Amelia King

[Just_A_Guy]

11 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Honestly, what do you think the likelihood of success at trial would be?

 

I've had much more blatant "threats" declined.

Closing an argument with school personnel by promising to being a loaded gun to the school “ready to . . .”, and then ominously trailing off?

Yeah, I think as a prosecutor I’d like those odds.

[Vort]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Closing an argument with school personnel by promising to being a loaded gun to the school “ready to . . .”, and then ominously trailing off?

Yeah, I think as a prosecutor I’d like those odds.

It looked to me like she was cut of mid-sentence rather than "ominously trailing off." Would that make a difference?

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

It looked to me like she was cut of mid-sentence rather than "ominously trailing off." Would that make a difference?

Throw in an “allahu akhbar”, and imagine that rather than enforcing mask-wearing the school is banning niqab-wearing, and . . . you tell me.  Would it?

I’m inclined to think that when you get to the point where you’re proposing bringing a loaded gun to school as a means of dispute resolution, anything further you may have said if you hadn’t been cut off isn’t likely to have dug you out of the hole you’ve created for yourself.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

A teenager who made the same threat would get suspended at the very least. A grown woman should really have known better.

Edited January 24, 2022 by LDSGator

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

Honestly, what do you think the likelihood of success at trial would be?

 

I've had much more blatant "threats" declined.

Depends on the Charge and the state.

Looking at Utah Code and Regulations I come up with 76-5-1-7, of particular interest is 76-5-107.1 which took effect last year and covers threats against schools.

Quote

Effective 9/1/2021
76-5-107.1.  Threats against schools.

(1)	As used in this section, "school" means a preschool or a public or private elementary or secondary school.

(2)

An individual is guilty of making a threat against a school if the individual threatens in person or via electronic means, either with real intent or as an intentional hoax, to commit any offense involving bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, and: (a) threatens the use of a firearm or weapon or hoax weapon of mass destruction, as defined in Section 76-10-401; (b) acts with intent to: (i) disrupt the regular schedule of the school or influence or affect the conduct of students, employees, or the general public at the school; (ii) prevent or interrupt the occupancy of the school or a portion of the school, or a facility or vehicle used by the school; or (iii) intimidate or coerce students or employees of the school; or (c) causes an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies to take action due to the risk to the school or general public.

(3)	(a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a), (b)(i), or (b)(iii) is a class A misdemeanor. (b) A violation of Subsection (2)(b)(ii) is a class B misdemeanor. (c) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is a class C misdemeanor.

(4)	Counseling for the minor and the minor's family may be made available through state and local health department programs.

(5)	It is not a defense to this section that the individual did not attempt to carry out or was incapable of carrying out the threat.

(6)

In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, a court shall order an individual convicted of a violation of this section to pay restitution to any federal, state, or local unit of government, or any private business, organization, individual, or entity for expenses and losses incurred in responding to the threat, unless the court states on the record the reasons why the reimbursement would be inappropriate. Restitution ordered in the case of a minor adjudicated for a violation of this section shall be determined in accordance with Section 80-6-710.

(7)	A violation of this section shall be reported to the local law enforcement agency. If the individual alleged to have violated this section is a minor, the minor may be referred to the juvenile court.

Utah Code threats against schools enacted 9/1/21

In Utah, i think it is borderline on whether this would be successful in court or not.  I'd probably pursue via 2b3 in effect for a Class C Misdemeanor.  I think a good defense lawyer may be able to prevent conviction if they wanted to take it to court, the question being if it would be worth it to fight it.

I don't believe this occurred in Utah, so the laws are different.

In Virginia this appears to fall under the category of 18.2-60 which covers threats of violence.  If it was a written threat (which it was not) it would fall under a Class 6 felony.  As it was made in person, and not a hate crime, you could charge, but need to prove verifiable fear was caused.

Quote

an oral threat made in person, with the means to carry out the threat, that puts the victim in reasonable fear of harm or reasonable apprehension of offensive touching, harm, or danger, is an assault.  This is a class 1 misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to 1 year in jail.  Hate crime assault is a class 6 felony.

She had guns which indicates in my opinion that she had the means to carry out the threat.  The question then is whether that put the victims (or school board and the attendees of the school) in reasonable fear of harm or apprehension. 

As I said, I think she said it in an emotional moment.  That said, I think it has a better chance of being successful in court under Virginia law if they chose to  pursue it.  it appears they have charged her, but whether they can convict is a different question.  If they choose to pursue it further, I hope she has a decent lawyer.  A bad one and I think they'll convict her.  A good one and I think she could get off.

[askandanswer]

I'm only seeing things from a very great distance, but isn't it the case that anybody with a licence to concealed carry might be bringing a gun to school with them every day? The way I read it, she said she was going to bring loaded guns to school. I had the impression that in the US it was a relatively common occurence for people to bring loaded guns to school?  In the context of this incident I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between something who says they will bring a gun to school and someone who actually brings one. How is one worse than the other? If she had said what she was going to do with those guns, and if what she proposed to do was violent and damaging to people or property 'then that to me would sound like a threat. Without explicitly stating her intentions, we are left to guess, and I think we start on a slippery slope when we start handing out convictions on the basis of guesses. I think that if her actions are outside the norm, and again, I'm saying this from a distance, then perhaps at most they might be enough to get her onto a police watch list for a while. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by askandanswer

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I'm only seeing things from a very great distance, but isn't it the case that anybody with a licence to concealed carry might be bringing a gun to school with them every day? The way I read it, she said she was going to bring loaded guns to school. I had the impression that in the US it was a relatively common occurence for people to bring loaded guns to school?  In the context of this incident I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between something who says they will bring a gun to school and someone who actually brings one. How is one worse than the other? If she had said what she was going to do with those guns, and if what she proposed to do was violent and damaging to people or property 'then that to me would sound like a threat. Without explicitly stating her intentions, we are left to guess, and I think we start on a slippery slope when we start handing out convictions on the basis of guesses. I think that if her actions are outside the norm, and again, I'm saying this from a distance, then perhaps at most they might be enough to get her onto a police watch list for a while. 

It depends on state law.  In Virginia, my understanding is that a CCW does not allow you to carry on a school campus (unless you’re in your car in a pick up/drop off zone).

And, it’s one thing to coincidentally carry a gun.  It’s another to get in a screaming match whose gist is “I’m right because next Tuesday at 9 AM I will be at your workplace with a GUN!”  It’s a verbal equivalent of brandishing, which is also often a crime (for example, if you cut me off on my freeway, I don’t get to pull out my handgun, kiss it, look you straight in the eye, and then put it away.  If you happen to have it a gun and crap happens to go down, then okay—but if you take an extra step to make people know you have it, then you’d darned well better need it.)

It’s really hard to put an innocuous meaning to her words.  I mean, maybe it’s possible—that’ll be her attorney’s job.  But it’s hard for me to imagine one, given the context that we’re being offered so far.  

Edited January 25, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

that’ll be her attorney’s job. 

Has she been charged with anything?

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Has she been charged with anything?

It appears so.  
 

https://www.whsv.com/2022/01/22/page-county-woman-charged-after-comments-made-school-board-meeting/

[askandanswer]

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It depends on state law.  In Virginia, my understanding is that a CCW does not allow you to carry on a school campus (unless you’re in your car in a pick up/drop off zone).

And, it’s one thing to coincidentally carry a gun.  It’s another to get in a screaming match whose gist is “I’m right because next Tuesday at 9 AM I will be at your workplace with a GUN!”  It’s a verbal equivalent of brandishing, which is also often a crime (for example, if you cut me off on my freeway, I don’t get to pull out my handgun, kiss it, look you straight in the eye, and then put it away.  If you happen to have it a gun and crap happens to go down, then okay—but if you take an extra step to make people know you have it, then you’d darned well better need it.)

It’s really hard to put an innocuous meaning to her words.  I mean, maybe it’s possible—that’ll be her attorney’s job.  But it’s hard for me to imagine one, given the context that we’re being offered so far.  

Interesting. It seems that some of the nuances of US gun laws are not so well conveyed in aspects of the popular media. 

[askandanswer]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It appears so.  
 

https://www.whsv.com/2022/01/22/page-county-woman-charged-after-comments-made-school-board-meeting/

Just out of curiousity, in relation to this case, could you hazard a guess as to what extent the decision to charge might have been driven by 1) a genuine belief by the charging officers that the law might have been broken, or 2) a reaction to the public's reaction?

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Just out of curiousity, in relation to this case, could you hazard a guess as to what extent the decision to charge might have been driven by 1) a genuine belief by the charging officers that the law might have been broken, or 2) a reaction to the public's reaction?

I’m sure public public pressure plays a role.  But the question is:  are they charging because they personally have political animus towards the defendant; or are they charging because they feel like—regardless of the partisan affiliations of the parties at play—this is just a behavior that they don’t want to become commonplace, and so the more publicly it’s done, the more publicly they have to slam the door on it?

Thats not a question I could begin to answer in this case.

[mirkwood]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Closing an argument with school personnel by promising to being a loaded gun to the school “ready to . . .”, and then ominously trailing off?

Yeah, I think as a prosecutor I’d like those odds.

I appreciate your optimism.  As I said, I have had the declinations for such things.

[mirkwood]

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Just out of curiousity, in relation to this case, could you hazard a guess as to what extent the decision to charge might have been driven by 1) a genuine belief by the charging officers that the law might have been broken, or 2) a reaction to the public's reaction?

Just a correction of a common misconception.  The DA's Office makes that decision in the end, not the police.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I appreciate your optimism.  As I said, I have had the declinations for such things.

IIRC, based on the department (my memory says) you work for, you have the disadvantage that your particular DA very often is on the side of the bad guys.  😞

[askandanswer]

I guess that if I was her counsel, I'd try to make the arguement that the defendant's behaviour demonstrates the effectiveness of the law as a deterrent: she was about to make a threat, suddenly remembered, in the nick of time that it was illegal to do so, and therefore did not make an overt threat because she knew what the law was and wanted to abide by it, or at least wanted to avoid the consequences that could follow from not abiding by it. . 

[LDSGator]

16 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I guess that if I was her counsel, I'd try to make the arguement that the defendant's behaviour demonstrates the effectiveness of the law as a deterrent: she was about to make a threat, suddenly remembered, in the nick of time that it was illegal to do so, and therefore did not make an overt threat because she knew what the law was and wanted to abide by it, or at least wanted to avoid the consequences that could follow from not abiding by it. . 

Her counsel should advise her to admit she made a mistake, ask for forgiveness and accept her punishment. She’s not a criminal, she’s someone who spoke in anger. That doesn’t excuse her actions of course-but she’s doesn’t deserve to do time or anything. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by LDSGator