What part of “except as authorized in support of school-sanctioned activities” do you not understand?
I have two opinions on this case:
- Kids should not be allowed to bring sharp knives to school.
- Kids should not be arrested, and certainly not charged with felonies, when even the people calling the police admit that there was no evil intent whatsoever.
I don’t understand why the police felt it necessary to make an arrest in this situation. They have no “zero tolerance” excuse to fall back on. I hope a judge throws out the charges post haste.
So, using cafeteria knives to cut cafeteria pizza is okay, but using a steak knife to cut steak isn’t?
I know, it was against the rules. As I’ve already said, the teachers acted appropriately according to the rules. The rules are just fucked up.
What was it Riker said? “Since when is justice as simple as a rule book?” or words to that effect.
It was talk like that that made liberal a bad word in the 80s and 90s.
As a teacher on a campus where a student was stabbed to death last year, let me take a shot at this:
-
There is nothing wrong with zero tolerance!!! If the rule is that no knives are allowed on campus then that should apply to all students in every situation.
-
I think the objection is to the penalty the girl faced. Arrest was not appropriate unless she was making threats while brandishing that knife. Typically, zero tolerence policies give minimal punishment assuming that anything serious will be handled by authorities. The punishment is typically a suspension to
a) punish the student to ensure that they realize the school take that particular rule seriously
b) encourage a dialog with parents that may otherwise be unresponsive to phone calls and/or refuse to show up for conferences (all too common in urban schools
c) protect the other students while the authorities to investigate to see if there was a serious threat (e.g. Jimmy says Susie was going to use his nuts for jingle bells on her Christmas tree)
It is simple to write a law that says “No Knives on campus”. It is simple to follow it. What law would you like to write? No generalities, be specific. I bet I can tear holes in it. Laws serve many purposes, one is to be clear a succinct and easy to prove at trial. How hard can it be? DON"T FUCKING BRING KNIVES TO SCHOOL. If you need one how hard is it to get permision?
Put down the crack pipe, Liberal was never a bad word. (except when a certain libertarian tried to appropriate it…)
Maybe now would be a good time for you to pipe in and say that since everyone is disagreeing with me, I should back up and reevaluate my position.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. I acknowledge that bringing knives to school is dangerous and should be prohibited. I simply disagree on the potential extent of such a law and when police need to be involved. In the case cited in the OP I feel the arrest was unnecessary. Had a kid pulled a knife and threatened somebody, then yes, call the cops.
Lib, don’t ever change. This place would not be the same without you. Every time you take off I miss you. Despite the fact that you drive me nuts. 
The only problem is that you cannot get rid of the bad kids bringing knives on campus. If you make an exception for steak knives then all the bad kids will start carrying “steak knives”.
And as soon as a bad kid shows a steak knife anywhere but in the lunchroom during lunch, or elsewhere under supervision, his/her ass is out the door and into a cruiser.
Or, at least into the back of the parents’ car. Bad kids don’t always equate to bad parents after all.
But what if it is little susie under the bleachers sewing a pair of new underwear for the principal? Under your rule she gets arrested, since she is not under supervision nor is she in the lunch room…
-
I think that Zero Tolerance has gone too far IF this kid actually gets suspended for 10 days.
-
These laws were passed because (IMHO) we decided to stop trusting the faculty of the schools. With freedom to interpret, the faculty let off the Boy Scout and nail the Gangbanger. This often has racist overtones (and might not even be the best path). In response - ZT laws.
-
I thought it was interesting what the other linked articles were:
Previous Stories:
December 12, 2007: Teacher Arrested After Loaded Gun Found On School Campus
December 10, 2007: Mother Upset After School Doesn’t Report Slashing Incident To Police
December 10, 2007: 7-Year-Old Girl Accused Of Threatening Student With Knife
Right. :rolleyes: Naturally “little Susie” would be doing that under the bleachers. If she’s that dumb she doesn’t need to be arrested but shouldn’t be handling sharp objects either.
Of course, if you simply mean my rule didn’t account for every situation you’re probably right. But I’d try to word it more carefully to allow for discretion and not enforce zero tolerance.
Again with the rolleyes, I am going to have to go back and read the rules again, I could have sworn that it was against the rules. Maybe not.
Anyway, by all means, post your proposed non zero tolerance law. Remember it has to be generally applicable and one that bad guys can’t weasel out of in court. Personally, all things being equal, I think a no knives on campus without permission rule is simpler than the alternative.
"Faculty have the right to confinscate any object that, in their opinion, could be used as a weapon. The object will only be returned to the parent or guardian of the student.
Upon review by the principal, a student may be suspended for bringing such objects to school. Repeat violations will result in expulsion."
Now - this requires that we trust both the teacher and the principal. We could go one step further and model it based on the military UCMJ:
Detention: Can be given out by the teacher.
Suspension: Requires a vote by 3 teachers.
Expulsion: Requires a meeting with the parents, and the vote of a panel of 5 teachers, adjudicated by the Principal.
Sounds good to me.
Sure. Sounds good. But how about “Don’t bring fucking knives to school”?