If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Supreme Court will decide if it's okay for the school principal to look in your underwear for aspirin   (latimes.com) divider line 259
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

7825 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Apr 2009 at 1:29 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



259 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-04-19 01:51:22 PM
furiousxgeorge: So it should be illegal to strip search the innocent?

i'm not a lawyer. forgive me for not completely understanding every nuance of the law. ad please don't twist my words around when you most likely knew what i was getting at.

Weaver95: Or stop hiring pedophiles as school administrators.

this, too. although FTFA, it doesn't see,m as though the admin was in the room when the search was conducted. so maybe the pedophilia angle is a bit much. but certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

brigid_fitch: Oh, and most importantly, I don't care whether or not the school has a zero-tolerance drug policy (another stupid knee-jerk, feel-good policy), you don't strip-search a 13-yo girl, who apparently has never been in trouble for anything before in school, because another student who was caught with a knife & said Advil told you she got it from her.

agreed. agreed. agreed. it was totally a bad call on the admin's part. but should that completely negate the authority to do something similar in another situation in the future? i'm not so sure.
 
2009-04-19 01:52:52 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: brigid_fitch: Why? And who is supposed to do the strip searching? Suddenly a school nurse has the authority to perform a strip search?


because these days schools can be very scary places and sometimes (hell, most of the time) the rights of the other 900 students or so should come before the rights of the one. Strip searches have been performed exactly twice in our local school system in the past twenty years. Both times, guns have been found. was the strip search worth it? Yes.

the case in the article? well, i know what i might have done in that situation if i was the admin, but that doesn't really matter to the facts of the case, does it?

we need to be careful about our definition of 'strip search' as well. If we dis-allow them in the school system, if we say that school admins have no right to do strip searches, does that mean an admin has no right to check a student's pockets if there is warrant to do so? How about asking a student to remove a jacket? a hoodie? How about searching backpacks?

The safety of all students in the school comes first comes before the discomfort of an individual, imo. these things are not done wantonly.fark your "scary school" horseshiat. Ibuprofen is not scary. Kids taking drugs is not scary. People's privacy being invaded is scary. This wouldn't be OK at your job and it wouldn't be ok at the mall. Stop treating kids like farking prisoners.

If you want to search somebody for a gun, CALL THE POLICE and have them do it while the kid is under arrest. End of story.
 
2009-04-19 01:52:57 PM
Claude Ballse: For those of you who don't know what a "Tardy Sweep" is, let me explain. Once the bell rings, the teachers were instructed to lock the classroom door and keep kids out. Not all did this because many disagreed. But otherwise we'd have to spend 15 minutes or so listening to kids bang doors begging to be let in before the truancy officers caught them. That's right. If you got locked out, you got literally hunted down. Best case scenario, you remained where you were and recieved detention, but ended up missing an entire class of learning. But if you ran and managed to get caught, it was a suspension for truancy. And believe me, the would search all over the entire school looking in every stairwell, locker room, bathroom, hallway, and storage closet to hunt you down.

Wow, that's insane. What happens if you let the kid in who's banging on the door?
 
2009-04-19 01:53:17 PM
Weaver95
brigid_fitch: This is a school, not a jail. Teachers' & admins' time should be spent on teaching the kids, not treating them like inmates.

what makes you think that this isn't a lesson?

Look, we're becoming an increasingly authoritarian culture. we're less tolerant of differences and we're trending towards centralized authority and mob rule. the signs are all around us - everything from strip searching 13 year old girls for advil up to and including wire taps on political dissident groups.

I remember reading something somewhere about this sort of situation. the longer that we allow order to be imposed, and the stricter said order is enforced, the chance of breakdown increases and the level of backlash rises inversely to the previous level of authoritarian control. or to put it more simply, eventually we snap and go nuts. 'we' as in 'society', not so much as individuals. we need safety valves. we need to let people go and do things that we think aren't safe, secure or even sane. If we don't back the hell off and let people do the stuff we don't agree with, then eventually there WILL be a backlash and it'll get ugly.


As a libertarian, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but wasn't all that supposed to magically stop after The Obama got elected?
 
2009-04-19 01:53:54 PM
So was the search conducted by a female nurse (I assume so) or the vice principal himself? I am not seeing the pervy undertones in this story that others are inferring.
 
2009-04-19 01:54:23 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: brigid_fitch: However, taking away ALL rights of privacy from the entire student body just in case one or two might be breaking the law at some point is bad policy.

agreed. in no place in this article is it suggested that the rights of all students were taken away.


C'mon, you can't be that obtuse. I was responding to your post, "By allowing strip searches in schools, we are not TREATING OUR KIDS AS IF THEY'RE CRIMINALS WITH NO RIGHTS, we are teaching them that if they choose to break the law, there will be consequences for that. The policy should be used for the good of the majority."

By allowing strip-searches, Canada has taken away all rights of privacy from its students in a supposed effort to protect them from the POSSIBILITY of someone doing something harmful. Let me guess, this policy came shortly after Columbine, right?

Weaver95 & I are trying to tell you why this is not only a stupid policy, but potentially harmful, and you keep sounding more and more like a helicopter parent.
 
2009-04-19 01:54:31 PM
Claude Ballse: I don't know if you are seriously this out of touch, or just plain stupid. But you can't simply take peoples' rights and basic human dignity away because you don't think they need them. Open your mind and see things from other peoples points of view.

wow, this is spiraling out of control. i really don't mean to come off sounding like that at all. maybe i am stupid.
 
2009-04-19 01:54:36 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: no, i advocate a policy whereby if there are reasonable grounds for a search, a search should be within the school's authority to do.

If it were my daughter, there would have been a different story about a furious father beating the everloving crap out of a bunch of school administrators.
 
2009-04-19 01:54:56 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: Weaver95: no, what you are teaching kids is that it doesn't matter if they obey the law or not - they're criminals no matter what they do.

you need to explain to me how you're getting that from what i am saying. because if i am saying that, it is being said unintentionally. if kids are breaking the law, they should be treated as though they are breaking the law. if they are not breaking the law, they should not be treated as such.


Get a brain. They're not breaking the law until they've been searched and contraband is found. You're advocating guilty until proven innocent.
 
2009-04-19 01:56:48 PM
Dear Police of *Insert Town Here*:

I witnessed xpennyroyaltyx stick drugs, yellow cake uranium, and a confession note with proof that he/she is actually the real killer in the OJ case down his/her pants.

You are welcome for this tip, step one in this situation is a strip search from an untrained professional I believe, he/she is fine with that based on one person with no evidence claiming something.
 
2009-04-19 01:56:57 PM
Weaver95: brigid_fitch: My point is that once the SCOTUS rules on this, either allowing it or saying it is a violation of the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search & seizure, which I believe strip-searching a student to be) they will have to spell out what constitutes a strip search.

the cynic in me says that SCOTUS will leave the definition vague, then rule the search legal.

that would completely confirm my suspicion that we're no longer interested in being a free society. But hey, I could be wrong. SCOTUS might take the right pills that morning and decide to err on the side of the individual for once.


LOL--yeah, there's always that little tidbit that SCOTUS throws in just to make things even more difficult. But I have to admit, they've been behaving lately. Here's hoping that continues.
 
2009-04-19 01:58:05 PM
I'm thinking that the admin was on a witch hunt. He just caught a girl with pills, a knife, smokes and a lighter, and asked where she got the folder, leading him to the other girl. So, girl A was considered a bad girl, causing Admin to assume she was a mid level minion, and the true, evil, criminal mastermind was still out there, so when girl A named girl B, Admin went on the rampage.

I was under the impression that girl A said girl B gave her the FOLDER, not the pills.

Alos, you should generally take into account a persons history before assuming they are liars and criminals. The quiet, honor roll student is not likely to be hiding a cache of pills, so once the initial precursor search was over, the child should have been off the hook, had she had any controband, she would have outed herself rather than be subjected to the humiliation of a search.

This was a power trip gone haywire,

and why isn't anyone thinkning about the pedofilia angle? Maybe the Admin was a dirty old man and just wanted to see her in her undies, huh?

Anyone tried to strip search my son and you bet i'm showing up with a baseball bat demanding answers!
 
2009-04-19 01:58:27 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: wow, this is spiraling out of control. i really don't mean to come off sounding like that at all. maybe i am stupid.

I wouldn't say 'stupid'. I'd say 'misinformed'. To be fair, you aren't alone. a lot of people don't stop and really think about the consequences of our drug policies.
 
2009-04-19 02:00:06 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: because these days schools can be very scary places and sometimes (hell, most of the time) the rights of the other 900 students or so should come before the rights of the one. Strip searches have been performed exactly twice in our local school system in the past twenty years. Both times, guns have been found. was the strip search worth it? Yes.

NO. The ends do not justify the means. And I'd have to hear the whole story before determining whether the ends were even all that dangerous. You're sparse on the details.

we need to be careful about our definition of 'strip search' as well. If we dis-allow them in the school system, if we say that school admins have no right to do strip searches, does that mean an admin has no right to check a student's pockets if there is warrant to do so? How about asking a student to remove a jacket? a hoodie? How about searching backpacks?


Nobody would call those "strip searches." Contrary to the way it is often presented, the law is not some arbitrary and inflexible collection of technicalities. It often employs flexible standards, like what a reasonable officer or administrator would do under the circumstances, for example.

The safety of all students in the school comes first comes before the discomfort of an individual, imo. these things are not done wantonly.


Like most people who give up liberty to achieve safety, you will end up with neither.
 
2009-04-19 02:00:21 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: furiousxgeorge: So it should be illegal to strip search the innocent?

i'm not a lawyer. forgive me for not completely understanding every nuance of the law. ad please don't twist my words around when you most likely knew what i was getting at.


I'm not twisting anything, you are just dumb. You can't say, "Only strip search the guilty" because searching is a method of investigation, you don't know if someone is guilty when you do it.

Because it is a highly invasive and humiliating procedure, you should not do it unless you have:

A. A potential serious violation.

B. Strong proof before the search.

A witch hunt for an advil doesn't qualify, it is unreasonable in this situation.
 
2009-04-19 02:00:31 PM
brigid_fitch: By allowing strip-searches, Canada has taken away all rights of privacy from its students in a supposed effort to protect them from the POSSIBILITY of someone doing something harmful. Let me guess, this policy came shortly after Columbine, right?

Neverminding the fact that any student at any time could snap and decide to drive a pencil through another kid's eye socket into his brain.

Better update the list of outlawed items.
 
2009-04-19 02:01:02 PM
earthworm2.0: Anyone tried to strip search my son and you bet i'm showing up with a baseball bat demanding answers!

I'd show up at the next school board meeting and ask why they hired a pedophile as school principal.

Try to make sure the local news people are there in some capacity. bring your own photographer just to be sure, and post the meeting minutes up on your blog.
 
2009-04-19 02:01:52 PM
brigid_fitch: By allowing strip-searches, Canada has taken away all rights of privacy from its students in a supposed effort to protect them from the POSSIBILITY of someone doing something harmful. Let me guess, this policy came shortly after Columbine, right?

Weaver95 & I are trying to tell you why this is not only a stupid policy, but potentially harmful, and you keep sounding more and more like a helicopter parent.



all i can do is quote case law from a SCJ in Canada.

"A different standard should be applied to searches by school authorities. Teachers and principals are placed in a position of trust that carries with it onerous responsibilities. When children attend school or school functions, it is they who must care for children's safety and well-being . . . One of the ways in which school authorities may be required to act reasonably is by conducting searches of students and seizing prohibited items. When criminal law is involved, evidence found by a teacher or principal should not be excluded because the search would have been unreasonable if conducted by the police" (R. v. M (M.R) [1998]"

there probably has been more on this since then, but i'm not in the mood to search.

should admins and teachers lord strip searches over kids as a means of deterring crimes? no. i hope you don't think that i think this. because i don't.
 
2009-04-19 02:04:05 PM
The fact that this had to make it to the Supreme Court is a sad commentary on American society. Worse still it will probably be a 5-4 decision and I'm not sure which way it'll go.
 
2009-04-19 02:05:50 PM
moothemagiccow: xpennyroyaltyx: Weaver95: no, what you are teaching kids is that it doesn't matter if they obey the law or not - they're criminals no matter what they do.

you need to explain to me how you're getting that from what i am saying. because if i am saying that, it is being said unintentionally. if kids are breaking the law, they should be treated as though they are breaking the law. if they are not breaking the law, they should not be treated as such.

Get a brain. They're not breaking the law until they've been searched and contraband is found. You're advocating guilty until proven innocent.


And they shouldn't be searched unless they are placed under arrest by a sworn officer with authority and cause to conduct such a search.

I learned very early (from a cop) to ask one question "am I under arrest?", if no get up and leave (they stop you its unlawful detainment/kidnapping and if they tell you yes and aren't a cop add impersonating a police officer)
 
2009-04-19 02:05:58 PM
Superjoe: The fact that this had to make it to the Supreme Court is a sad commentary on American society. Worse still it will probably be a 5-4 decision and I'm not sure which way it'll go.

If I remember correctly, the school lost this fight at the local and state court levels. they're the ones pushing it up to SCOTUS. I'm not sure what they're trying to prove here.
 
2009-04-19 02:06:36 PM
moothemagiccow: Get a brain. They're not breaking the law until they've been searched and contraband is found. You're advocating guilty until proven innocent.


and if there are reasonable grounds to search?

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Nobody would call those "strip searches.

maybe this is where i'm going wrong. in the case i cited above it was considered a "strip search" when a kid was asked to lift up his pants leg and empty his pockets. perhaps my definition of search is different. and maybe this is why the shiat has unintentionally hit the fan.
 
2009-04-19 02:07:23 PM
xpennyroyaltyx ] Quote 2009-04-19 11:48:58 AM

because these days schools can be very scary places and sometimes (hell, most of the time) the rights of the other 900 students or so should come before the rights of the one.

If the rights of the individual aren't safe then no one rights are safe. There is NEVER a reason to violate someones rights!!! It's only laziness not to find a way to get the job done without violating someones rights, there's always a way.
 
2009-04-19 02:07:29 PM
Weaver95: I'd show up at the next school board meeting and ask why they hired a pedophile as school principal.

Try to make sure the local news people are there in some capacity. bring your own photographer just to be sure, and post the meeting minutes up on your blog.


I'm not sure you necessarily want to provide extensive evidence of your slander.
 
2009-04-19 02:08:41 PM
furiousxgeorge: I'm not twisting anything, you are just dumb. You can't say, "Only strip search the guilty" because searching is a method of investigation, you don't know if someone is guilty when you do it.

duh.
 
2009-04-19 02:09:57 PM
Theaetetus: Weaver95: I'd show up at the next school board meeting and ask why they hired a pedophile as school principal.

Try to make sure the local news people are there in some capacity. bring your own photographer just to be sure, and post the meeting minutes up on your blog.

I'm not sure you necessarily want to provide extensive evidence of your slander.


what slander? I'd merely ask why the school board hired someone with a predilection for strip searching nubile 13 year old girls to be the local principal. all of which would be true and accurate.
 
2009-04-19 02:11:04 PM
Superjoe: The fact that this had to make it to the Supreme Court is a sad commentary on American society. Worse still it will probably be a 5-4 decision and I'm not sure which way it'll go.

I'm not familiar with the history of the case, but you can't stop people from appealing in civil cases like this, and you can't stop the Supreme Court from granting cert. However, if all of the previous courts found for the school administrator, then I agree, that is a sad commentary.

I don't think it will be as close as you think it is, although I could be wrong. The facts of previous cases were much less serious than in this case. I'm guessing it will be a 9-0 opinion or possibly 8-1, if Thomas wants to be a dick.
 
2009-04-19 02:12:05 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: and if there are reasonable grounds to search?

Then there is enough reason to involve the police, how is this so difficult to understand?
 
2009-04-19 02:14:38 PM
brigid_fitch: xpennyroyaltyx: i still think that schools should have the right to strip search students.

Why? And who is supposed to do the strip searching? Suddenly a school nurse has the authority to perform a strip search?


Relax, they're only going to perform a strip search if they have a reason. Like an anonymous tip from another student. And we all know no student would ever dream of calling in a tip just to harass someone.

/Off to call DHS on my ex-husband
 
2009-04-19 02:16:31 PM
Weaver95: what slander? I'd merely ask why the school board hired someone with a predilection for strip searching nubile 13 year old girls to be the local principal. all of which would be true and accurate.

"Predilection" may be slanderous.

/plus, did you see her picture? She ain't that nubile.
 
2009-04-19 02:16:36 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: furiousxgeorge: I'm not twisting anything, you are just dumb. You can't say, "Only strip search the guilty" because searching is a method of investigation, you don't know if someone is guilty when you do it.

duh.


Look, obviously you aren't getting this. If you think there is reason for a search then call the cops to make an arrest and continue the investigation. The kid doesn't have to cooperate with you, and you aren't legally allowed to lay a hand on them.

Your move.
 
2009-04-19 02:19:53 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: maybe this is where i'm going wrong. in the case i cited above it was considered a "strip search" when a kid was asked to lift up his pants leg and empty his pockets. perhaps my definition of search is different. and maybe this is why the shiat has unintentionally hit the fan.

I don't know whether you are interpreting that case correctly, nor do I care, because neither I nor the Supreme Court of the United States gives a flying fark what the law is up in Canada. Also, you didn't mention anything about pant legs being rolled up in your hypothetical, and that is starting to sound more like a strip search than what you described as a jacket being removed or pockets being turned inside out.

To address an earlier (misguided) point you made, the reasonableness test is objective, not subjective. That means that what the administrator thought was reasonable is irrelevant, but what the court thinks is reasonable is relevant.
 
2009-04-19 02:20:24 PM
Same kind of crap went on around 1985-1986 at Davison High School in Michigan.
 
2009-04-19 02:21:11 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: furiousxgeorge: I'm not twisting anything, you are just dumb. You can't say, "Only strip search the guilty" because searching is a method of investigation, you don't know if someone is guilty when you do it.

duh.


Ok, you say duh now, square it with what you said before:

if kids are breaking the law, they should be treated as though they are breaking the law. if they are not breaking the law, they should not be treated as such.
 
2009-04-19 02:22:08 PM
Theaetetus: Weaver95: what slander? I'd merely ask why the school board hired someone with a predilection for strip searching nubile 13 year old girls to be the local principal. all of which would be true and accurate.

"Predilection" may be slanderous.

/plus, did you see her picture? She ain't that nubile.


right. He's just an older guy who likes to strip search 13 year old girls. But he's defininately NOT a pedophile. He just likes the strip search. For theraputic reasons only, i'm sure. But i'd make it clear that he wasn't any sort of pervert, he only strip searches girls every OTHER day.
 
2009-04-19 02:22:19 PM
What if, to prevent exploitation of female students, any strip searches of girls grades 9-12 are filmed (with good lighting to ensure any abuses would be spotted) and posted online so that the entire community can act as guardians of these young ladies rights.
 
2009-04-19 02:22:44 PM
xpennyroyaltyx: brigid_fitch: By allowing strip-searches, Canada has taken away all rights of privacy from its students in a supposed effort to protect them from the POSSIBILITY of someone doing something harmful. Let me guess, this policy came shortly after Columbine, right?

Weaver95 & I are trying to tell you why this is not only a stupid policy, but potentially harmful, and you keep sounding more and more like a helicopter parent.


all i can do is quote case law from a SCJ in Canada.

"A different standard should be applied to searches by school authorities. Teachers and principals are placed in a position of trust that carries with it onerous responsibilities. When children attend school or school functions, it is they who must care for children's safety and well-being . . . One of the ways in which school authorities may be required to act reasonably is by conducting searches of students and seizing prohibited items. When criminal law is involved, evidence found by a teacher or principal should not be excluded because the search would have been unreasonable if conducted by the police" (R. v. M (M.R) [1998]"

there probably has been more on this since then, but i'm not in the mood to search.

should admins and teachers lord strip searches over kids as a means of deterring crimes? no. i hope you don't think that i think this. because i don't.


Wow, with that ruling, Canada gave teachers & admins more leeway than your own police force. They can conduct all sorts of searches, regardless of reason, and any evidence can be used in court.

"When criminal law is involved, evidence found by a teacher or principal should not be excluded because the search would have been unreasonable if conducted by the police"

That is COMPLETELY. FARKED. UP.

And again, the school doesn't have to actively lord strip searches over their students, the students already know it's there. And now they know that once they're in school, they have far, FAR fewer rights than if they were outside of school grounds.

Way to make the kids feel like second-class citizens, Canada.
 
2009-04-19 02:24:23 PM
Theaetetus: "Predilection" may be slanderous.

/plus, did you see her picture? She ain't that nubile.


I'm with Theaetetus on this one, two wrongs don't make a right. I would think that most administrators would at least consider a slander suit based upon what you are describing. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt, if not for his sake than for your own. Just because somebody is incorrect on what they are allowed to do within their administrative role to ensure the safety of their students under current case law doesn't make them a scumbag or a pedophile.
 
2009-04-19 02:26:04 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I'm with Theaetetus on this one

Never thought I'd hear that from you. ;)
 
2009-04-19 02:27:13 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Just because somebody is incorrect on what they are allowed to do within their administrative role to ensure the safety of their students under current case law doesn't make them a scumbag or a pedophile.

Pedo maybe/maybe not, but certainly a scumbag.
 
2009-04-19 02:27:31 PM
Weaver95: Theaetetus: Weaver95: I'd show up at the next school board meeting and ask why they hired a pedophile as school principal.

Try to make sure the local news people are there in some capacity. bring your own photographer just to be sure, and post the meeting minutes up on your blog.

I'm not sure you necessarily want to provide extensive evidence of your slander.

what slander? I'd merely ask why the school board hired someone with a predilection for strip searching nubile 13 year old girls to be the local principal. all of which would be true and accurate.


Ummmm, MA Court of Appeals already ruled that even if what you say is true, you can still be sued for slander/libel.

Alan Noonan vs. Staples
 
2009-04-19 02:28:19 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I'm with Theaetetus on this one, two wrongs don't make a right. I would think that most administrators would at least consider a slander suit based upon what you are describing. .

And then we could get the entire community wondering why and how the school board hired someone who strip searched a 13 year old girl over a couple of advil pills.

i'm sure that anyone on the school board with any sort of political aspirations would just LOVE to have their names and careers attached to THAT discussion.....

I strongly suspect deals would be made, someone would quietly resign (with a decent severage package) and no lawsuits would be filed. And the next guy who gets hired would understand the rules a bit better.
 
2009-04-19 02:29:27 PM
brigid_fitch: Ummmm, MA Court of Appeals

Technically 1st Circuit Federal. They just happen to be based in Boston.
 
2009-04-19 02:29:27 PM
brigid_fitch: Ummmm, MA Court of Appeals already ruled that even if what you say is true, you can still be sued for slander/libel.

Alan Noonan vs. Staples


Lucky for me I don't live in that state then. Because if I read that decision right, they're farking idiots over there.
 
2009-04-19 02:30:31 PM
brigid_fitch: Wow, with that ruling, Canada gave teachers & admins more leeway than your own police force. They can conduct all sorts of searches, regardless of reason, and any evidence can be used in court.

"When criminal law is involved, evidence found by a teacher or principal should not be excluded because the search would have been unreasonable if conducted by the police"

That is COMPLETELY. FARKED. UP.


I have no love of the exclusionary rule (provided that there is a civil remedy available), but if a country is going to adopt it, they should probably do it more consistently, you're right. However, it does make sense that teachers and administrators should have a slightly lesser standard of when they are able to conduct searches than the police.
 
2009-04-19 02:31:13 PM
furiousxgeorge: if they suspected and are then not found to be breaking the law, they should not be treated as such.

FTFY?
 
2009-04-19 02:32:01 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: However, it does make sense that teachers and administrators should have a slightly lesser standard of when they are able to conduct searches than the police.

Rather "WTF" statement right there.
 
2009-04-19 02:33:37 PM
Slightly chubby redhead? DO WANT
 
2009-04-19 02:33:51 PM
Weaver95: And then we could get the entire community wondering why and how the school board hired someone who strip searched a 13 year old girl over a couple of advil pills.

i'm sure that anyone on the school board with any sort of political aspirations would just LOVE to have their names and careers attached to THAT discussion.....

I strongly suspect deals would be made, someone would quietly resign (with a decent severage package) and no lawsuits would be filed. And the next guy who gets hired would understand the rules a bit better.


So in other words, you don't care about what is right or legal, only with what you can get away with through coercion, public appeals to emotion, and political maneuvering to justify the ends you are seeking. You sound nice...
 
2009-04-19 02:34:13 PM
Theaetetus: brigid_fitch: Ummmm, MA Court of Appeals

Technically 1st Circuit Federal. They just happen to be based in Boston.


well now i'm farking depressed.

someone should slap them silly over that ruling.
 
Displayed 50 of 259 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report