Florida Officials Bow to Doc's "Three Points" of ZT

[jmr40]

Zero tolerance laws exist today because the public demanded them. Teachers have always opposed them because we knew from the beginning that eventually good kids would get caught in a trap designed to get bad kids out of school. It is the teachers who have pushed to get policies changed so that now there is a way out for kids who make a mistake like the girl in Florida.

If this girl is harmed from this event it will be from the media attention. Most of these cases are handled with only the police, the family, and a few school administrators ever knowing about it. Most families like it that way and are thankful their kid only got a few days suspension.

No one seems willing to admit that this girl bears some responsibility. Signs are clearly posted all over schools and teachers and administrators are required to discuss weapons policies several times a year. Counting kindergarten this kid has been in school for 5 1/2 years now.

 

[joab]

Hint...recall only parents (or in urgent cases a judge) can give police permission to talk to child.

Was the girl questioned by the police?
Do they need the parents permission to take her into custody?

You know that it was ruled long ago that a child's rights are severely limited while on school grounds understate control
You seem to be filling in the blanks with your own logic
No where has it been said that she was interrogated by police and no state in the country requires parent permission before an arrest for a felony can be made
A student can have a hearing to appeal a suspension but where is it mandated that there be one before hand?
Ans was there one in the days between the story breaking and this new news of the suspension?

If the child's life is destroyed over this she had no spirit to begin with and she can blame her parents, who so far have not impressed me much

Have you applied to a college lately? I'd almost guarantee that this comes up when this girl does. She may very well be denied entrance to a university because of that note in her school record. You don't think that has the potential to drastically change the outcome of her life?

No I haven't and I doubt you have either
My son is 17 and he is applying
He has been suspended twice in high school
Once for telling a teacher to "F" off after she disrespected Puerto Ricans in front of him, not knowing that he was half PR
And once for bringing porn to school on his I Pod or phone or something ( Man
taking a dump in a field with an amorous donkey)
He was suspended in 9th grade for fighting
He was brought into the principles office and interrogated by his teacher, a school counselor, a rep for DCS, along with the school resource officer
Because a teacher overheard him say the word "Gun" to another student when he was 10

Not once have the incidents been brought up

 

[Geno]

A couple of facts here:

School administration must execute the investigation of the ZT 3 criteria, not the police.

The student(s) have the right to have their parent(s)/guardians present when questioned. I say it is mandatory.

The student(s) have the right to have legal representation when questioned. I strongly suggest it if the investigation can result in legal charges.

The student(s) have the right to call witnesses in their defense. I say it is mandatory if there are others who have knowledge of the event.

If and only if, the school's administration determines that all three ZT criteria are met, should the student be suspended pending expulsion hearing at the Board. The administration must then also notify the police.

The student and/or the parent(s)/guardian(s) have the right to request an appeal, or to request a stay from the courts regarding the process, and this is especially necessary where either substantive or procedural due process are in question.

The police have virtually no authority on school campuses, unless the school administration request their involvement. That is where the police belong...off campus. The school's administration needs to involve parents, and other students proactively, not the police reactively.

As I have already stated, I have escorted a couple of LEOs right off school grounds, because they pushed for me to violate these standards. Fact is, if these "LEO"s had felt they had such a solid case against a child, they never would have sought short-cuts through me, right? As I already have said, I have been called up, under oath, more than once regarding how the investigation went down.

Judges tend to affirm the adherence to substantive and procedural due process, whether you do or not. The judges always have approved of my method, as did parents, and students, etc. Why? I did it right. There is something uncommon about common sense.

Doc2005

 

[Coronach]

Have you applied to a college lately? I'd almost guarantee that this comes up when this girl does. She may very well be denied entrance to a university because of that note in her school record. You don't think that has the potential to drastically change the outcome of her life?

In light of

The girl, whose name has not been released, was arrested after teachers at Sunrise Elementary School saw her use a 41/2-inch knife on a steak. She was also suspended from school for three days.

(emphasis mine) I'm going to go with "No, I don't think it does."

Still stupid, though. I carried a steak knife with my pack lunch. How else are you supposed to cut up meat and fruit and such?

Mike

 

[jmr40]

AZRickD, I would like to ask where you and all of your activist buddies were 15 or 20 years ago when the Zero Tolerance laws were being forced down the throats of teachers who opposed them. When we tried to warn of possioble dangers we were shouted down by another group of hot headed activists demanding safer schools. Instead of flooding a school with e-mail, letters, and phone calls complaining about laws the teachers also oppose, your efforts should have been directed to those who can change the law.

That is what teachers have done. This kid was not charged with a crime. She did not serve one day in a youth detention center, and she was not expelled from school. Contrary to published reports I seriously doubt she was ever placed under arrest. All of these things would have happened if not for teachers and school administrators fighting to change policy.

 

[AZRickD]

Coro:

"I'm going to go with "No, I don't think it does."

You don't think that having that charge on her record won't pose problems when left-wing college admissions droids review her records? Please tell us why you think that.

JMR:

"AZRickD, I would like to ask where you and all of your activist buddies were 15 or 20 years ago..."

Yours is a very odd question. I wasn't aware that time travel had any bearing on this particular activism. But, to humor you, we were paying visits to our state legislators to keep them from passing laws that backed up these mere school-based policies. Several bills threatened to shut down high-school rifle teams among other things. Those bills were defeated.

No one seems willing to admit that this girl bears some responsibility...

She's ten. She broke no laws. Her only infraction was to violate a ZT rule which defies logic to a little girl who couldn't summon an adult skill-set to create the cognitive dissonance required for her to make sense of a situation where the peaceful use of an eating utensil equates to FELONY PROSECUTION and a PRISON SENTENCE.

Do you really think that any of us liberty-minded THRers would buy your equation?

To reiterate, since she "bears some responsibility," to follow your statement to its logical conclusion, she should be indicted, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, imprisoned, and, maybe even pay a fine.

Your time would be better spent thanking the county attorney for not biting on the school lunch droid's hysteria.

Anyone have contact information for that office? At least we could get some activism out of this.

 

[AZRickD]

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/contact_us/index.html

http://co.hernando.fl.us/judicial/#state/

E-mails sent.

I'm sure it was "just a waste of time."

 

[tabsr]

Teachers and Adm Sad

Too many state laws that violate the Constition and have not been tested due to $$. Instruct your children to keep quiet and state "I need to call my attorney". Have them carry the attorney card or phone number. This will cause total flummox with the school officials and arresting police officers.

Do not trust the school administration or the liberal teachers judgement. Regretfully, intelligence and reason no longer matter.

 

[AZRickD]

As with legislatures, whacko ZT-loving administrators are under requirement to prove that their policies "work to reduce violence." But I don't think ZT-LA implement these policies toward that goal. They just like control.

http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2443510
"Playing with guns is good for boys" (2003)

"Boys who have been banned from playing at soldiers, pirates, or superheroes, become disruptive and live up to a 'bad boy' image... nurseries that had relaxed their ban on guns, swords and violent games reported that boys had more fun together, made closer friendships, and became more creative in other areas of play, such as dressing up as princes in fairy tales. Most such nurseries found that the amount of real fighting between boys declined."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtmlxml=/news/2007/12/29/nguns129.xml

now only at http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/McDNLmain.htm

in abbreviated form

"Guns return to the nursery school toy chest" (2000)

"A BAN on toy guns in nurseries is being relaxed as new research suggests that they reduce aggression. Far from encouraging violence, they lead to more imaginative and calmer play, says Penny Holland, of the University of North London, a lecturer in childhood studies..."

 

[Jim K]

So ZT means no discretion at all about calling the police every time some kid does something that is politically incorrect? OK, Johnny frowns at Billy, the teacher calls the cops who burst into the Kindergarten class with grenades and machine guns and kill everyone in sight. Good show! The ZT people are happy, the principals (who stayed out of the line of fire) are happy, the KKK is happy if the kids are black, the VPC and the Brady campaign are happy.

So what could possibly be the problem?

Jim

 

[Geno]

ZT, as was originally designed and intended for application, was a great idea. However, in the modern world, many educators exercise zero common sense. When the 3 criteria are followed, the law is great. When the 3 criteria are not followed, lives can be ruined.

I worked with ZT for quite a while and never had to put a child out. But then, I exercised exceptional common sense, and openly expressed that I treated the students exactly the same as I treat my own family. My commitment to the school board was:

...to treat the students like they are my own younger brothers/sisters. Because we care about our brothers/sisters, we do not ever over-look their misdeeds, but we balance our actions it with compassion and a proper measure of discipline when needed.

Know what? It worked.

Doc2005

 

[joab]

School administration must execute the investigation of the ZT 3 criteria, not the police.

OK, but it's the police that arrest you for violating state law on a felony level.
That is what the girl did and why she was arrested by the police

I won't bore every one with a point by point

The parents could not be found
School policy is to notify the police whenever a weapon is confiscated, this is written in the policy book that the student and/or the parents signed

Beyond that we don't know what the scope of the investigation on the school's part
We do know that the girl was taken into custody for the felony of bringing a weapon, as defined by state statute, to school

We also do not know whether the parents protested the three day suspension

Again I ask you what of the limited constitutional rights of this child were violated by being arrested for knowingly and admittedly breaking a state law
What privacy laws were violated?

The bulk of your outrage seems to be fueled by supposition
My lack of outrage is fueled by the known facts

So what could possibly be the problem?

Too much hyperbole for your post to be taken seriously?

 

[Geno]

joab:

I have stated this multiple times, and very clearly. Return to the original post and read it.

1) Under the FPA, the LEOs are not allowed even to be in the same room with the child unless the parents are present...period, end of any discussion. To hades with the uncle.

2) At best the uncle has limited authority, i.e., he could take the child home if she were ill. However, he can not sign for surgical procedures, nor can he allow LEOs to talk to the child.

3) Also, as I said earlier, the school did not even get to confirming the 3 criteria thus requiring the LEOs be called. She did not break the law; she broke a rule. If she had broken the ZT law, then, and only then are the LEOs to be called, but only after the parents have been called. IMPO, they should lawyer up, and meet the LEOs are the school office with an attorney.

4) If the school was correct, and the LEOs were correct, why have all charges been dropped?

Heads will roll; heads should roll.

Doc2005

 

[Mustanger1]

JAOB and JMR40 you are two prime examples of HUA.

 

[Geno]

A gentle reminder, we can disagree, and we can even disagree vigorously. But in doing so, we have to contest positions, not people's character. Otherwise, this thread too will go the way of the previous. Closed.

Doc2005

 

[AZRickD]

Jim said,

So ZT means no discretion at all about calling the police every time some kid does something that is politically incorrect?

Looks like you read my links.

ZT started with guns and then it continued with nail clippers, Midol, insulin injectors, asthma inhalers, naughty words, hurt feelings, PC, and cartoon pictures of laser wars.

On the other hand, it appears that Joab and jmr haven't read much of anything. Joab continues to say that the child committed a felony when an earlier post in this and the previous thread showed that NO law was broken.

Doc, this thread is dead. Some people get upset when others activate. That shouldn't get us down. Just soldier on, bro.

Rick

 

[Geno]

Rick:

You may well be correct that this thread too will close. At least we have logged our words in these searchable threads. Others, who care, can sort through the facts versus the retorts.

Doc2005

 

[joab]

1) Under the FPA, the LEOs are not allowed even to be in the same room with the child unless the parents are present...period, end of any discussion. To hades with the uncle.

Were the police even in the same room when she was questioned?

2) At best the uncle has limited authority, i.e., he could take the child home if she were ill. However, he can not sign for surgical procedures, nor can he allow LEOs to talk to the child.

The article only states that she was released to the uncle, not how that permission was obtained or what authority the ungle had been given by the parents to act
Can you cite the law that says a juvenile cannot be taken into custody for committing a felony on school grounds?

3) Also, as I said earlier, the school did not even get to confirming the 3 criteria thus requiring the LEOs be called. She did not break the law; she broke a rule. If she had broken the ZT law, then, and only then are the LEOs to be called, but only after the parents have been called. IMPO, they should lawyer up, and meet the LEOs are the school office with an attorney.

It has already been established in the other thread that there is indeed a state law forbidding bringing knives onto a school campus unless authorized
So yes she broke a state law.
It has also been established that knives are forbidden by school policy and it has been established that school policy is to report any weapon on school grounds to the police
It has also been established that the parents were unreachable

4) If the school was correct, and the LEOs were correct, why have all charges been dropped?

Happens all the time
It simply means that prosecution was not in the best interest of the state, for any of many reasons

JAOB and JMR40 you are two prime examples of HUA.

Perhaps you would care to explain that comment

 

[AZRickD]

It has already been established in the other thread that there is indeed a state law forbidding bringing knives onto a school campus unless authorized
So yes she broke a state law.

That is a lie. I posted twice on that subject. Her actions did not rise to the level of a statute violation.

What on Earth is your problem?

 

[jmr40]

AZRickD, We agree on more points that we disagree. #1, Zero Tolerance laws need to be changed. It places everyone involved in a difficult situation. The thing that frustrates me is the way teachers have been talked about on these threads. We didn't ask for these laws and don't want them anymore than anyone else. But we look like crap when we get caught in the middle of something like this.

 

[Geno]

joab:

I finally have to ask, precisely what is or was your employment? I'm not trying to be a smart posterior, I simply am curious if you have been employed in education, specifically as an administrator? Have you worked under the ZT laws? Have you studied specifically school law, which varies radically from other areas of law?

Other areas of law are open to interpretation; educational law is not nearly as open to interpreting. Educational law is what it is, for predictability sake. Too, this is the reason public school administrators have such extensive powers, and not merely on campus, and not merely during the school year. An administrator possesses those legal powers over the students, 24/7 for whatever duration a child is matriculated in the district, even while that child is on vacation out-of-state. It was the administrative team that should have questioned the child, and should have done so when the parents were present. There was no clear and present danger in the child. ZT laws are perfectly clear.

I am not quite certain if you merely are being Devil's Advocate, or trying to have some on-going fun, but the extent to which you persist in misinterpreting ZT, in spite of me clarifying it, leads me to question the extent of your sincerity. When someone here, such as 1911tuner advises us on 1911s, it seems few question his expertness. Yet, in spite of my best efforts at advising and in fact having clearly, and accurately projected precisely what would happen, and for fact did happen in this case, you sit back and persist in this "folly". It rather boggles the mind.

We are talking about the life of an innocent, wonderful, sweet, little girl, not a 17-year-old gang-banger-thug. Given the fact that these matters have already been addressed in this, and other threads, I will simply respond to your questions by saying,

"Asked and answered. Re-read the posts."

Doc2005

 

[joab]

No Doc I am not a teacher nor do I have experience with ZT policies other than a father who was a retired teacher and a child that is in the school system now and a BIL that is a detective who spent about ten years of his career dealing specifically with juveniles
And I am aware that schools are a different set of rules

We seem to be butting heads on the whole ZT thing

There is no indication that she was interviewed by the police
She was suspended for willfully violating school policy on knives in school not expelled as ZT would indicate
She was arrested under state felony statutes forbidding knives on school property
There were attempts to contact the parents
When they failed she was taken into custody instead of being sent home

You can spout ZT theory and attempt to belittle my argument all you want, that doesn't change the fact that she willfully broke stated school policy and state law and that the school followed their stated policy of reporting all weapons to the police

It is the hyperbole and suppositions that I object to most of all
How do you know that this is a sweet wonderful 10 year old and not a little brat that finally got what was coming to her?I have seen absolutely no reference either way
When an argument degrades to these types of grand platitudes it become meaningless


We do not know if her parents were able or even chose to dispute the suspension
We do not know whether the police were in any way involved in questioning the girl. although indications are that they were not
We don't know half of the things you are presenting as fact


The facts we know are simple
She willfully broke state law and was arrested
She willfully broke school policy and was suspended

If you don't like the laws or rules work to change them
Don't try to paint this girl as a blameless victim who simply didn't know any better
Don't try to call griping about enforcing this policy in this single incident by sending expected, unread, and deleted whiny emails from the safety of your anonymous keyboard as activism

If you want to be an activist then be one and get the rules changed don't try to say that this girl didn't really violate the rules so she should be exempt from enforcement in this case

Anyone with access to a computer can send an e-mail
It takes a real activist to go down to the next school board meeting, town meeting or even request an audience with the governor and failing that a stage protest at where ever he is

Protesting isolated incidents by nit picking whether the individual actually met ALL the criterion for the rule to be enforced only reinforces the validity of the rule as it is written

Someone once said
"If you're not just a little uncomfortable with your position, it isn't radical enough"
I submit that if sending e-mails makes you even just a little uncomfortable then you aren't activist enough to wear the moniker

 

[Geno]

joab said:

You can spout ZT theory and attempt to belittle my argument all you want, that doesn't change the fact that she willfully broke stated school policy and state law and that the school followed their stated policy of reporting all weapons to the police

Interesting take, joab. I have never "spouted ZT theory..."; I have merely stated the facts of the law's intent. Nor have I attempted to belittle you. I asked a legitimate question, that being, are/were you an educator with knowledge of ZT, and merely having fun trying to pull people's chains.

My final statement in this thread is this: the school employees and the LEOs willfully violated several laws, and thereby the child's rights. The whole matter should have been dealt with via common sense. There, hopefully, will be some legal payback.

Doc2005

 

[joab]

I asked a legitimate question, that being, are/were you an educator with knowledge of ZT, and merely having fun trying to pull people's chains.

In other words since my argument cannot be considered valid I must just be having fun

What laws were broken other than the codified law against bringing knives onto school property, which is what she was arrested for?
She broke 790.115 (2)(a), a third degree felony
Which ones did the school or police break in taking her into custody for violating this law?

But of course she should sue that would be the only way to attempt to absolve herself of the blame for her willful actions in the case
But perhaps her parents will finally step up and use this as a life lesson and not blow this out of proportion as a life ruining event

She broke state law she was arrested for it, happens all the time

 

[AZRickD]

No. She did not violate that law. You need to read the law and the case law which was presented earlier in this thread and the previous thread. Both of which you've read but continue to ignore and not address.

Let me quote it for the third time:

The Florida legislature modified the wording of the "weapons" statutes (Chapter 790) to further define a knife. This was because some criminals beat concealed weapon charges for carrying meat cleavers and the like. The intent was not to turn an ordinary culinary tool into a classified weapon.

This was changed during the 2005/2006 legislative session and the new "extended" definition of knife to not include a common table knife or a plastic knife. This was more than likely due to some unpopular cases in 2004 on which the 4th District Court of Appeals overturned in 2007 even!

So the history of the law is that this was a knee jerk political response to the police being unable to prosecute or arrest someone for carrying a common table utensil! In the end, it all comes down to the purpose of the "weapon" Otherwise, I need to get rid of all my steak knives in my home. (I have a CWFL, so I guess I don't have to.)

So, is it just easy to say that she should have known it is a weapon... or, did she and her parents think it was a utensil!!! It is like saying that the little league baseball player knew his bat was a weapon, when he brought it to school to play baseball.

Let me help this thread out by offering some actual (read... real) case law about this topic...

Quote:
Under the undisputed facts, the steak knife may be a dirk, or an innocent household item. But that determination is one for the finder of fact based on a consideration of the circumstances, for example, the manner in which it was carried, how [accessible] it was to the accused, its purpose, or the accused's motive for carrying it, and its ability to cause harm to another.
Reference: Walthour, 876 So. 2d at 597
also see...
Reference: Coultas v. State, —So.2d—, (4DCA 2007)

And how you continue to imply that a ten-year old girl should have knowledge of all that (she would have to be to be fully culpable, right?) is beyond me.

JMR

the way teachers have been talked about on these threads.

Yes, I'm aware that these policies were pushed not by the teachers themselves, but their proxies. The administrators (former teachers), the NEA (teachers union), and the School Board (in bed with all of the above).

So, to say that current rank-and-file teachers didn't want ZT, might be correct. But former teachers and their philosophical mates are. It's a tangential defense at best, since 20 years post ZT, none of the objecting teachers have moved the pendulum the other way as they assume admin, union and school board powers.

You asked where was I 15 years ago on this issue. I ask, where are those teachers now?

Rick