new info out on last years arapahoe shooting

[boomerhc9]

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

[PSS]

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.

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?"

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.

[cmailliard]

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.

[Whistler]

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

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.

It's possible there is room for improvement in the procedure the school followed and that should certainly be scrutinized however to the question

Is the privacy of one student worth the safety of 2,000?

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.

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.

[Bailey Guns]

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.

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.

[Whistler]

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.

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. 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.

[boomerhc9]

[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.

[boomerhc9]

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.

[Hound]

Whistler.... Well stated.

[HoneyBadger]

Whistler.... Well stated.

+1