The juveniles, ages 11, 12 and 16, were caught on camera robbing a Wells Fargo bank March 14, the FBI said.
Three boys dubbed the “little rascals” for allegedly robbing a Texas bank were behind bars Thursday, the FBI said.
The juveniles, ages 11, 12 and 16, have each been charged with robbery by threat, a spokesperson for the Harris County Sheriff’s Office in Houston said in an email.
“Because they are juveniles, their names, and no additional details will be released,” the spokesperson said.
Wells Fargo getting a taste of their own medicine hah
I’m not seeing it. They generally steal from adults, not 11-year-olds.
Robbing anyone isn’t enough?
In terms of “a taste of their own medicine?” I would say no for the same reason I would say no if, for example, Tim Cook robbed a Wells Fargo. He isn’t the one Wells Fargo is ripping off and neither are those kids.
Wells Fargo shouldn’t even be allowed to be in business after what they did. Fuck em. You’re focused on the kids and not that mass theft that was systematic
You seem to think I’m defending them, which is weird because I said twice that they steal.
Getting what you deserve and getting a taste of your own medicine are two different things.
One of them was 16. Wells Fargo sure loved to charge me massive overdraft fees around that age.
They let you have a bank account when you were 16?
I’ve had a bank account since I was six…
With the name “Little Rascals,” I have this picture in my mind of a judge wagging his finger and then saying “Oh… I just can’t stay mad at you three. You can go.”
10 points to Gryffindor!
Probably why their parents put them up to it,
The parents of two of the boys identified them after the FBI released the photo and called the agency
“Boys will be boys your honor. So they knocked over a bank. Its Wells Fargo, they got the money. Don’t ruin their future by making them guilty of a felony…”
It’s Wells Fargo, they got the money. Don’t ruin their future
This, but unironically. Fuck Wells Fargo and fuck trying children in criminal courts.
??!!??What??!!?
I give two shits about Wells Fargo. So my issue is with your position of not trying children in criminal courts. What should societies do about children running amok and doing whatever they want? What do you think we should do to educate them about the repercussions of committing crimes?
Therapy and several different pedagogical approaches exist.
Imprisoning* children does not have a positive effect in the vast majority of cases.
To take them away from their peers, take away their freedom and abuse them does NOT teach them how to behave better.
It only compounds whatever trauma and bad decisions led them to act out in the first place, much more frequently leading to a negative spiral where they’re deprived of any effective means of bettering themselves, then when they almost inevitably re-offend, they’re punished by the same deprivation if not worse.
*juvenile detention being the likely outcome of any criminal proceedings here
This is Texas and it was stealing from the rich those kids are gonna die.
Probably not, but yeah, they’d do it if they could get away with it. Fucking Texas 😮💨
Firstly thanks for replying.
Therapy, works, when the individual wants to change. At this level of crime there is a slim chance of that desire.
Their peers are likely part of the reason they are committing these crimes. Too much freedom due to the environment that they were born into , by no choice of their own, also contributed. To be clear I don’t even blame the parents most of the time. Even they can’t out influence the friends group. The abuse, well it’s no lie that the judicial system needs to be fixed at ALL levels, but where’s the money in that?
Your method needs to happen way before they get to this point so that they have less of a chance to get here.
So between juvi and therapy there still isn’t a resolution to fix them all. Or even fix a greater percentage of offending children.
These kids, not likey anything will fix one of them let alone all of them. Am I shity for giving up on correcting their learned behavior? Yeah most likely. Facing consequences for ones actions still seems to be the answer for me.
You are a better person than me.
I recall hearing a similar story about a bank robbery in rural Texas.
The guy got life.
Did they stand on top of each other in a trench coat?
Do banks in USA still have money? Banks here haven’t had money for more than a decade now. And I can’t remember when we last had a bank robbery in Denmark. ( Country of 6 mil. people )
PS: I looked up the stats:
We used to statistically have about one a week, until about 2012. Then it dropped to only about 5 per year, and now it’s almost completely gone, probably only people who are mentally ill, and don’t have a clue about anything in general, maybe people with dementia? Because they are AFAIK 100% sure to get nothing.PPS: If you want to withdraw money, you use the ATM inside the bank, and it’s practically illegal to withdraw or deposit more than the equivalent of $7000 USD, if you do, it will be investigated for possible money laundering.
They don’t want you to have control of your own money.
No it’s not that, cash is so marginally used today, that any greater amount of cash is de-facto suspect, and potentially illegal.
Even most old people and teens use electronic payments.
We got universal electronic/card payments in the 80’s that quickly became dominant, because it was a cooperation between state and banks, so trust was high, and price was zero, because banks paid the cost through administrative savings. Now there’s a small fee per transaction paid by the shop. Private as in personal transactions are free.
We simply don’t need cash for anything anywhere. So most people don’t even bother with cash at all anymore.Apart from the cash restrictions that were introduced a few years back, we have very liberal money/investment regulation.
Ironically all shops have to still accept cash, because is still legal payment. But you can’t for buying a car, because that’s above the legal amount for a dealer to receive. I have no idea how that’s supposed to work legally, because I’m not a lawyer, and cash is almost obsolete here anyway.That last paragraph basically reads as “outlawed it without outlawing it”
I’m not going to down vote you. Not sure who did or why.
I think it’s people who by “control”, mean able to hide where their money is coming from, or ion other words mean control is the ability to cheat.
It’s 100% because they want it to be traceable. I’m not sure, but I think I’m OK with that. Although it will make it hard to hide away a bit of money for a rainy day, when you are on social benefits. As it is, if you have more than $12k USD, you have to spend the above first, before getting any benefits.
That may be a factor too, making it harder to cheat on social benefits. 12k doesn’t get you far if you need a roof repaired. But at least the value of a house isn’t counted.It’s 100% because they want it to be traceable. I’m not sure, but I think I’m OK with that.
Yes criminals use cash because it’s private, but criminals also use:
- E2E encryption
- VPNs
- Private operating systems (Linux, Android ROMs)
Criminals use private technology because they need to hide from the police. That does not mean we need to ban or heavily restrict (current state of cash in parts of the world, such as the USA or the EU) private options and private technologies just because “criminals use them” if you accept a ban on privacy and an increase in surveillance in order to counter criminality, you will receive an omnipotent government and corporations spying on you with a mandate.
The criminals will just go even more underground. They always adapt, they always had and always will.
We must not sacrify privacy in exchange for “safety”
You are 100% right in principle, but this is a privacy basically nobody chose to have anyway, there’s a huge difference IMO between this and if they ban for instance encryption, which has huge legitimate significance for privacy, whether it’s secret love letters, or million dollar patent development. If there isn’t a legitimate reason to want privacy, the argument is void as I see it.
So is there a legitimate reason to want to be able to use large amounts of cash. Remember you can still use cash for your daily tasks if you want, and that option is even protected by law.
I was as you describe against it initially, but I fail to think of a legitimate reason.
I have never heard anyone put forward any complaint about anything it prevented them from doing. People simply don’t use cash for large amounts anymore anyway.
We just bought a house a few years ago, and everything was buttery smooth, because electronic communication signatures and payments were instant. Including transfer of large amounts, that would have been insane to do with cash.So is there a legitimate reason to want to be able to use large amounts of cash
Before answering this question we should define “a large amount” as it stands today, I, a private citizen with no criminal record, who hasn’t ever been investigated by fiscal authorities in my life, can’t spend more than €2000 in cash or else I’ll face a huge fine and I’ll be automatically considered a “money launderer” and a “financial criminal”
Now, to answer your question: personal data is digital gold, it’s only natural people don’t want their banks to track every thing they buy, your data won’t just be sold to the highest bidder. It will be sold and shared to the “1683 partners” you see on the cookie banners. Not wanting your financial and spending data to be sold and shared with thousands of (sometimes really malicious) entities. Not wanting the prostitution of your data, and, to the maximum possible extent not participating in this coercitive datamining system (you don’t really have a choice, every bank does this to some often cryptically disclosed if disclosed extent) is the legitimate reason I believe cash is a payment method that, when possible, should be used.
To clarify my position: I don’t oppose limitations on cash transactions necessarily because I want to buy something like a car with cash, buying a car still requires extensive paperwork and as such most privacy benefits from paying cash vanish instantly. I oppose the marginalization of cash because it’s leading to a bankized societiy, we are seeing it with our very eyes.
At least where I live you:
can’t get your paycheck in cash
can’t withdraw more than an undisclosed amount, else you’re suspicious and may be investigated, without your knowledge (oh, and the burden of proof is on you!)
Can’t receive many welfare benefits without a bank account
A bank account is nothing short of mandatory, yet there’s not national bank you can open an account in. School is mandatory, public schools exist.
Private banks offer many benefits such as:
Investing in fossil fuel companies.
Not ensuring a single cent of the money they should keep safe, a national fund ensures up to €100k,but if it was for the banks id let you guess.
Offering subpar and overpriced investment products with ludicrous fees to unsuspecting and financially illiterate but often hard-working people, eroding their life savings.
Seeing the above points, I tend to look with distrust at laws, regulations etc that aim at pushing people into banks. People should be able to live their entire life without opening a bank account if they want, and without being judged as criminals.
It’s not like this is impossible, there are places with way less financial crime than my country, than the USA or other countries who restrict cash who don’t marginalize cash as much, countries such as Japan or Germany.
but this is a privacy basically nobody chose to have anyway
If there wasn’t a societal unspoken obligation to have a bank account, many people would have ditched theirs a long time ago, me very much included, people are just coerced into accepting it. Not saying we should live like financial hermits, just that we should stop accepting the status quo, and that many people only use their bank account to receive their salary and withdraw it later, maybe put something away if they can afford it. That shouldn’t require your data to be mined.
