Showing Page:
1/6
SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous”
Abigail Rose Farmer
Second Response Assignment: Section IV, #16, “Armed and Dangerous”
Lynn University
DBRA 330A
Professor Gormley
Showing Page:
2/6
SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous”
Second Response Assignment: Section IV, #16, “Armed and Dangerous”
This case, “Armed and Dangerous” focused on the topic of the justice system in regards
to the rights of protestors, individuals, business owners, juvenile’s and even the responsibility of
the city. Carl House was featured in this study as a 16 year old boy with an interest in law
enforcement who became swept up in misinformation and a misguided effort to assist police
officers. In Carl’s situation, he had attended a protesting event where he was praised by law
enforcement for aiding armed citizens against the protestors. This praise from someone he
considered to be a hero further spurred Carl into action that resulted in this juvenile shooting
someone and the person dying. Though the police had previously thanked Carl for his support
and even allowed him to go home after shooting the protestor. When video evidence of Carl
shooting the protestor surfaced on the news, he was arrested and charged with intentional
homicide. In this situation, the police seemed to support Carl’s actions and even encourage them.
This leads to an interesting debate over juvenile justice, vigilante justice, and many other moral
and legal questions surrounding this incident. It is highly likely that Carl’s defense attorneys will
argue self-defense in this situation since the protestors in question had attempted to wrestle the
gun away from Carl. However, since the shot that killed the man seems to have been fired as
Carl ran away, it is unlikely that this defense will hold. This case presents questions about just
how responsible the officers and vigilante groups are for influencing Carl through either praise or
spreading misinformation, as well as to the responsibility of the city for curfews, protestors
rights, and even the rights of individuals and businesses in these types of situations.
In my opinion, a juvenile (16 yr. old Carl House), should have been allowed to protest.
This is because I believe in the right to peaceful protests. However, I do not believe a juvenile (or
anyone) should be involved in armed protests. Cities and local law enforcement should be
Showing Page:
3/6
SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous”
responsible for enforcing safe, legal protests, including making sure that juveniles are not in
attendance. Understandably, some 16 yr. old’s may look much older than they actually are and it
may be extremely time consuming to require identification of every possibly underaged person at
protests. Parents and guardians bear some responsibility for having knowledge of any juvenile’s
whereabouts and activities as well. In addition to law enforcement, at times of civil unrest if a
protest is not peaceful, mandatory curfews for juveniles and others can also be used to maintain
safety. Furthermore, vigilante groups that utilize the internet and social media to spread false and
misleading information in an attempt to instigate violence should also be held accountable.
Furthermore, the police officers who condoned and praised Carl for his actions should be held
accountable for their behavior and encouragement as well.
In my opinion, whether Carl House should be tried as an adult or not should depend on a
variety of factors. I believe that juveniles who are arrested for serious crimes such as Carl’s
crime should undergo extensive mental evaluations to determine IQ and other extenuating
circumstances that may have contributed to Carl’s actions. If Carl is found to have been acting in
self-defense, or is mentally incompetent or low IQ for example, I do not believe he should be
charged as an adult. I do believe justice should be handed down and something should be done.
If Carl is found to have not been acting in self-defense, is found mentally stable with an adequate
IQ, I believe he should be tried as an adult for his actions. Because of his actions, someone lost
their life. Someone may have lost their father, their spouse, their son, or their brother, all because
of rash actions. I believe that by prosecuting a competent 16 year old as an adult, this will send a
message loud and clear that individuals need to be responsible for their actions.
In regards to what responsibility society, government, individuals, and law enforcement
have to juveniles during times of social unrest, I believe it is everyone’s obligation to protect
Showing Page:
4/6
SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous”
juveniles and not to take advantage of them as it appears Carl was taken advantage of. There
should be curfews in place so that children are not out during volatile times. There should be law
enforcement aware that juveniles may be present and actively engaging in protection of these
juveniles by contacting parents, sending them home, etc. and not praising them for having
weapons. Juveniles are some of the most vulnerable members of our society and they should be
protected from predators who seek to exploit them such as the vigilante groups Carl followed
and the officers who not only encouraged Carl’s involvement in a protest involving armed
citizens, but allowed him to leave the scene and go home after he had shot an individual. That is
highly irresponsible and in my opinion should be grounds for immediate termination of any law
enforcement officer involved in praising or encouraging Carl. Vigilante websites that promote
propaganda, spew false information, and serve the sole purpose of instigating violence should be
forced to have mandatory age requirements for members to join. If their sites are not secure
enough to at least attempt to detour members, these groups should be charged as accessories to
the crime when events like the homicide Carl committed occur. The officers should have
immediately sent Carl home from the onset of spotting him and then most likely the shooting
never would have occurred. He should have been protected, not used as a soldier in a vigilante
war. Juvenile’s should never be encouraged to take up arms for any reasons what so ever. There
are gun laws in place for a reason that limit the age of gun usage and purchases. Furthermore, if
society protected children and treated them as priceless, valuable members of our society rather
than miniature adults, there would be no reason ever for a juvenile to have to pick up a gun to
begin with. Studies have shown that juveniles, especially teens, have poor emotional regulation
at times and also have under developed responses as well (Shotland, R.L.). They are prone to
indoctrination from those they consider heroes, as Carl was, and are easily manipulated
Showing Page:
5/6
SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous”
(Shotland, R.L.). To encourage a juvenile to be involved in an armed protest or to assist trained
law enforcement in crowd control in reprehensible.
Showing Page:
6/6
SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous”
Resources
Braswell, M., Miller, L., & Pollock, J. M. (2021). Case studies in criminal justice ethics. Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Shotland, R.L., . (n.d.). SPONTANEOUS VIGILANTES. Retrieved from
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/spontaneous-vigilantes

Unformatted Attachment Preview

SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous” Abigail Rose Farmer Second Response Assignment: Section IV, #16, “Armed and Dangerous” Lynn University DBRA 330A Professor Gormley SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous” Second Response Assignment: Section IV, #16, “Armed and Dangerous” This case, “Armed and Dangerous” focused on the topic of the justice system in regards to the rights of protestors, individuals, business owners, juvenile’s and even the responsibility of the city. Carl House was featured in this study as a 16 year old boy with an interest in law enforcement who became swept up in misinformation and a misguided effort to assist police officers. In Carl’s situation, he had attended a protesting event where he was praised by law enforcement for aiding armed citizens against the protestors. This praise from someone he considered to be a hero further spurred Carl into action that resulted in this juvenile shooting someone and the person dying. Though the police had previously thanked Carl for his support and even allowed him to go home after shooting the protestor. When video evidence of Carl shooting the protestor surfaced on the news, he was arrested and charged with intentional homicide. In this situation, the police seemed to support Carl’s actions and even encourage them. This leads to an interesting debate over juvenile justice, vigilante justice, and many other moral and legal questions surrounding this incident. It is highly likely that Carl’s defense attorneys will argue self-defense in this situation since the protestors in question had attempted to wrestle the gun away from Carl. However, since the shot that killed the man seems to have been fired as Carl ran away, it is unlikely that this defense will hold. This case presents questions about just how responsible the officers and vigilante groups are for influencing Carl through either praise or spreading misinformation, as well as to the responsibility of the city for curfews, protestors rights, and even the rights of individuals and businesses in these types of situations. In my opinion, a juvenile (16 yr. old Carl House), should have been allowed to protest. This is because I believe in the right to peaceful protests. However, I do not believe a juvenile (or anyone) should be involved in armed protests. Cities and local law enforcement should be SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous” responsible for enforcing safe, legal protests, including making sure that juveniles are not in attendance. Understandably, some 16 yr. old’s may look much older than they actually are and it may be extremely time consuming to require identification of every possibly underaged person at protests. Parents and guardians bear some responsibility for having knowledge of any juvenile’s whereabouts and activities as well. In addition to law enforcement, at times of civil unrest if a protest is not peaceful, mandatory curfews for juveniles and others can also be used to maintain safety. Furthermore, vigilante groups that utilize the internet and social media to spread false and misleading information in an attempt to instigate violence should also be held accountable. Furthermore, the police officers who condoned and praised Carl for his actions should be held accountable for their behavior and encouragement as well. In my opinion, whether Carl House should be tried as an adult or not should depend on a variety of factors. I believe that juveniles who are arrested for serious crimes such as Carl’s crime should undergo extensive mental evaluations to determine IQ and other extenuating circumstances that may have contributed to Carl’s actions. If Carl is found to have been acting in self-defense, or is mentally incompetent or low IQ for example, I do not believe he should be charged as an adult. I do believe justice should be handed down and something should be done. If Carl is found to have not been acting in self-defense, is found mentally stable with an adequate IQ, I believe he should be tried as an adult for his actions. Because of his actions, someone lost their life. Someone may have lost their father, their spouse, their son, or their brother, all because of rash actions. I believe that by prosecuting a competent 16 year old as an adult, this will send a message loud and clear that individuals need to be responsible for their actions. In regards to what responsibility society, government, individuals, and law enforcement have to juveniles during times of social unrest, I believe it is everyone’s obligation to protect SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous” juveniles and not to take advantage of them as it appears Carl was taken advantage of. There should be curfews in place so that children are not out during volatile times. There should be law enforcement aware that juveniles may be present and actively engaging in protection of these juveniles by contacting parents, sending them home, etc. and not praising them for having weapons. Juveniles are some of the most vulnerable members of our society and they should be protected from predators who seek to exploit them such as the vigilante groups Carl followed and the officers who not only encouraged Carl’s involvement in a protest involving armed citizens, but allowed him to leave the scene and go home after he had shot an individual. That is highly irresponsible and in my opinion should be grounds for immediate termination of any law enforcement officer involved in praising or encouraging Carl. Vigilante websites that promote propaganda, spew false information, and serve the sole purpose of instigating violence should be forced to have mandatory age requirements for members to join. If their sites are not secure enough to at least attempt to detour members, these groups should be charged as accessories to the crime when events like the homicide Carl committed occur. The officers should have immediately sent Carl home from the onset of spotting him and then most likely the shooting never would have occurred. He should have been protected, not used as a soldier in a vigilante war. Juvenile’s should never be encouraged to take up arms for any reasons what so ever. There are gun laws in place for a reason that limit the age of gun usage and purchases. Furthermore, if society protected children and treated them as priceless, valuable members of our society rather than miniature adults, there would be no reason ever for a juvenile to have to pick up a gun to begin with. Studies have shown that juveniles, especially teens, have poor emotional regulation at times and also have under developed responses as well (Shotland, R.L.). They are prone to indoctrination from those they consider heroes, as Carl was, and are easily manipulated SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous” (Shotland, R.L.). To encourage a juvenile to be involved in an armed protest or to assist trained law enforcement in crowd control in reprehensible. SECOND RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT: Case #16, Section 4, “Armed and Dangerous” Resources Braswell, M., Miller, L., & Pollock, J. M. (2021). Case studies in criminal justice ethics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Shotland, R.L., . (n.d.). SPONTANEOUS VIGILANTES. Retrieved from https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/spontaneous-vigilantes Name: Description: ...
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4