Sunday, October 26, 2014

Texas 4-Year-old Brings Gun to School - May Face Charges

Local news reports

Nobody has been hurt after a 4-year-old pre-kindergarten student took a loaded gun in his backpack to a South Texas elementary school.

Officials with the La Joya Independent School District say a teacher confiscated the weapon and locked the gun in a safe until police arrived.

The incident happened Thursday at Rosendo Benavides Elementary School in Sullivan City. The boy mentioned the gun to other students, who then told a teacher.

Police are speaking with the child’s relatives to determine how he acquired the gun, which had 15 bullets in the magazine but no rounds in the chamber.

District police Chief Raul Gonzalez says investigators do not believe the boy planned to use the gun. School officials will consider any possible punishment for the child.

POSSIBLE PUNISHMENT FOR THE CHILD???????

37 comments:

  1. Usually the kids get harsh, automatic punishment under zero tolerance policies. Sounds like they're actually using their brains here and evaluating whether to go full retard or do something more appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The kid is 4 fucking years old. What's wrong with you? The gun owner should be locked up already, but I guess that would be too hard for you genius gun-rights fanatics to fathom - holding the responsible person responsible.

      Delete
    2. "The kid is 4 fucking years old. What's wrong with you?"

      Well Mike, if kids can be punished for pop tart guns, drawings of guns, and finger guns, how is being punished for a real gun any better? However, we're seeing two separate entities in the area of punishments. The school is looking at school rules, and the police are looking at the parents.
      Again, you're complaining about the police actually taking the time to build a criminal case. Texas actually has a safe gun storage law in place,

      "Under Texas law, if a child under 17 years of age gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm (i.e., loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber), a person is criminally liable if he or she, “with criminal negligence:”
      •Failed to secure the firearm (i.e., to take steps a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means); or
      •Left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access."

      http://smartgunlaws.org/child-access-prevention-in-texas/

      Delete
    3. DITTO what Mike said.
      You gun loons are idiots.

      Delete
    4. The kid is 4 [Mikeb shrieking anger noises] years old. What's wrong with you?

      So are you saying that 4-year-olds should never be punished, or is it that 4-year-olds can legitimately be punished for some things, but bringing a gun to school doesn't rise to the level of seriousness that warrants punishment?

      The gun owner should be locked up already . . .

      Um, wouldn't that require determining who the owner is first?

      Delete
    5. Anon never mentioned parents, only discipline for the child. The fact that he never mentioned parents is the looney part of your gun loons thinking.

      Delete
    6. "Well Mike, if kids can be punished for pop tart guns, drawings of guns, and finger guns, how is being punished for a real gun any better? "

      If you can show me where I've supported and condoned that kind of thing your question might make sense.

      Delete
    7. It doesn't matter if you actually commented on pop-tart guns or not Mike, what matters is your comment on the subject you brought forth here. Punishing a ten year old eating a pop-tart into the shape of a gun is just as equally stupid as NOT punishing a 4 year old for bringing a real gun to class. Without punishment you don't learn. The punishment should be something that makes a long lasting impression to this 4 year old.

      Delete
    8. What I object to is your and the Texas school officials' attempts to focus on the kid and not on the responsible adult who allowed access of his gun to a 4-year-old.

      How about this? The kid gets a good scolding and the gun owner goes to jail and loses his guns? Would that work for you?

      Delete
    9. "What I object to is your and the Texas school officials' attempts to focus on the kid and not on the responsible adult who allowed access of his gun to a 4-year-old."

      Mike, the school officials CANT focus on the responsible adult because they have no jurisdiction over the parent. The only control they have is over the child, and the most they can do there is kick him out of school.
      Consequences for the adult who improperly stored the firearm falls to law enforcement who can take the adults lunch money and give out some serious detention.
      As the article says,


      "Police are speaking with the child’s relatives to determine how he acquired the gun, which had 15 bullets in the magazine but no rounds in the chamber."

      As I showed, there is a safe storage law in place. We have but to wait and see how its applied.

      Delete
    10. . . . the gun owner goes to jail and loses his guns?

      So who is the gun owner?

      By the way, Mikeb, I kinda wish I could be on hand to watch your head explode when you read this from the very useful link provided by SSG, describing child access prevention law in Texas:

      If the negligent person is a member of the family of the child who discharged the firearm, and the child was killed or seriously injured, an arrest cannot be made until seven days after the offense was committed.

      I realize that this provision wouldn't apply here, since no harm was done, but I just thought it would be fun to tell you about that part of the law ;-).

      Delete
    11. "If the negligent person is a member of the family of the child who discharged the firearm, and the child was killed or seriously injured, an arrest cannot be made until seven days after the offense was committed."

      Interesting, I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see that bit. Good eye Kurt. So it appears that there is a little consideration for grieving relatives written into the law. It doesn't change the eventual outcome in regards to taking responsibility.

      Delete
    12. MikeB: "How about this? The kid gets a good scolding and the gun owner goes to jail and loses his guns? Would that work for you?"

      Taking away a kid's parent(s) is punishment for the kid, and more than just a scolding. "We're not punishing you, Billy, but because of your actions, you don't get a mom and dad anymore. But you can make all kinds of new friends at the group home!"

      Delete
    13. School officials SHOULD comment on how a kid got a gun. If they don't know how this kid got a gun, they can certainly make comment about keeping guns away from all kids and there isin't a better time to make that statement.

      Delete
    14. It doesn't change the eventual outcome in regards to taking responsibility.

      True, but I rather suspect that's not good enough for Mikeb, with his "an incarceration delayed is an incarceration denied" philosophy.

      Delete
    15. "As I showed, there is a safe storage law in place. We have but to wait and see how its applied."

      Yeah, I'll hold my breath.

      About that bizarre restriction in the law, do you think a pro-gun legislator might have been responsible for that little gem?

      Delete
    16. About that bizarre restriction in the law, do you think a pro-gun legislator might have been responsible for that little gem?

      Well, it certainly seems likely that the provision is the work of someone with compassion, and who is intelligent enough to know that absolutely no harm will come from a week's delay in arresting the person. So yeah--"a pro-gun legislator" makes sense.

      Delete
  2. As is often said here, the wheels of justice often turn slower than the media's attention span. But move it does,

    "The mother of a 4-year-old pre-kindergarten student who took a loaded gun in his backpack to a South Texas elementary school has been charged by authorities.
    The Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office has charged the woman with making a firearm accessible to a child — a class C misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine."

    "Hidalgo County sheriff’s spokesperson J.P. Rodriguez says the boy’s parents legally owned the pistol but had not properly secured it.
    La Joya school district spokesman Eden Ramirez said officials have not decided what disciplinary action might be taken against the boy."

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/10/25/texas-mom-charged-after-son-takes-gun-to-school/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's odd--Mikeb says that the gun owner should go to jail and lose his guns. Once again, Mikeb was demanding an arrest before knowing whom to arrest.

      Delete
    2. How long do you think it would be to determine who owns the gun? I'd say anywhere between 10 minutes and 2 hours. I'd talk to daddy first.

      Delete
    3. "I'd say anywhere between 10 minutes and 2 hours. I'd talk to daddy first."

      Likely a bit longer than that. Then it has to go to the prosecutor for the charges to be filed. Nothing done on it over the weekend. No one was going anywhere. They might very well have known in the time you mention, but the paperwork has to be done.

      Delete
    4. Well then how do you explain the ones who are arrested immediately? They didn't require a consultation with the prosecutor?

      Delete
    5. I'd talk to daddy first.

      So in a case like this, when the father ("daddy" in Mikeb's parlance) was the owner of the gun, should we assume that in your ideal world, he'd be bustled off to the hoosegow, despite the fact that the child was set up by his father's sick, twisted girlfriend?

      I bet we could expect precisely that, from the guy who thinks "it's fun" to rush to judgment--even judgment that sends innocent people to jail.

      Delete
    6. "So she took her boyfriend’s 9-millimeter Smith and Wesson handgun, replaced the child’s cologne and deodorant in his backpack"

      How did the "sick twisted girlfriend" get a-hold of her boyfriend's gun? Isn't it his responsibility to not allow such a thing? Could some "sick twisted" woman get one of your guns without your knowledge, Kurt? And if she did, would you bear no responsibility in the matter?

      Delete
    7. Girlfriends of mine have had access to my guns before, so they could defend themselves from assailants when I was not around. I am lucky enough never to have dated anyone like the sick, twisted thuggette mentioned above, and would like to think that my judgment played some role in that, but if I had made the mistake of dating such a woman, I'm not so stupid as to believe myself in any way responsible for her behavior.

      Delete
    8. You just gave her the implement of the death/murder, and you have no responsibility? If you had not given her the gun no one would have been shot.

      Delete
    9. "if I had made the mistake of dating such a woman, I'm not so stupid as to believe myself in any way responsible for her behavior."

      We obviously have different ideas of personal responsibility. You, as a gun owner, are responsible for the safe storage and custody of your guns. If you fail to execute that responsibility and one of your guns is misused by someone, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. Deny it all you want. That makes you a spineless, finger-pointing, blame-the-others, kinda guy.

      Delete
    10. That makes you a spineless, finger-pointing, blame-the-others, kinda guy.

      Have you not caught onto the fact that no one has misused any of my guns? So what "finger-pointing" have I done, and "blame-what-others"?

      At least you make more sense than your barely literate anonymous buddy, who is talking about "death/murder," and someone having been shot, when the gun was never even fired.

      Delete
    11. "but if I had made the mistake of dating such a woman, I'm not so stupid as to believe myself in any way responsible for her behavior."

      It was your hypothetical bullshit liar. You just lie about everything. You are a true lowlife lying criminal.

      Delete
    12. "That makes you a spineless, finger-pointing, blame-the-others, kinda guy.

      Have you not caught onto the fact that no one has misused any of my guns? So what "finger-pointing" have I done, and "blame-what-others"?"

      Kurt, you're trying to wear me down with tedium again. And it's working.

      About the possibility of one of your girlfriends taking one of your guns and misusing it, you said, "I'm not so stupid as to believe myself in any way responsible for her behavior."

      To which I said that would make "you a spineless, finger-pointing, blame-the-others, kinda guy."

      Anonymous has you pegged.

      Delete
    13. I continue to note that I am in no way responsible for the behavior of others--especially the behavior of others that hasn't happened.

      To which I said that would make "you a spineless, finger-pointing, blame-the-others, kinda guy."

      Well, yeah--I do tend to point fingers at the person who is guilty of the egregious behavior--and at no one else (guess I'm just funny that way). You collectivists do love collective punishment, though, don't you?

      Anonymous has you pegged.

      Anon was babbling about my having given "her the implement of the death/murder, and you have no responsibility? If you had not given her the gun no one would have been shot," when not only has this never, ever happened, but in response to my citation of an incident in which no shot was fired.

      Anon is regularly even more confused than you are.

      Delete
    14. That's funny.
      If you do not want to look like a fool maybe you should not not make foolish (lying) statements.
      Those were your words, not mine.

      Delete
    15. By the way, Mikeb, about this:

      I'd talk to daddy first.

      Would you care to explain how your tendency to automatically assume that the (alleged) irresponsible gun owner is the nearest adult male differs from gender profiling?

      Delete
    16. It's simple percentages, Kurt. I said check with daddy FIRST, not only check with daddy. The simple and obvious reason is that more men own guns than women. Are you playing dumb again, Kurt?

      Delete
    17. The simple and obvious reason is that more men own guns than women.

      You know what you sound just like? Every racial profiling apologist, ever.

      Delete
    18. That's bullshit, Kurt. Saying that most gun owners are men has nothing to do with racial profiling. You know, sometimes I think you're obsessed with the race issue.

      Delete
    19. Saying that most gun owners are men has nothing to do with racial profiling.

      Oops--I clearly overestimated the intellect of my audience again (when will I ever learn?). I should have made more clear that assuming the gun owner is a man, because most gun owners are, although not racial profiling,is gender profiling, which is obviously parallel to racial profiling, and equally wrong.

      You know, sometimes I think you're obsessed with the race issue.

      You do get off the occasional good joke, Mikeb. Hats off.

      Delete