Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
Everytime I had to bring in a juvenile I heard a speech about their "rights" and everytime I had to tell them that they have no rights until they
are eighteen, and to expand on that having a cellphones is not a right.
No rights until 18? Really? Since when don't the rights outlined and protected in the US Constitution apply to those under 18? Answer: Never. If you
are telling minors that they don't have rights, then you are flat out giving them false and in my opinion criminally unethical information. A sixteen
year old has exactly the same rights, if say being arrested, that a sixty year old does. The situation is of course different because they are minors
and there may be a curfew or such additional laws, but the additional laws do not mean that they do not have the same basic rights.
Legal guardians can't lock up their kids in the house or tie them down like prisoners. The system believes that convicted criminals, thus of course
guilty (the court system is infallible of course...), have forfeited their rights. Felons can't own firearms for example. But children haven't
forfeited their rights simply by being held to additional laws in many cases. They have their rights pertaining to free speech just as anyone does, or
improper search and seizure. There is no age requirement for Miranda Rights. Anyone stopped has the right to remain silent until a lawyer is present
I am all for cameras in schools if there had been cameras in schools when I went there would have been a lot less students acting up in the
"Acting up in hallways?" It's human behavior to "act up" to different extents in different situations. "Acting up" is a vague description based
on personal opinion. I'm not for putting cameras everywhere just to clamp down on students who run too fast or talk too loudly or have a bit of
About drug tests, students shouldnt have ingested any alcohol or drugs anyway when they do the drug tests they do not arrest the students, they just
noify the parents if the test was positive. The same goes for their vehicles they shouldnt have drugs in their vehicles...THEY ARE STUDENTS.
Again, adults aren't supposed to have drugs either. Libraries are local/state facilities. Why aren't dogs sniffing those cars? Or at federal
facilities like Post Offices? Oh, because students are packing up their cars with drugs and going to school? A town I recently lived in sniffed 600
student cars and found ONE joint in ONE car. Not only is this a waste of taxpayer money, but to boldly infringe where there used to be a semblence of
privacy at schools and suspect everyone equally until proven otherwise is a terrifying trend.
And urine testing? Well, no one in the U.S. without express consent is allowed to take illegal drugs, so why not just drug test us all every day? Once
again, because it is a "guilty until proven innocent" tactic. Unfortunately, schools and parents wind up allowing such things to take place due to
hysteria. Behave because we are watching you! Nothing to hide then why make a fuss? Because it's an intrusion and an infringement on rights when one
is forced to prove innocence without evidence of a crime.
Schools can get away with this because schools are more like private institutions in that parents allow the schools a certain amount of authority just
as the parents have in the home. Schools can't just make up whatever rules they wan't however. And it is important to note that breaking a school
RULE is not the same as breaking a LAW. And just because something winds up being ruled out or dictated in school DOES NOT mean that it is always
either legal or ethically or morally just. Plenty of school rules have been challenged by students successfully in courts.
The ICC (In Car Camera) program has saved thousands of dollars in lawsuits for the police department, most departments now have more than one camera
in the car they have one facing them. ALso if a suspect manages to escape you can have a picture of the on their car.
I know cops love it. When it works in their favor. Simply stated, nearly any time a video of police brutality makes the headlines, IT IS NOT FROM A
POLICE VIDEO. Those videos come from private citizens. Gee, I wonder why the police don't offer their own videos of such crimes? Anyone stopped and
taped by law enforcement in any way should have equal access to those videos. Videos may protect cops from lawsuits, but they also could very well
prove suspects' innocence. Cops threaten people unnecessarily verbally or with unwarranted intimidation. For example, "You shut the (hell) up or
I'll really shut you up" while pulling into an unlit alley for instance over an unproven misdemeanor. Citizens still pay for all that nifty
surveillence equipment after all. No one in law enforcement is infallible. That's why we have courts.
The majority of people don't go around committing crimes. But everyone is monitored more and more because a minority of people do. It doesn't take
long until the monitoring and police state mentality of guilty until proven innocent tramples on everyone's god given right to live a life that
includes a reasonable expectation and amount of privacy.
[edit on 13-2-2007 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]