Feather

The KRON news station has the story here.


This is no longer shocking, but it is certainly apalling. I became very ill reading this. Guess I'd better start watching what I say when in public now, lest the SS comes for me and "takes ownership."

Hubble head

What exactly did the kids say? "I hate GWB" versus something about "GBjr sleeping with fishes" are completely different. An opinion is protected free speech - a threat is not.

Sounds like two stupid kids who don't think before they speak were trying to sound like bad-asses and made a viable statement that indicated they could or should take out the president.

All things considered, it's worse than making a comment that could be misunderstood as a threat in an airport about a bomb or gun.

I think other things could have taken place, like parental presence but something else tells me these kids' parents are probably parenting in absentia due to their wage-based FT jobs. That's most Oakland kids to me anyway -rich and ignored or poor and ignored.

The teacher did her job. The kids were seen to be total dumbasses and no threat to anyone but themselves.

DarkBronzePlant

Hubble head,

Did you read or hear about this somewhere else, that gave a clearer account of what the kids said? If so, then say so. Otherwise, you're just assuming the kids made a direct threat and deserved the interrogation.

Either way, I wonder what was going through that teacher's mind:

Kids: "We think the world would be a better place if Bush was dead."
Teacher: Holy crap! These kids are going to hop on a plane to Washington DC and go shoot the president! I'd better notify the Secret Service!

Feather

I think the more important issue of the article is raised by this quote, from the article:

What the boys said is largely unimportant in comparison, I think.

The issue of whether the teacher was "right" in reporting them is definitely very high in importance, too, though. Whether the kids actually made a threat or not is a determining factor in that.

Regardless, the quote above demonstrates yet another step toward the Big Brother state.

suat kelem

From the sf indymedia article:

The issue is whether or not the kids were obviously joking. Either way, parents or a lawyer should have been present.

Hubble head

You're right, I really can't say without a valid quote-which is why I said "sounds like" to infer my opinion so yes I am assumimg. But this has nothing to do with "tips" either. It was the teachers job to report the assumed threat and the SS strict duty to investigate. It has been like this here for many years-probably a law ever since Lincoln was assainated.

This is an incomplete article and what it leaves out barely makes it newsworthy. Were the parents not contacted or were they unable to be located? Or did they reply, "I'm sorry my kid said such a stupid thing, he really isn't a bad guy and if you talk to him you will see that."

Were the teenagers 13 or 18? Did the SS come right away to interrogate them or the next day? Poorly written piece of news, really.

My mother was a high school teacher for about 5 years-all she could handle before moving over to adult teaching. She always said "They're not such animals once they get to 29 and realize how important that piece of paper really is to keeping them off the street".

One day she went to ask the school's VP what she should do about three kids right after she overheard them talking about "wacking" some other kid after school. "Aww man, dude is gonna be hatin life after we get through wackin' his ass" was one of the things she remebered one kid saying. "You got the ambush set up?" was another that shook her up enough to go right to the Vice Principle.

Their tone wasn't serious -they laughed like they were about to play a joke on someone but the VP still insisted that the school policemen be informed. She was a substitute back then, BTW.

He brought in the gang task force and suddenly all hell broke loose - because it was really a prank to pie some guy after school. After the pies were confiscated my mom felt like an idiot but the policeman and school congradulated her on not acting as judge and jury and dimissing the remark. The kids were scolded for using a type of language that makes others afraid for what they vaguly imply. All was forgiven.

The moral of this story? Get off the teachers back and if they think something is not quite right, give them the benefit of the doubt until the unusual choice of words can be deciphered by people who are trained to do that. Don't assume the teacher is an illiterate paranoid idiot -even in Oakland.

Hubble head

The SF article was a little better-I see now they were minors and the SS showed up that day. As minors, under California Law, if the legal gaurdian/parent cannot be located they pretty much are wards of the state until parents/guardians can be located and really do not have all the rights a legal adult has.

edietd for rambling}

Feather

I really think you're missing the point, Hubble Head.

One (relatively minor in comparison) aspect of the article is what the kids said and whether or not the teacher was justified in reporting it.

The bigger point is that the kids were held and interrogated without access to their guardians OR legal council. The Supreme Court has ruled that persons labelled "enemy combatants" by the President or his security team can be held indefinitely without any legal resources at all (cf. the Pedilla case).

This incident and the SCOTUS' ruling there are just setting the stage for a frightful, oppressive Big Brother state.

The point isn't that a couple of nitwit teenagers made stupid comments in class that they may or may not have meant. It is that this incident is one step closer to George W. Bush the Dictator instead of George W. Bush the President.

If it were "just" this one incident I'd be pissed--but not necessarily as frightened. You see, I've made desparaging remarks about the President to my friends and co-workers. What if one of my co-workers decides to interpret my remarks as "threatening" toward the President? Will I be "secreted away" to be subject to the whims of the SS, like these two boys were, only for a much more permanent duration, like Pedilla?

I'm surprised you can be so dismissive of that point. It's almost like you're just ignoring it, or that you're justifying the denial of representation based on what the boys may or MAY NOT have said! Astounding, truly.

John Hancock

This is evidential of an over reliance on hearsay upon the part of Federal Officers obviously intoxicated by their own power.

Martin

Psycho Economist

The Principal made the decision not to bother calling the parents, putting these kids (though they may be jerkweeds) at the mercy of two unaccountable button men. Fortunately, the Secret Service agents gave the kids a pass. But we shouldn't have to rely on the grace of Federal agents for our due process of law.