Take the guns first, due process second?

[Collin]

I was reading the Griffin Daily today and on the front page is a story about two middle schoolers being arrested for making threats about shooting up the school. I'm in total agreement for the seriousness of the crime and punishment for these students. However, I became very concerned when discussing the student's release until trial (I may be more inclined to leave them in jail), where it said "As part of this release, Dix said the judge 'ordered that all firearms in the household of the guardian were to be removed from their residence'"

It seems we are taking the guns first, and due process second. Is this legal? I would be upset if I now would be limited in my ability to defend my family because of a stupid decision made by my kid.

Thoughts?

 

[galvatron]

It's only "legal" cuz the judge said so....and what lawyer is going to argue the matter?

They'll use/argue constructive possession to justify it.........which I still don't get since they have't been convicted yet.

Maybe they should confiscate all weapons in like a 200 mile radius since the little bastards could break into a neighbors house.

 

[Bennyboy]

I just wouldn’t release him till trial BUT the parents should have either A) kept guns away from him, or B) not raised a dumbass.

 

[Collin]

It's only "legal" cuz the judge said so....and what lawyer is going to argue the matter?

They'll use/argue constructive possession to justify it.........which I still don't get since they have't been convicted yet.

Maybe they should confiscate all weapons in like a 200 mile radius since the little bastards could break into a neighbors house.

Yeah, I would think it would be safer to keep them in jail. Guess they have an ankle monitor, but if they were in jail, that seems it would ensure they couldn't get their hands on a gun, if that is the concern.

 

[jeep78]

Judges can and will put any condition on release prior to trial they want. This is nothing new.

 

[Collin]

I just wouldn’t release him till trial BUT the parents should have either A) kept guns away from him, or B) not raised a dumbass.

Yep, that seems the best solution. If they were released I might be able to understand verifying firearms are secured from them, depending on the definition. Yes, your B solution is the best! Still, even kids from "good" homes can say something stupid like that, especially middle school (former MS teacher, here)

 

[StuP]

Sign of the times. Can't keep the poor little kiddie in nasty jail, but if he get's released, gets a gun and uses it everyone will go insane.

I'd vote to lock him up.

 

[Collin]

Judges can and will put any condition on release prior to trial they want. This is nothing new.

If I was the guardian, would I be able to refuse the release? Seems like spending some time in jail would help them think!

 

[cbrady]

If it were my kid, id just leave him/her in jail until trial.

 

[galvatron]

Judges can and will put any condition on release prior to trial they want. This is nothing new.

Unfortunately they can't violate due process or take away other/innocent peoples rights, and that's exactly what the judge is doing......... Again, who is going to argue the matter?