Each week, we will post an article to this blog. Read the article and tell us what you think!
Posts Due: Sunday nights 11:59pm
Directions:
1. Read and Annotate: Underline make margin notes on the article (this will still be collected in class)
- Ask Questions
- Make a comment or statement
- Make an inference
- Mark confusion
- Record an idea
- Restate the tex
- Identify Key Ideas and Details
2. Post: TAKE A STAND and BE PERSUASIVE!
Choose one of the following options:
- Respond to a question at the bottom of each AoW. Use evidence to support your response.
- Reply (comment) to a teammate's response Summarize the argument made then add your own thoughts and evidence. Finally, post a question to keep the conversation going. Use evidence to support your response.
Note on professionalism: This is a public blog available and visible to students, teachers, parents and administrators within the WHEELS school community. Please make sure the content of your post is appropriate, professional, precise, and accurate! If you are worried about grammar or spelling, try composing in a word processor, use the spell/grammar check, then copy and paste to the blog.
*Article of the Week online blog is a structure adapted from Kelly Gallagher (KellyGallagher.org)
*Article of the Week online blog is a structure adapted from Kelly Gallagher (KellyGallagher.org)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBlack lives matter has been a movement that that has shook the world in these past couple of months especially the recent ramie rice case a 12 year old kid was seen as a "threat" by Cleveland police.Tamir rice was playing with a toy gun in a recreation center someone called the police on him and described him as an adult pointing guns at people and causing a disturbance. Cops pulled up and before the car even stopped the cop shot Tamir two times and killed him. Also the once deny with Freddie gray he had a crushed vows box and other injuries and officers still handled him like a animal he died later that day and there was many protest in Baltimore following the incident. I think it's time to question our law enforcement and teach them not to fear color and take innocent black lives.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of police brutality is something that in some cases will show the true colors or people. People have Different opinions and in this case it led to a mistrial. This is where the jurors could not be unanimous. Some people think that it is because of the difference in race which caused the mistrial, But there might have been other factors. The mistrial was a win for the prosecution because the first trial did nothing to the case, but polish there evidence and create more of a solid case against the defense.
ReplyDeleteI like your point of view but make sure to add evidence on your paragraph
DeleteOfficers Porters trial declared mistrial because the 12 jurors didn't come to an argument on a verdict of any of the charges. They were accused for an accident of a men who died in the back of the police car. They were charged for many different thing but at the end of the day the judge didn't come to an agreement. It was a mistrial this is a win for the prosecution.
ReplyDeleteOne reason the prosecution wins is because they had a strong case against officer William porter because he did current things wrong which caused his death. In the article it says, "Officer porter left Freedie Gray in such a dangerous situation when he failed to seat belt him and when he refused to provide him medical care,even though Freedie Gray had asked for care and told him he had difficulty breathing"(Democracy now pg3). This shows he wasn't doing a good job to keep the victim safe and that is why the prosecution has a strong case to win.
Another reason the prosecution is because more people are going to start to now about it and are going to protest for justice to be served for Freedie Gray. In this article it says,"I expect that Officer Porter only received a temporary reprieve and would be tried a second time"(Democracy Now pg3). This shows that on the second tried there will be more evidence to show that Officer Porter is guilty.
In conclusion Officer Porter should be guilty because he wasn't doing his job correctly to keep him safe. Not only that but now they have a stronger case for the second trial. this is why its a win for the prosecution.
Even though the defense was able to mach up with the prosecution and caused a mistrial. This just gives the prosecution more time to obtain evidence to throw at the defense. Also the mistrail is going to make this case more popular wich can cause the media to take notice and give more people insight of what's going on. "Officer porter left Freedie Gray in such a dangerous situation when he failed to seat belt him and when he refused to provide him medical care,even though Freedie Gray had asked for care and told him he had difficulty breathing"(Democracy now pg3). If there's a chance Freddie gray escapes justice again people will strike and let there opinions be known to the justice system.
ReplyDeleteA mistrial was declared in the trial of a Baltimore police officer charged in connection with the death of Freddy Gray after the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision. Freddy Gray was being brutally arrested, and was being man handled by a few officers. One in which went to trial named Officer Porter. Freddy Gray was in the back seat of a car, when he died because of a severe spinal injury occurred by being man handled by the cops. Porter faced second-degree assault, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless endangerment. According to sources, (Democracy Now) Freddy Gray said he needed medical care, but was ignored and denied. This is why Freddy Gray's trial was a mistrial.
ReplyDeleteThe mistrial happened because the jurors could not decide if officer porter was guilty or not guilty. This shows injustice because the officer did not take responsibility for the mistake he did. This is not the first time this had happened. You can relate this to Eric Garner's death. Injustice will continue unless the jurors make the right choice.
ReplyDeleteofficers porters trial declared because the 12 jurors did not come to an argument on a verdict to any of the charges. If office porter was guilty, this shows injustice because the officer did not take responsibility for his actions. Freddy Gray was in the back seat of a car, when he died because of a severe spinal injury occurred by being man handled by few officers. Porter faced second-degree assault, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless endangerment. It was a mistrial because when Freddy Gray needed medical care, he was ignored and denied.
ReplyDeleteIn Baltimore there was a mistrial on the case Officer Poerter.Officer porter was a mistrial because 12 judges didn't came to a agreement. Officer Poerter had many charges against the death of Freddyr Grey.In the article it stated, " "Officer porter left Freedie Gray in such a dangerous situation when he failed to seat belt him and when he refused to provide him medical care,even though Freedie Gray had asked for care and told him he had difficulty breathing"(Democracy now pg3) this shows that Officer Porter had done things he wasn't suppose to when he was trying to arrest Freddy Grey. Officer Porter had to give him the medical attention that he need when Freddie Grey told him he had difficulty breathing. He was chraged with second degree assult, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless endangerment.Officer Porter case was a mistrial becasue after the trial was done nothing happen to him because he wasnt charge with anything even though he killed/murder Freddie Grey.
ReplyDeleteschools should limit the right of the first amendment but they have to limit it to a certain point and not punish kids without them doing some huge . Some schools have students that like to abuse the fact that they have freedom of speech in school. In the article it spoke about how two kids didn't agree to stand up for the pledge of allegiance in a school in Georgia. They ended up getting suspended. In addition like the tinker case when he was suspended for wearing a black arm band and was punished even though he wasn't distracting anybody at school. I didn't agree with the fact that those kids were suspended. Okay they didn't want to stand during the pledge it wasn't like cursing a teacher out in the middle of class or doing something outrageous just to get people's attention.
ReplyDeleteSchools do have the right to limit a student's freedom. Reasons being in order for students to learn the best they can they need a safe environment. Limitations are especially required in school because they need to do the best they can to protect a few 100 students. ”some school officials have implemented speech codes arguing that they help ensure a safe learning environment by prohibiting students from engaging in harassing or so called hate speech”(Hudson.JR). millions of kids have died due to bullying so limitations for safety absolutely necessary. To add on of limitations were taken of some students would take advantage and abuse their right to freedom of speech. For instance in this case “ Bethel school district N0.403 vs Fraser that school officials did not violate the first amendment of a student suspended for giving a vulgar and lewd speech before the student assembly “( Hudson.JR) As you can see limitations stop students from abusing their freedom of speech and helps keep a safe environment. We also can't forget the fact that some students who act immature will make life much harder for teachers when they can say whatever they like. However students should express themselves and have the right to let people know they're opinion. On the other hand doing so in class can cause disruptions and lead into a domino effect where every student starts talking decreasing the learning time they have left. Also the limitations a school puts on its students Should also be limited. If a student voices their opinion in a calm fashion without being rude they're should be no problem. But if a student's words make someone feel uncomfortable or not safe then it should not be prohibited. All limitations do is help create a balance so why shouldn't they be allowed.
ReplyDeleteschool should bot limit freedom of speech because freedom of speech is a act that god gave ro everyone. everyone can be freeits just you just need to follow some rule in order to live the freedom in you. I think everyone should have freedom of speech in school because you can say what ever you want its you mouth but their rules you cant just say out of nowere and tell your teacher bad things because you dont like teachers.
ReplyDeleteSchools should have the right to limit a students freedom. Teens these days get too carried away with the whole "rights" thing so they think just because they have rights they can do or say whatever they want. Most people however think students should have the same rights as an adults according to the text , " Supreme court has said , minors do not posses the same level of constitutional rights as adults"(Hudson Jr 1). Basically students have to follow their offical school rules so any rights they have outside is not the rights they have in school. But however outside of school students basically have same rights as adults. According to the text , it says "However the principal would have limited if any authority to punish a student for criticizing a school offical"( Hudson Jr). So basically the student wont get as much trouble as if they were inside the school. But in school I feel like schools should be able to limit a students freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning freedom of speech, peacefully assemble and protest, and the right to petition the government. Should school have the right to limit some of these rights? I say yes, but should only limit the freedom of speech. Students express themselves In many ways. Either it's dressing a certain way, or art. However, if schools don't limit the students first amendment right to the freedom of speech, you are basically giving some a ticket to take advantage and say anything they want. It would be out of control, because if you ask them to stop talking, they'll say "I have the freedom of speech." In "The First Amendment" on page 2 it says, "school officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably forecast that the expression will cause a substantial disruption of school activities or will invade the rights of others.” (First Amendment 2). This showing how students' expression can't really be limited unless they take advantage of it like I said and do (say) whatever they want. Schools should just also limit the right to freedom of speech because it gives them the ability to focus without disruptions. If a person is talking, and talking and disrupting the whole class, and you can't do nothing about it because They have the freedom of speech, then no one is learning anything. As you can see, just limiting a students ability to talk when ever they want has a positive affect in school. However some people might say we should not limit a students rights in school because limiting it is limiting their ability to express them self but the only right we should limit is the right to freedom of speech. Therefore, schools should have the right to limit a students freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteschools should not limit freedom of speech. if schools do that, students are going to curse and they are going to feel free and be disrespectful. they are also going to feel free to wear and address them selves as they want. in section 2 of the article it stated," the highschools court ruled 7-2 that schools officials violated the first amendment right of three iowa students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school."those students thought they had the right to do what they want."in 1986 the supreme Court ruled in bethel school district no.403 v Fraser that school officials did not violate the first amendment rights of a student suspended for giving a vulgar and lewd speech before the student assembly. People will day that if they limit it that means they cant have the right to express themselves.
ReplyDeleteSchools should limit both freedom of speech and freedom of expression, because doing this creates a safer environment both physically and verbally inside the school premises. By this, I mean that if students wore uniforms, rather than their preferable clothing of choice, then adults such as teachers etc., would be able to tell whether there is an intruder inside the school. A piece of textual evidence that supports my claim is "… Uniforms make schools safer by making it easier to identify school visitors and intruders." (The First Amendment, pg. 3) This piece of textual evidence, gathered from The First Amendment, exhibits a rather good reason why freedom of expression should be limited inside school primacies. Another quote from The First Amendment that supports my thinking is "… Uniforms reduce the peer pressure associated with wearing expensive clothes." (The First Amendment, pg.3) This piece of textual evidence indicates that if students did not wear uniforms, they would get bullied and discriminated for what they like to wear. Wearing uniforms avoids this problem because if all students wore the same thing (Ex: Uniforms), there would be nothing to discriminate against. On the other hand, if students were given the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression, it would also be a good thing. This is because I believe that students should encourage their individuality and critical thinking, but wearing uniforms discourages that. A piece of textual evidence that further clarifies my reasoning is "… Uniforms discourage individuality and critical thinking." (The First Amendment, pg. 3) This piece of textual evidence showcases how uniforms prevent students from being who they are, as in showing how they feel, what they think about things, and how they are as a person. Over all, these are my reasons as to why schools should limit freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but why it would be good not to do so, as well.
ReplyDelete(Side note: I'm sorry that this assignment was given in 2 days late. It was because I did not have internet until now. I hope you understand. Thank you.)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This is the first amendment word for word. It gives us Americans the right to speak up for and against whatever we want, without government interference. Same with the press and other organisations. Since I am a highschool student, I am going to be focusing on the freedom of expression in schools. "Uniforms can threaten their expression rights and discourage individuality and critical thinking"(Hudson 2). Here is my problem with this, not wearing uniform leads to bullying. All teenagers care about is seeing people just like them, when they see someone with anything different, they get picked on. I've seen and been the victim of this. Its not just about expression. Adults tell us to express ourselves, our individuality, our personality- which the first amendment backs up. But in school, the restrictions are for our safety, not for any other reason.
ReplyDelete