‘It’s NEVER OK to strip-search kids!’
p2pnet news view | Kids & Kartels:- The wheels of justice have flat tyres. But sometimes, they do turn, as they did for Savana Redding, who, when she was a 13-year-old honours student at the Safford Middle School in Arizona, was strip-searched.
But it took six years for SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the US, to rule the school was, in effect, guilty of serious misbehaviour.
This month, in an 8-1 decision, the court decided Safford Middle School officials had, “violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding,” says CTV.
“Let’s hope there were only females present,” said Robert in a p2pnet comment post.
Said R. O’Quinn in another comment post »»»
There *was* an uproar in ‘03 when it happened, and yes, there was at least one male present for the search (see aclu video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9QQCiT1e_w ).
The school had a “zero tolerance” policy on all medications – in order to get meds for a headache, a student would have had to have a parent bring the med to the school, leave it with the nurse with detailed instructions on when/how it would be distributed to their child, then go to the nurse’s office if needed.
Another student was caught with advil, and said she got them from Savana. They found nothing on Savana, despite the strip search.
The reason it’s news *now* is that it just passed SCOTUS, who made (the right) decision on it. It took it this long to get there, through lower courts, etc.
I’m appalled by this: “While children’s advocates and civil liberties groups cheered the decision, others suggested the high court may have created further problems for school systems by failing to make clear exactly when school administrators can strip search students and when they can’t,”
Um…how about NEVER. It’s NEVER okay for a school official to strip search a child. N-E-V-E-R. If there is really a situation that bad, then the police AND the parents need to be called in, before strip searching is even considered. WTH?
World news compiler Marc, himself the father of two young daughters, told us about this.
“Today it’s aspirin, tomorrow it’s an mp3,” he said. “This one struck a chord with me. If ever this happened to our girls …
“And the press! they call it ‘painkillers’ like it was some sort of illegal drug! It was ibuprofen. Many young girls her age will have this in case they get ‘cramps’.”
Homeschooling, “seems better and better to me as I get older in this nutty world,” he added.
What of the school?
Officials can’t be held financially liable, ruled SCOTUS, leaving it to lower courts to decide if the school district could, says CTV.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
June, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
if my kids ever were to suffer this humiliation in a public school, the pics of the tortures in iraq of the war prisoners would be tame in comparison
June 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Maybe a parent committee should strip search the dolts who did this.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“Officials can’t be held financially liable, ruled SCOTUS, leaving it to lower courts to decide if the school district could…”
SAYS WHO?!?!
Statements like this always get made and repeated by the MSM and the groups involved so much everyone bloody-well BELIEVES IT! It’s absolute BULLSHIT spewed with the purpose of discouraging every vicitim and their parents from considering all their rights and taking what they feel as appropriate action.
People can sue whoever the hell they want, and individuals are NOT protected from their wrongdoing just because they’re part of a schoolboard or teachers’ union. There are laws in place, for dealing with minors. They apply to EVERYONE, including cops and country leaders!
The courts (even SCOTUS) can “rule” it if they want, but that doesn’t stop anyone from filing their own motions against the individuals.
These people acted on their own and took it upon themselves to conduct an unconstitutional (illegal) search, for which they had no legal authority (they are not members of law enforcement), without involving the law or the parents, and subjected the girl to a degrading experience that could have seriously traumatized her at that age – something that would have been included in the basic training of any “educator” – they damned-well KNEW what they were doing and can’t plead it was “part of their job”.
People like that shouldn’t be able to secure jobs in the education field, as they completely taint the system.
Kids don’t get a second chance at being kids.
Spoil it for them, and the possible repercussions are endless.
Home Schooling – 1 … Public Schooling – 0
June 27th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Strip searching a CHILD in the absence the parents can never, ever, be condoned. No matter the circumstances. If it’s that serious, hold the kid and call the cops.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Let’s not forget that many of the prisoners tortured by the US military are children. Guantanamo’s youngest prisoner, 14-year-old Mohammed El-Gharani, never charged with any crime, was recently released after nearly 8 years of confinement.
http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington06122009.html
June 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
if i am wrong please correct me, but isn’t this child abuse? which i believe is illegal?
June 27th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I agree devious204,
I think the people working in that educational institution who did this have a thing for playing in little kids underwear.
June 27th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
This past Thursday or Friday (you can check news sites, not sure if it is in the world headlines) some guy got arrested for putting a kids face on a nude model. He did a copy/paste.
Now what these people did to this girl goes way beyond any copy & paste. Yet nothing happens and it took 6 years for the court to even say this was wrong!
Double standard that shouldn’t be tolerated.
June 27th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Here is the reference to the above story, if any one cares to see it:
http://news.aol.com/article/virtual-porn/544064
(June 25) — A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are three pictures — none of them featuring an actual child’s body.
Which is worse? The copy & paste guy or the pedo’s in this educational institution that went fishing in a little girls underwear because of hearsay based on another student?
I hope that school is sued, I hope the school board is sued, and I hope those idiots who did this are held responsible and removed from ever working in an educations institution again.
Have a great day!
June 27th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“This past Thursday or Friday (you can check news sites, not sure if it is in the world headlines) some guy got arrested for putting a kids face on a nude model. He did a copy/paste.”
I love how the linked article has officials saying that people do this to ‘get around’ child porn laws and then goes on to talk about how various states have found ways to ‘get around’ the fact that what he did wasn’t illegal according to the Supreme court.
I also love how it says;
“Since then, “more and more of these guys are using morphed images, image manipulations” in an attempt to circumvent prosecution, Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday.”
I love the phrase “circumvent prosecution” and how it implies that there’s no question that he’s guilty and that he’s just using a technicality to get away with it.
I guess the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing goes right out the window as soon as the words “child porn” are mentioned.
I’d also like to know how they “caught” him.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
With google running around filing everyone and their kids, maybe it won’t be long till your kid is copy/pasted onto a nude super-model
June 27th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
filing=filming
oops-typo
June 27th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
@Devil’s Advocate
There is no court in the entire US that will go against a Supreme Court ruling. If the Supreme Court says that the officials cannot be financially liable, then no US court will ever accept a lawsuit against them. You say that they should be liable because of the unconstitutional search. The Supreme Court’s sole purpose is to decide what is constitutional and what is not. If they said that under the constitution, the officials should not be liable, then that is what the rest of the US courts will believe.
The Supreme Court takes on cases will important future consequences (cases that will affect future court cases) so that the lesser courts will know how to rule on these kinds of issues. Even the President or Congress cannot overrule a decision made by the Supreme Court. Only a future Supreme Court case can change the decision of a previous one.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
They’re students, NOT PRISONERS.
June 27th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
as if cops in canada are any diferent
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/06/23/nwt-rcmp-girl.html
June 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“There is no court in the entire US that will go against a Supreme Court ruling”
I don’t think you’re going to find this to be completely true.
Liability rulings on supposedly exempted individual parties have been challenged in private suits.
I’m not saying it’s an easy thing to do by any means, but some were reversed in the process.
The plaintiffs who succeeded did their homework and generally argued the constitutionality aspect of excluding someone from liability who holds no such privilege under the law. (Educators cannot possibly be exempt, as they haven’t been given the legal immunity.)
June 27th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
@Devil’s Advocate
Please show me a single United States court case in which a lower court went against a Supreme Court ruling.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
@Devil’s Advocate
Sorry again for the double comment, but I want to clarify something. Lower courts interpret what the Supreme Court said. They will not disagree with the ruling, but they will interpret what the Supreme Court said. For example, in the Brown vs. Board of Ed (1954), the courts stated that schools must be segregated soon. No schools became desegregated for a few years because the lower courts who didn’t want the segregation said that they still had more time (since it had to happen soon, but not now). See what I mean?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
@Eliot
Yes, I see where you’re going.
Yes, some decisions from the Supreme get passed downstream.
I didn’t say “a lower court went against a Supreme Court ruling”.
I’m saying, SC rulings can still be appealed or challenged at the SC level in separate motions.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“They’re students, NOT PRISONERS” == Bullshit.
1. Attendance is compulsory, with serious consequences for “truancy”: the essence of imprisonment is legalized compulsion — they “have” to be there whether they WANT to, or not. Whether they happen to disguise the compulsion/justify it because “they’re learning to read” or some such bullshit, the fact remains that students are COMPELLED to be there, and their parents, in many cases, face serious consequences up to and including fines and jail, if they don’t attend.
2. The fact that homeschooling is permitted to exist at all is nothing but a way for the power-structure to make it appear that there’s actually “choice”. (Just like the “first-sale” doctrine makes it appear as though there really is “competition” in terms of prices, in music/books etc.)
3. Strip-searching and other “zero-tolerance” bullshit is just another way for those in power to train the next generation of slaves for dutiful obedience to the human hive known as “society” — everything from “get to class when the bell rings” right on down to “show ’school spirit” by cheering on your school’s teams” is a microcosm of the later sociopolitical structure they’ll face as adults — up to, and including, the subtle brainwashing of “cliques” — “class consciousness”, anyone?)
(And we wonder why teens sometimes go batshit, and start shooting….)
Ah well, most people are stupid sheep, and just want the next generation’s spirits broken, because it makes the wheels run more smoothly.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Hello there Henry Emrich! I do agree with a lot of what you said. However, it’s really easy to point out flaws and anything else we don’t agree with. So, do you have better alternatives? Solutions that actually work are a lot harder to come up with I’ll bet.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:13 am
“Solutions that actually work are a lot harder to come up with I’ll bet.”
One solution comes to mind for a lot of what ails us…
Shoot, on sight, all those that openly trash our Constitutions!
@Henry
You’re absolutely right about the “herd mentality training”.
Mass “Patriotism” (as we discussed a little while back) is so much easier to achieve when you’ve conditioned the young.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Reader’s write:
How about the proven curricula used by many homeschoolers?
Here’s a good question for you:
Some of my best friends when I was a teenager were some Mennonite guys around my age who were taking lessons from the same guy I was taking lessons from at the time. (The guy basically taught banjo, mandolin, dobro, bass, guitar, and the “curriculum” was a mix of classic bluegrass stuff, and Gordon Lightfoot — I still have a soft spot for Gordon Lightfoot, even now.)
Anyway, they were homeschooled by their parents — somewhat, for religious reasons, and somewhat just because homeschooling is better. Result: when they took the standardized testing the State requires, they excelled. Now, keep in mind that at the time homeschool curricula were primarily video-tape/lesson-plan based, and tought by parents who had no “formal” training as teachers.
Homeschoolers also routinely kick ass in things like spelling bees and such.
Go back and read what I actually said, and then think about whether the level of regimentation, cliques, “school spirit”, ideological mindfucking, etc. is a “necessary” aspect of “education”.
I submit that it’s not. Read some stuff by John Taylor Gatto, or the “unschooling” movement, and stop trying to defend the status quo on the basis that “solutions” are hard.
The first step is for people to realize that there actaully IS a problem (which many people, thankfully, do.)
The next step is to experiment with alternatives (which is what the homeschooling/unschooling/education reform thing is about.)
But above all else, people need to stop making excuses for the existing (failed) paradigm, because by it’s OWN criteria (standardized testing etc.) it completely fails to even produce the Military-industrial elite’s version of a “competitive” workforce. (The fact that corporations are required to invest so much in “remedial” training indicates that they’re not even capable of churning out the good little worker/consumers in the first place.
So stop apologizing for the existing system when it does shit like this, and at least have the basic moral decency to condemn it.
(As a side note, the growth things like Wikipedia/Wikibooks, “online universities” etc. indicates that there are many other option available than herding children/teens into a cross between a prison and factory, and training them to jump when the bell rings.
And just to get THIS one out of the way, no I don’t have chldren, and I don’t plan on doing so, either. Why am I interested?
Because — like all of us — I’ll have to deal with people who are PRODUCTS of the “educational” establishment, and — judging by phenomena like support for “Dubya” etc., that will probably involve eventually getting my ass nuked or something.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
“ne solution comes to mind for a lot of what ails us…
Shoot, on sight, all those that openly trash our Constitutions!”
Heh. Read “A People’s history of the United States” by Howard Zinn, and it becomes evident pretty quickly that at least SOME of the “Founding Fathers” didn’t really mean a word of it.
But I’m not going to reopen that particular can of worms, thank you very much.
(that’s also leaving aside whether “Our Constitution” — as opposed to the principles we THINK it embodies — is worth “defending”.
Is the “copyright” thing in article 1, section 8, not eminently worth “trashing?”
June 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“Is the “copyright” thing in article 1, section 8, not eminently worth ‘trashing?’ ”
You’re right…
The whole thing IS a can of worms!
: )