I'm now a temporary conservative.

As normal craven I saw nothing wrong in the snippet you provided, as normal craven I still think people who have to rely on cut and paste and link providing are not worth talking to. I said that a while back. As normal craven I am always amazed as the paranoias of both sides.

Normal Craven:
It's not paranoia when they are really out to get you. :wink:

Normal Craven---oxymoron

I would have thought, to be fair to the teacher, that, after Columbine et al, teachers would be a little trigger happy about these things.

One can only imagine the witch hunt had the kids been serious and the teacher done nothing.

None of us know what the kids said - though the fact that it was in an angry class room discussion would, one hopes, have been taken into account by any wise and sensible teacher. It is possible this teacher was neither. I do not know. It certainly appears very possible that the teacher over-reacted.

I think the behaviour of the secret service agents, if it was as reported, was outrageous. Fishin', good cop/bad cop is, to my mind, only legitimated if both cops are behaving within the law they are supposed to be upholding.

Unless your secret service is considered above the law (in which case there is real trouble) then their behaviour was clearly illegal as well as cruel. I would consider both these things to be very concerning for your country.

As for the Principal - where was this person's duty of care to the kids? - which exists as much as their duty of care to the President. Surely this person ought to have advocated for the kids when it was clear that process was being abused?

dys,

I'll address you when you have a relevant point. Or when one of your one liners are funny.

Sofia,

Yes it can be paranoia, even if they are out to get you. I won't try explaining that. It would make me a misanthrope (prepared for the jibes so make good ones).

dlowan,

Why is it illegal? I will withold comment about how many seem to pull facts out their rears.

I thought the USA subscribed to laws about treatment of juveniles - including their right to have a parent/guardian present at any interview?

I also thought that people in the USA had the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel if they requested it?

Am I wrong?

If so, I shall certainly withdraw the comment - but I shall have a lower opinion of legal processes in the US.

You may, or may not, have noticed that I said the agents' behaviour was outrageous IF IT WAS AS REPORTED.

No, Deb. You were not wrong. There is a firm protocol in place. Tomorrow I will do my best to explain it.

For now, Goodnight...

BTW, I commented to dys so don't nobody get all huffy about that. I'd counted on people noticing but now I'm not so sure.

Deb,

Unless the kids are charged the things said to them were just to scare them.

I tried to put myself in the position of both sides on this, but I'm having a hard time shaking my bias of the children--being a mom.

If the Secret Service has a reported threat against the President, this is important. But, I don't see how having the parents present curtails the efficient dispatch of their job.

They could certainly make sure the children stayed in their sight, and allow the parents to arrive.

They could enforce the children not leaving their sight until the questioning had been suitably and thoroughly completed.

But, I would be furious if my children were treated as adults (which this situation clearly does) without parental support. And, yes, they had a right to refuse to speak--but if they were innocent of an actual threat against the life of the President, this would be more of a trouble for them than it would be worth.

I think probably (and I don't know the wording used by the kids), this was an overzealous teacher, who could've said-- "I realize you have extreme differences with the President, but I know you don't have plans to assasinate him, do you?" Good God. Think of how many people have said, "I'd like to kill so and so"-- or some such similar statement.

dlowen said:
I thought the USA subscribed to laws about treatment of juveniles - including their right to have a parent/guardian present at any interview?

I also thought that people in the USA had the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel if they requested it?
___________________

Under normal circumstances, your statements are accurate-- but a threat on the President, and resulting attention from the Secret Service, carries a reduction in rights for the accused... (I'm not sure if this is legal, but I think it is true in practice.)

Was Malvo questioned in front of his parents?

No, he had it better than the kids.
He was Mirandized and offered a lawyer.

But the lack of parents suggests that this is not a steadfast requirement.

As long as the SS doesn't use any of the info they got from the kids to try to imprison them then they were just bluffing and the law was followed (I think).

If they wanted to take the kids to court the "grillng" would be inadmissible.

I don't see the foul as being a very illegal one (if anyone tries to say law is black and white tis another discussion).

without comment on the veracity, the judge ruled that John Malvo was mirandized, charged as an adult and offered statements to investigators of his own freewill sans counsel.

Fresh from a trip to LawRUs or something, it appears that being arrested obligates the police to tell you about certain rights, while bagging some kids in a school does not.


DO THE POLICE HAVE TO INFORM ME THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE MY PARENTS PRESENT BEFORE I AM QUESTIONED?
No. The higher courts have ruled that even though you have the right to have your parents present before questioning, the police do not have to inform you of that right.

That is bogus. The school assumes responsibility for the kids we send there. They should be held by law to explain a few basic rights to kids who are questioned at school.

(Who is Malvo?)

I am sure what was said to the kids was just to scare them - I guess the issue is partly just how scared it is ok for them to be - I would have thought an interview by the SS was sufficiently scary WITH your parents.

However, America being such a litigous society, I suppose it is possible you may all end up hearing way more details of all this than you ever wanted to.....

I wonder if teachers have a duty to warn? As a professional of my discipline over here I DO have a duty to warn if a direct threat is made by a client about anyone - and a duty to inform police about any weapons/firearms held by any person making such a threat.

(Craven - I knew you commented to Dys - why would anyone else get huffy?

I no longer seem to understand anything!)

What threat and what requirement are you referring to?

You'd be OK with this if it were your children, I take it?



Then why are you? This is truly one of the more contemptuous remarks you have posted. Much more out of character than even 'Conservative Craven.'

'normal' Craven, indeed.



There's the erosion you were missin', fishin'.

PDiddie,

You are right it was very contemptuous. Again, I have nothing but contempt for the style of discussion in which cut and paste replaces independant thought. I will continue to state as much any time someone cites some text and insists that I accept it as his/her argument.

Since I just PM'd you on links and quotes you posted in other forum, perhaps you'll take a moment to explain the apparent disengenousness...?

Never mind, it's off topic.

Care to offer up another area for us to debate instead?

Your PM is a poor example. You provide a quote of me providing citations when sozobe asked for them explicitly in order to back up one of my statements.

I was unable to provide such citation and sozobe was soundly vindicated.

What you are doing is far different. You are simply skipping the part where you think and voice your opinion and using citations instead.

Now please stop PMing me.

You got it, pal.

Anything to contribute to the thread?

If not, I invite you to away, as your snide, insipid remarks don't suit this forum.