Is It Legal To Trick Children Into Giving Evidence?
Jan 11, 2013 Political
We have all seen the TV cop shows where a perp is tricked into giving evidence. He is offered a drink or given a tissue so that fingerprints and DNA evidence can be collected from the items. The perp thinks the offer is genuine but it is solely to collect evidence. This happens all the time in the real world as officers fool people into giving evidence. These folks are adults and if they are fooled then it is their fault.
But what about children?
We already know that children are only allowed to consent to certain things (like abortions where they do not have to inform parents) but for the most part parents are supposed to be involved when students are questioned by police.
How about when evidence is being sought? Are the police allowed to trick children into providing information that might incriminate them? Is it legal for people who children believe to be in authority positions to have children unwittingly provide evidence by using false pretenses?
In Northampton Massachusetts a joint effort by the police, the District Attorney, and the school board has resulted in children being fooled into providing handwriting samples. This stems from an incident where a threatening note was left at the school resulting in an incident where the school was evacuated.
After that incident the three entities obtained handwriting samples from the children to use for comparison to the note containing the threat. The children were led to believe they were writing a statement indicating they take the threat seriously and share the concern of the police. There is no indication these children were ever informed that their statements were going to be used as evidence to see if one of them was the note writer.
It does not appear as if the children were given an option not to write the statement so many probably looked at it as a mandatory school assignment. What would have happened to any student who refused?
I don’t think that collecting evidence like this is appropriate since the intended use of the statements was only for this purpose. Why wouldn’t the police just ask teachers for handwritten assignments to use for comparison? Would a warrant be required for this? If the purpose of obtaining the samples was for comparison why was a warrant not required to get them?
“We disagree that it violates student rights,” he [Police Chief Russell P. Sienkiewicz] said.
Sullivan released a statement saying that the bottom line is ensuring the safety of students.
“We take any threats against children seriously and investigate all such threats,” he said. “The alleged threat at Northampton High School was of a serious nature.” Mass Live
The claim is that the DA said the method is valid and legal. Under what laws and why were parents not involved?
How is what happened here any different than tricking all students into providing a DNA sample to see who was sticking gum under desks?
I think threats should be taken seriously but violating the rights of citizens to do so makes those involved no better than the criminal who left the note.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: constitution, evidence, handwriting samples, illegal acts, school children
There Are Many Ways To Help The Country, Like Obama Leaving Office
Apr 26, 2012 Political
Michelle Obama was asked by a school child if she was going to run for president. Michelle said that she did not think so because she did not want to be president. She said that she knows her strengths and that she feels that people can help the country in many ways even if they are not leading it.
As an aside, Barack was asked this question not long after he entered the Senate and he said he was not going to run because he was not ready to be president. He was right about that part…
Anyway, here is the answer Obama gave:
“Being president is a really hard job and it’s an important job,” Obama said. “And when my husband is running for president, we’re right in there; we’re serving, too. And I think that once his terms are over, we’ll go on to do other important things — because there are so many ways that you can help this country and the world, even if you’re not president of the United States.
“And I think one of the things you learn about yourself as you get older are what are your strengths and what are your interests. And for me it’s other stuff that is not being the president. So I probably won’t run. But that’s a great question.” The Weekly Standard
Michelle Obama is absolutely correct in saying that there are many ways to help the country even if you are not the president.
in fact, it would help the country greatly if her husband were not president. If he had never been elected we would be better off and if he loses in November we will be a lot better off.
So to paraphrase her for better accuracy, there are lots of ways to help the country particularly by making sure Barack is not president.
I guess if she were to run we would not have to worry about her birth certificate.
In any event, one Obama was too much for this country to take.
She discusses this in terms of her husband being reelected. If he is reelected I am certain that Michelle will never run for the presidency.
Because if Barack is reelected there will not be a country left for anyone to lead.
UPDATE: My fantasy involves all of them.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: catastrophe, michelle obama, President, school children, strenghts, weaknesses
Obama’s Contradictory Message To Students
Sep 8, 2009 Political
Today Barack Obama gave a speech that was sent to many schools across the nation. Certainly other presidents have spoken and had the speech watched in schools as when George H W Bush spoke at a school and it was carried by the MSM which allowed schools to watch it on broadcast TV. Obama directed his speech to all schools. There is a difference in methodology and intent. As an aside, Democrats launched investigations when H W Bush gave his speech. Now the uproar by parents is described as an Animal House food fight.
The message delivered by Obama was pretty benign though it did have a subtle political subtext. There were items that were disturbing but for the most part it was a rah rah speech. It disturbs me that Obama wants people to do well in school so they will benefit the nation because it smacks of statism. You do well for yourself as an individual and to become a productive member of society. He could have left out all the hot topics but he mixed them in in such a way that they appeared benign though it is not unlikely he was working to make millions of little community organizers..
The real issue is that Obama implored children to do something he does not believe in. Obama told them that the responsibility for success is ultimately on them and that they need to work hard to achieve. He told them that they needed to do well and be responsible for themselves so that they can achieve.
Obama does not believe in personal responsibility and his whole adult life involves having the government take care of people. He does not tell people to be responsible for their own health care management and to cut the luxuries out of their lives or to pay their medical bills over time. He does not tell auto companies (or any other company) that they need to be responsible or suffer failure. No, he bails them out. He uses taxpayer money to assist them instead of letting them fail should they be unable to compete. In everyday life Obama feels that you are not responsible for your actions and that government must be there to ensure that things are fair and the playing field is level.
Perhaps Obama should reflect upon what he told the students and start expecting that same behavior from the people in this country who want a free ride on the people who produce. Maybe instead of working to ensure all people are covered at the expense of those who pay taxes, Obama could require people to be responsible for their own lots in life. Maybe Obama could implore the members of Congress to start taking responsibility for their jobs and stop trying to become the big nanny state where government provides for everyone at the expense of the achievers.
How much different would things have been if candidate Obama had told people that they needed to be responsible for their lives and that ultimately it fell on them? Instead, he spoke about how he would lower the oceans and how people would pay less for their houses and gas. Peggy the moocher summed up the feelings of many when she said that Obama will make sure her house payments and gas are paid for. Too many people expect the government to be there to hand them everything they need.
Where is the speech telling them to be responsible? Where is the speech telling people that if they signed contracts to buy houses they could not afford they deserved to lose them? Where was the speech telling people that if they made bad investments they deserved to lose their money? Where was the speech telling GM that if it could not run a profitable business then it deserved to go belly up? Where was the speech telling bank and Wall Street executives that if they ran their companies into the ground with risky schemes then they deserved to go under? These things would have demonstrated a belief in responsibility.
Since Obama has never been responsible for much of anything it is easy to see why he does not expect other adults to be. Government will be there to do it for you because the Community Organizer in Chief will make it so.
The speech to the school children was nothing like those he gives to the American public and was contrary to his actual beliefs.
If Obama actually lived by what he told the children (and held Congress to the same standard) then we would not be in nearly as much trouble.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Obama, responsibility, school children, speech