| |
| ▲ | tyleo 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I have a problem with the degree of punishment but not that the student was punished. A student said, “on Thursday we kill all the Mexico’s,” on a schools private communication platform. The school should correct that behavior. Unfortunately they involved law enforcement. Thats where I see the problem. A better solution would be detention and informing the parents. | | |
| ▲ | worldsayshi 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Unfortunately they involved law enforcement Sounds like they could've reasoned that they face the least chance for liability if they pushed the responsibility to law enforcement. | |
| ▲ | kayodelycaon 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When I was a kid, detention over a stupid joke would have been an extreme overreaction and would result in the teacher being pulled into the principal’s office, not the kid. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > detention over a stupid joke When you were a kid gun laws were stricter. | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not exactly true. You don't know how old the person is nor their jurisdiction. Some states have fewer laws, others have more. At the federal level, there are more laws and rules than there were in the 60s or 70s (overall more than at any prior time). And of course enforcement varies. I remember many people coming to school with guns in their cars during hunting season even though it's not legal. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > You don't know how old the person is nor their jurisdiction One can impute it from the content assuming it’s relevant, i.e. in America. | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Gun laws vary dramtically by state. If we are only looking at the federal level, then there has been no substantial reduction. | | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 5 days ago | parent [-] | | There was a federal assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, and there have been additional law and rules changes since then (NICS, trusts, etc). Thus the number of laws and rules are not substantially lower than in the recent past. | | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Access to assault weapons is substantially easier now than it was in 1996. There maybe the same number of laws or whatever but in real terms access is easier now than then. | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 5 days ago | parent [-] | | And what does that access mean? How many of the weapons used in school shootings would have been banned? They've done studies on the effectiveness of the ban and showed no real effect over that decade, but speculated that there could have been an effect if it went on longer. The other issue is that the ban was largely cosmetic and could easily be avoided by not including certain features that have limited utility in most domestic shootings anyways (launcher lug, flash hider, etc) as evidenced by continued AR-15 post-ban model production. So to me, the claim that there is more accessibility doesn't provide any evidence of causality. | | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m not making a claim about the usefulness. You made a claim about access not changing. That’s simply untrue. Access has gone up. As for the feature bans those are clearly municipalities attempts to get around either constitutional or political impediments to the bans people actually want. Magazines fed semi automatic rifles are what people want to ban, banning rifles with muzzle shrouds is how they get there. Studies on this topic are fraught because the gun industry has long prevented the normal research funding issues on this topic and have fought tooth and nail any data collection efforts. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You're doing a very good job dancing around the fact that you don't actually know much about the subject. The points you're making could be backed up really easily, no citing of cherry picked studies or reports needed, if you knew what to google, but you don't. And you're way off in the weeds with the whole AWB and rifles things. Yes there's more legal access federally than in the 90s but the difference is pretty much wholly on a state by state basis with some states having no or slight change and some states having large change. | | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you maybe arguing with someone else. They made a straight forward claim that is incorrect: > If we are only looking at the federal level, then there has been no substantial reduction. There _was_ a significant reduction at the federal level. They acknowledged that and then changed the goalpost. I then claimed > Studies on this topic are fraught because the gun industry has long prevented the normal research funding issues on this topic and have fought tooth and nail any data collection efforts. This is true. The Dickey Amendment prevented first the CDC and then the NIH from collecting gun violence statistics from 1996 until today. Though in 2018 they were able to add a rider to it to make it a little easier. FOPA makes it impossible to collect registration information for federal use, including in data exchange for studies around gun ownership. I'm not sure what more you want me to backup. Would you like the actual legal citations on those? | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >I'm not sure what more you want me to backup. Would you like the actual legal citations on those? Screeching about whatever fed law changes or lack thereof the Brady Campaign told you to screech about is pointless. Fed law directly affects only a tiny minority of buyers because people buy what's available and no recent federal law changes have increased/decreased the legal buyer pool and sales volume. You don't need the CDC or the NIH or whatever other "authoritative" source who's boot you prefer the flavor of in order to make assessments of how things have changed over time. State law changes and sales data are very easy to come by. Those are where the real meat of the change is. Many states over the past 20yr went from it being a hassle to "just toss a pink Ruger in your purse" to a simple retail transaction. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You mean the "ban on a random assortment of features that accomplished approximately nothing"? I think his point stands. Federally not much has changed. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | chasd00 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A threat like that has to be reported to the authorities. In 99.9% of cases it’s nothing but you never know. You can’t threaten the president without getting investigated, you can’t threaten mass murder at school without getting investigated. | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "A threat like that has to be reported to the authorities." This forced reporting necessarily creates false reports. Under the law, things like terrorist threats are required to be credible or incite panic. Reporting things that aren't credible is arguably a violation of law under any other context, yet they choose to ignore that with these mandatory reporting laws. Basically it creates a situation where nobody is allowed to use their brain - automated conveyer to the criminal system. | |
| ▲ | FpUser 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Investigation is ok given how much shooting happens. Punishment however is way out of proportion. It was a bad joke. Does not deserve any real punishment except maybe couple of hours in a class that explains why jokes like this are bad. | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Inappropriate comments or jokes could easily be handled with parent-teacher intervention and some detention. If it's possibly credible, then reporting it to the police to kick off an investigation is good. It seems that nobody really used their brain in the example given - everyone just trusted some automated system's determination instead of making their own. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 5 days ago | parent [-] | | >seems that nobody really used their brain in the example given Brain users get jaded and a) stop b) seek alternate employment. Schools don't just crush kids. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Unfortunately they involved law enforcement. Thats where I see the problem Eh, terminal violence was potentially threatened. Calling the cops seems fine if no teacher or administrator can vouch for the kid. (Particularly if, as is true in this case, the law requires “any threat of mass violence against a school to be reported immediately to law enforcement.”) To the extent someone fucked up, it’s the cops who allegedly caused the 13-year old to be “interrogated, strip-searched and spent the night in a jail cell.” | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Police are a volatile, uncontrollable solution for anything other than white collar crime. If you introduce police into a situation where your life ot belongings aren't in immediate danger, you should be prepared for them to make someone miserable or hurt someone and you're culpable if they do. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Police exists to deescalate conflicts and prevent harm. If they don't you should file a disciplinary complaint. | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | To whom? "We have investigated the complaint against ourselves and found that we were not at fault." | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why would we believe that an organization's existence is something that it routinely and consistently fails at? Are we delusional? | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The police officers I experience are quite calm and seam reasonable. Sure there are also allegedly incidents at some demonstrations. But those are demonstrations I expect to be violent without police intervention. | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I have been to many protests and demonstrations in my life, and not a single one of them has turned violent without police intervention. Occasionally there is property damage, but even that is the exception rather than the rule. | |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How would you determine if your experience was an outlier? | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't. It just shows that the police doesn't need to be escalating and we shouldn't shrug and accept it as it is. > Police are a volatile, uncontrollable solution No they don't and shouldn't be. > If you introduce police into a situation I think informing the police about a dangerous attitude in some child isn't the wrong solution. The police not showing up at the parent's place and sending a therapist, but instead treating a child like a criminal adult is criminally neglect. Also right here in the comments we have somebody mentioning that people behave how you treat them. That doesn't apply soly to children. If you treat the police like a militia and don't show respect they will behave like that to you. | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I am not required to respect the police. They are required to respect me, a democratic citizen who has authorized their right to exist－not the other way around. > I think informing the police about a dangerous attitude in some child isn't the wrong solution I was regularly beaten at home by religious zealots, before finally being kicked out onto the street and becoming homeless at 16. The police were over at my house every three weeks or less, constantly threatening me with foster care and juvie if I didn't respect my grandfather's right to beat me. The man would routinely make me choose a weapon, often but not always a belt. He would then beat me savagely with the metal buckle like a whip, all over my body, until I would stop crying, because "men do not cry, I'll teach you how to be a man", and "I'll give you something to cry about". Every ounce of state intervention made it worse, because of police and administrative corruption. Don't even get me started on how they surveilled me through my school. Yeah, we do have ideals. And regulations, which... don't always match those ideals. And then we have reality, which... doesn't always match regulations. To ignore reality and say that the regulations are the true reality is honestly a very ignorant and dangerous thing to do, especially when you try to instill this perspective into others. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > I am not required to respect the police. You are one citizen. The police represent the other million citizens. They have the monopoly on violence, so that all the other citizens can't do that. I think this is way better than every citizen caring weapons and doing self-justice. Even when the police is going crazy, that is still better than civil war. They do have checks and regulation even if they don't always work, the other citizens haven't. That being said, I can absolutely see, how you distrust the police. I can't imagine what justification the police gave to their superiors in your case. I would expect public outrage if this became public, but maybe your country truly doesn't care. Of course you shouldn't report such issues to a corrupt militia, which your police seams to be posing as. However that is not what I would call a police and it should be reported to the police if you had such a thing in your region. When you ignore children with violent intentions this will lead to a stabbing or shooting later on. The police will treat a single claim very differently than recurring threats for violence. Informing the authorities early one makes them able to send therapists the first time. When they only ever hear about problems once things went violent or even only at the time of the amok, they need to send the violent force on the first occurrence, because they can now only try to shield the victims not help the delinquent child. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What? What in the hell? They exist for nothing of the sort. Police exist to enforce the laws within specific parameters. They are basically a modern formalized take on midlevel men at arms. They mostly only de-escalate conflicts and prevent harm incidentally. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 4 days ago | parent [-] | | And what do you thing the law is? It's a written agreement, because even if it doesn't give justice in every situation, it is better to peacefully agree on something instead of constantly fighting over everything. In other words a deescalation measurement. A concept of a written law is very different from a rule by decrees and the will of the ruler. The difference is that deciding whether something is lawful is outside of the ruler or the enforcer. (i.e. separation of powers) This is what differentiates a liberal democracy from a dictatorship, but also 19th century and modern monarchies from absolutism. So no police is not modern men-at-arms. |
| |
| ▲ | Hizonner 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Police exists to deescalate conflicts and prevent harm. Somebody should tell them that. > If they don't you should file a disciplinary complaint. ... which will be ignored. They may or may not laugh in your face. I wish I lived in your dream world. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 days ago | parent [-] | | They regularly get education on how to deescalate. At least the media reports that. Also police officers get prosecuted for misconduct or promotion of right-wing ideology. Not every country has a weird dysfunctional police. | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't know who would laugh at this more in my state, the criminals or the police themselves. I was personally given a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail as an underage, first-time offender because a police officer who had been stalking my friend group planted weed on me at the scene of an accident. I was denied the right to a trial by jury, they refused to let me out of jail until I'd signed a paper giving up that right. I was homeless and needed to graduate high school, so I had no choice. My defense attorney was then forced off my case so that I could be given another attorney under the thumb of the prosecutor and judge's racket, and so this was never addressed. Seven cops came up one after another and gave wildly different testimonies of what happened, then the judge gave me my sentence because "I think you're lying". When I moved to appeal, my compromised attorney refused to let me, saying, and I quote, "The judge is my boss. If I let you appeal his decision, he'll make my life miserable." See, the prosecution was pissed off that I tried to fight my charges, and so they worked with the judge to give me maximum possible jail time, despite being a homeless kid who had never been arrested before. And the officer who stalked me, planted weed on me and arrested me is a known methamphetamine producer and distributor. I have personally witnessed her roll up in her cop car with a toothless old woman in the passenger seat, and watched that old woman grab as many boxes of pseudoephedrine as she legally could and bring them back to the cop car. This is called smurfing. Presumably it was on a day when her regular chemical supplier was unavailable, and presumably they hit several such stores that day in order to amass a large supply. Some people I know literally murdered her brother over a meth dispute, and the police found a giant meth lab on his property. Oh, and the mayor was the prosecutor's dad. So, can't tell the DA, can't tell the mayor... Maybe the state police? No, they work with them. FBI? No, I have left anonymous tips several times and nothing ever came of it. The only investigation I ever caught wind of mysteriously dissipated. I even went to journalists, but no one took it seriously and those who did left it alone. Everyone in that town knows the racket. Everyone. The mayor retired a few years ago, the prosecutor is good friends with my extremely abusive grandfather, and no one will ever answer for my mistreatment. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sometimes I think, maybe sending the worst criminals, the most dangerous heretics and the poor to another continent with rich resources wasn't the smartest ideas of the Europeans. Sure it helped get rid of problems in the short term, but is now centuries later starting to bite us. | |
| ▲ | throawaywpg 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | stuff like this is why I want to move to Europe |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fn-mote 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > the law requires “any threat of mass violence against a school to be reported immediately to law enforcement.” The article specifies this is a Tennessee law.
The school is in Kansas. Agreed that the cops screwed up, but the school is also responsible. Welcome to global privacy trends in 2025. |
|
|
|
| I think 1. is still pretty bad. It's sounds like students are often obligated to use school-issued accounts for their own school work, and contents are searched and reviewed by the vendor's staff before either the student or the school are notified, and without any prior reason for individual suspicion -- that _does_ seem like a 4th amendment issue. But also, is the school creating a blindspot for itself where it has _less_ information than if these systems were not in place? From one of the court documents linked in the article: > The District and Gaggle—acting at the District’s behest—do not merely infringe students’ Fourth and First Amendment rights—they do so in a way that actively undermines the very safety concerns the District claims to address. Acting with the District’s knowledge, Gaggle automatically and unilaterally seizes student materials containing an undisclosed list of “trigger words” or phrases, without regard to context. This sweeping censorship extends to all student documents and content within the Google Workspace/Suite on District platforms. As a result, when students use their school-issued accounts to seek help or report concerns—particularly about mental health—Gaggle frequently intercepts and seizes those communications before they can reach their intended recipients, including teachers, counselors, and even parents. Such censorship denies some students the help they may need, contrary to Defendants’ articulated purpose for using Gaggle. ... i.e. the school is inadvertently quashing students attempts to ask for help or report problems > When The Budget’s editor-in-chief investigated via requests under the Kansas Open Records Act why Gaggle continued to operate in violation of the purported exemption for student journalism, the findings responsive to her requests were, ironically, suppressed—apparently unbeknownst to the District officials tasked with responding to the requests—by Gaggle. Like the fox guarding the henhouse, Gaggle prevents parties from learning about how and when it operates.The District was made aware of Gaggle’s actions with respect to student journalists, but took no action to eliminate the problem. ... i.e. the school is generally unaware when it is itself silenced by its "safety management" software, even when this brings it out of compliance with legal requirements. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26040279-lawrence-bo... |
