|
Post by jklinders on Mar 1, 2014 14:34:05 GMT 1
I never said that cops aren't obligated to respond to incidents. I said the Supreme Court ruled that they have no obligation to protect an individual. However, they are obligated to enforce the law. Making death threats is illegal and is punishable by time in jail. And I'm trying to leave the racial aspect out of this. When you have a situation where people are afraid to go to school because they're being threatened with violence/death and the school rules in favor of those who make the threats, what kind of message does that send? That if you don't like something you can beat the shit out of someone or even threaten to kill them until they submit to your views? I'm not excusing the idiots who picked a fight on Cinco de Mayo in the first case in 2009, but when you have the incident in 2010 when kids wearing U.S. flags were sent home before anything could happen, that shows that thuggery is an acceptable means of discourse. I'm not saying that the school should have allowed violence to break out, but from the admittedly limited information I've dug up so far it seems little if anything was done to punish those acting in a thuggish manner. I've got too much of a headache to split hairs here. So I really am having a hard time telling the difference between protecting an individual and enforcing the law. Don't explain it to me right now, I'm not up to it. But that is one court case that needs to burn. Surely you can fucking see where I am coming from though. it seems OK to invoke that piece of case history in terms of gun rights but not otherwise OK. To be clear there is other case history outlined in the very article you gave us going back 45 years backing the school's authority to do this. The writer of same op ed might be a lawyer, but he smacks of being one of those shit disturber types who is trying to rewrite the law based on his opinion rather than the public good. His specialties are not only involving 1st Amendment, but also church and state stuff. Frankly I was a little skeezed out by his portfolio.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Mar 1, 2014 15:35:01 GMT 1
Since no one wants to stop talking politics on this thread (including myself) I've moved it to R&P.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Mar 1, 2014 18:46:23 GMT 1
It has been said that there will come a day when every thread will end up here.
And then God help us all.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Mar 4, 2014 14:44:04 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Mar 4, 2014 19:11:55 GMT 1
To me the smoking gun is that the parents are refusing to pay the tuition for the already completed or nearly completed high school bill. If the parents had any kind of realistic sense of responsibility they would have paid off that tuition and settled their dispute with their daughter a different way. I think the other family may be taking advantage of this situation to line one their friends pockets though.
At 18 a lot of kids tend to get more independently minded. It is a required skill of parenting to find a balance between setting and enforcing rules and allowing a bit more independence. The kid could probably be a bit more appreciative as well. The article is little more than 4 pages of "he said she said" but is all of it is to be taken at face there is absolutely no good or bad guy here, just a whole fuckload of miscommunication.
But the parents should fucking well pay that bill, until they do that, I'm leaning more towards the girl. The school can refuse to grant her diploma until that bill is paid and a core parental responsibility is broken until that girl has at least a high school education.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Mar 4, 2014 20:51:50 GMT 1
That's where I'm at. Pay off the high school and then if she wants to be on her own, let her be. But on her own means that in every sense of the word, not on her own but still hanging on to the pursestrings.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Mar 4, 2014 21:58:06 GMT 1
the university fund is a bit more nebulous I think. Especially if they are using it's status as a education fund as any kind of tax shelter. If it's not paying for a kid's schooling then back taxes are to be owed methinks. there are provisions for education funds up here to be tax sheltered. I don't know if that holds true in all 50 states down there.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Mar 5, 2014 2:35:42 GMT 1
They can probably shift it to her sisters with little to no trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Mar 6, 2014 8:14:14 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Mar 6, 2014 11:10:50 GMT 1
Knucklehead is too generous. We need time travel so that dark ages nimrods like that can be sent back to the stone age where they belong.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Mar 21, 2014 3:11:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Mar 29, 2014 21:41:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Mar 30, 2014 1:09:07 GMT 1
California is a notoriously corrupt American state (along with Florida, Texas, and New York) but Goddamn, fucking arms-trafficking?! This is a whole new level of batshit. In other news, this summer, Steven Seagal is... The Russian.I wonder what Seagal sees in that fucked up nation and its psychotic politicians.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Mar 30, 2014 1:32:37 GMT 1
It gets better. State Sen. Yee is also one of the driving forces in the anti-gun groups. Oh, and some of those arms included fucking RPGs bought from Islamic extremists and were slated to be imported via New Jersey.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Mar 30, 2014 6:34:06 GMT 1
I now officially have a headache that's so fucked up. Jesus H. Christ.
JESUS H. CHRIST...
|
|