More on the witch hunt (LONG)

[drais]

Actually, it wasn't too terribly long, you can say more if you want.

Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Sommer <lensman@earthlink.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <holly-l@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: More on the witch hunt (LONG)


>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
>