he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15. Parents should be in trouble right along side the kid. Where did he get this gun and why don't his parents know about it ?
Even though I basically agree with you a lawyer has a duty to provide the best defense for his client. It doesn't matter who the client is or what that client did. I'm just musing over what that lawyer may do.
I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.
I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.
Respectfully, I disagree. Who get's to judge who "clearly" broke the law? There's a reason that the system is the way it is. It's so that everyone get's a fair shake.
How many times has a police officer or other official twisted the facts (or outright lied) to get a conviction? Why do OCer's have to go around with voice recorders? If you think about all the problems we have now with inocent people getting nailed on trumped up charges think about how it would be if the government had even more power or we had less rights.
Too many people are in love with the rouge cop shows on TV where they get to beat confessions out of people. That's not how it works and if someone get's off on a percieved technicallity it's the fault of the police/DA and an ineffective prosecution rather than a problem with the system.
Some believe it's better that 100 innocent people go to prison than 1 guilty person go free.
I on the other hand believe that it's better to have 100 guilty people go free than have one innocent person go to prison.
Even though I basically agree with you a lawyer has a duty to provide the best defense for his client. It doesn't matter who the client is or what that client did. I'm just musing over what that lawyer may do.
the kid is 15, how is he not clearly breaking the law ?? I have been on the twisted side of the law more times then i care to count and likely dealt with cops far more then anyone else on this forum. I agree with alot of what you say but saying that everyone gets a "fair shake" is about as ridiculous as it gets, when and where does this occur ?
This kid did "clearly" break the law, he is 15 the law DOES say gfsz, is it constitional imo NO is it the law YES. Is he allowed to have a gun at 15 NO, should he have a gun at school or anywhere else NO.
not to debate guilt or innocence with what he's charged with, but at 15 years old do constitutional rights apply? Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but can a 15 year old use a 2A defense?
I'll clarify: The system is designed so that in theory everyone get's a fair shake. It may not always work out that way. In fixing the system, if we chose to do so, I will not advocate for more powers for the government but first say that DA's and LEO's need to do their job better. One of the real problems with the system on the justice side of things is when DA's abuse their discresion to either plea criminals down or trump charges on non criminals.
Obviously playing the devils advocate but in doing so making an important point:
Were you there? Did you see the kid breaking the law? Do you know where he got the gun from? Was it even his?
The point is that in this case; and many others, it may seem clear but unless you saw it with your own eyes or have the evidence to back it up it didn't happen in the eyes of the system. The government has to prove it.
How many times in a self defense case (where we think it's obviously self defense) does the defendant go to court anyway on charges of homicide or manslaughter?
Innocent until proven guilty. It's the prosecutions burden not his our ours.
why is it obvious he couldn't handle it ? who decides who can and cannot "handle" it ? what it's not ok for me to see his obvious guilt but it's ok for you to see his obvious inability to handle the responsibility.Yes, I would argue that they apply; however, only because I don't believe it's been tested in court since the recent decisions. Many rights are disabled until a person reaches the age of majority; usually 18 or 21 and I'd guess that you are right in that they courts would probably believe his right is not enabled. They may decide to use the test that the militia consisted of able bodied men aged 18-45 (I believe those are the ages) for instance.
Also, most of having rights disabled until one meets the age of majority is because one is deemed not to be able to handle the responsibility that comes with that right until that age. It's not always the case that they can't handle the responsibility but in this case, if the allegations are true, it's pretty obvious be couldn't handle it.
Emancipated minors are a good example of someone suing for a right that is normally denied them because of not reaching the age of 18.
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/loc...cle_80ff7488-028a-11e0-81c9-001cc4c03286.html
Here is a link to the story.
why is it obvious he couldn't handle it ? who decides who can and cannot "handle" it ? what it's not ok for me to see his obvious guilt but it's ok for you to see his obvious inability to handle the responsibility.
if the allegations are true, it's pretty obvious be couldn't handle it.