The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 17, 2013, 08:11 PM   #126
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
We have an update.

Jared Marcum, the 14 yr.old teen, was formally charged with obstruction: 14-year-old at the center of "NRA T-Shirt Controversy" now facin - WTRF 7 News Sports Weather - Wheeling Steubenville

It appears that the kid is going to be made an example. He faces a fine of $500 or up to 1 year in jail, according to the report. What we don't yet know, is if this is in Juvenile court (where Jared will not have a jury) or if he was charged as an adult.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 17, 2013, 08:28 PM   #127
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,229
All this started with he was wearing an NRA t-shirt ? Doesn't he have the right to wear that t-shirt under the 1st amendment of free speech ? I maybe off base but I don't think anyone had the right to demand he change his t-shirt. As for the charge of obstructing I thinks that a bunch of bull. They infringed on his constitutional rights and that started all this. Whats next we will be told what we can and can't wear as far as t-shirts, hats, pants etc. ? It seems to me this is a form of censorship and unconstitutional. Maybe I am wrong but that's the way I see it. Anti gunners flexing their muscle against a young kid, trying to make an example out of him.
rebs is online now  
Old June 17, 2013, 08:37 PM   #128
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,186
Quote:
All this started with he was wearing an NRA t-shirt ? Doesn't he have the right to wear that t-shirt under the 1st amendment of free speech ? I maybe off base but I don't think anyone had the right to demand he change his t-shirt. As for the charge of obstructing I thinks that a bunch of bull. They infringed on his constitutional rights and that started all this. Whats next we will be told what we can and can't wear as far as t-shirts, hats, pants etc. ? It seems to me this is a form of censorship and unconstitutional. Maybe I am wrong but that's the way I see it. Anti gunners flexing their muscle against a young kid, trying to make an example out of him.
It's more than that. [I can't say what I think is really going on because I'd likely get banned for it] Next time someone says "for the children", remember Jared Markum as an example of what they *really* think about the children.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old June 17, 2013, 08:53 PM   #129
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al
It appears that the kid is going to be made an example. He faces a fine of $500 or up to 1 year in jail, according to the report. What we don't yet know, is if this is in Juvenile court (where Jared will not have a jury) or if he was charged as an adult.
The charge is a misdemeanor. It appears that in West Virginia, it doesn't meet the standard for the court to decide that he should be tried as an adult, but he can demand to be tried as an adult, and then they're required to do so.

Interesting quandary for him and his attorney, I'd think.

WEST VIRGINIA CODE
§49-5-10. Waiver and transfer of jurisdiction.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; June 19, 2013 at 11:09 AM. Reason: unintentional disrespect to the young man.
Vanya is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 06:19 AM   #130
Famas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Location: French, currently living in US
Posts: 126
I've read all 6 pages of this thread and I've come to the conclusion this is a free speech issue. I wonder where the ACLU is? (rhetorical question, I know) They've defended students for much less. Had this kid been wearing a Che Guevera shirt and told to turn it inside out or wear another shirt, the ACLU would be all over this.
Famas is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 06:50 AM   #131
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,404
My understanding is that he was charged with Obstructing and Officer because the officer repeated the school's (unlawful) demand that the kid remove the tee shirt, and the kid did not do so. So the officer arrested him.

How is that "Obstruction"? If a cop pulls over a drunk at midnight and issues a command "Make yourself sober" and the driver (obviously) can't comply, is that "Obstruction"? The kid didn't resist arrest in any way, from what I can remember reading. He simply asserted his rights.

Is there a legal fund somewhere for this kid that I can contribute to?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 07:15 AM   #132
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,697
^I agree and I'd contribute.
Although I wonder if the NRA plans to get involved - he was wearing their shirt after all.
Seems like a good opportunity for them to be viewed in a positive light by all because its not really about guns this time, its Free Speech and the unjustified persecution of a kid.
Dashunde is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 08:50 AM   #133
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,075
Misuse of authority is what this is,,,

Quote:
...and I've come to the conclusion this is a free speech issue.
I somewhat agree (I've read all the pages as well),,,
But I believe it's more of an example of law enforcement over-each.

The officer was simply angered by the fact,,,
That the kid didn't immediately comply with his order.

This is like when a cop threatens you with an "obstructing justice" charge,,,
When you are standing on the sidelines recording an encounter.

Shame on him and the entire school board.

This is nothing more than a trumped up charge,,,
For defying their perceived authority.

I believe the proper term is,,,
Abuse under color of authority.

Again, shame on them.

Aarond

.
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 01:15 PM   #134
Miss Stana
Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Posts: 40
I have seen kids arrested at school for stupid reasons, not all of them gun or 'terrorist' in nature. I worked in juvenile detention and found that most of the kids arrested were disliked by the administration or the campus police and were just being arrested to get rid of them. Bullying and some other real problems are left untouched if the kid is popular. I would love to do something about it, but what? There is no way I would send my kids to that mess, I home school. I avoid these problems and the brainwashing the government is doing in schools.
__________________
My life's goal is to put a rifle behind every blade of grass!

AIC
Custom Rifles
Miss Stana is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 08:31 PM   #135
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,582
Definitely overreaching by the police officer. At the very worst, he should face school discipline, not arrested for wearing a t-shirt.

I am most definitely not an authority on the First Amendment, but my understanding is that the right may be restricted in school if done in a content neutral manner. For example, a school could ban all t-shirts with a political message but not just messages with which they disagree. I don't think we know enough about school policy to make a call on whether the student was in violation of a lawful policy. I'll repeat, though, that the officer was definitely overreaching.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 09:00 PM   #136
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
After a very brief email exchange with the reporter at WTRF, Ms. Greene has responded that Jared was charged in Juvenile Court.

Consider what we know.
  • Jared Marcum was wearing a t-shirt that was not against the dress code at the time he was ordered to take it off or turn it inside out.
  • The order was issued in a public setting, namely, the school cafeteria at lunch time, in full view of the assembled students.
  • The order was unlawful inasmuch as the t-shirt being worn was not in violation of any school rules.
  • Jared, apparently knowing the dress code better than the teacher, told the teacher that he would not disrobe and/or turn the shirt.
  • The teacher, feeling disrespected, hauls Jared into the office.
  • The principle, attempting to save face for the erroneous teacher demanded that Jared follow the order.
  • Being told no, the principle called in the police.
  • The responding officer, wanting to affirm the authority of the school, arrested Jared on a variety of charges.
  • On the following Monday, 50+ kids (including Jared) show up at school wearing the same t-shirt and nothing happens to them.
  • The D.A., apparently bowing to the same politics of authority, charges the young man, with the only charge he feels he can win.

Barring something else, that we haven't heard about, this was abuse of authority, from start to finish.

There is also a message to be taken away from this fiasco: Do what you are told, even if it is wrong.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 09:13 PM   #137
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,186
You left out one important piece unless I missed something: The judge didn't throw out the charges at the preliminary hearing. As Homer Simpson said (I think, quoting Jack Nicholson), "The whole freakin' system is out of order!"

IMHO, the principal needs to be fired and the prosecutor AND the judge need to be disbarred.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 10:18 PM   #138
Romeo 33 Delta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2009
Posts: 313
I'm old and tired of all this PC non-sense.


Fire the teacher and Principal.

Fire the cop and Chief.

Remove the Prosecutor.

Remove the Judge.


Then ... SUE THE PANTS off EVERYBODY INVOLVED for SERIOUS MONEY ... I mean MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!

I'm only upset that there isn't a way to put the "authorities" in prison for "over-reaching and being really stupid". I know that's not a crime, but it's getting to the point where it should be. They should also be stripped of their pensions too!

By the way, I ate my grilled cheese into the shape of a derringer last Sunday night. Anybody got a problem with that?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Picture 057.jpg (59.6 KB, 26 views)
Romeo 33 Delta is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 06:31 AM   #139
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,229
I like your grilled cheese......................
rebs is online now  
Old June 19, 2013, 06:47 AM   #140
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,229
I just received this email, Jared is getting help

logo Gun Owners Foundation
Taking on Zero Tolerance in Schools
supporting Jared Marcum against overzealous prosecutor

Gun Owners Foundation has come to the defense of a West Virginia teenager who is actually being prosecuted (a.k.a., persecuted) for his pro-gun views.

Jared Marcum wore a T-shirt to his Logan County middle school in West Virginia on April 18 -- a decision that has since sparked a national controversy.

No, Jared’s T-shirt did not depict a Muslim beheading a victim while shouting Alahu Akhbar! Such depictions of violence would violate the school’s dress code.

Jared’s T-shirt depicted a hunting rifle with the message: “Protect Your Right.” And now, he faces up to a year in jail for doing so!

The outrageousness of this case has prompted the involvement of Gun Owners Foundation, which has agreed to help Jared pro bono.

People can help Gun Owners Foundation assist Jared Marcum by going to our foundation’s site and giving a contribution.

It all began on April 18. Everything was fine for the morning classes, but then the day went goofy when an anti-gun teacher confronted Jared in the lunch line and told him to turn his shirt inside out.

Jared pointed out that his shirt did not violate school policy.

The teacher sent Jared to the office where the same back and forth was repeated with the administration. Then a police officer was summoned who ordered Jared to turn his shirt inside out. Jared told the officer and the administration that he was doing nothing wrong.

According to the officer, Jared’s shirt constituted a terrorist threat. He did not put that in his written report, but instead charged Jared with obstructing an officer (apparently Jared interrupted the officer while he was talking to the administration).

Jared was cuffed, charged and told that he could be fined up to $500 and spend up to a year in jail. The prosecutor decided to press the charge, and a judge allowed the prosecution to proceed.

In a town of less than 2,000, what are the odds that at least five adults are this insane? And all on the same day?

Zero Tolerance can be better understood as Zero Judgment.

Jared was suspended for a day. When he returned to school, around 100 students wore similar shirts, and Jared wore the same shirt that fried the brains of five grownups two days earlier. Nothing happened. None of the students heard a word about their T-shirts.

Jared and his stepfather, Allen Ladieri, are to be commended for not backing down, and Gun Owners Foundation is actively supporting the case.

Usually, Gun Owners Foundation supports individuals appealing convictions on firearms charges that involve constitutional issues. But we think that Jared’s case warrants special attention, as it involves both First and Second Amendment freedoms.

If we are not allowed to make pro-Second Amendment statements -- all because somebody is offended -- then we can count the days to when we’ll lose the freedoms enshrined in both Amendments.

If Jared prevails in this case, we may have finally reached a turning point regarding Zero Tolerance, which is one of the most insidious policies being inflicted on the nation’s young people.

ACTION: While GOF is helping defend Jared Marcum pro bono, there are obviously significant costs involved. So please help by making a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation. You can assist in the Jared Marcum defense by giving a contribution to GOF here.

To read more about Gun Owners Foundation, click here.
rebs is online now  
Old June 19, 2013, 07:33 AM   #141
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 632
GOA is accepting donations for his defense.
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 10:11 AM   #142
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,404
Quote:
GOA is accepting donations for his defense.
Do these contributions go into a special fund established by GOA and earmarked to be paid directly to Jared's defense team, or do these contributions go into GOA's general fund, where they can be used to pay for more "Send us money to support Jared" mailings?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 11:13 AM   #143
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
That's a good question. As far as I can tell, based on a quick Google search, there isn't an independent defense fund to which one could send money directly. I'd also like to know how these organizations are handling this.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 11:53 AM   #144
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,404
This appears to be the law firm. No e-mail contact that I could find and I don't feel like calling them, but I might just send them a check and a note asking them to assign it to Jared's account.

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2816150_1

White, Ben B. III

White & Henderson
1426 Main Street
Princeton, WV 24740-3064
Phone: (304) 425-8781


Sadly, I don't trust groups like GOA to forward contributions to the family or to the attorney.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 12:10 PM   #145
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 632
I don't know about GOA. But here is the website if you trust them.

https://www.gunowners.com/contribute.htm
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 02:39 PM   #146
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,337
Quote:
There is also a message to be taken away from this fiasco: Do what you are told, even if it is wrong.
That's the message they want us to learn. Of course, it's a little thing when its a t-shirt, right? Do what you are told. Take it off, or turn it inside out. After all, its only a t-shirt, or a small matter of principle.....

How about when doing what you are told means rousting people out of their homes to load them into cattlecars for ...relocation? OR when doing what you are told includes machinegunning civilians to "teach terrorists a lesson" OR when doing what you are told crosses any number of lines, ethecially, or morally or legally? They want us to shut up, and meekly obey any and every command we are given, no matter what it is, or even if they have the valid authority to order it. I believe they are charging this boy with obstruction because he did not break any law, or even any school regulation, and this is the only thing they can use to punish him for not meekly submitting to the arbitrary orders of a agenda driven bully cloaked as a school official. And worse yet, doing it in front of a group of other students. Can't have him giving them ideas about rights and freedoms that differ from our party line, now can we? No, comrade, we can't have that!.....

Obstructing an officer is a catch-all charge that can be thrown at anyone, for literally any reason. All that is needed for the charge is the arresting officer's opinion. And one does not need for that obstruction to be effective (in other words what one did, or did not do, had no actual effect on the officer's ability to carry out their duty) in order to be convicted. The fact that, in the officer's opinion, you tried to obstruct them is often enough for a court to convict.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 04:02 PM   #147
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimPage
I don't know about GOA. But here is the website if you trust them.

https://www.gunowners.com/contribute.htm
Trust them? I've never even heard of them. In fact, an Internet search on that name doesn't turn up ANY hits. Should I trust an organization Google has never heard of?

That web site is for general contributions to the organization, it doesn't even mention this case let alone have a sequestered defense fund earmarked for this kid.

Thanks, but no thanks.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 04:30 PM   #148
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,336
It looks like they're a GOA satellite. I notice at the top of their litigation page they're still claiming support for the Olofson case. That's not an indication of a competent organization.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 07:04 PM   #149
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,582
Al --

Thanks for the detailed info about what happened. Those facts certainly make it clear that this was a fiasco from the beginning.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 10:10 PM   #150
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Jim, you're welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xzcvbob View Post
You left out one important piece unless I missed something: The judge didn't throw out the charges at the preliminary hearing.
Remembering that at a preliminary hearing, all the prosecution has to prove is that a crime may have been committed and that the defendant may be the perpetrator. That's a pretty low standard. Since we have no transcript of the proceedings, we don't know what the D.A. presented to the Court. Nor do we know what the defense did. Since the charge of "Obstruction" has an awful lot of subjective leeway, I can't fault the Judge for concluding that the law may have been broken and that the defendant may have been the one to break the law.

I think we should all remember that the original "orders" by the teacher (who is not an administrator, and according to the official school code, could not give this order) were to, in effect, disrobe in public. That in and of itself is an unlawful order.

We should also remember that Jared had gone through most of the school day wearing the t-shirt, and no other authority figure had any problems. Just this one teacher who was apparently passing through the lunchroom.

Now, according to the original stories, what happened after this was an almost full scale riot, where the kids in the lunch room fell on Jared's side and boo'ed the teacher. This is where the loss of face occurred. It didn't help that Jared probably got caught up in this "free-for-all."

Everything after that, followed a natural progression of upholding the authority of the school.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16212 seconds with 8 queries