It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Turq1
Originally posted by roadgravel
Schools have dress codes end of discussion. This is actually promoting criminal behavior and the defenders do not see it. Break the rules and what don't go to jail why do we want to teach this?
Where is the state or federal law that states breaking a school dress code is a criminal offense.
You guys can't be this dense....
It has nothing to do with the clothes, it's the obstruction part that is a criminal offense.
He probably did talk his mouth off to the officer; He could have been a bit more prudent and kept the shirt on and there wouldn't be a criminal offense, but he was probably nervous when confronted by the officer and as a defense mechanism talked way too much and put up a stink. Hence, obstruction.
Smallest dogs can bark the loudest....something the dad might want to keep in mind.
And no, even if the case wasn't dismissed, he wouldn't be going to jail for any amount of time, just wouldn't realistically happen.edit on 6/16/2013 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Soloprotocol
I think the boy should be sentenced to wear a " I love Justin Bieber" T-shirt for six months...That'll teach him..
Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by MysterX
Oh, please. Don't pull that projection crap with me. I'm not the weak one. The kid was at school. He doesn't get to do as he pleases at school. Like I said, deliberately picking a fight to play the victim. Can't really blame the kid .He was obviously raised by a coward and an idiot. Like father, like son. I was raised to understand that if I pick a fight, I better be prepared to win it. I don't just go around deliberately trying to get in trouble with the establishment with the sole purpose of whining like a beech when I don't get my way.
No sympathy.
Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by Kreyvic
I'm not a male, don't ever insult me like that again. Personal attacks are not allowed here.
Oh, and the consensus means nothing to me because the source is full of useless testosterone.edit on 16-6-2013 by skepticconwatcher because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by roadgravel
Originally posted by Turq1
Originally posted by roadgravel
Schools have dress codes end of discussion. This is actually promoting criminal behavior and the defenders do not see it. Break the rules and what don't go to jail why do we want to teach this?
Where is the state or federal law that states breaking a school dress code is a criminal offense.
You guys can't be this dense....
It has nothing to do with the clothes, it's the obstruction part that is a criminal offense.
He probably did talk his mouth off to the officer; He could have been a bit more prudent and kept the shirt on and there wouldn't be a criminal offense, but he was probably nervous when confronted by the officer and as a defense mechanism talked way too much and put up a stink. Hence, obstruction.
Smallest dogs can bark the loudest....something the dad might want to keep in mind.
And no, even if the case wasn't dismissed, he wouldn't be going to jail for any amount of time, just wouldn't realistically happen.edit on 6/16/2013 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)
Yes, the point I was making was in response to dress code being a crime, which it is not.
Still overboard. Have a parent come and get the kid at school.
Originally posted by Lipton
reply to post by Turq1
I don't think that anyone is upset that schools have some sort of dress code, however the teacher in this particular incident took an otherwise non-issue and made it into one. From what I read the teacher was the instigator by making the initial scene over a t-shirt.
Originally posted by Turq1
Originally posted by Lipton
reply to post by Turq1
"Duh" as the saying goes the teacher was the instigator in that he/she pointed out it didn't conform to school dress code. You don't break the rules then have the person addressing that be the one causing the "initial scene" when the initial scene was you breaking the rules in the first place.
Originally posted by Lipton
Originally posted by Turq1
Originally posted by Lipton
reply to post by Turq1
"Duh" as the saying goes the teacher was the instigator in that he/she pointed out it didn't conform to school dress code. You don't break the rules then have the person addressing that be the one causing the "initial scene" when the initial scene was you breaking the rules in the first place.
Well then this particular school must be the only one known to man where there is no short shorts, gangsta' pants, ridiculous hair colors, cleavage revealed, profanity, tobacco or any other infractions in sight. A very model of education efficiency and this kid was a lone wolf, a loose cannon, mucking it all up with his violent and vulgar shirt.
You are purposefully dodging the very fact that this was politically motivated. The student wore a message and the NEA shill took the bait, justifying his actions with the dress code's catch all 'discretion'.edit on 17-6-2013 by Lipton because: (no reason given)
Jail for a T-shirt is too much. That's censorship of freedom of expression. I don't care if the person has images of nudity on the T-shirt, that's the only superficial way other people can identify if he or she is worth hanging around or not.
Originally posted by Lipton
Physically assault an officer? Nope
Verbally lambasting? You certainly can.
en.wikipedia.org...
There is even precedent in place regarding school dress codes from the SCOTUS:
en.wikipedia.org...
Since the Tinker decision, the court has narrowed that holding by allowing school officials to prohibit student speech that is sexually explicit, lewd, or indecent, to regulate school-sponsored speech, and to ban student speech advocating illegal drug use.
But the core holding in the Tinker case remains unchanged: Schools may restrict student speech only if it interferes with or substantially disrupts school operations.edit on 16-6-2013 by Lipton because: