Colorado School Suspends 17-Year-Old After She Posted a Non-Threatening Gun Photo With Her Older Brother

[W.E.C]

Regardless,the message got out.
In the war for freedom there will be casualties .

The more it’s done, it will be their dreaded fear come true “normalized”.
Forward her to :attn Kennedy profile in courage awards.

 

[drgrant]

No, only a moron in this day and age posts a photo rocking that attire , holding an AR and giving the middle finger. She wanted attention on social media and she got it. Take the same photo , faces not covered up, with her holding a target and I can almost guarantee the outcome would be different.

wrong- there a bunch of kids and parents have gotten in trouble for doing far less than this.... every child with a gun is the next terrorist according to shitty school admins and commie leftist media....

 

[Squire]

Do they make those shemaghs in Optifade?

I like that she clearly and explicitly noted what her intentions were, so no dumbass school adminstrators could get the wrong idea...

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Pretty goddam stupid to post a picture like that.
She and her brother are just asking for trouble.
If my kids shot guns (which they don't) I would allow pictures from the range or a competition like the pictures you see on the GOAL website.
The best thing to do is stay the hell off social media. Once its out there you lose all control over it.

Why don't your kids shoot guns?

 

[Fritz the Cat]

This is one of the many reasons to leave the government school system behind and home school your kids.

 

[Whutmeworry]

As Dennis Prager has so aptly put it, there are only two kinds of speech: Free speech, and speech controlled by the powerful. We HAVE to maintain free speech in this country. The leftists are working their asses off to eliminate it. We have to speak louder than them and force them to defend the indefensible. Today and every day.

 

[MaverickNH]

Should make a very good 1st Amendment case in USDC!

Yes, this would extend the 1A T-shirt and Yearbook Photo case law to social media post outside school property, internet’s accounts and jurisdiction. This is *exactly* where Red Flag laws are being used to condition people to associate gun ownership with risk and danger.

“Police Chief Frank Donchez told The Kansas City Star that he'd "take the heat all day long for arresting a [12]-year-old" since he's "not willing to take the heat for not preventing a school tragedy."

Better to arrest ten innocent gun owners than to let one potential mass school shooter go free? The same sort of profiling that got yanked in NYC when Stop ‘n Frisk nabbed more blacks than whites with guns can and will be used to harass gun owners. And now it’s not only the logical thing to do, and the right thing to do, but it’s a duty of school officials, law enforcements and the public.

 

[LLF]

Why don't your kids shoot guns?

My older daughter wants me to teach her how to shoot and I will do that when she's on break from college. My younger daughter just isn't interested.

 

[LLF]

People have posted pictures you "approved" of , and still got suspended from schools, etc....

...so there's that.

Maybe. I have seen numerous pictures of young people posing with guns on the GOAL website and in their newspaper and have never heard of a negative consequence.
Of course these kids weren't dressed like terrorists and flipping a bird.
It may be legal to wave a red flag in front of a bull but that doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[SpaceCritter]

The photo was in poor taste.

Kids do things that are in poor taste.

Not a credible threat.

 

[SFC13557]

What LAW has she broken and what school rule has she broken since she posed for the pic off school grounds and posted on a personal website. School reacted as expected but I want to know what law/rule she broke to deserve a suspension. School can't use the excuse some parents complained.

 

[Darksideblues42]

How was the school able to tell the rifle is select fire?

They clearly called it an "assault rifle" so I hope they have evidence to back this up.

 

[SFC13557]

From the article. So anyone can interpret anything as a "threat" and get a student suspended? Translation=GUNZ. The problem is they allow the school bureaucrats to write their own policies on what "scares" people, which will defer to the whiny anti Libs.
"
Andeavor Academy's student handbook for the 2019-2020 school year gives the school broad discretionary power when choosing to suspend students for weapon-related instances. The handbook states that when a student's behavior involving a weapon off school property is thought to "[have] a reasonable connection to school or any district curricular or non-curricular event" and is "detrimental to the safety and welfare of the student, other students and school personnel," that the school may refer a student for "appropriate disciplinary proceedings."


The school's policy references Colorado law, which defines the grounds for suspension as "behavior on or off school property that is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or of school personnel, including behavior that creates a threat of physical harm to the child or to other children."

 

[SFC13557]

How was the school able to tell the rifle is select fire?

They clearly called it an "assault rifle" so I hope they have evidence to back this up.

They don't even know if the rifle is real

 

[xtry51]

From the article. So anyone can interpret anything as a "threat" and get a student suspended? Translation=GUNZ.
"
Andeavor Academy's student handbook for the 2019-2020 school year gives the school broad discretionary power when choosing to suspend students for weapon-related instances. The handbook states that when a student's behavior involving a weapon off school property is thought to "[have] a reasonable connection to school or any district curricular or non-curricular event" and is "detrimental to the safety and welfare of the student, other students and school personnel," that the school may refer a student for "appropriate disciplinary proceedings."


The school's policy references Colorado law, which defines the grounds for suspension as "behavior on or off school property that is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or of school personnel, including behavior that creates a threat of physical harm to the child or to other children."

Nothing like compulsory government school that comes with a compulsory handbook of guidelines that also control your life while not there.

 

[strangenh]

Nothing like compulsory government school that comes with a compulsory handbook of guidelines that also control your life while not there.

Exactly.

And that's why it's fairly epic trolling. I mean, she piled on the symbols. Unlike someone just putting a target pic out there and getting suspended, this one is filled with First Amendment protected content. Should be an interesting ride if they sue. And I hope they do.

 

[Prepper]

Nothing like compulsory government school that comes with a compulsory handbook of guidelines that also control your life while not there.

It's almost as if sending your kids to government schools gives the government the right to make up their own laws and enforce them without any due process, just because they go to these schools.

Home school, and you will at least be safe from these made up school laws. Well, assuming they don't get you with an ERPO.

 

[greencobra]

I like that she clearly and explicitly noted what her intentions were, so no dumbass school adminstrators could get the wrong idea...

and mohamed atta made his intentions clear also, he didn't want to learn to take off and land, just turn the plane while it was in the air.

 

[SpaceCritter]

It's almost as if sending your kids to government schools gives the government the right to make up their own laws and enforce them without any due process, just because they go to these schools.

Home school, and you will at least be safe from these made up school laws. Well, assuming they don't get you with an ERPO.

The Establishment is already generally hostile to homeschooling - won't be long before pulling the kids out of school.gov is grounds for an ERPO.

 

[Prepper]

The Establishment is already generally hostile to homeschooling - won't be long before pulling the kids out of school.gov is grounds for an ERPO.

They are hostile, but it is still possible and so far the outcome is always better for every case I have seen. And the more that do it, the more difficult it will be for government to say no.

 

[AHM]

Y'all can find a raft of commentary on free speech and the schools
by UCLA constitutional law prof Eugene Volokh
on the group blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

Many of his posts cite Tinker (v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969));
which is frequently abbreviated as "Tinker".

Which as it turns out includes last Friday's post

"There's a Rapist in Our School and You Know Who It Is"​

A girl in a Maine public high school wrote this​

on a sticky note in a girls' bathroom;​

she was suspended for "bullying" a male student​

who was apparently seen as the target of the message—​

but a federal judge has stayed the suspension,​

concluding her speech was probably constitutionally protected.​

...​

which excerpts the ruling in last week's district decision
A.M. v. Cape Elizabeth School Dist. , 2019 WL 5457999.

The A.M. opinion discusses lots of case law about the type and intensity of
student speech (and behavior) which is constitutionally protected from
school administrators with their bowels in an uproar.

These two paragraphs from the Federal court in Maine
will likely warm the cockles of many hearts in NES
(each 'graf for a different reason):

That does not mean the public is compelled to celebrate​

Plaintiff's expression. Indeed, the public remains free to reject​

Plaintiff's viewpoint. Nevertheless, the public has an interest in knowing that​

neither Plaintiff nor any other student who expresses a comparable view​

in similar fashion will be denied access to school simply because​

her viewpoint offends the sensibilities of school administrators.​

Something more is necessary to justify punishment.​

​

If school administrators receive carte blanche to tamp down and vet​

non-frivolous outcries on topics of social justice,​

expressed in areas generally associated with free student communication,​

where would that leave us? Contemporary examples abound​

of betrayal of free speech principles to avoid ideas or speakers​

with whom we disagree. Madison would recoil. Individual liberty is both​

the cause and the result of personal fortitude. "The greatness of America​

lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation,​

but rather in her ability to repair her faults." That ability, in turn, depends on​

the free flow of ideas, especially those that are discomfiting.​

A.M. isn't binding on Colorado law, but Tinker itself is.

That could help or hurt the yout with the itchy selfie finger.
=====
ETA: the Volokh Conspiracy blog is currently hosted on Reason,
which is where the OP article came from...

 

[Dench]

How is the school even seeing these posts? I have trouble imagining that the account urls are intentionally given to the schools by the kids or parents so they can watch. A Snapchat account can be rather anonymous. Facebook, not so much. It must be "friends" in the network turning them in?

Yes, absolutely.

The problem with social media is we're connected to a decent sized pool of people who either specifically don't like us or don't have a problem stirring the pot and making problems for us in our personal lives.

Last year I was warned by a person in the know about an upcoming social media policy. I was given the outlines of it, and I actually didn't/couldn't believe that our body was going along with it. Not only were they perfectly ok with it, they didn't even ask for anything in return, it was pretty much a freebie for our employer.

The problem is the social media policy would make a Stasi detective blush. Any profanity on your pages? You can be punished. Post anything controversial? Bad idea. Anything about our employer? Muddy at best.

Bah! My contact told me. What do YOU have to worry about?. Well, a lot. The policy is a dragnet. And it's use is to jam people up when the top decides X person needs to be jammed up. Often times it can be hard to find legit reasons to do this, ergo we have this policy, which virtually ever member of my job is in considerable violation of.

Since the 1st day on this job employees have been printing out silly/funny/embarrassing photos and or making them the wall papers of work computers, etc. So I knew that this (social media) was already under a lot of attention from coworkers. And I know for a fact that a lot of my coworkers would LOVE to get another in trouble just to see what happens. So as soon as I had the whiff that this policy was coming I had to remove all coworkers, coworkers spouses and other people would could potentially inform on my employer on me.

It's unbelievably lame.

 

[Prepper]

Yes, absolutely.

The problem with social media is we're connected to a decent sized pool of people who either specifically don't like us or don't have a problem stirring the pot and making problems for us in our personal lives.

Last year I was warned by a person in the know about an upcoming social media policy. I was given the outlines of it, and I actually didn't/couldn't believe that our body was going along with it. Not only were they perfectly ok with it, they didn't even ask for anything in return, it was pretty much a freebie for our employer.

The problem is the social media policy would make a Stasi detective blush. Any profanity on your pages? You can be punished. Post anything controversial? Bad idea. Anything about our employer? Muddy at best.

Bah! My contact told me. What do YOU have to worry about?. Well, a lot. The policy is a dragnet. And it's use is to jam people up when the top decides X person needs to be jammed up. Often times it can be hard to find legit reasons to do this, ergo we have this policy, which virtually ever member of my job is in considerable violation of.

Since the 1st day on this job employees have been printing out silly/funny/embarrassing photos and or making them the wall papers of work computers, etc. So I knew that this (social media) was already under a lot of attention from coworkers. And I know for a fact that a lot of my coworkers would LOVE to get another in trouble just to see what happens. So as soon as I had the whiff that this policy was coming I had to remove all coworkers, coworkers spouses and other people would could potentially inform on my employer on me.

It's unbelievably lame.

Is this a company policy that affects social media not hosted by the company, such as FB?

To date, I have never added a current coworker as a "friend" in social media. No good can come of that.

For company hosted social media, no one ever discusses anything non work related. No chit chat or jokes or anything.

And my company has social media presence the public can see too, such as online forums about our products. No one ever replies to customers to help with their questions unless they are officially told to from On High. Too much risk of saying something not allowed, like admitting to an issue with the product that wasn't put through the proper channels first, etc.

 

[KVX]

Maybe. I have seen numerous pictures of young people posing with guns on the GOAL website and in their newspaper and have never heard of a negative consequence.
Of course these kids weren't dressed like terrorists and flipping a bird.
It may be legal to wave a red flag in front of a bull but that doesn't make it a good idea.

So, if someone is dressed in a way you don't approve of, you feel its OK for the government to punish them ?
We see... got it comrade.

..also, theres recent topics on NES of student getting punished by schools, for simply going to the gun range, "dressed" in a way that even YOU would approve of.

 

[Dench]

Is this a company policy that affects social media not hosted by the company, such as FB?

To date, I have never added a current coworker as a "friend" in social media. No good can come of that.

For company hosted social media, no one ever discusses anything non work related. No chit chat or jokes or anything.

And my company has social media presence the public can see too, such as online forums about our products. No one ever replies to customers to help with their questions unless they are officially told to from On High. Too much risk of saying something not allowed, like admitting to an issue with the product that wasn't put through the proper channels first, etc.

This is a .gov job. Outside of work we have protections via case law when we speak as private citizens. That's the real issue I have with this. I'm not employed by a private employer. I'm employed by a .gov.

Obviously a turd case law brought to you by Republicans who can't seem to get enough draconian shit on the record. Thankfully it made it clear that I can't talk shit officially, I can privately. Garcetti v. Ceballos - Wikipedia

The person who informed me said our "lawyer" said this was "ironclad." I replied that we should probably hire a real lawyer and not one with a JD from the University of Pheonix. Crickets in response to that.


The sheep at work say bahhhhhhh.

 

[Prepper]

This is a .gov job. Outside of work we have protections via case law when we speak as private citizens. That's the real issue I have with this. I'm not employed by a private employer. I'm employed by a .gov.

Obviously a turd case law brought to you by Republicans who can't seem to get enough draconian shit on the record. Thankfully it made it clear that I can't talk shit officially, I can privately. Garcetti v. Ceballos - Wikipedia

The person who informed me said our "lawyer" said this was "ironclad." I replied that we should probably hire a real lawyer and not one with a JD from the University of Pheonix. Crickets in response to that.


The sheep at work say bahhhhhhh.

OH, gov job. Since I work for a private company, they can basically make up any rules they want, including for behavior off the job. Not that they actively look for violations, but if they did find some posts of mine naming the company and explaining how awful our software was (for the record our stuff is awesome), I would have some problems. We also can't do stuff like wear our badge or company logo shirts while out in public doing embarrassing stuff.

 

[Dench]

OH, gov job. Since I work for a private company, they can basically make up any rules they want, including for behavior off the job. Not that they actively look for violations, but if they did find some posts of mine naming the company and explaining how awful our software was (for the record our stuff is awesome), I would have some problems. We also can't do stuff like wear our badge or company logo shirts while out in public doing embarrassing stuff.

I could in theory be punished/fired for bashing an elected official who is simultaneously my boss while I'm his constituent since I live in the same jurisdiction as a voter. So if I bashed him in such a way that was offensive, which in todays outrage culture means basically anything and everything I can be in hot water over it. It's a joke.

And it's an insult to 1A. Politicians by law are allowed much weaker protection under slander/lible. And the idea behind that is people like to shit talk politicians. Ergo public officials have less protection under that law due to an unofficial agreement that being in such a position puts you under that category of huge shit talk.

 

[slap shot]

How is the school even seeing these posts? I have trouble imagining that the account urls are intentionally given to the schools by the kids or parents so they can watch. A Snapchat account can be rather anonymous. Facebook, not so much. It must be "friends" in the network turning them in?

Assume the teachers that are banging the students is the missing link

 

[SFC13557]

All it takes is one a$$hole to ruin it for everyone. Many years ago(before the internet and social media) if you left you badge unattended someone in the shop would take it photo copy it onto the "a$$hole of the month" picture from the back of Hustler mag and post it on the shop bulletin board as a joke. They hired this little nerd to help program the CNC machines and when he got a$$hole of the month he ran to HR and dimed us out. We all got read the riot act especially about taking badges which is a cause for termination and harassment. Needless to say they moved him out of the shop and into the office soon after. Last year I saw him testifying before the State on the cannabis law, he founded some legal weed company which he was trying to get a license for.

 

[AHM]

... as soon as I had the whiff that this policy was coming I had to remove all coworkers, coworkers spouses and other people would could potentially inform on my employer on me.

Spoiler: Take some consolation in this...

P. S. Happy Halloween!