Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
Also for the record, I wanted to add that I don't agree with calling the cops in this situation... the school and parents should have handled it themselves.
|
There are certainly things missing regarding this case. More details would be nice but with only one side talking they are going to say what sounds best for them.
A couple observations. First, while I haven't seen it stated that the cop was a school resource officer I'd have to question the amount of time involved here if he wasn't. First, if he was an SRO this could be an example on how easy it is to abuse. It's just too easy to summon an SRO on a whim.
But if the cop isn't an SRO then how long did this take? There had to be some confrontation between the kid and the school staff. I'd assume there would be some sort of escalation to a vice principal or principal before the police arrive. Then the cops would be called. Next the cops would be transported to the school. Next the cops would speak to the student (probably) in order to give him a chance to comply. Then the kid would have had to keep talking, yelling or whatever he was doing (maybe about rights) during all this time. That seems like a lot of time for a student to be protesting.
The other thing is, I wonder if it had anything to do with the NRA. Maybe ya'll have read more details but the school isn't talking so it's either speculation or trust the parents. I first thought the assault type weapons on the shirt may have against the dress code.
But I draw your attention to this:
14-year-old at the center of “NRA T-Shirt Controversy” now facing possibility of 1 year in jail | Tea Party
And the dress code:
Logan Co. Schools Dress Code
And now this:
Eighth Grader Jailed Over Wearing NRA T-Shirt To School | ThinkProgress
Though as usual those that want to blow things out of proportion will. The headline here is that the kid was jailed. He was never jailed. But look at the video.
And the text claims to be from the A.P. which shines more light though only from one side still. It says the confrontation was in the cafeteria and the kid blah blahed about his rights. Then he was sent to the office and refused again.
It's not clear why the police were called. The 14 year old Constitutional scholar says he was yapping when the police arrived. That seems to be a long time. Then he kept yapping and disobeyed the order from the cop. Smart.
OK, the more I look at the shirt the more confused I am but some reports say that the teacher told him to turn it inside out and others say he was told to
change it. What I'm getting at with the different photos is sometimes it looks as if it's a sleeveless shirt. I don't think it is but sometimes that's what it looks like. Perhaps the teacher asked him to change the shirt because of that.
There is a concept in law called Constitutional avoidance. Briefly, what it means is, if you can deal with something without invoking the Constitution then that's what you do. We'll see that with the gay rights cases in front of the supreme court if they decide not to rule or rule against. Instead of citing a constitutional reason, if they want to dismiss it for standing as an example that's what they will do.
Using this idea, one would rather have the shirt dealt with for having sleeves that are too short and not the content of the message. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there are many middle school teachers or principals that are smart enough to think this through especially when getting in to a p* match with a 14 year old. Maybe the teacher didn't consider the message at all or maybe he was snarky and considered it and then to meet his goal he diverted to the sleeves. I don't know. I wish someone would go pick up the court documents and scan them in.
So I'm sticking with a draw unless or until we hear more. If the kid simply wouldn't shut up then the parents should have been called not the police. But we don't know his posture or his emotional stance at the time.
But the kid is stupid. Not only is he claiming 1st Amendment protection for the shirt (which may be true based on the dress code or may be tenuous based on the violence clause) he also claimed he didn't have to shut up because his speech was protected by the 1st in front of the cop. But the way you
know he may be IQ challenged is he really thinks his 2nd Amendment right was violated. If that was the case then apparently his shirt was loaded and was a firearm.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
