Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Got it, pink for everyone.

No, banning clothes on the account of color is a dumb idea, I spent 10 years at a catholic school (K to 9) where I had to wear a uniform, and then I went to high school for 3 years that one year had said no gang symbols, no guns (explicitly written of course), no violence, cursing, etc... but our mascot has pistols, so my Junior year he lost his guns and became a big purple gay cowboy, and then senior year he magically got his guns back but we were still told no guns on stuff. Unlike the school in question here, my school said no guns... this one didn't, it shouldn't be an issue.

I disagree, Gangs in certain places are a big problem(AKA my school) where certain colors would get you killed, heck you where also not allowed to wear the number 13 because it is a number of another gang. Students can and have gotten killed that had the wrong colors on, no gang affiliation at all.

If the kids know about gang violence why would they willing wear the colors of a gang they're not affiliated with?

It doesn't sound to me like the problem here is that this kid's rights were infringed. I'm sure the officer was not there to back up the school's decision to punish the kid for his shirt. He was called in to do his job, and it sounds to me like the kid got cocky and didn't want to cooperate. This case is of two different issues that need to be handled separately. This family can easily file a civil suit against the school for the shirt incident. That is completely within their rights. But this kid needs to learn that when you are talking to a police officer, you shut your mouth so they can figure out what is going on. These people are acting like this is a case of police brutality or something, which from the information given, I would say it isn't. I think a $500 and max year in jail is harsh, and it won't happen, but this kid does need to learn to respect authority figures or he will never be successful as an adult.

Then again, as an American I could just say that this must be that der president Barack HUSSEIN Obama that just wants to give all our jobs to the terrorists and hand our country over. We have to protect ourselves I'll tell you what. Imma get me my pickup truck and go down to that der school and give that liberal, bellyaching teacher a dose of freedom. I'll tell you what. And then we can all go down to the river and drink some light beers. Gotta be light since the Mrs. say I gotta lose weight on account of my diabetes. 'Murica- don't tread on me.

A part of me died as I wrote that second part.

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Thats why I advocate school uniforms comprising burlap sacks with holes cut in them, and shoes made of ziplock bags and string.

You're thinking too small. Horsehair robes and wooden plank/hemp rope sandals. And extensive instruction in Latin. It builds character.

Pfft clothing...too much trouble.

Everything should be done in the nude. Psychological trauma be damned!

If it was good enough for the Spartans...

 Monster Rain wrote:
If it was good enough for the Spartans...

I don't want to go through the Spartan school of dating... Nothing says "I know how to woo a woman" like getting the newbie drunk and raping him, so he does the same thing to his wife... At least this is what I heard on a tangent from a history professor, but they're all quacks.

I base my historical knowledge of that era off of 300.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I base my historical knowledge of that era off of 300.

As you should. 300 was an excellent documentary of what really happened. I would know, my grandpa was there.

I think Frazzled was there, too. Tall guy with the facial piercing, bit touchy feely. I could be mistaken ...

You need the piercings as there's no pockets.

Not sure why he's fighting this. The hook this all hangs on has been settled law since, what, Vietnam? He hasn't got much of a case here.

{edit - I misrememebred the verdict; the case is here)

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Got it, pink for everyone.

No, banning clothes on the account of color is a dumb idea, I spent 10 years at a catholic school (K to 9) where I had to wear a uniform, and then I went to high school for 3 years that one year had said no gang symbols, no guns (explicitly written of course), no violence, cursing, etc... but our mascot has pistols, so my Junior year he lost his guns and became a big purple gay cowboy, and then senior year he magically got his guns back but we were still told no guns on stuff. Unlike the school in question here, my school said no guns... this one didn't, it shouldn't be an issue.

I disagree, Gangs in certain places are a big problem(AKA my school) where certain colors would get you killed, heck you where also not allowed to wear the number 13 because it is a number of another gang. Students can and have gotten killed that had the wrong colors on, no gang affiliation at all.

If the kids know about gang violence why would they willing wear the colors of a gang they're not affiliated with?

Some times they dont.

 Manchu wrote:
I think Frazzled was there, too. Tall guy with the facial piercing, bit touchy feely. I could be mistaken ...

If only that short little had said yes to my offer I could have mopped up and launched elephants at Carthage by spring...er what?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Some times they dont.

You're missing a few qualifying words there... Sometimes they don't what? Don't know about the gang colors? Don't willingly wear the colors? what?

They dont know what the gang colors mean.

I'm waiting for a gang to go all meta with their colors, and dress up in school uniforms.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They dont know what the gang colors mean.

How old are these kids?

And Daedalus, I think the Japanese kids have beaten us to it

They exist, Christian school gangs are terrifying, They do drivebyes where they throw crosses and bibles.

 daedalus wrote:
It almost seems to me like the goal here is not teaching, but instead displaying dominance and enforcing the expectation in the youth that they should cow to authority figures. I mean, there is, like, literally NO shirt I can think of that should interfere with teaching math, science, English, history, or any other topic you could possibly think of.

I think this is a case of "He that makes too much noise gets the big stick."

That's the purpose of most American school districts. They don't want thinkers, they want drones.

50 boiled eggs eh Kronk.......damn you...just damn you...showing my age here

you made a reference to "Cool Hand Luke"

 Psienesis wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
It almost seems to me like the goal here is not teaching, but instead displaying dominance and enforcing the expectation in the youth that they should cow to authority figures. I mean, there is, like, literally NO shirt I can think of that should interfere with teaching math, science, English, history, or any other topic you could possibly think of.

I think this is a case of "He that makes too much noise gets the big stick."

That's the purpose of most American school districts. They don't want thinkers, they want drones.

They are correctly preparing you to enter the workforce then.

Technically since it is a public school and thus a government agency, they may not infringe on his freedom of speech. Also his arrest is then unlawful and he would be in the right to resist.

I am not saying he is right or wrong.. but public schools are notorious for having "policies" that are unlawful.

Officials love to forget these basic constitutional rights still apply to minors.

Finally a constitutional scholar is here to enlighten us.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Technically since it is a public school and thus a government agency, they may not infringe on his freedom of speech. Also his arrest is then unlawful and he would be in the right to resist.

As much as I empathize with this kid... freedom of speech doesn't work like that.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Technically since it is a public school and thus a government agency, they may not infringe on his freedom of speech. Also his arrest is then unlawful and he would be in the right to resist.

I am not saying he is right or wrong.. but public schools are notorious for having "policies" that are unlawful.

Officials love to forget these basic constitutional rights still apply to minors.

HAhahaha, Tell me then, why cant I carry a gun on campus?
Rights do not apply in school. If something is not conductive to learning, Then it has no place in school. IF you have people espousing political rants in classes, nothing can get done.
Quite frankly i find shirts that have a political statement tasteless, keep your political thought to yourself unless the conversation goes that way.

you are actually allowed to carry a gun on most college campuses based on constitution of the state that funds said school. Oregon is a prime example of this. the state constitution says explicitly that NO public run entity of local government shall bar a citizen from the right to carry a firearm, except as law written by the state senate/house.

However, Oregon run colleges almost all have a "policy" that says you are not allowed to carry even if you are licensed and conceal it.

It is against the constitution, yet they do it in hopes no one challenges them.

your state may vary.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Technically since it is a public school and thus a government agency, they may not infringe on his freedom of speech. Also his arrest is then unlawful and he would be in the right to resist.

I am not saying he is right or wrong.. but public schools are notorious for having "policies" that are unlawful.

Officials love to forget these basic constitutional rights still apply to minors.

Actually, you're right and what I posted earlier was totally wrong. I accurately remembered the case, but I misremembered the verdict. So yeah, what I said earlier - he totally should fight this.

It's a minor with a T-Shirt.

Unless the shirt said "Jihadist in Training" followed with images of exploding bombs and mangled body parts, most shirts would be a non-issue.

 Ouze wrote:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Technically since it is a public school and thus a government agency, they may not infringe on his freedom of speech. Also his arrest is then unlawful and he would be in the right to resist.

I am not saying he is right or wrong.. but public schools are notorious for having "policies" that are unlawful.

Officials love to forget these basic constitutional rights still apply to minors.

Actually, you're right and what I posted earlier was totally wrong. I accurately remembered the case, but I misremembered the verdict. So yeah, what I said earlier - he totally should fight this.

Well huh... consider my opinions changed... he should definitely fight this.

Question though. Does the family finance able to help put up a good fight?

Well, Theoretically someone like the ACLU can take it up.
I still think the kid wearing a shirt with a gun on it was stupid, then become confrontational at the arrest.