14 year old boy to get year in jail for wearing NRA T-shirt

[JakeStarkey]

Here's the School Policy on Dress --

From HuffaPole,

Although the school’s dress code makes no mention of NRA paraphernalia, it currently states the following: “If in the judgment of the administration, a student is dressed inappropriately, the student will be required to change clothes or cover up inappropriate clothing before returning to classes.”

Which is so broad as to be legally unenforceable. Completely useless. It's only good for -- Nothing, really.

Not at all. The school lawyer will have no trouble having local authority enforce it.

 

[Polk]

Drill team at my son's HS carry rifles. So does the ROTC color guard.

And? The point is that this school, like most schools, have prohibitions on students wearing shirts with drugs, weapons, and/or profanity on them.

Did this school have such a policy? I thought I read earlier in the thread it didn't.

According to the school's website, their dress code prohibits "Clothing and accessories that display profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexually suggestive phrases are not to be worn at school or school functions."

Logan Co. Schools Dress Code

 

[Polk]

Drill team at my son's HS carry rifles. So does the ROTC color guard.

And? The point is that this school, like most schools, have prohibitions on students wearing shirts with drugs, weapons, and/or profanity on them.

So, how was wearing an NRA shirt any of those things? Sounds like freedom of speech to me.

A gun isn't a weapon anymore?

 

[Edgetho]

Here's the School Policy on Dress --

From HuffaPole,

Although the school’s dress code makes no mention of NRA paraphernalia, it currently states the following: “If in the judgment of the administration, a student is dressed inappropriately, the student will be required to change clothes or cover up inappropriate clothing before returning to classes.”

Which is so broad as to be legally unenforceable. Completely useless. It's only good for -- Nothing, really.

Not at all. The school lawyer will have no trouble having local authority enforce it.

Let's see how your School Board Lawyer makes out when a Hot Shot Constitutional Lawyer takes the kid's case Pro Bono.

I'll put my money -- Not on the local Yokel who went to the Mining College Law School for West By God Inbreeds

 

[MikeK]

The substance of this incident has far less to do with the message or the images on that boy's T-shirt than with the authoritarian inclination of the school officials who are taking the situation to a plainly unnecessary and irrational level.

The boy is not going to prison. The worst that will happen is expulsion. But the nature of the message and the images on that shirt afforded an opportunity for constructive discussion of the Second Amendment and its effect on the Nation. Instead, look what the damn fools are doing.

What surprises me is it's happening in Kentucky rather than New York or New Jersey.

 

[Edgetho]

The substance of this incident has far less to do with the message or the images on that boy's T-shirt than with the authoritarian inclination of the school officials who are taking the situation to a plainly unnecessary and irrational level.

The boy is not going to prison. The worst that will happen is expulsion. But the nature of the message and the images on that shirt afforded an opportunity for constructive discussion of the Second Amendment and its effect on the Nation. Instead, look what the damn fools are doing.

What surprises me is it's happening in Kentucky rather than New York or New Jersey.

There's nothing to discuss. The 2nd Amendment is here to stay and is even stronger than ever, now that it has officially been 'incorporated' by the SCOTUS.

This was handled very badly by the School Officials, who will probably get a promotion out of it. And it will drive a wedge even further between The People and the gubmint.

You can't go around bullying 14 year old kids into submission because of politics. People, especially in West By God, don't take too kindly to that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And? The point is that this school, like most schools, have prohibitions on students wearing shirts with drugs, weapons, and/or profanity on them.

Did this school have such a policy? I thought I read earlier in the thread it didn't.

According to the school's website, their dress code prohibits "Clothing and accessories that display profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexually suggestive phrases are not to be worn at school or school functions."

Logan Co. Schools Dress Code

A picture of gun does not display violence

 

[OODA_Loop]

And? The point is that this school, like most schools, have prohibitions on students wearing shirts with drugs, weapons, and/or profanity on them.

So, how was wearing an NRA shirt any of those things? Sounds like freedom of speech to me.

A gun isn't a weapon anymore?

This school has no prohibition on weapons on shirts.

 

[bendog]

Gd dam liberals in education. when I was in high school, and a kid refused to do what a teacher AND the pricipal told him, a coach would just make him run till he puked, and if he refused to run, he could spend a week at home at see his GPA die. I realize we can no longer "abuse" children who defy authority, but if this teeshirt ran afoul of school code, why not just expell him for a year? The taxpayers shouldn't feed the punk.

 

[bripat9643]

He's talking about a T-shirt with a picture of a crack pipe on it, not an actual crack pipe.

I was talking about a T-shirt with a picture of a crack pipe on it, too. I wouldn't bother: I'm no advocate for illegal, bad practices, and certainly not in the schools.

Legal and moral, okay: this NRA shirt is okay with me and the Tinker black armbands were also okay.

I don't think it should be illegal to defend a kid wearing such a shirt if someone wanted to, it's just not for me.

What you guys seem to be failing to realize it being an "NRA" shirt isn't relevant. The school didn't make this decision because of the letters, it made the decision because the shirt has a picture of a firearm on it.

That's even dumber. These "zero tolerance" policies need to be ended. They're just PC run amok. It's another form of left-wing brainwashing.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes. He was.

What did he do that was threatening, violent or otherwise disruptive except stand up for his rights?

If there was any possibility of trouble, it stemmed from the local Gestapo and the Himmler-esque Principal asking someone to forget they live in America.

Which, if libtards get their way.... We won't anymore

Believe the reactionarytards like you or believe the police, the principal, the teacher?

Wanna guess who the judge is going to believe?

In other words, you can't name anything.

BZZZZZZZZT!!

No points.

Thanks for playing!

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yup, the kid was peaceful and non-threatening? A near riot?

Follow the train of events Jake. This is the statement of the Chief of Police (who was not even there) justifying the arrest of the boy to the main stream media for "disrupting the school process". It occured in the immediate aftermath of the incident and before any charges were filed.

So, an investigation took place and they have now charged the 14 year old boy with a crime, but what crime and what does the charging instrument allege?

He is not charged with disrupting the school process. Why?

He is not charged with causing a riot. Why?

What he was charged with was "obstructing an officer"... not "obstructing an officer with force" or not even with "obstructing an officer with threats" which would be aggrivating circumstances which need to be alleged in charging instrument. The charging instrument merely alleges that he "kept talking" and that this somehow obstructed an officer... usually the police want you to talk, but that is merely an aside.

The school subsequently reinstated the boy after one day suspension... which would seem somewhat odd if he had caused such a severe disruption to the school as a "near riot".

So what do we have here?

IMHO, a police dept and school which desperately wants to avoid a suit for civil damages which might expose them to huge liability and they are hoping that they can use the threat of criminal prosecution as leverage to eliminate civil liability... in other words...

PSST... Kid... you agree not to sue and we will drop all charges

 

[Mustang]

Gd dam liberals in education. when I was in high school, and a kid refused to do what a teacher AND the pricipal told him, a coach would just make him run till he puked, and if he refused to run, he could spend a week at home at see his GPA die. I realize we can no longer "abuse" children who defy authority, but if this teeshirt ran afoul of school code, why not just expell him for a year? The taxpayers shouldn't feed the punk.

Any minute now, you're likely to blame Aardvark Ratnik.

 

[bripat9643]

Believe the reactionarytards like you or believe the police, the principal, the teacher?

Wanna guess who the judge is going to believe?

Yeah, Jake.

I hope I remember you when the Judge throws this case out.

You'll make excuses. You'll come up with some kind of bullshit excuse.

But this case ain't going anywhere.

Only an idiot would believe that. And I do believe you qualify.

A 12 year old girl can buy the Plan B Morning After pill but a 14 year old kid can't wear an NRA T-Shirt to school?

Yup, you are the The fact is simple that the old white Euro-centric male white protestant-dominated America is fading quickly.

The boy will go to reform home if he does not make a willing and convincing repentance.

And I will remind you, little one, when that happens: count on it.

Yeah, right, Fakey. He's going to spend exactly zero seconds in jail. All charges will be dropped, and you will probably disappear from the forum for a few days after you have been thoroughly humiliated by the facts.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Gd dam liberals in education. when I was in high school, and a kid refused to do what a teacher AND the pricipal told him, a coach would just make him run till he puked, and if he refused to run, he could spend a week at home at see his GPA die. I realize we can no longer "abuse" children who defy authority, but if this teeshirt ran afoul of school code, why not just expell him for a year? The taxpayers shouldn't feed the punk.

It did not run afoul of the school code. You might also wish to brush up on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Hi Ben.

 

[bendog]

Yup, the kid was peaceful and non-threatening? A near riot?

Follow the train of events Jake. This is the statement of the Chief of Police (who was not even there) justifying the arrest of the boy to the main stream media for "disrupting the school process". It occured in the immediate aftermath of the incident and before any charges were filed.

So, an investigation took place and they have now charged the 14 year old boy with a crime, but what crime and what does the charging instrument allege?

He is not charged with disrupting the school process. Why?

He is not charged with causing a riot. Why?

What he was charged with was "obstructing an officer"... not "obstructing an officer with force" or not even with "obstructing an officer with threats" which would be aggrivating circumstances which need to be alleged in charging instrument. The charging instrument merely alleges that he "kept talking" and that this somehow obstructed an officer... usually the police want you to talk, but that is merely an aside.

The school subsequently reinstated the boy after one day suspension... which would seem somewhat odd if he had caused such a severe disruption to the school as a "near riot".

So what do we have here?

IMHO, a police dept and school which desperately wants to avoid a suit for civil damages which might expose them to huge liability and they are hoping that they can use the threat of criminal prosecution as leverage to eliminate civil liability... in other words...

PSST... Kid... you agree not to sue and we will drop all charges

Oh .... I dunno. Down here if a kid refused an order from a teacher and principal, most likely the parents would be told to pick the kid up, and if they didn't, the cops would take him to the alternative school for his parents to collect. There'd be a temporary suspension of up to 72 hours. Then if the school wanted more, there'd be a hearing.

But a year in Jail? WTF

 

[bripat9643]

And? The point is that this school, like most schools, have prohibitions on students wearing shirts with drugs, weapons, and/or profanity on them.

Did this school have such a policy? I thought I read earlier in the thread it didn't.

According to the school's website, their dress code prohibits "Clothing and accessories that display profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexually suggestive phrases are not to be worn at school or school functions."

Logan Co. Schools Dress Code

In other words, the shirt is perfectly acceptable.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I know 99% of our military personnel will follow their lawful orders, and that they won't be relying on 'what's lawful' arguments from the reactionaries and militia nuts.

A BSA troop that decided to adopt reactionary thinking could be considered a Terrorist Youth Organization.

And unlawful orders? I can assure you that confiscation of firearms is an unlawful order.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, Jake.

I hope I remember you when the Judge throws this case out.

You'll make excuses. You'll come up with some kind of bullshit excuse.

But this case ain't going anywhere.

Only an idiot would believe that. And I do believe you qualify.

A 12 year old girl can buy the Plan B Morning After pill but a 14 year old kid can't wear an NRA T-Shirt to school?

Yup, you are the The fact is simple that the old white Euro-centric male white protestant-dominated America is fading quickly.

The boy will go to reform home if he does not make a willing and convincing repentance.

And I will remind you, little one, when that happens: count on it.

I got your 'little one' hangin, bitch

You don't got what it takes, sister.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know 99% of our military personnel will follow their lawful orders, and that they won't be relying on 'what's lawful' arguments from the reactionaries and militia nuts.

A BSA troop that decided to adopt reactionary thinking could be considered a Terrorist Youth Organization.

And unlawful orders? I can assure you that confiscation of firearms is an unlawful order.

I will try that in court: "The2ndAmendment due says that confiscation of firearms is an unlawful order. He assures it."