That's just ridiculous, and your kid died while you were trying to hot wire the neighbor's car, so you ended up in the state penitentiary for child abuse, neglect, and grand theft auto.
I'm sure we can all fabricate situations in which we can justify in our own minds the breaking of rules. It's still not a good idea to start acting on these poorly-considered ideas.
Kevin
Thank you, John. I was beginning to think that the point was going to sneak by the "blind" side.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
George, your first paragraph and the third paragraph seem to be in conflict with each other. Which are you advocating?
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
What's ridiculous about it? And why hot-wire when you know where the neighbor's key is hanging and just have to kick in the door to get it?
That's because there are such situations.
So in your mind one should just let somebody get hurt or die if saving him would mean risking a $10 fine?
Same difference. You can justify breaking the law to suit your purpose. What if I just wanted the neighbor's car to go get some cigarettes? In my tiny little mind, the need is just as great. Is that sufficient cause to break the door down and take the keys (which, by the way, doesn't constitute auto theft in most states)? Who decides when the need rises to the level that exceeds your duty under the law?
No, there are no situations in which it is "right" to violate the law. It may be expedient, but your nieghbor, who now has a bloody back seat, a broken front door, and a very, very shaken spouse, doesn't believe it was the right thing to do.
Breaking and entering only garners a $10 fine in your locality? Can you reveal your general location, so I can be certain never to move or visit, there?
Thanks.
Kevin
You need to read as if your mind were not already made up.
I knew the rules, knew the consequences, took action based on the perceived greater good, then took my lumps, in obedience to the rule, which is a good one. That's what you have to do if you choose to break laws/customs/regulations - be prepared for the consequences, not belittle the rule and its enforcement.
Though you, and a couple others may be experts in the formulation of white pills, and thus capable of discerning from a distance what's changing hands, going down the throat, or into someone else's soda, I'm not. Zero tolerance makes perfect sense to me. I even have real experience, not theory, to back my opinion, though in one case it was a reverse. Momma sent the kids Ritalin to school to be given at the office, and it seemed to have lost its effect. Only after a week did we discover that an OTC antihistamine had been substituted for the stimulant mom had received free and sold on the sly.
If you th>
Broke the rules, but was willing to take the consequences.
You decide. It's called "judgment". If you think stealing a car to get some cigarettes is justifiable tell it to the judge. I doubt he'll have much sympathy.
As for taking the keys to steal the car rather than hot-wiring it, please quote the statute which makes the distinction.
That's for the courts to decide. You are familiar with the concept of "justifiable homicide" for example are you not?
That depends on your relationship with the neighbor, now, doesn't it. Personally if my neighbor stole my car to save the life of his kid I wouldn't be particularly angry at him.
I am going to say something that is going to come across as a slam and is not intended as such. There's a medical condition called "Asperger's Syndrome". Overliteral interpretation of others words is one of the characteristics. You might want to get checked for it.
I was not saying anything about breaking and entering, I was addressing legal vs physical risk.
I'm sure you can find it and since I'd rather not deal with someone who anal-retentively obeys _every_ law and gets distressed when others do not I'm just as happy to not have to deal with you.
Please quote the post in which I "belittled the rule and its enforcement".
So? Find out what it is and then make a judgment call about whether to get the police involved. Zero tolerance removes that judgment.
You mean the school nurse was selling Ritalin? Or are you saying that the mother was selling it? How does "zero tolerance" alter that?
I'm desolated to admit that I cannot figure out how the administration of medication by the school relates to "zero tolerance".
Very honestly, if you're in a position of authority, you need to be replaced by someone who is actually capable of making a decision without looking in a book.
Are you really ignorant of a fine point of one of those zero-tolerance stupidities known as "probable cause?"
You can't read, won't learn. Hope someone driving on the "what the hell, it's empty now and they'll see me coming head on" side of the road doesn't wipe you out before you do.
.....and therin lies the reason for zero tolerance rules. There are always jokers who think they can make better decisions than the people educated, trained and hired to make those decisions. These are also the folks who will cry to every newspaper and Board Member in the world with statements like the above idiot. They won't let administrators make rational reasoned decisions because their little hellion couldn't possibly have been the bad guy that brought qualudes to school and besides, you didn't give this kind of punishment to Mrs. Smith's kid who was caught with Mydol. As long as you elect Board Members who will listen to and give creedence to blathering Singletons why would you expect administrators to make judgement calls. As long as such fools can drag you into court for every decision you make why would you expect school districts to not cover their asses by implementing "fair" rules that are unequivical, since any reasoned equivication is immediatelly jumped on as proof that the damned administrator was prejudiced against my little angel. Folks you get exactly what you ask for and silly zero tolerance rules are directly due to our collective inability to accept reasoned decisions since "I've never met a school administrator that I believed was capable of making a reasoned, fair, intelligent decision." Sheesh!
Dave Hall Who happens to be a school administrator - thank god not on the academic side of operations where most zero tolerance rules are applied, but I get my share of goofs like Singleton on bus issues, tax issues, and other operational and financial areas.
Huh? What does justification for police to detain somebody have to do with anything?
So someone's driving on the wrong side of the road and comes at you head on while you're driving down the road that goes through the middle of the prison which is posted "no stopping". So what do you do, do you violate the law by pulling off the road and stopping until he passes (there is no shoulder--once you're in that particular ditch you're there until the tow-truck arrives unless you're driving an SUV) or do you violate the law by going into the other lane, or do you just die? Note that this was a real incident in which I had to make that decision--no particular is made up.
Sadly, it's true. Catering to the lowest, or making intelligence unnecessary by rules which allow for no interpretation seems the only way to avoid parents/kids and their lawyers. Given many of them today, I'd rather not serve in loco parentis, because they're loco!
When _all_ pills are illegal, they may be seized when seen, and their holders detained. To wait might still net a user, providing subsequent actions of same gave probable cause, but immediate action can get the seller, too. Sorting them out then becomes a law enforcement job. Since medications are sometimes needed during school hours, they are given, with _signed_ parental permission only by a designated staff member. It's not an education function, but it's unavoidable, given the legal climate.
I mention 9-11 and boxcutters to those who quibble about a zero-tolerance policy on knives versus the old blade length criterion.
Same thing with tobacco, even though some kids in HS are 18 - don't have to worry about distinguishing one hand-rolled from another.
. Folks you get
huge snip
Oh, man is this ever the truth. My wife is a teacher, and one night she was calling parents to talk about bad behavior. One parent actually told her "my kid can do what he wants, you leave him alone"! I don't remember if the call was about a zero-tolerance issue, but the response would have been the same. She has also heard the phrase "I taught my kid to not take any crap from anyone " a few too many times, too, knowing that "anyone" included her, the principal, and the police. The limits of acceptable behavior have been stretched way beyond reason.
I I raised a little hell in school 50 years ago, but ... wow!
David
(Sorry to take this thread even further off topic)
I was going to respond to this, but I just can't stop laughing!
Here, have some more of my tax dollars, Dave! Good boy!
Kevin
Thanks. I, and the kids, appreciate it.
Dave Hall
I'm not sure I see your point. Yes, there are consequences. So what? Nobody has denied that there are consequences nor has anybody argued that there should not be consequences.
I fail to see what this has to do with the issue of blind obedience to the law.
I see. From this one may conclude that you were stating a totally uninformed opinion, and that calls into question the validity of your other statements.
Again, so what? How does this bear on the question of whether one should always blindly obey the law no matter what the consequences of such obedience or whether there are circumstances under which it is appropriate to do other than obey the law?
That's why one exercises judgment.
A neurotypical at that point would have recognized that I had changed the subject and was no longer talking specifically about the auto theft scenario.
Please identify an individual who has advocated such in this discussion and quote the statements in which he advocated it.
I thought we were talking about picking and choosing which laws you would obey, and the effect that has on society.
Or, one could conclude that you can as easily look it up as can I, or that I have actual experience in dealing with a district attorney and his approach to the situation. Again, you are free to choose to do what you want.
I didn't realize we were talking about blindly obeying the law. I thought we were talking about picking and choosing which laws will apply to you at any moment, and ignoring those that don't seem expedient, or fun, regardless of the consequences.
By "judgment" you mean "ignoring the law that doesn't suit you", or does it now carry some other meaning?
Ah, I see. A clairvoyant may have noticed that you changed the subject, but us mere mortals are having trouble following what exists only in your mind. We're stuck with the difficult task of deciphering what you actually write. Keep it up; it's very entertaining.
You may recognize this, > Change it, don't violate it.
It's not that clearcut.
"Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car"? Well, let's see, you kid got into your shop and managed to cut his hand off with the circular saw. You try to stop the bleeding and you only succeed in slowing it. You went to call 911 and found out that the phones were out. You tried to rush him to the hospital and your car wouldn't start. Your neighbor's car is sitting in the driveway but your neighbor is not home. What do you do? Do you let your kid bleed to death or do you steal the neighbor's car and rush him to the emergency room?
See the problem with blind obedience and zero-tolerance enforcement?
I still fail to see that you have made any kind of point. Yes there are consequences. What of it?
There's a rhetorical technique called "shifting the burden of proof". That is what you appear to be attempting. You made the claim, you back it up.
What led you to believe this? All laws apply all the time. That does not mean that one should always obey all of them regardless of the consequences of such obedience. And nobody said anything about "fun" except you.
In what dictionary is "judgment" defined as "ignoring the law that doesn't suit you"?
No, a normal person would have noticed. No clairvoyance needed. There is something called "context" that you seem to be having a lot of trouble with.
I see. Please be kind enough to define "anarchy", as nothing in any of the material you quoted constitutes advocacy of "anarchy" by any definition that I have ever seen. Perhaps your definition comes from the same dictionary in which "judgment" is defined as "ignoring the law that doesn't suit you"?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.