More on the myspace kid
Publicola, who’s in Colorado, looks at the case of the kid arrested for posing with guns on his myspace account, which I mentioned here. The police should have done something. After all, if this kid later went on a shooting spree at a school and this info came to light, we’d all be criticizing the cops. That said, I think the police should have just informed the parents and not arrested him for not breaking the law.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:09 am
I disagree. The cops should not have been involved unless they had reason to suspect the kid did not have his parents permission to posses the handguns. The principal should not have been involved since the kid violated no school policies as well as no laws.
& yes; some folks would have criticied the cops if he had turned out to be a mass murderer in the making. They’d have been wrong as cops aren’t supposed to keep our thoughts pure lest our actions become soiled. They’re simply supposed to enforce the law. Anything more is a giant step towards the statism we all seem to chafe under.
After all a lot of folks are still bitching at the feds cause they allegedly screwed things up with Katrina (or caused it a few seem to be saying). That’s no justification for the feds stepping in & mandating an evacuation of Charleston the next time a hurricane moves up past Florida. it is justification to correct people on why the object of their bitching is inappropriate.
Course I don’t see anything inherently wrong, dangerous or disturbing about a kid posing for pics with arms. If he would have made threatening statements I’d be open to arguments justifying state intervention. But not for merely expressing his damn self.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
“If he would have made threatening statements I’d be open to arguments justifying state intervention. But not for merely expressing his damn self.”
Oh, I dunno. “I am the angel of death” could be seen as pretty freakin’ threatening.
Now, do I think the cops should have been involved? Maybe. It *is* against the law for minors to possess handguns. At the very least, it gives PC to interview the parents. Cops go to the house, make sure the guns are legally owned and the kid has parental permission, done deal, y’all are free to go, so to speak.
Now, were that my kid posing with my guns, you bet your sweet ass as soon as the cops left I’d have smacked him upside the head and then sat him down and had a long, hard talk with him about being an idiot and not fucking things up for the rest of us.
Somehow I don’t think this is what happened…
Oh, and I’d also get the combination on the safe changed…
February 24th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
One criticism, then back to the original point.
Publicola has this in his post.
K, the “angel of death…” thing seems silly but the photo (shown in the article) has him laying down with the rifles spread out like the framework for wings. I’d view that as more of an artistic pun than something to get worried over. It’s certainly no more troubling than someone walking around with a “Death From Above” t-shirt.
One distinct difference is that the person with a death from above T-shirt is in all liklihood not wearing a parachute, and carrying a weapon.
As for the police not being involved at all, I disagree with. They shouldn’t have arrested the kid, but they should have contacted the parents to ensure that they were aware of the situation, and that the kid was always supervised when in posession of the weapons. The exclusion you list only allows for parental supervision, so unless the parents were in frame of the pictures, then there is no proof supervision. The police should have contacted the parents, and notified them of the situation, to confirm whether or not the kid was supervised, or to allow the parents to find a new way to secure the weapons.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Jesus!! I didn’t even notice the second post. Sorry for the repeat.
February 24th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Wicked,
the exception is for parental consent, not supervision. & that only concerns handguns. The long guns aren’t as much of an issue. & if I recall long guns were the only ones in the “angel of death” photo.
Jay G,
I’m a gun nut.
That statement could & probably is seen as threatening by most of the folks who thought the MySpace Kid should be punished. The principal however said that no overt threats were made; he just found the idea of the kid posing with firearms as “disturbing”.
But “I am the angel of death with wings of lead” is not threatening in the context. It was a caption to a pic. Said pic had the kid lying on the floor with long guns laid out at his sides as if to simulate wings. Sure it’s not the most tasteful thing to do & there could be argument over how cheesy it is, but I think it would fall into the camp of attempted artwork (even on a rudimentary level) rather than an overtly threatening statement. It certainly isn’t any where as harsh (nor as clever) as many things that I or other bloggers have written (Kim du Toit comes to mind) but are generally regarded as hyperbole & not threatening.
It’s all perception & I simply do not see how what I have read about the MySpace Kid is anything to be that concerned over.
& it’s against the law for minors to possess handguns without parental consent. That’s a mighty important qualifier. Also in Colorado there’s no licensing or registration requirements for firearms possession (yet) so we don’t have to put up with any of that “legally owned” business. It’d be safe to deduce that since the kid had access to the long guns as well as the handguns & the pics were taken in his own friggin home that parental consent was given for him to access them. Plus someone had to take the pics so it’d be reasonable to assume that it could have been a parent pressing the button. But I’ll accept that there could be enough reasonable suspiscion to contact the parents & ask one question, “does your child have your consent to access your handguns?” If the answer is yes they should simply apologize for bothering them & let it go.
& if it was my kid I’d have a long talk with him as well. Partly rebuking him for displaying all of our arms for anyone, including potantial thieves to see, partly for not taking pics of a better quality. 🙂 Maybe a 3 firearm limit for the pics & a photography class at the community college?
February 24th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
This kid DID go on a shooting: http://www.fox30online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=E4D08B97-A797-403E-BB75-D5A09793637E
February 25th, 2006 at 1:05 am
Pub,
I know, I know… In a perfect world, the parents should have gotten a call to the effect of “hey, look what your kid is doing with your guns” and that would that.
Unfortunately, we live in far from a perfect world, and the reality is that posting such a picture could easily make some GFW freak out.
Don’t misunderstand me – hell, I’ve said, thought, and written equally “scary” sentiments. *I* don’t think the kid should be investigated, let alone arrested. But to think it wouldn’t/couldn’t happen is miles apart from should it (him getting arrested/interrogated/etc.)happen. To think that posting a picture like that in a location so close to Columbine would not bring down heavy scrutiny is to blatantly disregard the events of the past, oh, 70-odd years WRT guns and their place in American society…
Just my $0.02. I could also be full of shit. 🙂
April 4th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
[…] […]