Poor Fashion Choice Causes Campus Stir

[Ohmer]

Student wearing fake ammo belt detained (http://www.katu.com/news/local/7084346.html)
PORTLAND, Ore. - Students at Lewis & Clark College got a scare Wednesday morning when campus officials notified them that a student was on campus with an ammunition belt and ammunition.

But it later turned out that the belt was made of spent ammunition and was just a fashion statement and not dangerous.
I am a staff member at Lewis & Clark. Some of my colleagues have seen this guy wearing his fake ammo belt for weeks. Today there is a freak out. I received a warning email this morning and thought is was a result of hysteria. Turns out I was correct. I wonder how long the hyper-sensitivity will last?

I wonder if this guy had any idea this would happen when he put his belt on this morning. It's not the first time he's worn it to campus.

[EvilSmurf]

It's really REALLY dumb to wear that belt just days after a school shooting btw actually.

[Alt+F4]

Let's forget for a minute that bullet belts are sooooo 80s....at the (high) school in which I teach they have been on the banned list forever. Why do you think it would ever be appropriate to wear that to school?

[Unabogie]

Student wearing fake ammo belt detained (http://www.katu.com/news/local/7084346.html)

I am a staff member at Lewis & Clark. Some of my colleagues have seen this guy wearing his fake ammo belt for weeks. Today there is a freak out. I received a warning email this morning and thought is was a result of hysteria. Turns out I was correct. I wonder how long the hyper-sensitivity will last?

I wonder if this guy had any idea this would happen when he put his belt on this morning. It's not the first time he's worn it to campus.

Ohmer, I live right up the street from where you work.

Small world.

[Solus]

It's really REALLY dumb to wear that belt just days after a school shooting btw actually.

Agreed, hopefully the boy or girl learns a lesson from this.

[Foolmewunz]

I don't know that I'd call it "hyper-sensitive". It is an ammo belt, after all. Would it have been acceptable to show up with a fake AK47?

[gtc]

I thought it would be common sense to assume that if you choose to look like you are armed, people will treat you like you are armed.

[The Painter]

I thought it would be common sense to assume that if you choose to look like you are armed, people will treat you like you are armed.

Does this look like she’s armed? It just looks hot.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/070418_ammo_belt_470.jpg

[Lonewulf]

It's really REALLY dumb to wear that belt just days after a school shooting btw actually.

Possibly.

But did the person involved ever wear it before?

[brodski]

Possibly.

But did the person involved ever wear it before?

According to the OP, yes.

[bob_kark]

It's a little soon, don't you think?

[Walk The Line]

Does this look like she’s armed? It just looks hot.

My suggestion: More leg, fewer bullets.

ETA: Whoops, the person who made the fashion statement was male and not female. In that case, I vote fewer bullets AND fewer leg.

[alfaniner]

Were there actually rounds in the thing? (The bullets sticking out of the casings). I can certainly see that as more cause for alarm than a belt of blanks. Of course, it might not be obvious to most people.

[BPSCG]

Were there actually rounds in the thing? (The bullets sticking out of the casings). I can certainly see that as more cause for alarm than a belt of blanks. That was my reaction. Along with the question, "If this is supposed to be a 'fashion statement,' what statement was he trying to make?"

I like looking pseudo-military;
Bullets = phallic symbols = me muy macho;
I support our troops/local police/campus crazies;
Don't #$% with me - I own and know how to handle weapons (and I bet he doesn't);
Other (please describe).

[brodski]

That was my reaction. Along with the question, "If this is supposed to be a 'fashion statement,' what statement was he trying to make?"

I like looking pseudo-military;
Bullets = phallic symbols = me muy macho;
I support our troops/local police/campus crazies;
Don't #$% with me - I own and know how to handle weapons (and I bet he doesn't);
Other (please describe).

6) Good god, is it 1987 already? Where does the time go?

[sackett]

80s? Hell's afire, folks, that bullet fashion junk came and went (I thought it went!) as far back as 1969.

These kids nowadays.

[NobbyNobbs]

And come the one day when he *does* go crazy and shoot people, the interviewees afterward would say, "We didn't know. There weren't any warning signs. We just thought it was a fashion statement."

[Mephisto]

Were there actually rounds in the thing? (The bullets sticking out of the casings). I can certainly see that as more cause for alarm than a belt of blanks. Of course, it might not be obvious to most people.

It also might not be obvious to people that a firearm that would use those rounds wouldn't be easily concealable. Next, we're going to be calling the police on Asian guys with short hair wearing photographer's vests and their baseball caps on backwards (which is the stupidest fashion ever unless you're a SWAT sniper or the catcher on a baseball team).

[alfaniner]

Next, we're going to be calling the police on Asian guys with short hair wearing photographer's vests and their baseball caps on backwards (which is the stupidest fashion ever unless you're a SWAT sniper or the catcher on a baseball team).

Or a photographer. Or a stargazer.

My sister-in-law once griped that I had my baseball cap on backwards and that it was useless and stupid to wear it that way. It was dark. And cool, so I wanted something on my head. We were walking in a group to the dock to do some stargazing. I gently explained this to her.

[Ohmer]

I don't know that I'd call it "hyper-sensitive". It is an ammo belt, after all. Would it have been acceptable to show up with a fake AK47?

I only call it "hyper-sensitive" because this kid has been wearing the thing for some time. A week ago no one cared. Now the campus is preparing to lock down.

He went from 80's retro fashion to homicidal maniac because of an event that nothing to do with him. It's a strange kind of woo that occurs after a tragic event. People overreact to relatively mundane things. He didn't change. People's reaction to him changed drastically. This is pretty normal but I don't think it's any more rational than all the appeals to a deity that generally occur after something like this.

He received a "stern talking to" by the dean of students. He must learn to be more sensitive to irrational fear. He should wait at least another six months before wearing his silly belt again.

I should say that most of my peers here reacted quite rationally. We weren't scared and saw it for what it was very quickly. The upper administration and campus safety did what they thought they had to do. I don't blame them.

On my way home yesterday I had to dodge a couple local TV new reporters getting their shots for the evening news. I wonder if this kid had any idea he would be on local news when buckled the ammo belt he had worn to school so many times.

To answer your question, a fake AK47 would have gotten him in trouble a week ago as well as yesterday.

[Pope130]

Were there actually rounds in the thing? (The bullets sticking out of the casings). I can certainly see that as more cause for alarm than a belt of blanks. Of course, it might not be obvious to most people.

They were "drill rounds". That is cartridge case and bullet, but no powder or primer, so were completely inert. They were loaded in a disintegrating link machine gun belt. I can't be certain from the news pictures, but it appeared to be a current NATO standard link belt and 7.62 rounds.
Grammer Police: A "round" is a complete item of ammunition, consisting of a cartridge case, bullet, primer and powder. The bullet, which is what I think you were inquiring about, is just the projectile.

Robert

[Ohmer]

That was my reaction. Along with the question, "If this is supposed to be a 'fashion statement,' what statement was he trying to make?"

I like looking pseudo-military;
Bullets = phallic symbols = me muy macho;
I support our troops/local police/campus crazies;
Don't #$% with me - I own and know how to handle weapons (and I bet he doesn't);
Other (please describe).

Now now. What were you wearing when you were 18-22 years old? I saw a male student yesterday wearing bright yellow pants with this :) pattern all over them. I didn't take my eyes off him until I was safely inside the building.

[Ohmer]

Ohmer, I live right up the street from where you work.

Small world.

Cool. I live near campus too. Did you see the news vans?

If you see someone walking two hyper black dogs it's probably me. They don't fear ammo belts.

[Lonewulf]

It's a little soon, don't you think?

Little soon to what? To dress the way he's been dressing for school?

I don't get it. He should suddenly change his entire clothing style and expression of self, the way he's been dressing since before this incident, just to calm a few irrational nerves? How the hell does that make sense? He's become a different person overnight or something?

And come the one day when he *does* go crazy and shoot people, the interviewees afterward would say, "We didn't know. There weren't any warning signs. We just thought it was a fashion statement."

Yes, yes, anyone that dresses up in military camos is going to go crazy and kill people.

Anyone that uses an "ammo belt" like that is going to go crazy and kill people.

Anyone that's a Korean Male that wears baseball caps is going to go crazy and kill people.

Violent games!

Violent movies!

Starring in a teen magazine! (Wait, how'd that get in here?)

Pfft. Fools.

[BPSCG]

Now now. What were you wearing when you were 18-22 years old? Striped bell-bottoms, of course. Anything else would be weird.

[Unabogie]

Cool. I live near campus too. Did you see the news vans?

If you see someone walking two hyper black dogs it's probably me. They don't fear ammo belts.

No, I didn't drive near the school, so I didn't see anything.

And as for spotting you walking two black dogs: this is Portland. How would I distinguish you from the other people walking their black dogs? When we moved here we were told that every citizen needed a driver's license and two standard issue black dogs.

:-)

[ClintonHammond]

Student wearing fake ammo belt detained (http://www.katu.com/news/local/7084346.html)

that's FN stupid.. it's just a belt... and even if it WAS real bullets... Bullets can't hurt you without a gun to fire them....

Holy over-reactionary Batman...

[Lonewulf]

that's FN stupid.. it's just a belt... and even if it WAS real bullets... Bullets can't hurt you without a gun to fire them....

(emphasis mine)

Uhhhhhh...

Yes they can.

The gunpowder and primer do not case to exist without a gun to fire them. That primer can still be ignited, though you'd lose any sort of accuracy, and it's hard to unintentionally set it off...

But there have been cases where people have been harmed by primed and "armed" bullets without use in a gun. They're just very very rare.

Otherwise, you're right. :)

[ClintonHammond]

Thank you Mr. pedantic.... :-P

If you're going to worry about things that rare, don't ever go outside, cause no matter where you live, there's a chance you'll be trampled by a herd of runaway Zebra....


This whole 'issue' if FN stupid.... It's just a belt.... and an ugly one at that.... Move along....

[Ladewig]

baseball caps on backwards (which is the stupidest fashion ever unless you're a SWAT sniper or the catcher on a baseball team).

Stupider than sideways baseball caps?

[Upchurch]

Let's forget for a minute that bullet belts are sooooo 80s....
I've been informed that the 80s fashion has come back around again already. I have no idea if it's true, but finally my chuck taylor's and I feel vindicated.

[Lonewulf]

Thank you Mr. pedantic.... :-P

If you're going to worry about things that rare, don't ever go outside, cause no matter where you live, there's a chance you'll be trampled by a herd of runaway Zebra....

Well, I know of incidences where people have died from bullets without guns, but not runaway zebra. Notably, I know of one single incident (anecodtes ftw!), where the individual was a child that was pulling out firepowder from bullets to use in rocket experiments. The firepowder ignited somehow, and I don't know *how* it did injury to him, but it did.

Anyways, it's still an extreme example, and is nothing like wearing bullets, so I think I'll call myself Mr. Pedantic from now on. It's only fair, really. :D

This whole 'issue' if FN stupid.... It's just a belt...

Agreed.

and an ugly one at that....

Disagreed. I like that kind of ammo belt.

Move along....

Agreed.

[skeptifem]

this happened at my school too, same belt lol. and someone else had a tiny metal replica of a knife as a keychain and got suspended, it seriously wasnt even an inch long including the fake tiny handle. it puzzles me that its ok until ___ happens and then everyone throws a fit.

[bob_kark]

Little soon to what? To dress the way he's been dressing for school?

I don't get it. He should suddenly change his entire clothing style and expression of self, the way he's been dressing since before this incident, just to calm a few irrational nerves? How the hell does that make sense? He's become a different person overnight or something?


Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they're right in doing so. Fred Phelps has the right to protest soldier's funerals, for example. While it may or may not have effected you, the massacre in Virginia has deeply effected many, causing depression, anger, mourning, etc... This is not irrational in the least. While I would never want to take away this student's right to wear whatever they want, I can still believe that it's a bit careless and insensitive to wear a bandoleer to school right after 30 people are slaughtered by a gun toting maniac.

[Lonewulf]

Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they're right in doing so.

Such as forcing someone to change how they dress after an incident, as if the person has somehow changed?

Fred Phelps has the right to protest soldier's funerals, for example.

Doesn't compare. Student wearing something that he's always been wearing and no one had a problem with beforehand, does not compare with going out of your way to insult the families of dead soldiers. If you really think that they do, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you.

While it may or may not have effected you, the massacre in Virginia has deeply effected many, causing depression, anger, mourning, etc... This is not irrational in the least.

Punishing a student for doing what he's been doing is irrational.

The student's behavior has not changed, nor his attire. I don't see why this is so hard for you to comprehend. :rolleyes:

While I would never want to take away this student's right to wear whatever they want, I can still believe that it's a bit careless and insensitive to wear a bandoleer to school right after 30 people are slaughtered by a gun toting maniac.

And I believe that it's overly emotional and irrational to assume that the person has suddenly become a different person after the event.

Just like I believe that the Zero Tolerance policies after Columbine were utter horsespit, and utterly irrational.

Next?

[BPSCG]

Such as forcing someone to change how they dress after an incident, as if the person has somehow changed?

(...snip...)

Next?I have to go along with bob_kark on this. The fact that something isn't illegal doesn't means it's therefore a good idea. Yeah, the student involved certainly had the right to dress as he wished, but it seems to me a reasonable person could foresee that the day after a mass shooting, someone would see bullets and freak out, whether justified or not. None of us lives in a vacuum; you have to take into account how what you do affects others. The student would probably have been wise to consider whether or not this week was a good one to give the world the impression he likes to shoot guns.

[Lonewulf]

I have to go along with bob_kark on this. The fact that something isn't illegal doesn't means it's therefore a good idea. Yeah, the student involved certainly had the right to dress as he wished, but it seems to me a reasonable person could foresee that the day after a mass shooting, someone would see bullets and freak out, whether justified or not. None of us lives in a vacuum; you have to take into account how what you do affects others. The student would probably have been wise to consider whether or not this week was a good one to give the world the impression he likes to shoot guns.

Whereas, a week earlier, he wore the exact same thing with no ill effect.

I really don't get the point here. I'm not going to go adjusting my lifestyle according to everyone else's fears.

I'm not going to stop talking about games when a gamer goes crazy and kills people.

I'm not going to stop listening to music when someone that listened to music goes around and kills people.

I'm not going to stop wearing shirts that bear the logo of my favorite band, if a fan of that band goes and kills people.

I'm not going to change how I dress, how I am, or who I am just because someone goes around and kills people.

The decision to suddenly attack this person for something he was fully able to do earlier is irrational. If he did suddenly walk into school one day, right after the shootings, and had no prior history? That's a different situation. This is not that situation. So I really can't sympathize with the irrational knee-jerkers. Sorry.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If he did suddenly walk into school one day, right after the shootings, and had no prior history? That's a different situation. This is not that situation. So I really can't sympathize with the irrational knee-jerkers. Sorry.

Is there any evidence that whoever complained about it knew that it was his habit to dress this way?

Do you totally disregard the possibility that someone who had not even registered him wearing the belt in the past might be more inclined to notice such things given recent events?

[corplinx]

I think the reason parachute pants went out of fashion was an overreaction to the move Red Dawn where russian paratroopers shot up a school. Obviously, parachute pants were siding with the commies.

[Lonewulf]

Triple post

[Lonewulf]

Is there any evidence that whoever complained about it knew that it was his habit to dress this way?

Even if he did, that does not justify the officials becoming involved.

Do you totally disregard the possibility that someone who had not even registered him wearing the belt in the past might be more inclined to notice such things given recent events?

No, I do not. I just do not think you should act on someone's outfit if that's how they usually dress. That's my opinion. You're welcome to your own.

But I do not like it when people come down on me or others thanks to some school shooting that happened in another part of the country; especially when they are so rare.

It's stupid. It's irrational. And it always will be.

I think I'll emphasize the part that makes it so irrational:

The incident began shortly after 9 a.m. when a staff member saw a white male get out of a car wearing an ammunition belt on the Fir Acres campus.

Campus security immediately started searching the campus, and the school's administration put the Portland Police Bureau on standby while preparing to lock down the campus.

Yeah, perfectly rational, and totally not an overreaction. :rolleyes:

I wish humans would act more like simians and less like sheep.

[BPSCG]

The decision to suddenly attack this person for something he was fully able to do earlier is irrational. If he did suddenly walk into school one day, right after the shootings, and had no prior history? That's a different situation. This is not that situation. It's not that situation if everyone knows his ammo belt is harmless. Evidently, not everyone did.

And this is not the same thing as what t-shirt you wear or what you're listening to on your IPod. A t-shirt and an IPod don't generally tell people you're dangerous. A t-shirt and an IPod don't generally tell people you may have a rifle nearby. An ammo belt sends that message, at least to people who don't know you better. And you should expect consequences as a result.

(Listen to me, the "gun nut" who favors concealed-carry permits... :boggled: )

[Lonewulf]

Holy crap, a triple post. Oops

[Lonewulf]

It's not that situation if everyone knows his ammo belt is harmless. Evidently, not everyone did.

Uh huh.

And this is not the same thing as what t-shirt you wear or what you're listening to on your IPod. A t-shirt and an IPod don't generally tell people you're dangerous.

They do to people who conclude that violent media leads to violence.

A t-shirt and an IPod don't generally tell people you may have a rifle nearby. An ammo belt sends that message, at least to people who don't know you better. And you should expect consequences as a result.

Like locking down the school, committing a campus-wide search, mass e-mailing, apprehending the student, confiscating the belt... all at a college, which is full of adults, not children.

Sorry, but I'm still finding it hard to sympathize.

[Ohmer]

Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they're right in doing so. Fred Phelps has the right to protest soldier's funerals, for example. While it may or may not have effected you, the massacre in Virginia has deeply effected many, causing depression, anger, mourning, etc... This is not irrational in the least.

I disagree here. It's quite normal for people to react this way, but I wouldn't call it rational. It is an emotional response based on the amount on media coverage it gets. This was certainly tragic for those who lost a friend or loved one. The rest of us are being pulled in by the coverage. In the US, about 110 people die in car crashes every day. This does not cause depression, anger, mourning, etc... in the entire nation. We get in our cars and drive off without a second thought. These deaths are no less random and tragic, we just don't have reporters and news cameras bombarding us with the details.

While I would never want to take away this student's right to wear whatever they want, I can still believe that it's a bit careless and insensitive to wear a bandoleer to school right after 30 people are slaughtered by a gun toting maniac.

This kid did indeed show poor judgment. He should have anticipated the irrational, yet quite normal fear that his belt would cause.

[BPSCG]

And this is not the same thing as what t-shirt you wear or what you're listening to on your IPod. A t-shirt and an IPod don't generally tell people you're dangerous.
They do to people who conclude that violent media leads to violence.Okay, this is where I conclude you've stopped being serious.

[strathmeyer]

I'm nonplussed. After Columbine they suspended everyone at our high school that wore trench coats.

ETA- Ohmer used the words "anticipated" and "irrational" in the same sentence.

[Unabogie]

It's not that situation if everyone knows his ammo belt is harmless. Evidently, not everyone did.

And this is not the same thing as what t-shirt you wear or what you're listening to on your IPod. A t-shirt and an IPod don't generally tell people you're dangerous. A t-shirt and an IPod don't generally tell people you may have a rifle nearby. An ammo belt sends that message, at least to people who don't know you better. And you should expect consequences as a result.

(Listen to me, the "gun nut" who favors concealed-carry permits... :boggled: )

We're in agreement here. As much as the hysteria reflects badly on those who allow a tragic event to turn them into paranoids, there is some onus on all of us to recognize the reality around us. I happen to think that the policy that if you are at an airport and say the word "bomb" or the word "terrorist" you can be detained or not allowed to fly is insane. Do people believe that real terrorists make it a practice to call attention to themselves before making their move? It's ludicrous. So I would be within my rights to say whatever I want at an airport, except that I know that the reality is I'll get kicked off the plane and so I don't say whatever I want.

Better to fight some battles where the clear light of reason has a chance to shine in, instead of under the cloud of fear.

[ClintonHammond]

"the massacre in Virginia has deeply effected many"
A whole lotta people need to be reminded that what happened DIDN'T happen to THEM! and that their depression and such is just self-indulgence. Again, move on!

"at least to people who don't know you better"
Why is THEIR ignorance the fault of the student wearing the stupid BELT?!?! The whole thing smacks of little children, running to tell teacher that Billy said a 'bad' word.... Seems to me some people have themselves so caught up in what OTHER people are doing that they've lost all sense of reality. I'd like to buy them all a round of "A Damn Good Slap In The Face". Maybe that'll shake them back to having some kind of grip on the real world.

It's just a belt. As my mom is fond if saying "Give yer stupid head a shake."

[Lonewulf]

Okay, this is where I conclude you've stopped being serious.

Well, it's easy to wave off the opposition and then proclaim to yourself that you "won".

But look above the trenchcoat thing. After Columbine, people with trenchcoats were treated with suspicion. There was even an "unofficial frisking" I went through when I showed up to the DODD school in Taegu, Korea, called TAS (Taegu American School), when I showed up in a black leather trenchcoat; and that was much after columbine.

Yet before then, trenchcoats were perfectly normal; now what? Should I remove my trenchcoat because of what one person did? That's stupid.

out of millions of students, and hundreds of thousands that dress a certain way, ONE of those people decide to go crazy and shoot people up; and yet the other hundreds of thousands have to pay the penalty?

That's like stopping all flights because one plane crashes, or proclaiming planes dangerous.

These students weren't a problem beforehand. Yet now, suddenly, they're a potential threat, because of what a very very very very small minority did (one out of thousands, or one of tens of thousands, I dunno the numbers or figures). It's ridiculous.

[ClintonHammond]

"it's easy to wave off the opposition and then proclaim to yourself that you "won"

It's like playing chess with a pigeon. Eventually the pigeon is gonna knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and fly off to its roost where it will boast to all its pigeon friends, how it beat a MAN at chess....

"It's ridiculous."
To say the least!!

[slingblade]

"the massacre in Virginia has deeply effected many"
A whole lotta people need to be reminded that what happened DIDN'T happen to THEM! and that their depression and such is just self-indulgence. Again, move on!

I'm supposed to be affected only by those things that happen only and directly to me? So given that most of the things that happen every day don't happen directly to me, I should ignore it all?

Wait...suppose I see a woman beating her child. I should ignore it, right, since it isn't happening to me?

"at least to people who don't know you better"
Why is THEIR ignorance the fault of the student wearing the stupid BELT?!?!

That's a stupid question. Really. It's just stupid.


The whole thing smacks of little children, running to tell teacher that Billy said a 'bad' word.... Seems to me some people have themselves so caught up in what OTHER people are doing that they've lost all sense of reality.

Wow, and what plastic bubble do you live in? "What other people are doing" IS reality. If some moron digs into the water main on my street, I'm going to be affected by it.


I'd like to buy them all a round of "A Damn Good Slap In The Face". Maybe that'll shake them back to having some kind of grip on the real world.

And then afterward, you'll crawl back in your hole and pull it in after you?

It's just a belt. As my mom is fond if saying "Give yer stupid head a shake."

She apparently had good reason for saying so to you, and you should take her advice immediately and often.

[FarmallMTA]

Wait...suppose I see a woman beating her child. I should ignore it, right, since it isn't happening to me?

Well, since you're a liberal, it's all relative. What are the circumstances? If she's laying on a stainless steel gurney surrounded by "women's health practitioners" and she's beating the brains out of her partially delivered child, YES! AS A LIBERAL YOU MUST, REPEAT MUST, IGNORE IT!

That's a stupid question. Really. It's just stupid.



Couldn't have said it better myself. Congrats.:)

[BPSCG]

Well, it's easy to wave off the opposition and then proclaim to yourself that you "won".When you start saying that people think IPods are evidence of psychosis, you've effectively abandoned the field.

[ClintonHammond]

"suppose I see a woman beating her child"
Oh please... like that has ANYTHING to do with this issue...

No matter how much any of you wine and suck, it's still just a belt, and it's still frigg'n stupid.

I leave you now to wallow in your own self righteousness and sappy self indulgence.

[slingblade]

Well, since you're a liberal, it's all relative. What are the circumstances? If she's laying on a stainless steel gurney surrounded by "women's health practitioners" and she's beating the brains out of her partially delivered child, YES! AS A LIBERAL YOU MUST, REPEAT MUST, IGNORE IT!

Ah, thank you. Yes, I have now determined there is something in this thread I must definitely ignore, and immediately. Thanks again.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Congrats.:)


Ohhh, that's just squicky. Eeewww. But I do have the satisfaction of knowing it will be the last.

ETA: Just to be certain, I'll spell it out: I'm putting you on my ignore list. In the future, replying to me will be pointless, as I will not see your posts. You'll know, because no matter how you insult me, I won't reply. Some people have a very hard time understanding that, so I just wanted to make sure you had this information.

[Lonewulf]

When you start saying that people think IPods are evidence of psychosis, you've effectively abandoned the field.

You were the one that brought up ipods, as far as I recall.

And yes, violent music has often been blamed for crimes. What, didn't you know?

How (http://chaosradio.ccc.de/media/video/frank-zappa-cnn-crossfire-1986.mp4) can (http://www.apa.org/releases/violentsongs.html) you (http://familyfirst.net/pressroom/teensandviolence.asp) be (http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/topics/music.asp) so (http://www.termpaperslab.com/term-papers/73656.html) ignorant? (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Jay-Z-Says-Rap-Music-Overrates-Violence-And-Crime-8880.shtml)

But I will note that I mentioned "violent music" in particular, not I-pods, when I made my statement.

So, pretty much, all you have are strawmen. Well, that's fine. Have fun with them, meanwhile, I'll be standing over here with my real arguments while you battle windmills. Have fun, Don Quixote. :)

(I'll also note that I never said it was a sign of psychosis. But if you think that wearing a belt like that is evidence of psychosis, then you obviously aren't playing with a full house, either)

[Lonewulf]

I'm supposed to be affected only by those things that happen only and directly to me? So given that most of the things that happen every day don't happen directly to me, I should ignore it all?

Wait...suppose I see a woman beating her child. I should ignore it, right, since it isn't happening to me?

Right after this, you say:

That's a stupid question. Really. It's just stupid.

I agree 100% percent. Your question was 100% stupid.

To use BPSCG's argument, once you compare women beating children to what someone wears, you've effectively abandoned the field.

Since no one's on the field, I guess we should all leave. ;)

[ClintonHammond]

"How (http://chaosradio.ccc.de/media/video/frank-zappa-cnn-crossfire-1986.mp4) can (http://www.apa.org/releases/violentsongs.html) you (http://familyfirst.net/pressroom/teensandviolence.asp) be (http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/topics/music.asp) so (http://www.termpaperslab.com/term-papers/73656.html) ignorant? (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Jay-Z-Says-Rap-Music-Overrates-Violence-And-Crime-8880.shtml)"
Hey... give them credit... ignorance of that calibre (Puns suck) takes a lot of work and a lifetime of dedication.

At least I hope for their sake it doesn't just come easy.

[FarmallMTA]

Ah, thank you. Yes, I have now determined there is something in this thread I must definitely ignore, and immediately. Thanks again.

Of course you'll ignore. That's how you got to be a liberal in the first place. It's more comforting for a liberal to live in a filtered fantasy world. Nothing more can be expected of liberals.

[Lonewulf]

Of course you'll ignore. That's how you got to be a liberal in the first place. It's more comforting for a liberal to live in a filtered fantasy world. Nothing more can be expected of liberals.

What the hell is up with all of the "liberal bashing"?

When did this become a stupid tug of war between libbies and conserves?

Sheesh.

For what it's worth, Slingblade, I do not judge your political biase one way or the other. I don't really care which way you lean politically.

But I have no respect for an argument that is chock-full of fallacies. An argument that compares child abuse to what someone wears on their body is, quite frankly, ridiculous. You're effectively Godwinning the argument.

[NoZed Avenger]

"it's easy to wave off the opposition and then proclaim to yourself that you "won"

It's like playing chess with a pigeon. Eventually the pigeon is gonna knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and fly off to its roost where it will boast to all its pigeon friends, how it beat a MAN at chess....

"It's ridiculous."
To say the least!!

Well, except that the pigeon got away -- and you have crap all over your chess set.

[FarmallMTA]

Well, except that the pigeon got away -- and you have crap all over your chess set.

Plus the pigeon gets to have sex with all the other opposite sexed pigeons who are impressed with his savoir faire and skill at chess.

[slingblade]

At least I hope for their sake it doesn't just come easy.

No, but using the ignore list does come quite easily. That's two in one day! Some kind of record for me.

[Lonewulf]

No, but using the ignore list does come quite easily. That's two in one day! Some kind of record for me.

Well, I'm going to go wear my ammo belt and then beat a small child.

Maybe then I'll kick a puppy.

[FarmallMTA]

ETA: Just to be certain, I'll spell it out: I'm putting you on my ignore list. In the future, replying to me will be pointless, as I will not see your posts. You'll know, because no matter how you insult me, I won't reply. Some people have a very hard time understanding that, so I just wanted to make sure you had this information.

*FarmallMTA cooly carves another notch in the handle of Bessie, his trusty single action long-barreled load-in-the-morning-and-shoot-all-day liberal slayer then looks around with a steely eyed squint at the cowering rabble of liberals and socialists, spits terbaccy juice onto the sawdust on the Saloon floor and growls...*

"Okay, which one of you left wing fancy Nancys is next?"

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, I'm going to go wear my ammo belt and then beat a small child.

Maybe then I'll kick a puppy.

Thank goodness. I was afraid for a second you were going to go to law school.

[bob_kark]

Such as forcing someone to change how they dress after an incident, as if the person has somehow changed?

I believe I stated:

I would never want to take away this student's right to wear whatever they want
But I can certainly criticize it.

Doesn't compare. Student wearing something that he's always been wearing and no one had a problem with beforehand, does not compare with going out of your way to insult the families of dead soldiers. If you really think that they do, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you.

I'm not comparing the two. I'm giving an example of a situation where someone has the legal right to do something, but is wrong in doing so.

Punishing a student for doing what he's been doing is irrational.
Where did I state that the student should be punished? Please show me.

The student's behavior has not changed, nor his attire. I don't see why this is so hard for you to comprehend. :rolleyes:

Why does this make any difference at all? The people around him changed even if he didn't. 31 people hadn't been murdered 2 days before he last wore his bandoleer.

And I believe that it's overly emotional and irrational to assume that the person has suddenly become a different person after the event.

Why would they have to become a different person? Are we simply the sum of our clothing choices? How about just not wearing something that's going to needlessly upset people. Retire the belt for more than 1 day? Maybe even push yourself for a week?

Look, if you ask if this student's rights are violated, I'll agree that they were. However, what I'm discussing is personal responsibility. This kid isn't grand poobah of planet earth. Wearing a bandoleer to school two days after a national tragedy involving a student slaughtering 31 people is going to upset other people. So maybe, instead of looking ubercool for a day, this student could have taken the high road and let it go for a week, just a week.

Just like I believe that the Zero Tolerance policies after Columbine were utter horsespit, and utterly irrational.

Next?
Again, I don't believe he should have been forced to remove it. I simply believe it was insensitive of him to wear it.

[ClintonHammond]

It's still, just a stupid belt...


"using the ignore list does"
I hope that's a promise

[The Painter]

It's not that situation if everyone knows his ammo belt is harmless. Evidently, not everyone did.



Would it have been better if the bullets were painted pink?

[Lonewulf]

I believe I stated:

But I can certainly criticize it.

Well, go ahead, then.

I'm not comparing the two. I'm giving an example of a situation where someone has the legal right to do something, but is wrong in doing so.

Why? He wore the bandoleer before, suddenly it's wrong?

Man, never shoulda bought that trenchcoat since Columbine... gotta sway with the irrational fears of the population!

Where did I state that the student should be punished? Please show me.

Okay, given, but according to the article, wasn't the student punished?

Why does this make any difference at all? The people around him changed even if he didn't. 31 people hadn't been murdered 2 days before he last wore his bandoleer.

Hypothetical:

College student wears a trenchcoat for years. Suddenly, Columbine happens. It's "wrong" of him to continue wearing that trenchcoat, even if that's his outfit?

Sorry, but I can't agree. Same with this scenario.

Why would they have to become a different person?

Because it was okay for him to wear the belt one day, and then suddenly it is not. If no one was afraid of him before, then why are they afraid for him after? If it is not because he's changed, then it's an irrational fear.

Are we simply the sum of our clothing choices? How about just not wearing something that's going to needlessly upset people.

If people get overly upset over his clothing choice, a choice that he's made for a while, then that's their fault, not his.

Retire the belt for more than 1 day? Maybe even push yourself for a week?

Maybe he should. But I don't think that someone that dresses a certain way for a length of time before an event should not be pushed -- socially or legally (and you seem to be advocating the social portion) from changing his outfit against his will.

Look, if you ask if this student's rights are violated, I'll agree that they were. However, what I'm discussing is personal responsibility.

And I think that we have a personal responsibility to not encourage someone to conform to the masses unnecessarily.

This kid isn't grand poobah of planet earth.

Tell me where I suggested he was? Quote me.

I advocate a free choice of clothing style for everyone, not just this "grand poobah" junk. I also think that the girl that was expelled from Holy Cross High School for having a goddamn tweety bird chain because "chains are off limits according to Zero Policy!" should have been able to worn her chain. I find it funny how we send mixed messages to the public: "Be yourself, be an individual... unless it violates the mass mindset, then you'll put the school under lockdown, and have your stuff confiscated. Hah!"

Wearing a bandoleer to school two days after a national tragedy involving a student slaughtering 31 people is going to upset other people.

Sucks to be them. Same with trenchcoats and Columbine: Sucks to be them.

So maybe, instead of looking ubercool for a day, this student could have taken the high road and let it go for a week, just a week.

Your assumption is that this is the "high road".

Again, I don't believe he should have been forced to remove it. I simply believe it was insensitive of him to wear it.

And I think that people need to get a grip.

There was another poster in here that suggested that the boy wearing the bandoleer was a "sign" that he was a psycho, and might very well did what Cho did. I'll look for that post, if you wish. But that just further demonstrates to me the ludicrousness of the scenario.

Slingblade also compared wearing this belt to... you got it... child abuse. It's just getting fuggin' ridiculous.

I will say one thing about the VA shootings, though:

This entire thread is proof why all the media coverage over the situation is a joke.

[BPSCG]

Maybe he should. But I don't think that someone that dresses a certain way for a length of time before an event should not be pushed -- socially or legally (and you seem to be advocating the social portion) from changing his outfit against his will.Fixed (seriously - you clearly didn't mean to put that "not" in there, because it renders your entire point nonsensical).

You appear to be making the same assumption over and over again: that absolutely everyone knew, and had known, that this kid's belt was harmless.

What bob_kark and I are saying is that it appears that not everyone did. No sane person calls the police to report that someone is wearing something harmless. And even if an insane person were to make such a call ("Hello, 911? There's a guy wearing Hush Puppies...") the police wouldn't go out and pick the guy up for questioning. It seems quite clear that someone on campus did not know the belt was harmless, and that the police were not aware of that fact either.

The kid is a college student, and therefore probably not severely mentally retarded. Before getting dressed that day, he should have been able to think, "Hmmm, Virginia Tech, bandolier belt... y'know, someone who doesn't know me might freak out if he sees this belt. I like the fashion statement, but it might be better for everyone if I wear something else for a couple of days..." Use a little judgement, even if he's legally within his rights to wear whatever he wants.

Nobody's saying he had to do that. But he shouldn't be surprised that the sun, moon, and stars don't revolve around his attire, that not everyone has gotten the message that what he's wearing is decoration, not armament, and that in the light of the previous day's events, someone might report him as being potentially dangerous.

Of course, if he in fact is severely mentally retarded, he gets a pass.

[Lonewulf]

Fixed (seriously - you clearly didn't mean to put that "not" in there, because it renders your entire point nonsensical).

Ah, thank you.

You appear to be making the same assumption over and over again: that absolutely everyone knew, and had known, that this kid's belt was harmless.

For the time that he once wore it, before the VT shootings? No one called on him, so I can only assume that what he wore was reasonably acceptable on his campus.

What bob_kark and I are saying is that it appears that not everyone did. No sane person calls the police to report that someone is wearing something harmless. And even if an insane person were to make such a call ("Hello, 911? There's a guy wearing Hush Puppies...") the police wouldn't go out and pick the guy up for questioning. It seems quite clear that someone on campus did not know the belt was harmless, and that the police were not aware of that fact either.

Which they didn't call on him before... because...?

The kid is a college student, and therefore probably not severely mentally retarded. Before getting dressed that day, he should have been able to think, "Hmmm, Virginia Tech, bandolier belt... y'know, someone who doesn't know me might freak out if he sees this belt. I like the fashion statement, but it might be better for everyone if I wear something else for a couple of days..." Use a little judgement, even if he's legally within his rights to wear whatever he wants.

And you assume that he knew of VT. Or that he wasn't making a statement.

The only reason I personally knew of VT was because I happen to attend this website; and some people I know in college informed me about it. So even then, you are making assumptions in this individual's case.

Nobody's saying he had to do that. But he shouldn't be surprised that the sun, moon, and stars don't revolve around his attire, that not everyone has gotten the message that what he's wearing is decoration, not armament, and that in the light of the previous day's events, someone might report him as being potentially dangerous.

Yes! He should totally have expected the school to be locked down, his belongings confiscated, and the police to be called. Because that's what rational people do within 10 minutes of seeing a belt around someone's waist.

Of course, if he in fact is severely mentally retarded, he gets a pass.

That's nice, then.

[bob_kark]

Why? He wore the bandoleer before, suddenly it's wrong?

Man, never shoulda bought that trenchcoat since Columbine... gotta sway with the irrational fears of the population!
If you don't get this, I really don't know that I can help you understand anymore than you already do. Wearing a bandoleer belt with fake bullets strewn about your waist sends a painful reminder not only of what occurred only 2 days ago at the time, but the mentality behind the attack, and a possible threat.

As BPSCG stated, its not as if we keep a checklist of every one's attire from day to day. People's senses are heightened. What you may consider irrational is completely rational given what occurred only 2 days prior to this incident on another college campus. Why would you want to assume anything?

Okay, given, but according to the article, wasn't the student punished?
If he was, it was a mistake to do so. I'm not defending the campus.

Hypothetical:

College student wears a trenchcoat for years. Suddenly, Columbine happens. It's "wrong" of him to continue wearing that trenchcoat, even if that's his outfit?

Sorry, but I can't agree. Same with this scenario.
A trenchcoat is a far cry from a bandoleer belt. People have worn them regularly for nearly a century. Respected businessmen wear them on a regular basis. A bandoleer belt sends a message that is hard to misinterpret. Do you not see a difference between the two?

Because it was okay for him to wear the belt one day, and then suddenly it is not. If no one was afraid of him before, then why are they afraid for him after? If it is not because he's changed, then it's an irrational fear.
Again, I don't think the fashion police have the time to write down every one's attire. Prove how it is irrational to fear someone wearing a bandoleer.

If people get overly upset over his clothing choice, a choice that he's made for a while, then that's their fault, not his.
The rights of one superseding the many. He still has the right, I'd defend it to my death. He's still wrong for doing so.

Maybe he should. But I don't think that someone that dresses a certain way for a length of time before an event should not be pushed -- socially or legally (and you seem to be advocating the social portion) from changing his outfit against his will.
Can we drop this strawman now?

And I think that we have a personal responsibility to not encourage someone to conform to the masses unnecessarily.

Tell me where I suggested he was? Quote me.

I advocate a free choice of clothing style for everyone, not just this "grand poobah" junk. I also think that the girl that was expelled from Holy Cross High School for having a goddamn tweety bird chain because "chains are off limits according to Zero Policy!" should have been able to worn her chain. I find it funny how we send mixed messages to the public: "Be yourself, be an individual... unless it violates the mass mindset, then you'll put the school under lockdown, and have your stuff confiscated. Hah!"
His fashion choice effects the people around him that are mourning the very recent tragedy. Therefore, he must be more important than the others as his right to look cool is more important to him than the well being of those around him.

Sucks to be them. Same with trenchcoats and Columbine: Sucks to be them.

Your assumption is that this is the "high road".
I really don't want to be rude here.

And I think that people need to get a grip.

There was another poster in here that suggested that the boy wearing the bandoleer was a "sign" that he was a psycho, and might very well did what Cho did. I'll look for that post, if you wish. But that just further demonstrates to me the ludicrousness of the scenario.

Slingblade also compared wearing this belt to... you got it... child abuse. It's just getting fuggin' ridiculous.
What does this have to do with anything I've said?

I will say one thing about the VA shootings, though:

This entire thread is proof why all the media coverage over the situation is a joke.
How so?

[slingblade]

I do have Lonewulf on ignore, but Bob_Kark quoted this in his reply:

Slingblade also compared wearing this belt to... you got it... child abuse. It's just getting fuggin' ridiculous.

No, I did not.

[Lonewulf]

I do have Lonewulf on ignore.

Ah, okay. Then likewise.

If I have nothing of worth to say to your eyes, then you have nothing of worth in mine.

[Lonewulf]

Responses out of order, based on priority of what points I want to take care of first:

Can we drop this strawman now?

I don't see it as a strawman. Acting as if someone is "stupid" to do a certain thing is to indirectly give social pressure for them not to do it.

You state:

The rights of one superseding the many. He still has the right, I'd defend it to my death. He's still wrong for doing so.

He's "wrong" for wearing the belt. That's suggesting that one action is right, one is wrong. This is indirectly putting pressure for someone to take the "right" decision.

If you talked with this guy face to face, would you explain that what he did was wrong? This is social pressure.

By "social pressure", I do not mean expulsion, suspension, or the like. I just want to be clear on that. And I don't necessarily have anything against minor social pressure. Just that in this particular case... I dunno.

I really don't want to be rude here.

Fair enough. Statement withdrawn.

What does this have to do with anything I've said?

I'm just surprised at the vast amount of irrational, over-reactionary responses, whether in the school and without. That's all.

How so?

Because one student in one part of a country, a country of 300 million people+, goes crazy. Overnight, and Two Days After (Hey, that might make a good movie title...), it appears as if people are intentionally looking for potential enemies out of the corner of their eye; as if there's suddenly gunmen lurking right around the corner.

The media goes on and on and on and on about it, to the point where it's almost the one thing that everyone thinks about. A very similar scenario happened with Columbine; after Columbine, all of a sudden, it seemed like there was a sudden rise in school violence (at least, that's how many acted), and that we needed to do something NOW.

His fashion choice effects the people around him that are mourning the very recent tragedy. Therefore, he must be more important than the others as his right to look cool is more important to him than the well being of those around him.

Now, hold on. Let's not jump to conclusions here. That's also stretching it a bit; do you really think that he obviously doesn't care? Now, personally, I admit, I do care, I just wish people would get it into their head that just because a school shooting takes place, doesn't suddenly, drastically alter the state of everyone around them. Remember, I came out of dealing with the whole "Zero Tolerance" thing, and I'm still looking at it from the perspective of dealing with that.

See, the thing is, before this scenario the individual involved was not considered a threat. He wore a bandoleer to class; he sat there, in class, with an average of 30 students, in front of a college professor, and nothing happened. If I am incorrect in this assumption, then I am willing to be corrected; but I find it strange that someone can sit IN CLASS, and not be considered a threat while wearing a belt that supposedly is a great danger worth locking a school down. I just can't comprehend it.

I mean, it seems a little strange that the reaction after the VA shootings would be to lock down the school, confiscate his belonging, and then call the police, all within minutes of seeing the bandoleer.

[quixotecoyote]

What is the logic behind not reporting him?

If I walk onto campus and see a student wandering around with what appears to be ammuntion (lots of it in fact), in an area where people are not supposed to have guns, I am going to suspect he is up to no good. I am not going to engage him in conversation "Hey, how you doin? Promoting an interesting fashion accessory or prepared for mass murder?", because I don't want to be the guy who finds out the hard way.

If I knew that the ammo-belt was 80's fashion (I didn't) and I knew that he habitually wears one (I didn't) I wouldn't report him. But with a school schooting fresh in mind and I see a guy toting what looks to be enough ammo to clear out a classroom or two, I'm going to call the people who get paid to stick their neck out.

Further, if he got lectured about it, which appears to be the only 'punishment' involved, I'd say it made a lot of sense. They need to tell him that someone just shot up a school, and that wearing accesories easily perceived as commonly used when about to shoot at things is going to create a disturbance.

[bob_kark]

Responses out of order, based on priority of what points I want to take care of first:

I don't see it as a strawman. Acting as if someone is "stupid" to do a certain thing is to indirectly give social pressure for them not to do it.
What exactly is wrong with social pressure? You seemed to think it was ok in the Don Imus case. I've never argued that he should be punished, so please stop attaching that argument to me.

He's "wrong" for wearing the belt. That's suggesting that one action is right, one is wrong. This is indirectly putting pressure for someone to take the "right" decision.

If you talked with this guy face to face, would you explain that what he did was wrong? This is social pressure.
Wait, am I now losing my right to free speech? Yes, I would tell him. It's his choice to decide whether to care or not.

Fair enough. Statement withdrawn.
Thank you.

I'm just surprised at the vast amount of irrational, over-reactionary responses, whether in the school and without. That's all.
I can't shake the feeling you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding this issue. Let me state for the record, I don't think this kid is a bad person, I just disagree with his decision.

Because one student in one part of a country, a country of 300 million people+, goes crazy. Overnight, and Two Days After (Hey, that might make a good movie title...), it appears as if people are intentionally looking for potential enemies out of the corner of their eye; as if there's suddenly gunmen lurking right around the corner.
YES! Because it's fresh in every one's mind! Then we get the aftershocks. A gunman storming Johnson Space Center, killing himself and a hostage, locally a high school kid was arrested for bringing a handgun to school. It's just natural to be a little hypersensitive.

Now, hold on. Let's not jump to conclusions here. That's also stretching it a bit; do you really think that he obviously doesn't care? Now, personally, I admit, I do care, I just wish people would get it into their head that just because a school shooting takes place, doesn't suddenly, drastically alter the state of everyone around them. Remember, I came out of dealing with the whole "Zero Tolerance" thing, and I'm still looking at it from the perspective of dealing with that.
I really have to wonder if he does. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that at best a few people may be offended and at worst, he could be detained by the police. I agree with your position on Zero Tolerance, but it really seems to me to be a selfish act to garner attention.

[Lonewulf]

What exactly is wrong with social pressure? You seemed to think it was ok in the Don Imus case. I've never argued that he should be punished, so please stop attaching that argument to me.

Alright. A dn I'm not suggesting that you should be "prevented" from telling him that that's your opinion, I'm just saying that there is social pressure for him to conform, whether directly or indirectly. I'm a bit iffy about that.

Thank you.

Welcome.

I can't shake the feeling you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding this issue.

Being a videogamer that plays violent videogames, watches violent movies, is single, and fits within so many pseudo-profiles of "potential mass murderers"? Yeah, I kinda do. Not to mention that in every school I've ever been in, everyone assumed that I was the one that was to "snap". In Taegu American School, I was voted Jailbird; "Most likely to go to jail". In Holy Cross High School, they were glad when I left as they assumed that I was likely to shoot the place up.

Hell, the one time I hit a bully back, was the one time I was punished in first grade. How's that for Schoolyard Justice?

Though I admit, I'm still kinda smiling back on the memory of making that other kid cry. He thought he was so tough. :D

(Then they made me "eat dirt" again. Go figure)

Let me state for the record, I don't think this kid is a bad person, I just disagree with his decision.

I can see why you disagree with his decision. I'm not so sure if I disagree with it. It would be nice if I had more data to go by.

YES! Because it's fresh in every one's mind! Then we get the aftershocks. A gunman storming Johnson Space Center, killing himself and a hostage, locally a high school kid was arrested for bringing a handgun to school. It's just natural to be a little hypersensitive.

Wow. A high school student actually brought a (real?) handgun to the school near you?

I really have to wonder if he does. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that at best a few people may be offended and at worst, he could be detained by the police. I agree with your position on Zero Tolerance, but it really seems to me to be a selfish act to garner attention.

But that's the thing: "Garnish attention"? It's not as if he walked into the school wearing the belt just to get attention after the VA shootings; to claim as much takes speculation. Though, rethinking your statement, I guess you're saying that he's wearing it as part of his outfit to get attention, as much as any outfit is to get attention? In that case, I can kinda see what you're saying, but I'm still iffy.

For all I know, he didn't even know about the VA shootings (as unlikely as that may be). With limited data points, I'd much rather not hypothesize on what his state of mind actually was, nor his intentions, nor his selfishness.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm sort of surprised this thread ran this long.

As I see it, you really only have three hypotheticals as to how the reaction occurred or how it could have occurred.

1. Everyone on the campus and in the neighborhood knew the kid, knew his dress was just a 'fashion statement' that he'd worn quite often previously, and thus reporting him was over-reaction and 'fever of the moment', due to the coverage of VT. This would qualify as PC behavior as several are asserting.

2. Not everyone knew him and the person who reported it was genuinely concerned, seeing a high-caliber ammo belt heading into a school.
In this case, I see nothing about it that was over-reacting or PC.

3. Hypothetical No. 2, but with the addition that they reported it at school, the authorities at school knew it was harmless, but were afraid of geting in trouble, so went PC on the kid and called the cops.
This, too, would be PC behavior.

None of the above, however, assumes that he shouldn't have at least been spoken to (lectured, chewed out, whatever). Yes, there are some hyper-sensitive types out there. But putting on your ammo belt absent-mindedly because you wear it every day is one thing. Pulling it out of the closet and thinking that you'll do some street theater to pi** those nervous nellies off is quite another.

He wasn't arrested and taken to Gitmo, he was spoken to.
This is nothing compared to the nonsense that goes on in public schools across the USA, every day. If you want more, follow Randy Cassingham's "This is True". He covers many of the more absurd instances of Zero Tolerance.

I once picked up a souvenir t-shirt in Pakistan. Next stop, India. I had my duty-free bag separate from my baggage when I unpacked in the hotel room, and unfolded the items in the bag, including the t-shirt. The shirt was in the colors of Pakistan, with a large atom on it, with the words "Pakistan Power". I thought I'd take it back to New York to get a laugh.... I was visited by the police!!!! The maid saw it, reported it to management, and they called in the cops. I got to keep my t-shirt, and they didn't even warn me not to wear it in Delhi... maybe hoping I'd get my butt kicked.

Ha Ha! Bunch of politically correct bunch of Indians, right? Wrong. This was an era when Pakistani backed terrorists were blowing up trains. They should have (and did) at least check it out.

[ClintonHammond]

"there are some hyper-sensitive types out there"
And they're posting to this thread...

"to pi** those nervous nellies off"
What's the line... FK 'em if they can't take a joke!

Or as Shurtleff said.... You can't do a FKing thing about the audience, so why worry about them.

[Lonewulf]

None of the above, however, assumes that he shouldn't have at least been spoken to (lectured, chewed out, whatever). Yes, there are some hyper-sensitive types out there. But putting on your ammo belt absent-mindedly because you wear it every day is one thing. Pulling it out of the closet and thinking that you'll do some street theater to pi** those nervous nellies off is quite another.

Some seem to be assuming that it's the latter. I'm assuming it was the former.

Which was why I mentioned earlier, i twould be nice to have more data points.

He wasn't arrested and taken to Gitmo, he was spoken to.

After the school was locked down, his belt confiscated (which within itself isn't a bad thing, admittedly), and the police were called in a short amount of time; and the situation was revolved a very short time after all of that quick calling. At least, if my reading of the article was correct. I may have to go back and review it.

The "talking to" within itself I don't necessarily have a whole lot against.

[ClintonHammond]

The "talking to" didn't have to be any more than...

Dude, what's that?

Oh.. this? It's a belt made to look like ammo... ain't it cool???!!!???

No... not really....

Then don't wear one like it, face-hole!

Full stop.

Cause, in the end, it's still just a stupid BELT.