This article makes no real sense other than the author’s and the Times’ need to take a pot shot at the former President:

It was supposed to be simple, breaking into a small boatyard near here and stealing a marine radio to monitor police frequencies.

But when the two intruders, Patrick V., 14, and his accomplice, Christopher Conley, 19, spotted what they thought were video surveillance cameras, they panicked and set fire to the building, burning it down along with several boats and engines. Unknown to them, one of the boat engines belonged to former President George Bush, whose summer house is seven miles away.
Within days of the July 2002 fire, Secret Service and other federal agents were at Patrick’s house here. His mother, Denise Collier, said they told her that the young men had “blown up the president’s boat” in what might have been “a terrorist act.” One federal firearms agent told her, Ms. Collier recalled, that the incident had raised “national security concerns.”

Patrick then found himself in a highly unusual predicament. Instead of being tried in local juvenile court, he was turned over to the United States attorney’s office in Portland, tried in Federal District Court and found guilty. He was given the maximum sentence allowed: 30 months incarceration, followed by 27 months of probation. He was then sent to a maximum security juvenile facility in Pennsylvania on the order of the federal Bureau of Prisons.

The implication is that former President Bush had something to do with the case, directly or indirectly.

(1) The President denies it. It probably had nothing to do with him. Probably, the prosecutor didn’t want to deal with the punk or his parents and decided to screw them because he could–and rightly so.

(2) Who the hell cares?!

The kid is some punk whose parents should have beat his ass. Instead, they run to a sympathetic New York Times to rail against the mean old Bush family and the mean old prosecutor who prosecuted the case as a federal crime.

The kid got what he deserves. The former President did not.

This reminds me of another article found here. Some 17 year old punk gets drunk, is rowdy, resists arrest, is obnoxious in jail, backtalks the police, and winds up with a black eye. His mom sues for a civil rights violation. She should have beat her kid’s ass. She should have thanked God that a black eye was the worst thing from it. Her kid is going to be in the State Pen. soon enough because he won’t learn his lesson this time.

This all reminds me of a story my father-in-law recently told me. A guy he knows has a son who got a DUI. It was his fourth one. His parents hired a lawyer who was able to get rid of two of the other three. No doubt the kid thought he didn’t have to obey the law because his parents could get him off on a technicality.

When you don’t let the child learn the consequences of actions because of technicalities, you prevent them from learning lessons and contribute to their delinquency. Sometimes, whether you like it or not, your kid deserves to have his ass beat.