Schools Extend Gun Free Zones Into Your Own Home!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually the police did inform her.

“So, I answered the door. The police officer was… very nice. He explained to me that he was coming to address an issue with my son’s school,” the mother told Fox Baltimore. “And then explained to me that he was here to search for weapons, in my home. And I consented to let him in. And then I, unfortunately, stood there and watched police officers enter my 11-year-old son’s bedroom.”

“The officers that responded were appalled at the call and even commended the set-up that my son has for his toys and commended him also on his respect and understanding of the BB guns,” Sperry wrote on Facebook.

Link to OP's Source

I get the counter argument, but life has taught me that being open and cooperative generally, leads to the best outcome.

a reply to: TheRedneck

School is not the general public. School is supposed to be communication between student and teacher for the sole purpose of instruction.

But school is "public," not private.

In this instance, while the student was at a private residence, there is likely no reasonable expectation of privacy because it was broadcast live, outside the house.

If the teacher had a concern that there was a firearm in the student's possession, he expressed that concern. Did he do it correctly? Perhaps not. Was it justified? Perhaps he (the teacher) was a dick.

As far as expectation of privacy, if someone walking by my house sees me, through a window, kill someone, there is no expectation of privacy. Or if they're walking by and see some pot plants. Or even if I am role playing a kinky death scene with my significant other screaming. Someone sees/hears that and has concerns, they express those concerns. Not saying I agree, but it is what it is.

No reasonable expectation of privacy, but to search my house there must be a warrant.

I said it once and I will say it again: there is a strong likelihood that, were this done to my child, I would hunt the teacher down like a mangy rabid dog and exterminate him/her.

I mean, if premeditated murder is your thing, sure.

It is not open for discussion. Try to hurt my kids and it doesn't matter if one is a man, a woman, an alien from Mars, or a damn grizzly bear. That threat will be exterminated. Period. At the cost of my own life if need be.

It's one thing to give one's life to preserve the life of another when that life is endangered. It's quite another when the life is not in danger.

To each his own.

a reply to: Blaine91555

In this instance, yes, things worked out well. The mother apparently did the right thing, and I am happy it worked out well for her. However, she made her decision, I assume anyway, based on the demeanor of the police.

In my earlier statement of what I would likely do, I stated that I would speak with the police before deciding if they could enter or not. If I were in that situation and the police answered me with an attitude or gave me any indication they had pre-judged me guilty of something, my answer would have been no, get a warrant. While they were doing so, I would be setting up cameras.

All I am saying is that a refusal cannot be used as an indicator of potential guilt. If that is so, there is no right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; the very attempt to refuse entry can be deemed as suspicious and therefore probable cause to search. It would render that right academic at best.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Liquesence

But school is "public," not private.

No. School cannot be considered a public arena, because the law mandates participation of children. There is no reasonable way to opt out. One cannot be forced to arbitrarily surrender their privacy by law.

I mean, if premeditated murder is your thing, sure.

Protecting my family is my thing.

Maybe this will help you to understand so you do not step on the wrong toes someday: My child's comfort means much more to me than another's existence. Much more. Much, much more. Orders of magnitude more. As in...

This is how much my child's comfort means to me: -----------------------


















































































































































This is how much another's existence means to me:-----------------------

Get it yet? Best not to try and force such a comparison.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No. School cannot be considered a public arena, because the law mandates participation of children.

They are not a public "arena", but they are public schools for a reason. The SCOTUS has ruled that Constitutional rights apply to students in school. It stands to reason there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, by default, in public broadcast.

One cannot be forced to arbitrarily surrender their privacy by law.

Expectation of privacy does not extend to displays that are open or viewable to the public, even on one's own property.

Protecting my family is my thing.

Maybe this will help you to understand so you do not step on the wrong toes someday:

See my previous response. It doesn't give you the right to pre-emptively murder anyone for your children's sake simply because "Messin' wit my kid!" if their lives are not at risk or have not been threatened.

But be the badass you claim to be.

a reply to: Liquesence

They are not a public "arena", but they are public schools for a reason. The SCOTUS has ruled that Constitutional rights apply to students in school, so it stands to reason there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, by default.

Their home is not a part of the school system. Perhaps a case can be made that their computer is when connected, but other things in their home are not.

That is the crux of the argument. Do you think a schoolteacher should be able to inspect your home at will and determine what items you may or may not own?

The screenshots are even more suspect. They have been stated by the teacher who took them as not part of the official school record. That makes them private property of the teacher by default. Why does a teacher have the right to take personal photos of a child in their room at home? Is the teacher a pedophile? There must be some issue why these photos are not official and are not being surrendered upon demand.

No one has the right to take personal photos of a child in their home without express permission. No one.

Expectation of privacy does not extend to displays that are open or viewable to the public, even on one's own property.

This is not a public display. It is a closed classroom, not open to the general public.

Even in a publicly-streamed display, the streamer retains ownership of the material streamed. The public has the right to see it, because the streamer granted that right by making it public. The public does not have the right to use it in ways not approved by the streamer. A viewer can use a photo to photoshop pornography, for instance, and be legally liable for misuse of property.

I have to ask this: are you in favor of people taking screenshots of your home without letting you know, and then refusing to show them to you because they are "none of your business"?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Liquesence

I am separating this reply out because I have no intention of continuing this line.

See my previous response. It doesn't give you the right...

This has nothing to do with rights. This has to do with some things are simply not done.

You either understand that or you don't. I sincerely hope you do and are just getting lulz on the Interwebs because you're bored. Otherwise... well, I hope you never grow bold enough to test the resolve of someone like me in real life.

I'm done with this line of discussion. Don't even bother replying.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That is the crux of the argument. Do you think a schoolteacher should be able to inspect your home at will and determine what items you may or may not own?

That's not what happened. The teacher saw a broadcast and was concerned, not knowing who owned it or what it was.

No one has the right to take personal photos of a child in their home without express permission. No one.

Screenshots are not personal photography. And they were taken of a public (nonprivate) broadcast.

Even in a publicly-streamed display, the streamer retains ownership of the material streamed.

They retain ownership of their material. Screenshots are not protected.

I have to ask this: are you in favor of people taking screenshots of your home without letting you know

If I am streaming/broadcasting it, they have every right to screenshot it.

Which is a reason I don't let peeps into my place, physically or virtually.

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
Well looks like people need to set up cordoned off cubicles as a work station so they can’t see anything outside of that cube. Don’t make sh** like this easy for them.

Or a green screen.


The joys and the fun that could be had with a green screen....

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is a Constitutional right to privacy

Though I agree with you 100%... These people will look at anything, consider everything possible, use whatever reason possible to bypass that right by any means necessary. All they need is an excuse to make something illegal 'seemingly' understandably appropriate when you add the right words and the right BS mentality to it.


Then people go... "Oh! Ok... I think... I understand. It's all good now, then".

So much for laws... See... Laws are only good until a democrat word smith is put into play, then all of a sudden, definitions change and busted ideals become the real unseen law that no one can fight against in court unless your resources are undepletable to do so.


I remember hearing mad chants back in Bush Jrs days that conservatives were giving all of their rights away with the homeland security additions. I mean... Yeah, I do believe we have but this isn't any different. It's all the same game, the same players, just a different team name.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I get the counter argument, but life has taught me that being open and cooperative generally, leads to the best outcome.

Unfortunately that officer would not be any deciding factor in court. They'll take his short response and no matter how HE feels about it, ultimately it's up to the people, in the court, in your district/parish/county.

He was there to a job he was required to do. Someone complains, he must look in on it, no matter what his personal beliefs were. I would have thought the same as the officer and I would have made a point to tell the parent the same but that wouldn't have made much of a difference to anyone else. I might have been on that parent's side but I couldn't have done anything since I'm not judge and jury. That only works on homicides! lol

Now had he shot the parent... everything would have been ok and this wouldn't even be on the news.

Just kidding but seriously

Obviously all wrong from the start but they damn sure pushed to have it done anyways. Jobs should really be on the line from this. I just wouldn't blame the officer in this case. Not unless they refused my rights, of course.


This whole situation is just disturbing and very telling.

a reply to: Liquesence

They are not a public "arena", but they are public schools for a reason. The SCOTUS has ruled that Constitutional rights apply to students in school. It stands to reason there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, by default, in public broadcast.

Internet = a dead bill of rights....

We all saw it coming. Now we have it and people know it's wrong... it's still being used as a tool to BREAK the law by acting like your right never existed in the first place. They're not stupid. They know how to get around laws by using something as a counter to that law.

Hence no more bill of rights. It's trumped by new instances that make getting around laws possible.


Privacy? You're broadcasting out of your home. No more privacy since the gadget you have WITHIN your private place makes everything no longer private.

We can start a list... I'll begin:

Internet. Cell Phone. Electric Meters. Neighbors. Google Glass. Fit Bit.


Possibilities are endless.

a reply to: Liquesence

The teacher saw a broadcast and was concerned, not knowing who owned it or what it was.

WHAT?

The broadcast was a virtual classroom setting. Are you seriously claiming the teacher didn't know who she was teaching?

Go back and read what happened. Then we can continue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What in the Hell was she thinking???

No, you may not.

Yes, when you bring a warrant.

Or any number of words with the above context.

allow them into my home...? Oh, hell no. Not without a warrant.

a reply to: Blaine91555

You, my good friend, are completely wrong.

It's an admission of nothing other than I know my rights.

A few months back, I was pulled over by a very nice police officer just after I'd left work. He was utterly professional, and polite.

He then asked if I'd mind if he searched my truck. "Yes, I'd mind very much, officer. No, you can not." No where in those two sentences is any admission of any sort of guilt.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I’m sorry- but you cannot possibly be a conservative or libertarian.

IT ISN’T ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE. Warrants are required, or anything can be used against you. Anything. And you have no idea what laws you, or anyone else, might be breaking, as there are millions of laws on the books. Warrants narrow scope, and protect people’s freedoms.

What the heck? Seriously. The 4th amendment isn’t optional.

a reply to: Liquesence

So... they force us into our homes... then force our children to do remote learning... then claim that this mandatory arrangement now invalidates my privacy? This kid had no choice, and some states are calling cps on those who do t attend. So they changed the rules, and you want me to roll over and ask for a belly rub?

Seriously, and no offense, but are you trolling right now for fun?

Don't care what anyone says. That teacher over stepped their boundaries. According to the picture I see no indication of anything to worry about.

Did she see someone threaten the child with it? Did she see the child grab it and threaten someone else? no? Now imagine if she said she did, told the principle and now the principle has in his mind that a child is in danger and over reacts to the cops then they show up guns drawn? I mean cmon.

What's next? I saw some a small bag of some powdery substance on the table, it must be that china white! call the cops they have druuuuuuuuuugs!

My point is, all it takes is one over reacting teacher and a cop having a bad day getting half a story or even an over-dramatized version of a story for someone to get seriously injured or even killed for powdered sugar or laundry detergent or in this case, BB guns and a bow and arrow on the wall. Now imagine this happened in one of those states that has a no knock search warrant law and they just busted right in.

I don't know about you guys but where I grew up it was common for kids from 9+ yrs old to have BB guns, sling shots, bow n arrows, etc etc and in some cases even real guns because hunting was popular in my place of upbringing.

I hope it never happens but I'm just waiting for that Virtual classroom story where a teacher over reacts, reports it falsely or even out of spite and someone gets harmed because of some overreaction by a teacher.

With that being said, virtual classroom does not equal my home being the school, they do not own my home and my home is not considered "School property" they do not have any right to determine what is and isn't acceptable IN MY HOME but can only request certain things not be VISIBLE to other students which is a fair request. That's as far as school rules extending into ones home can go. Anything further is a violation of my rights and privacy.

Now if the cops came to my home I would have told them, no, you may not search my home. why? Because I said so. Does it admit guilt? No, not at all. The less we exercise our rights, the easier it is for them to take away our rights. You know how that saying goes....Use it or lose it.

a reply to: jidnum

they do not have any right to determine what is and isn't acceptable IN MY HOME but can only request certain things not be VISIBLE to other students which is a fair request.

I'm not sure I am even comfortable with that. Certain limitations, OK, but then again why should I be required to set up an area of my home to someone else's arbitrary standards?

Wearing clothes, for instance, yeah, that's reasonable, duh. I can even see a request of "please ensure no firearms are visible in the background." But does it stop there? "The background is too bright and is distracting." "You can't have a MAGA hat in the background behind you." "You have to have this school-approved screen in the background to ensure no one is treated unfairly... it's only $199.95 at Amazon."

It comes down to this: when the schools implemented virtual classrooms, they gave up a certain amount of autonomy by forcing an intrusion into private residences. It is only fair that the private residences give a little to promote the learning environment. But schools have long established their desire to control everything around them, and that simply will not fly in a virtual setting. We will eventually need laws to determine what schools can and cannot do when it comes to virtual classrooms... great, just great, more silly laws that should never have been needed written by clueless idiots who never should have been elected.

Is it asking to much for a teacher to just teach without all the drama?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

LOL... true, I hear ya. All I'm saying is that will be as far as i'm willing to accept. A "request" to remove visual things. Will I comply with the request? depends on the request. But yes I agree, teachers should chill out and stop being so over the top.