A mother of a 6-year-old child who shot a teacher has (on top of other reckless neglect charges) been charged with a federal gun crime because of marijuana (cannabis). Despite marijuana having been legalized in several states, and the passage of a law in Virginia (where this woman lives) that says adults age 21 and older are allowed to possess a small amount of recreational marijuana, and to have a limited number of marijuana plants in their home. (The state law went into effect in July 2021) She was charged with "unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm" and "making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm". These charges are due to the accusation that she lied about being a marijuana user when she signed a mandatory federal document the previous year when she purchased a Taurus 9 mm handgun. It seems like the prosecutor was just looking for anything additional that the woman could be criminally charged over. (It helps pressure the defendant into a plea bargain, for one thing) She already faced charges felony child neglect, and a misdemeanor count of recklessly leaving a loaded firearm so as to endanger a child. The woman's 6-year-old had taken a gun to his school and shot his teacher. This is another example how if a prosecutor wants to punish a person for one thing, they can use another law that is about something different to do it. The mother might believe, for example, that there is not clear enough evidence to prove with certainty that she was at fault for the child getting his hands on the gun. So this additional criminal charge will make it certain that she will go to prison. (That's the strategy prosecutors commonly use, throw as many criminal charges as possible and hopefully some of them will stick) Even though the marijuana was not a crime under state law, it did constitute a crime under federal law. (Persons in the U.S. are subject to both state and federal jurisdiction) The last couple of U.S. Attorney Generals had promised or signaled that they would avoid prosecuting crimes involving marijuana, so there was some general public sense that marijuana was equivalent to no longer being criminalized from federal rules. This latest story demonstrates that is not entirely true. Probably the prosecutor suspects the mother's marijuana use might have had something to do with how the child was able to obtain the gun. (If being under the influence of marijuana caused the parent not to have full awareness of what she was doing, or led her to act in an irresponsible way) The mother has apologized to the teacher and said she was responsible for her son's access to the handgun, though she maintains she is not clear exactly how he obtained it. Deja Taylor, age 25, was previously indicted over the incident in April 2023. Her defense attorney said she would plead guilty to the federal charges in an agreement with prosecutors. Prosecutors have said the boy will not be charged. The teacher, Abigail Zwerner, was shot on January 6 at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News in her first-grade classroom by the 9-year-old student. She led her class of about 20 students to safety after she was seriously wounded in her left hand and chest. She has said that before the shooting, school officials knew of at least three separate warnings that the 6-year-old boy was believed to have a gun and had an alleged pattern of troubling behavior. The teacher later filed a $40 million lawsuit against the school. (Which is ridiculous in my opinion, the school should not be blamed for this or should not be held responsible financially. Just goes to show the huge problem with ridiculous lawsuits in the U.S., but she will probably end up getting a huge amount of money in a settlement from the school, paid for by the taxpayers. But that's another separate discussion.) Mother of 6-year-old who shot Virginia teacher charged with federal gun crimes, NBC News, Dennis Romero, June 5, 2023 Of course I have no problem if the mother faces some punishment, like maybe 2 years in prison, and being required to pay for the medical expenses of the teacher. But I have a problem with other aspects of this story. I think it may be a mistake to judge how the law and justice system works only by outcome, whether we think it resulted in the correct outcome. There were some unsettling principles here. (I mean for example, imagine if these same tactics were used against someone else who did not deserve to go to prison)
It's also not entirely completely clear under the law that what this woman is alleged to have done should constitute "felony child neglect". That seems kind of like a vague catch-all law, open to interpretation. So by charging the woman over the marijuana in conjunction with the gun, the prosecutor could guarantee a felony conviction and make sure this woman's gun rights are taken away. To punish her for apparently not being responsible enough with her gun, letting it fall into the hands of her child which ended up resulting in the teacher being shot. Whether it's really entirely fair to permanently take away this woman's guns rights, that is something some people could debate. After she is convicted of a felony, that will allow the government authorities to make up their mind at a later time whether she will ever be legally permitted to have a gun again. Some might argue that we do not really know for sure exactly how the child ended up getting their hands on the gun, and so we cannot prove with a strong enough certainty that the mother acted in an extremely reckless way. Although that conclusion can be probably assumed by the circumstances. The question of whether the mother deserves any benefit of the doubt in a situation like this.
