posted on December 11, 2002 10:52:19 AM new
Did this really happen?
I searched google and came up with pages of hits and searched 4 pages deep- the only people reporting this are websites like 2600.com- not a single major media outlet in the first 4 pages.
Nothing in the Denver Post.
Regardless of media manipulation , I can't imagine a CBS or Washington Post not jumping on a story like this big time.
If anyone can popint me to a real media outlet reporting this, I'd like to check this out.
Edited to add , thats point, not popoint, although if anyone would care to popoint me, I'd enjoy that as well.
[ edited by Bob9585 on Dec 11, 2002 10:53 AM ]
posted on December 11, 2002 12:12:52 PM new
The story was probably not picked up or covered because it was too embarassing to the FBI, the CIA and the concept of Homeland Security.
Can you imagine how silly it would be to read that a high school principal actually called the CIA and the FBI to report that a student was wearing an inappropriate t-shirt to school?
Of course the principal would be quoted as saying that he was proudly setting an example for "homeland security". Adding to the senseless story would be the statement that by wearing this garment, the student was posing a threat to the President of the United States.
That's just too paranoid for publication. You're right, Reamond.
posted on December 11, 2002 12:24:36 PM new
I think that the reason why mainstream media did not report it is because the police refused to say that they had ever held him. Without their corroboration, the police would deny the story as being true, and the FBI and Whoever else would likely start a lawsuit against the media.
But web magazines are like cockroaches. They don't have much going for them, but kill fifty of them and a thousand reappear overnight.
posted on December 11, 2002 12:34:25 PM newAccording to the Assistant Principal, the student had worn it before and it didn't cause any problems until the target appeared on the President's forehead.
Totally inappropriate to wear. That's part of the problem we face with children these days. They keep 'pushing' the boundries and adults are scared to set limits on negative behavior.
A shirt that says, "Not my president", IMO is quite different from one that has a target on the head of ANY president.
On the second article....there was a news story that said the reason they were considering putting the camera's in the Washington momuments was because pictures [of same] had been found in a terrorists confiscated belongings. It's been a while back. Anyway...maybe the major media didn't pick up on this because it couldn't be verified. And this guy did have a previous history of tresspassing. Who knows.
posted on December 11, 2002 12:50:10 PM new
If the shirt was inappropriate, then a shirt with any target on it should be inappropriate, whether it has Saddam, Osama, or a Deer.
However, this was seen as more than inappropriate by the school, it was seen as a threat to the president. That is the ridiculous part.
posted on December 11, 2002 01:09:39 PM newIf one shirt is.... I agree. I'm not aware that it isn't. I am aware that when anything that even mentions God, a belief in God, etc is on a shirt...even wearing of a Christian cross to school...they have been asked to remove it.
This was most likely done as an attention getter. Children will do many things to get attention, even negative things. This 'target' on a president can be taken as a threat. An escalation of an issue this child was experiencing. Maybe counselling would have been a better suggestion, but we're living in different times now.
posted on December 11, 2002 01:12:43 PM new
I guess I should have specified WHICH weird paranoia I was referring to-
The shirt episode is totally believable - and I believe there is a law which specifically prohibits making targets of an image of the President. Doing so however, hardly constitutes a threat to him, especially by a kid in Ohio.
I was referring to the photographer episode in Denver. It sounds plausible to me, if not a bit dressed up, but I find no mainstream media with a mention of it. I didn't see it in the Voice either- is it there?
posted on December 11, 2002 01:17:54 PM new
Go to the Voice link and look in the grey area under the Headlines heading. Both articles are in that section.
posted on December 11, 2002 01:19:04 PM newDoing so however, hardly constitutes a threat to him, especially by a kid in Ohio.
Maybe, maybe not. We don't have all the 'facts' about this case. If he were a muslim child it might have been seen differently because of 'preached' hatred of the US. We don't know all the reasons behind what might have caused this to have been reported, rather than dealt with in the school alone.
posted on December 11, 2002 01:19:47 PM new
NO matter just how angry Bush makes me, I do not condone any T-Shirt depicting a Bull's Eye on Bush. It simply isn't done in our society. My hope is that they will take the Bull's Eye off of the T-Shirt and keep the Bush and the slogan -- and give them away free to every student that wants to wear one.
posted on December 11, 2002 01:20:21 PM new
Although I agree that the shirt with the arrow was dangerous in today's environment, let's not eliminate all negative behavior and create a bunch of yes men like we have in congress today. It's sometimes good to protest when you find the status quo unacceptable.
Instead of calling the FBI, the principal could have suggested more constructive ways in which the kid could vent his hostility toward the Bush administration. There are a lot of people who believe in the original t shirt message, "that Bush is not our president".
The episode could have been handled in a sensible and productive manner without the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service Agency with simply a shirt change and a lesson in problem solving and anger management.
posted on December 11, 2002 01:27:08 PM new
While the shirt may have ran counter to school policy, reporting it as a serious or plausible threat against the president to the SS and FBI was just plain silly.
We have over 10 million illegal aliens in the country and this is what the FBI and SS spend their time on ?
posted on December 11, 2002 01:36:15 PM new
I went to the Voice headlines section and it linked me to 2600.com. If that's the source, and I assume it is, the whole thing has to be somewhat suspect.
posted on December 11, 2002 02:33:39 PM new
The source of this story is very interesting. I searched the archives of the Datona, Ohio newspaper where Bellbrook High School is located and I could find no mention of this event.
It's strange that the assistant principal is not named in this undated story. There is no location indicated in the story other than the name of the High School. Basic news info such as who, what, when, where, why and how are just not there.
posted on December 11, 2002 05:46:34 PM new
about the t-shirt, what's happened to free speech? whatever the image, it's a picture with a statement, period. same goes for the man who made the comment about a "burning bush" who was just sentenced to 3 yrs. in prison. IT'S FREE SPEECH. that's what made this country great, we could express our opinions without threat of being beaten, jailed or killed. until now!
and about the photographer, do you really believe the gov't. is going to own up to any it? they'd be owning up to harassment. and the paranoid police are going to fall in step with the FBI/CIA, and their Homeland Gestapo.
posted on December 12, 2002 03:08:04 AM new
Reminds me of the escorts that would go with you anywhere you went in the communist countries and tell you where you could take a picture. Usually sports stadiums were OK.
What you have to understand about the SS (the one without the lightning bolts on the collar) is that they live in fear. They see anyone who is not fervently loyal as a murderer just waiting to strike. A reticle drawn on the face does imply violence. Even a modifying phrase could have probably aborted the reaction. Say - Target Bush - take him down in 2004 - would have implied that you wanted to take him down with the election not a bullet.
It is over the line the same way the burning cross in a guys yard is not protected speech. It says - we are coming to get you. Not just we don't like or accept you, but we'll be hurting you. You don't have free speech to go tell your neighbor - "I'm going to kill you."
In fact you might have a problem with some people because if you told me that I would believe you rather than find it funny.
