Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

#5,701
#5,701
volinbham said:
why resort to calling him a little pr!ck?

FTR - I've seen several high school age kids post pictures of themselves at the range. Nothing insensitive or pr!ckish about it. None of them should be questioned by the cops for simply posting those pictures.
Click to expand...

They questioned him out of concerns students raised. Legitimate or not those concerns had to be investigated. I really don't care if you think they didn't have a right to question him because they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,703
#5,703
Mick said:
They questioned him out of concerns students raised. Legitimate or not those concerns had to be investigated. I really don't care if you think they didn't have a right to question him because they did.
Click to expand...

Uh huh...

Let's see you flip that stance when an SRO questions a student for something you disagree with.
 
#5,707
#5,707
Mick said:
I find this interesting: The teen said he felt like the deputy was trying to get him to incriminate his father.

What has the father came out and said about this? Is his father a Felon that can't own a gun?
Click to expand...

Lol why would the cops need the kid to tell them that his dad’s a felon?

This was a clear overreaction by the admin and police and it’s sad that people are on here supporting it.
 
#5,708
#5,708
luthervol said:
I understand perfectly well.

A student posts a picture of himself holding a gun with a caption saying "I'm about to lose it." Should that be taken as a threat?

What if instead the caption said, "see you at school tomorrow."?

What if it said, "I'm taking out 19."

Should any of these be taken by school officials as threats?
Click to expand...

How about these specific three?
 
#5,709
#5,709
Mick said:
They questioned him out of concerns students raised. Legitimate or not those concerns had to be investigated. I really don't care if you think they didn't have a right to question him because they did.
Click to expand...

They didn't have the right to question him without a parent present and no, his fellow students concerns don't give LEO the right to interrogate him at all. LEO/school should have looked at the post after it came to their attention and told those concerned to quit being pansies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,711
#5,711
Mick said:
They questioned him out of concerns students raised. Legitimate or not those concerns had to be investigated. I really don't care if you think they didn't have a right to question him because they did.
Click to expand...

Read the link you posted and see if you don't think there is another reason he got interrogated.
 
#5,712
#5,712
Grand Vol said:
Uh huh...

Let's see you flip that stance when an SRO questions a student for something you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Like what? I think this is the reason they have a job. Keep the students safe, break up fights, and keep drugs out of the school. What do you think they do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,718
#5,718
BeecherVol said:
He is fishing hard. If the liberal media could just find some dirt on this kid so he could find some justification for this situation all would be great.
Click to expand...

It's not really fishing.

The reluctance to get into the true issue of defining what is and isn't a threat is very telling. I've seen the same reluctance with other issues as well. It's easy to talk in absolutes when you refuse to consider the reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,719
#5,719
luthervol said:
It's not really fishing.

The reluctance to get into the true issue of defining what is and isn't a threat is very telling. I've seen the same reluctance with other issues as well. It's easy to talk in absolutes when you refuse to consider the reality.
Click to expand...

There are already laws about threats. This did not even reside in the neighborhood near those laws. I don’t understand why you need more laws and lines and metrics all the time. Gun owners are paranoid nut jobs but you want a law to prevent anything bad from ever possibly happening.
 
#5,720
#5,720
luthervol said:
It's not really fishing.

The reluctance to get into the true issue of defining what is and isn't a threat is very telling. I've seen the same reluctance with other issues as well. It's easy to talk in absolutes when you refuse to consider the reality.
Click to expand...

You can't give vague "what if's" and be taken seriously.
 
#5,721
#5,721
DancingOutlaw said:
There are already laws about threats. This did not even reside in the neighborhood near those laws. I don’t understand why you need more laws and lines and metrics all the time. Gun owners are paranoid nut jobs but you want a law to prevent anything bad from ever possibly happening.
Click to expand...

What is the law describing what is to be considered a threat by a student on social media?

Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees. I've never seen a more myopic group of people.
 
#5,722
#5,722
luthervol said:
It's not really fishing.

The reluctance to get into the true issue of defining what is and isn't a threat is very telling. I've seen the same reluctance with other issues as well. It's easy to talk in absolutes when you refuse to consider the reality.
Click to expand...

The law isn't going to specify exact verbiage.
 
#5,725
#5,725
luthervol said:
Of course it's not. It's intentionally vague. Who decides when something crosses that vague line?
Click to expand...

Thats not even the real issue here. the real issue (the one that actually happened) is the abuse by the cops. there is no what if there.

you want to play your what if game to save face.

I would probably leave it to a judge to decide if the cops are involved. if its the school having the chat the counselor or principal. as it was the cops didn't even know what was posted, so there goes your what if.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top