big case in their jurisdiction, with potential to boil over as the school didn't do anything regarding the thefts.
Story 2: That was a brilliant trap. All it took was an expensive laptop with a tracker and two people were thrown in jail, another person was fired, and the school lost a load of money. It could be fake, but regardless of how genuine it is, it's pretty sweet
Story 1: The ASM deserved to be fired, i'm also wondering if OP should sue her for defamation of character as she spread a false rumor about OP fathering a child out of marriage (maybe about OP getting "Fired" too but I think they handled that already)
Technically could but definitely shouldn't. People who aren't in the public eye rarely sue for defamation at all but especially not for something so small. The claim would sound absurd and petty in court seeing as having a baby out of wedlock is commonly thought of as being perfectly fine. If OP was a revrand or something maybe it would be a more plausible defamation claim. The intent of being insulting is certainly there but that isn't enough. It's also a pretty easy to disprove rumor, unlike an allegation of physical abuse or something. It would be a big waste of time and money and would probably not change the opinion of anybody who believed the rumor to begin with. When people believe a rumor about somebody without looking for proof it's often cause they already don't think highly of that person and want (sometimes subconsciously) to believe anything else that, in their eyes, validates that opinion.
Defamation is incredibly hard to prove in court. unless you have a set of evidence thats absolutely bulletproof, every lawyer worth his money will advise you against pursuing a defamation claim in court. Even a the shittiest public defender can successfully defend a defamation claim.
@@baraka629 ok then, but at least OP nuked ASM for her comment, (Also the reason why I suggested a defamation lawsuit is because of text OP Got from ASM and I’m pretty sure that the employees would say that they all heard the rumor from ASM, but maybe that wouldn’t be enough if these suits are as difficult as you say)
@@someguy7629 Slander is when the comment is made verbally, Defamation is when it goes above and beyond to damage their income, and Libel is when the comment is made in print.
Whoever was charging $150 to change the combination on the school locks should be charged with fraud. Those locks are easy to change without tools in just a few seconds.
Story 3: Hey, that's what happens when you torment someone at camp. You are basically denied the fun that everyone has. I hope therapy works, because he sounded like someone that could become a psychopathic murderer
If this was in America, then unless you're a bank or politician, stealing high valuables will get you in big time trouble. If it was just the 35 MD, it would've been brushed off pretty easy. It's the felonies that make it a problem.
I don’t know, maybe the string of thefts but considering the kids is a minor it might be more difficult to find proof especially depending how long ago it was. While it was the early 2000s most schools, and court documents were done on paper and might not be uploaded onto a service to look at that kind of thing. Between both of those facts anyone searching the internet might not find something and might need to find a physical copy. Since we don’t know where this took place that’s unlikely to happen.
@@JamiePotter18 exactly so. Bizarrely, not everything is made public on the internet, even though folk think so today. We can't judge by today's standards for pretty much anything, really. Considering how quickly available information on the net can be blocked, deleted, changed or withdrawn.
Not to harsh in a quiet well to do area. In addition it's mandatory minimums. The mother was probably charged due to her working at the office and probably having access to the combinations. The OP doesn't say it - that's just my inference.
The stolen items were found in their house, which means that, at the very least, the mom knew about the stealing and did nothing about it, thus making her an accomplice. If Dave was a minor at the time of the crimes, then she can be held accountable for them, which is probably what happened here.
the kid was 11. she starved him, among other way too cruel things. he was a nasty kid, but that's no way a supervisor should deal with kids. she shouldn't be working with children
Story 1: I love to hear about entitled asshole bosses getting destroyed by vengeful employees. Story 2: So far this and the first story are repeats. I love how the school and those in charge got in trouble, and the little punk and his karen mom get slammed for their crimes. Story 3: That's better and more creative revenge than what I would have done.
@@DerekScottBland it's better than what I would have done, I would have "accidently" pushed the little crotch turd off a cliff and make sure that was it. But OP was much kinder than I
@@DerekScottBland The kid was offered sunblock, but refused. And OP was still a kid themselves, so they couldn't really do anything. The adult in the brat's group should have been fired for not dealing with his behaviour that could have been very dangerous if it carried on
@@baileyblackwellandsophietu7001 - OP stated they knew exactly what they were doing. Don't care how wrong the kid was or what else should have been done, this was intentional torture and was wrong.
Camp story: if a kid like that had tried doing those kinds of things to my little sister when she was that age, I wouldn't have had to lift a finger. My sister was unusually strong for her age (when she was 8 and I was 10, she could lift and carry me effortlessly, despite my being 2 years older and quite a bit bigger than she was) and she was of the "all's fair in war" mentality. The brat kid would have learned a VERY painful and humiliating lesson the first time he tried to pick on her.
The next person who calls the last story cruel: Seriously? Treating bullies with gentle kindness only works in movies. Whatever put that kid on that path will take strong actions to cure. Priming a life of entitlement with a sunburn and a tuna sandwich ain't jack.
2nd story: the principal had to be in on it. also the mom to have been. its likely she only had access to the combination on a school computer at the school. she likely printed the info and brought it home
Locker Theft Story: The Principal should have also been Criminally Charged with Obstruction of Justice, Interfering with an Investigation and possibly Accessory to the Thefts... In Canada and the USA, School Lockers are the Property of the SCHOOL and as such, not only can the School Search them at any time they want with or without a reason, they can also grant Permission to Search them to Police as well and the Students have no say in the matter. Also, students have no expectation of Privacy, nor is their any such thing as Student Privacy as the Principal claimed...and even if there was, a Search Warrant trumps that. Once the Detective handed the Warrant for the Video to the Principal, he MUST hand over the Security Video... So failing to hand over the video and fighting the Warrant is the Obstruction and Interfering and his failure to investigate what is a very clear Crime Wave in his school makes him the Accessory to the Thefts...
They probably didnt have sufficient evidence to charge. If the mother and son didn't give him up, they really have nothing to go on. You can refuse a search without a warrant.
@@kims.5357 Except the Detective DID have a Warrant for the Security Video when he first went to the Principal and the Principal refused to hand over the video citing Student Privacy (which doesn't exist)...
@@HappilyHomicidalHooligan it said he fought the warrent in court. It's not illegal. They have no way to prove he knew who was committing the crimes, all they can do is fire him for negligence for not investigating the crimes.
I worked for a newspaper chain many years ago in Scotland as a relief manager, and part of my duties was to go to troublesome shops to try and fix issues. I never developed the 'do this, do that' attitude to 'fix' issues. Instead I would watch what was going on for a few days, then ask staff to make suggestions as to how issues could be resolved. The staff know the shop, the people and the problems that occurr, and 99% of the time, their suggestions are sensible. I never really have understood the axe swinging approach to management.
Have a friend who was a manager at Home Depot. She had a problem with a higher up and they pulled shit on her and ended up firing her even though her store was one of the best.
for story two : The reason Dave's mom got time was because she was an accomplice. The fact that the school tried to block the police from getting the footage is evidence that they knew what was going on
Story 2 - You dont need a locksmith to change locker combos, the locks have special keys that are used to reset the combo, it is done every summer in our schools, and when someone leaves or changes lockers. The Custodial staff is responsible for that. 18 years for the mom is not logical, if all she did was have her credentials stolen. I feel this one is made up.
Story 2: The folks thar think its fake because of sentences are possibly wrong. Remember, this was a months long ongoing crime spree at a school. People are very emotional about crime around schools. And mom had to have actively assisted her kid and they had proof or they couldn't have charged her. The one thing is strange is the principal insisting on a warrant for the video. The school is a public entity so no warrant should have been necessary, that could have been the principal either covering up the problem or he may have been in on it and they had no proof. I do find it strange that locker combinations would be stored online.
I think any company would have a hard time upholding anything to do with somebody's personal life/relationships unless laws were being broken. Thats basically discrimination and down to a matter of personal opinion which wouldn't hold up in any secular country's court whatsoever. It wouldn't even make it into an employee handbook. So no, "immorality" wouldn't be a fireable offence.
@@airbubble. technically speaking yes it can. That being said it would never be called 'immorality'. Most private companies can demand certain morals/behaviors both on and off the clock in a contract (anything that wouldn't be a protected status under the law like sex, race, etc) . Now of course the more outlandish you get the more people are not gonna accept your bull.
@@marcuswanha9723 Not in my country, chick. What employees do OFF THE CLOCK is their own business, as long as its not illegal (provided that breaking a particular law would somehow reflect on your employment such as if you are a driver and you get caught DUI and get points or lose your license meaning you are unable to carry out your duties and they have no other alternative work to offer you), nor has any direct negative impact on the company they work for such as being "unprofessional" in your work van, and putting it on TH-cam or something, or slagging your boss/company off in a public arena/platform. And those objections need to be clearly outlined in the contract/employee handbook. Arguably you could get away with even that if you can prove that you were not acting maliciously, and that what you said isn't slanderous/libellous in any way. But that would be dodgy ground so best not to do it, unless what you are saying constitutes highlighting some infraction being committed by employers under whistle blowing criteria in workplace law. You could be paying prostitutes to serve drinks naked at your bachelor party if you wanted, provided you pay them at least minimum wage, and dont get touchy on them without consent. And if your country has the capacity to dismiss people on such grounds, then you need to be looking at your workplace laws. Not really such thing in secular law as immoral, because its a subjective concept. Theocratic nations obviously have different laws, defined by their religion, where "morality" is more deeply ingrained. But I did state above, SECULAR nations. In Europe, any company that tries to fire you for allegedly getting somebody pregnant or anything else like that as stated in the video above, would find themselves on the losing end of a tribunal and several thousand out of pocket. In the UK particularly, its a direct contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998, under articles 8 and 14 and also contravenes workplace law under grounds for fair dismissal AND could be classed as discrimination on the basis that one party is using their own notion of acceptable moral behaviour to determine whether somebody else has acted immorally, and should remain in employment. This falls under "beliefs" as no laws are being broken. And beliefs are protected under Article 9 of the same Act, as well as contravening the Equality Act. Thr HRA 1998 does allow for "health/moral risk" but only in CRIMINAL law, and that has to be defined on a case by case basis, using a universal standard without breeching the above. This is generally reserved for things like deliberately infecting somebody with some nasty ass disease or whatever, and CANNOT over-ride the other articles and their protections. Each European country has its own version of this as set out by the ECHR, and Article 1 is nullified (no longer necessary) as it states that each European country, under the ECHR MUST have a version of this Act. By passing the Act, they are satisfying the requirement of Article 1, so no longer need to state it within the Act. And I daresay the various constitutions/workplace laws of other secular nations have a similar level of protection.
@@airbubble. well the vast majority of jobs in the US are known as 'at will employment' meaning that you can be fired for pretty much any reason whatsoever. The only things they can't directly fire you for is protected status stuff. Race, creed, sex, disability, military status, that's all I can think of right now. The upside to it is you can also quit for whatever reason and do so immediately and don't have to wait. One of the problems is proving you were fired for a protected status because of the way at will employment works. You got to prove that you were unjustly fired and if you can you will either get your job back or get to sue the company. As for the contracts it's mostly the same. Some companies though include things like 'You must never bring bad press to the company' which will apply to off duty hours. Most companies that might have moral guidelines are more along the lines of professional morals, dress codes that don't allow for 'slutty clothing' (not that it would be phrased like that) no tattoos, no lying/cursing, normal things like that. That being said some religious morals are perfectly allowed in certain areas. Biggest two examples that come to mind that went to the Supreme Court is Hobby Lobby refusal to cover a small number of specific birth control under their health insurance. The other is that a baker doesn't have to special make a cake for a gay wedding, or any wedding that falls outside of their religious belief by that precident.
@@marcuswanha9723 If someone cites, or you believe, that you are being fired for being "immoral" and you have texts to prove they were basing that on their own belief that you have a child with someone outside of marriage, and that this is "morally wrong" then that's discrimination because in simple terms they are saying that you have been immoral by having that child, and that it somehow impacts on your job. Employers no longer have the right to fire you for having tattoos etc. especially if they hired you knowing you had them. They just have to write in your contract/handbook that tattoos must be covered up/piercings removed etc during work hours or not hire you in the first place. Bringing bad press as you mention, falls under what I stated above as "things that negatively impact the business". Having a child outside of wedlock is not one of those things. The only exception could be if you work for a religious body that holds that belief. That's where your laws are a bit dodgy (more on that below) The "moral guidelines" you mention (how you dress, swearing etc) are only accountable for working time. No employer can fire you because you wore a short skirt to the beach on your vacation and Karen didn't like it. Nor if you cuss out during an argument in the street. Exceptions to this particular instance and similar could be justified if you were wearing your workplace uniform and therefore identifiable at the time, as an employee in that business. This then reverts back to the "bad press" thing. In the UK we have a guide for that within law which is termed "man on the street" which gives that people are allowed to do what people in general do and other people generally accept. Therefore because the man on the street would expect to hear people swear, its acceptable. To overcome this, it would have to be specifically stated as not allowed within the company handbook or contracts and you would have to be shown to be "representing your place of work" at the time the deed occurred. Even "At will" has exceptions for discrimination and violation of your basic rights, which include freedom of speech, right to family life and so on. Anything that violates state or federal law. (Exception 1) And Exception 4 which is good faith and fair dealing, which actually gives cause to "No cause" ie they have to show that they have fired you for a fair reason, such as consistently being late or calling off sick when you aren't etc, or trying to save costs by reducing employee numbers and so on. As far as the religious thing you mentioned goes, from what I have seen, the Supreme court is still trying to find some sort of balance in such matters, as one case ruled against the business and one case ruled for the business, and they can't find a middle ground because BOTH sides of each case constitute discrimination by one party or another, which is why in each case they rolled it back to state level, and each state makes its own laws on such things. Which is why the gay wedding cake thing has already had at least THREE hearings. As far as the birth control issue you mentioned, it was upheld on the basis that four specific types of "birth control" could arguably be used as abortificants, which was the key issue. General birth control was not. It was also ruled that should an employer's health plan not allow for such, then health insurance should cover.
Story 1: So OP was on part time...got a 2nd job...then put on full time at his request...but still kept the 2nd job thus wouldn't do overtime (at time & a half) for the primary job. Don't get me wrong...I am full in support of OP & other staff against the ASM being a raging Karen...however OP also seems to be at fault for some of the events he mentioned. Story 2: The principal seemed way too UNDER concerned about the thefts and way too OVER concerned about the thieves...kind of wondering about him as well...especially the combos. It doesn't cost $150 to change a locker combination...you only need the master key...I'm thinking kickbacks from the locksmith to someone at the school...maybe to the principal.
Story 2: That principal needed to be punished the most. I hope he gets an early burial. Story 3: Literally would've hit that kid. No patience for that kind of child if they start pushing. I also would've made it look like an accident.
I would say the camp counselor story came right up to the line, but didn't actually cross it. If they'd cussed out the kid or put hands on them, then yeah the line would be crossed. But all they did was keep the kid from having fun. Them getting sun burn, if they really refused sun screen, is on them. The food part is a little bad just because withholding food from kids shouldn't be a punishment, but everything else was perfectly acceptable, in my opinion at least. I really hope that kid was put into therapy that helped him come to terms with whatever was causing him to behave this way.
for the last story, no, OP did not cross a line or go too far. they did what they had to because the other people in charge couldnt be bothered to really DO anything about it. i remember my summer camp had a mock jail, which was just a cabin with a wooden chair, table and cot with no mattress. if you did something bad, you would spend the rest of the day there, and your meals would be brought to you, and only at lights out, would you be brought back to your cabin and get to sleep in your bunk. any bad kid at the camp only needed one day in that place to never misbehave at camp again.
So they think this kid might be dangerous and they leave a 14 yo alone to deal with him over night? That seems like a hell of a lot of responsibility for a young teenager who is still really just a child themselves.
There may have been more to the charges for the mom in the locker story. A major issue I see is that she violated HIPAA. IF they could prove that she knew, which how could she not considering the items were at her house and many of the complaints probably came to her, and she personally gained from this violation then she definitely could be charged with criminal HIPAA violation which you can be sentenced for up to 10 years in prison.
Story 3: Yes OP should not have tortured the kid, but she was 14 with very little power, and ge was hurting her sister. If someone is hurting your sister and administration isn't willing to do much about it, and you are just a kid yourself, then you do what you have to do.
As someone who worked at home depot, I can confirm that story 1 definitely sounds exactly like how a home depot would function. It also smacks of some falsehood though, because you can't take 'family leave' for friends and a god child just because you live with them, so the OP isn't quite as innocent as he sounds in the whole thing, since that's technically against policy
I once worked at a grocery store as a nightshirt shelf stocker. I am a small woman, 4’11 , I had to use ladders but was still constantly snuck up on by my manager and spooked. Gosh know how many times he almost made me fall on those hard floors. There was also a time where he was making me move palates. Those are heavy. As I drug one along I accidentally dropped it and the corner struck my thigh. My skin is thick and it’s hard to bruise me. The inside of my thigh turned purple and almost black looking. He had seen it happen and even as he watched shocked tears rolling down my cheeks he told me to suck it up and keep working. I changed to day shift and got sent to almost every job in there. Including only 3 days of training in the floral department 3 days before Valentine’s Day. The leader of that area decided she didn’t like me and was just mean as heck. That grocery store closed about a decade ago.
I don’t think OP from the last story was in the wrong but judging by the bullying, the shrugging off punishments, the violent graphic comments while he was in the sun, and the fact that his parents said he had a “history of behavioral issues” I don’t think this kid is just another bullying jerk, this kid to me seems more like a kid being abused and lashing out. I hope the therapy works for him! I was bullied a lot growing up so I hate bullies and can have trouble sympathizing with them but ironically one exception is the kid that gave me the most beatings and had the most time with me and was the worst bully of my youth, (he would’ve been second worst to a bully that was also my next door neighbor but the neighbor moved away years before him giving him time to pull into first,) but hearing my mom’s stories about him I actually can’t help but feel bad for him. His father was never in the picture, his mother was neglectful, and he had two older brothers, the eldest one spent the bulk majority of my bullies life away in jail (where he would eventually get killed,) and the middle brother, (still a few years older then him,) bullied him to an extent that made the years of bullying he inflicted on me look like a prank that went slightly overboard in comparison! There was one time the middle son chased my bully down for an unknown reason, pushed him down, knocked him around a bit and slammed his head on the curb. So the mother had three sons and screwed each one of them up beyond belief before skipping town. Mom said the middle kid apparently died too but she didn’t know what happened. Out of morbid curiosity I looked up his name on fb and surprisingly found him, he has a profile pic next to a boy I’m guessing is his son and seems to be doing alright for himself. But the biggest gut punch of all is from back when we hadn’t lived there that long and we were at the bus stop, (Elementary School) and mom saw him crying with his finger stuck in a zipper and so she helped him get his finger unstuck, zipped his jacket up and reassured him he’d be fine and he hugged her and asked her to be his mommy! Really sad… and I think that might’ve been the reason he targeted me. He resented and envied me because I had two parents and an older sibling (sister in my case and she was a teenager that would chase him off if she caught him attacking me,) and he had… well, I already told you what he had. I can’t say I don’t hate him for all the insults, punches, kicks, and even the sticks and stones he threw at me, (literal sticks and stones,) over the course of over half a decade, but I do feel sorry for the short straw he ended up drawing to the point that I even feel happy he’s doing better now… but back to the original point I seem to have left a mile behind now, sometimes a bully is actually a victim suffering undetected and hidden under layers of “behavioral issues”.
$150 to change a locker combination! Are you kidding me ? I changed locker combinations at my old job for 18 years twice a year. It takes one master key and 5 minutes to change a locker combination. That locksmith was screwing this school district out of so much money.
The last story reminds me of protective brother. One weekend I took my stepbrothers to a local roller rink for something to do. When we got there the rink was I think and old house as the rink was one big circle so it was hard to skate on. Also my brothers I found out were not skaters so even more problems. So as we were trying to skate my youngest brother was being knocked down by this kid who was smaller than him but a better skater. I talked to him about what was going on and showed him that if he just stood up on the toe breaks he could move more normally and stop the boy and tell him to stop. After this happened the boy went and got his older brother to tag team my younger one again. So my younger stepbrother went and got his brother who warned the two to stop. So this brought in their third brother as I watched from the sidelines. Now my stepbrothers were not skaters and while I was not the best I had lean to skate at an old city roller rink with wood kick boards and metal bars for the top rails. They would also have all night skating for the boys that would turn into roller derby after hours. So I did learn to skate dirty. So as the three of them were planning to to attack my stepbrothers I strolled up and told the oldest that if they touched my brothers they were going down. and I made another lap as they started again. The middle one tried to trip my middle brother and I just jammed my wheels into his skate sending him falling forward as I grabbed the shirt of the youngest and picked him up and set him back down on the inside of the track with me in-between him and my brother. Now the oldest just realized that they could not do anything on the rink floor so just went with the bluster of wait till the rink closes and we will take care of this outside. Needless to say but after the session ended no one was there.
Story 2: the mom would have to go to prison for being found guilty of a crime punishable by a year +. Having 18 years of jail would be possible if found guilty of 18 + misdemeanors. There’s a chance though that she could serve them all concurrently which means should could potentially spend one year in jail and it would count as if she served out time for each sentence at the same time. Because of that, I believe there might be truth to this story. It could be the same for the son. Regardless of rather it’s true or not, this was a great story!
Story 2: It’s actually true about the types of charges that would be laid against them. That sort of time IS given out for what they did. And the Mom most likely got charged for “aiding and embedded” charges on top of the other charges hence the 18+ years.
2nd story: Definitely possible depending on the Judge &/or Jury doing Sentencing. The Boy at least got sympathetic Judge who sentenced to min. even though "Tried as Adult" => Adult Jail. Judge would have weighed many factors incl: Current Convictions + (Possible) 1st Time Offender Status + Attitude in Court. And more. Often I hear the question "How's can the Sentences be so different?" There are 3 Answers: 1. The Laws are written with VERY Specific words & the Proscutors must match those words to a Part of the Crime AND know they have a chance to Prove it "Beyond a Resonable Doubt" to all 12 Jurors in order to Charge the person with that Crime. 2. Also a factor is how helpful the Defendent has been in clearing up another case. (Different but in this case, POTENTIALLY the Mother MAY have insisted that she did something so her Son could not be charged with it.) And 3. During Sentencing, it's how the State & Local Laws are written and how many separate counts they (each) were convicted on. Also of note that there are the "Sentencing Guidelines" for EACH Conviction. It is written as a range in months but converted by most into yrs (e.g. note was made of "1yr being minimum sentence". So POSSIBLY for Larceny "12-24 mos Confinement in State Penal Facility to be Determined by Dept. of Corrections.") Sounds like Mother got more Charges & Convictions on those Charges, and MAYBE More TIME in the Charging Range (Jury anger? Stern Judge? ALWAYS a Factor!!*) than Son. POSSIBLE extra charges MIGHT BE: Multiple Counts of aiding & abetting, conspiracy, contributing to delinquency of minor, etc. Also Professional Charges arising from leaving passwords unsecured, Privacy of Students, & other charges I AM confused Re: Principal. Unless he agreed to be Fired vs Charging him. Otherwise, I can't....unless simple insufficiency of evidence/pure luck. Too bad a teen wrote this - I'd LOVE to Know THE REST of what happened!! There are MANY MORE Punishments than just what's on the Court Filings!! * For GOOD Legal Breakdowns on Sentencing, go to Emily D. Baker & NatalieLawyerChick on TH-cam re: Josh Duggar Case. Videos to watch: Emily is former Deputy District Attorney for LA (Handles Pop Culture with Dockets & Explanations) Law & Lumber - Defense Attorney in Virginia Natalie is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Maryland (Handles Everything from Court Videos - Strict Law but Humor) Legal Bytes - Alyte (Doc Specialist) & also hold Panels Check Out Behaviorists! (Yeah, & they shot him DOWN!) Behavior Panel Behavioral Arts
Someone I know husband works at Home Depot. From what she described from his account of his employment it 100 percent is Home Depot. To give you an idea of how bad it was he quit 3 TIMES. He got hired a fourth time. He does his job and ignores the mismanagement.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but "to a man" is a turn of phrase that means everyone. That department didn't quit and leave only a single person, the entire department left with not a single employee left there. Gotta be careful how you read stuff to get the right meaning across. But yeah, that story is pure gold. Employers: don't employ bad people in management positions. It never goes well.
Great video as usual, but for the record at 6:40, the phrase “to a man” means that everyone in appliances quit, not that everybody but one person quit.
Story 3, ever hear that 2 wrongs don't make a right? sunburn and spoiled tuna in the heat could have caused real harm to this little jerk, not teal mature or smart of a Counselor in training! I get he deserved it all but you Being a Bully isn't any better than him bulling your sister .if the staff wouldn't do anything to stop him them you need to do the mature thing and find someone who will, kid should have been sent home the moment he acted that way and the staff that didn't do their jobs should have been fired !! You were just as wrong as he and the staff who didn't do their jobs.
In the first story, it is possible that the kids mom was charged federally, or under state computer crimes laws. As she technically allowed him access to a system he should not have had access to. If that is the case, those penalties can be stupid harsh.
Last story. He did go overboard a bit punishing the kid. On the other hand, him pushing him so far showed how serious his behavioral issues were and got him therapy. So... good?
Story 3: The only one allowed to bully/tease my sibling is me, if anyone else tries I wound hunt them down. Mind you even I wouldn't go as far as that kid did.
I’m so glad the parents actually listened and took the kid to therapy- and that it’s weekly. Parents who do it to look good will usually just do it once or twice for appearances
The mother got the harsher sentence because she was the one who was the gate through which all of this was done. If she had not given her son her access codes it would have been no way he could have done what he did. Additionally, there's the fact that she had to have guessed what happened if she wasn't actually complicit in it.
I know an electrician that took a holiday position at Home Depot. He was fired for refusing to tell a man how to hook up power to his house at the pole. It’s illegal for just anybody to do that!
School locker story: I also doubt at least the class action portion of the story. Class actions are only for use when the group of plaintiffs is very large and it's impossible yo identify everyone who was injured, thus a small, identified group of plaintiffs represent the interests of the unknown, unnamed plaintiffs. In the school case, all persons who had their lockers broken into, had items stolen, and paid for locker repairs were identifiable through police efforts and investigation, and they had the ability to decide whether to participate in the lawsuit.
![เปิดใจ พี่ญา คนรุม หลังทัวร์ลง หนักสุดในชีวิต!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2-OJZRtclro/mqdefault.jpg)
I read that locker story before, and I still think the principal was in the scheme and covering up for Dave and his mom. NO WAY IN HELL he could have failed to see what was happening; it has to have been intentional. The fact that the school was making a profit by charging the students for the lock changes makes me believe that even more.
Also, Fluff, Dave's mom was totally in the scheme. The stolen items were found at their house, so there's no way she didn't know her son was the school thief, and this makes her an accomplice. And if Dave was a minor at the time the story took place, then the mother can be held accountable for his crimes.
Unfortunately, it's entirely possible that the principal did not "know" what was happening and either was just simply incompetent or had a "not my problem" attitude.
@@heathmcconnell3901 I'd agree, but the obstructionism about showing the security footage to the law enforcement officers WHO HAD A WARRANT makes me absolutely believe that he KNEW what was going on and was trying to hide the evidence.
Maybe Dave's mom and the Principal were VERY CLOSE FRIENDS-if you know what I mean
@@heathmcconnell3901 Why obstruct investigations, then? If anything, he should've been the first person to want the stealing to stop, as it's his responsibility.
Even if the mom wasn't in on it, the fact she potentially left private data of minors accessible to any one is a stupid serious offense.
Okay, as for the last story, shouldn't the brat have been removed the moment he started picking on other campers? Why did it take OP's direct intervention if it got so bad that the girl wanted to go home? The other counselor who'd been dealing with it needs to be fired for allowing that to go on.
When I was 7 I went to a summer camp where my mom was a counselor but for a different group. I got a stomach bug and my counselor refused to let me see my mom. I was sick the whole night and at breakfast when we all gathered I rushed to my mom, told her everything, and refused to leave her side. Luckily there was just one day left and she insisted on me sleeping in her cabin that night but I don't know if my counselor got in trouble. Neither of us ever went back to that camp. These people don't really care about camper safety, just getting money from parents.
@Brian Hall I’m with you, though I don’t agree that OP did the right things regarding the brat. That being said, OP was a child, too, and shouldn’t have felt the need to take matters into their own hands. The adults involved didn’t keep the children in their care safe and didn’t assist the brat by guiding them via caring discipline to understand what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. If the brat had special emotional needs, they needed 1:1 guidance rather than being left out to be victimized in retaliation. Too often, camp is used as a place to toughen up kids through exposure to unacceptable behaviors.
WHAT PART ABOUT I CHILD THRETNING TO MURDER EVERYONE DONT YOU UNDERSTAND?! A BAD SUNBURN IS HIS PUNISHMENT NOW, I DONT WANT TO SEE WHAT HES GONNA BE LIKE WHEN HES OLDER?!?!
A blanket party would have sorted him out,
@Brian Hall, Absolutely. I use to work to work at a kids church camp out of high school, and that shit would have NOT flown there. Parents would be called and kid ejected.
Story 2: Given that the School charged the students money for every time the lockers were broken into and fought a search warrant in court to keep the camera footage from getting out makes me think that they did this on purpose
probably
Principle was in on it!
@@haworthlowell805 definitely, Entitled kid steals stuff and principale makes Money, that’s why I Think they did this on purpose
As far as anyone can tell this story is made up, but it is something that could happen. It’s an actual security problem some schools still have.
I couldn't believe the $150 charge for a locksmith. Back in my day (mid-80's), the office or custodian reset the combo for like a $10 fee.
Mom received stolen property, she and principal knew what was going on and covered it up. Trial had school camera video of kid breaking into lockers, thus staff, ie principal and vice principal had evidence of kids deeds and did nothing! Fighting warrent, more proof school staff knew of situation. Should have charged at least principal as an accessory. Sentences where justified and reasonable. Mother and principal should have had all credentials revoked, but was never mentioned. Both mother and son now are convinced felons, have fun getting decent jobs. District and superintendent should have been sued for not responding to thefts. Class action suit was epic though
I've worked in schools the past 15 years and have literally changed hundreds of locker combinations. It does not cost $150 nor does it even take a locksmith. Combination changes are done yearly by school staff.
It feels like the students and parents got screwed over again as they didn't get a full refund having to pay lawyers fees. The district should paid full costs plus lawyers cost.
@@Yumi_Jay plus the local tax payers (the parents) paid the school's side of the fees anyway. It's not much better than suing your HOA.
In the second story, the principal should have been charged as well for aiding and abetting and/or obstruction of justice, and shoul. The only reason to fight providing the security footage that hard is if he knew someone connected to the school was the thief and was trying to cover it up, and as soon as they mentioned his reaction to the footage being requested, I knew he was in on it. The fact that the security footage proved that Dave committed the crime only confirms this.
IMO, the principal deserved the most punishment out of anyone involved---a teenager going on a theft spree is not as evil as someone who is entrusted with authority over hundreds of children deliberately betraying them (there is no greater treason than treason by authorities against those they are sworn to protect) by actively helping criminals victimize children. Complete and utter scum.
Came here to say this. Absolutely agree.
The principal was skimming money on the lock combination change.
That's why he covered him.
and they would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for the meddling detective, karma kids and dog
"Under color of law". Big time felony.
Since the cams had more if the young, and possibly the mom too, i can see how the director got scot free =S
a true story: in 2013 a california high schooler hid in their locker to find out who was stealing cash from student backpacks... and films the gym teacher committing the crimes. she actually hid twice, the first time she didnt have a cell phone to record with and no one believed her so she hid second time with a cell phone. when it was taken to the principal it was promised to be investigated and told her to delete the footage. I do not know if the principal was charged with anything but they should have for attempting to tamper with evidence. the gym teacher was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. thats all I could find on it at this time
Last story, threats of bodily harm requires police intervention regardless if it is a vague threat, kid says he will gut everyone at the camp should be seen as a valid threat and not be taken lightly especially if the kid has a history of behavior issues
Agreed
Also that kid with behavioral issues is going to have a rough adult life. The kid will learn the hard way when police gets involved
Just a correction: "Quit to a man" doesn't mean that all but one man quit. Every person in that department left.
Really? I’ve never heard that expression before.
@@kranberry3318 the expression is “to a man” meaning “without exception”. It’s not a common expression though.
I bet lots of people "could care less". In which case, they should do so. Lol
Agreed - I was looking for this reply
@@kranberry3318, eyevocal and Kranberry are correct. I hear it sometimes when it's appropriate...
Ex Home Depot employee here! That's definitely the orange store, I recognize every department. Also I've never met an employee that cared about their job at Home Depot. I witnessed so many crazies in my 6 months there!
I don't like that the camp staff didn't do anything to curb the kids aggression. It shouldn't have taken a staff member who had a personal stake to bring the kid in line.
In the last story it's not so much torturing as creative punishment. OP even OFFERED to give the boy sunscreen. If it was torture that wouldn't have been offered. The brat deserved the punishments and humiliation for what he did.
Maybe a line was crossed with that lunch. But it’s a line he crossed first.
I think allowing the kid to get a severe sunburn was unwise. There can be serious health consequences from overexposure to the sun, like heat stroke or dehydration which can necessitate a trip to the ER. A tuna sandwich on the other hand is a common lunch option, if a bit odorous and unappetizing when it's warm.
I think that a counselor was what that child needed. It might save that boys future!
The brat deserved far worse than it got.
😲 that bully entitled kid really deserved some punishment and serious therapy!!!!!!! One can only imagine how entitled one or both his parents were!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Story 3: I think what OP did for his sister was perfect. I'm the youngest of three girls and growing up, I was quite small for my age. I could handle myself in arguments but got picked on physically by a couple of older (and much bigger) boys. Well, my sisters weren't having any of that. They each confronted the boys, gave them a taste of their own bullying, and I was very grateful knowing they had my back.
Being a good sibling is great, and to hear about it is too
Story 1: Well the ASM had her 15 minutes of fame and time on the throne. She had no doubt believed every defamation of character and right to threaten the employees was in "the best interest" of the company. Now she won't even have a job to pay the compensation she'll be forced to pay. This isn't high school after all.
The locker theft story: The mother got 18 years because she was a public official, or governmental worker, whose son stole from children in her charge. She would have been under law pertaining to "In loco parentis" (In the place of a parent) which means everyone working at a school has to take some form or responsibility to the safety of the children they look after/teach. Most people think of only teachers being under these laws, but technically everyone who works at a school would be as well in some way.
My guess on why the case went quickly was because it was only big case in their jurisdiction, with potential to boil over as the school didn't do anything regarding the thefts.
She would have been charged with a security breach since school technology/passwords can't be shared.
@@FrstSpctr88 yeaaaaah... no
It was obvious that the principal had knew about this since he fought a police warrant.
There other option is that she was in on it WITH her son.
Story 2: That was a brilliant trap. All it took was an expensive laptop with a tracker and two people were thrown in jail, another person was fired, and the school lost a load of money. It could be fake, but regardless of how genuine it is, it's pretty sweet
An expensive laptop with a tracker AND a detective with his head on his shoulders...
This is a true story. I first heard it around 2003 and took place in Arizona.
Story 1: The ASM deserved to be fired, i'm also wondering if OP should sue her for defamation of character as she spread a false rumor about OP fathering a child out of marriage
(maybe about OP getting "Fired" too but I think they handled that already)
Technically could but definitely shouldn't. People who aren't in the public eye rarely sue for defamation at all but especially not for something so small. The claim would sound absurd and petty in court seeing as having a baby out of wedlock is commonly thought of as being perfectly fine. If OP was a revrand or something maybe it would be a more plausible defamation claim. The intent of being insulting is certainly there but that isn't enough. It's also a pretty easy to disprove rumor, unlike an allegation of physical abuse or something. It would be a big waste of time and money and would probably not change the opinion of anybody who believed the rumor to begin with. When people believe a rumor about somebody without looking for proof it's often cause they already don't think highly of that person and want (sometimes subconsciously) to believe anything else that, in their eyes, validates that opinion.
Defamation is incredibly hard to prove in court. unless you have a set of evidence thats absolutely bulletproof, every lawyer worth his money will advise you against pursuing a defamation claim in court. Even a the shittiest public defender can successfully defend a defamation claim.
@@baraka629 ok then, but at least OP nuked ASM for her comment, (Also the reason why I suggested a defamation lawsuit is because of text OP Got from ASM and I’m pretty sure that the employees would say that they all heard the rumor from ASM, but maybe that wouldn’t be enough if these suits are as difficult as you say)
Defamation? I tought it was called slander? Oh well. Same thing probably.
@@someguy7629 Slander is when the comment is made verbally, Defamation is when it goes above and beyond to damage their income, and Libel is when the comment is made in print.
Whoever was charging $150 to change the combination on the school locks should be charged with fraud. Those locks are easy to change without tools in just a few seconds.
Some lockers have the combination as part of the locker... not as an external combo lock.
Story 3: Hey, that's what happens when you torment someone at camp. You are basically denied the fun that everyone has.
I hope therapy works, because he sounded like someone that could become a psychopathic murderer
He was turning into Jason Voorhees alright.
He's one of those who will kill a bunch of people, and all the neighbors say, "But he's such a quiet and polite boy."
@@mbyerly9680 This kid sounds like he was well on his way to becoming one of these monsters.
You sound like fox news about gaming
@@notscorchingsands9718 I do not watch 🦊 Fox News.
Story 2: Give someone enough time digging around court documents you can absolutely find out if this was true or not.
Yeah and Reddit is just the kind of people to do that but no one posted anything about finding a court case last I checked.
If this was in America, then unless you're a bank or politician, stealing high valuables will get you in big time trouble. If it was just the 35 MD, it would've been brushed off pretty easy. It's the felonies that make it a problem.
I don’t know, maybe the string of thefts but considering the kids is a minor it might be more difficult to find proof especially depending how long ago it was. While it was the early 2000s most schools, and court documents were done on paper and might not be uploaded onto a service to look at that kind of thing. Between both of those facts anyone searching the internet might not find something and might need to find a physical copy. Since we don’t know where this took place that’s unlikely to happen.
@@JamiePotter18 exactly so. Bizarrely, not everything is made public on the internet, even though folk think so today. We can't judge by today's standards for pretty much anything, really. Considering how quickly available information on the net can be blocked, deleted, changed or withdrawn.
@@JamiePotter18 The kid might of been a minor, but the mom allegedly got some jail time too, thats who you could track down.
For story 2 that wasn't harsh that was well deserved
plus it depends where OP lives. maybe he lives in a state/county where theft gets a lot more than just a fine.
@@GiordanDiodato thats true
@@GiordanDiodato Yup. It took place in Arizona, back in 2003. This is a true story and it even made the news back then. Arizona has very harsh laws.
I have been in law enforcement for many years and can confirm that the story about the locker theft is real.
hey, you steal, you get the penalty!! and dave's mother knew about her son's antics, so yeah, she gets slammed.
As a TV show once stated, if you can't pay the time don't do the crime! (Loved Berreta! Course main actor should have paid heed to it too)
For the third story, was the bullying not enough to take him home especially destruction of their property (the fishing pole)
Not to harsh in a quiet well to do area. In addition it's mandatory minimums. The mother was probably charged due to her working at the office and probably having access to the combinations. The OP doesn't say it - that's just my inference.
I figured the mom was providing the locker combinations and that would have accounted for the harsh sentencing.
@@moogie1954 Not to mention conspiracy, accessory to theft etc etc. So many fun things to charge her with.
The stolen items were found in their house, which means that, at the very least, the mom knew about the stealing and did nothing about it, thus making her an accomplice. If Dave was a minor at the time of the crimes, then she can be held accountable for them, which is probably what happened here.
Last story: she did not go too far she handled that brat perfectly, sitting him on timeout and keeping him away from the kids he was tormenting.
If i was in the OP's shoes I'd torment that kid even worse so i'd say she went soft on that brat
Yeah some light uv poisoning
the kid was 11. she starved him, among other way too cruel things. he was a nasty kid, but that's no way a supervisor should deal with kids. she shouldn't be working with children
@@notscorchingsands9718 I mean, the kid was given sunscreen. What else could OP have done? Hold the brat down and put it on by force?
@@Dubanx I think OP then would've been in trouble for sexual harrassment guess lol.
Story 1: I love to hear about entitled asshole bosses getting destroyed by vengeful employees.
Story 2: So far this and the first story are repeats. I love how the school and those in charge got in trouble, and the little punk and his karen mom get slammed for their crimes.
Story 3: That's better and more creative revenge than what I would have done.
Story 3 - yeah, torturing a child and putting his health at risk is much better than just throwing him out of camp for bullying behavior.
@@DerekScottBland it's better than what I would have done, I would have "accidently" pushed the little crotch turd off a cliff and make sure that was it. But OP was much kinder than I
@@DerekScottBland The kid was offered sunblock, but refused. And OP was still a kid themselves, so they couldn't really do anything. The adult in the brat's group should have been fired for not dealing with his behaviour that could have been very dangerous if it carried on
@@baileyblackwellandsophietu7001 - OP stated they knew exactly what they were doing. Don't care how wrong the kid was or what else should have been done, this was intentional torture and was wrong.
the last story op is a good brother, if it were me I would have been way meaner
Camp story: if a kid like that had tried doing those kinds of things to my little sister when she was that age, I wouldn't have had to lift a finger. My sister was unusually strong for her age (when she was 8 and I was 10, she could lift and carry me effortlessly, despite my being 2 years older and quite a bit bigger than she was) and she was of the "all's fair in war" mentality. The brat kid would have learned a VERY painful and humiliating lesson the first time he tried to pick on her.
The next person who calls the last story cruel: Seriously? Treating bullies with gentle kindness only works in movies. Whatever put that kid on that path will take strong actions to cure. Priming a life of entitlement with a sunburn and a tuna sandwich ain't jack.
And don't forget...OP was a child (14) at the time as well.
2nd story: the principal had to be in on it. also the mom to have been. its likely she only had access to the combination on a school computer at the school. she likely printed the info and brought it home
Always amazed when a store is short on staff but won't give full time to employees that want it.
Story 1: That wasn't just pro revenge. That was straight-up _nuclear_ revenge. That ASM was radioactive!
Locker Theft Story: The Principal should have also been Criminally Charged with Obstruction of Justice, Interfering with an Investigation and possibly Accessory to the Thefts...
In Canada and the USA, School Lockers are the Property of the SCHOOL and as such, not only can the School Search them at any time they want with or without a reason, they can also grant Permission to Search them to Police as well and the Students have no say in the matter.
Also, students have no expectation of Privacy, nor is their any such thing as Student Privacy as the Principal claimed...and even if there was, a Search Warrant trumps that. Once the Detective handed the Warrant for the Video to the Principal, he MUST hand over the Security Video...
So failing to hand over the video and fighting the Warrant is the Obstruction and Interfering and his failure to investigate what is a very clear Crime Wave in his school makes him the Accessory to the Thefts...
At least he got fired, and gotten most likely blacklisted.
They probably didnt have sufficient evidence to charge. If the mother and son didn't give him up, they really have nothing to go on. You can refuse a search without a warrant.
@@kims.5357 Except the Detective DID have a Warrant for the Security Video when he first went to the Principal and the Principal refused to hand over the video citing Student Privacy (which doesn't exist)...
@@HappilyHomicidalHooligan it said he fought the warrent in court. It's not illegal. They have no way to prove he knew who was committing the crimes, all they can do is fire him for negligence for not investigating the crimes.
These make remember that people in my life aren’t as bad as some people in others lives
Sometimes I feel that while watching these and sometimes I feel the opposite...
Sounds like a lawsuit for harassment , workplace bullying, and constructive dismissal to me for the first story.
As my mom (a Corrections counselor) always says, "long and hard sentences are the only way to teach criminals a lesson."
That and brute force.
I see your mom is a fan of the "Since I have a hammer, everything is a nail" philosophy.
I worked for a newspaper chain many years ago in Scotland as a relief manager, and part of my duties was to go to troublesome shops to try and fix issues. I never developed the 'do this, do that' attitude to 'fix' issues. Instead I would watch what was going on for a few days, then ask staff to make suggestions as to how issues could be resolved. The staff know the shop, the people and the problems that occurr, and 99% of the time, their suggestions are sensible. I never really have understood the axe swinging approach to management.
Even though my little brother is annoying (and can defend himself just fine), you bet I'd go scorched-Earth on some brat.
Story 1: "immortality..." only if that immortality involved "at the workplace" and not in one's personal time!
on the school class action lawsuit
Schools tend to give in quickly and quietly on them since too many or highly published ones hurt their funding
Hardware store story, slight linguistic correction: "Quit to a man" means they ALL quit, not that only one stayed.
I was on my way to say the same thing. :-)
In the third story the OP was a lot nicer than I was. At 14 I would have knocked the kid out if he had touched my sister.
Given modern wokist attitudes, that would be 'frowned upon'. But yeah me too.
That kid in the last story should be grateful I was not the sister or one of the councilors. Very grateful.
Have a friend who was a manager at Home Depot. She had a problem with a higher up and they pulled shit on her and ended up firing her even though her store was one of the best.
for story two :
The reason Dave's mom got time was because she was an accomplice. The fact that the school tried to block the police from getting the footage is evidence that they knew what was going on
I swear, management stupidity should be considered a crime, especially when it potentially ruins the lives of so many employees for no reason.
You know you have a addiction problem with reddit stories when you're in the first 10 comments. Thanks darkfluff for making great content!
This is in poor taste.
@@Lindseyisloony But it is Wednesday lol 😁
Story 2 - You dont need a locksmith to change locker combos, the locks have special keys that are used to reset the combo, it is done every summer in our schools, and when someone leaves or changes lockers. The Custodial staff is responsible for that. 18 years for the mom is not logical, if all she did was have her credentials stolen. I feel this one is made up.
Story 2: The folks thar think its fake because of sentences are possibly wrong. Remember, this was a months long ongoing crime spree at a school. People are very emotional about crime around schools. And mom had to have actively assisted her kid and they had proof or they couldn't have charged her. The one thing is strange is the principal insisting on a warrant for the video. The school is a public entity so no warrant should have been necessary, that could have been the principal either covering up the problem or he may have been in on it and they had no proof. I do find it strange that locker combinations would be stored online.
0:30 The husband pregnant with OP's first godchild should be worth a movie contract.
Just when I thought Fluff wasn't going to post, my day brightens.
Story 1: immorality CAN be a fireable offense, but it has to be included in the employment contract.
I think any company would have a hard time upholding anything to do with somebody's personal life/relationships unless laws were being broken. Thats basically discrimination and down to a matter of personal opinion which wouldn't hold up in any secular country's court whatsoever. It wouldn't even make it into an employee handbook. So no, "immorality" wouldn't be a fireable offence.
@@airbubble. technically speaking yes it can. That being said it would never be called 'immorality'. Most private companies can demand certain morals/behaviors both on and off the clock in a contract (anything that wouldn't be a protected status under the law like sex, race, etc) . Now of course the more outlandish you get the more people are not gonna accept your bull.
@@marcuswanha9723 Not in my country, chick. What employees do OFF THE CLOCK is their own business, as long as its not illegal (provided that breaking a particular law would somehow reflect on your employment such as if you are a driver and you get caught DUI and get points or lose your license meaning you are unable to carry out your duties and they have no other alternative work to offer you), nor has any direct negative impact on the company they work for such as being "unprofessional" in your work van, and putting it on TH-cam or something, or slagging your boss/company off in a public arena/platform. And those objections need to be clearly outlined in the contract/employee handbook.
Arguably you could get away with even that if you can prove that you were not acting maliciously, and that what you said isn't slanderous/libellous in any way. But that would be dodgy ground so best not to do it, unless what you are saying constitutes highlighting some infraction being committed by employers under whistle blowing criteria in workplace law.
You could be paying prostitutes to serve drinks naked at your bachelor party if you wanted, provided you pay them at least minimum wage, and dont get touchy on them without consent.
And if your country has the capacity to dismiss people on such grounds, then you need to be looking at your workplace laws. Not really such thing in secular law as immoral, because its a subjective concept. Theocratic nations obviously have different laws, defined by their religion, where "morality" is more deeply ingrained. But I did state above, SECULAR nations.
In Europe, any company that tries to fire you for allegedly getting somebody pregnant or anything else like that as stated in the video above, would find themselves on the losing end of a tribunal and several thousand out of pocket. In the UK particularly, its a direct contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998, under articles 8 and 14 and also contravenes workplace law under grounds for fair dismissal AND could be classed as discrimination on the basis that one party is using their own notion of acceptable moral behaviour to determine whether somebody else has acted immorally, and should remain in employment. This falls under "beliefs" as no laws are being broken. And beliefs are protected under Article 9 of the same Act, as well as contravening the Equality Act.
Thr HRA 1998 does allow for "health/moral risk" but only in CRIMINAL law, and that has to be defined on a case by case basis, using a universal standard without breeching the above. This is generally reserved for things like deliberately infecting somebody with some nasty ass disease or whatever, and CANNOT over-ride the other articles and their protections.
Each European country has its own version of this as set out by the ECHR, and Article 1 is nullified (no longer necessary) as it states that each European country, under the ECHR MUST have a version of this Act. By passing the Act, they are satisfying the requirement of Article 1, so no longer need to state it within the Act.
And I daresay the various constitutions/workplace laws of other secular nations have a similar level of protection.
@@airbubble. well the vast majority of jobs in the US are known as 'at will employment' meaning that you can be fired for pretty much any reason whatsoever. The only things they can't directly fire you for is protected status stuff. Race, creed, sex, disability, military status, that's all I can think of right now. The upside to it is you can also quit for whatever reason and do so immediately and don't have to wait.
One of the problems is proving you were fired for a protected status because of the way at will employment works. You got to prove that you were unjustly fired and if you can you will either get your job back or get to sue the company.
As for the contracts it's mostly the same. Some companies though include things like 'You must never bring bad press to the company' which will apply to off duty hours. Most companies that might have moral guidelines are more along the lines of professional morals, dress codes that don't allow for 'slutty clothing' (not that it would be phrased like that) no tattoos, no lying/cursing, normal things like that.
That being said some religious morals are perfectly allowed in certain areas. Biggest two examples that come to mind that went to the Supreme Court is Hobby Lobby refusal to cover a small number of specific birth control under their health insurance. The other is that a baker doesn't have to special make a cake for a gay wedding, or any wedding that falls outside of their religious belief by that precident.
@@marcuswanha9723 If someone cites, or you believe, that you are being fired for being "immoral" and you have texts to prove they were basing that on their own belief that you have a child with someone outside of marriage, and that this is "morally wrong" then that's discrimination because in simple terms they are saying that you have been immoral by having that child, and that it somehow impacts on your job.
Employers no longer have the right to fire you for having tattoos etc. especially if they hired you knowing you had them. They just have to write in your contract/handbook that tattoos must be covered up/piercings removed etc during work hours or not hire you in the first place.
Bringing bad press as you mention, falls under what I stated above as "things that negatively impact the business". Having a child outside of wedlock is not one of those things. The only exception could be if you work for a religious body that holds that belief. That's where your laws are a bit dodgy (more on that below)
The "moral guidelines" you mention (how you dress, swearing etc) are only accountable for working time. No employer can fire you because you wore a short skirt to the beach on your vacation and Karen didn't like it. Nor if you cuss out during an argument in the street. Exceptions to this particular instance and similar could be justified if you were wearing your workplace uniform and therefore identifiable at the time, as an employee in that business. This then reverts back to the "bad press" thing.
In the UK we have a guide for that within law which is termed "man on the street" which gives that people are allowed to do what people in general do and other people generally accept. Therefore because the man on the street would expect to hear people swear, its acceptable. To overcome this, it would have to be specifically stated as not allowed within the company handbook or contracts and you would have to be shown to be "representing your place of work" at the time the deed occurred.
Even "At will" has exceptions for discrimination and violation of your basic rights, which include freedom of speech, right to family life and so on. Anything that violates state or federal law. (Exception 1)
And Exception 4 which is good faith and fair dealing, which actually gives cause to "No cause" ie they have to show that they have fired you for a fair reason, such as consistently being late or calling off sick when you aren't etc, or trying to save costs by reducing employee numbers and so on.
As far as the religious thing you mentioned goes, from what I have seen, the Supreme court is still trying to find some sort of balance in such matters, as one case ruled against the business and one case ruled for the business, and they can't find a middle ground because BOTH sides of each case constitute discrimination by one party or another, which is why in each case they rolled it back to state level, and each state makes its own laws on such things. Which is why the gay wedding cake thing has already had at least THREE hearings.
As far as the birth control issue you mentioned, it was upheld on the basis that four specific types of "birth control" could arguably be used as abortificants, which was the key issue. General birth control was not. It was also ruled that should an employer's health plan not allow for such, then health insurance should cover.
Story 1: So OP was on part time...got a 2nd job...then put on full time at his request...but still kept the 2nd job thus wouldn't do overtime (at time & a half) for the primary job.
Don't get me wrong...I am full in support of OP & other staff against the ASM being a raging Karen...however OP also seems to be at fault for some of the events he mentioned.
Story 2: The principal seemed way too UNDER concerned about the thefts and way too OVER concerned about the thieves...kind of wondering about him as well...especially the combos.
It doesn't cost $150 to change a locker combination...you only need the master key...I'm thinking kickbacks from the locksmith to someone at the school...maybe to the principal.
Story 2: That principal needed to be punished the most. I hope he gets an early burial.
Story 3: Literally would've hit that kid. No patience for that kind of child if they start pushing. I also would've made it look like an accident.
I would say the camp counselor story came right up to the line, but didn't actually cross it. If they'd cussed out the kid or put hands on them, then yeah the line would be crossed. But all they did was keep the kid from having fun. Them getting sun burn, if they really refused sun screen, is on them. The food part is a little bad just because withholding food from kids shouldn't be a punishment, but everything else was perfectly acceptable, in my opinion at least. I really hope that kid was put into therapy that helped him come to terms with whatever was causing him to behave this way.
This first guy is a princess, all too common now, using every little excuse to take "personal emergency" time.
Last Story: Oh OP did EXACTLY the right thing. That little bully brat got everything he deserved. He was a monster and deserved to be punished.
for the last story, no, OP did not cross a line or go too far. they did what they had to because the other people in charge couldnt be bothered to really DO anything about it. i remember my summer camp had a mock jail, which was just a cabin with a wooden chair, table and cot with no mattress. if you did something bad, you would spend the rest of the day there, and your meals would be brought to you, and only at lights out, would you be brought back to your cabin and get to sleep in your bunk. any bad kid at the camp only needed one day in that place to never misbehave at camp again.
Second story: It's an even money bet that the principal was getting kickbacks from the locksmith and didn't want to ruin a sweet deal.
So they think this kid might be dangerous and they leave a 14 yo alone to deal with him over night? That seems like a hell of a lot of responsibility for a young teenager who is still really just a child themselves.
There may have been more to the charges for the mom in the locker story. A major issue I see is that she violated HIPAA. IF they could prove that she knew, which how could she not considering the items were at her house and many of the complaints probably came to her, and she personally gained from this violation then she definitely could be charged with criminal HIPAA violation which you can be sentenced for up to 10 years in prison.
Story 3: Yes OP should not have tortured the kid, but she was 14 with very little power, and ge was hurting her sister. If someone is hurting your sister and administration isn't willing to do much about it, and you are just a kid yourself, then you do what you have to do.
As someone who worked at home depot, I can confirm that story 1 definitely sounds exactly like how a home depot would function. It also smacks of some falsehood though, because you can't take 'family leave' for friends and a god child just because you live with them, so the OP isn't quite as innocent as he sounds in the whole thing, since that's technically against policy
Story 1. Given that they openly identify the desk up front as the Pro desk, I’m 99% sure that’s indeed a home depot
Lowes does too. There was a lowes in the northeast last year that was running on a skeleton crew, this might have been why lol.
20:28
No.
"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is not age restricted.
He got *exactly* what he deserved.
That last OP woke up and chose extreme violence!
For the second story, it would be better if the OP provided a link to either the court case or if possible the news article
By all means share all your private info for a bunch of people on the Internet who will still call you a liar.
Story 1 I'm not shocked that the assistant manager went crazy with power I'm just shocked she actually had the authority to fire someone.
9 years and 18 years in jail for theft seems pretty harsh. I wonder why they got so much. I've heard of murderers that got a lighter sentence.
I once worked at a grocery store as a nightshirt shelf stocker. I am a small woman, 4’11 , I had to use ladders but was still constantly snuck up on by my manager and spooked. Gosh know how many times he almost made me fall on those hard floors.
There was also a time where he was making me move palates. Those are heavy. As I drug one along I accidentally dropped it and the corner struck my thigh. My skin is thick and it’s hard to bruise me. The inside of my thigh turned purple and almost black looking. He had seen it happen and even as he watched shocked tears rolling down my cheeks he told me to suck it up and keep working.
I changed to day shift and got sent to almost every job in there. Including only 3 days of training in the floral department 3 days before Valentine’s Day. The leader of that area decided she didn’t like me and was just mean as heck.
That grocery store closed about a decade ago.
Story 1: the ASM tried to fire the HR person? Some doesn't understand the limits of their power
FYI, "to a man" means "without exception". So that entire department quit.
I don’t think OP from the last story was in the wrong but judging by the bullying, the shrugging off punishments, the violent graphic comments while he was in the sun, and the fact that his parents said he had a “history of behavioral issues” I don’t think this kid is just another bullying jerk, this kid to me seems more like a kid being abused and lashing out. I hope the therapy works for him!
I was bullied a lot growing up so I hate bullies and can have trouble sympathizing with them but ironically one exception is the kid that gave me the most beatings and had the most time with me and was the worst bully of my youth, (he would’ve been second worst to a bully that was also my next door neighbor but the neighbor moved away years before him giving him time to pull into first,) but hearing my mom’s stories about him I actually can’t help but feel bad for him.
His father was never in the picture, his mother was neglectful, and he had two older brothers, the eldest one spent the bulk majority of my bullies life away in jail (where he would eventually get killed,) and the middle brother, (still a few years older then him,) bullied him to an extent that made the years of bullying he inflicted on me look like a prank that went slightly overboard in comparison! There was one time the middle son chased my bully down for an unknown reason, pushed him down, knocked him around a bit and slammed his head on the curb. So the mother had three sons and screwed each one of them up beyond belief before skipping town. Mom said the middle kid apparently died too but she didn’t know what happened. Out of morbid curiosity I looked up his name on fb and surprisingly found him, he has a profile pic next to a boy I’m guessing is his son and seems to be doing alright for himself. But the biggest gut punch of all is from back when we hadn’t lived there that long and we were at the bus stop, (Elementary School) and mom saw him crying with his finger stuck in a zipper and so she helped him get his finger unstuck, zipped his jacket up and reassured him he’d be fine and he hugged her and asked her to be his mommy! Really sad… and I think that might’ve been the reason he targeted me. He resented and envied me because I had two parents and an older sibling (sister in my case and she was a teenager that would chase him off if she caught him attacking me,) and he had… well, I already told you what he had.
I can’t say I don’t hate him for all the insults, punches, kicks, and even the sticks and stones he threw at me, (literal sticks and stones,) over the course of over half a decade, but I do feel sorry for the short straw he ended up drawing to the point that I even feel happy he’s doing better now… but back to the original point I seem to have left a mile behind now, sometimes a bully is actually a victim suffering undetected and hidden under layers of “behavioral issues”.
$150 to change a locker combination! Are you kidding me ? I changed locker combinations at my old job for 18 years twice a year. It takes one master key and 5 minutes to change a locker combination. That locksmith was screwing this school district out of so much money.
The last story reminds me of protective brother. One weekend I took my stepbrothers to a local roller rink for something to do. When we got there the rink was I think and old house as the rink was one big circle so it was hard to skate on. Also my brothers I found out were not skaters so even more problems. So as we were trying to skate my youngest brother was being knocked down by this kid who was smaller than him but a better skater. I talked to him about what was going on and showed him that if he just stood up on the toe breaks he could move more normally and stop the boy and tell him to stop. After this happened the boy went and got his older brother to tag team my younger one again. So my younger stepbrother went and got his brother who warned the two to stop. So this brought in their third brother as I watched from the sidelines. Now my stepbrothers were not skaters and while I was not the best I had lean to skate at an old city roller rink with wood kick boards and metal bars for the top rails. They would also have all night skating for the boys that would turn into roller derby after hours. So I did learn to skate dirty. So as the three of them were planning to to attack my stepbrothers I strolled up and told the oldest that if they touched my brothers they were going down. and I made another lap as they started again. The middle one tried to trip my middle brother and I just jammed my wheels into his skate sending him falling forward as I grabbed the shirt of the youngest and picked him up and set him back down on the inside of the track with me in-between him and my brother. Now the oldest just realized that they could not do anything on the rink floor so just went with the bluster of wait till the rink closes and we will take care of this outside. Needless to say but after the session ended no one was there.
Story 2: the mom would have to go to prison for being found guilty of a crime punishable by a year +. Having 18 years of jail would be possible if found guilty of 18 + misdemeanors. There’s a chance though that she could serve them all concurrently which means should could potentially spend one year in jail and it would count as if she served out time for each sentence at the same time.
Because of that, I believe there might be truth to this story. It could be the same for the son. Regardless of rather it’s true or not, this was a great story!
Story 2: It’s actually true about the types of charges that would be laid against them. That sort of time IS given out for what they did. And the Mom most likely got charged for “aiding and embedded” charges on top of the other charges hence the 18+ years.
2nd story:
Definitely possible depending on the Judge &/or Jury doing Sentencing.
The Boy at least got sympathetic Judge who sentenced to min. even though "Tried as Adult" => Adult Jail. Judge would have weighed many factors incl: Current Convictions + (Possible) 1st Time Offender Status + Attitude in Court. And more.
Often I hear the question "How's can the Sentences be so different?" There are 3 Answers: 1. The Laws are written with VERY Specific words & the Proscutors must match those words to a Part of the Crime AND know they have a chance to Prove it "Beyond a Resonable Doubt" to all 12 Jurors in order to Charge the person with that Crime. 2. Also a factor is how helpful the Defendent has been in clearing up another case. (Different but in this case, POTENTIALLY the Mother MAY have insisted that she did something so her Son could not be charged with it.) And 3. During Sentencing, it's how the State & Local Laws are written and how many separate counts they (each) were convicted on. Also of note that there are the "Sentencing Guidelines" for EACH Conviction. It is written as a range in months but converted by most into yrs (e.g. note was made of "1yr being minimum sentence". So POSSIBLY for Larceny "12-24 mos Confinement in State Penal Facility to be Determined by Dept. of Corrections.")
Sounds like Mother got more Charges & Convictions on those Charges, and MAYBE More TIME in the Charging Range (Jury anger? Stern Judge? ALWAYS a Factor!!*) than Son. POSSIBLE extra charges MIGHT BE: Multiple Counts of aiding & abetting, conspiracy, contributing to delinquency of minor, etc. Also Professional Charges arising from leaving passwords unsecured, Privacy of Students, & other charges
I AM confused Re: Principal. Unless he agreed to be Fired vs Charging him. Otherwise, I can't....unless simple insufficiency of evidence/pure luck.
Too bad a teen wrote this - I'd LOVE to Know THE REST of what happened!! There are MANY MORE Punishments than just what's on the Court Filings!!
* For GOOD Legal Breakdowns on Sentencing, go to Emily D. Baker & NatalieLawyerChick on TH-cam re: Josh Duggar Case.
Videos to watch:
Emily is former Deputy District Attorney for LA (Handles Pop Culture with Dockets & Explanations)
Law & Lumber - Defense Attorney in Virginia
Natalie is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Maryland (Handles Everything from Court Videos - Strict Law but Humor)
Legal Bytes - Alyte (Doc Specialist) & also hold Panels
Check Out Behaviorists! (Yeah, & they shot him DOWN!)
Behavior Panel
Behavioral Arts
Someone I know husband works at Home Depot. From what she described from his account of his employment it 100 percent is Home Depot. To give you an idea of how bad it was he quit 3 TIMES. He got hired a fourth time. He does his job and ignores the mismanagement.
No, giving out school passwords is a no-no. Bad bad stuff. I'm actually not surprised by her sentencing.
14:19 stealing from lockers is actually a combination of breaking and entering, and grand larceny, stealing stuff like electrics and jewelry
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but "to a man" is a turn of phrase that means everyone. That department didn't quit and leave only a single person, the entire department left with not a single employee left there. Gotta be careful how you read stuff to get the right meaning across. But yeah, that story is pure gold. Employers: don't employ bad people in management positions. It never goes well.
Great video as usual, but for the record at 6:40, the phrase “to a man” means that everyone in appliances quit, not that everybody but one person quit.
story 3: that tuna sandwich thing, I would have ate no problem, not that I would do ANY of the thing that the kid did but…
Story 3, ever hear that 2 wrongs don't make a right? sunburn and spoiled tuna in the heat could have caused real harm to this little jerk, not teal mature or smart of a Counselor in training! I get he deserved it all but you Being a Bully isn't any better than him bulling your sister .if the staff wouldn't do anything to stop him them you need to do the mature thing and find someone who will, kid should have been sent home the moment he acted that way and the staff that didn't do their jobs should have been fired !! You were just as wrong as he and the staff who didn't do their jobs.
9 years in prison for stealing all of that is not too much. He is lucky we dont have worse punishments for theft.
That last story is nuclear revenge. Op abused that kid, thats illegal
In the first story, it is possible that the kids mom was charged federally, or under state computer crimes laws. As she technically allowed him access to a system he should not have had access to. If that is the case, those penalties can be stupid harsh.
Bro you can’t send a kid with behavioral issues away WITHOUT NOTIFYING HIS CAREGIVERS. Those parents are a hazard
Last story.
He did go overboard a bit punishing the kid.
On the other hand, him pushing him so far showed how serious his behavioral issues were and got him therapy.
So... good?
Story 3: The only one allowed to bully/tease my sibling is me, if anyone else tries I wound hunt them down. Mind you even I wouldn't go as far as that kid did.
I’m so glad the parents actually listened and took the kid to therapy- and that it’s weekly. Parents who do it to look good will usually just do it once or twice for appearances
Dave should have gotten 15 years prison and his mom 1 month password protection class so this doesn't happen again
wait, wait, make sure everyone know over $1,000 is a felony. They forgot to tell us this.
The mother got the harsher sentence because she was the one who was the gate through which all of this was done. If she had not given her son her access codes it would have been no way he could have done what he did. Additionally, there's the fact that she had to have guessed what happened if she wasn't actually complicit in it.
I know an electrician that took a holiday position at Home Depot. He was fired for refusing to tell a man how to hook up power to his house at the pole. It’s illegal for just anybody to do that!
School locker story: I also doubt at least the class action portion of the story. Class actions are only for use when the group of plaintiffs is very large and it's impossible yo identify everyone who was injured, thus a small, identified group of plaintiffs represent the interests of the unknown, unnamed plaintiffs. In the school case, all persons who had their lockers broken into, had items stolen, and paid for locker repairs were identifiable through police efforts and investigation, and they had the ability to decide whether to participate in the lawsuit.
"Quit to a man" is a phrase that means that _everyone_ quit . Have a good one
"A Karen who single-handedly ruin a company."
You talking about Kathleen Kennedy?