Police in School?

[Kakumei]

You know which state in the US has never had a school shooting DESPITE the fact that it has one of the biggest gang problems in the country?

Utah.

You know why they don't have school shootings?

Because each staff member is allowed to Conceal Carry within the school.


Criminals don't target defenseless people. They FEAR them.


And Ahmed the Clock Kid is an idiot. A clock in a bag that looks like a bomb? He is lucky he didn't get blown away.

His parents are even stupider for letting him take that thing to school. But from what I understand, his father's elevator doesn't reach quite to the top floor.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

From what I understand with Ahmed he had originally shown his Tech Teacher, who congratulated the work but advised Ahmed keep it hidden from the others (probably foreseeing this).
Ahmed didn't listen, and the staff didn't even react... Until the suitcase beeped.

That's when Police were called, but even then the Police didn't arrest the kid immediately. They asked him some questions, Ahmed refused to answer, and only then was he arrested.
This has caused a few people to think that Ahmed purposely created this incident for the sake of exposure.

Personally? I doubt that was his plan, the risk of being shot by paranoid cops would have been too high.
But I do think he was being awfully stubborn about it and that's what led to it escalating like it did.

 

[Kakumei]

It still kills me that nobody, Ahmed or his "parents" had the foresight to think, "Hm. Clock. Suitcase. Ticking noise. Prooooobably not a good idea." I mean, seriously... An elementary school kid eats his pop tart half way, and people flip out for having a "level 2 look alike fire arm" because it resembles a gun somehow. This kid gets in trouble and all that, but then Ahmed makes something that any normal person would look at and their inner voice would be like "HOLY SHET ITS A BOMB" and all of a sudden he is some victim who is some how traumatized so badly he needs to see the Clownie-cake in Chief to feel better.

This world is just ludicrous. Common Sense is dead among the populous.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

See, that Pop-Tart thing was just total Paranoia and "Think about the children!" mentality. That shit needs to die and never enter any households or the school system ever again. >.<

Ahmed's situation though? I can actually understand where the initial confusion was.
Especially when you realize it's not as if the Police just kicked the door down and instantly dragged the kid off, they handled it responsibly and only took Ahmed away when he refused to explain.

But once again, we're getting off topic.

 

[TheGreyWarden]

I know this is off topic, but I want to comment about the 'clock bomb'.

If you guys believe that the suitcase was a bomb, why didn't the police evacuate the school and send the Bomb Squad to investigate the 'bomb'?

Plus he only refused to answer because he had the right to due to the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Kakumei]

I didn't say it /was/ a bomb. But have you seen that thing? Just a google image of it makes every bone in my body scream "bomb".

Again, suitcase + clock= ?

a) lollipop
b) coffee
c) bomb
d) Sasuke Uchiha

A bomb squad absolutely should have been called in. The genius of it is the fact that this is basically an unintentional "dry run". If it /had/ actually been a bomb, this would have been a very incredible and successful attack seeing as how the response to it was met with almost terrifying silence during the time you would expect it to go off.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

If you guys believe that the suitcase was a bomb, why didn't the police evacuate the school and send the Bomb Squad to investigate the 'bomb'?

Plus he only refused to answer because he had the right to due to the Fifth Amendment.

... We don't? Understanding what caused the confusion isn't us believing to be a bomb. :P

And likely the Police realized it wasn't a Bomb either.
But when Ahmed just scared the entire school like that, and refused to even explain himself?

I can see the Police taking him away on the grounds of not co-operating, harassing others etc.
Is that legally justified? I don't know, and I don't care to get into a debate about it.

All I'm saying is that this wasn't a black and white case of "Kid is wrongfully accused and is traumatized".

He was warned in advance not to do this, he did it any ways.
The School didn't think a thing about it until it started beeping.
And all the Police did was talk to the kid until he refused to say anything about it.

Am I saying Ahmed is a bad kid for this? No.
Am I saying Ahmed deserved this? No.
Am I saying the confusion is understandable and Ahmed shouldn't have been so stubborn about it once it exploded (pun intended)? Yes.

 

[Shiri]

I don't know that we have enough hired police here to always monitor each of the schools. We have like six cops(without state patrol) and seven schools. If it became mandatory I think we'd have problems scraping together more enforcement. Backwater, wooooooo.

 

[Asmodeus]

It's a real shame that all the other countries in the world have been nuked and invaded by ground forces, and how a heavily armed population has deterred imperialists from land engagements in Asia.

Because I really want to nuke the brown people and stab them in parks with kitchen knives. But the only thing holding me back from psychotic murder is the prospect that I might get an owwie.

Also, I really want to invade the home of a redneck farmer. Particularly if he has children I can rape.

Hopefully Congress won't pass a law that prevents me at the expense of the educated, moral majority.

 

[Kagayours]

No one has a right to take a life because they fancy having a gun more, least that's how I view it.

I find that to be the primary problem with modern day societies XP. People see life as a special right, and that mindset gives people a pseudo everything proof shield (Plot armor you may know it more as XD) they think that nobody will kill them because they feel an entitlement to survive and keep living. Life isn't a right, it simply is. If life truly was a right, then it would be impossible for it to be taken. But if life is a right, then it's just as much a right as death is as both are apart of the same process. Same would be to animals too, if life was a right, they'd be all good and wouldn't be so untrusting of nearly everything. This world would actually be quite better if life was a right I think o.o Too bad it's not DX

Ok, no, wait, hold on here.

Shadon, are you actually trying to argue that people have a right to kill others? Because, no, I'm pretty sure that they do not, because, and, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but, I'm preeeetty sure that, at least as far as most 1st world countries are concerned... murder is illegal. People do not have the right to kill others. Killing people is a fucking crime, and for good reason.

Now, I realize that there are some exceptions to this (self defense and that sort of thing), which presents a gray area that is a whole other subject of debate that I won't get into here, but, my point is, I think people are generally in agreement that the ability to go out and kill someone whenever one damn pleases is a pretty bad idea, which is why there are usually laws against it.

Now, I get it -- our world isn't perfect, and we don't live in a utopia. I'm not arguing with you on that one. There is a reason why people lock their doors and take reasonable caution to protect themselves, because there are people out there who just don't care and will take a life if they get the chance. But I certainly wouldn't say that those people have the right to go out and murder people.

Yeah, there's a reason why animals are afraid of things. We have those same instincts. There is a reason to be afraid of things in the world, and I'm not saying we shouldn't protect ourselves or act like we're untouchable. But, if you're honestly advocating that we should live in a Lord of the Flies-esque society where anyone can kill anyone else so long as they have the means... Then I just can't agree with that, for what should be obvious reasons.

All Cosmos said was that people don't have the right to become murderers just because they have guns (which, legally speaking, and most people would agree morally speaking, they most certainly do not), and you're honestly claiming that that's a "problem with society"? Wait, no, one of the "primary problems of society"?

Yeah, it's such a problem that people have laws to protect them so that they don't have to worry about being axe murdered on their way to work each morning, because their life isn't their right, they should have to protect it from people who, because they have the means, have every right to just straight-up murder someone because it's their responsibility to be able to defend themselves. Going off that same logic, it's such a problem that people can accumulate wealth and try to maintain financial stability without worrying about anyone being able to steal everything they own without consequence -- because there's no reason for robbery to be illegal, right? People should be expected to defend their own wealth, right?

I realize that that's how animals live, but there's a reason why we don't live like animals. I know that we'll never live in a perfect world and that people should exercise a reasonable amount of caution, but, fuck, I think we can at least try to create a world that's slightly better to live in than complete Darwinian anarchy.

 

[Asmodeus]

No responses for over 6 hours.

Could we just say that I win this one? That I have a valid point and everyone kinda comes to their senses and agrees that it's probably a bad idea to glorify a culture of violence?

Go on.


What would it hurt?


Just end the debate here and agree that America needs to be a little bit more like the rest of the world.


Please?


It'd be great - I promise. Just....


....just sssssh!

 

[Kakumei]

Ok, no, wait, hold on here.

Shadon, are you actually trying to argue that people have a right to kill others? Because, no, I'm pretty sure that they do not, because, and, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but, I'm preeeetty sure that, at least as far as most 1st world countries are concerned... murder is illegal. People do not have the right to kill others. Killing people is a fucking crime, and for good reason.

Now, I realize that there are some exceptions to this (self defense and that sort of thing), which presents a gray area that is a whole other subject of debate that I won't get into here, but, my point is, I think people are generally in agreement that the ability to go out and kill someone whenever one damn pleases is a pretty bad idea, which is why there are usually laws against it

Firstly, be careful with your wording. " Killing people is a fucking crime" is not accurate. /Murder/ is a crime, but killing is an /amoral/ act. It can be good or it can be bad. Killing a would-be rapist is a good thing. Killing a person who is actively shooting other people in a blind fit is a good thing. Killing members of ISIS is also a good thing. Killing innocent people is certainly not a good thing.

I can't imagine self defense as being a morally gray area. A person does indeed have a right to life. Or more accurately, a right to defend their life. Nobody should be able to take your life away from you without you having the ability to defend it. Everyone is a target. Every day. But in America a huge deterrent of crime conceal carry people. That is why psycho creeps target gun-free zones. They don't work and criminals don't adhere to law. Weed is banned (in most states) in the US, but people still have access to it. A gun ban would do the same. It would take guns from people who adhere to the law but simply won't touch people who don't give a crap about the law.


Switzerland is a country which virtually has no crime. There are several reasons why, but one of the big contributors to this is that every home has an automatic rifle. Children are trained at a young age to handle and respect weapons and everyone has the option to carry weapons if they want to without even consulting some sort of member of government. (However, this may have changed but I highly doubt if it has by much).

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Ok, this got aggressive pretty fast.

I'm going ask everyone keep it down and/or move it to PM's before the Staff end up getting involved.

@Kaga-kun @Kakumei

 

[Kakumei]

Whos being aggressive? I'm being pretty passive and I haven't seen a single Ad Hom.

 

[Hellis]

I was gonna say something profound. But then I read the second page. Yeah noooo

 

[Kagayours]

Firstly, be careful with your wording. " Killing people is a fucking crime" is not accurate. /Murder/ is a crime, but killing is an /amoral/ act. It can be good or it can be bad. Killing a would-be rapist is a good thing. Killing a person who is actively shooting other people in a blind fit is a good thing. Killing members of ISIS is also a good thing. Killing innocent people is certainly not a good thing.

Ok, yes, good point. I should've caught that.

I can't imagine self defense as being a morally gray area. A person does indeed have a right to life. Or more accurately, a right to defend their life. Nobody should be able to take your life away from you without you having the ability to defend it.

I only said that self defense can be a bit of a gray area in regards to what actually counts as justified self defense.

I mean, Zimmerman claims he shot Martin cuz he got scared -- does that count as self defense? It's a much more complicated topic which is why I didn't really go into it.

But in America a huge deterrent of crime conceal carry people. That is why psycho creeps target gun-free zones. They don't work and criminals don't adhere to law. Weed is banned (in most states) in the US, but people still have access to it. A gun ban would do the same. It would take guns from people who adhere to the law but simply won't touch people who don't give a crap about the law.

I understand that, and I wasn't trying to say that gun control would fix everyone's problems. I agree that gun control is flawed and often ineffective. However, it was more the idea that the fact that people's lives are protected by the law is a "problem" that I was calling out.

The fact that we have laws designed to protect people is good; it's the execution that gets a bit flawed at times. Still, it's better than anarchy.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

@Kaga-kun
O.O I... Don't understand how you got that from what I said. So lets try to explain a bit of my reasoning. (And what @Kakumei said is my 100% thoughts of the other half of this all... Speaking of which, I need to check out Switzerland o.o From the sound of it, it's seeming like 100% living proof of my theory with the world and how things COULD be handled, but people in america won't)

are you actually trying to argue that people have a right to kill others?

No, I'm saying that in the end, there are no true rights. Rights don't protect people like you seem to think. They are simply a guideline with a punishment for disobeying, but that doesn't stop people from doing so and trying to escape the consequences.

I'm not arguing that people have the right to kill others, i'm arguing that rights isn't true protection. Right's won't protect me from somebody who doesn't care about rights, rights wont protect me from people who control the rights. You know what will protect me though? Those exact weapons. The blessing, and the curse of this world.

To me, rights are nothing more than something to make people feel better and feel safer. Why I find that a problem is that it's gotten too far, and people started seeing it as a magical barrier, something to protect them instead of fighting for themselves to protect their own life. When someone is about to kill another, the victim will be like "You don't have the right to kill me D:" And the killer will be like "Well lets see if those rights will stop me" Then bang, dead. That's problematic to me.

All Cosmos said was that people don't have the right to become murderers just because they have guns

Well then I must of misread it XP
Because what I read from Cosmos was people don't have the rights to have guns, because people use them to kill others and/or are super stupid with them which also kills others.
[BCOLOR=#000080]"I don't think I can ever agree with the common folk having guns simply because they are stupid. Like really stupid."[/BCOLOR]
Plus the entire part of how stupid people are with guns

[BCOLOR=#000080]"Guy takes selfie with a gun for instagram and kills himself. Parents are unaware the gun is not put away or make an easy password that kids know resulting in toddlers being shot. Women carrying their guns in their purse where their toddlers have access resulting in the mother being shot in the head by a toddler. People being shot just for being at a party. Racists shooting kids and getting away with it because they claim self defense and the right to bare arms. Teenagers running the streets with guns because if they are stopped and frisked, they claim racism while others shoot up schools...these are all every day stories from the news and no matter how much "safety" courses you take, you're always bound to take a life, an innocent one even by mistake. No one has a right to take a life because they fancy having a gun more, least that's how I view it."[/BCOLOR]


I don't understand how you read my post being about "People have the right to kill". And I also don't know how you see Cosmo's post as simply "people don't have the right to kill just because they have guns" Sure that may have been a theme, but the primary point seemed to be about why we shouldn't have guns because of people being killed by them.

 

[Kakumei]

I only said that self defense can be a bit of a gray area in regards to what actually counts as justified self defense.

I mean, Zimmerman claims he shot Martin cuz he got scared -- does that count as self defense? It's a much more complicated topic which is why I didn't really go into it.

Zimmerman claims he shot Martin because he "was in fear for his life", which is a very legitimate reason to shoot a person. An investigation was launched into these claims and he was taken to court- by which he was cleared of a crime through a jury of his piers.


Is our system a perfect one? Of course not. But its much better of a system than "social justice" or "street courts" that believed Zimmerman was guilty.

I understand that, and I wasn't trying to say that gun control would fix everyone's problems. I agree that gun control is flawed and often ineffective. However, it was more the idea that the fact that people's lives are protected by the law is a "problem" that I was calling out.

The fact that we have laws designed to protect people is good; it's the execution that gets a bit flawed at times. Still, it's better than anarchy.

I think I understand what you are trying to say here. The problem isn't in the law or how it is executed /per se/.

How do you legislate protection? Can you make law that is iron clad perfection that will protect every innocent human life?

Unfortunately, that isn't a possibility. The best you can do is try to grow as a society and change culture. These is more philosophical than it is a question of whether or not making and executing law can get the job done.

In this case (and in my opinion), Police cannot do the job effectively. In fact, Police don't carry weapons to protect others, they carry them to protect /themselves/. That is why people should take it upon themselves to protect themselves. Even if police presence automatically fixed the problem, not everyone has a police officer sitting in their back pocket to toss out when they need protection.

As for my last couple of comments, they aren't necessarily aimed at what you said- but just to try to allow the argument to shift from legality/implementation of legislation to philosophical, as that is what we are mostly dealing with here.

I'm going to jump out of this now because its quite a bit off topic. I did, however, create a Second Amendment topic if you or anyone else is interested on discussing/debating that.

I hope I didn't cause you to be upset or anything and I hope you have a lovely night.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

To add to Zimmerman, IF he's telling the truth, and the kid truly did charge him and try to attack him, then yes, that does count as self defense. If he's lying, then no, it doesn't. But that doesn't matter because when someone is being attacked or about to die, the LAST thing they think about is what's the legal way to defend themself is.

But that's hardly the point. In Zimmermans mind (If he's telling the truth) he saved his own life, and I bet that's worth going to jail for a bit. And didn't the kid also rob a store too? Two similar stories happened at the same time so I get confused on the two sometimes DX If I remember correctly, both kids were criminals, and Zimmermans story checks out with what a guilty person would do after being called. Why does that matter? Well that goes into our societies tendency to protect the criminals. Remember the Boston bomber? There were MANY fan-girls in America wanting him to be freed because he's "Too hot for prison"

 

[Mid]

To add to Zimmerman, IF he's telling the truth, and the kid truly did charge him and try to attack him, then yes, that does count as self defense. If he's lying, then no, it doesn't. But that doesn't matter because when someone is being attacked or about to die, the LAST thing they think about is what's the legal way to defend themself is.

But that's hardly the point. In Zimmermans mind (If he's telling the truth) he saved his own life, and I bet that's worth going to jail for a bit. And didn't the kid also rob a store too? Two similar stories happened at the same time so I get confused on the two sometimes DX If I remember correctly, both kids were criminals, and Zimmermans story checks out with what a guilty person would do after being called. Why does that matter? Well that goes into our societies tendency to protect the criminals. Remember the Boston bomber? There were MANY fan-girls in America wanting him to be freed because he's "Too hot for prison"

Trevon Martin was wearing a hoodie and refused to take it off when Zimmerman asked which resulted in a scuffle and him shooting a teenager.

The other person who robbed a store was shot by a cop in the back?

I also didn't reply because I didn't really understand what you were saying, I got the impression that you felt it was okay to use weapons to take another's because we don't have the right to live.

And yes, I think the majority of Americans are very...ignorant and have this "I deserve everything" mentality. Those kinds of people should not be handling weapons because they do not comprehend the responsibility of owning a gun or taking a life. Kids think it's cool to pose for Facebook pictures with them in AMERICA and are completely desensitized to the reality of it. Maybe in a different time it would be a necessity but today? When our kids can barely spell and read, would rather chill on a corner doing illegal activities cause they're running untamed? Hell no.

Also, Zimmerman has been arrested multiple times for domestic violence. He also caught a little heat for posting a picture of Martin in a coffin and making very inappropriate jokes about it...but this guy, this guy gets a gun. Smh.

Also, in order to claim self defense you must meet the culprit with the same amount of force they give you. Can't bring a knife to a fist fight or a gun to a knife fight because by law, that is considered excessive force. The reason why there was such an uproar is because Martin was smaller then Zimmerman and many felt Zimmerman went to the extreme by taking his life. His lack of humility after the ruling says a lot about his actions towards another.