Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 9

 

2010-09-22 05:33:15
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6816|Columbus, OH
The Principal was a dummy for suspending the skank over that. Oh well I guess the 80 /20 rule will go into affect soon; 80% of the people will be punished for 20% of the idiot's fault.

burnzz wrote:

i remember when phones were phones.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/776/rotaryiphone.jpg
I remember when pay phones were clean, in working order, and I was not afraid to use them.

Last edited by loubot (2010-09-22 05:35:49)

2010-09-22 10:28:28
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5475|Cleveland, Ohio

jsnipy wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

is it not child porn by definition?
... In the United States. But honestly at 17 you can be married. You don't think charging her with child porn is a bit overkill? I think law needs to the evolve. Calling 'First' on a legal precedent should not mean we stop thinking and evolving.

Honestly she should not settle out of court, actually get a verdict ffs.
no i would not charge her with child porn unless she did something stupid like i dunno try and scam 33k out of me
2010-09-22 10:31:09
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6977|Toronto | Canada

What constitutes child porn?  Do baby photos in the bathtub count too?  Because then pretty much everyone in the world would be guilty of having family albums with those kinds of pictures in it.

If she took it in private with the intention of not showing the public I dont really get the problem.  Its a victimless "crime" until they started going through her phone
2010-09-22 10:31:50
jord
Member
+2,382|6916|The North, beyond the wall.
Scam 33k?

I think its actually a pretty solid case for a lawsuit compared to the rest of the bullshit that is settled over there. I have a lot of private data and such on my phone and if someone not only viewed the data without my consent but actually used it against me damn right its a worthy law suit.
2010-09-22 10:33:06
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5475|Cleveland, Ohio

jord wrote:

Scam 33k?

I think its actually a pretty solid case for a lawsuit compared to the rest of the bullshit that is settled over there. I have a lot of private data and such on my phone and if someone not only viewed the data without my consent but actually used it against me damn right its a worthy law suit.
get over yourself.  what you have in the phone aint worth 33k.
2010-09-22 10:34:16
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5475|Cleveland, Ohio

Winston_Churchill wrote:

What constitutes child porn?  Do baby photos in the bathtub count too?  Because then pretty much everyone in the world would be guilty of having family albums with those kinds of pictures in it.

If she took it in private with the intention of not showing the public I dont really get the problem.  Its a victimless "crime" until they started going through her phone
i know all i am saying there has been cases.  so if the little slut wanted to be this way, i would drag her thru the mud and make them settle for some amount of money.
2010-09-22 10:38:52
jord
Member
+2,382|6916|The North, beyond the wall.

11 Bravo wrote:

jord wrote:

Scam 33k?

I think its actually a pretty solid case for a lawsuit compared to the rest of the bullshit that is settled over there. I have a lot of private data and such on my phone and if someone not only viewed the data without my consent but actually used it against me damn right its a worthy law suit.
get over yourself.  what you have in the phone aint worth 33k.
Depends on how it was used and what context.

If I had private pictures which were embarassing (such as nudes) and I didn't want anyone to view them without my consent then who can put a price on said pictures being viewed, passed around or indeed used against me? It's the principle of privacy, not hard to fathom.
2010-09-22 10:40:17
Home
Section.80
+447|7085|Seattle, Washington, USA

11 Bravo wrote:

charge her with child porn.  period.
Are you serious? Charge her for something no one had a right to be looking at anyways? Schools can search student private property (not just their lockers, kids at my school had their cars searched) but the police are always present with a warrant or at least probable cause. I don't see any probable cause in this case? The principal is a creeper sticking his nose into shit he shouldn't be.

Also, not a slut... You've never had a gf that sent nude pics to you? geezer

Last edited by Home (2010-09-22 10:41:38)

2010-09-22 10:42:40
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5475|Cleveland, Ohio

Home wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

charge her with child porn.  period.
Are you serious? Charge her for something no one had a right to be looking at anyways? Schools can search student private property (not just their lockers, kids at my school have had their cars searched) but the police are always present with a warrant or at least probable cause. I don't see any probable cause in this case? The principal is a creeper sticking his nose into shit he shouldn't be.

Also, not a slut... You've never had a gf that sent nude pics to you? geezer
i am serious.  and you guys keep yelling at me all i am saying there are cases to back it up.  so fuck off.  i didnt do it.

and yes i have had pics...but mostly from slut wives.
2010-09-22 10:43:11
jord
Member
+2,382|6916|The North, beyond the wall.
Loads of girls do that with a their boyfriends nowadays, its not particularly slutty anymore. Not that it has any bearing on an argument of privacy.
2010-09-22 10:44:57
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6977|Toronto | Canada

Home wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

charge her with child porn.  period.
Are you serious? Charge her for something no one had a right to be looking at anyways? Schools can search student private property (not just their lockers, kids at my school had their cars searched) but the police are always present with a warrant or at least probable cause. I don't see any probable cause in this case? The principal is a creeper sticking his nose into shit he shouldn't be.

Also, not a slut... You've never had a gf that sent nude pics to you? geezer
Theres no way they have the right to search your car.  If the police are there with a warrant its on police authority, not school authority...
2010-09-22 10:46:10
Home
Section.80
+447|7085|Seattle, Washington, USA

11 Bravo wrote:

Home wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

charge her with child porn.  period.
Are you serious? Charge her for something no one had a right to be looking at anyways? Schools can search student private property (not just their lockers, kids at my school have had their cars searched) but the police are always present with a warrant or at least probable cause. I don't see any probable cause in this case? The principal is a creeper sticking his nose into shit he shouldn't be.

Also, not a slut... You've never had a gf that sent nude pics to you? geezer
i am serious.  and you guys keep yelling at me all i am saying there are cases to back it up.  so fuck off.  i didnt do it.

and yes i have had pics...but mostly from slut wives.
There are also cases to back up that you can't charge someone using evidence found in an illegal search and seizure. A lot more cases.

Nude pics are pretty common now a days, from girls who aren't at all slutty.
2010-09-22 10:47:27
jord
Member
+2,382|6916|The North, beyond the wall.
Them being sluts doesn't mean they have no right to privacy and no right to sue a moronic principal for being a nosy fuck.
2010-09-22 10:47:51
Home
Section.80
+447|7085|Seattle, Washington, USA

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Home wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

charge her with child porn.  period.
Are you serious? Charge her for something no one had a right to be looking at anyways? Schools can search student private property (not just their lockers, kids at my school had their cars searched) but the police are always present with a warrant or at least probable cause. I don't see any probable cause in this case? The principal is a creeper sticking his nose into shit he shouldn't be.

Also, not a slut... You've never had a gf that sent nude pics to you? geezer
Theres no way they have the right to search your car.  If the police are there with a warrant its on police authority, not school authority...
Well yeah I guess I should have worded that differently. It was just usually a cop/sheriff or two with the vice principal so yeah I guess police authority.
2010-09-22 10:48:39
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5475|Cleveland, Ohio

jord wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

jord wrote:

Loads of girls do that with a their boyfriends nowadays, its not particularly slutty anymore. Not that it has any bearing on an argument of privacy.
sluts
Again them being sluts doesn't mean they have no right to privacy and no right to sue a moronic principal for being a nosy fuck.
i didnt say it did so calm down

and privacy and minors is a whole nother issue.  they are not afforded the same rights as adults here in the US fyi
2010-09-22 10:50:31
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5475|Cleveland, Ohio
maybe the principal made a mistake but maybe it was an honest mistake?  i mean he just didnt go grab her phone to see what was in there.  the disrespectful little slut was using the phone during class.  again privacy, minors, and school has been argued in courts for like ever.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-09-22 10:50:59)

2010-09-22 10:52:52
jord
Member
+2,382|6916|The North, beyond the wall.

11 Bravo wrote:

jord wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


sluts
Again them being sluts doesn't mean they have no right to privacy and no right to sue a moronic principal for being a nosy fuck.
i didnt say it did so calm down

and privacy and minors is a whole nother issue.  they are not afforded the same rights as adults here in the US fyi
They may well not be, but I'm willing to bet going through a confiscated pupils phone with no real cause and then suspending her for having pictures of herself naked isn't standard protocol.

In the no win no fee small claims society lawsuits like this can't piss you off. Now someone sueing a park for being hit by a fellen branch...
2010-09-22 10:55:11
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5475|Cleveland, Ohio
i agree but it was an honest mistake imo.  reverse the suspension and erase it off her record.  to sue for obviously more than 33k is fucking gay and it pisses me off since the whole thing is the little sluts fault to begin with.
2010-09-22 10:56:00
jord
Member
+2,382|6916|The North, beyond the wall.

11 Bravo wrote:

maybe the principal made a mistake but maybe it was an honest mistake?  i mean he just didnt go grab her phone to see what was in there.  the disrespectful little slut was using the phone during class.  again privacy, minors, and school has been argued in courts for like ever.
Kids use their phones in call all the time here and I've never seen a teacher go through the media folders on a students phone.
2010-09-22 10:56:32
Home
Section.80
+447|7085|Seattle, Washington, USA

11 Bravo wrote:

maybe the principal made a mistake but maybe it was an honest mistake?  i mean he just didnt go grab her phone to see what was in there.  the disrespectful little slut was using the phone during class.  again privacy, minors, and school has been argued in courts for like ever.
It sounds to me like that's exactly what he did. When they take your phone, they usually just take it, put it in their desk, never look at it again. This guy took it, opened it up, went to her text messages, read through them, exited out of that, went into her pictures gallery, and found the nudes. He's a creeper
2010-09-22 11:02:35
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6816|Columbus, OH

jord wrote:

Loads of girls do that with a their boyfriends nowadays, its not particularly slutty anymore. Not that it has any bearing on an argument of privacy.
why don't these load of girls or better known as sluts learn how to lock their phones. Now, I am gonna start prying into their cell phones pics.
2010-09-22 11:06:36
jord
Member
+2,382|6916|The North, beyond the wall.

loubot wrote:

jord wrote:

Loads of girls do that with a their boyfriends nowadays, its not particularly slutty anymore. Not that it has any bearing on an argument of privacy.
why don't these load of girls or better known as sluts learn how to lock their phones. Now, I am gonna start prying into their cell phones pics.
I wouldn't call a girl sending her boyfriend hawt pics a slut, maybe if she sent the pics to random guys. Each to their own I guess.

Why should people learn how to lock their phones? In case someone in a responsible position of power gets a bit bored and decides to go prying into other peoples files?
2010-09-22 11:06:45
SamTheMan
­
+341|5379|Stoke, England
pics of the girl?
2010-09-22 11:06:50
13rin
Member
+977|6717
On school property an individual cannot expect that level of privacy.  Cars,  backpacks, purses and lockers are all open to inspection by school administrators.  I don't think a phone should be considered any differently.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-09-22 11:10:11
Home
Section.80
+447|7085|Seattle, Washington, USA

DBBrinson1 wrote:

On school property an individual cannot expect that level of privacy.  Cars,  backpacks, purses and lockers are all open to inspection by school administrators.  I don't think a phone should be considered any differently.
I don't think that's true, do you have anything to back it up?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard