Maybe it's just me, but this whole story sounds fishy. Josiah Watts is 10 years old. He and a bunch of other kids were playing in the neighbor's yard when they broke two sprinkler heads and damaged several foundation shrubs.
The homeowner who suffered the losses says she had previously told one of the children it was OK to play in her yard, but when she came home that day, there were approximately 10 children in her yard who all scattered when they saw her coming. Josiah admits he was in the shrubbery where the damage occurred and says it was one of his friends who broke the sprinkler heads and threw them up on the roof of the house.
The homeowner called the police and said she wanted $1500 restitution. Josiah's parents refuse to pay, because they say Josiah is not responsible. They say Josiah has been traumatized by all this, that he's lost weight and can't sleep. They've spent $2500 in wages and legal fees trying to get out of paying the $1500 they owe this woman. If they're that worried about the effect on their son, why did they allow his name to be printed in the newspaper, and why didn't they just pay the $1500 and end the situation? Josiah is guilty, because even if Josiah didn't do the actual damage, he knows who did, and he evidently is not telling. It's the old guilt by association thing -- the guy who drives the getaway car is just as guilty of bank robbery as the guy who pointed the gun.
But Josiah's parents say there is an ulterior motive. They're a mixed race couple, and it's all because Josiah is half black. No, it's all because Josiah is a little vandal.
"Game of hide-and-seek turns into legal nightmare." The Dallas Morning News; November 11, 2011; p. 1B.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You obviously didnt check your facts before you called Josiah a little vandal. The woman wanted 1500.00 for $11.00 in actual damages. The boy that actually broke her sprinkler head ran away before the police got there. The responding officer got mad at Mr. Watts and said we will see you in court.
The charges were dropped due to the diligence of Josiah's parents. They took before and after pictures of the shrubs it the DA. The homeowner lied about the damage to her shrubs. Check your facts. The police didn't investigate at all. Josiah stayed behind while the other white kids ran away. He even convinced the other boy to stay behind because he didn't want them to think that he was involved. His reward for doing the right thing was to have charges filed against him. He isn't a vandal. He had the courage to stay behind and face the police at the age of only 10.
Nothing in your commentary represents the facts of the case. You need to stop calling 10 year old children names
Well, anonymous, I got my facts from the newspaper. Where did you get yours? Why are you just now commenting on a post that's two years old? Where can you replace two sprinkler heads for $11.00? That's assuming sprinkler heads is all you need -- I would imagine since they broke them off, there might have been damage to the pipes. If you can get a plumber or a sprinkler company out for less than $40 an hour, I'd like to know about them.
Why would the officer get mad at Mr. Watts? What did Mr. Watts say to him? Why didn't Josiah tell the officer who the boy who ran away was? How did Josiah's parents happen to have "before" pictures of the neighbor's shrubs? Yes, he is a vandal -- you're known by the company you keep. The man who drives the getaway car is just as guilty as the bank robber, and Josiah better learn that pretty quickly. I didn't call Josiah names -- I merely stated a fact.
But I thank you, Mr. or Mrs. Watts, for commenting.
Post a Comment