Gay teen faces expulsion for defense via stungun

[Lucrece]

Because every new transfer to a school has friends to stick up for him. Because striking back as a lone person against a group of people is really effective defense. And most importantly, because avoiding people who actively seek you out for beatings is rather possible in a confined setting.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that bullies seek out those without robust support networks, especially the people without many friends who will stick up for them. A lot of this thread just screams people who have no fucking clue about what it's actually like to have unpopular gender expression and being hounded by it. They try to liken it to every other garden variety reason for bullying. It doesn't work that way. Especially when you keep ignoring that the administrators you keep claiming tried to help him also told him he needed to be less of a flaming faggot before police told him the same.

THIS IS INDIANA. I know some people in their metropolitan cities might think that existing as a gay person doesn't attract a level of malice and institutional collusion because they see the funny gay guys invited and having a good time at their parties, but you have no fucking clue how it is for people outside SF and LA or NY that live in places like Alaska or Indiana or Alabama or Georgia or the Carolinas or Virginia or Utah.

It's pretty fucking bad.

[Nordic Einar]

If people don't like my phrasing I'll apologize for that, but like it or not, ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? or not, that is the way it is. I offer this from the CDC. Had his mother been concerned and smart she would have looked for an alternative placement in a school that could have been less dangerous for her child. The point is that he is already at a statistically unreasonable risk of dying by violence, how could anyone think it is wise to increase the level of danger for him. By the way in another link that I am not going to waste my time with, cites arguments as the leading cause of homicide among black males, not gang violence.

Did you know that "PC" is the race-baiting version of Godwinning? True story! You continue to utterly misinterpret the intent of my objection, arguing against a position I (and no one else in this thread, actually) have taken. It's ironically similar to other arguments you've been making in this thread, but since logical fallacies are just "differences in opinion" I'll spare explicitly pointing out the similarities between one poor argument and another. In this quote:

The ghetto theme is exactly what some here have suggested, stand tall and show that you are not afraid. And it shows in the death rates for black American males. Fuck that.

you attribute the disproportionally high death rate for young black men via homocide to "the ghetto theme"; ie, it's 'their' culture that leads to their death rates. This is also known as "it's their own damn fault" and "victim blaming." In this quote:

Can I interrupt the bullshit to toss out a massive "Fuck This Shit" objection to the idea that the death rates among black American males can be boiled down to "LOL DEM BLACKIES AND DER GHETTO CULTURE" without even taking a half second to think about the intersections of economic, racial, structural, and institutional oppression?

Because yeah, fuck that shit. That's some fucked up shit.

I point out - admittedly with some frustrated hyperbole since I deal with "Well Intentioned White Folks" who make similar arguments all the god damned time in my advocacy and I'm tired of it - that at the very least your argument vis-a-vis the death rate of black men is simplistic to the point of worthlessness and, at best, furthers some rather awful racist narratives. You don't even spend a moment to contemplate how the intersections of racial, economic, structural and institutional oppressions and violence may lead to a disproportionate number of young black men killed by homicide. It can't be the likelihood of PoC being forced to engage in black or grey market economies because of lack of economic opportunity in their communities which inevitably means a higher instance of criminal violence. It isn't the poverty and lack of educational or vocational opportunities. It isn't, y'know, 17-Year-Olds-With-Skittles getting shot because they're wearing a hoody, or young black veterans being murdered by the police because any young black man is intrinsically terrifying. No, it's literally just because Dat Ghetto Culture - and if only they'd stop frontin' and just up change their culture the murders would stop!

You can link to the CDC all you want - nobody in this thread has argued a position that the CDC statistics refutes. (Presenting the CDC stats as counter to our argument is, actually, a great example of a logical fallacy but y'know.) We're objecting to your simplistic and ridiculous narrative of young black masculinity being the source of youth black on black violence while ignoring the massive structural and institutional systems in place, which benefit the shit out of non-PoC, that contribute significantly to that very same murder rate.

[Dream]

Are you seriously saying it was okay for you to do this, but not okay to bring a stun gun and avoid being the victim of further abuse in a way where absolutely no one was hurt?

Not at all. I'm saying that Princess is just fucking ignoring the words that I'm saying in favour of retaining his preconceptions about what I must mean. That's the only explanation for his reading my "I fought back when it was appropriate" as "you're saying he should just live with it".

However, for the record, I should have been punished in line with the school's disciplinary policy on fighting. I should not be allowed to just kick a guy in the ribs and claim he bullied me, and get off scot free. I should not be able to say "it was only a little bit of rib kicking, I should be treated leniently". Because fighting is something the school has to keep a lid on entirely separately from my own individual situation with that bully.

Lucrece, yes, I'm actually saying that the schools rules are the most important thing because hating teh gayz is totally fine by me. Now that you know that, you don't have to continue arguing it.

[Princess Marzipan]

So yes, just putting up with harassment and abuse is your solution. What the FUCK kind of solution is that?

Spoiler:

IT ISN'T ONE.

What part of 1: Avoiding contact with the people bullying, 2: Hitting back at the bullies and 3: Enlisting friends to stick up for me strikes you as "just putting up with it"? I'd love to know what you think a "solution" would be if kicking someone in the ribs until they can't stand up is "just putting up with it".

You're saying that in order for schools to keep their populations safe, they have to heavily punish anyone with a weapon, and that therefore, rather than bring a weapon for use as a deterrent or last resort of defense, it is necessary for bullying victims to engage in actual physical violence. The school environment would be SAFER if Young had physically attacked his tormentors, despite the fact that the alternative he chose caused less physical harm than a spitball.

What part of 1, 2, and 3 strike me as "just putting up with it?" The part where you're putting the responsibility of the students' physical safety in the hands of the students themselves. The part where just because it's haaaard, the school can abdicate that responsibility. The part where once where you're telling students to hit back, you're ignoring the problem and just hoping if we treat the symptoms hard enough, everything will work out. It. Won't.

That's the only explanation for his reading my "I fought back when it was appropriate" as "you're saying he should just live with it".

You shouldn't have been in a position where you had to fight back in the first place. And if you were forced into one, NO, you should NOT have been punished for defending yourself. It is PRECISELY "just living with it" when it's up to your own devices to solve a problem that is not your responsibility to solve.

Telling students its their responsibility to defend themselves and then punishing them for defending themselves? What the actual fuck?

[Lucrece]

Lucrece, yes, I'm actually saying that the schools rules are the most important thing because hating teh gayz is totally fine by me. Now that you know that, you don't have to continue arguing it.

It is totally fine by you when the response to "I did this because the authorities failed to get involved meaningfully" is "You shouldn't have done that because the authorities are the ones meant to get involved."

Yeah, well, no shit. And keep on pretending like the administration did what it could -- it's just that they just can't magically stop bullying! I'm sure their efforts were as earnest as you believe they were. So long as you think that, we should be satisfied.

[Dream]

You're saying that in order for schools to keep their populations safe, they have to heavily punish anyone with a weapon, and that therefore, rather than bring a weapon for use as a deterrent or last resort of defense, it is necessary for bullying victims to engage in actual physical violence. The school environment would be SAFER if Young had physically attacked his tormentors, despite the fact that the alternative he chose caused less physical harm than a spitball.

No, I'm not saying it was necessary. YOU said there was no other course of action open to Young than to arm himself. I'm saying there were other courses open to him, and giving the example of the ones I took when I was bullied, that didn't involve arming myself. And take note: Only one of those involved violence.

What part of 1, 2, and 3 strike me as "just putting up with it?" The part where you're putting the responsibility of the students' physical safety in the hands of the students themselves. The part where just because it's haaaard, the school can abdicate that responsibility.

You're making shit up now. Stop it. I've been saying the school has done the OPPOSITE of abdicating responsibility, and that even being responsibly can't keep everyone safe all the time. Those unlucky enough to be in the unsafe category don't get to fuck up everyone else's school situation to suit themselves.

Telling students its their responsibility to defend themselves and then punishing them for defending themselves? What the actual fuck?

Again, it's not their responsibility to defend themselves. It's just one among many alternatives to arming themselves as a deterrent or arming themselves then defending themselves violently anyway. Since your contention is that the situation Young was in made it obvious that he had to go to school armed, it bears repeated mentioning, until it makes it into your skull, that a school that allows kids to go armed is less safe than one that does not, even if the one that does not has bullying in it. You can bet the armed one does too.

[gmalivuk]

Did you know that "PC" is the race-baiting version of Godwinning? True story! You continue to utterly misinterpret the intent of my objection, arguing against a position I (and no one else in this thread, actually) have taken.

Speaking of Godwinning, I propose the morriswalters law: as an argument with morriswalters progresses, the probability of him vehemently arguing against points no one in the thread has actually made approaches 1.

[yoni45]

You shouldn't have been in a position where you had to fight back in the first place. And if you were forced into one, NO, you should NOT have been punished for defending yourself. It is PRECISELY "just living with it" when it's up to your own devices to solve a problem that is not your responsibility to solve.

Telling students its their responsibility to defend themselves and then punishing them for defending themselves? What the actual fuck?

That's easy -- having a responsibility to do something does not provide carte blanche in the manner that it's done. The two situations you describe are entirely consistent with each other.

Using a stun gun to defend yourself, simply put, escalates the situation well beyond where it was prior. You know that whole thing about not bringing a knife to a gunfight? Guess what the bullies will be bringing to the next fight?

[Lucrece]

You shouldn't have been in a position where you had to fight back in the first place. And if you were forced into one, NO, you should NOT have been punished for defending yourself. It is PRECISELY "just living with it" when it's up to your own devices to solve a problem that is not your responsibility to solve.

Telling students its their responsibility to defend themselves and then punishing them for defending themselves? What the actual fuck?

That's easy -- having a responsibility to do something does not provide carte blanche in the manner that it's done. The two situations you describe are entirely consistent with each other.

Using a stun gun to defend yourself, simply put, escalates the situation well beyond where it was prior. You know that whole thing about not bringing a knife to a gunfight? Guess what the bullies will be bringing to the next fight?

You're operating on that potential. And the fact is, when those bullies consider arming themselves, they'll still have to think about dealing with someone willing to use a stun gun on one of them, and that the weapons they're using to escalate might put them in a bad place as it's harder to hide a knife or a gun than the rocks you were pelting the victim with or hitting the victim with your fists in areas that don't leave marks.

The victim is still dangerous to them, whereas before they felt emboldened because the victim posed no threat to them whatsoever. You can claim that they would have escalated, or they might have just moved on to somebody else more opportune. You don't know with certainty that there will be displacement or escalation.

The fact is, that day Dynasty didn't come home beat up for once.

[EdgarJPublius]

What part of 1: Avoiding contact with the people bullying,

It's not always possible to even know who the bullies are ahead of time, let alone where they are at all times so you can avoid them.

2: Hitting back at the bullies

Considering that Bullies are frequently physically imposing over their victims, and come in groups, how exactly do you recommend this be done in a way that doesn't end with getting beaten to death without using a weapon?

It seems to me they very much give a shit, but are powerless to stop the bullying. Powerlessness and dismissivness are not the same thing.

If the school was powerless to stop the bullying, and yet didn't do anything to try and solve that powerlessness, or even to prevent their own inability from negatively effecting the students in their care, then they were absolutely dismissive of the problem and the threat it posed. Dangerously so.

The policy is published and it is clear. The advice I have been given over time by professionals about children is be consistent, don't say one thing and do another.

A clear and simple policy is not necessarily a 'consistent' one. Enforcing a policy consistently doesn't mean reacting to all superficially similar cases in exactly the same way either.
You can have a consistent policy that handles complex and diverse cases differently from each other.

A policy that treats a student the same for turning in a weapon they were un-knowingly carrying into the school the same as one who intended to assault another student with a weapon is not consistent, it responds to one situation with an appropriate level of punishment, and another situation with a wildly inappropriate level of punishment. That isn't consistent, even if the two punishments are the same, the impact they have on the situation is massively inconsistent.

A zero-tolerance policy is almost never consistent. It is easy to form, easy to implement and superficially 'safe' from a bureaucratic and liability, but the evidence shows that such policies are in-fact inconsistent, un-helpful and dangerous to the students.

By the way in another link that I am not going to waste my time with

That is complete bullshit. If it's worth mentioning, then it is at least worth the miniscule effort to actually post the link in question.

[morriswalters]

I point out - admittedly with some frustrated hyperbole since I deal with "Well Intentioned White Folks" who make similar arguments all the god damned time in my advocacy and I'm tired of it - that at the very least your argument vis-a-vis the death rate of black men is simplistic to the point of worthlessness and, at best, furthers some rather awful racist narratives. You don't even spend a moment to contemplate how the intersections of racial, economic, structural and institutional oppressions and violence may lead to a disproportionate number of young black men killed by homicide. It can't be the likelihood of PoC being forced to engage in black or grey market economies because of lack of economic opportunity in their communities which inevitably means a higher instance of criminal violence. It isn't the poverty and lack of educational or vocational opportunities. It isn't, y'know, 17-Year-Olds-With-Skittles getting shot because they're wearing a hoody, or young black veterans being murdered by the police because any young black man is intrinsically terrifying. No, it's literally just because Dat Ghetto Culture - and if only they'd stop frontin' and just up change their culture the murders would stop!

I personally don't care why it happens in the context of this discussion, however it does. No matter the cause, it is a fact of life. No matter the cause of the cultural differences, those cultural differences exist. And once it is introduced into the culture, it is a part of the life, which means that good or bad, racist or not, blacks are dying at a horrific rate as compared to whites, primarily with guns. My point was that, why would you up the odds by arming a young black male? If you wish to discuss racism in America I would be happy to talk to you about it. You might even find I share at least some of your views. I'm sorry that the term ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? is offensive to you, but it offers a apt description of the way things work here sometime. If that offends you then TFB.

If there was, you'd be in favor of keeping it? If a country beheads, say, everyone who criticizes the king, you'd fully support that policy because it is a consistent punitive policy, published and clear.

Nope, that would probably cause me to support a revolution, since I couldn't go to the Principal and ask him to protect me.

Before, you were arguing in favor of zero tolerance as a general solution. Are you now changing your tune and simply arguing in favor of living with a given policy until it changes?

Nope, I support the policy wholeheartedly, I am simply suggesting that if you disagree that you should exercise your right to petition the school board to change it.

Once a-fucking-gain, no one is arguing that the options are zero tolerance versus never enforcing any rules. You can consistently enforce rules with varying punishment, based on the circumstances of a given infraction. You know, kind of like how the legal system works. You can execute people for first-degree murder but not for involuntary manslaughter, and not have this be an inconsistency in the "don't kill people" rule. It's just a sane response to the fact that "kill a person" can take myriad forms, and therefore so should its punishment.

Nope, what I said is that if you have a policy and don't enforce it consistently that the lesson you teach is that, you, aren't reliable. It doesn't matter how you choose to enforce the rules(within sane limits) as long as you enforce them consistently all the time. The school board will set policy based on the desires of their constituency and the law. However if they set policy and choose to selectively enforce it then they will regret it, legally if no other way.

No one is saying black males are not disproportionately involved in lethal violence. We are saying your gross oversimplification of *why* this is the case is offensively boneheaded.

I offered no explanation of why this is true. Here's what I said.

The ghetto theme is exactly what some here have suggested, stand tall and show that you are not afraid. And it shows in the death rates for black American males. Fuck that.

This is a cultural fact. But it is exactly the type of thing that has been promoted in this thread. We could spend years laying out all of the things that have brought this to pass, but it is beyond the scope of this forum. But this is black on black violence, which means that for whatever reason it has been internalized to their culture, no matter its cause.

That is complete bullshit. If it's worth mentioning, then it is at least worth the miniscule effort to actually post the link in question.

Just for you. Link.

A clear and simple policy is not necessarily a 'consistent' one. Enforcing a policy consistently doesn't mean reacting to all superficially similar cases in exactly the same way either.
You can have a consistent policy that handles complex and diverse cases differently from each other.

A policy that treats a student the same for turning in a weapon they were un-knowingly carrying into the school the same as one who intended to assault another student with a weapon is not consistent, it responds to one situation with an appropriate level of punishment, and another situation with a wildly inappropriate level of punishment. That isn't consistent, even if the two punishments are the same, the impact they have on the situation is massively inconsistent.

A zero-tolerance policy is almost never consistent. It is easy to form, easy to implement and superficially 'safe' from a bureaucratic and liability, but the evidence shows that such policies are in-fact inconsistent, un-helpful and dangerous to the students.

Ok, you can have any number of policies, so? I don't imply they are perfect, however I support them. And I am open to being persuaded, you haven't done so.

Now to everybody who might respond to me, understand this, I am as sympathetic as I can be to the young man involved, but mainly all that I am hearing is that zero tolerance doesn't work. Fine then use the processes in place to change it. That requires political pressure. It also requires ideas. I have defended my position, and in so far as I can see the people who disagree are long on objections and short on ideas. In my state the thing we don't want to see happen is another Paducah type shooting. This does not imply that a stun gun is the same as a shotgun, rifle and pistol, but that is what people are trying to prevent. Here is the Kentucky statute on possession of a weapon on School Property. For those who don't follow the link it is a Class D felony punishable up to 5 years in prison. It would require the state Supreme court to decide if a stun gun met this standard. For those who are really interested here is a list for all State Boards of Educations.

[gmalivuk]

No matter the cause of the cultural differences, those cultural differences exist. And once it is introduced into the culture blah blah blah
...
But this is black on black violence, which means that for whatever reason it has been internalized to their culture, no matter its cause.

You're *still* missing the entire point, which is that it's not explainable purely as a "cultural difference". There are tons of factors apart from your harebrained notions of "black culture" that contribute to high rates of violence among young black men.

And yes, you did offer an explanation for why it's true, when you said one negative effect of the "ghetto theme" of "stand tall and show you are not afraid" is this violence.

I don't imply they are perfect, however I support them. And I am open to being persuaded, you haven't done so.

Which is the problem. Because it means you still support something absurd like "punish all kids with weapons equally, regardless of how different the actual circumstances may be".

[Lucrece]

By the time any change happens the kid will have been victimized several times more, and more than likely he will already be out of high school and lose any legal claims as a result. So he should be fine with the status quo just so you can keep your precious illusion of order.

[yoni45]

You're operating on that potential. And the fact is, when those bullies consider arming themselves, they'll still have to think about dealing with someone willing to use a stun gun on one of them, and that the weapons they're using to escalate might put them in a bad place as it's harder to hide a knife or a gun than the rocks you were pelting the victim with or hitting the victim with your fists in areas that don't leave marks.

The victim is still dangerous to them, whereas before they felt emboldened because the victim posed no threat to them whatsoever. You can claim that they would have escalated, or they might have just moved on to somebody else more opportune. You don't know with certainty that there will be displacement or escalation.

The fact is, that day Dynasty didn't come home beat up for once.

Well, obviously I'm operating on a potential: that's generally how rules and laws work. If you're just playing on the immediate circumstances relevant to the individual, then yeah: he didn't come home beat up for once. Instead, he came home expelled.

In terms of general policy though: If you're familiar with human nature (especially with the dick-measuring contest that is high-school), then you should know that a stun-gun will only have that immediate effect, and if anything, will embolden the bullies to hit back that much harder. That kid trying to fuck with US? And guess what, you don't even need many resources to have a harsher weapon -- in fact, you need far fewer. And hey, maybe those bullies even "needed" a knife when they get caught -- I mean, there's a kid walking around with a stun-gun threatening them.

Not only was a stun-gun stupid on the kid's and the mother's part in terms of the general safety of the school -- it was probably stupid for the kid's own safety.

[morriswalters]

You're *still* missing the entire point, which is that it's not explainable purely as a "cultural difference". There are tons of factors apart from your harebrained notions of "black culture" that contribute to high rates of violence among young black men.

Tell me, are the homicide rates higher among black males?
Are black males shooting black males?
Your seem to be aware of statistics. If you have a high risk of death due to homicide from members of your own race, do you think that the statistical chances of dying by violence go down if you carry a weapon? If you don't answer this unequivocally then I will ignore you from this point out since it will indicate that you are not prepared to discuss this reasonably. And if this violence is caused by a culture that was imposed from without, does this change the fact that dead is dead?

Which is the problem. Because it means you still support something absurd like "punish all kids with weapons equally, regardless of how different the actual circumstances may be".

Sure do, as is my right. That you don't like it is your right.

Until you or anyone else can point to a solution that has a least a small chance of being useful to replace it then I'll stick with it. The student in question has the right to due process, the procedure is fairly well laid out on the School Boards web site, and of course he has options in the legal arena as well. It's not fair but my experience is that life rarely is.

Lucrece, I'm wore out from you. I don't like any number of the things in life that I consider injustices, and I don't like this. But in schools today we are trying to put out forest fires with garden hoses. They don't teach well, they don't babysit well, they don't police well, and in point of fact we ask way to much from them as an institution. What is it that you want? How's about we close them and make it an all private affair. Then people can vote with their dollars.

[gmalivuk]

Tell me, are the homicide rates higher among black males?
Are black males shooting black males?
Your seem to be aware of statistics. If you have a high risk of death due to homicide from members of your own race, do you think that the statistical chances of dying by violence go down if you carry a weapon? If you don't answer this unequivocally then I will ignore you from this point out since it will indicate that you are not prepared to discuss this reasonably.

I'm not going to dignify any of these questions with answers, equivocal or otherwise, because you know damn well what those answers are, and you should know damn well that they aren't the point under contention.

Until you or anyone else can point to a solution that has a least a small chance of being useful to replace it then I'll stick with it.

It has already been pointed out repeatedly by multiple people that the real legal system takes different circumstances into account when determining appropriate punishment for breaking a given rule. Are you claiming that this system has not even a small chance of being useful in a school?

[Princess Marzipan]

Tell me, are the homicide rates higher among black males?
Are black males shooting black males?
Your seem to be aware of statistics. If you have a high risk of death due to homicide from members of your own race, do you think that the statistical chances of dying by violence go down if you carry a weapon? If you don't answer this unequivocally then I will ignore you from this point out since it will indicate that you are not prepared to discuss this reasonably. And if this violence is caused by a culture that was imposed from without, does this change the fact that dead is dead?

You appear to be only superficially aware of statistics.

I don't claim to know the statistics, but assuming you are right that black males have high/higher odds of death by violence: you seem to be under the impression that that means any two black males who cross on the street have high/higher odds of shooting each other. Your ignorance is bloody astounding, as is your inability to grasp that statistics in aggregate aren't necessarily applicable or meaningful on the individual level.

It's okay, though; even God screws that one up.

[Lucrece]

You're operating on that potential. And the fact is, when those bullies consider arming themselves, they'll still have to think about dealing with someone willing to use a stun gun on one of them, and that the weapons they're using to escalate might put them in a bad place as it's harder to hide a knife or a gun than the rocks you were pelting the victim with or hitting the victim with your fists in areas that don't leave marks.

The victim is still dangerous to them, whereas before they felt emboldened because the victim posed no threat to them whatsoever. You can claim that they would have escalated, or they might have just moved on to somebody else more opportune. You don't know with certainty that there will be displacement or escalation.

The fact is, that day Dynasty didn't come home beat up for once.

Well, obviously I'm operating on a potential: that's generally how rules and laws work. If you're just playing on the immediate circumstances relevant to the individual, then yeah: he didn't come home beat up for once. Instead, he came home expelled.

Not really. We don't just craft laws out of fear for what might happen in the future. Those fears have to be based on reality and have some data to back it up. "If we don't control what students bring to schools, then order will evaporate and anarchy will turn the school into a wasteland" is not justification for a law. Rules are tied to reality, and within our law system the rules are not absolute -- that's why we have mitigating factors.

In terms of general policy though: If you're familiar with human nature (especially with the dick-measuring contest that is high-school), then you should know that a stun-gun will only have that immediate effect, and if anything, will embolden the bullies to hit back that much harder. That kid trying to fuck with US? And guess what, you don't even need many resources to have a harsher weapon -- in fact, you need far fewer. And hey, maybe those bullies even "needed" a knife when they get caught -- I mean, there's a kid walking around with a stun-gun threatening them.

This is such a crock of shit. "If you're familiar with human nature". As if all humans are monolithic, or as if we can agree on a set of specific behaviors humans go by. To reduce high school to a "dick-measuring contest" and ignore something equally creative such as "survival is a priority". Just like you can claim possible egotistical behavior to see the instance escalate, I could claim natural cowardice and unwillingness to place yourself in danger or in the likelihood of being convicted for aggravated assault with a weapon or murder. There was a kid walking with a stungun in the school, but the context is already know that said student is a frequent victim, whereas those kids are known bullies or popular people not sharing the victim's history of prior extended abuse at the hands of other students. Otherwise known as "credibility".

Not only was a stun-gun stupid on the kid's and the mother's part in terms of the general safety of the school -- it was probably stupid for the kid's own safety.

People were pelting rocks and bottles at him ALREADY. A rock can already kill or blind you. Bottles are not much better. A single punch to the face can be lethal to begin with if the victim falls the wrong way, and aggravated concussions from constant group beatings can kill you as well.

He was backed into a corner. The administrators failed to curb bullying against him and told him to "tone his flamboyance down", in a place like Indiana -- most likely those administrators were not particularly receptive to the issues faced by a "flamboyant" homosexual causing them the hassle of having to protect him. And when the police picked him up, they blamed HIM as well for his "flamboyance". There's a running theme of "if you weren't such a faggot, you wouldn't be in the trouble you are right now". I'm rather interested in the sympathy angle if it had been a girl bringing a stun gun/pepper spray to school and arrested even though she claimed she had been sexually harassed for a prolonged time and nobody had given a shit since she wore short skirts and revealing outfits. Then I would've loved to see if the same "boys will be boys" response were to be given. Then somebody might have given a shit since it was no longer the weird black fag calling for attention and getting what he bargained for. But that black effeminate, he's breaking our precious rules, so suddenly he's our main concern as a threat to the system instead of the group of sociopaths going around tormenting misfits. We can't magically fix socially approved and institutionally enabled torture!

[Princess Marzipan]

I'm rather interested in the sympathy angle if it had been a girl bringing a stun gun/pepper spray to school and arrested even though she claimed she had been sexually harassed for a prolonged time and nobody had given a shit since she wore short skirts and revealing outfits. Then I would've loved to see if the same "boys will be boys" response were to be given. Then somebody might have given a shit since it was no longer the weird black fag calling for attention and getting what he bargained for.

Uhhhhh yeah I don't think it would have magically turned out any differently, sadly.

[Lucrece]

I'm rather interested in the sympathy angle if it had been a girl bringing a stun gun/pepper spray to school and arrested even though she claimed she had been sexually harassed for a prolonged time and nobody had given a shit since she wore short skirts and revealing outfits. Then I would've loved to see if the same "boys will be boys" response were to be given. Then somebody might have given a shit since it was no longer the weird black fag calling for attention and getting what he bargained for.

Uhhhhh yeah I don't think it would have magically turned out any differently, sadly.

I used that as a reference because at least with slut-shaming people are starting to see it for what it is and call bullshit. Yet it seems people are incapable of extending that beyond to other forms of victim blaming and understanding why the individual might be more concerned with not getting beat up than maintaining the integrity of the ruleset established by an institution that pretty much has shrugged its shoulders at you.

[Griffin]

morris, you haven't made a single argument in favour of your own points, or one that directly responds to any other persons points, in two pages now. I may disagree with Dream, but at least he seems to have an awareness of what people are talking about when he responds. Please, take a bit of time, read what other people are saying, and try to make points that are actually relevant responses to their actual arguments, instead of to hypothetical arguments you imagine they might have potentially made.

I think we should let the racist bits and absurd simplifications drop for now, though, and focus on the school expulsion thing.

Dream:
Trying to move this conversation into a somewhat more productive direction... What do you think the best series of actions is as the result here anyways? From this point on, I mean.

Kid gets expelled... what next? Where does he go? What should the school do to prevent this from happening again? What should happen to the bullies, if any of them can be identified?

[Princess Marzipan]

Keywords "starting to." They're absolutely different flavors of the same old shit, though.

[yoni45]

Not really. We don't just craft laws out of fear for what might happen in the future. Those fears have to be based on reality and have some data to back it up. "If we don't control what students bring to schools, then order will evaporate and anarchy will turn the school into a wasteland" is not justification for a law. Rules are tied to reality, and within our law system the rules are not absolute -- that's why we have mitigating factors.

The two aren't mutually exclusive -- we craft laws based on fear of what might happen otherwise, based on reasonable expectations of what might happen. Whether those expectations are theoretical or based on past experience.

This is such a crock of shit. "If you're familiar with human nature". As if all humans are monolithic...

As if high school kids, especially bullies, are not (in the way they operate anyway). Yeah, you could claim all kinds of things could happen -- and it's possible that all kinds of things could happen. But if you're under the impression that retaliation and escalation are some unlikely consequence, then one of us is rather detached from reality.

People were pelting rocks and bottles at him ALREADY. A rock can already kill or blind you. Bottles are not much better. A single punch to the face can be lethal to begin with if the victim falls the wrong way, and aggravated concussions from constant group beatings can kill you as well...

Somehow, if the kid's life was genuinely in danger, I feel like sending him into the proverbial hornet's nest with a proverbial stick is doubly stupid.

[Ghostbear]

Did anybody bother to read the notification to parents of the Zero Tolerance Policy I posted? It seems fairly straight forward.

As a matter of fact, I did read that document you linked to. It might disappoint you to realize that you linked to the school policies for Carl Wilde School #79, which is an elementary school. We are dealing with Arsenal Technical High School, which is, as its name might giveaway, a high school.

On the other hand, I actually did link to the actual school policies of the actual school we're dealing with. Those policies state that expulsion is a "penalty of last resort", not automatic. Furthermore, every instance of policies you have linked to (correct school or not) state that students may be expelled, not that students will be expelled -- they have built wiggle room into their very policies. In short: the school doesn't actually have a zero tolerance policy in practice, regardless of it might be called.

What part of 1: Avoiding contact with the people bullying, 2: Hitting back at the bullies and 3: Enlisting friends to stick up for me strikes you as "just putting up with it"? I'd love to know what you think a "solution" would be if kicking someone in the ribs until they can't stand up is "just putting up with it".

This sounds very much like a "let them eat cake" solution, because I'm fairly certain that not a single one of those options was available to the student.

[morriswalters]

Yep, Ghostbear I saw that. It was close enough. Zero Tolerance Policies are never absolute, student are pretty much guaranteed that, because of due process. I have personal knowledge of the policies because of my daughter who ran afoul of them. She was expelled and put into an alternative school for doing something harmless if not all that bright. And it changes my opinion not one bit. I didn't like it, but I didn't push it to court though I could have. The alternative school didn't harm her as her class sizes were smaller, she was under better supervision, and it gave her a chance to continue her education. It was not ideal, but given a choice I would rather err that way. There is no good solution for any of this. If you come up with a solution that will work better I encourage you to push it hard. But hand wringing and wishing won't make it better. The only thing I regret in this conversation overall was that people will be left with the idea that I'm a racist, but that's the price you pay when your opinions aren't popular, and you fail to adequately convey the point you are trying to make.

Griffin

There is nothing to focus on. He hasn't been expelled yet, the policy is what it is. I agree with it. Like it or not this is a Utilitarian solution. A decision has been made that the greater danger is allowing weapons into the mix. I concur.

I haven't been able to find out what alternatives may be available to him, I would expect that he could be eligible for an alternative placement. The school system in my home district has such a program, but maybe Indianapolis doesn't.

Certainly the family has been in touch with all kinds of people including CNN. Certainly the LBGT community of Indianapolis is aware of his situation, as are the National Organizations. I suspect that they will have positive things to say, I don't think that arming him will be one of the things that they suggest. Hopefully someone will mentor him because his mother is not his friend.

Bullying will still be with us next year, the Zero Tolerance Policy will be with us next year, in another year the young man will be 18 and emancipated. Two wrongs will still not make a right. It will still be morally reprehensible to arm a minor. Parents who love their children will still make any sacrifice that it takes to keep them safe, including moving them and with them if that is what it takes.

Expulsions will still be the order of the day for infractions that are considered major by the community. There will still be due process. There will still be legal recourse in addition to the internal actions.


I assume this is the argument that most here would support. I can't say that I disagree in principle although in the real world I would want something more in the way of assurances. These Statistics from the same site sound about right. They also tend to support the idea that there was no need to to arm that student. But then there is this, which is my favorite the Wikipedia page. As a point of interest look at the 5 or so links at the bottom. Pay attention to the attacks in Kentucky, those are personal for me.

May you give your children the same love that she gave to her son.

[Metaphysician]

You're making shit up now. Stop it. I've been saying the school has done the OPPOSITE of abdicating responsibility, and that even being responsibly can't keep everyone safe all the time. Those unlucky enough to be in the unsafe category don't get to fuck up everyone else's school situation to suit themselves.

Not being able to keep everyone safe all the time is completely different than ignoring a situation where a student faces daily abuse for a year or more and said abuse has been reported 10, or 20 or however many times. The point at which the situation is not improved, after it has been made known to the administration for a long period of time is the point at which it becomes clear that these teachers and administration couldn't give a flying fuck about the gay kid's safety.

[Ghostbear]

Yep, Ghostbear I saw that. It was close enough.

You saw that you posted the policies for the wrong school and labelled them as the policies for the school that is being talked about, and decided it was close enough? Are you serious?

Zero Tolerance Policies are never absolute, student are pretty much guaranteed that, because of due process.

No, legal recourse does not change an actual zero tolerance policy into a some-tolerance policy. A zero tolerance policy would be "Students will be expelled automatically for [list of things]". The fact that people can sue and say "this policy is bullshit, because of [list of different things]" doesn't change the fact that the policy itself is zero tolerance.

That isn't what we're dealing with though. We're dealing with policies that state that they can be expelled, policies that state that expulsion is an action of "last resort". You're supporting the school pushing for expulsion based off of policies that don't actually exist. They very much have the option to not expel the student, the only reason he is up for expulsion is because that is what the administration wants to happen. He is not required to be expelled by the policies, the administration is not required by the policies to push for him to be expelled. At no point are they required to expel him by any interpretation of the policies -- they are merely given the option.

There is no good solution for any of this.

Of course there is: not expel the student, perhaps decide on a lesser punishment if deemed appropriate, and institute better policies to prevent bullying such that the student no longer faces constant (i.e. daily) bullying and threats to his physical safety. Just because that solution takes effort and thought does not meant it isn't a good solution.

[BattleMoose]

I thought I would weigh in here.

This kid was being threatened with physical violence which by accounts seem to be very credible. He appealed to the appropriate authorities multiple times but they failed him. And this certainly needs emphasizing, he was being threatened with physical violence. Defending oneself, with weapons or not, is entirely appropriate. Everyone has a right to security of person and it is up to the State to ensure that this is the case, and in instances where the State is unable or unwilling to provide security of person, people will defend themselves. This is less of a moral judgement but rather a statement of fact. Being safe, is more important than acting within the law, much more.

As has been mentioned before, this instance of bullying only became a problem when the victim started to defend himself, this is utterly deplorable and enlightening as to the functionality and neglect of the school.

Also, if the school is unable to provide a safe environment for students, then it surely needs to review its zero-tolerance on weapons, because I think its quite clear, that some students at that school, need to carry weapons in order to defend themselves.

[Ghostbear]

Also, if the school is unable to provide a safe environment for students, then it surely needs to review its zero-tolerance on weapons, [...]

I would like to reiterate my earlier post and note that, as far as I can tell from reading the school's policies, the school doesn't actually have a zero tolerance policy on weapons (or anything for that matter). It very specifically mentions that expulsion is an option of last resort, and does not mention anything as being grounds for automatic expulsion. Every policy I've seen for the public schools group as a whole also uses the term "may be expelled" instead of "will be expelled". There is not, in practice, an actual zero tolerance policy for this situation. The only reason the student is being considered for expulsion is because that is what the administration wants, not because they're required to by their rules.

[Dream]

Dream:
Trying to move this conversation into a somewhat more productive direction... What do you think the best series of actions is as the result here anyways? From this point on, I mean.

Kid gets expelled... what next? Where does he go? What should the school do to prevent this from happening again? What should happen to the bullies, if any of them can be identified?

What I'd like to see, which might not be feasible, is for the kid to be expelled, but for the county school board (or whoever has oversight of schooling where the kid is) to apportion some blame for the situation to the mother for coming up with the stupid plan to arm her child. I'd like them also to investigate not Young's situation itself, but the general state of discipline and bullying at the school, and again, not based solely on Young's experience, find out if the school's authorities are doing their jobs right. If not, take appropriate action, for instance replacing staff appointments to disciplinary roles, or placing the school on long term external monitoring.

I'd then like the school board to very quietly, avoiding a spectacle, find another school place for Young, on the grounds that it was all his mother's idea to do the thing that got him expelled. Young gets a free pass into next year at a different school, without having to apply and win a place, and with it a fresh start to try not to end up bullied for the rest of his school time, and the school maintains its sensible approach to kids brandishing weapons at each other.

As for the bullies, we still don't know if any of them individually did anything that can be punished harshly enough to merit the kind of punishment that Young's experience requires. Stone and bottle throwing could have been pebbles and empty plastic bottles, rather than dangerous rocks and glass. Following him home could have been name calling by local kids rather than out and out stalking. When you've only got a teenager and his mother to go on, things that loom large in their lives can when examined by a disciplinary board turn out to be less than they seem. That would explain why the school hasn't been able to punish anyone in spite of trying. I mean, who do you punish over rumours of gay sex? How do you punish them? These are age old problems in schooling, and sadly I don't think they're gong to be solved right now. Certainly, from this distance, we can't have any idea what to do about bullies without knowing what they actually did. Perhaps, after Young is gone, the school should impose some kind of removal of privileges from the classes that were largely involved in the bullying. But without knowing what the bullying actually constituted, and how readily identifiable the bullies were, it's impossible to say more than that.

[Kitutal]

As for the bullies, we still don't know if any of them individually did anything that can be punished harshly enough to merit the kind of punishment that Young's experience requires. Stone and bottle throwing could have been pebbles and empty plastic bottles, rather than dangerous rocks and glass. Following him home could have been name calling by local kids rather than out and out stalking. When you've only got a teenager and his mother to go on, things that loom large in their lives can when examined by a disciplinary board turn out to be less than they seem. That would explain why the school hasn't been able to punish anyone in spite of trying. I mean, who do you punish over rumours of gay sex? How do you punish them? These are age old problems in schooling, and sadly I don't think they're gong to be solved right now. Certainly, from this distance, we can't have any idea what to do about bullies without knowing what they actually did. Perhaps, after Young is gone, the school should impose some kind of removal of privileges from the classes that were largely involved in the bullying. But without knowing what the bullying actually constituted, and how readily identifiable the bullies were, it's impossible to say more than that.

In which case, if the bullying seems more serious to the victim than anyone investigating it, if seemingly little matters over and over are making things terrible for this person, perhaps the school needs to institute some sort of counselling service, where people can go for advice, to talk about problems, and most importantly be reminded that one day soon they will finish school, go somewhere better and be grateful for having not taken their own life in response to this (at which point, the bullies would then win (unless they're the sort of bullies who realise only then how bad what they've been doing was.))
My advice to people in this situation, and I have known a few, is always to do their best to blend in until they can escape to a more tolerant place, and just to keep on, keep trying their best, taking it up with everyone they can, and generally just not giving up. as well as some stuff about dealing with depression and so on, that I'll not get into here.
I remember at my old school, we had the lunchtime club, which was held inside, under staff supervision. Can you really cower inside behind someone else and hide from your problems, I think you can, if you're doing everything (legally) in your power to overcome them the rest of the time and waiting patiently for the day when you can just get out of there and block it from your memory.

[morriswalters]

The relevant law which kicked all of this off is called the "Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994" This is a mandate. You can interpret it for yourself. The Phrase Zero Tolerance is a misnomer commonly used. In schools there is always and internal process before any student is expelled. The parents and a Lawyer can oppose the expulsion and defend their position. This internal process is part of due process. The purpose of the form I posted was to show that notification was part of the curriculum. One might assume since this has been going on for 15 or so years the mother had a chance to familiarize herself with them since she would have been offered them every school year. In addition to that I linked directly to the School Boards web site to the policies. The relevant questions for this part of the process will involve, was the device used a weapon as defined by the School Board? If the attention span of this fora is not exceeded it will interesting to see the response of its members when this is resolved.

Possession of a Firearm or a Destructive Device

The penalty for violation of this section is a minimum of ten (10) school days' suspension, pending an expulsion meeting, and, upon a finding of violation by the expulsion examiner, expulsion from school for one (1) calendar year, with the return of the student to be at the beginning of the first school semester after the end of one (1) year period. The Superintendent may, on a case-by-case basis, modify the period of expulsion for a student who is expelled under this section. A student with disabilities (as defined in I.C. 20-35-7-7) who violates this section is subject to procedural safeguards under 20 U.S.C. § 1415.
5. The Superintendent or Superintendent shall notify the Office of the Marion County Prosecutor when a student is expelled for this reason.

I think this is pretty clear, this is a quote of the relevant section of The Indianapolis School Board's policy on destructive devices. The only point in question is did he have a Destructive Device as defined by the School Board. If he did he will be expelled. The final line is interesting, don't you think, in so much as the mother broke state law by giving the stun gun to her son, it is unlikely that either of them will be charged but not certain.

Of course there is: not expel the student, perhaps decide on a lesser punishment if deemed appropriate, and institute better policies to prevent bullying such that the student no longer faces constant (i.e. daily) bullying and threats to his physical safety. Just because that solution takes effort and thought does not meant it isn't a good solution.

Bullshit, pure bullshit. Despite the hyperbole here, the School Board is bound by their policies and the communities interests which may not be congruent with yours. They may well choose a punishment short of expulsion or decide that the possession and use of a stun gun doesn't meet that standard, although I don't see this a real possibility, but with the public firestorm, who knows. And just so you can get really pissed off just what in the fuck are better policies? Can you elucidate them, no one has yet? Listening to the comments over the course of this particular conversation has been a prime example of hyperbole at its worse, EdgarJPublius response to me about rising above it is a prime example.

I'm glad that you are able to rise above being beaten to death, but for the rest of us who aren't Jesus of Nazareth, maybe we need some other options, neh?

Since there is no mention that I saw of him being beaten severely, and the incidence happened in school with police present, a fight would have drawn them post haste, and there would have been indicators. This is not how bullying works. I have been a victim.

Not being able to keep everyone safe all the time is completely different than ignoring a situation where a student faces daily abuse for a year or more and said abuse has been reported 10, or 20 or however many times. The point at which the situation is not improved, after it has been made known to the administration for a long period of time is the point at which it becomes clear that these teachers and administration couldn't give a flying fuck about the gay kid's safety.

Speaking of hyperbole. You have no way of knowing any such thing. In one short paragraph you have effectively tried and convicted the school and every teacher and worker in it of being homophobes, negligent, uncaring, and on the whole worthless shit heads. Everybody that I have read in my research acknowledges that bullying is a very difficult thing to deal with. Since most of this is a matter of the mother and her son's communications and since School employees are forbidden to discuss the issue at all, it seems slightly disingenuous to believe that you have enough information to form those type of conclusions.

Griffin

The comments I made were never about race per se, they were about the elevated risk that a black male faces. I may have poorly worded it but the point stands. All his mother did was increase his risk, she didn't help him. In point of fact under Indiana Law she is subject to prosecution.

To everybody else, To this point I have yet to see anyone offer any clear and cogent alternatives to what has been done in schools to this point. Wanting things to be better is fine and well, but doing it is altogether different. It easy to attack my position without presenting, in detail, a counter. This forces the defender to respond to every flaw in a existing mechanism, but on the other hand it allows the opposing side to say just about anything because they have no track record to defend, politics is built on just this point. In other words, whats your plan? How do you propose to accomplish that thing that you wish to accomplish?

[Ghostbear]

The relevant law which kicked all of this off is called the "Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994" This is a mandate. You can interpret it for yourself.

I'll gladly interpret it for myself: (spoilered to save space)

Spoiler:

17. How is the term "weapon" defined?
(a)For the purposes of the GFSA, a "weapon" means a firearm as defined in Section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Section 921 of Title 18 gives us:

Spoiler:

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

Or in layman's terms, the GFSA of 1994 is only pertinent to exploding weapons or a weapon that works through explosive projectiles. A stungun is not a projectile weapon. It is not an explosive weapon. It does not fit any of the definitions used for the GFSA of 1994; that law does not apply to this story. Before you say that something applies as supporting evidence for your argument, you should read it and actually make sure that it does.

I think this is pretty clear, this is a quote of the relevant section of The Indianapolis School Board's policy on destructive devices. The only point in question is did he have a Destructive Device as defined by the School Board. If he did he will be expelled. The final line is interesting, don't you think, in so much as the mother broke state law by giving the stun gun to her son, it is unlikely that either of them will be charged but not certain.

Ahem:

Spoiler:

[...] The Superintendent may, on a case-by-case basis, modify the period of expulsion for a student who is expelled under this section. [...]

Looks to me like they have a built in option for extenuating circumstances. Such as the extenuating circumstance of the violating being brought about by the school failing to provide safety for the student in such a fundamental way that it was entirely up to the student to get through the day without being beaten. You keep arguing, again and again -- despite facts to the contrary -- that they are required to expel him, period. Except, fact is, they aren't required to do that. Those of us disagreeing with you are observing that fact and saying that the administration should go ahead and choose the option available to them of not expelling him. You keep insisting that the option isn't there. It is.

Bullshit, pure bullshit.

I don't think you're in a position to call anything bullshit considering your consistent use of "evidence" that doesn't apply to the this story (also: logical fallacies). Also, it's rather rude; I'll thank you to keep your vitriolic comments to yourself.

And just so you can get really pissed off just what in the fuck are better policies? Can you elucidate them, no one has yet?

It isn't our job to find those better policies. That's the school's administration's job; that is literally one of the tasks they get from their jobs. We don't have to be able to come up with better policies on our own to be able to find their policies lacking. "Don't like it? Let's see how good you do!" is not a valid argument or rebuttal. Other schools have shown that they can make policies that avoid these problems, this school has not. Perhaps they could find and emulate those other schools. Perhaps they could analyze the situation and determine what policies would be more helpful. Perhaps they could expand the number of cameras on the school grounds to provide greater coverage, including the locations where bullying most frequently occurred. Perhaps they could do their damn job and figure this out themselves; they have options, they have the ability to find solutions.

[Princess Marzipan]

The comments I made were never about race per se, they were about the elevated risk that a black male faces. I may have poorly worded it but the point stands. All his mother did was increase his risk, she didn't help him. In point of fact under Indiana Law she is subject to prosecution.

Listen, you idiot: JUST BECAUSE Darnell Young is black does not mean that he is magically at elevated risk of violent death from every other black male in the country. You idiot, he might face a greater risk if he lives in a very poor neighborhood where much of the population is involved in gang violence, but, you idiot, you're basing your claim off of the color of his skin alone. It's only less insulting to the field of statistical analysis than to the black population of the country because statistical analysis hasn't been oppressed as a people for four hundred years, you unbelievable idiot. It's one thing to drop into a thread and make such claims as you are, and it's another entirely to stand by them in the face of everyone pointing out that you're not engaging enough brain cells to see past the sole color indicator. I can only surmise that you lack a sufficient quantity of neurons to incorporate more than a single factor intpo your thought process. (Apologies for insulting the wider populations' thought processes by insinuating that morriswalters is performing anything remotely similar.)

Spoiler:

You. Idiot.

[morriswalters]

Your damn right I'm rude, I give as I get. While the Administrator can alter the term of the expulsion that doesn't mean he can choose not to expel. I never said that the 1994 law applied specifically, I said it started the trend. Neither does it mention Zero Tolerance Policies on Drugs or Bullying or pick your poison. I don't know of any school system that I am aware of that has effectively ended bullying or any other student behavior. Name some, I would be happy to hear which ones. Cite any specific policy anywhere and support its efficacy.

Certainly the Administrator can look at the options, in point of fact though I am not certain that he makes the final decision. This is the procedure, as outlined at the School Boards Website.

Spoiler:

When a principal recommends to the Superintendent that a student be expelled from school, the following procedures will be followed:

A. The Superintendent or the Superintendent may conduct an expulsion meeting, or may appoint legal counsel or a member of the administrative staff who did not expel the student during the current year and was not involved in the events giving rise to the expulsion to conduct the meeting.
B. An expulsion will not take place until the student and the student's parent, custodian or guardian are given notice of their right to appear at an expulsion meeting in accordance with paragraph 3 below. Any rights granted to a student or a student's parent, custodian or guardian are forfeited by the failure by the student or the student's parent, custodian or guardian to request and to appear at this meeting, and such forfeiture shall be of all rights administratively to contest the expulsion or to appeal it to the Board.
C. The notice of a right to appear at an expulsion meeting will be in writing, delivered by certified mail or by personal delivery, contain the reasons for the expulsion, the purpose of the meeting, and contain the procedure for requesting an expulsion meeting. The student, parent, custodian or guardian may request to appear at an expulsion meeting within five (5) calendar days of the date the notice of right to appear was either received by personal delivery or the date the United States Postal service documents as its date of first attempt to deliver the notice by certified mail, whichever is earlier.
D. At the expulsion meeting, the principal will present evidence to support the changes against the student. The student or parent, custodian, or guardian will have the opportunity to answer the charges against the student and to present evidence to support the student's position.
E. If an expulsion meeting is held, the expulsion meeting examiner will make a written summary of the evidence heard at the meeting, take any action found to be appropriate, and give written notice of the action take to the student and the student's parent, custodian or guardian by personal delivery or by certified mail. The expulsion meeting examiner will file the written summary with the Superintendent.

Appeal of an Expulsion

A. The student or parent, custodian or guardian may appeal the decision of the expulsion meeting examiner to the Board within ten (10) calendar days of the date the notice of the action was either received by personal delivery or the date the United States Postal service documents as its date of first attempt to deliver the notice by certified mail, whichever is earlier. The appeal shall be addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Board and must be in writing.
B. If an appeal is timely requested, the Executive Secretary shall notify the Superintendent, and the Superintendent shall review the decision of the expulsion examiner. The Superintendent may hold a meeting with the student, parents, custodian or guardian and the principal. S/He may review the evidence and question witnesses. The Superintendent may affirm the expulsion or reduce the penalty of modify the terms of the expulsion favorably to the student. If the appeal is not withdrawn after the Superintendent's decision, it will go forward under (Appeal of an Expulsion (3)).
C. If an appeal goes forward, the Board shall hold a meeting to consider the appeal unless the Board votes at a public meeting not to hear the appeal. If the Board hears the appeal, it will consider only the written summary of evidence and the arguments of both the school administration and the student and/or the student's parent, custodian or guardian. An effort will be made to hold such meeting within twenty (20) days of receipt of a timely request for an appeal, but the Board does not warrant compliance with such timeline. The Board will then take action it finds appropriate.
D. Judicial review of the Board's decision may be taken only under I.C. 20-33-8-21.

Now this is the policy per se. This is described by the School Board as Zero Tolerance. This is what I support. In point of fact it does take into account self defense. But to claim self defense the students representative would have to show that his actions were proportionate to the threat.

Like most other things a lot of this discussion is based on ignorance of what is actually going to happen. A little research requiring little or no effort led me to the alternative placement options for students who have been expelled. This pages lists the alternative programs available to students.

The description of the policy as Zero Tolerance is the schools. Since you didn't like the permission form I direct you to the Discipline Grid of the school which outline all or most of school offenses. Look under the ATHS Principal listing. You will notice that nowhere on that document is a title about Bullying. This could be because the phrase is vague and hard to define and can run the gamut from physical violence to tickling to verbal abuse.

Princess whatever, risk is risk, he faces a higher risk of dying by homicide no matter his location, who does it, with what weapon,or for what reason. The risk exists by the virtue of his opening his eyes in the morning and seeing the sun. My son will never face that same risk no matter what because he is white. Do you think that insurance companies will charge him at a different rate than my son. I've said this multiple times, this is about actuarial tables, not race. You are trying to frame this through your bias, which means that you miss the point. All his mother did was throw gasoline on a fire, and it could have gotten him killed. Now I don't like use this word but your are conflating the idea that he is at higher risk because he is black with some misbegotten idea that I am saying in some fashion that what happened to him is racially motivated or that he is at fault because he is black. I am sorry I tried to reach you, it seems to be a complete waste of time.

[Kulantan]

risk is risk

World wide, black people are more likely to starve than white people.

Therefore:

A) Barack Obama is more likely to starve than a homeless white guy.

Or

B) You're an idiot.

[EdgarJPublius]

Young gets a free pass into next year at a different school, without having to apply and win a place, and with it a fresh start to try not to end up bullied for the rest of his school time,

I don't think it was your intention, but it seems like you are implying that it is up to Young not to be bullied, which is exactly the situation he was in in the first place.

As for the bullies, we still don't know if any of them individually did anything that can be punished harshly enough to merit the kind of punishment that Young's experience requires. Stone and bottle throwing could have been pebbles and empty plastic bottles, rather than dangerous rocks and glass. Following him home could have been name calling by local kids rather than out and out stalking.

Well, the incident where he actually brandished the stungun was described as him being surrounded by people threatening to beat him up. I don't see a whole lot of room for misinterpretation there, and as I mentioned, outside of school, being outnumbered by aggressive assailants and unable to run would be justification for use of lethal force.

You are right though that many of these incidents may be more or less severe than they seem, and some, such as rumors etc. would be basically impossible to identify or stop. However, that should not be taken as a minimization of the real harm and mental anguish such behavior can cause, which is worth preventing.

Perhaps, after Young is gone, the school should impose some kind of removal of privileges from the classes that were largely involved in the bullying. But without knowing what the bullying actually constituted, and how readily identifiable the bullies were, it's impossible to say more than that.

Removal of class privileges is actually a pretty good idea I think, provided the offenders can be reliably tied to a class. Bullying is largely a social problem and taking class privileges away for poor behavior (and/or granting new privileges for good behavior) can create significant social pressure against bullying.
At my school, one class had it's off-campus lunch privileges taken away, and another was banned from homecoming for certain bad behaviors (not bullying, but other primarily socially-motivated offenses) and pretty much the whole school was better behaved after those incidents. I'm sure there are plenty of other options that work on similar principles that can be tried.

[morriswalters]

World wide, black people are more likely to starve than white people.

Therefore:

A) Barack Obama is more likely to starve than a homeless white guy.

Or

B) You're an idiot.

These are the moments when I regret being and atheist, I can't blame this on God. Can I refer you to an insurance agent? Can you be bothered to look up the term actuarial. In a direct one to one counter example would you recommend giving an alcoholic a free booze supply for life as an aid to helping him stay sober?

Homework for you and whats her name. Actuarial Science.

In traditional life insurance, actuarial science focuses on the analysis of mortality, the production of life tables, and the application of compound interest to produce life insurance, annuities and endowment policies. Contemporary life insurance programs have been extended to include credit and mortgage insurance, key man insurance for small businesses, long term care insurance and health savings accounts

[Princess Marzipan]

Princess whatever, risk is risk

What is with you and thinking color is such a wonderful indicator of anything? I get that you want to be right, but it's going to take more than just coloring your words pink.

I am not correct BECAUSE I am pink. I am correct and just happen to pink. I resent your (probably unintentional) implication that my username color has any direct effect on how right I am.

he faces a higher risk of dying by homicide no matter his location, who does it, with what weapon,or for what reason. The risk exists by the virtue of his opening his eyes in the morning and seeing the sun. My son will never face that same risk no matter what because he is white.

This. Is. Flat. Out. Wrong.

Now I don't like use this word but your are conflating the idea that he is at higher risk because he is black with some misbegotten idea that I am saying in some fashion that what happened to him is racially motivated or that he is at fault because he is black. I am sorry I tried to reach you, it seems to be a complete waste of time.

No, I am doing no such thing. When I say you're an idiot for assuming race, itself, is sufficient to indicate higher risk of violent death, I am saying nothing about any idiocy you may or may not be displaying on the bullying issue.

[Kulantan]

morriswalters, I don't doubt it is good advice for the insurance industry. I agree that the correlation between being murdered and being black makes being black a risk factor for murder. But only in the strict epidemiological sense of the term risk factor. In that it is a clear and easily measurable thing about a person that is correlated on a particular statistical scale with a increase or decrease risk of an event. It doesn't imply any causative relationship.

That is to say that your child is not, as you said, at less risk "because" he is white. It also isn't right to imply that Mrs Young was somehow additionally irresponsible because her child was black. Pretending that you can just think of it as a racial bonus of +1 to risk of getting murdered without showing a causal link is ridiculous and idiotic. Making moral claims on that basis is reprehensible.