Maybe schools should require some kind of basic course to familiarize kids with real guns, so they don't grow up into these principals who can't tell the difference.
Imagine you are on school grounds and you can see this guy on the street, distance of maybe 200 feet. Would you be able to be sure the black gun shaped thing was a toy from that distance? One might reasonably infer that it was a toy from the blatantly obvious stormtrooper outfit, but if you make that assumption, a malicious person could wear a stormtrooper outfit to catch people off guard. If it were such a person and did open fire because the principal did nothing, the principal would be crucified by the media.
Basically, this was the option open to the principal, knock it over to the police.
(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.
Any officer in charge of an elementary or secondary school, college or university or any faculty member or administrative officer of an elementary or secondary school, college or university failing to report violations of this paragraph shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
So, if you DON'T report it you can be fined and prosecuted at least for a misdemeanor according to the last paragraph. So the principal is screwed both ways and cannot use common sense like the rest of us would...
For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.
So, now a plastic blaster is a firearm capable of discharging shot, bullets or pellets?
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Friday June 05, 2015 @03:49PM (#49851191)
Jeez. When I was in college -- in Canada -- a teacher brought a rifle to class and fired it, multiple times.
He was a physics prof, and he was demonstrating the use of a ballistic pendulum to determine e.g. bullet velocity. Nobody cared. Mind, this same college also had a pistol club, and a range on campus. And no, it wasn't a military college.
Kind of ironic that the state where one of the signal events of the American Revolution (ie, Boston Tea Party) started is now populated by bigger pansies than the United Empire Loyalists who left. "Home of the brave." snort
Oh get a grip. The only thing people who carry are afraid of is being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having to watch their loved ones die because they didn't have the means to at least try to defend them or get them to safety. If you feel comfortable with pleading for mercy or waiting on the arrival of 'the authorities' to ensure their safety then that's your choice.
I keep a first aid kit handy because bad things happen sometimes. I have insurance because bad things happen sometimes. I carry because bad things happen sometimes. Being somewhat prepared to take some responsibility for your own ass is not crazy, paranoid or illegal (yet).
The only thing people who carry are afraid of is being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having to watch their loved ones die because they didn't have the means to at least try to defend them or get them to safety.
The world must be a scary place for them!
The good thing about first aid and insurance are that they help make realistic issues better. I don't keep a surgical table or have volcano insurance because those aren't issues I will realistically have to deal with, and if they are then there are others better equipped to handle them
Sir, I invite you to register a Slashdot account and encourage you to participate in any discussions where guns are mentioned, when the inevitable "...but the rest of the world has banned them!" guy comes up.
Having said that, I hardly think the principal is an idiot for not waiting until the guy crossed the line onto school property with his finger hovering over the final "1" on the phone.
True but the police should have just checked it out and went on their way. Dressing up a stormtrooper should not be a crime. I wonder if I dressed as a giant Penguin if I would have been arrested.
Need to start a movement to walk by the school in a different costume every day to see what triggers the police response. Think storm trooper man is up for the job?
A plastic toy does not meet any of the criteria required for it to be illegal! A Plastic toy is not a firearm, and can NOT be discharged.
Provisions
18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) states:
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
18 U.S.C. 922(q)(3)(A) states:
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
A plastic toy does not meet any of the criteria required for it to be illegal! A Plastic toy is not a firearm, and can NOT be discharged.
Yeah, I know, which is why he was not charged under this law (and should not have been charged at all). But this law is probably the specific reason why the principal called the police with a report of a man with what appeared to be a gun near a school. Everyone here is saying it doesn't matter because he's not actually on school property. Well, it DOES matter if he's within 1000 feet of the grounds. That is why I keep citing it. Apparently it is not common knowledge that it is not legal to carry guns
Sure, you never explicitly stated that the guy should be arrested but that claim is idiotic given your repeated claim that the Principle was right and repeatedly falsely claiming that a law (which you repeated linked) supports the principle and police actions (the latter I demonstrated to be false, indicating that your premise is also false). So what you are attempting to do is nitpick something to look correct, and you and I both know that is bullshit.
If you claim the principle was correct in calling the
your repeated claim that the Principle was right and repeatedly falsely claiming that a law (which you repeated linked) supports the principle and police actions
If there was a guy walking down the street, wearing a costume, carrying an actual weapon, with an intent to go on school grounds and start shooting people, and the principal saw this person and decided to ignore him because he was wearing a costume, would that principal be doing his job?
You keep mis-stating my position. My position is this:
1. The principal acted correctly in telling the police to make contact with the guy and check him out. 2. The law that I keep citing is what the principal may use to just
I believe you are giving the wrong hypothetical and action. Let me put this out instead of trying to answer yours.
If a person was walking down the street in a costume and it appeared like they had a gun, what is the appropriate responses and legal actions from law enforcement?
Police can ask the person what they are doing in the area, ask them anything they want including whether or not the gun is real. Police can notify the person that they received a complaint, and even suggest that the person move along
If a person was walking down the street in a costume and it appeared like they had a gun, what is the appropriate responses and legal actions from law enforcement?
In this hypothetical scenario, is the person in a place where the possession of a gun is restricted? Because, if so, I think you know my answer.
If he was in the school, or on the school grounds, then the excuse "it was too far away to see that it wasnt a gun" doesn't fucking fly. Either he was close enough or he wasn't breaking this law even if it was a real fucking gun instead of a star wars toy.
Now make up your mind. Was this guy too far away? If so, then you quoted shit that doesnt apply. If he was not too far away, then since it was a fucking toy the you quoted shit that still doesnt apply. In either scenario the shit you quoted doesnt apply
So, if you DON'T report it you can be fined and prosecuted at least for a misdemeanor according to the last paragraph. So the principal is screwed both ways and cannot use common sense like the rest of us would...
No he's not... There's a world of difference between: Operator: 911, do you have an emergency? Overreacting principal: OMG! There's a guy with a gun on campus!!!1!one! Help! I have the school on lockdown!
and
Operator: 911, do you have an emergency? Reasonable principal: There's some guy wearing a Star Wars costume here. He has what's probably a prop/toy gun, but I'm required by law to report firearms on campus. Can you send an officer to make contact and make sure it's just a toy?
The law doesn't, but the police do. The last time I called the non emergency number, I was told that the only way to generate a police response was to call 911. The non emergency number exists solely for people who want to complain, but don't want to be arrested for falsely calling 911. The calls are taken and ignored. That's what the person on the other end of the line told me.
You're missing the point. The idea here is that a reasonable person realizes that the dude in the stormtrooper outfit isn't carrying a real gun. To fulfill the "law" the principal must report this, but she might as well do so using the non-emergency number. If the police don't actually respond, who cares.
That trumps the law you cited. Next thing you know, someone will be arrested on their own property because some jerks less than a thousand feet away home school their kids.
Besides which.. he still didn't have a firearm. He can't violate the gun free school anti-Constitution zone if he didn't actually have a gun.
This person has not bothered to read at least a large portion of what they keep quoting. Read the Provisions and Exceptions section of the link they keep claiming makes this a-okay. Those two areas are very clear that this is not okay.
Well don't keep me waiting, explain how that law doesn't make it OK for a principal to call the police when he sees someone walking by the school with something that he thinks is a gun.
Because the Provisions state explicitly that a Firearm must be present. There is quite a bit more by the way, but your username implies at least that you know this already.
So the law says that the principal (or whoever) needs to go out to the person and verify that they have an actual weapon before calling the police? I thought it was the job of the police to check if the person is carrying a weapon. Maybe we're not reading the same thing. I understand why the person was not charged under this law, but I don't understand why you appear to be arguing that the principal had no reason to call in the first place.
So the law says that the principal (or whoever) needs to go out to the person and verify that they have an actual weapon before calling the police? I thought it was the job of the police to check if the person is carrying a weapon.
Please stop with the ridiculous arguments, you are not going to be correct on this. Being in a costume is not illegal, even if the person has a toy gun. There is no probable cause for the Police to detain this person, so the Police have violated the person's rights.
I'm definitely right, you just apparently think I'm arguing some point that I'm not. I'm arguing that the principal was correct to call the police, and that most likely the police messed up.
There is no probable cause for the Police to detain this person
How do you know that, were you there? Did you see the interaction? Do you know if the guy in costume was cooperative or did he argue with the police, refuse to let them inspect the gun, etc? You seem to have the details, so I'm curious what exactly transpired there. I can see a possible situation where the guy in co
Being cooperative with the police is not a requirement, and if you are innocent of any criminal actions the police have no right to question you or detain you. Check the law on that one, because there have been numerous cases thrown out of court where the only crime has been not cooperating with police. There is another mass of overturned cases because cops behaved illegally and unconstitutionally.
The law as written does not claim that a person can not be in a costume, and several courts have repealed low
Being cooperative with the police is not a requirement, and if you are innocent of any criminal actions the police have no right to question you or detain you.
You're suggesting that if you are walking near a school with a toy gun which looks at a glance like it might be real, that the police do not have the right to question you about whether the gun is real? If it's real, then you're breaking the law. If it's not real, then you aren't. If the police are only allowed to question you if you have broken the law, then how do they determine if you have?
What you wrote above is only partly correct. The police have every right to question you if they suspect you hav
Next thing you know, someone will be arrested on their own property because some jerks less than a thousand feet away home school their kids.
First, a home school is not a legal school ground. Second, there is an exception if the person is on private property even if the private property is within distance of a school.
Besides which.. he still didn't have a firearm. He can't violate the gun free school anti-Constitution zone if he didn't actually have a gun.
I know, it's stupid. He should not have been charged with any crime, as far as I can tell no crime was committed. The law I'm citing is only justification for the principal to call the police, not for the police to arrest the guy. He wasn't charged with violating that, after all.
Unless this guy is the slowest walker on earth, I can't imagine how he managed to be seen by someone, that someone told the principal, the principle called the police, and eventually the police showed up before he was gone. I tend to agree with the loitering charge.
Yeah, like the Highland Park police who would arrest minorities for "loitering" all the time. The best place to collect such undesireables is a the bus stop.
Yes, the police pulled up to a bus stop, and arrested all the minorities standing there for "loitering". They had been called on it quite a few times, but didn't officially "stop" it until they arrested the maid of a rich, white, family who pushed the issue until there was a civil rights violation conviction against the city. After that, they now on
1. The news report said that the man was walking down the street of he neighborhood near school grounds. If it is like my old neighborhood, there is an elementary school right in the middle of the neighborhood with homes surrounding it.
2. A plastic toy gun doesn't qualify as a dangerous weapon so the above law wouldn't even apply.
A sane person or police officer would check out the situation and simply said there is nothing to worry about.
"Imagine you are on school grounds and you can see this guy on the street, distance of maybe 200 feet. Would you be able to be sure the black gun shaped thing was a toy from that distance? "
Of course not. My natural assumption would be that Star Wars was not just a movie, and there was an actual frigging Stormtrooper in my sights! I totally understand the Principal taking this seriously. What baffles me is why the Principal thought the police would be able to do anything about it. Why the hell didn't they call Luke Skywalker?
Not really. The E-11 was pretty damn good, and a DC-15A would have ripped through the entire school easily. Not to mention the police. The plastoid armor, however, was shit. Too many known weak spots, unwieldy, horrible color choice. The only nice thing about it was the helmet, or rather its technical capabilities. Still, it was a couple magnitudes below the Mandalorian helmets. But we digress.
I think you're find that many of the times storm troopers failed to hit anything it could be argued that they were failing to hit anything on purpose. The most obvious instance is when the hero's escape the death star, it's clear Vader knew there were people on board the Falcon and wanted to use it to find the rebel base planet. Their escape was allowed because their ship was already lowjacked.
That guy wears a friggin' costume! We're not talking about someone running around in jeans or even combat fatigues. We're talking about someone who is OBVIOUSLY wearing something that is either a theater prop, a mascot suit or something along these lines, in no way this could remotely be considered something anyone would willingly don if he was to start an assault on anyone!
in no way this could remotely be considered something anyone would willingly don if he was to start an assault on anyone!
Yes, spree killers being so well known for their rational behaviour and all. I'm sure no-one would adopt an affectation [wikipedia.org] to commit a massacre [wikipedia.org] when more practical clothing is available.
"Yes, spree killers being so well known for their rational behaviour and all. I'm sure no-one would adopt an affectation [wikipedia.org] to commit a massacre [wikipedia.org] when more practical clothing is available."
I have no problem with someone calling the police. The police should have stopped him and asked to see the blaster. When it was shown to be nothing but a toy then they tell him, "cool costume but you might not want to wear it all the time. It can freak some people out. Have a nice day." End of story.
There's still the question of whether he "disturbed a school" which is what he was arrested for* - not "carrying something that looked like a gun but wasn't," which is how some people here (not you) seem to be desparately choosing to interpret it for the purposes of outrage.
*although I don't know if that's, like, the official name of the alleged crime.
"Yes, spree killers being so well known for their rational behaviour and all. I'm sure no-one would adopt an affectation [wikipedia.org] to commit a massacre [wikipedia.org] when more practical clothing is available."
I have no problem with someone calling the police. The police should have stopped him and asked to see the blaster. When it was shown to be nothing but a toy then they tell him, "cool costume but you might not want to wear it all the time. It can freak some people out. Have a nice day."
End of story.
But then it wouldn't have been a story which slashdotters could get all Second Amendmenty about.
Nobody in your links "dressed up" for the assault any differently than they had many times before, and the "dress up" was in clothes you can find in thousands of stores, and is commonly warn by many.
I'm grateful I'm an old bastard. I saved up my Christmas money one year and bought myself a trench coat, when I was a teen. It was great. Warm when you want it to be, but open and breezy when you wanted as well. And pockets that held everything. A full bag of popped microwave popcorn could be smuggled into
Imagine you are on school grounds and you can see this guy on the street, distance of maybe 200 feet. Would you be able to be sure the black gun shaped thing was a toy from that distance?
If the "gun" is at such a distance I can't, then maybe* I shouldn't be pissing my pants.
*Maybe as in, unless I hear shots and see bodies dropping, no.
Basically, this was the option open to the principal, knock it over to the police
What absurd cowardice. Just walk up and ask the guy what he's up to, for fucks sake.
And if he's an armed nutter, he might just shoot you. There are things which it's best to leave to the police, although I appreciate this is blasphemy now on slashdot.
Okay, but for the sake of argument Mass is an open carry state (with permit). I don't know the specific details because I don't live there.
Hypothetically if someone has a gun permit in Mass. and walks down a public street past a school, not on school grounds mind you, only the street in front of it, while having a gun on their hip or even their bushmaster for that matter can they be charged with "disrupting a s school".
See I don't understand how doing something that without probably cause to suspec
Well, even if he did open fire; an Imperial Stormtrooper would be hard-pressed to hit the side of the school's *buildings* at more than ten yards or so. So, unless I'd happened to wear a red shirt to school that day, I wouldn't worry very much.
Or someone could have a real gun in a potato sack. If you saw someone carrying a potato sack, and assumed there wasn't a gun in there, a malicious person could carry a potato sack with a gun in it to catch people off guard, too!
Fear of guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe schools should require some kind of basic course to familiarize kids with real guns, so they don't grow up into these principals who can't tell the difference.
Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:1)
Imagine you are on school grounds and you can see this guy on the street, distance of maybe 200 feet. Would you be able to be sure the black gun shaped thing was a toy from that distance? One might reasonably infer that it was a toy from the blatantly obvious stormtrooper outfit, but if you make that assumption, a malicious person could wear a stormtrooper outfit to catch people off guard. If it were such a person and did open fire because the principal did nothing, the principal would be crucified by the media.
Basically, this was the option open to the principal, knock it over to the police.
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:5, Informative)
Would you be able to be sure the black gun shaped thing was a toy from that distance?
Guns. Aren't. Fucking. Illegal. [wikipedia.org]
So tired of light-loafered nanny-statists piddling themselves at the mere sight of a firearm. Go live in North Korea.
Apparently THEY ARE ILLEGAL at a Massachusetts school!! Source >> https://malegislature.gov/laws... [malegislature.gov]
(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.
Any officer in charge of an elementary or secondary school, college or university or any faculty member or administrative officer of an elementary or secondary school, college or university failing to report violations of this paragraph shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
So, if you DON'T report it you can be fined and prosecuted at least for a misdemeanor according to the last paragraph. So the principal is screwed both ways and cannot use common sense like the rest of us would...
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.
So, now a plastic blaster is a firearm capable of discharging shot, bullets or pellets?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university...
Was he walking through the school grounds or just passing by on the sidewalk? Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there though? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university
Is in the text. Walking past a school should be safe, even for a stormtrooper.
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez. When I was in college -- in Canada -- a teacher brought a rifle to class and fired it, multiple times.
He was a physics prof, and he was demonstrating the use of a ballistic pendulum to determine e.g. bullet velocity. Nobody cared. Mind, this same college also had a pistol club, and a range on campus. And no, it wasn't a military college.
Kind of ironic that the state where one of the signal events of the American Revolution (ie, Boston Tea Party) started is now populated by bigger pansies than the United Empire Loyalists who left. "Home of the brave." snort
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep a first aid kit handy because bad things happen sometimes. I have insurance because bad things happen sometimes. I carry because bad things happen sometimes. Being somewhat prepared to take some responsibility for your own ass is not crazy, paranoid or illegal (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing people who carry are afraid of is being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having to watch their loved ones die because they didn't have the means to at least try to defend them or get them to safety.
The world must be a scary place for them!
The good thing about first aid and insurance are that they help make realistic issues better. I don't keep a surgical table or have volcano insurance because those aren't issues I will realistically have to deal with, and if they are then there are others better equipped to handle them
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:4, Informative)
He wasn't at the school. He was near the school.
Having said that, I hardly think the principal is an idiot for not waiting until the guy crossed the line onto school property with his finger hovering over the final "1" on the phone.
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:4, Insightful)
True but the police should have just checked it out and went on their way. Dressing up a stormtrooper should not be a crime. I wonder if I dressed as a giant Penguin if I would have been arrested.
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:4, Funny)
Only if Happy Gilmore calls it in.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but Batman would have been called...
Re: (Score:2)
And YOU get a link! [wikipedia.org] Everyone gets a link!
Read it yourself! (Score:2)
A plastic toy does not meet any of the criteria required for it to be illegal! A Plastic toy is not a firearm, and can NOT be discharged.
Provisions
18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) states:
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
18 U.S.C. 922(q)(3)(A) states:
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
Re: (Score:2)
A plastic toy does not meet any of the criteria required for it to be illegal! A Plastic toy is not a firearm, and can NOT be discharged.
Yeah, I know, which is why he was not charged under this law (and should not have been charged at all). But this law is probably the specific reason why the principal called the police with a report of a man with what appeared to be a gun near a school. Everyone here is saying it doesn't matter because he's not actually on school property. Well, it DOES matter if he's within 1000 feet of the grounds. That is why I keep citing it. Apparently it is not common knowledge that it is not legal to carry guns
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know, which is why he was not charged under this law (and should not have been charged at all).
Yet you keep posting the link and claiming that the arrest was justified...baffling
Re: (Score:2)
and claiming that the arrest was justified
Please point out where I did that. What I am justifying is the principal calling the police. Show me where I said it was fine for him to be arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you never explicitly stated that the guy should be arrested but that claim is idiotic given your repeated claim that the Principle was right and repeatedly falsely claiming that a law (which you repeated linked) supports the principle and police actions (the latter I demonstrated to be false, indicating that your premise is also false). So what you are attempting to do is nitpick something to look correct, and you and I both know that is bullshit.
If you claim the principle was correct in calling the
Re: (Score:2)
your repeated claim that the Principle was right and repeatedly falsely claiming that a law (which you repeated linked) supports the principle and police actions
If there was a guy walking down the street, wearing a costume, carrying an actual weapon, with an intent to go on school grounds and start shooting people, and the principal saw this person and decided to ignore him because he was wearing a costume, would that principal be doing his job?
You keep mis-stating my position. My position is this:
1. The principal acted correctly in telling the police to make contact with the guy and check him out.
2. The law that I keep citing is what the principal may use to just
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you are giving the wrong hypothetical and action. Let me put this out instead of trying to answer yours.
If a person was walking down the street in a costume and it appeared like they had a gun, what is the appropriate responses and legal actions from law enforcement?
Police can ask the person what they are doing in the area, ask them anything they want including whether or not the gun is real. Police can notify the person that they received a complaint, and even suggest that the person move along
Re: (Score:2)
If a person was walking down the street in a costume and it appeared like they had a gun, what is the appropriate responses and legal actions from law enforcement?
In this hypothetical scenario, is the person in a place where the possession of a gun is restricted? Because, if so, I think you know my answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Now make up your mind. Was this guy too far away? If so, then you quoted shit that doesnt apply. If he was not too far away, then since it was a fucking toy the you quoted shit that still doesnt apply. In either scenario the shit you quoted doesnt apply
Re: (Score:2)
This link to a federal law [wikipedia.org] may be relevant in your fucking shitty god damned tough guy rant.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting part about the federal law is that it applies to unlicensed carry whether legal in the state or not.
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if you DON'T report it you can be fined and prosecuted at least for a misdemeanor according to the last paragraph. So the principal is screwed both ways and cannot use common sense like the rest of us would...
No he's not... There's a world of difference between:
Operator: 911, do you have an emergency?
Overreacting principal: OMG! There's a guy with a gun on campus!!!1!one! Help! I have the school on lockdown!
and
Operator: 911, do you have an emergency?
Reasonable principal: There's some guy wearing a Star Wars costume here. He has what's probably a prop/toy gun, but I'm required by law to report firearms on campus. Can you send an officer to make contact and make sure it's just a toy?
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable principal:
Yeah. Good luck finding one of those anywhere in the US.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actual principal: I've got some weirdo carrying a gun on our school campus. Can you send someone over? Good, thanks. Kirk out.
Re: (Score:2)
"in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university"
The short article says he was walking around the neighborhood which doesn't sound like he was on school grounds.
Re: (Score:2)
I still have more links available if anyone needs one. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well fine, I'll play the gun nut then..
"Shall not be infringed"
That trumps the law you cited. Next thing you know, someone will be arrested on their own property because some jerks less than a thousand feet away home school their kids.
Besides which.. he still didn't have a firearm. He can't violate the gun free school anti-Constitution zone if he didn't actually have a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well don't keep me waiting, explain how that law doesn't make it OK for a principal to call the police when he sees someone walking by the school with something that he thinks is a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the law says that the principal (or whoever) needs to go out to the person and verify that they have an actual weapon before calling the police? I thought it was the job of the police to check if the person is carrying a weapon. Maybe we're not reading the same thing. I understand why the person was not charged under this law, but I don't understand why you appear to be arguing that the principal had no reason to call in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
So the law says that the principal (or whoever) needs to go out to the person and verify that they have an actual weapon before calling the police? I thought it was the job of the police to check if the person is carrying a weapon.
Please stop with the ridiculous arguments, you are not going to be correct on this. Being in a costume is not illegal, even if the person has a toy gun. There is no probable cause for the Police to detain this person, so the Police have violated the person's rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm definitely right, you just apparently think I'm arguing some point that I'm not. I'm arguing that the principal was correct to call the police, and that most likely the police messed up.
There is no probable cause for the Police to detain this person
How do you know that, were you there? Did you see the interaction? Do you know if the guy in costume was cooperative or did he argue with the police, refuse to let them inspect the gun, etc? You seem to have the details, so I'm curious what exactly transpired there. I can see a possible situation where the guy in co
Re: (Score:2)
Being cooperative with the police is not a requirement, and if you are innocent of any criminal actions the police have no right to question you or detain you. Check the law on that one, because there have been numerous cases thrown out of court where the only crime has been not cooperating with police. There is another mass of overturned cases because cops behaved illegally and unconstitutionally.
The law as written does not claim that a person can not be in a costume, and several courts have repealed low
Re: (Score:2)
Being cooperative with the police is not a requirement, and if you are innocent of any criminal actions the police have no right to question you or detain you.
You're suggesting that if you are walking near a school with a toy gun which looks at a glance like it might be real, that the police do not have the right to question you about whether the gun is real? If it's real, then you're breaking the law. If it's not real, then you aren't. If the police are only allowed to question you if you have broken the law, then how do they determine if you have?
What you wrote above is only partly correct. The police have every right to question you if they suspect you hav
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you know, someone will be arrested on their own property because some jerks less than a thousand feet away home school their kids.
First, a home school is not a legal school ground. Second, there is an exception if the person is on private property even if the private property is within distance of a school.
Besides which.. he still didn't have a firearm. He can't violate the gun free school anti-Constitution zone if he didn't actually have a gun.
I know, it's stupid. He should not have been charged with any crime, as far as I can tell no crime was committed. The law I'm citing is only justification for the principal to call the police, not for the police to arrest the guy. He wasn't charged with violating that, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the police pulled up to a bus stop, and arrested all the minorities standing there for "loitering". They had been called on it quite a few times, but didn't officially "stop" it until they arrested the maid of a rich, white, family who pushed the issue until there was a civil rights violation conviction against the city. After that, they now on
why are gun nuts so illiterate (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They also don't seem to be charging him under it. So they probably agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
1. The news report said that the man was walking down the street of he neighborhood near school grounds. If it is like my old neighborhood, there is an elementary school right in the middle of the neighborhood with homes surrounding it.
2. A plastic toy gun doesn't qualify as a dangerous weapon so the above law wouldn't even apply.
A sane person or police officer would check out the situation and simply said there is nothing to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe gays are limp-wristed and light-loafered?
Re: Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:2)
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not. My natural assumption would be that Star Wars was not just a movie, and there was an actual frigging Stormtrooper in my sights! I totally understand the Principal taking this seriously. What baffles me is why the Principal thought the police would be able to do anything about it. Why the hell didn't they call Luke Skywalker?
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, a Stormtrooper would be more likely to shoot himself than to hit anyone at even 10 paces.
Re: (Score:2)
Stormtroopers are only foiled by plot armor and even then one shot Leia. They routinely stomp rebel troopers.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Stormtroopers are only foiled by plot armor and even then one shot Leia. They routinely stomp rebel troopers.
But their best troops lost to the build-a-bear workshop.
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:5, Funny)
Not really. The E-11 was pretty damn good, and a DC-15A would have ripped through the entire school easily. Not to mention the police.
The plastoid armor, however, was shit. Too many known weak spots, unwieldy, horrible color choice. The only nice thing about it was the helmet, or rather its technical capabilities. Still, it was a couple magnitudes below the Mandalorian helmets.
But we digress.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're find that many of the times storm troopers failed to hit anything it could be argued that they were failing to hit anything on purpose. The most obvious instance is when the hero's escape the death star, it's clear Vader knew there were people on board the Falcon and wanted to use it to find the rebel base planet. Their escape was allowed because their ship was already lowjacked.
Re: (Score:2)
That guy wears a friggin' costume! We're not talking about someone running around in jeans or even combat fatigues. We're talking about someone who is OBVIOUSLY wearing something that is either a theater prop, a mascot suit or something along these lines, in no way this could remotely be considered something anyone would willingly don if he was to start an assault on anyone!
Re: (Score:2)
in no way this could remotely be considered something anyone would willingly don if he was to start an assault on anyone!
Yes, spree killers being so well known for their rational behaviour and all. I'm sure no-one would adopt an affectation [wikipedia.org] to commit a massacre [wikipedia.org] when more practical clothing is available.
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, spree killers being so well known for their rational behaviour and all. I'm sure no-one would adopt an affectation [wikipedia.org] to commit a massacre [wikipedia.org] when more practical clothing is available."
I have no problem with someone calling the police. The police should have stopped him and asked to see the blaster. When it was shown to be nothing but a toy then they tell him, "cool costume but you might not want to wear it all the time. It can freak some people out. Have a nice day."
End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
There's still the question of whether he "disturbed a school" which is what he was arrested for* - not "carrying something that looked like a gun but wasn't," which is how some people here (not you) seem to be desparately choosing to interpret it for the purposes of outrage.
*although I don't know if that's, like, the official name of the alleged crime.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, spree killers being so well known for their rational behaviour and all. I'm sure no-one would adopt an affectation [wikipedia.org] to commit a massacre [wikipedia.org] when more practical clothing is available."
I have no problem with someone calling the police. The police should have stopped him and asked to see the blaster. When it was shown to be nothing but a toy then they tell him, "cool costume but you might not want to wear it all the time. It can freak some people out. Have a nice day." End of story.
But then it wouldn't have been a story which slashdotters could get all Second Amendmenty about.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm grateful I'm an old bastard. I saved up my Christmas money one year and bought myself a trench coat, when I was a teen. It was great. Warm when you want it to be, but open and breezy when you wanted as well. And pockets that held everything. A full bag of popped microwave popcorn could be smuggled into
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine you are on school grounds and you can see this guy on the street, distance of maybe 200 feet. Would you be able to be sure the black gun shaped thing was a toy from that distance?
If the "gun" is at such a distance I can't, then maybe* I shouldn't be pissing my pants.
*Maybe as in, unless I hear shots and see bodies dropping, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, this was the option open to the principal, knock it over to the police
What absurd cowardice. Just walk up and ask the guy what he's up to, for fucks sake.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, this was the option open to the principal, knock it over to the police
What absurd cowardice. Just walk up and ask the guy what he's up to, for fucks sake.
And if he's an armed nutter, he might just shoot you. There are things which it's best to leave to the police, although I appreciate this is blasphemy now on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but for the sake of argument Mass is an open carry state (with permit). I don't know the specific details because I don't live there.
Hypothetically if someone has a gun permit in Mass. and walks down a public street past a school, not on school grounds mind you, only the street in front of it, while having a gun on their hip or even their bushmaster for that matter can they be charged with "disrupting a s school".
See I don't understand how doing something that without probably cause to suspec
Re: (Score:2)
Well, even if he did open fire; an Imperial Stormtrooper would be hard-pressed to hit the side of the school's *buildings* at more than ten yards or so. So, unless I'd happened to wear a red shirt to school that day, I wouldn't worry very much.
Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>Basically, this was the option open to the principal, knock it over to the police.
When your lightsaber is in the shop for repairs, calling the police is the only way to deal with a blaster . . .
hawk, reminding everyone to engage in preventative maintenance