According to this Dakota County Criminal Complaint, a teenager was allegedly attacked by a man who had repeatedly had his doorbell rung and found no one outside (ding, dong, ditch). After seeing a pattern develop, the man waited outside for the offenders one night and chased them down and allegedly beat up and threatened one of the teens with more violence should it happen again.
From the complaint:
On May 5, 2012, officers were dispatched to take a report of a juvenile male who was assaulted by an unknown adult male the previous evening while playing the game “ding dong ditch”. The officer spoke to the juvenile male victim, who had his left arm in a sling. The victim stated that he and his friends were out playing the game “ding dong ditch” where one person rings the doorbell on a house and runs away while the others hide nearby to see the reaction of the homeowner. The victim stated that he and his friends believed they saw a police car after ringing a doorbell, so they began to sprint along a fence to conceal themselves. The victim stated that as he was jogging he was tackled and thrown into the fence. The victim initially believed that it was his friend because it was dark, but then the male began to punch him four or five times in the left rib area. The male then picked up the victim up by his hair and dragged him out into the street. The male told the victim that if he “ding dong ditched” again, he would find him and beat him even worse. The victim described the male as a white male, approximately late thirties or forty years old, six feet tall, slender build, and bald.
[...]
Dykhuizen stated that his house was being targeted every other weekend for months. He stated that his house was hit the previous night at approximately 10:15 p.m., and his wife advised him that a male wearing a red sweatshirt rang the doorbell. Dykhuizen went outside and stood on the side of his garage waiting for the juveniles to return. At approximately 11:00 p.m., the juveniles returned, and he observed one of them approach his residence and ring the doorbell. He began to chase the juveniles and observed them run across the street along the neighbor’s fence line. He caught the juvenile with the red sweatshirt and grabbed him by his shoulders. He stated that the juvenile fell to the ground and into the fence. He stated he wasn’t surprised by the juvenile’s shoulder injury. He admitted that he pulled the juvenile into the street to take a look at him and advise him that the neighborhood was fed up with his antics.
The victim suffered a separated shoulder from the assault.
Personally, as someone who took part in group efforts to pull off some pretty obnoxious things asteenagers, including having a penchant for moving ‘For Sale’ signs around in neighborhoods as well as ‘collecting’ lawn gnomes and security signs; I ran into a few instances where homeowners were none-to-happy with what we had done. The single biggest difference was that we never repeated the offenses on the same houses/neighborhoods. If this group was really doing this for months to the same person, perhaps they learned a lesson the hard way. I certainly would have been too embarrassed to admit to my parents what I had done and would have let a friend or my own stupidity take the fall for this one.
The question here is simple: if you’re constantly being targeted for harassment with a juvenile “game”, would you call the police to deal with it? Would the police really want to spend their time waiting out juveniles attempting to ring someone’s doorbell? Do you think the outcome would have been different if the man had chased down the juvenile, caught him, and held him until police arrived instead of threatening to do it again, only worse? How would you handle a repeated harassment by juveniles? What stupid juvenile pranks did you pull when you were a kid? Had you been injured during one would you have been too embarrassed to admit what really happened to your parents and would have used it as a life lesson not to do something so stupid again? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
August 9th, 2012 at 8:38 am
The funniest part of this story is imagining the homeowner standing quietly in the shadows next to his house for 45 minutes waiting for the kids to come back. I can sympathize with the homeowner, because any other reaction short of violence is likely to just make the kids come back more often.
I would have followed the kids, too, but I wouldn’t have been violent. If possible, I would have followed the kids back to their homes so I knew who they were. At that point, there is really only one reasonable course of action. Every time they ding dong ditched me, I would have no choice but to shit on their windshields.
August 9th, 2012 at 9:12 am
Here’s the footnote that’s usually the source of much debate on here: The guy got charged with a felony.
Also, another lesson for the dirtbags playing tricks like this: Don’t F with a marathon runner.
To answer your questions Bill, if the issue was in such a pattern that I could wait the kids out and catch them, I’d be facing a different punishment. Something that would net me a kidnapping charge after dumping the underwear-clad kid out in a cornfield halfway to Iowa with his hands and feet bound with duct tape just enough so he could slowly waddle the miles to the nearest phone, with a whole lot of select messages written in Sharpie on his person.
August 9th, 2012 at 9:33 am
If I end up on the guy’s jury, he will walk. He could have called the police. Odds are, they would have done nothing. They can’t post a guard outside of his house waiting for kids to come ring the doorbell.
Rather than punching the kid, after tackling him, he should have held the kid, pinned on the ground, and called the police, and then completed his citizen’s arrest by handing the kid over to the cops. His actions would have been supported by statute, as the offense was committed in his presence, and citizens are statutorily entitled to make arrests for public offenses committed in thier presence.
August 9th, 2012 at 9:42 am
sui generis,
The felony count comes from the separated shoulder which happened before he allegedly punched the kid in the ribs. I don’t think the citizens arrest would have stopped the felony charge.
August 9th, 2012 at 9:47 am
A FELONY, really? The DC prosecutor’s office is handing felonies out like candy on Halloween.
The complaint obviously doesn’t name the “victim” but I would bet he is the son of someone important or someone in politics or government in Farmtown or Dakota County. In other words, the guy picked the wrong kid to teach a lesson.
I bet the little brat has gotten away with stuff his whole life because of who is daddy is and that’s why he is harassing people like this.
August 9th, 2012 at 9:51 am
NWR, knowing Backstrom’s penchant for over-prosecuting, I think that’s a bit of a stretch but certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
August 9th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Caught this one on the news last night and had to shake my head. #1 – because the way it was reported was incorrect, and #2 – the adult was an idiot.
I believe the neighborhood is in the City of Lakeville, but has a Farmington mailing address. My wife walks down that street with our grand kid and recognized the home from the news. That’s north of 180th and south of Dodd, and West of pilot knob, so for sure Lakeville.
Not shocked that there are kids acting out in the area. I’ve noted packs of youth roaming the streets after 11pm or hanging out at Fieldstone park. Other than trash in the yard I haven’t noticed any particular issues.
Sorry to say for the adult, yes, that is felony act. Frustration is not an excuse for assaulting someone. I’d probably just unplug the door bell or handle it in some way that is less direct confrontation and simply attempt to identify the kid/kids and then contact their parents.
As far as the kid… yeah, there you go you had your fun and got beat up. That’s the risk you face poking the animals with a stick.
August 9th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Note to self: getting a security camera set up is a lot cheaper and less expensive than getting a lawyer, no matter how momentarily satisfying it might be to beat up the obnoxious brat. I feel for the homeowner, but if the kid’s family is pursuing criminal charges, they’re also pursuing a civil suit.
August 9th, 2012 at 10:09 am
JT, based on the high cost of security cameras used for public and private installations I have reviewed and the low quality pictures they capture, I’m not sure it would help capture the image of these kids, especially at night.
August 9th, 2012 at 10:19 am
I can’t honestly say what my reaction would be: With a sleeping 2 year-old, and a dog that goes crazy when the doorbell rings at 10pm, I wouldn’t be too happy. On the other hand, I wouldn’t resort to physical violence to force them to leave me alone. Besides the fact that I wouldn’t be able to catch the kids anyways.
If the worst that happens on my property is some kids playing ding-dong ditch, whatever, no harm done. Boys will be boys.
August 9th, 2012 at 10:19 am
I know trespassing is against the law, but is ding dong ditching?
What does the law say about what is a reasonable amount of time for a person to come to the door before the ringer is allowed to leave. Perhaps the law stipulates 1 second. If so, the kids weren’t really doing anything wrong. I am not a lawyer, so I am not sure what that time frame is actually. Just speculating.
August 9th, 2012 at 10:21 am
If it were me, I would have first reported what I was noting to the police. If they didn’t address it, I would have waited in the dark with my garden hose and sprayed that brat.
Actually now that I say that, I might start using this technique to get the construction workers at my neighbor’s project to quit cutting through my yard.
August 9th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Harassment covers this, not a rule about ding dong ditch :)
August 9th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Simple, install a cheap motion-sensor on your porch light, so when the kids approach, it turns on automatically. Light goes on, kids go running.
August 9th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Woot and some other deal sites show up with some IR lit DVR camera recorders that are wireless. They will show up for under $200. Well less than a couple hours with a lawyer. I’ve thought about getting one myself, but simply haven’t been that bored nor had the threats.
August 9th, 2012 at 10:40 am
I searched the MN courts public access site and this guy has NO criminal record. Not even a speeding ticket. To charge him with a felony for this seems over the top even for Backstrom. I have a feeling there is more to this story.
Remember the case against the woman that harassed a member of the Belzer family? Backstrom is still fighting to keep her locked up:
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_20992567/lakeville-court-sides-woman-who-stalked-belzer-family
August 9th, 2012 at 11:00 am
The incident happened in May, why are they filing the charges in August? I see similar time lags on some of other complaints listed as well.
I wonder if the “victim” were an adult if this would still be a felony charge.
I hope he felt it was worth it to get a felony conviction on his record (assuming his lawyer can’t cut a deal reducing the charges).
@NWRG: 40 years of probation for stalking against a 61 year prison sentence? My mind boggles, and while I don’t know the whole story it would be a huge understatement to say that it seems to be a little bit excessive ;-)
August 9th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Even if you did capture a clear image of the DD ditcher, what would you do with it? Show it to the cops? They would likely tell you to go pound sand. They aren’t going to be able to make a case out of an image of a teen ringing your door bell, even if they were extremely bored and wanted to waste time.
If I knew I was going to be facing felony charges, I would opt for a pellet gun with 3-4 pumps shot out the window at the fleeing A-holes, or a motion detection light might be a more reasonable solution.
August 9th, 2012 at 11:59 am
The kid got exactly what he deserved, and if his parents wanted him to learn something from this they would have refused to press charges and made the kid go to the house the next day and apologize for being a punk.
Sadly, thats not the world we live in anymore.
August 9th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
With an image of the kid, if i didn’t recognize them I would print it out and hang up flyers around the neighborhood until the parents came forward. Then I would suggest they take care of their kid before their kid runs into someone not as patient as me and he/she ends up with a dislocated shoulder.
if someone was beating me up and separated my shoulder I’d be wanting the charge that this guy got. That it’s a felony is no mistake. You can’t just walk up to people and physically injure them and get off with a misdemeanor. My guess is that in the end the guy will end up with a reduced charge, or if he is really lucky, a stay assuming no further issues over the next 2 years. He may have a chance for it to never go on his record. But my guess is (he was older, the kid was a kid, he was waiting for the kid) it’ll get reduced but still show up on his record. Even if it gets dropped to a lower charge, someone pulling data will see the 3rd degree original filing, and for some, that would be an issue.
Found a youtube video of an lawyer explaining this charge in Minnesota. It doesn’t sound good for this guy, comes down to substantial bodily harm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upfHCad7DCM
And a conviction on 609.223 sticks you with a Crime of Violence, which means you can’t possess a firearm or get some permits (permit to carry, permit for amateur radio, etc..)
August 9th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
And you’ll have an extremely hard time finding a job according to someone I know who has a 5th degree misdemeanor assault on his record.
August 9th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Bill: If the shoulder were dislocated in the course of the tackle made necessary by the person running away, the issue becomes whether the separation of the shoulder was due to an unreasonable use of force. An argument could be made that tackling or grabbing the shoulder of a fleeing offender is reasonable in the course of affecting an arrest. In the instant case, it was clear he wasn’t trying to affect an arrest. He was trying to work the kid over a little. MSA s 609.06 Sub.1 (2) permits the use of reasonable force. MSA s 629.30 Sub.2 (4) gives the authority to arrest. MSA s 629.37 further defines when the authority may be exercised. If he had detained the youth, immediately called the police, and delivered the youth over to the police declaring a citizens arrest, his situation would be quite different.
August 9th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
That looks to me to be my neighborhood. Mr. Dykhuizen would be correct in his assertion that *we* are tired of the crap from the kids. I can say that a few of the kids have been apprehended by civilians over the last few years and given over to the police, with similar warnings of “tell all your friends.” We half-jokingly have adopted the name “Kilkenny 5-0,” and even have t-shirts. (A portion of the area at large is called Kilkenny Pond.)
The crimes have been a tad more extreme, including theft and vandalism.
Just last week, oddly enough, my son asked for what seems the hundredth time. my son asked if the kids who stole his and his mother’s favorite Xmas ornaments would ever bring them back. He’s still troubled by that. So, to the douchebags who that this was funny: We weren’t home on Christmas day when you stole those little reindeer. We were in the hospital with the afore-mentioned son of mine, a 7-year-old boy who was fighting cancer AND on a fast due to a ruptured intestine. On Christmas. So, when he finally was able to come home to see all the holiday lights, he got to witness what you did. He also got to hear about somebody smashing all the decorations in our neighbors’ yard the day before. So, congrats, guys. You’re really big men.
So, was it stunningly stupid to start beating the crap out of the kids like David Dykhuizen did? Yeah, it was. But the sense-of-humor of the neighborhood has worn pretty thin. I know I’m not laughing.
August 9th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
The kids were being stupid, no doubt, but if the guy would have just quit answering his door, the problem would have resolved itself with no interaction with the kids.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me a dozen times, I beat you up?
I don’t think his reaction is worthy of a felony and I’m sympathetic to his frustration, but he handled it about as badly as he could have handled it without actually taking a gun to the kid.
August 9th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Joey, while I agree with you that this guy OVERreacted, I do not share share your “ignore it and it will go away” sentiment.
August 9th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Lakeville and Dakota County prosecute for ding dong ditching – disorderly conduct and if the police are in the vicinity and they are running – they also get fleeing a police officer. I don’t agree with this – I think it is kids being kids. The way our justice system is now, kids can’t make mistakes and learn from them. Backstrom always over-prosecutes and his associate attorneys have NO authority to deviate from his “rules.” (Remember this next election time – it is costing us a fortune and other counties do not do this). So – he could’ve called the police. Too bad the police will forward to the prosecutor instead of using it as a learning experience for the juvenile. Aside from that – seriously??? The guy kicked the crap out of a minor! Yeah – the kid probably deserved it. But, now he is in trouble and the kid isn’t going to learn a thing. Had he not over-reacted (just chased him down – which I find hysterical) – it could’ve worked out much better for all involved.
August 9th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
I left my comment before reading your comment. Given the pattern of vandalism you noted, I can see why ignoring it may not work. I was thinking strictly in terms of kids playing ding dong ditch. It’s never any fun if there’s no one at the door to ditch.
August 9th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Joey, I could sort of see your reasoning,and I even tried to let the scenario play out in my head:
Doorbell rings AGAIN just as we’re about to go to sleep; dog goes apeshit.
“Goddamnit, it’s those shit kids again! They’re gonna wake Zach up!” my wife says. “Shouldn’t we do something about it?”
“Nahhhh.” I calmly retort as I get up to grab another cocktail. “If we blow it off, they’ll just get tired of it and start going to church instead.”
“Oh,” she says. “That totally makes sense. You’re so smart, honey.”
“I know. Now rub Daddy’s feet some more.”
I tried, I really really tried. ;)
August 9th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21272452/charges-farmington-man-mad-about-ding-dong-ditch
From the article:
hmmm
August 9th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
I have edited jorn’s comment above to fix the BBCode style blockquote to HTML.
August 9th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Ben, I think you are off base about one thing.
I think the kid learned that no matter what he does, Mommy & Daddy will not hold him responsible but rather will fix it for him.
August 9th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Let’s get down to brass tacks. I’m curious as to how many parents on here would be actually be okay with someone striking their kid for playing ding dong ditch, even repeatedly like this. If this were your child, would you still say they deserved it? And no “My son/daughter wouldn’t do that”, either, because that’s a cop out.
Personally, would I be angry? Sure. Embarrassed? Most definitely. Okay with seeing them charged with a crime? Painful, yeah, but necessary. But okay with my child beat up? No.
I’d like to think I’m in the majority on this one.
August 9th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Tim,
I personally believe the kid is full of shit regarding the punching in the ribs. As for the tackling…it would depend on the kid (we don’t know what he looks like, etc).
So while I don’t think the kid should have been punched in the ribs, I don’t think he was so the point (to me) is moot.
August 9th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
We don’t have any way of knowing which of them is right on that point. But the rest of it seems pretty well established, based on what both have said (including the teen getting knocked down hard enough to put his arm in a sling).
August 9th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Chad, you are so right. If I had harrased my neighbors to that point and they kicked me around a little when they cought me….never in a billion, zillion years would my parents press charges against that neighbor. My dad would have given me an extra kick in my backside on the way out the door to apologize. And the world definitely was a different (BETTER!) place…
August 9th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
One question. How old is the kid? I’ve read a few articles and have not seen his age listed anywhere. There is a significant difference in size between a 13 year old boy versus a 17 year old. There are boys in my daughter’s 7th grade class who are less than 5 feet tall and probably 70 lbs.
And, no, I don’t think an adult should beat the heck out of a kid, but quite honestly, if the kid was 17 it’s just as likely he looked like an adult.
August 9th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
I feel a strong need for people to reap what they sow, especially with our legal system, which means I’m often pissed off at what people can get away with if they have enough money. As such, if it was my kid, I would have no problem with the adult who assaulted him to be having to face the felony charge if that is appropriate. But tell you what. My kid would regret ever getting involved in such a problem. They would be grounded for the remainder of the summer, and not allowed to hang around with those same kids any longer. I would find someone either through the church or county that needs help with yard work or painting their home, and my kid would be nominated to do it.
I wouldn’t give the kid a pass. But I know lots of parents who would. I think that is a mistake. That is unless the kid was 10 and the parents were not keeping track. Then I put it all on the parents.
August 9th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
It sounds like the guy committed third-degree assault. The legislature says third-degree assault is a felony. So the guy’s charged with a felony.
Did the kid deserve it? Maybe. But that isn’t the test for whether something is a crime, and nor should it be. The guy isn’t above the law. If the kids had been doing this repeatedly, they would rightfully be charged with disorderly conduct. I wouldn’t have a problem with the guy apprehending the kid and holding him until the police arrived. But assaulting a kid (if that’s what happened) is simply not ok.
August 9th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Okay, this one’s a long one but I’ve been reading through the comments as they’ve come in and some of the lines of thinking here are a bit bizarre to me, so here goes nothing.
Some of the commenters here are implying that Backstrom has no choice but to charge this guy with assault since what he did is defined as third-degree assault, and that’s a felony, and if we don’t like it, we should blame the legislature for that.
I think it’s been noted, but just to be sure, here’s the state definition of third degree assault: “Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.”
Does this mean that anyone who assaults someone else and inflicts substantial bodily harm MUST be sentenced with a crime? No! It says they MAY be sentenced.
Law enforcement officers are expected to use discretion in enforcing the law. It’s why you can go 5 MPH over and pretty much be assured of never getting pulled over. It’s why you can honk your horn with a “Just Married” sign on your car and you won’t get stopped for improper use of your horn. I use traffic laws since we all encounter them every day, but you can apply this to numerous laws that carry more weight, such as those governing felonies.
First, “substantial bodily harm” is subjective. A separated shoulder can occur due to an awkward fall just as easily as it can from someone beating the crap out of you.
Second, the prosecutors don’t have an obligation to charge every person who assaults another. It’s a judgment call on their part.
In my opinion, we should generally prosecute based on the danger the offender poses to society and their likelihood to reoffend. Of course this is subjective, but law enforcement is expected to use judgment calls in enforcing the laws. To go back to the traffic example, people are often given warnings when pulled over for speeding, with tickets generally coming after one or two written warnings. Once you have a ticket, you aren’t likely to get another warning if the officer sees the previous ticket on your record. You’ve been given a chance to get your act together and it’s clear you need a little more help.
I realize that speeding and assaulting someone are pretty different, but let’s apply the same principle of law enforcement. It’s not like this guy was approaching someone on the street and beating them up. He was being harassed repeatedly by someone else coming onto his (and his neighbors’) private property and he finally reacted – poorly, to be sure, but still, he was provoked repeatedly.
Additionally, it sounds like the extent to which he assaulted the kid is in question. He doesn’t seem to have been looking to beat the kid or even leave him with injuries. He wanted to stop him, get him to the street where he could see him, and make it clear in no uncertain terms that the kid needed to cut the crap. I don’t see how he could accomplish that without physically restraining the kid, so the fact that an altercation like that could lead to injury isn’t surprising.
But is this guy a danger to people? Is he going to flip on the next person who knocks on his door? Is he going to try to rip your arm out if he gets upset? It sure doesn’t sound like it. It sounds to me like he was pushed to the limit with what we all acknowledge the police likely wouldn’t get involved in, and he decided to try to deal with it himself. It wasn’t a great move on his part, but that said, the police likely would have taken the same action against the kid and it would have been perfectly legal.
In that spirit, I think charging him with a felony is completely ridiculous. The law should be used to restrain those who can’t otherwise be restrained and are a danger to society. From what I’ve seen, I don’t think this guy fits that profile. I think there’s probably a better chance of Amy Senser boozing it up in the car than this guy taking a swing at another kid. Prosecuting a guy for more or less taking the law into his own hands to teach this kid something his parents apparently couldn’t seems like a waste of our tax dollars and a sad blemish on this guy’s legal record.
August 9th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
794 words. 50 words longer than Bill’s post (including the quoted text). Sorry guys.
Your move, MSPD.
August 10th, 2012 at 6:34 am
Discussing this one in the ‘hood last night; some fun “notes”:
• The Dykhuizen surely is my neighborhood. I can see his yard from mine; a mere 2 blocks away.
• The unanimous consensus here was essentially “If that were my kid, I’d tell him ‘You got what you deserved! Now go apologize to Mr. Dykhuizen before I dislodge your other shoulder.” ;)
• I was reminded that one of our other close neighbors was getting hit by the Ding Dong Crew™ as well… badly. They have two very young children who were being awakened by these jokers all the time. They even tried the “let’s ignore them and they’ll go away” technique; it didn’t work. “This is why we rarely came across the street in the evening to enjoy neighborhood bonfires, Jorn.” the wife explained. “We never knew if these kids would come by and disrupt the house or worse. While it was a joke to them, we were trapped in our house and being harassed. How funny is that?” He had even perched himself outside the house several nights, hoping to catch the kids.
I couldn’t find anybody who felt sorry for the kid. Hmmm
August 10th, 2012 at 7:23 am
Maybe someone needs to go kick the crap out of the parents who let their kids roam the streets at night harrassing others.
August 10th, 2012 at 7:23 am
| This ^
August 10th, 2012 at 8:46 am
Joey is reading the law wrong. The “may” is on the penalty part, the charge is explicit, “Whoever”.
Now since it is a felony, the county could have decided to bring it to a grand jury, and let them decide if the charge should be carried forward. But my guess is that the expectation with this level of felony is that it will just go forward, the charges will either be reduced to a misdemeanor or stayed assuming no similar issues for 24 months. If he can afford a good attorney my gut says he gets the stay, if he has to take a public defender the best that he will get is misdemeanor, simply because of the lying in wait. If it was heat of the moment, that would help his case. That he was sitting outside waiting to pounce… not so much help.
Ding dong ditch me once, shame on you, ding dong ditch me twice, shame on you, leaving the door bell hooked up to get ding dong ditched a 3rd time, shame on me.
p.s. Mr. Dykhuizen made a mistake in talking to the police officer as indicated in the complaint. nothing he said is going to help him, and some things will probably work against him.
August 10th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Step 1: Motion to supress statements made to the police officer, as he was probably not properly mirandized at that point. Successful? Who knows.
A grand jury simply determines if there is probable cause to believe the crime was committed. In this case, there was. He will still has a right ot a preliminary hearing where a judge will determine whether there is probably cause to believe he committed the offense. I would not be suprised if they waived the preliminary hearing though. Based on what was stated, the state can show probable cause. Contradictions of the State’s evidence is not for the grand jury or for the preliminary hearing, it is for trial.
Mikeh – how does your logic work when taken to the extreme? I wear a short dress and get raped the first time shame on you, I wear a short dress a second time and get raped shame on me? I don’t think so! Mr. Dykhuizen should not have to do change anything to avoid being victimized by these little terrorists. It sounds like they have made this neighborhood a hell to live in for some. I don’t have a problem with him waiting for them to come to catch them. I don’t have a problem with him giving chase and tackeling the kid to catch him. As I said, the only thing I would have done differently would be to immediately declare an arrest and call the police. If he had done that, he would have a statutory defense to the battery charge. He could claim the injuries occurred during the exercise of reasonable force in effecting the arrest of a fleeing perpetrator. Successful defense? Who knows. He would certainly be in a better position that he is now.
August 10th, 2012 at 9:10 am
Mikeh, you’re welcome to feel that sticking your head somewhere dark and damp is the solution… and maybe you’re right.
But if I were content to not have a doorbell (for its intended purpose) then I’d remove my doorbell of my own free will. I’m not letting some assholes force me into doing so. What’s next? As mentioned earlier here, do I remove my door? Stop decorating for the holidays? Move away to the mountains?
No.
I fully appreciate that there are times where not giving reward/feedback to negative behavior is an effective tool for manipulating said behavior. But my observations, and resulting opinion, is that this is not the case here. Again, Rob tried the “ignore” it game; it failed. Some douchenozzles (probably the same lot) did some major damage to my neighbors X-Mas decorations. We’ve had cars broken into and other property stolen around here.
Again I say “no.” “No more.”
This is my house. This is my neighborhood. I will not be intimidated in it.
August 10th, 2012 at 9:20 am
Mikeh, you’re inferring that anyone who falls under the definition of “Whoever” MUST be charged. That’s just not the case. I’m really baffled as to how someone can read the law that way.
Laws are intended to provide a guideline for what society agrees is acceptable (and unacceptable) behavior. They aren’t intended to bring automatic prosecution on every violation of the letter of the law. That’s the prosecutor’s judgment call.
Take sports rules as an example. Referees don’t blow their whistle every time there’s contact in basketball, yet the rule states, “A player shall not hold, push, charge into, impede the progress of an opponent by extending a hand, forearm, leg or knee or by bending the body into a position that is not normal. Contact that results in the re-routing of an opponent is a foul which must be called immediately.” This gives referees a framework with which to call excessive physical force, not a mandate to blow the whistle every time a defender reaches in and makes contact with his opponent, and referees differ widely in their implementation of this rule based on the game, the individual, ongoing behavior of the players throughout the game, etc.
Similarly, the law provides prosecutors with a framework. They still have to use their discretion to determine what infractions are worth prosecuting under the framework given to them. You’re right, they can argue the letter of the law here and based on the evidence, they may be technically right. That doesn’t mean this is a charge worth making any more than you deserve a speeding ticket for going 56 in a 55.
August 10th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Some great stuff in the last few comments. I’m not going for a long post though (and you’ll recall, there was another guy who posted as “Jason” who I may or may not be brothers with that blew my posts away….there was post of his reviewing a restaurant that came in several volumes sort of like an encyclopedia. I hear kids that couldn’t get into colleges go door to door now selling copies).
Regarding interpretation of the law, the boat is being missed. Based on what information we have, it sounds to me like there’s a clear gap between the two sides (aka “reasonable doubt”). Separated shoulder isn’t relevant (which I disagree qualifies as “substantial bodily harm”). From the information, it isn’t clear at all that Dykhuizen CAUSED the harm….him chasing the kid and grabbing him may have *precipitated* the harm, but the kid may have caused it himself through his own twisting away or attempt to flee.
A prosecutor’s office can choose to not charge/prosecute simply because there is too much doubt, unverifiable situation.
jorn, I’m surprised that your neighbors haven’t pinpointed who these kids are yet and/or their parents aren’t being subject to a shitstorm.
August 10th, 2012 at 9:38 am
One more note: did anyone see the case in Texas recently where the guy was at a get-together and walked in on one of the guests molesting his 4-year-old daughter? The guy threw a few punches and killed the molester. The District Attorney declined to prosecute.
Do you think he acted in self-defense? Do you think he needed to throw the punches to stop the act? Again, it sure doesn’t look like it based on the fact that the article says, “The father stopped the alleged abuser, and then pounded him repeatedly in the head, killing him, authorities said” (emphasis mine). He was doing what most dads in that situation would do.
Texas law defines criminal homicide this way:
You could easily argue that this guy was reckless or at the very least criminally negligent or that at the very least this counts as manslaughter. But the DA didn’t and the grand jury agreed and the rest of America following along with the case applauded.
This is how the law should be enforced. It’s easy for us to stand on the outside and point fingers at someone else who reacts with physical force to someone who’s been harassing them, but it’s another thing to be put in that situation and to be at the end of your rope when the harasser comes back one more time. Nobody thinks thinks Dykhuizen was smart to take the action he did, but that doesn’t mean he should be facing a felony charge for his understandable reaction.
August 10th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Oh. we have. ;) Some have been been similarly apprehended by certain civilians and placed into police cars that arrive shortly thereafter.
August 10th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Joey, IIRC (and I frequently don’t) that guy was completely relieved of all charges as a result of “temporary insanity.”
And there was much rejoicing. =:-D
August 10th, 2012 at 10:35 am
Jorn, I looked up a number of stories on this case and couldn’t find anything that indicated the reason he wasn’t charged had anything to do with “temporary insanity.” I saw speculation from blogs in the days leading up to the acquittal that that reason would be used, but it seems that the grand jury simply decided a crime wasn’t committed. I haven’t seen a specific reason for the decision, though I’d be interested in seeing it if anyone has it.
August 10th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Joey, it’s entirely possible my little brain translated rumor into fact here. :) But, I could have sworn the grand jury actually had to have a *reason* to completely bounce this. Oh wells.
August 10th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Joey,
I was under the impression based on followups with the Grand Jury members that he was let off because of the sentiment that any parent would have done exactly the same thing had they seen the abuse actively occurring. I have no actual source for that information and I’m going strictly on faulty memory here.
August 10th, 2012 at 10:47 am
It was just an example of Jury Nullification. Jury nullification is the doctrine whereby a grand jury refuses to indict, or a jury refuses to convict, despite the instructions of the court or the existence of probable cause, etc. In this case, there is no dispute the guy murdered the molester, the grand jury just refused to allow the indictment to go forward. The indictment would not have gone to the grand jury, by the way, unless the DA presented it to them. The DA did make the charge, it just didn’t go beyond the first procedural hurdle.
August 10th, 2012 at 11:01 am
I have edited jorn’s comment #50 above to close the blockquote tag.
August 10th, 2012 at 11:05 am
No, the DA didn’t make any charge. There is no charge going on this guy’s record. The DA presented the grand jury with the case to determine whether or not to indict (i.e., charge) the guy and they declined to do so. That’s very different from what we’re seeing with the Dykhuizen case, where he has a charge that is now on his record.
Here are a few quotes:
HuffPo:
CNN:
I don’t know if Minnesota law differs from Texas law in how cases like this are handled, but I would think it would make more sense for the prosecutors to either not charge Dykhuizen or present the case to a grand jury.
Either way, I have to think it would be tough to find a jury who would convict him of a felony.
August 10th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
My logic was intended to apply only to the case at hand. Feel free to try it at the extremes, my guess is it won’t work. The simple fact is that I’m not going to escalate a case of ding dong ditch into a physical confrontation with a child. Such an action creates more risk to me and my family than just letting the kids keep screwing around.
Certainly if it persisted beyond a couple nights, along with disabling my door bell I would be notifying the police of the issue.
From the words of the officer as to what he was told by the adult.:
The man admitted to the police officer that he assaulted the kid. It doesn’t matter if the man didn’t intend to hurt the kid, it appears the kid was hurt. Yes, the county could look at that and say, ahhh, assault in the 5th and move along, or even fail to charge.
But don’t we really want grown adults to know it’s a bad thing to be attacking others, in particular minors? If a kid is just standing at the corner waiting for the bus and some construction worker comes by and inexplicably throws a kid to the ground wrenching his arm so it pops out of the socket, does the construction worker get a pass?
I know know folks will say well that is different. But really it isn’t. The kid doesn’t have a right to harass someone but just because he is doing so doesn’t give the adult the right to assault the kid.
August 10th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Yes, it is.
August 10th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
I have been on a grand jury here in Minnesota. When we were done hearing testimony, we were usually given charges but not always. We were told we could add charges (we never did) or vote a “no bill” where no indictment took place at all. I wonder if the Dakota County Attorney took this to a grand jury if they would go along with the felony charges or vote to charge this guy with something else.
August 10th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Curious about the process I did call the Dakota County Courts in Hastings and spoke to a criminal court clerk. No, this case is not going to the Grand Jury and she mentioned that 3rd degree assault usually wouldn’t. Thus it would appear the county attorney has chosen to move forward. Next step is the complaint with instructions would be sent to Defendant with a preliminary hearing date.
I assume from there it will be up to the county attorney and the defendants lawyer to work it out.
August 10th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
The preliminary hearing will be where the state will present whatever information it wants and the judge will determine if there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed. If so, they will proceed to an arraignment where he will be formally presented with the charge and make his initial plea.
August 11th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
While I agree something needed to be done, but this is simply going to far. Physically beating a juvenile? Sorry, but the punishment does not fit the “crime”. If this was my son I would be upset with him and he would be punished, but it would not be with physical abuse. It is not Dykhuizen’s right to decide how to punish this child. I would certainly pursue felony charges and I hope it sticks. Way, way too over the top. Shame on all of you who say a child deserves to be physically beaten like this over ringing someone’s doorbell.
August 11th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
P-Funk,
The beating was not agreed upon by both parties so that’s just bullshit provided by a teenager/his parents trying to get their way. The only thing that’s proven is that he received a dislocated shoulder after he attempted to flee and the guy took him down.
That’s not a “beating” in my mind.
August 12th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
So you are choosing to believe the man who is charged with a felony and doing what it takes to avoid prosecution. Okkaaay.
August 12th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
So he is guilty until proven innocent, Pfunk?
August 12th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
P-Funk, I don’t believe either of them at all, believe me. But why would you EVER take the word of a 16 year old little fucking shithead who has been raising hell for months in a neighborhood over anyone else? Sorry, they’re both full of shit.
August 12th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Mr. Dykhuizen opened his big mouth and told the officer the above as documented in the complaint. Sounds like assault to me. The kid was injured during the assault. Someone (officer, or County Attorney) felt the injury was sufficient to meet the Assault 3 criteria. This will go to court, and they can hammer out who is truthful there. But thus far it seems Mr. Dykhuizen already admitted an assault on the kid. It will just come down if the injury the kid sustained is sufficient for Assault 3.
Remember folks, Assault 3 doesn’t mean you intended to cause injury, just that you did cause injury, regardless of your intention.
Is he guilty of Assault 3? I dunno, that’s for the court. I know if I was charged with that I’d hire a good attorney. And I’m pretty sure that attorney would be really pissed at me if I said to the officer what Mr. Dykhuizen appears to have said.
I have no doubt that the kid is lying. In fact that is probably the best thing for Mr. Dykhuizen. The kid will end up being worthless in court if he keeps lying, so Dykhuizen will only have to fight his own words, and not the kids.
December 30th, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...] Chad wishes we lived in a different world where parents made their children pay for their actions [+15] [...]