Twangbanger
Grandmaster
- Oct 9, 2010
- 7,137
- 113
To be clear: I wasn't implying agreement/disagreement with wherever the line is. I was just asking, because I didn't know.
There is a whole jurisprudence to this. Long story short, there is 4th Amendment protections in school, but less.Asking because I legitimately don't know: how far are 4A-protected rights to be secure in one's person/effects without search/seizure extended to students inside a school? I know that other constitutionally protected rights have certain limitations within the school.
IIRC I believe the line is something to the effect of balancing the 4th amendment with good order and discipline. Since not all reasons a school administrator may need to search a locker are criminal in nature, there is more latitude since that is the charge of a school administrator.I can't, with any confidence, tell you exactly where the line is for a school administrator.
IIRC I believe the line is something to the effect of balancing the 4th amendment with good order and discipline. Since not all reasons a school administrator may need to search a locker are criminal in nature, there is more latitude since that is the charge of a school administrator.
Administrator believes Johnny cheated on a test. Not a criminal matter, but against good order and discipline, so they can search for evidence if they have suspicion.
Both yourself and @Old Road Dog can be right. That is why we have prosecutorial discretion, and a jury of peers to make a decision beyond A reasonable doubt for criminal conviction.convicted for failing to address warning signs?
What about all the other shooters where their therapists failed to address warning signs? What about when the FBI failed to address (or follow up) on warning signs?
If they're going to paint such a broad brush, everyone one at every level needs to be held accountable.
I believe there was a shooter in TX that got reported and investigated multiple times and was let go multiple times before shooting up a place.
Would this be different if the school SRO was the one searching?It's lessened but not removed. The answer as to where the line is drawn is always fuzzy, but here you have someone who's not in law enforcement, who's likely not well trained or versed in case law, and doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. In hindsight, maybe secure the backpack and call a parent if you think you can't search it yourself, or seek consent from the parent? Children can't consent or not consent to a search, that is case law for sure, and even good faith arguments don't overcome that. I was part of such case law as a street cop early in my career. In short:
Burglary suspect believed to have gone in an apartment.
Person answers door. Provides identification that they are an adult (19 y/o).
Signs a consent to search.
Stolen property found in apartment.
Evidence later suppressed because the person who gave consent was actually 16 or 17 (don't recall any longer). The fact they lied, that we had no reason to suspect they weren't who they said they were, and that we acted on good faith was irrelevant to the court. Only the fact a juvenile can't provide consent was relevant.
So I honestly can't blame them for getting it wrong, especially with normalcy bias. How many parents would have jumped in the school's ass for searching their kid wrongfully?
There is. But the 4th amendment doesn't stop at the school door nor does it not apply to juveniles. It's different, but not removed.
I support this statement. Especially if it has credible witnesses and even video.If you kill willfully, your punishment is death. It should not be 20 or 30 years later after I've had to pay for your upkeep and Lord knows how many appeals.
Would this be different if the school SRO was the one searching?
So if BBI tells me he is gonna shoot up a Waffle House. Then shows me his pistola and a map of the shooting. I would assume that could warrant a charge if I didn’t inform the authorities?
Both yourself and @Old Road Dog can be right. That is why we have prosecutorial discretion, and a jury of peers to make a decision beyond A reasonable doubt for criminal conviction.
It is absolutely true that in cases where the shooter was known to the authorities, who we pay to take action on behalf of the state, the State actors who did nothing should be held accountable.
It is also true when parents aid and abet their child's murderous behavior, as guardians they need to be held to account. In this case we are not talking about missing warning signs. We are talking about actually aiding and abetting by purchasing the firearm.
Immediately after this event I conveyed that I believed the RSO, principal and counselor all should be prosecuted along with the parents. There was more than ample evidence to articulate a reasonable suspicion the individual was a danger to himself or others. They freaking called in the parents to review the drawing he had made in class which depicted a homicidal scene! If that does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion I don't know what does.
Stop making excuses for the children, the parents, the schools, the police, and most especially the FBI. I am beyond sick of hearing the shooter was "known to the authorities". As a society we have agreed to confiscation of arms without due process ( red flag laws), we are surveilled, our rights are abridged, and yet we excuse those that we have permitted these powers when they fail in their use of them. This simply needs to stop. If you're not going to use these authorities for the betterment of society, then I want them back! All of them, no more gun free zones, no more surveillance, no more infringement of my god-given rights.
If you kill willfully, your punishment is death. It should not be 20 or 30 years later after I've had to pay for your upkeep and Lord knows how many appeals.
Not the same thing. If BBI told you he wanted to shoot up a Waffle House, and you handed him a map and a pistola to carry out the shooting, you could also be charged. That would be more like what happened in this case.So if BBI tells me he is gonna shoot up a Waffle House. Then shows me his pistola and a map of the shooting. I would assume that could warrant a charge if I didn’t inform the authorities?
Assuming a public school, a government actor is a government actor.In this context, honestly not sure but I don't think so. The underlying offense is a crime, vs an administation/general welfare sort of thing (ie, spoiling food in a locker). My gut response is it's samey-same, but this isn't really in my area of expertise so I could easily be wrong.
There is an article here from the NASRO, but its older.Assuming a public school, a government actor is a government actor.
That depends on how the parents have raised said 15 year old(s).This is an exceptionally good discussion on a regrettably tragic incident.
I can't have a fair opinion on this woman's negligence without viewing all of the evidence in context for myself. I have a lot of questions about things like holding parents responsible for a kid's diary entries.
The jury foreperson focused on my main concern: free access to a firearm by a 15-year-old. Three types of people should not have access to firearms.
1. Violent felons
2. Those who are mentally deranged
3. Unsupervised minors
In today's world, a parent shouldn't allow free access to a firearm by a 15-year-old.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...rson-oxford-high-school-shooting/72498959007/