Workers Find Thug Stealing Tools… Bystander Records Hilarious Street Justice

Sometimes, you have to take matters into your own hands — and that’s exactly what a group of construction workers just did in North Carolina.

The blue-collar crew in Charlotte reportedly caught a man trying to break into a construction vehicle and steal tools.

In a form of street justice, the men taped the suspect to some nearby scaffolding until police arrived… and the aftermath was caught on video.

“I gotta do what I gotta do to hold you. You got no business in my truck,” one of the workers explained as the man was trussed up, according to WJZY, Fox 46 in Charlotte.

“I wasn’t breaking into it!” insisted the suspect. “I wasn’t in it! I was just checking it out.”

A bystander recorded the altercation, and told the local news what she saw.

“You don’t stumble into those things but there I was,” said Tina Quizon, who is also a freelance videographer for WJZY. “The leg is taped to the scaffolding, they put a rope around his waist.”

“I was like, nobody is going to believe this,” she said.

Officers arrived quickly to the scene, and the suspected thief did not appear to be harmed, just embarrassed and indignant.

After the video was posted on Facebook, it received over 8 million views. Many commenters tried to claim that detaining the suspect was somehow racist or cruel.

“This reminds me of slavery,” one commenter wrote. “They didn’t have to TORTURE him. They should be charged. Next time call the Police.”

The viewer was apparently ignoring that fact that the construction workers were clearly a mixed crew of blacks and Hispanics, and that the police arrived within minutes.

“Humiliating someone should be against the law too!” whined another commenter.

“Notice how most women who never served in this line of work or have any idea how expensive tools can be, are the ones defending this punk?” shot back another respondent.

“My job site got robbed in 2013, Took 8000 dollars worth of tools,” chimed in another Facebook user, who had no sympathy for the alleged would-be thief. “I’m guessing they got all of it in the bed of one truck. It doesn’t take many tools to start adding up to big bucks. It’s absolutely infuriating and that man deserves the humiliation.”

The fact is that a citizen’s arrest is completely legal under the right circumstances.

Like many states, North Carolina has a law — G.S. 15A-404(b) — which permits a citizen’s detention of criminal suspects.

“A private person may stop and detain another person when the private person has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed in his presence ­­a (1) felony, (2) a breach of the peace, (3) a crime involving physical injury to another person, or (4) a crime involving theft or destruction of property,” explained Shea Denning, a professor of public law at the University of North Carolina, in a piece written for the UNC School of Government blog in 2014.

It seems likely that the alleged theft of valuable construction tools falls under that law.

There’s a difference between “playing cop” and stopping somebody who has been caught in the act.

It looks very likely that these construction workers just wanted to do their jobs, until a would-be thief tried to take their hard-earned living away from them.

Strapping a suspect to scaffolding until police arrive may unconventional, but it was probably exactly what needed to be done.

http://conservativetribune.com/thug-stealing-tools-street-justice/?...

Views: 48

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It doesn't look like the video transferred over properly, so here's the link to see the video:

https://www.facebook.com/ktvu/videos/10154891892747061/

Awwwwwwww, poor baby, nobody loves him.  That's why he is a thief, bet this is not the first time he has tried to steal something.

Don't ya' just love it?   I was laughing my ass off, and thinking the fool was damn lucky they didn't take him to the top of the building and have an "accident"...  People are getting FED-UP

“Humiliating someone should be against the law too!” whined another commenter.

remember years ago when some American guy vandalized property in Singapore (<-I think) and was sentenced to a public caning??   That's an event I remember because I took notice of our media going most berserk about the 'public' part of the public caning. It was a confirmation that our society had become terribly misguided in a big way - believing humiliation was/is always unacceptable, even for criminals.

Oh yeah....I'd kind of forgotten about that--

Michael Peter Fay (born May 30, 1975) is a US citizen who was the subject of international attention in 1994 when he was sentenced to six strokes of the cane in Singapore for theft and vandalism at age 18. Although caning is a routine court sentence in Singapore, its unfamiliarity to Americans caused controversy, and Fay's case was believed to be the first caning involving an American citizen.[1] The number of cane strokes in Fay's sentence was ultimately reduced from six to four after U.S. officials requested leniency.

Early life[edit]

Michael Fay was born in St. Louis, Missouri.[2] His mother, Randy, divorced his father, George, when he was eight.[2] As a child, he was diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder which, his lawyer later claimed, made Fay not responsible for his eventual sentencing for vandalism in Singapore.[3]

Although Fay mostly lived with his father after the divorce, he later moved to Singapore to live with his mother and stepfather, Marco Chan, and was enrolled in the Singapore American School.[2]

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service