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.
That if you are going to be snarky someone will call you out on it. And his BELIEF is not wrong. It may not be what the law is, but then he did not state what the law says.
I believe the authorities have no right to question anyone without probable cause. Being at a gun range with his father is not probable cause. Its harassment.
I believe that the legal standard for questioning is "reasonable suspicion" not "probable cause". Probable cause is the standard for obtaining a search warrant, obtaining an arrest warrant, or making an arrest. It doesn't matter, though. Going to a shooting range certainly does not entail "reasonable suspicion" either.
I suspect the questioning had little to do with his Constitutional rights to go to a shooting range with his dad (this isn't about defending himself -- he wasn't defending himself) and more to do with him posting it on social media.
If the school administration and police did not question the kid and then it turned out he did do something, everyone would scream that the school/police aren't doing their job.
Many of these mass shooters are law abiding citizens until the day they lose their ****.
I suspect the kid knew what he was doing when he posted about the firing range on Facebook.
No biggie -- all he had to do was answer the question. He wasn't stopped from doing anything.
And this isn't just some random kid. ....this kid has three twitter accounts -- one is verified (blue check). This kid was on a mission and purposely created the storm.
Law enforcement & school admin were doing their job. Nobody was denied any rights.
So......now anyone exercising their 2nd amendment rights is now subject to questioning and interrogation by authorities?
That if you are going to be snarky someone will call you out on it. And his BELIEF is not wrong. It may not be what the law is, but then he did not state what the law says.
I believe the moon is made of cheese and that the ownership of any firearm is completely illegal in the US. Is my belief wrong?
So......now anyone exercising their 2nd amendment rights is now subject to questioning and interrogation by authorities?
Just because he posted it on social media?
Gestapo much?
Nope that's not what this says AT ALL.
It says , if for some reason someone expresses a concern and it is looked into -- just answer the questions and move on.
This is not stopping every person who posts on social media from exercising their 2nd Amendment.
This was a highly sensitive situation where there was just a mass shooting, someone expressed concern, they looked into it and moved on.
If one person had maybe said something about some of the things Roof posted , maybe authorities would have noticed something wasn't right.
One of the biggest criticism is that there wasn't enough concern about Cruz.....
This young man is a smart guy and was purposely creating a buzz on the walk out day. (which good for him -- he was counter protesting...and is keeping it up -- it is his right) I celebrate any teen who is taking the time to get involved.
But For all we know he might have placed the anonymous call to the authorities...w.e don't know or it was some kid who was really scared. Authorities are a little 'gun' shy (excuse the pun) and maybe should have called his Mom & Dad and just asked to confirm that all was well. Would that have been okay? Maybe they will do things differently next time.
Reality -- he was not denied his 2nd Amendment Right. He was asked a couple of questions.
So where should the line be drawn? What exactly should be the criteria present before a police officer is allowed to say, “what is going on here?” If the kid took the gun to school after posting the pic, heads would roll that no one took it seriously and looked into it. What many if you are saying us that we must presume innocence until someone is killed or attempted to be killed. Before that, a white kid with a kid is presumed to be “a good guy e revising his second amendment rights.” All of the people who are pro-cop when “we don’t know the full story or why that man was arrested/killed by the police for holding a cellphone/sitting in Starbucks/asking for plastic silverware,” are suddenly sure that those very same cops are overreaching for asking a teen where he got the gun he was showing off on social media while referencing a group of kids who had just lived through a school shoring. I wonder what the difference is between these types of cases....
So where should the line be drawn? What exactly should be the criteria present before a police officer is allowed to say, “what is going on here?” If the kid took the gun to school after posting the pic, heads would roll that no one took it seriously and looked into it. What many if you are saying us that we must presume innocence until someone is killed or attempted to be killed. Before that, a white kid with a kid is presumed to be “a good guy e revising his second amendment rights.” All of the people who are pro-cop when “we don’t know the full story or why that man was arrested/killed by the police for holding a cellphone/sitting in Starbucks/asking for plastic silverware,” are suddenly sure that those very same cops are overreaching for asking a teen where he got the gun he was showing off on social media while referencing a group of kids who had just lived through a school shoring. I wonder what the difference is between these types of cases....
I think the issue here is that it could have been handled a little better by those in charge. We all know why the young man was questioned......but I and a lot of other people think that the appropriate thing would have been to contact his parents and discuss it with them first, as should be the case with any behavioral problem / issue at school unless immediate arrest or detainment is warranted.
I think the issue here is that it could have been handled a little better by those in charge. We all know why the young man was questioned......but I and a lot of other people think that the appropriate thing would have been to contact his parents and discuss it with them first, as should be the case with any behavioral problem / issue at school unless immediate arrest or detainment is warranted.
While I don't necessarily disagree with this, we also have to keep in mind that parents lie for their kids. The guy who shot up the Waffle House was given his guns back by his own father. And the exchange student who had a stockpile of guns and ammunition (I don't remember the exact details) was protected by his host mother. This wasn't a six-year-old; a teenager is old enough to answer the question, "Where did you get the gun you posed with in the picture?"
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
If you really want to get the liberals panicking, publicly reveal that a young person who's been through a bad experience disagrees with them, and walks the walk.
You have a very vivid imagination!
Off base but vivid.
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.
