Michigan School Shooting. Hope No AR15 or 10+ Mags Were Involved

[P7M13]

I wonder if it was a 320? Did it get dropped?

2022, or whatever number that ended up being. SIG loves their number strings.

Sig P420
Weed is legal in MI, perhaps the kid was one of the ones who become paranoid from THC.

Since the family has lawyer'd up and gone silent, it remains to be seen what happens/happened in the trial.
Cannot trust the media for any accuracy or truth surrounding the subject.
However, three counts of murder, x counts of attempted murder, Dad will possibly be tried as an accessory to murder.
It will be a press feeding frenzy and a byline on Brandon's teleprompter for every gaffe session.

 

[ma96782]

I am surprised this school was not a gun free zone.

Aren't all schools, by Fed Law?

But the shooter probably didn't get THAT message.

Yeah....someone will be along to demand signs.


Aloha, Mark

 

[arakboss]

Aren't all schools, by Fed Law?

But the shooter probably didn't get THAT message.

Yeah....someone will be along to demand signs.


Aloha, Mark

View attachment 1080649

I don't know but I was trying to be sarcastic

 

[SonicBlue03]

Outside of what the media will pitch, I really want to see the police reports as to the investigation into the household where the kid took the gun.

 

[ma96782]

I don't know but I was trying to be sarcastic

YES....I hear you.

I'm reminded of the time........when the debate was just starting about "gun free zones". Maybe......the laws should have clarified certain situations and clarified the "intent of the person carrying".

But then..... Yeah...... we have all probably heard of the time when the Uniformed Police Officer was not allowed to vote. Because he entered the area and had his sidearm on.

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

Gun Free Zones. Sooooo..... effective at Fighting Crime. And if you think about it.....does it matter if the bullets were coming from the inside or outside?

Aloha, Mark

 

[tac]

Here in UK the BBC has just reported that the parents have told the boy not to say anything, or to answer any questions.

I wonder why that should be?

 

[Mikej]

Here in UK the BBC has just reported that the parents have told the boy not to say anything, or to answer any questions.

I wonder why that should be?

Perhaps because no matter who he talks to the story will be warped to fit an agenda?

It makes sense for a parent to get the kid lawyered up before speaking to investigators I'd think. I'll also say that the kid killing three other students in cold blood, without any serious extenuating circumstances, ought to get 25 years for each one, for a grand total of 75 years.

Let's not forget dad. IF, he didn't secure the gun, well, it's about time people that are grossly negligent with the firearms get a punishment.

 

[ma96782]

Here in UK the BBC has just reported that the parents have told the boy not to say anything, or to answer any questions.

I wonder why that should be?

Simple and Easy advice to follow.


I can't really fault a guy. 5th A.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Aloha, Mark

 

[arakboss]

Here in UK the BBC has just reported that the parents have told the boy not to say anything, or to answer any questions.

I wonder why that should be?

Standard operating procedure. Always talk to Atty first.

 

[tac]

Gotcha.

This is similar to the right to silence clause in the Miranda Warning in the US. PACE* Code C, one of the codes of practice issued under PACE, was modified to specify a uniform wording for the caution, namely:

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

In some circumstances, particularly if a suspect has requested legal advice but has not been allowed the opportunity to consult a solicitor, no adverse inferences may be drawn; in this scenario, the appropriate caution is amended to omit this possibility:

You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Equivalent cautions are specified in Welsh.

The 1994 Act, in addition to the amended codes of practice, was based on the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee report and the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. It rejected the reports of the 1991 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Working Group on the right to silence. The supporters of the proposed Act argued that the existing law was being exploited by "professional" criminals, while innocent people would rarely exercise their right. Changing the law would improve police investigations and adequate safeguards existed to prevent police abuse. Opponents claimed that innocent people may reasonably remain silent for many reasons, and that changing the law would introduce an element of compulsion and was in clear conflict with the existing core concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

Right to remain silent
A defendant in a criminal trial has no obligation to answer any questions, but may choose whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Furthermore, there is no obligation to assist the police with their investigation.

Although certain financial and regulatory investigatory bodies have the power to require a person to answer questions and impose a penalty if a person refuses, if a person gives evidence in such proceedings, the prosecution cannot use such evidence in a criminal trial.

This is similar to the right to silence clause in the Miranda Warning in the US. PACE Code C, one of the codes of practice issued under PACE, was modified to specify a uniform wording for the caution, namely:

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

In some circumstances, particularly if a suspect has requested legal advice but has not been allowed the opportunity to consult a solicitor, no adverse inferences may be drawn; in this scenario, the appropriate caution is amended to omit this possibility:

You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Equivalent cautions are specified in Welsh.

The 1994 Act, in addition to the amended codes of practice, was based on the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee report and the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. It rejected the reports of the 1991 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Working Group on the right to silence. The supporters of the proposed Act argued that the existing law was being exploited by "professional" criminals, while innocent people would rarely exercise their right. Changing the law would improve police investigations and adequate safeguards existed to prevent police abuse. Opponents claimed that innocent people may reasonably remain silent for many reasons, and that changing the law would introduce an element of compulsion and was in clear conflict with the existing core concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

Right to remain silent

A defendant in a criminal trial has no obligation to answer any questions, but may choose whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Furthermore, there is no obligation to assist the police with their investigation.

Although certain financial and regulatory investigatory bodies have the power to require a person to answer questions and impose a penalty if a person refuses, if a person gives evidence in such proceedings, the prosecution cannot use such evidence in a criminal trial.

*PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

 

[ma96782]

Mirada Rights/Warnings.

Miranda warning

www.law.cornell.edu

Miranda warning - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.wikipedia.org

Simple as (off the top of my head).....

1) You have the right to remain silent.
2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law.
3) You have the right to an attorney.
4) If you cannot afford an attorney.....
5) One will/can be appointed to/for you.
6) FREE of charge.
7) If you decide to answer my questions.
8) You can stop at any time.
9) Do you understand your rights?
10) Do you want to talk?

BUT, But, but......what's an attorney?

Yeah......it was a REAL question.

Yet, these people get to vote.

And.....and the attorney will/can claim that his client wasn't informed "properly" because maybe the cop forgot something? Maybe, it was said out of order? Maybe, the cop said it too fast?

So yeah.....
Forms/info cards.....
Keep your filing cabinet handy. And, signatures (if a form is used).

My parents/lawyer/friend told me to NEVER sign ANYTHING when the cops are involved.

Did you read this? Or did my client read this? And, is English even understood by the suspect (my client)? How do you KNOW.....did you test him for his level of understanding? Did you know or realize that the suspect (my client) was "under the influence of an illegal substance" at the time that you read him his rights?

On and on with the excuses.

And the form gets longer and longer (revisions) to cover those situations.

As I said.....they also get to vote.

Aloha, Mark

PS....LOL. When was the last time that YOU had a twinkie?

Twinkie defense

www.law.cornell.edu

Imagine that. Yeah, that question needs to be included in the "Miranda Rights Waiver Form". OK, Ok, ok......on the next revision.

NO. NOW.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Have they tested the kid for the psychotic drugs the schools force kids to take.?

 

[arakboss]

Gotcha.

This is similar to the right to silence clause in the Miranda Warning in the US. PACE* Code C, one of the codes of practice issued under PACE, was modified to specify a uniform wording for the caution, namely:


In some circumstances, particularly if a suspect has requested legal advice but has not been allowed the opportunity to consult a solicitor, no adverse inferences may be drawn; in this scenario, the appropriate caution is amended to omit this possibility:


Equivalent cautions are specified in Welsh.

The 1994 Act, in addition to the amended codes of practice, was based on the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee report and the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. It rejected the reports of the 1991 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Working Group on the right to silence. The supporters of the proposed Act argued that the existing law was being exploited by "professional" criminals, while innocent people would rarely exercise their right. Changing the law would improve police investigations and adequate safeguards existed to prevent police abuse. Opponents claimed that innocent people may reasonably remain silent for many reasons, and that changing the law would introduce an element of compulsion and was in clear conflict with the existing core concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

Right to remain silent
A defendant in a criminal trial has no obligation to answer any questions, but may choose whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Furthermore, there is no obligation to assist the police with their investigation.

Although certain financial and regulatory investigatory bodies have the power to require a person to answer questions and impose a penalty if a person refuses, if a person gives evidence in such proceedings, the prosecution cannot use such evidence in a criminal trial.

This is similar to the right to silence clause in the Miranda Warning in the US. PACE Code C, one of the codes of practice issued under PACE, was modified to specify a uniform wording for the caution, namely:


In some circumstances, particularly if a suspect has requested legal advice but has not been allowed the opportunity to consult a solicitor, no adverse inferences may be drawn; in this scenario, the appropriate caution is amended to omit this possibility:


Equivalent cautions are specified in Welsh.

The 1994 Act, in addition to the amended codes of practice, was based on the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee report and the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. It rejected the reports of the 1991 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Working Group on the right to silence. The supporters of the proposed Act argued that the existing law was being exploited by "professional" criminals, while innocent people would rarely exercise their right. Changing the law would improve police investigations and adequate safeguards existed to prevent police abuse. Opponents claimed that innocent people may reasonably remain silent for many reasons, and that changing the law would introduce an element of compulsion and was in clear conflict with the existing core concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

Right to remain silent

A defendant in a criminal trial has no obligation to answer any questions, but may choose whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Furthermore, there is no obligation to assist the police with their investigation.

Although certain financial and regulatory investigatory bodies have the power to require a person to answer questions and impose a penalty if a person refuses, if a person gives evidence in such proceedings, the prosecution cannot use such evidence in a criminal trial.

*PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

I suspect it's unlikely this kid could have said anything before talking with an Atty to help himself or his parents, except maybe "The shooter ran that way after sticking this gun in my hand"

 

[SonicBlue03]

Here in UK the BBC has just reported that the parents have told the boy not to say anything, or to answer any questions.

I wonder why that should be?

Everyone should do that, even the guilty or obviously guilty. Fifth Amendment is there for a reason.

 

[Lazyfaire]

Father had bought the semi-automatic pistol only a few days before. Probably thought it would be secure up on the shelf in the closet hidden under his stack of jeans!

 

[arakboss]

Father had bought the semi-automatic pistol only a few days before. Probably thought it would be secure up on the shelf in the closet hidden under his stack of jeans!

I just checked and mine is still safe at the bottom of my dirty laundry basket.



P.S. Gov. Brown/OSP if you are reading this I keep my dirty laundry basket in my gun safe.

 

[Lazyfaire]

I just checked and mine is still safe at the bottom of my dirty laundry basket.



P.S. Gov. Brown/OSP if you are reading this I keep my dirty laundry in my gun safe.

Your pistol smells like sh*t

 

[arakboss]

Your pistol smells like sh*t

probably why it's still there

 

[ma96782]

RE : Post #76

Nah.....it was probably under the stack of vintage Playboy magazines.

Aloha, Mark