Pinata girl deserves Mexican justice

Gez said:

"Guilt, which is presumed, and innocence which must be proven (the Napoleonic Code)"

I just found out that this code holds true in my school. I received an in-school-suspension for 3 days today.

I sent a text message to a friend of mine in my Study Hall during the last class period of the day, and my teacher saw me with my phone out, and made me hand it to her (It's a new rule at my school that cell phones must be confiscated on sight, and they must be picked up at the main office after school the following day.)

A girl in my classroom asked to go to the restroom, and she came back shortly after, announcing that someone had dropped their school ID in one of the toilet bowls. My teacher then left the room to check. While my teacher was out of the room, I went over to her desk and snagged my phone back and went back to my seat. The teacher did not check to see if my phone was there for the rest of the period. After school was over, she must have seen it was gone, and sent an email to my principal that she had taken my phone away from me because I was texting during the study hall, and that I must have taken it while her back was turned. Also drawing attention that I violated her privacy by rummaging through a desk where she keeps grades and personal belongings in.

I was called to my principals office earlier today, and my principal told me about the email she received. I was very stern and patient and mature about the whole situation, denying that she had ever taken my phone to begin with. My principal then asked why she would write an email like that to her. I claimed I did not know, I doubted she had a personal vendetta against me, as we had never interacted on a personal level before. I asked if there was any verification that says my phone was taken away from me during class that day, or if there is any footage, or testimony from a third party that proves that my phone was taken away, and that I snuck into her desk to take it back. She said no, but that she was going to write me up for an in-school-suspension anyway, and that I have 3 days to find proof that my teacher DIDN'T take my phone away.

I normally imagine people who get in-school-suspensions to be rude and ratty teens who are bent on getting what's best for them, and handling situations like the one I was in very erraticly and brazen. I could tell from the kinda vibe in my principals tone that those are the people she normally deals with. I never felt so prejudiced and subhuman before in my life. So yeah. I got an ISS for nothing more than a mere accusation that I can't prove wrong. I can't wait until I am a teacher so that I can start getting in kids trouble that I don't like by sending out emails to the school board claiming that the kid started screaming profanity at me during class. Just because neither of us can prove either of our stories, I would win because I'm the teacher.

JohnnyRancid said:

I went over to her desk and snagged my phone back and went back to my seat.

Dogg, you are hell of a moron.

So let me get this straight: you did something against the rules, got caught, did something much worse, and then lied to the principal about it? And you think an injustice was done to you? I'm glad the principal trusts her own teachers more than little shits like you.

It's not that, it's that I was able to make apparent the flaw in the system.

I understand full well that the punishment was rightfully deserved, but I did tell my principal that I couldn't wait until I became a school teacher so that I could shoot emails around making false claims against students I personally dislike to get them in trouble for things that they didn't know, knowing that I would win just because I am the teacher and they are the students.

The reason I took the my phone back is because I knew I could get away with it. According the US constitution, the 5th amendment states that I don't have to testify against myself. I defended myself knowing full-well that the only proof the school had against me was a mere accusation, and nothing more. My teacher claimed that she the phone was taken while her back was turned, as in while she did not even see the crime as it was taken place, which rules her out as a justifiable witness. In addition to that, it makes her email nothing more than speculative conjecture. On top of that, she made no note that my phone was actually confiscated, so there's no proof that my phone was even taken away from me, in order for me to steal it back.

The reason I lost is because the school abides by school rules and not by the US Constitution.

JohnnyRancid said:

It's not that, it's that I was able to make apparent the flaw in the system.

Dogg, you are hell of a moron.

Joe said:

Dogg, you are hell of a moron.

You're a moron. What if a teacher accused you of taking your phone from her desk after she took it away from you, when you didn't even have your phone taken away from you in the first place?

There's nothing that says that she did take your phone, but there is nothing that says she did not. You still lose because you are the student.

That's called taking it in the butt, my friend.

JohnnyRancid said:

I just found out that this code holds true in my school.

My point for quoting this was to say it's bullshit; that is to say that the Napoleonic Code does not presume guilt.

The only thing taking it in the butt in this situation is justice.

Taking the phone back was the wrong thing to do. There is no way around this. My teacher would not accused me of taking the phone from the desk because i would not have taken back the phone. Because i am not hell of a moron. Your second moral lapse was lying about it and trying to construe that is in fact the teacher who is a liar. What the fuck. It's hilarious you think you were prejudiced against when you were the fucking cause of the problem.

Your principal hired this person because they thought they would be able to do a good job and wouldn't be the kind of person to go lying about what they did and didn't do in a class. The principal knows your teacher, sees them every day and has probably even gone out drinking with them once or twice at christmas parties and such. They know eachother. They would also know there would be seriously no point in her setting you up like that, it just doesn't make logical sense, especially considering you "doubted she had a personal vendetta" against you and also that it would be a giant waste of fucking time. What, the teacher just sits around all day thinking up ways to get kids in trouble? SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!

I also find it hilarious the principal gave you 3 days to find evidence that she didn't take your phone, definitely knows you are lying.

You're also seeing it wrong here. It would be a serious miscarriage of justice if the principal believed you. Because you are lying piece of shit who has made up a story in an attempt to evade punishment.

I can also "what if".

What if you had not taken the phone back and then gone and picked it up at the end of the day? You would not be suspended. HOW ABOUT THAT YOU MORON!??!?!

The only thing you've made apparent is that you are an asshole who deserves that suspension.

Ugh, reading that story makes me sick. I can't believe there are people like that out there. Very sad. .

I can understand being pissed off and taking your phone back, but seriously, taking advantage of the principal with bullshit is not cool. You're still going to go down in flames but only worse then telling the truth.

Chu said:

Ugh, reading that story makes me sick. I can't believe there are people like that out there. Very sad. .

Same here. I wish I could live in a world without rule-breaking text-messaging high schoolers with a very skewed sense of justice.

hahaha I was talking about the main story but I guess that one works too

=D

As it sounds to me, you guys seem to be against the 5th amendment. Just because I actually did take my phone back when it was taken away from me, I don't deserve a fair trial? Just because I broke a rule, that will never make me any more or less American will it? Are lawyers immoral for defending a party that actually should be punished because they take advantage of the judge? If I hadn't come clean and simply left out that sentence that said that I took my phone back, what kind of a response would I get from you guys then?

I feel the only reason you guys are calling me stupid or a moron, or any other synonomous expressions is because I admitted to taking the phone to you guys, but I did not during my defense.

I don't see a "right" or "wrong" thing to do. I've been in possession of drugs, drank underage, driven without a driver's license, shoplifted, and numerous other accounts of crimes that I feel free to tell you guys about. But as long as we all have the freedom of speech, I could be telling the truth, or I could just be lying to make you guys think I'm a badass. The equal possibility of both options makes me innocent of these crimes I admit. Whatever is right is what's best for me. If that means trying to find loopholes then so be it. We all live by the same law, I don't see why anyone else wouldn't do the same.

Grow up.

No come on. JR is being very reasonable about all of this. I think you should give him a break because he's really made some very good arguments. That stuff about fair trials and the constitution really has me convinced. If more people stood up to the man the way he did, we would all have increased freedoms. I think that's what we should all get from this.

Even though he got blamed for something he actually did do, the point he's making is valid - if it had been somebody else who stole the phone or the teacher who lost it and tried to cover for herself, he would still be in the same situation, and that's a problem. Whether or not he's a good liar is another problem.

AndrewB said:

No come on. JR is being very reasonable about all of this. I think you should give him a break because he's really made some very good arguments. That stuff about fair trials and the constitution really has me convinced. If more people stood up to the man the way he did, we would all have increased freedoms. I think that's what we should all get from this.

It's a good thing your balls are invalid, because you would make a horrible parent by sticking to fair trials and constitutional rights.

Johnny, you taking a citizen law class by any chance? you definitely have some valid points. I don't see why people are getting butthurt over the fact that you have taken your phone back, as there is nothing wrong with that. First, it's just a damn cell phone in study hall. We all know that nobody really gives a shit about study hall unless they have homework they need to finish for some class later in the day. I mean, you aren't harming anyone by texting, and it is not during instructional hours (hypothetically speaking, as it is counted as instructional), and it is not being rude or disrespectful to anyone. However, taking it back and lying was disrespectful, but I would have made a stink about it up front and refused to hand it to the teacher.

JohnnyRancid said:

Whatever is right is what's best for me. If that means trying to find loopholes then so be it.

Do you mean "whatever's best for me is what's right"?

AndrewB said:

If more people stood up to the man the way he did, we would all have increased freedoms. I think that's what we should all get from this.

While I agree in principle that increased freedom is is good and unlimited freedom is ideal it does have it's downside - convincing people to accept my personal currency (the Greynote) as legal tender is an uphill battle and my next-door neighbour wants his wife back.

EDIT - damn spilleng! I have dyslexic fingers.

I GIVE UP ON SARCASM.

It's too hard to tell with you.

How could anyone believe what I said? Just how much farther would I had to have gone so that no one could think I was serious? That's what I want to know.

you could have gone much farther...

I can't believe half of the stuff you say even when you are serious, so I just gave you the benefit of the doubt, euphemistically speaking.

Assuming the opposite would be giving the benefit of the doubt.

Not for you.

That makes no sense. The favorable assumption would be exactly the same whether of you thought highly of someone or not. If you said "I don't like you so I decided not to give you the benefit of the doubt" that would make more sense.

JohnnyRancid said:
I feel the only reason you guys are calling me stupid or a moron, or any other synonomous expressions is because I admitted to taking the phone to you guys, but I did not during my defense.

It seems more like it's because you acted like an ass as teens often do to test adults.

Note that your admitting you took the phone was part of the context to telling the story in order to make your point. In the incident there was no need for you to admit anything (even though it would have been honest of you) because the teacher already played that part by reporting on you about it.

It's not really true that teachers can easily mess with kids the way you say, because if they are dishonest, it generally leaks out, short of it happening only once or so. If they are generally quite honest, principals give them leeway to handle kids more freely. In various ways, teachers play parent-like roles, so the rules of legal proceedings do not apply to them, especially in non-felony (or criminal) related matters that are about school discipline and organization (or order).

If you continue to push teachers' patience and administrative freedoms the way you did in this case, what you'll manage is to make them wary of you and take measures to expose your mischief or dishonesty. What I'd do in your current position is apologize to the teacher, if I were to have the balls or the intent to be wise, at least.

JohnnyRancid said:

I was very stern and patient and mature about the whole situation, denying that she had ever taken my phone to begin with.

I don't think you know what that word is. A mature person wouldn't have been making bald-faced lies. Maturity means manning up and accepting the consequences of your actions. God damn teenagers. High school is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Also, I don't see how anyone can mistake AndrewB's post for anything aside from sarcasm.

ITT:
Teenager learned about the fifth amendment in civics class yesterday; 'thinks he's a lawyer now.

Heh, you must be under the impression that schools are run by a democracy to begin with. Just man up.

Lüt said:

if it had been somebody else who stole the phone or the teacher who lost it and tried to cover for herself, he would still be in the same situation, and that's a problem.

Except that he'd be able to prove his case.