If you had read the report, you would have also noticed that the SRO tracked down several people to find out if she had a phone or not. You would also know that the girl had discipline problems in the past. The girl also refused to give up the phone and lied to the officer multiple times. If it's a public school that has rules in place that allow them to take away cell phones, it was completely justified.
Which is completely batshit irrelevant to a search and arrest, as having a cell phone is not a crime.
The cop and the school are free to kick her out of class and suspend her. They are not free to invent crimes and physically search students any time they wish.
It means regulation caused it by destabilizing the market.
Is day still night where you live? Regulation makes for STABLE markets. Less regulation makes for LESS stable markets.
If the government hadn't meddled in the free market, the banks would already know what they can and can't do from experience.
They already had that experience - see the stock market crash and the Great Depression. And the investment bankers would do the same thing all over again, because who cares if your bank goes under in five years as long as you're taking home millions in the process?
No, it doesn't. That on top of media companies F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, exist as well as media companies A, B, C, D, and E, does nothing to prove that A through E don't have a dominating marketshare. Print is dominated by a handful of companies. Radio is dominated by a handful of companies. TV is dominated by a handful of companies. Or maybe you didn't know that one of the primary points of the 1996 Telecom Act was the relaxation of rules on media ownership.
Obviously you didn't bother to check, that or you're trolling.
I see you have on your Obnoxious Asshole pants this morning.
Well, it's not just the USA. Plenty of societies have seen fit to drive human sexuality underground.
Sure, but they also tend to be third world theocracies, not countries that bray about being the Land of the Free. European countries can be retarded about violence (an episode of Dr Who had to have a scene with nunchucks removed after some kid in England hurt himself with a pair) but that makes a little more sense than being retarded about sex.
Libertarians don't believe that attempted murder, reckless endangerment, or even littering are crimes?
See the Cigarette Company Defense. For decades, Philip Morris et all beat every lawsuit by asking, "okay, it's sad that your father died of lung cancer, but how can you prove that it was our product that caused it as opposed to bad genetics?"
So Big Industrial Company gets dragged into court for dumping lead waste into the river which your city uses as it's water supply. The city sues Big Industrial Company for damages, but Big Industrial Company says, "but how can you prove that it was our waste that gave your babies birth defects, and not the waste from Big Chemical Company upstream?"
Or a parent company will use the Wal-Mart defense. Top executives require store managers to do two things: 1) get all the work done and 2) keep payroll at a minimum and not pay any overtime. So periodically you'll hear about a store getting sued because a manager forced employees to work off the clock. Then a Wal-Mart spokesman will throw up his hands and say, "it's not our fault, we tell store managers to obey labor laws..." In other words, top management will put lower management in a position where they have to violate the law or be fired, and then blame lower management when it happens.
This is why after-the-fact lawsuits are no substitute for proactive regulation and enforcement.
Everything you complain about, happened on the watch of people opposed to libertarian ideals and practices.
The fact that the Republicans don't agree with the Libertarians on everything (abortion, War on Drugs) doesn't change the fact that our current economic crisis was caused by Libertarian (no regulation) principles.
It's always funny to watch Libertarianism collide with the brick wall that is reality, and seeing the heads of Libertarians explode rather than admit that their philosophy, when actually applied, results in disaster.
But only one of those might be a core libertarian belief. A bigger problem is your ignorance and spreading of lies
Yawn.
The police are a proper - and one of the few - legitimate state functions. Now, watch as we hypocritically say the things we like are ok
Fixed that up a bit for you. Another big problems for Libertarianism: the fact that universal health care provides better care for less money, and provides more choice than health insurance from private companies.
Wow. I see after 30 years of Republicans cornholing the U.S., people are pissed
Fixed that for you.
ready to support your political heroes full bore.
What heroes? I divide my time between smacking down wingnut BS here and Obama fanboys on Dailykos. To bad we can't put all of you in a room together with free Kool Aid for everyone, and let the problem sort itself out naturally.
Oh wait, this is about Obama's new Anti-trust chief going ape on a search engine that happens to have sponsored links clearly separate from the results, and a successful advertising model that doesn't annoy the user. Not the opinions of a 20-something who not only didn't live through the Hoover era, but who also didn't live through the Reagan era, but knows all sorts of incorrect things about them. In fact, said 20-something received all of his/her opinions in something resembling a benediction from high school teachers and *maybe* university professors.
What the hell are you, and Obama's anti-trust chief, babbling about? You're not making any sense, and I have a lot more ad servers Adblocked than just doubleclick.net and googlesyndication.com.
I think the current economic situation reflects the "negative externalities" and "systemic risks to economies" that a Libertarian approach would have completely prevented.
Since the "current economic situation" was caused by the lack of regulation and over-leveraging of assets, Libertarianism would have made the problem worse, not better.
The Democrats want this so they can save the children from all of that evil kiddie porn
Are you kidding? The Republican party is divided between Bible thumpers and free market jihadists. You can name 10 moralizing Republicans for every moralizing Democrat. Throw in the Republican penchant for authoritarianism, and it's no contest as to who's going to run around screaming "why wont someone please think of the children?" more.
and also so the **AA can better control the media you consume, kill P2P and net neutrality, and bill you for it appropriately.
Big business rents most of the Democratic Party, but it owns the Republican Party. And what's the **AA? Big Business. Case in point, the 1996 Telecom Act. The Senate vote was 91 to 5, with four out of the five nay votes coming from Democrats. The only Republican Senator to vote against it was McCain.
Which is why they outspent the Democrats in the recent election.
Oh, wait, the Republicans were the ones who kept their pledge to use only public financing. It was the Democrats who broke their word as soon as they realized that they could buy the election if they refused government funds. Never mind!
Oh, wait, you're a goddamned liar. Obama never pledged to take public financing. Never. What he did do, was promise to work with the Republican nominee on taking public financing, provided that the 527's (Swift Boat Liars) would be reigned in as much as possible. As McCain refused to do that, and was breaking the campaign finance laws that bear his name at the time, Obama had no incentive to make a deal.
But you can always count on Republicans, fine upstanding hypocrites that they are, to bitch about an advantage they used to have once it's held by the opposition. Remember the hard on the Senate Republicans had for the "up or down vote" when they had the majority? They went on to break all filibuster records the second the Democrats took back Congress.
What's frightening is the apparent lack of appreciation by the Obama Administration for capitalism as a force for economic growth. With a presidency that is socialist-leaning and big-government-oriented, it seems we are backsliding into a kind of pre-Reagan era where business is viewed as a necessary evil, the best and brightest should work for the Feds or community organizations, and we shouldn't even try to compete with our ultra-capitalistic competitors in East Asia and elsewhere.
You should see a nice doctor in Venezuela about that anal obstruction of yours. Once he's done removing your head from your ass, you can take a good look around and see what "socialism" really looks like.
And Reagan is going to come in just behind Bush in worst-president-ever lists. Reagan created the trillion dollar national debt, which has grown nicely to $10 trillion. Reagan pushed the deregulation-for-the-sake-of-deregulation culture into the mainstream, and now we are reaping the whirlwind. His sabre rattling against the U.S.S.R. prolonged its collapse, as threatening people just leads to an increase in patriotism and national unity (see: the U.S. after 911, or how support for Ahmadinejad increases in Iran every time a neocon threatens to bomb them).
Hoover didn't create the Great Depression; he just stood by and watched it happen. Reagan, however, started driving our country into the ground, and George W. Bush just gave it a nice shove down the stairs. We can only hope that the Democrats have the balls and the brains do undo 30 years of Republican damage to our country.
Your second sentence doesn't back up your first. There are also dozens of operating systems or word processing applications, but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft had a functional monopoly on desktop operating systems and office suites.
"The overwhelming majority* of the world's climate scientists" know what side their bread is buttered on. It's on the side of giving governments more excuses to tax and define their citizens activities ever more closely.
Yes, because "find excuses to tax and regulate" are routinely plastered on top of grant money. Now, try pulling your head out of your ass for two seconds, and try to name an systemic bias on the part of climatologists that's anything like the bias coming from the fossil fuel industry.
That was wrong, and now the police officer(s), teacher, and school staff involved may well be finding themselves subject to disciplinary proceedings when the school board and the local education authorities want to know why their town, Wauwatosa, and Wauwatosa East High School are now being ridiculed on the net as examples of how not to run a school, and how not to run local law enforcement.
But a lot of people are authoritarians, especially when it comes to kids. Most of the comments here seem to be of "the dumb bitch had it coming" variety.
Once a person is under arrest they may be frisked. It's a fairly common, necessary, and lawful practice.
Did you honestly think I didn't know this already? But the cops have to have a valid reason to arrest you - something that obviously never occurred to you.
Yes, I know they arrested her for "disorderly conduct", but that's the catch all excuse they use when they don't have an actual crime on their hands, like theft or assault. Just ask the nearest black man about it.
Why would you need a warrant? She was arrested on disorderly conduct
Because "disorderly conduct" is what the cops claim when can't site you for an actual crime - theft, DUI, etc - just ask the nearest black man.
The cops didn't see her using the phone because they had to search her to find one. School should have just suspended her for a few days, and THEN called the cops if she refused to comply. But by searching her without a warrant or probable cause, they've open themselves (and the school) up to a lawsuit.
Except that their teacher did see her texting, and did ask her to stop, and did presumably summon the safety officer.
Oh, I'm not saying the girl can't be disciplined. Go ahead and throw her out of class or even the school for a few days. If she refuses to leave the room, THEN call the cops to drag her out of the room. But by frisking her first, they put the cart before the horse and have left themselves open to a lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is completely batshit irrelevant to a search and arrest, as having a cell phone is not a crime.
The cop and the school are free to kick her out of class and suspend her. They are not free to invent crimes and physically search students any time they wish.
Fixed that for you, since you couldn't read "that's the catch all excuse they use when they don't have an actual crime on their hands" the first time.
Repeat K-12 and try to pick up basic reading comprehension the second time around.
And if the arrest was invalid, evidence collected from it will be thrown out, otherwise...
Is day still night where you live? Regulation makes for STABLE markets. Less regulation makes for LESS stable markets.
They already had that experience - see the stock market crash and the Great Depression. And the investment bankers would do the same thing all over again, because who cares if your bank goes under in five years as long as you're taking home millions in the process?
The link did back up what I said.
No, it doesn't. That on top of media companies F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, exist as well as media companies A, B, C, D, and E, does nothing to prove that A through E don't have a dominating marketshare. Print is dominated by a handful of companies. Radio is dominated by a handful of companies. TV is dominated by a handful of companies. Or maybe you didn't know that one of the primary points of the 1996 Telecom Act was the relaxation of rules on media ownership.
Obviously you didn't bother to check, that or you're trolling.
I see you have on your Obnoxious Asshole pants this morning.
Well, it's not just the USA. Plenty of societies have seen fit to drive human sexuality underground.
Sure, but they also tend to be third world theocracies, not countries that bray about being the Land of the Free. European countries can be retarded about violence (an episode of Dr Who had to have a scene with nunchucks removed after some kid in England hurt himself with a pair) but that makes a little more sense than being retarded about sex.
The government's job is about maintaining and growing power over the citizens.
Any bigfoot stories or Brittney Spears songs you'd like to share with us, since you're such a fan of absolute crap?
Libertarians don't believe that attempted murder, reckless endangerment, or even littering are crimes?
See the Cigarette Company Defense. For decades, Philip Morris et all beat every lawsuit by asking, "okay, it's sad that your father died of lung cancer, but how can you prove that it was our product that caused it as opposed to bad genetics?"
So Big Industrial Company gets dragged into court for dumping lead waste into the river which your city uses as it's water supply. The city sues Big Industrial Company for damages, but Big Industrial Company says, "but how can you prove that it was our waste that gave your babies birth defects, and not the waste from Big Chemical Company upstream?"
Or a parent company will use the Wal-Mart defense. Top executives require store managers to do two things: 1) get all the work done and 2) keep payroll at a minimum and not pay any overtime. So periodically you'll hear about a store getting sued because a manager forced employees to work off the clock. Then a Wal-Mart spokesman will throw up his hands and say, "it's not our fault, we tell store managers to obey labor laws..." In other words, top management will put lower management in a position where they have to violate the law or be fired, and then blame lower management when it happens.
This is why after-the-fact lawsuits are no substitute for proactive regulation and enforcement.
Everything you complain about, happened on the watch of people opposed to libertarian ideals and practices.
The fact that the Republicans don't agree with the Libertarians on everything (abortion, War on Drugs) doesn't change the fact that our current economic crisis was caused by Libertarian (no regulation) principles.
You have got to be f*cking kidding!!!.
It's always funny to watch Libertarianism collide with the brick wall that is reality, and seeing the heads of Libertarians explode rather than admit that their philosophy, when actually applied, results in disaster.
But only one of those might be a core libertarian belief. A bigger problem is your ignorance and spreading of lies
Yawn.
The police are a proper - and one of the few - legitimate state functions. Now, watch as we hypocritically say the things we like are ok
Fixed that up a bit for you. Another big problems for Libertarianism: the fact that universal health care provides better care for less money, and provides more choice than health insurance from private companies.
Wow. I see after 30 years of Republicans cornholing the U.S., people are pissed
Fixed that for you.
ready to support your political heroes full bore.
What heroes? I divide my time between smacking down wingnut BS here and Obama fanboys on Dailykos. To bad we can't put all of you in a room together with free Kool Aid for everyone, and let the problem sort itself out naturally.
Oh wait, this is about Obama's new Anti-trust chief going ape on a search engine that happens to have sponsored links clearly separate from the results, and a successful advertising model that doesn't annoy the user. Not the opinions of a 20-something who not only didn't live through the Hoover era, but who also didn't live through the Reagan era, but knows all sorts of incorrect things about them. In fact, said 20-something received all of his/her opinions in something resembling a benediction from high school teachers and *maybe* university professors.
What the hell are you, and Obama's anti-trust chief, babbling about? You're not making any sense, and I have a lot more ad servers Adblocked than just doubleclick.net and googlesyndication.com.
I think the current economic situation reflects the "negative externalities" and "systemic risks to economies" that a Libertarian approach would have completely prevented.
Since the "current economic situation" was caused by the lack of regulation and over-leveraging of assets, Libertarianism would have made the problem worse, not better.
The Democrats want this so they can save the children from all of that evil kiddie porn
Are you kidding? The Republican party is divided between Bible thumpers and free market jihadists. You can name 10 moralizing Republicans for every moralizing Democrat. Throw in the Republican penchant for authoritarianism, and it's no contest as to who's going to run around screaming "why wont someone please think of the children?" more.
and also so the **AA can better control the media you consume, kill P2P and net neutrality, and bill you for it appropriately.
Big business rents most of the Democratic Party, but it owns the Republican Party. And what's the **AA? Big Business. Case in point, the 1996 Telecom Act. The Senate vote was 91 to 5, with four out of the five nay votes coming from Democrats. The only Republican Senator to vote against it was McCain.
Nicely chilled? No shit! We had some 30 degree weather for a week, but now it's back down to around zero again.
Which is why they outspent the Democrats in the recent election.
Oh, wait, the Republicans were the ones who kept their pledge to use only public financing. It was the Democrats who broke their word as soon as they realized that they could buy the election if they refused government funds. Never mind!
Oh, wait, you're a goddamned liar. Obama never pledged to take public financing. Never. What he did do, was promise to work with the Republican nominee on taking public financing, provided that the 527's (Swift Boat Liars) would be reigned in as much as possible. As McCain refused to do that, and was breaking the campaign finance laws that bear his name at the time, Obama had no incentive to make a deal.
But you can always count on Republicans, fine upstanding hypocrites that they are, to bitch about an advantage they used to have once it's held by the opposition. Remember the hard on the Senate Republicans had for the "up or down vote" when they had the majority? They went on to break all filibuster records the second the Democrats took back Congress.
You should see a nice doctor in Venezuela about that anal obstruction of yours. Once he's done removing your head from your ass, you can take a good look around and see what "socialism" really looks like.
And Reagan is going to come in just behind Bush in worst-president-ever lists. Reagan created the trillion dollar national debt, which has grown nicely to $10 trillion. Reagan pushed the deregulation-for-the-sake-of-deregulation culture into the mainstream, and now we are reaping the whirlwind. His sabre rattling against the U.S.S.R. prolonged its collapse, as threatening people just leads to an increase in patriotism and national unity (see: the U.S. after 911, or how support for Ahmadinejad increases in Iran every time a neocon threatens to bomb them).
Hoover didn't create the Great Depression; he just stood by and watched it happen. Reagan, however, started driving our country into the ground, and George W. Bush just gave it a nice shove down the stairs. We can only hope that the Democrats have the balls and the brains do undo 30 years of Republican damage to our country.
Your second sentence doesn't back up your first. There are also dozens of operating systems or word processing applications, but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft had a functional monopoly on desktop operating systems and office suites.
"The overwhelming majority* of the world's climate scientists" know what side their bread is buttered on. It's on the side of giving governments more excuses to tax and define their citizens activities ever more closely.
Yes, because "find excuses to tax and regulate" are routinely plastered on top of grant money. Now, try pulling your head out of your ass for two seconds, and try to name an systemic bias on the part of climatologists that's anything like the bias coming from the fossil fuel industry.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
That was wrong, and now the police officer(s), teacher, and school staff involved may well be finding themselves subject to disciplinary proceedings when the school board and the local education authorities want to know why their town, Wauwatosa, and Wauwatosa East High School are now being ridiculed on the net as examples of how not to run a school, and how not to run local law enforcement.
But a lot of people are authoritarians, especially when it comes to kids. Most of the comments here seem to be of "the dumb bitch had it coming" variety.
Once a person is under arrest they may be frisked. It's a fairly common, necessary, and lawful practice.
Did you honestly think I didn't know this already? But the cops have to have a valid reason to arrest you - something that obviously never occurred to you.
Yes, I know they arrested her for "disorderly conduct", but that's the catch all excuse they use when they don't have an actual crime on their hands, like theft or assault. Just ask the nearest black man about it.
Why would you need a warrant? She was arrested on disorderly conduct
Because "disorderly conduct" is what the cops claim when can't site you for an actual crime - theft, DUI, etc - just ask the nearest black man.
The cops didn't see her using the phone because they had to search her to find one. School should have just suspended her for a few days, and THEN called the cops if she refused to comply. But by searching her without a warrant or probable cause, they've open themselves (and the school) up to a lawsuit.
Wrong.
"Disorderly conduct" is what the cops use when they want to arrest you but can't name an actual crime. Did you honestly not know this already?
Case in point: the cops never saw her use the phone, because they had to frisk her to prove that she had one.
I hate to tell you this, son, but the school and the cops went nuclear way too soon, and have asked for a lawsuit.
Except that their teacher did see her texting, and did ask her to stop, and did presumably summon the safety officer.
Oh, I'm not saying the girl can't be disciplined. Go ahead and throw her out of class or even the school for a few days. If she refuses to leave the room, THEN call the cops to drag her out of the room. But by frisking her first, they put the cart before the horse and have left themselves open to a lawsuit.
You out the part where you had to fight through the guard dogs just to make it to class in Soviet Russia.