It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Podunk prosecutors seek gag order against eighth-grader arrested over NRA shirt

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:00 PM
The following article is another example of the road this country is being taken to. The school policy itself doesn't prohibit the kids wearing t-shirts that promote the second amendment.

His shirt wasn't promoting "murder", or a law foreign to the law of the land, aka the U.S. Constitution.
This kid was wearing a shirt promoting a right, which the U.S. Constitution states it is one of the many rights which are natural/God given, and which no government, group or person/people can ban, or restrict.

Not only was the kid arrested for wearing this t-shirt, but now the prosecutors are seeking for a gag order against the 8th grader and his parents since of course the prosecutors, and the state, don't want this kid and his parents to talk to the press about what happened...

Podunk prosecutors seek gag order against eighth-grader arrested over NRA shirt

8:17 AM 06/26/2013

Eric Owens
Education Editor

The case of the rural West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and arrested in late April after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National Rifle Association just keeps getting weirder.

According to local CBS affiliate WOWK-TV, the student, 14-year-old Jared Marcum, was back at the Logan County Courthouse on Monday for a hearing because prosecutors Christopher White and Sabrina Deskins were seeking an emergency gag order.

Earlier this month, Marcum had been formally charged with obstructing an officer. He was also suspended from school for one day. His crime was refusing a teacher’s request to take off the shirt, which was emblazoned with a hunting rifle and the statement “protect your right.”
The school districts policy doesnt prohibit shirts promoting Second Amendment rights. Audaciously, Marcum returned to school after his suspension wearing exactly the same shirt. (RELATED: Eighth-grader arrested over NRA shirt returns to school in same shirt)

The 14-year-old now faces a $500 fine and a maximum of one year in prison or juvenile confinement.

In seeking the emergency gag order, the podunk prosecutors argued that Marcum’s interest would best be served if he, his attorney and his father are prevented from speaking about the case in the press.


posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:05 PM
I would have to agree they should not talk to the press it only makes the prosecutor look like an idiot and really would screw up his chances for re election. Gotta protect the government at all cost. What the HECK are they thinking

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:07 PM
Don't think anyone should get arrested over a t-shirt especially a kid one that promotes responsible gun ownership.

A school finds problems with that?

Utter nonsense also considering no one has ever been arrested for wearing a CHe t-shirt.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:08 PM
Montani Semper Liberi - Mountaineers are always free.

Not anymore, I guess...

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:08 PM
To think.... This used to be a free nation where those in authority respected the right of the people to speak without fear of State reprisal or punitive action. The only exceptions have generally been with minors (where THEY care about privacy and aren't the ones saying it) or crimes of such emotional sensitivity, it's a no rape.

Now it's fit to order a gag just to cover their sorry butts? Well I see one prosecutor who hasn't earned himself another term in his job, has he? Any chance of recalling the little free speech hater sooner than later? I hate to think of that level of values (or lack of them) anywhere near positions of power.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:30 PM
After waking up, the first two things I read here are Bloomberg and his sparkler ban then this. Serious question, folks, why the hell are we not revolting against these subhuman scum?

Land of the free? Not for a long time. Home of the brave? Not even close. I will never take my hat off for the national anthem, never sing it and I wish I had a flag just so I could burn it.

Ron Paul once said if you have to ask if you can do it, you are not living in a free society. May I go to the bathroom now, I have this urge to throw up, or is that against the law?

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:31 PM
What do you do when a situation gets blown way out of proportion? Blow it out even further of course!

I do love that he wore the same shirt his first day back from suspension, priceless.


posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:41 PM
Where's the petition? I'd sign it and I'm not even American.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:49 PM
I am proud to say that I am a native West Virginian.

I am not, however, proud of what is being allowed to happen there...

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by TheSpanishArcher
After waking up, the first two things I read here are Bloomberg and his sparkler ban then this. Serious question, folks, why the hell are we not revolting against these subhuman scum?

LOOK! Over there, AMERICANS! *insert meowing noise here*

There is no revolt because the average American is too scared to act in the face of increasing tyrany. God flipping forbid that anything should happen that disrupts their normal cycle of watching American Idol, eating Big Macs, and doing little more than verbally pissing and moaning over life in general. The country's founding fathers had stainless steel balls which have been replaced with plastic remote controls and a system of debtor's slavery in just 237 years.

America will continue to take it time after time after time, living out a pathetic scenario of the Stockholm syndrome by pointing and sneering at anyone who dares step out of line and recieve the dreaded "enemy of the state" label by acting like a human with a spine and standing up for freedom.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

I do understand all that. So, that begs another question. What can we do? Just bend over and take it? I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired while fighting a losing battle. I'd go out and protest but I'd just get myself killed by the pigs, and since no one else would be there no one would know. My death would raise no eyebrows anywhere.

Being sane in an insane world really sucks.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:50 PM
Given the precedent set in the Supreme Court by Houston v Hill, and the fairly nebulous wording of WV's "obstruction" charge, I think the prosecutor's got a tough row to hoe.

To wit:

1. A municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his duty is substantially overbroad and therefore invalid on its face under the First Amendment. The ordinance in question criminalizes a substantial amount of, and is susceptible of regular application to, constitutionally protected speech, and accords the police unconstitutional enforcement discretion, as is demonstrated by evidence indicating that, although the ordinance's plain language is violated scores of times daily, only those individuals chosen by police in their unguided discretion are arrested. Appellant's argument that the ordinance is not substantially overbroad because it does not inhibit the exposition of ideas, but simply bans unprotected "core criminal conduct," is not persuasive. Since the ordinance's language making it unlawful to "assault" or "strike" a police officer is expressly pre-empted by the State Penal Code, its enforceable portion prohibits verbal interruptions of police and thereby deals with speech rather than with core criminal conduct. Moreover, although speech might be prohibited if it consists of "fighting words" that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, the ordinance in question is not limited to such expressions but broadly applies to speech that "in any manner . . . interrupt[s] any policeman" and thereby impermissibly infringes the constitutionally protected freedom of individuals verbally [482 U.S. 451, 452] to oppose or challenge police action. Appellant's contention that the ordinance's sweeping nature is both inevitable and essential to maintain public order is also without merit, since the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words, but impermissibly provides police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that are simply annoying or offensive. Pp. 458-467.

From the majority (8-1) Supreme Court decision

It doesn't get much more clear than that. It is *directly applicable* - HvH was about a man who was arrested for asking the police questions while his friend was being arrested. The cops filed an obstruction charge because he "hindered them by talking to them". And they were slapped into the dirt by the Supreme Court because, as you read above, you CANNOT arrest individuals for words that are annoying. You CANNOT have a valid obstruction ordinance that permits an obstruction charge for questioning or challenging police during an arrest. Any ordinance that does so is invalid on its face. It seems pretty cut and dried.

The WV statute the kid's supposed to have violated reads as:

a) Any person who by threats, menaces, acts or otherwise, forcibly or illegally hinders or obstructs, or attempts to hinder or obstruct, any law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500 or confined in jail not more than one year, or both fined and confined.

There are other sections, but they address disarming a cop or fleeing.

What part of that can you fit talking into? Can you construe it to be forcible? It can't be illegal - it's Constitutionally protected.

new topics

top topics


log in