indiucky
Grandmaster
"Something" is going to be sore in the morning!!!
Maybe three somethings......
"Something" is going to be sore in the morning!!!
Would you agree there is a noteworthy difference between being asked questions and being interrogated?
Bro, I'll be honest. I really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to provoke you. I'm trying to nail down your position based on your own words.
Edit: I went back and looked. Now I understand what you're talking about. Members typically bold the portion of a comment they are responding to that is relevant. That's kinda an accepted way of doing things around here. Pretty much everyone understands that it means that this is the portion the replier is addressing.
"Bro, I'll be honest. I really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to provoke you. I'm trying to nail down your position based on your own words."
No, you're not. You're a contrarian ******* looking to start some sh**.
Going forward, as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist.
In that context? No. The school - much less, LEO - had no business questioning him, whatsoever, period.
They do monitor social media... however... I would bet that "other activities" by other students are NOT given the same scrutiny.
They did this to make an example of him since he has spoken out against them.
It's nothing more than intimidation.
If they think we don't see it or interpret it that way they are mistaken.
Kyle's tweets were posted to twitter, and other students had been made upset by the posts (per the principal as stated by Kyle).....
They jump on a kid who went to learn to handle firearms with his father and mentioned the constitution and 2A after letting the one who talked about becoming a professional school shooter come on campus when he wasn't supposed to. Makes sense.
As for the idea that he was spoken to because of the discomfort of his fellow students? That's fine, but it should have been the principal or a counselor, not a room full of security and a sheriff.
This is where things get confusing. It is illegal to question a minor without his parents present "IF" he is suspected of a crime. However, it is totally legal to counsel a minor over his actions. The kid said something along the lines of the police trying to get him to implicate his father. My question is, "for what crime?" That's why this story seems a little iffy. I can see officers speaking to the kid asking him if it was a "good idea" to be some out in the open with guns after the events that occurred at the high school, but it's difficult for me to believe that they interrogated this kid. He makes it seem like he's in a dark room with a spotlight, and someone is about to yell "bring out the goons with the rubber hoses."
Kyle's tweets were posted to twitter, and other students had been made upset by the posts (per the principal as stated by Kyle). Given the tenor at that particular school, in my opinion, the school has the right to speak to students with the hopes of possibly avoiding disruption or some other issue.
For instance, if a white student when to a predominantly Hispanic school, and posted a video of himself chanting "build that wall," at a rally, it's probably a good idea to bring that kid in, as well as any others that had issues with it, and try to avoid something undesired happening.
So it goes back to idea of whether he was talked to, questioned, or interrogated. Each conveys a different idea.
Would you agree there is a noteworthy difference between being asked questions and being interrogated?
If there was no suspicion of a crime, then why would the police be present, at all, for a mere "counseling" session?
(I'm doing my best to catch up, while sidestepping the landmines and dung...)
I acknowledged that police should not have been present, but unfortunately, many places lean too hard on LE when they are not needed.
Unfortunately schools have relinquished whatever counseling/disciplinary role they had to school resources officers. Back when I was in high school cops showed up to investigate crimes and take people away in cuffs. They didn’t have a permanent office in the school. Teachers and administrators handled discipline.If there was no suspicion of a crime, then why would the police be present, at all, for a mere "counseling" session?
(I'm doing my best to catch up, while sidestepping the landmines and dung...)
Unfortunately schools have relinquished whatever counseling/disciplinary role they had to school resources officers. Back when I was in high school cops showed up to investigate crimes and take people away in cuffs. They didn’t have a permanent office in the school. Teachers and administrators handled discipline.
Going to a range with your dad and tweeting about the experience is normal. And it’s none of the school’s business. The only ones who needed counseling is the people who were triggered. And that counseling consists of “yeah, so? Get yer ass back to class and stop worrying about what other people do.”
Unfortunately schools have relinquished whatever counseling/disciplinary role they had to school resources officers. Back when I was in high school cops showed up to investigate crimes and take people away in cuffs. They didn’t have a permanent office in the school. Teachers and administrators handled discipline.
Going to a range with your dad and tweeting about the experience is normal. And it’s none of the school’s business. The only ones who needed counseling is the people who were triggered. And that counseling consists of “yeah, so? Get yer ass back to class and stop worrying about what other people do.”