Printable View
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/te...-a-high-threat
my favorite part was what one parent said:
"There's a fine line between privacy issues and the well-being of the community," she said. "Is the privacy of one student worth the safety of 2,000?"
looks like we found the next obama.
http://www.google.com/url?url=http:/...x5j0UrDAHdrwnA
I don't get the connection. Here we had a kid threaten to kill a coach because he got demoted from being captain of the debate team. He should of faced criminal charges. After being confronted by the school he allegedly wasn't remorseful and refused to apologize to the coach. Sounds like the school caved and let him go back without apologizing.
Sounds like the school owes the parents an explanation. It's time to start treating young men and women as such and quit handling them with kid gloves. You shouldn't be allowed to issue death threats without any real repercussions. Thank God I have the option to send my children to a private school.Quote:
Littleton Public Schools Superintendent Scott Murphy refused to comment on the documents this week, saying it is district policy not to comment on individual student disciplinary cases.Lori Horn, whose children recently graduated from Arapahoe High School, said she's frustrated that school leaders have not answered parents' questions.
"There's a fine line between privacy issues and the well-being of the community," she said. "Is the privacy of one student worth the safety of 2,000?"
Schools cave in to everything. My first year of teaching (4 years ago) I scolded an Assistant Pricipal for doing something similar to this. I had a student threaten me on Facebook. It took the school weeks to "gather information and research the case" even through I had a screen shot of the quote from one of my students who knew the kid. Yes slightly different circumstances than AHS, but my case and other instances I have seen during my brief 4 years teaching have demonstrated that schools need real help dealing with these issues. I am appalled with the response schools have to emergencies. Every suggestion I made was scoffed at because of "100 years of tradition unimpeded by progress" that schools live by. They are getting better but very slow to change.
LOL - you'll quickly learn that just because folks on here like guns doesn't mean that many don't otherwise hold the same view and embrace the same restrictions to freedom as the left (OC anyone?). Some may recognize you are speaking to the greater issue of calls to violate/reduce individual privacy based on the actions of a single bad apple though most will not grasp it beyond the circumstances of this case. This is just a gun forum, don't expect the same commonality of views regarding any other topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomerhc9
It's possible there is room for improvement in the procedure the school followed and that should certainly be scrutinized however to the question
The answer is "yes, yes it is." because it's not the privacy of one [crazy] student but the privacy of all at stake. Fry the bastard, leave privacy rights alone though it's understandably difficult to perceive the bigger picture gripped by the emotion of the event. It's interesting (but not surprising) that "Ms. Horn's" children have graduated and would be unaffected by the action she demands.Quote:
Is the privacy of one student worth the safety of 2,000?
I agree it's time all men and women were held fully accountable for their actions, too often a label of "child" or "official" is attached to shield individuals from the repercussions of their actions.
It's sad and unfortunate that evil will find a way or that crazy doesn't usually seem that crazy but in the end it's still the individual and no atrocity justifies any infringement to the sanctity of individual rights. You simply can't trade liberty for security no matter how noble the intent, you lose the one but gain only an illusion of the other. Rights are seldom lost with a sweeping grand gesture but the slow insidious "common sense" nibbling at the edge that ultimately results in benevolent servitude.
Whistler.... Well stated.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
So they'll get all bent out of shape over an Eagle Scout who left a pocket knife in his truck but a guy who issues a death threat is deemed "not a high threat" and allowed back to school a week later? The Left are so inconsistent they couldn't walk a straight line if you put walls up around the route.
In a way, I'm glad I don't have kids because I'd have to think long and hard about the pros and cons of sending them to what are laughingly referred to as "schools" these days.
My thoughts exactly! Holy cow, everything Whistler just said proves that old Benjamin Franklin quote is still a great line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
I guess I'm just dense. What rights to privacy did that punk have after he made a death threat? What am I missing? Honest question.
The article mentions that the report omitted information on why they reasoned that he wasn't a high level threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSS
ok, guess I threw everyone off with this. It was later in the evening, and didn't elaborate much.
Some may recognize you are speaking to the greater issue of calls to violate/reduce individual privacy based on the actions of a single bad apple though most will not grasp it beyond the circumstances of this case.
Thanks whistler, that excerpt from your post explains what I was getting at. I figured everone would understand because, I likened her to obama. presumably, Obama never attended arapahoe, can't remember him ever visiting.
Interestingly enough, looking at it, I could have used a few other names or entities.
IRS, Sebelius, hickenlooper, feinstein.
LOL - you'll quickly learn that just because folks on here like guns doesn't mean that many don't otherwise hold the same view and embrace the same restrictions to freedom as the left (OC anyone?).
ok, cool got it. I accidentaly figured at least some posters on a pro-firearm forum would get the allusion to the slow infringement on rights, and see the correlation between privacy, and gun rights. There was a thread about doctors forms asking questions about guns in the house.
But I digress. I'll stay in my lane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSS
If it's even close to how it was when I was in school, you don't have any rights to privacy when you stepped in the school. It was made quite clear in the student handbooks, and agreement waivers that the lockers issued to you were the schools property, and they could be searched at anytime. The same goes for the upper classmen, and the forms submitted to get a parking tag. any car on school property is subject to search at anytime. Also bookbags could be searched with a reasonable suspicion.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it falls under HIPAA's privacy rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomerhc9
You keep beating this OC dead horse when you know damned well that almost every person on this forum never argued that OC is a right people shouldn't exercise but that they should use a little discretion in HOW they exercise that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistler
Bailey while that may be true of you and some others I disagree it's the overwhelming attitude expressed here and many gun forums. It's a position shared by some who believe as you do and most who support onerous restrictions, "I believe in the 2nd Amendment but..." I think it's important to recognize that some like guns but not gun rights, support restrictions, licensing, minimum training, etc. and generally believe most [other] people shouldn't be allowed to carry. Hell I've seen folks on here propose voting rights be confined exclusively to land owners! "Good for me but not for thee" is not something I'm okay with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I think you're well aware we're on the same side and are disagreeing on the details. I know you support the right and not the behavior, you know I support the right, disagree with the behavior but support it as a component of free exercise of the right and essential to it's preservation. I don't think it's a dead horse else it wouldn't continuously be tested, you perceive the subject decided and closed, I perceive it the front line. I don't think anyone's fear of actions I might commit trump my rights, that their opinion on how I [legally] exercise that right is relevant or that changing my behavior to accommodate their fear or view of the world is in the best interest of the preservation of that right.
I don't think I'll change your point of view, you damn sure won't change mine but the issue is far from closed as evidenced by the popularity of the topic and I'll continue to express my view as I'm sure you will. I'd appreciate it if we could just express our differing opinions and accept we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, doesn't mean we can't still talk about it just don't take it so personal. I see your point but in the big picture a couple of asshats are a fart in a tornado and only cast a light on the larger concern.
I should've made it clear I was speaking mostly about the kid carrying the shotgun (thus the "dead horse" reference), not the issue of OC as a whole.
And, for the record, I think there are far too many restrictions on the 2A. Also for the record, I'll say this: "I believe in the 2nd Amendment but"...I also understand rights are not absolute. I also live in the real world where not everyone sees the gun issue as I do so I understand the need to tread lightly in some places because I think perception can be a deal-killer in the realm of public opinion and how that relates to maintaining our gun freedoms. I also live in the real world where courts get to decide what restrictions are reasonable and they don't ask for my opinion prior to issuing rulings. Therefore I am pretty outspoken on the issue of gun rights but I also know there are some who don't care what I say and they're prepared to use any instance of perceived misuse of a gun to their political advantage or to bolster their anti-gun talking points. I'd prefer if gun owners used some common sense and didn't give that type of person the "ammo" they need to press their message.
Sure, people who carry an AR-15 into Starbucks may have the legal right and they may see this as furthering the OC cause but all too often we see negative consequences coming from this behavior. Businesses issue policy letters asking this behavior not continue and many in the general population, even some "pro gun" types, will completely miss the intended message due to the way the message is broadcast.
I see far greater value to furthering the OC cause when people exercise their OC rights as an organized group. The media, which is almost never our friend, tends to portray OC in a more favorable light as well. Sure, one can argue that permission from the media or society isn't required prior to exercising a right and it's a valid argument...to a point. But society can also change the rules and the pragmatist in me realizes this and I think the evidence is pretty clear that stunts like carrying long guns in public places gets far, far more negative attention than positive.
I don't recall a single instance where someone actively seeking attention for OC has carried a long gun into a public place and the result was, "Gee... What a great idea. Let's change the rules so everyone brings a rifle here." On the contrary, it's been just the opposite. It creates a negative reaction and is portrayed negatively in the media. Granted, sometimes another business may see an opportunity to advertise their pro-gun attitude and ride the attention wave these instances create but I think that tends to be a business decision that takes advantage of a moment of opportunity to attract new customers...not really a change in philosophy on the gun rights issue.
And those farts in a tornado you mention are really smelly farts and, in my opinion, do not cause someone on the fence to look positively at the bigger picture. I've never heard anyone say that seeing one of the "asshats" that OC a long gun for the attention it generates has really made them examine the issue as a whole and made them realize there's more to the OC big picture than just an asshat carrying an AR-15 into Starbucks.
Good points and I can sympathize with each one (except the but, no buts) however I disagree on the time line somewhat. The antis and others who support restrictions to carry were active and successful before the the OC protests. They were just as loud, hated us just as much and pushed for just as many restrictions, the only thing that changed was who they pointed their bony finger at though it changed frequently anyway. They don't care about anything BUT negative examples, they ignore all positive examples and if no negative example is handy they invent one. You can't win their hearts and minds by showing them what a good guy you are, they just want your guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I strongly agree with your point regarding organized groups. I’m also [mostly] a realist but I don’t think you can fight to protect rights that way, each interaction becomes a compromise that ultimately culminates in the right being reduced to a privilege. Rights have to be viewed differently and in terms of every individuals expression of them, in that light becomes necessarily idealistic. I see another side of it residing in a state that doesn't allow OC except long guns.
You see their new target as valid because you think the behavior is ignorant and subsequently support their view "he shouldn't be doing that" though you stop short of endorsing new laws to prevent it. Unfortunately by doing so you lend fuel to the fire that encourages more over reaction and tacitly discourage open carry except as deemed acceptable by our opponents (not at all). Let me be clear - I don't support people being stupid or attention hounds (though some folks make a good living at it) but I see this as another "common sense" bite at the cheese. Like being pecked to death by a duck, enough already.
I don't want to support that guy but I damn sure don't want to support the other guys and by not supporting his legal behavior that’s exactly how it works out. A new law is passed or it becomes "policy" but in the end, one more bite at the cheese. The thing is I don’t see a new law or policy as the fault of the guy exercising his right (however stupid) I see it as the original intent of the antis who sensationalize ANYTHING or use ANY scapegoat to achieve their goal and we can’t stop stupid but we can’t stop fighting. To me the battle is not one of “don’t scare the sheeple” but that scared sheeple should have no bearing on my rights. To me the line in the sand can’t move because someone claims to be uncomfortable. If they succeed in discouraging certain forms of OC do you think they’ll stop? Do you think they’ll be satisfied with deciding for you when and where you can carry? What happens when they want the next bite and it’s something near and dear to your heart, maybe your backyard range? Most people don’t have one, why should they care but I’ll support you because maybe the next bite is my reloading bench.
I don't perceive the protest as positive, I just see it as a symptom and not the problem, lashing out at the tiny infringements that combine to destroy the whole. Where we disagree is I think we have to support any legal exercise of our rights or risk encouraging the slow creep that fosters a “right” confined by “acceptable” usage. In other words, not a right at all. I think the proper response is “he wasn’t doing anything wrong or endangering anyone, why are you panicking and making a fuss over something so minor?” Antis are deathly afraid of being called out for their cowardice and irrationality, that's why they get loud and insulting because deep down they know their argument doesn't hold water, they just don't like it period. That's where organized groups come in to point out the nonsense and use the attention to our benefit as well as working internally to present a united front. We'll never change their minds but we can't let them change our country. Yes I'm aware we face an unsympathetic media, didn't say it was easy...
Some people are scared of spiders and think all spiders should be eliminated from the face of the earth despite any benefit or the irrationality of the fear. They can’t see any justification, don’t care about good spiders and want them all dead, such is the battle we wage. I think where you and I disagree is in the effect, you think it hurts our cause, I don’t disagree but I think it reveals a toe over the line in the name of “common sense” and it doesn’t matter how I feel about the fringe element rather if we let our opponents use it to further erode freedom.
Thanks for the well considered response by the way.
Unless it there was a medical aspect (mental health) it would not fall under HIPAA, it would fall under FERPA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uberjager
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/f...rpa/index.html
Yes, school officials actually have more ability to search than Law Enforcement does while on school property.
Mmmm ... no. Starbucks was on our side in wanting to observe local laws until people pushed the issue by open carrying ARs and other very conspicuous long guns into the stores, taking pictures, etc. In fact, we were pushing back on older laws until the latest OC controversies erupted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistler
Sure they were -- and they were largely ineffective as most people viewed them as boring and offensive -- up until some of our own decided to be alarming and offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistler
I don't like pissing into the wind or mud-wrestling with pigs but the goal isn't to win over the anti's, it's to win over those who haven't formed a solid opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistler
Getting back to the original subject, it's not about the kid's privacy, it's about the danger he posed to the community -- a danger he proved out. He invited additional scrutiny by not only issuing a death threat (which could have been heat-of-the-moment) but by not being remorseful about having done so. Yeah, he apologized but it sounds pro forma if he didn't express remorse about a death threat.
No, it doesn't. It actually works the other way around because the vast number of people in the middle who don't know anything about guns except what they see on TV or in movies get alarmed when they see legal-but-stupid or legal-but-offensive and they start supporting additional restrictions they wouldn't have otherwise. That's why I don't support legal-but-stupid and continue to fight those who would make smart informed actions illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistler
In the OP, I don't have any problem with additional scrutiny being placed on someone who has issued violent threats and shown no remorse over them. Said individual has already demonstrated by his/her own actions a threat to the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" by other citizens. That's the same reason I don't have any issue with the ambushes set by law enforcement for Bonnie and Clyde or John Dillinger although I would have an issue with tactics like that becoming common place or used for ordinary criminals.
As nice as it would be to have blanket rules, people and situations differ widely and I prefer to enable professionals to use discretion but have the ability to shine a spotlight when the behavior really is unprofessional.
My apologies for being off topic in my response, I'll discuss that with you another time if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I've stated my opinion the procedure followed should be scrutinized for ways to minimize true evil/crazy from slipping though the cracks. Maybe they could have done more, maybe not. Additional scrutiny is not the same as releasing the contents of protected private documents to "concerned parents" and would serve in no way to prevent the tragedy but would certainly result in diminished privacy for everyone. The "ends justify the means" is too slippery a slope for me to agree with your position and invites common place use of those tactics, the evidence is in the media daily.
[QUOTE=Whistler;1699735]Bailey while that may be true of you and some others I disagree it's the overwhelming attitude expressed here and many gun forums. It's a position shared by some who believe as you do and most who support onerous restrictions, "I believe in the 2nd Amendment but..." I think it's important to recognize that some like guns but not gun rights, support restrictions, licensing, minimum training, etc. and generally believe most [other] people shouldn't be allowed to carry. Hell I've seen folks on here propose voting rights be confined exclusively to land owners! "Good for me but not for thee" is not something I'm okay with.
I think you're well aware we're on the same side and are disagreeing on the details.QUOTE]
Whistler, my apologies. I was referencing the big picture in my OP, but a lot of people didn't get my reference, and applied the responses to the small picture(the article). and Your response was about the big picture, and I didn't see the connotations it had for the big picture.
This was just mixed signals, and my mistake. Sorry about that.
I forgot about the people wanting stricter licensing and minimum training for ccw and stuff like that. I think we need to really push how stupid the anti's are by using their tactics against them. suggest stuff that will never go through. Every car in order to be licensed needs to have a minimum of 4 airbags, and antilock brakes, and must also be a gross poluter. or before a bank will approve a loan, you have to prove that you aren't a terrorist or a politician. The stupider the better, give them lots of stupid little proposals to fight us over, and then keep trying to add to them.
They would be so busy fighting stupid stuff we care nothing about, they would splinter their own ranks for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistler
Getting back to the original subject, it's not about the kid's privacy, it's about the danger he posed to the community -- a danger he proved out.
Right, but at the time, they had no way of realy knowing what he'd do. And by all means, he should have been looked at harder after a death threat, but what they find about him his mental history, shouldn't be printed out, and mailed off to every parent, they could have gotten the police involved, and taken more disciplinary action, like expulsion.
He invited additional scrutiny by not only issuing a death threat (which could have been heat-of-the-moment) but by not being remorseful about having done so. Yeah, he apologized but it sounds pro forma if he didn't express remorse about a death threat.
very true, and I think because of that, the school should have looked at it less like he was just an ass for not apologizing, and treated it more like the issue wasn't resolved and that he was still being threatening.
In the OP, I don't have any problem with additional scrutiny being placed on someone who has issued violent threats and shown no remorse over them. Said individual has already demonstrated by his/her own actions a threat to the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" by other citizens.
Ok, agreed. But that additional scrutiny doesn't require his entire personal life be published and handed out to every parent. At that point, I do think the school should have every right to dig into his life, and use what they find to support their discipline, or involve the authorities.