Honor student expelled for story she wrote in private journal

[allisolm]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Have you ever taken a civics class in your entire life? There is no exception here for art teachers

Art teachers who collect items that students pass around during class aren't committing unreasonable seizures.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: luvly
"Someone brought up about Constitutional rights, it has been deemed lately that Students (children under 18) are not protected under the Constitution. That was the conclusion recently where another local school related incident happened here in Atlanta where two students were suspended for information they had on their home website. I'm sure the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on whether children are protected under the Constitution. I don't think anyone will be 'protected' under the Consititution. It has been and continues to be eroded to the point of a worthless piece of paper."

Yep! Although the framers made an argument of natural rights, which entitled us to protection/social contract, I am inclined to subscribe to John S. Mill's argument. I think utility is sufficient reason to have these protections. Read John Mill's argument to understand the whole concept behind who's protected. Any adults with mental faculties intact is protected because they can reason for themselves, whereas "backward societies" or children are unable to make sound decisions. Children are still under the care of adults, because their mental faculties have not matured to the level of reasoning/decisions on their own. Imagine if children were treated as adults (i.e., through complete constitutional rights), then you may begin sending your kids to fend for themselves even as babies . . . and you may as well eliminate child molestation as a crime and punishable offence, eliminate statutory rape, etc. Who knows what the Supreme Court's ruling would be in the next case brought up, but I doubt they'll ever venture to make such ruling.

Edit:[ ShotgunSteve:] "I was being sarcastic, I am sorry you are not capable of comprehending that.

BTW, are you the 500 pound sociopathic male couch potato that pretends to be a female supermodel/law student/former Miss Universe/etc. when you are online? They were talking about you in chat the other day."

And you think I care? I think that's old news. Aren't you rumour-mongers creative at least? If I cared, I would cater to what people wanted me to say, and I would act too timid. Chatroom, in my opinion, is for idle people and gossips. I don't waste my time there, except if I wanted to have a private chat with someone. However, I don't give a raaaaaaaaaat aaaaaaaaaass! 😛 So pass any rumour you want 'cuz it just speaks of your calibre and doesn't change the truth, which is independent of your opinion. Hence, you can go ahead and kiss my royal Irish . . . I mean Italian . . . yeah, yeah that's it, kiss my royal Italian behind. 😀 Btw, thanks for letting me know what significant role I play in your life! 😕

None, really, someone just blabbed it and you seem so full of sh!t that I figured it could not be too far from the truth.

 

[Lucky]

and the teacher had no grounds in which to take possession as well as read her personal effects

Uh, so teacher's aren't allowed to confiscate notes that are being passed around class now? That's essentially what she was doing.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Lucky

and the teacher had no grounds in which to take possession as well as read her personal effects

Uh, so teacher's aren't allowed to confiscate notes that are being passed around class now? That's essentially what she was doing.

Sounds like theft to me, unless they signed an agreement at the beginning of class that allowed the teacher to take them.

 

[waggy]

[qLayman's terms: The 4th amendment gives peoples, not just those over the age of 18, the right to not have their personal items searched and seized. She was a model 😉 student and the teacher had no grounds in which to take possession as well as read her personal effects. The court decision above is unconstitutional and anyone with half a brain could see that.

The school system has every right to inspect lockers as well as anything that belongs to them..buses, desks, eg, but absolutely no constitutional right to take possession of private property unless there is probable cause. In this case there was not. The victim could have been passing the book to a friend for them to read after class or while on lunch break. The teacher should be fired as he/she is morally retarded.

The only way the teacher and school system could possibly be in the right in this situation is if incoming students had to sign a waiver of their Constitutional rights in order to attend the school.

Some lawyer needs to grab ahold of this one. I would like to see this go to the Supreme Court so that the Constitution could be upheld.[/quote]

I fully agree. i would LOVE to see the supreme court uphold the constituon. The school should have NO right to search backpacks, the cars or the students themselves without cause.

having locker searches is fine. but they shouldnt be able to go through the kids backpack though if a drug dog says there is drugs in there then by all means search away.

i remeber reading about a highschool kid that got busted for having a butter knife in the TRUNK of his car. The school was doing a drug search and was looking at the cars in the parking lot. i think he fought it and they won. but still the school should not have the right to go into his private property.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Lucky

and the teacher had no grounds in which to take possession as well as read her personal effects

Uh, so teacher's aren't allowed to confiscate notes that are being passed around class now? That's essentially what she was doing.

Sounds like theft to me, unless they signed an agreement at the beginning of class that allowed the teacher to take them.

well notes they should confiscate until the end of class. But that does not give them the right to read them.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Lucky

and the teacher had no grounds in which to take possession as well as read her personal effects

Uh, so teacher's aren't allowed to confiscate notes that are being passed around class now? That's essentially what she was doing.

Sounds like theft to me, unless they signed an agreement at the beginning of class that allowed the teacher to take them.

well notes they should confiscate until the end of class. But that does not give them the right to read them.

That would probably be ok, what the teacher did in this case was clearly wrong, and yet they punish the student

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Lucky

and the teacher had no grounds in which to take possession as well as read her personal effects

Uh, so teacher's aren't allowed to confiscate notes that are being passed around class now? That's essentially what she was doing.

Sounds like theft to me, unless they signed an agreement at the beginning of class that allowed the teacher to take them.

??? Is that a joke ???

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: whaleskinrug

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
Is a fictional journal entry sufficient to convict someone of conspiracy to commit murder?

If there's a school shooting and a journal with such thoughts and statements surfaces during an investigation, then yes, there is enough evidence to convict someone of conspiracy. However, I'm not treating this as a crime. This girl hasn't been convicted of ANYTHING. All I'm saying is that she needs to be removed from the school and subject to disciplinary action.

So what appears to be a creative and promising young mind is basically screwed out of her future because some wackos overreacted... Sounds fair to me.

Me too

What a fcked up school board. I'm sorry, but this girl obviously meant this to be a creative story and, even if she was passing the journal in class, that doesn't give a teacher the right to read through it. Wow. I'm shocked that anyone can come to the defense of the school board in this case.

 

[DaviDaVinci]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

it takes brains to commit some of society's most dastardly crimes. they may have had poor upbringings but generally are high IQ.

Don't confuse history's famous criminals with the masses of histories stupid ones. Most criminals are criminals because they are unable to succeed in society, playing by the rules. And that is because they are stupid. The average person in jail for robbery, murder, etc. I guarantee you was not a honour student.

The 'honour' student never got caught.

 

[Shimmishim]

i just wanted to post... i skipped the last.. 5 pages or so...

so what if the girl had written about a teacher that killed a student...

would they ask the girl who she felt threaten by and then fire the teacher?

i think we have a double standard here...

 

[dejacky]

This is BS. her constitutional right has been voided by a school board. She also has a right to "due process" and she get lots of financial compensation if she is still suspended.

 

[rjain]

No one has forbidden her from writing about killing her teachers. She just can't go to school and write about killing her teachers. None of her consitutional rights have been violated. When will you people figure this out?

Again, it's the same as writing a story about killing your boss. Do you think you have a "constitutional right" to keep working there? No, you don't.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
i just wanted to post... i skipped the last.. 5 pages or so...

so what if the girl had written about a teacher that killed a student...

would they ask the girl who she felt threaten by and then fire the teacher?

i think we have a double standard here...

Yeah, hard evidence and no evidence are identical situations...