Schools Extend Gun Free Zones Into Your Own Home!

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: TheRedneck

"According to Sperry, the spy teacher took a screenshot of the boy’s bedroom, which is incredibly creepy and a violation of the family’s privacy. When the mother demanded to see the screenshot taken by the creeper-teacher, she was told she would not be allowed to view it because it wasn’t part of his official school record."

The teacher is a school district employee, teaching the child, during school hours. If the screenshot is NOT part of the student's "official school record" then the teacher has no business having it. With some of the dumbass laws they have concerning stalking and pedophilia I'd be surprised if the teacher hasn't broken a law with that screenshot.

That’s absolutely nuts, no way in hell that flies with me, I would be beyond pissed. I would demand to see and have the pics removed from the teachers possession, they can comply or I’d get the police involved to look at ALL of the teachers employed at that school private pics of any children on their computers.

Like Red said there’s a few unsettling issues that I have major problems with. Parents have to start standing up to this draconian behavior, they’re our kids not theirs, they apparently need to be reminded of this.

I had a issue which I felt was a gross overreach by my child’s HS and confronted the school on the matter, needless to say they didn’t care for me much after that but the problem got resolved rather quickly.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I for one would like to thank you for taking up for that kid. Had you called, here's what would likely have happened:

The police would have shown up to investigate. Now, chances are the cops would have used some common sense and realized this was a mischief call, but there's always those few who would have been looking for some excitement. If one of them had gotten involved, the child would have been surrounded by the police throwing questions at him... "Where is your mother? Does anyone beat you? How long were you alone here? Does your mother have a criminal record?" A kid that young would be terrified! Then when the mother came back out to find her car with her son inside surrounded by the cops, she would have freaked out (like any mother would) thinking what has happened to my son?

Now we would have a freaked out mother being confronted by ticked off cops... that does not end well. The boy would likely have watched his mother handcuffed in front of him, which would have sent him into hysterics. Now the police have a reason to further accuse the mother because she has obviously raised a distraught child and that, of course, is indicative of child abuse. There is a very, very good chance under those circumstances that the mother would have been arrested on suspicion of child abuse, the boy would have been hauled off to be a ward of the courts, and the car would have been impounded.

Then the mother would have a court date to appear and answer charges of child abuse. During that trial, she would have been asked several very personal (and skewed) questions... "Have you ever hit your child?" "No... his daddy spanks him when he's bad, but..." "So your husband beats your child?" "No, no, it's not..." "Ma'am, do I need to remind you, you are under oath?" "But we love our boy!" "Do you think beating someone is an expression of love?"

Chances are she would be convicted if she did not know how the game is played... certain law firms will make backroom deals with the judges in family court to allow their clients to get off, but anyone being represented by a different firm is just out of luck. That list is not published anywhere... it's a back room deal! So chances are she would be convicted and have a criminal record. But the court is merciful... time served and a year's probation.

Back at home, the house is empty because the child is gone... and if there are any other children in the home they are gone as well "for their own safety." DHR (or whatever one's local agency is called) is now involved, as is the mother's probation officer. For the next year, every action they take will be scrutinized by people who believe their purpose in life is to show the couple as bad parents.

The kids, in the meantime, are farmed out to foster families. Some are good, caring people. Others, not so much. If they get one of those others, their lives will be hell... some of these foster parents just do it to have kids around to do the chores (and to get the money from being a foster parent) and don't really care about these kids. At the same time, the kids' actions are under tight scrutiny by the DHR... after all, remember their very purpose in life is to prove the parents are bad people. Many kids who find themselves in this situation grow up to be thugs, bullies, criminals... society has taken them from a loving home and put them through a life of hell, so they rebel.

All because the kid got to keep playing on his tablet for 10 minutes.

This is a parent's life in the United States of America. This is also why I did what I did in my first encounter with the DHR here. My wife and I had a fight... nothing major, no punches were thrown, but she got mad enough to call the cops on me. The cops showed up, I explained what happened, and luckily the cops realized what was happening and left. I thought it was over, until a few days later when my wife interrupted me working (I worked at home at the time) about a lady from the DHS being there. I walked outside and she introduced herself as the local head of the DHR, following up on a complaint.

I explained what had happened, but she insisted on "following up." I explained the kids were at school, but then added the following... partly paraphrased, but pretty damn close to an actual quote:

"Look, I know what you people do. My kids are fine. But I swear to you, if you ever try to hurt my kids or take them from us, I will bury your ass on this mountain and no one will ever know what happened to you."

She looked me in the eyes, nodded, and left. We had one more visit from a worker, early one morning before sunup. The house was cold; an early cold front had taken most people by surprise. Our kids were sleeping warmly under several layers of blankets (we kept plenty of blankets on the beds just in case). She marched into the house past my wife, into the kids' rooms, and threw their covers back "to make sure they were warm." My wife called me, and I got up. I grabbed the woman by the collar, slammed her against the wall, and said "Give me one good reason why you don't die right here."

I didn't kill her (obviously), but I did go down later to DHR and talked to the same head of the DHR. I essentially told her that woman would be shot as a trespasser the next time I saw her on my property, no warning and no questions asked. That was the last I saw of her, or anyone from the DHR. I did hear about the woman who froze my kids... the local paper reported a few years later that she had been fired for striking a child.

Now, I don't recommend anyone else try that kind of tactic... I have been told by several people that there is a look I get when I lose my temper that screams how serious I am. That's probably why I am not in jail today; people tend to believe me when I explain what I am ready to do to them. Someone else might not be as lucky.

But my point is that, in the situation you describe, that one little show of respect for the child, being allowed to be alone for 10 short minutes (when the mother was probably glancing out the window every minute or so to be sure) could have turned into a disaster for everyone involved, just because of one damn busybody who wanted to shove her oversized snoz into someone else's business. I would probably have done far worse than you did. May she somehow, someday, pay dearly for her actions. Lord only knows how many other families have been ruined by those actions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: mtnshredder

I had a issue which I felt was a gross overreach by my child’s HS and confronted the school on the matter, needless to say they didn’t care for me much after that but the problem got resolved rather quickly.

I had the opposite experience... the schools pretty much accepted me after my encounters. No more problems.

I did have a guy I knew whose kids went to school with mine who was banned from the school for something very similar. I don't know the details, but I'm glad they didn't try that with me. I actually got along well with most of the teachers and principals... there were just the few, and most of them didn't last long after our encounters.

I guess it's that look people say I have...

Again, my purpose here is not to make myself look like Billy Joe Bad Ass, but to let people know there are lines that they don't need to cross. I'm seeing and hearing about a lot of people who don't think there are any lines for them... and that is not only not true, but it can also be very, very, very hazardous to one's health and well-being. If you just have to report something, make damn sure you know it's actually a problem before you jump. The consequences can be very not pretty.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JSpader
a reply to: Blaine91555

So much wrong with that statement that I might think you were a communist.

Only if the person thinking that had no idea what communism is.

For capitalism to flourish, it must exist in a civilized society.

I'd point out that at no time did I say anyone has to cooperate with the police, or that I'd want it that way. I simply pointed out the pitfalls of being uncooperative, compared to cooperating if there is nothing to hide. The mother showed good critical thinking skills and the outcome was a good one. At the same time she was a good role model for her child, who now knows that if you have nothing to hide, it's wise to not act like you do.

Is it your take on the world that if you don't agree with something, the go-to response is to resort to childish name-calling for attention?

The advice to never talk to or cooperate with law enforcement, is advice defense attorneys give to the criminals they represent. Most people cooperate because they are not criminals.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's definitely the real story here, not whether or not the mother should have cooperated with the police. That just draws attention away from the issue of the schools actions.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Where I live, the police would have detained her until CYS got there. Somebody with CYS would have dropped a note to the media and the television news trucks would show up. They would find out where she worked and asked them how was it that a child abuser was working for you. If she had any kind of record at all it would be all over the news. Pure BS.

1991 I testified in front of a Judge that I overheard a CYS worker bragging about how she had a new born taken from her Mother because of a grudge she had against her from high school.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Yes, it has become a far-ranging issue that affects people slowly, a few here, a few there, over time and still manages to achieve the end result of destroying families and weakening our society. To attempt to focus on the trivial details, like whether or not the mother should have allowed a search, is to effectively dismiss the real issue.

The true criminals here are the teacher and the principal... not the cops. They were doing their job, and as it turns out, did it very well IMO. They received a complaint, checked it out, found it bogus, and left. I salute them for that.

True child abuse does not need to be ferreted out using illegal spying tactics. It presents itself pretty clearly before all is said and done.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JIMC5499

Where I live, the police would have detained her until CYS got there. Somebody with CYS would have dropped a note to the media and the television news trucks would show up. They would find out where she worked and asked them how was it that a child abuser was working for you. If she had any kind of record at all it would be all over the news. Pure BS.

As I told Blaine, it has become a systemic issue in society. I once thought it was just our DHR... nope, it is country-wide from what I hear.

1991 I testified in front of a Judge that I overheard a CYS worker bragging about how she had a new born taken from her Mother because of a grudge she had against her from high school.

I hope she received proper punishment and the family she hurt were re-united... but I doubt that is the case.


TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The Mother and child were reunited, two CYS employees lost their jobs and the County settled with the Mother for a high six figures of taxpayer dollars. No charges were brought against the CYS workers and they found jobs with CYS in the next county over. Kind of like how they do it with bad cops. You know Union.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Schools using the pandemic and the need for online classes to spy on households, is about as Orwellian as it can get. It's very troubling. Scary in fact.

At first, it seemed that China was quickly becoming like us. Now it seems like we are moving towards being like China's surveillance state.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is a Constitutional right to privacy that is not over-ridden by anyone's personal opinion of what one may or may not have legally in their home.

The right to privacy is not absolute.

Do you think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy if one is broadcasting/streaming to the publicf from within one's private home?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Most people cooperate because they are not criminals.

You didn't watch the video.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Saying no is an indicator of guilt, so if there is nothing to hide, you should always say yes.

Uh, no. That's some Bush era "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" mentality at work. There is a reason the law requires a warrant to search a home.

a reply to: Liquesence

Do you think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy if one is broadcasting/streaming to the publicf from within one's private home?

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

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. If you have any intentions of trying this with someone's child, please, for your own sake, consider that.

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.

TheRedneck

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have no argument with peoples right to question authority or deny entrance. My point was that cooperating is a smart move in circumstances like this one. It gave the predictable outcome of the school looking like Orwellian assholes and that mother looking like the good person she is, while maintaining a good relationship with the authorities, who are now on her side.

Being contrary, just to be contrary in a situation like that is less than good critical thinking. The police were just doing their jobs. The school is the culprit here.

a reply to: JIMC5499

The Mother and child were reunited, two CYS employees lost their jobs and the County settled with the Mother for a high six figures of taxpayer dollars.

Good. But the money should not have come from the taxpayers unless her actions were shown to be systemic and/or sanctioned by the DHR.

No charges were brought against the CYS workers and they found jobs with CYS in the next county over.

Not good. At the minimum, they should have gotten new positions sweeping the bathrooms in the county jail.

I guess it was systemic and sanctioned.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Blaine91555

Here's my sole issue with that... The American Justice system MUST operate under "innocent until PROVEN guilty" or we're basically in total collapse. The idea that someone insisting on a warrant before permitting the cops into their home, particularly when said cops are there thanks to utter bull#, is "being uncooperative" or "contrary" is something I strongly disagree with. First and foremost, in this era of outright rioting over the death of a scumbag thug, expecting the bare minimum of legal adherence by the cops (AKA a warrant) is anything but contrary. The schools in America are total #... that's not even debatable anymore. The simple fact is that the cops do need to be held accountable for this type of crap alongside the schools. The schools are breaking the law and violating Americans' rights... that said, they have zero authority over the police, so WTF were the dumbass cops doing at the kid's house in the first place? They should have told the school "go screw" and moved on with their day. Doing so is the only rational way we will stop these out of control schools from furthering their agendas.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Being contrary, just to be contrary in a situation like that is less than good critical thinking. The police were just doing their jobs. The school is the culprit here.

In this case, yes, it worked out. However, things could have gone sideways very easily had one bad cop been involved. That's why I said earlier I would ask first why the police were there, and cooperate or not based on the answers. If one of them said something that made me think they expected me to be guilty of something before they got there, no, I would not cooperate; you want in? Show me a warrant. In the meantime, I'll be setting up the cameras.

That right to refuse entry without a warrant should never be taken for granted, nor used as a reason to suspect.

TheRedneck

inetersting poster

To put behind the kid's door.

Could be a source of revenue for some lawyers.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'd agree the police should have told the school no. Although as far as they knew the kid could have been in a dangerous environment.

As far as her cooperating, I imagine it was second nature for her.

I'm not opposed to your point. In fact, I'd not be opposed to an Act, so it applies to all States, mandating that the only way a home can be entered and searched, is with a warrant in hand. The only exception being to defend life and property.