-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Trooper's son gains access to gun
- Thread starter Baystatesuks
- Start date
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
The last few pages of this thread have been painful. First, all most of us care about, and all any of you should care about is the storage charge. You, being duly licensed and responsible gun owners, should all know by now that if you ever point a gun at someone and pull the trigger without cause, you are in a world of hurt. This is regardless of intent, regardless of whether or not there is a round in the chamber, etc. More on that in a sec.
So all that remains for knowledgeable, responsible adults to care about here is the storage charge, which most of us have issues with how narrowly written the storage requirements are in this state. Not that we would ever be so dumb to leave an unlocked firearm in arms reach of a kid...![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Anyhow, as an agent of the state, we hope one of their own is hung by the cahonjes the way we would, not because we wish ill will on the individual trooper in this case, but simply out of shear frustration at the state's one sized fits all handling of firearms related issues which would undoubtedly string us up by ours, regardless of context.
Now, being adults and responsible gun owners who cares what the kid did and whether or not he had intent. He is a frick'n 12 yro kid (only 2 yrs older than the minimum age for even forming criminal intent) who has, if an earlier post is correct, a history of behavioral problems. Anything that happens to this kid will be more a reflection of his past issues, his environment and a reflection of the particular juvenile court he happens to land. They do this in order to give these kids a fighting chance to not become regulars in the revolving door of the justice system. That is what juvenile courts are supposed to do before all else because we as a society decided that kids under x (pick your poison based on locality) years of age have diminished capacity to partake in various adult concepts like consent due in no small part on a diminished capacity to fully realize consequences of their actions. No amount of reading intent/desire/knowledge from this situation, even if we had more to go on, is even the least bit relevant because if we did what this kid did, we would be screwed.
So all that remains for knowledgeable, responsible adults to care about here is the storage charge, which most of us have issues with how narrowly written the storage requirements are in this state. Not that we would ever be so dumb to leave an unlocked firearm in arms reach of a kid...
Anyhow, as an agent of the state, we hope one of their own is hung by the cahonjes the way we would, not because we wish ill will on the individual trooper in this case, but simply out of shear frustration at the state's one sized fits all handling of firearms related issues which would undoubtedly string us up by ours, regardless of context.Now, being adults and responsible gun owners who cares what the kid did and whether or not he had intent. He is a frick'n 12 yro kid (only 2 yrs older than the minimum age for even forming criminal intent) who has, if an earlier post is correct, a history of behavioral problems. Anything that happens to this kid will be more a reflection of his past issues, his environment and a reflection of the particular juvenile court he happens to land. They do this in order to give these kids a fighting chance to not become regulars in the revolving door of the justice system. That is what juvenile courts are supposed to do before all else because we as a society decided that kids under x (pick your poison based on locality) years of age have diminished capacity to partake in various adult concepts like consent due in no small part on a diminished capacity to fully realize consequences of their actions. No amount of reading intent/desire/knowledge from this situation, even if we had more to go on, is even the least bit relevant because if we did what this kid did, we would be screwed.
One of the most imbecilic statements to date on this board regarding this subject. Intent has EVERYTHING to do with the kid's actions.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Wrong.
Again.
The age below which criminal intent is deemed incapable of being formed is HALF that claimed above. This kid is well within the age bracket in which there is a REBUTTABLE presumption that he is incapable of forming criminal intent. In other words, this kid may well be capable of doing so, but the prosecution has to prove it.
In short, he is hardly the naif his apologists portray him as, especially when one recalls that he is a trooper's son.
Palladin
NES Member
One of the most imbecilic statements to date on this board regarding this subject. Intent has EVERYTHING to do with the kid's actions.
Wrong.
Again.
The age below which criminal intent is deemed incapable of being formed is HALF that claimed above. This kid is well within the age bracket in which there is a REBUTTABLE presumption that he is incapable of forming criminal intent. In other words, this kid may well be capable of doing so, but the prosecution has to prove it.
In short, he is hardly the naif his apologists portray him as, especially when one recalls that he is a trooper's son.
+1
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 443
- Likes
- 49
Not true, spend a day in the District Court of your choice, nobody "goes away"
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
I clearly have not made myself clear. The context of my statement was that waving a gun at someone and pulling the trigger without cause is dumb and should not be done. Period. Who cares about the kid or his case otherwise. Even if someone wants to suggest that the kid was trying to kill the other one, all this gets us is more gossip (how could anyone get that from the little slice of info that has been available) and even less relevance to the larger firearms issues that are absolutely at play here. I have no desire to gawk at the emotional carcass of a 12 yro who screwed up. I hope he gets the help he needs to get past it. It is the father's case that we should all be interested in and demand as much info as possible about. That is the one that actually effects our lives. Unless, and this is where you could be of some use hereOne of the most imbecilic statements to date on this board regarding this subject. Intent has EVERYTHING to do with the kid's actions.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
, the intent in the son's actions has anything to do with the father's criminal case, I believe it is immaterial to the real story here. That being the storage charge.The sons actions could not have occurred without the previous act of the fathers. Clearly the son's actions would affect the father's civil liability, or at least one would hope, but from a criminal perspective, the father's actions are at the core of everything that followed after. Hence why I am saying who cares about the kid.
Well, I was under the impression the cutoff was ten at the federal level and that most states were about the same (I only moved to MA a few years ago). Either I am wrong or MA is significantly lower in their age limits than others. Either way, I defer to you here.
a) To be very clear here, I am not apologizing for him at all. I don't know enough about what he did to even begin to go there. All I am saying is beyond gossip, what does talking about the kid do for any of us. It is a distraction from the real story here.
b) Why the heck does the father's job have anything to his parenting skills? When did father of the year become a requirement for state trooper? I would like to think that state cops are above and beyond being crappy parents but I gave up Pollyanna fantasies a long time ago. His job description is in some way or another uphold the laws of the state whilst following them. Hence why the storage charge is so important here. Will he be held to account the same way the rest of us would? Are the storage requirements here in MA justified in light of this? (I will answer that and say unfortunately this is the exact situation where they are.) Following the law is a hallmark of good parenting, but it is in no way the only thing needed to be a good parent and it in no ways guarantees a kid who isn't f'd in some way or another if done just by itself.
Let me connect the dots for you:
1. Father is a State Trooper,ergo;
2. Father's job requires him to have a firearm available, even off-duty, ergo;
3. Father will necessarily have firearms in the home, where;
4. The child in question also resides.
It is therefore incumbent upon the trooper/parent to:
a. Secure his firearms per statute, AND
b. Train his child to act responsibly in their presence.
THAT is what the father's job has to do with it.
Well, just so some of you know, many states don't require secure storage of your firearms or ammo.
Up here, we educate the kids, under fear of SEVERE punishment, to NOT handle a firearm without an sdult present.
Now, that's the younger ones.
My girlfriend's grandsons (13 and 15) are fequently up, andthey can ALWAYS handle the guns, under NO supervision, because they KNOW how to.
Remember, this case is a 12 year old.
If you think he's too dumb to know the gun is real, try again.
If you think he's too dumb to know what he did was wrong, try again.
I'd wager good money the little snot fully intended to do what he did.
Civil case? Yeah, that should easily fly.
Kid knew better than do what he did, and easily passes the age/knowledge threshold.
The Cop? Carreer is certainly going to be toast. I see an early forced retirement.
Only question is possible criminal case outcome and possible loss of pension.
Up here, we educate the kids, under fear of SEVERE punishment, to NOT handle a firearm without an sdult present.
Now, that's the younger ones.
My girlfriend's grandsons (13 and 15) are fequently up, andthey can ALWAYS handle the guns, under NO supervision, because they KNOW how to.
Remember, this case is a 12 year old.
If you think he's too dumb to know the gun is real, try again.
If you think he's too dumb to know what he did was wrong, try again.
I'd wager good money the little snot fully intended to do what he did.
Civil case? Yeah, that should easily fly.
Kid knew better than do what he did, and easily passes the age/knowledge threshold.
The Cop? Carreer is certainly going to be toast. I see an early forced retirement.
Only question is possible criminal case outcome and possible loss of pension.
I thought the trooper was let off, yet the recent decision was reinforcing that we need to follow the lock laws. The two seem to be in direct conflict. Or did I miss something? I need to reread the entire thread, but I thought there was some conflict here. Thanks for any clarification you may be able to offer.
I believe what Scrivener is getting at is based on the existing law, which has been upheld by the SJC, at the time when the trooper could have been charged, there should be nothing different now. In other words, the law is the same back then as it is now. He wasn't charged then, so why should he be now?
The heart of the issue is unequal treatment under the law where some "special" people are provided deference and the rest of the MA citizens are not.
The heart of the issue is unequal treatment under the law where some "special" people are provided deference and the rest of the MA citizens are not.
Lt. Bolduc could have charges re-filed against him, but the DA has indicated they're not going to do that. He's (and his pension) are in the clear.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS/3110313/-1/NEWS
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS/3110313/-1/NEWS
That's because unlike Ralph Gants and the other SJC justices, even the district attorney knows 2A applies to the states where he [the district attorney] in the article states ""It's ridiculous to believe that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the state," O'Keefe said."
Nonetheless, even if SCOTUS says 2A doesn't apply to the states, Bolduc will not be charged.
Let's hope the pending civil case against him is decided in favor of the plaintiff.
RFWAVELENGTH
Banned
Many people have been denied LTCs for DWI arrests/convictions. North Andover Police Chief Richard Stanley was arrested, tried and convicted of DWI. He got to keep his LTC and his job. Yes, LEOs are above the law!
![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
There you go, only the radical NRA and "gun criminals" are the ones who want to see the 2A supported. You know where you stand with him now. A-hole.
