The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 6, 2011, 12:41 AM   #26
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
I'm disgusted people would think this was okay. If you think the little miscreant is misbehaving, gently grab him by the scruff of his neck and call the parents. If your little juvenile detention facility (i.e., high school) is that far out of control, then look in the mirror. Sorry, but I've lived this crap first hand.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 12:58 AM   #27
JustThisGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Posts: 311
Uh, what does this have to do with guns?

Edit: I just noticed that non-gun related discussions may be allowed in the Law and Civil Rights Section if they are related to universal Civil Rights. Sorry for the "Uh, ...." statement. "Full ahead mate".
__________________
JustThisGuy

Mediocrity dominates over excellence in all things... except excellence.

Last edited by JustThisGuy; September 6, 2011 at 01:31 AM.
JustThisGuy is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 12:59 AM   #28
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
If you think the little miscreant is misbehaving, grab him by the scruff of his kneck and call his parents
Well...thats what used to happen when you and I went to school. Do that grabbing part today and you'll likely be out of a job and being sued by the parents. (Where's the barf icon when ya need it.)

IMO, thats part of todays problem. In many instances the kids are running the schools just like they do at home.
shortwave is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 06:07 AM   #29
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
LOL I think a lot of folks here are not parents.

As a parent of a current high school studen who is a new driver. I LIKE IT!!! Teenagers by definition are irrisponsible. Even the great kids think they know everything and can handle anything. Two of my son's friends have died in auto accidents so far... All alcohol involved. It's not just the drinkers... A drunk in a car can kill a perfect student as easily as anyone else.

Why does this thread survive in this forum?... I think mostly because Gun owners tend to be more responsible than the averaje Joe or Jane. And the subject is very very important.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 08:02 AM   #30
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
If not, WHY NOT, and what would be the difference and where do you draw the line?
At adulthood.

As a parent, I would have a problem with anyone in any school performing invasive testing or searches, but a breath test for admission to a dance sends an unambiguous signal to a population who aren't supposed to be drinking anyway.

I don't think that establishing school authority sets the groundwork for a sort of authoritarian personality that happily accepts infringements of civil liberties as an adult. I received detention for inter alia no belt, not cleanly shaven and my favorite, not making it from gym dismissal through the shower dressed, with tie back on to my fifth floor locker and down the steps of the main building to the third floor of Loyola hall for biology in five minutes. I believe this was not possible, since no one ever made in time unless gym had an early dismissal.

Kids are subjected to many sorts of unfairness without it translating into a legal/political attitude. If anything it may teach them how important the rights of an adult are.

Last edited by zukiphile; September 6, 2011 at 08:58 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 10:40 AM   #31
Hitthespot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 191
I wondered if I would even get a reply to this thread I created.

Here is my thoughts.

As a parent, (I say that with all the responsibility that the word parent should invoke) I want my children / child as safe as can be. This is my youngest at 17and his older brother and older sister have already graduated. By todays standards my wife and I may be a little over the top. We know where he is almost every second of the day, we scrutinize every person he comes into contact with, and if necessary I have in the past made certain children off limits for general hanging out with. He asks permission for every place he wants to go, and tells us who he is going with. He has never been caught with drugs, or alcohol on his breath and in general I believe he is a pretty respectful young man. This is my job as a parent. Am I a perfect parent, probably not by a long shot, but I do the best I know how, more than I can say for much of what I see going on in other places.

So I believe in anything that will keep my child safe and can't disagree based soley on those arguments with the people who agree with the breath testing. It's funny how we can logically support any higher authority action for the benifit of all......... However, it is wrong plain and simple and I have to completely agree with Mleake.
Quote:
by Mleaske "I'm pretty appalled at all the strident 2nd Amendment supporters in here, who routinely decry the government pulling its Big Brother routine and wanting to regulate away our guns "for the good of the children," and yet these same folks seem to think breathalzying every kid that goes to a school function is not only acceptable but laudable.

Actually, I'm past appalled. I'm disgusted."
My job in no way shape or form is the goverment or schools job, and quite frankly, I don't want them deciding how my child needs parenting. Where do we draw the line on giving up freedoms and with whom do we give them up to? Who decides who gives up which freedoms? How many teachers / janitors / parents go to work or a dance with a little snoot "or worse" under their belt. What happened to being prosecuted after the crime. Severely punish the first child and the parents if necessary that are caught acting inappropriately because of alcohol. Then see how many kids go to or how many parents allow their children to go to a dance drunk.

I'm with you Mleake. I'm just appalled people can justify this.

Someone asked. This is a large public suberban high school.

Last edited by Hitthespot; September 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM.
Hitthespot is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 10:48 AM   #32
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Hey, guys, while we are all about having higher authority preemptively keep us safe...

Why not set up cars so they can sense the speed limit on a given stretch of road (cellular data, satellite, etc), and then use governors to keep us all from speeding?

Why not require underage girls to wear chastity belts on dates?

Why not require adult males to take a dose of saltpeter when they go on a date, unless their date signs a waiver saying she wants them fully functional?

Here's an interesting idea, and it's even been put forward by the OP: Punish actual offenses. Make examples of offenders. Encourage parents to do their job...

Oddly enough, when I was growing up there were two extremes as to the worst behaving kids: Those whose parents thought they could do no wrong; and those whose parents always assumed the worst and acted like martinets.

In my hometown, one of the worst kids was the Chief of Police's son. His dad was quite strict, too...

And then there's the stereotype about minister's daughters... and Catholic schoolgirls. Authority that shows no trust tends to encourage rebellion, just as much as a complete lack of authority encourages anarchy.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 10:57 AM   #33
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Why not require adult males to take a dose of saltpeter when they go on a date, unless their date signs a waiver saying she wants them fully functional?
Sounds like a college dating policy.

I would like to suggest a distinction that should help resolve some issues in this discussion, the distinction between government and things that are government funded.

Government governs us. Legislatures pass laws binding us. Governors and mayors run governments that execute those laws. Courts impose judgments on us.

That they are paid by tax money doesn't mean that all things paid by tax money are government. The armed services do not govern us, so they are not themselves government. They also impose restrictions on the liberty of those under their control that would be unacceptable in other contexts. Viewing schools in a similar light demonstrates that actions taken to acheive the educational goal need not be government, but all part of the necessary control of minors left in their care.

Questions about government regulation of adults are inapposite.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 10:59 AM   #34
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
zukiphile, I'd put it to you that a school or school board deciding, independently of parental inputs, to institute mass breathalyzing is a massive overreach, and not part of the normal control an institution needs for the welfare of its students.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 11:10 AM   #35
Hitthespot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 191
Interesting that the same statement of logic you use to support the testing is the same argument from a logistics stand point that I use to support how wrong it is.

Quote:
by Zukiphile "I don't think that establishing school authority sets the groundwork for a sort of authoritarian personality that happily accepts infringements of civil liberties as an adult. I received detention for inter alia no belt, not cleanly shaven and my favorite, not making it from gym dismissal through the shower dressed, with tie back on to my fifth floor locker and down the steps of the main building to the third floor of Loyola hall for biology in five minutes. I believe this was not possible, since no one ever made in time unless gym had an early dismissal."
Do you see the difference in your statement above and the breath testing.............. In everyone of these cases you mention, you were punished after you commited the infraction. They didn't scrape your skin to see if you took a shower. How would you have felt about that.
Hitthespot is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 11:10 AM   #36
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
zukiphile, I'd put it to you that a school or school board deciding, independently of parental inputs, ...
Do we know that this was independent of parental input?

In my village, the PTA and school board work together pretty closely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
... to institute mass breathalyzing is a massive overreach, ...
What is being overreached? Does a minor have a right to attend an evening school function after drinking? I don't believe so.

Does the minor have a right of privacy comparable to that of an adult? I don't think you would want your child to attend a school in which enforcement of drug and weapon policies were limited by the sort of restrictions you and I have when dealing with a PO.

I believe there is a universe of dangers against which protection is likely to reflect reasonable parental anxieties.

If you and I had to pass a breathalizer test before entering a city council meeting, that would be a very different circumstance, in that it would be adults and government.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 11:13 AM   #37
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitthespot
Do you see the difference in your statement above and the breath testing.............. In everyone of these cases you mention, you were punished after you commited the infraction.
I see even more differences, the most prominent being that a breath test isn't a punishment.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 11:15 AM   #38
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
zukiphile, the fact that the OP strikes me as a concerned and involved parent, and that he was not aware of this new policy until his son told him about it, makes me suspect the school and/or school board acted independently of parental inputs. The OP strikes me as the type who probably is involved with his PTA.

Note, also, that my mother was notorious at the high school where she taught for flunking the captain of the soccer team the week of the state championships. She was all about holding people accountable for their actions. She would not be in favor of blanket breathalyzing.

Here's the crazy thing - when that soccer team captain's parents and coach tried to pressure my mother, she stood up to them. When her principal waffled on the issue, she stood up to him. Kid didn't get to play. He actually was held accountable.

I'd say what we need are more educators like my mother was, and more parents like my parents were, and less Big Brotherism.

Call me crazy.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 11:32 AM   #39
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I'm not so sure it's a great idea myself, although not because I don't think there's anything wrong with drinking. Instead, I think it is a reflection of skewed American attitudes and values more than anything else.

To begin with, Americans seem to delay adulthood. We do this by having a high legal drinking age in most places. If drinking at age 17 is bad, how is it good at age 21? But we've been through that before, constitutionally speaking. Yet one can drive in Virginia at age 15 1/2. Logically, the answer is to raise the legal driving age. But I guess no one sees it that way except car rental companies, who do not administer breathalyzer tests.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 11:43 AM   #40
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluetrain
Instead, I think it is a reflection of skewed American attitudes and values more than anything else.

To begin with, Americans seem to delay adulthood. We do this by having a high legal drinking age in most places.
I agree and would add that the MADD and .08% bac approach is something I find a bit hysterical.

Deadly accidents are predominantly found in adults who are blowing well over any historical legal limit. I also oppose the idea of an alcohol free childhood.

I had wine with dinner as a lad, just as I had peas and carrots. It is a normal part of life that kids tend to think of as a big deal only if it is new to them.

All that said, if I had a teen aged daughter going to an evening function with the bi-pedal bag of hormones that is a teenaged boy, I would be just slightly happier if I knew they weren't also drinking.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 01:08 PM   #41
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Currently the issue making the papers in the D.C. area these days is the curfew. Drinking isn't the issue particularly but it is claimed that it's the only way to deal with troublemakers. Of course that's only the sound bite gist of things. There's more to the issue than meets the eye.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 02:02 PM   #42
Hitthespot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 191
Thanks everyone for your input, I've aready given you my thoughts on this, but it was nice reading everyone else's thoughts on the matter too.

I guess we didn't solve anything. lol. As with everything, we can all sure have completely different views on things.

Thanks again.
Hitthespot is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 04:20 PM   #43
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
Quote:
Unfortunately this isn't the 1950's in Mayberry.
You're right, it looks more like...a standing army in our midst. Police are more Military than civilian now and that my friend is downright illegal.

For those of you that applaud the school measure, is it because you are able to defer your children's well being to others? Don't tell me about low wages and the mommy works too, just a yes or no will do.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 05:31 PM   #44
Nnobby45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
I agree that conditioning kids to think unwarranted, intrusive searches are normal and acceptable is dangerous business for the future of our Republic.

Every single kid should take a big swig of mouthwash before the test in protest.
Interesting that there's a lot of discussion with re: to intrusive "unwarranted" searches, and so forth--- but not a whole lot of discussion about intoxicated students (most likely at past school functions) who prompted administrators to take the action in the first place.

Some of the parents who are first to criticize the school, would likely be the first to sue if a student left the event in a less than sober condition and wrapped his car around a tree.

And no, I don't like the idea either but the sad part isn't just about the rights violations. It's also about student behavior that, I suspect, triggered the action.
Nnobby45 is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 06:14 PM   #45
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,758
Quote:
LOL I think a lot of folks here are not parents.
My thoughts exactly.

I won't respond to a lot of time responding to hyperbole and grossly exagerated examples (like chastity belts for the girls) other than to say there is a legal basis for one and not the other. When students are at school or at a school function, the school functions in loco parentis, meaning in the place of the parent to some extent.

In my father's day and age, and to a lesser extent in mine, it never would have occurred to anyone to think a school couldn't open a locker or check to see if a student were intoxicated. Nor would it have occurred to anyone to question the right of a teacher or principal to apply appropriate corporal punishment. Today, you're looking at a possible lawsuit if you do that.

The problem is not with lessened freedoms in school. The problem is with trying to apply adult rights to juveniles.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 06:36 PM   #46
Pbearperry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 283
Kids that show up for school dances are not only dangerous behind the wheel,they are also the ones that assault others at the dance.I would rather see schools watching for alcohol use at dances,than hearing that one of my Grandkids have been hurt or worse.
Pbearperry is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 06:52 PM   #47
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Posted by Nnobby 45:

Quote:
Its also about student behavior, that I suspect,triggered the action.
Very good point.

Did anyone bother to inquire with the superintendant/principal as to the reasoning behind the tests?

Maybe an accident or three involving alcohol and high school students leaving after school functions....

...or was this just something thought up out of the clear blue so some authoritative figure could flex their muscle's.

I'd almost bet there was a few incidents/accidents involving alcohol.

Also Hitthespot,

Did you inquire as to whether prior notification of the test was sent home with the kids?

We had four children and their mother and I well know, we sometimes didn't receive every announcement sent home by the school. It happens.
shortwave is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 07:03 PM   #48
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,518
Quote:
The State of Ohio puts on DUI check-points quite often. Matters of fact, in the last week through next week, with the holiday, we're going to have a total of somewhere between 120-125. There's no law against it and has been proven to be effective..
Actually, in some states they are illegal and have been deemed so under the state Consitution or by other statues. Obviously Ohio conducts them however and while I'm not sure if it is legally required, they post the OVI road block location a week in advance as part of their policy.

As far as breathalyzer at school, it seems an infringment on basic rights however, if I were a parent, and I knew about it before hand, I'd likely object less but it would still stick in my crawl.

Overall, like the OVI checkpoints, this type of behavior just chips away at our individual rights.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 09:05 PM   #49
Hitthespot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 191
Quote:
Also Hitthespot,

Did you inquire as to whether prior notification of the test was sent home with the kids?
I did not, and don't care to. It wouldn't have made it any more legitimate to me. I just make sure my son has his papers with him now at all times, you know, in case someone says, papers please.

I'm just playing with ya Shortwave.


Quote:
Obviously Ohio conducts them however
What ya mean by that. Haven't you seen how we handle things in Canton.


Quote:
Overall, like the OVI checkpoints, this type of behavior just chips away at our individual rights.
Agreed. That's why it sticks in my crawl too. Regardless of how you justify it.

Last edited by Hitthespot; September 6, 2011 at 09:15 PM.
Hitthespot is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 10:57 PM   #50
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
Agreed with Hitthespot and Kreyzhorse and MLeake (an aside to the last, I haven't met teachers that I know to have the spine of your mom, but I've met some who I don't doubt do! God bless her.)

And I've no truck with drunk driving, but checkpoints are positively repugnant and offensive to free people, no matter how effective. Beware the utilitarian argument (if it saves one life) for any infringement on our rights. They've used that to come after our firearms for decades.

I follow in the papers the local checkpoints, duly reported in the local rag, where they may pop one, perhaps two, drunks. That's out of scores of cars stopped. Which means they had a dozen officers, six cars, countless Auxiliary Police, the drunk wagon, and all the accoutrements, all to bag one or two drunks. Of course, they write all kinds of citations for extraneous cow manure that has nothing whatever to do with the stated objective, like no seat belts. They may even pop a guy for failure to appear.

Of course, by having these same units patrolling the streets, these same units would have hauled in a dozen drunks, just by direct observation of violations.

No. These are really either (a) kabuki theatre, (b) laziness on the part of law enforcement senior management (see (a)), or (c) conditioning for "papers, please." No, I'm not suggesting we're in a police state. But these things offend me. Just as I won't go through a backscatter scanner at an airport, not because I care, but because I wouldn't allow my mother, grandmother, daughter, aunt, niece to go through one, so I won't willingly cooperate with any OVI (or any state's equivalent) checkpoint.

But I'm goofy that way.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16014 seconds with 7 queries