Comments

Funny wrote on Jan 3, 2008 4:30 PM:

" Let's see, gunshot to the head, or reasonable handwriting sample. Airplane blown to shreds, or everyone searched before boarding. What's the difference? I really don't see the difference. You don't have to go to school, and you don't have to board the plane. Common sense was surely lost here. Anyway, I love that we can all talk about it freely. You can keep arguing, but lives saved are the real winner here. Kudos to CHS and AST!!! "




kevin wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:56 AM:

" Alaska mountain man, the cases you referenced are not applicable to the situation we are discussing. You are referencing cases involving "searches" of a group of people.

Our courts have clearly decided over time that using handwriting to identify a person is NOT a "search" as defined by the 4TH ammendment.

The question stands to anyone.

If the school district violated someones rights, please cite some case law to support that position.

Otherwise it's all talk

"




FINALLY!! wrote on Jan 2, 2008 7:13 AM:

" Someone acknowledges that this young man threat writer must have shown signs that the parents disregarded. Hopefully the parents will NOW be responsible and get him some counseling after his legal consequences are fulfilled. If not, they are putting all of our children at risk again. If he can't get attention in one way, will he will get it in another- God help us! Thank you CHS administration for identifying this child screaming out for some sort of help!! "




Just the facts wrote on Jan 1, 2008 11:17 PM:

" http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/threatassessmentguide.pdf
Principle 1: Targeted violence is the end result of an understandable,and oftentimes discernible, process of thinking/behavior. Findings of the Safe School Initiative indicate that students and former students who committed targeted attacks at schools almost always thought about their attacks in advance and did not "just snap" suddenly. These findings suggest that students who carry out school attacks may consider possible targets; talk with others about their ideas/ intentions; and record their thinking in diaries/journals or on a Web
site (or bathroom wall?). In other words, they gave warnings. Shall we heed them or disregard? "




Proven Wrong wrote on Jan 1, 2008 5:43 PM:

" It's amazing that people get in here and cite cases from over 20 years ago that have since been overturned. YORK v. WAHKIAKUM SCHOOL DISTRICT actually cites KUEHN v. RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, wherein the ACLU argued on appeal against Wahkiakum School District. The ACLU lost on appeal and the whole thing was remanded back to the lower court for resolution. In short, the case referred to AlaskaMountainMan's post was thrown out on appeal. The problem here is that folks are doing nothing more than playing armchair lawyers. Please, stop doing this as it only displays legalized ignorance. "




AKMountainMan Wrong wrote on Jan 1, 2008 2:21 PM:

" Feb. 2002: YORK v. WAHKIAKUM SCHOOL DISTRICT #200 (i.e. Kuehn v. Renton School District) -- Conclusion: "Thus, suspicionless searches are not unreasonable per se, and the students have not shown that the District's policy invades a clear legal or equitable right. Remanded." This case dealt with drug testing of student athletes...and the opinion of these athletes that the testing violated their rights. It cited the example of other drug testing cases. Examples included drug testing for employment. If this case is precendent for eliminating "blanket searches," why is just about every employment offer accompanied by mandatory drug testing? "




AlaskaMountainMan wrote on Jan 1, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Random searches of large groups of people based on the suspicion that something has been done by one or few students is illegal, as indicated by several cases of the late 80’s (R.J.M. VS State, FLA Dist. App. 1984; Webb VS McCullough, 6th Cir. 1987. "




AlaskaMountainMan wrote on Jan 1, 2008 2:04 PM:

" In Kuehn v. Renton School District, an ACLU case, the Washington Supreme Court in 1985 ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to search a student without individualized suspicion that he or she is breaking a law or school rule. "




Check the handbook wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:21 PM:

" I am impressed that many of you know how to research topics and use big words. Must be nice to know that when you went through school, you didnt have to worry about these threats so you could get a good education. The writing samples were voluntary and they already had an idea who it was. The incident did not already pass before the sampoles were done. And If you look at the district handbook that every student gets, it states that the school has the right to search if it feels in the interest to protect other student or "




What English! wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Writing to a high-schooler, Stanfill should have paid more attention to proper writing technique. Example: lack of examples in paragraph 3. One would expect an extensive search of "blanket search" on the Web to produce hundreds of examples...yet none are cited. However, the opposite is actually the case. Many schools across the country now require all students to walk through metal detectors and surrender their bags for hand searches before they're permitted into school. If these aren't blanket searches, I don't know what are. By the way, what's wrong with "there is huge profits to be gleaned?" Proofreed you're komments! "




Publius wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:31 PM:

" Here, Here Kevin!
The Frontiersman's article on Sunday verifies there was no breach of rights by the handwriting samples. What a breath of fresh air to have a comment based on scholarship, not political posturing. The rights of Erika are violated every time one of her "supporters" uses her to promote a political agenda. Those that really cared, as demonstrated by their actions, not empty raven-shrieking rhetoric, kept her safe from those that would prevent her from speaking through physical violence.
Why has no posturing politoco addressed the disruption of tax-funded classes for three days? No points to score maybe? "




Just the facts wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:02 PM:

" A clarification: the shooting threats were for the next week during final exams. The school compared writing samples the Friday before finals week. The arrest was made the Monday before the threats were to take place. "




kevin wrote on Dec 31, 2007 6:28 PM:

" Sorry "actually" but I did a little research on my own and found several cases where US courts have ruled that hadwriting samples do not violate the 4th, or the 5Th ammendments of our constitution. This is long standing case law, starting with gilbert v california.

Time to step up to the plate, if the school districe violated students rights, please provide some case references that support that position. "




Thanks Bill.. wrote on Dec 31, 2007 2:37 PM:

" The ignorance of good Americans is astounding. You are correct, we have, in general, sold out to fear. Rmemeber this, only about one third of the people originally supported the American Revolution, out of which we got our rights. Roughly a third were afraid of change and supported England and the King. Another third rode the fence possibly from fear also. So some things never change, expect only a few to stand up for our rights and for the majority to live in fear. Thanks Erika and Bill for your courage. "




Democritus wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:07 AM:

" Finally, I have to ask why Erika is being attacked for talking about this event. She didn't refuse to give a writing sample. She didn't try to impede an investigation. She simply felt that her legal rights were being breeched and had the temerity to talk about it. She stood up for herself, her fellow students, and our Bill of Rights. This is exactly the kind of behavior our schools and community should be encouraging. If you disagree with her, explain why. Don't tell her to sit down, shut up, grow up, or move somewhere else. Shame on you. "




Democritus wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:03 AM:

" But, people cry, we must consider the potential cost of not doing this. There was a threat to our children and the authorities had to do whatever it took to protect them. This sort of argument particularly rankles. Either we are a society governed by laws, with the Bill of rights above all others, or we are a society governed by the whim of the moment. We either protect everyone's rights, or we all should be ready to have those rights abrogated. "




Democritus wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:56 AM:

" Rather than compelling a handwriting sample, however, again and again the courts have found on this issue that the correct course of action is for existing handwriting samples (tests, homework, etc) be used. Those samples are already "out there" in the public, and therefore the student has no expectation of privacy. Compelling students to provide handwriting samples specifically for inspection by the authorities is more legally problematic, and was therefore legally a poor choice. Add to that the fact that the "eminent threat" test had already been failed (the named time come and gone), and the search looks even worse. "




Thank you Bill wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:37 AM:

" And Erika. It just amazes me how people are coming out of the wood work to tell this young lady and anyone supporting her that they are UnAmerican, unpatriotic, fascists, or want to see children blown up. Telling the girl to go back to California if she doesn't like having her rights trampled on is my personal favorite. How can people who are so rabidly anti-government, libertarian, and pro-individual rights be so flippant with the rights of others? Oh, yeah, you covered that already...hypocrisy. "




Actually... wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:34 AM:

" The US Supreme Court has ruled that handwriting samples ARE INDEED SEARCHES, so wrong there Publius (cute name though...wish you deserved it). And it is hypocritical to scream for your rights (Pio Cottini during Prop. 1 for example) but argue to mitigate another's rights (Pio Cottini's letter to the editor in this case), so you are wrong there too. As for the "fascist handbook", well, again, the same group criticizing Erika for speaking out just love to call people Facists directly (Pio, Prop. 1 again.) It's hypocritical to demand more than your rights, but keep others from those guaranteed them. "




Publius wrote on Dec 28, 2007 8:22 AM:

" A handwriting sample is hardly a search. Such inflammatory rhetoric must mean that there is really little substance to Mr. Stanfill's argument. Labeling his opposition as hypocrites is a tactic from the fascist handbook. Always blame others for the same sins that the finger-pointer is committing. Instead of being "cool-headed", his comments are inflammatory. They are just plain non-factual, selective, and off the real topic. The real violators of the students' rights were those that chose to disrupt. Once again they get a pass from Mr. Stanfill to do it again while he would literally handcuff the principle. "