NY homeowner faces charges after tackling teen who rang on doorbell and ran

[John Taylor]

http://www.startribune.com/nation/99010589.html?page=1&c=y

BETHLEHEM, N.Y. - A homeowner in his underwear chased down and tackled one of four teens who rang his doorbell and fled in a late-night prank called "ding dong ditch," leading to charges against the homeowner but not the boy.

The teen was bloodied by the takedown. The homeowner, Daniel Van Plew, and the boy's family disagree over the amount of force used and about where the tackle happened occurred, which could make a difference under the laws that define self-defense.

Van Plew, 37, told police in this upscale suburb south of New York's capital city that he was preparing to go to bed shortly after 10 p.m. Saturday when four teenagers pounded on his back door, rang his front doorbell and then ran.

Van Plew said he feared for the safety of his two children and his wife. He chased after the teens, caught the 14-year-old and then made him wait in his home while he called police. The teen suffered a cut on his elbow, a bruise over his eye and a bloody lip, according to the police report.

"There's no winner in this kind of a thing, right? It's just a bad deal," Van Plew told WCBS-TV.

Van Plew caught the boy on his property, according to a police report, but the boy's father told a newspaper that the boy was tackled off the property. New York self-defense laws give people more leeway when defending themselves on their own property.

There is also a discrepancy between Van Plew and the father over how much force was used and why.

The boy's father told the Times Union of Albany that Van Plew pinned his son's arm behind his back, applied pressure and threatened to kill him if he tried to escape. Van Plew's lawyer told the newspaper that the boy claimed to have a knife in his pocket and threatened to kill the homeowner.

[ARealConservative]

the boys parents are idiots.

teach your kids to respect other peoples property

[t0rnado]

The boy should be glad that he was only tackled. Who knows what might have happened in a state besides NY.

[Kludge]

the boys parents are idiots.

teach your kids to respect other peoples property

:)

[dannno]

I have to agree with the property owner - Enough force was used to subdue the person who was only a prankster but could have potentially been a robber trying to create a distraction, but did no more than what was necessary, which is optimal.

[John Taylor]

I tend to agree with the homeowner here. If someone, especially someone who is 17 years of age, pounds on my door in the middle of the night, I'm going to go out there and stop him.

I'm curious though, what about you guys who were so vehemently opposed to that homeowner who did the same thing to ding-dong-ditch kids, but who happened to be a police officer??? I seem to recall some serious vitriol.

[Soca Taliban]

the boys parents are idiots.

teach your kids to respect other peoples propertyNonsense, there is this little thing you're forgetting called free will. You can teach your children respect, but they still have the choice as to whether or not they will obey. I'm not saying the parents aren't idiots, but to automatically assume they are based on nothing more than their children actions is illogical.

[brandon]

One time when I was about 11 me and some boys did this to some dude in our hood. It ended up with an epic half mile foot pursuit through the woods. He finally caught me, picked me up by me neck, and yelled a whole lot of shit at me while holding me there.

Uncalled for in my opinion. In both my case and this case. Kids will be kids. No need for a grown up to rough them up for a harmless prank.

[ARealConservative]

Nonsense, there is this little thing you're forgetting called free will. You can teach your children respect, but they still have the choice as to whether or not they will obey. I'm not saying the parents aren't idiots, but to automatically assume they are based on nothing more than their children actions is illogical.


I am basing it based on the actions of the parents. They are crying foul over the treatment their kids received. They should thank the property owner for assisting them in teaching the kids what it means to be personally responsible for their actions, not cry about it.

[Kregisen]

That's part of the game........if you can't out-run a 37-year old homeowner, you're just a dumbass for pulling a prank to begin with.

He should have every right to tackle the kid, whether or not he tackled him on his property.

Next.

[MelissaWV]

I tend to agree with the homeowner here. If someone, especially someone who is 17 years of age, pounds on my door in the middle of the night, I'm going to go out there and stop him.

I'm curious though, what about you guys who were so vehemently opposed to that homeowner who did the same thing to ding-dong-ditch kids, but who happened to be a police officer??? I seem to recall some serious vitriol.

The police officer situation was different. You could go back and read up on it. This case is still a ??? for me, because the accounts are entirely different. Ultimately, though, the amount and type of force used cannot be argued to have been excessive.

As a refresher, the police officer lost sight of the person (people?) who pranked him. He did that while getting dressed and retrieving his firearm. The homeowner in this case may or may not have lost sight; it doesn't seem to be specified here. The 17-year-old in question may or may not have had a knife. The take-down may or may not have happened on the homeowner's property.

To me, the situations are apples and oranges, and this situation seems to have multiple sides at this time. Personally, I'm not sure I understand the wisdom of chasing down someone who knocked on your door or rang your doorbell and is running away. By definition, they are not much of a "threat" if they're running from you.

[Humanae Libertas]

Just kids being kids, nothing unusual about that or bad about it....Unless it continues.

[John Taylor]

The police officer situation was different. You could go back and read up on it. This case is still a ??? for me, because the accounts are entirely different. Ultimately, though, the amount and type of force used cannot be argued to have been excessive.

As a refresher, the police officer lost sight of the person (people?) who pranked him. He did that while getting dressed and retrieving his firearm. The homeowner in this case may or may not have lost sight; it doesn't seem to be specified here. The 17-year-old in question may or may not have had a knife. The take-down may or may not have happened on the homeowner's property.

To me, the situations are apples and oranges, and this situation seems to have multiple sides at this time. Personally, I'm not sure I understand the wisdom of chasing down someone who knocked on your door or rang your doorbell and is running away. By definition, they are not much of a "threat" if they're running from you.

I did read up on it. The situations are not apples and oranges, they are very similar, with the one distinction that the homeowner in one case happened to be an offduty police-officer.

[RonPaulwillWin]

Who HASN'T ever played a little ding dong ditch. Lighten up guys :D

[james1906]

Heavy handed, but the little brat won't do it again.

[silus]

hehe. Weren't any of you kids. Ding Dong ditching was fun. Anyways, this kid is okay. No harm no foul. This doesn't need to be national news.

[MikeStanart]

The fact that these kids banged on his BACK door makes me tend to side with the homeowner on this one. However, I'll agree the homeowner was a bit excessive. I say give them each 20 hours community service and drop the whole thing.

Kids will be kids, parents will be overprotective. They both stepped a bit too far, let them both clean up trash in a park for a couple afternoons. Everyone learns a small lesson.

[MikeStanart]

I tend to agree with the homeowner here. If someone, especially someone who is 17 years of age, pounds on my door in the middle of the night, I'm going to go out there and stop him.

I'm curious though, what about you guys who were so vehemently opposed to that homeowner who did the same thing to ding-dong-ditch kids, but who happened to be a police officer??? I seem to recall some serious vitriol.

The kid is 14 dude.

[eproxy100]

That wasn't excessive force. What was the adult supposed to do? Let the kid get away so that the same thing will happen again? Or call the cops who will end up not doing anything? The kid got what he deserved.

Kids are irresponsible only because they're allowed to be, just like a lot of the adults are now. If adults treated kids like they treat other adults then the kids would mature a lot faster.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am not down with the "kids will be kids" BS. If kids are not individuals parents should be legally liable to keep unruly kids on a leash. Because the parents in this case appear to be complete jackasses who condone unruly behavior of their kid I hope the homeowner sues. If kids are individuals then don't bitch about kids being held liable when they show complete disregard for other individuals.

I don't have an opinion on the tackling, police, etc. Unfortunately we only have one crappy justice system everyone is forced to work with.

[libertybrewcity]

I think people just need to chill out. Yea, the kid was an idiot but who hasn't ding dong ditched or did some stupid prank as a kid? Tackling is uncalled for. Getting arrested is even more uncalled for.

[devil21]

Why is a 14 year old out running around the neighborhood at 10pm? Parents should know that NO GOOD can come from that. Sounds like bad parents making excuses for their lack of discipline and smelling a payday from the homeowner.

[GunnyFreedom]

Who HASN'T ever played a little ding dong ditch. Lighten up guys :D

Um. me.

When I was a kid, some guys tried to talk me into it once, but it felt like a 'violation' of someone else, so I declined. You can imagie how that went, but I stiood my ground. I guess my parents raised me right. Too bad this kid's parents didn't do likewise.

[GunnyFreedom]

The kid is 14 dude.

In the dark of night, getting ready for bed in a house with the lights on or just turned off, a loud aggressive pounding hits your BACK door. Your adrenaline starts pumping overtime, your vision darkens, and you plunge out into darkness to see running figures. You are worried about your house, yourself, and your kids, not having any idea what this is connected to.

You gonna stop and ask the kid his ID to determine that he is only 14? I doubt it. You gonna wait and follow him until the sun comes up so you can actually see how old he is? I don't think so.

If the kid was so delicate at 14 that he can't stand on his own or face the consequences of his own actions, then he shouldn't run around violating people.

[BlackTerrel]

This is one of those instances where I don't have much of an issue with either party and just wish the law would stay out of it:

1. 14 year old kid rang a doorbell and ran - big whoop

2. 37 year old hears a doorbell ring while putting wife and kids to bed and chases after guy on his own property - his right.

Kid got tackled. Should learn his lesson and move on. No one needs to have their life dragged through the mud because of something so stupid - which is happening now with the 37 year old who is being charged. Have his name in the paper, go to trial, spend lots of money, every time he applies for a job this incident is going to come up. For what? Because he protected his property?

The state does not need to intervene in such instances. Sometimes they need to stay out and things will resolve themselves.


Nonsense, there is this little thing you're forgetting called free will. You can teach your children respect, but they still have the choice as to whether or not they will obey. I'm not saying the parents aren't idiots, but to automatically assume they are based on nothing more than their children actions is illogical.

Kid pulled a prank, got a couple scrapes and that should be his lesson. Instead his parents want to press charges and are now setting a horrible example for him. Instead of the lesson of "hey you fuck with people you might get fucked with" they teach him "sue sue sue".

Nothing good comes of this.

[Mini-Me]

This is one of those instances where I don't have much of an issue with either party and just wish the law would stay out of it:

1. 14 year old kid rang a doorbell and ran - big whoop

2. 37 year old hears a doorbell ring while putting wife and kids to bed and chases after guy on his own property - his right.

Kid got tackled. Should learn his lesson and move on. No one needs to have their life dragged through the mud because of something so stupid - which is happening now with the 37 year old who is being charged. Have his name in the paper, go to trial, spend lots of money, every time he applies for a job this incident is going to come up. For what? Because he protected his property?

The state does not need to intervene in such instances. Sometimes they need to stay out and things will resolve themselves.



Kid pulled a prank, got a couple scrapes and that should be his lesson. Instead his parents want to press charges and are now setting a horrible example for him. Instead of the lesson of "hey you fuck with people you might get fucked with" they teach him "sue sue sue".

Nothing good comes of this.

I mostly agree here.

For the kid's part, kids will be kids (little snots ;)). I may have grown up straight-laced enough not to mess around with people and their property, but kids who get into teenage mischief like this are more on the "inconsiderate" side than the "going nowhere in life" side. They need a lesson in manners, sure, but anyone passing serious judgement on them for ding-dong ditching alone is...well, a bit too tightly wound.

Beyond manners, they should have learned an important lesson in empathy and prediction here: Scaring a homeowner at night with sounds at their back door is a stupid move, and it's liable to stimulate their fight-or-flight instincts. Running out and tackling the little punk who messed with you is pretty understandable.

However, I actually DO have a larger problem with one of the two parties, but I'm not sure which one. Did the home-owner actually threaten to kill the kid, or is the kid a little shit who is making a serious accusation to get out of trouble and shift focus to the home-owner? One of the two parties deserves a serious out-of-court ass-kicking, but I'm not sure which.

In pretty much any case, I agree with you that the kid's parents are out of line here. The incident is over and done with. The kid has a few minor injuries, but nothing that won't heal in a few days. Teaching your kid to sue anyone who fights back against him is NOT the way to raise him. Furthermore, when you've already learned that your kid is obviously a bit of a punk, it would be wise not to immediately trust his word about a homeowner threatening to kill him.

[libertybrewcity]

In the dark of night, getting ready for bed in a house with the lights on or just turned off, a loud aggressive pounding hits your BACK door. Your adrenaline starts pumping overtime, your vision darkens, and you plunge out into darkness to see running figures. You are worried about your house, yourself, and your kids, not having any idea what this is connected to.

You gonna stop and ask the kid his ID to determine that he is only 14? I doubt it. You gonna wait and follow him until the sun comes up so you can actually see how old he is? I don't think so.

If the kid was so delicate at 14 that he can't stand on his own or face the consequences of his own actions, then he shouldn't run around violating people.

I don't think because he ding dong ditched means he was raised wrong. Who are you to know how a kid is raised is right or wrong? When I was in high school my friends and I would climb every building we could find. We had to run many times but never got caught. I'm not a bad person because of it, I just loved the rush of being the highest person in the city and finding industrial urban spots. it was a rush and were some of the best times of my life.

I think it's important to do stuff like ding dong ditching or shenanigans as a kid. At least they are outside and not sitting in a basement playing Call of Duty, smoking pot, drinking soda, getting fat, and only making friends via a game. Even now that I am older I still wish I did some crazy stuff with friends. Most of the college kids I know today just get drunk and party and stuff.

[moostraks]

This is one of those instances where I don't have much of an issue with either party and just wish the law would stay out of it:

1. 14 year old kid rang a doorbell and ran - big whoop

2. 37 year old hears a doorbell ring while putting wife and kids to bed and chases after guy on his own property - his right.

Kid got tackled. Should learn his lesson and move on. No one needs to have their life dragged through the mud because of something so stupid - which is happening now with the 37 year old who is being charged. Have his name in the paper, go to trial, spend lots of money, every time he applies for a job this incident is going to come up. For what? Because he protected his property?

The state does not need to intervene in such instances. Sometimes they need to stay out and things will resolve themselves.



Kid pulled a prank, got a couple scrapes and that should be his lesson. Instead his parents want to press charges and are now setting a horrible example for him. Instead of the lesson of "hey you fuck with people you might get fucked with" they teach him "sue sue sue".

Nothing good comes of this.

yep...We have a number of children who are getting more and more out of hand in our city. I thank those property owners who would snatch them up and detain them because the mind set of the brats is they are entitled to special treatment because of their innocence but they are anything but innocent when they begin to mess with a stranger or his property. People (starting at a young age) need to respect unknown consequences for their actions.

I am also in the camp of the non ding dong ditch players. At 14 the child should have known better and bet he will now. I also wouldn't blame the homeowner for threatening him if he attempted to flee again. How many of you have used excessive verbage but not meant it literally???

[AuH2O]

What the kids did is stupid, but not a huge deal. What the homeowner did was understandable, and completely justified. The shortcoming in this situation comes from the child's parents. I don't think the police needed to be involved since, after being apprehended, the child's parents should have been alerted and THEY should have meted out appropriate justice. That is obviously not happening here; in fact, they are essentially condoning the behavior and attacking the property owner. I'm willing to bet that, had he not called the cops but only the family, this kid's coddling parents would have been the ones to alert police about the "brutality" their son suffered at this man's hands.

[j6p]

This kid should of known better, the homeowner was in the right. It's called selfdefense, just because he is 14 does not give him the right to violate other people and their property. If they know what they were doing is a prank, then they know it's not good.

[MelissaWV]

I did read up on it. The situations are not apples and oranges, they are very similar, with the one distinction that the homeowner in one case happened to be an offduty police-officer.

That's the ONE distinction to you?

This is the OP in that thread entitled "Chased, shot and killed by off duty cop for 'ding dong ditch'":


...In Venice shooting, a hunt for answers

By Todd Ruger, Anthony Cormier & Kim Hackett
Staff Writers

Published: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, April 19, 2010 at 11:31 p.m.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1060?p=1&tc=pg

( page 1 of 4 )

VENICE - An autopsy on the body of Tyler Spann is complete and he will be buried today, but questions remain about the death of the 20-year-old who was shot and killed early Friday by an off-duty Sarasota County sheriff's deputy.

The Sheriff's Office did not release details about the case Monday, but officials say they expect the investigation into the actions of Deputy Carlos Verdoni, who shot Spann, to be completed by the end of this week.

The inquiry into the shooting is divided into two parts: a criminal investigation of the shooting; and an administrative look at whether Verdoni followed procedures when he left his home in shorts, a T-shirt and sandals to track down the pranksters who banged on his door and ran off.

Verdoni, 33, told his superiors that his doorbell was rung around midnight Thursday, and then he heard banging on his door around 1 a.m. He said he chased down one prankster in his squad car and found him outside a home in the 300 block of Lisbon Street. There he encountered Spann and told him to lay down while he called for backup.

Spann complied initially, Verdoni said, but then rushed up and tackled the deputy and reached for his gun. Verdoni fired two shots, killing Spann, who was unarmed.

Sheriff's officials are investigating the shooting even though it happened within the Venice city limits. The Sheriff's Office says it handles all officer-involved shootings in the county, except for those in the city of Sarasota, through an agreement with the smaller police agencies.

Sheriff Tom Knight has said that he believes Verdoni's actions were justified and that the investigation will clear the nine-year veteran.

Once again, in the case cited above, the person lost sight of the people he says were responsible for the prank, got dressed, grabbed his gun, got in a car, and went around the neighborhood looking for the people or person responsible. The "kid" in that case is dead, not tackled and held while waiting for the police, and not so close to the property of the person defending said property that there's a dispute as to whether or not it was actually on the property.

There is a world of difference between catching someone in the act and tackling them, and getting into a vehicle to find them in the vicinity of the crime with a firearm on one's person. The off-duty cop specifically went to get his firearm and went onto others' property to find the person he felt was responsible, at which point he played judge, jury, and executioner. This guy tackled a teen.

[Krugerrand]

I did read up on it. The situations are not apples and oranges, they are very similar, with the one distinction that the homeowner in one case happened to be an offduty police-officer.

I thought the distinction was that after the threat had clearly and without question passed, the officer grabbed his gun, chased the kid down, created a violent situation in which he could claim to feel threatened and then shot the kid - all while not following proper protocol for the situation by not calling for backup.

Thus ... apples / oranges.

[Southron]

Is there anyone else here who's parents would have told them "you got what you deserved" and let it be?

Edit: Not that I would have been allowed to run around at 10PM anyway.

[AuH2O]

Is there anyone else here who's parents would have told them "you got what you deserved" and let it be?

Nope, I would have probably been further "bloodied," and rightfully so.

[Southron]

Nope, I would have probably been further "bloodied," and rightfully so.

Well I mean more in regards to the lawsuit. It just seems like parents see quick to sue, even if their child was in the wrong.

[Brian in Maryland]

Van Plew said he feared for the safety of his two children and his wife.

Why was he even out of his house then? It could have been a distraction. While he was out chasing one person others could have been invading the house, raping, killing, stealing, who knows what.

I would have stayed in the house, gun ready and called the cops.

[georgiaboy]

Great Friday morning thread. I admit, I lol'd thinking about the situation as it occurred.
- pranksters planning the hit
- lights go out, they pounce
- "What the..?" from inside the house
- Homeowner jumps to action, clothes resting on the bedroom chair, shoes next to the door.
- Flight of the pranksters together, except for the straggling 14 y/o (for some reason I picture him as the out of shape one)
- Homeowner, also out of shape, and in his skivvies struggles to reach the 14 y/o, catches, and they both tumble, grass stains & all

Anyway,
I can't believe the parents of the kids called the cops and are pressing charges against the homeowner. Unreal.
I can't believe the cops are having to be distracted by this, and tax dollars being wasted in such a way.

There are some missing pieces to the story, like are these folks neighbors, is there a history of back & forth animosity, were others peering out their windows catching the whole scene, which makes the whole drama that much richer.

And yeah, if dragged home by the nape of my neck for doing something like this, I would've gotten no mercy from my parents.

Brings back some memories for sure.

[Bruno]

Everyone here was in the wrong.

[Brian in Maryland]

Another angle is the retaliation factor. This was probably seen by the perpetrators as just a prank. The 14 year old may harbor a grudge now and may stew over it for a while, years maybe, then do something more serious. This was assault and battery against a minor, a pretty serious offence. It’s not like the kid was actually hurting someone or doing property damage.

I just don’t think the homeowner made a wise decision. People need to learn to not let their emotions get the better of them.

This family may even get their house sued out from under them.

[AuH2O]

To those who think the homeowner "overreacted," who are you to say how fiercely this man ought to be allowed to protect his family on his property? Isn't that the same argument often used by the Left asking "Well do you really need all those big guns? Isn't that excessive?"

[jmdrake]

What the kids did is stupid, but not a huge deal. What the homeowner did was understandable, and completely justified. The shortcoming in this situation comes from the child's parents. I don't think the police needed to be involved since, after being apprehended, the child's parents should have been alerted and THEY should have meted out appropriate justice. That is obviously not happening here; in fact, they are essentially condoning the behavior and attacking the property owner. I'm willing to bet that, had he not called the cops but only the family, this kid's coddling parents would have been the ones to alert police about the "brutality" their son suffered at this man's hands.

Several good posts and a lot of questionable ones. It think this one sums up my views best. It was a stupid prank that shouldn't have happened and these are some unfit parents. I'm with GunnyFreedom. I did not do anything like this as a kid. Was I perfect? Sakes no. But I never understood why anyone would want to toilet paper a house or egg someone else's car fill a paper bag with dog poop, set it on fire on a doorstep, ring the doorbell and run off. (And I'd never heard of "ding-dong-ditch".) As a parent if this was my kid I would apologize for his behavior and for the fact that I didn't know where he was at 10pm. He'd be grounded and forever barred from hanging out with those "friends". I would have asked the homeowner if he needed to be quite that rough, but I wouldn't file charges. And no, I don't think kids should "prank" police officers either. I missed that thread though.

[Bruno]

To those who think the homeowner "overreacted," who are you to say how fiercely this man ought to be allowed to protect his family on his property? Isn't that the same argument often used by the Left asking "Well do you really need all those big guns? Isn't that excessive?"

They were fleeing before he even got out of the door to chase them, therefore there was no "threat" other than the possiblity that they would come back again and ring the doorbell again waking them.

By leaving, as someone else mentioned, he could have put his family in more danger if some of the other kids (or more present he didn't know about) were waiting for him to run out so they could run inside the house themselves.

I do not see how running down one of four teens was protecting his property or his family from harm in this situation.


Another angle is the retaliation factor. This was probably seen by the perpetrators as just a prank. The 14 year old may harbor a grudge now and may stew over it for a while, years maybe, then do something more serious. This was assault and battery against a minor, a pretty serious offence. It’s not like the kid was actually hurting someone or doing property damage.

I just don’t think the homeowner made a wise decision. People need to learn to not let their emotions get the better of them.

This family may even get their house sued out from under them.

Good point, and this could have been retaliation to begin with. Was it a random house they chose, or did they know the family? Perhaps the guy was a jerk to them before, or his kids were, or maybe these kids were just the neighborhood trouble-makers (who make come back to make more trouble). There's usually a little more to the story.

[Dr.3D]

Well, so far I have read a lot on this thread about how one side was wrong, the other side was wrong, and both sides were wrong. What I am waiting for is someone who believes the kid should get away with this sort of thing, to explain how one is supposed to discourage the type of behavior the kid did.

Sure it's a prank.... but it also is a problem for the home owner. If kids believe there is nothing anybody is going to do about their behavior, then they are just going to continue to do as they please, homeowner be damned.

Isn't there any law against such pranks? If not, then perhaps having a law to discourage kids from doing things like this would be a good idea. (Oh, I can just hear it now... "we don't need more laws.") Okay, for those who believe we don't need more laws, how do we expect to keep these kinds of things from happening in the future?

Shouldn't the homeowner be able to expect to be left alone while sleeping or getting ready for bed?

[Kludge]

Well, so far I have read a lot on this thread about how one side was wrong, the other side was wrong, and both sides were wrong. What I am waiting for is someone who believes the kid should get away with this sort of thing, to explain how one is supposed to discourage the type of behavior the kid did.

Sure it's a prank.... but it also is a problem for the home owner. If kids believe there is nothing anybody is going to do about their behavior, then they are just going to continue to do as they please, homeowner be damned.

Isn't there any law against such pranks? If not, then perhaps having a law to discourage kids from doing things like this would be a good idea. (Oh, I can just hear it now... "we don't need more laws.") Okay, for those who believe we don't need more laws, how do we expect to keep these kinds of things from happening in the future?

Shouldn't the homeowner be able to expect to be left alone while sleeping or getting ready for bed?

More guns, not more laws.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Is there anyone else here who's parents would have told them "you got what you deserved" and let it be?

When I got caught red handed with a group of class mates toilet papering my high school before graduation I was given the same choice as everyone else.

Do you want:

1) your name turned into the principals office
2) escorted home

Everybody chose option #1