Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: High school student expelled for off campus firearms in truck

  1. #1
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    foundthis over from my NRA group on myspace.

    i think its from this state,as most of the comments are from california.

    didnt see it on the first page,and im pressed for time so im posting it here.



    http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_13831318




    wtf is being done about this?? im all the way in MI and im pissed about it.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Yes, it seems that the school board exercised action beyond its authority. As I see it, this kid's family has several options (IANAL):

    1. Sue the school district (and each board member personally?). File an injunction against the school board's action. Finding the money to pursue this path is usually an obstacle.

    2. Campaign to elect board members who do not share these views. Perhaps running family members against the incumbents. After all, it sounds like it'sa hunting community.

    3. Private school. $$

    4. Home school. (Personally, I find this option more and more attractive as I hear howbiased and closed mindedour education systemhas become.)
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    Well ,the kid was not on school property

    He did not have a prohibited concealable weapon

    It was not loaded

    He broke no law

    Thats what he did right, and should be the end of it.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    except he and his parents made two major mistakes...

    The gun should have been home,and the parents more in control of the weapons
    (what 16 year old goes shooting before school class???)

    He did allow the police to search his car/truck, which he should have refused to do.

    Now he has no school to go to anymore.....predictable.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
    I like guns for self protection, and I used to hunt. But I sure would not like any 16 year old (and his friend) bringing them to school. Just too many bad situations with students and guns that have occurred.They end up being used for perceived self protection,not hunting. At a high school, that is only going to be tragic.

    At first I was outraged at the school board, but the "father" in me thinks the kid needs way more parental control exercised in this child's life before tragedy strikes.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    oc4ever wrote:
    Well ,the kid was not on school property

    He did not have a prohibited concealable weapon

    It was not loaded

    He broke no law

    Thats what he did right, and should be the end of it.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    except he and his parents made two major mistakes...

    The gun should have been home,and the parents more in control of the weapons
    (what 16 year old goes shooting before school class???)

    He did allow the police to search his car/truck, which he should have refused to do.

    Now he has no school to go to anymore.....predictable.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
    I like guns for self protection, and I used to hunt. But I sure would not like any 16 year old (and his friend) bringing them to school. Just too many bad situations with students and guns that have occurred.They end up being used for perceived self protection,not hunting. At a high school, that is only going to be tragic.

    At first I was outraged at the school board, but the "father" in me thinks the kid needs way more parental control exercised in this child's life before tragedy strikes.
    Are you clinical? In a bunch of states, schools CLOSE DOWN when deer or turkey season starts. That is just the way it is. This kid didn't have that option so he went before school. Good for him, he should be praised instead of thrown under the bus.

    A responsible 16 year old with a gun is not an issue. The kid is nearly an adult and obviously knows what he is doing and has been trusted enough by his parents to utilize such a weapon.

    I would love to see where these weapons were used in "perceived self-defense"

    Just to let you know, there is no legal minimum age in California to get a CCW permit...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    Pullnshoot, I am not "clinical", and you should be ashamed fora cheap comment like that. I have enough wisdom and can see both sides of this story.

    Name one California public school that closes down for bird hunting season; your not really serious about that are you?

    You write and speak as if you are a smart young man.

    I can only also assume, because of your age,you do not have children in school,and must be lacking a lot of life experience in general, and regarding raising of children in particular. Have your ever witnessed someone that has bleed to death in front of you from a gunshot wound for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time? I have, and understand the tragedy that ensues fo rall of the family that are left behind.

    You would better understand why that board acted (wrongly) the way they did, but with their heart and best intentions for the larger student body.

    Maybe the parents will get a lawyer and sue and win 3 or 4 years from now when the kid should be in college instead of his mother home schooling him.

    The fact that the kid might be mature enough to hunt, does not relieve him( and his parents )for not demonstrating good common sense and allowing him and his buddy to wander to school with multiple shotguns and ammo. Remember, at 16 years old, mommy and daddy are still civilly liable for all of"Johnnnie's "little gun mistakes killing things he was not supposed to. The parents should have set down hard and strict rules about weapons; and bringing them to high school is right on the top of no-no's.

    This whole issue is all about basic right and wrong things to raise your child to do,and if the parents can't control that behavior, the school board thought it must. Guns and high school students, just don't mix very well.

  6. #6
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    He didn't bring any guns to school. This was not "show and tell". They were locked in his truck, unloaded, well off school property. He knew that he could not legally bring them onto school property, and he didn't try. You can't be any more responsible than that. And with hunting being as popular as it is in that community, he may not have been the only one with a shotgun in his truck. When my dad was going to school in Idaho and Washington back in the 50's and 60's, kids would bring their rifles and shotguns to school during hunting season and keep them in their lockers during class so they could go out and hunt after school. Every schoolboy also had a pocketknife. Nobody ever got shot or stabbed; it wasn't even conceivable. The only mistake the kid made that day was his admission and consent to a search of his vehicle. Zero tolerance policies are asinine and defy any sort of logic or reason, but that is to be expected when the people who enact and enforce them are completely devoid of both.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    Wewd, don't get me wrong. It was opening day of bird season, and I understand that this schools zero tolerance policy for guns was way overblown and the kid got a very tough excessive penalty. He was not on school property , but close enough,( I will assume on the street next to school )for the police dogs searching the school parking lots to hit on his car. You have to know khigh school students go out to their cars during breaks to drink/smoke dope, or generally do something they know they can't do on school property, and thats why they park off campus. I did. Having a gun "real handy" is a explosive mixture.

    A much less severe penalty, or just a warning, should have been in order. I was raised in Imperial County, one of the best dove hunting areas around. I got my car license at 15 years old because of working on a family farm. I understand rural living. There was no way I would have asked my parents to go to school with a shotgun after hunting on opening day. You just did not do that ,and there was none of this zero torrerance BS to deal with then. No, this kid was not a gang member in LA, but neither were the ones in Columbine. When our society has the ability to distinquish the difference, we can let the good 16 year olds take all the guns with them to school they want. I still think the parents(allowing) and kid yo take a gun to school used extremely bad judgement.

    If you look at a aerial of the school (google earth) it is obvious he was parked directly next to the school by the tennis courts. 203 N Murdock Ave, Willows, CA.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    "Hoity-toity" Palo Alto, California, USA
    Posts
    103

    Post imported post

    It is interesting to read the Willows Police Department take on the event after the backlash.

    http://www.cityofwillows.org/vertica...ED0B7C6%7D.DOC



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    lil_freak_66 wrote:
    foundthis over from my NRA group on myspace.

    i think its from this state,as most of the comments are from california.

    didnt see it on the first page,and im pressed for time so im posting it here.



    http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_13831318




    wtf is being done about this?? im all the way in MI and im pissed about it.
    "In addition to the Education Code, the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 bars possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, but there are exceptions for private property and for lawful transportation of non-concealable weapons."

    So does this mean that you can drive by a school when you're open carrying in your vehicle just going from point A to point B? The statement above in bold kind of confuses me.

    I can't open carry in myvehicle because there's 5 schools in the area live in. No matter where I goI'm too close to a school in the part of the city I live in.



  10. #10
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    The state defines a concealable weapon as a handgun, revolver, or other firearm with a barrel shorter than 16". Anything not in those categories would be a non-concealable weapon, and would not therefore be required to be in a locked container when transported through a school zone.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    The state defines a concealable weapon as a handgun, revolver, or other firearm with a barrel shorter than 16". Anything not in those categories would be a non-concealable weapon, and would not therefore be required to be in a locked container when transported through a school zone.
    Ok I see! Thanks for the info.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    oc4ever wrote:
    Wewd, don't get me wrong. It was opening day of bird season, and I understand that this schools zero tolerance policy for guns was way overblown and the kid got a very tough excessive penalty. He was not on school property , but close enough,( I will assume on the street next to school )for the police dogs searching the school parking lots to hit on his car. You have to know khigh school students go out to their cars during breaks to drink/smoke dope, or generally do something they know they can't do on school property, and thats why they park off campus. I did. Having a gun "real handy" is a explosive mixture.

    A much less severe penalty, or just a warning, should have been in order. I was raised in Imperial County, one of the best dove hunting areas around. I got my car license at 15 years old because of working on a family farm. I understand rural living. There was no way I would have asked my parents to go to school with a shotgun after hunting on opening day. You just did not do that ,and there was none of this zero torrerance BS to deal with then. No, this kid was not a gang member in LA, but neither were the ones in Columbine. When our society has the ability to distinquish the difference, we can let the good 16 year olds take all the guns with them to school they want. I still think the parents(allowing) and kid yo take a gun to school used extremely bad judgement.

    If you look at a aerial of the school (google earth) it is obvious he was parked directly next to the school by the tennis courts. 203 N Murdock Ave, Willows, CA.

    Let's take this thinking one step further.

    The law PC 626.9 states that you can't open carry a handgun withing 1,000 feet of a school zone.

    You are walking down the street, just one block away from the 1,000 foot mark, lets say 1,250 feet. Close enough. Let's charge you with a violation of PC 626.9.

    The school stated that itacts legally in the place of the parents (loco parentis) from the time the child leaves his home until he reaches the school, and then from the time he leaves the school until he reaches home. So based on the schools definition, if the kid had left his house, gone duck hunting, then parked 15 miles from the school and walked the rest of the way, they would still be in the right if they expelled him if a cop from another county found the car with the gun in it.

    This is just stupidity on the part of the school.




  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Folsom, , USA
    Posts
    389

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    oc4ever wrote:
    Wewd, don't get me wrong. It was opening day of bird season, and I understand that this schools zero tolerance policy for guns was way overblown and the kid got a very tough excessive penalty. He was not on school property , but close enough,( I will assume on the street next to school )for the police dogs searching the school parking lots to hit on his car. You have to know khigh school students go out to their cars during breaks to drink/smoke dope, or generally do something they know they can't do on school property, and thats why they park off campus. I did. Having a gun "real handy" is a explosive mixture.

    A much less severe penalty, or just a warning, should have been in order. I was raised in Imperial County, one of the best dove hunting areas around. I got my car license at 15 years old because of working on a family farm. I understand rural living. There was no way I would have asked my parents to go to school with a shotgun after hunting on opening day. You just did not do that ,and there was none of this zero torrerance BS to deal with then. No, this kid was not a gang member in LA, but neither were the ones in Columbine. When our society has the ability to distinquish the difference, we can let the good 16 year olds take all the guns with them to school they want. I still think the parents(allowing) and kid yo take a gun to school used extremely bad judgement.

    If you look at a aerial of the school (google earth) it is obvious he was parked directly next to the school by the tennis courts. 203 N Murdock Ave, Willows, CA.

    Let's take this thinking one step further.

    The law PC 626.9 states that you can't open carry a handgun withing 1,000 feet of a school zone.

    You are walking down the street, just one block away from the 1,000 foot mark, lets say 1,250 feet. Close enough. Let's charge you with a violation of PC 626.9.

    The school stated that itacts legally in the place of the parents (loco parentis) from the time the child leaves his home until he reaches the school, and then from the time he leaves the school until he reaches home. So based on the schools definition, if the kid had left his house, gone duck hunting, then parked 15 miles from the school and walked the rest of the way, they would still be in the right if they expelled him if a cop from another county found the car with the gun in it.

    This is just stupidity on the part of the school.



    Yes it is ridiculous how the school acts. I remember we would have fights after school like at a park a long ways from the school yet they could still punish the kids if they had just walked from school. Hell, they punished my ex's little sister for having a picture of her at a party with a beer on her myspace.


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Folsom, , USA
    Posts
    389

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    oc4ever wrote:
    Wewd, don't get me wrong. It was opening day of bird season, and I understand that this schools zero tolerance policy for guns was way overblown and the kid got a very tough excessive penalty. He was not on school property , but close enough,( I will assume on the street next to school )for the police dogs searching the school parking lots to hit on his car. You have to know khigh school students go out to their cars during breaks to drink/smoke dope, or generally do something they know they can't do on school property, and thats why they park off campus. I did. Having a gun "real handy" is a explosive mixture.

    A much less severe penalty, or just a warning, should have been in order. I was raised in Imperial County, one of the best dove hunting areas around. I got my car license at 15 years old because of working on a family farm. I understand rural living. There was no way I would have asked my parents to go to school with a shotgun after hunting on opening day. You just did not do that ,and there was none of this zero torrerance BS to deal with then. No, this kid was not a gang member in LA, but neither were the ones in Columbine. When our society has the ability to distinquish the difference, we can let the good 16 year olds take all the guns with them to school they want. I still think the parents(allowing) and kid yo take a gun to school used extremely bad judgement.

    If you look at a aerial of the school (google earth) it is obvious he was parked directly next to the school by the tennis courts. 203 N Murdock Ave, Willows, CA.

    Let's take this thinking one step further.

    The law PC 626.9 states that you can't open carry a handgun withing 1,000 feet of a school zone.

    You are walking down the street, just one block away from the 1,000 foot mark, lets say 1,250 feet. Close enough. Let's charge you with a violation of PC 626.9.

    The school stated that itacts legally in the place of the parents (loco parentis) from the time the child leaves his home until he reaches the school, and then from the time he leaves the school until he reaches home. So based on the schools definition, if the kid had left his house, gone duck hunting, then parked 15 miles from the school and walked the rest of the way, they would still be in the right if they expelled him if a cop from another county found the car with the gun in it.

    This is just stupidity on the part of the school.



    Yes it is ridiculous how the school acts. I remember we would have fights after school like at a park a long ways from the school yet they could still punish the kids if they had just walked from school. Hell, they punished my ex's little sister for having a picture of her at a party with a beer on her myspace.


  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    If the school were actually acting in loco parentis with regard to students parking off-campus, it would have told him "No!" to begin with. Not later, once the police need something to hurt him with.

    By their logic, they could claim to be acting in loco parentis anywhere and everywhere, regardless of the facts. :quirky

    Either you're playing the role of parent, or your not. Clearly the only person in position to play parent for students off school campus, is a parent.

  16. #16
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    Streetbikerr6 wrote:

    Yes it is ridiculous how the school acts. I remember we would have fights after school like at a park a long ways from the school yet they could still punish the kids if they had just walked from school. Hell, they punished my ex's little sister for having a picture of her at a party with a beer on her myspace.
    its very ridiculous,i actually was threatened with expulsion in my freshman year in highschool for having myspace pictures of me with a charles daly shotgun,which was all black.

    they tried claiming it was a threat,because i had gotten onto myspace during computers class and it was my display picture,which the teacher saw.

    nothing anywhere written by me had stated a threat,nor implied one either.

    that took 6 months of work to get sorted out.

    this student obviously took measures to make it legal,parking off campus,unloaded and probably encased firearms.

    another thing to consider is this.

    he may have had to consent to a search,i know my school has(or had,i amunsure,i switched after the aforementioned incident)a policy that if you refuse to consent to a vehicle search they can and often will suspend you for 2-4 school weeks,not allow you to take your vehicle to school,and if you are a bad student they have been known to just do end of the year expulsions.

    im not sure how it is there,but thats something he may have had to consider,not thinking that anything like this could happen because of the lawfully owned firearms.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    The County Board of Education has just overturned the expulsion.

    http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14247428

    Quote: Willows High School Principal Mort Geivett said the education board's decision may handcuff school officials' ability to keep campuses safe. "A decision like this today clearly compromises the safety of our kids," he said.

    This principal needs to be FIRED. I grew up in the next town up I-5 from Willows, my late wife was from Willows, I lived and worked in the next town down the road. In that community firearms in the hands of young hunters is an acceptable and normal part of daily life.

    There is a lot of talk in the Chico-ER (newspaper) article comments about how they hope the "kid learned his lesson". I hope so too. The government IS NOT your friend, NEVER consent to ANYTHING, and "stand up for your lawful rights and you'll be labeled a troublemaker".

    Now it's time for the civil suit for violation of civil rights. Let's see......

    1) Unauthorized seach (K9 sniffing) of vehicles outside the school property.

    2) Unlawful request by school to run the license plate of the vehicle.

    3) Local PD running the plate for the school without proper legal authority.

    4) Intimidation/color of authority in intimidating the student to "consent" to a search of his vehicle.

    5) Long term (October/November until now) unjustifiable expulsion.

    6) Attorney's fees

    7) Defamation of character

    8) Mental anguish

    Part of any settlement should include the termination of the principal, termination of any and all private contract "searches" (K9 or otherwise), letter of appology from the school district, and a letter of appology from the PD for violating the law and running the individuals license at the request of a non law enforcement entity without due process.



    I think the entire student body (with drivers licenses) should get locking firearms racks and park off campus with their hunting shotguns or rifles in the rear window. Oh the horror!!!!!
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    The County Board of Education has just overturned the expulsion.

    http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14247428

    Quote: Willows High School Principal Mort Geivett said the education board's decision may handcuff school officials' ability to keep campuses safe. "A decision like this today clearly compromises the safety of our kids," he said.
    No, it protects the safety of kids from treasonous pieces of human excrement like you, Mr. Geivett. You're lucky treason is not prosecuted when it comes to criminals in government.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    There is a mile long thread on this at http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=251093.

    To sum things up:

    - The student was in possession of a firearm while going to school which is a violation of a zero tolerance policy.
    - The school policy has jurisdiction any time a student is going to, coming from, or at a school activity whether on school grounds or not.
    - The dog that sniffed the truck was neither owned nor handled by any form of law enforcement. It was a private security company that was soliciting the school to use their services.
    - The company notified the principal who then matched the license plate to the student and pulled the student out of class.
    - The student volunteered that he had guns in the truck and gave permission to search the vehicle.
    - The principal seeing that the student had been in possession of the firearm on the way to school was required by law to suspend him and recommend expulsion.

    I'm glad he got reinstated, and I wish the principal had not been so enthusiastic about kicking the kid out, and I wish the district didn't take so long to hold what should have been a next day hearing. But it was the student that violated the school code, and it was the student that volunteered information and consented to the search.

    The dog handler didn't break any laws by walking through a public parking lot to see if the dog detected anything. Supplied with probable cause that a school code had been violated, the principal didn't violate the student's rights by pulling him out of class to ask what was in his truck that set the dog off. The principal also didn't force the student to volunteer that he had a gun in his truck and he only saw the gun when the student showed it to him. The principal should have been more understanding and dragged his feet on the disciplinary matter and the district should have made the issue a moot point within a day or two, but the source of the issue is that the kid screwed up and has been cleared. If only 626.9 violators could get off on having made an innocent mistake.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    Now it's time for the civil suit for violation of civil rights.* Let's see......

    1) Unauthorized seach (K9 sniffing) of vehicles outside the school property.
    Walking a dog past a car in a public parking lot is perfectly legal. And it was a private company not even employed by the school, so your tax dolors were not involved.

    2) Unlawful request by school to run the license plate of the vehicle.
    It was on file with the school as part of the students parking permit.

    3) Local PD running the plate for the school without proper legal authority.
    Local PD didn't run the plates.

    4) Intimidation/color of authority in intimidating the student to "consent" to a search of his vehicle.
    The student volunteered the information and was fully corporative. The principal was free to ask. The student was free to not answer.

    5) Long term (October/November until now) unjustifiable expulsion.
    Discipline was done per school code requirements.

    6) Attorney's fees
    Good luck

    7) Defamation of character
    Perhaps I missed where the school lied about anything.

    8) Mental anguish
    Getting busted tends to do that even if you didn't intend to do something wrong.

    I think the entire student body (with drivers licenses) should get locking firearms racks and park off campus with their hunting shotguns or rifles in the rear window.* Oh the horror!!!!!
    Good luck

  21. #21
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    This is a long reply but I have cited my sources (with links).

    inbox485 wrote:

    We-the-People wrote:
    Now it's time for the civil suit for violation of civil rights. Let's see......

    1) Unauthorized seach (K9 sniffing) of vehicles outside the school property.
    Walking a dog past a car in a public parking lot is perfectly legal. And it was a private company not even employed by the school, so your tax dolors were not involved.
    The private company had previously been hired by the schoolbut that daywas "donating" their services (1). A volunteer is an agent of the agency for which they volunteer. The school, in allowing an entity with whom they had a business relationship allowed their presence as volunteers and to "do the perimeter" accepted responsibility and liability for the actions of the security service to a high enough degree to warrant the filing of a lawsuit to determine liability. I don't think (I'm not a lawyer) that the security firm could be held liable on this point but the school/district can. Whether sucessful or not remains to be seen but there is a viable case.

    When the private company works fora government agency they become an agent of that agency. The school arguably has no jurisdiction off the campus unless it is a school sponsored event. Getting to school is certainly a school sponsored event if you ride the bus but driving yourself or being driven is not. The vehicle, parked off campus, is NOT within their jurisdiction and the county board of education agreed. Hence there is a case to be made.



    inbox485 wrote:

    We-the-People wrote:
    2) Unlawful request by school to run the license plate of the vehicle.
    It was on file with the school as part of the students parking permit.
    3) Local PD running the plate for the school without proper legal authority.
    Local PD didn't run the plates.
    I am not personallyfamiliar with the legal documents but all media reports (1, 2) and the Police Chiefsofficial press release (3) say that the Police department ran the plates at the request of the school.


    inbox485 wrote:

    We-the-People wrote:
    4) Intimidation/color of authority in intimidating the student to "consent" to a search of his vehicle.
    The student volunteered the information and was fully corporative. The principal was free to ask. The student was free to not answer.
    The facts are in dispute (1). The principal says he "asked", Tudesko's attorney states that the principal "ordered" without indicating that there was an option. Mr Tudesko himself states "I asked him, 'I'm parked on a public street, is that your jurisdiction?', and he said 'Yeah, it is.' I figured he must've been right, or why would he tell me that?"(1)

    If Tudesko and his attorney are the correct version then there is clearly a matter of an authority figure abusing his authority and legal obligations when dealing with a minor. The matter is ripe for a civil suit to determine the facts and liability. The principal also, according the Tudesko's attorney, ordered the security personnel to search the vehicle and then to sieze the firearms and other property (1). CLEARLY violations of his authority. The school principal has no authority to order a search and siezure off campus.

    Also interesting, when the police property and evidence form was filled out when securing the weapons in police custody, the form stated "Misc. Found Property/Non-Criminal."(1)

    The principal can arguably be shown to have intimnidatedyoungMr. Tudesko into consenting to a search. While this is generally not a valid argument in the case of an adult, a minor is more easilly intimidated by someone who has authority over1/3 of theirlife Monday - Friday. While the principal is free to attempt to argue inloco parentis, thematter should be decided in a court of law. We on this board, as adults who are, or should be, well informed of our rights, can not mistakenly apply the same standards to a minor as are applied to one of us who goes out open carrying, encounters the police, and consents to an otherwise unlawful search. The minor must be given the maximum protection from such intimidation, trickery, and such.




    inbox485 wrote:

    We-the-People wrote:
    5) Long term (October/November until now) unjustifiable expulsion.
    Discipline was done per school code requirements.
    And the guards at Aushwitz were just following the well established orders (rules and regs) of the camp. Again, it should be heard in court.



    inbox485 wrote:

    We-the-People wrote:
    6) Attorney's fees
    Good luck

    In civil action, should the plantiff (Tudesko) prevail, attorney's fees are likely to be awarded. The county board, in overturning the expulsion, required the school district to pay expenses incurred by Tudesko and his parents (4).



    inbox485 wrote:

    We-the-People wrote:
    7) Defamation of character
    Perhaps I missed where the school lied about anything.
    A good point. As the truth is an absolute defense to libel, slander, and defamation of character. My bad. The correct charge in civil court would be "Defamation per se". Defamation per se includes statements by the defendant that were false when the dedefendant knew, or reasonably should have known them to be false when they were made.

    The principals public statements, communicated to third parties (a required element of such a charge), saying that the education code prohibited Tudesko from having the shotguns in his vehicle were false. As a school principal who admits by his own statements that he knows the education code, and even if he didn't by mere fact of his position, reasonably should have known that his public statements that Tudesko violated the education code were false. Another decision for the jury!

    The principals statements are a matter of the public record.



    inbox485 wrote:

    We-the-People wrote:
    8) Mental anguish
    Getting busted tends to do that even if you didn't intend to do something wrong.
    Yes it does, and when done so unlawfully, merits award of civil penalties. There is probably also the possibilityof federal civil rights violations since Tudesko's second and fourth amendment rights were violated. I wouldn't hold your breath though, I just don't see the federal government prosecuting such a charge in this case. It is counter to the federal agenda.



    inbox485 wrote:

    We-the-People wrote:
    I think the entire student body (with drivers licenses) should get locking firearms racks and park off campus with their hunting shotguns or rifles in the rear window. Oh the horror!!!!!
    Good luck
    Okay, I'll settle for everyone in Willows putting their long guns in their gun racks (unloaded and locked) and parking next to the school every day until the principal is fired.



    Additionally: The police department did not sieze the weapons, the private security company did after which they turned them into the police (3). With no authority to sieze the weapons, the argument can be made that it constituted theft of private property and as an agent of the school, the school is most likely criminally liable.

    SOURCES:

    (1) http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/h...ory?id=4832232

    (2) http://www.chicoer.com/ci_13863225

    (3) http://www.cityofwillows.org/vertica...ED0B7C6%7D.DOC

    (4) http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/...o-willows.html


    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    Interesting. Very different from the early articles I read. It wouldn't be a first, but it appears I was wrong. I'll read up some more when time allows.

  23. #23
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    inbox485 wrote:
    We-the-People wrote:
    Interesting. Very different from the early articles I read. It wouldn't be a first, but it appears I was wrong. I'll read up some more when time allows.
    Not being a lawyer, I may well be wrong on someof my points as well. However, having grown up in that area (15 miles from Willows) I took particular interest in this case and have done a LOT of reading. I'm also studying business law (tort or civil law) and strangely, those of us on this board seem to already know firearms laws pretty well.

    It's also great practice for my English Comp (argumentative writing) classes to do the research and cite the sources.

    Bottom line, I think the principal got a bit of a "generals complex" and overstepped his authority while reading into the law to "find" that authority.

    Most of us are familiar with the 1000' school zone prohibition in California as applies to the sidearms we carry but how many have read it for application to long guns? Very few I'm sure. It's just like the UOC guy who trys to tell a CC guy that he can't take a gun inside a school zone. 626.9 which UOCers know prohibits within 1000' exempts (in C.4) persons licensed to carry concealed.

    I carry (open and concealed) with a concealed license but have to research when someone asks me about unlicensed open carry. I have more lattitude than they do by nature of my concealed license.I now livein Oregon and the license grants access (open or concealed) to nearly ever place a sworn officer can go.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  24. #24
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    i am glad to see you following this case and writing about it so well.... this kid got rail roaded to the max...i always knew this was a bad bust....that he was a fine upstanding young man...didnt deserve this crap! glad it is now turning out better
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  25. #25
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    1245A Defender wrote:
    i am glad to see you following this case and writing about it so well.... this kid got rail roaded to the max...i always knew this was a bad bust....that he was a fine upstanding young man...didnt deserve this crap! glad it is now turning out better
    Well he is 17 (16 at time of incident) and I'm not sure we could say "fine upstanding young man" about most any kid that age but he certainly isn't the Columbine type in early stages that the school principal seems to have portrayed him as.

    Ironically, I think the principal has actually harmed his (and other officials) ability to protect our children from someone who they really would need to act on by trying to press the issue on this case. Had they just dropped it after the point where the weapons were turned over to the cops the guns would have been removed from the vicinity of the school, no charges or expulsion would have occurred, and likely Tudesko would have been reluctantly willing to do some detention for his "wrong". The principal would have made a statement to the student body, kids wouldn't have brought their hunting arms and parked on the street, etc. Now, the cat is out of the bag an the principal has been effectively castrated at the school property line.

    Sounds like a lose-lose-lose situation to me. Principal lost some ability to use common sense when he might need it down the road - Tudesko lost a lot of school time and is likely behind - society lost a bit of protection in that this made national news so the bad kids in Cali will now feel less fearful of having firearms in the car parked off campus.

    All because a school principal overstepped his bounds and then wouldn't back off in order to save face.

    About the only win in this whole ugly mess is that a lot of people have exposed to the convoluted insanity known as "California law".
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •