A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.
Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.
NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.
Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.
...Port St. Joe, Florida where Robert Paul Alexander Edwards, 33, is facing criminal charges for drawing a “disturbing” picture (shown below) on a student’s homework assignment. The interesting thing is that the police acknowledge that they do not believe that Edwards intended to take any violent action but they criminally charged him because the picture was “disturbing.”...
SNIP
The drawing was a crudely drawn school house on fire with a person running from the flames and others standing in a line being shot (with the words “Pew, Pew, Pew” coming from the gun).
SNIP
The lack of any evidence of intent did not appear to deter police. Sheriff Mike Harrison declared “Our country has been affected one too many times with horrific school tragedies. We take matters like this very seriously.” Accordingly, Edwards was charged with a written threat to kill or do bodily injury.
See, but if this guy were to get an artists permit, then he could exercise his first Amendment right, not as a negative right, as intended, but as a permitted positive right, having passed a background check and qualifying for the possession of writing utensils and paper...
Pew Pew Pew!
Even idiocy is Constitutionally protected, but perhaps some will claim that this is a reasonable restriction / regulation of the indiscriminate exercise of free speech.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
I'll admit that I, personally, wouldn't be too quick to jump to this guy's defense. This rings of the shouting 'fire' in a theater scenario.
-Mike
NRA Life Member
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
Tench Coxe
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
I have to look at it from the perspective of a dad with several small children. I'm not ok with a person like that - yes, I'm judging - sending a drawing of school children being killed into a school. How stable he and his offspring must be.
I think that there's a couple of differences between the two.
1. is that the cartoon is an impossible fantasy that can't possibly happen, i.e. a little boy flying an F15 to destroy a school building. The scenario depicted in the drawing could easily potentially happen now, and has happened in the past. It is a realistic type of threat, even if the police now believe that the guy didn't intent to carry it out.
2. is that the character in the cartoon is merely destroying a building, not intentionally trying to kill mass numbers of people. There is no implication in the cartoon that people are inside at the time, unlike the drawing.
I think that there's a couple of differences between the two.
1. is that the cartoon is an impossible fantasy that can't possibly happen, i.e. a little boy flying an F15 to destroy a school building. The scenario depicted in the drawing could easily potentially happen now, and has happened in the past. It is a realistic type of threat, even if the police now believe that the guy didn't intent to carry it out.
2. is that the character in the cartoon is merely destroying a building, not intentionally trying to kill mass numbers of people. There is no implication in the cartoon that people are inside at the time, unlike the drawing.
3. That comic wasn't (afaik) brought to school and handed to one of the staff. Kind of an important distinction, IMO.
This would be interesting to follow this through a conclusion in court. Extreme caution in watching this guy is certainly deserved. Will a conviction be possible? I wonder.
"The sins of the evil do not justify restricting the rights of the good"
I think that there's a couple of differences between the two.
1. is that the cartoon is an impossible fantasy that can't possibly happen, i.e. a little boy flying an F15 to destroy a school building. The scenario depicted in the drawing could easily potentially happen now, and has happened in the past. It is a realistic type of threat, even if the police now believe that the guy didn't intent to carry it out.
2. is that the character in the cartoon is merely destroying a building, not intentionally trying to kill mass numbers of people. There is no implication in the cartoon that people are inside at the time, unlike the drawing.
3. That comic wasn't (afaik) brought to school and handed to one of the staff. Kind of an important distinction, IMO.
Robert Paul Alexander Edwards, 33, was charged with a written threat to kill or do bodily injury, a second-degree felony.
He is jailed on $150,000 bond.
Edwards is the stepfather of a child enrolled at Port St. Joe Elementary School.
SNIP
“Our country has been affected one too many times with horrific school tragedies,” said Sheriff Mike Harrison. “We take matters like this very seriously.”
Although the actions in the drawing were taken seriously, Harrison said there was no reason to believe Edwards intended to carry out the threat.
No doubt a jury can be fielded to hang this guy....
Is it really a threat if there's no indication of carrying it out?
Is society better off if a person is jailed for drawing such an image on a kids homework?
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798