Prince William VS Government

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #1

North County Times

"Prince William's posting to Falklands defended"

http://www.nctimes.com/ap/entertainment/prince-william-s-posting-to-falklands-defended/article_6681a97d-3be5-5a25-907a-fda70a196e35.html

Prince William of Britain wants to fight in military, but government won't let him

Prince William was deployed for the Falkland Islands despite attempts by the British government. Britain owns most of the land, but Argentina has claimed the Falkland Islands. He was sent to a British outpost on the islands. Argentina claimed this was a "provocative act" and that the British meant to have another war to overtake their islands. The British insisted it was not, and do not approve of Prince William serving in the military, however, Prince William as well as his brother, Prince Harry, have served in Britain's armed forces for quite some time and do not plan to stop now.

This connects to what we are studying in class because Britain/England, where Prince William is from, explored the Americas and colonized there. They were part of the Colombian exchange and claimed land in the Americas such as Virginia. Also, the simple fact that an American newspaper is making news about something going on in Britain shows that the Colombian exchange never ceases. We still exchange ideas, goods, new ways of life, government ideas, and so forth.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I have also been forced not to do something, as I am sure we all have at one point, because of the "dangers" and "possible fatalities" and so forth from our parents. Here Prince William is the child and the British government is the parent. Also, false accusations have been made. Argentina accused Prince William and Britain of trying to overtake their islands because of a simple deployment. This has happened so many times in my family household.

I believe that Prince William and Prince Harry should be allowed to be in the military if they wish, but be suspended from serving should a war or battle arise. Therefore, they could guard and protect their country, but they could not be injured badly. For example, Prince William should have been allowed to be deployed to that island, but if the tension were to rise too much and break out into violence, he would be removed from the area immediately, because any enemies would go straight for royalty. He would be much too vulnerable. Therefore, you can see that I believe the best thing for Prince Harry and Prince William would be that they are allowed to serve in the military, but with extra safety restrictions.

Can You Really Trust the Police?

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #5

North County Times

"School police union slammed for edgy t-shirts"

http://www.nctimes.com/ap/national/school-police-union-slammed-for-edgy-t-shirts/article_5037be18-1a79-5698-a717-a117497479c3.html

Police in Northern California Wear Inappropriate Shirts

In Northern California, a small police department was seen wearing offensive T-shirts. They had a picture of a child behind bars while bearing the phrase, "You raise 'em, we cage 'em". Many complaints were made by people who saw the shirts. The department did not have a good reputation as it was, and these shirts did not improve it. The police chief bears the blame as well as the entire department. They were asked not to wear them and to apologize.

This connects to what we are learning in class because the First Amendment states the freedom of speech. This would pertain to the police being allowed to wear the offending shirts because they are given the right to have freedom of expression. Also, the Tenth Amendment states rights retained by the states, such as the right to be responsible for their police departments.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I have seen some extremely offending shirts worn by some extremely scary people, but never by officials of the law. Also, I have been pretty surprised at the things the police or firemen have done when you thought they were such good citizens. Another connection I can make is that I once met a police officer who was very proud of his rank as police officer and would never do anything such as wear a t-shirt that would offend children, of which I was one and was good friends with this officer.

I believe that these police should have known better and they should have not worn the t-shirts in the first place. When the article said, "Town leaders said the fundraising shirts are highly offensive and fuel mistrust of the Twin Rivers Police Department in North Highlands", it only makes me think more that these shirts should not have been worn in the first place and this police department is not careful or lawful enough for a police department.

They Take Your Lunch but Not Your Phone

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #4

North County Times

"Police: Men took Pa. teens sandwich at gunpoint"

http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/police-men-took-pa-teens-sandwich-at-gunpoint/article_6555955f-3a9e-5218-ab07-a6a12572a21b.html

Two Men Stole a Sandwich from a Teen at Gunpoint

Two men apparently approached a teenager and pointed a gun at his head before rifling through his pockets and, upon finding a meatball sandwich, took it and ran away to their car without stealing anything else from the teen. Although the teen did have a phone in his pockets, they apparently only had interest for the meatball sandwich. Talk about "Give me your lunch money" here it was "Give me your lunch." The teen called police and gave them a description of the car they drove away in. The police thereafter soon found the car and arrested the two men for robbery. They are being held under a $150,000 bail.

This connects to what we are learning in class because we learned in the Bill of Rights that people accused of a crime are to be held with a bail before the trial, and that no person can be given excessive bail. We also learned in the Bill of Rights Amendment Six that police cannot arrest someone without reasonable motives.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I am, in fact, a teenager. Also, although I do not like meatball sandwiches, what was contained in that teen's pockets are very similar to what I carry around with me. Another connecting is that this could have easily happened to me and this is similar to what happens in cheesy television shows that I am sometimes forced to watch.

My opinion is that these people were amateurs who were extremely frightened and did not want to chance getting caught so they took what they found immediately and ran. I believe this because of when the article says, "The men allegedly took his sandwich before fleeing in a car." The use of the word "fleeing" and the quick escape suggests that the two men were new at being criminals and were extremely nervous of being caught. I believe they just wanted to feel the "exhilaration" or whatever feeling you could possibly get from committing a crime and not actually steal anything of substantial value.