Just out of curiosity, is it just as legal if your google search finds the person posts on an online forum for, say, cancer patients, to use that as a pre-screen for who might be unacceptable insurance risks? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
No, that is not even remotely legal. It would be a blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
However, in practice, it is very difficult to prove such discrimination in an isolated case. Any even semi-prudent employer would document something other than "cancer patient" as reason for rejection.
As a landlord, I do this from time to time. For example, I do not rent to alcoholics if I can avoid it; but alcoholism is a disease, and an alcoholic is a protected class member. Unfortunately, alcoholics tend to cause a ton of property damage. If I smell alcohol on an applicant, I always "find a legal reason to reject". Of course, you will never find that documented anywhere. It's not in my rental criteria, and it is never listed as the reason for rejection.
Applications have gotten to be so complex, it can be difficult to make all of the dependencies high-availability. And as we know, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
My current client just deployed a state of the art HA application. Oracle RAC enterprise with hot standbys, huge Weblogic clusters, F5 load balancers, datacenters in two different geogrpahies, each with redundant connections. This application is rock solid--except for one little wrinkle.
The application depends on an ancient, crotchety legacy system. Naturally, I informed my client that they needed to upgrade the legacy system. "We don't throw out perfectly-functioning systems." "But it isn't highly available--it's running on unsupported hardware using an unsupported version of Solaris, and the database resides on a single Oracle instance. That is a single point of failure."
After much back and forth, the client elected not to replace the legacy system. You can guess where this story leads.
Their shiny, new whiz-bang application goes down once or twice per month due to legacy system outages. In the end, as you might of guessed, the client just decided to live with the downtime. I still don't understand why they could find so much budget for the new application, but couldn't be bothered to do something about this duck-taped, old legacy app.
My current client has physical servers for everything. Three tiers, as well: dev, staging, and production. As you might guess, dev and prod get the most use--staging, not so much.
They could easily virtualize all of their staging servers, and run them on one physical host as-needed (they don't do staging builds that often, and it's not like every project needs to stage at once.
They also have some special purpose machines that rarely get used, but when the client needs 'em, they really need 'em. In the group I work with alone, they probably have about 30-40 unnecessary physical servers, and they are running out of datacenter space.
If I had my way, they would retire all of those non-24/7 servers and convert them to Amazon Machine Images. Then, when they want to stage a build, they spin up an AMI, stage the build on it, then terminate the instance. Total cost: $0.10. Hell, their staging servers cost that much every few hours, and all they do is idle their CPUs 98% of the time.
Just because the HR dept is only going to reveal employment dates, salary, and "eligible for rehire" (which usually gives all the information you need, anyhow), doesn't mean the hiring manager can't get an unofficial review.
In fact, my wife was trying to fill an open headcount on her team, and they had some applicants from a local firm that just had a large round of layoffs. Many good people were laid off, so it was a great opportunity.
There was one particular guy who interviewed well, but my wife happens to know some folks at this other firm. So she made a few calls to see if anyone was familiar with her candidate. Turns out they were, and this candidate was not part of the layoffs at all as he claimed to be. He was fired for cause, and for some very good reasons. All of this communication, of course, was off the record.
Naturally, my wife simply rejected the candidate without explanation. He'll never know he was not hired due to multiple damaging reviews from his former colleagues.
And if the arrest was invalid, evidence collected from it will be thrown out, otherwise...
Of course it would be. That happens all the time. If an officer performs a search without probable cause, that evidence is inadmissible. What is your point?
...the cops would just arrest anyone for "disorderly conduct" with or without probable suspicion, and you'd kiss your 4th amendment rights goodbye.
This is a fair criticism, and I think it is an unfortunate, but true observation. Courts have routinely held up the privilege of officers to arrest just about anybody for any reason, with the only recourse for the victim being suppression of the improperly-obtained evidence. Every once in a while, you'll see a civil rights lawsuit succeed against the most egregious offenders, but I think you'll find that if a cop randomly arrests you with no probable cause to make the arrest, you will not find any relief in the court system.
That was a cute, yet lengthy rant, but I don't think you've given any thought to my question when writing your answer.
uh, maybe the kid wouldn't be such a discipline challenge if they'd had, oh, i don't know... discipline? bad kids aren't born, they're reared. "shit happens" is probably not the best philosophy to have regarding bad behavior.
There are two problems here.
What's happened in the past is not relevant. The facts are that we currently have a child with a severe discipline problem. Unless you are prepared to provide a time machine so that the parents can get a do-over and raise her "right" this time, whatever that means, then you will have to do better in your answer.
There are some kids who are legitimate discipline problems through no fault of the parents. Think kids with mental disabilities. One of my cousins was a terrible discipline problem, but my aunt and uncle's two other kids were exemplary students who went on to be highly successful in life. Could there have been so much of a difference between kids who were raised in the same household by the same parents without some other explanation? It turns out my unsuccessful cousin has a laundry list of mental disabilities, and that was what is causing his problems in life.
i know what would have happened if i behaved like that girl did. i would not have seen my computer, the TV, my CD collection, my books, any of my friends, or DAYLIGHT until i was approximately 47. according to that police report, as soon as the responsible adults were out of the room, this little brat and her mother were laughing about the whole thing. is it any wonder that she's a discipline problem?
Like I said, I don't think that you have given serious consideration to the problem. Taking away a child's privileges until age 47 is not a viable answer.
it's not the job of a teacher to inspire. it's the job of a teacher to TEACH. that's why they're called teachers and not counselors, mentors, or coaches.
Well, that's funny. How would you define the verb "teach"? Is a textbook hooked to a text-to-speech converter a teacher? Or is a teacher more than that?
You know, it's interesting. And you'll find it interesting as a parent, should you ever become one. Kids love to learn. All of them. They walk around all day, tirelessly learning as much as they possibly can. So if I child ever says, "I hate school," that tells you nothing about the child, but everything about the school. It means the school has systematically crushed the child's natural curiosity.
and it's not the privilege of a student to condescend to be inspired, to deign to be motivated. it's the privilege of a student to STUDY, when it's easy and when it's hard. that's why they call them STUDents. and it's a privilege they'd be denied if they were chained to a loom for 16 hours a day like the kids in the countries that make the clothes you're wearing right now.
Again, this is silly. What I'm reading here is that you propose to have a heart to heart with the student in the article and say, "You know, you are a STUDent and that means you really should be STUDYing right now. This is the price you have to pay for the privilege of not being chained to a loom for 16 hours per day. Can't you only think of the starving slave children in China?"
I think you'll find that the above will not change the nature of a child like the one in the police report.
YOU, on the other hand, should know a great deal better than to expect public high school to be anything approaching consensual.
Dropping out of high school is legal in all 50 states, so I'll ignore this part of your rant. It's based on faulty assumptions.
do you think i graduated high school because i was inspired? did you? did you graduate high school without ever having to work your butt off for a teache
For some reason, I think many out there think that you spank as the first and only line of discipline. It is the last resort one.....after other ways fail.
Well, I think that spanking for the first offense is how it worked in the "good 'ol days", but I certainly agree that spanking for any infraction is terrible parenting.
Even you spoke about how any adult would take care of whuppin' any child who needed it. That's not how I grew up.
I was only spanked a few times as a kid, and I really can't remember any rhyme or reason for which infractions would yield a spanking. I think it was just how bad of a day my parents were having, which I also thinks sends the wrong message. The punishment should be about instructing the child, not the parent's mood.
What I've found works best with my kids, and I always have to remind folks that every child is different, so what works for my kids may not work at all for yours, is that punishments don't result in any behavior modification at all. The real behavior modification comes with teaching them how to behave in a wide variety of situations--before they are in a position of acting out.
Obviously I still use punishments, because all the instruction in the world will do nothing without enforcement. But my punishments tend to be immediate, quick, and light. It's more to call the kid's attention to the fact that he screwed up.
So after you got spanked, did you really make a concerted effort to change your behavior? Or did you just try to avoid your parents?
"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?
How does that matter? Whether or not the arresting officer had probable cause to make the arrest is for the court to decide after the fact. Because she was arrested, she was searched incidental to the arrest. This is standard procedure.
I hate to tell you this, son, but the school and the cops went nuclear way too soon, and have asked for a lawsuit.
Well, then their attorney would advise them that while the disorderly conduct citation stands about a 90% chance of dismissal, making false statements to an officer is a Class H Felony in WI. Might want to exercise some care regarding which boats are prudent to rock.
Anecdotal evidence of course, but, it sure kept my young ass in line. I respected authority, I learned to avoid an ass whuppin' by doing what I was supposed to.
I'm not having much luck with google, but my kid's pediatrician told me that a certain percentage of children have a compliant nature and will respond to any discipline system. That includes corporal. There exists a good chance that you were one of those children, and would have responded to any discipline system, and that all of those whuppins were superfluous.
I've noticed too...there seems to be a steady decline of child discipline and respect for adults and authority since we stopped corporal punishment.
This has been the observation of aging adults throughout known history: "The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress." -- sermon preached by Peter the Hermit, 1274 A.D.
Hell, back when I grew up, it wasn't just your parents...ANY parent in the neighborhood could full well swat your ass if you acted up, and they'd call your parents (who were thankful for the help) and you'd likely get another one when you got home. Try that today..and the parent/neighbor is a criminal....
Parents may lawfully practice corporal punishment with their own children. Personally, I am not against corporal punishment, but I am very specific about how I want it applied to my own children. I am not OK with any adult other that myself and my wife hitting my kids, but I would definitely appreciate a phone call to let me know what my kids are up to, and then let me decide if a spanking would deliver the proper message. Also, there are many parents who refuse to use corporal punishment, so I don't see how any other adult is justified in administering a whuppin on someone else's kid.
The student in the article got off easy with a disorderly conduct charge. Giving false information to an officer with intent to mislead is a Class H Felony in WI.
Wisconsin Statutes 946.41: 946.41 Resisting or obstructing officer.
946.41(1) (1) Whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
946.41(2) (2) In this section:
946.41(2)(a) (a) "Obstructs" includes without limitation knowingly giving false information to the officer or knowingly placing physical evidence with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty including the service of any summons or civil process.
946.41(2)(b) (b) "Officer" means a peace officer or other public officer or public employee having the authority by virtue of the officer's or employee's office or employment to take another into custody.
946.41(2m) (2m) Whoever violates sub. (1) under all of the following circumstances is guilty of a Class H felony:
946.41(2m)(a) (a) The violator gives false information or places physical evidence with intent to mislead an officer.
this is ten thousand percent true. my mom (a public high school teacher) once had a parent actually SAY to her, "if driving a log truck is good enough for me, it should be good enough for my kid."
What, exactly, do you expect the parents to do to get through to a kid who is such a discipline challenge that she is on a first-name basis with the local police force? Who would brazenly lie to a cop?
Did you wise, enlightened mother ever come up with any good suggestions in between bitching about the kids she failed to inspire?
First offense, confiscate the phone and give it back at the end of the day. Second offense, give her in detention,
I agree with you for most students, but if you read the complaint, you'll see that this girl was well-known to the arresting officer. That tells me that this kid has a severe discipline problem.
I think it's safe to assume that the school has long-since been through offense 1, offense 2, and offense 536 with this kid. I'm not surprised in the slightest that the school decided that detentions, assuming she showed up to serve her detentions at all given the ease with which she lied to a cop, were simply not getting through to her.
It's actually a lot harder than you'd think to achieve behavior-modification in kids who are that blatantly defiant. We could speculate all day about how she got to that point, but the fact still remains that someone like her represents a huge challenge to those who is responsible for her.
By way of example, what would you do if your 14-year-old kid just openly and publicly defied your authority? Let's say you were in public, in front of lots of people, and your kid loudly informs you that you are a total asshole. The instant you open your mouth to speak, he follows it with, "Shut the fuck up, dad." I've actually seen this happen before. What would you do if you were the dad whose kid just undermined and humiliated you?
If I received a forced pat down followed by attempted removal of objects from under my underwear, I know *I* would be engaging in some disorderly conduct.
They went waaay overboard. An escalated response on her part was justified.
RTFA. She was only searched after she was arrested. And guess what--when you get arrested, the police are allowed to search you.
Make a scene after you are under arrest at your own peril. That's a great way to get a resisting arrest charge.
Courts have consistently ruled that police are allowed to do what is necessary to arrest someone. The time to make your case is in front of a judge--not with the arresting officer. Again: if an officer informs you that you are under arrest, you would be extremely well-advised to shut up and cooperate.
If you have a very common name, then seriously, don't worry about it.
Even if it's not a very common name, I still wouldn't worry too much about it. Most employers will be doing a criminal background check, which is a lot more reliable than some random blog posting.
Lastly, if you find yourself getting into a pattern of great interviews followed by curt rejections, you might consider being proactive and having a humorous, but prepared statement that you can give during an interview about online reputations, mistaken identity, evidence that the pedophile in question could not be you, as well as how much the situation has taught you about protecting your own reputation, and by extension, the reputation of your employer. Most anything can be spun into a positive.
You fail to account for hospitalization of adults who contracted chickenpox and shingles in adulthood as a result of never contracting chickenpox as a child.
Chickenpox vaccine is the one and only vaccine I think the academy is idiotic for recommending.
Chickenpox vaccine is the only vaccine I refused to get for my kids, and that is because it is a piece of shit vaccine. I am against it because it fails to provide sufficient protection against the virus into adulthood--precisely when you do not want to get the chickenpox.
Kids who are vaccinated against the chickenpox are more likely to get adult chickenpox and shingles. I'm not one of these anti-vaccine nuts. Like I said, my kids got every vaccine recommended except for that one. I just think the wisdom behind giving chickenpox vaccine is highly, highly questionable. If the vaccine were more effective, I'd have had no qualms about giving it to my kids.
Slashdot Mirror
Just out of curiosity, is it just as legal if your google search finds the person posts on an online forum for, say, cancer patients, to use that as a pre-screen for who might be unacceptable insurance risks? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
No, that is not even remotely legal. It would be a blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
However, in practice, it is very difficult to prove such discrimination in an isolated case. Any even semi-prudent employer would document something other than "cancer patient" as reason for rejection.
As a landlord, I do this from time to time. For example, I do not rent to alcoholics if I can avoid it; but alcoholism is a disease, and an alcoholic is a protected class member. Unfortunately, alcoholics tend to cause a ton of property damage. If I smell alcohol on an applicant, I always "find a legal reason to reject". Of course, you will never find that documented anywhere. It's not in my rental criteria, and it is never listed as the reason for rejection.
Applications have gotten to be so complex, it can be difficult to make all of the dependencies high-availability. And as we know, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
My current client just deployed a state of the art HA application. Oracle RAC enterprise with hot standbys, huge Weblogic clusters, F5 load balancers, datacenters in two different geogrpahies, each with redundant connections. This application is rock solid--except for one little wrinkle.
The application depends on an ancient, crotchety legacy system. Naturally, I informed my client that they needed to upgrade the legacy system. "We don't throw out perfectly-functioning systems." "But it isn't highly available--it's running on unsupported hardware using an unsupported version of Solaris, and the database resides on a single Oracle instance. That is a single point of failure."
After much back and forth, the client elected not to replace the legacy system. You can guess where this story leads.
Their shiny, new whiz-bang application goes down once or twice per month due to legacy system outages. In the end, as you might of guessed, the client just decided to live with the downtime. I still don't understand why they could find so much budget for the new application, but couldn't be bothered to do something about this duck-taped, old legacy app.
One word:
Sue.
On what grounds?
It's not like Microsoft did anything illegal.
My current client has physical servers for everything. Three tiers, as well: dev, staging, and production. As you might guess, dev and prod get the most use--staging, not so much.
They could easily virtualize all of their staging servers, and run them on one physical host as-needed (they don't do staging builds that often, and it's not like every project needs to stage at once.
They also have some special purpose machines that rarely get used, but when the client needs 'em, they really need 'em. In the group I work with alone, they probably have about 30-40 unnecessary physical servers, and they are running out of datacenter space.
If I had my way, they would retire all of those non-24/7 servers and convert them to Amazon Machine Images. Then, when they want to stage a build, they spin up an AMI, stage the build on it, then terminate the instance. Total cost: $0.10. Hell, their staging servers cost that much every few hours, and all they do is idle their CPUs 98% of the time.
What a waste.
In many state is it Illegal to give any information about previous employees other than confirming previous employment, and dates.
False.
See US Constitution, Amendment I.
The truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim.
That's the one that can be damaging.
Q: "Is John Smith eligible for rehire at Company X?"
A: "No."
That's all the information you need, and it cannot be considered defamatory, as the truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim.
Just because the HR dept is only going to reveal employment dates, salary, and "eligible for rehire" (which usually gives all the information you need, anyhow), doesn't mean the hiring manager can't get an unofficial review.
In fact, my wife was trying to fill an open headcount on her team, and they had some applicants from a local firm that just had a large round of layoffs. Many good people were laid off, so it was a great opportunity.
There was one particular guy who interviewed well, but my wife happens to know some folks at this other firm. So she made a few calls to see if anyone was familiar with her candidate. Turns out they were, and this candidate was not part of the layoffs at all as he claimed to be. He was fired for cause, and for some very good reasons. All of this communication, of course, was off the record.
Naturally, my wife simply rejected the candidate without explanation. He'll never know he was not hired due to multiple damaging reviews from his former colleagues.
I thought I saw a slot on the thingy. An SD slot oughta do the trick. Where do I get one, again?
Storage might be a problem with only 512MB flash. Wonder if that's expandable.
And if the arrest was invalid, evidence collected from it will be thrown out, otherwise...
Of course it would be. That happens all the time. If an officer performs a search without probable cause, that evidence is inadmissible. What is your point?
...the cops would just arrest anyone for "disorderly conduct" with or without probable suspicion, and you'd kiss your 4th amendment rights goodbye.
This is a fair criticism, and I think it is an unfortunate, but true observation. Courts have routinely held up the privilege of officers to arrest just about anybody for any reason, with the only recourse for the victim being suppression of the improperly-obtained evidence. Every once in a while, you'll see a civil rights lawsuit succeed against the most egregious offenders, but I think you'll find that if a cop randomly arrests you with no probable cause to make the arrest, you will not find any relief in the court system.
That was a cute, yet lengthy rant, but I don't think you've given any thought to my question when writing your answer.
uh, maybe the kid wouldn't be such a discipline challenge if they'd had, oh, i don't know... discipline? bad kids aren't born, they're reared. "shit happens" is probably not the best philosophy to have regarding bad behavior.
There are two problems here.
i know what would have happened if i behaved like that girl did. i would not have seen my computer, the TV, my CD collection, my books, any of my friends, or DAYLIGHT until i was approximately 47. according to that police report, as soon as the responsible adults were out of the room, this little brat and her mother were laughing about the whole thing. is it any wonder that she's a discipline problem?
Like I said, I don't think that you have given serious consideration to the problem. Taking away a child's privileges until age 47 is not a viable answer.
it's not the job of a teacher to inspire. it's the job of a teacher to TEACH. that's why they're called teachers and not counselors, mentors, or coaches.
Well, that's funny. How would you define the verb "teach"? Is a textbook hooked to a text-to-speech converter a teacher? Or is a teacher more than that?
You know, it's interesting. And you'll find it interesting as a parent, should you ever become one. Kids love to learn. All of them. They walk around all day, tirelessly learning as much as they possibly can. So if I child ever says, "I hate school," that tells you nothing about the child, but everything about the school. It means the school has systematically crushed the child's natural curiosity.
and it's not the privilege of a student to condescend to be inspired, to deign to be motivated. it's the privilege of a student to STUDY, when it's easy and when it's hard. that's why they call them STUDents. and it's a privilege they'd be denied if they were chained to a loom for 16 hours a day like the kids in the countries that make the clothes you're wearing right now.
Again, this is silly. What I'm reading here is that you propose to have a heart to heart with the student in the article and say, "You know, you are a STUDent and that means you really should be STUDYing right now. This is the price you have to pay for the privilege of not being chained to a loom for 16 hours per day. Can't you only think of the starving slave children in China?"
I think you'll find that the above will not change the nature of a child like the one in the police report.
YOU, on the other hand, should know a great deal better than to expect public high school to be anything approaching consensual.
Dropping out of high school is legal in all 50 states, so I'll ignore this part of your rant. It's based on faulty assumptions.
do you think i graduated high school because i was inspired? did you? did you graduate high school without ever having to work your butt off for a teache
How many times do you suppose you were spanked before you started to behave yourself?
Do you think the spankings ended when you started behaving? Or when you reached a certain age/size?
For some reason, I think many out there think that you spank as the first and only line of discipline. It is the last resort one.....after other ways fail.
Well, I think that spanking for the first offense is how it worked in the "good 'ol days", but I certainly agree that spanking for any infraction is terrible parenting.
Even you spoke about how any adult would take care of whuppin' any child who needed it. That's not how I grew up.
I was only spanked a few times as a kid, and I really can't remember any rhyme or reason for which infractions would yield a spanking. I think it was just how bad of a day my parents were having, which I also thinks sends the wrong message. The punishment should be about instructing the child, not the parent's mood.
What I've found works best with my kids, and I always have to remind folks that every child is different, so what works for my kids may not work at all for yours, is that punishments don't result in any behavior modification at all. The real behavior modification comes with teaching them how to behave in a wide variety of situations--before they are in a position of acting out.
Obviously I still use punishments, because all the instruction in the world will do nothing without enforcement. But my punishments tend to be immediate, quick, and light. It's more to call the kid's attention to the fact that he screwed up.
So after you got spanked, did you really make a concerted effort to change your behavior? Or did you just try to avoid your parents?
"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?
How does that matter? Whether or not the arresting officer had probable cause to make the arrest is for the court to decide after the fact. Because she was arrested, she was searched incidental to the arrest. This is standard procedure.
I hate to tell you this, son, but the school and the cops went nuclear way too soon, and have asked for a lawsuit.
Well, then their attorney would advise them that while the disorderly conduct citation stands about a 90% chance of dismissal, making false statements to an officer is a Class H Felony in WI. Might want to exercise some care regarding which boats are prudent to rock.
I'd love to hear your answer to the GP's question.
I think you underestimate the challenge that such a grossly defiant child presents for those who must take care of her.
The kid actually got off easy. Lying to an officer is a class H felony in WI.
Anecdotal evidence of course, but, it sure kept my young ass in line. I respected authority, I learned to avoid an ass whuppin' by doing what I was supposed to.
I'm not having much luck with google, but my kid's pediatrician told me that a certain percentage of children have a compliant nature and will respond to any discipline system. That includes corporal. There exists a good chance that you were one of those children, and would have responded to any discipline system, and that all of those whuppins were superfluous.
I've noticed too...there seems to be a steady decline of child discipline and respect for adults and authority since we stopped corporal punishment.
This has been the observation of aging adults throughout known history:
"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress." -- sermon preached by Peter the Hermit, 1274 A.D.
Hell, back when I grew up, it wasn't just your parents...ANY parent in the neighborhood could full well swat your ass if you acted up, and they'd call your parents (who were thankful for the help) and you'd likely get another one when you got home.
Try that today..and the parent/neighbor is a criminal....
Parents may lawfully practice corporal punishment with their own children. Personally, I am not against corporal punishment, but I am very specific about how I want it applied to my own children. I am not OK with any adult other that myself and my wife hitting my kids, but I would definitely appreciate a phone call to let me know what my kids are up to, and then let me decide if a spanking would deliver the proper message. Also, there are many parents who refuse to use corporal punishment, so I don't see how any other adult is justified in administering a whuppin on someone else's kid.
The student in the article got off easy with a disorderly conduct charge. Giving false information to an officer with intent to mislead is a Class H Felony in WI.
Wisconsin Statutes 946.41:
946.41 Resisting or obstructing officer.
946.41(1)
(1) Whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
946.41(2)
(2) In this section:
946.41(2)(a)
(a) "Obstructs" includes without limitation knowingly giving false information to the officer or knowingly placing physical evidence with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty including the service of any summons or civil process.
946.41(2)(b)
(b) "Officer" means a peace officer or other public officer or public employee having the authority by virtue of the officer's or employee's office or employment to take another into custody.
946.41(2m)
(2m) Whoever violates sub. (1) under all of the following circumstances is guilty of a Class H felony :
946.41(2m)(a)
(a) The violator gives false information or places physical evidence with intent to mislead an officer.
this is ten thousand percent true. my mom (a public high school teacher) once had a parent actually SAY to her, "if driving a log truck is good enough for me, it should be good enough for my kid."
What, exactly, do you expect the parents to do to get through to a kid who is such a discipline challenge that she is on a first-name basis with the local police force? Who would brazenly lie to a cop?
Did you wise, enlightened mother ever come up with any good suggestions in between bitching about the kids she failed to inspire?
First offense, confiscate the phone and give it back at the end of the day.
Second offense, give her in detention,
I agree with you for most students, but if you read the complaint, you'll see that this girl was well-known to the arresting officer. That tells me that this kid has a severe discipline problem.
I think it's safe to assume that the school has long-since been through offense 1, offense 2, and offense 536 with this kid. I'm not surprised in the slightest that the school decided that detentions, assuming she showed up to serve her detentions at all given the ease with which she lied to a cop, were simply not getting through to her.
It's actually a lot harder than you'd think to achieve behavior-modification in kids who are that blatantly defiant. We could speculate all day about how she got to that point, but the fact still remains that someone like her represents a huge challenge to those who is responsible for her.
By way of example, what would you do if your 14-year-old kid just openly and publicly defied your authority? Let's say you were in public, in front of lots of people, and your kid loudly informs you that you are a total asshole. The instant you open your mouth to speak, he follows it with, "Shut the fuck up, dad." I've actually seen this happen before. What would you do if you were the dad whose kid just undermined and humiliated you?
If I received a forced pat down followed by attempted removal of objects from under my underwear, I know *I* would be engaging in some disorderly conduct.
They went waaay overboard. An escalated response on her part was justified.
RTFA. She was only searched after she was arrested. And guess what--when you get arrested, the police are allowed to search you.
Make a scene after you are under arrest at your own peril. That's a great way to get a resisting arrest charge.
Courts have consistently ruled that police are allowed to do what is necessary to arrest someone. The time to make your case is in front of a judge--not with the arresting officer. Again: if an officer informs you that you are under arrest, you would be extremely well-advised to shut up and cooperate.
If you have a very common name, then seriously, don't worry about it.
Even if it's not a very common name, I still wouldn't worry too much about it. Most employers will be doing a criminal background check, which is a lot more reliable than some random blog posting.
Lastly, if you find yourself getting into a pattern of great interviews followed by curt rejections, you might consider being proactive and having a humorous, but prepared statement that you can give during an interview about online reputations, mistaken identity, evidence that the pedophile in question could not be you, as well as how much the situation has taught you about protecting your own reputation, and by extension, the reputation of your employer. Most anything can be spun into a positive.
You fail to account for hospitalization of adults who contracted chickenpox and shingles in adulthood as a result of never contracting chickenpox as a child.
Chickenpox vaccine is the one and only vaccine I think the academy is idiotic for recommending.
Chickenpox vaccine is the only vaccine I refused to get for my kids, and that is because it is a piece of shit vaccine. I am against it because it fails to provide sufficient protection against the virus into adulthood--precisely when you do not want to get the chickenpox.
Kids who are vaccinated against the chickenpox are more likely to get adult chickenpox and shingles. I'm not one of these anti-vaccine nuts. Like I said, my kids got every vaccine recommended except for that one. I just think the wisdom behind giving chickenpox vaccine is highly, highly questionable. If the vaccine were more effective, I'd have had no qualms about giving it to my kids.