Posted on 04/02/2008 3:39:20 PM PDT by neverdem
First this is not YOUR position. This is a conclusory statement about MY position. I asked what YOUR position is on this case. You apparently have none.
Second I laid out the facts that I am relying upon. Are they incorrect? I laid out why I believe that these school officials have engaged in morally despicable conduct, i.e. if you or I did it we would be accused of child molesting and violating the law on child pornography. Please indicate your arguments for why the conduct of these officials is ok, when if your or I did it it is felonious.
Go bother someone else, adults are speaking.
Your haven't brought forward anything to support your "child molestation" argument.
Beg, beg, beg...
Naw, just sourcelessly whining
Now we get to the heart of the matter. You really believe that just because the girl still had on her bra and panties that authority figures looking at her exposed privates is okay because she wasn't completely nude. Sheesh!
“She wasn’t touched, she wasn’t nude and you’re begging the question of the alleged “force”.”
You do this to a child in your care, enjoy prison.
Still waiting for a scintilla of evidence from ya in support of your position.
Three strikes - your are intellectually dishonest.
If you or I even requested that a teenage girl do what these officials asked her to do, and with no threat of force, but mere implorations, we would be convicted as felons. How do you excuse what the state did?
“Naw, just sourcelessly whining”
but enough about you....
The school administrators aren't going to prison. Even the civil suit collapsed.
You haven't read the decision, have you?
No source, naturally.
What part of force don't you understand.
Beg, beg, beg. No evidence. Ever.
The school administrators aren’t going to prison. Even the civil suit collapsed.
You haven’t read the decision, have you?
You truly believe that a judge is the final arbitor of right and wrong? Again, if YOU PERSONALLY DID THIS TI A CHILD, YOU WOULD BE GOING TO PRISON.
The decision was wrong and shouldn't be an excuse for coerced humiliation or maybe you believe we should mindlessly accept all court-spewed abominations.
Not only do these facts not help your case, but you are an intellectual fraud because there are more facts than just these facts.
I did, actually, you just ignore key points and spatter about irrelevancies.
The civil suit has not collapsed. It was accepted by the court for a rehearing en banc, meaning that the full court at least had enough difficulty with the three judge pannels decision to regard it as worth rehearing. If the Court en banc rules against the state, the civil case will go forward.
Wilson asked Romero to take Redding into the nurse’s office and conduct a search of her person. Romero complied. Romero took Redding into the nurse’s office and again invited Schwallier to observe. At the time of the search, Redding was wearing “stretch pants without pockets and a T-shirt without pockets.” In Schwallier’s presence, Romero asked Redding to: (1) remove her jacket, shoes, and socks, (2) remove her pants and shirt, (3) pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts, and (4) pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area. The search did not produce any pills. Immediately after it had concluded, Defendants returned Redding’s clothes and allowed her to get dressed. At no point during the search did either Schwallier or Romero touch Redding. Prior to the search, no attempt was made to contact Redding’s mother.
The school officials used the power of their office to search Redding. That is force in the usual sense and meaning of the word.
"Force" is defined as "to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means"
Darn. Those pesky facts always get in the way of a good argument!
The fact that the case was accepted for an en banc review, which is discretionary on the part of the Court and not an automatic right, suggests that the full court found some troubling issues in the 3 judge panel decision. It should be noted that the decision was not unanimous. In addition to the 2 judge decision, there is, as part of the decision, the heroic 1 judge dissent, which takes a different view of the matter and might have formed the basis for the Court granting an en banc rehearing.
I’m going to take a wild stab here, but the two judges on the wrong side are ‘rats and the one heroic judge is a conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.