utbagpiper
Banned
So the freedom to go to or retrieve your family from a public facility isn't a civil right? Gotcha.......
Give it a rest.
So the freedom to go to or retrieve your family from a public facility isn't a civil right? Gotcha.......
Give it a rest.
So I presume that a full time employee at the school is a fairly credible witness.
+1A response is, of course, appropriate. Even a rapid, precautionary response is appropriate.
Here's what that response ought to look like, given the evidence at hand: Shoreline police send a handful (<=6) officers to the school in question to establish a security presence, without interfering with normal activity; Shoreline police send an officer or two to each other school in the district to observe the campuses, without interfering with normal activity; if Shoreline doesn't have enough officers for all of this, it obtains good-will assistance from neighboring jurisdictions and properly deputizes all responding resources; Shoreline notifies neighboring districts and jurisdictions of the situation, leaving them to respond to the report as they choose.
Here's what happened: Shoreline put every single school in the district on lock-down, which is short hand for paramilitary tyranny, for most or all of the school day; parents couldn't contact their children, much less remove them from the situation; if there was a threat inside any given school, the children and staff were locked in with that threat.
Well. If it's that easy to terrorize an entire school district, subvert all rights, and expend those resources, with absolutely no evidence beyond an unsubstantiated claim that something happened in broad daylight during heavy parental traffic, I guarantee you there will be miscreant children effecting these outcomes around the country in the near future. Teach a child that you're a dumb, panicky cow, and that child will treat you like a dumb, panicky cow. And you'll deserve it, every time.
A response is, of course, appropriate. Even a rapid, precautionary response is appropriate.
Here's what that response ought to look like, given the evidence at hand: Shoreline police send a handful (<=6) officers to the school in question to establish a security presence, without interfering with normal activity; Shoreline police send an officer or two to each other school in the district to observe the campuses, without interfering with normal activity; if Shoreline doesn't have enough officers for all of this, it obtains good-will assistance from neighboring jurisdictions and properly deputizes all responding resources; Shoreline notifies neighboring districts and jurisdictions of the situation, leaving them to respond to the report as they choose.
Here's what happened: Shoreline put every single school in the district on lock-down, which is short hand for paramilitary tyranny, for most or all of the school day; parents couldn't contact their children, much less remove them from the situation; if there was a threat inside any given school, the children and staff were locked in with that threat.
Well. If it's that easy to terrorize an entire school district, subvert all rights, and expend those resources, with absolutely no evidence beyond an unsubstantiated claim that something happened in broad daylight during heavy parental traffic, I guarantee you there will be miscreant children effecting these outcomes around the country in the near future. Teach a child that you're a dumb, panicky cow, and that child will treat you like a dumb, panicky cow. And you'll deserve it, every time.
Give it a rest.
Credulous. I don't have to presume; you've demonstrated.
A response is, of course, appropriate. Even a rapid, precautionary response is appropriate.
Here's what that response ought to look like, given the evidence at hand: Shoreline police send a handful (<=6) officers to the school in question to establish a security presence, without interfering with normal activity; Shoreline police send an officer or two to each other school in the district to observe the campuses, without interfering with normal activity; if Shoreline doesn't have enough officers for all of this, it obtains good-will assistance from neighboring jurisdictions and properly deputizes all responding resources; Shoreline notifies neighboring districts and jurisdictions of the situation, leaving them to respond to the report as they choose.
Here's what happened: Shoreline put every single school in the district on lock-down, which is short hand for paramilitary tyranny, for most or all of the school day; parents couldn't contact their children, much less remove them from the situation; if there was a threat inside any given school, the children and staff were locked in with that threat.
Well. If it's that easy to terrorize an entire school district, subvert all rights, and expend those resources, with absolutely no evidence beyond an unsubstantiated claim that something happened in broad daylight during heavy parental traffic, I guarantee you there will be miscreant children effecting these outcomes around the country in the near future. Teach a child that you're a dumb, panicky cow, and that child will treat you like a dumb, panicky cow. And you'll deserve it, every time.
That definition seems to work pretty well. But doesn't seem to have much to do with some rather short term security measures at a government facility like a public school.
Charles
So the freedom to go to or retrieve your family from a public facility isn't a civil right? Gotcha.......
A response is, of course, appropriate. Even a rapid, precautionary response is appropriate.
Here's what that response ought to look like, given the evidence at hand: Shoreline police send a handful (<=6) officers to the school in question to establish a security presence, without interfering with normal activity; Shoreline police send an officer or two to each other school in the district to observe the campuses, without interfering with normal activity; if Shoreline doesn't have enough officers for all of this, it obtains good-will assistance from neighboring jurisdictions and properly deputizes all responding resources; Shoreline notifies neighboring districts and jurisdictions of the situation, leaving them to respond to the report as they choose.
Here's what happened: Shoreline put every single school in the district on lock-down, which is short hand for paramilitary tyranny, for most or all of the school day; parents couldn't contact their children, much less remove them from the situation; if there was a threat inside any given school, the children and staff were locked in with that threat.
Well. If it's that easy to terrorize an entire school district, subvert all rights, and expend those resources, with absolutely no evidence beyond an unsubstantiated claim that something happened in broad daylight during heavy parental traffic, I guarantee you there will be miscreant children effecting these outcomes around the country in the near future. Teach a child that you're a dumb, panicky cow, and that child will treat you like a dumb, panicky cow. And you'll deserve it, every time.
not if we call it a "rather short term security measure"
Barring the parent from the child is nazi level evil imho. It's a common occurrence due to it being more or less widely accepted by the public.
A response is, of course, appropriate. Even a rapid, precautionary response is appropriate.
...
Here's what happened: Shoreline put every single school in the district on lock-down, which is short hand for paramilitary tyranny, for most or all of the school day;
Here's what happened: Shoreline put every single school in the district on lock-down, which is short hand for paramilitary tyranny, for most or all of the school day; parents couldn't contact their children, much less remove them from the situation; if there was a threat inside any given school, the children and staff were locked in with that threat.
Well, if that's how it really happened, then consider the following:
kidnapping
(also spelled kidnaping) n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation. Although it is not necessary that the purpose be criminal (since all kidnapping is a criminal felony) the capture usually involves some related criminal act such as holding the person for ransom, sexual and/or sadistic abuse, or rape. It includes taking due to irresistible impulse and a parent taking and hiding a child in violation of court order. An included crime is false imprisonment. Any harm to the victim coupled with kidnapping can raise the degree of felony for the injury and can result in a capital (death penalty) offense in some states, even though the victim survives. Originally it meant the stealing of children, since "kid" is child in Scandinavian languages, but now applies to adults as well.
It seems we have a fundamental disagreement over the meaning or proper application of certain words.
The response is directed to the area of the threat. In most cases, that means a fire alarm in one part of the building causes some action to be taken in the entire building.
In the article linked to by the OP, it is reported that the threat was made against schools by a visibly armed man whose location could then not be nailed down. Some have already conceded that some precautionary response was warranted at all schools in the area when they responded "+1" to ()penCarry's post about what he thought the proper response was. That post made clear that some response was proper across the district.
So some are quibbling over the exact nature of the response, or trying to circle back and now claim that any district-wide response is inappropriate.
Some have suggested that because only a single school employee witnessed the threat and reported it that that should somehow factor into the equation.
I'm not going to argue whether the response was exactly what it should have been. I have taken issue with characterizing a 2 hour security effort as being "most or all of the day" or as a tyrannical or paramilitary response.
It seems we have a fundamental disagreement over the meaning or proper application of certain words. I doubt further exchanges (either honestly and directly or without benefit of quoting those clearly being responded to) is going to change that. So barring anything new or interesting, I think I'll leave the last word on this one to whomever feels the most compelling need to have it.
Charles
Well, if that's how it really happened, then consider the following:
kidnapping
(also spelled kidnaping) n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation. Although it is not necessary that the purpose be criminal (since all kidnapping is a criminal felony) the capture usually involves some related criminal act such as holding the person for ransom, sexual and/or sadistic abuse, or rape. It includes taking due to irresistible impulse and a parent taking and hiding a child in violation of court order. An included crime is false imprisonment. Any harm to the victim coupled with kidnapping can raise the degree of felony for the injury and can result in a capital (death penalty) offense in some states, even though the victim survives. Originally it meant the stealing of children, since "kid" is child in Scandinavian languages, but now applies to adults as well.
The disagreement does seem to be fundamental. But it's more like the desire of some for more freedom and empowerment of the people, vs those with deep insecurities and fear that desire more control and protection.
It seems to resonate from thread to thread to thread.