Discussion in 'Activism' started by AZRickD, Dec 16, 2007.
So much to be peeved about. I'll have to buy a vowel.
No I don't I already know that it was in Bath Michigan in 1927
What I don't know is what you think that has to do with this discussion
Why do people keep bringing irrelevant tidbits into this discussion about a girl who knowingly ans willfully broke both state law and school policy this year
You do realize that this was done by an adult worker at the school over a period of about a year or so and not a student right
Too bad someone didn't ask why there was a ton of high explosives planted around the building though, huh?
Yes there is and it has been pointed out here several times
Yes you do, you are just refusing to acknowledge the sway it does hold.
Either that or you have no concept of what is going on outside of your little cubicle
Maybe because the police can talk to a juvenile being charge with a crime, how else are they going to say "You are under arrest" ?
I know I was talked to plenty by the police when they were investigating crimes
And nowhere in the article does it state that she was interrogated
People are more concerned with legalities than with what is "right" or "wrong" Makes me sick to hear about narrow minded thoughtless rule followers. It does no good. Laws treat symptoms and have never been and will never be the solution. Education, awareness and the promotion of conscientiousness will ensure that people have ideals, ethics and law or no law, they'll have the common sense to do what's reasonable and right.
This girl meant no harm, caused no harm and posed no threat. The idiots dealing with the situation should be sent off to be retrained or get shock therapy...
I swear on an ever increasing basis I feel like this country is becoming Nazi Germany. I know this is a little case, but things like this simply should not happen! If authorities can be this clueless and irrational, there's no hope.
Bath was much worse even than VT.45 dead teachers and students.See:
I know what you mean
It makes me sick when people won't read an entire thread before jumping in or at least the posts of the poster they are commenting on before they comment
Some will miss the point no matter what, maybe you don't have the capacity to examine other perspectives.
Whether or not the girl knowingly brought a steak knife to school, I don't care. She used it for her lunch....common now. What will she learn at the end of all this?? What will all the kids in that school learn? To be weak and do what you're told even when you don't agree? To not have independent and creative thoughts?? Like I said before, Nazi Germany. You'd think we'd be far from that...
I've never been the " a rules a rule" type and I feel that's the wrong thing to teach kids: "just blindly do what you're told even if you have other ideas or thoughts of your own". That's a good way to raise animals, not people.
Someone could have approached this incident differently. Talked with the girl, asked her why she thought she should break the rule.
Someday, I wouldn't be surprised that owning a gun will be against the rules. Personally, I won't be able to follow that rule on the basis that I don't believe it's right.
Lot's of mixed opinions on this subject, but I'd say there needs to be more young kids like that girl, who see through some of these weak meaningless rules. I'd do the same if I were in her position. If I felt that I needed a steak knife at lunch, I'd bring one.
I dont see it that way
There is a reason why we treat ten year olds like children.
She probably thought it applied to kids doing bad stuff and she was trying to eat like a lady.
It was up to the parents to insure that she wasn't going to get in trouble, not a ten year old. They do not have the comprehension or the attention span to figure stupid variations of ZT.
I couldn't explain to a child why butter knives are a safety/security issue because I don't understand it myself. The only two explanations that I see to make are: 1. Because the school says so, and 2. Because some knives are dangerous so we ban all knives.
I think I could give the first explanation but I would have to add that school is an arbitrary, irrational place in which you better do what you're told or we will punish you. Maybe I wouldn't have to say that, though, because I suspect that most kids would perceive it without being told.
The second explanation would be tougher for me to make because I wouldn't know how to respond if the child asked why kids who haven't done anything wrong should be punished because some kids did do wrong.
You can't really argue that butter knives are inherently dangerous. They aren't. They don't cut or pierce anything with more resistance than, say, butter. You could argue that they violate the rules because they are called "butter knives," and it's the name that's important. I can buy that argument without reservation. If I were the parent of a child in a school run that way my child would have no problems. Here, for example, is not a butter knife but a butter spreader,[/I like this one made by Oneida:
It is indeed called a Julliard Butter Spreader, not a butter knife, so it is not prohibited by school policy or Florida state law.
I most certainly would not allow my child to take a steak knife to that school in violation of school policy, but there's no policy against a bovine separation instrument. Of course I would not allow my child to take a toy gun to that school, but if the little tyke wanted to carry her hand/eye coordination device to show her friends there should be no objection.
People who fear names and words are entangled in superstition and unable to think clearly.
I have no difficulty at all in agreeing with "To avoid the issue of other documented incidents where children KILLED other children with knives in the same area, is a bit crass" as long as you will do it too, not merely pick and choose whatever supports your own irrational beliefs. Play fair.
So you must agree that we cannot avoid the issue of documented incidents where anyone kills children or anything is used to kill them. Unless we've completely lost our way the goal is--or should be--to help children stay alive. So you don't want to argue that it's okay to kill children in schools as long as you don't use anything prohibited by school policy to kill them. You also don't want to argue that it's okay to kill them as long as their killers aren't other children.
I want the school to ban every kind of instrument used to kill children of that age and every kind of person who has done it--and also the representations of those instruments and people. Do that and I will wholeheartedly support that preemptive approach because I will have absolute confidence that the policy will indeed save children's lives.
Then we could get rid of all principals, teachers, and other school employees, and convert the schools to condominiums or tear them down to provide much needed parking lots, and we all would save money on our taxes.
Do your homework on the instruments used to kill children and the people who do it. Cars and buses kill children: ban them from school property. Water, electricity and gas kill children: remove them from schools. Tainted food kills children: prohibit all food from schools. Stairways kill many children: remove them from schools. Broken glass kills children, disease kills children, ingesting small objects kills children .... Remove everything from all schools that have killed even one child anywhere. Other kids have indeed killed children and shall in the future: ban all children schools and school property. Parents have killed many children: ban them for sure. Teachers have killed children: teachers are a real danger to children and should not be allowed anywhere near them.
Do all that and I'm your man. I will support you and the school to the end, which should come quickly if its reasoning is applied as it should be. What good do you do by focusing on a stupid butter knife to the exclusion of the real killers of children.
And why create a system concerned only with their physical survival at the cost of their minds, spirits, emotions, and morale. Your school system has done a superb job of frightening kids, teaching them not to trust other children and all adults too, even their own parents, and to march in lockstep at the pace of the slowest child and the least competent teacher.
That system needs much more intelligent defenses than I've seen here, or anywhere else. The defenses that I have seen would pass as damnation in a reasonable society.
"The rules are the rules" isn't a defense, nor even a lame excuse, and most certainly not a justification for destroying young people. It's the kind of repressive thought that twists education into penal servitude.
I don't want kids sentenced to serve twelve years in government sponsored mental institutions where the goal is to make them docile, keep them away from sharp objects, and teach them as little as possible so as to kill time until they're released.
Ah yes... I do so enjoy Robert's wit, not to mention his logic. In all to many instances, today's schools destroy children, or at least impair their future, all in the name of safety and security. Of course it has little to do with real safety or security because the rules and regulations, not to mention laws, aren't really enforceable against those who would do violence, unless they are accidentally caught. So they go after those who have no criminal intent because that's much easier,safer and not at all dangerous.
The leftists that control today's public schools have no concern for students as individuals because socialist thinking tends to put people into faceless groups, and then set up various plans to support and supposedly benefit the group as a whole. Zero Tolerance by whatever name is designed to protect the whole, at the expense of individuals that get caught in its unforgiving (and usually unfair) web.
In the community where I live, private and state-supported charter schools in K through 12 now outnumber their public school counterparts. I suppose parents could and should rebel, but they seem to be taking the easier route of simply moving their children to other schools where they have more input, and find fewer loonies on the staff and running the classrooms.
The core issue here is not so much knives, guns or other weapons, but the way some schools are being run, and the obvious incompetence and political values of the educational establishment that is running them. Any school that is willing to trash a student, especially one in elementary school, just to make a point is one I wouldn’t send any child of mine to. Hopefully the parents in this school district will take a hard look at what’s happening to their kids and clean house.
But I wouldn’t bet on it. :banghead:
I would add that it is the way the schools are being allowed to be run
Which is my whole point
If you don't like the rules work to change them, but don't whine when you agree to follow them and get caught violating them
Th schools are only ruining the ruinable children those with heart will remember these incidents and work towards change in the future
Worthwhile parents have already started rebelling against the system by sending their children to better schools or home schooling them instead of whining about how their children are being mistreated for breaking rules that they agreed to make their children follow
Thank-you! Wow, 45. I thought it was 25. It's been a while since I read the article.
Incorrect! When a person's word can result in subsequent criminal prosecution, regardless of location, that person has 5th Amendment protections.
In loco parentis deals with the day-to-day running of the school, not criminal investigation. Where the potential for prosecution enters, only three people can permit discussion with police: parents or a judge. Most judges are too smart to allow this one!
If this kid gets prosecuted, heads will roll. Even if the kid does not get prosecuted, heads should roll. The prosecution may happen, but will never succeed. The first thing the defense should do is have all evidence tossed per illegally obtained.
Recall that I said I escorted a couple of state troopers to the property line...I'm not joking. They wanted to talk to the child, but did not have a judge's signature, nor the parents' permission. They were seriously urinated off with me and launched some threats on me. I made one phone call a professional acquaintance at their state headquarters...that misconduct stopped pretty darned fast.
Principals have tremendous power on campus, but the parents have more power when it comes to their children. There is NO in loco parentis when we are talking criminal prosecution...none.
Joab wrote, "Th[e] schools are only ruining the ruinable children..."
You do make a point, this will continue until so many people feel angry enough that they take action.
Most parents are so disconnected, that they probably fully support the "zero-tolerance zero judgement" system in place.... until their child gets suspended or arrested.
And if a few dozen children, per year, per school need to get mangled up in the gears, well... too bad for them.
And if one of these children actually DOES turn dangerous, hold a grudge and goes back to visit the principal in a few years, with an AK.... well... that's too bad, too.
I agree with you, but inexplicably the Supreme Court does not. In New Jersey vs. T.L.O., a principal searched kids' lockers without probable cause or a warrant because he was in loco parentis, then when he found drugs he switched to acting as an officer of the state and turned the evidence over to the police for prosecution. The SC said that this was proper, and not a violation of their constitutional rights.
In my opinion (which isn't worth much) any evidence obtained via in loco parentis should be inadmissible in court under the 4th and 5th Amendments. I may have my amendment numbers mixed up (I don't think so), but anyway the SC seems to think that while they are in school students give up all of their constitutional rights except a small remnant of the 1st Amendment.
Yes, yes, T.L.O. I recall it clearly. What I am saying is, go ahead and call the police...but, they may NOT talk to that child without the parents' permission.
Oh, and by the way, if the police requested the administrator to search, or continue to search, T.L.O. is out the window. Judges take that fact pretty seriously. I had to deal with it under oath more than once. T.L.O. is is not relevant.
Let me through out an interesting twist. An 18-year-old student comes to the front office and requests to view this CA-60. While he is 18, he is still enrolled as a student, and resides with the parents. Ergo, he is not fully emancipated. Can you allow the "adult" student to see their file without the parents' signature?
Answer: Absolutely not! The parents must fully give the signature to approve.
What is the evidence that this girl, who openly, and on several occasions, used a knife to cut her food in the lunch room without so much as a hiccup from the lunch lady, was aware of this rule?
Most schools require the student and parents to sign the handbook as a condition of being allowed to attend. However, in a worst-case scenario the student violated the handbook, not ZT.
If she knew, if she were told no, insubordination is the way to deal with it, not ZT. Give her a day out and drop it.
And a link to that handbook was given here in this thread, complete with the signature page
I have been known to openly;y speed past police cars on the interstate without so much as a hiccup from the officer, does that mean I should sit there and wonder why I am getting a ticket when he does hiccup.
Hell it doesn't even mean that he saw me do it, what evidence do you have that she was even observed by any staff when she brought the knife into the school on previous occasions
So are you goig to go on a "for the children tirade" here
And what if it rains on the third Friday of the fifth month for ten days and eight nights while the moon is in the seventh house...
If he comes back with an AK have the resource officer shoot the bastard, how's that for simplistic what iffing
But I will take it you did not understand my ruinable comment and chose not to ask for clarification
Some children will have their spirit broken some will develop spirit from these rules
They can either work to change these rules or whine about getting in trouble when they get caught breaking them
That will always happen no matter what set of rules you have in place
Awesome statement! Day one I always told the students, "If you disagree with the rules, don't break them...seek to change them! I will support you every step of the way!" The students did a great job of changing several handbook rules...they did it the right way!
The students did the research, and the students had to appear in front of the School Board to present the proposed changes. I attended and supported, but they presented the law and the rationale. In every instance, the School Board listened and modified the handbook...even mid-year!!!
Now, that is a lesson that the children can take forward throughout their lives.
Kudos on that comment!
Then why are you mad at me
I've been saying that throughout this whole discussion
I'm not mad at you. Seriously sorry if my words have come across that way. I'm not mad at anyone.
We have all engaged in a fantastic discussion in this thread! It will become a searchable thread, for others who may have questions, doubts or concerns of the topic in the future.
We all have our views and have posted those points and views...the differing views is why this thread is so strong.
Just joking Doc
If nothing else she will have learned a very valuable life lesson, if anyone takes the time to point it out to her
Anything you sign or agree to is binding, if you don't like the conditions don't sign
I still would like to see if she was ever even charged
I have read an article on the arresting officers account and it did not seem like they were all that enthused about arresting her
It did state that she was arrested because the parents could not be reached and that apparently was their only two options when the school reports a crime
She was not handcuffed and was later released to an uncle, I believe
Most interesting discussion. Now I'm just kind of thinking out loud here, but is the active hitch in ZT application based on ability to determine intent?
In this particular case, harmful intent (the 3rd point of ZT application) was obviously not there.
Given a slightly different set of circumstances, it may not be so easy to determine the presence or lack of harmful intent. Therefore, administration just takes a zero thought approach? Again, I'm just thinking out loud on this, but I sorta feel that is the real view of what is likely happening in these types of cases. In other words, I am asking (saying?) is it just easier to apply this ZT stuff without thinking than it is to investigate a little?
Owens wins a cigar!!! Easier to be a mindless ZT-law follower and let the police sort it out. :banghead: Go back to my quote about the child who drove his father's vehicle...with the 870 in the trunk...I said it's a good thing I had such a good relationship with the parents and students...bingo!!!
Intent is the hitch!!! My unspoken fear...how does the administrator REALLY know the intent? Scary!
<<Geno passes Owens a cigar...what'll it be??? Double Corona? Montecristo?>>
Also, go back to the suggestions I put out of get to know the administrators, the School Board and get on committees at the school?! Bingo...be sure they know you...your intent.
Joab, it's twisted to think that having irrational rules is the best way for children to learn and desire to take action to change them. I'm sure 10 year olds have enough on their plate without having to worry about changing ridiculous rules set in place by narrow minded authorities.
We had a handbook in our school too. It works good on paper. But is never practical to generalize and treat everyone as potential criminals.
Students study history so they can learn from past mistakes and not make them again. Hopefully they learn about the past laws that caused and continue to cause chaos and war. They learn about equal rights and freedom and ethics. About the defeatist people against individual creative thought and development.
I laugh when writing this because we're talking about a butter knife, but the issue is much bigger. It makes me think about the lady who was awarded $1,000,000 in a law suit for getting a hot coffee from Macdonalds. There's a problem in the system to say the least. Maybe we need more laws and everything will function smoothly?? I don't think so. We already have laws to protect us from other laws. The legal system here is a mess with no end.
There's plenty of rules, as american citizens, we agree to follow or suffer consequences. Many laws/rules I can't and won't agree with. By doing so, I harm noone, I use common sense and safety and do what I think is right and positive for others. For example, traffic laws aren't always made with safety in mind. I've had times where following the traffic law would have caused an accident. Some laws I don't agree with but follow to avoid the hassle ( toll booths, misc permits for ridiculous things, such as gold prospecting..I pay $25 a year to the state so I can pan gold..Common now, some years I go once...I hope they start stocking the streams since they're collecting our money.
As to the analogy about speeding... Do you think going over the speed limit is wrong? Is it unsafe? If so, why do our vehicles go that fast? Why do vehicle sold today as fast as 120mph+?? Where can we drive that fast? Now, that's the department of safety who imposes speed and traffic laws. If they had a true concern for safety, vehicles with the speeds they can do today would not be legal. My van can easily go over 100, why?? It's unsafe right?
Well, make all vehicles so the top speed is about 70 and they'll be an extreme reduction of speed violation revenue. Again, is this a rule that's for good, or for gain??? What do I learn from it, that I should change it?? I'll let you know how that goes. I'm sure I can get auto companies to work with me and police will agree to cut revenue and drop public funding.
I've seen more accidents and danger caused by police on the road, half way in the road, with blinding lights on, to issue a speeding ticket. Dept of safety is a joke... Now, this doesn't mean I think we should speed, but this is a good example of a bad rule/law that we all blindly follow and aren't in a position to change, but are essentially forced to comply, whether right or wrong.
We have laws to protect us from other laws, what's right in one town is wrong in the other.... That's the issue to me, the entire thought process of the people making decisions that effect the rest of us.
Another thing, the "what if" has been and will be very valuable as we need to find creative solutions for the mess that will ultimately need dealing with. I despise when people shoot down the "what if" thought process. If people had more foresight and "what if", they'd see the possible shortcomings of ideas and plans before they acted on them. That's sadly missing in many of the people who are in position to make rules/laws today. To me it's as though some people are just sleeping their whole lives, not really aware or concerned with issues. Where would we be if the founding fathers never asked "what if" , or Edison, Lincoln, Ford...etc
I think of the end of "Charlie and the Chocolate factory" when Charlie broke the rules, but was still chosen to win because he was good, honest and caring. They should reward this girl for having her own thoughts and not being another drone produced by this broken system.
<<Lights up...small Monte, please. Thanks!>>
You ever get down my way, cigars and Jameson on me!
Separate names with a comma.