Travesties and Zero Tolerance Policies - NC members in particular should take notice!
- Thread starter MLeake
- Start date
SPEMack618
New member
yes, he did break the law, but the issue I have with the whole thing, as MLeake points out, that the message being sent by the school adminstration here is A)laws are different if you're a student and B)by all means, if you discover yourself doing something wrong, cover it up and don't approach your parents or school officials for help.
Now we get into the "prosecutorial discretion" thing we were trying to tell you about in the last thread... i.e. administrator gets a slap on the wrist, student gets hard time, as well as a concept called "mens rea" which means an intent to commit a crime, as well as the language in the statute that says knowingly and willingly.
The statutes say "knowingly and willfully did commit....."
That is where discretion comes in to play. The officer had the opportunity to realize the student did not " knowingly and willfully commit....." which is an important part of the statute.....and should have used his discretion and not charged him at all. Now the prosecutor has the same discretion as to proceed or not. The student did not "knowingly and willfully" bring the weapon to school. He made an honest mistake and should never have been arrested.
That is where discretion comes in to play. The officer had the opportunity to realize the student did not " knowingly and willfully commit....." which is an important part of the statute.....and should have used his discretion and not charged him at all. Now the prosecutor has the same discretion as to proceed or not. The student did not "knowingly and willfully" bring the weapon to school. He made an honest mistake and should never have been arrested.
Last edited:
Well ignorance of the law is no excuse.
He knew the gun was in the trunk because he went shooting with it.
I would say he did not know or take the gun willfully if for instance his father drove the car and put the gun in the trunk and the student didn't know about the gun in the trunk and happened to drive the car to school.
He knew the gun was in the trunk because he went shooting with it.
I would say he did not know or take the gun willfully if for instance his father drove the car and put the gun in the trunk and the student didn't know about the gun in the trunk and happened to drive the car to school.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Having known at one time that the gun was in the trunk is not the question.
The statute says "knowingly and willfully did COMMIT".
If he forgot the gun was there, he did not KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY commit the CRIME.
Even if you argue "knowing", he clearly did not do it "willfully".
The statute says "knowingly and willfully did COMMIT".
If he forgot the gun was there, he did not KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY commit the CRIME.
Even if you argue "knowing", he clearly did not do it "willfully".
Forgetting is not a defense. If you put the gun in the trunk then you knew it was there. If you got in the car and drove it to school then you willfully took the gun to school.
It can be twisted like the Holy Bible but ultimately he was arrested and the D.A. will apply the law like they want. Even if he is found innocent he still learned a lesson.
But then again I have told you that before.
The article says "He asked school officials if he could leave and take the gun home" Read it......
It can be twisted like the Holy Bible but ultimately he was arrested and the D.A. will apply the law like they want. Even if he is found innocent he still learned a lesson.
But then again I have told you that before.
The article says "He asked school officials if he could leave and take the gun home" Read it......
Last edited:
I think the kid should call...
VP Biden!
No really, the whole event seems like a raw deal for the teen.
It's a bit off topic but years ago(late 1990s) my older cousin was sent a nasty letter filled with threats by his daughter's school. The admin staff informed him in writing he could face arrest for not having his daughter in school.
My cousin informed the school's principal & staff that the proper medical records & excuses were filed. The school staff made an error with the records.
I told my cousin, if it were me, Id go straight to the local media, the super-intendant & the school board. I'd calmly explain that if they ever threaten me again then make mistakes, Id file a civil lawsuit.
CF
VP Biden!
No really, the whole event seems like a raw deal for the teen.
It's a bit off topic but years ago(late 1990s) my older cousin was sent a nasty letter filled with threats by his daughter's school. The admin staff informed him in writing he could face arrest for not having his daughter in school.
My cousin informed the school's principal & staff that the proper medical records & excuses were filed. The school staff made an error with the records.
I told my cousin, if it were me, Id go straight to the local media, the super-intendant & the school board. I'd calmly
explain that if they ever threaten me again then make mistakes, Id file a civil lawsuit. CF
All people make mistakes or are liars
We all make mistakes.
He found his and tried to fix it.
Most would have sweated it out until the end of the day.
Is he guilty? yes, its the law.
Should he be punished? yes. It is important to remember where you put your guns.
Should he be tagged with a felony for life? definitely not.
Zero tolerance is in place for a lot of reasons but in part so as not to allow for favoritism.
It is a perfect example that zero tolerance laws need an option when it makes sense to a judge.
We all make mistakes.
He found his and tried to fix it.
Most would have sweated it out until the end of the day.
Is he guilty? yes, its the law.
Should he be punished? yes. It is important to remember where you put your guns.
Should he be tagged with a felony for life? definitely not.
Zero tolerance is in place for a lot of reasons but in part so as not to allow for favoritism.
It is a perfect example that zero tolerance laws need an option when it makes sense to a judge.
maestro pistolero
New member
The clause that exempts those who did not knowingly and willingly break the law is clearly meant to apply to situations such as this. In fact, few other sets of facts exist to which could it possibly could have been meant to apply. 'Knowingly and willingly' is a very specific, intentional, deliberate mindset outside of which this law carries no weight.
Plumnut, you are clearly blinded by your anti-gun bias. Your hang 'em high attitude toward this otherwise exemplary young man is disgusting.
You would ruin this young man's life over a simple, honest mistake that, once discovered, he immediately attempted to correct. Even worse, by allowing this kid to become a felon, you would brand him for life and deprive society of his every future contribution.
Plumnut, you are clearly blinded by your anti-gun bias. Your hang 'em high attitude toward this otherwise exemplary young man is disgusting.
You would ruin this young man's life over a simple, honest mistake that, once discovered, he immediately attempted to correct. Even worse, by allowing this kid to become a felon, you would brand him for life and deprive society of his every future contribution.
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I have deleted a post. Why?
I have a rather strange view here. If a poster says controversial things, in a manner that may seem offensive - and then says he or she is done with the thread, the poster should keep his or her word and truly be done.
If you don't like what was said in reply - then you shouldn't have sworn off the thread.
GEM
I have a rather strange view here. If a poster says controversial things, in a manner that may seem offensive - and then says he or she is done with the thread, the poster should keep his or her word and truly be done.
If you don't like what was said in reply - then you shouldn't have sworn off the thread.
GEM
Evan Thomas
Inactive
And another one... see Glenn's comments above, with which I agree.
Sweet Shooter
New member
I have two questions on this matter:
1. Why wouldn't the teen just get back in his car and drive away to correct his "mistake" privately? My opinion is that honor is lost on the dishonorable, I'd sooner have run home with stomach flu "squitters" than let someone control my freedom.
2. If the teen was not a concealed carry permit holder (not subject to gun-free zoning laws—at least here in UT) and the firearm was in fact locked away from his immediate use, surely the most that he can get prosecuted for is a trespass infraction?
I don't get it.
-SS-
1. Why wouldn't the teen just get back in his car and drive away to correct his "mistake" privately? My opinion is that honor is lost on the dishonorable, I'd sooner have run home with stomach flu "squitters" than let someone control my freedom.
2. If the teen was not a concealed carry permit holder (not subject to gun-free zoning laws—at least here in UT) and the firearm was in fact locked away from his immediate use, surely the most that he can get prosecuted for is a trespass infraction?
I don't get it.
-SS-
1. Skip out and drive home... It's what I would have done. What we don't know is if this was a closed campus. If so, that option was not available. Otherwise, it would require mind reading skills which none of us have (I think...).
2. State laws very. Apparently in NC, this is a felony crime.
2. State laws very. Apparently in NC, this is a felony crime.
I'm no expert on N.C. law. I didn't see where anyone linked to the statute but assume it did include the provision that it must be done knowingly and willfully as some members have posted.
The N.C. Court of Appeals has explained the difference between an act done knowingly and one done intentionally:
In addition, the N.C. Court of Appeals has defined willfully:
State v. Sullivan, 201 N.C. App. 540, 548, 687 S.E.2d 504, 510 (2009) quoting a jury instruction with approval and citing State v. Stephenson, 218 N.C. 258, 264, 10 S.E.2d 819, 823 (1940).
Thus, the student must intend to commit not just the act, but to violate the law purposely. This does not fit the facts as we know them.
This is a situation where the prosecutor may very well decide not to prosecute. Whether there would still be a school code violation which would justify expulsion is another matter.
Added: How many of you have tried to go through airline security with something not allowed like a pen knife on a key fob or a small container of CS gas on a key ring? This happens many times a day in virtually every airport. People are not prosecuted for trying to bring contraband through the airline because there is no intent to violate the law.
The N.C. Court of Appeals has explained the difference between an act done knowingly and one done intentionally:
State v. Bright, 78 N.C. App. 239, 243, 337 S.E.2d 87, 89 (1985). Normally, we can infer knowledge and intent from the acts themselves. However, under the facts as reported, there is direct evidence he was not aware of the gun in the trunk when he drove onto school property. Thus, a good argument can be made that the student did not knowingly bring the gun onto the school property. This has nothing to do with being charged with knowledge of the law; the law requires knowledge of the facts.
In addition, the N.C. Court of Appeals has defined willfully:
State v. Sullivan, 201 N.C. App. 540, 548, 687 S.E.2d 504, 510 (2009) quoting a jury instruction with approval and citing State v. Stephenson, 218 N.C. 258, 264, 10 S.E.2d 819, 823 (1940).
Thus, the student must intend to commit not just the act, but to violate the law purposely. This does not fit the facts as we know them.
This is a situation where the prosecutor may very well decide not to prosecute. Whether there would still be a school code violation which would justify expulsion is another matter.
Added: How many of you have tried to go through airline security with something not allowed like a pen knife on a key fob or a small container of CS gas on a key ring? This happens many times a day in virtually every airport. People are not prosecuted for trying to bring contraband through the airline because there is no intent to violate the law.
Last edited:
Reminds me of when I accidentally left a knife in my shorts pocket from fishing. I went to the principals office, and explained the situation, I never got in trouble before besides 1 detention because I skipped a class, and I played two varsity sports.
My principal took the knife, stuck it in his middle desk drawer, told me to come get it at the end of the day when I was leaving.
Technically according to the student rule book I should have been expelled, but clearly it was a slip of the mind, I fessed up, and he took care of me.
Not saying its exactly the same with a gun, but the prinicpal shouldn't have acted the way he did. The student was honest, it was a simple mistake, no one was in harm, they gun could have been easily removed, by one adult or another before lunch period and end of story.
My principal took the knife, stuck it in his middle desk drawer, told me to come get it at the end of the day when I was leaving.
Technically according to the student rule book I should have been expelled, but clearly it was a slip of the mind, I fessed up, and he took care of me.
Not saying its exactly the same with a gun, but the prinicpal shouldn't have acted the way he did. The student was honest, it was a simple mistake, no one was in harm, they gun could have been easily removed, by one adult or another before lunch period and end of story.