Two teens charged as adults in armed robbery of 3rd teen
The Palm Beach County Sheriff ’s Office says two teenagers broke into a suburban Boca Raton home last month, hit the teen who lived there on the head and robbed him.
Surveillance footage and witnesses’ tips led deputies to arrest 17-year-old Michael Green and 16-year-old Christian Diaz on burglary and a r med ro bber y c har ge s , according to court records. Both are being charged as adults, jail records show.
The injured teen told deputies he was asleep at about 4 p.m. Sept. 6 at his home, west of Boca Woods Country Club and north of Loxahatchee Road.
He’d come home early from school, he said, smoked a marijuana cigarette and fell asleep in his bedroom. He was awakened by a bang at the front door. When he left his room, he was pushed against a wall by two “kids” in camouflage and masks, he told deputies.
He recognized one to be Green, a Hollywood re si d e n t . He t o l d d e p u t i e s they were friends in middle school.
The teen fought with the suspects, one of whom hit the boy on the head with a hard objec t , according to a sheriff ’s office report. The suspects made off with money and jewelry, the teen told deputies. They fled in a getaway car parked nearby.
Deputies said the teen had scratches around his neck, a cut on the back of his head was in a crate nuzzling her four newborn puppies. Animal care workers moved the dog to the cat room because it was less noisy for the puppies.
People were still stream- and bloodstains on his shirt.
A person who saw the teens flee the house told deputies one was Diaz, who lives in Boca Raton. Surveillance footage from the neighborhood shows Diaz and Green enter, then leave the home, according to a sheriff ’s office report.
Both teens are being held in the Palm Beach County J a i l . B o t h h av e j u v e n i l e records, which influenced Judge Joseph Marx’s decision to hold them in jail without bail until their next court appearance. ing in with their pets Thursday morning, and Lt. White estimated that the shelter would probably end up with more than 100 pet owners and their pets weathering the storm there.
“So far we have 41 dogs, 22 cats, two birds and one chicken,” he said.
A chicken in the hurricane shelter?
“Her name is Tootsie Hyacinth Featherbottom,” said Suzy Dannelevitz, an animal care and control worker who rescued the chicken and turned it into an indoor pet along with her two big black dogs.
The chicken was in a cage on a table next to LaRosa’s cockatiel.
“She’s a little bit nervous,” Dannelevitz said about her chicken, “but she’s taking it all in stride.” constitutional amendments on the ballot. Early voting for the Nov. 8 election is Oct. 24-Nov. 6.
T h e l e a g u e a l s o s a y s Amendment 1 is misleadi n g b e c au s e i t p ro mi s e s rights and protections that already exist. Even the name of the group backing the amendment — Consumers for Smart Solar — is deceptive, the league and other opponents say.
But Sarah Bascom, spokesperson for Consumers for Smart Solar, said, “A plain read of Amendment 1 and an exhaustive independent review of it by the state policy and economic experts proves that our opponents’ statements about Amendment 1 are false.
“Amendment 1 s i mply does three things,” Bascom said. “It ensures consumers’ rights to generate their own solar electricity. It protects consumers from scams and ripoffs like what’s happened in Arizona.” Thirdly, she said, it promotes fairness by allowing government to protect those who don’t choose solar from having to subsidize out-of-state solar operators.
She said it does not preclude any approach to solar energy.
“Amendment 1 does not block ownership of solar. It does not make solar more expensive and it certainly does not discourage people from installing solar. These are outright lies to pull the wool over your eyes for their own benefit,” Bascom said.
F l o r i d i a n s f o r S o l a r Choice, a group opposing the amendment, includes the solar energy industry. It has raised a little more than $2 million, about 10 percent of what the utility-backed group has raised.
Tory Perfetti, chairman for Floridians for Solar Choice, said, “Amendment 1 is a cleverly designed attempt to maintain monopoly control over Florida’s energy industry. This amendment is an attempt to manipulate
This amendment establishes a right under Florida’s constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use. State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.
It would place existing solar energy laws into the constitution and preserve the status quo.
people into falsely believing it is currently illegal to buy or lease solar. It is deplorable that Amendment 1 proponents seek to enshrine Florida’s current, non-competitive, anti-free market solar policy into the state’s constitution.”
In late 2014, Floridians for Solar Choice launched an effort to deregulate the solar market with a pro - posal that would allow thirdparty power providers to sell solar excess power generated from their rooftops to nearby neighbors or businesses. The initiative failed when the group could not obtain enough petition signatures to get its proposal on the November ballot.
Floridians for Solar Choice now plans to try to get a measure on the 2018 ballot that would allow businesses to generate and sell up to 2 megawatts of solar power to nearby property owners.
Florida Power & Light Co. spoke swoman Alys Daly added: “Amendment 1 was proposed in response to a former ballot initiative that would have removed all regulation and consumer protection from the solar industry.”