Michigan school shooting verdict in

[Twangbanger]

Well my 1A rights certainly died just inside the schoolhouse door... ...Mrs. Laird probably still has the FBI on me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

To be clear: I wasn't implying agreement/disagreement with wherever the line is. I was just asking, because I didn't know.

I get that, I was just pointing out how complicated it can be and it's ever evolving. I can't, with any confidence, tell you exactly where the line is for a school administrator.

 

[HoughMade]

Asking because I legitimately don't know: how far are 4A-protected rights to be secure in one's person/effects without search/seizure extended to students inside a school? I know that other constitutionally protected rights have certain limitations within the school.

There is a whole jurisprudence to this. Long story short, there is 4th Amendment protections in school, but less.

 

[Destro]

I can't, with any confidence, tell you exactly where the line is for a school administrator.

IIRC I believe the line is something to the effect of balancing the 4th amendment with good order and discipline. Since not all reasons a school administrator may need to search a locker are criminal in nature, there is more latitude since that is the charge of a school administrator.

Administrator believes Johnny cheated on a test. Not a criminal matter, but against good order and discipline, so they can search for evidence if they have suspicion.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

IIRC I believe the line is something to the effect of balancing the 4th amendment with good order and discipline. Since not all reasons a school administrator may need to search a locker are criminal in nature, there is more latitude since that is the charge of a school administrator.

Administrator believes Johnny cheated on a test. Not a criminal matter, but against good order and discipline, so they can search for evidence if they have suspicion.

The generic test is weighing the level of intrusion vs the gov't interest in the seizure, so yes. That's always got to be a judgement call, though, and reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn. We can all think of examples that are obviously good or obviously bad, but it can be tough when it's in that wobble area. Which, as an aside, is why qualified immunity exists. If that wobble area hasn't been decided yet, you don't have to mind read the future judge who will decide, and then the appeals judge who may decide differently, etc.

 

[jwamplerusa]

convicted for failing to address warning signs?

What about all the other shooters where their therapists failed to address warning signs? What about when the FBI failed to address (or follow up) on warning signs?

If they're going to paint such a broad brush, everyone one at every level needs to be held accountable.

I believe there was a shooter in TX that got reported and investigated multiple times and was let go multiple times before shooting up a place.

Both yourself and @Old Road Dog can be right. That is why we have prosecutorial discretion, and a jury of peers to make a decision beyond A reasonable doubt for criminal conviction.

It is absolutely true that in cases where the shooter was known to the authorities, who we pay to take action on behalf of the state, the State actors who did nothing should be held accountable.

It is also true when parents aid and abet their child's murderous behavior, as guardians they need to be held to account. In this case we are not talking about missing warning signs. We are talking about actually aiding and abetting by purchasing the firearm.

Immediately after this event I conveyed that I believed the RSO, principal and counselor all should be prosecuted along with the parents. There was more than ample evidence to articulate a reasonable suspicion the individual was a danger to himself or others. They freaking called in the parents to review the drawing he had made in class which depicted a homicidal scene! If that does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion I don't know what does.

Stop making excuses for the children, the parents, the schools, the police, and most especially the FBI. I am beyond sick of hearing the shooter was "known to the authorities". As a society we have agreed to confiscation of arms without due process ( red flag laws), we are surveilled, our rights are abridged, and yet we excuse those that we have permitted these powers when they fail in their use of them. This simply needs to stop. If you're not going to use these authorities for the betterment of society, then I want them back! All of them, no more gun free zones, no more surveillance, no more infringement of my god-given rights.

If you kill willfully, your punishment is death. It should not be 20 or 30 years later after I've had to pay for your upkeep and Lord knows how many appeals.

 

[Mr. Habib]

It's lessened but not removed. The answer as to where the line is drawn is always fuzzy, but here you have someone who's not in law enforcement, who's likely not well trained or versed in case law, and doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. In hindsight, maybe secure the backpack and call a parent if you think you can't search it yourself, or seek consent from the parent? Children can't consent or not consent to a search, that is case law for sure, and even good faith arguments don't overcome that. I was part of such case law as a street cop early in my career. In short:

Burglary suspect believed to have gone in an apartment.
Person answers door. Provides identification that they are an adult (19 y/o).
Signs a consent to search.
Stolen property found in apartment.

Evidence later suppressed because the person who gave consent was actually 16 or 17 (don't recall any longer). The fact they lied, that we had no reason to suspect they weren't who they said they were, and that we acted on good faith was irrelevant to the court. Only the fact a juvenile can't provide consent was relevant.

So I honestly can't blame them for getting it wrong, especially with normalcy bias. How many parents would have jumped in the school's ass for searching their kid wrongfully?


There is. But the 4th amendment doesn't stop at the school door nor does it not apply to juveniles. It's different, but not removed.

Would this be different if the school SRO was the one searching?

 

[OneBadV8]

If you kill willfully, your punishment is death. It should not be 20 or 30 years later after I've had to pay for your upkeep and Lord knows how many appeals.

I support this statement. Especially if it has credible witnesses and even video.

but then again with all the technology we have today, video can be faked now too really well.

I'd even be a fan of excommunication. You're banned from the country for life, you get caught re-entering and can be legally shot on site.

 

[Mij]

jwamplerusa said:
If you kill willfully, your punishment is death. It should not be 20 or 30 years later after I've had to pay for your upkeep and Lord knows how many appeals.


Myself only, I would take it one step further. Make it public, TV, WWW. Let the thugs see what happens when you cross that line. Again JMO

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Would this be different if the school SRO was the one searching?

In this context, honestly not sure but I don't think so. The underlying offense is a crime, vs an administation/general welfare sort of thing (ie, spoiling food in a locker). My gut response is it's samey-same, but this isn't really in my area of expertise so I could easily be wrong.

 

[Brad69]

So if BBI tells me he is gonna shoot up a Waffle House. Then shows me his pistola and a map of the shooting. I would assume that could warrant a charge if I didn’t inform the authorities?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So if BBI tells me he is gonna shoot up a Waffle House. Then shows me his pistola and a map of the shooting. I would assume that could warrant a charge if I didn’t inform the authorities?

No. You have no duty to inform. You have no legal guardianship over me. You've taken no material steps to assist me.

Some people do have a duty to inform in some contexts. Psychologists who become aware of a credible threat, for example, but are prohibited from divulging information otherwise.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Formatting error continues to insert my response into the quote. See below for readable version.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Both yourself and @Old Road Dog can be right. That is why we have prosecutorial discretion, and a jury of peers to make a decision beyond A reasonable doubt for criminal conviction.

It is absolutely true that in cases where the shooter was known to the authorities, who we pay to take action on behalf of the state, the State actors who did nothing should be held accountable.

It is also true when parents aid and abet their child's murderous behavior, as guardians they need to be held to account. In this case we are not talking about missing warning signs. We are talking about actually aiding and abetting by purchasing the firearm.

Immediately after this event I conveyed that I believed the RSO, principal and counselor all should be prosecuted along with the parents. There was more than ample evidence to articulate a reasonable suspicion the individual was a danger to himself or others. They freaking called in the parents to review the drawing he had made in class which depicted a homicidal scene! If that does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion I don't know what does.

Stop making excuses for the children, the parents, the schools, the police, and most especially the FBI. I am beyond sick of hearing the shooter was "known to the authorities". As a society we have agreed to confiscation of arms without due process ( red flag laws), we are surveilled, our rights are abridged, and yet we excuse those that we have permitted these powers when they fail in their use of them. This simply needs to stop. If you're not going to use these authorities for the betterment of society, then I want them back! All of them, no more gun free zones, no more surveillance, no more infringement of my god-given rights.

If you kill willfully, your punishment is death. It should not be 20 or 30 years later after I've had to pay for your upkeep and Lord knows how many appeals.

The red flag laws require probable cause, same as an arrest, and have the same level of due process as a custodial arrest. It's simply untrue there's no due process, despite what a subsection of INGO continually repeats. If you actually had a police state, then it would be a non-issue. All those 'known to authorities' people could be picked up and sent to reeducation camps. But we don't. So you still have to build a case to reach probable cause and then convince a prosecutor you can get a jury beyond a reasonable doubt while playing by the myriad ever-shifting rules of case law. In this very thread people are asking where the line is drawn on if the backpack could be searched or not, and for good reason.

 

[Hoosierdood]

So if BBI tells me he is gonna shoot up a Waffle House. Then shows me his pistola and a map of the shooting. I would assume that could warrant a charge if I didn’t inform the authorities?

Not the same thing. If BBI told you he wanted to shoot up a Waffle House, and you handed him a map and a pistola to carry out the shooting, you could also be charged. That would be more like what happened in this case.

 

[HoughMade]

In this context, honestly not sure but I don't think so. The underlying offense is a crime, vs an administation/general welfare sort of thing (ie, spoiling food in a locker). My gut response is it's samey-same, but this isn't really in my area of expertise so I could easily be wrong.

Assuming a public school, a government actor is a government actor.

 

[Brad69]

Good to know!

BTW me and BBI would be in food coma after Waffle House !

 

[Destro]

Assuming a public school, a government actor is a government actor.

There is an article here from the NASRO, but its older.

It does seem to make a distinction between the actual SRO who is in the school, working to achieve the goals of the school, and an outside officer.

Seems like a SRO could perform searches in the same manner as any school administrator, but not an outside officer because school discipline would not be their responsibility.

 

[BJHay]

This is an exceptionally good discussion on a regrettably tragic incident.

I can't have a fair opinion on this woman's negligence without viewing all of the evidence in context for myself. I have a lot of questions about things like holding parents responsible for a kid's diary entries.

The jury foreperson focused on my main concern: free access to a firearm by a 15-year-old. Three types of people should not have access to firearms.

1. Violent felons
2. Those who are mentally deranged
3. Unsupervised minors

In today's world, a parent shouldn't allow free access to a firearm by a 15-year-old.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...rson-oxford-high-school-shooting/72498959007/

 

[chipbennett]

This is an exceptionally good discussion on a regrettably tragic incident.

I can't have a fair opinion on this woman's negligence without viewing all of the evidence in context for myself. I have a lot of questions about things like holding parents responsible for a kid's diary entries.

The jury foreperson focused on my main concern: free access to a firearm by a 15-year-old. Three types of people should not have access to firearms.

1. Violent felons
2. Those who are mentally deranged
3. Unsupervised minors

In today's world, a parent shouldn't allow free access to a firearm by a 15-year-old.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...rson-oxford-high-school-shooting/72498959007/

That depends on how the parents have raised said 15 year old(s).

I 100% would trust both of my teenage daughters to use any firearm safely and responsibly. That's why I've taught them how to handle firearms.

Growing up, I knew exactly where my dad's loaded 12ga was, at an age far younger than 15. I also knew the consequences of touching it, outside of life-or-death situations.