Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Jail or Probation?

Cindy's initial take is correct here. This is my community. I went to school with the defense attorney. My brother in law went to school with the Commonwealth's attorney.

If Paul Ebert said there was no point in punishing this lady, he was correct. Paul is an extremely strict prosecutor. He has sent more people to death row than anyone else in the state, except possibly Paul Horan in Fairfax, and I think Ebert holds the record.

The judge was grandstanding to make himself look important.

In my experience we have 2 kinds of judges in this county. They are:

A: ridiculously harsh or

B: laughably lenient.

I remember one who tried to jail me for asking him where the balif's office was when my traffic case was "nul posed". Fortunately that one is no longer on the bench.

"I'd say locking the guns in the trunk ranks behind 'take them to the principle' but way ahead of 'conceal them in the bushes' or 'put them in a duffel bag and bring them into the cafeteria.'"

Well, first of all, DO NOT take them to the principal. You're going to get in trouble for bringing guns into the school. I can't remember the particulars, but there was a case where a kid found a gun in the bushes, brought it into school and took it to the principal's office to turn it in, and got suspended for bringing a gun into the school. Stupid, but true (or at least it was reported as true). Drive to the local police station instead.

But second of all, the guns were not locked in the trunk, Cindy. They were in a van. A van has windows. You can see what's in a van. You can break a window and get what's in a van. A trunk is not quite the same thing.

I'm not sure where this took place, so the gun culture there may result in different attitudes than what is probably common here.

I would think that the sentencing phase would be where the judge tries to assess the intent of the convicted person. Walking down the hallway of the school with a gun is different than locking one in your vehicle. Also, many state's laws are quite vague. They refer to no guns in places where "education takes place". Does that include that parking lot, or is it just the classroom?

Placing parents completely liable for their children's actions has its own problems. If mistakes aren't made, lessons aren't learned. Good parenting can't be legislated.

It's easy to monday morning QB this one, but if I found the guns in the vehicle and I believed my child that he did not put them there *and* it was plausible that my spouse left them in the vehicle, I do one of 2 things: exactly what she did or I drive them home and lock them up (or call the spouse if possible and give him/her a verbal dope-slap). The failure here is not in how she handled the weapons, but the fact that she apparently did not identify that her son was distraught. There really isn't enough to the story to determine if she was negligent in that regard or if this crept up on her. The parents that think they know everything about their kids are usually the ones that are most out of touch.

Uh, oh. Quirt busted me. It was a van.

So I will quickly make up some helpful facts to save my bacon.

She heard a rattling and "discovered" the weapons. This means (and common sense would suggest) that the weapons were not visible from the outside of the van. The kid would have to be a total dope to just toss the weapons in there in plain sight -- he clearly covered them with something.

So. She, not being a total chimp, would have covered them back up so they wouldn't be visible.

Whew! That was close!

Originally written by Cindysphinx,
I have never understood that concept and I do not currently agree with it. I thought the idea behind the handing out of punishment in our society was this thing called "justice". I fail to see how using someone to "send a message" can be called "justice." Thoughts?

Anyway, I don't quite know how I feel about this case and the 3-month sentence. I have such a strong aversion to guns, for one thing, and something's wrong with the picture in the first place. A 13-year old loads the car with guns and the mother finds out by accident... something's missing.

I haven't read the other responses yet either, let me try that.

If the judge was, indeed, grandstanding and the DA advised against incarceration, then this is very bad indeed.

I am still for court ordered family therapy.

Steve

Regarding sending a message,

There are times when someone does the wrong thing, yet the wrong can be addressed through means other than a criminal prosecution.

I'll give as an example a case I mentioned the other day. One fellow has health insurance, the other does not. The one without insurance needs to go to the ER, so he asks his buddy to use his health insurance card and receive the treatment in the insured man's name. Uninsured friend receives lots of expensive treatment. Both went to jail.

It seems that this case could have been dealt with via restitution -- just make them pay the money back. I suspect the main motivation for jailing them was to send a message.

Tsk tsk, Cindy, sarcasm. The lengths to which I have driven you.

So you think, after looking in the back, she was smart enough to cover up the guns, do you? This rocket scientist whose child had stuffed guns in the van without her knowledge, who figured she'd find out about what was going on later, this person who didn't want to be late for work so she just locked the guns in her van, this is the person who you think took the time to cover up the guns after she looked into the back and realized that they were in her van (and of course, if they were covered up, she had to uncover them to see what they were)?

And, even if the bit with the guns wasn't criminally stupid, the fact that her 13-year old kid had a key to the van isn't criminally stupid itself? If it was without her knowledge, how did the kid get the key? If it was with her knowledge, that's worse. Who allows a 13 year-old to have a key to a van?

And as for the sending the message part and your ER example ...

Restitution doesn't cover it. If the total punishment was restitution, any rational (and not particularly law-abiding) person in that situation would say to themselves: "Hmm. I can put down my own name, in which case there's a 100% chance I have to pay. Or I can put down my buddy's name, in which case the chance that I get caught and have to pay is less than 100%, and the outcome is no worse than if I'd simply paid in the first place."

The ER situation was fraud, plain and simple. Fraud is a crime. You go to jail for fraud. End of story.

Virtually every criminal punishment on the books has, to some degree, the purpose of sending a message to the rest of society, "don't do that." Whether it's a fine, or jail time, or community service, it's all supposed to be a deterrent.

Quirt .. who usually agrees with Cindy, but thinks she's off the reservation this time.

Ladies and germs,

The weapon in question is a deer rifle, probably owned by the husband. If the woman walks into the principal's office with it, and he calls the cops, things can get very nasty, very quickly, on both a state, but more importantly on a federal level, as this cat leaks out of the bag - and it will get out, trust me.

Federal penalties carry mandatory sentencing.

The bottom line in this case, is that the DA (by description a pretty tuff cookie) determined that under the law he must prosecute this case, but felt that incarceration was needless, and stated so.

For a judge to go against that, without knowing something the DA didn't, is simply grandstanding, and does nobody any good.

"She discovered two rifles, a shotgun and ammunition..."

Not "just a deer rifle."

OK, so we can perhaps conclude that this is the sort of family where three guns and ammunition are routinely just popping up in the back of the van...? "Oh geez, there are our guns again. We really must get better about putting them away..."

This was sheer irresponsibility on the part of the parent(s), IMO. Two problems: 1) their kid is being routinely bullied enough to consider taking loaded guns into school and they don't know it or have chosen to ignore it; 2) the presence of 3 guns and ammunition in their van is, apparently, no big deal.

Actually, Quirt, I wasn't being sarcastic, really. That there was more like a tap dance because you caught me forgetting the facts, actually.

But yes, I do think it is a reasonable inference that the woman didn't leave the guns lying in plain view. (I would think that would be a significant fact which would have been publicized to demonstrate her negligence). My own instinct is to cover up anything of value I have to leave in my minivan. Also, the article says she "investigated" the rattling, which suggests something more than turning around in her seat. I think the boy concealed them, and she concealed them too.

What I can't figure out is whether she recognized these weapons. I guess she must have, which would explain why she wasn't especially alarmed. Which means they perhaps belonged to her husband, who is equally culpable for not securing them.

Regarding how the kid got a key . . . Quirt, I don't know how old your twins are, but my oldest is 13. If she wanted to get a key to my car without my knowledge, she could do it. No problem. She could lift it off dh's key ring or take the spare one, and he wouldn't be the wiser. Better yet, she could swipe the key, walk it down to the hardware store and have her very own key made for $2. Teenagers are very capable and very sneaky when they want to be.

Regarding whether the mom should have known the boy was at the end of his rope, I don't fault her for this, either. When my kids are unhappy or having trouble in school, it doesn't occur to them that they might be ready to go on a murder spree. He was probably being your usual sullen pre-teen, and she might have been dealing with it in her own way by just trying to continue having a relationship with him, which doesn't mean his parents are neglectful or out of touch.

I'm saying that the woman could have handled it better. Given that in this thread with the full benefit of hindsight there isn't a consensus of opinion about the best course of action, I can understand how mom blew it.

I own 26 weapons. From deer rifle to shotguns, and at one time, a submachine gun.

Looking behind the seat of my truck, would probably scare you into next week!

and
It is interesting that no one is really laying some blame on the school. If the bullying was actually occuring and teachers and administrators were ingnoring it, they should get a large part of the blame. The kid may have acted out in an innappropriate way, but since no one was actually injured, his method turned out to be much better than the much more common method kids use, suicide. Did his parents know about the bullying? Maybe the school employees were the only cognizant adults. Maybe a civil case by the parents against the school is appropriate.

This whole thing sounds like a fatheaded judge posing for the crowd.

Not really OT:

Is it legal to conceal weapons in cars? I'm not a gun owner so I don't really have a clue, but I thought you had to get a "concealed weapons" permit, else the weapon had to be in plain sight... the proverbial gunrack in the pickup scenario.

What's the legal side of concealing weapons in cars?

Do you clean out your truck every time you take your kid to school or attend a school function?

Doubt it, and I see no reason why you should be required to.

Absolutely. I clean it out every time. Without fail.

Depends on the state, as state laws vary. And that is superceded by municipal ordinances. If you wish, you can obtain a copy of the firearms laws of all states from the BATF.

In my state, a vehicle is considered an extension of your domicile, and all laws apply thereof. Not to mention the fact that in an unincorporated area, it is not illegal to strap a hogleg on in plain site, or carry a shotgun into a country store.

Folks may look at you a mite strange, though. Usually as a common courtesy, since guns do disturb some folks, you'll put them out of sight. Now, that does sometimes bridge into CCW, but I've never heard of a rural parish DA bringing such charges, unless he wants to tack them onto more, serious offenses.

I haven't read a WORD of this thread--but trust me on this--if you have to ask the question, the answer is JAIL. There's bad guys and good guys in this world and and is a vast difference between them. People like the ACLU want to blur those differences, "but the fine print in the 39th amendment says:" "his mother never really loved him," all crap. Just lawyers hurting people to make money.

Now probation, hmmmm, isn't that where all the ax murders and child molesters get to do their thing for the second time on the state's dime? Let me call my lawyer....

Next post.

Poor woman. Poor family. They all need help simply to get through this and figure out what went wrong. I'm sure there's all kinds of guilt going around.

Two quick takes on this:

I am not at all surprised by Jolly's judgement because it's influenced by his desire to minimize any encroachment on his right to own and secure his weapons. Don't object Jolly. You're as human as the rest of us and all our judgements are influenced, at least subconsciously, by our personal agenda. To claim otherwise is silly.

Cindy, I make no judgement on this borderline case. But, as far as I'm concerned, your position has weakened on any future stance you might take about society being responsible for an individual's crime against that society. If you choose to object, please see my closing comments to Jolly.

Well, that's my fun for the day here on PW. Have a good weekend everybody.