The police didn't force the destruction of evidence. It was the principal that told the student to delete the recording.

You know, to a highschool student, I'm not sure there's a whole lot of difference.

Because when the principal, the administrators, the teachers, and the cops are all standing around telling you that you must delete it or face consequences ... which entity is it which is forcing you to delete it?

And since the police then subsequently charged him with something, pretending like they didn't play a role in this farce is pretty naive.

What happens to the vast minority of people who always think they are in the vast majority?

They become politically active, and then continue to loudly claim to represent the vast majority even though they don't.

That's why climate change is a global thing.

Are people laboring under the belief that this will result in purely localized effects?

There is only one atmosphere, and if you screw it up, it's screwed up everywhere.

Pssst ... as a fellow Canadian, I can tell you the exact same thing is happening here, unfortunately.

Our current government allows lobby groups (who themselves are mere puppets for the same groups in the US) to write the text of treaties and laws, when our environmental protections are being gutted in order to make it more efficient for businesses, and when you have a government which increasingly ignores some of the laws due to ideology ... we're well on our way to being equally fucked.

So, please, don't make us Canadians look all smug and douchy on the topic. Because the exact same thing is happening here.

Appropriately, the page with TFA has an ad encouraging me to "Win an AR-15 from Sebastian Ammo". Google is getting scary...

That's not Google. That contest is hosted on the same site as the story -- I actually hovered over the link to see where it went.

It's their own content.

Yes, the kid got charged because he violated Pennsylvania's wiretapping and recording laws. Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state so both parties to the conversation must consent before a recording can be made.

Yeah, and supposedly this school has a zero tolerance policy towards bullying.

And according to TFA, the bullying was happening in the class room, with a teacher present. Which means the school had more or less abandoned their role in policing this, and the kid was left with no other recourse.

Shortly thereafter, a loud noise is heard on the recording, which her son explained was a book being slammed down next to him after a student pretended to hit him in the head with it. When the teacher yells, the student exclaims, "What? I was just trying to scare him!" A group of boys are heard laughing.

What teacher can't be watching this in their own classroom and NOT understand that bullying was happening?

If the teacher who was physically in the room wasn't doing anything, WTF good is telling the school about it? Because the school is either indifferent, clueless, or incompetent to address the issue.

And the officer involved?? I would also say was incompetent or indifferent:

He later answered as to why he thought the disorderly conduct charge applied to this case by saying, "Because his (the student's) actions - he engaged in actions which served no legitimate purpose." He then read the statute as, "Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by acts which serve no legitimate purpose."

I would say the legitimate purpose was to demonstrate that the bullying was, in fact happening, was happening while there was a teacher present, and that nothing at all was being done about it. He certainly didn't create a "hazardous or physically offensive condition". Sorry, but I think the cop was a fucking idiot.

I'm inclined to agree with the lawyer on this one. The police misapplied the statute here, forced the kid to destroy the evidence, and then didn't do a single thing about the problem.

And people wonder why kids go into school with guns? I can't even believe the story has a link to a contest to win an AR-15.

I read this whole story as a complete failure of the police and school to understand and deal with the actual issue here.

So, kid gathers evidence of bullying by other kids, gets charged?

That is insane.

So, if I take a video of someone stealing my car, would I get arrested? Under what circumstances could I do that and not be charged? WTF doesn't gathering evidence of bullying get an exemption from wiretap laws?

Whatever law enforcement and officers of the court were involved in this are total morons. This makes no sense at all.

The entire premise of capitalism is that money that gets invested into useful purposes

No, the entire premise of capitalism is people own stuff. Period.

There is an assumption people might invest in useful stuff and make rational decisions in their own best interests. The reality is not quite the same.

When billionaires buy multi-million dollar yachts and diamond crusted iPhones you get to see why kings periodically get their heads chopped off.

The producers add their tax burden to the cost of goods. The study from Harvard econ. sets the price of goods as 22% higher (average) than they would otherwise be without the income tax.

And, if you didn't have a government to take taxes and do the things the public needs, your society would be a shitty place to live, and would be the most brutally Darwinistic thing you can imagine. So those 22% lower costs would be offset by a society which is many many times the worse to live in.

This fictional, utopian tax free society would be not nearly as good as its proponents claim it would be.

If you model your economic system on the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, you will not like the results.

Yeah, but making taxes difficult to do also creates animosity towards the IRS which directly helps the talking points of the right.

And god forbid they actually lose talking points by actually accomplishing something they've said they'd like to do.

Nosiree, if we don't change anything, we can keep bitching about it and we can blame the other guys. And, we can keep getting paid by the lobbyists to maintain the status quo.

Because, really, politicians are douchebags just looking to line their own pockets. Some of them may be honest, but increasingly, I doubt that fact and think we should start off with the premise they're crooked and on the take and force them to live under much more careful scrutiny.

It's shit like this why I don't think corporations should have "free speech". Humans have free speech, corporations are not humans and should not have the same bloody rights.

For instance:

A U.S. appeals court on Monday struck down parts of a regulation that forces public companies to disclose if their products contain "conflict minerals" from a war-torn part of Africa, saying it violates free speech rights.

Because when corporate money is equated with free speech, they can afford to have their speech heard more than anyone else.

And when they can astro-turf and get op-ed pieces written by people who think this is an assault on tax-payers, they just cloud the issue.

It should also be illegal for politicians to accept any personal or financial benefit from lobbyists ... because all it does it cause them to be sold to the highest bidder.

My bet? This would be a net benefit for tax-payers, and this is just buggy whip makers entrenching into law their business model. And all of those politicians who like to talk about free markets are full of shit .. the only free market here is how much the politicians get paid.

Whatever court decision decided that corporations are people too was garbage.

Yo Dawg! I hear you like updates ... so I got you an update so you can update while you're updating.

LOL ... I've seen CDs which are printed to look like vinyl albums.

I'm sure someone could just print on the existing ones something which makes it look like a floppy.

2D traffic sucks here; time to up-grade.

I see way too many examples of people not understanding how to drive their car in 2D.

The idea of many of these same drivers being expected to navigate in 3D is terrifying.

There's a reason why getting a pilots license is much harder than getting a driving license. And the idiots I see around me talking on their phone, texting while driving, and weaving all over the place and making random lane changes ... these people in a flying car would be utterly dangerous.

Perhaps if they posted about their product on well know tech blogs with links to contribute then maybe it will work.

If you're about $3 Million short of being able to start your prototypes, pay your lawyers, and move into your offices ... you need much more than publicity.

'In detail we aim to create an urban dual-mode, hybrid flight and electric drive motorized vehicle that fits into sustainable mobility.'

Does it have gattling guns? Can it be used for urban pacification? Does it have stealth technology?

If not ... well, you're just another in a long line of people hoping to create a flying car.

Many of us have long since relegated the idea into the long-since cliche bucket. And since I don't trust most people to drive in the mostly 2 dimensions offered by cars ... I really don't trust most people with a z axis.

If you want to save money, here's a hint ... don't get offices in Silicon Valley before you've got a product.