My son would be safer in jail.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Take the guns first, due process second?
- Thread starter Collin
- Start date
^this
It doesnt say the firearms were confiscated, it says removed and it doesn't say removed by the sheriff office. Sounds like the judge said the firearms must be removed before the defendant can be released. i assume they could keep the firearms in the home and leave the kid in jail if they choose to do so. I also assume that they could take the firearms to a family members home until the case is resolved? Let's get all the facts before we jump to conclusions about Due process. Would you prefer to give this kid access to firearms after he said he was going to shoot up a school? It isn't any different than a restraining order placed on someone to protect another until the case can be heard.
The "guardian" is probably there trying to get the little dear out. If he wants him out, the judge can put on any restrictions he wants to.
If the guardian is not pressing to get the kid out, then yes, it is a reach.
True, it doesn't say confiscated. That's one of my questions- must they be released, or would they be allowed to stay in jail? Taking firearms to a family member seems risky; how can you ensure that someone might not get them one of those firearms, or another firearm. If it was my kid and they were back in my house I could ensure they would not get access.
Your question about giving the kid access to firearms is pretty sensational, and nobody in their right mind would respond 'yes'. Like you, I can only assume from what information is given. It seems that the safest, least risky option would be to hold them in jail. They have an ankle monitor, they were instructed to keep in contact at all times with a guardian, and to have no electronic devices. Though it no doubt reduces the risk of acting on the threat, it seems obviously riskier than jail.
From my understanding, which is not infallible, A restraining order is from party A to party B. Using that example it would seem that the state would be party A, and the student party B. The court is bringing in party C, the parent/guardian, who did not commit the offense. Yes, the parent/guardian is responsible for the kid, but it seems that they are being held responsible for their kid's actions to an extent that rights are being taken, though I do see your point again that the exact word is 'removed', which is not exactly clear.
That's my understanding, and I would be totally fine with that.
Welcome to the new juvy code.
Yikes.
I don't see where they are taking a right away ( they have a choice), The judge as far as I read doesn't say the firearms can't reamin in the home. He said the firearms can't stay in the home if the kid is released. Meaning if the guns are not removed the kid can't get out of jail.
No different in you have firearms in the home and a convicted felon living in your home. You would not be forced to give up your guns but the felon would risk arrest. The guardians are responsible for this kid but not his actions. It could be that this kid ( as kids will do) was just clowning around or talking sh$t around his buddies, However with all the stuff happening the Judge can't take a chance on this kid having access in the home to firearms. Like the Sandy hook shooter he could kill his guardian and steel the firearms and them shoot up a school or whatever The Guardian could also have this kid commited for evaluation if he has some issues. I'm certain that if they told the judge that they were afraid this kid might really shoot a school up , The judge would not let him out. Please keep in mind this guy just said he was going to do something he hasn't at this point done anything but run his mouth as far as we know.
Ah ok so a "release" indicates an agreement between the court and the guardian to the terms the judge sets to release them. That sounds reasonable.
