Should State Senator Don Shooter Be Charged for His Episode at a Yuma School?

Categories: Morning Poll
Don-Shooter.jpg
wepartypatriots.com
Word on the street is, Yuma police are recommending misdemeanor charges against Republican State Senator Don Shooter, for his recent episode at a Yuma school.

According to a Yuma PD report, Shooter barged in to his grandson's classroom at a charter school and started shouting at the teacher, only after he had a fit at the school's front office, demanding to speak with people.

See also:
-Don't Tread On Me, I'm DON SHOOTER!: Senator Allegedly Assaults Teacher

The report says Shooter let someone affiliated with the school know that he is a "State Senator and very influential man in Yuma and in the State," although the president of the Arizona Charter Schools Association confirmed that doesn't get him any special treatment.

Although Shooter didn't make any physical contact with anyone at the school, police recommended an assault charge, because a teacher said she felt threatened, as well as charges of disrupting an educational institution, criminal trespassing, and disorderly conduct, according to the local paper of record.

The city's prosecutors office will now decide whether to file those charges, but we want to know what you think -- should Shooter be charged for his episode?

Cast your vote below:



Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.


My Voice Nation Help
135 comments
valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

He's a douche and should be disciplined by the Senate, but those of you calling for criminal charges or imagining a conspiracy are just letting blind hatred get in the way of rational thought.


Marco Cruz
Marco Cruz

Its a charter school, it doesnt count as a educational institution. It might as well be a chucky cheese that teaches math...

Maggie Shaw
Maggie Shaw

New Times..I am trying to click on the story but I get a security alert..what's up?

azlefti
azlefti

Lets Review

Unless he is the Childs legal guardian or the  school has been notified that he can speak for the  parents he has no legal reason to go to the  school and make demands, even if he is authorized there are still issues - such as discipline they will not discuss unless you a legal guardian is present

He entered a off limits area - Trespassing

He verbally abused a Teacher to a point where she felt that he might harm her, in fact it was reported in the Yuma Sun that students got up and put themselves between him and his victim, indicating that others felt she was  threatened with harm  -Assualt

He did this as she was doing her duties as a Teacher-  Disrupting the Educational process

There is a procedure to follow when family feels their child is being mistreated by a teacher, it usually works, if it doesn't they have the  option of removing the  child from the school and taking legal action. A little thing Mr Shooter obviously ignored.

Now that was the  Legal issue

It is claimed he did the  "Now Famous "do you know who I am" gig that elected's like to do, if true then the  Senate needs to bounce his ass out of office for that impropriety, like they have with other idiots who seem to think the  office give them special rights and privileges

ReggieVV
ReggieVV

If Shooter was a Democrat from Maricopa County named Garcia-Gonzalez-Hernandez, Arpaio would have arrested him already, Candy Junior, Monty, would charge him with a Class 4 felony, and Horne Dog would be trying to run him out of the Legislature. Funny when it is looked at from the shoe on the other foot prospective, much changes among the one party dictatorship "leadership."

OATHKEEPER1958
OATHKEEPER1958

OUR SCHOOLS ARE BEING TURNED INTO COMMUNIST INDOCTRINATION STATIONS FOR THE YOUTH.  DID YOU KNOW THEY PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE EARTH NOW INSTEAD OF THE U.S. IN CERTAIN STATES?  LOOK IT UP ON GOOGLE AND YOU CAN LEARN MORE HERE:  http://vimeo.com/63749370

bgray59
bgray59

Sounds more like a simple disturbing the peace and simple trespass.  Anything more will be politically motivated.

OATHKEEPER1958
OATHKEEPER1958

THE MAN HAS EVERY RIGHT TO SEE HIS CHILDREN HE JUST NEEDS TO ASK NICELY NEXT TIME INSTEAD OF BARGIN' IN.    AND FOR ALL YOU FOLKS THAT THINK AMERICA IS NOT CHANGING:  EDUCATE YOURSELFS AND WATCH THIS VIDEO AND SEE FOR YOURSELFS:  http://vimeo.com/63749370

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@azlefti  Anybody with a gripe against a school or teacher may legally walk into the office and "make demands".   If they're told to make an appointment or to leave, and instead barge past the office into a classroom, then they're trespassing and the police should be called.  The police would almost certainly not treat it as an emergency call.  You don't risk causing a traffic accident because somebody is yelling at a teacher.

If the teacher allowed students to get between herself and the blowhard, then isn't it pretty clear that she didn't really consider lives to be in danger?


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@ReggieVV  Similarly, though, if it had been a Democrat, you probably wouldn't even have read about it in the New Times, or if you did, the story would have centered on the horrible manner in which the teacher had abused this justifiably outraged gentleman's special-needs grandson.

The two-party system and the "us" vs "them" mindset it fosters cuts both ways.


david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@HILLFOLKREDNECK lol actually, the GOP is out to indoctrinate Christianity in schools, while rebuffing hundreds of years of science..going so far as to teach kids that Dinosaurs lived just 6k years ago, and with mankind! LMAO you cant even make this shit up! While you are worried about a non existent problem, a real one is persisting. 

cassityg32
cassityg32

Not only is that simply false info. you found online (yes, not 100% of what you google is accurate) but That has nothing to do with a man loosing control of his senses, acting inappropriately & rather than acting rationally & getting his point across he instead looks like an ASS.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@bgray59 It was a SCHOOL and that implies much stronger charges.  If he would have been stopped at the time of the event, the guy might have been carrying, as just a few weeks ago, he was caught trying to carry inside State Buildings, where he KNEW it was illegal!  The cops should have been there before he got back into his car, and would have, if he wasn't a GOP member of the legislature!

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@HILLFOLKREDNECK  damn skippy he has every right to see his children, only thing is......they werent his kids. grand children are different than your actual children. 

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@david_saint01  That's not how the law works.  Minor violations don't usually result in jail time.

azlefti
azlefti

@valleynative @azlefti   Funny how you keep minimizing and justifying Criminal Behavior, all the  while showing you lack understanding  of the  law and police procedures  just like JoeArpiaoFan does!

Yes the PD does treat it as an emergency unlike you they realize  the threat anyone entering  School grounds can be

These are young adults in the  classroom the Teacher does not have that much control when one decides to place themselves between her and a threat

Illegal is still illegal even when a TEAParty favorite does it!

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@david_saint01 Don't over-generalize.  Most Republicans aren't fundamentalists.  It's only the most newsworthy ones.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows @bgray59  Seriously?  You think the person who called the police told them that it was a GOP member of the legislature? 

The whole thing was over before the average response time of police to a trespassing call.


OATHKEEPER1958
OATHKEEPER1958

@TaxpayingVoter @HILLFOLKREDNECK    BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY.  BIG FANCY SCHOOLS ARE COMMUNIST INDOCTRINATION STATIONS WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO AND PRETEND THEIR IMPORTANT THEN FORGET ABOUT THE COMMON FOLK THAT KNOW HARD WORK.  GROW YA' OWN CROPS.  DIG YA' OWN WELLS.  DON'T RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT AND SURE DONT' TRUST 'EM TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT LEARN!!

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@valleynative there is a very thin line between "behaving in a threatening manner" and "becoming a threat". the legal action isnt there to wait until he "becomes a threat" but to stop him before he does. if he can run around and act in a threatening or intimidating manner, i would want him stopped and prosecuted before he crossed that line. look at Jaffy on these sites. he is always issuing threats. I personally do not find him intimidating in any way shape or form, but others may or may not. just because i am secure in my ability to protect myself or defend myself against any action he could take does not diminish the potential he could pose as a threat while sitting at his keyboard. Shooter however WAS a present and physical threat that could have gone either way. we arrest people for drunk driving because they are a threat whether or not they are hitting people or other cars because there is the possibilty that they COULD kill or hurt someone. Shooters job is to be diplomatic so he should be held to a higher standard regarding his conduct and or mannerisms. everyone is talking about school safety, (guards, guns, Seagal training, etc etc) to PREVENT potential threats, not to stop threats that are already in action. Shooter could just as easily become a threat instead of just acting threatening. the girl in Mesa wasnt a threat, but was acting in a threatening manner and she was arrested so the same should be done to Shooter as a warning to others who would start out acting in a threatening manner before crossing the line into becoming the threat

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ValleyNative Here it is for your review on AZ Central:  http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/yuma-police.pdf.  It says, "D. Munoz was visibly upset while she was telling me the information of the incident.  I asked her if she was afraid of D. Shooter because of his actions and she said she was.  She said that when he came into the classroom in the manner that he did, she was afraid for her safety and the safety of her students."

She said that his conduct made her afraid for her safety.  You can continue to try to parse words, but the reality is the reality.  Again, the info is out there and easy to find - you really need to stop fabricating things taht are so easily verifiable. 

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public No, just more complete news reports.  You don't really think a reporter would miss a chance to say "he threatened me" and choose instead to report that she said that she "felt threatened" if that was an option, do you?

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public No, that's not the meaning that's intended here.

The bottom line is that she didn't report that he behaved in a threatening manner or that he threatened her in any way. She simply reported that she "felt threatened".

An individual has little control over whether or not another person "feels threatened" by their presence.

I'm sure that this blowhard makes a lot of people feel threatened every day, but that's not the same as threatening them.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative You continue to just make it up when the legal definitions are so easily available to all of us.  Though not defined in ARS 13-2911, a parallel statute (ARS 13-1202) defines it as "A person commits threatening or intimidating if the person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct:...1. To cause physical injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another; or..."  So conduct can be the mechanism of threatening to cause physical injury - like when one person gets right up in another person's face or stands next to another person with fists clenched in a manner that causes the second person to fear for their safety.  That is sufficient under Title 13, Chapter 12 to constitute a threat to cause physical injury.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public No, (A)(1)(a) clearly says "threatening to cause physical injury".  I don't know why people have so much trouble distinguishing between threatening somebody and causing them to feel threatened.  The two are actually very different concepts.

I could describe the delicious meal I had the other day, and it might start to make you hungry.  Before long, you might even say that you're starving.  Would that make me guilty of deliberately starving you?  Of course not.

 When the law wants to say "behaving in a threatening manner", they use words very much like those.  When they mean that you actively express a threat to hurt somebody, they say "threaten".

 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative That's not true.  The teacher felt sufficiently physically threatened that police are considering whether to recommend assault charges to the County Attorney.  That would fall under (A)(1)(a) and be a class 6 felony if charged. 

Your 2nd question is incredibly subjective.  I can tell you that if a parent or grandparent pulled that in my child's classroom in the middle of the class day, I would certainly feel that charging the parent was an appropriate use of the court's time.  You don't get to just "barge" (your word) into a classroom and berate, intimidate and threaten a teacher in front of a class full of students.  So yes, Shooters conduct is worthy of prosecution.  Maybe the result is a plea with suspended sentence contingent on succesfully  completing an anger management program and 12 months probation, but yes, prosecution is warranted.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public Only the misdemeanor portion of it.

Part 2 of the question was "Can you name one that's worth wasting a court's time".

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@azlefti Can you name any crime he committed?  Can you name one that's worth wasting a court's time? 

He acted like a jerk and embarrassed the Arizona Senate, which is pretty hard to do.  Let them (and his constituents) handle it.

It's not that he wasn't wrong, it's that it's not a big deal.

azlefti
azlefti

@valleynative @david_saint01 The only conspiracy is with those trying to ignore his CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR! Keep justifying  it is entertaining how you are willing to ignore illegal acts, like Arpiao does

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative That's funny - all of a sudden the insults come out when you're losing the argument.  Caught in a inconsistency in your comments - insult the intelligence of the blogger that's called you out.  Claim there's no law he violated until someone actually cites the law and then minimize the conduct. 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative He did in fact block its use for its intended purpose - he prevented it from being used for instruction while he was berating the teacher.  Goodness - your spirited defense of Shooter is inspired but remarkably devoid of reality.    And no, no one here agrees with you so you're expalnation that the collective PNT blog is your "we" is unbelievable as well.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public Yes it was, before I re-read the article.

I saw that I had been mistaken about him "barging past the desk".

I would have pointed that out, if I hadn't thought it was so clearly obvious.  Sorry for overestimating you.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ValleyNative Of course, barge is the verb you used to describe it earlier:

valleynative 5pts6 hours ago

@azlefti Anybody with a gripe against a school or teacher may legally walk into the office and "make demands". If they're told to make an appointment or to leave, and instead barge past the office into a classroom, then they're trespassing and the police should be called

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public I meant "we" as in "everybody who has read about the event".  We don't believe that his purpose in going to the school was to block its use, do we?

 Geez.  What an imagination.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ValleyNative That "we" makes it sound like you're part of the Senator's team.  PR Person, maybe?  Campaign consultant?  Very revealing comment that you made there.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative What verb would you prefer to describe it.  Saunter.  Slink.  Creep.  Crawl.  Meander.  Wander.  Sneak.  Take your pick, but the outcome is the same.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative Very interesting comment you just made, "We don't believe that his purpose in going there was to prevent the lawful use of the property. "  Who is this "we" you speak of?  I'm curious as to who you include in your collective "we."  And the teacher apparently did feel quite threatened so charges could eb filed under A(1)(a), which is a class 6 felony.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public@valleynative

 From the other article in the New Times:

the police report says he asked the registrar to speak with Munoz, to which the registrar said he'd have to make an appointment. The Senator then repeated that he was DON SHOOTER, and he must speak with the teacher. When a phone call distracted the registrar, the report says, Shooter snuck around her and headed for the classroom. 

So he did ask to talk to her, and didn't so much "barge" as walk quietly.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @valleynative  Nope.

He didn't threaten either physical injury or physical damage, which would have been felonies.  We don't believe that his purpose in going there was to prevent the lawful use of the property.  That was just incidental to his insisting on seeing the teacher.  What he is guilty of is the last part of section (2), which is a misdemeanor.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative He didn't show up and ask to talk to a teacher.  He barged through the office and marched down to the classroom while class was in session (is my understanding).  If that is the case, what you're suggesting and what happened are two different sets of circumstances.  I'm confused that you would even try to draw some sort of equivalency between what happened and the scenario you are suggesting.  This would not have been an "angry parent" call.  This would have been an angry trespasser on campus during the school day threatening a teacher in front of students call and would have been taken significantly more seriously than you suggest.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public Regardless of school shootings, the appropriate response to an "angry parent" call is non-emergency.  This wasn't a maniac with a gun, it was a concerned grandparent with a temper.

The school can't disclose information to him, but that does not preclude him from showing up and asking to talk.

I could walk into that school and demand to speak to a teacher without violating any laws.  Unless I didn't leave quietly when they told me to go away.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative The applicable statute is ARS 13-2911, which states:

A. A person commits interference with or disruption of an educational institution by doing any of the following:

1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly interfering with or disrupting the normal operations of an educational institution by either:

(a) Threatening to cause physical injury to any employee or student of an educational institution or any person on the property of an educational institution.

(b) Threatening to cause damage to any educational institution, the property of any educational institution or the property of any employee or student of an educational institution.

2. Intentionally or knowingly entering or remaining on the property of any educational institution for the purpose of interfering with the lawful use of the property or in any manner as to deny or interfere with the lawful use of the property by others.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative I think you're off-base on this one.  In light of the recent school shootings, anyone, adult or student, acting eratic in a school is going to trigger an emergency response.  Law enforcement is not going to treat it as simple trespassing until they are certain that its nothing more than simple trespassing because no one wants a school shooting to occur in their jurisdiction and be accused of not responding sufficiently. 

Unless the parents have given him specific written authorization to discuss the child's school records, the school will not disclose any info to him about the child under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).  The school is prohibited from fedeal law from doing so. 

Yes, he can be on campus - for band concerts and class presentations.  But without written parental authorization he has no legal foundation on which to base his demand to speak with the teacher about the child.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@azlefti I don't condone this jerk's behavior, but all he really did was behave like a jerk.  There was no crime committed.  A person walking into the office of a school is not treated as a "threat", even if he's angry and yelling at the employees.  It's really no different at all from an angry customer yelling at a store manager.  The fact that it's a school doesn't automatically make every stranger a threat.

 Misdemeanor trespass is still just misdemeanor trespass, even when a TEAParty favorite does it.

 

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@cassityg32 I think it's more likely that he's a troll, pulling your leg, adding to the stereotype that most conservatives are uneducated loons, and laughing at the responses.

cassityg32
cassityg32

Uh ya, we all get your a 4th grade drop out who isn't into that there book learning & "proud of it".

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...