Tell yourself anything you want. I don't argue with mental midgets.roro24 said:Yeah, that is the response I would usually get against my debate opponents after winning a debate competition ...sorry that I did not let you hear what you wanted to hear... maybe next time....xoxoxoxoxoxo
I guess you missed it...the student is 18, not a minor, so the question is moot.ylen13 said:my question could be stupid beause we are dealing with school, but my undestanding that a minor can't sign anything as they are minor, so then how can school inforce rule regarding cell phone if he and not the parents signed the paper?
I thought you presented your question well and very maturely. By the way don't listen to that bozo "BelizeBreeze." He gets his legal knowledge from watching old Night Court reruns. The fact is nobody on here knows for sure the answer to your question - which is what is the the legal basis for the fine. They're just giving a gut reaction to what they think is a punk kid not complying with school rules. You'd have to contact someone who knew about Texas education law and specific rules and regulations governing Texas public schools. I highly doubt anyone on here is knowledgeable on that subject.StudentTX07 said:Good advice, Roro.. I think we're just going to pay the fine, but I wanted to have a good explanation of why it's legal for doing that. And "Breeze," this is the only time I've ever come to these forums-- to post this topic-- and I won't be coming back. The reason? I have seen how most people respond to perfectly legitimate questions. They use sarcasm and try to make people feel bad about thier questions. It's not right, and I hope they can live with themselves. Bye!
EDIT: I added the word "use" before "sarcasm." This is not an error in my thinking or knowledge of the words, it is called a "typo." I typed this response quickly before I left for school this morning. To whomever it was that made the comment about my grammar... that is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Grow up.
Thanks for your excellent, informative post. Good analysis too. It was so good I hate to bring up a negative point.roro24 said:The school district is not located in New Jersey, it's Texas. As you state case laws, this case would prompt a case law in Texas. From state to state the laws change, this is why when you begin a Thread, the first question you need to answer is: What State Do You Live In? Even though the US Supreme Court made these decisions on the cases you stated in your remarks, here is your "fallacy" in this statement:
BelizeBreeze: Regarding Case Law use on your statement “I strongly suggest you read...New Jersey v. T.L.O ... or Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) or Tannahill v. Lockney Indep. Sch. Dist., 133 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2001), to understand the fallacy of your position.”
New Jersey v. T.L.O. has to do with having illegal substances on school grounds, i.e. the case had to do with a girl who was searched because the smell of smoke was pungent and fresh. So, a faculty member decided to search her purse, which turned up evidence of the cigarettes. This caused it to be a MIP of cigarettes. And lets get a little bit up to date. As I learned in law school, as well as CJ school, you should have no more than a five year gap on your case laws. If you are representing a case in 2005, you are not going to give case law from 1985, 20 years later. You will be torn up in a case from any sub par defense lawyer.
This standard will, we trust, neither unduly burden the efforts of school authorities to maintain order in their schools [469 U.S. 325, 343] nor authorize unrestrained intrusions upon the privacy of schoolchildren. By focusing attention on the question of reasonableness, the standard will spare teachers and school administrators the necessity of schooling themselves in the niceties of probable cause and permit them to regulate their conduct according to the dictates of reason and common sense. At the same time, the reasonableness standard should ensure that the interests of students will be invaded no more than is necessary to achieve the legitimate end of preserving order in the schools.
As for Tinker v. Des Moines Ed. (1969) has nothing to do with a case of StudentTX07. I do not think that she will be protesting any wars with her cellular phone. If you would have read that case, it was regarding students wearing black in regards to the Vietnam War. Again, 30+ years ago.
As to Tannahill v. Lockney, it has to do with drug testing among athletic students, not cellular phones. This one I do give you credit. You are moving towards the times of today (2001).
Before posting case laws, make sure to read them first. Then, if it has something to do with a case being discussed, by all means, use the case law to back up your evidence. Since you have not proven your ability to point out “fallacy” in my first statement, by all means, find an actual case law that would have to do with StudentTX07’s case. And, as stated before, any sub par defense lawyer would tear up these case laws in your case. I take that back, any law student in debate could take this case on in court against your case laws.
So, back to StudentTX07, here is my advice I give to you: If you prove it a point to voice your concerns, you will not go unheard. As you can see, BelizeBreeze has done research to point out what was seen as a "fallacy" but with a little bit of reading and more research, I was able to show you that these case laws do not have any weight on your case. GOOD LUCK, AGAIN...