Mom Convicted After Posting to Facebook

Good Housekeeping – by Caroline Picard

A New Mexico mom‘s controversial Facebook post has landed her in some serious trouble — and the offending status is much worse than an embarrassing selfie. The Roswell resident wrote online about a possible school shooting attempt, instead of sharing the information with the police.

“Anyone else’s kids go to Sierra?”  Jeanette Garza Alvarez asked on Facebook several weeks ago. “My son says some 8th graders are planning on bringing guns to school maybe Monday and have a shootout to see who’s the first to die.”  

Although she later claimed that she wanted to gather information about the rumor, Alvarez instead ignited a community-wide panic. The status caused 160 students to skip class that Monday, not to mention more than 100 calls to the school administration. The massive response led the municipal court to charge and convict Alvarez of creating a public nuisance, with a 30-day deferred sentence and a $29 fine.

It should go without saying, but parents who hear about disturbing threats like this one should contact the police, not post online. “Her concern for her son’s safety and for other students’ safety was certainly understandable,” Roswell Police spokesman Todd Wildermuth told local news station KRQE. “But what should have been done was to call the school, call the police department, let them know what she had heard.”


4 thoughts on “Mom Convicted After Posting to Facebook

  1. In any real shooter event at a school, the police are the perpetrators. They either hire a lone nobody to pull the trigger, or have trained mercenaries make a quick job of in and out.
    The cops were just afraid they might have competition, hence, the charges brought to bear upon the dingleberry mom.
    They will be taking zero armaments from this individual.

  2. “The Roswell resident wrote online about a possible school shooting attempt, instead of sharing the information with the police.”

    They’re trying to imply that you’re under some legal obligation to be a rat, and calling this “creating a public nuisance” is just another way to attack free speech.

    Getting their foot in the door to trample the first amendment began with the common adage “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre”, and then it moved to calling profanity “disorderly conduct”. Now they’re adding “hate speech” to the list of things you can’t say, because a lot of these limitations will seem reasonable to a large percentage of the population.

    The fact of the matter is that you either have a right to free speech, or you don’t, and this same tactic is applied to the second article.

    THIS is why even the slightest infringement of any constitutional right needs to be met with firm resistance. You CAN yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, “hate speech” helps you avoid actually beating the crap out of someone, and if anyone’s profanity, or political opinions offend you, you can stay in your house and not listen to it.

    Are you afraid of someone yelling “fire” in your movie theatre? DON’T GO TO THE MOVIES.

  3. Jeez…..
    When I first read the article title…. I immediately thought , hmmmmm…?????
    Maybe she just got caught with some naked pictures of herself and forgot to mark them private or sumptin..
    Now she’s gonna get, …… waterboarded.
    Good ole facebook. …,
    Helll.,,, I don’t even like looking at my face in the morning.
    Let alone putting it in a book on the internet where everyone can see my ugly azz.
    Hell they should just make it mandatory on there that you have to take two pictures as your avatar.
    A real picture of your face in black and white.
    One from the front headshot picture.
    One from the side full headshot picture.
    Just like when they book you in jail.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.