they were breaking the rules. what i don't understand though is why the girl didn't get the same punishment (if she didn't)

5/7/2006 10:15:10 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Bullshit. Pack a lunch and eat it outside."

??? That's not bullshit. Schools seriously have off-campus lunch because they know they can't accomodate all the students. That's fact.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Beyond that if it was during his PEPI time and not during lunch, I guarantee that there is some documentation as part of the whole program that indicates that students leaving campus for PEPI are doing so soely for the purpose of PEPI. As someone said above, from the time you enter the school bus until the time you walk in your door, courts have found the schools to be liable for the welfare of their students, that puts them under the charge of the school regardless of where the student is physicaly located."

No. My friend's PEPI instructor basically told her students multiple times: You're done? Okay, go home. PEPI is typically conducted at the end of the school day. So, you're not "leaving campus." You're going home because your school day is over.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: The article says that the lawsuit claims that he has the lunch pass, without seeing the suit but going off the wording of the article (a shakey assumption I know) that would to me imply that the parents are suing on the grounds that he had such a pass and permission to be off grounds. If that's the case, then the school has every right to then counter that point with the fact that the permit has certain restrictions."

No shit, Sherlock.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 10:37 PM. Reason : sss]

5/7/2006 10:28:55 PM

Quote :

"Some contract doesnt trump basic rights afforded by the constitution"

Right, and the constitution doesn't trump the basic rights of the school to decide who can and cannot attend.

You have no constitutional right to attend a public school. As long as they expel anyone of any race/creed/religion that gets caught having sex then there are no 14th Amendment grounds upon which to appeal this local decision.

5/7/2006 11:18:52 PM

Quote :

"Right, and the constitution doesn't trump the basic rights of the school to decide who can and cannot attend. You have no constitutional right to attend a public school. As long as they (1)expel anyone of (2)any race/creed/religion that gets caught having sex then there are no 14th Amendment grounds upon which to appeal this local decision."

1. No one has been expelled here.

2. Schools do treat different students differently.

Overall: Children are required by law to attend school. So, yeah, the constitution may not gaurantee your right to attend public school, but it's understood that students have the right to attend public school.

[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 12:28 AM. Reason : www]

5/8/2006 12:27:42 AM

Quote :

"The same people who control the school system control The prison system, and the whole social system"

5/8/2006 1:42:04 AM

Quote :

"Yes, actualy, a contract can indeed trump such a right to a degree. If you don't believe me, try this: the next time you're supposed to go to work, don't. Instead stay home and fuck. See how quickly you get fired for not showing up to work and see how far you get in the court system claiming you were wrongfuly terminated."

Your analogy is bogus. How about if you go home on your lunch hour, which is allowed by your comany, and fuck your wife instead of eating. Could that get you fired? No, it couldnt.

There have been many lawsuits filed by workers against their empoyers over what they are allowed to do in a lunch hour. I interned at a big corperation whose workers really like going biking during their lunch hour, their boss hated it for some reason, and told them if they did that they would be fired. The workers filed a lawsuit stating that what they do on their lunch hour when they leave their jobsite is not the companies business if it doesnt effect anything. The workers won.




[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 5:32 AM. Reason : ee]

5/8/2006 5:23:41 AM

Quote :

"fucking is legal"

REALLY??!!?!

5/8/2006 9:03:56 AM

Quote :

"Your analogy is bogus. How about if you go home on your lunch hour, which is allowed by your comany, and fuck your wife instead of eating. Could that get you fired? No, it couldnt."

Let me guess, you think you have a right to your job? The job belongs to the company and if they find any reason that doesn't violate the 14th Amendment that you should be layed off it will happen.

Hell, going home on your lunch break and doing illicit drugs will get you fired from Wal-Mart. Going home on your lunch break and publishing communist propaganda will get you fired from most government jobs. I would be hard pressed to find an employer that wouldn't fire you for fucking his wife on your lunch break.

A "job" is a bad analogy for a government monopoly anyway. You can argue that being suspended from public school is a burdensome punishment as you cannot attain an education any other way. But arguing that your at-home-activities should never affect how other people treat you is anarchistic. Since both your school and your employer have the right to fire/expel/suspend you for no reason at all something tells me they can do so for a stupid reason.

5/8/2006 9:22:36 AM

Quote :

"Here's the problem: Suspension and expulsion are tools for the school to use to remove students that disrupt the school, preventing other students from getting their education. Unless the student is disruptive, the school has a duty to provide them the best education they can. While I don't think the student's actions were perfectly OK, denying him his education is criminal. He probably should be punished, but it shouldn't interfere with his education (or future). "

So are you saying that you shouldn't be suspended for bringing a gun onto school grounds? I mean, as long as you dont wave around or threaten anyone with it, you wouldn't be disrupting anyone. Or smoking even. Who are you harming by smoking a cigarette behind school in between classes? You wouldn't be disrupting anyone else or inhibiting their education, right? The fact of the matter is that they broke the rules, the rules that they agreed to when they attended that school.

5/8/2006 9:53:57 AM

Quote :

"Hell, going home on your lunch break and doing illicit drugs will get you fired from Wal-Mart."

fucking is legal

Quote :

"Since both your school and your employer have the right to fire/expel/suspend you for no reason"

thats beyond false.

Quote :

"The suspension notice says Biggar violated a school policy prohibiting "behavior which is indecent, overly affectionate, or of a sexual nature in the school setting.""

Why not just suspend everyone who has ever kissed someone?

[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 10:11 AM. Reason : 87]

5/8/2006 10:00:11 AM

Quote :

"So are you saying that you shouldn't be suspended for bringing a gun onto school grounds? I mean, as long as you dont wave around or threaten anyone with it, you wouldn't be disrupting anyone. Or smoking even. Who are you harming by smoking a cigarette behind school in between classes? You wouldn't be disrupting anyone else or inhibiting their education, right? The fact of the matter is that they broke the rules, the rules that they agreed to when they attended that school."

im sure it is hyperbole, but it is dumb. guns are threatening by nature. you cant do much besides shoot something or someone with it. smoking is slightly more reasonable, but is illegal for quite a few students (to buy for a good majority). depending where kids do it, it can be disruptive and/or cause other issues such as having to clean up all the butts that kids will leave around.

[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 10:34 AM. Reason : almost no one has made a good analogy, so quit trying]

5/8/2006 10:34:22 AM

Quote :

"??? That's not bullshit. Schools seriously have off-campus lunch because they know they can't accomodate all the students. That's fact."

It makes it more convenient for the school, but they could just as easily make them eat lunch in the class room.

Quote :

"No. My friend's PEPI instructor basically told her students multiple times: You're done? Okay, go home. PEPI is typically conducted at the end of the school day. So, you're not "leaving campus." You're going home because your school day is over."

They were then given explicit permission to "go home" and therefore being told their day was over. Unless these kids were told "go home" or something similar they were still under the charge of the school and therefore still bound by the rules of the school.

Quote :

"No shit, Sherlock."

So then what's the problem? If this wasn't their lunch break, then the pass doesn't apply and the lawsuit has no ground except in the possible specific case above. If it was their lunch break, then they signed a specific agreement in regards to that and the only way they would win is arguing and wining the side that Josh# is trying to argue.

Quote :

"Overall: Children are required by law to attend school. So, yeah, the constitution may not gaurantee your right to attend public school, but it's understood that students have the right to attend public school."

No, required to attend and a right to attend are two different things. If students are required by law to attend, and schools are allowed by law to suspend / expell, then there is a specific case in which you don't have a right to attend if the school determines you need to be suspended or expelled.

Quote :

"Your analogy is bogus. How about if you go home on your lunch hour, which is allowed by your comany, and fuck your wife instead of eating. Could that get you fired? No, it couldnt. "

Your job is not legaly liable for your welfare during your lunch hour. If it was you can be damned sure they can put restrictions on what you do during your lunch hour. My point was you said a contract couldn't trump your rights, and I showed you a case where it could it was not intended to be an all encompasing argument.

Quote :

"The workers filed a lawsuit stating that what they do on their lunch hour when they leave their jobsite is not the companies business if it doesnt effect anything. The workers won."

As I said, the business is not responsible for their employees health and wellbeing during their lunch hour. Schools are legaly reponsible and liable for their students from the moment they get on the bus until the moment they go home.

Quote :

"thats beyond false."

See "employment at will"

Quote :

"Why not just suspend everyone who has ever kissed someone?"

Clearly the school does not find a kiss to be "indecent" or "overly affectionate" or of a "sexual nature". Are you saying you don't see a difference between a kiss and sex?

Quote :

"guns are threatening by nature. you cant do much besides shoot something or someone with it."

Or you could be taking one apart and demonsrating the mechanisms by which it works, or merely just showing it off. A gun is no more threatening by it's nature than a knife or a hatchet is.

5/8/2006 10:49:13 AM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: So then what's the problem? If this wasn't their lunch break, then the pass doesn't apply and the lawsuit has no ground except in the possible specific case above. If it was their lunch break, then they signed a specific agreement in regards to that and the only way they would win is arguing and wining the side that Josh# is trying to argue. "

I ALREADY SAID ALL THAT ON PAGE ONE:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Right. But were they having sex during lunch or during PEPI? It appears that he signed a form with regards to his lunch period, not his PEPI class. Three questions: 1. Was he having sex during PEPI or lunch? 2. Did he sign a form regarding his behavior during PEPI time? 3. Was he supposed to use that time to plan activities for the kids who were on a field trip, or was this time genuine "free" time? If he was having sex during PEPI, and there was no form for his behavior during PEPI, but he was supposed to be planning, then the worse that should happen is he should have his grade docked or fail the PEPI class. I'm not even sure if they give grades for PEPI. I guess they could suspend him for "skipping class" if he was supposed to be planning, but that's a stretch."

It's like you read my post (the one above that's also on page one) and forgot what was written in it and who wrote it. And then just started arguing with me. It's getting really annoying.

And, by the way, they didn't have to be told to go home by the school. It's understood that you will leave school grounds during your PEPI time, and that if you don't have a class to play with, you will go home.

[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 11:09 AM. Reason : sss]

5/8/2006 10:54:25 AM

Quote :

"School officials are prohibited from saying whether Biggar's girlfriend was punished.""

That's just doublespeak for "she didn't get in trouble at all"

Didn't the girlfriend violate the same policy that this dude did? Why is she not suspended? Technically, the school is in the right, although it's pretty ridiculous to enforce it, but even so, it should apply to both kids if they are going to enforce it at all.

5/8/2006 11:09:50 AM

^I totally agree. The boy may have already been in trouble at school before, and they just didn't like him or something. Also, it sounds like the girl is in Hell right now anyway, psycho parents and all, you know.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Clearly the school does not find a kiss to be "indecent" or "overly affectionate" or of a "sexual nature". Are you saying you don't see a difference between a kiss and sex?"

I believe kissing is overly affectionate by the school's standards. So, if they're gonna suspend this kid, it's time theys suspend anyone who has ever kissed during school hours.

Otherwise, they're not being fair.

LOL

[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 11:16 AM. Reason : sss]

5/8/2006 11:12:51 AM

Quote :

"Some contract doesnt trump basic rights afforded by the constitution, ie, to fuck in your own house."

Yes it does. There's still some cases involving workplaces that don't allow their employees to smoke, but most of them are holding up. A contract can restrain your activities and this one is totally allowed given that he signed a contract stating he would abide by school principles during the hours.

Its totally fucked up that that dude called the police and I don't think he should have been suspended for it, BUT he signed a contract that is not unconstitutional no matter how much you think it should be. In this case, he should just sit out his 2 weeks and then fuck that guys daughter on his own time from now on.

5/8/2006 11:13:36 AM

Wow.

You're quote bombing THIS?

5/8/2006 11:15:31 AM

Quote :

"Your job is not legaly liable for your welfare during your lunch hour. If it was you can be damned sure they can put restrictions on what you do during your lunch hour. My point was you said a contract couldn't trump your rights, and I showed you a case where it could it was not intended to be an all encompasing argument."

My argument wasnt all encompasing either, i hoped that was obvious, There are certain rights which you cannot sign away. There are some you can.

Quote :

"Schools are legaly reponsible and liable for their students from the moment they get on the bus until the moment they go home."

Not when they go home. If that were true, then my teachers, principals and admini could be sent to jail if i left school and killed someone.

Quote :

"Clearly the school does not find a kiss to be "indecent" or "overly affectionate" or of a "sexual nature". Are you saying you don't see a difference between a kiss and sex?"

By school you mean, the one person who gave out the suspension. Letting one person decide whats decent is a slippery slope.

How is kissing not "sexual" in nature?


[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 11:55 AM. Reason : -00-g]

5/8/2006 11:51:29 AM

Quote :

"How is kissing not "sexual" in nature?"

Never kissed your parents?

5/8/2006 2:08:56 PM

^Nope, I have never stuck my tongue in either of my parents mouths.

Nice try though, bigmims.

5/8/2006 2:15:50 PM

Quote :

"Or you could be taking one apart and demonsrating the mechanisms by which it works, or merely just showing it off. A gun is no more threatening by it's nature than a knife or a hatchet is."

id say that hatchets and knives are generally seen as threatening AND aren't allowed in school. my point stands. im not terribly fond of strangers dealing with any sort of weapons while im around. but that argument is relatively irrelevant. the analogy he used is still dumb.


^ id say "kissing" and "making out" are 2 different topics for concern. schools generally do get on kids about doing that kinda shit in school.

[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 2:47 PM. Reason : like the difference between punching someone and beating the shit outa them]

5/8/2006 2:46:15 PM

^^^was the really the best you can do?

5/8/2006 2:54:07 PM

Would it have changed anything if he was 18 and sleeping with his teacher during the lunch-break?

Would it have been alright to suspend him (and fire the teacher) then? If not, then at least you are consistent that legal activity is not punishable as long as it takes place off campus. If so, then why would that be so different?

5/8/2006 3:17:56 PM

18 and HIS teacher? Grounds for the teacher's dismissal.

18 and A teacher? Grounds for shit.


Of course, this is all in the context of Jon's magical logicland, where things make sense and adults don't get the cops called on them for sticking their dicks into other consenting adults.

5/8/2006 3:21:25 PM

^ Yes, him and HIS teacher. My point is to get people to conceed that the school has the right to pick arbitrary activities that it can punish individuals for performing at home. Yes, punishing the teacher in my metaphore is obviously less moral than the act being punished in the real-life case, but only by degrees.

5/8/2006 3:31:49 PM

Just another example of how poorly public schools are run. Most kids are spoiled brats, teachers are not paid enough to care, no discipline, not enough employees to keep an eye on all the kids, and a general lack of any real control. Sure there are always bound to be a few exceptions in every system but it just seems like I hear more and more stories pop up like this. Put these kids on lockdown!!!

5/8/2006 3:53:14 PM

^^ not really, fucking your student compromises your job. you would have a hard time being objective when handing out the grades.

5/8/2006 4:29:08 PM

schools can suspend kids for anything, so this is not too suprising. its the whole "being on the clock" thing that caused the problem. school is not like work were you get your lunch hour off to do whatever you want. lunch is part of the school day. so if kids are stupid enough to get caught having sex during the school day, then thats what happens. this is easily within the school's rights.


whats stupid is that the parents called the police in the first place!

[Edited on May 9, 2006 at 8:59 AM. Reason : ]

5/9/2006 8:46:12 AM

you cant be suspended for being black.

5/9/2006 11:40:13 AM

he's gonna get much more pussy now.

5/9/2006 12:13:58 PM

^^but they can find a way to suspend people who are black

5/9/2006 12:21:57 PM

Quote :

"Just another example of how poorly public schools are run. Most kids are spoiled brats, teachers are not paid enough to care, no discipline, not enough employees to keep an eye on all the kids, and a general lack of any real control. Sure there are always bound to be a few exceptions in every system but it just seems like I hear more and more stories pop up like this. Put these kids on lockdown!!!"

Dude, whatever, high school kids have been doing whatever the fuck they want since the beginning of time. I'd argue that schools have gotten a lot stricter and added a ton more rules since the 70s.

You used to be able to get in a fist fight, and you were suspended for a week, or you got detention for two weeks. Now, you can get expelled, and they call the cops to charge you with assault.

[Edited on May 9, 2006 at 12:29 PM. Reason : sss]

5/9/2006 12:28:56 PM

^^Not really because suspending someone for being black violates the 14th amendment. Suspending someone for engaging in an arbitrary act does not.

[Edited on May 9, 2006 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ,.,.]

5/9/2006 1:08:35 PM

Quote :

"^^Not really because suspending someone for being black violates the 14th amendment. Suspending someone for engaging in an arbitrary act does not."

You keep saying this, but schools have discretion as to how they enforce the rules, and it would not be uncommon for a black student to receive a stricter penalty for some arbitrary act than a white student, based on the personal prejudice of the school's administration.

5/9/2006 2:21:43 PM

students do not have the same rights they do outside of school. That is a fact. Since they signed the contract I'd put money down right now that the suspension holds. Not to say I agree or disagree with it, but it will be upheld.

5/9/2006 3:19:45 PM

Quote :

"School officials are prohibited from saying whether Biggar's girlfriend was punished"

she's older so punish the boy

5/9/2006 4:24:14 PM

Quote :

"schools can suspend kids for anything"

you said they could suspend anyone for anything, not anyone for something

5/9/2006 5:42:20 PM

BridgetSPK, I suspect that is true but irrelevant. They were not suspended because they were black, it is just that all the white kids get let off the hook so to speak.

5/9/2006 6:08:52 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: A gun is no more threatening by it's nature than a knife or a hatchet is."

ok, dipshit. you get the knife *and* hatchet. I take the gun.

then we'll start the debate:

Can you even think for yourself without NRA talking points to guide you?




[Edited on May 9, 2006 at 6:25 PM. Reason : ]

5/9/2006 6:21:54 PM

Quote :

"ok, dipshit. you get the knife *and* hatchet. I take the gun. then we'll start the debate:"

I fail to see your point. The existence of a gun is no more threatening than the existence of a knife or hatchet plain and simple. Now if someone starts waving one around and acting in a theatening manner, then yes, a gun makes them more of a threat than the knife does but it first requires a threatening action. Your irrational fear of the mere presense of a hunk of metal does not mean the gun is more threatening without a threat being issued. Your sort of reasoning is the reason we have stupid bullshit zero tollerance rules in all the schools.

[Edited on May 9, 2006 at 7:17 PM. Reason : kjh]

5/9/2006 7:16:32 PM

Quote :

"I fail to see your point"

of course you do.

Quote :

"Your sort of reasoning is the reason we have stupid bullshit zero tollerance rules in all the schools"

zero tolerance for taking weapons to school?

or zero tolerance for fuckwits who cant recognize a logical fallacy if it bit them in the ass?




[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 2:16 AM. Reason : ]

5/10/2006 2:11:14 AM

THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITHOUT PICS

5/10/2006 10:26:07 AM

Quote :

"of course you do."

Nice. Excellent argument. So tell me, what exactly makes a gun inherrently more threatening than a knife?

5/10/2006 1:50:30 PM

that's complete bullshit. i don't take my school's rules back to my house for lunch. fuck that.

5/17/2006 10:18:35 AM

Quote :

"So tell me, what exactly makes a gun inherrently more threatening than a knife?"

Someone can kill me without catching me. If I run away, you can still shoot me. If I run away, you have to catch me to kill me with a knife. Additionally much of my body could be mortally wounded should I be shot once. There are signifigantly less places where I could be killed by being stabbed once.

5/17/2006 3:28:52 PM

^ All of which require a person to be threatening you in the first place.

5/17/2006 6:12:44 PM

I love it when I click on a thread that I haven't been following and the topic being discussed has nothing to do with the thread title.

5/17/2006 6:18:20 PM

1) the guy who brought up the gun WAS talking about waving it around in school
2) inherently, the gun can do more dmg. it also be misfired/used a lot easier than a knife. sure it requires a person to do so (usually, i guess it could go off with enough vibration or something), but it still is a weapon.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 7:52 PM. Reason : plenty of ppl are unease with weapons in the room, threat or not.]

5/17/2006 7:51:51 PM

i think we should see pics of this girl before we continue this discussion

naked ideally

5/17/2006 9:25:30 PM

Quote :

"Someone can kill me without catching me. If I run away, you can still shoot me. If I run away, you have to catch me to kill me with a knife. Additionally much of my body could be mortally wounded should I be shot once. There are signifigantly less places where I could be killed by being stabbed once."

Just to toss the argument in before somebody else does...you can throw a knife at someone running away from you.

LOL...that was the argument given to me when I questioned why a cop would shoot someone who had a knife.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 10:33 PM. Reason : sss]

5/17/2006 10:19:41 PM