Strip Search Of 10-Year-Old Prompts Complaint Against Elementary School

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
i used to be a store security guard in north carolina and if i had done this to a suspected shoplifter i would have been breaking the law it would be considered assualt. also if i detained a suspect who was found not to have any stolen property on them then i would be brought up on charges of unlawful detention or false imprisonment. and me and my store could be sued in both cases this principal thinks like alot of idiots that because they work for state they have same powers as law enforcement they do not. and yes my grammar i learned in nc also so if educators spent more time teaching instead or crap like this children might learn sometghing. all this boy did was try to do the right thing and ended up percecuted for it/




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bryanm61
 


New Jersey v. T.L.O. does not deal with strip searches. It also did not deal with younger students but high school students.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding - did deal with a strip search however the reason for the qualified immunity was based on vagueness of the law, which resulted in the view of actions not being clearly criminal. They did hold the strip[ search was a violation of the childs 4th amendment rights though.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. If that were any of my 3 children, I would sue the fire out of her and get her thrown in jail!



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Wow... is 2012 the everybody go crazy year or what? And to think of all the crazy things that are happening in every other country that we don't know about. Then again, it's probably the norm; just possibly more publicized due to the internet and computers getting cheaper and cheaper. Still... I guess the principle doesn't want her job any more. Stripping, fondling, degrading a child over 20 dollars. Really? 20 dollars? Then she has the audacity to claim it's within her legal right when all the evidence she had prior to the search was hearsay? That kid should receive a hefty cheque if his case is properly substantiated. At least when he grows up he could always tell his friends his principle fondled him elementary. Then again, I'm not sure if she's worthy to brag about.
edit on 16-12-2012 by PatriotAct because: 1.618



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
By the sound of it the mother is going to litigate. This is the part where the teacher/principal is taught. Losing your license, being fined or jailed or both isn't worth 20 bucks. Caring for kids while breaking their civil liberty?? Good luck with that one lady.
edit on 16-12-2012 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
If it was my kid i would go up and knock his teeth out. I know you will probably think that is the wrong thing to do but I guarantee he won't do it ever again. not to my kid or anyone Else's.

The question is will you look out for the children of your neighbor? They are people in your community. Not long ago people used to do this. Now, it is an every family for themselves mentality. I do believe in strength in numbers, family, and community.
edit on 16-12-2012 by jlafleur02 because: (no reason given)


Look at newtown shooter. I will bet that no one was allowed to spank him as a child. Neighbors that yelled were repoted to cops. A general coddling by society. This gave him the mentality to do whatever he wanted. Add the fact that he was mental unstable and you get things like this. Look at all the other shootings. There will be more and that pisses me off to no end. Thanks to all the tree hugging a s s bags that made this happen
edit on 16-12-2012 by jlafleur02 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yes, I agree with everything you said, Xcathdra. I mentioned T.L.O. because that was the case that clearly established school administrator's right to search students.

For the posters who mentioned assault, that's a part of the complaint by Justin's parents, although it would appear they're suing for civil damages as opposed to bringing criminal charges.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
That's pretty disgusting, people in positions of authority really let their "power" get to their heads sometimes. She shouldn't be charged with child molestation, as the intent wasn't to sexually molest the child. She should be sued, however.



I think she should be busted for molestation as well. As someone mentioned, they wouldn't think twice about dropping that charge on a man...if it were a man who had done this. There are many young men in prison now for the better part of their lives for a female who told them that she was 18 and mutually agreed to have sex with the male.....his intentions were not to rape or molest her, as it was mutual, however.....he will spend the better part of his life in prison.

So, intention should not be considered in this case, simply because she's a woman. Equality means accepting the good AND the bad of what we men have actually had to endure in this lifetime. Women today have never had to suffer this oppression that they now reap the rewards for....men do suffer this type of injustice on a daily basis. That is happening today and has been happening for some years now. There are lot's of innocent men in prison because of the lies of a woman and the favoritism of a court

This woman should be made an example of...the same as if it were a man doing it. Welcome to Equality.
edit on 16-12-2012 by kcabmi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 
Personally, I don't give one flying fig what was or wasn't going through her mind. If she stuck her hand down the underwear of my son or any of my stepsons I'd be in that school so fast the yellow lines on the road would be piled up behind my truck, and she'd know for an absolute fact I was there!



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I'm still trying to work out how running her fingers down his bare ribs could be part of a strip search, that's way too creepy in my opinion.

It doesn't matter how the parents handle this now the damage is done, they have to live the fact it happened to their child and they couldn't protect him. The child will never forget what happened to him, it will affect him even if it can't be seen. Life in school will never be the same.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I do not believe these actions were appropriate, however, if it had been the school nurse (without any sort of touching under the underwear) I think it would have been more acceptable. I do not care what nurse sees me nekkid, but a school administrator? no way



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
That's pretty disgusting, people in positions of authority really let their "power" get to their heads sometimes. She shouldn't be charged with child molestation, as the intent wasn't to sexually molest the child. She should be sued, however.


#1 You have no idea what the intention of this "woman" was, we know only of her actions.

#2 We do not prosecute crime based on intent, only on the crimes themselves.


Honestly your honor I didn't intend to commit a mass murder, I only intended to rob them all
....see how silly that sounds?


Intent is an integral part of the criminal justice system. So much so that for much of our legal history criminal intent was necessary to constitute a crime. In other words no criminal intent no crime.

Albeit this has changed in more recent years to some extent. However, as far as I'm aware, molestation still requires a clear criminal intent. However things such as child endangerment do not.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I shall call a spade a spade.

This Woman used Her administrative authority (read power) to satisfy Her own sexual cravings.

In short She is a pervert and must be dealt with accordingly.

IMO



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bryanm61
 


"Unfortunately, as outrageous as this search seems, there are at least two Supreme Court cases which have spoken to this: New Jersey v. T.L.O., and Safford Unified School District v. Redding. In these cases, the Court held that a) school administrators DO have the right to search students (doesn't have to be a law enforcement officer), and b) the criteria for search are lower than when outside of school ("mere suspicion" versus "probable cause"). "

IM pretty sure that means locker, bags, pockets, car in school lot. Not taking the freakin kids clothes off. If an officer cannot interrogate a child with out a guardian, how they hell can they take his clothes off stick hands down his underwear and just even touching the kid with no clothes on accept underwear and socks? with out a guardian present? Add to that there is a huge sweeping case for a child pedo ring all over the world encircling schools, police, churches, and governments ect ect. And we should just trust this skank because she is a principle?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
What is wrong with scoold today????
They think childrendon't have rights afforded to them by theConstition???



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


The specifics of this case are somewhat extreme though. This was not a search, a pat down and a turning out of the childs bag and pockets. This was a strip search, and those are the business of professional law enforcement.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by machinist47
What is wrong with scoold today????
They think childrendon't have rights afforded to them by theConstition???
The government wants these children used to living in a police state. They are less likely to resist when they grow up if indoctrinated as children. I give you as evidence most persons born since ~1984.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by racer451
 


So... because a six year old bought a gun to school (which would NOT require a strip search to locate, and is therefore largely irrelevant to the specific incident being discussed) you are ok with the idea of some body putting thier hands down a little kids pants? Good luck with that!

Reality check, a gun on a six year old could be found with a bag search, because theres no way they could hide a firearm in thier waistband. No one is speaking out against a search for weapons, that will blatantly not involve an invasion of the childs rights to any significant degree, but there is no way in hell that ANY thing could justify strip searching a ten year old. Nothing.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
There would have to be overwhelming "probable cause" (ie reliable eye witness) before I would sanction a strip search of a 10 year old. Why not call the parents to the school and ask them to do it?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
All the bs in public schools makes me glad I don't have kids. I couldn't handle the stress. I think this woman needs some serious disciplinary action.
Her actions were totally unacceptable, and had she been a man, she'd already be jailed.
There was no need to put her hands down a child's underwear. And I think it should be investigated further, to see if she has done this to others.





top topics
 
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join