Are you quite sure you aren't roleplaying a paladin in a PbP, and maybe you just wandered into the wrong thread by mistake?
Unlikely; more like a Hellknight. Paladins are lawful good, after all. ;)
Are you quite sure you aren't roleplaying a paladin in a PbP, and maybe you just wandered into the wrong thread by mistake?Unlikely; more like a Hellknight. Paladins are lawful good, after all. ;)
He's playing a Lawful Stupid Paladin. The ones that no one likes playing with, who gets killed by the party Rogue in his sleep.
It must be fun to able to just obey the laws that you like. There are laws that make so sense to me, but I obey them anyway. This homeless mom knowingly broke a law. She lied about where her son lived. Then she sent her son to that school, where he used up almost $16,000 in resources. Those are the facts.
Now, multiple that by 1,000 or 10,000. Do you believe that she is the only parent lying about where they live? No, she isn't. They arrested her for two reasons. First, she broke the law and must pay for her crimes. Second, she is an example to other parents doing the same thing. By giving her the maximum possible punishment under the law...it would be doing a great service to a lawful society.
Those are half the facts, and when you only present half the facts, that's called lying by omission or more simply a lie.
First off, some of those missing facts. One of them is that, in addition to revenues from local property taxes used for the school on the city or county level, there are also funds coming from the state based on ADA, which stands for "average daily attendance," or less formally (but more accurately) "butt in chair money." Every day a student is in class, the state pays the school money. If a child is absent, with or without an excuse, the school does not get that money. This is why schools don't like truancy or illness. It costs them money.
The $16,000 in resources? That was being offset by the "butt in chair" money the school was receiving from the state. There's also the fact that a teacher gets paid the same regardless of the number of kids in their class. One extra or one less doesn't make a lot of difference.
Beyond that, the school the child should have gone to was saved the money, making it not a case of direct fraud or theft, as the mother got to take home no portion of any sum of money.
An analogous situation would be public libraries. In California at least, they are funded on both the city and county level but anyone can patronize any of them and get a library card for free. If there's a large discrepancy where the citizens of city A are using city B's libraries more than vice versa, there's sometimes money shuffled city to city, and there are even cities which do not have their own public library system and use the next city's. This is because it's a public good and everything tends to even out in the wash.
With schools? It should be the same situation. But even when it's not, there are complications. In the case of this child, the mother was staying with a friend in one city some of the time, staying at a homeless shelter in another city some of the time, and having her child babysat by his godmother a fair bit of the time as well. The homeless shelter and the godmother were both in the district where the child was going to school. The place where she sometimes couch-surfed was not.
+1 and angry about it!
Only the difference between that and the value of the education she did receive. You are welcome to spend 25+ K proving the value of pre-primary school education.I was trying to highlight the ludicrousness of the entire event. This woman and her child need a home, not jailing and fines.
|
I will not, however, obey laws that result in irrational, counterproductive, or even morally objectionable outcomes.
And if you get caught, you pay the penalty...
Glad you are financially well off enough to pick and choose your battles like that; what with court costs, lawyer fees, etc...
Stupid laws can be repealed and voted out of existence. Ignoring them (and then getting caught) simply puts a further burden on the system, because now, the taxpayers have to pay for your morality (which they may or may not agree with)...
Not to mention, the time spent tying up the court (and the people involved) could have been put to better use...
Don't like the laws? Vote them away...
But ignoring them because of some perceived morally high ground?
Wow, just wow...
It must be fun to able to just obey the laws that you like. There are laws that make so sense to me, but I obey them anyway. This homeless mom knowingly broke a law. She lied about where her son lived. Then she sent her son to that school, where he used up almost $16,000 in resources. Those are the facts.
Now, multiple that by 1,000 or 10,000. Do you believe that she is the only parent lying about where they live? No, she isn't. They arrested her for two reasons. First, she broke the law and must pay for her crimes. Second, she is an example to other parents doing the same thing. By giving her the maximum possible punishment under the law...it would be doing a great service to a lawful society.
Those are half the facts, and when you only present half the facts, that's called lying by omission or more simply a lie.
Actually, Kevin I don't agree with what you wrote, but I think my original post was deleted so I wanted to show it to other people...
A kingdom founded on injustice never lasts.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
In her four-page arrest warrant, police say McDowell stole up to $15,686 in educational services from the city of Norwalk -- the documented average cost for educating a child in 2010.Yes, she needs to get the maximum punishment according to the Law. Its like she broke into the school and stole $15,686 from them. That is Grand Theft, a felony, and it is punishable by up to 20 years. Our society cannot and should not tolerate people who break the law for any reason. The fact that she is homeless and was trying to help her son have no bearing on the case. Obviously, the child is not to blame and he should be placed in an appropriate foster home.
So let me count how many times you have broken the speeding limit in your life. Since it is countless, you should be jailed since each infraction adds up.
Seriously you troll just to stir the pot.
I will not, however, obey laws that result in irrational, counterproductive, or even morally objectionable outcomes.And if you get caught, you pay the penalty...
Glad you are financially well off enough to pick and choose your battles like that; what with court costs, lawyer fees, etc...
Stupid laws can be repealed and voted out of existence. Ignoring them (and then getting caught) simply puts a further burden on the system, because now, the taxpayers have to pay for your morality (which they may or may not agree with)...
Not to mention, the time spent tying up the court (and the people involved) could have been put to better use...
Don't like the laws? Vote them away...
But ignoring them because of some perceived morally high ground?
Wow, just wow...
I never said anything about ignoring them. I said I wouldn't obey them.
Edit: Incidentally, is there any particular reason my post was deleted, and with no notice whatsoever? It wasn't even close to breaking any rules. Frankly, things are getting more than a bit heavy-handed round these parts...
Going back and looking at the original article again, I see this:
McDowell has claimed that she was staying at:
-Homeless shelter in Norwalk
-Baby-sitter's house, I assume that is Roodner Court, Norwalk
-Automobile (transitive)
-Other residence in Bridgeport, I assume that is Priscilla Circle
School in question is in Norwalk.
At an eviction hearing for the baby-sitter, McDowell, I believe under oath, said she lived at Priscilla Circle and not with the baby-sitter. The Judge ruled that she was residing there, which violated the terms of the lease, and allowed for the eviction.
This is the case that got her trouble.
Now some things looking at that for her that are good, it seems to me. An official court document now says she was in fact residing in Norwalk during the time of her son's schooling. Thus she was according to the official record a reside, albeit an illegal resident in the district.
The bad news is that if she takes that stance then she probably has to claim that she lied under oath when she said she lived at Priscilla Circle, which may carry its own legal ramifications, but perjury might be less than the theft charge.
If the school system isn't taking children from the homeless center that are residing in their district, then that might be a legal issue that she could raise. I'm not sure where that might go, but it is something worth pursuing especially if one cares about justice.
Also, the baby-sitting might be something that people want to be careful about pushing. If the woman was not a licensed day-care provider, getting that into official records could cause her additional problems besides the loss of her apartment.
Generally the question is pretty fubar. The woman has made contradicting statements in various legal avenues. This doesn't help her case for her being unsure as to what she was doing. Her best bet is to take a plea deal and just try to make the best of the whole bad affair.
As an aside, Kevin, that isn't the only reason (money) why schools dislike truancy and illness, it also greatly hinders a students chance to learn. I know missing a week of class in my math courses can be crippling to a student, especially if they are already having difficulty. Of course I do have to admit that also leads to poor performance on standardized tests, which does also effect their cash flow as well. But it isn't just about the money.
I never said anything about ignoring them. I said I wouldn't obey them.Please, explain the difference?
I thought I had, but my post has been removed with no explanation. I would like to continue this conversation, but it has apparently been deemed unacceptable by the powers that be. Further, communication channels subject to arbitrary manipulation with no explanation and no accountability do not lend themselves to effective communication.
I thought I had, but my post has been removed with no explanation. I would like to continue this conversation, but it has apparently been deemed unacceptable by the powers that be.Sure it was deleted, and not just "eaten"?
Pretty sure; it was replied to. If, however, it did just get eaten, my apologies to the appropriate folks.
edit: And it's back...looks like I have egg on my face.
In case it was eaten, I'll try again: I will not comply with a law I find morally objectionable. If, for example, a law was passed that said I had to report all Catholics to the police*, I would not comply. Depending upon what I judged my chances of contributing to social change, I may quietly ignore it, or I may actively protest.
Or take the French burqa ban. If I had any desire to wear a burqa, I would probably continue to do so. Further, I would not report others for doing so, and I may join others in protest.
Frankly, I don't understand any alternative that doesn't amount to ceding my basic moral responsibility to the state. If the Arizona Legislature passes a law that decrees that I must kick a puppy every Thursday, I have no problem unilaterally deciding I will not comply.
* Sadly, it isn't difficult to find examples of laws like this.
|
School is compulsory for this child.
Not going without a state-validated homeschool program is against the law.
No-one directly pays taxes for school in the US. We indirectly pay taxes and states and districts routinely alter the tax dividend per program--so 1.1% may go to public schools this year, 1.3% next year, and .91% the year after.
Paying taxes is not a condition of enrollment for your children, since enrollment and attendance is legally mandated.
Since she's homeless and jobless, she obviously doesn't pay taxes in any district. If I move to her district, my kids are expected to attend school of some sort--enrolling my kids in public school includes no stipulation that I am a permanent resident or a local tax payer.
Ultimately, the local government will have spent more prosecuting this case than it's worth, especially after it gets thrown out.
I have no problem unilaterally deciding I will not comply.But by not complying, you are still ignoring them...
You said:
I never said anything about ignoring them. I said I wouldn't obey them.That's why I asked you to explain the difference...
Then I guess we fundamentally disagree on what it means to ignore a law. To me, ignore means "pay no attention to," whereas I am describing willful disobedience. If, on the other hand, you take exception to me declaring that I will disobey laws I find morally objectionable, then that is your right. I frankly find that position sorta difficult to understand, but hey, to each his own.
The law might not be the thing that's stopping him, rather than the fear of the consequences of getting caught.A law certainly isn't going to stop me from doing what I want. Unless, of course, the law would benefit me, in which case I observe it.Are you saying that you only obey laws that are convenient or benefit you? I'm a little confused, because that would put you in the same camp as most thieves, rapists, murderers, anti-socials, etc. I realize this is a strong comparison, but you have made a rather strong statement.
And there are people out there that can't be caught. Or rather, have the means to wave money at it and make it go away. Like, oh, dictators who have been put into power by our government and will continue to stay in power until they no longer provide the benefits to our government that put them there. Or rich politicians who drive drunk and kill the woman in the seat next to them.
Or all the smart criminals who know how the legal system works and just don't get caught.
The Mafia. All of them (Yakuza, Italian, Irish, Russian, etc). Even when some of them slip up and do get caught, they usually have enough money for a good lawyer. Or OJ Simpson. Or Bin Laden. Everyone wants that guy dead, but no one can find him. Wonder why?
I am just stunned that people are so ready to throw a book at this person.
How about looking at why or how the problem kicked off.
How about just being happy that a kid was stable an in a school, despite apparently being in an unstable and unsafe environment.
How about trying to get this woman some actual support, rather than adding to the homelessness issue.
How about actually trying to do some good, instead of being grim frustrated and angry and just wishing to 'punish the wrongdoer' without even thinking if the underlying system is just.
Tell me, what is it like to live in a world without laughter.
|
It must be fun to able to just obey the laws that you like. There are laws that make so sense to me, but I obey them anyway. This homeless mom knowingly broke a law. She lied about where her son lived. Then she sent her son to that school, where he used up almost $16,000 in resources. Those are the facts.
Now, multiple that by 1,000 or 10,000. Do you believe that she is the only parent lying about where they live? No, she isn't. They arrested her for two reasons. First, she broke the law and must pay for her crimes. Second, she is an example to other parents doing the same thing. By giving her the maximum possible punishment under the law...it would be doing a great service to a lawful society.
Those are half the facts, and when you only present half the facts, that's called lying by omission or more simply a lie.
First off, some of those missing facts. One of them is that, in addition to revenues from local property taxes used for the school on the city or county level, there are also funds coming from the state based on ADA, which stands for "average daily attendance," or less formally (but more accurately) "butt in chair money." Every day a student is in class, the state pays the school money. If a child is absent, with or without an excuse, the school does not get that money. This is why schools don't like truancy or illness. It costs them money.
The $16,000 in resources? That was being offset by the "butt in chair" money the school was receiving from the state. There's also the fact that a teacher gets paid the same regardless of the number of kids in their class. One extra or one less doesn't make a lot of difference.
Beyond that, the school the child should have gone to was saved the money, making it not a case of direct fraud or theft, as the mother got to take home no portion of any sum of money.
An analogous situation would be public libraries. In California at least, they are funded on both the city and county level but anyone can...
They would also get federal money for having this student who would also qualify to increase the Title 1 money at the school which in California is based on the % of Students in the free lunch program.
Title 1 funds is a big deal many Elementry Schools can't get it due to a lower % of Students that fufill the requirements. At the High School I work at its 526,000 dollars a year based on the 2570 students and they met the minimum funding level, while at the Elementry School I worked at it was around 100k or so while a school 3 blocks north it was only 35000 dollars due to the smaller % of kids on the free lunch program. Then there is ESL money and GATE money etc...
Schools get paid bank per student in attendence per day. Trust me when I say they got well over the 15k that it "cost" them.
Title 1 money is also extremely valueble to a school as its what is typically used to pay for New Computers, extra personnel (Nurses, Janitors, teacher aides, computer techs, librarians you know those wonderful extras that every school needs, but the school district can't afford to pay due to budget cuts.)
|
|
If, on the other hand, you take exception to me declaring that I will disobey laws I find morally objectionable, then that is your right.
No, not taking exception, just finding it difficult to understand the position...
I mean, I'm married. And while there are unjust laws, my family's welfare comes first. If I'm out protesting a law I find questionable (by not observing it), then when caught, I have to deal with the consequences. And those include flinging money at fines, court costs, lawyer fees, bail (if said consequence was jail time), etc. And if after getting caught, I again repeat the "offence", then I spend yet more time and money on the issue (which means less and less money for the needs of my family)...
And if your wife's not out there getting arrested with you, she may find your "cause" to be a little selfish (then you have a bunch of other problems to deal with)...
Also...
I don't know about where you work, but if I spent a lot of time in and out of court for continuing to violate a law willfully, then my boss would start looking for someone a little more "dependable" (especially if jail time was connected with said law violation)...
That's why I said (in a previous post), we in this country have a way to rid ourselves of unfair and unjust laws; it's called the ballot box...
But if you have the luxury of spending the time and money for not obeying any given law (however you decide to justify why you do not obey it), then more power to you. I however, choose to spend my more "disposable" money on more entertaining things like Pathfinder books) :-)
YMMV...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It must be fun to able to just obey the laws that you like. There are laws that make so sense to me, but I obey them anyway. This homeless mom knowingly broke a law. She lied about where her son lived. Then she sent her son to that school, where he used up almost $16,000 in resources. Those are the facts.
Now, multiple that by 1,000 or 10,000. Do you believe that she is the only parent lying about where they live? No, she isn't. They arrested her for two reasons. First, she broke the law and must pay for her crimes. Second, she is an example to other parents doing the same thing. By giving her the maximum possible punishment under the law...it would be doing a great service to a lawful society.
You must have missed my bully post. Scroll back up.
Speaking of all this law talk, Poe's seems to be well-represented in this thread.
I am just stunned that people are so ready to throw a book at this person.
How about looking at why or how the problem kicked off.
How about just being happy that a kid was stable an in a school, despite apparently being in an unstable and unsafe environment.
How about trying to get this woman some actual support, rather than adding to the homelessness issue.
How about actually trying to do some good, instead of being grim frustrated and angry and just wishing to 'punish the wrongdoer' without even thinking if the underlying system is just.
Tell me, what is it like to live in a world without laughter.
Diminished expectations are the rule in America. Tackling hard problems might require effort and would certainly upset the people who benefit from, or perceive themselves as benefiting from, present injustices.
What's it like? About the same as most banana republics, I expect. More toys, the same or similar problems.
Civil Dissobediance is our right and obligation for laws we find stupid, invasive, and tyrannical.
Civil Dissobediance is our right and obligation for laws we find stupid, invasive, and tyrannical.
No, civil disobedience leads to anarchy, and that cannot be tolerated. Your only obligation should be to obey the LAW, and if you do break the LAW in order to make some stupid point, then there will be a prison cell waiting for you...
Civil Dissobediance is our right and obligation for laws we find stupid, invasive, and tyrannical.No, civil disobedience leads to anarchy, and that cannot be tolerated. Your only obligation should be to obey the LAW, and if you do break the LAW in order to make some stupid point, then there will be a prison cell waiting for you...
Lawful/Evil...
Civil Dissobediance is our right and obligation for laws we find stupid, invasive, and tyrannical.
Chaotic/Neutral
Long overdue.....
Civil Dissobediance is our right and obligation for laws we find stupid, invasive, and tyrannical.No, civil disobedience leads to anarchy, and that cannot be tolerated. Your only obligation should be to obey the LAW, and if you do break the LAW in order to make some stupid point, then there will be a prison cell waiting for you...
You still refuse the address the bully post, and the fact that every site this is on only enforces the bully point by portraying her as a victim. At this point I can only assume you are trolling or you have no defense for your "teach a lesson argument" since the common consensus is that the lesson is failing to be taught.
Civil disobedience led to the civil rights movement and laws being changed.
You are batting 0 for 2 right now.
I don't think it is really reasonable to compare civil disobedience, which is typically done openly and with honor, and lying and committing fraud. Certainly someone like Bernie Madoff could claim they were being civilly disobedient when he ran his ponzi scheme, but the fact that he used lying and fraud to do it makes such a claim ring false.
And again, I don't believe that in this case the woman should be thrown to the wolves for her behavior, nor do most people as displayed in the original article. But I don't think any claim of moral high-ground is her's based on her behavior. She committed fraud and possibly perjury, as well as just plain lying. The lessons her child should not be learn is that such actions should not only be punished but should be rewarded. It is thinking like this that leads to so many students reporting that (a) they have cheated in school and (b) that there is nothing wrong with it.
Civil Dissobediance is our right and obligation for laws we find stupid, invasive, and tyrannical.No, civil disobedience leads to anarchy, and that cannot be tolerated. Your only obligation should be to obey the LAW, and if you do break the LAW in order to make some stupid point, then there will be a prison cell waiting for you...You still refuse the address the bully post, and the fact that every site this is on only enforces the bully point by portraying her as a victim. At this point I can only assume you are trolling or you have no defense for your "teach a lesson argument" since the common consensus is that the lesson is failing to be taught.
Civil disobedience led to the civil rights movement and laws being changed.
You are batting 0 for 2 right now.
Don't forget the Nuremberg laws (Laws from the late 1930's about how jews couldn't marry gentiles, among other nasty stuff)
those were laws and thus legal...
GRU
Plea deals are generally only offered if conviction is in doubt, or when the prosecution has something to gain. I don't see one being offered here unless the publicity becomes a factor.
Generally the question is pretty fubar. The woman has made contradicting statements in various legal avenues. This doesn't help her case for her being unsure as to what she was doing. Her best bet is to take a plea deal and just try to make the best of the whole bad affair.
And it will. That's why we heard about it. Wouldn't be surprised if it goes away fairly quietly. But, of course, there are those that would love to keep it in the spotlight.
Civil Dissobediance is our right and obligation for laws we find stupid, invasive, and tyrannical.No, civil disobedience leads to anarchy, and that cannot be tolerated. Your only obligation should be to obey the LAW, and if you do break the LAW in order to make some stupid point, then there will be a prison cell waiting for you...
~laughs at you to your face~ My oh my! ~gives an amused look and then shakes my head~ What a seriously immature person you are. Please keep this up, Leafar. I need my amusement. You obviously have yet to read the WHOLE codex of laws. Please do. I can't WAIT to hear your comments on the more unjust laws. You know, the ones put in there by people in power who want to preserve their power. Or the ingnorant ones who write such laws out of fear. ~hands you a stone~ Here you are. Feel free to cast it at any time.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I don't think it is really reasonable to compare civil disobedience, which is typically done openly and with honor, and lying and committing fraud.
True enough. However, civil disobedience is a dangerous behaviour for a homeless mother to engage in. There's a reason the college-aged children of middle and upper class parents lead many civil activist groups -- they can afford to.
Certainly someone like Bernie Madoff could claim they were being civilly disobedient when he ran his ponzi scheme, but the fact that he used lying and fraud to do it makes such a claim ring false.
That would require Bernie Madoff to argue that what he did had a largely social -- not personal -- benefit. I don't recall Bernie having given large amounts of money away to charitable causes.
And again, I don't believe that in this case the woman should be thrown to the wolves for her behavior, nor do most people as displayed in the original article. But I don't think any claim of moral high-ground is her's based on her behavior. She committed fraud and possibly perjury, as well as just plain lying. The lessons her child should not be learn is that such actions should not only be punished but should be rewarded. It is thinking like this that leads to so many students reporting that (a) they have cheated in school and (b) that there is nothing wrong with it.
That's for the courts to decide.
The mother said
From what the article says, the mother did sometimes stay at that apartment but she had no fixed address. She considered that apartment to be her home when she enrolled her son in school.
I don't think it is really reasonable to compare civil disobedience, which is typically done openly and with honor, and lying and committing fraud.True enough. However, civil disobedience is a dangerous behaviour for a homeless mother to engage in. There's a reason the college-aged children of middle and upper class parents lead many civil activist groups -- they can afford to.
Quite true, but that is why I say that it was not civil disobedience, but fraud. Understandable fraud, perhaps, but fraud none the less. Certainly if there is a court hearing with a jury, and members of the jury decide that she was guilty but so what, and vote her not-guilty (jury nullification), then that would be civil disobedience of a form.
Certainly someone like Bernie Madoff could claim they were being civilly disobedient when he ran his ponzi scheme, but the fact that he used lying and fraud to do it makes such a claim ring false.That would require Bernie Madoff to argue that what he did had a largely social -- not personal -- benefit. I don't recall Bernie having given large amounts of money away to charitable causes.
Or perhaps he was trying to redistribute wealth from his more wealth clients to his less wealthy ones? Again, I doubt that was the case, but using methods of deceit and fraud, even if it had been, would not have made it morally correct. The goal may be, but the methods taint it.
And again, I don't believe that in this case the woman should be thrown to the wolves for her behavior, nor do most people as displayed in the original article. But I don't think any claim of moral high-ground is her's based on her behavior. She committed fraud and possibly perjury, as well as just plain lying. The lessons her child should not be learn is that such actions should not only be punished but should be rewarded. It is thinking like this that leads to so many students reporting that (a) they have cheated in school and (b) that there is nothing wrong with it.That's for the courts to decide.
The mother said
From what the article says, the mother did sometimes stay at that apartment but she had no fixed address. She considered that apartment to be her home when she enrolled her son in school.
Except she said that she wasn't living there when an eviction case came up. Just was trying to play it both ways, and that is biggest problem. Frankly, the worse thing she could do for herself is attempt to fight this after an offer is made. When someone makes a reasonable attempt to find a workable solution, and if she continues with the (a)"I didn't do anything wrong" or (b)"Everyone is doing it" types of arguments, things can quickly turn from bad to worse.
And yes, if it gets to court, they will decide her fate. Will she get 20 years, doubtful. Will, in that case, she get off scott-free, doubtful as well. Maybe a short prison sentence, with parol, and community service like the other case I linked to earlier. But who knows, how it would turn out, it is dangerous to go to court because juries can be fickled.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Couple Tangental points I wanted to make.
Wrong school district: A few different people (myself included) have posted how their districts work. This is the result of the 'laboratory of democracy' that the founders envisioned. Each State/County/District comes up with its own rules. Some work well, some don't. None are perfect, but it allows cities/counties/states to observe the cause and effect of each and (hopefully) find the best formula for them. Perfect? No. Just better than every other system out there.
Civil Disobedience. Again *gasp* Bugley and I agree on something. He's not Ignoring the laws, he's willingly accepting the potential consequences of breaking them. When MLK and others engaging in civil disobedience were arrested, they didn't whine it was unfair they were being arrested. They already knew the law was unfair. The goal was to draw attention to the wrongness of the law. Conservative thought. The law can be an ass, and still be constitutional. The sodomy laws voided in Lawrence V Texas were stupid. I think the court got it wrong though. They were stupid but constitutional.
This woman is an example of the saying "Corner cases make bad law." If the citation above that she was under oath making contradicting statements is accurate, then she did break the law. Ignorance is no defense (try getting out of a speeding ticket saying 'I didn't see the sign, officer'). Her circumstances however might mitigate punishment. That's why we have human judges and juries, not Hal 9000 standing over us.
Speaking of all this law talk, Poe's seems to be well-represented in this thread.
And they're definitely taking poe-tic license with their stances.
And they're definitely taking poe-tic license with their stances.
Boo! Hiss! ;-)
|
|
Too Bad she doesn't reside in California. Then what she did would have been perfectly legal. She could have applied to the school as homeless and there wouldn't have been an issue. In California if your homeless you do not have to show proof of residency to register for school. Further more even if you move your child can continue to attend the school. I would assume the Norwalk Shelter would be within the school zone in which case if she used that as an address due to her homeless state her son could continue to go to the school despite moving outside of its enrollment area.
Now whats entertaining is the fact that there have been 20 other cases of a similar nature that weren't handed over for prosecution while hers was.
Typically they just in 20 out of 21 cases they just removed the student from the school and that was the end of it.
You know it is weird in KS. if a child is listed at a day care, that is the school district the child is listed in. So if your day care is close to a better school, you can have that child picked up and bussed from that location to the better school. Homeless around here do it all the time. Maybe it is the law there that should change?
I removed an inappropriate post.
I'd also like to remind everyone not to feed the trolls, and that often the best thing to do in a political debate is walk away.
Edit: I removed another post. Threats of violence are not acceptable.
|
You know it is weird in KS. if a child is listed at a day care, that is the school district the child is listed in. So if your day care is close to a better school, you can have that child picked up and bussed from that location to the better school. Homeless around here do it all the time. Maybe it is the law there that should change?
Changing the law seems like the most reasonable and rational approach to all of this. I know some people have mentioned that this woman is being prosecuted to send a message to other parents. The problem is that the message would be more clearly heard had they prosecuted a wealthy parent for violating the law. Surely there are some out there in this district.
However, if the change the law then they need to make it retroactive so that it helps this woman. Otherwise she ends up like a case I read from Georgia. A young man was arrested for statutory rape for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18 years old. After the young man's conviction and subsequently his being required to register as a sex offender caused national outrage, Georgia added a Romeo and Juliet clause that basically said that if you are within two years of age of the other person it was still legal. However they failed to make the amendment to the bill retroactive so it did nothing for the individual who's case brought the issue to light. I believe that the Georgia governor finally pardoned him, but it showed the problem that can happen in cases like this. So the lesson here is that if the law is changed because of this woman's case, it needs to be made retroactive.
The homeless mom will probably not do any time for her crime; at the most she will get some probation, and it wouldn't surprise me if the case was dropped. THEREFORE, the school district should take her to civil court and file a lawsuit against her for the $16,000 she took from them. They should also seek punitive damages against her too. That amount should be between $10,000 to $15,000 dollars.