High school senior jailed, kicked out of school, and may lose Army dream

Rusty Young Man said:

Another case of "zero-tolerance" nipping another would-be Law-Abiding Citizen's faith in society in the bud.

Click to expand...

Society ≠ government, and I choose to believe that this sort of thing serves as an object lesson in that very fact.

marshaul said:

Society ≠ government, and I choose to believe that this sort of thing serves as an object lesson in that very fact.

Click to expand...

I think that society approves of this type of gov't behavior ... for the children.

Still, being 100% right does not mean squat.

marshaul said:

Society ≠ government, and I choose to believe that this sort of thing serves as an object lesson in that very fact.

Click to expand...

+1

And hopefully more and more of our young will realize what a looser the government is and not work/serve it.

i am just a tad curious about a few things...

1. where are the young man's caregiver(s) who left him in jail for 18 days, no comments about any family not able or can't afford the bail especially around the holidays.

2. do not understand the need for the county to administer a psy eval while in jail? if authorities felt he was psychotic he would be put on a three day hold in a hospital for mental evaluation.

3. i think you will discern his attorney of record is court appointed.

wish the young man well.

ipse

WalkingWolf said:

Another person that is no harm to society that may permanently be stripped of his right to self defense by lunatics in the school system. I had a pocket knife on my person almost my entire time in the school system, if I remember correctly since about the 4th grade. It was common.

What the hell has happened to our country.

Click to expand...

It has gone to hell and the nuts are running the asylum. I too, commonly carried a pocket knife in school; grade school through high school. It was just something we did.

solus said:

i am just a tad curious about a few things...

1. where are the young man's caregiver(s) who left him in jail for 18 days, no comments about any family not able or can't afford the bail especially around the holidays.

2. do not understand the need for the county to administer a psy eval while in jail? if authorities felt he was psychotic he would be put on a three day hold in a hospital for mental evaluation.

3. i think you will discern his attorney of record is court appointed.

wish the young man well.

ipse

Click to expand...

No comments about the possibility that a family couldn't afford the original $500,000 bail price? Yeah, ok, because that's not a reasonable comment (sarcasm and then some implied).

Finally it was dropped to $50,000 which is when I believe he was bailed.

solus said:

i am just a tad curious about a few things...

1. where are the young man's caregiver(s) who left him in jail for 18 days, no comments about any family not able or can't afford the bail especially around the holidays.

2. do not understand the need for the county to administer a psy eval while in jail? if authorities felt he was psychotic he would be put on a three day hold in a hospital for mental evaluation.

3. i think you will discern his attorney of record is court appointed.

wish the young man well.

ipse

Click to expand...

Indeed there are more questions than answers at this point.

SouthernBoy said:

It has gone to hell and the nuts are running the asylum. I too, commonly carried a pocket knife in school; grade school through high school. It was just something we did.

Click to expand...

My long time employer prohibits ALL weapons by signage that does not have force of law in my state, but they can terminate one for violation of there "rule". As such I carry no weapons. I do have a 4in folding "letter opener" at all times!

I HATE zero-tolerance rules. They are tools of the lazy to keep them from ever having to use reason or logic to make a judgment call.

Pathetic.

JoeSparky said:

My long time employer prohibits ALL weapons by signage that does not have force of law in my state, but they can terminate one for violation of there "rule". As such I carry no weapons. I do have a 4in folding "letter opener" at all times!

Click to expand...

Though since UT is an at-will employment state, you can be fired for any reason (that does not violate a civil right) or even for no reason at all. So, what they don't know can't hurt you anymore than toeing the line anyway.

Now, if we could just find an innocuous way to label a firearm as a "tool," instead of a weapon (which is also a tool, darn it), we might be on to something!

Couldn't it be construed that prohibiting weapons is itself a violation of our civil rights, as in the right to keep and BEAR arms?

MAC702 said:

Though since UT is an at-will employment state, you can be fired for any reason (that does not violate a civil right) or even for no reason at all. So, what they don't know can't hurt you anymore than toeing the line anyway.

Now, if we could just find an innocuous way to label a firearm as a "tool," instead of a weapon (which is also a tool, darn it), we might be on to something!

Click to expand...

I do know that employer does not like it when I've told them in the past that a quick wit, tongue, and a pen are POWERFUL WEAPONS---- which they have "prohibited"!

MAC702 said:

Though since UT is an at-will employment state, you can be fired for any reason (that does not violate a civil right) or even for no reason at all. So, what they don't know can't hurt you anymore than toeing the line anyway.

Now, if we could just find an innocuous way to label a firearm as a "tool," instead of a weapon (which is also a tool, darn it), we might be on to something!

Click to expand...

as of 2000, 43 states are 'at-will' and you can be terminated for civil rights as it will be couched as something else so it is up to the employee to pursue the injustice against the employer.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

ipse

solus said:

as of 2000, 43 states are 'at-will' and you can be terminated for civil rights as it will be couched as something else so it is up to the employee to pursue the injustice against the employer.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

ipse

Click to expand...

I can attest to employers doing just that. In the last six years, I've been fired for being gay, and/or Athiest, and had three employers change the reason of termination to a "violation of cellphone policy", which a lawyer said they needed audio or video proof of work-place harassment, which is hard to do when the work place has metal detectors that can pick up the smallest electronics. Two other employers fired me for keeping firearms in my car despite their no weapons signage, and despite KY Law mandating employees cannot be fired for keeping weapons in their cars on company property. Both cases employers cited various other reasons for firing me; my lawyer did get one employer to back-track and re-hire me on threat of a lawsuit for violating KY law, but then fired me for wearing khaki's in the work place because some unknown, and un-stated rule called for blue jeans only.

At-will is just another term for "F**k you, Drone."

Sorry to go further off topic than this thread already went, but I had to interject with personal experience in case someone thinks that Corporations, and companies never break laws and never fires someone for a civil right and changes the reasons later on to evade the law... Despite what GOP and Libertarian friends think, Corporations and companies are just as heinous as our Government.

Please try to keep on track with the original stream of thought as defined by the OP of this thread.

DrakeZ07 said:

Despite what GOP and Libertarian friends think, Corporations and companies are just as heinous as our Government.

Click to expand...

The issue with corporations is the provision of limited liability. Essentially, corporations enable the placement of folks in decision making capacities without concomitant risk. Personal risk on the part of decision-makers is the primary mechanism by which a market mitigates irresponsible decision-making.

Blanket statements such as yours imply superficial appreciation of the subject.

The complete abandonment of any sort of causal train, or any attempt to create or imply one, suggests to me that you're speaking out of something far closer to partisan talking points than true understanding.

For instance, government is not heinous "just because". Government engenders certain attractors, and these lead to the seemingly universal failure of government. Specifically, government is the legitimization of coercive force. Coercive force represents unlimited potential for personal gain. Because of this, in practice government attracts those seeking personal gain. Government inherently is the societal normalization of one group asserting effective ownership over all other groups. Therefore, it should be no surprise that government is filled with those who seek to use a de-facto ownership of others to their ends.

A blanket statement about "companies", on the other hand, is difficult to defend. Plenty of companies exist not under systems of distorted incentive. The vast majority of these are sustainable, profitable, and nonaggressive.

In fact, there is a nearly perfect correlation between the existence of "limited liability", and the existence of distorted incentives and outcomes and aggressively risky management.

Moreover, when one considers that the limited liability corporation is an artificiality wholly dependent on government, we can assign ultimate blame for negligent/aggressive corporate management on the perverse incentives represented and furthered by government.

So, no, "companies" aren't "just as heinous" as is our government.

Every form of government has corruption, some more, some less. The only way to limit corruption is limit government.

WalkingWolf said:

Every form of government has corruption, some more, some less. The only way to limit corruption is limit government.

Click to expand...

+1 And I would say radically so.