14 year old boy to get year in jail for wearing NRA T-shirt

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, turd, but there is no law that says a student has to obey a teacher. There are school rules to that effect, but no law is violated when a student says "go **** yourself."

All students are required to obey lawful directives from school personnel, and if the student refuses to obey and gets mouthy, yup, he is going to pay the lawful price.

Tis what tis, bripat. All of your hollering changes nothing.

Really? Which law says students have to obey school personnel or go to jail? Remember, we're not talking about school rules here. We're talking about city, county or state ordinances. What is the official state penalty for a student who "gets mouthy?"

There are disorderly conduct laws for starts. There is the school regulations and guidelines, the which all students must know and follow.

You don't have an idea of what you are talking about whatsoever.

A facility for teenage boy punks who don't get it will help him for six months to get it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

All students are required to obey lawful directives from school personnel, and if the student refuses to obey and gets mouthy, yup, he is going to pay the lawful price.

Tis what tis, bripat. All of your hollering changes nothing.

The issue then becomes whether it was a lawful order. That issue will be determined with reference to TINKER ET AL. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. which held that "Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." The issue was the right of students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court upheld the right of students to do so so long as the school administrators could not "show that it would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission." Tinker is available here:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Other cases of note:

Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (1973) which held that a university could not expel a journalism student who distributed leaflets which included 4 letter words and a graphic protrayal of the Statute of Liberty being raped.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) which held that it was ok for a Washington High School to discipline a student who gave a speech at a school assembly which was filled with sexual innuendos.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) which held that a high school could censor a school newspaper concerning sensitive issues such as pregnancy and involved the invasion of privacy of other students.

Morse v Frederick (2007) which held that a school could discipline a student who held up a 14 foot banner which read:

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

This one was odd, since the critical issue in the previous cases was the disruption of school. In Morse the activity was not even at school, but it was at a school sponsored activity... the court reasoned that the strong anti-drug policy of the school justified the action and that the message was reasonably perceived as promoting illegal drug activity. Case available here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

All students are required to obey lawful directives from school personnel, and if the student refuses to obey and gets mouthy, yup, he is going to pay the lawful price.

Tis what tis, bripat. All of your hollering changes nothing.

Really? Which law says students have to obey school personnel or go to jail? Remember, we're not talking about school rules here. We're talking about city, county or state ordinances. What is the official state penalty for a student who "gets mouthy?"

There are disorderly conduct laws for starts. There is the school regulations and guidelines, the which all students must know and follow.

Like I said, we're not talking about school rules here. They aren't laws, and the police department is not in the business of enforcing them. Saying "no" to a teacher doesn't qualify as "disorderly conduct."

You don't have an idea of what you are talking about whatsoever.

Of course I do, Fakey. You just proved it.

A facility for teenage boy punks who don't get it will help him for six months to get it.

A year in a concentration camp would do you a world of good as well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All students are required to obey lawful directives from school personnel, and if the student refuses to obey and gets mouthy, yup, he is going to pay the lawful price.

Tis what tis, bripat. All of your hollering changes nothing.

Really? Which law says students have to obey school personnel or go to jail? Remember, we're not talking about school rules here. We're talking about city, county or state ordinances. What is the official state penalty for a student who "gets mouthy?"

There are disorderly conduct laws for starts. There is the school regulations and guidelines, the which all students must know and follow.

You don't have an idea of what you are talking about whatsoever.

A facility for teenage boy punks who don't get it will help him for six months to get it.

But the school rules do not trump a student's right to free expression. You obviously would give up your liberty for love of of the written rule.

 

[Katzndogz]

The post suggests an image, a fourteen year old boy, almost a babe in arms, a tyke facing a year in jail. Wow, and all he did was wear a shirt. Certainly this is school abuse, child abuse, adults hovering over him yelling threatening a lad for standing up for his rights, our rights, mankind's rights. Makes one proud to be an American, and proud of our children. But I wonder what the situation was really like? And suppose the 14 year old had not been standing up to the police for the NRA, and gun rights, but rather the right to have a shirt pushing drugs or something else?

Shirts pushing drugs are acceptable.

When we put people in prison, put children in prison, for what they say, democrats have truly hit rock bottom.

 

[bripat9643]

But they do not trump a student's right to free expression. You obviously would give up your liberty for love of of the written rule.

Fakey is a goose-stepping Nazi who loves the taste of boot polish.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

But they do not trump a student's right to free expression. You obviously would give up your liberty for love of of the written rule.

Fakey is a goose-stepping Nazi who loves the taste of boot polish.

Let's not get carried away.

Fakey is just a typical "big government is the answer to all social ills" kind of liberal Democrat Party loyalist.

 

[Circe]

All students are required to obey lawful directives from school personnel, and if the student refuses to obey and gets mouthy, yup, he is going to pay the lawful price.

Tis what tis, bripat. All of your hollering changes nothing.

The issue then becomes whether it was a lawful order. That issue will be determined with reference to TINKER ET AL. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. which held that "Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." The issue was the right of students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court upheld the right of students to do so so long as the school administrators could not "show that it would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission." Tinker is available here:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Other cases of note:

Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (1973) which held that a university could not expel a journalism student who distributed leaflets which included 4 letter words and a graphic protrayal of the Statute of Liberty being raped.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) which held that it was ok for a Washington High School to discipline a student who gave a speech at a school assembly which was filled with sexual innuendos.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) which held that a high school could censor a school newspaper concerning sensitive issues such as pregnancy and involved the invasion of privacy of other students.

Morse v Frederick (2007) which held that a school could discipline a student who held up a 14 foot banner which read:

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

This one was odd, since the critical issue in the previous cases was the disruption of school. In Morse the activity was not even at school, but it was at a school sponsored activity... the court reasoned that the strong anti-drug policy of the school justified the action and that the message was reasonably perceived as promoting illegal drug activity. Case available here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

Nice references! [ Tinker is obviously the relevant caselaw here, assuming the kid had the sense to be polite. Which the original story implies. This has come up a number of times, the NRA shirts. So it's time to settle it in the courts. I'd be for them wearing this sort of shirt without hassling them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All students are required to obey lawful directives from school personnel, and if the student refuses to obey and gets mouthy, yup, he is going to pay the lawful price.

Tis what tis, bripat. All of your hollering changes nothing.

The issue then becomes whether it was a lawful order. That issue will be determined with reference to TINKER ET AL. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. which held that "Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." The issue was the right of students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court upheld the right of students to do so so long as the school administrators could not "show that it would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission." Tinker is available here:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Other cases of note:

Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (1973) which held that a university could not expel a journalism student who distributed leaflets which included 4 letter words and a graphic protrayal of the Statute of Liberty being raped.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) which held that it was ok for a Washington High School to discipline a student who gave a speech at a school assembly which was filled with sexual innuendos.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) which held that a high school could censor a school newspaper concerning sensitive issues such as pregnancy and involved the invasion of privacy of other students.

Morse v Frederick (2007) which held that a school could discipline a student who held up a 14 foot banner which read:

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

This one was odd, since the critical issue in the previous cases was the disruption of school. In Morse the activity was not even at school, but it was at a school sponsored activity... the court reasoned that the strong anti-drug policy of the school justified the action and that the message was reasonably perceived as promoting illegal drug activity. Case available here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

Nice references! [ Tinker is obviously the relevant caselaw here, assuming the kid had the sense to be polite. Which the original story implies. This has come up a number of times, the NRA shirts. So it's time to settle it in the courts. I'd be for them wearing this sort of shirt without hassling them.

Yay, some real dialogue finally.

Yes, the courts will decide, not public opinion. However, I am not sure that the kid was polite. If one says to you in a quiet tone, "**** you", he is not being polite, merely being quiet and impolite.

So let's see where this case goes.

 

[bripat9643]

But they do not trump a student's right to free expression. You obviously would give up your liberty for love of of the written rule.

Fakey is a goose-stepping Nazi who loves the taste of boot polish.

Let's not get carried away.

Fakey is just a typical "big government is the answer to all social ills" kind of liberal Democrat Party loyalist.

No, he's actually a Nazi. He loves authority and he is eager to lick the boots of all those who hold power over him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fakey is a goose-stepping Nazi who loves the taste of boot polish.

Let's not get carried away.

Fakey is just a typical "big government is the answer to all social ills" kind of liberal Democrat Party loyalist.

No, he's actually a Nazi. He loves authority and he is eager to lick the boots of all those who hold power over him.

Jake is a sadist.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's not get carried away.

Fakey is just a typical "big government is the answer to all social ills" kind of liberal Democrat Party loyalist.

No, he's actually a Nazi. He loves authority and he is eager to lick the boots of all those who hold power over him.

Jake is a sadist.

That too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now the Nazis are making shit up. saying he cursed and was disrespectful. Not a single comment about that in the stories we have seen. But hey it is never to early to start fabricating dirt to support ones version of events for the public.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, he's actually a Nazi. He loves authority and he is eager to lick the boots of all those who hold power over him.

Jake is a sadist.

That too.

Ah, the idiot brigade, who recognizes no law as binding on them, all caw like crows on the telephone line.

Godwin's Law, boot licking, and sadism ad hom are offered but nothing of worth.

The rule of law always trumps the rule of men in a good republic.

 

[bripat9643]

Jake is a sadist.

That too.

Ah, the idiot brigade, who recognizes no law as binding on them, all caw like crows on the telephone line.

Godwin's Law, boot licking, and sadism ad hom are offered but nothing of worth.

The rule of law always trumps the rule of men in a good republic.

When you can point to the law that the kid violated by saying "no," then perhaps we'll bother paying attention to your idiocies . . . . . . .

NAH!

You don't believe in the rule of law, Fakey. You believe in government. You believe in rule by government flunkies.

 

[boilermaker55]

Right from Faux Noise.

 

[Polk]

For some reason, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't be defending this if the image was of a crack pipe.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

MLK Jr, if he read 2nd Amendment's piece of crap comparing the boy's simple youthful hooliganism to the principles of nonviolent protest, would open a case of whoop ass on 2nd Amendment.

And 2nd Amendment does believe in change by violence. Go back and read 2A's postings.

Only if you start killing us first, it's called self-defense.

The only exception would be suspending the Constitution, or confiscating firearms, or abolishing trial by jury. Those are the only three events that would FORCE us to fire first.

Also, MLK had concealed carry, and the Deacons of Defense and Justice marhced alongside his marches with shotguns.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwueChZUgf8]NO GUNS FOR NEGROES 2of2 THE RACIST ROOTS OF GUN CONTROL - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Polk]

I laugh at the notion that the left somehow stands for freedom. What a ******* joke!

First of all, this hasn't gone to court yet. I imagine the judge will dismiss the case. Secondly, what makes you think the arresting officer is a Democrat or Liberal? Do you know for certain?

The kid has the right to wear the shirt, just not in school. If he doesn't want to follow the rules, then the school can expel him. They just better be certain to not allow kids to wear any clothing that politicizes gun control in a favorable way.

Yeah, he'll never go to jail! They may expel him, but they're going to take a lot of flack for it. That shirt is very attractive and was carefully chosen, possibly. This may have been intended as a political case. Pre-planned.

If any 14 year olds are reading this, they've learned a lesson. You can break whatever rules you want as long as you find a political banner to wrap it in.

 

[bripat9643]

For some reason, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't be defending this if the image was of a crack pipe.

Most of the people who are defending the boy are libertarians, so yes they would.