Originally posted by PistolPete
It has nothing to do with a police state, nothing to do with the President, and everything to do with, as seekerof said, litigation. Which we as
American people brought upon ourselves.
Yes, this girl is a criminal. She's guilty of assault and destruction of public property, just to name a few.
Funny how people always know how to handle a situation they weren't in better than the people that were.
Technically she IS a criminal, but she didn't have to be. If the laws were different, she would simply be a child with a behavior problem, nothing
adults couldn't handle.
I disagree with you that a litigious society is not a form of police state. The people who benefit MOST from a police state are the lawyers. By
criminalizing 75% of the country through various laws, the lawyers have essentially guaranteed their steady flow of clients. This was of course
necessary the moment there were more students in law school in any given year than practicing lawyers. Supply and demand.
In the case of America, the demand was too high for criminals, the supply couldn't support the demand. However, rather than decrease the number of
lawyers, this country chose to increase the number of criminals.
There are crimes that necessitate the police, certainly. Kids with a joint, or kids throwing temper tantrums, or kids who write stories about zombies
taking over their school, are not in need of police intervention, in my humble opinion. These kids are in need of active, concerned parents, and a
stern, uncompromising school system.
I understand the position being taken by those who don't think the teachers should be put in harms way, and who think the child needs to be protected
at all costs, but think about these two goals for a second...
No child should be able to hurt an adult (severely) without the aid of some kind of weapon. Are police really better at protecting people from harm
than teachers, parents, and school administrators? Maybe, but I doubt it.
I think this is a clarion call to change those laws that criminalize teachers and parents for disciplining their children. Most people can agree
there is a wide margin between abuse and discipline. I don't think we need to confuse the two, especially not if it proves to be a detriment to the
children, who are the number one priority (or at least they should be).
I'm not arguing procedure, I'm arguing precedent. The precedent needs to change, in my opinion.