Teen Convicted Of Gun Possession In Online Photos

IMO , the kid is obviously a little disturbed , but no crime was committed here . :mad:

His father should whoop his ass for screwing around and they might wanna have a nice sit down and talk or two with their kid.

Jeezus ... what the hell is happening to this country? Parents can't parent anymore and kids can't be dumb kids showing off once in a while.
 
I don't get the conviction either if the parents gave permission as reported. That does not seem to make sense.

With that said, I would be scared as hell if I was a neighbor or lived anywhere in the county this screwy kid and his family live in.
 
I think the most obvious explanation is that the judge didn't understand the law. This is not unheard of, unfortunately. The affirmative defense, if raised, should have led to dismissal of the case. Since it wasn't dismissed, I've got to assume the judge didn't know what he was doing.
 
The photos are disturbing. The kid definately has a few issues that need to be worked on in group. However, if parental permission was given to posses them in the house, that state realy dosen't have much. But doubt that the NRA or GOA are gonna run to his side for legal defense.
 
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
Click to expand...

I think I'd rather come off as a numbnuts than see my son going to jail...

On redirect:

Defense attorney: "Did you in fact withdraw your permission at any time?"

Answer: "No, I did not."

Defense Attorney: "So your son had your permission to possess the handgun in question at the time the picture was taken?"

Answer: "Yes, he did."

Defense Attorney: "Your honor, I move for a directed verdict of not guilty."

No fact issue...directed verdict should have been granted as a matter of law.
 
I am sure most of you that are over say 35-40 have never been held in a wal-mart and asked to empty your pockets and then searched. Heck stores get sued if they do that to people over 20. Maybe after being stop a few times and "randomly searched" while you were at the mall you may not care for cops anymore. I have heard the one of my freinds got searched 20 times in less that three hours! The kid is as honest as you can get, but still one store after another he gets stopped.

Ever had your cars and lockers searched at work? At high schools they run drug dogs all the time. Kids are told to lay down on the floor so the drug dogs can check them. Anyone have this happen to them at work lately? If you did how did you like it? Did you get a nice warm feeling of happyness and a disire to thank your goverment for not trusting you at all? NO YOU WOULD SUE, You would say that you "HAVE RIGHTS" and yes you do. Kids don't.


I see one big change between now and say 1960, you hear about school shootings! I had a few PDF files of school shootings that happend as far back as 1900, but at the time no one wanted to hear about them so they were hidden.

Also when someone did something daft like making the statements he did, they did not get hauled off to jail. All that happend was they got kicked in the butt and brought home for their parents to strighten out.
 
The way I see it from a logical progresion 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.
Click to expand...

Interesting argument, but it doesn't really hold up, because:
  • in order to be convicted of possessing a handgun, you have to be subject to the law.
  • In order to be subject to the law, the law has to apply to you.
  • the law only applies to (to paraphrase for clarity,) "persons under 18, in knowing possession of a handgun, who do not have their parents permission."
  • the law explicitly fails to apply to "persons under 18, in knowing possession of a handgun, who do have their parents permission."

While I realize that laws of the construction "No person shall wear a red shirt outside of their house; This law shall not apply to anyone who chooses to wear a red shirt outside their house," are in fact tortured english, any such law can be interpreted correctly by combining the sentances. To whit,

"No person, who does not choose to do so, shall wear a red shirt outside of their house."

Note that there is no, "unless the judge really dislikes their actions" exception to the phrase "shall not apply to". Note also that word "shall," in legalese, possesses a specific meaning: it is a mandatory, not optional, construction. The phrase "the government shall" is exactly the same as "the government must; will do without exception; has no discression to decide."

Dex
firedevil_smiley.gif
 
couple of thoughts

One,

didn't one of the Columbine shooters have a web site, and on it had posted all kinds of PC statements, admiring diversity, and tolerance, and all of the other stuff that makes all the fuzzy headed people feel good? I seem to recall something like that mentioned (briefly) in the news, and look what this kid went and did.

two,

Anybody remember the concept of black (morbid) humor? Kids today certainly do, they just express it differently than we did, and some grown up just don't get it. They see a disturbed child, when there may just be a kid playing what he sees as a joke. As a parent who survived two teenagers with very un-PC senses of humor, I have to wonder. Gross, gristly images that I might find in bad taste, they found humerous. Both have gone on to become reasonably well adjusted adults, proudly serving in this nations armed forces. But someone with preconceptions about what was "proper" might have gotten the willies from some of their antics.

I am not going to pass judgement on this kid, maybe his real motive was to upset certain people. If so, he certainly got his wish. It is rather tragic that some people see killers behind every tree, when who might really be there is just some smart ass kid (who knows) he can jerk your chain.

I fully agree with the thought that we have lost our sense of perspective, when the media turns these things into national issues, repaeated constantly for weeks on end.
 
I think I'd rather come off as a numbnuts than see my son going to jail...
Click to expand...

Perjure yourself then?

After that redirect, Id love to be the one doing the recross :)

the law explicitly fails to apply to "persons under 18, in knowing possession of a handgun, who do have their parents permission
Click to expand...

You are neglecting to address the withdrawel of permission argument.

WildlookobjectivelynotemotionallyAlaska
 
After that redirect, Id love to be the one doing the recross
Click to expand...

Recross?? Excuse me, but this case should never have made it to the evidentiary stage. The judge ignored the clear wording of the statute when he let it get that far. The news story indicates that the judge disregarded the parents' testimony that the son had permission to possess the gun, and decided to do a little legislating from the bench:

But Jefferson County District Judge Brian Boatright said that that permission had limits. "That doesn't mean juveniles could run around the house and do whatever he wanted with the gun," Boatright said..."

Where in the statute does it say that the permission has limits? It doesn't, and the judge overstepped his authority by reading this into the statute. It's a 'yes' or 'no' question; either the juvenile had permission, or he didn't. If the parents testified that the son had permission, that should have been the end of the story. Case dismissed...

JaytakeacourseincriminallawCee
 
JaytakeacourseincriminallawCee
Click to expand...

I dont have to...graduated Law School in 1989

The news story indicates that the judge disregarded the parents' testimony that the son had permission to possess the gun, and decided to do a little legislating from the bench
Click to expand...

Where does the news story indicate that? We dont even know if it was a bench or jury trial. And if a bench trial, the judge as a trier of fact, was enttitled to disregard the testimony.

But anyway, I wasnt there, you were. Want to go over all the testimony for us :)

WildjayceeshouldnevermakeanassumptionwithoutcheckingfactsfirstAlaska
 
But anyway, I wasnt there, you were. Want to go over all the testimony for us
Click to expand...

As I'm sure you're well aware, I wasn't there.

The following appeared in the Rocky Mountain News on April 5:

But Jefferson County District Judge Brian Boatright said that that permission had limits.

That doesn't mean juveniles could run around the house and do whatever he wanted with the gun," Boatright said, noting that the father testified the boys were not allowed to load or fire the weapons unless he was present.

Boatright acquitted the boy on two charges in which he posed with the handguns but did not have his finger on the trigger. One of the charges stemmed from a photo entitled "angel of death," in which he posed on the floor with guns surrounding his body.

The judge was more concerned with a third photo in which the boy appeared to have his finger on the trigger.

"That exceeds the scope of his training, experience and trust (his father) placed in the juvenile," Boatright said.

http://http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4596866,00.html

So it's a criminal act if the juvenile has his finger on the trigger, but OK if he doesn't. What kind of logic is this? Where in the statute does it say that permission is negated by having one's finger on the trigger?

You're right that the judge can disregard testimony that he doesn't think is credible, but he can't redraft a statute in order to find someone guilty of a crime. This case is ripe for reversal on appeal.

Jaydon'tknowaboutgunfinishingtakencareofCee
 
That exceeds the scope of his training, experience and trust (his father) placed in the juvenile," Boatright said.
Click to expand...

We are back to the earlier post about revocation of permission then. Assuming the above is a FINDING OF FACT that will be givien great deference on appeal, the issue then is either or both the legal scope of and/or revocation of permission AND assuming permission can be revoked, whether in fact it was or alternatively, if applicable, whether the actions of the defendant were beyond the scope of the permission granted.

I'd love to0 see the transcript

WilddontworryabouttherestoftheplaygroundstuffAlaska
 
'd love to0 see the transcript
Click to expand...

Yeah, my curiosity's piqued on this one too. I can't imagine a defense attorney sitting through a trial like this without objections out the kazoo. Maybe it'll go up on appeal.

just plain JayCee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top