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.
I agree, but this is where motive should have come in. The admin should have some ability to look at motive. He forgot. He was attempting to do the right thing. Maybe if he went to the admin, they could have called his parents or something.
I see it like a getting a ticket. Yes I was speeding and I broke the law, however the officer can use his judgement, look at my driving history, and decide not to give me a ticket.
The admins should be able to use their judgement on this issue. If the kid was a good kid, trying to do the right thing, some leniency should be allowed. If the kid was a known trouble maker with a history of causing problems, maybe not so much.
"the officer can use his judgement, look at my driving history, and decide not to give me a ticket."
Which I think is the crux of the issue. Many school officials and politician are so anti gun that they won't even consider anything less then the maximum punishment.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 05-02-2013 at 09:13 AM..
Honestly, if there is a zero tolerance policy against it, it should be enforced without prejudice and bias. He was in the wrong. This isn' ta second amendment issue. He probably -could've- gotten away with it if he kept his mouth shut. I've forgotten that I've had knives in my pocket and gone to school before (swiss army knife, but they still lump it in with all the other ones), and I kept my damn mouth shut about it.
"it should be enforced without prejudice "
Then why wasn't the teacher from the same school punished equally?
This is the problem... "Zero Tolerance" is bureaucrat-speak for "Zero Thought". Could you imagine that thought process in the REAL justice system? If you break ANY law you immediately suffer a prescribed punishment without any consideration of the actual facts of the case.
The whole "if you make an allowance for one you'll have to make an allowance for all" argument is utterly moronic. Zero Thought.
One of the reasons why I think students should be allowed lawyers at school hearings. An adult who gets caught shoplifting and is facing a fine is entitled a lawyer, but a student who is facing a YEAR's punishment and very likely getting kicked out of whatever college has already accepted him is entitled to nothing.
We have had dozens of incidents where common sense was thrown out the window because of "zero tolerance".
A high school girl had a kitchen knife, her family had just moved and it was left in the car unknowingly to her when she left home, and was punished.
A 6 year old draws anything remotely looking like a gun and is punished
It is not at all clear that this kid committed any crime.
Many crimes have multiple elements. One element is that the defendant performed a certain prohibited act. Another element is that the defendant possessed a certain mental state at the time he or she performed the act.
As some posters have pointed out, some crimes and violations have no mental element. For instance, there is no mental element for exceeding the speed limit or driving when your blood alcohol content is above a certain level. If the state proves you took such an action you are guilty.
On the other hand, other crimes have a mental element, such as "Knowingly", "recklessly", "intentionally", "wilfully", and to establish guilt in those cases it is necessary for the state to prove that the defendant possessed the required mental element. Sometimes the same act can be a crime or not, or a greater or lesser crime, depending on the mental element.
It would be easy for the legislature to write this law either way. For example, "Any person who possesses or transports a firearm onto school property shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Or "Any person who knowingly and with intent possesses or transports a firearm onto school property shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Same act, different standard for determining if a crime was committed.
If the news story is correct there may be a mental element of "knowingly" or "intentionally" as an element of the crime of carrying a firearm onto school grounds. If so, and if his claim that he didn't know the gun was in his car is true, then it is possible that this kid did not violate the law. If he and his lawyer can make a persuasive case to the prosecutor he may wind up not even being charged, or maybe being charged with something like disorderly conduct.
My frist question is where is his parents? why didnt mom or dad check in his weapon...does he get to run around willy-nilly without any adult supervision?
How does a minor own a weapon? was it even his or his dad's/mom's?
anywho...he sounds like a good kid...maybe the NRA can give him a scholarship to a military school.
You are so freaking ridiculous! Did you know you can get a hunting license at like age 12 or something and carry a shotgun down the street at that age? Did you even know this at all before running your yap?
I think this case will be dismissed without any charges filed (being arrested is not the same thing as actually being charged).
One of the news stories quoted a school spokes-person as saying that Cole was arrested because: “The law is very clear when a person knowingly and willingly brings a weapon onto educational property,” then the student must be turned over to law enforcement.
Thus far, the facts seem to indicate that Cole did not knowingly and willingly bring the shotgun onto the school property. I simply can't see a grand jury indicting this young man. Or a district attorney pursuing it. I think the spokes-person was very careful to use that language for a reason.
I do not like 'zero tolerance' rules. However, this school, and many others, has such a rule, so I must live with it. Wishing it weren't so helps nothing.
The political posts herein are silly. For all we know the school principal may well be a 'tea party' advocate, or a 'liberal'. However, it makes no difference. If you, the reader, were the principal at the school, and you were informed that a student brought a shotgun onto school property, what would your response be?
1. Ignore it, for the Second Amendment allows for individuals to bring guns onto school grounds.
2. Inquire whether the student planned to use the shotgun to kill you, or just some of the more unpopular classmates.
3. Cover your butt and follow the official rules that the local authorities (school board, city council, what have you) put into place.
4. Go to the nearest computer, sign in to CD, start a new thread on the matter, and then read what would be appropriate in light of your political viewpoint.
As much as I dislike what happened to Cole, I can't see what viable option the school authority had, other than call in the police. Again, I do not like 'zero tolerance'. However, it is in place, and if you allow one student 'slack', then you not only open yourself up to a host of problems, but it becomes confusing to all.
I also do not blame the parents. We have little other information (google this case and you will see essentially the same story repeated word or word, with no new information). It does appear to be an honest mistake by this young man, which is why I dislike 'zero tolerance' rules.
It is sad: every time we have school board elections here in Fort Worth, the turnout is miserable. People act like who is elected to these boards does not matter. Only those with a real passion (such as having zero tolerance implemented) will bother to turn out.
Since I must get to work I will answer one upcoming question: I do not think that students should be allowed to bring any weapon onto school property. However, I also do not think that the principal should have his or her hands tied (i.e., having to call police) by the zero tolerance rules. It would have been a non-issue if the principal had the power to simply say "Ok, Cole, drive back home and get rid of the gun, and spend an hour after school cleaning the gym as punishment". Heck, in my day, my principal would have taken the shotgun and said "Well, Legalsea, looks like I have a new shotgun" (he was a miserable man).
"One of the news stories quoted a school spokes-person as saying that Cole was arrested because: “The law is very clear when a person knowingly and willingly brings a weapon onto educational property,” then the student must be turned over to law enforcement."
IF the story is true, the kid realized he had the gun and called his mother FROM the school office and told his mother the story and to come and get, the school official who overheard the conversation should have know IMMEDIATELY that the kid did NOT knowingly and willingly bring it to school.
In either case, I agree, this will get thrown out.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 05-02-2013 at 09:15 AM..
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.
