More on the witch hunt (LONG)

[Jacob Sommer]

drais wrote:
> 
> Jacob,
> 
> You make some outstanding points, I especially like the neighbor analogy.
> However, I'm not persuaded yet. Would you rather the schools say "Oh, a
> trenchcoat, we'll not inspect it,  in the name of civil liberties, and hope
> there's nothing there."? If I'm a parent of a kid at the school, I want them
> to make sure there's nothing there. Is that unreasonable? You seem to be
> saying it is.

Matter of fact, I believe it is unreasonable.  One of the main drives
behind, say, a police investigation is "probable cause".  I can 
fully understand a student getting checked if that student had a
history of very violent behavior and was also suspected of carrying a
deadly weapon: probable cause has been established.  I do not believe
that telling a kid "You're underaged, you wear a trenchcoat and you
said you might understand what those kids in Columbine High did so
we're going to treat you like we should have treated them" is a
healthy thing.  Probable cause has not been established.

The way the rules are supposed to be up is that nobody is treated
like a criminal until they *do* something criminal, and *then* they
get zonked with major penalties for criminal actions.  Innocent until
proven Guilty in effect.  In order to do this properly there need to
be authorized people who can mete out punishment and do it effectively
on an as needed and case by case basis.  People are each individuals.

Regarding high-crime areas, I would say that probable cause has been
established on the area itself.  So, a high crime school probably
could have those searches and such.  *However*, to make it fair to the
students who *don't* do anything wrong there *should* be a carrot.
There are far too many sticks nowadays and not enough carrots.

> trenchcoats are not only great for hiding things, it makes them real easy to
> get to as well. Unlike a duffle bag. At some schools, they have inspected
> the backpacks and the baggy jeans and all that as well. (I know they are
> doing it in Baltimore) I think all of them should be doing that. That is not
> being treated like a potential criminal. Do you feel like you're being
> treated as a potential criminal when they x-ray your baggage at the airport?
> Now, if a gun is found in your baggy pants, or your backpack, then you
> should be treated like a real criminal. (I think)

Yes it *is* being treated like a potential criminal.  They don't
x-ray people going into convenience stores to see if people are
packing... and most people aren't.  If you are checking someone or
something for a particular problem you are by definition assuming
that there is a chance the problem will be there.
And yes, when I am at an airport I am being treated as a potential
criminal.  Also whenever I enter my local courthouse.  I understand
that in these places there is considered to be a much higher danger
to risk ratio.  I accept this when I go to the courthouse or when I
fly.  But, it's also usually my choice to go there or not.

Making those kind of searches mandatory at *all* schools on the
basis of a single event at *one* school is totally ludicrous.  Yes,
I know there have been worries and false alarms and even a couple
of copycats in the last couple of weeks, at least in regards to the
pipe bombs.  I also figure that with the planning those two boys
did at Columbine the search procedure would have been less than
useless.  If they had an accomplice for the pipe bombs, all they
needed was to separate the components and say they were for science
class.  Considering the guns they had, they would have shot any
guards.
Children under age 16 do not have a choice about
going to school.  They must have schooling; it's state mandated.
Mandatory attendance.  Making searches at all schools mandatory
makes a mockery out of innocent until proven guilty.  It assumes
guilt of every student walking through the door.  More sticks, more
slings and arrows, more humiliation and degradation.

May I present to you a possible far swing of the pendulum?  Kids
going to school and staying there during the week, so they can't
leave and get possible weapons.  Kids barred from certain stores
because of what the store sells - even if the most lethal thing
there is a kitchen knife.  Barbed wire enclosures around all
schools to prevent people from getting out.

Prisoners in jail would have more rights than students at that
point.  The scary thing is I can see the pendulum possibly
swinging that far here in the "Land of the Free and the Home of
the Brave".

> And there's a difference between being suspicious of someone, and
> pronouncing them guilty. None of these kids that I've heard have gone to
> prison on criminal charges. That's what happens when you're found guilty.
> Some have been misunderstood. So you're statement about "guilty on the first
> whim of suspicion" is , I think, a false one.

I don't think so.  Again, students have lost their computers/
computer privileges on the basis of the games they play or the
clothes they wear.  There have been incidents of mandatory psych
evaluation.  These are what we call penalties.  Supposedly we
only punish the guilty, right?
Me walking into a courthouse with a metal detector is not going
to cause any suspicion on the part of the guard.  Me setting off
the metal detector will do so.

> As for being alienated and picked on, it  isn't right,  but can we agree
> life isn't fair? I've been a harrassed schoolkid, not to the degree some of
> these folks are, but I've been there. Maybe my sympathy level is lower then
> it ought to be, but if that's the worse thing that ever happens to
> someone.....they've done real good!

No, life isn't fair.  I've been teased and picked on too.  One of
the problems I had with many public schools is that the enforcement
of punishment wasn't done anywhere near fairly.
The first private school I went to resembled a boot camp.  They had
some fairly harsh punishments there.  However, they were fair while
also allowing for circumstances.

If a kid gets teased and that's the worst that happens, well, yeah;
that's not huge compared to many things.  Being threatened with a
beating in such a way as to make you concerned you will get hurt is 
assault, though.  Being beat up is battery.  I may not have been 
battered much but I was assaulted lots when I was young.  If someone
put me in fear of a beating, it was written off a lot as boys will
be boys.  If I ever retaliated on any level I was punished.

Fairness?

> The list of horrible things happening to this kids was new to me. Hasn't
> happened around here, and I live in Colorado. Some kids were suspended that
> wore trenchcoats to school, but that was because they were also walking
> around saying "I have some Tec-9's hidden here." So I wonder how many of
> these events also have extenuating circumstances.

That's along the lines of yelling "Theater!" in a crowded fire house
(or something like that).  Kids who did that were being deliberately
provocative.  I am not referring to them.  When unprovocative kids
get singled out.....

> And you're not trying to compare your paranoia from what happened to Jews
> 50-100 and 1000 years ago with what the parents of Columbine kids are going
> through with something that happened just 3 weeks ago, are you?

You're right - their reaction is a bit more extreme.

> Hope it doesn't sound like I'm yelling at you through the computer, I do
> have a habit of coming across a lot nastier in my writing then I do in real
> life. Like I said, the neighbor analogy was good, and makes the point about
> being judged on superficial apperances. If that was your main point, you'll
> get no arguement from me. Just curious, did you come up with that analogy
> yourself, or had you heard it before?

Came up with that analogy on the spot.  I don't figure you've been
yelling, FWIW, just that you've been letting your opinions be known.

I think I wanna make one other point, then I'll stop this insanely
long ramble: at least part of the cause of what happened at 
Columbine was the fact that those two admittedly anti-social misfits
had the view, correct or incorrect, that the system which was 
arguably supposed to protect them from or at least redress the wrongs
done to them by other students was completely unable and likely
unwilling to help them.  I suspect the unwilling part is the more
important basis than the unable.

Jacob