Wow. Why is this thread still alive?!

[ParsedOut]

No, I leave that up to the courts. Nice strawman argument.

Straw man argument? Right...because there are absolutely no parallels in the scenarios. Only difference, one is a public school and one is a private business. The concept of personal liberties shouldn't be subject to your geographic location (within the United States of America), but since the courts have decided to draw that line I guess it's ok. They do have our best interests at heart right? I'd like to think so, but I don't buy it hook line and sinker like most.

[BraveUlysses]

Lol, and you should? Let's go back to my Starbucks example, would you be cool if the SWAT team rolled in and patted you down along with everyone else in the restaurant because someone called in a bomb threat? Is that reasonable cause to you?

No, I leave that up to the courts. Nice strawman argument.

[ParsedOut]

Parsies, let me ask you something.

In your Starbucks example, assume they are patting everyone down. Are you really going to be the guy who refuses?

You'll get arrested, detained, or worse.

I'm not saying it is right, but couldn't you see why they would want to check people out in your example? Surely you see some degree of reasonableness.

The world is too dark a place to take someone's word that they are not a threat.

In the Starbucks example you bet your ass I would refuse because I know my personal rights. If I were arrested, detained or worse my lawyer would be jumping for joy. If I were in any sort of govt building, I'd be less inclined, and unfortunately that includes public schools.

You seem to keep missing the point that there HAS BEEN PRECEDENT SET per CASE LAW that schools (K-12) have a lower threshold in regards to the PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION to the fourth amendment. I dont know why this is so hard to understand? This is not my opinion....it is FACT. Now if you are saying it SHOULD NOT BE THST WAY then thats your opinion but to say that the police were working OUTSIDE practices supported by case law then you are wrong. Not because i said so but because case law says so. You are comparing a business, open to the public and filled with adults to a school not open to the public filled with children? You actually think that both scenarios are similar? A shooting or a bomb going off in a Starbucks is the same as a elementary school? Ok

Look, I'm not arguing that the police did anything illegal, I'm saying that personal rights were infringed upon without what I feel is reasonable cause. Congrats for repeating what others have already said about schools being special scenarios. I get it, it sucks that our schools are treated as freedom free zones, but hell its for everyone's best interest right? Lets condition the young that its OK for the cops to stop and feel you up at any time so when they are adults and they are frisked on a normal basis "for the greater good", it won't be a big deal. Call me crazy for seeing things from a different perspective, its OK...

[LSM3]

Lol, and you should? Let's go back to my Starbucks example, would you be cool if the SWAT team rolled in and patted you down along with everyone else in the restaurant because someone called in a bomb threat? Is that reasonable cause to you?

You seem to keep missing the point that there HAS BEEN PRECEDENT SET per CASE LAW that schools (K-12) have a lower threshold in regards to the PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION to the fourth amendment. I dont know why this is so hard to understand? This is not my opinion....it is FACT. Now if you are saying it SHOULD NOT BE THST WAY then thats your opinion but to say that the police were working OUTSIDE practices supported by case law then you are wrong. Not because i said so but because case law says so. You are comparing a business, open to the public and filled with adults to a school not open to the public filled with children? You actually think that both scenarios are similar? A shooting or a bomb going off in a Starbucks is the same as a elementary school? Ok

[einhander]

Parsies, let me ask you something.

In your Starbucks example, assume they are patting everyone down. Are you really going to be the guy who refuses?

You'll get arrested, detained, or worse.

I'm not saying it is right, but couldn't you see why they would want to check people out in your example? Surely you see some degree of reasonableness.

The world is too dark a place to take someone's word that they are not a threat.

[ParsedOut]

It's a good thing you don't get to determine what meets the criteria of probable or reasonable cause.

Lol, and you should? Let's go back to my Starbucks example, would you be cool if the SWAT team rolled in and patted you down along with everyone else in the restaurant because someone called in a bomb threat? Is that reasonable cause to you?

[BraveUlysses]

I'll simply reply to give you credit for a well thought out response which is in contrast to your typical one line remarks. I still dont consider a bomb threat reasonable cause to search every person on premises. I guess schools are a special circumstance or something... another reason my son won't go to public schools.

It's a good thing you don't get to determine what meets the criteria of probable or reasonable cause.

[ParsedOut]

If your point that the government is taking over all of our rights because some cops searched a school under a bomb threat? That's pretty far fetched.

Go read the amendment and look at the case law, Mr Arizona.

You're missing two things - exigent circumstances and authority. On school grounds, with a terrorist threat, both factors are at play.

Permission slips are typically waivers of liability for activities outside of normal instruction, and I'm sure the ones my mama used to sign granted authority of the teachers to act on students' behalf in the event of emergency. On public school grounds, teachers are considered government agents and have full authority to search or allow searches of students if there is reasonable suspicion of misdoing. A bomb threat probably constitutes reasonable suspicion by most impartial observers (which you clearly are not).

Exigent circumstances, such as imminent threats of body parts and goo flying everywhere, allow for reasonable searches. I'm assuming you don't actually know what the 4th amendment says, but it prevents against unreasonable searches and seizure and goes on. Again, a bomb threat could be construed grounds for a reasonable search.

Your Starbucks example is interesting, I'll give you that. It's a judgment call, as Sleeve pointed out in his example.

I'll simply reply to give you credit for a well thought out response which is in contrast to your typical one line remarks. I still dont consider a bomb threat reasonable cause to search every person on premises. I guess schools are a special circumstance or something... another reason my son won't go to public schools.

[ST1G]

+1 for being an actual voice of reason

I agree.


I am a huge supporter of being free from government interference, but as I posted above there just isn't any precedent showing that what they did was unreasonable, or an infringement on rights. To the contrary actually. Schools are a special circumstance when it comes to law, that's been proven time and time again.

[wark]

If your point that the government is taking over all of our rights because some cops searched a school under a bomb threat? That's pretty far fetched.

Go read the amendment and look at the case law, Mr Arizona.

You're missing two things - exigent circumstances and authority. On school grounds, with a terrorist threat, both factors are at play.

Permission slips are typically waivers of liability for activities outside of normal instruction, and I'm sure the ones my mama used to sign granted authority of the teachers to act on students' behalf in the event of emergency. On public school grounds, teachers are considered government agents and have full authority to search or allow searches of students if there is reasonable suspicion of misdoing. A bomb threat probably constitutes reasonable suspicion by most impartial observers (which you clearly are not).

Exigent circumstances, such as imminent threats of body parts and goo flying everywhere, allow for reasonable searches. I'm assuming you don't actually know what the 4th amendment says, but it prevents against unreasonable searches and seizure and goes on. Again, a bomb threat could be construed grounds for a reasonable search.

Your Starbucks example is interesting, I'll give you that. It's a judgment call, as Sleeve pointed out in his example.

+1 for being an actual voice of reason

[einhander]

Teachers do not have the authority to waive the personal and constitutional rights of minors, and yes they have constitutional rights... Why do you think they require "permission slips" for all extra curricular activities? So if I call in a bomb threat to a Starbucks does that mean it's ok for the swat team to roll in and frisk everyone that happens to be in the store? No, they evacuate until the location can be secured.

I'm done going back and forth with you Mr Hong Kong. I've made my point and anyone who sees the direction this country is headed will agree.

If your point that the government is taking over all of our rights because some cops searched a school under a bomb threat? That's pretty far fetched.

Go read the amendment and look at the case law, Mr Arizona.

You're missing two things - exigent circumstances and authority. On school grounds, with a terrorist threat, both factors are at play.

Permission slips are typically waivers of liability for activities outside of normal instruction, and I'm sure the ones my mama used to sign granted authority of the teachers to act on students' behalf in the event of emergency. On public school grounds, teachers are considered government agents and have full authority to search or allow searches of students if there is reasonable suspicion of misdoing. A bomb threat probably constitutes reasonable suspicion by most impartial observers (which you clearly are not).

Exigent circumstances, such as imminent threats of body parts and goo flying everywhere, allow for reasonable searches. I'm assuming you don't actually know what the 4th amendment says, but it prevents against unreasonable searches and seizure and goes on. Again, a bomb threat could be construed grounds for a reasonable search.

Your Starbucks example is interesting, I'll give you that. It's a judgment call, as Sleeve pointed out in his example.

[ParsedOut]

4th Amendment what? The search was not unreasonable.

What about the 4th Amendment was infringed upon? Where, in any case law, would what happened be considered a wanton infringement? Consent isn't the issue because the kids were on government property and, most likely, all minors, and, the teachers have authority over the children in those circumstances.

You're just saying things and not explaining anything.

Teachers do not have the authority to waive the personal and constitutional rights of minors, and yes they have constitutional rights... Why do you think they require "permission slips" for all extra curricular activities? So if I call in a bomb threat to a Starbucks does that mean it's ok for the swat team to roll in and frisk everyone that happens to be in the store? No, they evacuate until the location can be secured.

I'm done going back and forth with you Mr Hong Kong. I've made my point and anyone who sees the direction this country is headed will agree.

[einhander]

4th amendment, but obviously we're going around in a circle because you don't understand the basis of our constitution.

4th Amendment what? The search was not unreasonable.

What about the 4th Amendment was infringed upon? Where, in any case law, would what happened be considered a wanton infringement? Consent isn't the issue because the kids were on government property and, most likely, all minors, and, the teachers have authority over the children in those circumstances.

You're just saying things and not explaining anything.

[ParsedOut]

I made my point in my first post. Being searched for weapons or bombs does not infringe upon any constitutionally given right.

My responses don't "prove" anything otherwise.

4th amendment, but obviously we're going around in a circle because you don't understand the basis of our constitution.

[einhander]

Infringing is just as bad as changing it. If the kids said "No, I don't want to be searched" do you think that constitutionally backed right would have been upheld? I think not... You say you're having a discussion and not just trolling/stirring up shit but your one line responses prove otherwise. If you want to make a point, do it.

I made my point in my first post. Being searched for weapons or bombs does not infringe upon any constitutionally given right.

My responses don't "prove" anything otherwise.