26 March 2005

ACLU Defends Underage Students Caught At BoozeFeast

According to the Baltimore Sun Times, Police were summoned to a house at which 75 persons under the age of 21 were consuming alcohol and drugs. Police found more than 300 cans of beer and a cache of hard liquor. 14 students who were members of the local high school's spring sports teams were suspended for violating the school athletic code which forbids attendance at parties where drugs and alcohol are used. And now the Most Dangerous Organization In America is involved. Apparently some parents of the suspended athletes alerted the ACLU to their plight. The ACLU has taken a position against the school's ability to forbid activities which do not occur on school grounds. Hogwash. These kids knew the policy when they signed up to play their sport. Next the ACLU states that police questioning students, who attended the party, on school grounds was improper. Excuse me! This is a criminal investigation and these students were involved. They are in the care of the state therefore they can be questioned. This falls into the same boat with searching of school lockers. It's state or city property you morons! The ACLU's attorney stated that "parents not the schools should decide if their kids attend those parties." Even if we give them that one, it's the school not the parents who decide whether a student is eligible to participate in a sports program. I actually agree that the parents have the responsibility of deciding if their child can attend those parties. But I also believe that if there is illicit activities occurring at those parties, the parents are responsible for any criminal activity resulting from their permission allowing their child to attend. All 75 minors should be charged in court for under-age consumption of alcoholic beverages. All those who were under the influence of illicit drugs should be charged with being under the influence of a controlled substance. And they should all be sent to a juvenile detention facility. Then the owners of the house where the party took place should be arrested on 75 counts of providing alcohol to minors, drug trafficking, contributing to the delinquency of minors, and child endangering. Any party participants who were over 21 should also be charged. And those parents who permitted their child to attend the party should be charged also. Come on people, what is it going to take. Date rape drugs were suspected of being in use. How can anyone allow a party in a house to be attended by 75 minors? Every aspect of this case is wrong. I'm sick and tired of hearing about these bleeding heart socialists at the ACLU taking a position which advocates the commission of crimes. What we have here is an organization made up of a bunch of 60's hippy dope smoking moonbats and their offspring. And anything goes with those idiots.
Petition for Social Security Reform Facts On The Fair Tax


Blogger Kender said...

Damn dude....this is the story of my next post at Jays....good job!!

3/26/2005 09:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, you can be a lot more convincing if you don't call your readers morons. Also, the message at the top of your page "John Kerry promised, on national TV, to sign form SF-180 and release his military records" has lost so much relevancy it is unbelievable.

3/27/2005 01:28:00 AM  
Blogger Gribbit said...

You argue the relevence of a promise of an elected official, and his refusal to comply with his own word. It is relevant as long as those of us who take elected officials to their word,and hold them to their word, claim that it is relevant. I wasn't holding a gun to John Kerry's back when he made the statement that he would sign SF-180 and release his military records. Nobody was. He made those statements because he believed that it would benefit him politically to do so. Well then, why won't he sign it? Why won't he reveal that which he freely promised to reveal? That is the relevance.

Next time, use your name. I hate cowards.

Oh, and pay attention to your punctuation.Just because you are a political mental midget, doesn't excuse you from using proper English.

3/27/2005 03:05:00 AM  
Blogger Galileo said...

Back to the topic of the college drinkers... You said the ACLU raised an issue of police questioning students on university property, but you didn't specify at which university this took place.

When a minor goes off to school, the university serves in loco parentis. This means they are, to some extents, responsible for the student in the absence of the parents. So when the police question a student on campus without going through the proper chain of campus authorities, it's analogous to the police questioning your child in your living room without your consent.

In a state school, the issue can get a little murky if no legal precedent exists. After all, it is the state who is in loco parentis at a public school, and the police may be considered officers of the state.

As a student development professional, I have worked at two different private schools and had to deal with this issue on a few occasions. I understand the good intentions of some univiersity administrations in shielding their students from outside investigation or prosecution, but I must say I disagree with it. It does nothing to encourage students to take responsibility for their own actions and generally defeats the purpose of most residential education programs.

This said, depending on the situation and legal circumstances, the ACLU may have a valid legal position on at least that one aspect of the case.

3/29/2005 09:48:00 AM  
Blogger Gribbit said...

Those were high school students not college students. These are children. This is a case of 75 high school students at a house party where beer, hard liquor, and drugs were being used. These athletes signed a contract that said that they would not attend such parties under punnishment of not being able to play their sport.

As far as the police questioning them on school property, yes they are allowed.

And as of late, the ACLU hasn't been right at all. They are always on the wrong side of the argument. We are talking about an organization which is advocating Constitutional protections to people who are hell-bent on destroying what the Constitution stands for.

Wake up and smell the bacon.

3/30/2005 09:59:00 PM  
Blogger John said...

Did galileo even read the article? It was highschool kids. And both the parents and kids signed a legally binding contract.

What an idiot.

3/30/2005 10:04:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home