I have to say that a poll like this gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. It seems like a very typical thing in today's media, and social media, that I'm expected to have an opinion about serious consequences for real human beings, based on reading a paragraph that no doubt is missing some relevant facts about the people and the situation. So I abstain. We all should abstain more often.
Although I admit I would be upset and frightened to have 3 men burst into my house when we were all in bed asleep, learning who these men were and the reason for what they did, and realizing that my son was a thief, I would probably have been thankful that what they did resulted in my son having to come face to face with what he did and returning what he stole. I would have been glad that the police were not involved and hopeful that my son had learned a strong lesson and would in future not commit theft.
You will not all be surprised that I agree with this sentiment. One, kids do stupid things at 17. I did. The kid might have thieved, but it sounds like a prank. I would give the 3 men a break. They were not intent on injury anyone. They were intent -- stupidly, perhaps -- on saving someone. i think this needs transparency of motive, and then kindness in all directions.
I'd be interested to see the male / female split on this poll, which I know is not available.
They entered a home without permission and yelled enough to wake the Mom. As a woman, I find that very scary and something that might cause ongoing feelings of anxiety in the home. Also, why three of them?
I voted for no charges, but fired. They had no right to do what they did, and it's not harmless. People with such poor judgment should not be leading educational institutions or teams.
I claim no expertise, but I thought that the point of Magritte's painting of a pipe saying "This is not a pipe" is that it isn't a pipe. It's a painting of a pipe. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I have a magnet in the traditional place of honor, the refrigerator, given as a prize in the Style Invitational, near the end of its run in the Post, and I believe it's the best prize ever awarded, even though it's for an Honorable Mention. It shows Magritte's pipe and says, "Close, but ceci n'est pas une cigare." Thanks!
He was a surrealist. He dealt in ambiguity. You are correct that he felt an image was not the real think, but as I see it he was inviting a much broader discussion about things and images and ... words. That words are not real. He was also an existentialist.
Stupid, wrong and well-intentioned. In these cases, I think the punishment should be enough to convince them what they did was stupid and wrong and they shouldn't do something stupid and wrong again no matter how well-intentioned. Therefore, some legal punishment but not necessarily lose their job. Which is not one of the options in your poll. Fine, community service, maybe an unpaid suspension from the job.
The charges will be downgraded to a misdemeanor and the men will accept a plea deal of probation plus a hefty fine. Regarding the poll: incredibly poor (OK, incredibly stupid) judgement combined with criminal (and potentially dangerous) behavior? It was absolutely correct to fire them. I mean, c'mon, the 5/8 of the respondents (at this moment) who wouldn't have them fired. Would you really want them to still be working in your kid's high school? Let them mend their ways in some other school system—or in another field altogether.
Hey, Richard. Do you think it doesn't matter at all -- at all? -- that they did it to try to save the kid from having a criminal record? Had they gone to the police, he would have been arrested.
Thanks for the question, Gene. I guess I'm coming at it from the point of an educator and psychologist. One of my pet peeves is people—including, or maybe even especially, children and adolescents—not experiencing the natural and logical consequences of their behavior. And if you look at the amount of property that the kids stole, I'd bet dollars to donuts that this wasn't their first theft. This is something for the courts to decide, not school personnel.
Perhaps the men were concerned about the stuff getting sold, by why wouldn't the East Chicago police have the same concern? And that b.s. about a door swinging open when they knocked at 11 p.m? Please. Not to mention that the other two students involved in the theft are now off the hook as well.
Well, yes, mostly. That's why I said what I did. If I were the judge and were sentencing him as a juvenile and he had just turned 17, I'd probably opt for probation and community service. If he were close to turning 18, I'd want him sentenced as an adult to allow for a longer probational period.
I felt that another option would be fairer. They remain on suspension pending trial. If they are convicted then loss of job, regardless of the sentence. If they are not convicted, then the school system weighs what to do with them vis-a-vis employment taking into account what was elicited during the Court proceedings.
I did a cartoon about the Charlie Hedo killings, somehow it made its way overseas and onto French Television. But I also got some pushback from a few people. Their position was that the Charlie Hebdo publication and a lot of its cartoons were so offensive it did not deserve anyone's support, in particular my cartoon. I had explained that yes, many of Charlie Hebdo's positions were quite offensive to one group or another, (some even wrong) but walking in and killing them is beyond any reasonable form of protest. You simply can't defend killing someone that you disagree with. It is often the job of journalist, editor, and paper to offend to make the greater point and try to effect change. (something our papers are not doing anymore.)
I went for them going to trial and if convicted losing their jobs because they broke into a house if as they claim the door opened when they knocked they should have announced themselves. If the homeowner was armed they might be dead. I get wanting to not call the police, why not call the parent once they realized the AirTag was at the house. Mom and kid were asleep. Too many what ifs that could have gone bad
I have to say that a poll like this gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. It seems like a very typical thing in today's media, and social media, that I'm expected to have an opinion about serious consequences for real human beings, based on reading a paragraph that no doubt is missing some relevant facts about the people and the situation. So I abstain. We all should abstain more often.
Uh. I linked to the whole story. I think you will find that the summary was pretty good and fair. But, point taken about sitting in judgment.
Although I admit I would be upset and frightened to have 3 men burst into my house when we were all in bed asleep, learning who these men were and the reason for what they did, and realizing that my son was a thief, I would probably have been thankful that what they did resulted in my son having to come face to face with what he did and returning what he stole. I would have been glad that the police were not involved and hopeful that my son had learned a strong lesson and would in future not commit theft.
You will not all be surprised that I agree with this sentiment. One, kids do stupid things at 17. I did. The kid might have thieved, but it sounds like a prank. I would give the 3 men a break. They were not intent on injury anyone. They were intent -- stupidly, perhaps -- on saving someone. i think this needs transparency of motive, and then kindness in all directions.
I'd be interested to see the male / female split on this poll, which I know is not available.
They entered a home without permission and yelled enough to wake the Mom. As a woman, I find that very scary and something that might cause ongoing feelings of anxiety in the home. Also, why three of them?
I voted for no charges, but fired. They had no right to do what they did, and it's not harmless. People with such poor judgment should not be leading educational institutions or teams.
I felt pretty much exactly the same.
Excellent cartoon. I’m proud of you.
Thank you. I am proud of you, too.
I claim no expertise, but I thought that the point of Magritte's painting of a pipe saying "This is not a pipe" is that it isn't a pipe. It's a painting of a pipe. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I have a magnet in the traditional place of honor, the refrigerator, given as a prize in the Style Invitational, near the end of its run in the Post, and I believe it's the best prize ever awarded, even though it's for an Honorable Mention. It shows Magritte's pipe and says, "Close, but ceci n'est pas une cigare." Thanks!
He was a surrealist. He dealt in ambiguity. You are correct that he felt an image was not the real think, but as I see it he was inviting a much broader discussion about things and images and ... words. That words are not real. He was also an existentialist.
One thing I would like to know about this story is if the student was a star athlete.
If the reason they wanted to keep the police out of it was to keep their star player, that shouldn't be seen as acting in the student's best interest.
Stupid, wrong and well-intentioned. In these cases, I think the punishment should be enough to convince them what they did was stupid and wrong and they shouldn't do something stupid and wrong again no matter how well-intentioned. Therefore, some legal punishment but not necessarily lose their job. Which is not one of the options in your poll. Fine, community service, maybe an unpaid suspension from the job.
The charges will be downgraded to a misdemeanor and the men will accept a plea deal of probation plus a hefty fine. Regarding the poll: incredibly poor (OK, incredibly stupid) judgement combined with criminal (and potentially dangerous) behavior? It was absolutely correct to fire them. I mean, c'mon, the 5/8 of the respondents (at this moment) who wouldn't have them fired. Would you really want them to still be working in your kid's high school? Let them mend their ways in some other school system—or in another field altogether.
Hey, Richard. Do you think it doesn't matter at all -- at all? -- that they did it to try to save the kid from having a criminal record? Had they gone to the police, he would have been arrested.
Thanks for the question, Gene. I guess I'm coming at it from the point of an educator and psychologist. One of my pet peeves is people—including, or maybe even especially, children and adolescents—not experiencing the natural and logical consequences of their behavior. And if you look at the amount of property that the kids stole, I'd bet dollars to donuts that this wasn't their first theft. This is something for the courts to decide, not school personnel.
Perhaps the men were concerned about the stuff getting sold, by why wouldn't the East Chicago police have the same concern? And that b.s. about a door swinging open when they knocked at 11 p.m? Please. Not to mention that the other two students involved in the theft are now off the hook as well.
A similar level of justice should be dispensed to the boy who stole the electronics.
Well, yes, mostly. That's why I said what I did. If I were the judge and were sentencing him as a juvenile and he had just turned 17, I'd probably opt for probation and community service. If he were close to turning 18, I'd want him sentenced as an adult to allow for a longer probational period.
Why late at night?
Because that is when they thought they knew where they could find it. I think.
I felt that another option would be fairer. They remain on suspension pending trial. If they are convicted then loss of job, regardless of the sentence. If they are not convicted, then the school system weighs what to do with them vis-a-vis employment taking into account what was elicited during the Court proceedings.
I did a cartoon about the Charlie Hedo killings, somehow it made its way overseas and onto French Television. But I also got some pushback from a few people. Their position was that the Charlie Hebdo publication and a lot of its cartoons were so offensive it did not deserve anyone's support, in particular my cartoon. I had explained that yes, many of Charlie Hebdo's positions were quite offensive to one group or another, (some even wrong) but walking in and killing them is beyond any reasonable form of protest. You simply can't defend killing someone that you disagree with. It is often the job of journalist, editor, and paper to offend to make the greater point and try to effect change. (something our papers are not doing anymore.)
I went for them going to trial and if convicted losing their jobs because they broke into a house if as they claim the door opened when they knocked they should have announced themselves. If the homeowner was armed they might be dead. I get wanting to not call the police, why not call the parent once they realized the AirTag was at the house. Mom and kid were asleep. Too many what ifs that could have gone bad
what if the homeowner had a (legal) firearm, and used it. that's why it was stupid.
The school staff members have been charged with residential entry, a felony.
I wish you had given us another option: $5000 fine, reduced to $500 if each intruder makes a public apology.
OJ broke in to recover stloen goods also, and look where it got him...
I believe he was armed. Also, likely belated retribution for that whole double murder thing mixed in.