Ahh, vampire dinosaur...you can't make that stuff up.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
What possible right could a school have to tell a child how they may or may not transport themselves to school. What's next, the school telling children what they may or may not eat for breakfast before leaving for school. It boggles my mind that any school system could possibly think that this is acceptable, but of course the worst part is that a police officer showed up essentially to further reprimand the child. So obviously all other crime in the city has been solved. Because this child was committing no crime, was making use of public roads while in the company of a parent, both of whom were taking proper saftey praucotions. Even if we accepted the right of the school to create such a policy, it is not a legal issue. It is up to the school to disipline a student for not adhering to their policy, not the police. Are the police going to be called in the intimidate the next student who doesn't do his homework? Everyone harassing these 2 law abiding citizens ought to be ashamed, and if possible disciplined for gross stupidity.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/093009dnmetsmokingfeud.3ed620b.html
Once again, it doesn't so much bother me that people complain that their neighbors in a smoking townhouse are smoking. You expect people to be stupid, but the fact that a judge actually signed a restraining order forbiding someone from smoking in their own home in a dwelling that is advertised as allowing smoking is something so preposterous nobody could make it up, because nobody would believe it. You don't like smoke go to a building that doesn't allow smoking. This is no different that a judge telling someone with a dog that they have to get rid of it because their neighbor is allergic to dogs, but knowingly and willingly rented an apartment in a building that allows pets. This judge is obviously anti smoking, and more interested in carrying out a political position than maintaining justice. She ought to lose her position, and be disbarred for this miscarriage of justice.
What possible right could a school have to tell a child how they may or may not transport themselves to school. What's next, the school telling children what they may or may not eat for breakfast before leaving for school. It boggles my mind that any school system could possibly think that this is acceptable, but of course the worst part is that a police officer showed up essentially to further reprimand the child. So obviously all other crime in the city has been solved. Because this child was committing no crime, was making use of public roads while in the company of a parent, both of whom were taking proper saftey praucotions. Even if we accepted the right of the school to create such a policy, it is not a legal issue. It is up to the school to disipline a student for not adhering to their policy, not the police. Are the police going to be called in the intimidate the next student who doesn't do his homework? Everyone harassing these 2 law abiding citizens ought to be ashamed, and if possible disciplined for gross stupidity.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/093009dnmetsmokingfeud.3ed620b.html
Once again, it doesn't so much bother me that people complain that their neighbors in a smoking townhouse are smoking. You expect people to be stupid, but the fact that a judge actually signed a restraining order forbiding someone from smoking in their own home in a dwelling that is advertised as allowing smoking is something so preposterous nobody could make it up, because nobody would believe it. You don't like smoke go to a building that doesn't allow smoking. This is no different that a judge telling someone with a dog that they have to get rid of it because their neighbor is allergic to dogs, but knowingly and willingly rented an apartment in a building that allows pets. This judge is obviously anti smoking, and more interested in carrying out a political position than maintaining justice. She ought to lose her position, and be disbarred for this miscarriage of justice.
posted by Trashcan at 10/02/2009 12:09:00 AM
3 Comments:
The woman is right about her rights, but wrong about the environment. The carbon footprint for biking to work is greater than taking the bus because of the increased nutrition requirements for people who exercise: the food they eat is probably shipped from around the world. And of course the school bus will makes its route whether he's on it or not.
jesus. my question is why the f did they stay in the townhouse for a whole year, allowing their furniture/clothes to smell like cigarettes? were they planning on suing from the very beginning?
Well maybe she's just trying to keep herself and her son from getting fat.
Liepa i think they must have been thinking the world revolves around us and so they thought they could get their neighbor evicted for smoking in a building that allows smoking. They thought it was more important to prove a point than be comfortable, and when they weren't able to prove their point they got so mad they decided to sue.
Post a Comment
<< Home