Principal Resigns Over School Drug Raid

AP ^ | January 5, 2004

[Conservative til I die]

You will remember please that this Einstein was also committed socialist. His opinion on relativity is brilliant, but as political thinker? Maybe not.

Your claim might hold water if I (or the Libertarians and libertarians) were Kool-Aid drinking GOPers (I'm a non Kool-Aid drinking conservative). Socialists and liberals and Democrats can sometimes be right. They can sometimes also do good.

Whatever Einstein's other faults, he was dead-on right here.

[Conservative til I die]

Ah. Cheech Marin weighs in with the first Nazi reference.

I actually read on several other threads about you being a rare intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful example of a pro-WOD person, with whom one could have meaningful debate.

I have to ask myself WTF they were smoking when they said this.

[clamper1797]

I have to ask myself WTF they were smoking when they said this.

That was my thought

[Conservative til I die]

But this is not what Herr Einstein, this useful-idiot socialist was saying.

Interesting strategy. Attacking the messenger not working? Gee, I know! Attack even more!!!!!!

That'll convince us of your argument. Hey! I know what'll convince me! Tell me he's a socialist again!

Ass.

[Orangedog]

I will not try to stick up for any of Einstein's comments beyond his research in science. I am merely looking at history. The United States tried once before to outlaw a substance. They saw that they made a mistake, and it was a tribute the character of the nation when they admitted that they had made a mistake and corrected it. That was 70 years ago. Now we are dealing with the consequences of another mistake, specifically, the drug war. The difference between now and then is that the US no longer has character strong enough to admit to their own mistakes, let alone correct them.

As much as I disagree with the temperance movement that gave us alcohol prohibition, they advanced their goals the right way...by amending the Constitution of the United States. As wrong as they were, they at least respected the principles that out country was founded upon. The drug warriors of today do not share that respect. There is one question that the supporters of the drug war will not answer. That question is: "If outlawing alcohol, a drug, required a Constitutional amendment, they why isn't one required to outlaw the other drugs?"

[William Tell]

Eris said: "He [Einstein] was saying that the cure - Prohibition - was far worse than the disease - alcohol use - creating more crime than the initial alcohol use ever caused. "

I am sure that he only said it because he was an alcholic who couldn't stand the idea of not being able to get drunk legally. < / s >

[Conservative til I die]

That question is: "If outlawing alcohol, a drug, required a Constitutional amendment, they why isn't one required to outlaw the other drugs?"

Their answer always comes out something like this: "But drugs are bad and they hurt our society!"

[Wolfie]

Good! Run these fools out of town on a rail.

All together now! Buh-bye!!!

[Mulder]

Maybe he can go work for some of the Sovietized agencies in South Carolina.

I had a friend who just got back from SC, and he told me that they had posted signs saying you could get arrested for speeding.

And I thought the signs saying "$3000 littering fine" in Lousiana were bad....

[Wolfie]

When the people realized that making alcohol illegal had caused far worse problems than it solved, they did away with prohibition.

True. But then, the people knew exactly what needed to be done. Since the laws of our nation had been followed in instituting Alcohol Prohibition, the solution was easy. Just do away with the Volstead Act (favorite quote, "They can never repeal it" - Sen. Volstead). Now of course, nobody knows exactly how to get out of this mess, since it was such a byzantine structure of strict ignorance of the Constitution that has gotten us to where we are today. The government learned from its prior mistake of providing the people with a flashpoint around which to rally.

[eno_]

No, implies that enforce-ability should to be prime ground for judging worth of such law, and that is foolishness.

You might want to take that up with the Founders. They made large swathes of laws very difficult to enforce with the intent they should never be passed or enforced.

[SC oops]

Interesting?

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1052464/posts

[philman_36]

Ping.
Just some associated threads...
school drug raid
high school raid
goose creek

[Sloth]

I see you have great contempt for the U.S. Constitution.

[philman_36]

I wonder - if most of the student population were white, would this thug have resigned?
Here's a newflash from the ol' memory hole...the school is predominantly white!
Stratford, the largest of six high schools in the Berkeley district, has 2,700 students. It’s designed to have 1,800 students. Seventy percent of the school’s students are white; 20 percent are black.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[robertpaulsen]

"Funny, I never had a drug dealer put a gun to my head when I was a teenager in high school. But somehow it should be acceptable for someone with a badge to do it?!"

Funny, I never had someone with a badge try to sell me drugs. You got a point?

[robertpaulsen]

"You'd rather be randomly searched, without probable cause, on a floor by a screaming, pistol waving, finger-on-the-trigger LEO, than have a joint in someone's locker at a high school?"

So, you know "all about" the incident, yet you make the above statement?

"randomly searched"

The students were not randomly searched. The raid was set for a specific time in a specific hallway to isolate the suspected students. 107 students out of a school population of 2750 is a targeted search, not a random one.

"without probable cause"

Probable cause or a search warrant is not required for school searches. The USSC affirmed this in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Only "reasonable suspicion" is required, which they had.

"finger-on-the-trigger LEO"

This is the first I heard of it. Where did you read this? Or did you just make it up?

Of the 14 officers, I believe I read where three had guns drawn "at the ready position". If a gun was pointed at a student, I assume there was a good reason (for example, a student reaching for his pocket instead of showing his hands)-- if not, then they should be punished.

An investigation is underway. Care to wait for the results, or should we just go ahead and consider everyone (except the students, of course) guily as charged by ladyrustic?

"than have a joint in someone's locker"

The school officials were not searching for " a joint in someone's locker". As a matter of fact, no lockers were searched.

They were looking for evidence of DRUG DEALING that was going on in the school hallways. Don't you care that drugs were being dealt to school children, in school hallways, while school is in session?

Nothing in your statement above even approximates the truth. If it's not the most ignorant statement I've read, it ranks right up there.

[robertpaulsen]

"They found no evidence of drug dealers. Not even a single joint."

So you're saying that drug dealing was not taking place in the scholl hallway?

BTW, a child looses his innocence when he reaches into his jacket pocket instead of showing his hands. Or should we wait until the officer is shot before we make that determination?

[robertpaulsen]

"But the principal did schedule the raid for a time of day when it was known that the majority of students on campus would be black"

Wolfie, normally I respect your posts. We disagree, but you're one of the more level-headed posters.

The above post is so ludicrous, I almost fell off my chair when I saw it was you who posted it.