Let me start with the basic story. From the Washington
Examiner we get this account of an alleged overreaction by the police in
Alexandria, Virginia:
Alexandria cops bust 10-year-old for bringing toy gun to school
A 10-year-old Alexandria boy was arrested after police said he brought
a toy handgun to school on Tuesday, a day after he showed it to others on a
school bus.
The boy, a
fifth-grader at Douglas MacArthur Elementary School whose name is not being
released, was charged as a juvenile with brandishing a weapon, police said.
He was also
suspended from school, and Alexandria City Public Schools Superintendent Morton
Sherman said further action is being considered, including expulsion.
On Monday, the boy
showed the plastic gun to at least one other student during a bus ride home
from the school. The 10-year-old did not point it at anyone or threaten to
shoot it, but he neglected to mention that the weapon was fake, said Alexandria
police spokeswoman Ashley Hildebrandt.
...
The toy resembled a
semi-automatic handgun, said police spokesman Jody Donaldson. It was silver and
had a black handle. It also had a orange tip that went into the barrel, showing
that no ammunition was coming out of it.
This prompted outrage from people
I do respect, such as Glenn Reynolds, who wrote in response to
Superintendant Sherman’s comment that “The safety of our students is always our
first concern” that
[y]our students were always
safe, because it was a toy gun.
Except they’re not safe from overweening officialdom, who can’t tell the
difference between a dangerous weapon
and a toy gun. Or, more accurately,
who choose to ignore the difference.
Sending your kids to
public school is looking more and more like parental malpractice.
And my blogging friend John Hoge’s
headline says it all: “Tar! Feathers!”
But my antennae went up, and I suspected
there was a little more to the story than we were hearing in this article. I suspected, for instance, that the author of
the article didn’t fully understand what brandishing meant under Virginia law
because what was described in the article alone wouldn’. Allow me to quote from the Virginia
Code:
§ 18.2-282.
Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object
similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be
unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or
gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of
being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of
another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place
in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being
shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in
excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this
section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs
upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school,
including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of
such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
There’s more to the statute, but
that is all that is relevant here.
So first you will notice that it does cover fakes that look like the real
thing, including toys and other mock-ups.
But it also says to me as a lawyer that mere possession of such a fake weapon is not
enough. Instead you have to “point, hold
or brandish” it in a manner “as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of
another of being shot or injured.” So
just having a gun isn’t going to meet the statute. After all, Virginia is an open carry state—that
is any person not otherwise prohibited from owning a gun may have one and carry
it in public as long they do not conceal it (unless they also obtain a
concealed carry permit). I open carry
all the time and none of that is “brandishing.”
In other words, even if the gun
was real, merely showing people you have a gun in your bag is not enough to be fit
this statute. Mind you, a child
possessing a concealed handgun on a school bus is going to violate many other statutes,
but it does not fall under this brandishing statute. You have to do something more, to put others
in fear. And not just irrational fear,
but “reasonable fear.” So merely
neglecting to mention that it was fake almost certainly didn’t cut it, if that
is all he did. Which suggested to me
that maybe the suspect did something more.
So I decided to give the public
relations department in the Alexandria Police a call, and I managed to get in
touch with Jody Donaldson, mentioned in the story. Now, I should note that this is merely the
Alexandria police’s side of the story.
We have not heard from the suspect, his lawyer, etc. And given that they can’t release his name to
the public, getting in contact with anyone on the suspect’s side might be
difficult. And while I am sure Mr.
Donaldson strives to be as accurate as possible, this is at least second-hand,
if not third-, fourth- or fifth-hand information and for all the reasons why we
don’t normally allow hearsay in court we should be concerned that inaccuracies might
crop up. But this is what Mr. Donaldson shared
with me. And all of what I am about to
say, therefore, are allegations that will of course have to be proven in court;
the suspect is innocent of all of this until proven guilty.
Mr. Donaldson alleged that it was
not merely, as the story said, that “he neglected to mention that the weapon
was fake.” In fact, the suspect was allegedly
trying to make kids think it was real.
The story actually started on
Monday afternoon, on the bus ride home.
The suspect allegedly had the toy weapon concealed in the waist of his
pants. He allegedly told several people
that he had a gun and lifted his shirt to show the toy. The intent, as Mr. Donaldson explained to me,
was not necessarily to threaten any person, but more to allegedly put out the
message that he was not someone to mess with.
Indeed I said, “he was putting out the message, ‘don’t mess with me, I have
a gun’” and Mr. Donaldson agreed with that characterization. I think it is fair to say that in Donaldson’s
version of events he isn’t threatening to harm a specific person, but he is
instead trying to seem a little “badass.”
The suspect left the bus and went home without further incident.
One child on the bus got upset
and told his/her parents. Some parents
decided to write a letter to school officials about the incident and also
released the letter to the media. The
media in turn contacted the Alexandria Police Department asking if they were
going to do anything about it.
Bear in mind at, this point, the
police had no idea whether the gun was real or not. The toy did have an orange plastic tip in the
barrel to indicate that it was fake, but because it was allegedly jammed
barrel-first into the waistband of his pants, no one could see that. But Donaldson told me that it was his
understanding that it really looked real with “shiny chrome and black handle.” I said to Donaldson that if they have a
picture of the gun, they should release it to the media so that if it actually
looked reasonably real, we could see for ourselves. He stated that the media relations people had
already shared that sentiment but they were holding it back for now for
investigatory purposes. But they may release
a photo soon.
Donaldson was very adamant that
the police would have handled the issue quietly if it was possible. If the parents of the complaining child had
called the police immediately and directly, instead of contacting the school and
the media first, that might have given the police time to track down the suspect
before he showed up at school the next day.
I don’t think his tone was blaming the parents so much as offering
constructive criticism that this would have been a better way to handle it. There was also some kind of difficulty in
locating the suspect’s parents themselves.
Donaldson believed that if the suspect’s parents had been located, they
could have determined that it was just a toy, told the suspect to leave it home from then on, and they could have avoided a huge
scene at school and allowed the suspect to avoid being charged with a crime (which
I presume would include the school administration punishing the suspect
instead). But that wasn’t possible.
Instead the police were forced
into a situation where they had to wait until the suspect came back to
school. Again, remember that for all
they knew this suspect was packing heat. So
they searched him and allegedly found the toy gun in his backpack at this time,
and this led to his arrest. I have no
idea how tense a situation this was.
That is the end of Donaldson’s
information.
So it was a little more serious
than a kid having a toy gun for fun and games.
If the police’s account is correct (and this suspect is innocent until
proven guilty), he was trying be at least a bit of a badass and convince others
that he was armed. And of course that could
have created a dangerous situation on campus where perhaps a rival student might
then feel the need to be armed. And in
that situation an ordinary argument that might normally turn into a fistfight might
instead transform into a shooting. I am
pretty bullish on the Second Amendment, but I do draw the line at children
having guns (without close adult supervision).
While I regularly deride the view that ordinary adult citizens will go
all “murdery” if they have a gun on hand—I believe that most people can even be
angry without being violent let alone murderous—I do not believe that immature
children can be trusted the same way.
All of which isn’t to say that
the kid should do hard time. I am not
exactly long in the tooth in the Virginia Criminal justice system, let alone
the juvenile justice system, but I have a difficult time believing that any
judge is going to do much more than something like community service and
eventually an expunged record. But
frankly, if the police are getting their facts right, I think it is quite appropriate
to handcuff him, trot him out of the school and so on. A message should be sent that telling people
you are armed is not a light matter.
I should also note that Mr.
Donaldson did not have any information about any prior history that the suspect
might have had. Any revelations on that
front might change my analysis considerably.
All of this puts Superintendant
Sherman’s comment that “The safety of our students is always our first concern”
into a little more perspective. It
sounds like, to me, that under those circumstances he was referring to the
police coming to the school in a situation where at that point in time, they
didn’t know if the kid had brandished a real weapon or not. So it seems to be referring to that police response which seems, given their understanding of the facts at the time, perfectly reasonable.
Finally, my sense from the
conversation is that Mr. Donaldson would appreciate it if I passed on this advice:
if you are a parent and you learn that a child is engaged in serious criminal
conduct, don’t go to school officials first. Go to the police, directly. And even if Mr. Donaldson doesn’t agree with
me, well... that is how I feel. We should not
take the view that because something happened at school suddenly it is not
serious.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds
fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
History here.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment