Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Enjoy slavery!
14-Year-Old Year in Jail Wearing NRA T-Shirt School | Complex
Anyway, they'll lock him up for your "Security." A nation of idiots.
Enjoy slavery!
14-Year-Old Year in Jail Wearing NRA T-Shirt School | Complex
Anyway, they'll lock him up for your "Security." A nation of idiots.
The boy is not legally entitled to disobey a lawful directive from the principal, and if the child upped the anti with threats, then a year at county reform is a good option.
Enjoy slavery!
14-Year-Old Year in Jail Wearing NRA T-Shirt School | Complex
Anyway, they'll lock him up for your "Security." A nation of idiots.
The boy is not legally entitled to disobey a lawful directive from the principal, and if the child upped the anti with threats, then a year at county reform is a good option.
Sorry, turd, but there is no law that says a student has to obey a teacher. There are school rules to that effect, but no law is violated when a student says "go fuck yourself."
Enjoy slavery!
14-Year-Old Year in Jail Wearing NRA T-Shirt School | Complex
Anyway, they'll lock him up for your "Security." A nation of idiots.
The boy is not legally entitled to disobey a lawful directive from the principal, and if the child upped the anti with threats, then a year at county reform is a good option.
is actually facing legitimate jail time for an incident where he wore an NRA T-shirt
He has the right to wear the shirt no matter what a bunch of idiot socialist retardds say. I think I will join the NRA to get a shirt and wear it to the local Dimwit aka commie, headquarters just to piss the idiots off.A year in jail is too harsh, but get him to remove the shirt.
Enjoy slavery!
14-Year-Old Year in Jail Wearing NRA T-Shirt School | Complex
Anyway, they'll lock him up for your "Security." A nation of idiots.
Jared Marcum was charged Friday with obstructing an officer and faces up to a year in jail and a $500 fine.
I laugh at the notion that the left somehow stands for freedom. What a fucking joke!
First of all, this hasn't gone to court yet. I imagine the judge will dismiss the case. Secondly, what makes you think the arresting officer is a Democrat or Liberal? Do you know for certain?
The kid has the right to wear the shirt, just not in school. If he doesn't want to follow the rules, then the school can expel him. They just better be certain to not allow kids to wear any clothing that politicizes gun control in a favorable way.
The boy is not legally entitled to disobey a lawful directive from the principal, and if the child upped the anti with threats, then a year at county reform is a good option.
Sorry, turd, but there is no law that says a student has to obey a teacher. There are school rules to that effect, but no law is violated when a student says "go fuck yourself."
All students are required to obey lawful directives from school personnel, and if the student refuses to obey and gets mouthy, yup, he is going to pay the lawful price.
Tis what tis, bripat. All of your hollering changes nothing.
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
And 2nd Amendment does believe in change by violence.
The 14 year old would not follow a simple order, then threatened the principal.
That is not how we handle dissent in this country.
He may gain some perspective and ethical reflection in his time at the home for teenagers who just don't get it.
The 14 year old would not follow a simple order, then threatened the principal.
That is not how we handle dissent in this country.
He may gain some perspective and ethical reflection in his time at the home for teenagers who just don't get it.
I went back and looked at the OP link and it does not say he threatened the teacher!!
I don't think that's correct.
I suspect this is a pre-planned NRA protest, and he'd have been careful not to threaten or get belligerent in that case.
The boy is not legally entitled to disobey a lawful directive from the principal, and if the child upped the anti with threats, then a year at county reform is a good option.
Sorry, turd, but there is no law that says a student has to obey a teacher. There are school rules to that effect, but no law is violated when a student says "go fuck yourself."
All students are required to obey lawful directives from school personnel, and if the student refuses to obey and gets mouthy, yup, he is going to pay the lawful price.
Tis what tis, bripat. All of your hollering changes nothing.
