Posted on 10/01/2006 2:17:32 PM PDT by Mini-14
LACEY - A 33-year-old teacher at Nisqually Middle School is on administrative leave after school officials discovered she brought a .38 Special handgun - along with bullets - on school grounds Thursday, according to the Thurston County Sheriff's Office.
Teacher Mary Catherine Roe, who lives in Shelton, told deputies she was fearful of her husband and that he used a gun while assaulting her, according to a sheriff's report. Roe also has a domestic violence protection order against her husband, according to Mason County records.
No decision was made Monday about whether Roe will face criminal charges, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dave Ryan said.
Roe is under investigation for the charge of unlawfully carrying a firearm, which was in her purse, on school grounds. The law says no one except law enforcement officers can bring a firearm onto school grounds. The charge is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Nisqually parents received a letter from the school Friday explaining that a staff member brought a weapon to school and was placed on leave. The letter reminded parents that it is against state law to bring any firearm to a school campus. The letter did not name the staff member.
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Brian Wharton for North Thurston Public Schools declined to confirm or deny who was on leave. No charges have been filed and no district disciplinary action has been taken, he said. Students did not see the weapon, Wharton said.
Roe is a language arts teacher, according to the school's Web site.
Wharton said the district is cooperating with the sheriff's office. District officials will consider the results of the criminal investigation before they decide on any disciplinary action.
He said the district policies don't specifically address what to do if staff members bring weapons to school, though it references the state law forbidding firearms on campuses.
"We expect our staff members to follow the law," he said.
School officials learned about the gun after a co-worker asked Roe how she is protecting herself against her husband, the police report states, and she told him that she had a gun in her purse, according to the sheriff's department.
The co-worker told Nisqually Principal Karen Owen, the report states, and school officials called deputies.
Roe told deputies "that she was aware that she should not bring the gun to school. She thought that if she was discovered that she would simply be asked to put it in her vehicle. Ms. Roe said that she has a concealed weapons permit and is proficient at shooting because of her military training."
Roe was visibly upset and crying when police came to the school Thursday to investigate, the report states.
Roe told deputies that her father had purchased the handgun for her after her husband had assaulted her Aug. 5, "and she has carried it with her ever since," the report states. Roe's husband, Shawn Roe, is awaiting trial on pending charges of unlawful imprisonment and malicious mischief, according to Mason County records.
Her claim that she has a concealed weapons permit could not be confirmed. An official at the state Department of Licensing said Monday that the names of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits is confidential and is not open to the public under state law.
The Thurston County Sheriff's report does not state whether Roe's handgun was loaded, but states that the gun, along with five bullets, were confiscated.
Roe has filed a divorce petition, which is pending, against her husband, according to court records.
The district has the discretion whether to report the incident to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, which is in charge of teacher licensing, state superintendent spokeswoman Kim Schmanke said. It is not one of the offenses that set off an automatic investigation by the state, she said.
Roe could not be reached for comment Monday at a phone number for her residence in Shelton.
After a concerned parent at Monday's school board meeting questioned the lack of a weapons policy for employees, school board President Judy Wilson responded that she would be interested in exploring a policy for employees who bring weapons to campus.
"I personally believe that we need to have one. We have one about drugs and alcohol," she told the parent and the school board.
Yes, the NRA has about sixty case pending concerning citizens who were caught trying to decipher twenty thousand gun laws.
Since you want the NRA involved, I'm inviting you to join the four million NRA members doing what seventy four million gun owners are too lazy to do. Protect the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Mary is the poster child of what is wrong with the federal law and state law. Therefore, I expect that the U.S. Attorney will NOT prosecute the case because it could get the federal law overturned. What U.S. Attorney wants to take on a case that he/she is guaranteed to lose?
"In Texas there is nothing in the gun statutes that differentiates between a loaded or unloaded gun."
As it is in Arizona.
As it should be.
bttt
What a conundrum. I mean, suppose it turned out that the school teacher whom the kids loved and who single-handedly raised the literacy rate of his school smoked his brains out with pot when he went home every night.
How long do you think he'd have a job when the news got out? And who do you think would suffer from the fallout?
I am so sick and tired of the fact that we don't protect women in this country from ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends; we should not allow anyone to be terrorized like that. These bastards should be locked up permanently.
Just arm the women and teach them to shoot.
It seems to me that if an agent or agency of the government takes from me my ability to defend myself, then there is an implicit duty for that "person" to defend me, and to do so effectively. Few sane people like violence. Few of us gun toters contemplate with equanimity having to use our weapons. BUT when people are attacked, to punish them for defending themselves and at the same time failing to defend them from attack is wrong.
I know a young lady who was sexually assaulted in high school (not raped, just groped) by three young high school students much bigger than she. She, howeverr, is a howling banshee and she fought like one demented -- and was punished for it. If that were my daughter I'd have sued the school.
And, yes, I HAVE been in a situation where someone approached me yelling threats and brandishing a tire-thumper. I drew on him, checked behind and around him for anyone that might get hit if I missed, and pointed my muzzle right between his eyes. It's amazing how good training and adrenaline can work together. He suddenly remembered an appointment, I reported the incident to the authorities, and I shook for three days. But I'm glad I was armed AND trained AND that I drill weekly. This guy was younger, stronger, and faster than I, and was counting on my being a helpless victim.
And NO, the NRA does NOT advocate carrying openly in every circumstance. Concealed carry has the virtue that the assailant doesn't know whether or not one is armed. By carrying concealed, I protect those who don't carry at all, because at least the fairly smart guy has to wonder if they too are carrying concealed. Where in the NRA literature does it advocate always carrying openly?
If you won't protect me (and the events of last week show that schools won't or can't protect their staff or their students), and won't allow me to defend myself, then you'd better not count on my respect or my cooperation. There are a few people who want me alive, and I'm going to try not to disappoint them.
>Just arm the women and teach them to shoot.
We need to lock up these guys for a long time, 5 years minimum for breaking restraining orders.
Locking them up after they kill their ex, sorry, violate the restraining order, isn't good enough. An armed woman can prevent her own demise.
Yes, jurors are the supreme arbiter of the law. I shudder to think of the alternatives.
Exactly!
Melas, in case you don't know, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled *again* on this. We have no "right" to be protected by LEOs. That leaves our safety in our own hands. How anyone expects us to do so when they restrict our rights to self-defense is beyond me.
As they say, "Better judged by twelve than carried by six."
We're talking nullifcation here, and it only takes one juror, just one to nullify a jury. Sorry, but that only works when you have 12 people who are dilligently applying the law. As soon as you get one yahoo in who thinks that all gun laws are evil, all black men just go free, that Mexican can do no wrong, or any other such scenerio it all falls apart.
"I can honestly say that I do my absolute best to obey all laws, even traffic laws."
Good. Then I can absolutely rely on you to use the law of jury nullification, which recognizes the power of the jury to judge both the facts and the law in all the States of the Union.
If you do not believe this is true, ask your lawyer friends, as I did, and you will find that they mostly answer, "Well, it is true, but it shouldn't be."
While that's an oft sounded note, it's one of those maxims that sounds a lot better than it plays out.
The reality would be like, "Judged by 12, found guilty and spent the next 22 years being anally raped in prison." As sayings go, the above sort of looses it's pith once the consquence of being judged by 12 is brought to light.
Long way to go to excuse a jerk.
If I were a U.S. Attorney, I'd prosecute the case for the specific purpose of losing it because losing it would be good for the country. I guess that's why I'm an engineer and not a lawyer.
Those bullets scare me.
Make them stop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.