Lockers and school and drugs and drugs and drugs

[M. Nigel Salt]

In the US, many schoolchildren are literally being streamlined directly into the prison system. The "war on drugs" is the biggest tool in the monetizing of the justice system. Wanna know something absolutely great? Most of the security companies that are contracted by public schools are owned by the same corporations that own the for-profit prisons. All of these are inextricably linked to the war on drugs and the increasing profitability of criminalizing ordinary citizens.

[M. Nigel Salt]

Oh FFS.  I'm done with this thread.  Your fundamentalist pedantry makes me highly discinlined to carry on this conversation in any way.

I would rather you not be done with this thread, if you don't mind the request. This is a pretty important topic and you are one of the few people here with the background and knowledge to really lay it on the table and dissect it.

[Misery's Feed Trough]

If shit goes down in a school, parents aren't going to sue taxpayers.  They are going to sue Superintendents and building administrators. 

And sure, the items a person stores inside of a locker are private property, but the locker itself is not, the school building is not.  There are "codes of conduct" for all kinds of locations, and one of those codes certainly is "what you can and cannot" bring into the building, and for good reason, like say, public safety.

As a parent, I want the administrators of my school to have the ability to head shit off at the pass before it ends up posing harm to my kids.  Now, I also would want them to use restraint and reason and not go out of their way to cause trouble for any particular kids.  Especially given that often the "good kids" can be involved in shit just as much as the "bad kids."

1.  I never said that.  Are you going to argue what I actually said, or are you going to put strawmen in my mouth?

No, I'm simply laying down the bottom line which is that school administration has many duties in their roles.  Safety is one but they also have to consider the outcomes of their actions (or inaction).  I mean, it's an extreme example, but if a kid was hiding a gun in his locker, the buidling administrator had the ability but didn't search the locker after hearing suspicion that he had a gun, kid then goes and shoots and kills some kids...it's that administrator's head that's on the block.  And so this is obviously a critical piece of what would fuel whether or not schools institute protocols around searching lockers. 

2.  Sure, many places have a code of conduct.  But you're not legally required to attend those places, unless you've broken the law.  Which is kinda my point.  Schoolchildren are being treated as de facto criminals.

Not if the protocol is instituted in a fair and equitable manner and one that is based on just cause and reasonable suspicion.  But that is something that can be policed through school boards, local government, etc. 

3.  Parents make all kinds of unreasonable demands and wants from school officials.  If you believe I have to deny the right of privacy to every student without good reason, I'm going to chuck that on the pile of idiotic demands from parents, such as "give me records of my child's movements for the past three months" and "escort my 19 year old son to the school's gates, every day".

I don't believe it be unreasonable to give building administrators the tools to prevent harm coming upon the children who attend the school.  If my daughter's principal had a tip that one of the kids was carrying a knife, did nothing to find and confiscate that knife, and then my daughter gets stabbed....THAT is unreasonable. 

But that isn't the same as a principal saying, that kid looks like trouble and searches a locker with no reasonable suspicion or credible information.  If that happens, that principal should be called on the carpet and given their walking papers. 

The reality is, with as many people as we have on this planet, public safety by its very nature is going to require us giving up some of our privacy and freedom.  However, it can still be done in a way that preserves the most amount of privacy and freedom as possible.  And it should be a whole community conversation and process to determine where that happens. 

[Misery's Feed Trough]

Oh FFS.  I'm done with this thread.  Your fundamentalist pedantry makes me highly discinlined to carry on this conversation in any way.

Sorry that I don't agree with you, but that is no reason to not engage in the conversation. 

[:regret:]

If shit goes down in a school, parents aren't going to sue taxpayers.  They are going to sue Superintendents and building administrators. 

And sure, the items a person stores inside of a locker are private property, but the locker itself is not, the school building is not.  There are "codes of conduct" for all kinds of locations, and one of those codes certainly is "what you can and cannot" bring into the building, and for good reason, like say, public safety.

As a parent, I want the administrators of my school to have the ability to head shit off at the pass before it ends up posing harm to my kids.  Now, I also would want them to use restraint and reason and not go out of their way to cause trouble for any particular kids.  Especially given that often the "good kids" can be involved in shit just as much as the "bad kids."

1.  I never said that.  Are you going to argue what I actually said, or are you going to put strawmen in my mouth?

No, I'm simply laying down the bottom line which is that school administration has many duties in their roles.  Safety is one but they also have to consider the outcomes of their actions (or inaction).  I mean, it's an extreme example, but if a kid was hiding a gun in his locker, the buidling administrator had the ability but didn't search the locker after hearing suspicion that he had a gun, kid then goes and shoots and kills some kids...it's that administrator's head that's on the block.  And so this is obviously a critical piece of what would fuel whether or not schools institute protocols around searching lockers. 

Uhm, if you think your kids can only be safe in a school by treating them like criminals, you may want to look at alternative ways of giving your kids an education.

2.  Sure, many places have a code of conduct.  But you're not legally required to attend those places, unless you've broken the law.  Which is kinda my point.  Schoolchildren are being treated as de facto criminals.

Not if the protocol is instituted in a fair and equitable manner and one that is based on just cause and reasonable suspicion.  But that is something that can be policed through school boards, local government, etc. 

HAHAHAHAHA you used 'instituted' and 'fair' in the same sentence 

3.  Parents make all kinds of unreasonable demands and wants from school officials.  If you believe I have to deny the right of privacy to every student without good reason, I'm going to chuck that on the pile of idiotic demands from parents, such as "give me records of my child's movements for the past three months" and "escort my 19 year old son to the school's gates, every day".

I don't believe it be unreasonable to give building administrators the tools to prevent harm coming upon the children who attend the school.  If my daughter's principal had a tip that one of the kids was carrying a knife, did nothing to find and confiscate that knife, and then my daughter gets stabbed....THAT is unreasonable. 

But that isn't the same as a principal saying, that kid looks like trouble and searches a locker with no reasonable suspicion or credible information.  If that happens, that principal should be called on the carpet and given their walking papers. 

The reality is, with as many people as we have on this planet, public safety by its very nature is going to require us giving up some of our privacy and freedom.  However, it can still be done in a way that preserves the most amount of privacy and freedom as possible.  And it should be a whole community conversation and process to determine where that happens.

Not worth it.
You just said we have too many people on this planet.
Making them safer but more sociopathic (i.e. treating them like criminals when they are supposed to learn social skills and empathy.) is not an improvement, that's a short term reprieve in exchange for a worse future.

[M. Nigel Salt]

If shit goes down in a school, parents aren't going to sue taxpayers.  They are going to sue Superintendents and building administrators. 

And sure, the items a person stores inside of a locker are private property, but the locker itself is not, the school building is not.  There are "codes of conduct" for all kinds of locations, and one of those codes certainly is "what you can and cannot" bring into the building, and for good reason, like say, public safety.

As a parent, I want the administrators of my school to have the ability to head shit off at the pass before it ends up posing harm to my kids.  Now, I also would want them to use restraint and reason and not go out of their way to cause trouble for any particular kids.  Especially given that often the "good kids" can be involved in shit just as much as the "bad kids."

1.  I never said that.  Are you going to argue what I actually said, or are you going to put strawmen in my mouth?

No, I'm simply laying down the bottom line which is that school administration has many duties in their roles.  Safety is one but they also have to consider the outcomes of their actions (or inaction).  I mean, it's an extreme example, but if a kid was hiding a gun in his locker, the buidling administrator had the ability but didn't search the locker after hearing suspicion that he had a gun, kid then goes and shoots and kills some kids...it's that administrator's head that's on the block.  And so this is obviously a critical piece of what would fuel whether or not schools institute protocols around searching lockers. 

Uhm, if you think your kids can only be safe in a school by treating them like criminals, you may want to look at alternative ways of giving your kids an education.

2.  Sure, many places have a code of conduct.  But you're not legally required to attend those places, unless you've broken the law.  Which is kinda my point.  Schoolchildren are being treated as de facto criminals.

Not if the protocol is instituted in a fair and equitable manner and one that is based on just cause and reasonable suspicion.  But that is something that can be policed through school boards, local government, etc. 

HAHAHAHAHA you used 'instituted' and 'fair' in the same sentence 

3.  Parents make all kinds of unreasonable demands and wants from school officials.  If you believe I have to deny the right of privacy to every student without good reason, I'm going to chuck that on the pile of idiotic demands from parents, such as "give me records of my child's movements for the past three months" and "escort my 19 year old son to the school's gates, every day".

I don't believe it be unreasonable to give building administrators the tools to prevent harm coming upon the children who attend the school.  If my daughter's principal had a tip that one of the kids was carrying a knife, did nothing to find and confiscate that knife, and then my daughter gets stabbed....THAT is unreasonable. 

But that isn't the same as a principal saying, that kid looks like trouble and searches a locker with no reasonable suspicion or credible information.  If that happens, that principal should be called on the carpet and given their walking papers. 

The reality is, with as many people as we have on this planet, public safety by its very nature is going to require us giving up some of our privacy and freedom.  However, it can still be done in a way that preserves the most amount of privacy and freedom as possible.  And it should be a whole community conversation and process to determine where that happens.

Not worth it.
You just said we have too many people on this planet.
Making them safer but more sociopathic (i.e. treating them like criminals when they are supposed to learn social skills and empathy.) is not an improvement, that's a short term reprieve in exchange for a worse future.

Not only that, but there's some pretty solid evidence that indicates that treating them like criminals increases the odds of them becoming criminals.

But then, that's what the policymakers want.

[Doktor Howl]

If shit goes down in a school, parents aren't going to sue taxpayers.  They are going to sue Superintendents and building administrators. 

And sure, the items a person stores inside of a locker are private property, but the locker itself is not, the school building is not.  There are "codes of conduct" for all kinds of locations, and one of those codes certainly is "what you can and cannot" bring into the building, and for good reason, like say, public safety.

As a parent, I want the administrators of my school to have the ability to head shit off at the pass before it ends up posing harm to my kids.  Now, I also would want them to use restraint and reason and not go out of their way to cause trouble for any particular kids.  Especially given that often the "good kids" can be involved in shit just as much as the "bad kids."

I love the inherent lesson for our kids that you just posted.

What, that public safety is important?

No.  That nothing you have is private.

[Doktor Howl]

We have that here in the States already, and the schools will tell you it is within their rights because it is school property, which is true.  However, there are limitations.  So they can use drug dogs to check out lockers and anything within the school.  However, they can't do anything about students' cars in the parking lot.  Not without just cause.  So, it ends up being ineffective because the kids who do bring drugs to school are just going to keep them in their cars.

I'm going to argue that the very idea of a locker implies an expectation of privacy.

Ultimately, it is still school property, and doesn't belong to the student.  And if a student were storing, say, a weapon, and that weapon was used to commit a crime onschool property, that school would be exposed to some liability, not to mention the school's duty to ensure a proper learning environment.  As such, I think they have just cause, and good reason, to police contents.


Now, I think they should strive for an ethic of having probable cause to search a locker, and unless ther is a rampant issue of drugs on school property, restraint should be used as far as when andhow searches a conducted.

My safe deposit box belongs to the bank.  You need a warrant to look in it, unless I allow you to.

Your safe deposit box isnt in a hallway with hundreds of kids walking by it everyday.

What, you think drugs are going to leap out of the locker and force themselves up kid's noses?

[Doktor Howl]

At my old High School they didnt just search lockers they searched cars too. One kid had a hunting knife that was an inch over the legal limit in the trunk of his car and he got expelled for having a weapon on school property.

 

[Doktor Howl]

The reality is, with as many people as we have on this planet, public safety by its very nature is going to require us giving up some of our privacy and freedom.

Then to hell with public safety.

[Alty]

The reality is, with as many people as we have on this planet, public safety by its very nature is going to require us giving up some of our privacy and freedom.

Then to hell with public safety.

Yeah that's the part of the maze where you stop, turn around, and find a different way because that one leads to Bad Town, USA.

Wait, shit, you mean we have to give up more than we already have. RWHN, you're advocating since there's no way to get around that "nature of public safety" that we should accept giving up freedom as the right thing to do? I just want to be sure I'm reading that right.

[Misery's Feed Trough]

Now you just need to get the majority of the public to buy into that notion.  The majority of the public tends to value public safety.

[Doktor Howl]

Now you just need to get the majority of the public to buy into that notion.  The majority of the public tends to value public safety.

The majority of the public are also monarchist asses.

The whole idea of the republic, as written, is to protect the minority from the majority.  This is why we have a constitution.  Not that anyone gives a shit about it.

[Doktor Howl]

The reality is, with as many people as we have on this planet, public safety by its very nature is going to require us giving up some of our privacy and freedom.

Then to hell with public safety.

Yeah that's the part of the maze where you stop, turn around, and find a different way because that one leads to Bad Town, USA.

Or these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety

[Alty]

The problem I have with that is I fail to see how it's any different from the government deciding who gets to breed. Sure, overpopulation is a problem. As we grow, so do the dangers that threaten our very existence. The sensible solution is to not let people breed wildly.

I'm actually all for this, except I do in now way want the government to make those calls because things get nasty real fast. Because of people and their crazy ideas about what's RIGHT and WRONG.

More to the point: people differ on what they think is safe. There's a point where we can all agree, that's where government should get its say. Everything else is up in the air. UNLESS we all agree on it later.