[Drizzt]

'Jackass' Teens Suspended, May Be Expelled
Teens Also Face Criminal Charges

POSTED: 5:56 a.m. MST February 13, 2003

LITTLETON, Colo. -- Four teenagers are were suspended from school Wednesday after an off-duty police officer said he found them stopping cars and pointing guns at the drivers in Arapahoe County Sunday evening.

According to sheriff's investigators, deputies were dispatched to East Crestline Place and South Memphis Street after receiving six reports of subjects stopping cars and pointing handguns at drivers (pictured, left).

While the deputies were responding, an off-duty Denver police reserve officer saw what was happening and arrested the four teens at gunpoint. He held them until deputies arrived.

The suspect with the gun was later identified as a 16-year-old Aurora resident. The other three suspects were identified as a 13-year-old from Centennial (who had a black plastic toy gun concealed on him), his 16-year-old brother, and a 15-year-old Aurora resident.

Two toy guns and a knife were recovered during the arrests.

Deputies also found a video recorder nearby with a tape inside that allegedly showed the teens involved in a "string of harassing and bizarre behavior," according to the Sheriff's Department.

They also laid down in the street pretending they had been hit by vehicles.

The behavior observed on the videotape was similar in nature to behavior exhibited on the recent film, "Jackass: The Movie," a statement from the sheriff's office said.

"The behavior of these four subjects and their activities directed toward our citizens was outrageous and could have very easily resulted in their serious bodily injury or death," said Sheriff Grayson Robinson.

The teens face felony charges of menacing and conspiracy to commit menacing. They also face a misdemeanor charge of a crime against an at-risk adult.

All four teens attend Cherry Creek schools, district spokeswoman Tustin Amole said. They have been suspended and face additional discipline, including expulsion.

One part of the videotape shows the boys fighting on the lawn of Cimarron Elementary School, Amole said.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/1974934/detail.html

[Greg L]

The teens face felony charges of menacing and conspiracy to commit menacing.

A FELONY?!? Certainly it would have been justified if one of them got shot while doing something so stupid. Certainly it would have been justified if a motorist recognized it as a toy gun and shoved it up an orifice where it wasn't designed to go. But a FELONY. Ayn Rand had it right, make everyone an outlaw/felon and you can rule them by selective enforcement of the laws.

They also face a misdemeanor charge of a crime against an at-risk adult.

What the heck is that?

Greg

[El Tejon]

Greg,

The state legislature defines the level of the offense. Just because the police arrest someone for a certain level of offense does not mean the CLEO, the prosecutor, will file it as such.

"Crime against an at-risk adult". Most likely a sentencing enhancement (could be separate offense with the "menancing" as the predicate offense) for a crime against a statutorily-defined group: over 65, mentally disabled, women, or other categories that the legislature selected.

Don't know Red law, so I'm speculating. Anyone know for certain?:confused:

[Standing Wolf]

In my part of Colorado, criminals engaged in such behavior would be lucky to be arrested!

[Coltdriver]

It is legal in the State of Colorado to carry a loaded hand gun in the glove compartment of your car.

These kids are fortunate that they were not shot by someone who perceived them as a legitimate threat.

[Blackhawk]

Stupid.... :banghead:

[HABU]

subjects stopping cars and pointing handguns at drivers :what: :what:

[Bob Locke]

Greg,

It's a felony because the average person (and most of us, in the dark) can't tell the difference between having a plastic Beretta look-alike shoved in their face versus the real thing. Hence, the emotional (fight or flight) response is identical.

Personally, I have no problem with them being charged with a serious offense. They were grossly endangering themselves as well as others.

If it had been me that got stopped, I likely would have opened fire in defense of myself.

[Greg L]

ET & Bob,

Thanks for the quick law lesson. :)

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been charged with something or possibly shot (heck if they tried it with me, I would probably have shot them given the same circumstances). I guess that I'm just tired of seeing stories about 11-14 year olds being charged with felonies for essentially being dumb kids out having fun. Some of the things I did as a young stupid kid would probably have had me charged with some sort of felony today if caught (terroristic tampering of emergency water supply (a few bottles of food coloring over the fence into a pool), tampering with federal wetlands (homemade BP bomb thrown into swamp to watch the geyser), etc ). I just don't think that it is right to completely screw up these kids for LIFE just for being young and stupid (assuming that they don't have a long police record and didn't cause serious harm to someone). The 16 year old should know better and it might be justified in his case, but the others (who were probably trying to make themselves look cool in the eyes of the 16 year old) shouldn't be branded by the justice system for something that Darwin should have taken care of (watching your 16 year old friend get blown away should teach them all they need to know about pointing toy guns at strangers).

Greg

[Greg L]

Oh, and what's the deal with getting suspended/expelled for stuff they did on a Sunday evening? Back when I was in school (walked 4 miles in 10 ft snow drifts uphill both ways :D ) only the stuff that happened at school could get you in trouble at school.

Greg

[Bob Locke]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been charged with something or possibly shot (heck if they tried it with me, I would probably have shot them given the same circumstances).
IMO, you've answered the question for yourself.

If an offense would arouse within you enough fear that you would feel lawfully justified in drawing your weapon and shooting someone over it, then it IS a serious offense.

Some things are childhood pranks. Lord knows I was guilty of my fair share. But when you start endangering the lives and safety of yourself and, more importantly, other people, then what needs to be a VERY bright line has been crossed and the ante ratchets up accordingly.

[Tropical Z]

I hope they are prosecuted for a felony.What a bunch of idiots!:banghead:

[Standing Wolf]

It is legal in the State of Colorado to carry a loaded hand gun in the glove compartment of your car.

It's my understanding one can legally carry a loaded hand gun anywhere in one's motor vehicle.

[Bob Locke]

It's my understanding one can legally carry a loaded hand gun anywhere in one's motor vehicle.
That's my understanding, too. Law was passed a couple of years ago to stop Denver from confiscating people's cars for carrying a firearm in the glove box or under the seat.

I'll try to find the relevant code section.

labgrade, you out there...?

[Erik]

Correct.

---

The kids were lucky, and should be prosecuted and incarcerated.

Harsh? Not nearly as harsh as killing or maiming them, which would likely have happened had they encountered an armed 'victim.'

[Bob Locke]

18-12-105.6 - Limitation on local ordinances regarding firearms in private vehicles.

(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a) A person carrying a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property, as permitted in sections 18-12-105 (2) (b) and 18-12-105.5 (3) (c), may tend to travel in or through different county, city and county, and municipal jurisdictions en route to the person's destination;

(b) Inconsistent laws exist in local jurisdictions with regard to the circumstances under which weapons may be carried in automobiles and other private means of conveyance;

(c) This inconsistency creates a confusing patchwork of laws that unfairly subjects a person who lawfully travels with a weapon in or through one jurisdiction to criminal penalties because he or she travels into or through another jurisdiction;

(d) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating local laws while traveling in, through, or between different jurisdictions, and therefore being unable to avoid committing a crime.

(2) (a) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that the carrying of weapons in private automobiles or other private means of conveyance for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into or through a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction, is a matter of statewide concern and is not an offense.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no municipality, county, or city and county shall have the authority to enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into or through a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction.

There ya go! :D

[publius]

So you can carry in the glove box, yet the Colorado State Constitution specifically forbids concealed carry?

It doesn't make sen... oh, wait. Government gun laws. Right. :rolleyes:

[Bob Locke]

So you can carry in the glove box, yet the Colorado State Constitution specifically forbids concealed carry?
That's not exactly true. What it states is that the RKBA does not automatically include the right to concealed carry. If it were forbidden by the state Constitution, then the laws currently on the books that provide for concealed carry all over the state would be null and void, which they are not.

[Sir Galahad]

Yes, these "kids" should be charged with a felony. The state isn't "screwing up their lives"---THEY screwed up THEIR OWN lives. What they were doing was not a "prank." A senior could have had a heart attack. That's a "prank"? I don't feel sorry for "kids" on their way to becoming adult criminals. If they're "man" enough to pull man-sized crimes (and threatening people, even with replica non-guns, is an adult-sized crime), then they can pay a man-sized price. Once they start this crap, they're not "kids" anymore as far as I'm concerned. They're criminals now.

Ayn Rand was a philosopher, not a criminologist. Having the beliefs of Ayn Rand dictate criminal punishment is like having Neitschze's beliefs dictate modern medicine.

[scottgun]

18-12-105.5 - Unlawfully carrying a weapon

(3) It shall not be an offense under this section if:

(a) The weapon is unloaded and remains inside a motor vehicle while upon the real estate of any public or private college, university, or seminary; or

(b) The person is in that person's own dwelling or place of business or on property owned or under that persons's control at the time of the act of carrying; or

(c) The person is in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance and is carrying a weapon for lawful protection of that person's or another's person or property while traveling;

[UnknownSailor]

The parents of these "kids" need to be in jail right along side these cretins. If I had ever pulled something like this......

[publius]

What it states is that the RKBA does not automatically include the right to concealed carry. If it were forbidden by the state Constitution, then the laws currently on the books that provide for concealed carry all over the state would be null and void, which they are not.

Maybe my knowledge is dated, or my interpretation incorrect.

I became interested in the state of the laws in Denver as a result of Rick Stanley's open-carry case (http://stanley2002.org/denvsconstitution.htm). In reading through the motion to dismiss (http://stanley2002.org/mtdmain.htm) filed by the defense, I came across this:

The Colorado Constitution provides:


The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.


Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 13 (2000).

[Bob Locke]

You state the provision in the Constitution correctly. You noted that it states:
nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
That means that concealed carry is not guaranteed under the Colorado Constitution. It does NOT state that the practice of issuing permits for concealed carry is forbidden, therefore it is left to the legislature to determine the manner in which concealed firearms may or may not be permitted.

I would respectfully submit that your interpretation is incorrect, which you allowed for in your previous post.

[jimpeel]

I saw a video of these clowns and they were standing in front of this SUV aiming a firearm at the driver who steered around them and pulled away.

Gun, or no gun, in my possession, I am going to run over these guys so many times it'll make Clara Harris' hair curl.

[publius]

OK, so they're saying you can carry weapons, just not concealed. It's a weird "right" if you ask me. Your right to defend yourself includes the right to a weapon, just not the right to surprise someone with it. I don't think you can surrender that right, but anyway...

In your previous post, you said they'd take your car (prior to the law's passage) for carrying in the glove box. Would it be OK to drive around with your gun on the dashboard? Hey, it's not concealed.

[HS/LD]

publius

Carrying in the open (not concealed), in you vehicle or not, is not against state law. There are several local jurisdictions that have enacted local laws that prohibit open carry. Some officers have also been known to charge a person carrying in the open with disorderly conduct. This technically fits Colorado's definitions if the complaining person was 'alarmed'. Below is the concealed carry statute.

So they still would bust you in Denver with the gun on the dash.

Carry it concealed in your private vehicle, glove box or where you want, just make sure you say its for "protection while travelling". Then make sure you don't fall in to the trap of saying where you are travelling to.

HS/LD