Jared Marcum points out that not only did the school’s dress code policy not prohibit images of guns, but a statue on the school grounds depicts a soldier with a rifle and a grenade. (Photo: WOWK)
Guns dot com
The mother of a teen who was arrested and suspended for wearing – and refusing to take off – a National Rifle Association t-shirt to school last April has filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming her son’s constitutional rights were violated when they prohibited him from wearing the shirt.
The suit named a dozen defendants, among which were Logan Middle School and faculty involved in the incident, including the school’s principal and several teachers, and multiple members of Logan County Board of Education were also named.
The complaint, which was filed in federal court last month, calls for $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.
Jared Marcum, who was 14-years-old at the time, was stopped by school staff members while standing in line in the cafeteria at lunch time. Staff members told Marcum that his shirt, which featured the NRA logo, a rifle and the words “Protect Your Right,” violated the school’s dress code policy (which has since been removed from the school’s website). The policy prohibited the display of profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexually suggestive phrases, but said nothing about images of guns or firearm organizations.
Go get 'em. Defeat evil on every front. Genocidal tyranny must be thwarted at every turn.
ReplyDeleteIs "genocidal tyranny" one of those accurate descriptions, Kurt. That is what you said, right, that you don't exaggerate for effect?
DeleteIs "genocidal tyranny" one of those accurate descriptions, Kurt[?]
DeleteIn the final analysis, that's what the Constitutional guarantee of the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is intended to counter. No exaggeration there, "for effect," or otherwise.
By the way, Mikeb, does it appear to you that young Mr. Marcum might be smirking a little? Is it time to drop the hammer on your idea to outlaw adolescent arrogance?
Delete"claiming her son’s constitutional rights were violated when they prohibited him from wearing the shirt." That's what we were talking about, Kurt. That's what you referred to as "genocidal tyranny." And as usual you're incapable of taking anything back or qualifying it in any way. One could conclude that such a bizarre exaggeration is indeed a lie.
DeleteAs is the inference that I would "outlaw adolescent arrogance." That's a blatant misrepresentation of what I've said - in other workd, a lie.
I actually posted a comment on the original thread before Mike posted this. I heartily approve of this lawsuit because this is the remedy for government abuses of power. The school arrested this young man for not mindlessly obeying an order enforcing a rule that in essence, didn't exist.
ReplyDeleteAfter things calmed down and it realized its mistake, the school dropped its complaint and hoped to return to the status quo, with the freedom to invoke its authority on the next, and hopefully more cooperative person.
Unless there is some negative consequence, the school will continue to make bad decisions such as this. A little financial pain with the accompanied stern looks from the taxpayers they work for will do quite nicely.
"In fact, two months after the incident, the charges against the teen were dropped, and Judge Eric O’Briant, who was overseeing the case, made it clear that “the state of West Virginia is not interested in the possibility of creating a juvenile criminal record for this defendant.”
And last but not least, lawsuit filed,
"The mother of a teen who was arrested and suspended for wearing – and refusing to take off – a National Rifle Association t-shirt to school last April has filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming her son’s constitutional rights were violated when they prohibited him from wearing the shirt."
"The complaint, which was filed in federal court last month, calls for $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages."
I especially like this part,
"Yet following his suspension, the teen returned to school wearing the exact same shirt that caused the controversy, and a number of other students wore similar shirts that day in an effort to show their support for Marcum."
"The school arrested this young man for not mindlessly obeying an order enforcing a rule that in essence, didn't exist. "
DeleteWell, sort of. But don't you think that kids in school should be obliged to obey the teachers. In this case the teacher was requesting compliance about a dress code. He wasn't asking something outrageous. Wasn't it the kid's bad attitude that escalated things?
"Wasn't it the kid's bad attitude that escalated things?"
DeleteYou mean because he seemed aware of what the dress code allowed and didn't allow? It's hard to determine his attitude because somebody made some effort to destroy evidence documenting that.
Well, sort of. But don't you think that kids in school should be obliged to obey the teachers.
DeleteSure, if we want to condition future generations of Americans to be mindless, docile, obedient ruminants. If, on the other hand, we would prefer that the future of this country feature some people with spine, who think for themselves, who stand up for their rights, who defy power used abusively, then we support those impressive young Americans who show an inclination to do just that.
In this case the teacher was requesting compliance about a dress code.
Wrong on two counts. First, the wannabe tyrant of a "teacher" wasn't "requesting" anything--when refusal means being arrested, it ain't a request, but an attempt to coerce, backed up by the government's armed enforcers. Second, the demand wasn't for "compliance about a dress code"--the young man was already in compliance with the school dress code. The Teacher Who Would Be King was demanding compliance with his own agenda-driven dress code.
He wasn't asking something outrageous.
On that we can agree--he wasn't "asking" anything, but, as I said above, demanding, by authority he does not (and must not ever) have, the outrageous suppression of the young man's freedom of expression.
Wasn't it the kid's bad attitude that escalated things?
Nope, it was "the kid's" superb attitude that escalated things.
"You mean because he seemed aware of what the dress code allowed and didn't allow?"
DeleteC'mon, man, no one knew exactly what the school dress code was, least of all the kid. He was just acting out in the way rebellious teens, especially the children of gun nuts, are wont to do.
C'mon, man, no one knew exactly what the school dress code was . . .
DeleteSo the wannabe tyrant of a "teacher" was trying to enforce a dress code that he didn't know? Brilliant!
. . . least of all the kid.
And where did you find that information? Gun rights advocacy activism often takes the activist right to the edge of the law (or school policy, in this case). Activists, knowing this, therefore often arm themselves with the knowledge of just what is illegal (or against school policy) and what is not. It's hardly implausible that young Mr. Marcum had prepared himself for the not exactly unforeseeable possibility of a confrontation with some power-hungry asshole anti-gun zealot of a teacher.
"Staff members told Marcum that his shirt, which featured the NRA logo, a rifle and the words “Protect Your Right,” violated the school’s dress code policy (which has since been removed from the school’s website). The policy prohibited the display of profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexually suggestive phrases, but said nothing about images of guns or firearm organizations."
DeleteI don't believe that to be the case. According to the article, the dress code was on the school website at the time of the incident, but removed afterwards. Do you seriously don't think that the students wouldn't examine to rules to see the limits of their world while they are in school. Especially since young adults seem to want to find ways to show their independence from authority, which is all the more rewarding when it frustrate the powers that be while staying within the confines of the rules they crafted to control them.
Do you believe this drive to show such independence is limited to the children of gun owners? I have to disagree with that and I also believe that its actually a good thing.
You guys may be right. It is possible that the kid knew the rules.
DeleteI wouldn't portray him as an activist who carefully tried to practice civil disobedience in order to achieve a higher goal. He was just a rebellious kid doing his teenage thing. And his dad probably was behind the whole thing. I think we saw him when the thing first broke.
I don't know if Kurt is a father, I know you are, ss. Isn't teaching obedience and compliance a good thing when kids are young? Isn't that more important than teaching them resistance and disdain for authority?
I wouldn't portray him as an activist who carefully tried to practice civil disobedience in order to achieve a higher goal. He was just a rebellious kid doing his teenage thing.
DeleteAnd your evidence of that is . . . ?
And his dad probably was behind the whole thing.
I'm not sure his father is even in the picture. In all the stories I've seen that mentioned his family, it was always his mother and stepfather. But which is it--rebellious teenager, or kid obediently doing what parental authority tells him to? 'Cause I don't see how it can be both simultaneously.
Isn't teaching obedience and compliance a good thing when kids are young? Isn't that more important than teaching them resistance and disdain for authority?
So what do you suppose Henry David Thoreau's father taught him? How about Mike Vanderboegh's, or Mahatma Gandhi's? Or David Codrea's, or Martin Luther King, Jr.'s? Obedience to legitimate authority, administering just and moral rules is good. Obedience to anything less is voluntary acquiescence to serfdom, and is nothing to be proud of.
Brwahahahahahahahaha, Codrea and Vanderboegh in the same group with Ghandi, King and Thoreau. You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys, Kurt.
DeleteBrwahahahahahahahaha, Codrea and Vanderboegh in the same group with [Gandhi], King and Thoreau. You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys, Kurt.
DeleteLaugh (if that, rather than some kind of debilitating seizure, is what that long series of letters is intended to represent) all you want, but all five have peacefully defied lawful authority in deference to their beliefs.
And when you're done with your giggles, perhaps you can answer the question. Do you think their fathers taught them to obey those in authority without question? If not, do you think they should have? If so, do you think the sons were wrong to have strayed from their father's teachings?
I think it's self-aggrandizing ridiculous bullshit putting your friends in that group. You're like the insecure adolescent who uses braggodocio to cover up his weakness.
DeleteAbout the education of kids with regards civil disobedience, I think young people, boys especially need no help with resistance, rebellion and disobedience. These things come naturally for most. What they do need help with is learning respect for authority and obedience. This need not go to the extremes that you so imaginatively describe, but it is an important part of early education.
Say, Mikeb, what do you think of this description of freedom?
DeleteI am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
-Robert Heinlein
My guess is that it's brilliant enough to piss you off to no end, amiright?
Damages have to be real. Case will go exactly nowhere. My friends might have tried to sue the San Diego School District in 1966 for making them cut their hair. I had trouble with teachers over tucking my shirt in before my seventh birthday. Grow the hell up.
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame that this young man has been indoctrinated by his reactionary parents.
"Damages have to be real."
DeleteFJ, the courts are exactly the place to address these issues. While scanning the court document in the article, I noticed that during the interaction between Mr. Marcum and various school officials in the lunch room, a student was recording a video of the event. One of the school officials not only made the student stop recording, but supervised the deletion of the video already recorded.
If this did in fact take place, why would they take such steps if their actions were legal and proper? Plus, this wasn't just getting in trouble with teachers or the school administration. He was arrested and charged. Even though the charges were eventually dropped, the record of an arrest can affect him in the future. Here is a good example of that,
"When Precious Daniels learned that the Census Bureau was looking for temporary workers, she thought she would make an ideal candidate. The lifelong Detroit resident and veteran health-care worker knew the people in the community. She had studied psychology at a local college.
Days after she applied for the job in 2010, she received a letter indicating a routine background check had turned up a red flag.
In November of 2009, Ms. Daniels had participated in a protest against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan as the health-care law was being debated. Arrested with others for disorderly conduct, she was released on $50 bail and the misdemeanor charge was subsequently dropped. Ms. Daniels didn't anticipate any further problems.
But her job application brought the matter back to life. For the application to proceed, the Census bureau informed her she would need to submit fingerprints and gave her 30 days to obtain court documents proving her case had been resolved without a conviction.
Clearing her name was easier said than done. "From what I was told by the courthouse, they didn't have a record," says Ms. Daniels, now 39 years old. She didn't get the job. Court officials didn't respond to requests for comment."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-arrest-records-rise-americans-find-consequences-can-last-a-lifetime-1408415402
An interesting angle is how the gun nuts lament any attempt to sue gun manufacturers but suddenly support a ridiculous law suit like this one.
ReplyDeleteTwo widely and quite unrelated issues Mike. One is holding government officials accountable for their use of authority. The other is an attempt to hold a business responsible for the actions of an individual who used their product illegally.
DeleteExactly, SSG. There is no legitimate comparison between lawsuits against gun manufacturers who have done nothing wrong, and who have followed all the rules, and lawsuits that punish governmental abuse of power.
DeleteWell, they have the law suit part the same. You like the one but you hate the other. In the one case we've all become too litigious, in the other, it's right and good.
DeleteWell, they have the law suit part the same. You like the one but you hate the other. In the one case we've all become too litigious, in the other, it's right and good.
DeleteThis ain't complicated, Mikeb. Some lawsuits are legitimate and moral, others aren't. There's nothing inconsistent, and certainly nothing hypocritical, about recognizing the distinction between the two.
You, for example, clearly don't approve of this lawsuit ("ridiculous law suit," I believe you called it). That doesn't mean you're not allowed to approve of some other lawsuits (the Brady campaign-backed suits against Badger Guns, or Bushmaster, for example).
You're right.
Delete
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting development.
"You might not remember the name Jared Marcum, but you probably remember the situation he found himself in as a West Virginia eight-grader who was suspended and then arrested for wearing an NRA tee shirt with a rifle pictured on it.
The prosecutor in the case who slapped Marcum with a gag order and who had him arrested now finds himself in hot water for pulling a real gun—not one printed on fabric—because of Halloween decorations that he didn’t like."
"The alleged incident happened on October 5th after several secretaries in the office decorated for Halloween. The decorations included many fake spiders that were throughout the office. Apparently, White has arachnophobia and became irate over the decorations.
"He said they had spiders everyplace and he said he told them it wasn’t funny, and he couldn’t stand them, and he did indeed get a gun out. It had no clip in it, of course they wouldn’t know that, I wouldn’t either if I looked at it, to tell you the truth," Bennett explained.
Bennett says it’s his understanding that White didn’t point the gun at anyone or wave it around but did threaten to shoot all of the spiders. Bennett says the incident caused quite the scare for the three secretaries that witnessed it.
"Quite naturally, the ladies were concerned, as I would have been. Anybody would be, I would think, with a gun no matter where it was," Bennett said."
http://bearingarms.com/prosecutor-went-student-nra-shirt-pulls-gun-fake-spiders/
Mr. Owens puts it quite well,
"It doesn’t appear that White will face charges or lose his carry permit, even though he irrationally pulled a gun, in anger, over spiders he knew to be fake.
It sounds to me like three counts of brandishing a weapon at a minimum, or assault with a deadly weapon at a maximum.
In any event, its clear that White lacks the temperament and discernment to be safe with a firearm."
Here is the original article. Apparently there is a video of the event. Would be a hoot to see it.....
http://www.wchstv.com/news/features/eyewitness-news/stories/Assistant-Logan-County-Prosecutor-Suspended-After-Gun-Scare-Involving-Fake-Spiders-225092.shtml
That is interesting. White would appear to exemplify the type of person who would condone punishing a student for refusing to remove a t-shirt with a firearm image on it.
DeleteYeah, White also exemplifies the kind of permit holder I keep talking about, you know the 0.000001% of you guys.
DeleteWhite also exemplifies the kind of permit holder I keep talking about . . .
DeleteAh--that would be the kind I've never knowingly met, and will certainly never be.