ANOTHER SCHOOL/PUBLIC SHOOTING

[sally]

If you have kids in your home the personal property within the home is communal.

I probably don't get it because I wasn't raised like that. I was taught to respect the property of others even if it was one of my brother's baseball bats or one of their hockey sticks I wanted to use. It was theirs and I was expected to ask permission, not simply take it because I wanted to use it.

You are discussing common courtesy and how you were raised, which really doesn't relate to the law. People often confuse what's morally right or wrong as well, but it all comes down to what is legal and what isn't. If your brothers or parents accused you of "stealing" something that didn't belong to you, that is just how they chose to raise you. If they tried to call the cops and have you prosecuted for that "theft" the cops wouldn't respond. Even for a vibrator, because you had access to the vibrator being an occupant and family member in the home.

That's not true. If you reported your car stolen and your child was pulled over driving it he would be charged with joyriding or even larceny. If you reported your car stolen and your child was pulled over in another state with no intent to return it he would be charged with grand theft.

[Maggot]

But what about my virginity! Or yours? What is the price of this life long emotional trauma. Its not something easily forgettable or legislated in any way yet, what is the dollar value including inflation? How can I make money off this delicate yet unforgiving act that has been documented throughout history over and over again? Still not addressed fully nor defended in todays society. Its a sad day when a simple mass killing can even compensate or dare I say compare to the 120 second loss of my virginity.

I am stunned through the heart with a Manta ray tail besides a coral reef being filmed for money. Oh the shame!

[HairOfTheDog]

But what about my virginity!

That's it Maggot.

Screw you and your virginity!

Two birds, one stone...

[HairOfTheDog]

You are discussing common courtesy and how you were raised, which really doesn't relate to the law. People often confuse what's morally right or wrong as well, but it all comes down to what is legal and what isn't. If your brothers or parents accused you of "stealing" something that didn't belong to you, that is just how they chose to raise you. If they tried to call the cops and have you prosecuted for that "theft" the cops wouldn't respond. Even for a vibrator, because you had access to the vibrator being an occupant and family member in the home.

That's not true. If you reported your car stolen and your child was pulled over driving it he would be charged with joyriding or even larceny. If you reported your car stolen and your child was pulled over in another state with no intent to return it he would be charged with grand theft.

Gunnar doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, again.

The boy in the Arizona case is age 15, three years under the minimum age to be in possession of a handgun without supervision. He didn't have his parents' authorization when he secretly removed the gun from the home and the gun was not communal property just because it was stored in the family home. If his parents had noticed it missing and called police to report it and the boy was found with the gun, their son could of course have been arrested and prosecuted for being in possession of stolen property, illegal possession of a firearm, or other related existing laws. The same holds true if the boy had also/instead stolen/removed/borrowed/took (doesn't matter how you word it) the parents' vehicle without authorization and if the parents instead found out about it after-the-fact from police.

Police might choose to file charges based on the evidence, even if the parents wished not to do so. The DA's office or juvenile authority would evaluate the case and make the call as to whether/what existing laws to formally charge and prosecute. Even if there's irrefutable evidence and a confession, other factors might influence the DA not to charge/prosecute. It's a 'criminal justice system' not just a legal system. Just because a law is broken, doesn't mean authorities will consider it just to enforce that law by charging/prosecuting the offender all factors considered, especially in the case of a minor.

Here's just one case of an Arizona boy who was arrested for being in possession of stolen property because his parents called the police when he took the family vehicle and firearm without consent. http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southea...ts-vehicle

Though it's irrelevant to the case of the 15-year-old at hand, if parents called police to report their licensed/insured 16-year-old had taken their vehicle without their permission, or their 18-year-old had taken their gun without their permission, how the police responded would depend on the officer, the department, and the circumstances surrounding the complaint. As you noted, it's certainly possible that the of-age child could be arrested and charged/prosecuted with applicable existing laws like those you cited.

[HairOfTheDog]

Good news.



The 14-year-old girl, ^ Abigail Kopf, who was declared dead after she was shot in the head by the Uber-driving Michigan spree killer has beaten the odds.

She opened her eyes on Tuesday, she's been taken off her ventilator, and her condition has been upgraded from serious to fair.

http://www.inkfreenews.com/2016/03/01/ab...n-her-own/

[Blindgreed1]

If you have kids in your home the personal property within the home is communal.

I probably don't get it because I wasn't raised like that. I was taught to respect the property of others even if it was one of my brother's baseball bats or one of their hockey sticks I wanted to use. It was theirs and I was expected to ask permission, not simply take it because I wanted to use it.

You are discussing common courtesy and how you were raised, which really doesn't relate to the law. People often confuse what's morally right or wrong as well, but it all comes down to what is legal and what isn't. If your brothers or parents accused you of "stealing" something that didn't belong to you, that is just how they chose to raise you. If they tried to call the cops and have you prosecuted for that "theft" the cops wouldn't respond. Even for a vibrator, because you had access to the vibrator being an occupant and family member in the home.

That's not true. If you reported your car stolen and your child was pulled over driving it he would be charged with joyriding or even larceny. If you reported your car stolen and your child was pulled over in another state with no intent to return it he would be charged with grand theft.

Reporting your car stolen makes it a completely different situation. However, if it's your kid they find behind the wheel, it still wouldn't be grand theft auto as it woul be with a complete stranger caught driving your car.

[Blindgreed1]

You are discussing common courtesy and how you were raised, which really doesn't relate to the law. People often confuse what's morally right or wrong as well, but it all comes down to what is legal and what isn't. If your brothers or parents accused you of "stealing" something that didn't belong to you, that is just how they chose to raise you. If they tried to call the cops and have you prosecuted for that "theft" the cops wouldn't respond. Even for a vibrator, because you had access to the vibrator being an occupant and family member in the home.

That's not true. If you reported your car stolen and your child was pulled over driving it he would be charged with joyriding or even larceny. If you reported your car stolen and your child was pulled over in another state with no intent to return it he would be charged with grand theft.

Gunnar doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, again.

The boy in the Arizona case is age 15, three years under the minimum age to be in possession of a handgun without supervision. He didn't have his parents' authorization when he secretly removed the gun from the home and the gun was not communal property just because it was stored in the family home. If his parents had noticed it missing and called police to report it and the boy was found with the gun, their son could of course have been arrested and prosecuted for being in possession of stolen property, illegal possession of a firearm, or other related existing laws. The same holds true if the boy had also/instead stolen/removed/borrowed/took (doesn't matter how you word it) the parents' vehicle without authorization and if the parents instead found out about it after-the-fact from police.

Police might choose to file charges based on the evidence, even if the parents wished not to do so. The DA's office or juvenile authority would evaluate the case and make the call as to whether/what existing laws to formally charge and prosecute. Even if there's irrefutable evidence and a confession, other factors might influence the DA not to charge/prosecute. It's a 'criminal justice system' not just a legal system. Just because a law is broken, doesn't mean authorities will consider it just to enforce that law by charging/prosecuting the offender all factors considered, especially in the case of a minor.

Here's just one case of an Arizona boy who was arrested for being in possession of stolen property because his parents called the police when he took the family vehicle and firearm without consent. http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southea...ts-vehicle

Though it's irrelevant to the case of the 15-year-old at hand, if parents called police to report their licensed/insured 16-year-old had taken their vehicle without their permission, or their 18-year-old had taken their gun without their permission, how the police responded would depend on the officer, the department, and the circumstances surrounding the complaint. As you noted, it's certainly possible that the of-age child could be arrested and charged/prosecuted with applicable existing laws like those you cited.

Oh really? Is the boy being charged with illegally possessing a handgun? No? Hmmm... Wonder why. Pick some nit, nit wit. Stick to what you're good at.

[HairOfTheDog]

You wouldn't have to wonder why if you'd read and comprehended the many posts explaining various reasons he wouldn't be hit with that lesser charge, or any charge, despite evidence to support charges and prosecution.

Or, if you simply pulled your head outta your ass and bothered to be informed about laws before you insist that your opinion is fact and attempted to redefine words and laws to suit your premise.

I'm not going to continue answering your same question. Read, comprehend, and objectively consider what some of us have already posted on the topic. Or, keep spewing bullshit because you're too stubborn to accept very valid alternatives to the personal views you insist are facts. Your choice.

[Blindgreed1]

You wouldn't have to wonder why if you'd read and comprehended the many posts explaining various reasons he wouldn't be hit with that lesser charge, or any charge, despite evidence to support charges and prosecution.

Or, if you simply pulled your head outta your ass and bothered to be informed about laws before you insist that your opinion is fact and attempted to redefine words and laws to suit your premise.

I'm not going to continue answering your same question. Read, comprehend, and objectively consider what some of us have already posted on the topic. Or, keep spewing bullshit because you're too stubborn to accept very valid alternatives to the personal views you insist are facts. Your choice.

Then please explain how it is in any way relevant. Because YOU are the one that brought it up. Stick to picking the nit Einstein.

[HairOfTheDog]

You wouldn't have to wonder why if you'd read and comprehended the many posts explaining various reasons he wouldn't be hit with that lesser charge, or any charge, despite evidence to support charges and prosecution.

Or, if you simply pulled your head outta your ass and bothered to be informed about laws before you insist that your opinion is fact and attempted to redefine words and laws to suit your premise.

I'm not going to continue answering your same question. Read, comprehend, and objectively consider what some of us have already posted on the topic. Or, keep spewing bullshit because you're too stubborn to accept very valid alternatives to the personal views you insist are facts. Your choice.

Then please explain how it is in any way relevant. Because YOU are the one that brought it up. Stick to picking the nit Einstein.

This is my last reiteration of what's already been stated.

As I pointed out when I brought it up, it was relevant to support my opinion that the boy did more than make a 'typical bad teen decision".

Not only did he know he was not authorized by his parents to take possession of the gun, he knew he was not legally permitted to be in sole possess of the gun at his age, and he knew that he was not legally permitted to give the gun to another minor for any reason.

He knowingly broke the first law for the purpose of breaking the second law. He was also told by the minor girl that she needed the gun for self-defense (not for target-practice or hunting or anything like that), which means it was foreseeable that it could be used in a violent encounter and someone could be shot or killed with his parents' gun. Those actions and choices add up to way more than a typical bad teen decision in my book.

And, while it was relevant to my opinion that the boy's actions were more serious than you characterized them, I made it clear from the start that the taking and possession of the gun wasn't relevant to the one crime we know the DA is being asked by police to consider prosecuting -- namely 'transferring a gun to a minor'; a separate law which exists expressly for the purpose of preventing the type of tragedy that happened at the hands of the minor murderer in this case.

While I don't think piling on every possible related charge would be necessary under the circumstances, I don't believe that prosecuting him for transferring the gun to a minor would be ridiculous. I also disagree with you that prosecution and reasonable punishment would equate to an asshole attempt to ruin the boy's life.

I understand you have a different opinion. I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm stating mine and responding to the personal views and false information that you've declared as facts in your attempt to position reasonable differing opinions as wrong and ridiculous. That's not nit-picking, but I don't care if you call it that.

Nit-picking would be obsessively arguing semantics. For example, after I expressed clearly that while I call secretly taking possession of someone's belongings against their instruction or without their consent -- parent or not, illegally or not -- "stealing" (which fits the definition), I don't care if you view it or call it "borrowing without permission." I went so far as to include your preferred word choice in every subsequent related post. But, that didn't stop you from continuing to nit-pick semantics and insist that your view and your word choice was the only valid one and everyone else was wrong. Nit-picking and beyond.

I'm moving on from this repetitive discussion now Gunnar. I'll look forward to reading what the DA decides if/when that information is released to the public.

[Blindgreed1]

You wouldn't have to wonder why if you'd read and comprehended the many posts explaining various reasons he wouldn't be hit with that lesser charge, or any charge, despite evidence to support charges and prosecution.

Or, if you simply pulled your head outta your ass and bothered to be informed about laws before you insist that your opinion is fact and attempted to redefine words and laws to suit your premise.

I'm not going to continue answering your same question. Read, comprehend, and objectively consider what some of us have already posted on the topic. Or, keep spewing bullshit because you're too stubborn to accept very valid alternatives to the personal views you insist are facts. Your choice.

Then please explain how it is in any way relevant. Because YOU are the one that brought it up. Stick to picking the nit Einstein.

This is my last reiteration of what's already been stated.

As I pointed out when I brought it up, it was relevant to support my opinion that the boy did more than make a 'typical bad teen decision".

Not only did he know he was not authorized by his parents to take possession of the gun, he knew he was not legally permitted to be in sole possess of the gun at his age, and he knew that he was not legally permitted to give the gun to another minor for any reason.

He knowingly broke the first law for the purpose of breaking the second law. He was also told by the minor girl that she needed the gun for self-defense (not for target-practice or hunting or anything like that), which means it was foreseeable that it could be used in a violent encounter and someone could be shot or killed with his parents' gun. Those actions and choices add up to way more than a typical bad teen decision in my book.

And, while it was relevant to my opinion that the boy's actions were more serious than you characterized them, I made it clear from the start that the taking and possession of the gun wasn't relevant to the one crime we know the DA is being asked by police to consider prosecuting -- namely transferring a gun to a minor; a separate law which exists expressly for the purpose of preventing the type of tragedy that happened at the hands of the minor murderer in this case.

I don't believe that prosecuting him for transferring the gun to a minor would be ridiculous nor do I believe prosecution would equate to an asshole attempt to ruin the boy's life, nor do I don't think piling on every possible related charge would be necessary under the circumstances.

I understand you have a different opinion. I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm stating mine and responding to the personal views and false information that you've declared as facts in your attempt to position reasonable differing opinions as wrong and ridiculous. That's not nit-picking, but I don't care if you call it that.

Nit-picking would be obsessively arguing semantics. After I expressed clearly that while I call secretly taking possession of someone's belongings against their instruction or without their consent -- parent or not, illegally or not -- "stealing" (which fits the definition), I don't care if you view it or call it "borrowing without permission," I went so far as to include your preferred word choice in every subsequent related post. But, that didn't stop you from continuing to nit-pick semantics and insist that your view and your word choice was the only valid one and everyone else was wrong. Nit-picking and beyond.

I'm moving on from this repetitive discussion now Gunnar. I'll look forward to reading what the DA decides if/when that information is released to the public.

TLDNR

[Duchess]

Wow

[HairOfTheDog]

Yeah, couldn't see that reply coming from a mile away Gunnar.

It never gets old.

See you around, knucklehead.

[Midwest Spy]

Does TLDNR stand for: I don't know how to trim my quotes?

[Blindgreed1]

Does TLDNR stand for: I don't know how to trim my quotes?

Too Long Did Not Read.

[Blindgreed1]

Yeah, couldn't see that reply coming from a mile away Gunnar.

It never gets old.

See you around, knucklehead.

If you're lucky. I will be sure to post up on this again when there's movement.

[Midwest Spy]

Does TLDNR stand for: I don't know how to trim my quotes?

Too Long Did Not Read.

HotD will skewer me for this, but there've been times I've wanted to say that when she's giving me a dressing-down (and not the good kind either).

For the record though BG, in regards to this particular case where the teen boy 'borrowed without permission' his parents gun, you've been wrong on every point you've been trying to make.

[HairOfTheDog]

I always appreciate when members post updates, Gunnar.

But, there's no luck in play. We can all read and post updates ourselves.

And, if history repeats, I'll expect more bullshit and foolish proclamations in your commentary.

[Blindgreed1]

Does TLDNR stand for: I don't know how to trim my quotes?

Too Long Did Not Read.

HotD will skewer me for this, but there've been times I've wanted to say that when she's giving me a dressing-down (and not the good kind either).

For the record though BG, in regards to this particular case where the teen boy 'borrowed without permission' his parents gun, you've been wrong on every point you've been trying to make.

We will just wait and see about that MS now won't we? If he gets charged with anything other than gifting a firearm to a minor I will admit I was wrong. Any other outcome will just prove me right. Time will tell.

[sally]

Does TLDNR stand for: I don't know how to trim my quotes?

Too Long Did Not Read.

HotD will skewer me for this, but there've been times I've wanted to say that when she's giving me a dressing-down (and not the good kind either).

For the record though BG, in regards to this particular case where the teen boy 'borrowed without permission' his parents gun, you've been wrong on every point you've been trying to make.

We will just wait and see about that MS now won't we? If he gets charged with anything other than gifting a firearm to a minor I will admit I was wrong. Any other outcome will just prove me right. Time will tell.

No one ever implied that he would be charged with anything other than gifting a firearm to a minor, you dope. That's the charge that the cops want to bring against him and that's the charge that a few of us found reasonable and you said would ruin his life. A low level felony that will most likely get him a slap on the wrist and erased off his record as long as he's otherwise a good kid.