Reddit mentions: The best teen us history books

Some more information:

The woman who took the original photo also photographed the cover and copyright information. The name of this textbook is Prentice Hall Classics: A History of the United States by Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley, and this edition was published in 2007. Here's how Amazon describes it:

> Prentice Hall proudly introduces Classics— collection of our most beloved and timeless programs. The Prentice Hall Classics line brings back some of our bestselling programs with the added benefits of a new reduced price and an updated copyright. With Classics, you can count on: solid traditional instruction, a proven approach and sequence to the content, a return to your favorite program, and more value!

> A History of the United States' well-told story and classroom-tested resources are designed to address your changing curriculum needs. Exceptionally written by distinguished author Dr. Daniel J. Boorstin, along with Brooks Mather Kelley, the program incorporates key themes that help students develop a sound understanding of American history.

The first edition of this textbook was published in 1983. When it was revised in 1989, the publishing company forced them to revise the sections on slavery and the CRM due to racism. Several comments from the original tweet suggest that this passage came from the 1992 edition, though I'm not sure anyone's done a true comparison (but if this is post-revision, what did it look like before?!)

Also, Daniel J. Boorstin died in 2004 and Brooks Mather Kelley died in 2013.

Edit: Also, this woman's daughter is in a public charter school in Texas.

This is written on a middle school level, but it's a fairly well written text for a brief history of the US.

https://www.amazon.com/HISTORY-UNITED-STATES-STUDENT-2007/dp/0131335642/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

That is the book being spoken about. I don't know if the worksheet was a custom job or if it included in a teachers edition or what.

The Americans: With Atlas by Rand McNally

Lets go over some of these cases. In almost, again almost, all of them there is a single theme. The police have seen a crime (abuse, fleeing suspect, evidence about to be destroyed). The emphasis on this is they have SEEN a crime being committed, about to be committed or have been committed. These are all viable reasons to detain an individual. Short of you witnessing a crime inside a private domicile, you have no right to enter.
Even an anonymous call is not enough for you to enter without a warrant. If I call a cop on a neighbor saying he is currently beating the shit of out someone and you show up and actually SEE it, then we have a different story. However, if you show up, you don't see any abuse or violence, no one wants to open the door or talk to you, then you have to fuck off.

The issue with these cases becomes the police abuse of this clause, which happens more often than you think. The "we are here to ensure everyone is safe" is a blanket excuse to enter the premise without a warrant. It happened in the last link or perhaps all you need a suspicious bucket to enter. Perhaps they don't even need the excuse that someone is in danger and enter anyway. Continuing with the "anonymous tips" we have part 1 and part 2. Apparently your unconstitutional brethren in Las Vegas don't even need evidence to arrest a homeowner to investigate the neighbor. Tell me, how is that last example legal? There are many potential, and historic, abuses of the "we are here for your protection, citizen" excuse.

Oh, continuing your excuse of "we have a duty to ensure the safety of everyone", lets look at Castle Rock v. Gonzales which states the police are NOT there to protect the citizens. So, what is your new excuse for "we need to ensure people's safety", which is a phrase for, we need to protect people?

Moving onto the destruction of evidence BS. What gives you the right to enter a home on that excuse? What cause did you have a person was going to destroy evidence? A gut feeling? A mere suspicion? The "evidence" is PRIVATE property until a warrant is issued for its seizure. If Bob has files, paper or digital, that the police want, and you think he is going to destroy them it is HIS property to destroy.

Again, the potential, and historical, abuse for this is huge.

What you people, and I use that term loosely to describe police, fail to realize is the 4th Amendment is very clear on warrants and seizures. Passing a law doesn't make it constitutional. If you want to enter my house without a warrant to ensure someone's safety, then join Congress, enter a bill to amend the Constitution, and get it ratified by 2/3 of the states.

As far as me being condescending, I have what is called the First Amendment. I could quote that one for you too, but there is also this which could help you out. I'm still looking for that pop up for you.