School violates mans rights in fear of another massacre...

[Don Gwinn]

Right back atchya Don. Do you have any actual knowledge that the kid isn't all right? Do you know this to be the case or are you assuming that the kid must be a socio-psychopath?

I didn't state any such assumption. Someone else made the stated assumption that an investigation would have shown "within minutes" that the kid was sane and no threat to anyone. I simply wanted to know whether he had evidence for that point of view, or whether it came from his assumption.

I'm not saying the kid is a psychopath. I'm saying he wrote down a threat to shoot up a school (a specific school, no matter how many times people say it wasn't) and blamed it on a teacher (a specific teacher, no matter how many times people say it wasn't.) Those facts seem to justify a misdemeanor charge in most states under various laws that make it a criminal offense to threaten people. Maybe one of our lawyer friends can chime in here and explain where I'm going wrong.

A problem to this kind of thinking is that it ignores the school officials own remarks: That the essay in question posed no direct threat to the students or the school: "It is important to stress that the essay did not contain any specific locations or names. We did not feel the safety of the students or the staff was compromised.” Spoken by Police Chief Ron Delelio.

First of all, Tecumseh, aren't you the guy who posted the essay itself? So you know that it actually did mention a specific location--"CG" is obviously his school, just as most of my students would type "GMS" to designate our school. Maybe the chief meant that he didn't mention a specific hall or room in the school? We don't know, but we do know it's disingenuous to say that there was no threat to a specific location if by that you mean no threat was made.
As long as we're comparing statements and splitting hairs, the chief said their safety was not compromised. He did not say the kid didn't make a threat.
If somebody makes a threat, and is then stopped before he has a chance to carry it out, was anyone's safety compromised?
Your assertion that the chief of police thought this kid wasn't making a threat begs the question we still haven't seen answered--what were the charges?
We know he was charged with a Class C Misdemeanor, but we don't know which one. If the chief thought no threat was being intended, why was the kid charged? Do police in that state have the power to refuse to arrest on a misdemeanor (which would imply that the arresting officer thought there was something to the charge) or are they obligated to do so if a citizen (the principal) wishes to press charges? I don't know the answer, do you?


One more time, I have posted absolutely ZERO assumptions about this kid one way or the other. The only thing I've done is point out what he wrote and what he said about what he wrote. I haven't even told anyone whether I agree with what the principal did, because frankly, no one here knows enough to form that opinion very well. I have told you I disagree with the rush to declare this school and its staff the Enemies of the People without even finding out what they did or why they did it. I'll stand by that.

 

[Al Norris]

First of all, Tecumseh, aren't you the guy who posted the essay itself?

He may very well have been (I'm just lazy enough, at the moment. not to check), but it was my words you quoted.

I still contend that the "threat" was nothing more than stream-of-consciencenous thought (free style writing). An opinion that was perhaps an ad hominem, but not an overt (or covert) threat.

That's where we disagree.

 

[Autolycus]

Don Gwinn I think you meant to address Al Norris. But you are correct I did post the essay.

 

[TimboKhan]

Yah.... most people should be smart enough to know not to go shopping at
night, wear that short skirt, or believe in the first amendment.

Please. When you are in a school, you agree to behave to a certain standard. The First amendment has nothing to do with it. Why, here at THR, we agree to not use offensive language, and to keep our topics gun related, (at least for the most part). Do I think the kid needs to be jailed for this? Absolutely not. However, if he wrote this in my class (and I am an educator), he would have gotten a very poor grade just based on the utter tastelessness and lack of judgement he employed. Murder and necrophilia are not appropriate teen topics to write about in school, even if it was a free writing assignment. I think the district probably did over-react, but they were well within their rights to REACT. Would you be upset if your kid was suspended for writing a paper in which he used the F word 43 times? I bet a dollar that you would. Would you be upset at the lack or intervention provided by the school if the kid shot up the school and they found this letter afterwards? I bet you would. The days of this sort of behavior being ignored or laughed off are over, gentlemen. Just from a standpoint of liability, the school had to react to this.

Using terms like "thoughtcrime" is, in my opinion, incorrect in this situation. Censoring someones writing away from school is a thoughtcrime, regardless of the subject. Censoring a kid in school is, well, part of what a school does. Kids aren't allowed to say things like "This F****** sucks", right? Isn't that essentially the same issue as we are talking about with this kid? Freedom of speech and the first amendment? Yes, the school over-reacted. Yes, 30 days in the county jail is way overboard. Yes, he has the right to say those things (although I do not think he has the right to say them in school). He still deserves to be in a little hot water.

Finally, come on now. You think this is tantamount to book-burning? Really? Well, here is a clue: School libraries have been selective about what they allow in the library for years. Ever notice how your school didn't have a subscription to Playboy? Ever notice how your school didn't have a copy of "The Anarchists Cookbook? Ever notice how your school didn't have a subscription to "High Times"? Would you really want your kids high schools to have this sort of material to begin with?

 

[Speer]

I hope the kid lawyers up, gets the charges dismissed, and sues the school. At most, this should have been an internal disciplinary matter.

Agreed.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

I graduated high school in 1971. I actually wrote something similar re a class assignment. It wasn't as graphic, but the point was the same.

I got an 'F.' I didn't get arrested.

This is too bizarre.

 

[NukemJim]

I got an 'F.' I didn't get arrested.

Now that is an appropriate resonse to such an incident. Or send him to a counselor/shrink, call his parents, detentions, suspencion whatever.

NukemJim

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Don Gwinn

According to the article, the school certainly did not consider what he wrote to be a threat, so i fail to see how YOU can.

The kid did NOT make a threat. Period. End of discussion. No, your flawed opinion on this doesn't matter a bit.

You.
Are.
Wrong.

Accept it and go on with your life.

Now, with that said, and hopefully understood, you should realize by now that few (if any) of us agree with your view. You are honestly coming across with the same mindless attitude as a million-mom soccer-mommy has when talking about how much guns scare her and thats why they should be outlawed. Facts and reality don't seem to matter much - just your own feelings and petty fears.

If the teacher gave him an F, or the kid got a counseling session, that would have been perfectly fine. What happened though was WAY overboard and bluntly put, unconstitutional. End result of this? The charges will be dropped, the kid will have his enlistment reinstated, the assignment will be simply not factored into his grades, and the school will hope that the kid doesn't decide he wants to be an instant millionaire.

Tell me Don - how can you support the 2nd Amendment and so cavalierly dismiss the 1st, while at the same time lambasting those who support the 1st and dismiss the 2nd?

Personally, i couldn't manage that level of intellectual dishonesty.

(By the way, yes i realize you're a mod with over 5k posts and im merely a peon with fewer than 200. That doesn't make you any less wrong)

 

[1911Tuner]

Threat?

HD wrote:

>According to the article, the school certainly did not consider what he wrote to be a threat, so i fail to see how YOU can.<
***************

While, after careful investigation and consideration after the fact, they probably didn't...but at the onset of this whole show...they must have, or the immediate reaction wouldn't have been an issue.

And:

The kid did NOT make a threat. Period. End of discussion. No, your flawed opinion on this doesn't matter a bit.

The school took it as an implied threat...or rather a warning sign that he was a deuce or two shy of a full deck...which is entirely possible. While the censorship was a clear violation of the First Amendment in the pure sense...the immediate reaction was understandable in the wake of the tragedy in Blacksburg Va. The danger with sensational events is that they tend to draw copycats like flies...each one hoping to outdo the last one in his bid for "15 minutes of fame." Everybody is nervous as hell over this thing. It was akin to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

In the final analysis...both parties came up short on common sense...but the kid picked that fight, and I think that he got exactly what he was hoping for.
Attention.

Well...He got it. Let the chips fall wherever gravity dictates.

 

[whited]

.

Here come the Thought Police !!!!


That's what's happened - they are prosecuting his thoughts.

Why not just give the young sociopath a failing grade and have a talk with him ?

 

[HonorsDaddy]

1911 Tuner

Oh horsehockey!

The immediate reaction was only understandable if you are the kind of person who is afraid of his own shadow. Thinking that somehow what occurred at VT justifies bringing criminal charges against a high school kid for writing in bad taste is the same moronic mentality that thinks guns should be banned because of what happened there as well.

What the heck has happened that we are now a nation of people so caught up in feelings and irrational fears that we consider over-reaction to be justified?

THINK man, just THINK. Laws are supposed to be enforced rationally and objectively.

 

[mrwiggins]

i can't help but wonder if he was just trying to be funny in a scary sorta way

 

[Joe Demko]

i can't help but wonder if he was just trying to be funny in a scary sorta way

If so, he appears to have become the butt of his own joke.

 

[1911Tuner]

re: Horsehockey

HD wrote:

>The immediate reaction was only understandable if you are the kind of person who is afraid of his own shadow.<
**************

Exactly so. And a good many school officials are scared to death that they'll have a copycat emulating Mr. Cho in his path fo fame...so I stand by what I said. It's understandable. It's not right...but understandable. There are students, faculty, and administrators all over the country who are scared right now, because they know that if hell comes to one of their classrooms, that there isn't a thing that they can do about it...so cut'em all a little slack...wontcha?

Let me put it in this context, Daddy. Hypothetical, all the way, understand.

Your neighbor's 14 year-old daughter was raped by a local boy who...by means of a smart lawyer, daddy's money and/or the victim's inability to present a strong witness for the state...beat the rap. Everybody knew that he did it, and he even admitted it later, after the "Double Jeopardy" rule of law was in effect...but he walked out of the courtroom free to do as he pleased after his aquittal. Free.

Then, you found a letter from him in YOUR daughter's wasebasket, informing her that he would like to get together with her sometime...with the implication that studying for finals or swapping a few music CDs wasn't exactly what he had in mind.

What would your immediate reaction be? Would you feel like depriving the poor boy of a few of his rights because he exercised his First Amendment right to compose the letter...or would you just blow it off as a smartassed kid tryin' to get a little action?

I understand the reaction. I also agree that it violated the boy's Constitutional right to free expression. He yelled "Fire" in a crowded theater, and he got more than he bargained for.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

1911 Tuner

To answer your hypothetical, the kid has no rights whatsoever when it comes to his dealings with my daughter. In the particular case you mentioned, had the little miscreant previously raped my daughter and was now trying to initiate contact with her - and had made his sexual interest known - we'd be dealing with an entirely different issue, and it would be handled in an entirely different way. Frankly, anyone who knows me in real life would tell you that the kid wouldn't have lived to see trial in the first place.

Regardless of the outcome of that, you're still discussing a situation in which someone who had previously demonstrated violent behavior attempting to continue said behavior against another specifically identified minor.

If you dont see the difference between your hypothetical and this kid's essay, i really cant make it any more clear. They have nothing in common except the mention of pen and paper.

 

[1911Tuner]

Hypothetical

Quote:

>If you dont see the difference between your hypothetical and this kid's essay, i really cant make it any more clear.<
***********

Oh, I understand it. I just wanted to set up for the next hypothetical...just to get us on the same page and put you into the shoes of the school admins who read the letter...a week after 32 people were slaughtered about 2 hours from here.

Let's say that the rapist described in the last post didn't write the letter to your daughter...but a friend of his did. A very close friend, who everyone understood and aknowledged was pretty much cut from the same bolt of cloth. Kinda like a fraternity of bad boys who were known for their philandering ways...and one of'em now had your daughter on-screen...even though he'd never been under the knife for a violent sexual act to date.

Still stand by the belief that your first reaction would be ho-hum? Remember that Cho had done no more than act weird and write scary letters before he walked into that engineering building with blood in his eyes. Just a weirdo, and nothing more...at least for all everyone knew.

In case you skipped over a few lines, and homed in on what you wanted to fight about...I agree 100% that his right to free speech and expression was violated. I disagree that the school's first reaction was out of the sync. People are scared. Scared people usually overreact to what they perceive as a repeat performance...and they're going to be scared for a while. Burned child dreads the fire, and the man who has been struck by lightening feels panic at the sound of distant thunder for many years. It's human nature, and if YOU can't grasp THAT concept, then maybe you need to be struck in order to understand it.

I found this part interesting:

> the kid has no rights whatsoever when it comes to his dealings with my daughter.<

I beg to differ. Everyone has rights.

And this:

>Frankly, anyone who knows me in real life would tell you that the kid wouldn't have lived to see trial in the first place.<
*********

You place yourself above the law that you so vehemently demand that everyone else abide by.
Goodness gracious.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Honorsdaddy, the gist of your post seems to be that I'm an emotionally-overwrought blissninny. I wonder, in reading your post, whether anyone really believes that I'm the really emotional one here while you're practicing cold rationality. I don't see a lot of facts in your post, but I see a lot of emotion.

According to the article, the school certainly did not consider what he wrote to be a threat, so i fail to see how YOU can.

I missed that part. Please quote it so we can all read it.
I saw the part where someone said no one's safety was compromised. Again, that does not mean there was no threat. If the principal says there was no threat, then what charges is he pressing?
Oh, that's right--you didn't tell us what charges are being pressed, either, because a week into this thing no one has brought that information to light yet.
You don't even know what the charges are, but you're sure they violate the 1st Amendment. Maybe now would be a good time to take a step back and think this thing over again.

The kid did NOT make a threat. Period. End of discussion. No, your flawed opinion on this doesn't matter a bit.

You.
Are.
Wrong.

Accept it and go on with your life.

Well, you've made an assertion. Now all you have to do is find some evidence and back it up. Making your assertion in emphatic terms doesn't add any weight with me. But since the discussion is now over, I suppose it doesn't matter much.

Now, with that said, and hopefully understood, you should realize by now that few (if any) of us agree with your view.

Yes, that's obvious. What's your point? You're right because you're in the majority? I disagree.

You are honestly coming across with the same mindless attitude as a million-mom soccer-mommy has when talking about how much guns scare her and thats why they should be outlawed. Facts and reality don't seem to matter much - just your own feelings and petty fears.

You can't have it both ways. Either you can accuse me of being a mindless follower, or you can accuse me of being the lone radical who hates freedom. I can't be both.
Facts and reality?

FACT #1:
You do not know--or aren't telling--what the charges against this boy were, but you profess to know that they are in fact unConstitutional.

FACT#2:
In English, to state that "no one's safety was compromised" does NOT mean the same thing as "no threat was made."

FACT#3:
Although the police chief stated that no specific places or people were named in the essay, the essay as posted here tells the teacher not to be surprised if she causes a "CG school shooting." CG seems obviously to refer to the student's school. The chief either made a mistake, or meant that no specific location within the school was named.

Tell me Don - how can you support the 2nd Amendment and so cavalierly dismiss the 1st, while at the same time lambasting those who support the 1st and dismiss the 2nd?

I have never dismissed the 1st Amendment in my life, sir, much less done it cavalierly. You are allowing your passion on this issue to run away with your fingers.

You will notice that I have not called your or anyone else in this thread mindless, dishonest, or any other insulting name. Notice also that I have not dismissed your thoughts as "petty" nor accused you of posting out of fear. That's because this is The High Road. We take that name seriously here. You can say anything you want about a man's arguments here, but it's best to keep it civil.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

i can't help but wonder if he was just trying to be funny in a scary sorta way

Yeah, I'd bet that was the case. A flaky teacher tells them to write ... whatever, just cause the teacher doesn't want to make the effort to teach. This kid writes a bunch of nonsense just to be funny.

I'll bet he was also the class clown. Maybe.

JMO.

 

[royh]

One lesson public secondary schools are very good at teaching: don't trust authority figures.

 

[scurtis_34471]

I think a lot of this discussion is looking at the wrong thing. Would it be appropriate to give him a bad grade? Sure. School discipline? Maybe. Criminal prosecution? Hell no. That is where this whole thing goes sideways. His First Amendment rights do not protect him from getting a bad grade or having his parents called. It does protect him from being prosecuted. The criminal charges are B.S.

 

[det.pat]

What a pathetic bunch of victim culture sob sisters!

 

[HonorsDaddy]

1911 Tuner

You seem to have missed a few things with your analogy:
The school is a government entity which has used the authority of the state to bring criminal charges against a student for mere speech. This action is explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution.

This is very different than your hypothetical situation in which a rapist commits a criminal act against my daughter, gets off on some legal technicality and then continues to attempt to contact her.

Additionally, you are incorrect on one other very large issue: One person has no right to force another to deal with him, especially for sexual relations. If you think that the little miscreant in your analogy has the right to proposition a minor for sex, you're sadly mistaken. You're also pretty twisted if you think it is perfectly OK.

Until you understand those differences, this conversation can go no further.

 

[Rachen]

Lee is the name of General Robert E. Lee,

the greatest fighter for states rights in American history, Lee is also the name of the Qing Dynasty statesman responsible for supressing the Taiping Revolution in China during the 1860s. There, good and evil, all sharing the same name. Lee is also the most popular surname in the world. America, China, and Korea is where you can find the most Lee's.

But.....going back to topic, anybody who writes these statements is disturbing. Who would think about killing a bunch of people, then have sex with their corpses? Uhhhh...........I think I will run away as fast as my legs can carry me. Oh sh**.....Is that a chainsaw or are you just happy to see me?

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Don Gwinn

We must have read 2 completely different articles. The one in the OP plainly states the child was charged with disorderly conduct.

The OP also plainly states that at no time was anyone in danger - this indicates the school knew it was not a threat.

Since you refuse to accept that he is facing criminal charges for speech, speech which was certainly not a threat, then i really dont see what else there is to discuss. If you want to pretend that this treatment is acceptable, so be it. That is your choice to make.

Don, i dont believe you are a bliss-ninny, but you most certainly are displaying traits which would put you in that category.

Also, you certainly are supporting a restriction on the 1st amendment much the same way as the press advocates restrictions on the 2nd.

Speech which offends no one needs no protection.

 

[Don Gwinn]

The school is a government entity which has used the authority of the state to bring criminal charges against a student for mere speech. This action is explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution.

The articles state that the principal made the complaint, actually.
The action is NOT forbidden, explicitly or otherwise, by the U.S. Constitution. "Mere speech" is indeed protected. However, speech which threatens or incites violence is not protected. There is also, as mentioned by 1911Tuner, the famous example given by the Supreme Court of these United States; there is no right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
The only question, then, is whether the boy's speech falls into the unprotected or the protected category. You would do well to narrow your argument to that subject.

We must have read 2 completely different articles. The one in the OP plainly states the child was charged with disorderly conduct.

I actually did miss that. Thank you!

The OP also plainly states that at no time was anyone in danger - this indicates the school knew it was not a threat.

Actually, no, it doesn't. As I have stated several times before, stating that no threat was made and stating that no one's safety was actually compromised by that threat are two very different things.

Don, i dont believe you are a bliss-ninny, but you most certainly are displaying traits which would put you in that category.

I think I'm just going to start quoting the ad hominem attacks without responding to them, starting with this one.

Also, you certainly are supporting a restriction on the 1st amendment much the same way as the press advocates restrictions on the 2nd.

Yup. Me 'n Hugo Black hate the First Amendment.

Speech which offends no one needs no protection.

Agreed. The difference is that you seem to insist that his speech was merely offensive; I disagree.