ABC
A West Virginia judge has ruled that an eighth grader who was arrested after wearing an NRA t-shirt to school will stand trial for obstructing an officer, a crime that can carry up to a year in jail and $500 fine.
Jared Marcum, 14, was charged last week after wearing the shirt to school in April. The shirt included the logo of the National Rifle Association, an image of a rifle, and words “protect your right.”
Jared was asked to remove the shirt or turn it inside out by a secretary and then a teacher at Logan Middle School in Logan, W.Va. When he refused to do so he was brought to the principal, who called police.
The boy said that when police arrived at the school, they told him “sit down and shut up” and threatened to charge him with making terroristic threats when he tried to explain his side of the story.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to take back my earlier agreement with Kurt about what a travesty this case is.
After reading dozens of misleading headlines by the supposedly liberal press, I have to take issue with a couple of things. Here's an example from the ABC article I linked to.
Eighth Grader Could Face Year in Jail for Wearing NRA T-Shirt
Others state that he faces a year in jail "over" the NRA t-shirt. But it's just not true.The school policy states that if they deem a student's dress to be inappropriate they can ask that the offending item be removed or covered up. The boy refused. He was suspended.
When the cops were called, he refused to stop talking when instructed to do so. He purposely interfered with the officers' ability to do their job, AND THAT'S what he was charged with, not for wearing the t-shirt. The headlines might as well have said he was arrested for wearing tennis shoes, or, more accurately, that he was arrested for mouthing off.
One interesting angle on the whole thing is this: not one of our pro-gun commenters had anything to say about the obvious dishonesty in the reporting. In fact, they encouraged it with the most colorful language and strenuous support.
The reason for that is obvious. Their side of the debate lacks substance and must rely on fabricated ònonsense like this.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
