#185147 - 10/13/09 01:29 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: avillageperson]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 08/09/09
Posts: 392
Loc: San Diego, CA
|
So where do you draw the line? 3"? If 3" is long enough to be dangerous, what about 2-7/8"? Or 2-31/32"?
And how long does a blade have to be to be "dangerous"? How long a blade do you need to reach the jugular? To puncture an eyeball? To cut a finger?
You can't define a "dangerous" blade by its length. It has to be all or nothing.
Note: I do not agree with zero-tolerance, nor that "all knives are dangerous". I'm only trying to show that length cannot be used as a limiting factor.
Carp. Too early in the morning for me. I was responding to an old post in the thread. Carry on.
Edited by Compugeek (10/13/09 02:24 PM)
_________________________
Okey-dokey. What's plan B?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#185152 - 10/13/09 02:34 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: NightHiker]
|
Old Hand
Registered: 03/19/05
Posts: 1185
Loc: Channeled Scablands
|
Even if the super, and principle are the ones having to enforce
rules that someone else makes up, when something is this silly, that stands to dramatically
hurt a students chances for the future, they should have some
balls and stand up for the student.
Edited by clearwater (10/13/09 02:35 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#185157 - 10/13/09 02:46 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: Compugeek]
|
Old Hand
Registered: 10/19/06
Posts: 1013
Loc: Pacific NW, USA
|
So where do you draw the line? 3"? If 3" is long enough to be dangerous, what about 2-7/8"? Or 2-31/32"?
And how long does a blade have to be to be "dangerous"? How long a blade do you need to reach the jugular? To puncture an eyeball? To cut a finger?
You're asking these questions too late Compugeek - the time to ask them is before a zero tolerance policy is adopted by a school board. You cannot argue or contest based on lethality or severity or any other factor, the policy is already made. Why demonize local administrators - at this point they are following a developed policy without any leeway for interpretation or compromise, and in fact the school district incurs significant liability if anyone exercises judgment in the face of such a policy. Who will defend the administrator who let Eagle Scout #4 keep his 1 1/2 inch pocket knife, which was found stuck in the eye of Dangerous Stoner #7 after a football game? Or switch the roles, doesn't matter - the administrator is hosed either way. The folks who want a zero tolerance policy on weapons are getting exactly what they lobbied for. You probably have pretty much an identical policy in your school district. Go to your school board meeting, read your opinions on zero tolerance weapons policies during the public portion of the meeting, see if it does you any good. It takes alot of brain power to overturn or amend a zero tolerance policy once enacted.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#185160 - 10/13/09 03:11 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: clearwater]
|
Journeyman
Registered: 12/19/08
Posts: 55
Loc: Central Virginia
|
Whether the principal or superintendent can "stand up" for the student depends on the circumstances at the moment the knife was found. For instance, if the principal found the knife and was alone at the time he/she could have not reported it (unlikely, but possible). As soon as somebody else knows about the knife - it's over. The policy is a School Board policy and the Board has to stand by the policy or get skewered by the media. Public entities are stuck when it comes to this. That's why, whenever possible, they don't have policies but rather something they might call guidelines or procedures - they have leeway on those. At least that's how the large Govt organization I work for handles things.
When my son was in 5th grade a classmate heard him say something like "Oh, yeah ... well if he did that I'd kill him." The classmate told the bus driver who told the principal who apologized to my wife and I for suspending our son. The principal said it was all about zero-tolerance and the Board of Education gave all administrators very clear instructions - personally he thought it was stupid and implied that it was insulting to him that he had no way to use his discretion on so may things.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#185164 - 10/13/09 03:47 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: Wheels]
|
Old Hand
Registered: 03/19/05
Posts: 1185
Loc: Channeled Scablands
|
Thats why it take some guts. They are either in it for the
kids or for themselves.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#185165 - 10/13/09 04:03 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: Leigh_Ratcliffe]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 01/04/07
Posts: 339
Loc: New York, NY
|
"The Lansingburgh Central School District has a zero-tolerance policy on weapons. According to the district's Codes of Conduct, students are not allowed to have "a weapon of any kind" on school grounds. Even though a pocket knife is not considered a weapon under New York State penal code, the district also prohibits students from possessing anything "that reasonably can be considered a weapon."
So I had better leave my hands, feet, head, arms, elbows , knees, pens, pencils, belt, torch, shoes, key's, 550 cord, karabiner et al at home then?
To me this is a catch-all policy that can be applied any which way they feel like.
Anything can be "reasonably considered to be a weapon" if you know what you are doing.
Yes, he should sue. If only on the grounds that he has been denied a fair & impartial hearing.
You hit the nail on the head. Even if you have a zero-tolerance rule, the kids still have to understand what the rule prohibits. The wiggle words "that reasonably can be considered a weapon" leave that pretty much impossible. If some administrator had it out for a kid, a car itself could "reasonably" be considered a weapon, or his shoelaces. As for refusing to allow them to search your car, that is a losing argument. Google the Supreme Court decision "New Jersey v. TLO". Remember that the fourth amendment forbids UNREASONABLE search and seizure. And the Supremes have decided that in order to protect students, just about anything is reasonable. The cops may need a warrant and probable cause, but a school administrator only needs "reasonable suspicion" (there's that wiggle word again, "reasonable"). In New Jersey v. TLO, the Supreme Court upheld the search of a student's purse because she was suspected of having cigarettes. What's scary about TLO and the line of cases it has spawned isn't so much the ruling, but the logic behind it. Basically, the court reasoned that since students are compelled by governmental authority to attend school, the government owes them a higher duty of safety. The only way to guarantee this higher duty of safety is to give the school authorities more lattitude under the Bill of Rights. The court has upheld school administrators who conduct strip searches, drug dog searches, urinalysis and many other invasions of what we once considered privacy, all under the relaxed standard of "reasonable" suspicion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#185167 - 10/13/09 04:08 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: clearwater]
|
Journeyman
Registered: 12/19/08
Posts: 55
Loc: Central Virginia
|
"Thats why it take some guts. They are either in it for the
kids or for themselves."
I agree about the guts part. I respectfully disagree with your second point. Well, at least for some principals/superintendents. The good ones are in it for the kids and themselves. After all, they have careers and families and kids in college and so on - they have very good paying jobs - they can't just throw that away to make a point. If they did ignore a policy approved by their boss (the Board of Education) they would most likely lose their job. That job would then be filled by someone who would follow the policies. The kid would still be suspended or expelled.
Obviously the only way to fix this problem is to change the policy. Will that happen? Only when the parents/voters make enough noise about not passing levies unless certain policies are changed. Sadly, it's all about the money.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#185185 - 10/13/09 06:29 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: Wheels]
|
Geezer
Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 5163
Loc: W. WA
|
The bottom line seems to be that if you want to provide quality education for your kids, don't want to put up with the school board BS, and don't want your kids treated like cattle, don't put them in the American public school system.
And for those of you who think that system is about education and socialization, you'd better take a closer look.
Sue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#185200 - 10/13/09 07:45 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: DesertFox]
|
Veteran
Registered: 03/31/06
Posts: 1355
Loc: United Kingdom.
|
"The Lansingburgh Central School District has a zero-tolerance policy on weapons. According to the district's Codes of Conduct, students are not allowed to have "a weapon of any kind" on school grounds. Even though a pocket knife is not considered a weapon under New York State penal code, the district also prohibits students from possessing anything "that reasonably can be considered a weapon."
So I had better leave my hands, feet, head, arms, elbows , knees, pens, pencils, belt, torch, shoes, key's, 550 cord, karabiner et al at home then?
To me this is a catch-all policy that can be applied any which way they feel like.
Anything can be "reasonably considered to be a weapon" if you know what you are doing.
Yes, he should sue. If only on the grounds that he has been denied a fair & impartial hearing.
You hit the nail on the head. Even if you have a zero-tolerance rule, the kids still have to understand what the rule prohibits. The wiggle words "that reasonably can be considered a weapon" leave that pretty much impossible. If some administrator had it out for a kid, a car itself could "reasonably" be considered a weapon, or his shoelaces. As for refusing to allow them to search your car, that is a losing argument. Google the Supreme Court decision "New Jersey v. TLO". Remember that the fourth amendment forbids UNREASONABLE search and seizure. And the Supremes have decided that in order to protect students, just about anything is reasonable. The cops may need a warrant and probable cause, but a school administrator only needs "reasonable suspicion" (there's that wiggle word again, "reasonable"). In New Jersey v. TLO, the Supreme Court upheld the search of a student's purse because she was suspected of having cigarettes. What's scary about TLO and the line of cases it has spawned isn't so much the ruling, but the logic behind it. Basically, the court reasoned that since students are compelled by governmental authority to attend school, the government owes them a higher duty of safety. The only way to guarantee this higher duty of safety is to give the school authorities more lattitude under the Bill of Rights. The court has upheld school administrators who conduct strip searches, drug dog searches, urinalysis and many other invasions of what we once considered privacy, all under the relaxed standard of "reasonable" suspicion. I apologise for quoting. Unfortunately it is necessary for readers to follow the discussion  There is a point worth noting about the above. First and most prominent is that these students are all Minor's. That means that they cannot sue in their own person. They can only sue through a parent or guardian. Something of which the School Boards are perfectly well aware. As an adult, anyone who strip searches, drug tests or urine analysis me is courting an action for slander, libel, defamation of character, repudiation of the basis of trust, unreasonable behaviour etc. That is irrespective of any imposed terms and conditions of employment, entry or anything else of that ilk. What is often not appreciated is that self granted rights to search do not impede action against them, even if it is a condition of entry, employment etc. Unless they have what is commonly referred to as qualified or absolute privilege. That is to say that they enjoy partial or absolute immunity in law. Ditto any imposed conditions stating that it does not constitute suspicion etc. The position in law (in the U.K.) is that your agreement has been obtained under coercion. Specifically: Expulsion, refusal of services, dismissal without pay or references etc.
_________________________
I don't do dumb & helpless.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#185218 - 10/13/09 11:29 PM
Re: Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car
[Re: Susan]
|
Member
Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 165
Loc: Rens. County, NY
|
And for those of you who think that system is about education and socialization, you'd better take a closer look.
It's about conformity. You can do anything you like, just so long as it's just what everyone else is doing. I believe it's part of the reason there's so much trouble with gangs. It's difficult to say "blindly follow us simply because we're in charge" and at the same time say "don't follow those that claim to be in charge because they have power." IMHO kids need to be taught that teachers aren't any smarter than they are, they're just usually more knowledgeable, and that administrators often aren't right, but you have to play the game anyway.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
0 registered (),
380
Guests and
214
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
