Gov't Gone Wild: An Eagle Scout Made a Felon

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 3, 2013 12:30:54 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 When did becoming a member of the Scouts entitle people to be exempt from laws that apply to everyone else... ?
 

The same day being a teacher exempted the teacher from the law.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 3, 2013 10:14:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 3, 2013 10:07:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

dailycaller.com/2013/05/02/eagle-scout-faces-expulsion-and-arrest-for-bringing-shotgun-to-school/

Here are the facts:
...

8. He cannot graduate with honors now because he is expelled for 365 days

...

“The student involved in this situation has not been expelled from school or suspended for 365 days.”

Read more: dailycaller.com/2013/05/02/eagle-scout-faces-expulsion-and-arrest-for-bringing-shotgun-to-school/#ixzz2SF7O0YQF (which is the exact same link as in the OP)

Unless you're saying he will graduate with honors on schedule, the details make no difference.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 3, 2013 10:48:47 GMT -5 swamp said:

Any prosecutor with a brain in their head would drop it, but unfortunately, some are dumb. 

And, even if the charges are dropped, that arrest is still there, which is why I would tell him to shut up about it.

You can make an arrest go away.  

[billisonboard]

May 4, 2013 7:49:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...Unless you're saying he will graduate with honors on schedule, the details make no difference.

When listing the factual details, that the details listed aren't accurate doesn't make a difference?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I was arrested for trespassing because some friends of mine and I were walking along the railroad tracks. Before I enlisted, I asked about the arrest and my recruiter gave me phone number to call and some paperwork to fill out- and *poof* - no more arrest. I wasn't even asked about it for my top secret clearance.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 4, 2013 7:54:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 4, 2013 7:49:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...Unless you're saying he will graduate with honors on schedule, the details make no difference.

When listing the factual details, that the details listed aren't accurate doesn't make a difference?

Not unless the details are relevant to the outcome, or to the point made in the op.  The fact is that if the school doesn't wise up and fix their mistake, he will not graduate on time.

[billisonboard]

May 4, 2013 7:56:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... The fact is that if the school doesn't wise up and fix their mistake, he will not graduate on time.

Actually, that isn't a "fact" either. They could just as easily cave to public pressure as "wise up" and have him graduate on time.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2013 7:43:20 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 3, 2013 10:56:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

If a background check is done, it shows you have been arrested for a felony and you have to explain the disposition.  If you're searching for a job, it's pretty embarassing to have to have to explain to a potential employer what happened.  Also, there is bias out there and some people believe if you got arrested, you must have done something wrong.

There are certain security clearances, I believe, that this will disqualify you for. 

If you are applying for a professional license, you have to explain teh situation and get the documents proving the dismissal.

Basically, you will spend your entire life explaining this situation. 

More likely, you will never get a chance to explain it.  You just won't get the job.  The kid won't be able to get a claims adjuster's license as a felon- period.  They're going to have to do the right thing and DROP the charges- OR, they're going to have to charge that teacher.

Charged with a felony does not equal felony.

People who are convicted of felonies are solidly screwed, but only a much smaller category of employers cares about charged but not convicted.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2013 7:49:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 3, 2013 10:14:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

“The student involved in this situation has not been expelled from school or suspended for 365 days.”

Read more: dailycaller.com/2013/05/02/eagle-scout-faces-expulsion-and-arrest-for-bringing-shotgun-to-school/#ixzz2SF7O0YQF (which is the exact same link as in the OP)

Unless you're saying he will graduate with honors on schedule, the details make no difference.

That seemed to be what DJ's post was saying.  It looks like whatever consequences he faces for his stupidity will be pretty trivial.  Add it to the list of reminders that if you are a gun owner, you don't get to forget where you left your gun or fail to be responsible for storing it safely.

[EVT1]

May 4, 2013 7:54:15 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 3, 2013 10:48:47 GMT -5 swamp said:

Any prosecutor with a brain in their head would drop it, but unfortunately, some are dumb. 

And, even if the charges are dropped, that arrest is still there, which is why I would tell him to shut up about it.

You can make an arrest go away.  

Nope.  You can expunge a record but the record still exists.  Especially today- that record is never going away once it hits the numerous databases.  Apply for a LEO job and see if it yours doesn't come up- which they would require you to divulge regardless of the disposition- and would promptly DQ you if you didn't admit it on the front end.   

[TonyTiger]

The kid was either in a rush and tried to compensate by calling home to fetch the stuff or the kid was preoccupied and forgot about it until he was on the premises or it was intentional.

My guess is that it was not intentional, but, we are all responsible for our actions, regardless of whether we space-out and forget, or try to cut corners, or whatever, and the kid is responsible for his.

He seems to have sufficient credibility to plead 'mistake' and get away with it - or at least get the charges reduced from felony to misdemeanor - so he should make-out OK in the end.

With any luck he won't have any kind of a record but there's probably no rock-solid guarantee, so we'll have to wait and see how such a thing might play-out.

If he doesn't get off entirely scot-free then he's just gonna have to suck it up and deal with it - as I said, he's responsible for his own actions.

This 'mistake' was fairly severe, in the context of recent public-place and school shootings - it was not a brightest-crayon-in-the-box move, even for a smart, well-motivated kid.

Shit happens, and the kid may be stuck taking a modest 'hit' on this one, but life (including his own) will go on, and chances are good that this will not turn into some kind of Cecil B. DeMille production (big deal).

[billisonboard]

Transcript of a conversation secretly recorded:

"(Whispered voice) Barack, we have a situation here I think we could use. I overheard one of our students has a gun in his truck on campus." "He isn't a Muslim is he?" "No, he is a Christian Eagle Scout." "Great. You call Jim Bob over at the police station and have him arrest the kid. I will call Joe at the prosecutor's office to make sure that felony charges are filed." "Done. Say hi to Michelle and the girls for me." "I will do that. See you at the next meeting. (Demoniacal laugh)"

[Deleted]

So, according to his twitter feed (what do you know, Trayvon Martin isn't the only kid on twitter)
twitter.com/DCWithrow

He went skeet shooting on Friday, April 26th.  He got busted for the gun the following Monday.  That't a long damn time to forget about where you left your gun.


(I don't think the kids should have been expelled.  I don't think he should be convicted of a felony.  But we've spent a week canonizing him.  I think we need to acknowledge that he did do something stupid here)

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 4, 2013 8:22:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 4, 2013 7:54:15 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

You can make an arrest go away.  

Nope.  You can expunge a record but the record still exists.  Especially today- that record is never going away once it hits the numerous databases.  Apply for a LEO job and see if it yours doesn't come up- which they would require you to divulge regardless of the disposition- and would promptly DQ you if you didn't admit it on the front end.   

Perhaps, but having it expunged is having it expunged.  It means, at the very least, that the People of The State of North Carolina have agreed the arrest should not have taken place.  That's basically what happened with mine- though mine was a juvi offense, not an adult offense-- and not a felony.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 4, 2013 8:05:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 4, 2013 7:56:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... The fact is that if the school doesn't wise up and fix their mistake, he will not graduate on time.

Actually, that isn't a "fact" either. They could just as easily cave to public pressure as "wise up" and have him graduate on time.

No, it was a mistake. It was a catastrophic failure to use good judgment.  The correct move would have been for the eavesdropper to use their own good judgment and let it fly.  But for some reason, which is no doubt either the kind of dumbed down, bureaucratic brain dysfunction you sometimes get in low level government administrative positions; or motivated by politics (which is quite likely in my opinion- though, I'll admit it hasn't been proven (yet)), people at that school kept making one bad decision after another.  The right move is just don't hear it.  If you hear it, pretend you don't hear it.  If you can't manage to pretend you don't hear it, and you mention it to someone else, that someone else has to pretend not to hear it, and hint to you that you must not have heard what you thought you heard.  You get the idea- you just drop it.  You let it slide.

And you don't pretend it's about safety, or following procedure, or anything else- you simply recognize why the law is there, reason that it doesn't apply in this instance- this situation is NOT why you have the law, and you LET. IT. SLIDE.  

I'm fine if the reason they wise up is public pressure, but they really should wise up and relent without having to be forced into it by public pressure.  Common sense shouldn't be the kind of thing you have to basically be bullied into.  It was idiotic to call the cops on this kid.  Idiotic.

And frankly all involved in the situation should be looking for new jobs, and the assistant principle that brought a gun to school should be the first to go. 

[Deleted]

 Former Wash., D.C. mayor Marion Barry was an Eagle Scout.
 So were HR Haldeman (of Nixon/Watergate fame), L. Ron Hubbard (founder if "Scientology") and Fred Phelps (leader of rthe Westboro Baptist Church); and so is Michael Moore.

[Deleted]

The right move is just don't hear it. If you hear it, pretend you don't hear it. If you can't manage to pretend you don't hear it, and you mention it to someone else, that someone else has to pretend not to hear it, and hint to you that you must not have heard what you thought you heard. You get the idea- you just drop it. You let it slide.

  ...unless there's something "liberal" going on, in which case it's DramaTime!

[EVT1]

May 5, 2013 22:39:21 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 4, 2013 8:22:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Nope.  You can expunge a record but the record still exists.  Especially today- that record is never going away once it hits the numerous databases.  Apply for a LEO job and see if it yours doesn't come up- which they would require you to divulge regardless of the disposition- and would promptly DQ you if you didn't admit it on the front end.   

Perhaps, but having it expunged is having it expunged.  It means, at the very least, that the People of The State of North Carolina have agreed the arrest should not have taken place.  That's basically what happened with mine- though mine was a juvi offense, not an adult offense-- and not a felony.

Juvenille records are  a little different- but in neither case does an expungement mean that there is any agreement that an arrest was valid or not.  You can plead guilty and have a record expunged.  You can have a conviction expunged.

The larger problem with this is that when this stuff gets into the databases of private companies that sell background checks.  Ever try to get a false entry off of your credit report?

In a job situation it is even worse- no way to know if you are skipped over because you stated- and legally allowed to- that you have had no convictions, charges for a crime because of an expungement and they dig one up online somewhere. It sucks and this is why some states are pushing legislation in this area as to employers and companies that furnish records. A good start would require the employer to release a copy of whatever report they obtain on a potential employee no matter what decision is made on hiring. People deserve to know what is out there and have recourse for bad information.

Kind of hard to stop it when PD's their arrest data every week or so- some with pictures and addresses. Ever see one of those papers at the store with mug shots of the week? They like to push these with the drugs and DUI for shaming- never mind the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

[billisonboard]

May 5, 2013 22:48:30 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

..the assistant principle ...

Always remember that the principal is your "pal".

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 5, 2013 23:12:16 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 Former Wash., D.C. mayor Marion Barry was an Eagle Scout.
 So were HR Haldeman (of Nixon/Watergate fame), L. Ron Hubbard (founder if "Scientology") and Fred Phelps (leader of rthe Westboro Baptist Church); and so is Michael Moore.

Point being?

[swamp]

May 5, 2013 22:39:21 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 4, 2013 8:22:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Nope.  You can expunge a record but the record still exists.  Especially today- that record is never going away once it hits the numerous databases.  Apply for a LEO job and see if it yours doesn't come up- which they would require you to divulge regardless of the disposition- and would promptly DQ you if you didn't admit it on the front end.   

Perhaps, but having it expunged is having it expunged.  It means, at the very least, that the People of The State of North Carolina have agreed the arrest should not have taken place.  That's basically what happened with mine- though mine was a juvi offense, not an adult offense-- and not a felony.

You cannot get records expunged in NY. I have no idea about other states.

However, in NY, there will be no record of juvenile arrests (as in family court age juvenile, not youthful offender in adult court).

So even if they admittedly arrested the wrong guy, they wanted the Joe Smith on 1st st., not the Joe Smith on 11th St., you can't make the arrest go away. 

[swamp]

May 6, 2013 6:26:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 5, 2013 23:12:16 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 Former Wash., D.C. mayor Marion Barry was an Eagle Scout.
 So were HR Haldeman (of Nixon/Watergate fame), L. Ron Hubbard (founder if "Scientology") and Fred Phelps (leader of rthe Westboro Baptist Church); and so is Michael Moore.

Point being?

Not all Eagle Scouts are saints.  

[Virgil Showlion]

May 3, 2013 20:49:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he is being allowed to graduate, and he has been awarded a scholarship:

www.wral.com/attention-after-gun-charge-garners-scholarship-offers-for-teen/12404125/

I'm glad to see the situation is turning in the man's favour.

He obviously has deep respect for the rules, going out of his way to get the weapon off of school property. A man shouldn't be penalized for doing the right thing, especially when he's caused no harm.

[billisonboard]

May 6, 2013 9:30:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 3, 2013 20:49:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he is being allowed to graduate, and he has been awarded a scholarship:

www.wral.com/attention-after-gun-charge-garners-scholarship-offers-for-teen/12404125/

I'm glad to see the situation is turning in the man's favour.

He obviously has deep respect for the rules (the only reason he is in the news is because he broke the rules) for going out of his way to get the weapon off of school property (or was he removing evidence of his crime?). A man shouldn't be penalized for doing the right thing (so calling someone to remove the evidence is the right thing?), especially when he's caused no harm (so a plot foiled should not result in consequence?).

I don't support a "zero tolerance" policy but if there is one, it needs to be enforced.

[Deleted]

May 6, 2013 9:27:06 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 6, 2013 6:26:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Point being?

Not all Eagle Scouts are saints.  

Yeah, I was wondering how he missed that.  We're going to have to start using short sentences and smaller words.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 6, 2013 9:48:53 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 6, 2013 9:30:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm glad to see the situation is turning in the man's favour.

He obviously has deep respect for the rules (the only reason he is in the news is because he broke the rules) for going out of his way to get the weapon off of school property (or was he removing evidence of his crime?). A man shouldn't be penalized for doing the right thing (so calling someone to remove the evidence is the right thing?), especially when he's caused no harm (so a plot foiled should not result in consequence?).

I don't support a "zero tolerance" policy but if there is one, it needs to be enforced.

We've stopped the "Eagle Scout Killer" dead in his tracks.

I would argue that even a "zero tolerance" policy has a reasonable margin for jurisprudence. For example, I could put a shotgun in the back of Mrs. Pennywinkle's car, watch her drive into the school, then phone up the police to have her hauled away in shackles. A ZT policy, absolutely implemented, wouldn't excuse her "crime" due to her unawareness of the shotgun in the car, which is patently absurd.

Likewise, if the goal truly is to get guns off of school property, penalizing people for rectifying their mistakes is counterproductive. As Swamp suggests, the only thing it encourages people to do is lie by omission to authorities.

I'd rather live in a world where a person who makes an honest, harmless mistake is encouraged to rectify that mistake rather than conceal it from authorities. And even if a crime isn't harmless (manslaughter, for example), I fully support any judge that reduces or commutes the penalty for a man who admits to the crime when he might reasonably have concealed it.

[billisonboard]

May 6, 2013 15:16:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 6, 2013 9:48:53 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I don't support a "zero tolerance" policy but if there is one, it needs to be enforced.

...

I would argue that even a "zero tolerance" policy has a reasonable margin for jurisprudence. For example, I could put a shotgun in the back of Mrs. Pennywinkle's car, watch her drive into the school, then phone up the police to have her hauled away in shackles. A ZT policy, absolutely implemented, wouldn't excuse her "crime" due to her unawareness of the shotgun in the car, which is patently absurd.

...

I'd rather live in a world where a person who makes an honest, harmless mistake is encouraged to rectify that mistake rather than conceal it from authorities. ...

Actually a "zero" tolerance policy is that, no breaking of the rule is excused away without consequence. In your example, you would be the responsible party for the gun being on campus and would face the consequence of that choice, even if you meant it as only a practical joke.

The kid did apparently attempt to conceal the mistake from authorities. The story indicates that a phone call was overheard and that is what alerted the authorities to the gun's presence.  I do agree that the student should have been able to go to a school authority, indicate that he had mistakenly left the gun in his car, and had adults handle the situation with at most him facing a couple day suspension (and more appropriately some detention time) for violation of the rule.  But as I said before, if there is a zero tolerance rule in effect, it needs to be enforced.

[Virgil Showlion]

In your example, you would be the responsible party for the gun being on campus and would face the consequence of that choice, even if you meant it as only a practical joke.

No. I meant it as an anonymous way to get Mrs. Pennywinkle charged and convicted of a felony. At the very least I could get her hauled into a long, expensive, and embarrassing court battle.

The kid did apparently attempt to conceal the mistake from authorities.

If his intent was to conceal the mistake from authorities rather than to get the gun off school property, why would he have even made the phone call at all? Answer: he wouldn't have. Your assessment is illogical.

But as I said before, if there is a zero tolerance rule in effect, it needs to be enforced.

Amend the rule; include a clause that exempts accidental infractions in the case where a perpetrator notifies the authorities; make the amendment retroactive; problem solved.

[billisonboard]

May 6, 2013 16:22:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

In your example, you would be the responsible party for the gun being on campus and would face the consequence of that choice, even if you meant it as only a practical joke.

No. I meant it as an anonymous way to get Mrs. Pennywinkle charged and convicted of a felony. At the very least I could get her hauled into a long, expensive, and embarrassing court battle.

There are a multitude of ways to frame a human being. Drugs in her desk or porn on her computer are two additional ways that come to mind. They might be better unless you have access to a gun totally untraceable to you.

The kid did apparently attempt to conceal the mistake from authorities.

If his intent was to conceal the mistake from authorities rather than to get the gun off school property, why would he have even made the phone call at all? Answer: he wouldn't have. Your assessment is illogical.

Intent is always tricky. His goal was to get the gun off campus without involving school authorities. In a non-zero tolerance situation, he easily could have gone to an authority and gotten permission to run it home quickly. Seems "his intent was to conceal the mistake from authorities (by getting) the gun off school property".

But as I said before, if there is a zero tolerance rule in effect, it needs to be enforced.

Amend the rule; include a clause that exempts accidental infractions in the case where a perpetrator notifies the authorities; make the amendment retroactive; problem solved.

Not sure what problem this would solve since this case doesn't involve someone notifying the authorities.

[Deleted]

May 6, 2013 16:22:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

But as I said before, if there is a zero tolerance rule in effect, it needs to be enforced.

Amend the rule; include a clause that exempts accidental infractions in the case where a perpetrator notifies the authorities; make the amendment retroactive; problem solved.

In this case, there was already a bit of wiggle room in the policy.  The school couldn't ignore the situation, but the 365 day suspension thing was not the only option.

It was more of a "limited quantity of tolerance rule" than a "zero tolerance" one.