NRA members son arrested for something he wrote

Wallew,

I think you need to step back from this issue a little and not personalize it so much.

This is not an issue of "liberalism run amok" or an attack upon NRA instructors. This is not an issue of whether or not parents should be held liable for their teenagers actions.

This is an issue regarding the violent and sociopathic writings of a New Jersey boy and whether the local officials handled it appropriately or not.

As I have stated previously, I am not in favor of this type of early morning raid if other options are available. Until further facts are made available, we will not know why the officials chose to act with such immediacy. If they made the wrong decision, I'm sure that there are any number of attorneys that will be willing to take the New Jersey families case.

I am certain that the local officials are aware of the spate of school shootings of the last few years and wished not to see a repeat of that in their community. Faced with this fear, they had very few options. They could take the course that they chose and worry about legal liabilities later. Or they could have chosen to take lesser actions and wait and just hope that this kid did nothing irrational, knowing that if this kid did do something, they would be held legally liable for ignoring this kids writings.

It is obvious that local officials choose to error on the side of caution. Was this the right decision? We will never know for sure. There is no way of knowing if this boy was prevented from going out the next day to start a killing spree, or if this boy was destined to become the next Quintin Tarrentino.

Not all people who write such violent "manifestos" are a danger to kill. Nor are all mass killers apt to write a "manifesto". However, school officials, police and at least one judge in New Jersey had enough concern for this happening that they took actions.
 
my 2 cents worth

Going on the limited information that we have, I think that this kid did need some looking into. Having said that, I think that the 1:30am raid and the subsequent actions of the authorities were a taaaadd excessive. One thing that has to be remembered is that in the present system the schools seem to be full of victims waiting to happen with teachers and such having their rights to "meaningfull self defence" eliminated by insane gun control laws.I think that some of this fear of kids killing other kids and the subsequent over reactions in some circumstances is because the persons involved would be powerless if some kid came into their school and started killing their students. They would have no real way of surviving such an event because they have no way to defend themselves other than to run and hide and hope and pray that "he doesn't find me". Instead of hammering on someone in the middle of the night for a threat that might not be serious (this one might have,but some of the others that I have heard about were nothing but kids just having some fun and had no intention of even carrying out something like this, they should be looked into, but just looking into it shouldn't invlove the SWAT team!) we should work to have these insane unconstitutional gun control laws striken from the books, and make these sorts of killings virtually impossible. I think the "the post columbine line" has been drawn horribly wrong. Kids just pointing there "finger guns" at each other are being treated as if they were about to execute their classmates. Remember the over persuit of "safety" leads to the infringment of liberty and I think that describes this case.
 
Artimus, you said:

Dennis, you stated that this kid crossed the "post Columbine line" What is this line and how is it defined? Does this mythical line only apply to students? If so, why?

Defined:

A student can no longer make explicit threats (by name) against any student or teacher. These threats may be verbal or written, but the offending student will be run through "the system". Schools no longer let ANYTHING like this slide. Not one bit.

Do I agree with this policy? No, not really. But that's life in the real world. Schools are now "free kill", er, um, "gun-free" zones, so the administratos have to at least LOOK like they're doing something. Failure to take action WILL result in lawsuits if a child is harmed by such a "troubled student".

The rule also (though to la lesser degree) applies to teachers. IIRC, a teacher was recently disciplined for threatening to bring a gun into the classrom and shoot "unruly students". The exact event escapes my memory at the moment, but I remember it, and it was VERY recent.

If a kid's gonna write a story, make it FICTION. Change the names. Period. Anything else will be grounds for an official "look-see". A school is a government agency. The people there have a legal requirement to "keep the kids safe" (whatever that means). So, in today's climate of "official fear" you can't expect such a place to live by any "normal" Constitutional protections. Sad, but still true.
 
E5M - have fun disecting and attacking this post, as you have with my others.<<<<<

Why? I'm not attacking you, I just disagree with your positions. I get no enjoyment out of it. I simply don't think anything(treason, disclosure of nuclear secrets, sexual fantasies about the Spice Girls, anything!) this kid could write(as opposed to something he's DONE) would justify a 0130 raid by a dozen or more armed police officers. S/F...Ken
 
E5M,
THANK YOU! Just because I (or you) disagree with all the poeple here who think this kid did something wrong, they take it as a personal attack. Too bad for them. MY (and YOUR) opinions ARE JUST AS VALID as theirs are. And I don't take their disagreement with me as a personal attack. Maybe some people here SHOULD take two steps back from their computer and take a deep breath. At no point do I 'attack' anyone. I disagree LOUDLY, sure, but as I stated, my opinions are just as valid as are theirs are.

I just believe that in this day and age, the police have gone of the deep end one too many times. I can give facts to back my opinions up. I also believe that school administrators have also gone WAY overboard as well. And I can back those opinions up with facts as well. All this 'post Columbine' is crap. It's strictly kids acting poorly, because in todays society, personal responsibility, especially of SOME (not all) parents are sadly lacking. Which is what has caused this problem in the first place.

Cactus,
"This is not an issue of "liberalism run amok"" - Yeah, those poor liberals were so unprepared to handle the writings of a 17 year old boy that it took ten LEO's to haul him off in the middle of the night. Yeah, those poor old liberals.

RH,
"you not only can get inside the head of this boy,
and Dylan & Klebold, but you can divine MY thoughts". I don't have to divine your thoughts. I just repost what you say, and YOU make the mistake of infering things from it. You said you didn't say "blah, blah, blah" and then I just reposted exactly what you said, proving that wrong. And you want to flame me. Go ahead. All I have to do is repost what you say for you to get mad. Maybe you should take the advice given me. Chill out.
 
:rolleyes:

Wallew:
"Yeah, by saying that "some people", you meant yourself and others. You can't put your feelings of this matter onto other people without first having those feelings yourself. Otherwise, you have no basis in fact."

Amazing. I'm arguing with you about what thoughts are inside of my own head, and you think you know my thoughts and what they 'mean' better than I do. Simply amazing.

If I give an opinion of how some other members might react in a situation, I can't just be guessing, no, I must be projecting my own thoughts onto them, right ? That is what you are saying ?

So if I predict another's behaviour, it is really just projecting onto that person how I would react ? So, I could not, for instance say that Clinton is an adulterer unless I am one too ? Could not say Dylan & Klybold are evil unless I am too ?

I should have you pre-read my posts before they go public, just to make sure I'm saying what I mean to say, since you know my 'meaning' better than I do.
 
I was tempted to delete my last post, but I'll let it stand.

No flames were intended for anyone. Spirited discourse, yes.

We can agree to disagree, but let's also agree to take others opinions at face value, and not try to "read into" what they "really mean". I try to speak plainly and be understood plainly.

RH, taking some advice and...chillin.
 
Thanks, RH, for taking a step back and chillin'. And to all others who realize that we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. We all need to do that once in a while. Especially in this thread, it seems.

Think twice, post once.

RH - Think twice, post twice is a close second to the above guideline. ;)
 
Wallew,

Try as I might, nowhere was I able to discern the political ideology of the police officers, prosecutor or the judge involved in this case from the two news articles at the beginning of this topic. Do you have some source of information not available to the rest of us?

You are making presumptions that are not based on any facts in evidence in the news articles. Not only do you seem to know what is in the heart and mind of this New Jersey boy, you now are able to detect the political motivations of the officials involved. Once again, this is not a talent I share. I can only make my arguements based on the facts available to me.

Once more, this is simply a case of the violent and sociopathic writings of a boy and whether or not the authorities acted appropriately when these writings were brought to their attention. This is not a matter of a bunch of rabid liberals out to destroy a "normal" teenagers life.
 
Hi Dennis,

Your reply:

Defined:

A student can no longer make explicit threats (by name) against any student or teacher. These threats may be verbal or written, but the offending student will be run through "the system". Schools no longer let ANYTHING like this slide. Not one bit.

Do I agree with this policy? No, not really. But that's life in the real world. Schools are now "free kill", er, um, "gun-free" zones, so the administratos have to at least LOOK like they're doing something. Failure to take action WILL result in lawsuits if a child is harmed by such a "troubled student".

Point taken. This "post Columbine line" is an arbitrary measurement, that's the problem I have with it. All Columbine did was lower the bar. If ANY school staff member points an accusing finger at a student, stating that they believe he/she is a threat, that kid is now guilty until his parents can prove them innocent. And if it's a known fact that there are guns in the home (as in this case) well, you see the results. This is a dangerous precident, both for kids and parents.

None of us here have enough factual information to pass any judgement on either the school or the kid at this point regarding the content of "the manifesto" The only thing for sure is that the authorities overreacted and handled this incident all wrong. Still makes me sick when I think about it.

And you're correct re the schools fear of law suits, but that doesn't give them, the police or the judge the right nor authority to destroy this family like they did. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out in the coming weeks/months, but NOTHING will justify the way that this has been handled.

Artimus
 
RH,
I TOO love a spirited debate and take what you said in exactly that vein. I hope you take mine the same way.

Cactus,
The kid has had his writings poored over by his 'guidance counselor' at school, who apparently didn't think there was anything wrong, as this person didn't call the cops. And the County Asst. Prosecutor said he didn't think the kid was going to us the firearms in the home. So there are two people, on the scene, intimately involved in this situation who DIDN'T think the kid was a bad kid. This from the two article I read. Plus one I found surfing the net.

To EVERYBODY,
As I have said over and over again. Does a 17 year old kid need some counseling or guidance from adults? ABSOLUTELY! Hey, most teenage kids COULD STAND some counseling from caring adults. Did the school administrator need 10 police to visit this families home at 0130 in the morning? HELL NO! Shades of Ruby Ridge, Waco or Denver (where SWAT got the wrong house and killed an innocent victim - everybody said "OOPS, wrong house" but that and the $400,000 they paid the family did exactly bupkiss to bring back the dead father of those children!). So, do the police over react? Time and time again. Will they do so in the future? As long as we accept their actions and don't do anything about it to prevent it from happening in the future.
 
Wallew,

The school submitted one of this kids "poems" for psycological evaluation. Therefore it is most likely that his guidance counseler would have made the recomendation to get the evaluation in consultation with teachers and the principle of the school. They obviously had concerns about this kid being a "bad kid" or one with some serious emotional problems.

All the Assistant Prosecutor said was that he didn't think the kid was going to use the weapons in the home. This was said after the kid was arrested and police found all of the weapons propered secured in the home. Did the Assistant Prosecutor believe this prior to the arrest? I don't know. Not having read the "manifesto" I don't know if the kid outlined what weapons he desired to use. What I do know is that the County Prosecutors office was involved in the raid and was most likely the ones that requested the warrent. The prosecutor did NOT say the kid wasn't a bad kid!

What I would like to know is why the police and prosecutors felt the need to make this kind of raid. It would be unusual for them to have no reason at all. We may not agree with the reason, but chances are they had one! If they have no justification, then they should suffer the consequances. But let's wait until the facts are known.

You cry that the officials are prejudging this kid without any proof of guilt, which, by the way, is not needed to aquire a search warrent or to arrest someone. Are you not guilty of the same offense, only against the officials involved?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top