Zero Tolerance gone crazy

I was just watching the local news where they announced that a 14 yr old girl in Alabama had been charged with terroristic threatening for doing a
civics paper in school. Seems the teacher assigned the students the task to come up with 2 laws that they would like to see enacted. So this 14 yr old girl said she would like to see a law passed where everybody would be allowed to kill 2 people without penalty. She then went on to say that George W. Bush would be the #1 person on her list.
Anyway, the school informed the local police, they in turn notified the Secret Service and she was arrested and charged with Terroristic Threatening.
shockie B)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
shockwaveriderz wrote:

Well, she's certainly learning about civics, isn't she???
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This isn't really anything new. The Secret Service is obligated to investigate anything that could be construed as a threat to the president's life, even if it is a school paper written by a teenage girl. Something similar happened at my school when we had a letter-drive and somebody wrote someting to the effect of "bombing the White House." It wound up being nothing.
That said, the school should have talked to the student and/or parents first before notifying the authorities. In my school's case, the letter was anonymous and it was not the school who found the message in the first place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Welcome back to Columbine. Nothing will ever be the same.
Alabama is very rigid where death threats are concerned, at any level. Every year, all students 1-12 receive a Code of Conduct handbook. They AND their parents must sign it and return. She knew when she submitted the paper what would happen.
They know there is NO tolerance and usually it's a just an easy way for the student to get out of school, or so they think. The problem is they don't realize what going to "alternative school" means. It's a boot camp as strict as any the military has and it's filled with problem students. Not much fun and she'll probably be there until she graduates or drops out.
It may be an over reaction but make no mistake, she knew exactly what would happen when she turned it in.
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another story of a school board going nuts! IMHO. I would like to start seeing these board members held to the same standards they set for students. I sure you would see some interesting things come up. I say this with some knowledge after working with these same boards across the country.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One would like to think so. However, having raised a few 14 year olds, I can assure you sitting down and intelligently evaluating the possible outcome of their actions is not a primary skill.
Since we're still mucking about trying to find as many people as possible to "blame" for 9/11, anyone in authority has one goal in any incident: escalate the issue to higher authority and get themselves out of the blame loop.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's a federal offense to make a death threat against the president. It has nothing to do with school system policy.
-- David

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David wrote:

There's also the little matter of a teenager who thinks she should be allowed to commit murder. Even if she had never mentioned the president, the fact that she wants to be allowed two "freebies" when it comes to murder is deeply wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The story as posted wasn't a death threat against any one. It was a childs wish that they could LEGALLY do something that she knew she couldn't. Would they have arrested her if her wish was to change drug laws so that she could smoke pot in school? Or if it was that she could drive before reaching 16?

I was just at a training seminar. The instructor pointed out that ethics is what you do when others ae watching, character is what you do when no one is watching.
Still, I think that just about every one has a list of people that they thing this world would be better off without. "W" and his cronies certainly do. And their list is a LOT bigger than two. And I'll bet that most of those on the list have "W" et al on THEIR wish lists. Pat Robertson called for a world leaders assination, and didn't get arrested.
Even Santa is "making a list and checking it twice" ...
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

It is illegal to make a threat against the president. Period.
It is not illegal to threaten to smoke pot, or to wish to smoke pot.
It is not illegal to threaten to drive before reaching 16, or to wish to drive before reaching 16.
As another example, if we're standing together and I pull my fist back as though I'm going to hit you, I have 'assaulted' you, even if I never lay a finger on you (that would be 'battery'). In that instance, my 'wish' is illegal.
I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand.

Again, it's not illegal (within the US) for someone to wish for ANOTHER world leaders assasination. Yes, that's a double standard -- but if you don't like it, lobby to change the law.
Frankly, I'm not happy with the way the law is written, as it seems more and more laws are being based on peoples intentions rather than their actions...
David Erbas-White

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:16:26 -0700, David Erbas-White

There was a long standing formal US policy not to assassinate the leader of another country. Dubya rescinded that policy, allowing such assassinations.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

How do you define "long standing?" From the founding of the United States in 1776 to 1976, political assassination was not addressed. President Ford issued an Executive Order (EO-11905) in 1976 which said, in part, "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." Presidents Carter (EO-1236) and Regan (EO-12333) both reaffirmed the ban. The Regan Executive Order was the last I could find to address the subject; it said, in part, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."
I can't find any text of an EO by Bush on the subject, so I can't really say what he has or hasn't recinded, but personally, I would prefer to see surgical strikes against specific people than wholesale bombing of an area that the person may be hiding in. The latter leads to far too much colateral damage.
Another question that begs an answer is "What, exactly, constitutes an assassination?" If you are at war, where is the line between killing the enemy and assassination? If a US solder sees Bin Laden and kills him, is that an assassination?
Mario
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:08:31 -0500, Mario Perdue

You have it exactly, executive orders going back several administrations.

I don't know exactly, maybe it was just that Dubya did not "reaffirm" the ban. Do EOs expire if not reaffirmed, in effect allowing Dubya to engage in political assassination without the EO paper trail?

That is just war. While I find assassination of world leaders reprehensible, it might be preferable to spending hundreds of billions of US taxpayer's hard earned dollars (and the deaths and disruption of thousands of US citizen's lives) on Dubya's Iraq mess.

I think Dubya gave specific orders for the military to target and try and kill Saddam. Bin Laden is simply a terrorist leader and not the leader of a nation.
The question was, is not Dubya's policy on assassinations a more serious offence than the civics paper written by the 14 year old girl?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

Why, no. He is the duly elected leader following the rules of the Constitution. She is not, and she is violating a law that was put in place under the same rules of the Constitution.
If you cannot understand that difference, perhaps you should be the one taking the civics class.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:30:03 -0700, David Erbas-White

I don't take a 14 year old students outlandish paper seriously. I do take Dubya and his policies seriously. When I wrote "serious offence", I meant that in the common way as offensive to god and civilized man. There are many laws put in place under the lawmaking procedure of the US constitution that are offensive, unfair, unjust, and even unconstitutional. I suspect the student was being facetious, exercising free speech in a civics assignment, and not making a credible threat. I also believe that the student is stupid and an embarrassment to her teacher, school, and community. Nevertheless, I think society would be better served if her teacher made her less stupid, rather than trying to get rid of her.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
To me, it just seems that this whole thread has gotten a bit out of hand and doesn't belong on RMR.
No one knows the full background on this, nor is a lawyer. And I can't see how it applies to model/HP rockets!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

Hmmm, 200 years without the Executive Orders vs. 29 years with them. Which one has the longest standing?
Mario
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He should then realize that he's made himself the target of those world leaders that the US may have targeted. Fair is fair.
Who was it who said that the world leaders shoudl fight their own wars, instead of having their countries young be the ones to die? W's national guard training should serve him well in a hand-to-hand with Osama or Sadaam. Or Jacques. But not Aahnald!
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

What makes you think he's not already a target? Also, would you prefer that creeps like the former Taliban leaders (or Saddam, or Khaddafy, etc) stick to killing random innocent civilians?

Some idiot, obviously. Bet it was in the 60's too. Maybe it came from the same drug-addled clod who thought up those "You can't hug children with nuclear arms" posters.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Ray, why the hell would you say that?? I have no clue who said it nor do I care but to be so combative just because you would disagree with a anonymous quote. My god man....settle down.
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.