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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.”

  • aviationeast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    “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…”

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • halfwaythere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        ??!!??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?

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          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

          • halfwaythere@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

        • andrewta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.