Lulu (anonomus) wrote on May 14, 2008 06:57 AM: THE PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE DO NOT TRUST KIDS AND THAT MAKES THEM ACT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

++ SO PEOPLE
NEED
TO TRUST
US!!
!!!!!!!!!!++ <3 WiT LoVeS <3

lulu wrote on May 14, 2008 06:51 AM: Metal Detectors are bad its an invasion of privousy. I have lots of metal for school. That are not dangerous. If our school put metal detectors in i and alot of kids would miss class, and alot of kids would just stuff eveything they had with metal just so they would miss class.

LDD wrote on March 13, 2008 11:37 PM: Was it Arrogance or Ignorance?
Why in the world would a press conference be conducted at a school regarding school safety and school violence and Mr. Ruffles not invite school police. It would seem they would have greater input than all those " " security experts that come into town selling metal detectors or other agencies that have only a slim idea of what goes on in schools. At this meeting, I wanted to hear what they had to say, but I didn't see one School policeman around. Oh, it did appear Mr. Ruffles did Bubby Bubby up to Metro Sherif Gillespie. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased to see more police on and around our schools, but my child's school is so large, I would rather he be in class instead of a airport type line to get into school because of an xray machine. Let's get back to teaching and let professional policing continue in and around our schools. All my encounters with Metro and School Police have been positive and professional. Stop all the doom and gloom "The sky is falling attitude". It's time to address the issues with those who know the problems and stop judging from the sidelines.

joe wrote on March 12, 2008 06:05 PM: What Jon said. The parents would not support having dogs initiate searches as they would cry about their civil rights being violated. Parents worry more about their kids right to wear short skirts and tank tops than they care about doing things to improve the learning environment at schools(i.e. uniforms, parental involvment, year-round schooling).

DJ2 wrote on March 12, 2008 03:56 PM: Speaking about dogs giving false positives, how many of us have tripped the metal detectors at the airport or the courthouse and had nothing more than a large belt-buckle or under-wire bra? And, witness the large lines that are always backed-up behind the metal detectors at they check out every false alarm while the line waits.

On some days near the last day of school, they'll check all the students for possible weapons and the lines are huge. Not only that, but teachers and other staff are pressed into this service, taking them away from preparing for their classes. And, the checking extends into school time, detracting from the learning atmosphere.

What's more, with some of the recent school shootings, those shootists were intent on killing as many as possible before killing themselves. A person who's determined to commit suicide can walk through the detector, fully armed and loaded, and begin his carnage while the officials are still trying to determine if the metal detector was sending off another false alarm.

Using a metal detector to nab potentially violent students would only catch individuals who were so incredibly stupid that they'd walk through one with their weapons. Most kids I know are innovative enough to get around that problem, easily, just as some can smuggle stolen items out the front of the store, using ingenious techniques to bypass the detector.

UNLVStud wrote on March 12, 2008 02:20 PM: Metal detectors would only protect students while they're in the school building. These measures would not protect the drive by shooting that occurred last month. More funds need to be directed at after school programs and extracurricular activities. These students need guidance and role models, not metal detectors.

Jon wrote on March 12, 2008 01:49 PM: Actually, school officials do not need probable cause to search students, their vehicles, or their possessions as long as they are one school property. In the case New Jersey v. TLO, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials can conduct a search with a mere "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has or will occur. In other words, school officials could search every car in the parking lot, and every student that walked into the building if there was a single threat against the school.

The problem is not that we need drug sniffing dogs to give police probable cause. The problem is that school officials do not take the initiative, and that parents do not back up the school. I would be willing to bet that behind many troubled youths lie poor parenting.

Herb wrote on March 12, 2008 12:43 PM: This is a symbolic measure to fool parents into thinking something is being done to keep their children safe. As thers have mentioned these shootings are taking place off school property to begin with.

The problem is so much deeper. There is a complete cultual breakdown taking place among lower socioeconomic groups. Specifically boys are being raised without fathers or with a damaged beyond repair dysfunctional father or stepfather, for example a crackhead who shoots guns through his apartment building. This lack of positive male role models is causuing serious ramifications. School metal detectors will not make a dent in the teen violence epedemic.

Rodney Tucker wrote on March 12, 2008 09:44 AM: What is the genesis of this thought process? The incidents cited as grounds for this discussion have no correlation to on-campus mitigation. Its the Parents stupid!

Jon H. wrote on March 12, 2008 08:47 AM: Ths, yes they are our children and our actions do provide lessons that will be learned. As long as our actions are passive, I do not see any negative impact on our children. However, if it comes to frisking every student down like we do at an airport with the TSA . . . well I judge that to be very harmful.

Note, that I didn’t say that I objected to searches initiated by a Police Dogs positive indication. I simply indicated that when a search is conducted that the public has a right to know how effective that method of detection is.

With regards to camera in public places, I do fully support their installation. If the images captured help catch the bad guys, or provide witness to an auto accident or any crime in a court of law, I say great.

But, If red light cameras are installed to ticket the registered owner of a car, automatically, without a police officer tasked to review the tapes before the citation is issued, well now I do have a problem with that application.