Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Message icon:

(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 23, 2020, 09:20:35 AM »

Link to Prussian method
Locker search

Illuminate The Delusions
the picture shows them opening a student locker, which is NOT the property of the student I would say. Seems a bit misleading

By your logic, warrants are not needed to enter rented apartments.
Sis-in-law was required to have a transparent back pack/ book bag. Over 18 yrs old.
She wasn't aware enough to challenge their demand to search her non transparent bag. "Get a warrant!"
And keep in mind that the extortion, aka known as law, demands non-truancy.
In other words, Government IS today's screw up.

Illuminate The Delusions
the difference between a rented apartment and an assigned locker is that the apartment is rented by choice with a signed lease or rental agreement that gives the renter the rights of ownership to an extent that would be protected under the constitution. The locker is NOT paid for, chosen, or required to be used by the student, is on school property, and there's usually a rule from the school that states they can search it so you know that ahead of time.

Sorry for the delay in replying. Still trying to figure out notifications now that FB is changing again.
I'm not really sure what the point is that you would like me to understand. Near as I can tell, you are saying that children and adults (over 18) are not to have any expectation of privacy?
However, You claim: The locker is NOT paid for [...]; and; the locker is Not required to be used by the student.
The locker IS paid for. It is paid for by funds extorted from people under the euphemism of "taxation".
And the locker IS required to be used by the student because the student is required to be incarcerated in that government building for X amount of hours per week day.
GIC Spooner & Bastiat

Illuminate The Delusions
yeah I can't take this seriously anymore, you're clearly not open to any form of existing government from the sound of things

What, specifically do you mean by "government"?
Here's what I mean: