Teacher charged with allegedly threatening kids

This is ridiculous. If this guy was being harassed--which no-one is disputing--then he has every right to threaten his opponents. If it was a case of mistaken identity, then all that is needed is an apology. I had a similar action happen when some kids started ringing our doorbell. I didn't have a gun, but I caught them at it and made sure they understood that if they ever did it again, their parents would not even find the bodies. If the parents are lax, you have every right to make up for the obvious flaws in their upbringing.

Maybe they should use their vast authority to find the scum-suckers who were actually harassing this man and his wife.

He obviously was in the wrong for brandishing his weapon and threatening to shoot them...
I would think that a little public service would do the trick here...

People with weapons need to remember the law when they decide to pick them up and point them.

It doesn't say he "brandished" the weapon, only that he had it in his hand. There is nothing that says the kids were in any actual danger.

Tracy M wrote:

He obviously was in the wrong for brandishing his weapon and threatening to shoot them...
I would think that a little public service would do the trick here...
People with weapons need to remember the law when they decide to pick them up and point them.

Cpetr13 wrote:

This is ridiculous. If this guy was being harassed--which no-one is disputing--then he has every right to threaten his opponents. If it was a case of mistaken identity, then all that is needed is an apology. I had a similar action happen when some kids started ringing our doorbell. I didn't have a gun, but I caught them at it and made sure they understood that if they ever did it again, their parents would not even find the bodies. If the parents are lax, you have every right to make up for the obvious flaws in their upbringing.
Maybe they should use their vast authority to find the scum-suckers who were actually harassing this man and his wife.

If the children were harrassing him he could have told the children's parents or called the police.You do not pull a gun out on 8-12 year old children.That is irresponsible

Cpetr13 wrote:

It doesn't say he "brandished" the weapon, only that he had it in his hand. There is nothing that says the kids were in any actual danger.
<quoted text>

If a man comes yelling out of his house at children with a weapon in hand...logic tells you (well it at least tells me) it isn't exactly the safest place to be at that moment...who's to say how much "actual" danger they may have been in.
You nor I have any idea how ready he was to point and shoot...no one but him.

Sure he was probably just wanting to scare them, but had I been walking by and that happen, he may have very possibly got a .40 cal lodged in his chest...well, it would actually rip completely through the torso...but he'd get a feel for my Glock.

The police can't do anything at that age and the parents are already of little use if they have raised kids who would do this.

And there is a difference between pulling a gun and just holding it. Nothing here even implies he actually aimed it. Is there a law against holding a legal weapon?

Amerie wrote:

<quoted text>
If the children were harrassing him he could have told the children's parents or called the police.You do not pull a gun out on 8-12 year old children.That is irresponsible

Logic also tells me that they may have been in no danger whatsoever. It also tells me that unless he actually pointed the gun, it was not a danger. Shooting him for defending what he perceived might have been a threat to his home (and trespassing/harassment is justifiable grounds for self-protection) would probably have gotten you a jail sentence yourself.

I keep hearing that they were "just kids". How many kids are caught with guns in schools every year? How many kids have killed people with guns every year? Since he was a teacher, I'd say he has ample reason to be wary of such harassment.

The SCOTUS decided recently that people have the right to own guns. That also means they have the right to have the gun in their hands on their own property. I don't personally agree with it, but if they have the right, you can't punish them for exercising that right.

Tracy M wrote:

<quoted text>
If a man comes yelling out of his house at children with a weapon in hand...logic tells you (well it at least tells me) it isn't exactly the safest place to be at that moment...who's to say how much "actual" danger they may have been in.
You nor I have any idea how ready he was to point and shoot...no one but him.
Sure he was probably just wanting to scare them, but had I been walking by and that happen, he may have very possibly got a .40 cal lodged in his chest...well, it would actually rip completely through the torso...but he'd get a feel for my Glock.

Ringing the doorbell would NEVER be construed as a threat to ones home. Trespassing/harrassment.... sure, maybe. But, harrassment in the form of ringing ones doorbell DOES NOT equate to defending ones self with a gun. Why do you think they always say if you shoot someone on your property you'd better drag the body inside?

Cpetr13 wrote:

Logic also tells me that they may have been in no danger whatsoever. It also tells me that unless he actually pointed the gun, it was not a danger. Shooting him for defending what he perceived might have been a threat to his home (and trespassing/harassment is justifiable grounds for self-protection) would probably have gotten you a jail sentence yourself.
I keep hearing that they were "just kids". How many kids are caught with guns in schools every year? How many kids have killed people with guns every year? Since he was a teacher, I'd say he has ample reason to be wary of such harassment.
The SCOTUS decided recently that people have the right to own guns. That also means they have the right to have the gun in their hands on their own property. I don't personally agree with it, but if they have the right, you can't punish them for exercising that right.
<quoted text>

I totally agree with everythig you said...however...The kids were walking from one point to another...his house was along the path...they weren't up in his lawn, on his property...simply walking past his house.

There is a big difference between holding your gun on your property and holding your gun on your property while yelling at children.

Here in Indiana, we've always been allowed to own guns...the latest court ruling was about hand guns, not shotguns or rifles.

The law also allows me to carry my concealed hand gun and to protect myself in the event I or someone around me is in danger.

You are right...tresspassing and harrasment is justification for self protection, but certainly not shooting someone...that'll get you some time for sure.

Before you argue any more, I'd suggest you read up on gun laws in Indiana, as it is very clear as when a gun can be used for self defense. Tresspassing grounds and harrassment are not justifiable reasons to do so.

Because they are idiots?

When harassment begins, it often escalates. And yes, if someone keeps ringing your bell, you can perceive that to be a threat--that has been decided in many cases.

The guy was HOLDING a gun. Holding a gun while on your own property is your right. Until you find something that shows he deliberately pointed it at anyone, there is no basis for an arrest.

lol wrote:

Ringing the doorbell would NEVER be construed as a threat to ones home. Trespassing/harrassment.... sure, maybe. But, harrassment in the form of ringing ones doorbell DOES NOT equate to defending ones self with a gun. Why do you think they always say if you shoot someone on your property you'd better drag the body inside?

Wow based on the article this is the type of teacher we need in the schools. I think he was a bit extreme if he knew it was a child who was ringing his door bell and running(if that is what they were doing). Was he in fear for his life when he grabbed the gun or did he want to use it for intimidation?? He made a big mistake but should he be prosecuted??? Lose his job??? MaybeI cannot imagine what my husband would do to this man if our son were one of the innocent children he came at with a gun.
I am sure the little kids were terrified.

Cpetr13 wrote:

Because they are idiots?
When harassment begins, it often escalates. And yes, if someone keeps ringing your bell, you can perceive that to be a threat--that has been decided in many cases.
The guy was HOLDING a gun. Holding a gun while on your own property is your right. Until you find something that shows he deliberately pointed it at anyone, there is no basis for an arrest.
<quoted text>

I never said it wasn't harassment. Obviously, ringing ones doorbell over and over is harassment and also trespassing. But if he shoots a kid or anyone for that matter for ringing a door bell, the guy is going to be spending some serious time in jail/prison. I also never stated it was illegal to "hold" a gun on your property or if there was basis for arrest. I will say it's extremely careless to walk outside your home with a gun in your hand when kids are ringing your doorbell, unless if you think you are in bodily danger. Then the smart thing would be to call the police.

Cpetr13 wrote:

The police can't do anything at that age and the parents are already of little use if they have raised kids who would do this.
And there is a difference between pulling a gun and just holding it. Nothing here even implies he actually aimed it. Is there a law against holding a legal weapon?
<quoted text>

Where do you live I have seen the police take children as young as ten to juvie

For about ten seconds. Then they go into foster care or into parental custody. You can't get a conviction on a young kid.

Amerie wrote:

<quoted text>
Where do you live I have seen the police take children as young as ten to juvie

Obviously the solution is to fill a bunch of water balloons and put them in the freezer until they get nice and hard.
Then you go to your upstairs window and wait for the little b@$t@rd$ to ring that bell.
When they do, you pummel the hell out of them with your frozen bombs of justice!

Nah, just pepper-spray the little snots until their eyes turn red. Tazing would also work, but you;d need more than one in most cases.

Sorgi Fan Club wrote:

Obviously the solution is to fill a bunch of water balloons and put them in the freezer until they get nice and hard.
Then you go to your upstairs window and wait for the little b@$t@rd$ to ring that bell.
When they do, you pummel the hell out of them with your frozen bombs of justice!

Cpetr13 wrote:

Nah, just pepper-spray the little snots until their eyes turn red. Tazing would also work, but you;d need more than one in most cases.
<quoted text>

A super soker squirt gun filled with slightly used toilet water is an effective way to get a point across.

Possibly, although it might spread disease to innocent bypassers. Better to use a 50%-50% solution of vinegar and hot sauce.

yuk wrote:

<quoted text>A super soker squirt gun filled with slightly used toilet water is an effective way to get a point across.

Even though he shouldn't have had the gun out, at least maybe something good will come from this. Now, maybe the kids that were harassing him will stop

Cpetr13 wrote:

For about ten seconds. Then they go into foster care or into parental custody. You can't get a conviction on a young kid.
<quoted text>

Yes you can get a conviction it depends on how many times they have been arressted and if they are a problem child.an 8 or 9 year child wont be in Juvie but they will put them in a detention center. But an 11 or 12 year old can be charged with a crime.

But the point is not to lock them up.Have you ever been around children? Calling the police on small children is enough to scare them.Most of the time you dont have to take them to a detention center or to juvie.You can pretend like you are and put the cuffs on them and let them set in the back of the patrol car for awhile.Most 8 years would be terrified by this