The 14-year-old kid arrested over his pro-NRA shirt now faces a year in jail

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Really are we going to have an fight over the name of the topic?

Most ppl commenting on the topic are aware of the incident and know what the reference is in this thread.

You can't have the topic title say one thing and the article say another.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Officer did put the kid in handcuff in front of his friends and fellow students would that not traumatize the child?

Traumatized for being handcuffed after disrespecting a law enforcement officer? Yes, and thank you for admitting that the NRA crowd really is not just stupid but also a bunch of sissies.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[JohnR! 5,495]

http://news.yahoo.com/14-old-kid-arrested-over-pro-nra-shirt-071819724.html

The West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and arrested in late April after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National Rifle Association appeared in court this week and was formally charged with obstructing an officer.

As CBS affiliate WTRF reports, 14-year-old Jared Marcum now faces a $500 fine and a maximum of one year in prison.

What's wrong with people?

Sounds about right... Entitled and disrespectful of the law... Pretty much sums up the group...

[Harsh_77 716]

Traumatized for being handcuffed after disrespecting a law enforcement officer? Yes, and thank you for admitting that the NRA crowd really is not just stupid but also a bunch of sissies.

Its just funny how you flip, you think holding a kid in a closet for 7-8 mins until police arrives is traumatizing for kid but a police officer handcuffing a kid in front of his friends is not.

Police officer was following what school admin asked him to do, there are very few police officer who would question legality in such cases they just blindly follow the instruction.

I am sure you will be able to find a video... couple were educating ppl about effects of radiation at TSA checkpoint and airport managers comes, police comes and airport manager is demanding police officer arrest the couple.

Most cases officer would arrest the couple but in this instance the officer was knowledgeable and he would not listen to airpot manager.

Same could apply in this case as well.... just coz kid was wearing a tshirt that a particular teacher did not like does not mean he has to be arrested.

Wearing a tshirt... did not break a law police officer should never have been involved... if school wanted to take admin action that they can.

[Darnell 8,478]

sorry, is more moral decay.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Its just funny how you flip, you think holding a kid in a closet for 7-8 mins until police arrives is traumatizing for kid but a police officer handcuffing a kid in front of his friends is not.

What is funny is how confused you are. I haven't flipped at all. Aside from the fact that I have not made any argument over whether or not the kids that were locked up in a closet were traumatized by that experience, you fail to understand that we are looking at two entirely different scenarios here. The dude that locked them kids up in a closet had zero authority to do that which is why he is now facing charges. The cop, on the other hand, absolutely had the authority to handcuff the kid after the kid failed to follow the officer's instructions. It's not that hard to understand.

[Harsh_77 716]

What is funny is how confused you are. I haven't flipped at all. Aside from the fact that I have not made any argument over whether or not the kids that were locked up in a closet were traumatized by that experience, you fail to understand that we are looking at two entirely different scenarios here. The dude that locked them kids up in a closet had zero authority to do that which is why he is now facing charges. The cop, on the other hand, absolutely had the authority to handcuff the kid after the kid failed to follow the officer's instructions. It's not that hard to understand.

Have your heard about citizens arrest?

There were no laws broken other than hurting teachers and school admins ego, which did not require an arrest.

Just to point out how you think a kid wearing a tshirt is a brat but kids who damage somone property worth 40k are not...lol - who is confused?

Police officer is not always right, if you wanna validate it look for videos posted by SHARK. Just coz they have uniform does not meant they have complete authority.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Have your heard about citizens arrest?

There were no laws broken other than hurting teachers and school admins ego, which did not require an arrest.

Just to point out how you think a kid wearing a tshirt is a brat but kids who damage somone property worth 40k are not...lol - who is confused?

Police officer is not always right, if you wanna validate it look for videos posted by SHARK. Just coz they have uniform does not meant they have complete authority.

Exactly throwing a kid in cuffs because he stands up for civil liberties=BAD and SCARY in ** world

Holding kids for 15 mins or so after they do 40K worth of damage to your house=Traumatizing and wrong in ** world

Yes folks lib logic it is really that bizarre.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Have your heard about citizens arrest?

I have. I was a kid once playing all kinds of games. I have since grown up.

There were no laws broken other than hurting teachers and school admins ego, which did not require an arrest.

You still haven't grasped what the kid was handcuffed for and what the kid is being charged with. Hint, it does not involve school personnel. It involes the child's actions when given instructions by a law enforcement officer. That is where the kid broke the law and that is why the kid was handcuffed and subsequently charged.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just to point out how you think a kid wearing a tshirt is a brat but kids who damage somone property worth 40k are not...lol - who is confused?

Who is confused? Still you because you seem to be under the false impression that I have said that the kids that did serious damage to a home were not brats. I haven't actually made any such statement - outside of your imagination, that is.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I have. I was a kid once playing all kinds of games. I have since grown up.

You still haven't grasped what the kid was handcuffed for and what the kid is being charged with. Hint, it does not involve school personnel. It involes the child's actions when given instructions by a law enforcement officer. That is where the kid broke the law and that is why the kid was handcuffed and subsequently charged.

Ahh the failure to grasp boomerang. Pay attention, he was charged with obstruction of a law officer. Only problem is the law offcier failed to document any behavior that would fit the legal definition of obstruction. He only noted that he told the kid to be silent and the kid would not. that is not obstruction that is violation of his first amendment rights.

A lot of that going around by police today.. Surely you don't advocate violating someones civil liberties just because they support a position you do not.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Exactly throwing a kid in cuffs because he stands up for civil liberties=BAD and SCARY in ** world

You still haven't grasped either why that kid was handcuffed and why he is being charged. It's not for the reason you seem to believe it is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ahh the failure to grasp boomerang. Pay attention, he was charged with obstruction of a law officer. Only problem is the law offcier failed to document any behavior that would fit the legal definition of obstruction. He only noted that he told the kid to be silent and the kid would not. that is not obstruction that is violation of his first amendment rights.

A lot of that going around by police today.. Surely you don't advocate violating someones civil liberties just because they support a position you do not.

Good Lord. He was charged with obstruction of a law enforcement officer. There will be a proceeding that will establish whether he is guilty ot not guilty of that charge. No point in trying to adjudicate that here in P&R. That's what the courts are for.

[decocker 7,198]

Ahh the failure to grasp boomerang. Pay attention, he was charged with obstruction of a law officer. Only problem is the law offcier failed to document any behavior that would fit the legal definition of obstruction. He only noted that he told the kid to be silent and the kid would not. that is not obstruction that is violation of his first amendment rights.

A lot of that going around by police today.. Surely you don't advocate violating someones civil liberties just because they support a position you do not.

kids in school are not allowed to throw temper tantrums about their fashion choices while in school. this isn't new and has nothing to do with "civil liberties".

aren't you one of the folks who have a problem with occupy protestors?

[Harsh_77 716]

You still haven't grasped either why that kid was handcuffed and why he is being charged. It's not for the reason you seem to believe it is.

ok can you tell why kid was handcuffed?