“I’m not pursuing any lawsuit,” Van Dusen said emphatically. “My family has been through enough. My son is just a 10-year-old boy. Somebody even put his picture on the Internet, with all kinds of horrible, pornographic things attached to it.”
Wait…
Weren’t there pictures of the kid on here? Did someone remove them? Was NYSPEED’s involvement in this actually a major contributing factor in her wanting out of the spotlight? That would be greater than any of the NYSPEED detective threads put together.
Wait…
Weren’t there pictures of the kid on here? Did someone remove them? Was NYSPEED’s involvement in this actually a major contributing factor in her wanting out of the spotlight? That would be greater than any of the NYSPEED detective threads put together.
[/quote]
in the comments section to the editorial article on buffalonews.com yesterday, someone posted photoshop pics of her kid but took them down quickly.
My favorite part of the article from today is where she says states that her son was also punished by being grounded for 2 weeks. That sounds about even, her son gets no nintendo for 2 weeks while the father of the other child is arrested and put on trial for child endangerment :rolljerk:
Amherst, NY (WBEN) - Amherst Judge Mark Farrell today dismissed all charges in the case against Charles Schmidl. Schmidl is the father who removed a young boy from the ice at the Amherst Pepsi Center in April of this year when the child allegedly refused to stop firing pucks at other arena patrons. Schmidl’s attorney James Hartt says his client was looking forward to a trial so he could be absolved, but Hartt’s advice was that there “was going to be a dismissal, then there would be no need for a trial and it’s the best possible outcome.” Officially, Judge Farrell’s ruling was an outright dismissal of all charges, saying of Schmidl, “he did what any responsible adult would have done and should have done.” The judge had some harsh words for the other party involved - the Van Dusen family, who had originally brought the charges against Schmidl, but then changed their minds. By choosing not to appear, they could have been found to be in contempt of court. In the interest of closing the matter, Judge Farrell said he would not pursue that charge. However, he took them to task for their lack of parenting skills, saying the fact they did not attempt to discipline their own child in this case was “reprehensible.”
:tup: to Judge Farrell. You’ve got my vote next year if you’re up for re-election.