8th grader arrested,suspended for NRA tshirt

[foreUT]

In wv you are far more likely to die of a complication of obesity, diabetes, mesothelioma or even cancer related c8 exposure than by a hunting rifle. There is little to fear there excep what a person makes up in their own mind.

Making decisions based on what makes people uncomfortable is ridiculous. Because someone is always going to be bothered by something.

Tacky? Well I'd suspect some would see some of your stuff as tacky too. Again in the eye of the beholder.

LOL! That has to be the most factual statement I have ever read on the DIS!

 

[TinkerBelled]

In wv you are far more likely to die of a complication of obesity, diabetes, mesothelioma or even cancer related c8 exposure than by a hunting rifle. There is little to fear there excep what a person makes up in their own mind.

Making decisions based on what makes people uncomfortable is ridiculous. Because someone is always going to be bothered by something.

Tacky? Well I'd suspect some would see some of your stuff as tacky too. Again in the eye of the beholder.

My point was that it's the image of the gun that's objectionable, not the NRA statement. I said that while it would make me uncomfortable, I don't think that's reason enough to forbid it. In other words, exactly your point.

(Now, if the shirt made so many people so viscerally uncomfortable as to cause a distraction--say, for example, a slogan saying "Hitler was right"--then I think the school would be within their rights to ask him to change.)

For what it's worth, I also fully copped to wearing my share of tacky stuff in high school. I don't usually wear shirts with writing on them anymore, so my tacky quotient has, I hope, dropped considerably.

 

[Colleen27]

As for your example, I think it's really sad that some people think that to be pro gun you are required to be anti gay, or to be pro gay you have to be anti gun, or any other number of really silly notions about two topics that are completely unrelated. And I believe it's an incredibly unfair assumption to believe that anyone who falls on one side of one debate automatically falls on a specific side of the other debate.

I was not making a direct connection, honestly. I don't think one has anything to do with the other. I was just pointing out that in our culture "civil disobedience" tends to be treated differently by the media and the court of public opinion depending on which side of the aisle the cause is associated with. You tend to read very harsh treatment of people, esp. teens and young adults, who are in the media because of conflicts with authority over typically "progressive" causes (like the "get a job" comments regarding various Occupy incidents) while the conversation tends to take a pro-freedom slant condemning authorities rather than the individual when the issue is one associated with "conservative" causes.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I guess more to the point I find it irritating that so many causes that should be con/lib neutral have to be labeled as belonging to one side or the other. Worse, all too often one side will tend to oppose th other's cause not so much because they disagree with the cause, but because they disagree with the "other side" as a force of habit.

 

[chobie]

I guess more to the point I find it irritating that so many causes that should be con/lib neutral have to be labeled as belonging to one side or the other. Worse, all too often one side will tend to oppose th other's cause not so much because they disagree with the cause, but because they disagree with the "other side" as a force of habit.

I'm having a hard time believing that the message on the shirt is not clouding your judgment here. You really believe dad's version of the events and that everyone was acting out of control and angry except poor little Mr. Constitutional scholar? Sure, I get that most teachers are seemed as leaning left, but the police officer? Why would he put his job in jeopardy and make a false arrest? Because he's anti 2nd Amendment rights? Remember the officer has to answer to his agency not the school board.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I'm having a hard time believing that the message on the shirt is not clouding your judgment here. You really believe dad's version of the events and that everyone was acting out of control and angry except poor little Mr. Constitutional scholar? Sure, I get that most teachers are seemed as leaning left, but the police officer? Why would he put his job in jeopardy and make a false arrest? Because he's anti 2nd Amendment rights? Remember the officer has to answer to his agency not the school board.

I'm having a hard time believing you got any of that from anything I've said, in particular that which you quoted which was on an entirely different subject

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I'm having a hard time believing that the message on the shirt is not clouding your judgment here. You really believe dad's version of the events and that everyone was acting out of control and angry except poor little Mr. Constitutional scholar? Sure, I get that most teachers are seemed as leaning left, but the police officer? Why would he put his job in jeopardy and make a false arrest? Because he's anti 2nd Amendment rights? Remember the officer has to answer to his agency not the school board.

The same could be said as to clouding the teacher/principles judgment about the contents of the shirt.

 

[chobie]

I'm having a hard time believing you got any of that from anything I've said, in particular that which you quoted which was on an entirely different subject

No it's on point. The thread of conversation I quoted was about supporting or not supporting police officer actions against children in the classroom. You're bright enough follow more than one post at time and the entire thread as a whole.

You were leaning toward the kid having done nothing wrong because charges weren't filed yet and the school took him back. But for that to have been the case you would have to assume the police officer put his job on the line to back up a teacher and principal who were acting wrongly toward the kid.

I'd tell you to go back and read everything you said, but you already know what was said and in what context is what said in. And anyone who has followed the entire thread knows how the discussion had progresses.

 

[chobie]

The same could be said as to clouding the teacher/principles judgment about the contents of the shirt.

Agreed. But that doesn't change the fact the kid was out of control. I don't think a police officer would put his job on the line because his judgment was clouded with anti NRA feelings.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

No it's on point. The thread of conversation I quoted was about supporting or not supporting police officer actions against children in the classroom. You're bright enough follow more than one post at time and the entire thread as a whole.

You were leaning toward the kid having done nothing wrong because charges weren't filed yet and the school took him back. But for that to have been the case you would have to assume the police officer put his job on the line to back up a teacher and principal who were acting wrongly toward the kid.

I'd tell you to ho back and read everything you said, but you already know what was said and in what context is what said in.

No, I'm leaning toward the kid doing something that was no big deal. I've already quoted and repeated from the story the line about the kid refusing to cooperate with the officer.

I'm not convinced the officer needed to be involved at all, but as others have said he could have already been on site. And I'm not convinced his charge should BE a real charge. But I'm certainly not trying to say I'm 100 percent convinced the kid was 100 percent cooperative. The kid himself has already said he wasn't.

There's actually another version of the story on ABC right now that seems to indicate the biggest commotion wasn't from this kid or the teacher, but from the other students as he was led from the cafeteria. Again, hearsay so far.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Agreed. But that doesn't change the fact the kid was out of control. I don't think a police officer would put his job on the line because his judgment was clouded with anti NRA feelings.

It would be the rare officer who would - many are NRA members and all of them have NRA training.

 

[chobie]

No, I'm leaning toward the kid doing something that was no big deal. I've already quoted and repeated from the story the line about the kid refusing to cooperate with the officer.

I'm not convinced the officer needed to be involved at all, but as others have said he could have already been on site. And I'm not convinced his charge should BE a real charge. But I'm certainly not trying to say I'm 100 percent convinced the kid was 100 percent cooperative. The kid himself has already said he wasn't.

There's actually another version of the story on ABC right now that seems to indicate the biggest commotion wasn't from this kid or the teacher, but from the other students as he was led from the cafeteria. Again, hearsay so far.

Interesting. And if the kid had quietly complied with the teacher's instruction, how did all the other kids get involved? If that's the case that's seems even more likely to me the kid made a ruckus.

And again, for the police to have actually arrested the kid, there had to have been more than politely declining to change his shirt.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Interesting. And if the kid had quietly complied with the teacher's instruction, how did all the other kids get involved? If that's the case that's seems even more likely to me the kid made a ruckus.

And again, for the police to have actually arrested the kid, there had to have been more than politely declining to change his shirt.

It indicates some sort of scene. Doesn't really prove either of them got belligerent.

The kid didn't just refuse to turn the shirt inside out, he also refused to take a seat, at least according to the kid.

There are conflicting reports on where the arrest took place - the cafeteria or the office.

 

[chobie]

It indicates some sort of scene. Doesn't really prove either of them got belligerent.

The kid didn't just refuse to turn the shirt inside out, he also refused to take a seat, at least according to the kid.

There are conflicting reports on where the arrest took place - the cafeteria or the office.

So the officer arrested him for nothing?

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

To the point about if the kid had just complied, until I see the written rules for this school prohibiting this type of shirt I have to say I wouldn't have changed my shirt either.

The teacher could just have easily let it go, but my guess is that once she made a statement about it, she was at that point "PAINTED IN A CORNER" with regard as to what action to take. Once she brought it up, if he was simply let go the children as a whole would see her as a hollow threat.

The officer might have simply arrested the boy on info provided by the teacher.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

So the officer arrested him for nothing?

Depends on your definition of nothing. Sounds like (from the story told) it was for failure to comply with a LEO.

 

[chobie]

Depends on your definition of nothing. Sounds like (from the story told) it was for failure to comply with a LEO.

Sounds like the kid was being a jerk, IMO. I'm sure that officer warned the kid several times before he put him under arrest.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Sounds like the kid was being a jerk, IMO. I'm sure that officer warned the kid several times before he put him under arrest.

And I'm sure the officer was in more than a HAPPY mood to have been called to what should have been handle in school with a call to the parents.

 

[chobie]

And I'm sure the officer was in more than a HAPPY mood to have been called to what should have been handle in school with a call to the parents.

Unless the kid was inciting a riot or being belligerent and out of control and the officer that happened to be stationed at the school had to be called over or happened to be there when his behavior reached a criminal level.

Or the poor young constitutional scholar was just ganged up on by 2nd Amendment hating teachers and administrators who then convinced a police officer to put his job on the line and arrest without probable cause.

Sure, either side is equally plausible.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Unless the kid was inciting a riot or being belligerent and out of control and the officer that happened to be stationed at the school had to be called over or happened to be there when his behavior reached a criminal level.

Or the poor young constitutional scholar was just ganged up on by 2nd Amendment hating teachers and administrators who then convinced a police officer to put his job on the line and arrest without probable cause.

Sure, either side is equally plausible.

Exactly, -personally I'd love to know more about this, but in reality this is probably all we'll ever hear. The story will die out when the next scandal comes up, and we can all take up our appropriate stances again.
Till then I'll put my pitchfork & torch back in the closest and allow W. Virginia to remain un-marched upon.