Jonesboro School Shooter Back in Court

[devilgrrl]

Source: Associated Press

Jonesboro School Shooter Back in Court
By PEGGY HARRIS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
October 24, 2007 1:41 PM EDT

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - A man who took part in a schoolyard ambush as a teen pleaded not guilty Wednesday to a new weapons charge.

Mitchell Johnson, 23, appeared before a federal magistrate on one count of possession of a firearm while either a user or addicted to a controlled substance, said Debbie Groom, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Western District of Arkansas.

Police pulled over Johnson and another man in a traffic stop in January. Johnson was cited when authorities said he had marijuana and a firearm.

A state prosecutor later dropped the misdemeanor drug and weapon charges at the request of federal officials.

Johnson and Andrew Golden were convicted in juvenile court of the 1998 shootings of four classmates and a teacher at Jonesboro Westside Middle School. The pair opened fire on students and teachers after Golden pulled the fire alarm. Johnson was then 13. Golden was 11.

Read more: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20071024/471ec340_3ca6_15526200710241654941916

[Xithras]

1. Is he even allowed to have a gun?

"Ppossession of a firearm while either a user or addicted to a controlled substance" is a rather obscure thing to charge him with since he's a convicted murderer. Last time I checked, convicted felons weren't allowed to have firearms EVER, and simple posession would be enough to throw him back in prison for a decade or two.

Does the conviction not count because he was a juvenile?

[RamboLiberal]

3. Yes he is allowed to have a gun

Brady Campaign Decries Freed Jonesboro Killer's Right to Buy Guns

On March 24, 1998, 13-year-old, Mitchell Johnson, along with an 11-year-old accomplice, attacked Jonesboro, Arkansas’ Westside Middle School, shooting to death four students and one teacher, and wounding another 10 victims. Under Arkansas law, minors convicted of felonies can only be imprisoned until they reach age 21. On August 11, Mitchell Johnson turned 21 and was release from a Memphis, Tennessee detention center, free to go about his business which, under Arkansas law, could include buying a gun. Needless to say, this fact does not sit well at all with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"You kill five people in cold blood, shocking an entire nation. You go to prison. Seven years later, you get out, and you are free to buy all the guns you want," said Brady Campaign president Michael Barnes, adding, "What a country."

"I hope this young man has changed, and that he is not a threat to others. But this is a textbook case of an individual who should be deemed by society as forever barred from the privilege of owning a gun,” Barnes said. “The fact that he will be legally allowed to own one is an absolute embarrassment in our society."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/193187.htm

IMHO both these young men should've been barred for life from ever owning a gun. There's a part of me that wishes they could be locked up forever, but in light of their young age when they committed the crime I do think it was ok to give them a 2nd chance. But it looks like Mitchell at least is not taking advantage of it. He should know that he has to absolutely obey the law if he wishes to stay out of prison. I have :nopity: for him.

[MnFats]

4. Arkansas has NO WAY of certifying juveniles for adult court? Stunning.

What the hell. I thought no state failed to have such a law by now.
in my state for murders by juveniles it is presumptive to send them to adult court except with very young kids. even then there is something called 'extended custody' which gives the state the right to keep them on a leash untl they're 25.

...and here in the land o lakes we had, yesterday, a 12-year-old kill an adult who shared his home..

i wonder how often young killers get out once they hit 21 in Arkansas. These two got lots of media attention. I'll bet others slipped quietly out the door and back to civilization...

[happyslug]

6. Under the common Law, the test for Insanity was thinking like a 14 year old

Under the Common law, if you could show your thinking was of a person less than 14 you were NOT competent. And people who are NOT competent can NOT be convicted of any crime. Most states have adopted a different definition but the Constitution still requires at least this level of competency. The shooter was 13 when the shooting occurred. As such it would be hard to show he had the competency of a 14 year old. As such almost every state will try him as a Juvenile for Juvenile law is aimed at rehabilitation NOT punishment (and as such NOT subject to the Competency of a 14 year old test). Furthermore since Juvenile law is NOT punishment, it ends when a person is rehabilitate or reaches an age when that can be assumed (Either 18 or 21 depending on the state).

Thus he was released when he turned 21 and had the full rights of an adult who had never been convicted of any crime. Most people transfered to the adult system are over age 14 to avoid this issue. Furthermore if the Law has an age lower then 14, the courts have the right to review competency and rarely, if ever, find competency if someone is below age 14. The actual test in most states is different (And it is rare to use 14 as a cut off) but the result is almost the same, i.e. it is rare, if not impossible, for anyone below age 14 to be tried in an adult court.

[bluestateguy]

2. I knew it. I fucking knew it.

Some people are in prison for 20 years for cocaine possession and yet these killers are walking free.

[Paladin]

5. A Little Light Reading From Our Very Own DU Guns Forum

Down in the Gun Dungeon, there's a current thread entitled "What Gun Laws Would You Like To See Repealed In The U.S.?" In it, I came across the following charming sentiments:

"I'd get rid of laws banning convicts from owning guns. If you have done the time, I think you should be then legally be allowed to own any gun you feel is necessary to protect yourself once you are back in society."

There you have it, folks: a big old shout-out to the Jonesboro boys from our very own Gungeon. Isn't that nice?

[happyslug]

7. When I was in the National Guard, we would give M16s to Prisoners.

If a person was serving a sentence in a Medium security prison or a county Jail, the Full Timers of the unit would go to those Prisons/Jails and get those members of the national Guard who were serving felony sentences for their two weeks active duty. They would be given an M16. In these cases NOT A ONE OF THEM EVER WANDER OFF WITH A WEAPON. A weapon they could sell for several hundred dollars to people they know from their criminal activities. Why did they not sell the weapon? They wanted to serve their sentence and get out. While all were Felons and thus illegal to own a gun, most were in jail for non-violent crime (Mostly Burglary). Such Felons can NOT own a weapon, but the Army gave them a full Automatic M16. Where is the threat ot society?

While I support giving Felons the right to own weapons, I support laws forbidding people with a violent history form owning them. Thus if you were to ask me if a felon should have the right to own a gun, I would say YES, but if you ask me if a person who committed a violent felony I would say NO. It depends on the crime, not whether something is a felony or not.

[Paladin]

11. Why Don't You Hand Those M16's Out To Those Felons.....

...as they walk out the front door of that prison, at the end of their sentences? Since you're so big on supporting felons'rights to own weapons. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

[happyslug]

20. Less than 5% of ALL murders are done with Rifles OR Shotguns

95% of ALL Murders done by Firearms are done by Pistols. In fact the number of people killed by Knives OR "Blunt Instruments" i.e Clubs exceed the number of people killed by Rifles or Shotguns. Basically Rifles (Including Assault Rifles) are NOT a problem (If is a problem are less a problem then Knives or Clubs).

Furthermore if a person has no history of Violence, the chances of him committing a crime of Violence is lower than for a person who has NEVER been convicted (Which by definition includes people who have never been caught). My point was why deny such non-violent ex-felons rifles of shotguns if they want them? What as the chances of them causing any harm? The answer is less then for people who have NEVER been convicted of a felony. It is thus a waste of resources to deny such people Rifles of Shotguns (If they want them).

As to pistols I am willing to accept more restrictions FOR THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR SUCH WEAPONS ARE USED IN CRIME TO A MUCH HIGHER EXTENT THEN KNIVES, CLUBS, RIFLES, or SHOTGUNS. Lets look at the problem AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM, not make up solutions to problems that do NOT exist. I pointed out the fact that felons serving their time were given M16s in my National Guard Units. None of them ever took one AND no one expected them to take one. None had ever mis-used one (i.e. use it in a crime).

My point is simple, once such ex-felons have served their time, they should get all the rights of a Citizen except those rights that can be shown by clear evidence would be "unsafe". Such evidence exists for ex-felons with a history of Violence, but does NOT exist for ex-felons without such a history. That is my point, lets spend resources (i.e money) on things that make us Safer, not on things that people THINK (but do not) make us safer.

[benEzra]

8. I personally don't think writing a bad check to a restaurant should bar you for life...

particularly if the crime occurred 15 years ago and you have had a clean record since. Nor do I think that possession of pot when you were in college should bar you from owning a gun thirty years later. Nor should ripping your personally owned DVD to your computer.

FWIW, my wife's father (yellow dog Dem from Massachusetts, blue-collar, union member) had a brush with the law over 50 years ago, when he was 22 or 23 and just out of the Navy. He's certainly not a risk now. Not everyone convicted of a crime in the past is a violent criminal, and those who are truly violent should probably not be on the street.

I don't know that I would favor repealing the GCA '68 ban on convicted criminals owning firearms (I'm pretty much OK with that as it stands), but I do support allowing the nonviolent to appeal to have their civil rights restored, particularly as more and more minor misdemeanors get redefined as felonies.

In the Jonesboro case, though, I think it's a shame that the killers got off so lightly, but trying them as adults would have open a whole 'nother can of worms, that of putting pre-teen children into the adult court/prison system. That's not a gun-law question, it's a question of how we treat juvenile offenders, and how we balance rehab vs. punishment.

[Paladin]

12. It Most Certainly IS A Gun Law Question.....

....and shame on you for attempting to make it seem otherwise.

This little psychotic participated in a shooting spree that left 4 female students and a teacher dead; 9 other students and a teacher were wounded. The fact that he was allowed within a mile of a firearm after his way-too-premature release is a complete and utter abomination, glaring proof of just how ridiculously easy it is for creeps to get guns in this country---thanks in no small part to the efforts of gun activists like you, and the right-wing politicians that pimp for the one cause you really seem to care about.

And you "think it's a shame that the killers got off so lightly," do you? And yet you just can't bring yourself to state that it might also be a shame that this shithead got his hands on another gun, or to maybe offer some thanks that he got apprehended before he sought out another school. Absolutely pathetic.....

[benEzra]

16. The question here is whether to treat young children who commit serious crimes

as adults, or as children whose records are expunged when they turn 18. The repubs generally advocate treating them as adults (even going so far as to put them in adult prisons), in order to be "tough on crime"; most progressives view the issue as more complex. But the question here is no different from a child of the same age who commits any other murder, rape, aggravated assault, or any other serious crime--should the juvenile record follow them into adulthood, or not? Happyslug covered the legal problem pretty well in post #6. I'm assuming some basic familiarity with the U.S. legal system here.

I agree with you that these guys' records should follow them into adulthood, and that they should fall under the GCA '68 prohibition against gun ownership. But as I said, the relevant fact here is that legally, they don't have a record; in the eyes of the law, they've never been convicted of a crime. If you want to fight to change that, certainly feel free to do so.

And as I said, I don't think nonviolent crimes (writing a bad check 20 years ago, pot possession, etc.) should bar someone for life with no possibility of appeal; I think murder definitely should. The fact that murderers like these guys can own guns, but somebody who writes a bad check is barred for life with little or no possibility of appeal, is backwards, methinks.

[Paladin]

18. Shame On You (n/t)

[Irreverend IX]

23. The issue here is civil rights.

An adult who's convicted of a felony loses certain civil rights. However, children who commit crimes do not lose civil rights unless they manage to get tried as adults, which the Jonesboro shooters weren't. This issue has repercussions beyond gun rights.

For instance, say a 10-year-old sexually assaults and kills a smaller child. He gets sent to juvenile detention and is released at 21 with no record. Should be be able to take a job at a day care?

The reflexive answer is "no," but limiting civil rights and setting down permanent criminal records due to offenses committed by juveniles opens up a big can of worms. Children often commit felonies less serious than rape and murder, and a child can't be expected to have an adult level of judgment and emotional maturity.

Personally, I think that someone who commits a crime like the Jonesboro kids did should receive a special psychiatric evaluation upon release from state custody, which could lead to them being adjudicated incompetent due to mental illness as an adult. This would provide a way to restrict the civil rights of serious crazies while sidestepping some of the problems of giving children permenanent criminal records. However, care would still need to be taken with a law like this.

Your shrill attitude doesn't reflect well on your views. The rule of law means that some criminals will slip through loopholes in the system, but the alternative is a whole lot worse.

[Paladin]

24. Shame On You (n/t)

[Irreverend IX]

25. Is that the best you can do? nt

[brentspeak]

15. Oh, yeah, right -- a convicted killer being allowed to own a gun is "not a gun-law question"....

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

:wow: :wow: :wow:

[benEzra]

17. The problem (and it is a problem) is that in the eyes of the law they don't have criminal records...

because the law is structured in such a way that the murder convictions were expunged when they turned 18. THAT is the legal question here; the problem is that they were granted clean records, and in the eyes of the law are no longer convicted killers (even though in fact they are). The reason someone like that can pass a background check to own a gun, work in a daycare, etc. is that THEY DON'T HAVE A RECORD. For a summary of why that is so, Happyslug covered the legal problem pretty well in post #6.

If you had bothered to read what I've said upthread, you'd see that I am NOT happy that these guys can own guns. But the reason they can't is that the law doesn't consider them to be convicted killers, because of the age at which the conviction occurred.

One solution, of course, would be to allow the criminal record for serious violent crimes (like murder) to follow the perpetrator into adulthood even if the crime was committed at a young age. I personally think that's reasonable, though I think the repub emphasis on trying young kids as adults and putting them into adult prisons is over the top.

[Paladin]

19. Shame On You (n/t)

[benEzra]

21. I can't believe you are THAT ignorant of U.S. criminal law as it pertains to juveniles.

Certainly, sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending I'm OK with these losers being out of jail and owning guns may seem like a kewl debate tactic, on some sort of junior-high level, but that doesn't change the relevant statutes here.

The lifetime gun-ownership ban in the Gun Control Act of 1968 does have jurisdiction over these 2. The problem is, the Arkansas state statutes view them as never having committed a crime, and so therefore the GCA '68 gun control provisions cannot come into play.

If you want to change that, you have to address the issue of juvenile record expungement. There is no way around that, and pretending otherwise is an ignorant position.

[Paladin]

22. Shame On You (n/t)

[benEzra]

26. Which translates to "I can't argue the legal point, so I'll pretend to be holier-than-thou."

The legal problem here is that criminal records were (in this case) unjustly expunged. You can't punish someone for a crime they supposedly didn't commit; you know they did, *I* know they did, but the state is pretending they didn't, because the state wiped their records clean when they turned 18).

Change the law on record expungement for juvenile murderers, or not, but you can't pretend the problem here is lack of a prohibition on possession by convicted murderers; THAT statute EXISTS.


----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[slackmaster]

9. One can just as easily find threads on DU calling for freed convicts to have the right to vote

I feel the same way about both rights.

[Paladin]

13. Tell You What, Slack

The next time somebody takes an election ballot to a school and uses it to kill 5 people and wound another 9, I'll try to take your ridiculous comparison seriously.....

[iverglas]

27. and next up

Freed convicts have the right to get abortions!

... women's reproductive rights being the thing they like most to exploit in pushing their agenda, by advancing totally specious analogies, and freed convicts actually having the right to have abortions ...

I'm one of the ones who calls for people with criminal convictions not to be denied the right to vote. Well, that's not quite accurate: in Canada, they've never been denied that right. So I don't have to call for anything, and all I'd do in respect of anybody else's rules is make recommendations.

It just took a while for the Supreme Court here to strike down the prohibition on incarcerated people voting, which they now may do. Everybody who's a citizen of voting age may vote, here. That's kinda the fundamental thing about citizenship: you get to vote.

People with criminal convictions might also be permitted to possess firearms here too. It all depends on the person. That's what having a mandatory firearms licensing policy does -- lets a person's ability to legally possess a firearm be determined on the basis of the person's own circumstances.

This business of denying "felons" the right to do this and that -- it's what's called "civil death" ... and it's a very nasty illiberal business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death

Civil death is a term that refers to the loss of all or almost all civil rights by a person due to a conviction for a felony (a crime punishable with more than a year's imprisonment) or due to an act by the government of a country that results in the loss of civil rights. It is usually inflicted on persons convicted of crimes against the state or adults determined by a court to be legally incompetent because of mental disability.

A prominent example of civil death is the "illegal enemy combatant" designation used by the United States government, to avoid due process as described by the United States Constitution and protections for prisoners of war described in the Geneva Conventions. A second example of civil death on a wide scale is the use of purges by the former Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

Historically outlawry, that is, declaring a person as an outlaw, was a common form of civil death.

It's been abolished in those civilized societies where it once existed. But not in the USA.

Y'all should really join the 21st century, stop the entirely counterproductive practice of denying any citizen the right to vote, and base eligibility for firearms possession on an individual's own circumstances. And stop preventing gay men and lesbians from marrying the partner of their choice, and stop invading small foreign countries ...

Eh?


jeez, what a lot of damned typos ...

[slackmaster]

10. What a dumbass

:argh:

[Paladin]

14. "What A Dumbass"? "WHAT A DUMBASS"???

This kid takes part in the Jonesboro school massacre, comes out of prison and is caught with another gun in his possession, and "What a Dumbass" takes care of it, as far as you're concerned? Jeez, Slack, you don't think you're being too harsh on the poor boy, now do you?

Your post reveals a lot more about you than you possibly could have intended to reveal....