Teen Convicted Of Gun Possession In Online Photos

[Musketeer]

2nd Ammendment, I'm sorry but the world is not as simple as it once was. Footbal teams making threats and getting into fights with just a wink and a nod are a thing of the past. I also do not think the situation we are in is a good one but we are there for a reason.

Bottom line is we have done a wonderfull job desensitizing a whole couple generations to violence. Simple fights are a thing of the past. While the concept of a kid having a gun for recreation or hunting a generation or two ago was commonplace the realization that they now have one for settling a score or making a point has taken precedence. We have created a generation that has learned how to dehumanize others around them and are paying the penalty for it. Entire generations are being raised on the concept of valueless human life. Is it any wonder we have the problems we have.

We MUST pay attention to situations like this one and the sad thing is that it stains the image of those young people who have no illicit motives behind an association with firearms. You may have an admitted disrespect for authority but does it take the form of this kid's behaviour, I doubt it. The kid is giving off very strong warnign signs that he is a half bubble off plumb and possibly dangerous. He is also doing it for attention, attention that he is now getting but very well could also have eventually pursued with a couple loaded firearms in a mall or school. We cannot ignore this behavior.

The bottom line is he DID break the law, as I explained above. We may hate the way he was painted, and I sitting on the jury would argue against any connotation of guilt becasue of having a firearm, but the facts seem clear enough to me.

 

[Rivers]

Musketeer: As I said, I don't know enough about Colorado law to know whether the dumbass, screwed-up miscreant broke the law or not, but I would be interested in your posting that section of the Colorado law that pertains to "conditional parental permission, etc." I'm always eager to learn. If the Colorado law says, as does the law of other states, that a minor, under the age of 18 must be under the supervision and control of a parent, when handling and being in possession of a handgun, then it'd be a loooong stretch for the father to assert control, in absentia, and ex post facto.

 

[Al Norris]

Rivers, the statute says nothing of the kind (read on).

Musketeer, IANAL. But a reading of the statutes seems to indicate that there was no crime.

The relevant portion of the Colorado Revised Statutes:

18-12-108.5. Possession of handguns by juveniles - prohibited - exceptions - penalty.
(1) (a) Except as provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person who has not attained the age of eighteen years knowingly to have any handgun in such person's possession.

(2) This section shall not apply to:
...
(b) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is on real property under the control of such person's parent, legal guardian, or grandparent and who has the permission of such person's parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun;
...
ANNOTATION:
The parental permission language in subsection (2)(b) is an affirmative defense to the offense of unlawful possession of a handgun by a juvenile. People ex rel. L.M., 17 P.3d 829 (Colo. App. 2000).

Note the annotation that provides for the affirmative defense.

What I think has happened is that this is just another example of how "Home Rule" overrides Colorado Law, in the eyes of this Judge. I may be wrong, but that is the impression I'm getting... That and the "Columbine Effect" is still in full force.

 

[Wildalaska]

Since Permission is an Affirmative Defense, its is the burden (in most cases) of the Defendant to prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidently Dads testimony wasnt convincing enough to the jury.

With that, what is the problem with the whoile scenario?

WildjustcuriousAlaska

 

[Eghad]

did he have a jury trail? or just the judge?

 

[Musketeer]

It is an excellent point to debate.

18-12-108.5. Possession of handguns by juveniles - prohibited - exceptions - penalty.
(1) (a) Except as provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person who has not attained the age of eighteen years knowingly to have any handgun in such person's possession.

(2) This section shall not apply to:
...
(b) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is on real property under the control of such person's parent, legal guardian, or grandparent and who has the permission of such person's parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun;
...
ANNOTATION:
The parental permission language in subsection (2)(b) is an affirmative defense to the offense of unlawful possession of a handgun by a juvenile. People ex rel. L.M., 17 P.3d 829 (Colo. App. 2000).

The way I see it from a logical progreesion standpoint the "Permission" given by the parent had attached rules to it. That is a fact that was established by the father's statements in the article regarding the weapon not being loaded or fired. Moving forward requires some assumptions because we simply were not in the court and did not see all the evidence.

We can assume, logcially I believe, that the father, a veteran, would have established other rules of gun handling with regards to the son's permission to handle said handguns. It wold also make sense that a violation of those rules woudl also invalidate the permission given by the parent. I think the focus of the judge on the photos whith the kid's finger on the trigger of the handgun indicates his seeing a violation of the established rules of gun handling.

The crux of the dilema is this: Is permission a blanket permission or limited to the rules established by the parent? Secondary to that would violation of the rules establsihed by the parent invalidate the permision.

Prentend you are on the stand.

DA: Did you give your son permission to handle the handguns in question?

You: Yes

DA: Were any conditions placed on this access, such as rules or restrictions?

You: Yes

DA: What were they?

You : They must be unloaded and not fired.

DA: Was your son given any other instructions?

You: Yes.

DA: What were they?

You: Treat every gun as loaded.
Never point the weapon at anything you are not preparred to shoot.
Be certain of your target and what is beyond.
Keep your finger off the trigger until the weapon on target and you
are ready to fire.

DA: If you knew these rules were being flagrently violated would you
withdraw your permission?

You: Yes (I would hope so!)

DA: Did your son know that if you found him flagrently violating those rules
that your permission would be withdrawn?

You: Yes

DA: Is there any chance that your son could have understood that your permission to handle the weapons included him violating the rules you established and that he did so WITHOUT YOUR PERMISION?

You: Yes (sadly, but true if you are being honest).

It is up to the PARENT to establish if the permission is granted as a blanket or with restrictions. In addition for those who take the intent of the author into account would anybody think the legislators who included the clause of parental permission would have thought to limit the rights of that parent to restrict such permission?

Try this one. This kid takes his fathers handgun and kills him with it. DOes anybody think he had parental permission to handle the gun for the cause of commiting patricide? In this case again I would see the added charge of minor with a handgun applying (although a very small charge comparred to murder!).

 

[Al Norris]

Wild, if the parents admission (the article claims both parents testified they had given permission) of giving permission is not adequate to the jury, then nothing would be.

Either he did, or he did not give permission. Nothing reported refutes this. The Judge even confirms the permission with this statement: "That doesn't mean juveniles could run around the house and do whatever he wanted with the gun."

The Judge and the Jury are simply ignoring the affirmative defense. Such a statement is also what led me to the conclusion that FUD otherwise known as the "Columbine Effect" is working here.

If the trial went as reported, and barring other facts not now known, the appeal should be easy.

 

[Wildalaska]

Nice cross, and there is no way Dad can ever say he gave permission for this behavior unlesss Dad wants to come off as a numbnuts

WildandsoitgoesAlaska

 

[Al Norris]

Musketeer, you're setting up way too many strawmen.

Barring any other unlawful activity by the kid, the permission is valid. If the kid violated a "house" rule (but not in violation of statutory law), then it is up to the parents to initiate corrective action. Not The State. No Crime has been committed.

That's logic.

 

[Musketeer]

Taken to its core...

Would everyone agree that the parent has a right to set limits, terms adn conditions to his permission?

Separate it from the gun issue.

A parent give a child permission to use the car during daylight hours.

Does that child now have permission to use the car if they sneak out with the keys at midnight?

 

[Al Norris]

Wild, my answer to Musketeer holds.

 

[Al Norris]

Musketeer, unless the parent wishes to prosecute the child for GTA, then no crime has been committed and corrective action falls to the parent.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wild, if the parents admission (the article claims both parents testified they had given permission) of giving permission is not adequate to the jury, then nothing would be.

Neither you nor I were there to see the testimony so we are unable to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses

The Judge and the Jury are simply ignoring the affirmative defense

See above.

If the trial went as reported, and barring other facts not now known, the appeal should be easy.

Actually the legal issue here based on the limited stuff we have is the concept of permission, the xtent of, how granted, how withdrawn etc...the actual question of whether permission was granted or not is beyond the appeals court as that is an issue not generally reviewed on appeal

WildesotericAlaska

 

[Al Norris]

Not everything that happens between parents and their children are, nor should they be, reviewable by the State. What is being advocated is the Nanny State. In which case, we should simply do away with parenting altogether and once birthed, all children become wards of that State.

That is the inevitable logic of prosecuting children for the "crime" of breaking a house rule. We appear to be tragically close to that point now. At least in some jurisdictions.

 

[Rivers]

Musketeer: Thanks for the additional Code info. Unless there's something else that I'm missing, looks to me like the kid has committed no crime. Being stupid isn't a crime.

 

[Edward429451]

Interesting.

From what I can tell (It would be nice to be able to have the transcript of the proceedings) the kid may have 'violated' two rules. But don't we all when we dry fire practice at home? If the kid had permission to dryfire practice then he had permission to have his finger on the trigger in a controlled enviroment.

My kids had permission to dryfire practice and to have loaded handguns in their room before they were 18. They were mature enough about it to have my confidence and thus my permission. They never let me down in any way about it and no tragedies ever occured. It was in fact comforting to know that more bases were covered in the event of a home invasion or whatnot.

I guess they'll have to indict (sp?) hollywood now.

Lemmee guess Wld, you don't have any kids, huh?

 

[steelheart]

Sounds like the kid has:
1 - Emotional problems that need to be addressed.
2 - Pathetic excuses for parents.

Is arresting him, expelling him from school and having a judge throwing his weight around overkill? Probably.

 

[tBlake08]

odds are this is not his first time acting suspicious.

Because acting suspicious is a criminal offense...

 

[Al Norris]

2 - Pathetic excuses for parents.

On what do you base this biased opinion upon?

 

[Scott Conklin]

2nd Ammendment, I'm sorry but the world is not as simple as it once was.

For most people in most places, yes, it is. Until someone else shows up and insists on making it more complex...rather like the events in this story.

Footbal teams making threats and getting into fights with just a wink and a nod are a thing of the past.

Really? Still happens here. Same silly bluster and same harmless results. OTOH I could make it more complex. I could bring in the law and make it a public spectacle and insist on prosecution, etc. THEN it would become something different. That doesn't change the original intent, though. Just indicates that someone was anal and knee-jerk.

I also do not think the situation we are in is a good one but we are there for a reason.

Yes we are. We're there because a small number of nervous nellies insist on applying a one-size-fits-all "solution" to everything kids do today because a tiny number of kids over an extensive period of time did some violent things. Violent things that the media made "world events", rather than the local felony issues they actually are(sorry, as much as it may mean to you or me it is NOT a national issue if one of our kids gets shot by another kid).

Bottom line is we have done a wonderfull job desensitizing a whole couple generations to violence.

Funny, seems to me what we are in the process of doing is turning every action into a major drama when it is treally nothing more than a minor act in life's play. Punching out the neighbor kid, or threatening to run him thru with a piece of rebar, is NOT a major event. Not until adults and "councellors" and such turn it into one, anyway.

Simple fights are a thing of the past.

Hmm, ok. I've seen a few over the last few years but hey, maybe they all turned into murders later. I just didn't hear about it. OTOH I've seen a couple that were nothing but simple spats that turned into major felony fiascos because, again, some nosy do-gooder just HAD to call the law and the law, a 20-something kid himself, had no clue about discretion.

While the concept of a kid having a gun for recreation or hunting a generation or two ago was commonplace the realization that they now have one for settling a score or making a point has taken precedence.

In whose mind? And why? I know plenty of kids in my son's age bracket. Children of guys I grew up with. Guns everywhere and not a negative motivation in the bunch. Nobody is seeking to settle any scores with them. Those seeking to settle scores are a tiny minority in the world and the only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because the media, driven by an anti-freedom agenda and a need to reconstruct society(and deconstruct history) has convinced Sally Soccer-Mom of such.

But across most of America...shock...nothing has changed. It's still the same kind of people raising the same kind of kids as one, two, three generations ago. The PERCEPTION of reality has been colored, not the reality itself.

We have created a generation that has learned how to dehumanize others around them and are paying the penalty for it. Entire generations are being raised on the concept of valueless human life. Is it any wonder we have the problems we have.

I could argue further based on the points above but I'll just say that I am glad I am not looking at the world through your eyes. I don't even like people and I don't see the apparent mess you are looking at.

We MUST pay attention to situations like this one and the sad thing is that it stains the image of those young people who have no illicit motives behind an association with firearms.

What were his illicit motives? Wanting to look "cool" and having a lousy definition thereof? What? And why must "we" pay attention to it? Nobody has yet shown a crime, so only his parents should be paying attention to it. NOT the whole bloody "village".

You may have an admitted disrespect for authority but does it take the form of this kid's behaviour, I doubt it. The kid is giving off very strong warnign signs that he is a half bubble off plumb and possibly dangerous.

We don't really know, do we? We don't know what disciplinary action his parents gave, or were given the opportunity to give, nor what his reactions to such would have been. I'd suggest the Village should ahve stayed out of it at this point since there's no crime here.

He is also doing it for attention, attention that he is now getting but very well could also have eventually pursued with a couple loaded firearms in a mall or school. We cannot ignore this behavior.

We really don't have any idea. All we have is a gung-ho prosecutor and a whiney-ass populace and a lot of assumptions...and your apparent world view which i find rather appalling.

The bottom line is he DID break the law, as I explained above.

Sorry but no, you "explained" nothing. You presented your take on the issue driven by the view-bias you have expanded on in here. MY take is that the firearms never left the house, he had parental permission within the home and thus ANY disciplinary action is purely up the parents UNTIL he does something greater: Leaving the home with a loaded weapon, making physical threats as opposed to virtual, or actually engaging in assault.

What's in his mind isn't your business, no matter how offensive you find it. We don't deal in thought crime and if this nation yhas come to the point we do then it's past time to get rid of those who support such.

We may hate the way he was painted, and I sitting on the jury would argue against any connotation of guilt becasue of having a firearm, but the facts seem clear enough to me.

And to me. Yet we came to two totally different conclusions. Fact is, mine seems a little more firmly rooted to the way things were and are in most of the nation than yours, which seems much more driven by the media idea of the way things might be in some places.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.