Millburn Police Nab 5 Newark Teens Ages 15-18 After Pursuing Stolen Car. All five were caught and later released on their own recognizance
patch.com/new-jersey/millburn/millburn-police...
patch.comPosted May 31, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC
3872
patch.comI am fine with bail reform but they stole a car to steal other cars and hit someone else's car while trying to run away from police and they were all released with charges that were less than what actually happened.......
Of those apprehended, Dupree Turner, 18, from Newark, was charged with receiving stolen property and with obstruction, police said. He was later released on his own recognizance.
Two 17-year-old males and two 15-year-old females were charged with delinquency. Two of them were turned over to the Essex County Youth House and two were release to their parents, police said.
16
“Receiving stolen property” sounds like he wasn’t the one that stole the car …. He might have known who did.
It’s not about what you “think” happened, it’s what you can prove. It seems like the police and prosecutor didn’t believe he was the car thief.
Edit:spelling
10
To reword what you're saying, they can't charge them with the auto theft because there's no evidence that they're the ones who stole the car, but obviously they were in the stolen car so at some point they received stolen property.
6
It’s plausible that one their buddies stole the car and flipped them the keys for a joy ride. (Reasonable Doubt) Receiving stolen property is a slam dunk.
5
Oh my god! Kids did something stupid, LETS FUCK UP THEIR LIVES FOREVER!
Seriously, what do you think should happen to a 15 year old who makes a dumb decision? Near as I can tell, the worst thing they did was ride in a stolen car.
-23
I was a kid and I stole candy from a store maybe a couple of times but I think from that to car theft is a huge jump. One is petty theft, the other is at least a third degree crime that could land you in jail from 3 to 5 years and up to $15K in fines. Think of how much a car costs, think about how much it could hurt the owner of the vehicle, that could be their daily driver and maybe if they can't make it to work, they don't get paid and if they miss a couple of days they could lose their job. In addition, yes they're young but they're not that young, they know that stealing a car is not just wrong but it's a crime and they also tried to flee from police putting themselves, other people in the street and the officer's lives are risk.
9
They crashed a prior stolen car from newark into someone else's tesla and then ran and caused the shelter in place and basically manhunt for them. They tried to pull a woman in a porsche macan out of her car to steal it. This wasn't a they left the keys on the dash or car running while at the gas station, they tried to pull a woman out of her car and steal it. Yes its a rich town but this is a bit more than just simple theft. Also I believe it was at the person's home so its a first degree situation as they planned this and waited for a target.
4
That's at least attempted carjacking!
2
The article makes no mention of a Porsche. Where are you getting this info?
1
They could belong to the same group of assholes that have been coming to Monmouth county and stealing cars. Throw them in jail.
6
This area is special since there was an actual vice documentary on this place. The Short Hills Mall shooting is only a few miles from here and there are many wealthy residents. Hell a lot of the police announcements literally remind residents not to leave the key fob on the dashboard of the vehicles or leave the car running while going in to a store. They will steal the cars to ship them straight to Port Elizabeth and have them exported to an up and coming African Country which I don't remember. They basically do fake paperwork and people think they are buying a legit used car.
2
Yeah it’s a major issue. I wish people would just LOCK THEIR DAMN CARS
1
[deleted]
4
Not immediately be released to their parents? How about detain them. They stole a car to go steal another car. I believe the article is a bit lacking but they tried to take a porsche macon by force against the driver. This is not just a stealing car this is forced robbery.
3
You realize that bail is not a form of punishment, right? If the determination was made that they are not a flight risk, why shouldn't they be released?
The robbery stuff is not mentioned at all in the article. I've met the police, and they're not exactly known for their giving spirits. I doubt they were like "let's give them a mulligan on the violent robbery."
6
They had half the town go into lockdown hunting them down as you can see they cordoned off the area and had other town police come help. They caused a shitshow for the town and had people mass text message to shelter in place due to finding these idiots that had to go, let's steal people's cars today.
By being released back to their parents they literally got the same punishment schools give out.
2†
They are 17 they should face real consequences yes. So should their parents
-1
No. Nobody’s life should be messed up for fuck ups like this. Rehabilitation not retribution
-1
So they know who they are, they know where they live, and the kids said they would show up for trial. What's the problem?
I don't want to pay thousands of tax dollars to correctional officers to watch a kid unless their parents cough up bail.
10
Because their actions could have seriously injured or killed someone. Even at low speeds cars are dangerous. Add that they were evading police at night. It's not like they were just pulled over in a stolen car. They fled, crashed injuring two, and fled again.
3
You're not wrong and they are going to get in trouble - at their trial. I have a big issue with flight being the main crime. There's a reason it's called the fight or flight reflex.
Jail as it works now is a traumatizing/bonding experience with actual criminals instead of sending them to parents. (Ask any frat boy whether trauma builds bonds)
Again, I am pro them getting in trouble. But we can do it in a way that exposes them to more of the criminal life, or it can work with parents until the decision is made to take someone into custody - which again hopefully it will be community service because prison does not reform people it makes them worse.
These aren't my squishy liberal ideas. These are just facts based on observations of the millions and millions of people who have gone through our systems in all their forms, and the millions who go through systems all over the world.
Again: they will get in trouble. Through a trial. Like they are supposed to. Yes, they did something dangerous. They are going to get in trouble. Finally: they haven't been tried yet and this is their first time or else that would have been the story. Let's at least find them guilty the first time before we declare them too hopeless to send home to angry parents.
3
It isn't about hopeless or not. It's about risk. What is the risk of detaining them or not? How likely are they to re-offend or be a flight risk? I think the flight risk is low in this case but it is an unknown as to the risk of these individuals re-offending. The way we lower recidivism is to provide opportunities or people in prison and once they are out and stipe treating them like criminals once they did their time.
3
I agree we need to do much more to accept people back into society, and I agree it's about risk, but the principal of "innocent until proven guilty" I think should extend to this. In the eyes of the law, they haven't been found guilty yet, and even if they are eventually, "recognizance" is supposed to reflect that they acknowledged the situation and have promised to show up at an appointed date. I think a 16 year old with no record is probably better kept at home. Plus they might help take care of younger siblings or other things we don't know about. When you remove people from communities, it's hard to predict who else it will affect. I don't want to over dramatize the hypotheticals, just to point out that there are a lot of unpredictable consequences to imprisonment.
And besides, if they were rich miscreants, they could just pay bail.
I hear you that you want to dis-incentivize future offenses. First of all, as 15-16 year olds, the possibility that they would actually be the ones who get caught probably never occurred to them, because 15-16 year old boys are invincible in their own brains. So frankly most of the work of popping their mental bubble of cool is probably done. But more importantly, there are disincentives: if they miss trial, that's more punishment (and punishment that may cost their parents money). If they offend while awaiting trial, they know they will face a) definitely jail this time, and b) a big multiplier on the punishments they eventually get. They went from a world where they would never get in trouble to one where there is only one path to minimize trouble.
I 100% agree with you on how we treat people leaving prison. I just also think we should give people off ramps to avoid prison unless they insist on proving they are going there.
1
Bail reform has been such a failure in this aspect. Kid in holmdel has been arrested 3 times for this
7
The immediate satisfaction of locking them up is gone, but that's not how our system works.
Trial then punishment.
6†
Unfortunately the issue then is a majority of these car theft ring participants never show up for court.
3†
Source?
1†
Yeah, it’s better that they just keep doing the same thing repeatedly until they finally go to trial or plea and hopefully go to prison. Meanwhile multiple crimes could have been prevented while they were free - if they weren’t free.
Before anyone says anything, I know for a fact that multiple people who are arrested for burglary or stealing cars are repeat offenders who are often stupid enough to keep hitting the same town or area. I’ve seen it repeatedly in my town. One guy has committed so many burglaries and stolen so much shit it’s become a running joke in my family. “Better lock the windows so [loser repeat offender] doesn’t come steal our shit” etc.
Releasing them after one offense if it’s non violent, fine. Maybe even two. But a third time in what essentially becomes a spree of repeated crimes in a short time frame? No. Yet it happens.
1
So that's when they get charged, and the computer says, hey, this guy is likely to do another crime " let's put him in jail tonight until he can see a judge. Then a judge will see him within 48 hours and either hold them until trial or release them.
1
Yes, I know how it works. What I am saying is after they are arrested they sit in county for a couple days pending their detention hearing, they’re released. Then a week later, they’re arrested again. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat…
1
Bail reform doesn’t apply to children.
3
This is the sort of approach which has caused property crime to explode California. Compassion has to move hand-in-hand with consequences otherwise society is simply enabling crime.
5
They have a trial set, and know where these kids live. You want tax money to be wasted keeping MINORS locked up?
-1
The two 17 year olds and 18 year olds that attempted to break into a house and burgle a garage? The same people that then fled and crashed into an innocent bystander’s car?
3
Yes. Those. You don't lock people up until after they are found guilty via a trial.
-1
We do all the time. That’s why time-served is s thing… and there are reasons for it
3
If their actions warrant it. Fleeing from police in a car chase certainly does. Cars are dangerous, even at low speeds, and can seriously injury or kill someone.
2
Lock these assholes up. Jfk
4
If it was just driving around in a stolen car then fine. What puts this over the line is fleeing the police in a car chase crashing and injuring two people. Vehicles are dangerous and can seriously injury or kill even at low speeds. Why were they all also not charged with hit-and-run, the article only mentions evading and reception of stolen property.
2
Say the bail was set at 10 dollars? Would you be happy?
What amount is the right amount? High enough that they can't afford it? Because that's a punishment and that's not what bail is for. They are innocent until they are found guilty by a jury.
1†
Whatever the judge feels appropriate. To be ROR is weird for a felony.
5
It looks at their criminal history and how violent the crime was also based on the charges. Computer determines if they go to jail for the night or released.
4
Does it allow for minors criminal history as they are normally sealed?
Well I guess because of the article and how they were charged, they would ROR instead of charging them with forceful grand theft auto
1
If you think some juveniles who stole a car and fled from police are going to be detained I have some bad news for you. In NJ if you're under 18 you basically have to commit a serious violent crime to be detained pre-trial.
1
They tried to physically pull someone out of their car and car jack them, so it was a forceful car jacking not just a theft. Then when it didn't work they ran cause people called the cops then were chased (as nj law dictates they could chase due to the forceful car jacking) and they crashed their car into another car and ran.
One person was 18 but was also ROR
2
If they weren't armed they're not going to be detained. You can thank JDAI and all the soft on crime politicians who made NJ the model for it
-4
Good. You shouldn’t put minors in jail.
1
You absolutely should if their actions warrant it. Fleeing police in a car chase is absolutely dangerous enough to justify pretrial detention. Cars can seriously injury or kill even at low speeds.
1
I'm not even taking a side. I'm just explaining what will happen in these situations and the reason why.
1
[removed]
-2
[deleted]
0
[removed]
-1
So two probably had a past history of this behavior and two kids have a second chance. I can't pretend like I wasn't a stupid kid once.
-3
Thank god the cops chased them. Fucking up 2 cars
-5
[deleted]
1
Do the crime get no time
The time is given out after a trial in which the accused are found guilty.
If they pursue charges....
Which is how the legal system works