Assume Nothing

No RSOF logic please.

I JUST GAME!! InB4QuoteTrain

So, Laws. We've all seen it happen, there is always one stupid law here or there. "Zero Tolerence" law enforced on school policies, they work, until you see the bad side of it. Seriously, some authorities are utter idiots. Here's a few quotes: [hide=Sex Offender... Apparently]Florida Banishes Man for Public Urination It's no secret that some convicted sex offenders are guilty of nothing more than being a teenager and messing around with a slightly younger teenager. See here, and here, and here, and here. But as travesties of justice go, I just learned of an even more incredible one. Juan Matamoros's full bladder is going to cost him. Twenty-one years ago, he had too much to drink, and was caught when he urinated on a street in Essex, Massachusetts. Matamoros was charged with "lewd and lascivious behavior" which apparently got him classified as a sex offender. He currently lives in Deltona, Florida, with his wife and two young sons, but he's been ordered to pack up and move. Deltona's ordinance, stricter than those of the state and neighboring cities, prohibits sex offenders and sexual predators from living within 2,500 feet of a school, bus stop, day-care center, park or playground. Matamoros lives on Brady Drive near three city parks, including Dewey Boster Park and a child-care facility. The 49-year-old took the stand before Volusia County Judge Peter Marshall in DeLand on Monday to say he never molested anyone back in 1986, but just got drunk and urinated at the side of a car along a Massachusetts street when three people passed by and saw him. He requested he not have to move his two young sons to an area with a concentrated number of sex offenders. Judge Marshall claims there's nothing he can do the law is the law. He found Matamoros guilty without adjudication (the man's record does not contain a finding of guilt) and ordered him to move no later than July 1. The county's sheriff, Sgt. Erik Eagan, doesn't feel the least bit sorry for the guy, because Matamoros received prior notice of the sex-offender law's enactment, and besides, Matamoros allegedly violated probation for a drug offense. Never mind, apparently, that a probation violation has never been known to trigger an order to move. It's worth noting that some actual child rapists are probably getting a better deal. Sex offenders and sexual predators who lived within 2,500 feet of the restricted areas before the new law was enacted are grandfathered in. Reason's Kerry Howley assesses the wisdom (such as it is) of using zoning laws to banish offenders in this memorable piece.[/hide] This is the worst thing that could happen to anyone. You got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, for a measily little thing that should only land a few days in jail. But noooo, you must be put on the 'sex offenders list', scarring you for life, because some stupid authorities said so. This dude kinda reminds me of the dude who got jailed 15 years for possession of manga, that's just seriously stupid. [hide=13 year old girl that got stripsearched]SAFFORD, Ariz. Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade. An assistant principal, enforcing the schools antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils. The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating, Ms. Redding said. After she had stripped to her underwear, they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side, she said. They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear. Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on April 21. The case will require the justices to consider the thorny question of just how much leeway school officials should have in policing zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence, and the court is likely to provide important guidance to schools around the nation. In Ms. Reddings case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated the Fourth Amendments ban on unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said, It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights. More than that, Judge Wardlaw added, it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity. Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways a close call, given the humiliation and degradation involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students. Richard Arum, who teaches sociology and education at New York University, said he would have handled the incident differently. But Professor Arum said the Supreme Court should proceed cautiously. Do we really want to encourage cases, Professor Arum asked, where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances? The Supreme Courts last major decision on school searches based on individual suspicion as opposed to systematic drug testing programs was in 1985, when it allowed school officials to search a students purse without a warrant or probable cause as long their suspicions were reasonable. It did not address intimate searches. In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Reddings case, the federal government said the search of her was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe she was carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal. The government added, though, that the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search, so the assistant principal should not be subject to a lawsuit. Sitting in her aunts house in this bedraggled mining town a two-hour drive northeast of Tucson, Ms. Redding, now 19, described the middle-school cliques and jealousies that she said had led to the search. There are preppy kids, gothic kids, nerdy types, she said. I was in between nerdy and preppy. One of her friends since early childhood had moved in another direction. She started acting weird and wearing black, Ms. Redding said. She started being embarrassed by me because I was nerdy. When the friend was found with ibuprofen pills, she blamed Ms. Redding, according to court papers. Kerry Wilson, the assistant principal, ordered the two school employees to search both students. The searches turned up no more pills. Mr. Wilson declined a request for an interview and referred a reporter to the superintendent of schools, Mark R. Tregaskes. Mr. Tregaskes did not respond to a message left with his assistant. Lawyers for the school district said in a brief that it was on the front lines of a decades-long struggle against drug abuse among students. Abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications is on the rise among 12- and 13-year-olds, the brief said, citing data from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Given that, the school district said, the search was not excessively intrusive in light of Reddings age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction. Adam B. Wolf, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Ms. Redding, said her experience was the worst nightmare for any parent. When you send your child off to school every day, you expect them to be in math class or in the choir, Mr. Wolf said. You never imagine their being forced to strip naked and expose their genitalia and breasts to their school officials. In a sworn statement submitted in the case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, No. 08-479, Mr. Wilson said he had good reason to suspect Ms. Redding. She and other students had been unusually rowdy at a school dance a couple of months before, and members of the school staff thought they had smelled alcohol. A student also accused Ms. Redding of having served alcohol at a party before the dance, Mr. Wilson said. Ms. Redding said she had served only soda at the party, adding that her accuser was not there. At the dance, she said, school administrators had confused adolescent rambunctiousness with inebriation. Were kids, she said. Were goofy. The search was conducted by Peggy Schwallier, the school nurse, and Helen Romero, a secretary. Ms. Redding never appeared apprehensive or embarrassed, Ms. Schwallier said in a sworn statement. Ms. Redding said she had kept her head down so the women could not see that she was about to cry. Ms. Redding said she was never asked if she had pills with her before she was searched. Mr. Wolf, her lawyer, said that was unsurprising. They strip-search first and ask questions later, Mr. Wolf said of school officials here. Ms. Redding did not return to school for months after the search, studying at home. I never wanted to see the secretary or the nurse ever again, she said. In the end, she transferred to another school. The experience left her wary, nervous and distrustful, she said, and she developed stomach ulcers. She is now studying psychology at Eastern Arizona College and hopes to become a counselor. Ms. Redding said school officials should have taken her background into account before searching her. They didnt even look at my records, she said. They didnt even know I was a good kid. The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant. Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules, the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, only that she was never caught. Ms. Redding grew emotional as she reflected on what she would have done if she had been told as an adult to strip-search a student. Dabbing her eyes with a tissue, she said she would have refused. Why would I want to do that to a little girl and ruin her life like that? Ms. Redding asked.[/hide] WTF were the 'authorities' thinking? Wow, it's a damn prescription tablet, it's not a class b drug or anything, WHY did they have to stripsearch a child? Seriously?? [hide=More Stupid 'Zero Tolerence]If you attend school in the Los Angeles Unified School District, don't carry a toy key fob like this one in your pocket. A 7-year-old boy was suspended in school for carrying one of these because it violates the district's "zero tolerance" policy on "weapon possession". Candy, Little Boy? (November 1997) A Colorado Springs, Colo., school district says it did the right thing when it suspended 6-year-old Seamus Morris under the school's zero-tolerance drug policy. The drug? Lemon drops. Taylor Elementary School administrators called an ambulance after a teacher saw the boy give another student some candy, which was a brand teachers didn't recognize. "It was not something you would purchase in a grocery store," a district spokesman said. "It was from a health-food store." A spokesman for St. Claire's Lemon Tarts, however, noted that the candy is indeed sold in Colorado's largest grocery store chain. School officials were not impressed, and not only upheld the half-day suspension, but told the boy's mother that a child who brings candy to school is comparable to a teen who takes a gun to school. (UPI) ...Maybe it's time for a "zero-tolerance policy" toward idiotic school administrators. Rocket Scientist (March 1998) David Silverstein, 13, was inspired to build a model rocket after seeing the movie "October Sky", a biography of NASA rocket scientist Homer Hickam. The boy took his rocket, made out of a potato chip canister and fueled with three match heads, to his Glendale, Ariz., school, where it was found in a search of his locker. School officials classified the toy as a "weapon" and suspended him for the rest of the year based on its "zero-tolerance" weapons policy. The police were also called, and the case is being referred to juvenile authorities. (Arizona Republic) ...How the U.S. lost its leadership in technological innovation -- one in a long series. Bang-Bang, You're Brain-Dead (April 1999) Administrators saw three students at the Union Colony Charter School in Greeley, Colo., playing with a water gun. According to the school's interpretation of the state's "zero tolerance" weapons law -- which mandates suspension of students who "carry, bring, use or possess a firearm or firearm facsimile at school" -- the unnamed boys have been suspended. According to standard practice in "weapons" cases, the boys must now face expulsion hearings. (UPI) ...Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense. The last one, if you can't tell by my comment, was a sort-of final straw for me. It led to the following author's note (in the 16 April 1999 broadcast, "11 April" issue): A lot of mail came in last week about my story on the kids suspended (and facing expulsion hearings) for playing with a "weapon" on school grounds -- a squirt gun. A few people didn't understand the story: it was not "about" water guns. It was "about" the "Zero-Tolerance" trend in schools. There are obviously problems in schools from such things as drugs and violence. But terrorizing children with inflexible rules is not the answer. School principals have always had the responsibility to make and enforce rules, and punish accordingly when those rules are broken. "Zero-Tolerance" laws take that responsibility away. They mandate certain responses that can be way out of proportion to the rule violation in question. That is what these stories are about. "This is True" has reported on a fair number of these knee-jerk reactions to non-events. Children are put into the position of being treated as felons by being suspended and/or expelled over obvious toys -- the very same thing that would happen if they brought real guns to school. What happened to the punishment fitting the "crime"? What happened to justice? What happened to the education of these children? All of that is being ignored in the name of "Zero-Tolerance". Sure, in many cases the kids broke a rule, and those rules have a purpose (e.g., to avoid tragic shootings by police who think the guns are real). Most cases call for, at most, a stern talk in the principal's office -- not suspension, expulsion, police involvement or press conferences (as many of these cases have seen). It seems to me that if we feel a need to expel kids over water guns, there must not be many real problems our society needs to deal with. This led to a huge amount of mail, nearly all of it in total support of my comments. Not all of it, however, was supportive. That's fine: I never mind honest, thoughtful, disagreement with things I say. But one woman kept coming back again and again, arguing "What if those squirt guns were loaded with bleach? Would you let them go? What about a rapist that is impotent? Would you let him go?" Huh? And she was serious! She thought she was debating real points! And, in case she's reading this, I'll say it again: I'm not arguing that everyone should be set free; I said punishments should fit crimes. Real crimes call for real punishment. Non-crimes do not call for real punishment! Pretty simple concept? Apparently not. Because then came the shooting spree by two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and several people who really missed the point got pretty high and mighty and yelled "See?!" at me. That led to the following editorial, in the 23 April 1999 broadcast ("18 April" issue), which includes one of the more thoughtful of those letters: Letters are still coming in on my "Zero Tolerance" rant a few weeks ago, and frankly, I wish they'd stop: there's nothing that will change my mind. For instance: Diane, somewhere in The South, wondered "If one of your children (or nieces or nephews or grandchildren) were one of the many killed in the recent Colorado shooting, would you be such a cavalier critic of the Zero Tolerance 'trend'?" Absolutely yes, though my position is not "cavalier" but well thought out, which is why one event, as bad as it was, doesn't change my mind. And remember: I live in Colorado. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died in wars to protect our freedoms. I have no interest in trading them away for the false security these silly rules provide. Colorado is one of the leading states in "Zero Tolerance" -- about half of the stories on the "trend" in True are in fact based in Colorado! Yet that sure didn't help the kids in Littleton, did it? As if I haven't said this enough already, such rules do little to solve the real problems of drugs and violence in the schools. Lee, a reader in Texas, knows that such rules do get out of hand: "In Garland, Texas, about a year or so ago, a boy was suspended from school under a similar 'zero tolerance' policy -- for forming his hand in the shape of a pistol. The Gestapo, er uh, police said that he was 'engaging in terrorist activity.' This incident didn't make the papers, but it's no less ludicrous than your [recent] story." And the kid is going to be able to get a job as an adult with a police record that says that ...how? "Zero Tolerance" means little more than "Zero Thought", and means "Zero Discretion" is given to the teachers and principals who we hired to educate our kids. And that's the last about this topic here ...until the next idiotic story appears in True. Unfortunately, I have little doubt that there will be another! Let me illustrate with two more stories so we don't get too bogged down in the emotions of the Colorado shooting; I have a real point to all of this. Candy, Little Boy? II (November 1997 -- the next story after "Candy, Little Boy?" above) A 10-year-old girl at McElwain Elementary in Thornton, Colo., was one of a group of girls who "repeatedly" asked a certain boy on the playground if he liked them. The boy complained to a teacher, so school administrators, citing the district's "zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy", decided to suspend her. After an outcry from outraged parents, the school changed its mind. A district spokeswoman said school officials "probably" overreacted, but "it's all in how you look at it." (UPI) ...Same apple, different worms. Blimey (January, 1998) An 11-year-old British schoolboy met an Australian classmate and greeted him by saying, "G'day, sport." The boy, who was not named, was "caught" by a teacher, the school said in a statement, and while "there was no maliciousness or intent" on the boy's part, he was charged with racism for his greeting. "The boy was counseled, ...dialogue has taken place with parents," and the boy was made to write "I must not use racist remarks" 60 times, said the statement by Beverley Grammar School in Yorkshire. Tony Brett Young of the Australian High Commission was concerned it was a case of political correctness gone overboard. "'G'day sport' is part of our vernacular," he said. "It's just a traditional and friendly manner of speaking." (Reuters) ...Tony, you must remember that the self-appointed paternalistic PC snobs don't care what you think as they're more "culturally sensitive" of your nationality than you. Now, the several issues these stories hint of are serious. Sexual harassment nearly brought down the President of the United States. It's a terribly unfair power issue, and where is there a greater power difference between the president and a lowly, unpaid White House intern? Drugs interrupt or end thousands of lives every day, not just among the people that choose to use them and can't manage to do it in reasonable moderation. People die in car crashes, drug users thrust their families into poverty, and the cost of their habits drive them to crime. And racism is surely a disgusting remnant of less enlightened eras. But what are the stories above? The little girl wasn't sexually harassing a little boy, she was being a little girl, trying to learn how to deal with the opposite sex -- a trial-and-error process (don't you remember?) where the errors shouldn't be treated as a felony. The six-year-old boy wasn't using or selling drugs, he was sharing candy. Sharing candy! And the British lad wasn't making light of a fellow white boy's ancestry, he was trying to greet a potential friend in a way that was familiar to him. Calling every botched encounter between genders "sexual harassment" tells true victims of that crime that their experience was similar to a schoolyard crush. Calling sharing "drug use" tells children that there's no difference between giving a friend a lemon drop and selling him heroin cut with rat poison. And calling the use of vernacular "racism" demeans people that suffer from horrible crimes: the denial of their ability to live and make a living. And it tells the people that are not involved in these issues that really, these things are just trivial things, nothing to worry about. This racism stuff is not a problem, drugs aren't a scourge, and sexual harassment is just consenting adults with unequal paychecks. Are these the lessons legislators intend when they pass zero-tolerance laws -- and when bureaucrats enforce them? Because that's what the kids are learning. And, worse, the ZT trend gives a false sense of security. People want to know that things like school shootings can be stopped. But Colorado is at the forefront of the ZT movement! Here, ZT isn't a rule, it's the law. Did that help the students in Littleton? Of course not. Passing an inflexible law does not stop murder -- which is already quite illegal. Terrorizing a little kid for sharing candy -- and justifying it afterward when an outraged parent complains -- doesn't stop drug use. And it never will. As far as I can tell, Zero Tolerance has only negative effects. It must be stopped.[/hide] This absolutely sickens me, zero tolerence is taken too seriously, these laws make me want to punch a president in the face :wall: . So, do you think American law is stupid?

Banned for getting in the way. I wanted to call him a Backpfeifengesicht...

Banned because you ate a grape.

I found these pretty interesting. Liked #9, happens to me quite often...

Banned because I fell in love with Cynic.

3

Please note: This is a direct quote from the website, so if it contains profanities, please notify me so it could be fixed promptly. I take no responsibility for the content of third party websites. So, what does tip.it think of this? Do you agree that the English language should have more words?

Why isn't there a "creeped out" smilie? :? Because he's mine.

:roll: :lol:

I fell asleep at az's and forgot about extended timer, I hadn't 68 summon back then.... slowly eating away at my hps till I died =/.

ILY CYNIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The average person I suppose. :P

Free Money = Good. *facepalm*

Banned for getting in my way.

:shock: :roll: ;) You got your answer, wassa matter? Nothin', I just sort of... steriotyped you as a pure, that's all :oops: .

Why do I get a feeling that you're Theuberelite's alt tif account...? Anyways, just don't click on untrusted links, simple.

Balance is Power. I personally would fight WaterFiends instead of RockLobsters, and I think that's more efficient because I haven't the money nor the time to make the money to fight RockLobsters. That's just a example, however.

I think it's wrong, but JaGex has rules about don't tell anyone your IRC or MSN therefore this kind of stuff won't happen... the only exception is µ bug. Crushpker makes a point albiet in a less subtle way, stop clicking links whilst doing dangerous activities. Damn!

Nerd is way overused. Crap double post, nvm... Hmmm, it seems to be that you're hiding that you play RS but everyone knows anyways... hmmmm....