I read it as the guns belonging to the mother, Allen (last name). The child was only referenced as '16yo male'. The father was Baker, jr. The article lacked some details, such is typical of modern journalism.Whose firearms? The parents claimed that the firearms were their son's, not theirs.
They were the mom's..."Allen" is her. The juvi is not named in the report since he is a minor. Allen admitted to being the parent, the guns belonged to Allen.FTA, the parents told police that all of the firearms belonged to their 16-year-old son, who was, per the article, a prohibited possessor. So, this incident doesn't even fall under "can, but shouldn't".
(Side note: what law could possibly prevent this from occurring?)
FTA (last paragraph): "Baker Sr. and Allen admitted to being the parents of the teen who was on the porch with the loaded rifle. The told police all the weapons belonged to Allen."I read it as the guns belonging to the mother, Allen (last name). The child was only referenced as '16yo male'. The father was Baker, jr. The article lacked some details, such is typical of modern journalism.
Okay, that makes sense.They were the mom's..."Allen" is her. The juvi is not named in the report since he is a minor. Allen admitted to being the parent, the guns belonged to Allen.
"Lo-Jack Family"
We had Lo-Jack Grandma in my neighborhood a few years back. At no point was the entire family Lo-JackedLove it, Sarge !
He'll be fine... he's got a gun.
This one popped up for me with that Joker guy out in Colorado a few years back; the one at the movie theater. Deafening noise, panic, chaos, dark environment... I get my wits, identify the evil shooter, draw, aim.... and then a guy two rows back gets up, sees me holding and pointing a gun, he draws, aims...Do you take out the threat? How do you know the shot you have is actually a threat or another good guy?
...I can imagine that more times than not the evil doer will be obvious...
That information just does not fit the narrative, so it was "left" out.Maybe I missed it? What become of the boy, on house arrest, while the "parents" are in jail?
That information just does not fit the narrative, so it was "left" out.
I did not intend to reference the juvenile record info, but rather what happened to the juvenile after the incident such as an arrest, return to detention, released to family member etc., to complete the story a bit.What 'narrative' does it not fit?
Juvenile records are much more tightly controlled than adult records. I, as a sworn law enforcement officer, need a *search warrant* to see juvenile booking photos these days, despite the fact they are taken in a gov't facility, stored in gov't databases, and are taken for law enforcement purposes.
Adult booking photos are public record. See why the information on the juvenile's status may not be as readily available?
I did not intend to reference the juvenile record info, but rather what happened to the juvenile after the incident such as an arrest, return to detention, released to family member etc., to complete the story a bit.
The left is often over focused and pushing on punishing the parents of anyone under 21 with a firearm, thus telling us anything beyond how criminal the parents were does not support their agenda (narrative) at this time, and leaves the story somewhat hanging in the air.
If they are arrested or not is part of the juvenile record. Information that was readily available on juvenile offenders just a few years ago is clamped down much more tightly now. I'm not saying if they do or don't have that info. I'm saying it's very plausible that they don't, however.
Just my own curiosity here... Why is that? Why the tightening of the juvi records, specifically within law enforcement? I have speculations, but I'll skip typing them out.I, as a sworn law enforcement officer, need a *search warrant* to see juvenile booking photos these days, despite the fact they are taken in a gov't facility, stored in gov't databases, and are taken for law enforcement purposes.