Supreme Court Finds Bounds of Reason. I am Shocked.
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
He must have been reading some of that recent revisionist history which claims SAVAK only tortured and murdered dozens instead of tens of thousands.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Because (two) advil tablets have a history of killing children.
Maybe she was going to give them to a pregnant friend so she could abort the fetus.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
True, but isn't the intention here strictly about dealing with minors on school property? I don't think they were proposing these rules against us adults.
Maybe she was going to give them to a pregnant friend so she could abort the fetus.
Yeah, cause the pregnant friend couldn't buy the advil themselves.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
This is good news. This is particularly meaningful to me because I, as a student, do not want to be strip searched in school. Or anywhere really.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Exactly 10chars
GoodGame said:
I should have amended it slightly: when the authorities (teachers, principals etc.) start treating everyone like a suspect. You have an occupying army and any solidarity between groups become something akin to Stockholm Syndrome: he can strip search me but he's a good teacher. The singularly most interesting point about this case is that the school could take such liberties without recourse to proper law enforcement - police etc.
Huayna Capac357 said:
Panties are now off limits but then you don't wear them: outer layer of clothes and bags are fine!
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Paradox: If minors are to be trusted as much as adults, then why do we have a 'minor' legal status?
Stockholm Syndrome in kiddies? Principal = occupying army? Hmmm..sounds paranoid. But how is a prinicipal not proper enforcement? That seems like semantics. The only difference between a principal and a cop is uniform, and scope of duty. A prinicipal is just interested in his school. But even if you insist on a cop, would you want a cop on duty at the school? Why is it that a cop isn't stockholm syndrome-inducing, but a principal is?
Bottom line: authorities (whatever flavor) are present at school to ensure order, and that the school functions to its mandates.
Bottom line: whether we use a priori arguement of 'reasonable suspicion' or an a posteri argue 'probable cause', there has to be a definitive protocol by which authorities act: 1. knowing they did their job properly, 2. did their best to prevent injury and death to their charges, while giving them an acceptable education.
So I'd say the legislative branch failed to give a good, detailed blue print of a working school, when they passed the law in question, so vaguely. Or perhaps they did and the principal's boss did a crappy job of certifying the principal on it.
GoodGame said:
Paradox: if minors are afforded extra legal protections in Courts of Law, then why can schools strip search them?
GoodGame said:
The principle is in a position of trust with students: far more intimate in character than a policeman to a citizen and so forth. They do have a position which affords them considerable discretionary powers in order to maintain order and I have no issue with that. I do however have serious issue with a strip-search conducted solely on the basis of an accusation from another student, something that would not have been sufficient to strip search an adult: let alone a strip search conducted without the presence of a guardian or legal council. I can think of no other authorities vested with that kind of discretionary power, occupying army therefore becomes a fitting epithet: it would be intolerable if it were vested in the police I see no reason for it to become tolerable simply because it is vested in principals. (Even the police need to show more grounds!)
I don't even like the idea of searching the bags or clothing of a student but that is not the issue at hand: the issue is taking away that last little scrap of dignity. Nevertheless if one is inclined to strip search ones students then why not call in an expert? A police officer. On the basis of trust, ass covering, expertise and a whole host of other factors it makes sense: reasonable people expect police officers to act for the public good they don't expect principals to do it, not past a certain point heck they might even be expected to act as an advocate for a student!
GoodGame said:
So every-time they have a cafeteria riot or get some lip from students they should crack some heads and clap themselves on the back for having restored order! Of course not. Schools have more than one function including protecting students, educating etc. To have "order" without providing education is to have one useless school. Sometimes it easier to turn a blind eye to maintain trust instead of acting like a freaking autocrat.
GoodGame said:
They "protected" the rest of the school from a non-existent threat at the expense of the dignity of an individual on the basis of "he said, she said." They could have utilized discretion, judgment and some degree of critical thought but they don't appear to have bothered at all - pills in panties and all that!
Paradox: If minors are to be trusted as much as adults, then why do we have a 'minor' legal status?
Stockholm Syndrome in kiddies? Principal = occupying army? Hmmm..sounds paranoid. But how is a prinicipal not proper enforcement? That seems like semantics. The only difference between a principal and a cop is uniform, and scope of duty. A prinicipal is just interested in his school. But even if you insist on a cop, would you want a cop on duty at the school? Why is it that a cop isn't stockholm syndrome-inducing, but a principal is?
You do want kids to like their headmaster, remember?
Spot the troll...
So suggesting that freedom in america is being nickel and dimed away is trolling now?
Just cause i have strong opinions (haveing strong opinions is akin to terrorism to the goverment) that i sometimes have trouble speaking without spewing random insults.
and if you were not refereing to me then nevermind and sorry for getting on your case pig fly. (no insult intended just being creative with your name)
the more you learn about everything the closer to insanity you come, but who is to say insanty is good or bad.
Just cause i have strong opinions (haveing strong opinions is akin to terrorism to the goverment) that i sometimes have trouble speaking without spewing random insults.
and if you were not refereing to me then nevermind and sorry for getting on your case pig fly. (no insult intended just being creative with your name)
the more you learn about everything the closer to insanity you come, but who is to say insanty is good or bad.
That's trolling.
As this could end up derailing this will be the last reply to this in this thread.
If you have been watching what is happening in america several elements of both soviet and nazi systems have been takeing shape in the police state that is dominateing the american system.
So no not really i was just creativly expressing one of many ways that the name of the united states could end up changeing if the trend is not corrected.
If you have been watching what is happening in america several elements of both soviet and nazi systems have been takeing shape in the police state that is dominateing the american system.
So no not really i was just creativly expressing one of many ways that the name of the united states could end up changeing if the trend is not corrected.
The immunity was for this case only because (according to 7 on the Supreme Court) it wasn't obviously wrong from a legal standpoint until this case.
Jollyroger i hope you know that is total BS it dont take a court ruleing to know stripping someone aginst there will is wrong all that is, is an excuse to allow these criminals to get away with violateing someone in normal conditions thats grounds to charge someone with attempted rape, and land everyone who participated in the act on a sex offender list.
next there going to try and tell us that goverment officals need a supreme court ruleing to tell them that thay arnt allowed to kill random people thay see, how can any sane person try and defend this, if you dont punish the people that did this act thay will only do it again because thay got away with it once so in there mind who's to say that thay wont beable to get away with it again.
next there going to try and tell us that goverment officals need a supreme court ruleing to tell them that thay arnt allowed to kill random people thay see, how can any sane person try and defend this, if you dont punish the people that did this act thay will only do it again because thay got away with it once so in there mind who's to say that thay wont beable to get away with it again.
Similar threads
