June 25th, 2013

WV Court Officials Trying to Silence Media in Quest to Convict Boy for NRA Shirt 87

By Carlos Miller

WOWK 13 Charleston, Huntington WV News, Weather, Sports

What started off as a routine harassment from a middle school teacher to a student over a t-shirt he was wearing has turned into an embarrassing and infuriating abuse of First Amendment rights in West Virginia.

First, school officials suspended 14-year-old Jared Marcum because he was wearing an NRA shirt.

Then police arrested him because he had argued in the principal’s office that the shirt wasn’t breaking school policy.

This week, prosecutors tried to keep him from speaking to the media through an emergency gag order, which they said would serve in his “better interest.”

But Logan County prosecutors Christopher White and Sabrina Deskins are the same people trying to convict him on a charge of obstruction, which could land him in jail for a year, so they are the last people looking out for his better interest.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, a court bailiff threatened to arrest a local television reporter who had walked into the Logan County Courthouse with a camera in an attempt to file a petition to stop the gag order.

Charlo Greene of WOWK, who broke this story back in April, never even made it past the initial checkpoint in the courthouse when a bailiff stuck her hand on her camera.

The confrontation begins at 1:10 in the above video.

“Don’t touch my camera,” Greene says.

“Turn it off,” the bailiff orders.

“Why can’t I go on the third floor,” Greene asks.

The bailiff grabs at her microphone.

“Don’t touch my microphone,” Greene says.

“Turn it off now or I will arrest you,” the bailiff states.

From Greene’s story on WOWK (yes, the mainstream media still has that annoying habit of referring to reporters in the third person):

Prosecutors were hoping to bar Jared, his father and his lawyer from sharing their story with the press, under the guise that their request would serve Jared’s better interest, something Jared’s father Allen Lardieri sees as ironic.
“It was for Jared’s better interest is what I was told, which seems to be a bit odd to me,” Lardieri said. “These are the same individuals that are trying to prosecute him, so as far as them knowing what is in his better interest, I have a lot of questions about that.”
Charlo Greene, on behalf of WOWK and the free press, prepared a petition to intervene for the gag order hearing but before Charlo could present her argument or even deliver her petition to the court clerk, she was thrown out of the Logan County Courthouse, twice, by a bailiff, who said the judge presiding over Jared’s case, Eric O’Briant requested it.  Charlo was then threatened with arrest and the same charge that Jared is currently on trial for, obstructing an officer.
Meanwhile, Jared met with prosecutors who withdrew their petition for a gag order, on the condition that Jared’s parent waive the confidentiality that bars the prosecution from speaking freely about his case, due to him being a minor.

As a guy who got sent home back in high school for wearing a “Van Halen Kicks Ass” t-shirt, I am left shaking my head at the entire story.

Schools have always had a totalitarian grip on students’ First Amendment rights, but now we have reached an era of lunacy within our schools when cops get called for the most basic teenage infractions, if you even want to call it that.

From Greene’s original story on this matter:

It was the image of a gun printed on Jared’s t-shirt that sparked a dispute between a Logan Middle School teacher and Jared, that ended with Jared suspended, arrested and facing two charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, on his otherwise spotless record.
Jared’s father Allen Lardieri says he’s angry he had to rush from work to pick his son up from jail over something he says was blown way out of proportion.
“I don’t’ see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn’t forbid it,” Lardieri said.
The Logan County School District’s dress code policy prohibits clothing that displays profanity, violence, discriminatory messages and more but nowhere in the document does it say anything about gun images.
“He did not violate any school policy,” Lardieri reiterates.  “He did not become aggressive.”
Take a look at the shirt in question here. And check out the video below where Marcum’s father talks about the case after prosecutors announced they would follow through on their charges last week.
ht_nra_shirt_ml_130422_wg


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Dtayann

    Obstruction of justice for arguing!? Smh. We need to get someone to throw that law out.

    • steveo

      because this is a juvenile case, the reporter is only getting the information from the parent of the kid, she can’t even view the police report. We don’t know what the facts are that caused the leo to charge him with obstruction. Plus this WV and I don’t know the elements of their obstruction law, in FL, 1) the victim has to be a leo 2) the leo has to be in a lawful execution of a legal duty 3) the defendant by conduct and or words or a combination has to obstruct or resist the lawful execution of a legal duty. Arguing no, that isn’t one of the conducts that apply, but we don’t know the facts of this case here.

  • Clark

    Maybe it’s time to invoke Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, namely Habeas Corpus can be suspended in cases of rebellion, and anyone like these school and court morons, are certainly rebelling against the country. Ship them straight to Gitmo.

  • Phillip D Breske

    So, if you refuse to stop talking, you’re charged with obstruction. If you refuse to talk, your silence can be used against you: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15787-supreme-court-bombshell-no-right-to-remain-silent.

    This is it. It’s over. Time to start the bloodshed.

    Dear NSA, I hope you got that last part. Fuckers.

    • Proud GrandPa

      The path of non-violent legal action works far better than violence, my friend. Don’t yield to feelings of anger and say or write things one would regret later.
      .
      My son’s school had a similar bias against guns. You could get kicked out for even drawing a picture of a gun, let alone wearing a picture of one. I bought him an NRA membership, handgun training lessons, and an NRA patch for his jacket. (Sadly we were not able to allow him to wear it on school property.)
      .
      Yeah, it makes one mad, but don’t yield to anger. Just work for justice for those who believe in the 2nd Amendment. The right of self-defense is a basic human right.

      • Virgil Antch

        “The path of non-violent legal action works far better than violence, my friend.”

        How’s it working out for you so far? Things are SO much better than they were 40 years ago, right? We got the guy who killed that mom and baby at Ruby Ridge, the cops who shot Amadou Diallo are all unemployed, Janet Reno wasted away in prison after “taking responsibility” for Waco, the IRS agent who harassed the Tea Party groups is up on charges, and the Attorney General was impeached over his contempt of congress.

        Our country’s founders erected “Liberty Poles.” Do you know what “Liberty Poles” were? Fucking look them up.

        • Proud GrandPa

          I generally ignore posts with foul language. Your post shows you have intense feeling about the subject and we probably share many of the same views.

          I’d like to reply and tell you just how this is working, but decline due to your last sentence. You can post intelligently and respectfully at the same time. Give it a try.

          • Difdi

            Coward.

          • Proud GrandPa

            That is the first time ever in my life I’ve been called a coward. That, sir, is definitely NOT who I am.
            .
            By the same logic you are calling Ghandi or MLK cowards because they challenged violations of human rights without resorting to violence. I don’t share your view.
            .
            Sure, it is true that in the USA many judges are unfair, many politicians and police are corrupt, and many good laws are unenforced. The result is that human rights are violated. What is the best way to improve this? Is it killing cops or judges? I say no.
            .
            The USA still has many good people who vote and have influence. Take the honorable and high road and work to assert one’s rights. I have supported several civil rights law firms that have been challenging and winning for decades… including some victories for photography and free speech as part of the program.
            .
            If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Peace, bro.

          • Difdi

            Gandhi advocated tactics that work. He chose peaceful means because he believed the British people had functional consciences. If he had believed they did not, he would have been among the first to pick up a rifle and rebel violently.

            He himself said that, years after his peaceful methods bore fruit.

            When you are dealing with people who have had their consciences trained out of them, who follow orders to the letter no matter what those orders are (for example, shooting dogs that are locked up and harmless because that’s part of their orders), whose response to peaceful protest is to break out the TASERs and chemical weapons, peaceful resistance becomes just another form of suicide.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Ah, I see from whence you’ve coming, Difdi. Perhaps this is the difference. It has been my experience that we have achieved great success in the USA with human rights including free speech and freedom of religion. This took us decades but we finally won. We always obeyed the law and sued and got court orders and the wins built up precedents.
            .
            Cops were never the enemy except in a very few cases. The enemy were anti-Christian or anti-faith politicians and bureaucrats who denied equal rights for us.
            Examples of successes–
            Religious groups like Jews for Jesus may now evangelize in public and government buildings. Previously they were arrested in ‘religion free’ zones on public property. The ACLU opposed us too. We won.
            .
            Now homeschools and private Christian and religious schools are legal in all states. Previously our families were arrested and even churches were locked by the sheriff for schools. We eventually won.
            .
            Now it is legal to have Bible Clubs in public schools. After about 1973 it was illegal in many places. We won many lower court rulings and eventually won at the Sup Ct level. The ACLU opposed us, but our attorneys eventually persuaded the ACLU that we were right! That’s something. Now the ACLU admits Bible Clubs have equal access.
            .
            Christian evangelists and speakers have often been arrested for trivia reasons including photographing the cops and crowd. We won that enough times in court to establish our rights now. Bottom line is that the LEOs are actually protecting us now.
            .
            It took decades. It worked because the United States is still basically a decent and moral nation dedicated to our founding principles. This approach will work for photography too.
            .
            Lastly we almost never antagonize cops. Why? They are precious in God’s sight too. God loves both cops and robbers. So do we. The Bible says to pay honor to those to whom honor is due. That includes authorities who persecute us. Forgive.
            .
            Seek justice but love mercy. Walk humbly before your God.

          • sharonsj

            At my age (70) I can tell you I am so frustrated that I curse a lot. So get used to it if you want to have a dialog. And I can’t post respectfully because I despise TPTB. For example, I usually refer to Congress as “those fuckers.”

          • Virgil Antch

            Never mind the galloping totalitarianism, let’s make this all about your personal comfort level… which in my opinion (in case you missed the import of my post) is tuned unjustifiably high. But no, choose to reserve your dudgeon for vulgarity instead of tyranny; maybe your masters will reward your cooperative sanguinity by throwing you to the crocodile last.

            I, too, am a grandfather, who despairs of dying before being able to leave my progeny with a country at least as free as the one I was born into. Playing the rigged game, where the referee is always a member of your opponent’s team, and your “contribution” is to make a choice every year between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, is just staying exactly where they want you and spinning your wheels.

      • Difdi

        Gandhi himself once told a reporter during an interview that he chose the path of non-violence because he believed that an appeal to the conscience of the British people had the best chance of success.

        He also told the reporter that had he believed the British to lack functioning consciences, he’d have been among the first to pick up a rifle.

        Peaceful protests only work if there is something there to appeal to. When was the last time an entire police department or federal agency let doing the right thing get in the way of following the orders of whoever pays them?

    • Proud GrandPa

      Additional notes about the second video and comments by Jared’s father:
      .
      His father said free speech is a God-given, human right. I agree with both sentiments exactly. For me defending freedom of speech is a sacred mission. Protecting human rights honors our Creator, Who gave us those rights. I would give my life for the basic human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
      .
      The other matter the father spoke is something that few on PINAC would know. He referred to a Supreme Court ruling that students have constitutional rights and do not lose these rights at the school house door. This is actually from a US Supreme Court decision that the civil rights law firms I endorse and support won about a decade ago. It took years and a lot of money, but the Supreme Court ruled in our favor. The ruling actually said students do not leave their constitutional rights at the school house door.
      .
      While the cause was religious free speech and the right to freely discuss religious faith with all who will listen, the rights established student free expression for all viewpoints. That was a costly victory and worth every dollar.
      .

      • Phillip D Breske

        … right up to the part where you profess a belief in an Iron Age fairy tale.

        The number one problem facing our country right now is government out of control. Number two is the widespread belief in imaginary beings that rule our lives. Good luck with that.

        • guest

          Don’t be a jack ass. All of the founders believed in “imaginary beings” that rule our lives, even the ones who were not christian. Yet they managed to set up America and the constitution just fine , go figure. American wasn’t founded by atheists. Atheism usually leads to rights being taken away. Because atheism teaches no moral absolutes, it is all relative. Just ask the russians, chinese, north koreans, etc. etc.

          • Jon Quimbly

            That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read about atheism. For the record, atheism is nothing more than not believing gods exist. Anything else that you or historical figures pin to it is IN YOUR OWN MIND. You make it up, along with your imaginary invisible friend.

            Morals are basic to human existence. No religion necessary. What history has taught us about religion is that religionists can and will do anything, the most immoral of acts, in the name of their god.

          • Difdi

            I would rather trust a man who thinks things through and does what he thinks is right, than trust a man who only does what is right because he believes a supernatural force can see everything he does and will torture him forever if he does wrong.

            I would rather trust a man who follows his own conscience than one who abdicates any responsibility for his own acts because a priest told him it was okay, ‘just this once’.

            I have met far more immoral and unethical self-professed Christians than self-professed Atheists over the years.

          • nofrills

            Those “self-professed Christians” you’re speaking of, most likely aren’t true Christians at all. Man is not perfect like Jesus (God), and therefore is subject to sin in this world. People erroneously think if a “self-professed Christian” commits a sin or does wrong he is falsifying his or her commitment to God. What a fallacy.

            As for atheists They’re destined for eternal Hell. No way out of this one. Doing what is right is following the teachings of Jesus (God). No matter how morally “fit” you may be, if you don’t have Christ in your life you’re soul WILL be in eternal torment when you die. You just don’t turn into dust!

            *****************Life is Short Eternity is FOREVER*************************

          • Difdi

            And if it turns out that the One True God is actually Vishnu, your gamble might see you in an eternal Hell.

            Atheists, Christians, Hindus, and for that matter Pastafarians have equal proof that they’re right — none whatsoever. That’s why they call it FAITH.

            Declaring that good people can’t be good unless they believe exactly as you do has been used to justify many of the greatest acts of evil in human history.

            Remove the beam from your eye before you complain of the mote in someone else’s.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Whatever.

          • Art Lee

            You had me rooting for you until this post. I believe every right protected by the Constitution is worth protecting and respecting. When you cherry pick the things you respect and are willing to protect in the Constitution. You have already given yourself permission to watch and participate in the erosion of those rights .

          • Difdi

            What the HELL are you blathering about?!?

            I commented on someone calling atheists inherently evil, and from this you somehow get from point A to point bizarre, and the belief I have somehow dissed the constitution and/or cherrypicked which rights to support? HUH?!?

          • Art Lee

            Blathering ? Hell ? Dissed ? Never mind I thought I was speaking to someone with a brain . My error. You show no respect for freedom of religion. You profess atheism then invoke hell. Your vocabulary is indicative of all I really need to know. If you can’t see that lacking respect for a right, by definition,is not supporting it. There is no hope. Where does nofrills refer to atheists as evil ? Bizarre – conspicuously or grossly unconventional or unusual. I entirely disagree with nofrills yet I will not try to humiliate him for his beliefs. Why you ask ? Respect. Look at the personal attacks on him for professing his beliefs. Had he attacked a belief himself I would have challenged him. Please before you say it a disbelief is not the same. nofrills do you really think that people who have lived their entire life in a remote part of the world and never heard of Christ will suffer eternally ? Is God that cruel ? He let’s us have self determination if we choose wrong we pay a price. If we don’t have a choice we still pay a price ? He will punish us for something he controls ?

          • Difdi

            Oh, I see. You’re just a troll, my mistake.

            If you were a real commenter, you’d have taken note that you had either grossly misunderstood plain English or replied to the wrong person.

            A decent person would have apologized. A minimally civil person would have quietly gone away. But a troll would be delighted to have a live target.

            I’ll leave you to your delight now, you can enjoy it alone.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            The attack on atheism is pure straw man fallacy. I strongly respect, advocate for and exercise my Constitutional rights. And I am an atheist. I am not going to change your view Gawd & you are not going to change my view about Gawd.

            Here’s radical idea.. Why don’t we focus on what we have in common. Photography is not a crime. See how easy that is?

        • Photog at Large

          If we want to stand up for the constitutional rights of one segment (like photographers/videographers in the case of this forum), then staying focused on that similarity will likely yield the best results. Divide and conquer happens in plenty of ways and weakens/dilutes the overall effectiveness of a cause/position. . jmo/e

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        I am a Atheist, who is also an ardent supporter of civil and Constitutional rights. While I think it is great that your religious beliefs in part inspire your support for these issues, I can assure you that there is also strong support from those who are not identified with the faith communities.

        • Proud GrandPa

          Yes, VOC, you and I are united in love of freedom and respect for human rights. Some of our relatives whom my wife and I love dearly are Dawkins/Penn G. fans and also great supporters of free speech and freedom of religion, even of faith they don’t share.
          .
          We respect and genuinely care for one another. This enables us to enjoy many controversial religious and political discussions and debates at family parties without acrimony, a fact which astounds some of our friends.
          .
          We Americans need to work together to protect our freedoms. People of faith like myself can also be mistaken about some issues and, I believe, God actually uses the wisdom of the populace and of people like yourself to help correct us when we are wrong. We benefit from listening to each other. Thanks for your post.

      • steveo

        Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, tempered by several important decisions — Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick.[2]

        • Difdi

          If a principal acts unreasonably and disrupts a classroom because he disagrees with a political or human rights message on a shirt, where no disruption exists prior to that principal freaking out, then it is that principal who is disruptive for purposes of Tinker v. Des Moines, not the student.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Exactly! That is the principle of equality under law, which makes the USA different from India or Pakistan. We had to fight in court for decades to establish case law. We finally got our shot at the US Sup Ct and won. Everyone won by this victory.

    • nofrills

      Damn Straight!!!

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    State attorneys and prosecutors are heartless,immoral bastards. They’ll protect rapist and murders if they wear a badge but they’ll screw a kid over for wearing a T-shirt.

    I wish every citizen,in every county in this country would march down to their courthouse and walk in with a camera We need to break down the walls these tyrants hide behind. We need transparency.

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    My 13 year old middle schooler recently informed me that the Saint Johns County Sheriffs department conducts Frequent drug searches at his school. He said they have the kids line up against the wall,hold their arms up and drop their backpacks on the floor while officers in SWAT gear use a dog to sniff all bags and students.

    • Difdi

      The dog sniff is probably legal, but the detention they are subjected to is absolutely not legal.

      An arrest can be made if a police officer has probable cause to believe a felony has been committed by that specific individual, if a citizen directly witnesses a felony being committed, with an arrest warrant or if a police officer personally witnesses that individual commit a crime.

      Simply attending a mandatory school is not probable cause for any crime, nor is it reasonable suspicion (a lesser standard of evidence than probable cause) of a crime being committed.

      False arrest and official misconduct ARE crimes, however.

      • Tijuana Joe

        It’s not really about drugs. It’s about destroying their preconceived notions about having any “rights” and preparing them for the corporate/police state.
        This “drug search” is the 2013 version of 1950’s “Duck and cover.”
        http://nuclearsecrecy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/duck-and-cover-drill.jpg

        • http://www.facebook.com/rockinghorseguy Rockinghorseguy AnRockinghorse

          I remember having to go through those drills. Until one day, in High School, when the sirens went off, and I walked to the open window to look outside. The teacher, who just happened to be one that I had a great deal of respect for, told me I needed to do what I would do in the event of nuclear attack. I told him that I was doing just that. I wanted to watch. I’d never seen an atom bomb go off up close and personal, and I didn’t want to miss my chance.

          Everyone else in the class got out from under their desk and came to the window, and we never got back under our desks in that classroom again.

          Thank you, Mr. Gardener, for teaching me well.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Our duck & cover drills were for earthquakes. I didn’t know how valuable those drills were, until the Quake of 89, where I jumped to a doorway, while coworker stood wide-eyed, in front of pane of glass, asking me if this was an earthquake. We both survived.

  • steveo

    There’s three issues here that I don’t like but have some merit. First, this is a juvenile case being heard in juvenile court. These hearings are not open to the public and or the press (which I’ve never agreed with), so there’s that.

    Second, the SCOTUS has given the school boards wide discretion on the content of stuff written on the clothing of students, be it political,obscene, religious or other. I’ll look up the case law, later, but basically “anything disruptive to the educational process?”, kind of up to the school officials to decide. I’m sure the conservatives on the Court would prefer that all student age males dress in white shirts and ties, tuck in their shirt tails and sit up straight.

    Third, the issue of bringing cameras into the courthouse. This is usually decided by the Chief Judge in the circuit or county and not by State law and is usually an administrative directive, but normally only applies to the courtrooms themselves (maybe the hallways, too). These three issues really bring in a trifecta of a huge can of worms when discussing the 1st Amendment.

    • 000Soul

      “the press isn’t supposed to discuss juvenile court cases”

      Link please? that is rhetorical because you couldn’t be wronger.

      • steveo

        Depends on the state, but in FL juvie cases are closed to the public. The press can discuss anything that the parent and the child say they can discuss, but the press cannot obtain any court documents from the clerk or get any statements from the prosecutors or cops unless the case is transferred to adult court, but that is only if we’re talking felony. Misdemeanors are not even criminal matters and are treated like a civil case.

    • Difdi

      You are mistaken. The definition of disruptive is not up to the school administration, as SCOTUS has said over and over and over again.

      In order for speech to be disruptive, it actually has to cause a disruption of a classroom. All the students being so riled up by it that they won’t listen to the teacher would be disruptive. So would playing music, shouting, and so forth.

      A t-shirt that expresses a political opinion a teacher or principal dislikes is not a disruption. Even if the ‘mature’ adult administrator starts screaming, tearing at hair and generally carrying on, that does not make the shirt disruptive (it makes the person having a meltdown disruptive, though).

      Students are citizens and do not leave the rights of a citizen at the school yard gate.

      • steveo

        You are assuming that schools deal with these free speech issues within the confines of the idealistic outcome of court opinions.That isn’t reality. The teacher may have some pre-conceived notion about assault rifles, so she politely asks the student to come out in the hall to talk to her. He goes off on it. Because that’s what his dad told him to do. The SRO comes by because of the “disturbance” and takes the kid to his office. That’s probably all that happened. The kid probably made a big deal about it, that’s why he wore the shirt in the first place.

        • Difdi

          I assume that schools, like any other agency of a government, like any other municipal corporation, like my fellow citizens will obey the law. First amendment rights are not new law that people might reasonably not have heard about yet.

          The current interpretaion of the 1st amendment as it applies to students in a school is not new either, since it has been the law of the land for 44 years now, longer than quite a few teachers have been alive.

          But assume your hypothetical situation is exactly what happened. If the teacher issued an illegal order in class, then it is his/her speech that caused the disruption. If the boy ‘went off’ in the hallway, then he still ddn’t disrupt a classroom.

          First amendment rights trump school interests in order as long as they do not disrupt classes.

          Then the SRO comes along, sides with the taecher despite the fact it is the teacher who has broken the law, not the student, and takes the kid to the office, which is even further away from the classroom and therefore less disruptive of classes.

          The kid ‘rants’ about having rights, and the school administration only sees an unruly child to be disciplined, not a citizen exercising his rights. So another violation of those rights ensues. The kid keeps protesting the violation of his rights, so the officer files criminal charges against the boy for exercising his constitutional rights.

        • Jefft90

          Steveo

          The T-shirt controversies not new. Here is a quick list of some recent ones.

          Teacher orders student to remove Mitt Romney presidential campaign T Shirt.

          Teacher tell student to cover US Marine themed t shirt or be suspended.

          Principal orders student not to wear “Jesus is Not a Homophobe” t shirt or face suspension.

          Principal tells student to remove “Prop 8 equals Hate” t shirt or face suspension.

          And my favorite

          Teacher orders student to turn his Yankees t shirt inside out. Teacher was a big Red Sox fan.

          WRT to your feeling that Jared may have went off, I am not so sure. The school had video of the incident which would have proven the charge of disruption if Jared had gone off yet the DA choose not to move on that charge.
          Also Jared had been wearing the shirt for 5 periods before lunch and
          according to him no one objected.

          • steveo

            Man, I agree with you. School is not the place to grandstand, otherwise the whole day would be taken up with grandstanding.

  • steveo

    As far as the obstruction charge goes, the kid probably refused to change his shirt and he might have refused to leave the school. Hard to speculate if you don’t know all the facts. So, maybe obstruction is the right charge, but possibly trespassing, if he was suspended and given a trespass warning might be better. The dad seems like a pry the gun out of my cold dead hands kind of guy, so this is all about guns rights to him, but probably not to the school.

    • Jefft90

      The original charges were

      §61-6-14 Disturbance of schools, societies, and other assemblies,
      and

      §61-5-17 Obstructing officer; fleeing from
      officer; making false statements to officer.

      According to Jared’s lawyer the School District has video of the incident in the cafeteria that they have refused to turnover to the prosecution or defense without a subpoena, which may be part of the reason that the prosecution is not pressing the disturbance of the school charge.

      According to the arresting officer it was Jared refusal to stop talking which led to the
      obstruction charge.

    • Photog at Large

      Still seems like a lot of over-reaction. Instead of calling in the police, if Marcum refused to take the shirt off because he did not feel it was disruptive or broke the school dress code – just calmly send him to in-house detention. Take a breather and explain to him that the school will further discuss the shirt, and if need be, call in parents either for the discussion, or to explain a decision they made regarding the shirt. If a decision was to not allow the shirt, at that point there should have been an offer presented to the parents/boy to make a case to the school board regarding the shirt and dress code in general. If shirt was still found to be “disruptive” and he kept wearing it, advise parents he will be have to attend in-house suspension each time he comes to school with the shirt or a suspension will be levied. At that point, parents could seek legal advice, mediation, protest … whatever. But to escalate right away to calling the police and an arrest over a shirt, just seems excessive.

      • steveo

        Based upon the dad, this kid was probably grandstanding and the school shouldn’t or doesn’t have time for that kind of shit. Kids are supposed to be going to class and learning stuff that can help them in the future. I agree with school officials, school is not the place to announce your political arguments unless you are in debate class.

        • Difdi

          Fortunately for the kid, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion, and has reaffirmed that decision multiple times.

          Tinker v. Des Moines is at the core of it. Kids are citizens, and they have the rights of citizens. Inside of a school is one of the time and place restrictions on first amendment rights but ONLY if the kid’s speech is disruptive to the purpose of education. A kid calmly, quietly and politely expressing a political view is just as protected in a school as it would be for you n a public street.

          The fact that an administrator had an irrational, unreasonable reaction to that protected speech does not make it disruptive speech.

          It just means it’s the principal who needs to be suspended and charged, not the student.

        • Photog at Large

          My opinion of whether or not the kid was grandstanding or that the father might have a zealous attachment to a 2nd amendment right really isn’t the core concern on how this whole situation was handled.

          While I do think there is no shortage of ‘lippy’ and/or trouble making kids in schools these days that seem to want to be disruptive and disrespectful of teachers (and often adults in general) and certainly don’t appear to show much concern for education — I think schools are also NOT immune to people in a position of authority over-reacting and assuming their every command is law and how dare anyone question them.

          Public schools do suffer from apathy by both students and staff, and I agree it is tough with no snap of the fingers solution. BUT, teachers and educators are teaching at every moment, even when not in the classroom. I just think that principals/teachers can be just as bad as pissy LEOs if they feel their authority is being questioned – HOW DARE A PUNY STUDENT or CITIZEN !

          In the setting of a school, I think teachers need skills and understanding of policy and how to handle situations every bit as much as our police and anyone else in public service (which may be perceived as a position of ‘power’). I can tell you from personal experience that in middle school and even high school I tested the line a few times (though I was generally a ‘good kid’) and had the privilege of having an educator that did a phenomenal job of standing firm that breaking rules had consequences, but always stayed calm and explained the whole process. After the incidents were resolved, I never felt they looked for any reason to punish me for past mistakes, but I knew they would always handle situations fairly but firmly. These were teachable moments in which to this day, I feel like I got a better life lesson than what most school books taught me.

          Sorry if reply/opinion is a bit off topic.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Steveo’s right.

          • steveo

            listen, I’m not looking for praise, just justice. Every one of these examples that Carlos puts up here on PINAC, invokes some kind of response about justice. What is just in this situation? Do you want your children disrupted because some other student takes up a half day railing about his rights to own guns? or wear a Tshirt? That’s not justice.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rockinghorseguy Rockinghorseguy AnRockinghorse

            I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the wearing of the shirt was causing a disruption. It was the school administration’s reaction to it that was disruptive. Therefore, I believe the administrator should be removed until he can stop being disruptive.

          • steveo

            It was obviously causing a disturbance, otherwise, the leo would have gone bake to his observing of the internet.

          • Photog at Large

            It has been mentioned that not all the facts were known. The video by the school seems to not have been made available. If in fact the school initiated the disturbance (regardless if it merits more interest to some for videotaping or simply wearing a shirt), and now they have dropped the case — then imo, justice was served.

            I like that in general this site tends to have a focus on photo/video rights, but when time to time other stories are posted and the discussion is whether rights have been trampled — it just seems odd that another right is trivialized because someone thinks only such and such is worthy of concern, The way I see it (again, jmo), I either agree that all the rights under our constitution are important, or why be concerned at all.

    • Difdi

      So he was given an unlawful order and he refused it, then was retaliated against unlawfully and refused to comply with the act of retaliation…why do you consider either of those to be illegal acts on the kid’s part?

  • steveo

    I spent some time a while back observing juvenile court and what I saw was a stack of cases three miles high on the judges desk, the judge never looked up and just kept calling case after case and all he did was recommend psychological evaluations for all the kids. This case, they have a preliminary hearing? (for a juvie case?) that lasted an hour with witnesses just so the judge can determine if a trial is necessary? Usually they don’t spend more than 10 minutes on these cases. Plus we’re talking obstruction, here. Juvies don’t go to jail and they don’t get fined, he might be found delinquent, maybe for 6 mos, and in the custody of his father. Big deal.

    Apparently, now the school is letting the kids wear the shirts, probably a bad move on the part of the school.

    • Difdi

      Yes because teaching future members of society that they have rights will OBVIOUSLY be detrimental to society.

      • steveo

        no, not that that student doesn’t have rights because he does and we don’t know if he asked for a parent to be present, which is his right, and a lawyer present at the police encounter or to record the police encounter, which is his right and his right to remain silent. We don’t know if he evoked any of these rights. If he did ask for these rights and was stonewalled then his family is due damages. But I haven’t heard any of this from the Dad.

        • Difdi

          Since when do we need to invoke them to have rights under the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments?

          From what we have heard about the matter, the boy did invoke his rights, which government officials dismissed as a ‘rant’, and then charged him with obstructing a police officer because he kept ‘ranting’ about having rights (which he does).

          • steveo

            Unfortunately, you have to invoke , you’re rights. you have to affirmatively tell the leo that you need a lawyer present during questioning. That’s anytime you see or talk to a leo.

    • Tijuana Joe

      “spent some time a while back observing juvenile court and what I saw was a stack of cases three miles high on the judges desk, the judge never looked up and just kept calling case after case and all he did was recommend psychological evaluations for all the kids. ”
      That’s what it is. The accused kids are insane. Are you guys so delusional you think there’s something wrong with the court system. Pfff.

  • nofrills

    Allowing your children to attend government indoctrination centers is akin to child abuse, When in the HELL are Americans going to wake up and start Home Schooling their kids? Come on, let the government ruin your child’s mind. What is wrong with you? Do you not love your children? If you really love your kids then please for the sake of humanity, remove your children from these centers immediately. There is a huge amount of curriculum for home schooling available. Abeka is my favorite, although there are many others.

    Do what is Right and Start Home Schooling you loving children TODAY!

    Tim Tebow was Home Schooled and is a great person and successful too! Why not allow your child to become successful? They have a MUCH better chance if they’re Home Schooled. Take my word for it. My child is Home Schooled and is doing wonderful. Yours can too. Don’t put it off another day. Do what is right! A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

    • hmschlmom

      AMEN!

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Meh. I had public education and among other things, learned a strong respect and reverence for the Constitution & Constitutional Rights.

      Also, in public school, you learn to interact and deal with a very wide range of folks who are very different from you, who have different values and different life paths. I believe this has helped me as an adult.

      • nofrills

        To each their own. Once, back in the day, Government schools were semi-okay. This day and time it’s 180 degree turn-around to those days gone by. When I was in High School, students were allowed to carry knives on their belt in class. Big knives too.I carried a Buck 110 Folding Hunter In a sheath on my belt. Guns in vehicles in the student parking lot were allowed. Smoking was allowed in school in designated areas. Not one single time in the four years at school was a knife or gun pulled, or even considered being used on someone. If you had a beef you settled it with your fists. I don’t recall anyone dropping out of school either with near if not 100% graduation rate.

        That was then this is now. I REPEAT, DO NOT SEND YOU CHILDREN TO GOVERNMENT INDOCTRINATION CENTERS! Do it for the love of you child. Today Cops are in schools. Are you kidding me. Wake up people and get your kids OUT of these GOVERNMENT INDOCTRINATION CENTERS TODAY!

        God Bless!

        • brian schneider

          Where was this wonderful paradise?
          Not that I believe a word of it you understand.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Don’t bother asking. He’s already drank the kool-aid.

          • Proud GrandPa

            That was rather inappropriate, don’t you think? I rather think the advantages of home schooling are profound. The students do much better academically, learn faster, and have better social skills. They have much more interesting learning and no bullying or fights. Major universities compete for them. Some even set aside homeschool preferences in enrollment. Most importantly parents are free to integrate their faith and values into the classes. Superior morals and better academics. Oh, and it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything!
            .
            Care for another cup of coffee? We don’t serve Kool-Aid here?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            That’s funny. My nephews were home school and their social skills suck.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Perhaps that says something about the family. Researchers have studied the socialization of homeschoolers for decades now. They all conclude or concede (if opposed to homeschools) that these students develop superior social skills due to having mature adult role models, being protected from bullying at a young age, taking the time to learn good social etiquette in a nurturing environment, and getting personalized feedback about social successes or errors. Home schools do not operate alone, but unite with hundreds of others, so their am many opportunities to meet people and develop social skills.
            .
            Are the relatives part of any home school organizations? Or are the boys just anti-cop? They are not the norm.
            .

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            No, they’re not anti-cop, just extremely naive without any real social interaction skills. And yes, they were involved in home-school organizations.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Perhaps you would be interested in the HSLDA.org website, which provides legal defense for homeschool families. There are volumes of legal victories and successes there.
      http://www.hslda.org/Landingpages/
      .
      Perhaps you know if it already.

      • nofrills

        Yes, and I thank you.

  • steveo

    ok, 1st amendment still alive, charges dropped.

  • thegeek

    Looks like the DA got scared of all the press coverage and has dropped all charges.

    http://gunssavelives.net/blog/breaking-charges-dropped-against-14-year-old-arrested-over-nra-shirt-incident/

  • Proud GrandPa

    Good news! The school system backed down, and our free speech is safe again… at least in one school system. We had to fight to wear shirts promoting normal heterosexual marriage and promoting the protection of little babies still in the womb. In many schools only contrary messages were protected speech. Same for pro second amendment, pro gun messages.
    .
    Can you name which political philosophy is responsible for all this censorship? Answer is the same one that tried to censor our photography rights of pro-union attempts at shutting down government by violence. Only one political party caused these violations of our rights.
    .

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Yeah, I noticed that the Democrats were the one to drop charges. I’m glad that you see the need to shut down the Republican attempts at censorship.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Was the Democrat prosecutor forced to drop charges out of fear of Republican-funded lawsuits? Just wondering…
        .
        The teachers union and the liberal education establishment are pro-Democrat, pro-government worker unions, pro-abortion, and anti-second amendment. So naturally they would censor the student’s t-shirt in this case, but you don’t thnk they did?

        Do Democrat school bureaucrats change to look like conservatives when they are about to get sued? Counselor, the jury is not buying their magic show.
        .

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          No, I think that both parties overreach, like the Republican arrest of a 74-year-old lady for assault on a state trooper in Texas. The citizen video shows no assault, but since the Republican Lt. Governor ordered everyone out, state troopers started to move people and she just didn’t move fast enough.

          I’ve seen the same thing from Republican “zero-tolerance” policies in schools.

          I also noted that it was the Republican Fox News who were all for violating civil rights following the Boston bombing.

  • Silly
  • Adam [redacted]

    why are so many videos no longer available?

  • http://clintjcl.tumblr.com/ ClintJCL

    I’m starting to change my mind about you.

Javascript is currently disabled. This website functions better with Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser.
Internet Explorer is out-of-date. Please upgrade your browser or install Google Chrome Frame for an improved web browsing experience.