Thread: How is this even a supreme court case?

Originally Posted by Bruno

I don't see. Basically he says the same thing as I.
I.e. this was a violation
This should not be allowed
They should go to PMITA prison.

It is the same thing that I said.
Not exactly, you asked in the title of this thread: why is this even a supreme court case. I gave an answer to that question previously. Cases end up in the Supreme Court because the out come concerns everyone in the country not just a single individual. Not all our laws are on the books (unlike Belgium) this means judges and lawyers in this country need much more skill and understanding of logic/debate.
The only thing I said extra is that I would possibly go postal on the administrator if I saw him in person and make him miserable. Not saying that this is right. Good, because it isn't right and in fact is just as bad IMO as strip searching a 13yo girl. You take someone's right to a fair trial, they take someone's right to privacy. Just that it is realistic.

And I suspect that this would be true for most parents. For example, if you would hit a kid with your car and he was dead, the smartest thing to do is to get to the nearest cop and turn yourself in. If possible notify 911 first. But don't go to the parents first or wait for them, because they are likely to assault you. And then you will be hurt and they end up in legal trouble. This is a lose lose situation.
Parents tend to overreact when someone harms their kids. This is totally inconclusive/ unsupported.

Pity was perhaps not the word I should have used, but if the supreme court upholds the right of the school admins to order strip searches, then that would be a sorry situation indeed. Even if it prevents the illegal sale or trade of prescription drugs at a school my kid is going to? Even if it means that a weapon is found on a kid before he can set straight the school nurse for strip searching his sister because that is what his dad would do? Maybe, maybe not. I feel like I will raise my kids to be trustworthy (to the best of my and their abilities) and hopefully avoid this type of thing but who knows. If this was a cut an dry case, it never would have gone to the supreme court.

EDIT: A couple of years ago I would have said the same thing as you. What is it I am saying exactly?But now that I have 2 little daughters, my views have changed somewhat on certain issues.Understandable, this is the reason that legal systems exist in the first place. You can't count on everyone to make the right decisions all the time.

The fun continues.
-Rob

Originally Posted by sicboater

Policy is supposed to help avoid decisions that are made based on common sense (which can differ from person to person)

This is interesting

If you had said that first, we could have saved ourselves some debate.
I thought things like search and seizure were detailed, and that the judge applied whatever laws were at his disposal. With this in mind, it becomes obvious why this has to go to supreme court

As for the traffic accident claim... several people I talked with admit that if someone kills their kid because of DUI or speeding, they'd go postal. I think that if I post a poll here, many people would vote 'yes, i'd go postal'. Perhaps not even the majority (though I'd be surprised) but enough to warrant caution in case of an accident.

I don't know how the laws are in the US, but over here you have 24 hours to turn yourself in. After that it becomes hit and run, before that it doesn't count against you. This is precisely to allow for the initial emotional reaction of fleeing instead of confronting the bystanders / parents.

Even in the case of heroin, I'd be against searches like this IF ORDERED / ADMINISTERED BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL. If there is a suspicion of drug trafficing, simply detain the kid with 2 witnesses, and call the cops. that is what they're there for.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I don't see. Basically he says the same thing as I.
I.e. this was a violation
This should not be allowed
They should go to PMITA prison.

It is the same thing that I said.
The only thing I said extra is that I would possibly go postal on the administrator if I saw him in person and make him miserable. Not saying that this is right. Just that it is realistic.

It is not debateable that she was sexually assaulted. that is cut and dry. what IS up for debate, is whether the school was allowed to violate her 4th amendment rights. currently, most public schools do NOT have to respect the bill of rights, shameful as it is. (e.g. they can restrict students' free speech)

the SCOTUS does not try cases. it tries laws. what's on trial is not the administrators that did this to the girl, what's on trial is the LAWS INVOLVED. the school claims they didn't have to respect the 4thA, everyone else is claiming they do. so the SCOTUS will be examining how a gov't entity (the school) needs to handle 4thA stuff. they will not necessarily even be looking at the particulars of this case, they are merely determining the legality of the rules in place.

I had two stepdaughters that were 13 when we were together. They were in school in Bridgeport, CT a city known to be pretty rough. The idea of them being strip searched for non-narcotics is to me laughable. It seems clearly to me to be an illegal search, perhaps even a "fishing expedition". However, anything that was found would have been found illegally and therefore inadmissable. The school felt they had "reasonable cause" because a classmate sold the subject out. That in itself would have me incensed. To take the word of a pubescent schoolgirl who is clearly trying to trash her ex-friend is foolish.

Now don't forget this is in Arizona. They seem to play a little fast and loose with the rights of the accused.

@Rob:

Additionally, on the issue of taking things in my own hands whereas jockeys doesn't... that's not entirely correct. By acknowledging and condoning prison rape in this example (they should go to PMITA prison), he too is in favour of extra-legal punishment. The only difference is that he outsources the actual violence to prison inmates.

Here's a chilling detail among many:

“Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules,” the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, “only that she was never caught.”

Got that? If the school district decides they want to treat a student as a confirmed delinquent, and that student inconveniently has no disciplinary record, well then, that just means she was never caught, and they are completely justified in punishing her for all the things she did and got away with.

Every administrator involved in this should be on the unemployment line tomorrow, and should never work in education again. Unfortunately, the present Supreme Court is just about certain to uphold their actions.

Rich

Originally Posted by Bruno

The only difference is that he outsources the actual violence to prison inmates.

why should i go to the trouble when violent felons will do it for me, free of charge. 'sides, i'm sure the violent felons are much better at it, me being only an amateur rapist

Originally Posted by rastewart

Here's a chilling detail among many:

“Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules,” the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, “only that she was never caught.”
Rich

guilty until proven innocent, eh? and people wonder why everyone hates the public school system.

Originally Posted by rastewart

Here's a chilling detail among many:

“Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules,” the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, “only that she was never caught.”

Got that? If the school district decides they want to treat a student as a confirmed delinquent, and that student inconveniently has no disciplinary record, well then, that just means she was never caught, and they are completely justified in punishing her for all the things she did and got away with.

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition...

Originally Posted by Bruno

@Rob:

Additionally, on the issue of taking things in my own hands whereas jockeys doesn't... that's not entirely correct. By acknowledging and condoning prison rape in this example (they should go to PMITA prison), he too is in favour of extra-legal punishment. The only difference is that he outsources the actual violence to prison inmates.

Of course, at that point a trial would have been held and the parties involved would have been found guilty. That is a huge difference. Think about it:

1. You walk up to someone you think is guilty and PTUTA
or
2. They get found guilty and sentenced to time in a prison where someone else PsTUTA.

I am more comfortable with a world where the P of A (EDIT: The un-consenting variety) happens only in prison. For now, I know I can stay out of there.

-Rob