8th Grader Arrested for snap chatting photo of himself with gun

Discussion in 'In the News' started by UtiPossidetis, Dec 16, 2017.

  1. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,173
    244
    63
    http://www.wafb.com/story/37067708/...rds-added-to-msa-west-students-snapchat-photo

    Apparently someone resent the image with the words "Don't come to school tomorrow" but they arrested the kid that took the original photo. The kicker to the story is this line:
    "[Sheriff] Stassi says he sent deputies to the student's house. He added they confiscated all of the guns and interviewed the child.

    The sheriff’s office is now trying to figure out who added the words to the photo. After they determine that, the District Attorney's office will determine what charges those individuals will face."
     
  2. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    112
    63
    They did a robo call saying there was no threat. How do you arrest a kid for terrorism and then say there was no threat? He made no threat. The LEO even said in the video, someone could take a hunting photo and add text to it. Ok, so shouldn't they arrest the person adding the text, that actually made the threat? So if someone takes a cheerleader's photo and photoshops it on a Playboy picture, shouldn't they arrest the cheerleader by their, using the term loosely here, "logic"? Idiots.
     

  3. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
  4. Wheedle

    Wheedle Active Member

    754
    48
    28
    By what code, law, order, or precedence did they confiscate weapons?
     
  5. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    The law only applies to subjects. The king's men do as they please.

    #1776partII
     
  6. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,822
    828
    113
    Its in Louisiana. French law is applicable there.

    Nemo
     
  7. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    So he was supposed to drop his gun a surrender?
     
  8. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,822
    828
    113
    No, the photo was supposed to say-- Off with their heads.

    Nemo
     
  9. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    The cops knew the kid didn't put threatening words across the front of the image, but they arrested him and charged him with terrorism anyway?

    Perhaps the kid DID communicate a threat against other kids, or the school itself, some other way, such as in other messages he sent out thru Snapchat just before sending the pic of himself with the AR rifle? [I'm just speculating, but that would explain it as legal police conduct.]

    I would think that cops are allowed to put one (1) and one (1) together and say there's probable cause that the real value is TWO.

    If there was a threat of any kind communicated at any time by this kid, this 8th grader (13 or 14 years old), the cops CAN get a search warrant for the gun pictured, and that could include any similar-looking guns so that all those AR pattern rifles could be compared to the image (later, not there in the kid's house) to see WHICH gun was used in the crime. That gun can be confiscated as evidence, perhaps never to be given back (tool used in a crime).

    But I think that any OTHER GUNS, obviously NOT the gun pictured, should not have been taken from the home, if the kid's parents are not "prohibited persons" and there's no evidence that those parents are too irresponsible with the storage of their firearms to be allowed to keep them (exigent circumstances-- danger to kids' safety-- can sometimes justify a seizure of dangerous things from the home as an alternative to seizing the kids and sending them to child protective services). Did this 8th grader have any brothers or sisters in the home? Were cops reaonably concerned that the parents would let any of the other kids play with guns?
     
  10. AzB

    AzB Well-Known Member

    2,362
    62
    48
    The story I read said that the guns were locked in a safe, but the older brother had opened the safe, presumably without permission, and allowed the younger sibling to handle the firearm. I do not know if the parents were home, or made aware of the photo session before the police showed up. I suppose the kid could be charged with b/e, or something.
     
  11. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    No property exceeding the value of $20 should ever be taken from a citizen without due process of law.

    I've become quite sick of the linguistic gymnastics our government engages in to justify urinating on the Constitution
     
    Savannah Dan likes this.
  12. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,710
    113
    Fixed that. Value is irrelevant.
     
    Wheedle likes this.
  13. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    112
    63
    Why open the door with disputed value.
     
    Wheedle likes this.
  14. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,793
    316
    83
    Well that will teach this kid to not break the law.... oh wait....

    Uhhhhh, let me help you with this one Sheriff - no, it's not against the law to post a photo of yourself holding a firearm on Snapchat. I'm not really sure what there is to think about with that.
     
  15. GAfirearmsReference

    GAfirearmsReference Weapons Law Booklet

    1,056
    32
    48
    Philip's reference to $20 as the point at which the dispute becomes serious enough to merit extra legal protections (due process) comes from the constitution itself, specifically the 7th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

    Cases and controversies that were for petty change did not get a "right" to a jury trial, but if the value of the dispute was more than twenty bucks, the courts needed to take it seriously and provide that means of settling the matter.

    So YES, it's fine and dandy to draw a line and say if the infringement is minimal, you get one set of rules and procedures about how to deal with the problem, but if the infringement on your interests is great, a different set of rules of evidence and procedure will apply.
     
    AtlPhilip likes this.
  16. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    I posted before seeing GAfirearmsReference's post, but as they mentioned the door is already opened:

    7th Amendment
    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Remember that next time you hear government officials telling you that they fine they are imposing isn't criminal (which is bull****) but civil. They are claiming you owe a debt. Ok, dispute their claim. If you want the $20 or greater debt, sue me. And when we get to court the defendant has the right to a trial by a jury of my peers.

    Actually following the Constitution would clean up a LOT of the mess created by the Kings Men, who seem to be unaware that we are a Constitutional Republic. Sadly, so does our SCOTUS.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017
    Savannah Dan likes this.
  17. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,710
    113
    Interesting. That $20 inclusion is one of those strange quirks that gets overlooked by almost everybody. Except AtlPhilip and Kurt. :mrgreen:
     
    AtlPhilip likes this.
  18. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    I would highly recommend that folks sit down and actually READ the entire Bill of Rights, it is a fairly short read and there is much to learn.
     
    AtlPhilip likes this.
  19. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    Memorize it, as best you can. You will be surprised how often people, especially politicians, say things that are brazenly unconstitutional.

    And for those curious, $20 in 1792 is the equivalent of $498.40 today.
     
    gunsmoker likes this.
  20. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    Thank you for running the numbers on that.
    It's always interesting to see what inflation does to a dollar amount that is fixed in the law.
    I think that Malum found out that the $200 NFA transfer tax, started in 1934, would work out to be about $2000 today. That sounds about right, as the $200 figure was based on the full retail price of one of the more expensive domestically-produced machineguns used by gangsters-- the Thompson SMG (civilian model). Today, I imagine that a newly built domestic-production MG or SMG would be about 2 grand, if not for the NFA's burdensome tax and registration scheme artificially shrinking the market, and the 1986 Hughes Amendment cutting off most private citizens from any of the new ones.