Crossing guard relieved of duty, guns seized

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

Correct.  Because you can’t charge someone on hearsay.  Police 101.

 

Read his words again and copy/paste the threat please.

 

   I read what he said. In the comments, I also read what the alleged complaint was. The waitress heard part of his conversation, hearing the words "school" and "shoot". I did not say he was guilty or innocent. From his own account, it sounds like he is innocent. That is often the case though. What I I am saying is that's why he ended up in this situation. As I said initially, the threat was alleged (which take my word for, is actually enough to get arrested). We are told the officer believed that threat rose to the level of a felony, and that his response was it he was misheard and out of context.  

 

   Not to digress, but none of this is hearsay. If someone hears someone say something and gives a direct account to the police, that is what they call direct evidence. Hearsay is when someone hears a second person make a claim about someone else's guilt and relays that information. What happened in this case is a person heard only part of a conversation.  

 

  

[MjC772 94]

This is where we are going with these so-called "red-flag" laws.....which sound like a great idea on the surface, but dig a little deeper and you'll find these to be a new source to work around second amendment rights....if they can't take them through the front door, they'll try to do it through the back door......my sister is afraid in her own neighborhood because it mixed 50-50 conservatives/liberals - she can't tell anyone her political views and and can't tell anyone she has a legal permit to carry because the liberals in the neighborhood (a state with red-flag laws) would report it to the cops in a NY minute...and not because she has done anything wrong, but because they disagree with her views and have TDS.

[90DayFinancier 910]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I read what he said. In the comments, I also read what the alleged complaint was. The waitress heard part of his conversation, hearing the words "school" and "shoot". I did not say he was guilty or innocent. From his own account, it sounds like he is innocent. That is often the case though. What I I am saying is that's why he ended up in this situation. As I said initially, the threat was alleged (which take my word for, is actually enough to get arrested). We are told the officer believed that threat rose to the level of a felony, and that his response was it he was misheard and out of context.  

 

   Not to digress, but none of this is hearsay. If someone hears someone say something and gives a direct account to the police, that is what they call direct evidence. Hearsay is when someone hears a second person make a claim about someone else's guilt and relays that information. What happened in this case is a person heard only part of a conversation.  

 

  

Where is that Maven lady? Because nothing a rational adult says really resonates with this crowd. The need a super barrister

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I read what he said. In the comments, I also read what the alleged complaint was. The waitress heard part of his conversation, hearing the words "school" and "shoot". I did not say he was guilty or innocent. From his own account, it sounds like he is innocent. That is often the case though. What I I am saying is that's why he ended up in this situation. As I said initially, the threat was alleged (which take my word for, is actually enough to get arrested). We are told the officer believed that threat rose to the level of a felony, and that his response was it he was misheard and out of context.  

 

   Not to digress, but none of this is hearsay. If someone hears someone say something and gives a direct account to the police, that is what they call direct evidence. Hearsay is when someone hears a second person make a claim about someone else's guilt and relays that information. What happened in this case is a person heard only part of a conversation.  

 

  

He said someone COULD shoot up the school while the resource officer was away from his post getting coffee.  That is stating a fact.

 

Now had he said someone SHOULD shoot up the school, I'd agree he might have been perceived as making a threat.  There was zero reason to take his guns or to fire him.  Hopefully this guy has the resources to sue.

[Dashinka 24,746]

10 hours ago, laylalex said:

There wasn't any threat. But then I tend not to see threats, as established yesterday! Seriously, he pointed out a situation he felt was dangerous, and an unfortunate misunderstanding followed. 

Maybe we should all just keep our mouths shut even if we see a bad situation.  This guy was punished based on someone’s opinion.  That seems to be par for the course now days.