Mom puts recorder in child’s backpack to catch bullying, now faces felony charge

I've addressed the bathroom issue in earlier posts, but no - one doesn't have an implicit right to complete privacy outside of reasonably designated private areas in a school setting, nor should one.

As far as your what if question goes, we'll have to leave it in the realm of speculation.

Finally, going public with an issue - including identifying children - should be done with care, by the media and others.

 

Nanny cams are even more protected, as they're usually in the child's/parent's home, but the underlying concept that a parent has a right to act in their child's interests, and assert this right in a thoughtful manner, is crucial and correct.

 

Bullies where always taken cared of the old fashioned way in my neighborhood.

 

Are you kidding? That's the first thing a school board would want. How else would they question the child?

Because those children are being assaulted and bullied through no fault of their own. I would hope you would be teaching your children compassion for those being abused and nothing being done about it understanding that recording the abusers is a necessary step to providing evidence of that crime.

Do you teach your children to hate witnesses in drug or human trafficking cases to hate informants who wear wires to catch criminals too?

 

There is no 'parental rights' exemption in that statute. As for nanny cams, just inform the nanny ahead of time that employment is conditional on a waiver and be specific that it may be used as evidence . If we know who has the video or the tape, then we know who to hold accountable for its misuse.

 

I think you are wrong on both counts.

 

Really? You think the school board is going to put a 9 year old in front of the 'inquisition'. Heck we don't do that in court trials. Judge takes the kid in chambers and talks to him. These are professional educators that specialize in working with young children and these are parents of young kids. I don't think they need a lesson from you. It works the same way it always works. the parent and a representative of the school asks the kid some questions.

I can teach compassion and still teach my kids to respect the privacy rights of others, and not to do sneaky stuff and spy. I also teach them not to listen at a closed door, or outside a window too. I guess you like to teach kids to snoop find all sorts of embarrassing things to use against other people. See I can do that too!

 

None is needed in this instance; the mother broke no law.

But are we talking about the Tennessee law you repeatedly cited, or the Virginia...?

Either way, she's in the clear.

 

No.

It depends on numerous circumstances how a child is permitted to provide information to a court.

Honestly, you're scaring me here...

The mother was justified, and I'm beginning to wonder what your interest is in condemning a woman who was acting in a legal and moral manner to protect her child.

 

Virginia. Both states are covered with the same link I provided. Virginia is discussed below Tennessee. You keep asserting things with no evidence except yet another assertion. This is a cycle that does not work well for me. Try to break the cycle with something else besides yet another assertion.

 

Don't be scared. I have never killed or hurt anyone for any reason since the age of majority. Even those mothers who surreptitiously tape my child and try to use the result to 'prove' how awful my child behaves, die a natural death at a ripe old age. I even leave their car's tires unmolested. Under which circumstances is it only permitted to take testimony of a grade school age child, in open court without allowance for judicial discretion? Please be specific. 1. I keep telling you my interest. Nobody speaks to it at all. I repeat, and the same is the result. 2. Premise behind this post is otherwise not accepted so I cannot comment further.

 

Try this: you're wrong in most of what you've asserted.

This has been established, but you're still struggling to accept it.

Good luck.

 

See above posts; you're clearly very confused about a number of things.

Perhaps we can continue this as the mother marches toward inevitable victory & there's further news to dissect.

 

Gee, more emoticons than evidence - again. Let me try : You are wrong in most of what you've asserted. That has been established but you are struggling to accept it.

Did you feel the universal power of my evidence there?

 

I must have missed the citations and links buried under the assertions and emoticons. Could you please mention the specific post in which they are located? I promise to look real hard and read them. Hopefully your name is in the upper left hand quadrant of the screen.

 

Prove it with citations and links. Please. I will wait. I will be especially interested to see the words 'thoughtful manner' in an appellate decision or statute.

 

Alas, this is true of one of us.

Maybe we could argue over who the cutest Muppet is until there's an update on this heroic mom?

 

After you linked and repeatedly referred to the Tennessee law, I realized that one of us might need a simpler approach.

Oscar?

Count Count?

(Not Big Bird; he's kind of scary...)

 

Wait - are we still applying Tennessee law in Virginia, or shall we go for Montana in New Jersey?

Bert!

Or is it Ernie...?

 

Double check the link. Keep reading. As you fall further down the article, you will see the word 'Virginia' which is the state in question. now the article describes the differences in the two state's approaches in detail which mostly involve the legal definition of interception, not what a party to oral communication may be, nor any mention of parental exception or minors etc that you are hanging your hat on, without supplying either a hat or a hanger. Its a lot more information on the Virginia statute than you have supplied to support your 'assertions' which is ..... zero - for any of your assertions. if I am wrong, you can show me where in a relevant statute I am wrong.

Stop dodging and prove something with somebody else's words but your own or leave it as just an opinion on what you want the law to be. This can be seen as a serious topic, but you are doing a 'crank' and I won't keep wasting my time if you won't treat it seriously. My patience has to run thin eventually on your claims, however self-assured you sound when you make them.

 

You also seem confused about how appeals work - just FYI.

Re-read the thread to answer the other questions you've raised which have already been discussed and answered, or accept that you're in error here.

This is a serious topic, so I hope you can see your numerous serious errors.

 

prove it's there. Reference a post number.

 

My patience has to run thin eventually.

You seem pretty Energizer Bunny to me actually.

Look - your argument is with yourself; go re-read your own link, and the thread.

You're just flat-out wrong on numerous points, and this has been explained to you in detail repeatedly.

Are you an attorney?

If so, can I move to your state?

I want you on the other side whenever possible!

 

I know you are but what am I...?

Is that what you were going for?

PLEASE - just give it a rest, with or without admitting you've made numerous errors.

Let's wait for new info. on this heroic, martyred mom.

 

Still no link to a post or any quote, or any evidence. Empty words Antiduopolist, Prove the assertions you just made. don't just claim them again and restate your unproven assertions about the link, or any post any argument.. Prove something from the above. Anything. If it has happened repeatedly, it won't be hard for you to find one and quote it. Snark is not proof. And no, if they drop the charges, it does not prove anything with respect to these arguments or this statute. It proves something was negociated, or that the case was not worth the energy, or they thought it 'looked bad' etc.