Child is killed during school walk out against gun violence

Its not an absolute.

Just like your right to assemble peaceful. Doh, you basically defeated yourself and you don´t even realize.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You should be ashamed of how you are so quick to insult people who disagree with you.

I´m not quick to insult, I never insulted you in this thread. However speaking of "quick" we went trough this before in this thread. Your constitution and law disagrees with you, so it doesn´t matter what I think. Also, that "insult" card again?

It´s getting arduos.

a reply to: verschickter

You can excercise free speech during a protest, but you´re not protesting everytime you are practicing free speech.

That you are unable to grasp this explains some other logic errors you constantly make.

I grasp it just fine. I think you are having a hard time understanding that my point is that it is not the governments job to differentiate between two and try to control others in one situation over another.

Then you try to iron them out by moving goalposts, using strawmans and overall being a deceiving and fact spinning respectless..person.

I've done no such thing and, again, you appear to be talking out of your ass. I'm only holding you accountable for the things you have said and it appears you want to pick and choose how the government interacts with it's citizens in cases of exercising free speech.

People such as yourself as the reason we have rights to begin with.

originally posted by: verschickter
Since there is a a compulsory school attendance law until a certain age, those rights to peacefully assemble are restricted by that law. :

Can you show me the statute where this is stated by law?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: verschickter

The fact that students are allowed to leave school for a doctor's appointment or to leave early to prepare for a sports game tells me the "compulsory attendance" is selectively enforced. Its not an absolute.

You should be ashamed of how you are so quick to insult people who disagree with you.

The other member is quite mistaken. There is no such thing as compulsory attendance. There is compulsory education. Where that takes place is up to the parents.

I've also not seen any law that states a person's 1st amendment rights are postponed when in a public school.

I think you are having a hard time understanding that it is not the governments job to differentiate between two and try to control others in one situation over another.

I understand just fine that this is your opinion but disagree. So does your system.

originally posted by: verschickter

I think you are having a hard time understanding that it is not the governments job to differentiate between two and try to control others in one situation over another.

I understand just fine that this is your opinion but disagree. So does your system.

I'm not surprised you would disagree. That you would want the government to have more control over it's citizens is concerning, but not surprising.

a reply to: introvert

Where that takes place is up to the parents.

No it´s not, you are again misleading and leaving out facts. If a child is homeschooled it´s a completly different situations. The moment you subscribe your kid to the school system you can´t just make up excuses as a parent or even encourage them to walk out from school like they please to.

If they are in the public system they have to attend except for obvious outstanding reasons like sickness, funerals and similar.

The term compulsory attendance refers to state legislative mandates for attendance in public schools (or authorized alternatives) by children within certain age ranges for specific periods of time within the year. Components of compulsory attendance laws include admission and exit ages, length of the school year, enrollment requirements, alternatives, waivers and exemptions, enforcement, and truancy provisions.

Compulsory age requirements vary by state. Data collected by the Education Commission of the States in March 2000 indicate that the earliest age for compulsory attendance is five, with a range to seven, and the upper age limit varies from sixteen to eighteen. Withdrawal from school prior to the age limit is permissible in some states, provided certain conditions are met.

www.encyclopedia.com...

a reply to: verschickter

No it´s not, you are again misleading and leaving out facts.

No, I am not. I stand by my statement. You are required to educate. You have a choice as to where they are educated.

Again, what you seem to advocate for is a heavy--handed government institution that is willing and able to suppress free speech of others as needed.

Forgive me if I do not agree with that.

Then I reword it for you, easy and simple:

You are required to educate and if you happen to be in the public school system, school attendance law kicks in.

See what happens if you skip school unexcused, they´re coming for you. It is how it is.

a reply to: verschickter

Nothing is an absolute, including the right to bear arms.

So you are out of arguments. And now the one-liner with a random thing that came up your mind is posted. How predictable.

it ammuses me that people are clearly loosing thier minds [1] over this , ie :

student dies in RTC [ road traffic collision ] while :

taking part in anti guns protest

but the same idiots have never raised a voice when

student dies in RTC [ road traffic collision ] while :

attending a " museum visit " , " feild trip " " swimming baths "etc etc etc

this clusterfook = mmismanagemant and failure to " cat herd " students

nothing mmore






[1] - an analogy - one cannot loose what oone does not already possess

This was a child, the boy had not reached the age of majority for any state in the union. He was the responsibility of the school while he was attending class.

As far as being let out for doctor visits or sporting events, these are always going to be under the supervision of a parent or guardian. Would this child have been able to check himself out of class and go to the doctor on his own or attend any other sort of off campus activity without parental and guardian approval and notification?

We do not know what the boy's parents think about the walk out or whether or not they approved of the event or his attendance at same. Unless someone has a news story in which they are interviewed, anyone trying to ascribe to them any sort of motive or point of view of theirs is spouting utter balderdash.

The school was not participating in the event in any capacity other than to provide for a "gathering area" in which those who did participate were to have remained and to make its staff aware.

Free speech?

His parents determine that until he becomes an adult. He could not have been held legally liable for any of his actions nor could he execute any sort of binding agreement due to the fact that he was a minor child. His parents are (or should be) the sole arbiters of his comings, goings, sayings, and silences. Until he becomes an adult and able to be held to legal standards.

Obviously,there are cases where minors have been adjudicated as adults, but there is a lengthy process before that even becomes a possibility.

Unless someone can show where this 11 year old had been emancipated, then any talk of the exercising of 'rights' is smoke to distract from the fact that this boy got caught up in movement we have no way of knowing his actual awareness of.

The very fact that he and his buddies decided to skip the event and cross the highway tells me that they weren't all that interested in the why of what they were doing but rather were just out pushing boundaries as kids will do.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical
That sums it up pretty good.

Kids are going to be kids. The incident could have been avoided if the school did their job and cared about propper supervision. If this was not possible outside, then they should not have provided that gathering area and kept the students inside where they belong during schoolhours.

This would not have been a violation of their rights in terms of free speech or the right to gather, as some would like to make it appear.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
it ammuses me that people are clearly loosing thier minds [1] over this , ie :

student dies in RTC [ road traffic collision ] while :

taking part in anti guns protest

but the same idiots have never raised a voice when

student dies in RTC [ road traffic collision ] while :

attending a " museum visit " , " feild trip " " swimming baths "etc etc etc

this clusterfook = mmismanagemant and failure to " cat herd " students

nothing mmore






[1] - an analogy - one cannot loose what oone does not already possess

....its still the guns fault, if they wasn't protesting over a gun it wouldn't of ever happened.
or lets blame the Ford f150 if the driver would have been driving a Chevy...
Homicides are related to society and the perceived needs of an individual- not the availability of a particular weapon.

a reply to: introvert

I would have and furthermore made sure that the school had opposing views on the subject and not bias. Why this shooting and not all the others? Too many conspiracies around the second for any true blue blooded American to fall for the onesided hyperbole. There are so many truly important issues that Children and young adults could champion but they are not popular mass media lead issues and the children would never be in class.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

To address whether or not the parents were aware of the walk out they should have had to sign a permission slip . My child often goes for walks out of school with either his class or the rest of the school, each and every time there is a walk I have to sign the permission slip, if I don't my child does notleave school grounds.

The school here in question must have a similar system in place to protect the children.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: uninspired
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No, because counting the traffic wasn't an anti gun protest during school hours.

Big difference.

So it's only a big deal because they were protesting guns in your opinion..... Thanks..

Surely you see the difference in a school outing to conduct science amd a school outing to conduct political activism

Absolutely I see the difference, I just think that the level of outrage should be equally distributed if a child is killed while in school supervision.

If I saw you all apply the same level of outrage everytime a child dies in school supervision I would agree with you however I see this as selective outrage.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The school was not officially participating. It was not a sponsored event, any student who walked out of class is going to be potentially given an unexcused absence and that may result in further disciplinary action depending on the students' pattern of attendance.

At best they may have informed the student body of the school's expectations (that every student attend class as assigned) and sent out flyers to parents ahead of time notifying them of the school's stance on the walk out; i.e the school was not officially participating nor were they sponsoring any sort of student protest.

They provided a place near the main campus, the football field and notified the faculty of this arrangement. At worse, they did not notify the parents of the event, or the lack thereof due to the school's official stance of not sponsoring a protest and just assumed that the parents would speak to their children about their responsibility to be in class as expected.

Have there been any interviews with any parents from the school?

Since the school was not officially sponsoring any sort of protest, why would they send permission slips for an event that they considered to be a breach of school policy and a violation state compulsory attendance law?