According to a very initial report from WOWK, it seems the criminal charges against the West Virginia teenager who wore an NRA t-shirt to school have been dropped.
As Sebastian said when I informed him of this update, the news of the dropped charges should have come with an apology letter that acknowledges they never should have brought them in the first place. Obviously, that’s unlikely.
I was hearing reports about attempts to organize rallies, and I’m sure we’re not the only ones who highlighted that the judge who banned the media from the courthouse in this case and the district attorney who oversees the two prosecutors who not only brought charges, but then tried to silence the boy and his family, are elected. They can still be sent home during the next election.
While this case may have had a few unusual twists, this outcome is pretty much what I expected. There appear to have been a lot of such cases involving controversial T-shirts in schools, and this one only got our camp’s attention because it involved an NRA T-shirt. The kid was certainly on solid constitutional ground for standing his ground.
As I suggested when this story first came up, Google the aclu.org website for “T-shirt” and “school” articles. They appear to have heaps of cases they defended involving kids wearing both left- and right-oriented T-shirts in public schools, and it appears in most of them, the kids eventually are vindicated. I’d say this one wrapped up more painlessly than most.
Not only a thank you note, but they should reimburse the kid’s family for the legal expenses. I’m pretty much sick of reading about families of modest means having to pay to “lawyer up” just to defend their constitutional right to exist.
Meant to say apology letter… not a thank you note. ;)
The need to “lawyer up” to access our fundamental rights is a basic flaw in our system, that renders it phony to the core, usually. No one has any more rights than they can afford.
If I seem often to speak favorably of the ACLU it is based on personal experience. Here in PA they helped us with the First Amendment aspects of a Second Amendment issue, leading us to success on both amendments, and it never cost us more than a few phone calls. But still, that was an example of our being able to marshal resources to access our rights, when otherwise public officials were walking all over us as if those rights didn’t exist.
I forgot to add the key point, which was that if it had occurred to the family to lift the phone to the ACLU first, it may nopt have cost them a dime. Unfortunately our guys are mostly propagandized into believing the ACLU is the enemy and the children of Satan, probably because of their successful defense of separation of church and state issues — that “other” First Amendment issue.
Please. An apology implies culpability, and a government entity never admits culpability until forced to by a lawsuit decision.
They should be sued for destroying basic decency in our society and making this world
a worse place for everyone.
Charlo Green — who has been a rock on this, I think Judge O’Briant thought she could be intimidated, and he sure as Hades called that wrong — has an updated report on the dismissal at WOWK — she even has a picture of the paper with O’Briant’s signature on it, so yeah, she’s taking a victory lap, after all the abuse he heaped on her.
Jared Marcum’s lawyer, Ben White (who still has to work with the county Dem machine) is conciliatory towards the prosecutors. However, there’s no reason we have to be. Those so-called lawyers and that judge are all elected and ought to be sent by their employer, the public, to “spend more time with their families.” The familes’ loss will be the State of WV’s gain.
I hate to say this but I doubt it will happen. People have such short memories…..
I admit I still haven’t given the whole subject of “T-shirts in schools” and prosecutors the study that it probably deserves before commenting, but I do see their have been similar cases with the plaintiffs solidly on the “liberal” side — e.g., two girls who wore pro-choice T-shirts that school officials found offensive.
My point being, if you expect this sort of thing to be an electoral issue, it won’t always be on the “conservative” side of things. If you are a true stickler for all of the amendments of the constitution, and believe both left and right should be equally liable for transgressions against them, then hope that any such transgressions will be punished come election time, and join with “liberals” if necessary to see that they are.
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Teacher, Principal, Cop, DA, Judge….WHY ARE THEY NOT BEING PROSECUTED???
Lack of internal support structure is my opinion.
This makes “them” part of the problem.
So the criminal charges have been dropped. Big deal. What about administrative actions?
As I learned sadly in Administrative Law in Law School, all those fancy constitutional protections don’t apply if it’s an administrative proceeding.
Ive got a Mombo (voodoo priestess) working on a bad luck spell for all those who caused trouble but we need something personal like finger nail clippings or hair or maybe we can get Papa Legba,who has no love for judges,to do it without.
The dismissal order includes the phrase “dismissed with prejudice”.
Can anyone clarify for me the meaning and implications of this?
Reply
Sendarius says:
Jun 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm
The dismissal order includes the phrase “dismissed with prejudiceâ€.
Can anyone clarify for me the meaning and implications of this?
means they can’t bring this charge back again. the functionarys that made this up will have to make up something else.
rms/pa