Supreme Court to Hear Case About School Strip-Search of 13-year-old Girl

[Facial_King]

Once again, where have I said that what these teachers did was right?

I can see you're trying to be slippery again, so let's go through this with a fine-tooth comb, then.

Boothbabe said: "And your next thougth probably was 'she only has herself to blame'"

Which you answered with:
"If she HAD pills, then yeah."

So, if she HAD pills (with each the equivalent strength of 2 Advils) but the school authorities still had no reason to suspect she was hiding any pills under/within her clothes or "on" her body, then you would say that the girl would have only herself to blame if she was strip-searched (again, without cause)? Let's not forget that the moment a student is taken away from other students (to the school office), the possibility of that student providing drugs in their possession to other students is exactly nil, so the urgency of the matter all but disappears. Let's also not forget that this was a 13-year-old girl.

So, it seems pretty clear that you're saying that what these teachers did was only wrong in that they didn't end up finding and confiscating any pills, not that they were strip-searching her without cause.

Is there any bottom limit where you think that non-police authorities CAN'T strip-search a kid? Nobody under 12? Under 10???

 

[Boothbabe]

When did I come close to say anything like that?



Once again, where have I said that what these teachers did was right?

I have to back Chef up on this one. He never said what the teachers did was right.

On a side note: sometimes you can come across very harsh as tho you blame innocent people/victims for what happens to them.
I sometimes get the idea you see the world in terms of black and white as if there's no room for grey.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I can see you're trying to be slippery again, so let's go through this with a fine-tooth comb, then.

Boothbabe said: "And your next thougth probably was 'she only has herself to blame'"

Which you answered with:
"If she HAD pills, then yeah."

So, if she HAD pills (with each the equivalent strength of 2 Advils) but the school authorities still had no reason to suspect she was hiding any pills under/within her clothes or "on" her body, then you would say that the girl would have only herself to blame if she was strip-searched (again, without cause)? Let's not forget that the moment a student is taken away from other students (to the school office), the possibility of that student providing drugs in their possession to other students is exactly nil, so the urgency of the matter all but disappears. Let's also not forget that this was a 13-year-old girl.

A) I notice how you can't point out where I have said that I think what the teachers did was right.

B) If she had pills, then their suspicion would've been correct. Once again, I have not said that what they did was right. What I meant by "If she HAD pills, then yeah", was that it wouldn't be anybody's fault but her own for having them, which is against school rules.

I think it's funny how people try to pick apart my comments and make assumptions from the things I say. Then, when I ask them to point out where I have said such a thing, nobody can do so, so they immediately start dissecting and assuming again.

I have to back Chef up on this one. He never said what the teachers did was right.

On a side note: sometimes you can come across very harsh as tho you blame innocent people/victims for what happens to them.
I sometimes get the idea you see the world in terms of black and white as if there's no room for grey.

Thank you.

And, I'm well aware I can come across like that. Also, I do see the world as black and white...most of the time. There are certain, tricky issues that can involve some grey area, but most of the time it's all black and white to me.

 

[Ashleigh]

Oh god kids, stop bickering or I'll have you both be punished.

 

[Ashleigh]

And to add my two cents, I don't think a teacher has the right to strip search ANY child. If there WAS any kind of questionable drugs, its the law enforcements job to take care of it. But I mean, if the drugs are (and I'm just quoting the dude above me) the equivalent of two advils...and aren't illegal...then who the fuck cares? If she needs some ibuprofen to help with cramps or some shit, let her have them!

 

[Shindekudasai]

Chef, I think there's a misunderstanding here, because you're running a wrong circular argument (because you have no sufficient cause (in your logic)).

If you think, she would have only herself to blame for what happened in case she had pills on her, you (by extension of that logic) also think the personnel of the school is not to blame.
On the other hand you state, that you don't think what happened at that school was right, which means you don't think, that strip searching her was right. If strip searching her isn't right, then (by logic of the rule of law) the performing agent of the strip search is to blame, thus the school.
As she had pills on her (harmlessness aside) and the strip search happened, by your logic the girl is to blame (because she did something, that wasn't right) and the school wasn't right (and therefore is to blame). You see what I mean?

Unless you clear that argument up, the confusion will persist. If you're such a defender of a black and white worldview, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[Namreg]

i really think he's just trolling for fun.

 

[Marlo Manson]

You'd think schools would play it safe and call the police and contact their parents too witness or be present during such a sensitive issue.

I think the school and what they did over stepped the boundaries of good taste, and whats morally acceptable in a situation such as accusing a student of carrying narcotic's / drugs. which are not even classified as an illegal controlled substance. :eek::2 cents:

 

[Facial_King]

Even if she did have pills, but the school had no reason other than some groundless (as was the case here) and amorphous suspicion, then it still would have been problematic for them to strip-search her. The issue isn't simply "Did the girl have (legal but against-policy) drugs?" - the issue is whether or not school authorities can act as police in the absence of parents, and strip-search minors. Again, is there any line - where's the black-and-white - where you, Chef, would say that school authorities can't strip-search a child they suspect of violating school policy? A child of 12, 10, 8...??? As with many things in life, it's a judgment call, but I'm curious if you would set a limit here or just say it's always, in all cases, acceptable for schools to strip-search kids they suspect of breaking school rules.

A) I notice how you can't point out where I have said that I think what the teachers did was right.

Oh, but where did I actually say that you said that what the teachers/staff did was right? Where? (And don't assume anything! )

B) If she had pills, then their suspicion would've been correct. Once again, I have not said that what they did was right. What I meant by "If she HAD pills, then yeah", was that it wouldn't be anybody's fault but her own for having them, which is against school rules.

But that would be an incredibly (and ridiculously) self-evident and beyond-obvious thing to say. No one has said or even implied that the issue is someone forcing her to carry and hide pills. The entirely reasonable interpretation of "If she HAD pills, then yeah" in the given context (responding to "she'd only have herself to blame") is that you think it wouldn't be anybody's fault but her own for being strip-searched !! Just like, if we were talking about, for example, a guy raping a girl because he claimed she was wearing a VERY short skirt and panties that read "Rape me now, please!" (which, in fact, she was NOT wearing) and someone asked you if you had thought that the girl had no one to blame but herself, and then you said "If she was wearing those panties, then yeah." The ISSUE at hand (and it matters not, for making this point, that panty-wearing is legal and strong ibuprofen's are against the school's policies) is not whether anyone disputes that the woman would have sole responsibility for what she wears - duh, nobody's saying she put the clothes on at gunpoint or anything! - the issue is whether the girl would be to blame for the actions of the rapist, for being raped.

I think it's funny how people try to pick apart my comments and make assumptions from the things I say. Then, when I ask them to point out where I have said such a thing, nobody can do so, so they immediately start dissecting and assuming again.

That's what intense discussion and debate are about - analyzing what the other person said, aka "picking apart" what somebody said. But, again, I hadn't accused you of saying what you claim I accused you of. Yes, I interpreted your comment. Interpretation often involves making reasonable assumptions, as I did - but I didn't say that you approved of what the school officials did in this particular case (where the girl did not possess pills).

And, I'm well aware I can come across like that. Also, I do see the world as black and white...most of the time. There are certain, tricky issues that can involve some grey area, but most of the time it's all black and white to me.

You also tend to reflexively take the side of authorities that dispense punishment. Black and white....hmmm.....the color of many police cars!
I think it's pretty telling, actually, that your first thought (after reading the title, excerpt, whole article??) was "If they HAD found pills, would this even be in the news?" And your saying that actually played a big part in how I interpreted your other comments (such as your exchange with Boothbabe). Clearly, the reason this is such a big deal is not because the school (wrongly) busted some kid for (legal) pills, but that they strip-searched a minor, regardless of guilt on the pills issue. And that is also why I asked if you read the article, because you didn't seem to be getting that.

 

[Will E Worm]

Another good reason to keep your children home and teach them.

This could have been avoided if they would have called her mother. If a parent gives their child pills that is their decision.
The school is there supposedly to teach children not suspect them of crimes.
Tylenol or any equal drug is hardly reason to do this to a child.

This was unnecessary and the school should be investigated. A clear violation of her rights and her parents rights.
They should have called her mother.

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.

There's a good policy, guilty until proven innocent.

Ms. Redding said school officials should have taken her background into account before searching her.

“They didn’t even look at my records,” she said. “They didn’t even know I was a good kid.”

They didn't look at her record. I hope they win a lot of money and the two employees responsible are fired. :hatsoff:

 

[ChefChiTown]

Chef, I think there's a misunderstanding here, because you're running a wrong circular argument (because you have no sufficient cause (in your logic)).

If you think, she would have only herself to blame for what happened in case she had pills on her, you (by extension of that logic) also think the personnel of the school is not to blame.
On the other hand you state, that you don't think what happened at that school was right, which means you don't think, that strip searching her was right. If strip searching her isn't right, then (by logic of the rule of law) the performing agent of the strip search is to blame, thus the school.
As she had pills on her (harmlessness aside) and the strip search happened, by your logic the girl is to blame (because she did something, that wasn't right) and the school wasn't right (and therefore is to blame). You see what I mean?

Unless you clear that argument up, the confusion will persist. If you're such a defender of a black and white worldview, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

HAHAHAHAHA, this is exactly what I'm talking about...

Other than the "she would only have herself to blame" part, where did I say or even imply ANY of that?

Alright, let me put it this way, so people stop putting words into my mouth by assuming everything...

A child brings a pocket knife to school to show his friends. That child's school doesn't allow pocket knives into the school, due to school policy. Any child who is found with a pocket knife will be punished and suspended. Later that day, a teacher suspects that child of having a pocket knife. They search the child and find a pocket knife. That child gets punished and suspended.

Nobody but the child is to blame there. Nobody made the child bring a pocket knife to school, so nobody is to blame, other than the child themself, for getting caught with that pocket knife. The teachers had a suspicion that the child had a pocket knife, which lead to the search. The search lead to the discovery of the pocket knife. The discovery of the pocket knife lead to the punishment of the child.

^^^^^
That is what I'm talking about when I say that there would be nobody else to blame.

Now, with that being said, somebody PLEASE point out where I have said that what these teachers did (the strip search) was right. PLEASE point out where I have said anything that supports these teachers' actions. Quit assuming and quit putting words into my mouth.

FYI - I even said the following, in my initial post in this thread...

Eh, I don't know what to think about this. My first thought was...

"If they HAD found pills, would this even be in the news?"

i really think he's just trolling for fun.

Yeah, I've done nothing but troll for over 7,000 posts. That's what I'm doing.

 

[neighborboy]

Is this really how pathetic the War on Drugs has gotten? A war on Ibuprofen! I could see Oxycontin or Vicodin without a prescription, but Ibuprofen? By this logic, a school with a "zero tolerance" policy on knives could search a 13-year old girl for a plastic knife. Those things could really hurt someone!

 

[Facial_King]

So, Chef, are you willing to say - in a very direct, black-and-white fashion - that you don't think that school officials should be permitted to strip-search minors?

 

[ChefChiTown]

So, Chef, are you willing to say - in a very direct, black-and-white fashion - that you don't think that school officials should be permitted to strip-search minors?

Eh, I don't know what to think about this.

Would you feel better if a police officer had strip searched the girl? Is it the strip search that is the problem or the fact that the teachers who were the one's doing it? Because, personally...

Eh, I don't know what to think about this.

 

[Facial_King]

Would you feel better if a police officer had strip searched the girl? Is it the strip search that is the problem or the fact that the teachers who were the one's doing it? Because, personally...

Eh, I don't know what to think about this.

====

So, we've found something in which you see a gray area, then?

Alright!!!!!!

:glugglug:

(To answer your question, even though you dodged most of mine: I don't think strip-searching of minors should be done by school officials OR police, especially when the issue is about legal drugs, and especially in situations where the parents are not present.)

 

[ChefChiTown]

Eh, I don't know what to think about this.

====

So, we've found something in which you see a gray area, then?

Alright!!!!!!

:glugglug:

(To answer your question, even though you dodged most of mine: I don't think strip-searching of minors should be done by school officials OR police, especially when the issue is about legal drugs, and especially in situations where the parents are not present.)

I said that there are certain things that I can see a gray area in. This is one of those issues. Personally, I wouldn't want some teacher putting their hands on my 13 year old and making them strip naked. But, at the same time, the school was looking for pills. I know that the pills were only the equivalent of 2 Advil, but 13 year olds are stupid idiots and can easily put themselves (and other youngsters) into danger by swallowing those pills. They don't understand how truly dangerous it could be if they swallowed a handful of pills, so I can understand why the school wouldn't want anybody to be bringing pills, of any kind, into the school.

 

[D-rock]

Would you feel better if a police officer had strip searched the girl? Is it the strip search that is the problem or the fact that the teachers who were the one's doing it? Because, personally...

I think the police handle these types of situations a lot more and are better at determining if a search is either warranted or even legal in the first place and are probably better at doing them. As for this situation even the reasoning the school gave for the search is pretty questionable. Plus, hypothetically lets say that the search was warranted, which it wasn't. Even then the girl wouldn't of had to go to some place where the officer that did the search had to interact with her all the time.

 

[Facial_King]

I think the Court was supposed to hear this case yesterday, but I've not seen any reports about it yet...

 

[Facial_King]

So, the Supreme Court ruled, 8-1 (!!!), that the search was illegal. Good call. :glugglug: Didn't stop Clarence Thomas from being a royal dick about the whole thing, though, I see. Almost like he borrowed a page from the pro-torture camp (we can't talk about how we torture the terrorist suspects, because then future prisoners will know what (non-torture torture) methods we use!) Can't say I'm happy, also, about how they are (somehow) letting the school officials off the (liability) hook at the same time that they're saying that the search wasn't legal or legit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_strip_search

Excerpt:

""The court's decision sends a clear signal to school officials that they can strip search students only in the most extraordinary situations," said her lawyer, Adam Wolf of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the search had been legal and the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

In this case, officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look," he said.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

The court also ruled the middle school officials could not be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.

"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.

School lawyers praised the decision not to hold the school officials financially liable."

 

[Facial_King]

Anyone want to weigh in on this - anybody think Clarence Thomas has a good point????