Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's one thing to support the NRA, it does not give you the right to run your mouth at the cop. The 14 yr old BOY needs to learn respect and when and how to fight his battles. All he had to do was shutup and let his father be contacted to do battle. The charges are bs, but its to get the kids attention.
No .. the authorities need to reacquaint themselves with the constitution that they all swear an oath to uphold ... which includes freedom of speech.
As for the rest of the people, including the authority worshipers, you need to reacquaint yourselves with the idea that liberty not exercised is liberty lost.
I honestly cannot imagine how so many people have become so lost, and so lacking even a morsel of common sense, that this type of nonsense is actually defended
A gag order isn't used to nail anyone. What planet do you practice law enforcement on?
The gag order request was due to the fact that a 14 year old could tell one side of the story and get thousands of gun lovers to call in to a police department and make threats. Actually that's not why it was done but this thread shows how willing adults are to follow the word of only a 14 year old.
Jared (or most likely his step dad) were taking advantage of the fact that as a juvenile no one could tell their side of the story. The idea behind the order probably was to lesson the possibility of potential jurors hearing so much from one side.
I don't like the idea of gag orders in general, but obviously courts think they can be good or the concept wouldn't exist.
Through negotiations, Jared's family agreed to hush up without the gag order. Those negociations opened doors to a settlement so in a way this was a good thing in at least the way things turned out.
You can think of it as the gateway to dismissal. I imagine coming to the table in a calm and civil manner gave the opportunity to work things out.
You need to practice at asking trick questions. I did not say he violated the law. Others are saying that he's exempt from the law because of his rights over a t-shirt that is claimed to be protected over the 2nd Amendment.
No one said he's exempt from any law. You're the only one that seems to think that he thinks he's exempt from the law.
No one said he's exempt from any law. You're the only one that seems to think that he thinks he's exempt from the law.
I don't agree. First, where did I say that? And it is absolutely clear that the majority of his defenders say that it was his right to speak however he pleased because the Constitution said so. Since most of this class (I'd bet including you) think the charge was bogus because of what happened with the t-shirt, you are absolutely saying that he does not have to follow the law because of his 2nd Amendment t-shirt violation.
A gag order isn't used to nail anyone. What planet do you practice law enforcement on?
The gag order wasn't the threat. The idea that they would only drop the attempt at a gag order if the kids agreed to lift their restrictions to discuss the issue in public was.
It was a pretty worthless threat though since they had no desire to actually make this more of a public issue.
Quote:
The gag order request was due to the fact that a 14 year old could tell one side of the story and get thousands of gun lovers to call in to a police department and make threats. Actually that's not why it was done but this thread shows how willing adults are to follow the word of only a 14 year old.
I saw nobody making threats. Did you?
Jared (or most likely his step dad) were taking advantage of the fact that as a juvenile no one could tell their side of the story. The idea behind the order probably was to lesson the possibility of potential jurors hearing so much from one side.
Quote:
I don't like the idea of gag orders in general, but obviously courts think they can be good or the concept wouldn't exist.
Through negotiations, Jared's family agreed to hush up without the gag order. Those negociations opened doors to a settlement so in a way this was a good thing in at least the way things turned out.
I've not seen where they agreed to any gag order. There was no settlement here. The charges were dropped. The settlement discussion will likely start after the lawsuit.
Quote:
You can think of it as the gateway to dismissal. I imagine coming to the table in a calm and civil manner gave the opportunity to work things out.
More likely the school, prosecutor and judge knew there was absolutely no legal standing to continue.
Saw? Of course not. Who saw anything on this thread?
Quote:
Jared (or most likely his step dad) were taking advantage of the fact that as a juvenile no one could tell their side of the story. The idea behind the order probably was to lesson the possibility of potential jurors hearing so much from one side.
Agree.
Quote:
I've not seen where they agreed to any gag order. There was no settlement here. The charges were dropped. The settlement discussion will likely start after the lawsuit.
On which charges besides "Lawyer wants to be a loudmouth."
Quote:
More likely the school, prosecutor and judge knew there was absolutely no legal standing to continue.
You we're pretty reasonable up until this line. This is utter garbage. The school was not a party. The prosecutor AND JUDGE agreed there was standing to continue
Saw? Of course not. Who saw anything on this thread?
It was your accusations. If you do not wish to continue with that argument, I understand.
Quote:
Agree.
You are agreeing with yourself here. My bad for missing the entire quote within the reply.
Quote:
On which charges besides "Lawyer wants to be a loudmouth."
There aren't charges in a lawsuit. The lawsuit will be filed because there was no basis for the kid being arrested.
Quote:
You we're pretty reasonable up until this line. This is utter garbage. The school was not a party. The prosecutor AND JUDGE agreed there was standing to continue
I don't agree. First, where did I say that? And it is absolutely clear that the majority of his defenders say that it was his right to speak however he pleased because the Constitution said so. Since most of this class (I'd bet including you) think the charge was bogus because of what happened with the t-shirt, you are absolutely saying that he does not have to follow the law because of his 2nd Amendment t-shirt violation.
The Constitution is the law, the only violators were the authority figures. If the charges had merit, they wouldn't have been dropped, so even the real authorities knew that he hadn't violated the law.
It was your accusations. If you do not wish to continue with that argument, I understand.
It's from the same record as anything else. While you are more reasonable than most, I don't expect those that believe a t-shirt is protected by the 2nd Amendment to be satisfied if they heard it from the source.
Quote:
There aren't charges in a lawsuit. The lawsuit will be filed because there was no basis for the kid being arrested.
Maybe but no one will even take a stab on what grounds. No matter, the motion for dismissal won't change.
Quote:
The school was and will be a part of the lawsuit.
School was what?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
