Welcome to POLICE-STATE USA

Post Reply New Topic

This dude doesn't know it but America is already a Police-State and has been since the so-called Patriot-Act.

I know this from having been "threatened" in court-room by the judge himself who specifically said: "Mention that word one more time and you'll be charged with contempt of court." (The Word: Constitution). Treasonous mother-fucker who goes against his Oath of Office !

I don't think you understand what free speech actually means.

This child was censured for disrupting a class with mouth noise. His right to free speech was not taken away.

I don't think you've bothered to actually watch & listen to the video nor read all of the comments.

That child was NOT even IN a "class" but at the Teacher's/Principle's Office, considering that it was AFTER school during "dismissals" time, when people go home, and no matter how you try to deny the reality, America IS an absolute Police-State...

Then why don't you leave? There's the border, and there are countries that will let you in without a visa. America gets enough bashing from foreigners, so why don't you join them?

You apparently haven't noticed the the entire world follows the same government-religion.

Doesn't make a difference what land-mass you're on. I am not played by the system as I know how the fictions work, although I used to be brain-washed by its indoctrinations, I have done my home-work, and KNOW how to be a REAL and TRUE "Patrotic" American !

Let's get into Legalese & corporate-fictions again later so I can smack your head with some Legalese-language.

Judges are able (and required) to restrict disruptive speech within their courts. Charles Manson learned this when he was gagged and bound in court, forcing him to do nothing but listen and watch. He agreed to calm himself when in court so that he could assist in his defense. But, judges can't restrict all speech. The job of a court is to conclude an opinion as quickly as possible while allowing for the introduction and rebuttal of all lawful evidence proving guilt and innocence, without unfair interruption.

This is an example of the school administrators calling police inappropriately, something that has happened a lot ever since schools started having an officer on the grounds. It's a frivolous use of the police and criminalizes behaviour which in previous generations was handled entirely by the school system with school sanctions. Is it an example of police state? I don't know. But it's a disturbing case of mission creep.

However, that doesn't mean this kid's behaviour was ok. Administrators were right to shush him. He was out of line. But being out of line used to be something that was handled with detention or suspension, not the police.

Wow. For some reason, I didn't even see the YouTube.com video in the OP. Yeah, I actually traded e-mail messages at the time with the student (Robert Wanek). He's cool. He is now in college, I believe.

Without the video, I was under the impression that you were referring to a court. Yeah, in public schools, speech is a lot more protected, though not entirely. The only exception that is provided to school administrators is when the speech becomes "disruptive" to the school's job of educating students.

A year or more after this incident, Robert had started a kind of student club which, of course, gave more legal support to the idea of free speech among its members. A vice principal became so enraged with Robert after that, that he (or a resource officer, I can't remember) picked up Robert and dropped him on his head on a sidewalk. Robert and his parents filed a complaint, and, I believe, a lawsuit. Robert planned to attend college after that, but I haven't heard from him since then.

I am not sure what the entire situation is, because it's just his side of it I am hearing but it does seem the faculty calls the cops a lot more these days than they did when I was in high school. This kid would have gotten detention by the vice principal if he went to the same jr high I did at the time I attended. Kids talked back then too, believe it or not. It's nothing new. It's also why I don't like the idea of teaching or working in schools because I remember all too well what it was like when I went. So if it what he is saying is all that happened and he's not leaving out any details, he is right, it has gotten worse.
Things are so different nowadays, yes, they do call the cops over everything and there might even be a cop in the school with them. This was unheard of at my school. I can't even imagine the reaction they would have had to cops but I do know the words "police state" would have been heard on an hourly, if not minutely basis. When I was in school, the only time we saw cops was when they were there for assembly or something like that. Maybe one cop was called for an actual student, I don't know. It was only once every so often I saw a police car parked in front of the school, maybe at the most once a year if at all. That's not to say I didn't wish, sometimes, they would have called the cops on some of the mean kids.

The criminalizing of childhood is a concern.

I actually think the driving force behind this is fear of litigation. Parent/teacher groups taking the wrong approach, the assumed roles and rights of students, what headmaster's feel they can do on their own.

Actually degree with the OPs premise that if you are disciplined in school this is somehow an an to rights. Legal rights exist in the land, this doesn't prevent schools from enforcing rules. Minors don't have the rights of adult anyway, they under the care of their guardians. If you are legally old enough to leave school, if you choose to stay it is conditional on their rules, just like any origination that trains you.

It is totally alien in many countries for a police presence being in schools, and also if police were call for an incident such as this, many police forces would consider it a waste of their time, it is technically possible to be charged for wasting police time if persistent.

This is worth condemning, as having lost the plot.

10 years from now, give or take, there's going to be such hatred and mistrust of authority and the system in general that we're going to have a real problem on our hands. Yes, I mean much worse than now.......

Exactly. We aren't in Mayberry anymore. When will "kill or be killed" arrive?

The 'state' is also a reflection of the population. A some point, some citizens, decided to fear children, or fear of dealing with them for routine matters without law enforcement.

It is very easy to see the state as an elite, which is true but is also a product of citizens, and their attitudes.

So apocalyptic views aren't going to make fear based politics less likely. On the contrary.

Fear based politic works becuase some people are neurotic, and poor decision makes.

Sory, that came as a quote, not an edit as intended.

Last edited by Fogman on 30 May 2015, 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Playing devil's advocate to the dystopian view, I have the following criticisms:

1. The "change" narrative is much of the time is extremely vague and cliche, and if not people have vastly different idea of what change would entail. The point of democracy is you can't always have it all your own way.
2. Many of the ideas that people consider fundamental and genuine were once a propaganda soundbite, which has been become deeply engrained in them. The moral panic of cold war the ironically lead to police state like actions like mass surveillance. Not everyone is thinking outside the box, political tribalism is a mainstay. There are still ingrained ideas of Americanism, which come from the cold war and would be alien to your forefathers, or misrepresents them.
3. This school example is a result of moral panic, much like Garotters' Act of 1863, or false idea of delinquency and genetics at the turn of the century. You can't fight moral panic with moral panic.
4. Beware of false cloak of "stability". The whole point of democracy is it is supposed to be messy and imperfect. Democracy is more than voting, all the discourse, bust up and the scandals are part of it. This is healthier than you may think.
5. People say change will never happen, and this is my most important point: One common rhetorical position is that come election people are concerned about their immediate needs and therefore aren't interested in pushing for long term objectives like constitutional change. Personally I think this is an excuse. It is very easy to absolve yourself of your own role in politics, it is a way of painting yourself better then them. Whilst there may be some truth to that you are still connected to process, they rely on you. The types of personalities that work in politics and stay in power becuase they are effective at convincing people they can lead. If people are deceived, they are part complicit in that deception (which can mean they are also unrealistic in the first place). People need to think more long term, rather than just looking for quick fixes. Quick fixes are how they are easily exploited.