Another high school shooting, this time in MD

[Geoff_M]

The family announced they are removing the girl that was shot from life support tonight. So sad...

That really sucks...

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I think the school is in the wrong, but your dictionary definitions back up what I said. Possession can mean either "having", or "owning" or "controlling". You can have something or control something without "owning" it per your definition. If I walk into a school with my friend's knife in my pocket, I still may be found in violation of possessing a weapon on school grounds... even if it's my friend's knife. However, at that same time, my friend may own the knife but he won't be in possession of it.

My point is that it appears that the school originally applied their policy as written... it was just a bad policy. I believe that robinb is correct that their intent was to be able to punish a student who is found to be in possession of a firearm (presumably illegally) outside of school grounds in the same manner as policies that punish students for drinking off of school property, but the weapons policy's author didn't seem to take in to consideration that students could in fact legally and legitimately use firearms outside of school grounds. And it seems that someone at the school initially decided to take a literal interpretation of that policy when they suspended the kids.

But you can’t own it without being in possession, you can possess it without owning it but not the other, regardless though we’re arguing semantics.

 

[Geoff_M]

But you can’t own it without being in possession, you can possess it without owning it but not the other, regardless though we’re arguing semantics.

We own a cell phone that one of my wife's students (unknown) stole from her desktop. We still own the phone even though it remains stolen, but I can assure you that we are not in possession of the phone we own... regardless of how you apply any semantics. But if your assertion that "you can’t own it without being in possession" is correct, we therefore can't own the phone since we are not in possession of it.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

We own a cell phone that one of my wife's students (unknown) stole from her desktop. We still own the phone even though it remains stolen, but I can assure you that we are not in possession of the phone we own... regardless of how you apply any semantics. But if your assertion that "you can’t own it without being in possession" is correct, we therefore can't own the phone since we are not in possession of it.

In your example, you no longer own or possess your phone.

 

[Geoff_M]

In your example, you no longer own or possess your phone.

I think the police would beg to differ with you on that notion... but pawn shop owners would totally love it if your statement was actually true!

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I think the police would beg to differ with you on that notion... but pawn shop owners would totally love it if your statement was actually true!

We’ve taken this to far from the original context.
I stand by my assertion that the rule against students having possession of a firearm could have been used to punish a student for his family merely owning a firearm.

 

[robinb]

We’ve taken this to far from the original context.
I stand by my assertion that the rule against students having possession of a firearm could have been used to punish a student for his family merely owning a firearm.

Wait a second. I'm trying to understand your point, so please bear with me. You believe that the previous rule in the student handbook could be used to suspend little Johnny just because his family owns guns? Even though they keep them locked away and little Johnny has not so much as touched one?

 

[robinb]

In other news, there is a small step in the direction of getting research into gun violence. The Dickey Amendment was not repealed, but a report was attached to the House budget which quotes Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar's recent testimony that “the CDC has the authority to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.”. Hopefully, some research will be funded soon.

Also, the 14-year old boy who was also shot at Great Mills HS was released from the hospital on Wednesday.

 

[cabanafrau]

We’ve taken this to far from the original context.
I stand by my assertion that the rule against students having possession of a firearm could have been used to punish a student for his family merely owning a firearm.

No. That simply opens up legal floodgates to absurdity. A TV lawyer can whistle that one out of the courthouse.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Wait a second. I'm trying to understand your point, so please bear with me. You believe that the previous rule in the student handbook could be used to suspend little Johnny just because his family owns guns? Even though they keep them locked away and little Johnny has not so much as touched one?

Yes I do, but that’s were I think it gets confusing. Defining possession and ownership. What if they don’t have all of them locked away? If little Johnny lives in a home with guns even secured I’m pretty sure an argument can and would be made he could have possession. I think we all agree it was a terrible rule to begin with.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

No. That simply opens up legal floodgates to absurdity. A TV lawyer can whistle that one out of the courthouse.

And isn’t that exactly what happened? People spoke up and the rule was changed because the board realized they overstepped.

 

[cabanafrau]

And isn’t that exactly what happened? People spoke up and the rule was changed because the board realized they overstepped.

I was discussing your conflation of possession and ownership, which would be defined quite distinctly under the law.

 

[robinb]

Yes I do, but that’s were I think it gets confusing. Defining possession and ownership. What if they don’t have all of them locked away? If little Johnny lives in a home with guns even secured I’m pretty sure an argument can and would be made he could have possession. I think we all agree it was a terrible rule to begin with.

It was a terrible rule, but I think you're looking for boogiemen that are simply not there.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I was discussing your conflation of possession and ownership, which would be defined quite distinctly under the law.

It wasn’t a law though it was a policy or rule. To me that means open to interpretation.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

It was a terrible rule, but I think you're looking for boogiemen that are simply not there.

You mean the same boogieman that wrote and approved such a rule/policy wouldn’t try to take it a step further?

 

[cabanafrau]

It wasn’t a law though it was a policy or rule. To me that means open to interpretation.

If the rule stood, was applied as you suggest it could be and challenged, where do you suppose the dispute would be settled?

 

[robinb]

You mean the same boogieman that wrote and approved such a rule/policy wouldn’t try to take it a step further?

Yes, that would be the boogieman I'm talking about.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

If the rule stood, was applied as you suggest it could be and challenged, where do you suppose the dispute would be settled?

Depends on how far it was pushed, it’s not cheap to challenge things in court with lawyer fees building so most people won’t challenge it simply due to cost. It would start I assume much like this one did, questioning the board at a public meeting, then possibly a private meeting between the school boards legal advisor and the complanents attorney if they could afford one(remember you don’t get free legal representation to sue someone) then possibly some sort of arbitration which isn’t a court room, then finally if the complainant follows through all this without simply giving up due to time and finances it might finally go to court.
ETA- I don’t think I answered your question so here it is. I think it would be settled before this found its way to trial most likely with the complainant, in this case the student accepting the punishment because his family cannot afford to fight the school board.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

It was a terrible rule, but I think you're looking for boogiemen that are simply not there.

Yes, that would be the boogieman I'm talking about.

Ok I’m confused, you said that I’m looking for a boogieman that simply does not exist but now your acknowledging that they do?

 

[cabanafrau]

Depends on how far it was pushed, it’s not cheap to challenge things in court with lawyer fees building so most people won’t challenge it simply due to cost. It would start I assume much like this one did, questioning the board at a public meeting, then possibly a private meeting between the school boards legal advisor and the complanents attorney if they could afford one(remember you don’t get free legal representation to sue someone) then possibly some sort of arbitration which isn’t a court room, then finally if the complainant follows through all this without simply giving up due to time and finances it might finally go to court.

If the school board is taking legal counsel from an attorney who suggests that a parent's legal ownership of a gun can stretch to encompass a student possessing the gun under the rule taxpayer's aren't getting their money's worth. A parent or a student with functioning gray cells can go to the courthouse and petition the court for an emergency injunction.

I will have to remember that one isn't entitled to free legal representation for a lawsuit, thanks for the tip.

If only there was a means to discover the secret phone number of legal aid or the ACLU or something.