Angry parent blocks gun-toting teen's return to school

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Harry Tuttle

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,093
Angry parent blocks gun-toting teen's return to school
By ERIC HARTLEY Staff Writer
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2004/03_17-23/TOP

The mother of two teenagers on a supposed "hit list" at Southern High School yesterday said she has won a state order barring the return of a girl charged with taking a gun to the school last week.

Teresa Trail of Franklin Manor said she got the temporary protective order from the state Department of Juvenile Services. It orders the girl to stay away from the school, Ms. Trail's home and her children's workplaces for 90 days.

She said county police shouldn't have released the 15-year-old Rose Haven girl after charging her with four weapons violations on March 10.

"She was a lot more protected than our kids were, and it's not right," said Ms. Trail, whose children are 16 and 18. "If this child got a gun one time, she can get it again."

Ms. Trail said her two teenagers were among seven people on a "hit list" the girl showed to friends at school.

She said she obtained the temporary order yesterday after a Juvenile Services hearing in Annapolis. A spokesman said this morning she could not confirm whether an order had been issued, citing confidentiality rules.

Police said the girl, who hasn't been identified, denied making such a list and officers never found one.

Lt. Joseph Jordan, police spokesman, said the girl was released after being issued juvenile citations. He said she was cooperative, all the charges were misdemeanors and officers confiscated the weapon.

County school officials said the girl is not in school, but wouldn't discuss whether she had been suspended or expelled.

They defended the response of the school's acting principal, Carol Thornburg, who held a special session with students and met with a group of parents last week to discuss concerns.

"They had a special advisory period and spoke to their students about issues of school violence and how the students could be a part of the solution," said spokesman Jonathan Brice. "If they're having a problem, if they're having a concern with another classmate, there are peaceful means of resolving the situation."

Police were called to the school about 3 p.m. March 9 by an assistant principal who said a parent had reported a child taking a gun to school. Ms. Trail said she was the parent.

Students told police they had seen a gun wrapped in a white dish towel inside the girl's purse. One student told police she saw three loose rounds of ammunition in the purse.

Police said the girl initially denied doing anything wrong when an officer talked to her that night. But the girl's father gave police a .22-caliber handgun that matched the description of the one seen in school.

After the girl's parents took her to the Southern District station on the evening of March 10, she changed her story and admitted taking the gun to school, police said.

The girl was charged as a minor with concealing a deadly weapon, carrying a deadly weapon on school property, having a handgun on her person and possession of a firearm.

One student told police the girl said she took the gun to school because a classmate "wouldn't get off her back and she wanted to scare her a little."

Ms. Trail said she kept her children home one day and is worried for their safety.

"Now our kids can't hang out in our neighborhood," she said.

---
 
Dad should secure his firearms. Behavior, as exhibited by this girl, only serves the enemies of RKBA. 15 year olds should not be walking around with pistols in their purses. As a parent I would not want this kid around mine. I keep my firearms secured and my kids know better than to even look at them if I am not there!

This young lady broke the law in many ways.

Broke the law by taking her fathers pistol.

Broke the law by bringing said firearm onto school grounds unbeknownst to school authorities.

Broke the law by being in possession of her father's pistol in concealed fashion. (No CCW)

Broke the law by carrying any pistol without adult supervision.

Punishment should be meted out for illegal actions. No further gun laws need to be enacted. Simple enforcement of the present ones will do nicely!
 
And I care? This young lady harmed no innocent person. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
Prior to the first time they negligently kill someone, drunk drivers usually haven't hurt anyone either. However, in both cases, there is a reasonable presumption that their behavior is dangerous and should be stopped. Anyone that carries a gun "to scare someone" is headed for trouble. If she felt her life was in danger, she should have brought this to the attention of her parents, her teacher, the principal, and finally the police. You might not care because you don't have kids in school, and if so, that is a deplorable attitude.
 
What other reason would a high school student have for carrying a gun in her purse, knowing it is big-time against the rules? She certainly didn't bring it for after-school target practice since she could have left it in her car. There is only one logical conclusion - she brought it to use defensively or offensively. If the former, she should have followed my previous advice. If the latter, she should be barred from the school forever.
 
MicroBalrog,

I agree that some gun laws should be repealed while others should not. I kind of like the fact that convicted felons cannot own or possess a firearm unless their rights are restored.

If one does not like the present laws then work to have them repealed. I have no problem with that. This young girl broke the laws on the books. Her behavior was irresponsible and put herself and others in danger. What if she shot someone while showing off the pistol to her friends.

While no one was harmed it begs the fact that her actions were illegal. She admitted to her actions under questioning with a parent present.

I believe we should care about laws because they provide for the orderly running of our society. Is it okay to steal if no one gets hurt?

Do I agree with all gun laws? No. Should many be repealed? Yes.
That is Oranges.

Did this young lady break the law? yes.
This is Apples.

I respectfully submit that we are talking apples and oranges here. Break the law and you get punished. Don't like the laws then work to get them changed.

Just my .02 cents.
 
Is it okay to steal if no one gets hurt
Click to expand...

Well, when you steal something, somebody is getting hurt - WHOEVER YOU STOLE FROM.

Now, who is getting hurt when you carry a gun?

put herself and others in danger.
Click to expand...

Based on what facts in the article do you make this claim?

I don't think this girl is/was a threat to society, moreover, I don't make an evaluation of a person based on how law-abiding they are. I make an evaluation of a person based on how moral they are. She did nothing immoral that we know of.
 
The best evidence available at this time suggests that she prepared a "hit list" and planned on using the gun to scare someone.

That sounds like terroristic threats. And that DOES hurt someone.

It would be reasonable to suspend the kid pending resolution of the charges.
 
MicroBalrog,

Then on this issue I guess we should respectfully agree to disagree. I respect your opinion but cannot agree with it. I believe our view of what is moral for good or ill is at odds. I generally don't discuss the morality of actions with 15 year olds although I am sure some have a great appreciation of its finer meanings. The answer I generally get when I ask why they did something is "I don't know". 15 year olds do know right from wrong though. This girl, as a student, was apprised of the school rules concerning firearms. I can asssure you that the schools around the USA make no secret of these rules.

I am not trying to paint this girl as "evil". She broke the law plain and simple. She admitted that she broke the law during questioning with a parent present. Break the law and you get punished. Is the law moral or is the girl moral? Good questions but seperate issues.

Who gets hurt when someone carries a gun illegally? Well hopefully no one.
People also don't always have car accidents when they drink but we frown on drinking and driving anyway. She could have been carrying a bottle of drain cleaner (lye) but we don't alow that to be carried by students either.

I fancy myself as having decent morals. Does that give me a pass if I drive drunk even if I did not hurt anyone. We make these laws to protect society.
These are the laws we enforce. You could be a very moral person but you still can break the law and be charged accordingly. You might be a very religious, feed the poor, good to everyone kind of guy until the night you decide to blow up a building. (Not you, I am just using hyperbole). Say like an abortion clinic. You may consider your position moral but the laws of the land do not allow you to blow things up.

It goes back to my apples and oranges analogy. In any case I guess we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree on this issue.
 
You know from this article besides the girl eventually admitting she carried the gun the have no real proof against her. No list was found and the only witnesses are other students. Depending on how well the witness students could be trusted they wouldn't have really had much against her if she would have just kept quiet.
 
...there is a reasonable presumption that their behavior is dangerous and should be stopped.
Click to expand...

Carrying a gun is dangerous and should be stopped?

...If she felt her life was in danger, she should have brought this to the attention of her parents, her teacher, the principal, and finally the police...
Click to expand...

Sounds like the logic of people who are against CCW. If you have a problem, don't defend yourself, just call 911.

OK, I know she was 15, but you have to admit that the logic above sounds eerily familiar. :(
 
PATH,

I'm sorry if this seems like I'm playing devil's advocate. I do agree that kids shouldn't be bringing guns to school. I do believe college students should be allowed to be armed, and teachers should, but not grade school students. Kids are negligent (lack of life experience) and often TRY to be negligent just to be "cool". Many of them often feel they are outside the law because they aren't "legal" yet. Giving them a deadly weapon to be negligent with in such a turbulent place as grade school is a time bomb.


However, here's my issue:

(quote)
Who gets hurt when someone carries a gun illegally? Well hopefully no one.
People also don't always have car accidents when they drink but we frown on drinking and driving anyway. She could have been carrying a bottle of drain cleaner (lye) but we don't alow that to be carried by students either.

I fancy myself as having decent morals. Does that give me a pass if I drive drunk even if I did not hurt anyone. We make these laws to protect society.
These are the laws we enforce. You could be a very moral person but you still can break the law and be charged accordingly. You might be a very religious, feed the poor, good to everyone kind of guy until the night you decide to blow up a building. (Not you, I am just using hyperbole). Say like an abortion clinic. You may consider your position moral but the laws of the land do not allow you to blow things up.
(endquote)

Comparing carrying a gun to drinking and driving isn't a good argument. One is negligence, one is not. When you drive drunk, you are impaired and have a much higher probability of having a collision than if you were not drunk. This loss of control is why CCW permits are not valid when you are drunk. Both cars and guns can be unintentional deadly weapons in the wrong hands .. drunk hands.

Please keep emotional hyperbole type comparisons out of these discussions.. we're much too intelligent here to be swayed by unrelated, ad hominem arguments. We've heard and read so many they stick out like a sore thumb.

The real issue here is that the person had a "hit list". Having a hit list and then carrying a gun around that person who you intend to "hit" can be interpreted as conspiracy/ intent to commit murder in the first degree, and I'm sure it's covered as a "terroristic threat" in the lovely new "patriot" act. That is what should be pegged into that kid's head. Not the fact that she was carrying a gun "illegally" even though she was not impaired, nor a felon. This "it's the law so do what it says" logic serves no purpose but to make those who are irritated by victimless crime laws to develop even more contempt for LEOs. This is counterproductive. If I were reprimanding that kid you can be sure I'd make the hit list my key argument, and say the firearm was the extenuating circumstance that made everything even worse. (as using a firearm to commit a felony gives you even more prison time) I wouldn't be focusing on just bringing the gun to school, it stinks of the "zero tolerance" attitude that has kids losing any respect they have or had for the administration. (and other figures of authority)

As administration, if the girl had just brought the gun out of fear for her life, (due to being threatened) I would investigate into the source of her worries, and have the girl sign a promise that she would not bring the gun onto school property ever again. If she felt unsafe due to no action being done to resolve her crisis and wished to leave the school (either permanently or until the threat has been removed) then I would work to give her that option instead. Punishing victims is counterproductive. Considering she said she intended to "scare" people with the gun, I feel she would deserve any administrative action she got because that's inappropriate, and illegal (among the other inappropriate and illegal things she did). It's just this whole "zero tolerance" BS that bothers me. How hard is it to look at every situation separately and make a course of action based on the individual criteria? Not all situations are the same, and such socialist precepts as "you can't carry a gun, regardless" need to be interpreted in the same liberal fashion as they are written. They set good basic guidelines for many situations, but to say they're the gospel is sheer ignorance of the real world. I think that's part of what MicroBalrog was saying, just a little too concisely to get the idea across ;)
 
"I keep my firearms secured and my kids know better than to even look at them if I am not there!"
So did my dad, but that never stopped me from getting into the gun cabinette whenever I wanted to see his firearms.
 
Chip Dixon,

You Sir are an excellent Devil's advocate! So, respectfully, here I go!


You agree with me that "kids" should not bring guns to school.

This girl did just that. We agree on that. She admitted that she came onto campus with a concealed firearm to the police withher parents present. A confession is admissable under these circumstances.


Students are told they may not bring firearms onto the campus. Students are told there are penalties for bringing firearms onto campus. I would give an exception to shooting teams, etc..on property with permission of the administration and supervised properly by same. That was not the case here.

Definitions:

KIDS:
In order to clarify things how about we agree upon kids being younger than 18 or Seniors in High School while on school property even though they are 18.(Given the prohibition on campus of firearms regardless of student age. This in no way precludes an 18 year old from owning a hangun where it is legal to so.)

AD HOMINEM:
To the man(L.); appealing to personal interests, prejudices, or emotions rather than reason.


NEGLECT:
~tr.v 1.To ignore or pay no attention to; disregard;2. To fail to care for or give proper attention to.3. To fail to do or carry out , as through carelessness or oversight. ~n. 1. The act or an instance of neglecting something. 2. The state of being neglected. 3. Habitual lack of care

NEGLIGENT:
adj. 1. Characterized by or inclined to neglect, esp. habitually. 2. Extremely careless or casual


When looking at the word 'Neglect' we can see the concept of disregard and careless behavior intrinsic to the meaning. Carrying a gun in contravention to existing law is by definition a disregard for that law. Driving a car while under the influence of alcohol is a contravention of law. I see no emotional appeal in using one example of negligence to highlight another. Actually carrying a firearm illegaly or driving under the influence which is illegal are both negligent acts by simple defintion.

I don't see where I used an Ad Hominem argument. I really did not appeal to MicroBalrog on a personal level although I hope I was personable and civil in my tone.

I's also like to think I use emotional hyperbole only when I'm talking about my shooting skills and the last fish I caught!:D Further I would never patronize my fellow THR members. I have always tried to carry myself in a respectful manner when interacting with them.


The girl as I stated in an earlier post is guilty. That is fact. She has been charged accordingly.


I agree that "Zero Tolerance" is a bad idea because it does not allow for alternative solutions or approaches. We should endeavor to change bad law through all legal remedies. A case in point being the recent thread hear which told of a good kid who got nailed for bringing a gun on campus accidentally. Unfortunately the law is the law until changed.

As for Ad Hominem's, how do we know this girl was a "victim? If this girl was a victim do we give her a pass for bringing a gun in to solve her probem? Do we want to send a message that if you carry a gun to school illegally there are no consequences? Emotional verbiage? A matter of conjecture, eh?

It is all out in the ether as it were. My only contention is that this girl broke the law. She is subject to the law she admitted breaking. Period.

The rightness or the wrongness of the law is a subject for another debate.

Respectfully,
PATH
 
Dad should secure his firearms.
Click to expand...
I saw no mention in this article about this being the father's gun, only that he gave it to the police. Perhaps he conducted his own in-house investigation and found it. We don't know.

But the girl's father gave police a .22-caliber handgun that matched the description of the one seen in school.
Click to expand...



Sounds like the logic of people who are against CCW. If you have a problem, don't defend yourself, just call 911.

OK, I know she was 15, but you have to admit that the logic above sounds eerily familiar
Click to expand...

The differance is that anti CCW crowd is trying to create a nanny-state. This child is already under the control of the state and as such is subject to certain limited restrictions of her civil rights, this has been upheld by SCOTUS. And as a temporary ward she and every other student are to be protected by the state while in their custody and are to adhere to the rules and regulations of the institution.

Sometimes the state is extremely over zealous in their policies, but not his time. She exhibited dangerous and anti social behavior and was removed from the general population which she threatened, all of which she has admitted to.

IMHO any one defending this girls actions or questioning the actions of authorities in this case is doing so from a purely anti authority point of view.
 
storage

Path,
Mine are in gun safes inside my gun room. The walls have extra studs, both more and heavier, and the door is solid with dead bolt. I remember my youth and expect my kids to be as interested as I was.
 
kbsrn,

I understand the curiousity factor. My kids have seen and held all my firearms after I have made them safe. I asked if they had questions. I asked them to ask me if they wanted to see my firearms. The original thrill wore off after a while. I think that with kids forbidden fruit is the most tempting. I gave my oldest a single shot .22LR for a birthday gift. Communicating with yor kids goes a long way in preventing problems.
 
The girl as I stated in an earlier post is guilty. That is fact. She has been charged accordingly.
Click to expand...


So, she is guilty and has been charged. Nice to know we only charge people AFTER they are guilty.

I think it's ludicrous for a fifteen year old to be armed. Who'd want to attack a 15 year old girl? (shameless quote from FREEHOLD :D)

And the other mother is acting hysterically, even if she has fear. If the girl was released, the authorities she worships obviously think it wasn't an issue.

I'd like to see how this turns out.
 
Madmike,

The DA has the final decision on what he wants to charge and prosecute. Admission to police with parents present as well as witnesses adds up to guilty.
 
(DEFINE kid?)
Click to expand...
How about 15 year old schoolgirl?
This is a headmaster's job and a parent's job.
Click to expand...
yes and the Principle decided that it was his duty to proptect the others in his charge and report a violation of state and federal laws to the proper authorities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
St. Petersburg 5-year-old cuffed after school outburst
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
P95Carry
P
G
  • Locked
"Angry" parent brings gun to school (Western NC)
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
kludge
K
D
  • Locked
(TX) Kids threatened over drug money
Replies
23
Views
916
BroncoGlenn
B
T
  • Locked
Resource officer attacked by girls
Replies
8
Views
1K
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
B
  • Locked
Goodbye crossbows (Australia)
Replies
18
Views
2K
tyme
T
Back
Top