|
Post by heather on Feb 27, 2007 19:00:25 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 27, 2007 19:02:26 GMT -4
Yeah, I know. But it's just so HARD not to post after all that crap.....
|
|
|
Post by heather on Feb 27, 2007 19:22:25 GMT -4
Nah...that wasn't for your post...guess yours got in right before mine. I was referring to all that "other Crap"!!!
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 27, 2007 21:07:36 GMT -4
Sigh. It would be great if we had magic wands to wave over our kids to tell us if they're on drugs. We don't. Parents have to be parents - there are no simple solutions. Keeping track of dozens of wee-wee tests taken at school, where most people don't even want to use the bathrooms, is impossible. The results would always be unreliable and would cause more questions than answers. The supposed "randomness" would be questioned. It's a waste of money and a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by shoreman on Feb 27, 2007 21:31:52 GMT -4
Food for thought:While the U.S. Constitution upholds the right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures, the standard for school searches is less rigid. The search is lawful if the school has a "reasonable suspicion" that a school rule has been violated. This means the search must be justified when made and reasonably related to the circumstances being investigated. For example, a student is believed to have been smoking on campus, but denies it. A reasonable search can be made of the purse or backpack he or she was carrying at the time of the incident. His or her locker and pockets can also be legally searched. Courts will weigh a student's right to privacy against a school's need to obtain evidence of school rule violations and violations of the law. This "reasonable suspicion" standard has been upheld in challenges to locker, desk, and car searches. ANDA school administrator, in the presence of another person, may search a student on school premises or on a school sponsored trip if he/she reasonably believes that a student has in his/her possession any item the possession of which is a criminal offense under state laws or a school board policy. What are a few items that are illegal for students to possess? Weapons Illegal Drugs Alcohol Pornographic material A school administrator may search the school building and its surroundings as well as a student's locker- even without a reasonable suspicion. The school building and the lockers are classified as school property. In the case of lockers having "openings" in which objects can be placed in the locker; a student may in fact be charged with a violation if contraband is found in the locker however; such as in any other case, if the area where the contraband is found is an area that the general public has access, it would be hard to prove that the item was not placed in the locker by others. I hate to do the Deputies work but a substantial amount of the above information was taken from the state's Educational Law Article, shame he doesn't know what it is or how to enforce it. And by the way, I wonder how often our Deputy is drug tested since he carries a firearm......hmmmmmmmmmm?
|
|
|
Post by Same Deputy on Feb 27, 2007 23:20:19 GMT -4
Shoreman, Wow, So you can copy and paste a portion of the education article. What is your point? I'm well aware of what the law is when it comes to school searches and the authority that an administrator has over a school locker or the student based upon reasonable suspicion. What does that have do to with making it mandatory to have random drug testing. I'm lost on that one. When an administrator of a school conducts a search of the students locker or person the administrator has reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, did occur or might about to occur. What part of the word random has to to with reasonable suspicion. If an administrator does not have reasonable grounds to believe a student is in possession of an illegal substance then why should that student be forced to partake in a drug test. Thats what I call unreasonable. Who is going to pay for the drug test. Me the tax payer. I don't think so. Just because I'm a police officer, I too pay taxes just as you do and just as much. I'm not paying for thousands of students to get drug tested at random for no reason. While you are accurate in what you wrote about the education law pertaining to searches in schools, it has nothing to to with this topic. I totally agree with outlaw. It is a waste of time and money. What is really great about most of the writers on this forum is this. Whatever I write you would say the complete opposite. If i said random drug testing in schools was a great idea. You and many others would of blasted me about how it was a violation of your rights and the law has no right to do that. Clearly whatever position I stand on, you will say the complete opposite as to what I said. I love this web site. Shoreman, other than your Internet surfing of the law what training, experience and knowledge do you bring to the table on law enforcement and constitution law. Do you work hand and hand with school administrators as the police do and deal with school searches on a regular basis. I'm sorry I did not catch your profession. It is not the job of the school nor the teachers to identify drug users by using random drug tests. The teachers should be educating the students on the dangers of drug usage as well as report possible drug activity to the proper administrators. Shoreman when you become a legislator then you can pass a bill that would allow random drug testing in all public schools. It would still be a waste of time because your not going to rid the drug problem in the county or state. Illegal drugs are here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Same Deputy on Feb 27, 2007 23:45:32 GMT -4
Shoreman, I want to make sure I as well as the other writers are crystal clear on your position of the random drug testing issue in schools. You are in favor of the government making it mandatory that schools provide random drug tests to its students, which they can not refuse. It's my understanding based upon your comments that you FULLY SUPPORT random drug testing in schools. Of course this law would be for the betterment of society and to keep kids safer, Right! Well, if thats the case then how about we pass a law and go even further. Lets have the government pass a law which allows police to do the following: Lets have law enforcement officers stopping RANDOM people like yourself for no reason at all. The officer would be allowed to detain you and even search your person and property at random. Just like the RANDOM drug test that you fully support. Heck, if we don't find anything on you then the officer has the right to take you to the nearest hospital and have a random drug test done on you. Of course this would be done for your own good, as well as the betterment of society. We want to keep America drug free. Then we will drive you back to your residence where the officers will conduct a random search of your house. Perhaps if your spouse and children are home we might also make them submit to a random drug test. We want to get those drug users and help them kick the habit. Sounds like a plan to me! I see no difference in what i just wrote from what Sheriff Shoreman supports.
|
|
|
Post by shoreman on Feb 28, 2007 8:40:40 GMT -4
My earlier comment on the subject of drug tests was: "Don't think I'm for the random tests". I have never advocated random stopping of individuals, where do you come up with this stuff? Please engage your brain before you put your mouth in gear.
Upon reviewing your previous posts one of two things are apparent; you are either not a police officer or a very poor excuse for one. Therefore, no further comments will be forthcoming to your ridiculous responses.
|
|
|
Post by Same Deputy on Feb 28, 2007 9:25:38 GMT -4
My earlier comment on the subject of drug tests was: "Don't think I'm for the random tests". Shoreman, U don't think you are for random tests. Way to tap dance around the question. Either you are or not for it. Not, I don't think so. With that answer you have doubt and your not sure. Which does not surprise me the fact that you do not know. Clearly you do not know much about law enforcement other than what you see on CSI, Hill Street Blues or CHIPS. I can assure you I am a police officer therefore I must be a pure excuse for one. Thats fine by me. The irony of it all is that if you called 911 and needed the police I may be the cop answering the call. Whats really scary is I'm considered one of the better cops around the county. Another question you keep side stepping is the one about your experience, training and knowledge on law enforcement. You still have not said what your profession is. Since you pay my salary I strongly suggest you reach into your wallet and pay more in taxes because the police need a raise. ;D
|
|
|
Post by shoreman on Feb 28, 2007 12:05:26 GMT -4
Seems to be an appropriate quote to end this topic:
A resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Same Deputy on Feb 28, 2007 12:44:19 GMT -4
Shoreman, Despite the fact that we have completely different opinions and the fact you can't answer a simple question as too what you do for a living. I think your just swell and an ok person and don't care what the rest of the writers think about your madness. I think it's time all the writers on this thread have a Kodiak moment and a group hug.
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Feb 28, 2007 13:24:04 GMT -4
SameDeputy - Kodiaks a bear, and I ain't huggin' no bear
|
|
|
Post by uvrays on Feb 28, 2007 14:23:37 GMT -4
No random drug testing. Period.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Feb 28, 2007 14:28:02 GMT -4
And if deputy is the best cop in the county, I feel for you Kent Island. Deputy? Please learn to spell. There's nothing worse than you, spewing your inane arguments, with the spelling of a third grader.
|
|
|
Post by Same Deputy on Feb 28, 2007 15:20:51 GMT -4
KI,
I do apologize to you an all for some poor spelling errors to which I have made. I didn't realize this site was an English class and I'm partaking in a spelling contest. I will certainly try harder in the upcoming postings. Can you feel the love on this site. I can! I still say we need a group hug. Besides, whats to spell when all you do is point, click and circle traffic violation. ;D
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 28, 2007 17:28:00 GMT -4
It's not an English class or a spelling bee moron. You're rambling crap is hard enough to read and then you put your misspelling, bad grammar, and the attempts to show your attitude on top of it. WHEEEEW! Prove you're at least a "REAL" "Deputy" Most of us are doubting you BIG TIME
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 28, 2007 17:29:14 GMT -4
Upon reviewing your previous posts one of two things are apparent; you are either not a police officer or a very poor excuse for one. Therefore, no further comments will be forthcoming to your ridiculous responses. Darn, I MISSED that line.....
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 1, 2007 9:12:40 GMT -4
Chevy, thank you, and I couldn't have said it better than that. Point made. He's a so called cop in the county, yet he still posts as a guest.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 1, 2007 9:22:28 GMT -4
Can we stop this thread?
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Mar 1, 2007 14:11:01 GMT -4
We cant BUT RICH CAN! How about it Rich?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 1, 2007 14:39:44 GMT -4
p l e a s e
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Mar 1, 2007 14:52:37 GMT -4
SameDeputy - Kodiaks a bear, and I ain't huggin' no bear Maybe the "Deputy" can use a KODIAK moment....
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Mar 1, 2007 17:13:21 GMT -4
BChevy - Maybe we can get him to stand in front of his cruiser and snap a picture with his dashboard camera - then post it on the internet for us all to see
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Mar 1, 2007 18:49:27 GMT -4
I'm not sure I'd believe it was him even then, but at least if he'd register we would see it was the same person posting under that name. It looks like there has been more than one guest posting as deputy. I'm personally not going to respond to anything else he says unless he registers.
|
|
|
Post by Same Deputy on Mar 1, 2007 19:05:41 GMT -4
Point, click, stop, ticket! I love this site! I can feel all the love. Group hug time!
|
|