PDA

View Full Version : Private School Says Strip Search Is OK




DamianTV
03-18-2014, 05:48 PM
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/17/66191.htm


HARRISBURG, Pa. (CN) - Officials at the Milton Hershey School strip-searched a student in the mistaken belief she had a cell phone, then told her mother that the girl "does not have constitutional rights because she is in a private school," the girl and her mom claim in court.

The mother, Trina Howze, and her daughter sued the Milton Hershey School, its Student Home Affiliate Michael Randolph, and C.W.'s student home supervisors Kenneth Wilson and Tysha Wilson, in Federal Court.

Milton Hershey School is a "cost-free, private, coeducational home and school for pre-kindergarten through 12th grade students from the families of low income, limited resources and social need operating in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," according to the complaint.

Howze's daughter, C.W., had lived at and attended the Milton Hershey School for nearly four years when she was strip searched at the school in June 2013, according to the complaint. The Wilsons and Randolph suspected she had a smartphone, "which was prohibited contraband within the Wilsons' student home," the complaint states.

(continues on link)

I have private property. Does that mean I have the Right to strip search a Meter Reader or the Mailman because I consider something to be Contraband when they come onto my property?

This Private Property issue appears to come up all the time. What doesnt is Limitation of Rights. I own myself, but can not claim the Right to something that is not inheritly mine to begin with. Do people understand that Unlimited Rights does not mean Unlimited Rights over others?

Lindsey
03-18-2014, 05:50 PM
Strip searching a child over a cell phone?!? What is wrong with people?

Mini-Me
03-18-2014, 06:00 PM
By their logic, they can also rape and kill her, because it's private property. Um, NO. You have the right to be free from the initiation of bodily aggression, period. Even if you sign away that right via contract, you can still reclaim it at ANY time, and the contract must be at that point unenforceable (that's why the right is "inalienable").


Strip searching a child over a cell phone?!? What is wrong with people?
Obedience is the top priority. It is also priority 2, 3, and 4, and it's obedience all the way down...like Discworld and turtles, except absolutely batshit and drunk on power.

DamianTV
03-18-2014, 06:03 PM
Go look in the Education Subforum where the UK has 4,500 cases of Strip Searching CHILDREN in the last 5 years. Its a different story so I linked it in that forum instead...

dannno
03-18-2014, 06:03 PM
They should have called her parents and asked for the cell # then just dialed it and listened for some buzzing.

If that didn't work I suppose they could tell the parents that they believe the child has a cell phone which is against policy, they want to strip search their child, would they like to be present or skip the strip search and face expulsion or whatever punishment they decide.

Mini-Me
03-18-2014, 06:05 PM
They should have called her parents and then just dialed the number and listened for some buzzing.

True. Now that they've done what they've done, I hope they're instead sent to prison, where they can get to know their "protectorate" Bubba.


Go look in the Education Subforum where the UK has 4,500 cases of Strip Searching CHILDREN in the last 5 years. Its a different story so I linked it in that forum instead...
4500? That's a lot. I'm surprised they're even being counted.

Oh, and check out this gem:

Howze says she called Tysha Wilson to ask about what happened, and Wilson "advised Howze that C.W. does not have constitutional rights because she is in a private school and that the school is backed up by the Derry County Police Department; and 'it is what it is, Ms. Howze.'

aGameOfThrones
03-18-2014, 06:07 PM
I can go to that school and strip search everyone if I wanted to 'cause they ain't got no ConRight.

angelatc
03-18-2014, 06:39 PM
First, there are no constitutional protections for UK citizens in the UK, so I'm not sure why that topic even entered the thread.

I certainly think that strip searching the kid is overboard, but it isn't a government school. It is a private matter between the parents and the school. The government does not need to get involved/

Christian Liberty
03-18-2014, 06:55 PM
First, there are no constitutional protections for UK citizens in the UK, so I'm not sure why that topic even entered the thread.

I certainly think that strip searching the kid is overboard, but it isn't a government school. It is a private matter between the parents and the school. The government does not need to get involved/

If the government was actually willing to 100% stay out of this, I'd be OK with that. But keep in mind, this means if the girl's parents decide to shoot the admins responsible, the government won't attack them either.

I think this is a very similar issue to abortion in a sense (Of course not as serious, hear me out here.) So often pro-choicers say "Well, I thought you libertarians were small government people, why are some of you also supportive of abortion laws?" I can only speak for myself, but as an ancap, I'm fine with government staying out of the issue, but that means staying COMPLETELY out of the issue, if you have any relation to the issue, the tax payer funded justice system won't even pretend to defend you. Scott Roeder is just as much "Not their business" as George Tiller. But too often, what sounds like "government should stay out of this" is really just "there should be no reprecussions for doing this". Natural consequences aside, I'm OK with this when it comes to smoking pot, being gluttonous, or sleeping around. But when it comes to strip searching a child, I draw the line and I say that's not acceptable.

I trust the free market, but I do not believe its possible to use exclusively peaceful means to combat murder.


Go look in the Education Subforum where the UK has 4,500 cases of Strip Searching CHILDREN in the last 5 years. Its a different story so I linked it in that forum instead...

Christian Liberty
03-18-2014, 07:02 PM
By their logic, they can also rape and kill her, because it's private property. Um, NO. You have the right to be free from the initiation of bodily aggression, period. Even if you sign away that right via contract, you can still reclaim it at ANY time, and the contract must be at that point unenforceable (that's why the right is "inalienable").


To play devil's advocate (And I don't completely agree) if I sign a contract saying I'll work 8 hours if you pay me 100 dollars up front, and you pay me, and I spend the money, are you now "Out of luck" to get me to work the time that I agreed to? And if not, where's the line?

klamath
03-18-2014, 07:06 PM
Is it in the contract the parents signed? I would never send my kid to a school like that. If the kid is disruptive then expel them. If the parents signed a broad wavier I also hold the parents responsible and sending the kid to this. Obviously a kid would get his first amendment rights taken away in he repeatedly yelled "Merica fuck yeaw!" in class.

Mini-Me
03-18-2014, 07:33 PM
To play devil's advocate (And I don't completely agree) if I sign a contract saying I'll work 8 hours if you pay me 100 dollars up front, and you pay me, and I spend the money, are you now "Out of luck" to get me to work the time that I agreed to? And if not, where's the line?

It's called "efficient breach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach)." If you back out of an unbalanced contract, the aggrieved party is entitled to restitution for their actual loss...but no more. For instance, if you sign a contract promising you'll be someone's slave forever and you back out, the other party hasn't really suffered anything compared to if the contract had never been signed at all. In your example, the employer would be entitled to the $100 back and should be able to successfully sue for it (in addition to the [reasonable] costs of successfully seeking redress...which would also encourage settlement without trial). Heck, they could probably flat-out settle the matter by repo-ing something worth $100 (quid pro quo), and the person in breach might have trouble successfully suing them for it. ;) To avoid risking this whole situation, it would be smart for the employer to require collateral up front in return for the advance payment, just like banks, because it's basically a loan and carries the same risks.

Christian Liberty
03-18-2014, 07:40 PM
It's called "efficient breach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach)." If you back out of an unbalanced contract, the aggrieved party is entitled to restitution for their actual loss..

I'd argue (morally, not under the current legal system) that the aggrieved party is entitled to double conpensation, much like any other case of theft. Maybe more if the amounts involved are small (So as not to completely waste the party being aggrieved's time.) But, I obviously agree that a contract that, for instance, involves selling yourself into slavery for 50 bucks, shouldn't be outright legally enforced.

To avoid risking this whole situation, it would be smart for the employer to require collateral up front in return for the advance payment, just like banks, because it's basically a loan.

Maybe, but this shouldn't be required, and if the monetary amounts are small, they shouldn't be necessary. But I don't think you should just be "out of luck" if you take someone's word (assuming some proof that you have their word is given, obviously.)

Mini-Me
03-18-2014, 07:46 PM
I'd argue (morally, not under the current legal system) that the aggrieved party is entitled to double conpensation, much like any other case of theft. Maybe more if the amounts involved are small (So as not to completely waste the party being aggrieved's time.) But, I obviously agree that a contract that, for instance, involves selling yourself into slavery for 50 bucks, shouldn't be outright legally enforced.

Maybe, but this shouldn't be required, and if the monetary amounts are small, they shouldn't be necessary. But I don't think you should just be "out of luck" if you take someone's word (assuming some proof that you have their word is given, obviously.)
Yeah, I can see the argument for double compensation (or quadruple if we want to follow the Biblical tax collector's penance ;)), or compensation plus interest, etc. Those are details that are probably best resolved by juries on a contextual basis, at least if the parties involved can't come to any sort of agreement for restitution or decide to "cut their losses." The important thing is that we agree contracts should not be inescapable death pacts, and people reserve the right to reassert their most fundamental inalienable rights over the abstract concept of "contract as a promise."

dillo
03-18-2014, 07:47 PM
Schools are indoctrination centers for the state, this is what our kids are learning to be compliant in.....molestation in the same of security and authority

Christian Liberty
03-18-2014, 07:51 PM
Yeah, I can see the argument for double compensation (or quadruple if we want to follow the Biblical tax collector's penance ;)), or compensation plus interest, etc. Those are details that are probably best resolved by juries on a contextual basis, at least if the parties involved can't come to any sort of agreement for restitution or decide to "cut their losses." The important thing is that we agree contracts should not be inescapable death pacts, and people reserve the right to reassert their most fundamental inalienable rights over the abstract concept of "contract as a promise."

I can see Walter Block's alternative argument, but I tend to agree with your position on this, and quite strongly on that.

pcosmar
03-18-2014, 08:02 PM
First, there are no constitutional protections for UK citizens in the UK, so I'm not sure why that topic even entered the thread.
/

There are no constitutional protections for rights in the UK.

There are still rights.. and wrongs.

anyway,, the UK is an Authoritarian society. Has been through most of recorded history.

We have adopted a lot of their bad examples.