Geoff_M
DIS Veteran, DVC Member, "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2000
That really sucks...The family announced they are removing the girl that was shot from life support tonight. So sad...
That really sucks...The family announced they are removing the girl that was shot from life support tonight. So sad...
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.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.
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.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.
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!In your example, you no longer own or possess your phone.
We’ve taken this to far from the original context.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!
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?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.
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.
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.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?
And isn’t that exactly what happened? People spoke up and the rule was changed because the board realized they overstepped.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.
It was a terrible rule, but I think you're looking for boogiemen that are simply not there.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 wasn’t a law though it was a policy or rule. To me that means open to interpretation.I was discussing your conflation of possession and ownership, which would be defined quite distinctly under the law.
You mean the same boogieman that wrote and approved such a rule/policy wouldn’t try to take it a step further?It was a terrible rule, but I think you're looking for boogiemen that are simply not there.
It wasn’t a law though it was a policy or rule. To me that means open to interpretation.
Yes, that would be the boogieman I'm talking about.You mean the same boogieman that wrote and approved such a rule/policy wouldn’t try to take it a step further?
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 rule stood, was applied as you suggest it could be and challenged, where do you suppose the dispute would be settled?
It was a terrible rule, but I think you're looking for boogiemen that are simply not there.
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?Yes, that would be the boogieman I'm talking about.
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.