Gay teen faces expulsion for defense via stungun

[Dream]

Despite it ultimately being their fault, on several levels.

Ah yes, that old conflation of responsibility with fault, and the assumption that some responsibility accruing to the school should mean that less responsibility accrues to others. The school can have problems of its own that need to be fixed without that impinging on the problems caused by a student making a decision to break a cardinal school rule.

You believe something without justifications of any sort

Sorry to be so blunt, but if I need to justify to you that weapons in schools are bad, you're not capable of taking meaningful part in this discussion.

Zero tolerance is the only sane course.

No.

Shanon Coslet , a 10-year-old at Twin Peaks Charter Academy in Longmont, Colo., was expelled because her mother had put a small knife in her lunchbox to cut an apple. When Shanon realized the knife might violate the school's zero-tolerance policy, she turned it in to a teacher, who told her she had done the right thing. The child was expelled.

From http://www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm

It's already been covered that knives and weapons are not synonymous, and that example includes the student responsibly turning in the knife to make certain that the school was massively overreacting, and also willfully misapplying it's zero tolerance of one thing to "police" another.

[Griffin]

Ah yes, that old conflation of responsibility with fault, and the assumption that some responsibility accruing to the school should mean that less responsibility accrues to others.

Nice strawman you've got there. Except I never said that, nor did anyone else. It's perfectly possible for more than one party to be completely and wholely responsible for a situation. This does not mean that everyone here is equally responsible. But by every argument that the kid is responsible for bringing in the stun gun, the school is responsible for expelling him. We can argue whether or not that's a good thing, but are you seriously arguing the expulsion is something the school is not responsible for? I'm honestly not sure here.

Sorry to be so blunt, but if I need to justify to you that weapons in schools are bad, you're not capable of taking meaningful part in this discussion.

No, you need to justify "all weapons are equally bad and every student who brings any sort of weapon to school for any reason in any capacity needs the harshest penalty the school can administer". Because that's the stance you've been arguing?

If you think you don't need to justify that, then I don't think you're capable of taking part in a meaningful discussion on this issue.

[maybeagnostic]

You, quite explicitly, said the school should not be blamed for the expulsion. Despite it ultimately being their fault, on several levels. You made the fucking point, so stop backpedaling, eh?

The school is not to blame for the expulsion, it is to blame for not resolving the issue much sooner.

Zero tolerance makes sense because there is no situation at a school which would actually be improved by arming teenagers. Even in this specific case, when the kid seems to have shown admirable restraint, the weapon will only escalate the situation in the long run.

[Роберт]

It's already been covered that knives and weapons are not synonymous, and that example includes the student responsibly turning in the knife to make certain that the school was massively overreacting, and also willfully misapplying it's zero tolerance of one thing to "police" another.

All I'm saying is that "zero tolerance", aka not actually thinking about the situation but blindly applying rules instead, is not "sane". If someone accidentally brought a shotgun to school (drove the truck in, than realized later that their dad borrowed their truck over the weekend to go skeet shooting and probably left the gun in the truck like he did the last time) and notified the teacher, then got expelled for bring a gun to school, that would be "zero tolerance". And it's not an unlikely scenario. Look again at the very real scenario I quoted, where a young girl was expelled because she brought something to school that contained a knife (that she didn't put there!), even though she notified a teacher and turned it in when she realized it was there.

No lets go back to my shotgun scenario. What would zero-tolerance mean, if not expulsion? He brought a deadly weapon to school.

Zero-tolerance policies are by definition not sane.

Sane
having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice.

There's no room reason or judgement in a zero tolerance policy.

Zero tolerance imposes automatic punishment for infractions of a stated rule, with the intention of eliminating undesirable conduct. Zero-tolerance policies forbid ... exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history.

[Dream]

No, you need to justify "all weapons are equally bad and every student who brings any sort of weapon to school for any reason in any capacity needs the harshest penalty the school can administer". Because that's the stance you've been arguing?

If you think you don't need to justify that, then I don't think you're capable of taking part in a meaningful discussion on this issue.

No wonder you're not making sense, you think I'm saying things I amn't.

I never said anything about "any reason in any capacity". I just said that schools shouldn't allow weapons, and that were I a parent of a child at that school, I would want this student punished severely. And I don't need to justify that, not to you or to anyone, it's perfectly reasonable and self explanatory.

the school is responsible for expelling him. We can argue whether or not that's a good thing, but are you seriously arguing the expulsion is something the school is not responsible for?

Of course I am. The school has its rule, and that rule is very sensible. In this case, the facts are beyond question, that the rule was broken, and was broken in exactly the manner in which it was intended to take effect. The responsibility for the sanction the school imposes is on the person who breaks the rule, not the person who does the sanctioning. The only way I could see it falling on the school would be if the school were being improper in its application of its rule, such that the sanction itself was actually the intention of the school, and not the fair and constant application of rules to which all concerned were fully cognisant parties.

Look again at the very real scenario I quoted, where a young girl was expelled because she brought something to school that contained a knife (that she didn't put there!), even though she notified a teacher and turned it in when she realized it was there.

As I said, that's not zero tolerance, it's just wrongheaded application of a rule that shouldn't have been applied.

In any case, why is it assumed that this is a zero tolerance application? Why can't it be that the school actually believes that the offence is in fact egregious and merits expulsion of itself? After all, a weapon was brought to school and brandished. One would assume that central to the rule's existence is the fear that students will arm themselves against bullies, as happened in this case. If they didn't act, it would only result in every weapon ever found at the school being accompanied by cries from parents and students that fear of bullies necessitated the weapon's presence.

[morriswalters]

I would assume that Zero Tolerance is a way of avoiding an incoherent application of the rules. As such, it is a mechanism which means that each child gets treated exactly the same, by removing the possibility of bias on the part of the authorities. As such it is unfair only if it is not well communicated.

Bullying is not a simple issue, if it were the obvious answer would be to put the burden on the shoulders of the parents. Call the child's parent in each and every time the accusation is made and let them settle it. In any number of these cases though the school is left with uncertain and incomplete information, he said she said at its worst.

[Роберт]

As I said, that's not zero tolerance, it's just wrongheaded application of a rule that shouldn't have been applied.

She brought a knife to school. It's against policy to bring knives to school. There's no such thing as "wrong-headed application" if you have a zero tolerance policy. Zero tolerance policies are never sane, whether their in regard to weapons, knives, or drugs. Surely you've heard of at least one instance of an asthmatic girl saving another students life by lending an inhaler and receiving disciplinary action, yes?

In any case, why is it assumed that this is a zero tolerance application?

I can't speak for others in this thread, but morriswalters said that Zero-tolerance was the only sane option.

I'm simply countering that false assertion.

[Enokh]

I would assume that a Zero Tolerance Policy would involve the INTENT to bring a weapon to school, much like how it's only shoplifting if you knowingly and willingly take an unpaid item from the store.

[Роберт]

I would assume that a Zero Tolerance Policy would involve the INTENT to bring a weapon to school, much like how it's only shoplifting if you knowingly and willingly take an unpaid item from the store.

Clearly your assumption has been wrong in many cases. But yes, you could have better zero-tolerance policies than the more egregious ones I pointed out. I didn't say that zero-tolerance policies were, by definition, terrible. I did say they were, by definition, not sane.

[Qaanol]

If a person is mature enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon in public, they are certainly mature enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon in public.

Guns kill fewer people a year than cars do. Both are deadly weapons.
Stun guns kill fewer people a year than lightning strikes do.
Schools are public property, just like roads.

Furthermore, the right to bear arms is granted to “the People”, so unless you are prepared to argue that teenagers are not people, it is unconstitutional to prevent students from carrying weapons. (And if teenagers are not people, then killing them is not murder, so George Zimmerman is innocent. Also something about younger children, babies, and fetuses, but whatever.)

[iamspen]

If a person is mature enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon in public, they are certainly mature enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon in public.

Guns kill fewer people a year than cars do. Both are deadly weapons.
Stun guns kill fewer people a year than lightning strikes do.
Schools are public property, just like roads.

Furthermore, the right to bear arms is granted to “the People”, so unless you are prepared to argue that teenagers are not people, it is unconstitutional to prevent students from carrying weapons. (And if teenagers are not people, then killing them is not murder, so George Zimmerman is innocent. Also something about younger children, babies, and fetuses, but whatever.)

Facepalm.

Cars, like pencils, are not weapons. They are tools, and, like any tool, can be used as a weapon. Guns, tasers, etc., are weapons. They were designed to be weapons. They're explicitly made to be used as weapons in an efficient and weapony manner. Cars are made to (not very) efficiently take you where you want to go.

Try again.

[Роберт]

If a person is mature enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon in public, they are certainly mature enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon in public.

Guns kill fewer people a year than cars do. Both are deadly weapons.
Stun guns kill fewer people a year than lightning strikes do.
Schools are public property, just like roads.

Furthermore, the right to bear arms is granted to “the People”, so unless you are prepared to argue that teenagers are not people, it is unconstitutional to prevent students from carrying weapons. (And if teenagers are not people, then killing them is not murder, so George Zimmerman is innocent. Also something about younger children, babies, and fetuses, but whatever.)

As much as you might like those ideals, I'm PRETTY SURE case law does not agree with you. It's silly to blame a specific school for doing something that disagrees with your interpretation of the constitution when they are acting under a broadly accepted interpretation.

[jakovasaur]

I don't understand why zero-tolerance policies are necessary. Why can't they just write in their rule-book, "If you bring a weapon to school, you can be expelled"? Then they can just expel people when it makes sense, and not when it doesn't.

Has it ever been the case that someone brought a weapon to school and they had to let them back in? "Oh, if only we had a zero-tolerance policy!"

Edit: I definitely think this kid should be expelled.

[Роберт]

I don't understand why zero-tolerance policies are necessary. Why can't they just write in their rule-book, "If you bring a weapon to school, you can be expelled"? Then they can just expel people when it makes sense, and not when it doesn't.

You know that it would end up "making sense" to expel black students more often the white students in some school districts because of racism.

I'm not saying the solution to avoiding racism is to blindly and rigidly apply set rules to every situation, but honestly I can't see a perfect solution.

Edit: what do people think the best thing for the gay student in question would be? The school expelling him?

[Tirian]

Zero tolerance makes sense because there is no situation at a school which would actually be improved by arming teenagers.

Yes. It's also important to keep in mind that weapons being carried by the oppressed to protect themselves from bullies is not an unintended consequence of the "no weapons" rule, it is far more likely the main reason for the "no weapons" rule. The oppressors don't need to bring weapons to school, as they can often effectively wield the negligence and culture of silence of their schools.

The issue is that punishing this student is the far smaller of the two problems going on in this story, and that the district should not feel that the issue has been resolved by forcing their gay students to act in a way that merits expulsion.

[Роберт]

Zero tolerance makes sense because there is no situation at a school which would actually be improved by arming teenagers.

Yes. It's also important to keep in mind that weapons being carried by the oppressed to protect themselves from bullies is not an unintended consequence of the "no weapons" rule, it is far more likely the main reason for the "no weapons" rule. The oppressors don't need to bring weapons to school, as they can often effectively wield the negligence and culture of silence of their schools.

The issue is that punishing this student is the far smaller of the two problems going on in this story, and that the district should not feel that the issue has been resolved by forcing their gay students to act in a way that merits expulsion.

The school disciplining the student is not the problem at all.

[morriswalters]

This is an example of the limits of the ability of society to protect you. How do you think that the students would feel if you rigidly enforced a no bullying strategy. Give some thought to what this entails. To provide absolute protection would imply that you would have to closely monitor the students throughout the day, never giving them any moments where bullying could occur. Authority figures at every possible flashpoint. Bathrooms, showers? Marching the students between classes under supervision. CCTV everywhere. We do something very similar to this in alternative schools now. Is this a wise solution?

[Nordic Einar]

This is an example of the limits of the ability of society to protect you. How do you think that the students would feel if you rigidly enforced a no bullying strategy. Give some thought to what this entails. To provide absolute protection would imply that you would have to closely monitor the students throughout the day, never giving them any moments where bullying could occur. Authority figures at every possible flashpoint. Bathrooms, showers? Marching the students between classes under supervision. CCTV everywhere. We do something very similar to this in alternative schools now. Is this a wise solution?

But you'd better not protect yourself, either. Cuz then we'll expell you.

[jakovasaur]

This is an example of the limits of the ability of society to protect you. How do you think that the students would feel if you rigidly enforced a no bullying strategy. Give some thought to what this entails. To provide absolute protection would imply that you would have to closely monitor the students throughout the day, never giving them any moments where bullying could occur. Authority figures at every possible flashpoint. Bathrooms, showers? Marching the students between classes under supervision. CCTV everywhere. We do something very similar to this in alternative schools now. Is this a wise solution?

But you'd better not protect yourself, either. Cuz then we'll expell you.

Yes, that is exactly right. If you respond to threats of violence by brandishing a dangerous weapon and firing it into the air, you will be expelled. Sounds like a great policy to me. Hopefully the students who were threatening him were punished as well.

[Роберт]

Yes, that is exactly right. If you respond to threats of violence by brandishing a dangerous weapon and firing it into the air, you will be expelled. Sounds like a great policy to me. Hopefully the students who were threatening him were punished as well.

I'm still no where near confident that the correct disciplinary action for the student in question is expulsion. Is that really what's best for the students?

[Griffin]

Rememer, expulsion isn't a punishment, its an admission of "We want to make this someone else's problem, and we don't care who."

It is, solely, an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the school, and for a situation they caused, for a student who doesn't seem like he would continue to pose any danger with a lesser punishment, it is unacceptable.

[Aceo]

He brought a weapon onto school grounds and used it. How is anything less than expulsion, good?

[Griffin]

Used it in a way in which no one could get hurt, specifically to stop someone from getting hurt.

How is expulsion good?

To answer the questions:
For all the same reasons not executing him for it is good, basically. Not expelling him is good because everyone involved ends up better off, at least in isolation. Its kind of your obligation to argue that there are enough other factors to counteract that.

[Роберт]

He brought a weapon onto school grounds and used it. How is anything less than expulsion, good?

How is brandishing a weapon the same thing as attacking people with it?

[mike-l]

He brought a weapon onto school grounds and used it. How is anything less than expulsion, good?

How is brandishing a weapon the same thing as attacking people with it?

Who said that? And brandishing means displaying, he discharged the weapon, which falls squarely under using it.

As for why expulsion is good, it's because there are probably hundreds of other students at the school who might think bringing a weapon to school is an appropriate response to bullying if they don't do it. The bullies need to be dealt with, and the principal desperately needs to be fired. But you can't allow bringing and using a weapon on school property to be in any way OK.

[Роберт]

He brought a weapon onto school grounds and used it. How is anything less than expulsion, good?

How is brandishing a weapon the same thing as attacking people with it?

Who said that? And brandishing means displaying, he discharged the weapon, which falls squarely under using it.

Meh, that's like if I used a knife to cut a poppet while looking at someone meaningfully. It's not the same as saying I used a knife on somebody.

[Griffin]

In the same way that revving a chainsaw is "using" it, I guess. Or flicking open a pocket knife. Because firing a stun gun into the air is basically the stun gun equivalent of flicking open a knife.

Most people, if you said someone "used" a stun gun, would assume that it would have been "used" on someone. Without a target, there really isn't much in the way of "use" going on here... except as a deterrent. Which, considering there wasn't anything going anyway, would be brandishing in the same way flicking open a knife is brandishing.

And can one really consider a stun gun to be "discharged"? That just seems really off to me. Usually that involves something being spent or used up. A stun gun is generally activated.

[Sockmonkey]

Zero-tolerance exists primarilly to keep the school from getting sued, not to protect students.
Any sane response to a bullying situation involves making a judgement call.
Making a judgement call means the person making it is culpable for their actions.
Even if the call is reasonable and just, the person who comes out on the bottom is going to scream and want to sue and generally stir up trouble.
Blindly following a policy protects the individuals and the school in general from being held accountable when the policy fucks things up.

[Griffin]

Blindly following a policy protects the individuals and the school in general from being held accountable when the policy fucks things up.

Which we've seen right here in this thread with people saying the school isn't responsible for expelling him (despite having made the decision to expel him) because "its the rules". When you make the rules, that doesn't remove responsibility for enforcing the rules...

[mike-l]

If you were being threatened, and pulled out a chainsaw and revved it, or flicked a pocket knife, you would also be expelled. Likewise, if I stared across the room at you, and pulled out a doll and slit it's throat, I'd expect to be severely punished as well.

[Griffin]

And thats got fuck all to do with anything anyone has said, so try again.

Unless you are arguing that stuff isn't brandishing? But seem to think brandishing should be punished with expulsion. Fine. You should probably be arguing that instead of the nice strawman you've built.

[Роберт]

Talk about crappy reporting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/0 ... 71921.html

Darnell "Dynasty" Young, a 17-year-old gay student at Arsenal Tech High School in Indianapolis, Ind., is facing possible expulsion after he fired a stun gun at bullies he claims were about to beat him up, the Indianapolis Star reports.

Also:

Grimes said she knew Young was gay even when he was a little boy. His personality differed from that of his twin brother, Darrell, and an older brother. He would want to put on her makeup and shoes, and his brothers would get mad and tell him not to do that. She said she always was supportive of his sexuality.

How does that mean he'll be attracted to men?
(from http://www.indystar.com/article/2012050 ... ext%7CNews )

Also, a lot of people seem to be confused about the type of "weapon" this was:

The small weapons come in a range of voltages. They do not shoot bullets but give an electric shock that temporarily incapacitates people. Unlike Tasers, they don't have barbs that shoot out of the gun and embed in people's flesh. Instead, the shooter must place the gun on or close to people to shock them. They're not considered deadly under Indiana law, but they are not allowed on school property.

[morriswalters]

This is an example of the limits of the ability of society to protect you. How do you think that the students would feel if you rigidly enforced a no bullying strategy. Give some thought to what this entails. To provide absolute protection would imply that you would have to closely monitor the students throughout the day, never giving them any moments where bullying could occur. Authority figures at every possible flashpoint. Bathrooms, showers? Marching the students between classes under supervision. CCTV everywhere. We do something very similar to this in alternative schools now. Is this a wise solution?

But you'd better not protect yourself, either. Cuz then we'll expell you.

What, and you thought the exercise of your rights didn't have a price? I have yet heard anybody here propose a solution for bullying other than saying the school should make it disappear like magic.

[Lucrece]

What people aren't mentioning is that the police that took him and the school administrators themselves told the bullied kid that this would not be happening if he toned his "gayness" via accessories and mannerisms down.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/dynast ... 23gay+news)

Ah, but when people propel rocks and bottles his way, they're not using weapons or are up for expulsion.

The school obviously didn't give a shit, and it's absolutely horrifying that a mother and a teen have to sit on their thumbs and wait till their oppressors decide to provide safety so that nobody is inconvenienced by some POTENTIAL misuse of a stun gun. That is, telling that the individual must put the safety of the many who didn't give a shit about him and of which many endangered his in favor of his own safety.

He should have a legal defense for resorting to extreme measures because those responsible for protecting him failed to do so consistently and he suffered constant physical and psychological assault for it. Your right to exist shouldn't take a backseat to the convenience of people to have someone not rock the boat.

[mike-l]

And thats got fuck all to do with anything anyone has said, so try again.

Unless you are arguing that stuff isn't brandishing? But seem to think brandishing should be punished with expulsion. Fine. You should probably be arguing that instead of the nice strawman you've built.

All those things fall squarely under the umbrella of bringing a weapon to school and using them, which is in response to

He brought a weapon onto school grounds and used it. How is anything less than expulsion, good?

How is brandishing a weapon the same thing as attacking people with it?

Forget my nitpick that brandishing means displaying, it's completely tangential.

[Griffin]

So... no point to your post then. Right.

What, and you thought the exercise of your rights didn't have a price? I have yet heard anybody here propose a solution for bullying other than saying the school should make it disappear like magic.

The school could have actually done something. Responded in some way. They don't have to root out and find and eliminate any trace of bullying, but they shouldn't sit on their fucking asses when its pointed out to them, thats for fucking sure.

It's not that they didn't do the impossible, its that they didn't do any of the things they should have.

[Роберт]

What, and you thought the exercise of your rights didn't have a price? I have yet heard anybody here propose a solution for bullying other than saying the school should make it disappear like magic.

Is this thread the "propose your solution for world peace (or at least solve the problem of bullying)" thread?

No. No it's not.

Please explain to me exactly why expulsion is the best thing for the student in question.

[Lucrece]

Or why instead of suspending the offending bullies they told they gay kid he needed to be less flamboyant as a solution to the problem. That's usually a sign of an administration whose priority isn't your well-being.

[Griffin]

Please explain to me exactly why expulsion is the best thing for the student in question.

Or the best thing for anyone, really. (aside from the school officials, who just got a goshdurn hassle out of their hair)

[mike-l]

Please explain to me exactly why expulsion is the best thing for the student in question.

It's not best for the student in question. But some form of punishment is best for the rest of the school. I won't argue that expulsion is the best punishment.

As for why expulsion is good, it's because there are probably hundreds of other students at the school who might think bringing a weapon to school is an appropriate response to bullying if they don't do it. The bullies need to be dealt with, and the principal desperately needs to be fired. But you can't allow bringing and using a weapon on school property to be in any way OK.