Gay teen faces expulsion for defense via stungun

[Aikanaro]

Spoiler:

A gay teenager who said bullying drove him to bring a stun gun to school -- and fire it in the air when he felt threatened -- may be expelled, a local media report says.

Darnell “Dynasty” Young, 17, was facing daily harassment from bullies at Arsenal Technical High School in Indianapolis who would taunt him, throw rocks and bottles at him and follow him home, according to the Indianapolis Star. A rumor also was spread that he performed sex acts in the bathroom. At one point, Young contemplated suicide.

"God gave me this life," Young said to the newspaper. "I love life. I'm trying to be strong.”

After reporting the bullying to the school more than 10 times, his mother, Chelisa Grimes, said she gave him a stun gun for protection, because school authorities weren’t doing enough.

For more, visit IndyStar.com

"It has been a nightmare," Grimes told the newspaper. "I'm trying to fight for my baby's education."

Principal Larry Yarrell said the school had tried to look into the bullying reports, but Young was not always able to identify all of those who had harassed him. He said they had interviewed staff and students.

The school had been trying to help Young, who transferred there last year, Yarrell said, by recommending that he "tone down" his accessories.

"If you wear female apparel, then kids are kids and they're going to say whatever it is that they want to say," Yarrell told the newspaper. "Because you want to be different and because you choose to wear female apparel, it may happen. In the idealistic society, it shouldn't matter. People should be able to wear what they want to wear."

Lawyer: Autistic boy's teacher denies 'bullying' claim
$4.2 million settlement for student paralyzed by bully

But, they weren’t trying to place the blame on Young for the bullying, he said.

Young said the harassment escalated on April 16, when a group of students encircled him at school and threatened to beat him up. Then he took the stun gun, which he had stashed in his backpack for a few weeks, and fired it off in the air. The students dispersed, but within minutes, school police had arrested Young -- who was later suspended.

Stun guns are not allowed at school in Indiana and it is a misdemeanor to give a stun gun to a minor.

An expulsion meeting was held on Wednesday before an independent arbitrator who will decide if Young can stay at the school. A decision was expected within a few days, the newspaper said.

I think it sounds like if he HADN'T had it, he'd just be another statistic, of gay kids killed/driven to suicide by bullies. Whatever else the school says/does, he's better off for having had it, and is still alive.

EDIT: You know, now I feel silly. I was so distracted by the subject matter, I forgot to include the link...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11524107-bullied-gay-teen-faces-expulsion-after-firing-stun-gun-at-school?lite

[sardia]

I'm reminded of the NRA argument that if every jew had a gun, the kristallnacht wouldn't have happened. Or is it too soon to go into nazis?

[Aikanaro]

No, the comic already covered that. If you want something done right, you have to go to nazis for it, or something like that.

http://xkcd.com/984/

[Ulc]

Ugly situation overall.

The school doesn't really have a choice here, weapon policies among students really are one of those things where you have to have a "zero tolerance" on, and as much as the use seems reasonable in this case, it doesn't really change the fact that schools absolutely have to stamp down on weapons hard.

And stun guns are weapons, and despite the common view, they carry a reasonably high risk of serious injuries.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the school didn't not do any serious work on minimizing the bullying.

[Chen]

Ugly situation overall.

The school doesn't really have a choice here, weapon policies among students really are one of those things where you have to have a "zero tolerance" on, and as much as the use seems reasonable in this case, it doesn't really change the fact that schools absolutely have to stamp down on weapons hard.

And stun guns are weapons, and despite the common view, they carry a reasonably high risk of serious injuries.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the school didn't not do any serious work on minimizing the bullying.

This is pretty much how I feel about it too.

One thing that seemed odd was

Principal Larry Yarrell said the school had tried to look into the bullying reports, but Young was not always able to identify all of those who had harassed him. He said they had interviewed staff and students.

This seems like either a bullshit excuse on the principal's part or Young wasn't identifying people for fear of reprisal. The former is pretty unacceptable, but the latter is just plain problematic. I don't really know how to work around that issue, if no one else witnesses the event.

[Bears!]

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the school didn't not do any serious work on minimizing the bullying.

Sorry - was this an intended double negative?

[Tirian]

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the school didn't not do any serious work on minimizing the bullying.

Yeah, offering the pro-tip that the student should stop expressing himself shows that their stance on bullying is far from zero tolerance.

I suspect this can't be done short of a mandate from the Supreme Court like so much else of education reform, but if a district cannot provide a free and appropriate public education to a student due to bullying then the district should pay the tuition for the private school where Mr. Young can be safe. Mills v. Board of Education guaranteed that right for students with disabilities, but it seems natural to extend the same right to students who can't be offered a safe and nurturing learning environment.

[Роберт]

It's not like he even used the stun gun on anybody.

[Enokh]

Well, that's an incredibly shitty situation. Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, schools can't just let people bring weapons to school. The worst part about all of this is he might end up in night school/alternative education, which is traditionally filled with a higher ratio of. . .socially aggressive students.

Following him home is something that is (usually) outside of the school's jurisdiction, but absolutely SHOULD be reported to the police. Anyone know if that -- or any of the other parts -- was brought to the police's attention by the parents/mother?

Also a little irritated at the mother, though I can understand that thinking clearly isn't exactly easy in that situation. You just don't give children weapons like that when they're going to school. Now, giving him one while he goes on walks around town/whatever? Still illegal, but 100% acceptable to me. But not at school. That's a bit. . .dumb, really.

[Роберт]

But not at school. That's a bit. . .dumb, really.

Sure.

But so is letting school be an environment where weapon can be incredibly useful, if not necessary. I would have taken my kid out of the school, TBH. But that's not really an option some people feel than can do. And they TRIED going with the system, it wasn't working.

You're right that bringing weapons to the school to solve the problem was a bad idea, but I'm having trouble blaming them.

[Enokh]

No, you're right, it's most certainly worse that the school had gotten to the point where a mother could reasonably believe her child needed weaponized protection than it is that the mother gave her child a weapon. From what is apparent in that article, the school has completely screwed up.

So, blaming the mother? Not really. But in the same vein, I can't blame the school system when they inevitably kick him out due to this.

Another aspect: If/once that happens, then the school will presumably not have to worry about (this subsection of) bullying, and the next time it comes up the new kid will have an even harder time, because now the behavior has not only taken hold, but in the end Young got kicked out of school, so the bullies "won".

[mike-l]

The school needs to do something about bringing a weapon to school. Due to the circumstances, this should be the minimum allowable punishment. After that, the principal needs to be fired, and the family probably has a legal case against the school.

[Xeio]

The school needs to do something about bringing a weapon to school. Due to the circumstances, this should be the minimum allowable punishment.

That's still probably expulsion.

[mike-l]

The school needs to do something about bringing a weapon to school. Due to the circumstances, this should be the minimum allowable punishment.

That's still probably expulsion.

Fair enough. Hopefully the settlement will get him into a nice private school.

[Роберт]

The school needs to do something about bringing a weapon to school. Due to the circumstances, this should be the minimum allowable punishment.

That's still probably expulsion.

For bringing a less-than-lethal weapon to school and not using it? It's not like he brought a knife.

[Enokh]

Yes, it's still expulsion. It doesn't matter that he didn't use it on anyone -- he still brought it to school for an extended length of time, and he used it, just not on someone.

"Less-than-lethal" doesn't really matter, especially since stunguns have killed people.

[Роберт]

Yes, it's still expulsion. It doesn't matter that he didn't use it on anyone -- he still brought it to school for an extended length of time, and he used it, just not on someone.

"Less-than-lethal" doesn't really matter, especially since stunguns have killed people.

Hands have killed people. I'm pretty sure pencils have killed people. Your point?

[Heisenberg]

This is actually a great example of how naive Zero Tolerance policies are, even for weapons.

The State of Indiana (A) Forced him to be there, (B) Prohibited him from defending himself, and (C) Failed in their duty to protect him. That's not acceptable.

Here's hoping the arbitrator has some sense and this isn't really a Zero Tolerance policy.

[Enokh]

A pencil is not a weapon. A pencil is a writing utensil that, like literally everything else in the universe, can be used as a weapon. A stungun's designed purpose is to hurt people. It is a weapon. Putting a pencil in the same category is asinine.

[Dream]

If I had a child in that school, I would expect the school to protect them from weapon toting fellow-students by coming down on this kid like a ton of bricks. I would not wait to be told there's a taser barb in my child's eye, but that's ok because they threw a bottle at somebody.

It's not the kid's own fault entirely, in that his mother gave him the weapon, but that doesn't change one iota the danger to other kids in the school posed by its presence. Being a victim of bullying, be it homophobic or any other kind, does not give a person carte blanche to ignore the safety and security of those around them in favour of their own. It makes me understand completely why someone would do what happened in this case, but doesn't at all make me forgive them doing it.

Hands have killed people. I'm pretty sure pencils have killed people. Your point?

You can't leave your hands at home. You have a reason to have a pencil in a school. A taser is capable of far greater damage than either, if it is used either properly or improperly. And I wouldn't trust a scared teenager to use it properly. The point being that a taser is a danger in a school, and hands and pencils are not, even if they could be put to dangerous use.

[Heisenberg]

Was it a taser? The article said stun gun. And considering how they said he used it, I doubt it was a taser.

does not give a person carte blanche to ignore the safety and security of those around them in favour of their own.

He didn't ignore anyone's safety or security. He safely carried a stun gun in his bag for weeks. In fact, bringing a stun gun as opposed to a handgun speaks volumes of his respect for the safety and security of those people who were trying to hurt him.

He didn't endanger anyone, and protected himself. How is that bad?

[Dream]

"He could have done so much worse!" is not a defence of anything, ever.

[M.C.]

The school needs to do something about bringing a weapon to school. Due to the circumstances, this should be the minimum allowable punishment.

That's still probably expulsion.

For bringing a less-than-lethal weapon to school and not using it? It's not like he brought a knife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues

I can understand why he did it, but bringing a weapon to school should be grounds for expulsion. Armed students who have been the victim of bullying are dangerous, and you don't want to start an arms race between the bullies and the victims.

He didn't ignore anyone's safety or security. He safely carried a stun gun in his bag for weeks. In fact, bringing a stun gun as opposed to a handgun speaks volumes of his respect for the safety and security of those people who were trying to hurt him.

He didn't endanger anyone, and protected himself. How is that bad?

Regardless of his intent, shooting a stun gun in close quarters is a bad idea. If he misses, he could get a bystander in the eye. The person he shoots should have a heart condition. Enough kids have died in schoolyard fights without weapons being involved, let alone having the participants armed.

[Enokh]

Was it a taser? The article said stun gun. And considering how they said he used it, I doubt it was a taser.

does not give a person carte blanche to ignore the safety and security of those around them in favour of their own.

He didn't ignore anyone's safety or security. He safely carried a stun gun in his bag for weeks. In fact, bringing a stun gun as opposed to a handgun speaks volumes of his respect for the safety and security of those people who were trying to hurt him.

He didn't endanger anyone, and protected himself. How is that bad?

No, bringing a stungun instead of a handgun speaks volumes about what his mother gave him to bring to school. Doing something without incident for weeks at a time does not mean the act is safe.

[Princess Marzipan]

I'm so tired of bullying cases that don't turn into a problem until the victim defends themselves. THEN it's a huge problem that we have to do something about RIGHT NOW, because someone could get HURT.

Because that totally wasn't a risk until the stungun appeared, nope, not at all.

[Tirian]

True that. Stand Your Ground looks different once it's Them using a weapon because they shouldn't have to be afraid of Us.

[Griffin]

Why the fuck do people keep bringing up tasers when there is no taser involved here?

"He could have done so much worse!" is not a defence of anything, ever.

Wasn't that, like, the entire substance of every single thing you've said in this thread?

Regardless, the school fucked up if it got so bad that this sort of thing was needed. If the school can't insure a safe environment, and forces the kids to be there, they shouldn't be able to punish students for taking their safety (safety the school is supposed to be providing) into their own hands.

I'm glad my school was very responsive to these sort of issues - otherwise I could well have ended up in a similar situation.

I can't blame the school system when they inevitably kick him out due to this.

Considering the whole chain of events is as much the schools fault as anyone else's... I don't see why not. If I give someone a gun, tell them to point it at me or I'll hop off their legs, and then shoot them for it when they acquiesce, I don't get to claim self defense! That's what not holding the school responsible for expulsion amounts to. They put him in a situation where rulebreaking was going to happen either way, and then punish him when the rules end up broken. (and don't punish the others) That is the schools fault.

[Dream]

I'm so tired of bullying cases that don't turn into a problem until the victim defends themselves. THEN it's a huge problem that we have to do something about RIGHT NOW, because someone could get HURT.

Because that totally wasn't a risk until the stungun appeared, nope, not at all.

Could you show me where anyone said that here, or drop it? No one is suggesting that the bullying wasn't a problem.

Wasn't that, like, the entire substance of every single thing you've said in this thread?

No. The substance of what I've been saying is that bringing a weapon to school, and using it, is an expelling offence, regardless of supposed necessity.

[Griffin]

A pencil is not a weapon. A pencil is a writing utensil that, like literally everything else in the universe, can be used as a weapon. A stungun's designed purpose is to hurt people. It is a weapon. Putting a pencil in the same category is asinine.

This means a knife is /not/ a weapon, right?

No. The substance of what I've been saying is that bringing a weapon to school, and using it, is an expelling offence, regardless of supposed necessity.

So you actually have a defense for this particular zero-tolerance result that isn't "It could have been so much worse"?

Please, do share. Because right now you're advocating expulsion for what amounts to nothing happening and no one getting hurt, on the very basis of "It could have been so much worse"

[Dream]

So you actually have a defense for this particular zero-tolerance result that isn't "It could have been so much worse"?

I don't understand you. You're saying that someone defending this kid on the grounds that a stungun is ok simply because he might have brought a gun is the same as me saying that weapons of all kinds are dangerous, too dangerous to bring to a school?

One is irrelevant speculation, the other is a very straightforward policy.

[Enokh]

I can't blame the school system when they inevitably kick him out due to this.

Considering the whole chain of events is as much the schools fault as anyone else's... I don't see why not. If I give someone a gun, tell them to point it at me or I'll hop off their legs, and then shoot them for it when they acquiesce, I don't get to claim self defense! That's what not holding the school responsible for expulsion amounts to. They put him in a situation where rulebreaking was going to happen either way, and then punish him when the rules end up broken. (and don't punish the others) That is the schools fault.

That example/analogy has absolutely nothing to with this situation. Even as an example it doesn't make sense, but there's no reason to get in to that.

The school is (potentially, though pretty likely) punishing him for bringing a weapon to school. Because he brought a weapon to school. The rules don't say "You absolutely cannot bring weapons to school! Unless you and your mother feel that you are unsafe without one, in which case fuck it, go ahead!". It's a shitty situation. Literally everyone in this thread agrees that the bullies -- all bullies -- are gigantic assholes, and have fucked up. Unless I've missed something, everyone is also in agreement that the school done fucked up. Young and the mother also fucked up. The only argument being offered in the thread is that some people think two out of three people that fucked up should be punished, whereas others think that everyone who fucked up should be punished.

A pencil is not a weapon. A pencil is a writing utensil that, like literally everything else in the universe, can be used as a weapon. A stungun's designed purpose is to hurt people. It is a weapon. Putting a pencil in the same category is asinine.

This means a knife is /not/ a weapon, right?

That depends on the knife, but yes, there are knives that aren't weapons. There are some in the shop class in the school I work at. There are additional rules/laws about non-weapon knives due to their ease with which they become weapons.

EDIT: There is also an extreme difference between a school investigating even serious bullying, and the school investigating someone pulling out a weapon. One is pretty complicated without video evidence or a good number of neutral eyewitnesses. The other is really easy, especially when the person with the weapon up and admits to not only doing it, but carrying it on his person for weeks (points for honesty). Or, to shorten it: bullying has obstacles between the act and the punishment. Brandishing a weapon doesn't.

[Griffin]

Chopping off all the students heads because they might otherwise do poorly on tests is also a straightforward policy. That doesn't make it a good police, and I fail to see why being straightforward is remotely relevant.

You're saying that someone defending this kid on the grounds that a stungun is ok simply because he might have brought a gun is the same as me saying that weapons of all kinds are dangerous, too dangerous to bring to a school?

Yes. The argument is exactly the same. "It could have been worse". That you manage to come to exactly opposite conclusions just exemplifies how terrible an argument it is, really. It's no better an argument for "we must always punish as if it were as bad as the worst case scenario" than it is for "we shouldn't punish the kid at all".

This isn't to say I think policies against weapons are bad. I also don't think this situation would deserve the full brunt or impact of such policies.

That example/analogy has absolutely nothing to with this situation. Even as an example it doesn't make sense, but there's no reason to get in to that.

Let me try a different one then. Putting someone in a bad situation where most people would respond poorly, and then acting like a dick to them when they respond poorly is not acceptable. Sometimes, like in this case, responding poorly is not acceptable either! By no means am I absolving the kid of blame. But that doesn't mean the person who trapped in in the situation gets off scott free - the school is equally liable for the expulsion, because it allowed things to escalate to that point.

Letting the school off for the expulsion, forget the bullying, is very literally saying that being a victim is a students only option.

[Enokh]

Putting someone in a bad situation where most people would respond poorly, and then acting like a dick to them when they respond poorly is not acceptable. Sometimes, like in this case, responding poorly is not acceptable either! By no means am I absolving the kid of blame. But that doesn't mean the person who trapped in in the situation gets off scott free - the school is equally liable for the expulsion, because it allowed things to escalate to that point.

Letting the school off for the expulsion, forget the bullying, is very literally saying that being a victim is a students only option.

Which is why literally no one in the thread is saying that should happen. I(we) are saying that, in addition to the school and the bullies being punished, the child (and mother) are going to/should be punished as well. Stop defending against a point no one is trying to make.

[Роберт]

You can't leave your hands at home. You have a reason to have a pencil in a school. A taser is capable of far greater damage than either, if it is used either properly or improperly. And I wouldn't trust a scared teenager to use it properly. The point being that a taser is a danger in a school, and hands and pencils are not, even if they could be put to dangerous use.

A taser could cause damage if put to dangerous use. A pencil could cause damage if put to dangerous use. Let's talk about the damage the stun gun actually caused as it was used, shall we?

...Anyone?

[morriswalters]

You can't allow weapons whatever the case. It does nothing to improve the situation and in point of fact raises the stakes. Zero tolerance is the only sane course. In terms of bullying how much are your prepared to surrender to reduce the possibility to zero. Should we turn schools into little gulags where the ability of the students to have any freedom is reduced to zero? We already have police officers and security cameras, metal detectors and some schools where the police write tickets which forces the issue into courts.

[Dream]

Yes. The argument is exactly the same. "It could have been worse". That you manage to come to exactly opposite conclusions just exemplifies how terrible an argument it is, really. It's no better an argument for "we must always punish as if it were as bad as the worst case scenario" than it is for "we shouldn't punish the kid at all".

There's no "it could have been worse" about Weapons In Schools Are Bad. They are inherently a serious problem that requires disciplinary action, and does not require an added "if they were used on a student then that's even worse, so let's act as if they were". I'm not suggesting the latter, but you're assuming I am. Stop assuming. Bringing any kind of weapon to a school in the expectation of needing to use it is ALL BY ITSELF bad enough to require very serious sanction.

I really don't understand how you're misreading this. There's no extrapolation involved, and no assumption that any imaginary worst case is what's being punished. There's just the weapon's presence, and nothing else.

Let's talk about the damage the stun gun actually caused as it was used, shall we?

None. Thank god then that the student isn't being punished for using it on anyone.

[Princess Marzipan]

I'm so tired of bullying cases that don't turn into a problem until the victim defends themselves. THEN it's a huge problem that we have to do something about RIGHT NOW, because someone could get HURT.

Because that totally wasn't a risk until the stungun appeared, nope, not at all.

Could you show me where anyone said that here, or drop it? No one is suggesting that the bullying wasn't a problem.

I'm not talking about anyone in-thread, I'm talking about the school.

[Griffin]

I understand Dream. You believe something without justifications of any sort, and thus aren't using the "it could have been worse" defense. My bad!

Which is why literally no one in the thread is saying that should happen. I(we) are saying that, in addition to the school and the bullies being punished, the child (and mother) are going to/should be punished as well. Stop defending against a point no one is trying to make.

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?

[Роберт]

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

[Enokh]

Which is why literally no one in the thread is saying that should happen. I(we) are saying that, in addition to the school and the bullies being punished, the child (and mother) are going to/should be punished as well. Stop defending against a point no one is trying to make.

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?

You're right, I said that I won't blame the school for expelling him for bringing in a weapon. For some reason I thought you were saying that the school being let off the hook in general would be bad, not that letting the school off the hook for expelling the kid would be bad.

To be extremely clear: I do not think the school should be punished for expelling the student. I do think the school should be punished for allowing this situation to evolve under their watch.