High School Panty Raid! - Page 3

Guynemer · May 3, 2002, 12:18

Did I ever say that? No. YOU were the one who brought up the farcical police analogy.

SKILORD · May 3, 2002, 12:20

bloody perverts

Jac de Molay · May 3, 2002, 12:38

I think the police analogy isn't so farcical at all because it proves the point that intent is very relevant. It's not an uncommon occurance for police to be accused of varying degrees of sex assault in the line of duty. The police would have their hands tied if they couldn't perform intimate searches on suspects for drugs or guns because every Tom, ****, and harriet cried sex assault.

In the case of this principal, accusations of sex assault and pedophilia are overblown for that very reason. In this case, a definite violation of civil rights occured, and those responsible should be punished accordingly.

Richelieu · May 3, 2002, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
I think the police analogy isn't so farcical at all because it proves the point that intent is very relevant. It's not an uncommon occurance for police to be accused of varying degrees of sex assault in the line of duty. The police would have their hands tied if they couldn't perform intimate searches on suspects for drugs or guns because every Tom, ****, and harriet cried sex assault.

In the case of this principal, accusations of sex assault and pedophilia are overblown for that very reason. In this case, a definite violation of civil rights occured, and those responsible should be punished accordingly.

I agree. No sexual intent here.

DinoDoc · May 3, 2002, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
It's not an uncommon occurance for police to be accused of varying degrees of sex assault in the line of duty.

The difference between the police example and this one is that the policeman had a legitimate reason to conduct his search and the VP didn't.

SKILORD · May 3, 2002, 12:45

Quote:

I agree. No sexual intent here

are you sure?

Guynemer · May 3, 2002, 12:46

As for the intent issue: how can we be sure than there was no sexual intent?

Regardless of whether or not the intent was sexual, the fact remains that this was a sexual assault.

Padma · May 3, 2002, 12:50

Maybe the VP had no sexual intent. But to forcibly expose teenage girls in view of the public, (especially in view of teenage boys / classmates) definitely constitutes sexual assault in my book.

Jac de Molay · May 3, 2002, 12:56

Quote:

The difference between the police example and this one is that the policeman had a legitimate reason to conduct his search and the VP didn't.

Make no mistake. I'm not questioning the legitimacy(or lack thereof) of what happened. It was definitely wrong. However, intent is very important in establishing a sanction that isn't overly punitive.

Quote:

As for the intent issue: how can we be sure than there was no sexual intent? Regardless of whether or not the intent was sexual, the fact remains that this was a sexual assault.

By looking at the entire host of circumstances. Obviously, no one can read the mind of the VP. But the searches occured in front of others, and the VP has shown no prior pattern of sexual impropriety ( at least as far as we know). These two circumstances alone, IMHO, would create a shadow of doubt.

Dave

Promethus · May 3, 2002, 13:21

In the end it will be the DA that decides if it's sexual assult.

Guynemer · May 3, 2002, 13:24

True dat. But he/she could easily make a case for it, if the students/parents decide to push for it.

korn469 · May 3, 2002, 14:01

Quote:

Korn, I can be outraged and whatever I goddamn well please. Yes, that is horrible, and should be stopped. But kindly allow me to be outraged about pedophiles in positions of power in my country, thank you.

uh this school is in san diego right?
san diego is close to something called a beach right?
the girls didn't have on thongs right?

so they are just about as exposed as they are on the beach right?

now this is sucky and embarrassing for the girls that it happened to, but this ranks up their as an embarrassment of the month story in teen magazine or ym, it does not rank up their as a pediphilia

it said in time magazine that the definition of pediphilia (this was in the issue about the church) was people who are attracted to pre-pubesent children, so please stop crying wolf

this woman has terrible judgement and she crossed the line, that is bad enough right? why try and portray what she was doing as something worse than it really was?

in all reality will those teenagers be scared for life?

i seriously doubt it

so fire and sue the woman, but don't try to send her to jail on trumped up charges

rah · May 3, 2002, 14:09

Stupidity, bad judgement.....most certainly
but sexual assault, good luck proving that.

Sten Sture · May 3, 2002, 14:24

This just goes to show you that people in Southern California are wack-os. Not like up here.

Richelieu · May 3, 2002, 14:32

Come to think of it, i guess that's just the thing : this is so obviously screwed up that you can't rule out sexual intent...

Jac de Molay · May 3, 2002, 14:42

I disagree, and it goes back to intent. The irrational enforcement of a misguided school rule is markedly different than the actions of a rapist, groper, or pedophile. Just because you can't rule out sexual intent doesn't establish it as the primary motive, especially when you consider the gravity of such a charge. And such intent wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law

A violation of civil rights is an entirely different story

Dave

Richelieu · May 3, 2002, 14:48

This is why i wrote "can't rule out".

The violation of civil rights is a given in my view.

DinoDoc · May 3, 2002, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
The irrational enforcement of a misguided school rule is markedly different than the actions of a rapist, groper, or pedophile.

There was no rule to enforce.

korn469 · May 3, 2002, 15:12

while there might not have been a rule in the rulebook, she was trying to prevent a reoccurance of what happened last year

a girl exposed herself at the MORP (which is a big deal to me as well but that's my opinion)

plus i would like to know how long she lifted up each skirt, it was most likely just long enough to identify between a bikini cut and a thong you're acting like she made them strip and stand their for hours

plus this is a voluntary school function, in fact it is a privledge to goto a dance not a right and anyone who didn't want to be searched didn't have to get in

this VP was trying in an ineffectual and draconian way to force these kids into being good, she was trying to enforce the puritanical tyranny of america on these kids, but she crossed the line now it's time for a witch hunt

crap, now where did i put my torch at?

Jac de Molay · May 3, 2002, 15:14

" There was no rule to enforce."

My impression, from the spokeswoman's comments, was that they were enforcing dress code rules.

Guynemer · May 3, 2002, 15:15

I wonder if you'd be so flippant if this were your own daughter, korn.

DinoDoc · May 3, 2002, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
My impression, from the spokeswoman's comments, was that they were enforcing dress code rules.

There was no dress code regarding undergarments.

korn469 · May 3, 2002, 15:26

Guynemer

i don't have any children yet, but yes i would be just as flippant if it was my daughter, worse things have happened to me, hell i was assaulted and almost robbed (good thing i didn't have my wallet on me, hit in the ear with a bottle which cut it all to hell, and nobody went to jail
am i scared? nope, i bounced back just like these kids will, give them some credit they are resiliant

other bad things have happened to me and it's just a part of life, plus have you ever been to a maximum security prison to visit friends? i have, does this woman belong there? i would say almost certainly not

Jac de Molay · May 3, 2002, 15:54

Quote:

plus this is a voluntary school function, in fact it is a privledge to goto a dance not a right and anyone who didn't want to be searched didn't have to get in

The problem is that school authorities are labeling more and more activities as "privilege", and attaching more conditions to be met to take part in such activities. Many schools make mandatory drug testing a condition in order to take part in athletics and other after-school activities. Many schools limit the free speech of student publications because they're considered a privelege. I think it sets a dangerous precedent which leads to things like this panty-searching incident.

With that said, It would add insult to injury to make such an onerous accusation against the VP and call it a just remedy. One draconian measure certainly doesn't justify another.

DAve

korn469 · May 3, 2002, 16:03

Quote:

With that said, It would add insult to injury to make such an onerous accusation against the VP and call it a just remedy. One draconian measure certainly doesn't justify another.

i agree with you completely Dave

Saint Marcus · May 3, 2002, 17:41

You can all rest easy now. She lost her job.

Wraith · May 3, 2002, 19:25

--"the only people they should lock up are those who are an actual threat to society..."

I would have to argue that extreme lack of common sense is not only an actual threat to society, but is an acute threat to society...

--"if you want to be outraged at something, fume at this"

Something worse happening elsewhere does not mitigate any wrong done here. Otherwise we'd have mass murderers getting off light because of people like Hitler and Stalin.

--"So if she had a search warrant it would have been OK to look at their underwear!"

Well, if she's a police officer, maybe a search warrant would be applicable, but it's really not acceptable for non-law enforcement people to be presenting them.

--"she was trying to prevent a reoccurance of what happened last year"

Yes, please think about this a bit. She was trying to prevent a reoccurance of what happened last year... by forcing all the students to do the same thing beforehand this year. Hm.

--"You can all rest easy now. She lost her job."

Well, it's a start.

Wraith
"In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by people who 'thought they were doing the right thing'..."
-- Charles M. Schulz

Chowlett · May 3, 2002, 19:31

And people - can we please start spelling it "paedophile"? I'm trying not to laugh at all the "pedophiles" in this thread. The woman was not excessively fond of feet, as far as we can tell!

KrazyHorse · May 3, 2002, 22:16

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=pedophile

Pedophile is an accepted alternate spelling of paedophile. In NA, it's the dominant spelling.

Dis · May 7, 2002, 05:46

some of you don't seem to understand that none of the students had to show their privates. They just showed their underwear!! Considering for boys this is a fashion statement it is no big deal. And girls wear less on the beach.

I don't see what the bid deal is. Sure it was embarrassing. Especially to some guy wearing pink underwear. And she should be fired over this, but sexual assault is just way too much.

And yes she did go too far. What's the big deal about a little partial nudity? (I'm referring to the incident a year before where a girl flashed a little too much at the dance) There is nothing wrong with the human body (but there is plenty right with it). Is some 16 year old kid who sees a little pubic hair on a girl going to be scarred for life? So the Vice Principal should be fired just for stupidity.