Child arrested for sharing photo of toy gun on social media that he got for his birthday

[sealybobo]

You dont [sic] have to commit a crime in order to be arrested. The courts determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, not the cops.

However, the cops have to have a very good reason that you may have committed a crime before they can arrest you. To arrest someone in the absence of just cause to believe that the arrestee may have committed a crime is, itself a criminal act.

Can they detain me downtown for up to 72 hours or something like that? Without technically being arrested or charged with a crime?

 

[Asclepias]

You dont [sic] have to commit a crime in order to be arrested. The courts determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, not the cops.

However, the cops have to have a very good reason that you may have committed a crime before they can arrest you. To arrest someone in the absence of just cause to believe that the arrestee may have committed a crime is, itself a criminal act.

Can they detain me downtown for up to 72 hours or something like that? Without technically being arrested or charged with a crime?

They dont even have to do that. They can just plant some drugs on you and arrest you.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

You dont [sic] have to commit a crime in order to be arrested. The courts determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, not the cops.

However, the cops have to have a very good reason that you may have committed a crime before they can arrest you. To arrest someone in the absence of just cause to believe that the arrestee may have committed a crime is, itself a criminal act.

Can they detain me downtown for up to 72 hours or something like that? Without technically being arrested or charged with a crime?

They dont even have to do that. They can just plant some drugs on you and arrest you.

That's what needs to happen to you.

 

[Asclepias]

You dont [sic] have to commit a crime in order to be arrested. The courts determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, not the cops.

However, the cops have to have a very good reason that you may have committed a crime before they can arrest you. To arrest someone in the absence of just cause to believe that the arrestee may have committed a crime is, itself a criminal act.

Can they detain me downtown for up to 72 hours or something like that? Without technically being arrested or charged with a crime?

They dont even have to do that. They can just plant some drugs on you and arrest you.

That's what needs to happen to you.

Come give it a try and see what happens.

 

[sealybobo]

You dont [sic] have to commit a crime in order to be arrested. The courts determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, not the cops.

However, the cops have to have a very good reason that you may have committed a crime before they can arrest you. To arrest someone in the absence of just cause to believe that the arrestee may have committed a crime is, itself a criminal act.

Can they detain me downtown for up to 72 hours or something like that? Without technically being arrested or charged with a crime?

They dont even have to do that. They can just plant some drugs on you and arrest you.

It may take a few victims before the judges and DA's realize a lot of people arrested by this one particular cop always seem to have the same story. He planted drugs on me, he was abusive, he raped me. These guys need to have body cams on at all times. I don't worship the cops. They work for us and the power has gone to their heads.

What made me sick was when Trump said cops should rough up the people they arrest.

Trump and his supporters really are deplorable.

 

[Asclepias]

You dont [sic] have to commit a crime in order to be arrested. The courts determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, not the cops.

However, the cops have to have a very good reason that you may have committed a crime before they can arrest you. To arrest someone in the absence of just cause to believe that the arrestee may have committed a crime is, itself a criminal act.

Can they detain me downtown for up to 72 hours or something like that? Without technically being arrested or charged with a crime?

They dont even have to do that. They can just plant some drugs on you and arrest you.

It may take a few victims before the judges and DA's realize a lot of people arrested by this one particular cop always seem to have the same story. He planted drugs on me, he was abusive, he raped me. These guys need to have body cams on at all times. I don't worship the cops. They work for us and the power has gone to their heads.

What made me sick was when Trump said cops should rough up the people they arrest.

Trump and his supporters really are deplorable.

Drumpf is speaking to his base. The white boys that marched down south with the bon fires and pitchforks.

 

[sealybobo]

You dont [sic] have to commit a crime in order to be arrested. The courts determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, not the cops.

However, the cops have to have a very good reason that you may have committed a crime before they can arrest you. To arrest someone in the absence of just cause to believe that the arrestee may have committed a crime is, itself a criminal act.

Can they detain me downtown for up to 72 hours or something like that? Without technically being arrested or charged with a crime?

They dont even have to do that. They can just plant some drugs on you and arrest you.

That's what needs to happen to you.

No, that's what needs to happen to YOU. See white shadow, you ignorant white fools don't get it because it doesn't happen to you. That's because of your white privilege. It's so nice you don't even realize you are wearing that armor.

I have seen it time and time again. On every subject I have witnessed right wing idiots become hypocrites as soon as they realize the error in their ways. From the environment, guns, gays, racism, welfare, losing your jobs, pre existing conditions.

I know if I'm talking to an anti gay con for example I know that fool has no gays in his family.

I know if I'm talking to a racist white conservative man I know he has no black friends.

I know if he loses his job or gets hurt he'll be the first one in line waiting for government cheese.

But even when your house is under water because of pollution you will still deny global warming. Even if your kids school gets shot up you'll still have a hard on for automatic weapons.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If that's true then by the same token, your opinion that someone is threatening does not determine that they are, in fact, threatening. See how that works?

Too bad its not the same token. Whats threatening to one person has no bearing on whats threatening to another. See how that works?

You just destroyed your own argument. Read your post and cogitate on it for a while. With any hope, you'll get it.

I only destroyed your comment. Read your comment and explain to me how someone is not threatening merely because you dont feel it is.

I was afraid you wouldn't get it.

What you're saying in that comment is that the way we perceive a threat is subjective. That means that if two people are looking at the same thing (in this case, a toy gun posted on social media) and you perceive it to be a threat but I don't, either of us could be wrong and either of us could be right. By making it subjective, you destroyed your entire argument.

What you're just not getting is that simply feeling threatened doesn't mean there's a legitimate reason to feel so.

I was pretty much expecting you couldnt answer the question. Thanks for verifying that.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying this person didn't feel threatened. I'm saying the picture alone is not threatening gesture or against the law so there was no reason to feel threatened. In a nutshell, this person overreacted.

We could go around and around on this but in the end, the facts remain the same and they are: 1.) It was a toy gun. 2.) It was just a picture of a toy gun. 3.) There were no threats made or any kind of threatening language at all.

 

[Asclepias]

Too bad its not the same token. Whats threatening to one person has no bearing on whats threatening to another. See how that works?

You just destroyed your own argument. Read your post and cogitate on it for a while. With any hope, you'll get it.

I only destroyed your comment. Read your comment and explain to me how someone is not threatening merely because you dont feel it is.

I was afraid you wouldn't get it.

What you're saying in that comment is that the way we perceive a threat is subjective. That means that if two people are looking at the same thing (in this case, a toy gun posted on social media) and you perceive it to be a threat but I don't, either of us could be wrong and either of us could be right. By making it subjective, you destroyed your entire argument.

What you're just not getting is that simply feeling threatened doesn't mean there's a legitimate reason to feel so.

I was pretty much expecting you couldnt answer the question. Thanks for verifying that.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying this person didn't feel threatened. I'm saying the picture alone is not threatening gesture or against the law so there was no reason to feel threatened. In a nutshell, this person overreacted.

We could go around and around on this but in the end, the facts remain the same and they are: 1.) It was a toy gun. 2.) It was just a picture of a toy gun. 3.) There were no threats made or any kind of threatening language at all.

Again youre assuming you speak for everyone. Who told you that you were in charge designating what someone considers a reason to feel threatened or not? I'm afraid you are stuck in your own perspective and so naive you feel your illusion its shared with everyone.

We could go round and round but the point remains you were never elected king decider of what is threatening hence you have no voice. The fact remains that someone decided that it was threatening and called the cops.

 

[Dragonlady]

Child Arrested for Sharing Photo of Toy Gun on Social Media That He Got for His Birthday
Woodbridge, Connecticut – A teenage boy was arrested and detained for the crime of posting a photo on social media of a toy gun he received as a birthday gift. Despite the fact that the photo included a “Warning” sticker on the gun, which stated that it was a toy, the student was suspended from school and treated as a criminal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh man you trendy's have got to stop with the bs man honest to gawd look at the pathetic world you leftist douches have created for these kids.

The Daily Sheeple????

And like the good little Russian bot that you are, you brought another POS divisive link from the alt right here.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You just destroyed your own argument. Read your post and cogitate on it for a while. With any hope, you'll get it.

I only destroyed your comment. Read your comment and explain to me how someone is not threatening merely because you dont feel it is.

I was afraid you wouldn't get it.

What you're saying in that comment is that the way we perceive a threat is subjective. That means that if two people are looking at the same thing (in this case, a toy gun posted on social media) and you perceive it to be a threat but I don't, either of us could be wrong and either of us could be right. By making it subjective, you destroyed your entire argument.

What you're just not getting is that simply feeling threatened doesn't mean there's a legitimate reason to feel so.

I was pretty much expecting you couldnt answer the question. Thanks for verifying that.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying this person didn't feel threatened. I'm saying the picture alone is not threatening gesture or against the law so there was no reason to feel threatened. In a nutshell, this person overreacted.

We could go around and around on this but in the end, the facts remain the same and they are: 1.) It was a toy gun. 2.) It was just a picture of a toy gun. 3.) There were no threats made or any kind of threatening language at all.

Again youre assuming you speak for everyone. Who told you that you were in charge designating what someone considers a reason to feel threatened or not? I'm afraid you are stuck in your own perspective and so naive you feel your illusion its shared with everyone.

We could go round and round but the point remains you were never elected king decider of what is threatening hence you have no voice. The fact remains that someone decided that it was threatening and called the cops.

I don't know if I'm trying to speak for everyone but I will say this: it was a picture of a toy gun with no accompanying verbal threats of any kind. For the life of me I just cannot see this as threatening no matter how I look at it. And the fact that someone did and you apparently agree with this person genuinely concerns me. It concerns me because this is not the only case like this. There have already been a number of cases of people being unjustly arrested or fired from their jobs because of people freaking out about firearms.

- A 15 year old was arrested in Chicago in February after he posted a picture of himself on Snapchat holding an AK-47. There were about three pics altogether and one of them was captioned and mentioned the school. They don't say what the caption said but they do say that the caption did not threaten or imply a threat to the school. But they arrested him anyway.

- In 2012 a man in Canada was arrested after his daughter drew a picture of a gun at elementary school. The cops and child services showed up at his house and did a search.

- A Virginia woman was fired from her job when her employer found out she had a Concealed Carry permit. They had security escort her out of the building "for safety concerns".
All they had to do was ask her not to bring the gun on the premises (which she never did anyway) and that would have been that. But that wasn't good enough; they had to do their lame moral posturing to make a statement and now she's out of a job.

 

[Asclepias]

I only destroyed your comment. Read your comment and explain to me how someone is not threatening merely because you dont feel it is.

I was afraid you wouldn't get it.

What you're saying in that comment is that the way we perceive a threat is subjective. That means that if two people are looking at the same thing (in this case, a toy gun posted on social media) and you perceive it to be a threat but I don't, either of us could be wrong and either of us could be right. By making it subjective, you destroyed your entire argument.

What you're just not getting is that simply feeling threatened doesn't mean there's a legitimate reason to feel so.

I was pretty much expecting you couldnt answer the question. Thanks for verifying that.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying this person didn't feel threatened. I'm saying the picture alone is not threatening gesture or against the law so there was no reason to feel threatened. In a nutshell, this person overreacted.

We could go around and around on this but in the end, the facts remain the same and they are: 1.) It was a toy gun. 2.) It was just a picture of a toy gun. 3.) There were no threats made or any kind of threatening language at all.

Again youre assuming you speak for everyone. Who told you that you were in charge designating what someone considers a reason to feel threatened or not? I'm afraid you are stuck in your own perspective and so naive you feel your illusion its shared with everyone.

We could go round and round but the point remains you were never elected king decider of what is threatening hence you have no voice. The fact remains that someone decided that it was threatening and called the cops.

I don't know if I'm trying to speak for everyone but I will say this: it was a picture of a toy gun with no accompanying verbal threats of any kind. For the life of me I just cannot see this as threatening no matter how I look at it. And the fact that someone did and you apparently agree with this person genuinely concerns me. It concerns me because this is not the only case like this. There have already been a number of cases of people being unjustly arrested or fired from their jobs because of people freaking out about firearms.

- A 15 year old was arrested in Chicago in February after he posted a picture of himself on Snapchat holding an AK-47. There were about three pics altogether and one of them was captioned and mentioned the school. They don't say what the caption said but they do say that the caption did not threaten or imply a threat to the school. But they arrested him anyway.

- In 2012 a man in Canada was arrested after his daughter drew a picture of a gun at elementary school. The cops and child services showed up at his house and did a search.

- A Virginia woman was fired from her job when her employer found out she had a Concealed Carry permit. They had security escort her out of the building "for safety concerns".
All they had to do was ask her not to bring the gun on the premises (which she never did anyway) and that would have been that. But that wasn't good enough; they had to do their lame moral posturing to make a statement and now she's out of a job.

I never asked if you personally found it threatening. I merely stated that it definitely was threatening as evidenced by someone calling the cops about it. I am more concerned about people not reporting nutcases and then playing monday morning quarterback and pointing out all the signs along the way that pointed to a mass shooter in development. This childs parents letting him do this so soon after the school shooting is stupidity personified.

Most states are "at will employment" so you cant be unjustly fired from your job. They can fire you for no reason at all.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I was afraid you wouldn't get it.

What you're saying in that comment is that the way we perceive a threat is subjective. That means that if two people are looking at the same thing (in this case, a toy gun posted on social media) and you perceive it to be a threat but I don't, either of us could be wrong and either of us could be right. By making it subjective, you destroyed your entire argument.

What you're just not getting is that simply feeling threatened doesn't mean there's a legitimate reason to feel so.

I was pretty much expecting you couldnt answer the question. Thanks for verifying that.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying this person didn't feel threatened. I'm saying the picture alone is not threatening gesture or against the law so there was no reason to feel threatened. In a nutshell, this person overreacted.

We could go around and around on this but in the end, the facts remain the same and they are: 1.) It was a toy gun. 2.) It was just a picture of a toy gun. 3.) There were no threats made or any kind of threatening language at all.

Again youre assuming you speak for everyone. Who told you that you were in charge designating what someone considers a reason to feel threatened or not? I'm afraid you are stuck in your own perspective and so naive you feel your illusion its shared with everyone.

We could go round and round but the point remains you were never elected king decider of what is threatening hence you have no voice. The fact remains that someone decided that it was threatening and called the cops.

I don't know if I'm trying to speak for everyone but I will say this: it was a picture of a toy gun with no accompanying verbal threats of any kind. For the life of me I just cannot see this as threatening no matter how I look at it. And the fact that someone did and you apparently agree with this person genuinely concerns me. It concerns me because this is not the only case like this. There have already been a number of cases of people being unjustly arrested or fired from their jobs because of people freaking out about firearms.

- A 15 year old was arrested in Chicago in February after he posted a picture of himself on Snapchat holding an AK-47. There were about three pics altogether and one of them was captioned and mentioned the school. They don't say what the caption said but they do say that the caption did not threaten or imply a threat to the school. But they arrested him anyway.

- In 2012 a man in Canada was arrested after his daughter drew a picture of a gun at elementary school. The cops and child services showed up at his house and did a search.

- A Virginia woman was fired from her job when her employer found out she had a Concealed Carry permit. They had security escort her out of the building "for safety concerns".
All they had to do was ask her not to bring the gun on the premises (which she never did anyway) and that would have been that. But that wasn't good enough; they had to do their lame moral posturing to make a statement and now she's out of a job.

I never asked if you personally found it threatening. I merely stated that it definitely was threatening as evidenced by someone calling the cops about it.

That they called the cops is only evidence that they felt threatened, not that it was threatening.

I am more concerned about people not reporting nutcases and then playing monday morning quarterback and pointing out all the signs along the way that pointed to a mass shooter in development. This childs parents letting him do this so soon after the school shooting is stupidity personified.

I am more concerned about people having the police called on them for stupid shit like their daughters drawing a picture of a gun. Paranoia does not trump the law. Are you going to tell me that a child's drawing of a gun is threatening?

Most states are "at will employment" so you cant be unjustly fired from your job. They can fire you for no reason at all.

But they didn't fire her for no reason at all, they fired her for having a concealed carry permit. It did not violate the law or company policy. It would have been better to fire her for no reason at all than for an idiotic reason as this. In a sense, this was workplace prejudice.

Do they have the right to fire someone for any reason or no reason? Probably. Is it justified to fire someone for a stated reason that does not violate law or policy? Legally, yes. Logically and ethically, no.

Even if we assume that Virginia is an "at will employment" state, do you think they had a valid reason to fire her? I know they have the legal right to do so but from a practical standpoint, is it a valid reason?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Then being convicted of a crime does absolve you of your right to bear arms.

Um yea, but that's not what ChrisL said:

Do you think prisoners have constitutional rights?

And the answer is definitely yes. Out of all their rights, the only one they really lose is the right to bear arms. That's it. He said it as if inmates lose ALL of their rights, and they only lose one. You could say that kinda lose their right to assembly, to a point.

 

[Asclepias]

I was pretty much expecting you couldnt answer the question. Thanks for verifying that.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying this person didn't feel threatened. I'm saying the picture alone is not threatening gesture or against the law so there was no reason to feel threatened. In a nutshell, this person overreacted.

We could go around and around on this but in the end, the facts remain the same and they are: 1.) It was a toy gun. 2.) It was just a picture of a toy gun. 3.) There were no threats made or any kind of threatening language at all.

Again youre assuming you speak for everyone. Who told you that you were in charge designating what someone considers a reason to feel threatened or not? I'm afraid you are stuck in your own perspective and so naive you feel your illusion its shared with everyone.

We could go round and round but the point remains you were never elected king decider of what is threatening hence you have no voice. The fact remains that someone decided that it was threatening and called the cops.

I don't know if I'm trying to speak for everyone but I will say this: it was a picture of a toy gun with no accompanying verbal threats of any kind. For the life of me I just cannot see this as threatening no matter how I look at it. And the fact that someone did and you apparently agree with this person genuinely concerns me. It concerns me because this is not the only case like this. There have already been a number of cases of people being unjustly arrested or fired from their jobs because of people freaking out about firearms.

- A 15 year old was arrested in Chicago in February after he posted a picture of himself on Snapchat holding an AK-47. There were about three pics altogether and one of them was captioned and mentioned the school. They don't say what the caption said but they do say that the caption did not threaten or imply a threat to the school. But they arrested him anyway.

- In 2012 a man in Canada was arrested after his daughter drew a picture of a gun at elementary school. The cops and child services showed up at his house and did a search.

- A Virginia woman was fired from her job when her employer found out she had a Concealed Carry permit. They had security escort her out of the building "for safety concerns".
All they had to do was ask her not to bring the gun on the premises (which she never did anyway) and that would have been that. But that wasn't good enough; they had to do their lame moral posturing to make a statement and now she's out of a job.

I never asked if you personally found it threatening. I merely stated that it definitely was threatening as evidenced by someone calling the cops about it.

That they called the cops is only evidence that they felt threatened, not that it was threatening.

I am more concerned about people not reporting nutcases and then playing monday morning quarterback and pointing out all the signs along the way that pointed to a mass shooter in development. This childs parents letting him do this so soon after the school shooting is stupidity personified.

I am more concerned about people having the police called on them for stupid shit like their daughters drawing a picture of a gun. Paranoia does not trump the law. Are you going to tell me that a child's drawing of a gun is threatening?

Most states are "at will employment" so you cant be unjustly fired from your job. They can fire you for no reason at all.

But they didn't fire her for no reason at all, they fired her for having a concealed carry permit. It did not violate the law or company policy. It would have been better to fire her for no reason at all than for an idiotic reason as this. In a sense, this was workplace prejudice.

Do they have the right to fire someone for any reason or no reason? Probably. Is it justified to fire someone for a stated reason that does not violate law or policy? Legally, yes. Logically and ethically, no.

Even if we assume that Virginia is an "at will employment" state, do you think they had a valid reason to fire her? I know they have the legal right to do so but from a practical standpoint, is it a valid reason?

You obviously dont know what threatening means.

threat·en·ing
ˈTHretniNG/
adjective

1. having a hostile or deliberately frightening quality or manner.
   "her mother had received a threatening letter"
   synonyms: menacing, intimidating, bullying, frightening, hostile;
   formalminatory
   "a threatening letter"
   • LAW
     (of behavior) showing an intention to cause bodily harm.
   • (of a person or situation) causing someone to feel vulnerable or at risk.
     "she was a type he found threatening"

Yes a child drawing a gun could be considered threatening.

I didnt say they fired her for no reason. I just said they could. The fact that they picked that reason doesnt change they could have done it with no reason.

Yes I think they had a valid reason to fire her. My guess is she was well aware of their policy about firearms in the work place and decided to ignore it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying this person didn't feel threatened. I'm saying the picture alone is not threatening gesture or against the law so there was no reason to feel threatened. In a nutshell, this person overreacted.

We could go around and around on this but in the end, the facts remain the same and they are: 1.) It was a toy gun. 2.) It was just a picture of a toy gun. 3.) There were no threats made or any kind of threatening language at all.

Again youre assuming you speak for everyone. Who told you that you were in charge designating what someone considers a reason to feel threatened or not? I'm afraid you are stuck in your own perspective and so naive you feel your illusion its shared with everyone.

We could go round and round but the point remains you were never elected king decider of what is threatening hence you have no voice. The fact remains that someone decided that it was threatening and called the cops.

I don't know if I'm trying to speak for everyone but I will say this: it was a picture of a toy gun with no accompanying verbal threats of any kind. For the life of me I just cannot see this as threatening no matter how I look at it. And the fact that someone did and you apparently agree with this person genuinely concerns me. It concerns me because this is not the only case like this. There have already been a number of cases of people being unjustly arrested or fired from their jobs because of people freaking out about firearms.

- A 15 year old was arrested in Chicago in February after he posted a picture of himself on Snapchat holding an AK-47. There were about three pics altogether and one of them was captioned and mentioned the school. They don't say what the caption said but they do say that the caption did not threaten or imply a threat to the school. But they arrested him anyway.

- In 2012 a man in Canada was arrested after his daughter drew a picture of a gun at elementary school. The cops and child services showed up at his house and did a search.

- A Virginia woman was fired from her job when her employer found out she had a Concealed Carry permit. They had security escort her out of the building "for safety concerns".
All they had to do was ask her not to bring the gun on the premises (which she never did anyway) and that would have been that. But that wasn't good enough; they had to do their lame moral posturing to make a statement and now she's out of a job.

I never asked if you personally found it threatening. I merely stated that it definitely was threatening as evidenced by someone calling the cops about it.

That they called the cops is only evidence that they felt threatened, not that it was threatening.

I am more concerned about people not reporting nutcases and then playing monday morning quarterback and pointing out all the signs along the way that pointed to a mass shooter in development. This childs parents letting him do this so soon after the school shooting is stupidity personified.

I am more concerned about people having the police called on them for stupid shit like their daughters drawing a picture of a gun. Paranoia does not trump the law. Are you going to tell me that a child's drawing of a gun is threatening?

Most states are "at will employment" so you cant be unjustly fired from your job. They can fire you for no reason at all.

But they didn't fire her for no reason at all, they fired her for having a concealed carry permit. It did not violate the law or company policy. It would have been better to fire her for no reason at all than for an idiotic reason as this. In a sense, this was workplace prejudice.

Do they have the right to fire someone for any reason or no reason? Probably. Is it justified to fire someone for a stated reason that does not violate law or policy? Legally, yes. Logically and ethically, no.

Even if we assume that Virginia is an "at will employment" state, do you think they had a valid reason to fire her? I know they have the legal right to do so but from a practical standpoint, is it a valid reason?

You obviously dont know what threatening means.

threat·en·ing
ˈTHretniNG/
adjective

1. having a hostile or deliberately frightening quality or manner.
   "her mother had received a threatening letter"
   synonyms: menacing, intimidating, bullying, frightening, hostile;
   formalminatory
   "a threatening letter"
   • LAW
     (of behavior) showing an intention to cause bodily harm.
   • (of a person or situation) causing someone to feel vulnerable or at risk.
     "she was a type he found threatening"

Yes a child drawing a gun could be considered threatening.

So you're telling me that an elementary school kid with a crayon drawing of a gun would make you feel threatened, vulnerable or at risk?

I didnt say they fired her for no reason. I just said they could. The fact that they picked that reason doesnt change they could have done it with no reason.

I understand that they could have fired her for no reason and I already acknowledged that. But they fired her for a specific reason that did not violate any law or policy.
Firing someone for no reason does not discriminate and lays no blame or fault with the person being fired. However, firing someone for a stated reason that violates no law or policy discriminates and specifically lays the blame or fault with the person being fired.

Would you feel the same way if they fired someone for wearing a Black Lives Matter pin on their shirt as opposed to no reason at all?

Yes I think they had a valid reason to fire her. My guess is she was well aware of their policy about firearms in the work place and decided to ignore it.

I already told you she never brought the gun on the work premises. So again, do you think it was a valid reason?

 

[9thIDdoc]

There is a law against a picture of a toy?
Can you say false arrest? Can you say law suit that should make a young man and his parents wealthy?
I and my children and grandchildren have all owned guns of our own before graduating high school.

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You dont [sic] have to commit a crime in order to be arrested. The courts determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, not the cops.

However, the cops have to have a very good reason that you may have committed a crime before they can arrest you. To arrest someone in the absence of just cause to believe that the arrestee may have committed a crime is, itself a criminal act.

Can they detain me downtown for up to 72 hours or something like that? Without technically being arrested or charged with a crime?

They dont even have to do that. They can just plant some drugs on you and arrest you.

It may take a few victims before the judges and DA's realize a lot of people arrested by this one particular cop always seem to have the same story. He planted drugs on me, he was abusive, he raped me. These guys need to have body cams on at all times. I don't worship the cops. They work for us and the power has gone to their heads.

What made me sick was when Trump said cops should rough up the people they arrest.

Trump and his supporters really are deplorable.

Drumpf is speaking to his base. The white boys that marched down south with the bon fires and pitchforks.

The problem isn't that white boys marched with bon fires and pitchforks. The problem is, they stopped.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Good. He shouldnt threaten people with the image of being shot by a gun. What kind of shitty parent allows their child to do such a thing after all these school shootings?

In another thread, the usual suspects are saying the Parkland shooter should have been arrested before he committed a crime. You know. Because he might be thinking about committing a crime.

And, if THIS kid had and used the real thing, same bunch would be saying SEE?? You lib-rules had a chance to save lives and you didn't.

Make up your minds because you can't have it both ways.