Eagle Scout denied graduation for gun left in car

Post Reply New Topic

I break the every time I go to town,I love to do rolling stops aka "California stops",if I can see there is no car coming(and no cop )well,why bother wearing my break shoes out.
But if I got stopped,I'd admit to it,I did it,oh well.Stupid law,still would be charged.

Yes maybe in an ideal world breaking the law is equivalent to doing something wrong, but when you have so many ridiculous laws...it just doesn't turn out that way. Besides when a law isn't serving the people too well it should be changed like what is happening with marijuana laws in my state.......prohibition wasn't working so its been legalized and now they are working on figuring out how to tax it and allow for it to be sold. But if it wasn't for all the people breaking the law to smoke marijuana not so sure action would have been taken to legalize it.

It was in a "gun free" zone is what's driving this. You know, the same kind of gun free zone that Adam Lanza and Seung-Hui Cho found to be easy human shooting galleries.
Aside from that I found nothing in the North Carolina statues that directly prohibits or even directly addresses transport of long guns.


It's a firearm, not something that emits gamma rays or could leak deadly toxin's into the atmosphere.


The point is that theft is theft and if the vehicle and gun owner in question locked the vehicle he has taken positive steps to safeguard both.
The vehicle and weapon are inaccessible without another party breaking the law to access them.



Yeah, remember if some cop pulls you over for going 72 in a 70 zone and writes out a ticked, points included, that YOU broke THE LAW.

Last edited by Raptor on 09 May 2013, 2:04 am, edited 2 times in total.

Laws are not always just or morally right.

Morality and ethics exist outside of the law. There is no moral obligation to follow the law.

I didn't think anyone ever did complete stops after they passed drivers ed school. Just like nobody drives at or below the speed limit on the freeway unless they're forced to by traffic congestion or the presence of cops. Of course there are some people who don't even slow down as if they were going to stop before turning. That IS pretty insane in most cases. Unless you're really out in the middle of nowhere and there are no trees or obstructions blocking your view of the cross traffic even a hundred yards before entering the intersection.

Oh, and with cops I notice a funny thing. When cars notice a cop has pulled someone over on the side of the road, they all slam on the brakes to the point where they're going like 5mph under the speed limit. Why bother slowing down? Why not just speed up since you know they already picked off their sucker and can't pull over two cars at the same time? Maybe this isn't such a good idea if they're working in pairs, but usually if they're doing that they are patrolling opposite directions. Hmmm.

I didn't look this up,but there's a quote by Hunter S. Thompson about not slowing down because the cop will see you as a coward.I'm not sure of the exact quote,but I drive over the speed limit,well,ALL the time,drive it like you stole it,ha ha.
But I won't speed for awhile,it's tourist season,they drive slow.You can't pass them.

Well the times I didn't slow down my ass got pulled over.

^^^^You are not as cute as me,plus,what were you driving?It makes a difference,I look like an off work librarian.Read Arrest Proof Yourself,sorry can't remember the author.

/\ /\ /\
If you're going considerably over the speed limit and don't bring it down a notch when you see a cop, assuming he's watching, it's gonna boil down to at least getting pulled over.

Of course,but there are only around 7,000 people in this county.Law enforcement is scarce,and we don't even have a jail,no joke.It was ruled inhumane,or something like that.

Don't pass a state trooper.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoGkcvyCxnU[/youtube]

I'm not brain dead All two lane here,and the local Trooper's name is &@&@$

All the times I've been pulled over I didn't know there was a cop till I saw flashing blue lights in my rear view. It was always one of those with interior mounted flashers and covert markings. One time I was cruising along in the left lane, going somewhere between 5 and 10 over to get passed a semi. So I've finally cleared it, put my right signal on, and suddenly out of nowhere there's a car to my right. I speed up, it speeds up, blocking me from getting out of the left lane. I get pissed thinking "what the hell is this guy doing" and speed up some more to the point where I'm 20 over. Then I see the trooper label. He slows down, I move over, and the flashers go on. He only ticketed me for 10 over but made sure to let it be known that he was "letting me off easy". Cops can be trolls.

So we expect officials to take it upon themselves not to enforce "stupid" or "trival" laws?

For people who stand up so firmly for the constitution, that is a wantonly stupid idea. Officials don't get to stand in the shoes of the court. Period.

A court can declare a law to be unconstitutional. An official cannot. A court can determine that a law is penalizing a trivial breach, and set an appropriately lenient sentence, or even use alternative resolutions like diversion or discharge. An official cannot.

It is misguided in the extreme to expect police officers and other members of the executive branch of government (which includes people who administer public schools) to cross over the line into the realm of the judicial branch.

Courts exist to sort out precisely this kind of case. If the impact is excessive, the court can mitigate it. If the offence is trivial, the court has the jurisdiction to ignore it. So let the courts do their work.

I'll just touch on this one since this is the gist of it.
What I expect is common sense to be used.
Common sense is subjective but I think it’s better than the alternative in cases like this.
Now this kid has been:
• arrested
• charged with a felony
• slapped with a year's expulsion
• denied graduating with his class

Not to mention all the legal costs that are coming down the pike. On top of everything else I'm sure it's nice to have your college fund eaten up over a charge more petty than jaywalking.

But common sense on whose part? What discretion do school officials have to disregard allegations of offences taking place on school property? Is it beyond the realms of the possible that the school district has enunciated a policy stripping officials of the discretion to disregard alleged offenses? What discretion do police officers have when answering complaints received of alleged offences taking place on school property?

It seems to me that the first point at which common sense may properly be inserted is at the prosecutorial level--which is exactly where things are. So far as I am aware, no prosecutor has made a decision about whether and how to proceed with the charges, and there is every possibility that diversion, discharge, or proceeding on a lesser, included offence might still be on the table.

I'm already on record as saying that the school's reponse was wantonly excessive--and it may be that this can be reversed in the even that charges are not prosecuted.

But in a world where the siren cries of, "won't somebody think of the children!" are heard all around, it can hardly be surprising when officials are deprived of any discretion in dealing with allegations of offences taking place in or around schools.