Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Saw a teacher mugshot, saw “high school teacher arrested,” assumed something much worse.
Weed? Yeah, make her pay a fine or something
While I definitely get that she shouldn't have left them sitting out, is it not the fault of the kids randomly eating other peoples food without permission that the food ended up being much more "not for them" than it already would have been?
Well, I suppose just cuz the article doesn't mention the kids getting in their fair share of trouble doesn't mean they didn't, including underage kids in a news article is a hassle and barely worth doing when they are the main or only part of a story.
It is absolutely her fault. School staff operate under in loco parentis, meaning they're legally acting as the parent while the child is at school.
Parents can and should be charged with negligence when they leave drugs in a place where children found and consumed them.
Eating a parents food is a little more understandable, though still not something a kid should do without permission. Eating a teachers food, is down right actual stealing. It is different even if the teacher is supposed to act like a parent, though I haven't heard of that being the case, if anything teachers are restricted from acting like parents to the children.
They may have some legal burden, but it doesn't mean it should be treated exactly as if they are the parents in every situation.
But I did say it was fair that the teacher got in trouble, just thought it odd initially that it doesn't mention the kids repercussions, til I thought about the hurdles involved in writing that bit of the article and assumed they just didn't bother.
I dont agree with yiur reasoning that its partly the kids' fault. Sure, it could have been avoided by either the teacher or the kids, but the responsibility lies with the teacher 100%. Imagine they left a bottle of vodka in the classroom, or a gun. You cant say "yeah sorry your son shot himself with my gun but to be fair he shouldnt have touched it."
So, it's your opinion that the kids did nothing wrong by stealing and eating the teachers food? They aren't even partly responsible?
So the parents get their kids home and they are ok with the kids stealing the teachers food, the teacher shouldn't have had food in the classroom since kids are allowed to just steal whatever they want.
The kids doing something wrong doesn't absolve the teacher of wrongdoing. They committed a dick move; she committed a crime.
What she did was neglectful, full stop. She created the situation that allowed a child access to drugs.
I'm not arguing that she wasn't wrong, I state multiple times that she was wrong. He's arguing the kids aren't wrong at all. I maintain the kids also did something wrong.
A teacher should not be bringing or consuming edibles on the job. It is negligence and something you can lose your employment and license over. The fact that students ate them makes it worse, but it was never okay to have them at work to begin with.
Uh I frequently go to the dispensary at lunch and have weed in my bag. Which is legal and not particularly irresponsible. I think given all things teachers of all people deserve a little dignity and privacy but hopefully that means spaces that lock safely.
These were high school students who knew what they were doing, not elementary school kids discovering fun looking gummies. I would think a HS teacher can keep medications in their desk, mine did.
Would you say the same if she had a bottle of whiskey? Or pornography? What about a gun?
Just because it was something that can be used responsibly by adults doesn't absolve the negligence of leaving it to be used by children.
Bruh. Srs if you’re working with kids, leave the weed at home, k?
Yeah, eat them before you come in.
Or keep them in your car to consume during your lunch break.
EDIT: Do not eat edibles and then drive. Leave your car at work and Uber home in scenario B
Maybe she lives at the classroom! Don't judge until you know all the facts!
All teachers live in the classroom that's just common knowledge. It's because they don't pay them enough to afford housing.
They sleep under the desk. Everyone knows that
This stuff should be in your purse or backpack. And that pack should be locked in a drawer or locker. Junior high and older kids commonly steal drugs, money, and whatever else they can get their hands on. Little kids eat anything left unattended.
Especially since we make THC edibles look and taste like candy. Adn she just left then sitting out which says she was stoned at work.
The bigger problem is this loser was driving to and from school stoned.
The bigger problem is this loser was driving to and from school stoned.
How is that a bigger problem than drugging kids, are you serious?
And why are you even assuming your baseless theories as facts?
And why are you even assuming your baseless theories as facts?
Because I actually read the article, Cheech.
I guess some people are cool with impaired driving.
I realized that from an other comment. Havent read the whole thing, admittedly. But ".. which says she was ..." sounded like you were assuming things.
Still not worse than drugging kids imo.
It's actually in the story.
Detectives say during McGillem’s interview, observations made and information obtained led them to believe that she had operated a vehicle while impaired.
and....
Following the interview, McGillem was booked into the Steuben County Jail on the following preliminary charges.
Neglect of a Dependent
Possession of a Controlled Substance on School Property
Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated
Thnks for pointing that out. Didnt read the whole thing. The comment sounded like it was their own theory.
it's cool, you got 5 easy upvotes!
You'll be literally 100% fine after a day if you eat a THC edible. That might not be true if you get hit by a car.
How on earth is that hard to understand?
The (very obvious) difference is that she actually ~~drugged~~ caused kids eating edibles while ~~only possibly endangering~~ actually endangering but only possibly hurting people while driving.
Thats like saying driving in any state sober or not is worse than shooting someone in the leg because you can kill someone while driving but a shot in the leg isnt deadly.
Also, kids with their brains not completely developed arent "literally 100% fine" consuming THC, it can have very serious consequences. Heck, even adults can get seizures or psychosis from weed if theyre predisposed. You should get your stoner facts straight (not meant as an insult to stoners, I love weed).
while only possibly endangering people.
The endangerment isn't debatable. Do you actually believe it's only considered endangerment if something bad happens? Insanity. You're aware that driving under the influence is illegal even if you don't hit someone, yeah?
Thats like saying driving in any state sober or not is worse than shooting someone in the leg because you can kill someone while driving but a shot in the leg isnt deadly.
If we're just gonna make up weird, unrelated strawmen I guess I could join in but I don't have time right now. Maybe I'll come back later and concoct some inane, irrelevant scenario for you.
Jesus you guys are so pedantic with the wording. English isnt even my first language. Yeah, she actually endangered people. What I wanted to say is the endangerment didnt cause actual harm in that case. It doesnt make it right but its still much better than causing actual harm.
Also its not a strawman, I literally said "its like saying", I made a comparison. A strawman argument would be if I pretended like you implied shooting someone in the leg is worse than driving a car.
You cited the possibility of greater harm as the reason for it being worse than actually causing lesser harm. I made an example where that obviously doesnt apply to make the point that the possibility of causing greater harm does not automatically make an action worse than an other.
What I wanted to say is the endangerment didnt cause actual harm in that case. It doesnt make it right but its still much better than causing actual harm.
But your "actual endangerment" didn't actually happen either? They ate weed gummies and had no demonstrable negative effects afterwards, according to the article. Why am I required to address your "potential harm" that never occurred while you get to ignore the other side?
Also its not a strawman, I literally said "its like saying", I made a comparison
Did you not just complain about being pedantic about wording immediately before this sentence? Yes, a comparison can absolutely be a strawman. You're concocting a scenario that is more favorable to your argument than the one that actually happened.
But your "actual endangerment" didn't actually happen either? They ate weed gummies and had no demonstrable negative effects afterwards, according to the article. Why am I required to address your "potential harm" that never occurred while you get to ignore the other side?
Did it say that in the article? I would still consider non consensual drug consumption to be harm in any case, not to mention there may be negative aftereffects that are not immediately obvious.
Did you not just complain about being pedantic about wording immediately before this sentence?
True, but how was that about wording?
Anyway, I dont think were getting anywhere, we just seem to have different views about the harmfulness of some actions.
saying she drugged kids implies that she intentionally gave them drugs, not that they went out of their way to steal them from her
Right. Changed it, doesnt really change the point though.
It shouldn't have been on school property to begin with.
She's either a moron or an addict if she brings it to school grounds.
They were punished for stealing, right? Right?
It's not clear and not really relevant to the story. The story is about the teacher being arrested for breaking multiple laws.
Stoners don't read the article they comment on.
Putting the high in high school.