W.Va. student charged with bringing gun to school
by The Associated Press
BECKLEY – A Woodrow Wilson student is accused of bringing a gun to school, even though police did not find a weapon.
Cpl. Sam McClure of the Beckley Police Department says the 17-year-old boy was arrested Wednesday and charged with bringing a dangerous weapon into an education facility.
The boy’s name wasn’t released because of his juvenile status.
School officials told police Wednesday morning that a student reportedly had a handgun in his possession. The campus was placed under lockdown and searched by K-9 units but no weapon was found.
The arrest was based on witness reports that led police to believe the boy had brought a gun to school at some point.
How can police be that damn dumb? I mean honestly!
And for that matter, why do school principals and school authority think they have a right to do ANYTHING they want? It’s as if every single teacher’s union in the US says: “okay, remember, we can violate the constitutional rights of students because we’re in charge!!”
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
How can police be that damn dumb? I mean honestly!
And for that matter, why do school principals and school authority think they have a right to do ANYTHING they want? It’s as if every single teacher’s union in the US says: “okay, remember, we can violate the constitutional rights of students because we’re in charge!!”[/quote]
Where were his rights violated, I didnt see that anywhere in the article. Also, people overestimate their rights in a high school. hte Supreme Court has said that searches of lockers are perfectly legal they are, after all, school property.
Was he detained even after there was no gun found? If so, that would be violation of his rights.
Searches are legal, and holding a suspect in custody while the search is conducted is legal, but holding him in custody after finding no evidence of accused crime is not legal.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
How can police be that damn dumb? I mean honestly!
And for that matter, why do school principals and school authority think they have a right to do ANYTHING they want? It’s as if every single teacher’s union in the US says: “okay, remember, we can violate the constitutional rights of students because we’re in charge!!”
Where were his rights violated, I didnt see that anywhere in the article. Also, people overestimate their rights in a high school. hte Supreme Court has said that searches of lockers are perfectly legal they are, after all, school property.[/quote]
Actually, cops can pat you down for weapons/do a weapon search of your car without even having evidence(for their protect), but if they find any other contraband, they can’t do shit about it, only weapons.
Remember your 4th right:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But when they say he has a gun, search the whole school and do not find one, and keep him, thats a bit bizarre.
There’s got to be something missing here. There is no way they would arrest him for having a gun with only eyewitness accounts. That’s a law suit waiting to happen.
[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
There’s got to be something missing here. There is no way they would arrest him for having a gun with only eyewitness accounts. That’s a law suit waiting to happen.[/quote]
[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
There’s got to be something missing here. There is no way they would arrest him for having a gun with only eyewitness accounts. That’s a law suit waiting to happen.[/quote]
Why couldn’t he be charged with it? If I stole something from your house, and twenty people see me do it, do I get a “get out of jail free” card if the police can’t find the item I stole?
But I agree, there probably is something missing, here.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Why couldn’t he be charged with it? If I stole something from your house, and twenty people see me do it, do I get a “get out of jail free” card if the police can’t find the item I stole?[/quote]
You wouldn’t be charged with a crime. You’d be detained while they looked for evidence of the crime, then released until they had solid evidence to arrest you. Depending on your past record they may hold you under bond until they had solid evidence.
I’d rather see the police air on the side of caution, rather than them ignore the possible threat than have a shooting on their hands.
During my 2nd year of college, in the middle of a lecture in my german class, there was a very loud knock on the door, then a aggressive voice asking if student such and such was in this class…he raised his hand, and in an instant, 4 police officers with tazers drawn, had him on the ground, cuffed, and then dragged him out of class. All took place in maybe 15secs. They returned 15 minutes later, and said that there was a report of this student being seen with a gun before class started. It turned out to be a false alarm and they apologized to the student in front of the class.
When it hits that close to home, I’d rather see the police do what they did rather than ignore the possible threat.
[quote]Brazen T wrote:
I’d rather see the police air on the side of caution, rather than them ignore the possible threat than have a shooting on their hands.
During my 2nd year of college, in the middle of a lecture in my german class, there was a very loud knock on the door, then a aggressive voice asking if student such and such was in this class…he raised his hand, and in an instant, 4 police officers with tazers drawn, had him on the ground, cuffed, and then dragged him out of class. All took place in maybe 15secs. They returned 15 minutes later, and said that there was a report of this student being seen with a gun before class started. It turned out to be a false alarm and they apologized to the student in front of the class.
When it hits that close to home, I’d rather see the police do what they did rather than ignore the possible threat. [/quote]
I don’t think that’s the argument. They acted as they should. The rub here is if the police kept the boy jailed after the search turned up with nothing. Eye witnesses don’t count until hard evidence is found. Then the witness accounts solidify the evidence.
[quote]Brazen T wrote:
I’d rather see the police air on the side of caution, rather than them ignore the possible threat than have a shooting on their hands.
During my 2nd year of college, in the middle of a lecture in my german class, there was a very loud knock on the door, then a aggressive voice asking if student such and such was in this class…he raised his hand, and in an instant, 4 police officers with tazers drawn, had him on the ground, cuffed, and then dragged him out of class. All took place in maybe 15secs. They returned 15 minutes later, and said that there was a report of this student being seen with a gun before class started. It turned out to be a false alarm and they apologized to the student in front of the class.
When it hits that close to home, I’d rather see the police do what they did rather than ignore the possible threat. [/quote]
If your friend was arrested afterwards, then it would be the same thing.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
The rub here is if the police kept the boy jailed after the search turned up with nothing. Eye witnesses don’t count until hard evidence is found. Then the witness accounts solidify the evidence.[/quote]
That isn’t necessarily true. If I kill someone in plain view of witnesses, or steal something in plain view, or vandalize, but manage to dispose of the evidence, and there are enough reliable witnesses available to convince a jury of my guilt, I can be found guilty of the crime.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
The rub here is if the police kept the boy jailed after the search turned up with nothing. Eye witnesses don’t count until hard evidence is found. Then the witness accounts solidify the evidence.
That isn’t necessarily true. If I kill someone in plain view of witnesses, or steal something in plain view, or vandalize, but manage to dispose of the evidence, and there are enough reliable witnesses available to convince a jury of my guilt, I can be found guilty of the crime.[/quote]
But in your instance there still is evidence, be it a dead body, a missing possession, or signs of vandalism. Those can held against you.
In the boy’s case, it’s the witness’ word against his. No gun, no crime. Now had a shot be fired, or he threatened someone with the gun, but was able to hide it, then there is cause to hold him for more questioning.