Wow. Why is this thread still alive?!

[gtdragon980]

So you bend the law based on the seriousness of the situation? some cops may, by no means are they obligated to and likely wouldn't considering it's at a school.

True I agree, but in a situation where lives are in danger, is it really necessary to waste time charging some kid with weed? Cops bend laws all the time. It just sounds like they went for a bomb, false alarm, might as well take this kid in because he's a pothead. Should have just called his parents and sent his ass home.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[cale]

I think if the person who called in the threat may have said a bomb was on a person, they would have the right to search everyone. However, charging them for having weed or paraphernalia shouldn't be considered. They were being searched on grounds for a bomb threat. Not for that shit.

Now I understand law says consent to search means anything they find is legal to submit, but come on, they were there for a much more serious reason than weed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

So you bend the law based on the seriousness of the situation? some cops may, by no means are they obligated to and likely wouldn't considering it's at a school.

[Vedubin01]

once again public school, you have very little rights when you step on property.



What happened to the days when a bomb threat was called in and everyone had to go to the parking lot or track and wait to hear the fire alarm to come back in?

[gtdragon980]

I think if the person who called in the threat may have said a bomb was on a person, they would have the right to search everyone. However, charging them for having weed or paraphernalia shouldn't be considered. They were being searched on grounds for a bomb threat. Not for that shit.

Now I understand law says consent to search means anything they find is legal to submit, but come on, they were there for a much more serious reason than weed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[BraveUlysses]

To summarize, a teacher taught a bunch of 13/14 year olds it's intelligent to reply "go fuck yourself" to cops. Yea, sounds smart.

I'll take 'shit that didn't happen' for 500, alex.

[mr.vang]

You guys are too sensitive. Its not like they grab him by the nut sack or stick stuff up his ahole. Like another member had mentioned, better safe than sorry.

[cale]

To summarize, a teacher taught a bunch of 13/14 year olds it's intelligent to reply "go fuck yourself" to cops. Yea, sounds smart.

[TurboJake]

I only have one thing that popped into my head.

I was in 9th grade, in Civil Liberties class. As class is about to get underway, he came up to me and said "Jake, if I ask you a question in the next 5 minutes, can I count on you to refuse?"

"I know you have to ask, yes. But it's a pretty obvious answer".

He walks away, the class starts filling up. About 5 minutes passes and he approaches me, saying "Mr Lundin. Can I search your bag?"

"Nope" I say.

So he gets a little louder. "Mr. Lundin, I have to search your bag, please give it to me".
"Yeah no, not gonna happen..."

Some people are looking, probably half the class.

Then, VERY sternly and VERY loudly, he says "JACOB! This is your last chance, I NEED to look in your backpack. Give it to me now!!"

I lean back, kick my feet up, put my hands behind my head and say "Whatever Mr. Ray, Go fuck yourself..."

Everyone is just completely flabbergasted. "Holy shit" I hear as a whisper in the background. Hints of "Did he just do that?!" and "No way. that just happened?". Like a crowd in disbelief whispering to each other.

Teacher give me a wink and a smile. Turn around and says "Class, this is the perfect example of what you should do if anyone asks to look in your bag. They have no right, WE have no legal ability, and you should NOT give up your rights just because we're louder and "Superior". Teacher or law enforcement personnel. They need proof. I would recommend saying "That would be unlawful search and seizure, so I politely ASK you to go fuck yourself." but the point is still made. Can anyone tell me what constitutional amendment that would be"

I blurt out without thinking in an extremely cocky manner, "The fourth.".


After the class, people said I should go into acting because I was so convincing. Made me giggle. I'm in high school, that's all I'm doing already.....


My point, In my school they taught that getting your bag searched was against your rights. You can refuse. And some teachers are still pretty awesome. He still teaches there.

/Storytime.

[matthugie]

if the cops came in, didn't search everyone, then some fucker blew everything up you'd be upset in reverse.

Entirely justified and entirely reasonable.

+1

[Rodoni]

uhhh you give up a lot of your rights on school property. They can search your locker for no reason at all... it's their property and not yours.

I'm sure you'd be just as pissed off if the cops didn't search the kids and one kid in your brother-in-law's classroom started shooting everyone...

[einhander]

For the record, I had bomb threats when I was in highschool.. Never was I subjected to such treatment, and yet I am still here breathing.

Well, maybe there were fewer school shootings and what not back then.

If the cops came in, didn't search everyone, then some fucker blew everything up you'd be upset in reverse.

Entirely justified and entirely reasonable.

[ThatOneEuroE30]

I wish stuff like that hapend here schools so boring... Although one day some kid put mercury in the water system so we got out early that was cool..

[Dozyproductions]

When I had bomb threats they just told us to get out of the campus. No pat downs. There is a thing called compulsory education in this country so he can livid away. Another man touching your child without consent is a form of abuse no matter how benign you think the situation is.

[Vedubin01]

if you go to public school you give up many of your rights when you walk in that door. Sad!

[cale]

I'm inclined to side with you that they likely did not need to pat down individual students, however the lockdown/detention which is entirely reasonable likely gave them authority to do so.

As for their dress state, irrelevant. Whether or not they're in dress uniforms or full "swat" gear they're in uniform, and they're much more prepared to function in the way in which they're described. Dramatizing the situation by inferring they're dressed too aggressively is just silly. They were their to deal with a potential bomb, not a school yard fight. Whether or not you had threats as a kid is also irrelevant.