# Kid expelled after duck hunting...



## frenchriver1 (Jul 5, 2005)

The school was correct in moving to protect the students for whom they are responsible...


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

This is a thorny issue. I have kids in high school, I respect Caddis' opinion, and I've got to say that I also want to keep kids with guns away from school. But if no law has been broken, then I think the school has overstepped it's bounds - regardless of the past behavior of this particular student. My question is this: Why were school sniffer dogs even being used that far off of school property? They shouldn't have jurisdiction there. It could be that the kid was parked on the street outside of his own home. He probably wasn't, but what about the kid who _does_ live that close and parks his car with his hunting shotgun in the trunk? Should he be expelled, too? And what about ME, if I were parked there visiting a friend and the school sniffer dogs came by? Would I be arrested? Should I be? 

It appears that California law (and YES this case is from CA, and we know they're a little nutty with their gun laws) says that no guns are allowed within 1000ft of a school, unless they're in transit or on private property. Well, in this case the police authorities have said that they find nothing illegal with what the kid did, so he must have been far enough away to be legal. I don't think the school has any grounds to expel this student - as bad an apple as he may be. Preventing school shootings should be a priority, but as with everything else in our society, you have to be able to do that WITHIN the law, and not outside of it. I think the school in this case is out of line. However, if they wanted to expel this student, I think that they've got enough case history to do it on other grounds.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Michihunter said:


> that infraction must be found to be true in order to punish him to begin with. It wasn't.


If they find that the school had juristiction in this case, then it would be considered an infraction. That is what it all comes down to, where does the schools juristiction end.

I thought I read in one of the replies to that article that, as an example, in Texas juristiction extends 300' from school property. I'm assuming it still applies to school sponsored events off campus etc... So if he was in Texas and within 300' of school property, he would have been under the schools juristiction.


----------



## Craig M (May 17, 2000)

frenchriver1 said:


> The school was correct in moving to protect the students for which they were responsible...


Yes they are responsible for protecting their students, but in this case, the school overstepped their bounds.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Shlwego said:


> Preventing school shootings should be a priority, but as with everything else in our society, you have to be able to do that WITHIN the law, and not outside of it. I think the school in this case is out of line. However, if they wanted to expel this student, I think that they've got enough case history to do it on other grounds.


I agree.

My opinion is that kids in that school are at higher risk by this kid having a gun anywhere near it.

Legally, if it is proven that the school did not have juristiction in this, then they do not have the right to expell him. If it is proven they do have juristiction to enforce school rules where his vehicle was, then that is another story.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

TSS Caddis said:


> If they find that the school had juristiction in this case, then it would be considered an infraction. That is what it all comes down to, where does the schools juristiction end.
> 
> I thought I read in one of the replies to that article that, as an example, in Texas juristiction extends 300' from school property. I'm assuming it still applies to school sponsored events off campus etc... So if he was in Texas and within 300' of school property, he would have been under the schools juristiction.


I'm quite sure that would be true in Texas based on the laws that were passed in that particular state. However, California law does not have that in their code. What it will boil down to is where the schools jurisdiction ends. The one thing that will hurt the schools position is the placement of signs in and around the school but not on the public street where the kid was parked. In my opinion that will clearly be the distinction of where the school originally felt their jurisdiction around the school started and ended.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

they better pray that JEOFFREY FIEGER doesn't get hired


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

Why do so many of you people think a student has to break a law to get suspended or expelled? They are called school policies, not laws. Just like smoking cigarettes. Its not illegal to smoke cigarettes, but you can still get in trouble for smoking them on school grounds. I give the benefit of the doubt to the administrators who made this decision. They are in those positions for a reason.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Ieatantlers said:


> Why do so many of you people think a student has to break a law to get suspended or expelled? They are called school policies, not laws. Just like smoking cigarettes. Its not illegal to smoke cigarettes, but you can still get in trouble for smoking them on school grounds. I give the benefit of the doubt to the administrators who made this decision. They are in those positions for a reason.


It's matters not what people think Aaron, it's the law passed down in California that basically requires several factors to be present before expelling. The one they are using is considered a violation of the laws implemented in the California Education Code regarding guns in a school zone. California doesn't define their school zone but Federal Law does. It states an extension 1000' feet from school property. If there is no infraction of policy, rules, or laws, there can also be no punishment.


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> It's matters not what people think Aaron, it's the law passed down in California that basically requires several factors to be present before expelling. The one they are using is considered a violation of the laws implemented in the California Education Code regarding guns in a school zone. California doesn't define their school zone but Federal Law does. It states an extension 1000' feet from school property. If there is no infraction of policy, rules, or laws, there can also be no punishment.


But there was a policy that was broken. No guns within 1000 feet of a school. Right?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Ieatantlers said:


> But there was a policy that was broken. No guns within 1000 feet of a school. Right?


Wrong. If that were the case, he would have been charged under federal law.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

...and I had more than a few of students like our poor, poor little victim.
And, I'm here to tell you: someone that gets in trouble THAT many times obviously has some struggles with judging right and wrong behavior.
And, he also had many prior conflict resolution struggles WELL documented.
SO: is it a stretch to extrapolate that maybe our innocent little lamb might make a bad decision? One can only base opinions on past conduct, and this little "scholar" has a demonstrative collection of "anti social" incidents.
Based on what I read about his glorius scholarly record, I wouldn't want him with a GUN period, let alone near a school! Law violation or not!

And, my other thought: how did a whole team of law enforcement & dog handlers just happen to randomly/coincidentally be there that day and find their prize? We all know what an excercise like this costs in money and man power. Could it be Einstein flapped his gums? Example of bad judgement, AGAIN.

Genius knew the rules, flaunted them (lots of prior examples) got caught.
Boo '******* hoo.

I know we gun owners are protective of our rights, but there has to be a limit as to behavior atttached to that right.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

Ieatantlers said:


> I give the benefit of the doubt to the administrators who made this decision. They are in those positions for a reason.


man oh man did you step in it deep with that statement. it's quite apparent you haven't been watching detroit for a few decades:lol:


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

You sure stirred the political pot with this one ! I read that a few days ago and have my opinions. 

I beleive in the CNN article I read it said the school has a 1000' (thousand) zone. It read that he parked within that 1000" zone, off school property but still within the zone. That is why the school chose to take action. It never once stated they decided to pursue action because of his past behavior. That was some reporter digging up something to report on and land Katie Courics job. I really doubt they took his past behavior into account before deciding to expell him, that would not be right. They may have used that past behavior record to determine to search his vehicle, and rightfully so. But that should not, and will not be used to determine punishment for the current situation. 

Opinions are like peters, every guy has one. That is why there are laws and policies in place. If the kid broke the school policy, he should be punished. It seems some here are arguing more on what the punishment should be, suspension or expulsion. 

I agree with I think it was full body. That is the problem with today's "zero Tolerance" policies. They are made for 3% of the population and the other 97% pay the price. It is sad it has to be that way.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Ieatantlers said:


> Why do so many of you people think a student has to break a law to get suspended or expelled? They are called school policies, not laws. Just like smoking cigarettes. Its not illegal to smoke cigarettes, but you can still get in trouble for smoking them on school grounds. I give the benefit of the doubt to the administrators who made this decision. They are in those positions for a reason.


The kid has a better legal team assembled than the school district, thanks to calguns foundation.


----------



## new b (Oct 12, 2005)

ok, that's all fine and good but what about peanut butter?


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

What is even more sad is the NRA got involved. It makes them look like they are crying for attention to get their views out. This is NOT a gun rights issue. It is a school policy issue. There is absolutley NO law he broke, that I could tell from the news I read. 

So if School Policy prohibits boomerangs on school property, and each student knows there is a 1000' foot zone, and some smug thug of a student parks at Autozone and walks across the street to school he should be punished the same as a gun. The NRA would not be helping this kid. So I feel the NRA should have kept their business out of this one.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

waxico said:


> ...and I had more than a few of students like our poor, poor little victim.
> And, I'm here to tell you: someone that gets in trouble THAT many times obviously has some struggles with judging right and wrong behavior.
> And, he also had many prior conflict resolution struggles WELL documented.
> SO: is it a stretch to extrapolate that maybe our innocent little lamb might make a bad decision? One can only base opinions on past conduct, and this little "scholar" has a demonstrative collection of "anti social" incidents.
> ...


Curious just how many school shootings you've experienced at the hands of those very same students you apparently group into the same type of anti social behaviors as the one in this topic?


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Ieatantlers said:


> But there was a policy that was broken. No guns within 1000 feet of a school. Right?


The local police investigated and declined to bring charges. That likely means that the student parked more than 1000ft from the school. Schools DO have have the ability to suspend/expel for things like smoking, profanity, etc. but the student must do those things on school property or at a school sponsored event. This gun was not on school property. Guns on school property are an immediate expulsion, and they're a violation of the law on public property within 1000ft of a school; but if this student indeed kept the gun more than 1000ft from the school, it appears he knew the law and was following it, even though in other respects he appears to have been quite the little $#!+.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

One of my students shot and paralyzed another while I was teaching him. It happened in a home after school. I was teaching in Lansing at an at risk special program facility.

So, I do have some experience with this kind of student.

And, he was a complete anus in my class...


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

waxico said:


> One of my students shot and paralyzed another while I was teaching him. It happened in a home after school. I was teaching in Lansing at an at risk special program facility.
> 
> So, I do have some experience with this kind of student.
> 
> And, he was a complete anus in my class...


 By any chance can you share the details? I'd be curious to read that story and find out the circumstances of the shooting. Approximate date and school should suffice.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

It was in 1985, he was 17, there was an argument over some girl. He thought he'd shoot his buddy to "teach him a lesson" and wound him.
He had a little .22 revolver, probably bought for $40.00 on the street.

Unfortunately, he found out a tiny .22 can cause damage, the permanent kind.

I don't know how relevant my story is to the debate, I am approaching this from a behavior pattern point of view. And that student was uncontrollable. I was put in that class for a reason (my size) and I COULD BARELY CONTROL HIM.

So, I think this student's behavior was so bad he was targeted. Think of all the crap he heaped that wasn't written up.

Any teachers on this site? Please weigh in, I ended up in another profession.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

This case deals with the gray area of where the school's authority and jurisdiction begin. The *policy* is in place for this kid's expulsion according to the article. The school's attorney says:

_Marc Juhl-Darlington, Willows Unified School District's attorney, cited the education code in support of the expulsion, claiming schools have jurisdiction over student actions on or *near school grounds*, *while on their way to or from school* or during school activities._

The principal took this legal opinion as a mandate to expell the kid. His 24 previous offenses show a probable case of oppositional/defiant disorder and that surely had some affect on the tipping point for expulsion. We have no idea exactly what he's done in the past or what type of "school probation" this kid may have been on. I do know that he's been given at least 23 second chances to correct his behavior and that he knew exactly what he was doing by parking off-campus. My guess is that this kid is going to be a problem adult.

Folks, times have changed. After Columbine, safety is priority one. While I don't agree with the expulsions of kids who bring a butter knife in their lunch bag to spread their jelly, I do think it's very prudent to expell this kid who's past actions have dictated it.

And to think I brought my deer rifle to 8th grade speech class...:SHOCKED:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Craig M said:


> Watch out for the lawsuit. The kid is going to be rich, courtesy of the school and tax payers.


indeed. school was wrong. don't care what his history was...if his history was so bad why was he in the school in the first place.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Actually after further research, that "near"-ness to the school is in fact defined by California at 1000'. In relevance:

* California Penal Code Section 626.9.*

_(1) "School zone" means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public
or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1
to 12, inclusive, and within a distance of 1,000 feet from the
grounds of the public or private school.

(2) This section shall not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
accordance with state law.

(4) (f)
(2) Any person who violates subdivision (b) by possessing a
firearm within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public
or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1
to 12, inclusive, shall be punished as follows:
(A) By imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five
years, if any of the following circumstances apply: see CA PCS 626.9 subparagraph(s) (i), (ii) and (ii i)._


The bottom line is this- If he was within 1000' he should be charged and expelled. If he wasn't he should be reinstated. Because local authorities chose not to charge him with a crime, it's fairly apparent that he was not within 1000'.


----------



## Quakstakr (Nov 3, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> ...if his history was so bad why was he in the school in the first place.


It was a good time to take him out


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> indeed. school was wrong. don't care what his history was...if his history was so bad why was he in the school in the first place.


We have no idea how many times he's been punished or suspended. Those records are subject to privacy laws. Violating school policy and subsequent punishment has everything to do with prior history.


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

waxico said:


> It was in 1985, he was 17, there was an argument over some girl. He thought he'd shoot his buddy to "teach him a lesson" and wound him.
> He had a little .22 revolver, probably bought for $40.00 on the street.
> 
> Unfortunately, he found out a tiny .22 can cause damage, the permanent kind.
> ...


I am the assistant director of curriculum for our school district. I finished my teaching degree, except for the student teaching part (I'm staying in administration) I spend enough time dealing with students and in and out of schools. A lot of my job deals with trying to keep kids on track for graduation, so I get to deal with the 'problem children' like this a lot. They take away from other student's learning experience, and have no place in a classroom a majority of the time. Most of them end up in alternative ed, and most of that group fail anyways. 

When dealing with problem students like this, its not like a criminal trial where their previous 'crimes' can not be submitted. Their past grades and discipline problems are the first thing we look at. Of the hundreds of kids we deal with, maybe one out of 100 actually pull themself out of the gutter- and usually that is before high school age. This kid has obviously not changed his ways from previous suspensions, and frankly doesn't deserve another chance after this IMO. He's had his chances, 24 of them. The victims of this situation are the poor kids who have their educations jeopardized by being in his classroom and the teachers who have to babysit him. He deserves no place in a classroom. You just can't fix stupid.


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> The bottom line is this- If he was within 1000' he should be charged and expelled. If he wasn't he should be reinstated. Because local authorities chose not to charge him with a crime, it's fairly apparent that he was not within 1000'.


Not really. They could choose not to charge him if they felt he had no criminal intent. Just like cops can choose to not give you a speeding ticket. If the drug/gun dogs picked up on the scent of his weapon, I'm inclined to believe he was within the 1000'. I'm sure we will find out soon enough. Maybe I can get a chance to get that brewski back from our football bet? Double or nothin, over/under of 1000'. I get under. :lol:


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> Actually after further research, that "near"-ness to the school is in fact defined by California at 1000'. In relevance:
> 
> *California Penal Code Section 626.9.*
> 
> ...


No, that really isn't the bottom line. You've defined "nearness" or actually what a _school zone_ *is* according to California gun law. But what is "nearness" according to school policy? 

Also, just because the Feds haven't charged him doesn't mean anything. They may be waiting to see how it shakes out as they often do. Remember Rodney King? 

Also, how is "_going to and coming from_" defined? This kid had his gun in his truck coming to school. 

What happens if your kid gets beat up at his/her bus stop? Does the school have jurisdiction? What if this kid parked his truck in Grandma's garage and walked the rest of the way? Sorry, way too much gray area to have a "bottom line".


----------



## FullBody (Nov 4, 2008)

TNL said:


> What happens if your kid gets beat up at his/her bus stop? Does the school have jurisdiction? What if this kid parked his truck in Grandma's garage and walked the rest of the way? Sorry, way too much gray area to have a "bottom line".


Exactly right. This case screams of gray area.


----------



## Bill Collector Bob (Sep 9, 2007)

I leave you waterfowl guys alone for just a couple hours and you all stirred up the pot real good. 

 

Time for some bird pics!


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

The student teaching part was where I ended my career in education.
That Voc-ed program sucked the life and goodwill right out of my teaching career.
Should have followed your path toward Administration. Instead, I figured I would design cars. Lots of money and endless employment options, right?

I still believe we are rushing to the defense of the indefensible, I'm taking the side of the kids who manage to control themselves and learn, even though said defendant is a duck hunter (not a good poster boy though)

Another hypothetical: how many on this site would, knowing his history, invite him hunting with you?


----------



## Quakstakr (Nov 3, 2009)

waxico said:


> Another hypothetical: how many on this site would, knowing his history, invite him hunting with you?


Not based on what I know so far.

By the way, thanks Bob, nice touch.


----------



## FullBody (Nov 4, 2008)

waxico said:


> Another hypothetical: how many on this site would, knowing his history, invite him hunting with you?


Might be exactly what he needs. Solid role model/ father figure. This is conjecture of coarse not knowing his exact parental situation. 

My initial reaction would be to say that I would invite him(not just to be argumentative Wax)....would like to meet him first though. The old cant judge a book by its cover deal i suppose.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Ieatantlers said:


> Not really. They could choose not to charge him if they felt he had no criminal intent. Just like cops can choose to not give you a speeding ticket. If the drug/gun dogs picked up on the scent of his weapon, I'm inclined to believe he was within the 1000'. I'm sure we will find out soon enough. Maybe I can get a chance to get that brewski back from our football bet? Double or nothin, over/under of 1000'. I get under. :lol:


How about this- Double or nothing the expulsion gets overturned?:evilsmile:evilsmile http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14247428




> *Willows student expulsion overturned*
> Staff Reports
> Posted: 01/22/2010 11:00:18 AM PST
> 
> ...


----------



## amenz (Nov 17, 2008)

I did not think this would go this long
It is pretty interesting the whole 1000 feet, 300 feet bushiness. While in transport, on private property...yada yada. Think a crafty lawyer could say he was in the process of "transporting it" back home? In St. Louis, if you're a resident you have to pay property taxes on your vehicles, if California has the same thing would in his truck be "on his property"? 

I'll be interested to see how it gets sorted out. 

And here is another one.....what really can be done to keep kids safe at school these days? Metal detectors at the 1000 ft line? Armed guards in towers and on the ground? I have thought for a long time I was born in the wrong generation. Who heard of this stuff years and years ago? And think of how many ducks there were back then......oops thats probably for another thread, sorry Russ


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

as The One That Eats Antlers said, there are 1 or 2 out of a hundred that can be saved...

And, he is a duck hunter...(hmmm, wonder how many game violations?)

Military service is just the ticket to whip this lad into shape.

Too many of our kids have been given up on...need some "tough love" from Uncle Sam.

Awesome thread, by the way...


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> How about this- Double or nothing the expulsion gets overturned?:evilsmile:evilsmile http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14247428


These get overturned a vast majority of the time to avoid lawsuits and such once they get national recognition. I bet if this hadn't hit the media, and the NRA got involved, he would still be expelled. I would be willing to bet he doesn't graduate....


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

waxico said:


> Military service is just the ticket to whip this lad into shape.
> 
> Too many of our kids have been given up on...need some "tough love" from Uncle Sam.
> 
> Awesome thread, by the way...


now that i'll agree with 100% if the D.I.'S CAN'T STRAIGHTEN HIM OUT fort levenworth will, big rocks become little rocks all day long, every day of the week every week of the year:yikes:


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Ieatantlers said:


> These get overturned a vast majority of the time to avoid lawsuits and such once they get national recognition. I bet if this hadn't hit the media, and the NRA got involved, he would still be expelled. I would be willing to bet he doesn't graduate....


By the way, did I tell you my preference is George Killians Irish Red?


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

TNL said:


> And to think I brought my deer rifle to 8th grade speech class...:SHOCKED:


:lol: Alright, you can't leave us hanging with that without the story:lol:


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> By the way, did I tell you my preference is George Killians Irish Red?


Nope. You also never mentioned if its legal to mail beer either. Although if you ice fish, and check out a few of my recent gill posts, you might consider driving to the lansing area. I will give you the killians I owe you, and drink the other 5.:evil:


----------



## Mike L (Sep 8, 2003)

"Good Read"......A good debate, and expressed opinions is a good thing.
I need further evidence to express mine......the 1000ft policy is imperative here IMO.......Great Pics Bob.......


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Ieatantlers said:


> Nope. You also never mentioned if its legal to mail beer either. Although if you ice fish, and check out a few of my recent gill posts, you might consider driving to the lansing area. I will give you the killians I owe you, and drink the other 5.:evil:


Now that's an offer that'll be tough to refuse.:lol::lol:


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

TNL said:


> And to think I brought my deer rifle to 8th grade speech class...:SHOCKED:





TSS Caddis said:


> :lol: Alright, you can't leave us hanging with that without the story:lol:


 

Saw this thread earlier today and have been too busy to jump in, but this was the first thing that came to mind.


Had a project in 8th grade speech class where we were required to give a presentation to the class on a favorite item of ours...

So I demonstrated the proper way to disassemble, clean, and reassemble my 870 Wingmaster....:lol: Good luck pulling that off nowdays.

Heck, in High School we would have our deer rifles in the vehicles and change into our hunting clothes in the parking lot while we were waiting for the busses to leave...:lol:


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

The 1000' rule is nonsense. I live within 1000' of my sons school. My sons own guns. Apparently they are breaking the 1,000 foot rule by having their guns at home. 
The kids car was parked on private property. At some point the kid should be able to do withing 1,000 feeet of the school what he can do legally elsewhere. I would think private property would be a logical starting point.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

ESOX said:


> The kids car was parked on private property.


Not according to the article

_"He was parked on a public street," Michel said_


----------



## old school (Jun 2, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> I trust a piece of paper to state my Constitutional rights and that shotgun to preserve them. You?


Im right there with you Mich. He was off school property because he knew better. I have been mad a time or to, more than just upset. I would never go as far as using a gun


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

private property or public street he still was over the 1000' rule. so as no law was broke, no charges were filed. only some over zealous thimball full of authority people over stepped their powers and it has been over turned before the community suffered a substantial monetary lawsuit.
now as far as the poster child goes it is unbelievable that he was allowed 24 warnings or whatever. i had 1 warning and then a 3 day suspension(fist fight at the ball diamond after school) and was told the next step was out the door for good. (henry ford high school1970) what in the hell ever happen here is the real question that should be asked along with what in the hell is going on with these so called parents. as stated before this kid is soon to be on a poster somewhere if a drastic change isn't made. child protection needs to take action. imo


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

Shlwego said:


> He probably wasn't, but what about the kid who _does_ live that close and parks his car with his hunting shotgun in the trunk? Should he be expelled, too? And what about ME, if I were parked there visiting a friend and the school sniffer dogs came by? Would I be arrested? Should I be?


HHmm...makes me think..I often drop my kids off at school with the layout behind me and my gun in the back!!!...Andy


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

TSS Caddis said:


> Not according to the article
> 
> _"He was parked on a public street," Michel said_


I could have sworn I read he was on private property earlier today.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

ahartz said:


> HHmm...makes me think..I often drop my kids off at school with the layout behind me and my gun in the back!!!...Andy


perfectly legal per mcl's for people who have ccw/cpl's can have their weapons on them in the parking lots of schools. the weapons must remain in the vehicle if you get outside of it period i.e picking up the kids going to vote, school functions. if no ccw/cpl do not go into the parking lot with a weapon big no no
one things for sure if you get stopped with your layout boat the police will have probable cause for a search


----------



## Quakstakr (Nov 3, 2009)

ahartz said:


> HHmm...makes me think..I often drop my kids off at school with the layout behind me and my gun in the back!!!...Andy


Yeah, I make sure if I've had any of my guns in the truck, which I often do, I stop by the house and drop them off before getting the kids from school.

Just don't ever want to open the doors and have someone walk by. Next thing you know, you're that guy in the local paper.


----------



## WALLEYE MIKE (Jan 7, 2001)

hogpounder said:


> WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL I USE TO TAKE MY SHOTGUN TO SCHOOL AFTER I WAS DONE DUCK HUNTING AND PUT IT IN MY LOCKER NO ONE EVER SAID NOTHING BUT THIS WAS BACK IN THE 70,S WHEN PEOPLE WERE COOL AND LOVED EVERYONE NO KILLINGS VERY LITTLE MURDER NOT LIKE TODAY PEOPLE ARE CRAZY:yikes:


Interesting. Your birthdate is listed as 1980 and you went to school in the 70's. How can that be?


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

Anybody seen an update on this.


----------



## BigSteve (Sep 7, 2009)

WALLEYE MIKE said:


> Interesting. Your birthdate is listed as 1980 and you went to school in the 70's. How can that be?


Maybe he was "reborn" in the 80's


----------



## casscityalum (Aug 27, 2007)

2PawsRiver said:


> Anybody seen an update on this.


http://www.newsrunner.com/display-a...xpulsion+of+Willows+Duck+Hunter+is+Overturned

As for Tudesko, the 17 year-old says the experience has changed his outlook on education. "I'm not going to take school for granted. I'm going to grow up and take advantage of school."


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

WALLEYE MIKE said:


> Interesting. Your birthdate is listed as 1980 and you went to school in the 70's. How can that be?


just way to high, to many bongs with cheech and chong


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

casscityalum said:


> http://www.newsrunner.com/display-a...xpulsion+of+Willows+Duck+Hunter+is+Overturned
> 
> As for Tudesko, the 17 year-old says the experience has changed his outlook on education. "I'm not going to take school for granted. I'm going to grow up and take advantage of school."


kinda ashamed of some of the people on this board who advocated his rights being violated by government (public school)....this kid clearly did nothing wrong...A lot of people sure jump on a bandwagon without knowing any kinds of facts. One of those facts was he did not break any law and he was smart enough to realize he could not park at school. smart kid IMO and you guys sure draw some huge insinuations from his actions.


----------

