|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: 12-year-old held for death threats|
12-year-old held for death threats
Posted - 2/10/2013 6:27:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
Here's some fat for you coyotes to chew who believe that making death threats is normal childhood behavior:
"A 12-year-old student in northern San Diego County has been admitted to a hospital for "evaluation and treatment" after being taken into custody on suspicion of sending an email threatening to kill a teacher and 23 students, the Sheriff's Department said.
"Detectives served a search warrant Saturday night at the student's home and seized several computers and 'numerous' rifles and handguns, the Sheriff's Department said. The student was taken into custody as the warrant was being served."
Posted - 2/10/2013 8:34:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
Have you been diagnosed as bipolar?
That's the only way I can figure you'd jump from one extreme to the other.
If this kid was serious, it's good he's been detained. He needs a WIC 5585 evaluation. And if he has problems he needs treatment.
But kids who pretend with an extended forefinger or who simply draw pictures ARE reflecting normal childhood behavior.
Get a grip.
Posted - 2/10/2013 10:25:34 PM | show profile | flag this post
So the problem here....
... Is that this 12 year old has mental issues.
Not that 12 year olds (too young to drive, too young to vote, too young to legally work) can get pretty much any kind of firearm and ammo they want. .
Welcome to America.
Posted - 2/10/2013 11:02:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
I don't see the reason
for the "bipolar" crack.
Kids playing 'cops and robbers' or 'army' like me and brothers did over 45 years ago is one thing. I even got to be 'Patton' every now and then, or James West. And my kid brother was Napolean Solo.
But we never ever made death threats to our teachers or 23 classmates. And we sure as shit never had 'numerous' rifles and handguns laying around the house.
It was a different time, and I can understand that. But people standing in lines for two or three blocks to stock up on guns and ammo because that guy in the White House is gonna get yer guns--Nope. It wasn't an issue. It shouldn't be now. Normal childhood behavior has taken a sad side-trip.
Posted - 2/11/2013 12:22:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
don't understand, cdnrptr
cdn...are you saying, per your comment, that you believe this 12 year old is the owner of the guns and ammo found in his residence?
Posted - 2/11/2013 1:21:19 AM | show profile | flag this post
*** I don't see the reason
for the "bipolar" crack.***
There IS no reason for it. The slimy jackass simply couldn't control the urge to type it. He doesn't obviously doesn't have the slightest clue what "bipolar" is; but he had to find SOMETHING to call me.
And you egg him on.
Posted - 2/11/2013 10:04:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
What a hypocrite
GD tries to insult me in every post she makes...asserting that I am mentally deficient and need professional help...and apparently thinks that's perfectly OK.
But when I MERELY ASK if she's ever been diagnosed as bipolar she bawls like a petulant child.
If you can't take the heat, wuss, get out of the kitchen.
Those who are supporting her (dogson) are hypocrites as well.
Posted - 2/11/2013 10:05:51 AM | show profile | flag this post
You don't have to "own" a gun...
to be a threat with a gun.
The Newtown shooter didn't own a single gun. He took them from his mother.
The Jonesboro School Shooters -- ages 13 and 11 at the time of the shooting -- also didn't own any guns. They got their guns from a relative.
The point -- as made above -- is ACCESS to guns.
Posted - 2/11/2013 11:12:30 AM | show profile | flag this post
Who asked you?
Your comments are only tangentially pertinent to the topic. You are always eager to lend your "knowledge" to a thread but often succeed only in making yourself look stupid.
Posted - 2/11/2013 11:15:19 AM | show profile | flag this post
only in making yourself look stupid
And that's cruiser's job!
Lowering the intellectual bar!!!!
Posted - 2/11/2013 12:31:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
it's all part and parcel of cruiztwit's well-known..
narcissistic personality disorder..
Posted - 2/11/2013 4:05:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
The idea of a 12 year old having any access, nevermind ownership of firearms is pretty much unheard of in every other industrialized nation on earth.
In europe and asia .. not gonna happen.
Even here in Canada where most farms have long guns, teens are required to pass a mandatory, stringent RCMP safety course and licencing process (much more useful than any "mental health registry" .. our cops actually meet people who want gun, get fact to face with them for a few days as they handle gun ... and are more than happy to reject applicants) . they cant buy. They're also subject to huge fines for even the most minor mishandling (i.e., no trigger lock, improper storage and transport (ie gun-rack secure) etc.
Any parent letting their kids touch a gun without licensing, well, they're opening themselves up to criminal charges ...
Posted - 2/11/2013 4:07:58 PM | show profile | flag this post
Pardon .. answering news cred...
... not GD
Posted - 2/11/2013 4:41:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Which brings up
a very old question: Why DON'T people have to pass a test before getting a gun??
We're all used to hearing the old NRA line, 'cars kill people too', why don't we ban them?? Well of course that's silly--the purpose of a car is to drive, not murder. There is only one purpose behind an AR-15. (oh yea, I forgot, military weapons are just meant to wound and scare you. My bad)
If we make 16 yr olds pass a drving test, why don't we ask the same of someone buying a murder weapon??
Posted - 2/11/2013 5:42:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
Answer to that age old question..
The Constitution. Driving a car is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, it is a privilege.
As far as this story, the system worked. A threat was identified and corrective steps were taken. I imagine the same kind of thing happens often just in the light of recent events this one received more than the usual attention.
Funny how we cannot judge some groups by the actions of a misguided few, but we can paint all gun owners with the same broad brush.
Ok I am done. You'll play nice now.
Posted - 2/11/2013 6:09:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'll buy that to a point.
"The Constitution. Driving a car is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, it is a privilege" On the surface that makes sense.....but...
We all know there are limits to our free speech. Death threats. Creating a panic. Slander.
There are limits on Free Press. Libel e.g.
Assembly?? You need a permit.
Religion?? Pun intended, but God forbid we let every religion out there practice everything they wanted to.
So..even if you believe "A Well Regulated" still means NO regulation (and I have no clue how the NRA or gun nuts can't read clear English) even IF you buy that, you have to admit that every "Right" has its limits. So a State, any State, is well within its rights to demand a safety course of some kind before you get behind the wheel of a car, or before you get behind of a trigger of a machine gun. IMO.
Posted - 2/12/2013 6:54:52 AM | show profile | flag this post
No rights are absolute.
They end at the point of harm, or potential harm, to others.
That is backed by ethical theory and real life law.
It's why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, despite your right to free expression.
Or why press freedom is constrained by libel.
Or why even the most sacrosanct, The Right to Life, is abridged in some jurisdictions by capital punishment .. The argument that one loses even that right when one takes another's life.
And let's be clear that it is the State and government role to put reasonable limits on individual rights. The rule of law exists to protect society and individuals from harm, so they may all responsibly exercise their rights and freedoms to their own fullest extent.
With no law, there is only tyranny. and that includes tyranny of the gun
Posted - 2/12/2013 10:10:39 AM | show profile | flag this post
What you seem to forget...
or willfully ignore...is that the government is us. It is NOT...despite left wing desires...an entity unto itself, the master of the people. It is the people themselves agreeing on the standards and parameters of the society in which they want to live.
The government can do NOTHING except that which is embraced and prescribed by the people. And if the majority rejects bans on firearms...and it does...that's the way it will be. Nevermind Joke Biden "counting on the 'legitimate media' for gun control efforts."
Obama and his supporters seem to have forgotten that too...or are willfully ignoring it...in their zeal to implement a radical left "utopian" agenda.
Posted - 2/12/2013 10:31:39 AM | show profile | flag this post
The key concept is limitation versus qualification. You can limit constitutional rights; the Supreme Court has upheld that on several different occasions. What cannot be done is place a requirement on a constitutional right, such as passing a written test or a skills test. I don't have to prove I deserve free speech, but I can use that right to the detriment of society at which point I can have my right restricted or even outright denied. I must prove I deserve the privilege of driving through whatever skills and /or written tests the state may require, an important distinction between right and privilege.
Posted - 2/12/2013 3:03:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
I see where you're going there. "limitation versus qualification"
I think this is where we disagree: "What cannot be done is place a requirement on a constitutional right" Yes we can and we have. You have the right to vote and even run for office. The Const says so. But we put requirements on that--residency and age for example, not to mention citizenship (and that's not even uniform requirements for petes sake!! Natural born for President, seven years for the House, nine years for the Senate), you get the idea. And again, we have the "Right" to assemble--but you're required to get a permit.
What I'm saying is--if you have to "prove I deserve the privilege of driving through whatever skills and /or written tests the state may require," Doesn't it just make simple common sense we could require the same of someone buying a deadly weapon??
Posted - 2/12/2013 3:27:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
Aren't those requirements actually spelled out in the Constitution? I am pretty sure we even amended the Constitution to lower the voting age.
Posted - 2/12/2013 3:39:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
More for Mpdodgson
And you do need a permit to assemble if you are doing it on public property. You can assemble on private property all you want without a permit.
Owning a deadly weapon is a Constitutional right. The only real way to place requirements not limitations on that is to amend the Constitution.
Posted - 2/12/2013 4:08:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yep, you got me on that one.
"Aren't those requirements actually spelled out in the Constitution?"
Yes, you're right. :)
On the other hand, the Second is the ONLY place in the entire document, including amendments, that actually "spells out" the words "Well Regulated". If that doesn't open the door to legislative regulations and/or requirements I don't know what does.
Posted - 2/12/2013 4:23:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
And that point, Mpdodgson
Has been debated for years now. Exactly what does the phrase mean and how does it actually affect the right to "bear arms"? The answer to that is over my pay grade.
Posted - 2/12/2013 5:33:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
I won't get in a discussion with blacked ..
... because he clearly wishes to debate with MD.
But capital punishment severely curtails the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and there is nothing in the constitution to back it.
Laws (legislatures and courts) limit, expand, and redefine the Constitution all the time.
From property right to presidential powers.
(Witness the widening of constitutional Presidential executive powers, by decree and legal opinion, started by Bush, and more than embraced by Obama. )
As much as originalists want to argue strict interpretation, and deny the constitution is a living document ... it is. And conservative jurists themselves take advantage of that while they castigate the concept.
Citizen United is one case.
The conservative court's modern interpretation of 'well regulated militia" to encompass private ownership without reservation is even more obvious.
But that ruling does not limit the legislatures right to regulate .. and then have it tested by, and fought in, the courts.
That's the give and take. That how it works.
As for cruiser's nonsense: the majority of americans polled clearly back gun control.
That is the fact.
If you doubt it, put it to a legally binding referendum.
I expect california, at some point, will.