|
11-14-2011, 03:09 PM | #1 |
Elitist
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Moto: Gix 750
Posts: 11,351
|
|
11-14-2011, 03:13 PM | #2 |
Moto GP Star
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,022
|
|
11-14-2011, 03:17 PM | #3 |
Follower
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,549
|
You guys claiming that unifroms solve problems don't have a clue.
What if the whiteys wanted to wear a lapel pin on May 5th? We're right back at the same issue. Homeslice has it right: Mexican wears Mexican flag 7-4 = no issue. White kid wears American flag 5-5 = issue.
__________________
Racing For Smiles |
11-14-2011, 01:59 PM | #4 | |
Serious Business
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
|
Quote:
Not saying I agree with the way the school handled things or any of the students actions. I just agree with the ruling. |
|
11-18-2011, 11:12 AM | #5 |
Nomadic Tribesman
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brampton, Canada
Moto: '09 ER-6n
Posts: 11,150
|
Why? Because those who were 'in danger' were 'punished', while those who were THE danger, were left alone?
__________________
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge, "Dorkness Rising" http://www.morallyambiguous.net/ |
11-18-2011, 11:57 AM | #6 | |||||
Serious Business
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
|
Quote:
Quote:
All agreed that this action created risk to the students (If they had not worn the t-shirts and antagonized the other students, there would have been no danger) The students refused to remove the t-shirts. 90 minutes of discussion between students and parents. They were sent home. Are you saying that it is unreasonable for staff to send students home when they refuse to honor requests by the staff? Is sending them home punishment if the purpose of sending them home is to remove them from imminent (from the staffs perspective) danger? Was it reasonable to assume that there was imminent danger" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by pauldun170; 11-18-2011 at 12:10 PM.. |
|||||
11-18-2011, 12:43 PM | #7 | |
Nomadic Tribesman
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brampton, Canada
Moto: '09 ER-6n
Posts: 11,150
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge, "Dorkness Rising" http://www.morallyambiguous.net/ |
|
11-18-2011, 01:37 PM | #8 | ||
Serious Business
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
|
Quote:
The altercation that occurred the prior year backs that up. The evidence provided to the AP (testimony from other students) backs that up. The actions and testimony of the plaintiff can be seen as backing that up. Quote:
Legal precedent establishes that students rights are limited and that officials have some legal ability to restrict those rights to prevent disruption. Students do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as adults on school property. The evidence backed up the assertion a disruption was likely. Legal precedent gives the school administration the ability to take take action. Was there a better way to handle the situation? Perhaps From a legal standpoint, the situation was handled appropriately and I agree with the ruling unless someone else has the actual court documents that I can review. I'm only working with what has been posted and what information I've seen from google searches. I have not found court records nor have I the case number. If anyone has the case number (pardon me if I overlooked it in the thread) or official docs I sure appreciate the link. |
||
11-18-2011, 12:16 PM | #9 | |
Serious Business
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
|
more
Quote:
|
|
11-18-2011, 12:31 PM | #10 |
Follower
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,549
|
So... Mexican kids threaten violence and American kids get sent home? American kids do not threaten violence, so Mexican kids are not in jeopardy therefore there is no discrimination? Also, nobody asked American kids WHY the shirts were worn, so administrators fears are taken as fact. Do I have that right?
__________________
Racing For Smiles |
Bookmarks |
|
|