OT-Zero Tolerance policies gone way too far...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:13 pm

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/my ... 276459.htm

The school has no business here. None. This Zero Tolerance business has what should be teachers turned into kneejerking halfwits and the arbiters of what happens off campus, as well, apparently...there's not a strong enough word to describe the stupidity of this baloney.

GridIronGhost · Post by **GridIronGhost** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:31 pm

Wow...I have to disagree with you 100%

Diablo25 · Post by **Diablo25** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:33 pm

tealboy03 wrote:http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/my ... 276459.htm

The school has no business here. None. This Zero Tolerance business has what should be teachers turned into kneejerking halfwits and the arbiters of what happens off campus, as well, apparently...there's not a strong enough word to describe the stupidity of this baloney.

Don't blame teachers...ADMINISTRATORS would make that decision.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:05 pm

Umm...I disagree 100% as well. The school SHOULD be involved...who knows, they might have just prevented another Columbine tragedy.

mobiggins · Post by **mobiggins** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:11 pm

Teal, your argument is simply ignorant. Also typically reflective of the wildly irrational right-wing view on gun possession.

I teach high school, and if a parent came to me with this concern you're damn sure I'd go to the school resource officer. As teachers, we are placed in loco parentis for a good chunk of these kids lives. You'd better believe that if a kid gets a hold of a gun illegally and I or any teacher hears about it, we should be concerned and notify the proper authorities.

Diablo25 · Post by **Diablo25** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:18 pm

I apologize - I misunderstood the article. I'm with mobiggins on this one. I really don't know what other choice there is.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:19 pm

The right-wing position on guns is not wildly irrational. It's in black and white in the Constitution. What irrational is trying to reason away the Constitution by "interpreting" the intentions of the people who wrote it.

I think it's fine for the school to call police in this case. It was entirely appropriate.

What's stupid is suspending the kid because the weapon "could have been brought" to school. That could open the door to all sorts of invasions of privacy. They could suspend him for getting in trouble with law and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but enforcing school rules outside school is idiotic. I know lots of kids growing up who went hunting with their dads. Going by the school's logic, they'd be in trouble too.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:44 pm

FatPitcher wrote:I know lots of kids growing up who went hunting with their dads. Going by the school's logic, they'd be in trouble too.

Not really...that's not even close to being the same thing. I doubt that after their hunting trip, they are planning on swapping the guns for a game console with the neighborhood kids. It's a COMPLETELY different situation.

J · Post by J » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:48 pm

The kids were planning to do something ILLEGAL. Doesn't matter what it was. The teacher absolutely did the right thing.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:56 pm

Well thankfully the Xbox never made it to school because that would have been a real problem. One gun can only do so much damage. Having an Xbox loaded with a copy of Grand Theft Auto could have had a far more damaging effect. The school could have been blamed for any violent incident by any student that came in contact with it for the rest of their lives.

Final scorecard from this news story...

Those with Common Sense - 1

Right Wing Lunatics - 0

Bleeding Heart Liberals who blame everything but the parents- 0

thebigcaptain · Post by **thebigcaptain** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:01 am

FatPitcher wrote:
What's stupid is suspending the kid because the weapon "could have been brought" to school. That could open the door to all sorts of invasions of privacy. They could suspend him for getting in trouble with law and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but enforcing school rules outside school is idiotic.

how can anyone possibly interpret a student offering a stolen loaded handgun to a fellow student in exchange for an xbox as not being sufficient grounds for suspension?
intervention in this case by the authorites and the school is entirely justified.
this isn't just "a school rule" here we're talking about.

all that being said, there are some troubling aspects of this story.
the grandfather's story doesn't make sense.

he thought the gun had been stolen in a break in and he didn't report it?
a gun that he claims he kept hidden in the back of a closet with the ammo separately stashed in a nightstand?
he figures this nine year old took a ladder, climbed up and pried open a window and took both the handgun and the ammo that he had so carefully hidden?
oh yeah, he's cooperating with the authorities.
whatta guy.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:25 am

It's in black and white in the Constitution. What irrational is trying to reason away the Constitution by "interpreting" the intentions of the people who wrote it.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Actually it is as far from black and white as you can get. Especially when you break it down.

The first clause
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State

The second clause
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

From my understanding of the constitution the SECOND clause is CONTROLLED by the FIRST clause.

How did this 9 year old know that the fellow child he was selling the gun to would use it to protect the United States or as it was ratified in 1791 to protect against theives, bandits, Native Americans or GASP a slave uprising.

Wait a second... We now let Native Americans and African Americans carry guns, as long as they have the proper permits. Oh how times and the constituion have changed.

Black and White? Furthest thing form the truth.

mobiggins · Post by **mobiggins** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:47 am

heh...thanks, bd.
saved me some typing. well put.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:57 am

mobiggins wrote:Teal, your argument is simply ignorant. Also typically reflective of the wildly irrational right-wing view on gun possession.

I teach high school, and if a parent came to me with this concern you're damn sure I'd go to the school resource officer. As teachers, we are placed in loco parentis for a good chunk of these kids lives. You'd better believe that if a kid gets a hold of a gun illegally and I or any teacher hears about it, we should be concerned and notify the proper authorities.

Mo:

Notify authorities? Sure. Kick a kid out of school for possession of an idea? No friggin' way. No gun on school grounds=no grounds for suspension. It's a stupid thing the kid tried to do, no doubt. He has no business anywhere near a gun (take the irrational right wing stuff and shove it-it's just flamey garbage and immature), but the school has no business suspending a kid because they found a gun at his house. Had he made it to school, ok. But this is outside the jurisdiction of the school. Not the law. The school.

Make no mistake-I'd kick my son's butt for doing something that idiotic. But that's my business, not the school's. Not until he's broken some real rule. He made no threats against the school...the little moron wanted an Xbox. The gun was nowhere near the school.

So if I'm in school and I wanted to trade a knife for a PSP, but I never got to the school with a knife, what school rule have I violated? The Xbox kid did the right thing. The police came and found the gun (at the kid's home). And their reasoning is that it was possible he would've brought it to school, so let's suspend him and have a school hearing?

What kind of twisted logic makes that a plausible solution? I mean, this is Minority Report level stuff here-precognition.

Oh, and Mo...the only ignorant person in this thread is you. You need to grow up and dissent with some degree of decorum and dignity, especially if you're a school teacher. I sure hope you don't respond that way to students who disagree with you...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:03 am

GridIronGhost wrote:Wow...I have to disagree with you 100%

Diablo25 wrote:I apologize - I misunderstood the article. I'm with mobiggins on this one. I really don't know what other choice there is.

See how easy that is, Mo, bd? Smarmy smartasses not necessary.

Sully · Post by **Sully** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:20 am

The kid conspired to bring a gun to school, and trade it for an XBOX.

Regardless of whether or not the gun made it on to school grounds, he intended for it to eventually.

Teal, you're basically saying that a kid can conspire to bring a gun to school and open fire. However, if he's caught before making it out of his house, is it still OK for him to attend that school?

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:22 am

tealboy03 wrote:
GridIronGhost wrote:Wow...I have to disagree with you 100%

Diablo25 wrote:I apologize - I misunderstood the article. I'm with mobiggins on this one. I really don't know what other choice there is.

See how easy that is, Mo, bd? Smarmy smartasses not necessary.

Yet you still felt compelled to reply with

Oh, and Mo...the only ignorant person in this thread is you. You need to grow up and dissent with some degree of decorum and dignity, especially if you're a school teacher. I sure hope you don't respond that way to students who disagree with you...

PS. Michael Schiavo read your comments on him and thought you might want to look up Smarmy in the dictionary.

You know the ones like

This d*****bag and the courts don't give three shits about Shiavo.

The bastard who wants this done so badly has been offered a cool million, been pleaded with by the woman's family, and has been SHACKING UP WITH SOME BROAD for years....but he wants what's best for Terri. Right. Bullshit.

thebigcaptain · Post by **thebigcaptain** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:35 am

tealboy03 wrote:

Notify authorities? Sure. Kick a kid out of school for possession of an idea? No friggin' way. No gun on school grounds=no grounds for suspension.

wrong wrong wrong.
nobody is kicking a kid out of school for "possession of an idea."

he offered to trade a handgun to another student and he had access
to this loaded weapon in question, because he went to great lengths to steal it from his grandfather, if we are to believe the grandfather's story as he tells it.

an evaluation of exactly what is going on with this child and his background is in order before he sits next to somebody else's child in a classroom.

additionally, suspension is not "kicking a kid out of school."
that would be expulsion.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:37 am

Sully wrote:The kid conspired to bring a gun to school, and trade it for an XBOX.

Regardless of whether or not the gun made it on to school grounds, he intended for it to eventually.

Teal, you're basically saying that a kid can conspire to bring a gun to school and open fire, but as long as he doesn't make it out of his house with the weapon....

No, Sully, I'm not saying that. The kid has no history, has made no threats against the school, and had planned to trade it for an Xbox, not shoot people. I'm not saying, either, that it wasn't stupid. It was, incredibly inept. The authorities handled it, will continue to handle it, and that should be the end of it.

Kids get suspended for drawing pictures of a gun, for making a gun with their thumb and index finger, for bringing a gun from a GI Joe doll to school, for saying the word "gun". It's kneejerk. Now to suspend a kid from school for something that the kid DIDN'T have? It's ridiculous. Sure, if they'd found blueprints of the school and a kill list. But it's over an Xbox-gun trade that never materialized thanks to a quick thinking teacher and a kid with enough sense to tell somebody before anyone got into trouble.

The bottom line is this: no known conspiracy to do anything but make a trade, no transaction was made, no gun whatsoever at the school. Nothing to suspend the kid for. Hell, it doesn't even fall under Zero Tolerance. Nothing happened at the school.

The kid may have changed his mind overnight. He may have gotten cold feet, or came to his senses and realized the stupidity of even thinking of carrying a gun to school. To punish a
potentialinfraction??

"Hey kid, you're being suspended for the future possibility that you might bring a gun to school to trade for an Xbox. We know you haven't done it, but you just might, so we're gonna go ahead and drop the hammer...just to be on the safe side."

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:42 am

bdoughty wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:
GridIronGhost wrote:Wow...I have to disagree with you 100%

Diablo25 wrote:I apologize - I misunderstood the article. I'm with mobiggins on this one. I really don't know what other choice there is.

See how easy that is, Mo, bd? Smarmy smartasses not necessary.

Yet you still felt compelled to reply with

Oh, and Mo...the only ignorant person in this thread is you. You need to grow up and dissent with some degree of decorum and dignity, especially if you're a school teacher. I sure hope you don't respond that way to students who disagree with you...

PS. Michael Schiavo read your comments on him and thought you might want to look up Smarmy in the dictionary.

You know the ones like

This d*****bag and the courts don't give three shits about Shiavo.

The bastard who wants this done so badly has been offered a cool million, been pleaded with by the woman's family, and has been SHACKING UP WITH SOME BROAD for years....but he wants what's best for Terri. Right. Bullshit.

Cute. Your real name wouldn't be George Felos, now would it?

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:56 am

Cute. Your real name wouldn't be George Felos, now would it?

Back again with the sarcasm that you claim you can live without.

I am simply providing comments you have made which are in stark contrast to what you expect from others to follow when posting here.

Matthew 7:1-2

thebigcaptain · Post by **thebigcaptain** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:53 am

tealboy03 wrote: No, Sully, I'm not saying that. The kid has no history, has made no threats against the school, and had planned to trade it for an Xbox, not shoot people. I'm not saying, either, that it wasn't stupid. It was, incredibly inept. The authorities handled it, will continue to handle it, and that should be the end of it.

Kids get suspended for drawing pictures of a gun, for making a gun with their thumb and index finger, for bringing a gun from a GI Joe doll to school, for saying the word "gun". It's kneejerk. Now to suspend a kid from school for something that the kid DIDN'T have? It's ridiculous. Sure, if they'd found blueprints of the school and a kill list. But it's over an Xbox-gun trade that never materialized thanks to a quick thinking teacher and a kid with enough sense to tell somebody before anyone got into trouble.

The bottom line is this: no known conspiracy to do anything but make a trade, no transaction was made, no gun whatsoever at the school. Nothing to suspend the kid for. Hell, it doesn't even fall under Zero Tolerance. Nothing happened at the school.

The kid may have changed his mind overnight. He may have gotten cold feet, or came to his senses and realized the stupidity of even thinking of carrying a gun to school. To punish a
potentialinfraction??

"Hey kid, you're being suspended for the future possibility that you might bring a gun to school to trade for an Xbox. We know you haven't done it, but you just might, so we're gonna go ahead and drop the hammer...just to be on the safe side."

i'm a little confused.

he didn't draw a picture of a gun.
he didn't make a finger gesture of a gun.
he didn't bring a gi joe doll gun into school.
he didn't merely utter the word "gun."

he stole a handgun and offered to bring it into school to trade it for an xbox with another student. you say this is "nothing" to suspend a kid for.

define "nothing" versus "something" for me.

it wasn't for lack of trying that this transaction did not happen.
you say the kid has no history.
how many times is he entitled to try this before you'll grant him a history?
once?
twice?
thrice?

define "history" for me.

"Hey kid, you're being suspended for the future possibility that you might bring a gun to school to trade for an Xbox. We know you haven't done it, but you just might, so we're gonna go ahead and drop the hammer...just to be on the safe side."

[/quote]

that's the first thing you've said that makes sense.
of course, your vernacular of "drop the hammer" could use some clarification. a suspension of his attendance in class until this matter is more fully investigated and everybody, including law enforcement, educators, and the parents of all the other children in the classrooms are comfortable that he sees the error of his ways doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me.

so go ahead and roll your eyes.
i'm sure there are parents in columbine that can no longer pose with their child for a christmas photo that might want to pursue this further with you, if they only had the strength. fortunately, none of them frequent this group, and hopefully nobody in this group will ever find themselves in their sad situation.

mobiggins · Post by **mobiggins** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:44 am

Actually, teal, I called your opinion ignorant, not you. But I think your replies have fused any distinction between the two into one uncomfortable reality.

And I don't understand how I'm flaming by saying that your reaction corresponds to typical right-wing knee-jerk views on gun control. It DOES, and I'm not the only one flaming in here judging by others replies to you and to FatPitcher.

I think it's quaint how you always introduce your extreme views on these incendiary topics to the forum by posting these threads and acting like your viewpoint is so rational and common-sensical...only to have it get blown out of the water by the truly rational posters in this forum.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:45 am

So let's say two kids make a pact to kill another kid. They draw up a plan, but never make it to school grounds. You're saying since it was just the idea of killing the kid, the school shouldn't take any action.

What does it say about a 9-year old who pulls off a well-planned B&E to get his grandpa's gun? You want that kid sitting next to yours?

When I was in high school (and granted, it was Catholic school), the school had a policy that if you were caught with alcohol or drugs outside of school grounds (e.g. at a party), you could be suspended. At the time, I thought it was the biggest bunch of crap I'd ever heard. But now I get what they were trying to do.

Also, anyone who talks about knee jerk teachers blah blah blah should go spend a week at a school. My father-in-law just retired from 30 years of teaching at a high school that went slowly down the toilet, a school that developed some fairly serious gang problems. Imagine what your workday would be like if you had to:

--walk through a metal detector.
--listen to people reporting to you (i.e. students) swear at you and refuse to cooperate, and you couldn't fire them.
--break up fights.
--deal with d*****bag parents telling you how to do your job.
--constantly search for illegal and possibly dangerous contraband.
--had to deal with other people's screwed up family situations.

Most schools don't deal with all of these problems, but every single one deals with at least a couple.

Digital Sportspage

OT-Zero Tolerance policies gone way too far...

OT-Zero Tolerance policies gone way too far...

Re: OT-Zero Tolerance policies gone way too far...