Police in Schools

17-Year-Old Says 'I Could Buy an AR-15,' Gets Arrested

"The offense is akin to joking about a bomb in the airport," Ledyard High School's principal said. "One simply doesn't do it."

|

School gun
Hongqi Zhang (aka Michael Zhang)

A high school in Ledyard, Connecticut, called the cops on a 17-year-old student who made a non-threatening comment about a gun in class. Police then arrested him, and he now faces charges of breaching the peace.

According to Ledyard High School Principal Amanda Fagan, the student said "I could buy an AR-15" or something very similar. That's it.

"In an abundance of caution, despite the fact that this student is a minor who cannot, in fact, legally purchase such a weapon, we made the decision to consult with the Ledyard Police, who made the decision to take the student into custody," Fagan said in a statement, according to FOX61.

The student made the comment during his first-period class. The principal was quickly notified, and she made the decision to call the cops—even though it was clear to her that he was neither making a threat nor in possession of any actual guns. In a message to parents, Fagan stressed that the student presented absolutely no danger.

"The student in question does not have access to firearms at home," she said. "There was never any threat to the safety of your children or the adults who teach and tend to them each day."

It's not clear what the tone of the remark was—perhaps the young man was complaining that it's too easy to buy a gun. I called and emailed Fagan for additional clarification, but she did not immediately respond.

The Associated Press reports that the student will be appear before a juvenile court to face charges of breaching the peace.

"The offense is akin to joking about a bomb in the airport," Fagan said in her message. "One simply doesn't do it."

And one shouldn't. But the question is whether someone should face life-altering consequences for doing it. There was no harm committed. There was no real danger. The authorities involved understood that there was no real danger. The kid is being punished anyway.

In her statement, Fagan referred to the recent Parkland, Florida, school shooting:

In the wake of any school violence, nerves are often frayed. Today is no exception. Many of us—parents, students, educators—faced today with feelings of sadness, anger, even fear as we began to process the news of the eighth fatal school shooting in America in seven weeks. This time, it was 17 high school students and staff members who lost their lives yesterday at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

Like every school staff in America today, the staff of Ledyard High School had heightened senses all day, working to be sure our smiles were particularly welcoming, our ears were particularly open, our interactions particularly genuine.

Incidents like this—the arrest of a teenager for daring to even mention a gun—are precisely why I've warned that putting more cops in schools and encouraging a see-something-say-something mentality are not reasonable responses to school shootings. These policies make us feel like we did something, but they wouldn't necessarily make school any safer. They're more likely to curtail teens' civil liberties and needlessly draw students into the criminal justice system.

NEXT: Is Degrowth the Only Way to Save the World?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The offense is akin to joking about a bomb in the airport,” Fagan said in her message.

    Subject to ridiculous and unreasonable overreaction? Apparently so.

    1. The offense is akin to pointing out that because of the humongous lines coiled up in front of security, a bomber could do much more damage by detonating a device there than they ever could inside the terminal. Punishing such a statement is stupid, and we are all dumber for having listened to Ms. Fagan.

      1. Yet another triumph for the public school system that the evil Betsy Devos wants to destroy!

        1. Screw the public school system, whatever attorney wants to try him for disturbing the peace needs swift strike to their genitals.

          I could get the school being skittish and wanting the PD to make sure he doesn’t have an AR-15 in his locker or that his grandma isn’t lying in a pool of her own blood with the gun safe open… holding the kid in detention or an in-school suspension until the ‘investigation’ is completed. It wouldn’t be rational, but it’s happened, so it’s not unfathomable. In any event, at the end of the day, being innocent, there’s no real harm/foul.

          But the charges aren’t going to hold, even if they do, you’re making an example of a HS kid to his peers who are about to graduate and will be able to actually by AR-15s without talking about it to their heart’s content.

          1. Hopefully the charges will indeed stick, and hopefully the authorities will soon go after any juvenile authors of inappropriately deadpan “parody” as well, because, as a federal appellate judge (who is also one of our finest adjunct professors at NYU) pointed out at oral arguments in our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case, using such an insidious form of “speech” in an academic context is like going out in the street and shooting a gun around just for the fun of it. See the documentation at:

            https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

            1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

              This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

      2. “I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

      3. Well, Griffin3 has just been on a list. A preeetty little list. Speaking of which….Hey Reason, how come we have a button to report SPAM, but no button to report to the FBI?

        1. *put on a list

          1. There IS a Report to FBI button – it says “Submit” on it.

            1. So every time you post a comment, you are submitting to authority?

              mindblown.gif

              1. I’m saying that if this site isn’t monitored by the FBI then no site is.

                1. I hope this doesn’t affect my political aspirations.

                2. And the Russians. Reason, release the server logs!

                  1. Those logs should go in a woodchipper…

                    1. Or wiped clean. Like with a cloth or something.

                    2. Unlike the government with billions invested IT systems, Reason has working backups. They won’t be able to make the case they don’t have the data.

                    3. I have been working in IT since 1963, the past 25 years as a system/network administrator. At my last position, since FISA passed, I would go into the office at 5 a.m. First I would check server logs to see how many pings I had from government registered IP addresses and change firewall setting accordingly. Then I would delete (in reality) all deleted emails. Email remain on the server for at least 30 days AFTER being deleted by the user unless ‘wiped’ by the administrator. Then I would run a disk compression program to move data into the ‘holes left by my having deleted the email, overwriting the space where they had been and making recovery almost impossible, even forensically. Only THEN would I run the nightly backup. This way, any government demand for prior email was impossible to supply.

                    4. Yeah Vladilyich you go!!!

                      If I were a business big-wig, I would want you to head up my IT department! Government Almighty go suck wind!

                      CCLeaner is a good “wiper” of supposedly-empty-but-not-really-empty space on your hard drive, I might add, and there is a FREE version…

                3. I’m pretty sure there are other sites the FBI would be more interested in.

    2. If this is proportionate justice for a powerless kid saying (falsely) that he could buy a gun…

      Then WHAT is the proportionate justice for POTUS Trump saying (truly) that He could nuke North Korea?

      1. Applause?

        1. (I mean, not because The President Is Great!!!

          But because that is the correct response to North Korean saber rattling and missile testing.)

      2. Black market. No clue of the context for the kid saying this, but where there is a will there is a way.

        1. A will does not suffice. You also need currency or some other sort of medium of exchange.

          Then again, maybe the dude has a part time job or a sizable allowance, I wouldn’t know.

    3. For sure.

      How Fagan even came to the conclusion that she did is retarded.

      Joking about having a bomb on you in an airport has nothing to do with talking about something that you could buy,

      God

  2. “… tend to them each day…”

    What are they, plants?

    1. You are what you eat. Cow.

    2. https://pics.me.me/dont-forget-youre-basically- a-drink-water-get-sunlight-house-28887210.png

      Just copy-paste and take out the spaces (Reason is bitching that it’s a 50 character “word”)

  3. Thoughts and prayers, cunts.

    1. I like that. Gonna use it at the next possible opportunity.

  4. “The offense is akin to joking about a bomb in the airport,”

    No it’s not.

    1. Actually it’s exactly the same thing. It’s a harmless statement that people who live in a perpetual state of nerve-wracked terror will respond to with maximum force.

      1. It’s not clear what the tone of the remark was?perhaps the young man was complaining that it’s too easy to buy a gun.

        Since there’s no context, I can’t say for sure. But stating “I can buy an AR15” is quite a bit different than getting in the security line at the airport and telling the TSA agent that “I have a bomb”.

        Yes, I’m making assumptions about the “joke” at the airport, to whom it was said and how. But it sounds to me that it’s possible the kid was making a simple statement of fact.

        1. It is widely believed both here and more especially in other countries that “in America, children can buy machine guns on the internet.”

          It is possible that this kid is repeating things he has heard his parents or other adults saying about how “easy” it is to buy firearms.

          It is also possible that he thinks that in Eastern Connecticut there is a weapons black market that is easily accessible to high school students. Maybe there is, i really don’t know but I kind of doubt it.

          1. I wouldn’t call it a ‘market.’ I’m sure there is some asshole somewhere who’d sell any weapon to anyone in a private sale. I imagine he’d be REALLY hard to find, but I bet he’s out there.

            Quick let’s make a law just in case!

            1. I wonder if there is an asshole who would sell crack cocaine to anyone, even little children.

              1. Absolutely not!
                Don’t you know there is a law against selling crack cocaine?

            2. Cy, you are basically correct. I actually don’t like the term “black market”, perhaps a more useful term would be “clandestine market”.

              I don’t think I am wrong (if I am I stand corrected) in saying that there is a market for weapons to people who are barred from buying weapons and most of that market is directed at those who want to obtain weapons to be used for criminal purposes. As I said, I do not believe that this market is readily accessible to 17-year-old high school students from Eastern Connecticut.

        2. MAYBE this is a sharp kid who knows he can buy an 80% lower, and machine it himself, then buy all the unregulated bits and build his own AR. It CAN be done. The 80% lower is not serialised, no record of acquisition, and no FFL dealer, thus no age requirement.

      2. It’s more like standing in the airport security line and waving to you friend John who is in front of you while yelling out “Hi, Jack!” 🙂

  5. “In an abundance of caution, despite the fact that this student is a minor who cannot, in fact, legally purchase such a weapon, we made the decision to consult with the Ledyard Police, who made the decision to take the student into custody,”

    My sincere hope is that one day everyone will realize that coptalk makes you sound like a colossal douchebag.

    1. “In an abundance of caution, despite the fact that this student is a minor who cannot, in fact, legally purchase such a weapon, we made the decision to consult with the Ledyard Police, who made the decision to take the student into custody”
      “There is no human situation so miserable that it cannot be made worse by the presence of a policeman.”
      Brendan Behan

  6. Hey, 5 years olds masticating their pop tarts into a facsimile of a gun is enough to get them kicked out of pre school and into mandatory counseling; a teen aged kid just saying A, R, and 15 within the same phrase should be enough for a felony conviction.

    1. thatfive year old kid chewed his poptart into the shape of a mountain. It was his sick and twisted teacher decided, with no consult, that it was the shape of a gun, and went all postal on the kid.

      So WHO was the perpetrator of harm in this situation? NOT the kid……

  7. So, if he says he could buy a hooker, has he committed child prostitution?

    1. Much worse; that falls within human trafficking.

      1. Yeah, buying a hooker is slavery!

        Decent people merely buy their services for a period.

        1. You don’t buy hookers, you rent them.

          1. Or hire them to perform services.

            1. Or pay them cash money not to talk about the nothings that happened (sweet or otherwise).

          2. You aren’t paying for them to come over for sex. You’re paying for them to leave when you’re finished.

      2. And child porn, because they would be a minor promoting themselves having sex.

    2. No but when a government school calls police pederasts to come grope his body before carting him of to some secluded spot, the question is salient, germane and awkward. At a non-government school, classmates would understand that the speaker was simply bragging about the size of his allowance.

    3. You rent hookers, not buy…

  8. It really grinds my gears when people who know dick about guns pontificate about them.

    “According to my reading ? and tell me if I’m wrong ? he could not have bought a 9 millimeter Glock because he was not 21,” Tur pontificated, as NewsBusters reported. “He could not have bought a pistol which shoots people one by one by one by one, but he could walk in and legally buy a semiautomatic weapon.”

    Oh sweetheart, I will. You see, dear, both of these firearms are semi-automatic. And both may be used to “shoot people one by one, you retarded c*nt.

    Why is the Glock federally regulated, and a semiautomatic weapon, which we’ve seen in these circumstances ? and I’m sorry I’m getting angry about this ? an AR-15 used over and over and over again to not murder one person, or two people, but to murder dozens,” Tur said.

    Again, allow me to explain. ALL firearms are regulated to a level that is patently unconstitutional. And of course you are getting angry. Emotions are all you have. AR-15’s and other rifles are used in a tiny fraction of all murders. Ironically for you, the vast majority of murders by firearm are committed with pistols. So kindly eff off and maybe do a little actual research before spouting off nonsense. Of course you won’t bc you are merely a propagandist.

    1. Wrong thread maybe?
      .
      I agree, though. The Gun Derangement Syndrome gets worse with every tragedy. Absolutely, completely, totally false information everywhere. Where are we even supposed to start? Especially when we’re constantly being shouted down, and nothing we say could possibly be right.

      WHY DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE???

      1. The whole gun control campaign rests upon a foundation of dishonesty and invincible ignorance!

    2. he could not have bought a 9 millimeter Glock because he was not 21

      You know what grinds my gears? People who think black markets don’t exist, therefore politicians can control who has access to things.

      1. We can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, why expect better from the public?

    3. It’s all that damned Shoulder Thing That Goes Up causing all this mass death!

    4. According to my reading ? and tell me if I’m wrong

      [emphasis added]

      I’m pretty sure it won’t matter how many people tell her she is wrong she will keep telling the same story. and forget about any kind of public admission of her error.

      1. After all how many times have the “gun show loophole” and the “teenagers can buy machine guns on the internet” memes been publicly refuted. That hasn’t stopped the polls and the journos that spread the myth from using them over and over.

        The buying guns on the internet one is the one I particularly like. Where does one buy the peripheral that feeds out an AR-15 when I click on a picture in an online catalog. Although perhaps when 3D printing is a little more mature that won’t be true:)

  9. You trying to trap us with the phallic imagery, Robby?

  10. I can only hope that all of Robby’s articles from now on have pictures of young men with hair as beautiful as the sun.

    1. So just pictures of Robby then?

      1. That would be fine. But the boy in the picture today fits that criteria. Make Reason into instagram for flaxen curls.

        1. I can’t imagine anyone objecting to that. Well, John and Ken Schultz, obviously. But nobody else.

          1. Have John and Ken ever gotten into an argument? Cause that would most def cause _________.

            1. Have ____ and ___ ever gotten into an argument? Cause that would most def cause _________

              1. BUCS, Crusty, a fap-off to settle the winner.

            2. Have John and Ken ever gotten into an argument? Cause that would most def cause _________.

              Hit & Run comments to fill all available space on the Internet.

              1. We have. And yes it went on forever.

                1. You’re the reason Congress stopped archiving every tweet.

                  1. You’re the inspiration…

  11. “The offense is akin to joking about a bomb in the airport,” Fagan said in her message. “One simply doesn’t do it.”

    Oh. Yes. One. Does.

  12. ” breaching the peace”

    One of the many throw-down charges cops have to harass and harangue anyone they wish to.

    But more to the point of AR-15 phobia: These, just like an AK-47, are available in many calibers, INCLUDING 22LR AND 17HMR. Yet, never is the caliber mentioned in any news piece.

    1. Probably .223, which may be high-velocity, but it’s not “high-power” so not scary enough.

      1. Muzzle energy:
        5.56×45 ~1,800J
        .30-06 ~4,000J
        22LR ~200J

      2. While the .223 (also called 5.56mm NATO) is the original caliber of the AR 15 platform, the AR 15 was designed to be modular and is available in many different calibers.

        AR 15 calibers

        The lowest energy would be the .17 Remington Fireball.

        The highest muzzle energy calibers available for the AR 15 platform are

        6.5mm Grendel
        .450 Bushmaster
        .458 SOCOM
        .50 Beowulf

    2. But more to the point of AR-15 phobia: These, just like an AK-47, are available in many calibers, INCLUDING 22LR AND 17HMR. Yet, never is the caliber mentioned in any news piece.

      This is nitpicky. We know there’s a generalized hoplophobia and, frankly, guns and gun culture (like lots of other sciences and cultures) is both broad and chock full of relatively impenetrable contradictions and paradoxes. As long as they aren’t calling a handgun a rifle, a shotgun a cannon, a handgun caliber a ‘high powered’ round, or everything under the sun a sniper’s rifle, I’m OK with them not digging into the details. Especially on something as tightly associated as the AR-15 and the 5.56.

  13. http://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16…..probe.html

    Mueller has indicted 16 evil Russians. The indictment is an interesting read. The allegation is that the Russians committed fraud against the United States by coming to the US, setting up social media personas and pretending to be US persons for the purpose of influencing the election.

    That is a very curious and problematic theory. Understand that within the territorial boundaries of the US, everyone, including foreign nationals is protected by the 1st Amendment. If it is a crime for a Russian national to set up a pretend social media account, why can’t it then be a crime for an American to do the same? The 1st Amendment protections are the same in either case. To get around the 1st Amendment, you have to say the speech is in question is in furtherance of a fraud. I don’t see how pretending to be someone else online and advocating for some political cause could be considered a “fraud against the United States” consistent with the 1st Amendment.

    1. If it is a crime for Russians to pretend they are US persons, then every time a foreign national posts online about politics and doesn’t identify themselves as a foreign national, they have under Mueller’s theory committed a crime. I don’t see any way in hell these indictments are going to stand up to judicial scrutiny by anyone except a total government hack judge.

        1. Hack judges exist but these things have a way of working themselves out. They have to know how facial absurd this indictment is. They must figure they can use the threat of bankrupting these people with attorney’s fees as a way to force them to plead guilty to something.

          What a farce. They are indicting people for being trolls online. This is just pathetic.

          1. Seriously though, the country is besotten in McCarthyist hysteria. People want Russian blood. They forced RT to register as a foreign agent. This isn’t any different. Also, shows Mueller is on a fishing expedition. Got nuthin. At least, he’s likely to exonerate Trump, and I think that’s good. Don’t go after your duly elected leaders. Better to vote them out if necessary.

            1. He totally has nothing. This is an indictment for sock puppeting. They claim that these guys stole US identities and that is a crime but it was all for the purpose of sock puppeting. If it wasn’t so serious and such an assault on free speech, you would have to laugh. Here is Mueller, the man who was going to bring down Trump. Mr. FBI and the best he can come up with is indicating some Russian sock puppets.

          2. that’s because after spending more than a year and millions, maybe billions of OUR tax dollars, he’d got nothing ,and so has invented this out of whole cloth just so he can wave a pile of phoney useless idictments in front of the TeeVee cameras. HE is the one should be indicted.

      1. I don’t see any way in hell these indictments are going to stand up to judicial scrutiny by anyone except a total government hack judge.

        Doesn’t that describe ~99.999999999999% of federal judges?

        1. yes. But some of them are hacks for the other side.

    2. First they came after the sockpuppets, and I did not speak out…

      1. You kid, but that is what they are doing. They are claiming acting as a sockpuppet on line constitutes a fraud upon the United States. What is special about them being Russians and pretending to be US Persons? If doing that is a fraud, then claiming to be “a lifetime gun owner who thinks this time the NRA has gone too far…”? None as far as I can see. They are both frauds in that they make people believe that a person exists who believes something when in fact they don’t.

        What the hell is the matter with these people?

        1. What is special about them being Russians and pretending to be US Persons?

          What if I were say… Mexican and pretended to be a US person?

          I must say, I did not see ‘insanely fabricating and enforcing immigration law to convict Trump’ coming.

          1. Build a wall across Beringia!

            1. Then of course there is this

              http://stream.org/astroturf-ou…..y-clinton/

              A significant portion of online support for Hillary Clinton is manufactured by paid “astroturf” trolls: a large team of supporters who spend long hours responding to negative news on the internet about her. The Clinton SuperPAC Correct the Record, which is affiliated with her campaign, acknowledged in an April press release that it was spending $1 million on project “Breaking Barriers” to pay people to respond to negative information about Clinton on social media sites like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and Twitter. That amount has since increased to over $6 million. The trolls create a false impression that Clinton has more support than she really does, because one supporter will frequently create multiple anonymous accounts.

              Libby Watson of The Sunlight Foundation observed that the astroturf effort goes far beyond merely defending Clinton, to targeting and intimidating those who criticize her. She told The Daily Beast, “This seems to be going after essentially random individuals online.”

              Is Meuller going to indict Hillary and her sock puppet employees?

          2. Yeah. If pretending to be an American is now a federal crime on par with treason, I think there are some dreamers who might want to know about this.

        1. The proper form is “Fuck off, Tulpa”

          1. You’re not the boss of me.

            1. He is because you’re both Tulpa and, as libertarians, everyone has self-determination.

            2. Yeah, Hugh. The only bosses Citizen X recognizes are ones with whiskers.

              1. My boss is a Jewish carpenter. His name is Leo, and he says my planing could use some work.

    3. If it is a crime for a Russian national to set up a pretend social media account, why can’t it then be a crime for an American to do the same?

      Don’t give them ideas.

      I don’t see how pretending to be someone else online and advocating for some political cause could be considered a “fraud against the United States” consistent with the 1st Amendment.

      If it is then almost the entire Reason commentariat would be guilty.

      1. Yes, it would be.

        1. Luckily, I’ve never pretended to be anyone online. I’m always just BestUsedCarSales Jacobson.

      2. Rufus had better watch out. Damn Canadians commenting on US politics.

    4. I don’t see how pretending to be someone else online and advocating for some political cause could be considered a “fraud against the United States” consistent with the 1st Amendment.

      Particularly since a large minority of the population already does this.

    5. Yeah but these guys were MEDDLING.
      “meddle definition, meaning, what is meddle: to try to change or have an influence on things that are not your responsibility.”
      How could the founders ever have foreseen the possibility of Europeans coming to our shores and having opinions about shit?

    6. To be fair, the indictment is based on the fact that they spent millions of dollars to influence the election, in violation of 11 CFR 110.20. If it weren’t a crime for foreigners to spend money to influence elections, the sock puppetry to hide the fact that they’re Russians trying to influence the election wouldn’t be a crime either. And of course, if it weren’t a crime for foreigners to spend money to influence elections, they wouldn’t have had to commit identity fraud to spend money while pretending to be Americans.

      Whether it’s consistent with the 1st Amendment to say, “Hey, you, non-citizen, you can’t spend your own money, in your own country, to talk about our elections,” is open to debate. But I don’t think Russia is going to extradite them, so it’s a moot point anyway.

  14. “The offense is akin to joking about a bomb in the airport,” Ledyard High School’s principal said. “One simply doesn’t do it.”

    Actually, since buying an AR is somewhat legal, while having a bomb in the airport at not, then, no, it’s not akin to that.

    It’s akin to saying “I could buy an AR” at the airport, which is actually, totally something you could do. And probably get on your flight, too.

    So, try to stop being stupid.

    1. “Actually, since buying an AR is somewhat legal, while having a bomb in the airport at not, then, no, it’s not akin to that.”

      The kid in question is 17. In most US states, including Connecticut, where this happened, you have to be at least 18 to legally purchase a long gun. And Connecticut has additional restrictions on the sale/possession of some semi-auto centerfire rifles.

      No, he couldn’t legally purchase and AR 15 in Connecticut.

  15. It’s not clear what the tone of the remark was?perhaps the young man was complaining that it’s too easy to buy a gun.

    That was one of my first thoughts: A 17 year old in the Progressive Utopia of Connecticut? He was probably repeating the misconception that literally anyone can walk into a gun shop, throw some money down on the counter and walk out with an AR-15.

    E.g., *in a self righteous, mocking tone* “Anyone can buy a gun in this country. I could buy an AR-15.” At which point his teacher, an over-sensitive progtard, overhears the last part and goes full retard.

    The Associated Press reports that the student will be [sic] appear before a juvenile court to face charges of breaching the peace.

    Hopefully the judge throws this out with a stern warning not to waste the court’s valuable time on trivial horseshit in the future, but I doubt it. The best the kid can hope for is that he gets off with a few hours of community service to think about his “sins” or something.

    I hope his parents hire a lawyer and sue the shit out of the principal and the police. This is clearly a violation of his free speech rights.

    1. Meanwhile, sheriff’s deputies were called to the Florida shooter’s house 19 times and people told the FBI he was planning to commit a mass shooting and was dangerous. The FBI and Florida authorities of course did nothing. If only he had talked about an evil AR 15 instead of telling people he planned to be a mass murderer.

      1. The FBI and Florida authorities of course did nothing.

        *dons tinfoil hat*

        Of course they did nothing. If they had done something and the kid had abandoned his plot he wouldn’t have shot up his old school, and then they wouldn’t be able to use this as an excuse to push for more gun control (or more cops in school, or more mental health screening, etc. etc.).

        *doffs tinfoil hat*

        I’m not sure what they could have done though. The kid 19 year old adult owned his gun legally, and hadn’t broken any laws (yet). Supposedly he had talked online about shooting small animals with a pellet gun for target practice, so maybe they could have gotten him for animal cruelty? Then maybe force him to go back into mental health treatment as a condition of probation? I really don’t know what they could have done.

        1. They could have done a couple of things. First, saying you are going to do something like that is a “terrorist threat” and provided it was made with any amount of seriousness a crime. Second, they could have gotten a restraining order against him prohibiting him from going within a few hundred feet of the school. Now that would not have stopped him necessarily. But, if he had gone to the school before the shooting, which I bet he did, the school could have called the cops and they could have thrown him in jail for violating the restraining order.

          Finally, the kid was legitimately disturbed. They should have tried to commit him. When you have voices in your head telling you to murder people, you need to be committed.

          1. They could have done a couple of things. First, saying you are going to do something like that is a “terrorist threat” and provided it was made with any amount of seriousness a crime.

            For some reason I forgot about his threatening social media posts. IANAL, so correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t it have to be a fairly specific threat in order to be considered a terrorist threats? I haven’t had the time or, frankly, the inclination to look into his social media posts, so I don’t know exactly what he said. If he had just said something like “I hate that fucking school and I’m gonna make ’em pay!”, while that sounds pretty bad in hindsight, it could mean almost anything from leaving a bag of burning dog shit on the principal’s doorstep to vandalizing the school after hours to what he ended up doing.

            OTOH, if he had said “I’m gonna go shoot up the school with my AR-15” then that sounds like a pretty specific threat that he definitely had the motive (pissed off over being expelled and pissed off at fellow students for treating like a “weird loner”), means (owned an AR-15) and opportunity.

            I’m not trying to defend the sheriff’s office or the FBI here. If they had specific information this guy was potentially a threat and did nothing than they deserve to excoriated for it, mocked mercilessly, and the LEOs responsible for dropping the ball should be fired. Not to mention sued by the victim’s families.

        2. If only the kid had been a Russian national sockpupetting for Trump. Imagine the lives that would have been saved.

        3. Or they arrest the kid and the gun rights crowd goes after them for arresting a 19 year-old for owning a gun. They cite quotes like, “Cruz said he should be a professional school shooter” – how dare they arrest students for making jokes like that?

          1. Wouldn’t a “professional school shooter” anything be someone who gets paid for it? I’d like to know who paid him. I bet it was Russia.

            1. Trump’s got a slush fund for professional school shooters.

  16. If anything would cause a kid to shoot up a school its over reactions of this type and goes to what I’ve been saying about modern pc conflict resolution and in this case there was no conflict but they turned into one and where a kid will now be labeled a criminal and once a person is labeled and treated as such they may as well act out

    1. Wait… Government intervention trying to fix a problem can make it worse? Never!

  17. This kid not only shouldn’t be allowed to speak ever again, but the state should put a bullet in him just to make sure everyone gets the message. Some words simply aren’t allowed to be said.

    /sarc

  18. The national news media has been insisting it’s too easy to purchase a firearm and this impressionable young man believed them. He should have been sent to a local gun store and he would have quickly found out that it’s not that easy. First of all gun store personnel will challenge any potential customer who appears to be under age. They are not going to waste time showing guns to anyone ineligible to purchase them.

  19. Let me fix her quote for accuracy:

    “In an abundance of caution, AND BECAUSE WE’RE COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOTS, despite the fact that this student is a minor who cannot, in fact, legally purchase such a weapon, we made the decision to consult with the Ledyard Police who, BEING EVEN STUPIDER THAN WE ARE, made the decision to take the student into custody,”

  20. I bought my first rifle at 14, and had received one two years earlier as a xmas present. At 17 I bought a pair of revolvers.

  21. Here is the pertinent law on private gun Sales in Connecticut:


    Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 29-33(c): All handgun transfers must wait for authorization from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), which will perform a background check.

    Long guns (i.e. rifles and shotguns) may only be transferred by a federally licensed dealer, who must conduct a background check; prospective buyer must present gun eligibility certificate prior to the background check.
    [emphasis added]

    CT is rare in having a long gun restriction on private sales. Its handgun restriction is more common but still rare.

    See the whole link if you really want to know the law* on this topic.

    *SLD: Dickens was right “the law is an ass”. Please don’t any one come all “fuck off slaver” on me. I’m merely saying what the law is not what it should be.

  22. The following,

    Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 29-33(c): All handgun transfers must wait for authorization from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), which will perform a background check.

    Long guns (i.e. rifles and shotguns) may only be transferred by a federally licensed dealer, who must conduct a background check; prospective buyer must present gun eligibility certificate prior to the background check.

    should have all been shown highlighted, or, better yet, highlighted and a blockquote.

    1. Yeah, so? What does that have to do with a high school student who merely said he could buy an AR-15, but did not, in fact, actually try to buy one? Is there anything in that law that restricts speech?

      1. You’re kidding, right? The teacher works for the government. That makes what he said a false statement to a government agent. He’s going to the big house for this one!

      2. macsnafu|2.16.18 @ 7:19PM

        You’re absolutely right. I allowed myself to get sidetracked from the real point of this article which is, exactly as you say, is about “a high school student who merely said he could buy an AR-15, but did not, in fact, actually try to buy one.”

  23. In the wake of any school violence, nerves are often frayed.

    It’s too bad there were no adults who were able think about this a little more rationally.

  24. “The offense is akin to joking about a bomb in an airport.
    One simply doesn’t do it.”

    I’m not sure I agree with that, but It is really hard to argue with.

  25. Knee jerk reaction to something that could’ve been prevented..

  26. What else would you expect in a state with Malloy as Governor, and Blumenthal and Murphy as Senators.
    It’s Looney Tunes all the way down.

  27. Semi automatic weapons were readily available in Australia until a mass shooting in 1996 . The government of the day decided to ban the use of these weapons for the general public. There were exemptions for professional shooters but for the general public they were to be confiscated.

    Before 1996 there had been a series of mass shootings,There have been none since.

    The banning of these weapons has worked

    This was undertaken by a conservative government .

    The Australian Constitution copied from the US Constitution your “takings clause” which we have called the “just terms clause”. This allows the government to seize private property but they must pay ” just terms” compensation. There were court cases early in Federation which have defined “just terms” pretty effectively and there are very few cases now and governments acquiring private property approach first and offer extremely good values.

    A standout feature of the compulsory acquisition of newly declared illegal firearms was the lack of public complaint. From purely anecdotal evidence a common comment was the cheques were big enough to wipe the tears away from surrendering a now declared illegal firearm. There is no documented evidence of any directions on pricing for compensation but the prices paid very much ameliorated the concerns of those surrendering their weapons.

    Perhaps the US could look more closely at what happened in Australia.

    1. Perhaps you should look more closely at the Second Amendment.

    2. Perhaps the US could look more closely at what happened in Australia.

      Perhaps Australians could look more closely at what happens in a country whose population is about thirteen times theirs and is many times more culturally and ethnically diverse. In fact not only does the US have more people than Australia but three out of its fifty states each has a higher population than OZ has in its entirety.

      Americans may be a parochial bunch who are generally ignorant of other countries’ geography and history but they are fully justified in giving those foreigners who lecture them about political, economic, religious, racial and cultural issues an great big “fuck you!” Especially pissant little countries like Australia.

      1. “In fact not only does the US have more people than Australia but three out of its fifty states each has a higher population than OZ has in its entirety.”

        Not quite. What I see on line for the population of Australia is 24 million.

        The three most populous US sates are:

        California (38 million)
        Texas (26 million)
        New York (19 million).

        So it’s only two states with populations higher than the entire country of Australia.

        1. While, I stand corrected re “it’s only two states with populations higher”, the three most populous US states

        2. While, I stand corrected re “it’s only two states with populations higher”, the three most populous US states are:

          1 California 39,776,830
          2 Texas 28,704,330
          3 Florida 21,312,211

          That’s a 2018 estimate which shows a fairly big change over the 2013 figures you quoted.

          I was also wrong since I hadn’t realized tha FLA had passed NY. I didn’t know that NY was shrinking that badly either.

          also:

          The current population of Australia is 24,653,700 as of Sunday, February 18, 2018, based on the latest United Nations estimates.

          1. Oops, I got it wrong again, NY isn’t shrinking it’s just not growing very fast.

  28. Hopefully the parents of the victim will sue the pants off of the idiot cops, as well as the moron that brought the cops in to begin with.

    How many people are murdered by “law enforcement” each year, and where is the clamoring to disarm those dangerous thugs?

  29. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone.Work for three to eightt hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 5,260-12,830 dollars a month. Weekly payments.54u
    Find out more HERE

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  30. There is nothing wrong with talking about guns. this Fagan creep should be locked up.

  31. Can you say civil rights lawsuit. The case law is absolutely clear and undeniable. The principle and the cops just violated this kids right to free speech and yes the precedent specifically covers speech in school.

    Our educators should understand our constitutional freedoms better than they do. Our poor kids are being educated by ignorant morons.

    1. There has been a terrible tendency of late on the part of education officials (and, in fact, much of society in general) to confuse simple discipline issues with criminal justice issues.

      That said, this case does not actually involve a discipline issue. What is wrong with a student making a statement which he believes to be true?

      1. I might add that the only thing that might be appropriate is to instruct (the job, after all, of “educators”) the student that, as far as the law is concerned, he is incorrect.

    2. Spot on, RonBPalmer.

  32. Total bullshit. Total.

  33. I hope he sues the shit out of the cops and the school.

  34. I hope he sues the shit out of the cops and the school.

  35. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone.Work for three to eightt hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 5,260-12,830 dollars a month. Weekly payments.54u
    Find out more HERE

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  36. Lame, but it won’t go anywhere, he’ll get suspended for two days. Non-story.

  37. “breaching the peace”
    What a lovely collection of letters and spaces. In what way does that override the first amendment right to make a true statement?
    The Ledyard police will probably soon be in negotiations with their insurance company and this kids lawyers.

    But wait! there’s more! Free thought for the day.
    Anytime you hear of someone saying ‘overabundance of caution’, you know that they are aware they have committed a grave error of judgement, and injured someone.

  38. Everybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.For more informatiovn visit site……..

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  39. Unfortunately, my son, a very NON threatening intelligent young man with a sense of humor, was reported as threatening after reading aloud ot his friend the Google reviews of Columbine high school and having a darkly humored inappropriate giggle.

    We had to go to a threat assessment meeting where no less than 10 school adminstrators met my husband, my son and I. They asked about which video games he plays. They told him they were trying to help him be a better PERSON – how insulting.

    And then said he was not welcome back for his final 3 months of high school but could conclude his studies via virtual attendance. Really.

    I suppose we were lucky he did not get charged with a criminal offence.

  40. Bureaucrats prefer soft targets to real ones. Airport screeners didn’t get Mohammed Atta or the other 9/11 hijackers but they’ll get your 80 year old mother and her knitting needles. Or in this case a 17 year old girl for saying “I could buy…”

    1. Sorry – meant “17 year old boy…”

  41. The problem is with demodonkey jackasses running the schools. Anyone who ever has taught in the schools runs into them all the time. The principal of this school is simply another anti-gun nut. There is NO reason, upon the current record, to assume that the student arrested was doing anything other than pointing out the widespread availability of firearms and the uselessness of anti-gun legislation. Making such a claim is not a crime. It is an expression of constitutionally protected speech.

    I hope the student’s parents have the balls to sue the principal for her inanities. Only making these kinds of people pay at the courthouse will put an end to such idiocies.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.