False Columbine-esque Accusations

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 19 May 2005 11:00

I wasn't sure whether or not to make a whole new thread for this, but I figured, what the hell.

I was in Chemistry just yesterday when the principal arrived at the door of the classroom and asked a friend of mine (we'll call him...Tyler. because thats his name) to go with her, and bring his stuff. He didn't come back at all that period. I saw him later that day in the hallways and inquired about the situation. Turns out that someone with a muffled voice had called the school and reported that Tyler had a gun and was going to shoot up the school. Anonymous tip, it was. So they grabbed him, dragged him to the office (where there were police waiting) searched him, interviewed him for a long time, searched his locker, the works. Tyler, though he looks like a possible type to do something like this, really never would. He is honestly kind of a pussy, and is also a really nice guy. And of course the claims were completely fraudulent. He had no weapons on his person or in his locker, and no reason for them to suspect he had any violent intentions whatsoever. So we thought it was all over...until he came into school today and told us the police came to his house and searched his room as well. thoroughly. they even confiscated his studded bracelet, saying it could be used as a weapon! they also hassled him and his parents for awhile, interviewing everyone to a ridiculous degree, examing and critiquing (sp) ever item that he owned for possible significance.
Tyler suspects the person who called the school was a bitter ex-girlfriend, or one of her friends. But, he cant prove anything, and, in fact, the police told him that he couldn't even mention it to anyone else, because that would just get him in more trouble. it seems ludacris that they don't even seem to care at all that the anonymous tip was clearly a complete fraud. and all of their actions were evidently legal.
crazyness.
any opinions? i suggested he find SOME way to sue SOMEBODY over this. it seems to ludacris to be possible.

delakong · Post by **delakong** » 19 May 2005 11:09

It doesn't matter unless the person that called in is caught. Don't get me wrong, what they did to your friend is fucked up, but it's better to apologize for searching someone than to apologize after somebody does really go and shoot up the school. It's like the fake bomb threats, they're not just gonna take something so serious and just blow it off as a prank, they want to make sure nothing like that happens.

Taking the braclet was stupid. I wonder why they didn't take those pointy objects that you write with too. Oh yeah, and his shirt, he could take it off and strangle someone with it. Or his shoe laces for the same reason. Socks, pants, you get the picture.

habitat · Post by **habitat** » 19 May 2005 12:14

im going to have to call some bullshit on that part. Sure searching the kid is unavoidable, but come on! Search his house? What the fuck is that shit? As a cop, I would feel pretty fucking shitty about myself totally embarrasing the hell out of some kid for no real reason. I would have gone straight to jail if I was that kid because I would have totally refused to let them search anything of mine without any proof.

Damn, stuff like this pisses me off

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 19 May 2005 13:08

No, you wouldn't have gone straight to jail. The police would have left your house, because that's how it works. If a cop comes to your house and asks to come inside - SAY NO. That is abosolutely your right. If they come back with a warrant, and ask to come inside SAY NO. That way anything they find (after pushing past you, which is what they will do) is inadmissable when your lawyer overturns the warrant at your arraignment.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 19 May 2005 13:09

oh yeah, and never give a cop your wallet or let them empty your pockets or look in your trunk/glove box. they need a warrent for that too.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 19 May 2005 13:11

Delakong wrote:Taking the braclet was stupid. I wonder why they didn't take those pointy objects that you write with too. Oh yeah, and his shirt, he could take it off and strangle someone with it. Or his shoe laces for the same reason. Socks, pants, you get the picture.

yeah, we were joking about all that today. its interesting...apparently there is a technical law about those bracelets, similar to some other laws, like ciggarette laws. you can legally BUY them, but you cant TECHNICALLY legally wear them. but its another one of those laws that isnt really enforced, except in cases like this, apparently. and it only applies to certain types, of course.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 19 May 2005 13:16

bugger, sometimes i hate the lack of edit button in the discussion section.

JunkYardDude wrote:No, you wouldn't have gone straight to jail. The police would have left your house, because that's how it works. If a cop comes to your house and asks to come inside - SAY NO. That is abosolutely your right. If they come back with a warrant, and ask to come inside SAY NO. That way anything they find (after pushing past you, which is what they will do) is inadmissable when your lawyer overturns the warrant at your arraignment. Wink oh yeah, and never give a cop your wallet or let them empty your pockets or look in your trunk/glove box. they need a warrent for that too.

thanks for the info...i was PRETTY sure that all of that was true, but of course my friend was too piss scared to do anything about it. besides...he had nothing to hide anyway...aside from his studded bracelet, apparently. still, after all the bullshit they put him through, if i was him, i would not have been so cooperative with the cops.

but yeah, all the talk of bracelet laws reminded me (not to get off-topic). another law that is kind of like this is an interesting law that is still in the MA law books from the 1600's (dunno if anyone already heard this...) that states that any native american that comes into Boston is subject to arrest. its still technically a law because no one ever bothered to change it. though i guess that is different from the bracelet thing, because the native american thing is just obsolete.
meh.

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 19 May 2005 14:20

junkyardjew wrote:If they come back with a warrant, and ask to come inside SAY NO. That way anything they find (after pushing past you, which is what they will do) is inadmissable when your lawyer overturns the warrant at your arraignment.

You seem to be pretty knowledgeable with this whole legal stuff, but I was under the impression that anything found under warrant was admissible. Mapp vs. Ohio established the no warrant- no evidence principle, but if they have reasonable suspicion, they're allowed. Anyone able to confirm/negate this? I'm not really a gov guy.

Oh, and ludacris = artist, ludicrous = word

It's funny how often those two get jumbled.

And as far as the situation you were describing, I think both your friend and the police did the right thing. The police (and your school's administration) has to look into anything like that. As Delakong said, the consequences of not checking far outweigh the consequences of checking and being wrong. Sure, confiscating that bracelet was pretty weak, and I would have hoped the police/school/principal/someone would have apologized, but it definately needed to be checked. As far as your friend, I think he was right to let them look at his house. Denying the police isn't gonna do anything but draw suspicion. Either way, they're gonna get to look in there eventually, and then the question comes up as to why he wouldn't let them in initially. Best just to trust your innocence and the justice of the system. Sure, it was embarrassing, but it should be over now.

If you want to get some fun out of it and some revenge, you could always prank whoever you think did it. Even if they didn't, it'd be fun

Nothing drastic or dangerous--- maybe like stuffing their lockers with packing peanuts or saran wrapping their cars-- long as the police don't get ya, or you'd just be digging yourselves a hole.

habitat · Post by **habitat** » 19 May 2005 14:30

SandWraith wrote:Denying the police isn't gonna do anything but draw suspicion. Either way, they're gonna get to look in there eventually, and then the question comes up as to why he wouldn't let them in initially

Ummm . . . who cares? If you have done nothing wrong, you shouldn't have to be searched, the end. Fuck the police suspicion. They can waste their time looking up a bulls ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

Man I wanna see that movie

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 19 May 2005 16:51

oh jeez, i forgot some of the story. almost the worst part. the cops told my friend he couldnt talk to anyone at all about what happened, because if he went around talking about it, it could be viewed as false accusations, as in, if he went around to the people he is pretty sure did it, and talked about it, they said he would get into a LOT more trouble. (so saran wrapping stuff=not a good idea)
on top of that...somehow the word, of course, DID get out, and everyone heard what happened. so everyone is making fun of him about it, and some people are NOW being suspicious of Tyler, afraid he will do something. his reputation is now destroyed as people constantly talk about his behind his back. and there is nothing he can do about that, ironically.

wow...i cant believe i spelled ludicrous wrong! i just assumed it was spelled like that. ugh, im so embaressed. thanks for correcting me

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 May 2005 17:57

If he was a real man, which he probably isn't 'cause he's a goth, he would take the gun that he probably does have and shoot a cop.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 19 May 2005 19:20

You're a wierd dude Dan.

I'm not sure how it works in the US to be honest, but I'm pretty sure that in Canada they are allowed to search you if they have a "reasonable suspicion" - but that's also really easy to get overturned in court. And that definitely doesn't apply to your home. So they can pat you down for weapons, but they can't look through your wallet for suspicious receipts...

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 19 May 2005 19:23

oh yeah, and what's up with

---> JunkYardDude wrote

Are you specifically changing that or is it doing it automatically for some reason?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 19 May 2005 19:46

Obviously it's a priority to stop school shootings - and the arguement from the police would be it's worth embarressing lots of kids if one of those 200 kids turns out be a crazy one who really is about to shoot up the school.

Although I'm sure some dicrimination is involved in cases like this. They probably wouldn't take the alegations so seriously if they were made against the school captain or something like that.

Of course such action doesn't really deal with the problem of school shootings at all - but it's still a policy aimed at saving lives.

Regarding sueing - I'm really against sueing in most cases - it seems a lot like a mixture of greed and desire for revenge to me.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 May 2005 20:04

Yeah, I really don't care if a kid gets embarrased in the name of saving lives. It is agruable that they shouldn't have gone to his home, but you gotta take shit like this seriously.

The thing about sueing though Jeremy, is it is a way to keep government/corporate bullshit in check. If their is one weapon the public has against bullshit that gets pulled on them by the man, it's a lawsuit. Any school district in the United States will shit a brick everytime somethings filed against them.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 19 May 2005 20:10

But do people sue so that something they perceive is wrong doesn't happen again? Or do they sue for the money and to screw over the people that wronged them?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 May 2005 20:48

I'd say a little of both, but probably more of the latter. Either way I don't think it matters too much, it still keeps CEO's from killing their serfs.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 19 May 2005 21:32

But it also stops people from being responsible for their own actions - which sometimes seems to be the case and the fear of being sued causes some serious problems - especially for groups trying to organise sporting events. It doesn't seem to have effected footbag very much - but a lot of other sports I play have big problems because of issues with people getting sued. A great example is Touch Football - I played in a local comp that was very social based - yet every year the players had to pay more to cover public indemnity insurance. Teams that fielded players who hadn't paid their rego - even in the very first game of the year - were not allowed to play. Now in all honesty if you choose to play touch football or any kind of active sport and you get injured - that is entirely your fault. If you have your own medical coverage that's fine - if you don't - well the public health system in Australia isn't that bad.

At this years Australian Champs I think we needed an insurance policy that covered us for up to $10,000,000 (not how much the policy cost obviously). Accidents happen - people make mistakes. Making a mistake shouldn't make you liable. Of course there instances when I supporting suing. I support all the people who sue tobacco companies. I support people who sue police or bouncers when they're beaten up. I don't support people who sue because they were involved in an accident - and I think they're greedy and self centred - even if the person they're suing is clearly in the wrong. I find it really frustrating that greedy fuckers ruin things for everybody else. You know what I'd really like to do - sue the people who are responsible for public indemnity insurance being so damn expensive (ie. the people who get injured participating in a physical activity and sue over it) - I really don't think I'd win.

delakong · Post by **delakong** » 20 May 2005 06:18

I'd like to sue the people that took supersized fries and drinks away. I used to just buy a supersized fry and a drink for munchies, now I have to get either just a large (not enough) or two mediums (cost more than a supersize did).

And I want to sue the people that sued McDonalds for making them fat. I want to sue them for being idiots. I wonder how far that would go in court.

habitat · Post by **habitat** » 20 May 2005 07:17

Jeremy wrote:I support all the people who sue tobacco companies.

Considering this thread seems off topic anyways

Sueing the tobacco companies is like sueing mcdonalds for making you fat. Seriously, tobacco kills you and it says on every package, unlike mcdonalds food. Sure they have the money to spare but greed has a little bit (aka alot) to do with the people who sue them and recieve MILLIONS! I never understood what premise on which the companies were sued I guess. Unreadble font? Too small to read? I'm illiterate so it wasn't clear or something?