Charlie Brown Arrested
About Michael John ScottMr. Scott is the owner and publisher of Mad Mike's America. He is a U.S. Army veteran, career law enforcement executive, and dog trainer. He is a university professor, and criminal justice consultant, holding several degrees, including a master's in criminal justice and human services. He has completed the requisite coursework toward his doctorate, and is still working on his dissertation.
View all posts by Michael John Scott →
(Newser) As if the “voice of Elmo” scandal wasn’t enough to wreck our childhood memories, now the voice of Charlie Brown has been arrested.
In this file image originally provided by United Feature Syndicate Inc. VIA ABC TV, Charlie Brown and Linus appear in a scene from “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” (AP Photo/ABC, 1965 United Feature Syndicate Inc., File)
Peter Robbins, who voiced the popular animated character as a child, was busted in San Diego Sunday night and will be arraigned today on one felony count of stalking, plus four felony charges of making threats. No details are available yet about his alleged crimes.
Robbins, whose Facebook page lists him as Peter “Charlie Brown” Robbins, was stopped at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, alone in his Mercedes. A border officer referred him for a more detailed examination, and that was when the system discovered the 56-year-old was wanted on a warrant for crimes against a person, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. In other recent news that could leave emotional scars for a certain age group: Patrick Leach, the 27-year-old son of Barney the purple dinosaur’s creator Sheryl Leach, was arrested in California for attempted murder earlier this month.
Carol Maietta views
January 23, 2013 at 11:45 am
Maybe there’s a reason these folks hide behind cartoon characters or puppets?
Jim Moore
January 23, 2013 at 11:53 am
The challenging life of a child actor is something few understand. So many of these kids end up screwed up, and yet there is no movement to really protect them from the emotional scars of early fame. Nothing excuses the behavior, but just as we anticipate PTSD in returning soldiers, we should anticipate this kind of broken personality in former child actors.
Bill Formby
January 23, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Perhaps when a child, by whatever means, suddenly becomes famous and rich should have a state appointed guardian who monitors their income, spending and how they are allowed to behave until they reach age 21. Quite often they become the bread winner for the family and the parents let them get away with anything as long as they are bringing in the money. Just as often, a la Lindsey Lohan, the child is following the parents in their hell.
Jim Moore
January 23, 2013 at 9:54 pm
Bill, I think we’d disagree on the details, but you’re onto the root of the problem. These children are exploited: by the entertainment industry; by family; and often by legal “guardians” (attorneys, etc.). Myriad mouths feed off the child star, and the kid soon learns that trust is in preciously short supply. Compound the problem with the emotionally destructive effects of fame and “power” at a young age.
I don’t have a solution to offer. Court-appointed surrogates – especially civil servants serving in the role – may not be acceptable. Whereas a foster child must rely on a court-appointed advocate, there are endless cases where the advocate falls short. And in those cases, there is no potential conflict of interest to muddy the waters. Add LOTS of money to the mix, and financially empowered relatives and “friends” could make it impossible for a surrogate to be effective. The add the studios and producers to that mix, and we might have something explosive.
Any “entitled class” of advocates (by right through the courts) might easily become as corrupt as Michael Jackson’s doctors.
I’m inclined to think that studios/producers should be forced to fund nonprofit advocates whose mission would be to educate the child and family members about the risks, provide counseling, a hotline and more. This removes the legal standing of a court appointed advocate, and maintains responsibility for the child’s welfare in the hands of those who are already responsible, but it provides some oversight and enlightenment to the parties at risk. In the end, “Aunt Mary and Uncle Joe” might be the ones who would recognize the symptoms of growing dysfunction and exploitation and know who to call for help before things get out of hand.
That’s not a great solution, but it does avoid the dilemma of what would be termed “nanny state” interference, and it would, perhaps, limit the self-destructive forces brought to bear by all parties with standing in the child’s life…including the child.