Sunday, September 21, 2014

5th-Grader Brings Granddad's Gun To School With List Of Student’s Names

Addicting Info

A fifth-grader at Kingsley Middle School located south of Traverse City, Michigan was found with a .25-caliber pistol last Monday. The pistol was loaded and strapped to the boy’s waist. The Grand Traverse County Sheriff’s Department say that the boy had a homework assignment with a list of student’s names written on the back. Some of the names on the list were misspelled or missing last names. The list seemed to show that the student intended to harm the students whose names he had written on the assignment, because of a  title that was written above the names, according to investigators. 

The boy stole the gun from his grandfather’s house, he admitted to police during questioning. The student also gave conflicting reasons why he brought the gun to school to investigators.

Kingsley Area Schools Superintendent Keith Smith said the list the student had brought was hard to understand.  “It’s obviously not consistent with what was brought to school,” Smith said. “A gun with one bullet doesn’t line up with a list of names, but you’ve still got to take it seriously. That’s why we turned it over to police.”

The student has been suspended for ten days, may face possible expulsion, and may also face charges in juvenile court for bringing a loaded firearm onto school property.

I suppose we have to consider granddad as a poor victim of theft.  He would have no responsibility at all in this incident. Right?

19 comments:

  1. Clearly, grandfather here is negligent in safely storing his firearm. As a result of putting multiple children at risk, including his own grandson, he should lose his gun and his gun ownership rights. If he has a carry permit, he should use that too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder wgat grandad had to say when he found out?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I suppose we have to consider granddad as a poor victim of theft.

    Why not? The alleged criminal has already confessed to have victimized him by theft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a child his parents are responsible for his actions.

      Delete
    2. You're not making sense, Kurt.

      Maybe it's the kid's fault.

      My take:

      Grandpa is a fucking idiot for keeping a weapon in the house. It's always wrong to kill people. Unless, perhaps, one is extremely diligent in keeping a weapon in reserve against outside attackers.

      Delete
    3. Kurt, you're doing that double talking bullshit thing again, the one you're so good at. Shaneen Allen is not responsible for her trouble, that's completely the fault of the NJ gun laws. But this 11-year-old is solely responsible for what he did. Granddaddy bears no responsibility at all, right?

      You demand individual accountability only when it serves your bizarre and fanatical agenda.

      Delete
    4. Naïvely crossing a state border with a defensive firearm one can legally carry on one side, but not on the other, is a mistake with no harm intended. Stealing a gun, perhaps with intent to use it to slaughter children, is something else entirely. I'm a little shocked that I have to point that out, even here.

      Delete
    5. Shaneen did not naively cross a state border. That's her lie, which you are pretending to believe, because like her, telling the truth is optional for you.

      Unless the 11-year-old was a master safe cracker, granddaddy was guilty of allowing a child access to a gun. I'm a little shocked that I have to point that out to you.

      Delete
    6. And furthermore, let's accept for the sake of argument this ludicrous notion that Ms. Allen knowingly violated New Jersey's mandated defenselessness law, and then preemptively confessed (for some reason) to the cop who stopped her for a trivial traffic violation. Let's, in other words, entertain the notion that Ms. Allen's victimless "crime" was deliberate.

      Now, let's talk about the crime of which the 11-year-old is accused. First theft (to which he has confessed). Not just any old theft, though--theft of an elderly man's lifesaving firepower. That, clearly, is no victimless crime. Then, our alleged young criminal takes the gun into a school, along with what looks suspiciously like a "kill list" of other students.

      Yep--Shaneen Allen, and the elderly victim of theft, are the monsters here. Ri-i-i-i-ght.

      Delete
  4. That's her lie, which you are pretending to believe . . .

    You epically overestimate your mind-reading skills. Deny it all you want, but I am utterly convinced that Ms. Allen thought she was in compliance with the law. If not, she would not have told the cop she had a gun--your convoluted explanation for that strikes me as desperately silly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Naïvely crossing a state border with a defensive firearm one can legally carry on one side, but not on the other, is a mistake with no harm intended"
    It is breaking the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse to escape prosecution, or punishment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's exactly right. But, gun fetishists like Kurt don't hold other gun owners accountable for their actions, not poor persecuted Shaneen who brought a gun into NJ or poor persecuted granddad who allowed the 11-year-old access to a weapon.

      Delete
    2. It is breaking the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse to escape prosecution, or punishment.

      As I said:

      I understand that by long legal tradition ignorance of even idiotic, evil, unjust laws is no excuse, but I've still yet to see an explanation of how destroying Ms. Allen's life, and those of her children, benefits society in any way.

      In spite of the "no excuse" mantra, it's one of the reasons prosecutors and judges are given discretion, because it would be idiotic to ignore the fact that no harm was intended (and in this case, no harm was done), as a mitigating circumstance.

      But, Mikeb, I see that you are once again on board with the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" argument for persecuting (as always, that's no typo) Ms. Allen--an argument that would be irrelevant if you were sticking to your ridiculous former argument, that she was not ignorant of the law.

      Good for you, Mikeb.

      Delete
    3. Your drooling anger shows you for the loon you are, besides she got off. What's your next strawman?

      Delete
    4. Kurt, lying as usual: "But, Mikeb, I see that you are once again on board with the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" argument"

      What I'd said: "not poor persecuted Shaneen who brought a gun into NJ"

      I didn't say she accidentally brought it into NJ, Kurt.

      Delete
    5. I didn't say she accidentally brought it into NJ, Kurt.

      No, but you did say, "That's exactly right," in response to Anon's "ignorance of the law is no excuse" mantra. If "ignorance of the law" is the issue here, I could only assume you had grown up enough to at least acknowledge the possibility that Ms. Allen's victimless "crime" was unintentional, a consequence of being oblivious about New Jersey's draconian gun laws.

      So, nope, Mikeb, you remain without a single example, ever, of a lie on my part.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous said: "It is breaking the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse to escape prosecution, or punishment. "

      I said that's right and you determine that I'm on board with the obvious nonsense that she really didn't know about the NJ laws? You're so dishonest in the argument that's it's hard to keep up with your twists and turns.

      It works like this, Kurt, Even if she didn't know and was truly ignorant of the law, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A MINUTE, ignorance is no excuse. Get it?

      Delete
    7. I said that's right and you determine that I'm on board with the [eminently plausible possibility] that she really didn't know about the NJ laws?

      As I said, that's the conclusion I drew--apparently incorrectly. Excuse the hell out of me.

      It works like this, Kurt, Even if she didn't know and was truly ignorant of the law, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A MINUTE, ignorance is no excuse. Get it?

      If you say so, Mikeb. I still respond to that, though, by pointing out that McClain's ignorance of the workings of the Graves Act directive is no excuse.

      Delete
    8. A question for those who so love mindlessly chanting the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" mantra--what would you think of a regulatory agency tasked with enforcing a vaguely worded law, and who refused to clarify what the law means? The potential "law breakers," in other words, tried to correct their "ignorance," but the government wants them ignorant:

      "It's not the job of law enforcement to give a stamp of approval for a company or an individual's actions," said Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Malloy. "It's the job of law enforcement to protect public safety. Instead of trying to figure out ways to get around the common-sense gun laws that were passed last session, gun manufacturers should join the efforts of the vast majority of residents who support having safer communities, free of gun violence."

      See what the little fascist swine did there? Attempting to comply with the law has become "trying to figure out ways to get around" it.

      This, remember, is in reference to a law that a federal judge admits was "not written with the utmost clarity."

      To a tyrannical government, "ignorance of the law" is useful as hell, leaving those who wish to remain law abiding with the choice of either risking the wrath of the government's hired muscle, or meekly avoiding going anywhere near the edges of what the law permits.

      Delete