Gay teen faces expulsion for defense via stungun

[Ghostbear]

He had other options than the stungun. If he had a phone or mp3 player capable of taking video, he could have done what I would if it were me: Record the bullies, and give them over to the internet along with whatever information was known. Names. Addresses. Phone numbers. Then I'd let the rest unfold. If lucky, the internet (at least, such of it as cares sufficiently about giving assholes hell) would pick up the cause, and the bullying would probably quiet up pretty damn fast.

That only works if the bullies don't just steal the recording device. Which isn't something I'd call particularly unlikely.

[Not A Raptor]

He had other options than the stungun. If he had a phone or mp3 player capable of taking video, he could have done what I would if it were me: Record the bullies, and give them over to the internet along with whatever information was known. Names. Addresses. Phone numbers. Then I'd let the rest unfold. If lucky, the internet (at least, such of it as cares sufficiently about giving assholes hell) would pick up the cause, and the bullying would probably quiet up pretty damn fast.

That only works if the bullies don't just steal the recording device. Which isn't something I'd call particularly unlikely.

Then they're guilty of theft and can actually be prosecuted. I hear authorities actually give a shit about theft.

EDIT: An alternative, if you're skeptical about the ability to get them in shit for theft, would be simply to leave it as an audio recording, and keep it in a pocket during the event. They may be none the wiser in this case.

[Metaphysician]

Criminal negligence on the part of principle and teachers. You want teachers to keep kids safe? Put them in prison if they don't stop abuse. This student was compelled to be in a place where his safety was in question because of the irresponsibility of the teachers and principle. If that kind of abuse was taking place in a home, perpetrated on a younger sibling by an older sibling and the parents didn't do anything, the state would remove the child from that home and press negligence charges against the parents. If you're going to require under law that somebody be somewhere, it is your moral responsibility to ensure the safety of that child.

Pulling out a phone to record somebody may have only resulted in his being beaten worse, it was no way to deal with the immediate threat. Yeah, he shouldn't have brought a stun gun to school, but it should never fucking get anywhere remotely close to the point where a child fears for his personal safety to the point where he does something so rash. This was a KNOWN problem and nobody did jack shit about it. This is a CHILD we are talking about here, children are fragile, impressionable, and depend on the adults entrusted with authority over them to keep them safe. "Maybe he shouldn't wear female clothing" proves that these fuckers know who the kid is, and what was happening to him and did nothing to stop it. How is a child supposed to learn anything when they're afraid for their safety, when they spend the entire class time scared shitless that between periods or after school they are going to have the crap kicked out of them?

If I were this kids parents I would be exploring the possibility of pressing criminal charges and you can be damn sure I'd press civil charges as well. If adults behaved this way toward each other they would be put in prison, children do it and we just let it happen because "Well kids are kids" not when they are terrorizing somebody and making their life a living hell because they're gay. In that case they're bigoted sociopaths that need to be dealt with. My only complaint is that he fired the stun gun in the air. If he's gonna get expelled anyway, he should have just fucking put one of those kids on their back.

[Ghostbear]

Then they're guilty of theft and can actually be prosecuted. I hear authorities actually give a shit about theft.

It would be a bit difficult to actually persecute them for theft if the object they stole was the object that you were going to use to identify them with. Authorities care about theft, yes, but they aren't going to search every kid's backpack/locker in a high school to find your gadget, especially when it's a gadget that a significant number of students are going to own anyway. If they don't care about the bullies when they're a physical threat to a student, they aren't going to care about the bullies that (in their eyes "supposedly") stole something from you.

EDIT: An alternative, if you're skeptical about the ability to get them in shit for theft, would be simply to leave it as an audio recording, and keep it in a pocket during the event. They may be none the wiser in this case.

Which would still require that the audio recording is capable of identifying them. If it's a big enough school, there could easily not be a single person in the administration that could identify someone based off of an audio recording that would have to be made from somebody's pocket. Even if there was, the fact that the school didn't give enough of a shit to try and stop the bullying anyway would lead me to believe that they wouldn't bother trying to use the audio to find the person -- even under more ideal conditions, it's not exactly simple.

[Aikanaro]

Also, having a recording isn't necessarily a huge comfort if there's the very real possibility of you being beaten to death right then and there. Really, if he's being FORCED to enter into such a situation, a weapon is about the only thing that he can have handy that near-guarantees, then and there, that he'll walk out alive.

[Not A Raptor]

Then they're guilty of theft and can actually be prosecuted. I hear authorities actually give a shit about theft.

It would be a bit difficult to actually persecute them for theft if the object they stole was the object that you were going to use to identify them with. Authorities care about theft, yes, but they aren't going to search every kid's backpack/locker in a high school to find your gadget, especially when it's a gadget that a significant number of students are going to own anyway. If they don't care about the bullies when they're a physical threat to a student, they aren't going to care about the bullies that (in their eyes "supposedly") stole something from you.

EDIT: An alternative, if you're skeptical about the ability to get them in shit for theft, would be simply to leave it as an audio recording, and keep it in a pocket during the event. They may be none the wiser in this case.

Which would still require that the audio recording is capable of identifying them. If it's a big enough school, there could easily not be a single person in the administration that could identify someone based off of an audio recording that would have to be made from somebody's pocket. Even if there was, the fact that the school didn't give enough of a shit to try and stop the bullying anyway would lead me to believe that they wouldn't bother trying to use the audio to find the person -- even under more ideal conditions, it's not exactly simple.

On the first: Granted.

On the second: The point isn't to give it to the administration. It's been established that they don't give a shit. If someone's taunting regularly, their name can be found in the yearbook with a picture, their address and phone number can be found systematically in the phone book or possibly the internet (or maybe a little real-life snooping or asking less-bigoted friends of friends), and this information gets posted online somewhere with the audio. Somebody will pick it up from there, and one could wash one's hands of the rest.

EDIT: Beaten to death on school grounds? Now, there's a crime that gets the forensics team involved.

[Elvish Pillager]

He had other options than the stungun. If he had a phone or mp3 player capable of taking video, he could have done what I would if it were me: Record the bullies, and give them over to the internet along with whatever information was known. Names. Addresses. Phone numbers. Then I'd let the rest unfold. If lucky, the internet (at least, such of it as cares sufficiently about giving assholes hell) would pick up the cause, and the bullying would probably quiet up pretty damn fast.

That only works if the bullies don't just steal the recording device. Which isn't something I'd call particularly unlikely.

This is why we need readily available recording devices that upload video to the cloud in real time so it can't be hidden or deleted.

Criminal negligence on the part of principle and teachers. You want teachers to keep kids safe? Put them in prison if they don't stop abuse.

I'm pretty sure that would just make it so that, when teachers fail to stop abuse, they will also cover it up.

[Princess Marzipan]

If he's gonna get expelled anyway, he should have just fucking put one of those kids on their back.

Indeed. Furthermore, what message does it send to future bullying targets if he's expelled for finding a way to defuse the situation without physical harm?

The next time this happens (because there WILL be a next time, seeing how few fucks the school could give about creating a safe learning environment), there's nothing preventing a bullying victim from unleashing all the force they can against those who decided to make themselves enemies. Why NOT beat the bloody pulp out of the fuckwit that's been hassling you for months or years, if getting expelled is the end result of ANY significant measure you take to ensure your own safety?

I love all the posters asking "Well why didn't he just [x]" where [x] is some hare-brained idea that is either as likely to hurt as to help, or was actually pursued to no avail whatsoever. "Geez the solution here is pretty obvious, what an idiot this kid is by bringing a stungun instead of implementing this thing I'm sure will totally work."

[Ghostbear]

On the first: Granted.

On the second: The point isn't to give it to the administration. It's been established that they don't give a shit. If someone's taunting regularly, their name can be found in the yearbook with a picture, their address and phone number can be found systematically in the phone book or possibly the internet (or maybe a little real-life snooping or asking less-bigoted friends of friends), and this information gets posted online somewhere with the audio. Somebody will pick it up from there, and one could wash one's hands of the rest.

The problem is that, despite the administration not giving a shit, they're the entity most likely to be able to make an identification based off of an audio recording. Since it'd have to be recorded from a pocket or similar, it's also likely that the recording would lack sufficient clarity to identify someone with. You're setting yourself up to be (even more of) a social pariah if you go around asking your friends if they know the names of any of the people in this recording. Listening to the recording yourself (or for your parents) could very easily be traumatic because you'd be relieving that time you got bullied. I wouldn't expect the police to give much of a shit either -- they'd likely just forward it to the not-shit-giving administration.

I'm not saying it couldn't potentially be used to identify them, I'm just saying that the probabilities and events around it are not really in favor of it being a particularly robust or likely solution.

The next time this happens (because there WILL be a next time, seeing how few fucks the school could give about creating a safe learning environment), there's nothing preventing a bullying victim from unleashing all the force they can against those who decided to make themselves enemies. Why NOT beat the bloody pulp out of the fuckwit that's been hassling you for months or years, if getting expelled is the end result of ANY significant measure you take to ensure your own safety?

I love all the posters asking "Well why didn't he just [x]" where [x] is some hare-brained idea that is either as likely to hurt as to help, or was actually pursued to no avail whatsoever. "Geez the solution here is pretty obvious, what an idiot this kid is by bringing a stungun instead of implementing this thing I'm sure will totally work."

I think I completely agree with everything you just said.

[Not A Raptor]

If he's gonna get expelled anyway, he should have just fucking put one of those kids on their back.

Indeed. Furthermore, what message does it send to future bullying targets if he's expelled for finding a way to defuse the situation without physical harm?

The next time this happens (because there WILL be a next time, seeing how few fucks the school could give about creating a safe learning environment), there's nothing preventing a bullying victim from unleashing all the force they can against those who decided to make themselves enemies. Why NOT beat the bloody pulp out of the fuckwit that's been hassling you for months or years, if getting expelled is the end result of ANY significant measure you take to ensure your own safety?

I love all the posters asking "Well why didn't he just [x]" where [x] is some hare-brained idea that is either as likely to hurt as to help, or was actually pursued to no avail whatsoever. "Geez the solution here is pretty obvious, what an idiot this kid is by bringing a stungun instead of implementing this thing I'm sure will totally work."

All one of me. :/ (Looking through the thread, nobody else was taking a similar tack) I'll admit, the internet route could easily backfire. But, given the propensity of people to separate themselves online by opinion, that problem could be mitigated.

As for the pseudoquotes, I never said it was obvious, and I never said he was an idiot. It is simply something that would have occurred to me. I am not all people, different courses of action may present themselves to others. I also never said "Why didn't he x?" I said "He had other options." and gave an example of one. Although, to my embarrassment, I did assume it would work. I was just remembering the one time that /b/ wrecked some guy's shit over a cat. Other options, less directly vindictive, would be to give the school administration to the world instead of the bullies, give either or to the media, give them to legal advocacy groups and hope that they'll be cool enough to do their stuff pro bono... I could go on. And some could be done concurrently with others. Again, not obvious. Perhaps these possibilities need to be collected in one place for perusal by those who need a way out. I don't know. I'm just looking for solutions that don't end with "... and then he was EXPELLED!"

It it wasn't obvious I wasn't judging, I blame only my lack of clarification.

EDIT: Ghostbear, you've got me with that point. You're right. :/ Things fall apart without proof, too. I was just thinking that if exposed to an audience, a bully might think twice. No show, though, no effect. I bow out.

[morriswalters]

Sorry I missed it all. Here's a couple things, a link to a pdf on the zero tolerance policy. And another from the Daily Kos. Note in the Daily Kos piece that the possession of stun guns is illegal for minors in Indiana. The first indicates that the mother had to know what would happen. She is lucky she hasn't been charged.

This hits very close to home for me. So far what I have been told here is that everything I said is wrong. The parents can't do anything, the school can't do anything, and that arming the student was all that was left. I have one person telling me that comparing a stun gun to a pistol is a logical fallacy. And someone else says that what I'm doing is giving in to fear. I'll answer the last first because it makes me angry. Unless the person who said that has a way of looking into my memory he should really shut up. Giving into fear is giving up and dying. Being strong is surviving, knowing that whatever is done to you, you can rise above it. 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.

How is a plastic knife like a switchblade? It(the definition) lies in the hand of the person holding it. Weapons are no more the force multipliers. But we choose to define certain things as legal or illegal. If you don't like the definition then change it. But until then stun guns are classified as weapons. I really should say that logical fallacies are invoked for almost everything here. Logical fallacies are in most cases a matter of opinion, one of those things that it is very hard to nail down with any certainty. Their use should be sparse and not a product of every internet discussion.

In terms of what the parent can do, it should be obvious. Support your child. It is not beyond the pale that if a parent chose to do so, that in point of fact there is much that he or she could do. Lawyer up, would be my first choice, The ACLU loves this type of thing. Make the school man up, difficult but not impossible. Like this or not tell the child exactly what the Principle told him. If you choose to stand out then you best be prepared to take your lumps. What you see from this mother is bad parenting.

I love all the posters asking "Well why didn't he just [x]" where [x] is some hare-brained idea that is either as likely to hurt as to help, or was actually pursued to no avail whatsoever. "Geez the solution here is pretty obvious, what an idiot this kid is by bringing a stungun instead of implementing this thing I'm sure will totally work."

Oh hell yes, let's give everybody stun guns, that will work. I mean hell we can have a stun a freshman week. What one kid can carry, another kid can carry, so this kid gets a pass, do you think that he is the only one? So now the bully has a stun gun. Good job, you solved the problem.

[Aikanaro]

I repeat: He's tried the other avenues, nothing has helped so far. What can you do, other than hiring a personal bodyguard, to guarantee that your child will not be beaten to death on his way home? Not something to maybe, with luck, have the bullies punished, or have someone held accountable. What can you do to ensure 1: He can go to school and get an education, and 2: Can survive?

[setzer777]

To those saying that the kid should be expelled - okay, let's say that happens. Either way, the system failed him. What should be done to ensure that he gets he safe educational opportunity he's entitled to?

[Griffin]

the school can't do anything,

You were the only one who's argued this, or at least come close. Pretty much everyone has argued that the school CAN do something, they just wont.

What should be done to ensure that he gets he safe educational opportunity he's entitled to?

You don't understand. Once a kid is expelled, he's gone! The problems completely solved! No need to worry about anything further.

How is a plastic knife like a switchblade? It(the definition) lies in the hand of the person holding it. Weapons are no more the force multipliers. But we choose to define certain things as legal or illegal. If you don't like the definition then change it. But until then stun guns are classified as weapons. I really should say that logical fallacies are invoked for almost everything here. Logical fallacies are in most cases a matter of opinion, one of those things that it is very hard to nail down with any certainty. Their use should be sparse and not a product of every internet discussion.

Blah blah blah blah this has, again, jack shit to do with anything. No one has argued a stun gun isn't a weapon. But a switchblade isn't a weapon either, no more than a large stick or a shoe is (it wasn't designed to be a weapon), so the analogy still holds.

A stun gun is a weapon, but it is not a gun, despite the name. It has no projectile, and is significantly less dangerous than a halfway decent kitchen knife. (which should not be construed as safe) And you've yet to provide any reasoning that (a) punishing this kid in a manner other than expulsion would encourage other students to carry guns around (b) that zero tolerance policies are actually beneficial and (c) that sitting back and letting himself get tormented would have left him better off

[Princess Marzipan]

All one of me. :/ (Looking through the thread, nobody else was taking a similar tack)

I was definitely referring to more than just you.

Oh hell yes, let's give everybody stun guns, that will work. I mean hell we can have a stun a freshman week. What one kid can carry, another kid can carry, so this kid gets a pass, do you think that he is the only one? So now the bully has a stun gun. Good job, you solved the problem.

My preferred solution is schools actually giving a shit when someone's personal safety is under constant threat.

The point has been made that the same exact incidents taking place amongst a group of adults would NOT be leading to punishment. But since it happened in a school, everyone's worried about how safe their kid is with the Crazy Gay Tazer Boy running free. Well, Mr and/or Mrs Concerned Parent: Your child is just as safe as they allow Crazy Gay Tazer Boy to be! Threaten his safety, and he may fight back. As he's DEMONSTRATED that using the stungun is far from his first resort, it seems clear we don't need to worry about him attacking anyone. But without some means of defense, he lives every day in fear of being attacked. But he's Crazy Gay Tazer Boy so it's his own fault, really, I guess?

It just grinds the everloving hell out of every last one of my gears when people perform admirably in terrible situations - the girl turning in the knife her mother gave her to cut fruit, this kid taking his safety into his own hands but still showing restraint and causing zero physical harm - and the Powers That Be decide this person (who has demonstrated they are less of a danger than many others) is a danger, and must be punished.

[mike-l]

To those saying that the kid should be expelled - okay, let's say that happens. Either way, the system failed him. What should be done to ensure that he gets he safe educational opportunity he's entitled to?

A very generous settlement from the schoolboard to put him in a posh private school that actually enforces a zero tolerance bullying policy.

[Metaphysician]

All one of me. :/ (Looking through the thread, nobody else was taking a similar tack)

I was definitely referring to more than just you.

Oh hell yes, let's give everybody stun guns, that will work. I mean hell we can have a stun a freshman week. What one kid can carry, another kid can carry, so this kid gets a pass, do you think that he is the only one? So now the bully has a stun gun. Good job, you solved the problem.

My preferred solution is schools actually giving a shit when someone's personal safety is under constant threat.

The point has been made that the same exact incidents taking place amongst a group of adults would NOT be leading to punishment. But since it happened in a school, everyone's worried about how safe their kid is with the Crazy Gay Tazer Boy running free. Well, Mr and/or Mrs Concerned Parent: Your child is just as safe as they allow Crazy Gay Tazer Boy to be! Threaten his safety, and he may fight back. As he's DEMONSTRATED that using the stungun is far from his first resort, it seems clear we don't need to worry about him attacking anyone. But without some means of defense, he lives every day in fear of being attacked. But he's Crazy Gay Tazer Boy so it's his own fault, really, I guess?

It just grinds the everloving hell out of every last one of my gears when people perform admirably in terrible situations - the girl turning in the knife her mother gave her to cut fruit, this kid taking his safety into his own hands but still showing restraint and causing zero physical harm - and the Powers That Be decide this person (who has demonstrated they are less of a danger than many others) is a danger, and must be punished.

This is among my favorite posts I've ever read. Honestly, this kid did not do anything wrong. He didn't use violence to retaliate against anybody. He only brandished his one means of self defense in a desperate situation that could have likely ended with him getting the shit kicked out of him. He didn't use the stun gun. He didn't hurt anybody. If anything this should serve as a wakeup call but the school's attitude seems to be "Whatever, kid dresses like one of them thar homosexingals, he gets what's coming to him." I mean does anybody think that if this kid wore more masculine clothing that it would make one fucking iota of a difference? We're dealing with fucking bigoted sociopaths here. They don't give a fuck what he's wearing. They hate him because he's gay. The principle's solution amounts to "Guess he shouldn't be gay then". It's completely fucking unacceptable.

The idea situation is that it never comes to this point because the educators we employ with our tax money actually give a flying fuck about kids getting tortured around them. Barring that, situations like this should be reviewed and a decision should be made based on the circumstances, instead of punishing the kid for doing nothing wrong. I mean honestly, if our educators can't even think clearly enough to make basic decisions based on circumstances, then what the fuck is the point of these people teaching anybody anything anyway?

[EdgarJPublius]

Being strong is surviving, knowing that whatever is done to you, you can rise above it.

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?

[gmalivuk]

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.

Why, if not because of the real (i.e. worse) problems that would be caused by using it?

Logical fallacies are in most cases a matter of opinion, one of those things that it is very hard to nail down with any certainty. Their use should be sparse and not a product of every internet discussion.

No, they're actually often quite easy to nail down. For example,

Oh hell yes, let's give everybody stun guns, that will work. I mean hell we can have a stun a freshman week. What one kid can carry, another kid can carry, so this kid gets a pass, do you think that he is the only one? So now the bully has a stun gun. Good job, you solved the problem.

There are two of them right there: a straw man (no one suggested this kid should henceforth be allowed to bring a stungun to school whenever he likes without any kind of reprisal) and a slippery slope (his "getting a pass" (by which you seam to mean "not being expelled") in no way implies that now every student will).

And yes, the use of fallacies should be sparse. Unfortunately they aren't, though, and so sometimes bear being called out.

Unless the person who said that has a way of looking into my memory he should really shut up.

The person who said it has no need for your memory, as they likely have their own.

[Dream]

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.

Why, if not because of the real (i.e. worse) problems that would be caused by using it?

Its mere presence constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of the school, one sensational enough to do real damage to the ability of the school to maintain an orderly and safe environment for its students.

[Ghostbear]

EDIT: Ghostbear, you've got me with that point. You're right. :/ Things fall apart without proof, too. I was just thinking that if exposed to an audience, a bully might think twice. No show, though, no effect. I bow out.

Yeah, and judging by your post, you definitely were trying to think of something that would have worked out better for everyone. I can't fault you for that, but it's important to remember that even if a better solution existed, when someone is shoved into a high stress and potentially very dangerous situation, they need a solution that they know will not only work, but work the moment they need it to work and not a moment later. Getting people to stop bullying you isn't much of a victory if it costs you a trip to the hospital or a lifetime of psychological torment before you're able to stop them.

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.

Why, if not because of the real (i.e. worse) problems that would be caused by using it?

Its mere presence constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of the school, one sensational enough to do real damage to the ability of the school to maintain an orderly and safe environment for its students.

Except in this case, the authority of the school was already challenged and ignored through the bullying and not-giving-a-shitism of the administration. The ability for the school to provide an orderly and safe environment for students was already brought into question by their routine failure to actually provide that orderly and safe environment for this student. The weapon, in this instance, was restoring that orderly and safe environment for one the students, and it did so without injuring anyone. Going by your argument, the weapon was effectively instrumental for the school to meet its goals.

[Nordic Einar]

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.

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.

[Dream]

and not-giving-a-shitism of the administration.

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.

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.

The weapon, in this instance, was restoring that orderly and safe environment for one the students, and it did so without injuring anyone.

No, it wasn't. One time, it deterred one instance of bullying. It didn't change the environment the student attended school in a single bit. And just because it helps one student, doesn't meant the school should prioritise that individual's safety over the safety of the school population in general.

[Ghostbear]

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.

I'm going to go ahead and say "he couldn't identify them -- not my problem" is sufficient grounds for 'not-giving-a-shitism'. There are potential solutions the school could have tried, but from reading the article, exactly zero of them were attempted. The end result is that the school was unable to provide a safe learning environment for him. Yet he was legally obligated to go to school (not to mention the personal issues caused by not getting a high school diploma if he was able to legally skip). What do you think he should do, smile and ask if he can have some more? Magically decide to stop being gay for the sake of the bullies? The options you are giving the student are: (1) Be bullied and beaten up by other students or (2) be expelled. We can't go into the ideal of "well they should have stopped the bullying instead" because that didn't happen. Unless you can find a solution that was wholly incumbent on him for it's success and would have prevented him from being beaten up without access to a weapon, then those are his two options.

No, it wasn't. One time, it deterred one instance of bullying. It didn't change the environment the student attended school in a single bit. And just because it helps one student, doesn't meant the school should prioritise that individual's safety over the safety of the school population in general.

It deterred one instance of getting beaten up. Without the stungun, someone would have been injured. With the stungun, nobody was injured. It sounds to me like the presence of the stungun improved the situation. You're right though, the school does have an obligation to provide a safe learning environment for the entire student body. Which it failed to do, and the stungun was the only thing that prevented it from getting worse. This is exactly why we should have zero-tolerance for zero-tolerance policies -- they don't always reflect the reality of what happened, such as this case.

[morriswalters]

There are two of them right there: a straw man (no one suggested this kid should henceforth be allowed to bring a stungun to school whenever he likes without any kind of reprisal) and a slippery slope (his "getting a pass" (by which you seam to mean "not being expelled") in no way implies that now every student will).

While no one directly suggested this, it seems to be the implication. The Zero Tolerance policy is punitive in nature and it is designed to be. 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. What message do you send if you don't follow the policy? The message becomes he won't do what he says he'll do if I challenge him. And kids will challenge you, it is why the high school years are so difficult. So again we fall to a matter of opinion. I state that my reasoning is clear and well supported, rhetorical flourishes aside.

The person who said it has no need for your memory, as they likely have their own.

That was probably poor phrasing, thus worthy of attack.

More generally the talk has been mostly a rhetorical circle jerk. Of the nature, it's not fair. While I am sure this makes everyone feel good it does exactly zero. Young people have been doing this since there have been young people. You can't stop it if all you do is whine about it. Various things have been done to address the issue over time, from dress codes which use uniforms to separating the sexes. I would aver that it is an impossible task. You will run out of Principles to fire before you run out of these situations.

My preferred solution is schools actually giving a shit when someone's personal safety is under constant threat.

I would suggest that schools do give a shit. I would also suggest that there are limitations as to what they can do. Certainly in the typical school with several hundred students young people are relatively safe, but if bullies want to act out then the most active thing you can really do is to create programs on bullying, so that when an administrator asks who saw what the he gets some cooperation from those in the best position to help.

To whoever didn't like me referring to ghettos I suggest that you take a look at the crime statistics on murder and at the statistics on the leading causes of death among black males in the age period we are discussing.

[Ghostbear]

The Zero Tolerance policy is punitive in nature and it is designed to be. 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.

That doesn't make it a good policy. And it clearly isn't an absolutely zero tolerance policy if it involves input from an independent arbiter and can be appealed. Also, speaking of policies:

Indiana law defines bullying as words or actions that are intended "to harass, ridicule, humiliate, intimidate or harm," so students do not have to be physically hurt to claim that they were bullied.

Indianapolis Public Schools' bullying policy says administrators have to tell students that bullying "will not be tolerated." The policy also says administrators are responsible for investigating "complaints, allegations or rumors of bullying."

It looks to me that there is supposed to be a statewide zero tolerance policy for bullying, with the administration being responsible for implementing such. They didn't successfully enforce that in the least. Sounds like they're saying one thing ("Don't allow bullying. Period.") and doing another ("Allow bullying if it's just, you know, so much work to actually do something about it.").

More generally the talk has been mostly a rhetorical circle jerk. Of the nature, it's not fair. While I am sure this makes everyone feel good it does exactly zero. Young people have been doing this since there have been young people. You can't stop it if all you do is whine about it.

You also can't stop it if you decide to go along with policies that cause the victim to be punished as much as (or in many cases -- notably, this one -- more than) the bullies. Your general attitude for this has basically amounted to "they should learn to just deal with it" -- which is a wholly ignorant and unrealistic response to the problems that bullying can create.

Also, great job dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as just being in a "circle jerk".

[Princess Marzipan]

Morris, it was Nordic Einar. Aaaand you missed their point entirely.

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.

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.

If gang violence is the leading cause of death among black males, it's likely it has more to do with their economic situation and the daily oppression they face. Their race is an element here, but you're quite ignorantly attributing the entirety to it in your statement.

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.

Why, if not because of the real (i.e. worse) problems that would be caused by using it?

Its mere presence constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of the school, one sensational enough to do real damage to the ability of the school to maintain an orderly and safe environment for its students.

Of course it challenges the school's authority! It's challenging authority the school abdicated when it decided that a reasonable solution to bullying was to tell the victim to change their habits in a half-assed effort to deter bullies. That's such a bullshit line, seriously - bullies don't give a DAMN if you change your outward appearance. Okay, maybe they do give a damn, but only inasmuch as they can rag on you for the sudden change.

Also, is the problem the safety of the other students, or the authority of the school? If it's the latter, again, maybe the school should have been interested in retaining its authority by actually exercising any of it. You know what's damaging to the school's ability to maintain an orderly and safe environment for its students? Not maintaining an orderly and safe environment for its students. Unless the school is taking a No HomerS style stance, in which the school remains safe for studentS, just not that one student?

[gmalivuk]

The Zero Tolerance policy is punitive in nature and it is designed to be. 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. What message do you send if you don't follow the policy? The message becomes he won't do what he says he'll do if I challenge him. And kids will challenge you, it is why the high school years are so difficult. So again we fall to a matter of opinion. I state that my reasoning is clear and well supported, rhetorical flourishes aside.

Your reasoning applies equally to beheading. Explain why immediate expulsion is the penalty the school has to apply to be consistent.

To whoever didn't like me referring to ghettos I suggest that you take a look at the crime statistics on murder and at the statistics on the leading causes of death among black males in the age period we are discussing.

No fucking shit young black males are murdered disproportionately. The bullshit you were called out on was attributing this entirely to "ghetto culture", which you further seem to characterize entirely as "stand tall and show that you are not afraid". Which is *also* some pretty heavy bullshit.

[Dream]

Also, is the problem the safety of the other students, or the authority of the school?

The authority of the school is the only mechanism providing the safety of the students. Hundreds of kids cannot be adequately policed unless the school is run like a prison, and even then not completely, only adequately. The only thing that can provide a decent amount of security is a culture of respect for authority of the school. Anything that damages that culture is a real, actual attack on the safety of students at the school.

Unless the school is taking a No HomerS style stance, in which the school remains safe for studentS, just not that one student?

No, that's a blatant distortion of their situation. The school provides the most security for the most students possible, and it is inevitable that some students will not be entirely secure at all times. To claim that constitutes a deliberate policy of withholding security for an individual (as in No Homers) is just wrong. As the article points out, the school had already dealt with bullying of this student several times, sometimes when he had named bullies, sometimes when he had not. They had not given him no safety. For all you know, the school had actually made it continually possible for this guy to even attend at all, for a long period of time.

By the way, are you keeping the lid on some magic method for schools to stamp out bullying whenever a child complains of it? Because the four or five schools I'm intimately acquainted with would pay you a lot of money to tell them how you'd have dealt with this situation in such a way as to make the bullying go away. They, like every other school, can't now and never have been able to stop kids bullying each other.

Explain why immediate expulsion is the penalty the school has to apply to be consistent.

They're not expelling the student. They're actually bringing in an external investigator to assess whether expulsion is the corect course of action, even though their rules seem to state that it is.

[Diadem]

Unless the school is taking a No HomerS style stance, in which the school remains safe for studentS, just not that one student?

No, that's a blatant distortion of their situation. The school provides the most security for the most students possible, and it is inevitable that some students will not be entirely secure at all times. To claim that constitutes a deliberate policy of withholding security for an individual (as in No Homers) is just wrong. As the article points out, the school had already dealt with bullying of this student several times, sometimes when he had named bullies, sometimes when he had not. They had not given him no safety. For all you know, the school had actually made it continually possible for this guy to even attend at all, for a long period of time.

What the fuck have you been smoking? The guy needed to bring a fucking gun to school just to survive, and you claim the school provided him with safety?

The school had dealt with the bullying? The bullying was still going on! How the fuck was it dealt with? Unless you mean by "deal with" that they were notified of the situation, thought about it, and decided they didn't give a fuck? Because if that is your definition of 'dealt with' then indeed they dealt with it.

And no, the school also clearly did not provide the most security for the most students possible, if students need to bring fucking guns to school to protect themselves.

Though I'm sure the school was quite safe for the bullies. So that's something.

[gmalivuk]

They're not expelling the student. They're actually bringing in an external investigator to assess whether expulsion is the corect course of action, even though their rules seem to state that it is.

Which makes it not entirely a zero tolerance policy, which makes it not the thing I'm arguing with morris about.

[Ghostbear]

No, that's a blatant distortion of their situation. The school provides the most security for the most students possible, and it is inevitable that some students will not be entirely secure at all times. To claim that constitutes a deliberate policy of withholding security for an individual (as in No Homers) is just wrong. As the article points out, the school had already dealt with bullying of this student several times, sometimes when he had named bullies, sometimes when he had not. They had not given him no safety. For all you know, the school had actually made it continually possible for this guy to even attend at all, for a long period of time.

Did you read the same article as everyone else? Unless you define 'dealt with' as "were unable to diminish the bullying in the slightest", then they did not deal with it. I'm finding the number of claims being made in this thread contrary to what a half-assed bit of research would reveal quite baffling really:

Spoiler:

But the bullying continued, Young said. It happened every day.

Students would bump into him in the hallways on purpose and call him names. Sometimes, they would taunt him in class.
[...]
Young and his mother said they told the school about the bullying more than 10 times, but Young said Tech did not formally investigate their complaints except for once when a student who taunted him during class was taken to the dean's office and punished.

Grimes said she called the school about students following Young home from the bus stop, but school officials said they could not do anything since the students were not on school property. When she complained other times, they brought up his sexuality.

They fundamentally failed to provide safety for him.

They're not expelling the student. They're actually bringing in an external investigator to assess whether expulsion is the corect course of action, even though their rules seem to state that it is.

Has anyone actually read the school's policies? I've seen it bandied about frequently that they have an automatic expulsion rule -- but I think this is just a miscommunication that has happened in thread due to the earlier sub-discussion on zero tolerance policies. When I looked it up, I couldn't find such a rule. In fact, the copy of their rules that I could find includes this:

Spoiler:

It should be clearly understood that suspensions and expulsions are penalties of last resort, to be imposed only after other possible alternative forms of discipline have been used.

In fact, it states that they have a 6 step discipline process, and that in cases of serious infractions they'll start at step 4, which states:

Spoiler:

Additional misbehavior by the student will result in an automatic referral to the school’s administrator. The referral will include the Pupil Discipline Referral Form which shows the prior actions taken by the teacher. The administrator will review the Pupil Discipline Referral Form when considering the action to be taken against the student.

I don't think your implication that they're going easier on him than the rules say they should applies at all. Especially when it's the school administration that is pushing for him being expelled in the first place.

[Griffin]

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

Be consistent in application of reinforcers, yes, is a rule that gets thrown around a lot when with dealing with children, and definitely has its place (when dealing with human psychology, things are rarely as simple as they seem). This says nothing about the degree of the reinforcement/punishment - simply that it be applied consistently. A completely different but equally important rule is to never start with the worst punishment. Doing so is effectively cutting your own throat, authority wise, since you can never escalate. Every improper action becomes exactly as bad as the least bad action that earns the punishment, and once a child has done something wrong, there is never any reason not to do far, far more wrong. Now, a school can get away with this, because they simultaneously wipe their hands of the situation and push all their problems onto someone else (and legally, someone has to take the kid). But it is by no means expulsion is good general policy.

And, as has been stated, the school has a zero tolerance for bullying as well. Yet you think the bullies that were identified SHOULDN'T be expelled. So where, exactly, the fuck is your vaunted consistency there?

All this said, I should note that I don't have a problem with the schools actual policies, which seem to be pretty sensible and normal. I just disagree with what certain people say "should" happen as a result of them, or the policies certain people believe the school should have, and with how the policies were handled in this case.

[Princess Marzipan]

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

I think this hints at another facet of the bullying issue: we're really not talking about "children" anymore once we get to high school. Legally, they're still children, but they've developed enough intelligence that you can actually interact with them on an adult level, if you're willing to respect their agency. But teenagers are treated no better than children, and in most cases WORSE. Pack of fourth graders hanging out at the park? Aww, children are so cute when they play. Pack of eleventh graders hanging out at the park? What are those scumbags doing? It's probably sex drugs!

The authority of the school is the only mechanism providing the safety of the students.

Except it's not providing it, really, if the only choice Young had was to either sit back and take abuse, or take his own steps to prevent it.

No, that's a blatant distortion of their situation. The school provides the most security for the most students possible, and it is inevitable that some students will not be entirely secure at all times

So if the school CAN'T keep a student safe, what options does that student have?

[morriswalters]

The Zero Tolerance policy is punitive in nature and it is designed to be. 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. What message do you send if you don't follow the policy? The message becomes he won't do what he says he'll do if I challenge him. And kids will challenge you, it is why the high school years are so difficult. So again we fall to a matter of opinion. I state that my reasoning is clear and well supported, rhetorical flourishes aside.

Your reasoning applies equally to beheading. Explain why immediate expulsion is the penalty the school has to apply to be consistent.

Oh, is there a school policy on beheading? In any case the policy is there. If you don't like it , change it. Until you do, live with it. Try this with your kids and see how this works. Tell her/him to clean up their room and then don't enforce it every time the issue arises. See how that works for you.

Did anybody bother to read the notification to parents of the Zero Tolerance Policy I posted? It seems fairly straight forward. And any discipline meted out by the school is always reviewed. My daughter ran afoul of the school systems Zero Tolerance policy on drugs, and spent a year in alternative placement. And the alternative placement may be a safer place for him depending on how it is handled and if it is offered.

This from the Indianapolis Public Schools

Consequences for violation of rule infractions

Consequences for rule violations are presented to encourage proper behavior and the safety of all
students. If a student fails to follow the rules, policies, and procedures of the school, consequences
will range from a warning to suspension. School #79 has a “Zero Tolerance Policy” for drugs, alcohol
and weapons. Students who violate this policy may be expelled for up to one (1) full school year.

This is the exact policy if you are interested.

So now with that out of the way.

If gang violence is the leading cause of death among black males, it's likely it has more to do with their economic situation and the daily oppression they face. Their race is an element here, but you're quite ignorantly attributing the entirety to it in your statement.

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.

Griffin mostly I agree, but this is a well thought out policy choice, it's not a spur of the moment thing. The only difference of note between this and bullying is that this is clear cut and unambiguous. Bullying is very hard to ferret out because you have competing agendas and stories. I used to get pounded on at school and outside of it, it ran the gamut from being made fun of and excluded to physical abuse. But the whole process is ephemeral, most of the time there are no witnesses, no obvious damage. Any other kids who might have been there didn't want to help or were passive participants, sniggering and laughing while it went on. The older you get the worse it is because opportunities increase since the supervision decreases. What is it exactly that you want to happen? Do you think because Principals are Principals that they are any smarter or wiser than you? My grandmother had a plan for my father and uncle, if one is guilty than they most must be guilty was her plan, so she punished both. Very Solomon like. How do you think that would work?

[Dream]

The authority of the school is the only mechanism providing the safety of the students.

Except it's not providing it, really, if the only choice Young had was to either sit back and take abuse, or take his own steps to prevent it.

Assuming his "own steps" were limited to confronting the bullies directly, what right does he have to endanger other students at the school by flouting the no weapons rule to do so? Everyone there has a right to be protected by that rule, and undermining it is making them less safe. Nothing about Young having to protect himself means that he can just ignore the needs of innocent third parties to do so.

No, that's a blatant distortion of their situation. The school provides the most security for the most students possible, and it is inevitable that some students will not be entirely secure at all times

So if the school CAN'T keep a student safe, what options does that student have?

I don't know, it would depend entirely on the specifics of the situation. For instance, I have been physically assaulted far worse than a few thrown stones and bottles in school. Somehow, I got through my school days without arming myself with a stun gun. I walked away when it was prudent, hit back when it was safe, and sometimes when it wasn't, and relied on friends when I could. People spread rumours I had to live down, and other stuff not worth going into here. It doesn't follow from "the school can't protect me" (and it couldn't) that my only recourse is to using weapons to provide for my safety. I found other ways to do so. Unless this kid can demonstrate why the stun gun in particular was necessary, and carrying it at all times was necessary, I just don't see the contention that he had no other option as anything other than idle speculation. All over the world kids get through bullying without even using violence, let alone escalating it with weapons. Rhetorically asking "what else could be done?" is useless.

[Princess Marzipan]

No, that's a blatant distortion of their situation. The school provides the most security for the most students possible, and it is inevitable that some students will not be entirely secure at all times

So if the school CAN'T keep a student safe, what options does that student have?

I don't know, it would depend entirely on the specifics of the situation. For instance, I have been physically assaulted far worse than a few thrown stones and bottles in school. Somehow, I got through my school days without arming myself with a stun gun. I walked away when it was prudent, hit back when it was safe, and sometimes when it wasn't, and relied on friends when I could. People spread rumours I had to live down, and other stuff not worth going into here. It doesn't follow from "the school can't protect me" (and it couldn't) that my only recourse is to using weapons to provide for my safety. I found other ways to do so. Unless this kid can demonstrate why the stun gun in particular was necessary, and carrying it at all times was necessary, I just don't see the contention that he had no other option as anything other than idle speculation. All over the world kids get through bullying without even using violence, let alone escalating it with weapons. Rhetorically asking "what else could be done?" is useless.

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.

[yoni45]

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.

Even if your paraphrase was accurate, a stun gun also isn't any kind of solution.

So, either you'll have to get more creative yourself, or deal with there being no ideal solution.

[Dream]

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".

[gmalivuk]

The Zero Tolerance policy is punitive in nature and it is designed to be. 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. What message do you send if you don't follow the policy? The message becomes he won't do what he says he'll do if I challenge him. And kids will challenge you, it is why the high school years are so difficult. So again we fall to a matter of opinion. I state that my reasoning is clear and well supported, rhetorical flourishes aside.

Your reasoning applies equally to beheading. Explain why immediate expulsion is the penalty the school has to apply to be consistent.

Oh, is there a school policy on beheading?

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.

In any case the policy is there. If you don't like it , change it. Until you do, live with it.

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?

Try this with your kids and see how this works. Tell her/him to clean up their room and then don't enforce it every time the issue arises. See how that works for you.

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.

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.

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'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".

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?