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

Enjoy, MM. Stay warm!

I think the fact that this happens shows that the family's problems go far beyond this incident.

Sorry, I object. :p

I base my primary objections to this woman's incarceration on a lot of other grounds, than just securing weapons.

I base some of my objections on:

1. When you are old enough to pick up a gun and threaten someone, you are old enough to be treated as an adult. This child is being treated as such.

I've seen criminals get less time for armed robbery, than what this kid is getting (9 years).

2. Incarceration of the mother serves no useful purpose, that I can ascertain. Locking somebody up for 90 days is for vagrants, drunks, and petty thievess. She is none of these.

The primary purpose of the judicial system is justice. Sometimes that involves jail time. Sometimes it does not. Sometimes it involves execution. Sometimes it does not. However, the punishment should fit the crime.

In this case, according to the DA, it does not.

3. There are a lot of folks, including some of the guys who work for me, who would put up a ferocious argument in favor of non-human status on my part.

It begs the question "what else is going?" There are issues definitely at work. I sure hope they get help.

Holy moly, Batman.

Cindy agreeing with Jolly.

Me agreeing with Tom K.

Is this the first sign of the apocalypse?

Oh, MM. Really now.

I don't think the woman should go to jail, so now I am estopped for all time from opining "about society being responsible for an individual's crime against that society."

What does that even mean, anyway?

Oooh, the plot thickens . . .

Here's another news report (before the trial). I've snipped out the details we already know. Follow the link to see a pic of the mom.

******************

Officers said the day started at 7:40 a.m. when the boy arrived at school with his mother, Naomi Lewis, who is a cafeteria worker at Bull Run.

[snip]

However, detectives said the boy had a key to the van and returned shortly before 8:30 a.m. Officers said he hid the guns in a cloth bag and went into a school bathroom.

Once in the bathroom, according to detectives, the boy changed into army camouflage clothes and loaded a rifle.

[snip]


A 13-year-old boy was also arrested in the case. He has been charged with conspiracy to possess firearms on school property.

Officers said as many as 10 students knew about the plot, but none came forward.

story

So should these ten students also face charges of criminal negligence?

Or are they just completely, utterly and unambiguously stupid??

Seems like a lot of stupid people are associated with that school!

If only it were an isolated case...

Jolly wrote: "In my state, a vehicle is considered an extension of your domicile, and all laws apply thereof."

Does this mean that all search and seizure provisions apply equally to home and vehicles, or is this only in reference to weapons laws?

Weapons laws.

Ok. Otherwise, that would seem to go against the Supreme Court's consistent stand that vehicles are not afforded the same expectation of privacy as domiciles.

it just goes to show that some people need to get a clue about raising kids and stop listening to that empty-headed, bald-headed Dr. Phil, who advises against people disiplining their kids by whipping them when they do wrong. so good, they oughta arrested that woman.

Whipping them?

No, Steve, whipping them is for weenies.

Real parents *beat* their children.

Cindy wrote:

Nothing really. Mostly just pulling your chain and Jolly’s. I have a vague recollection of what my points were at the time and, in retrospect, they were really inconsequential. Just another of many examples of my posting impulsively.

I believe the students would be guilty of conspiracy. Their parents, however....

Whew! You had me on the run for a minute there!

You can pull my chain anytime, MM.

Jolly wrote: "I believe the students would be guilty of conspiracy."

I'm not sure about that, unless state law is different than federal law regarding conspiracies. I don't think that merely knowing about the plot makes one a conspirator. Maybe they'd be guilty of a crime of ommission, instead. I could be wrong, of course. Where are those lawyers when you need them?