Extortion alert

Supercriminal makes off with a 20-percent premium:

Justice has been served for a Farragut High School student after his suspension for buying an extra chicken nugget in the lunch line was overturned.

Carson Koller received the one-day suspension on Monday for buying the extra nugget.

Koller — a senior, Eagle Scout and the captain of the band’s drum line — was suspended for theft of property after he took six chicken nuggets from the lunch line instead of the usual five, to his mother’s outrage.

Mom was indeed wroth:

“How is it theft if he paid for it?” Koller’s mother, Carrie Koller Waller, wrote in a Facebook post. “It’s food. FOOD!!! Not weapons. Not drugs. Not alcohol. Not cheating on a test … I am shaking my head over this and not sure what to do. Laugh, punish, argue, dress him up as a nugget bandit, or let it go.”

For what it’s worth, the bottom of the chicken-nugget pyramid — a Banquet sub-meal with a handful of French fries, $1 at Walmart — contains a full six.


  1. fillyjonk »

    3 November 2016 · 7:25 am

    Some kind of violation of the new federal lunch rules, maybe? (I know someone who teaches in a local school and she has talked about how some of the limitations make it difficult, and how a lot more food gets wasted because the kids don’t like what they’re being served)

  2. McG »

    3 November 2016 · 7:31 am

    Or maybe it’s the same collectivist ethos that says you have a certain fair share, and if you buy (yes, buy) more than that you’re stealing from everybody else.

    Back when SUV owners were the scum of the earth, the commodity in question was gasoline. More recently it was health care. Now apparently it’s chicken nuggets.

  3. CGHill »

    3 November 2016 · 7:47 am

    The idea that there ought to be federal lunch rules is abhorrent.

  4. McG »

    4 November 2016 · 7:41 am

    SCOTUS left a loophole that lets the feds dictate how states can spend money they receive from D.C.

    They should either have closed that loophole, or found it unconstitutional to take money from the people in direct taxes and send it to states; if the feds don’t have a legitimate use for it themselves it should be returned to the people or — better yet — not taken in the first place.

  5. nightfly »

    4 November 2016 · 10:48 am

    Agree, McG – for that matter, I am of Mr. Hill’s opinion that the whole thing is abhorrent from the git-go. Federal rules for lunch?

    It’s a small example of what upset me so about Justice Roberts’ “tax is not a tax, but it’s OK because Congress is allowed to tax” nonsense. The power to raise funds through taxes presupposes that the purpose of the tax is, itself, lawful – the reverse, as we see in practice daily, is that we get taxed endlessly just for the giggles and the Congress decides how to spend it as they go along, like impatient five-year-olds in the toy aisle.

    If the purpose is unconstitutional, then so is the tax. But the feds have it backwards – they already have the tax, and threaten to withhold the spending if the purpose isn’t done to their satisfaction. But they shouldn’t have the money in the first place, and they shouldn’t be blackmailing the states and local school boards with it.

RSS feed for comments on this post