You Can Kill Somebody By Running Them Over
Or slitting their throat with an art-class scissors. But, a teenaged Montana hunter, Demarie DeReu, is potentially facing expulsion for having her hunting rifle locked in her trunk on school property. Bob Unruh writes for WND about the latest "zero tolerance" policy disaster, quoting Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who said he was contacted by the student's mother:
He said DeReu, 16, is an honor roll student, a member of the Columbia Falls High School student council and a varsity cheerleader.She's also a hunter.
"Although she had no intent to break any rules or laws, or harm anyone, Demarie is at risk of having her college education derailed and maybe even being identified forever as a domestic terrorist," Marbut reported.
It was over Thanksgiving that she went hunting with family and friends, but when she returned home forgot her unloaded hunting rifle was cased and locked in the trunk of her car.
She later parked in the school parking lot but when she heard a "contraband dog" was to be working the lot, she remembered her unloaded rifle and volunteered the information to school officials.
..."She will possibly have her life derailed because a bunch of school idiots insist that she must be subject to an irrational, 'zero tolerance' policy about guns in schools that does not countenance lack of bad intent. The theory that people with malice will be intimidated into good conduct if people without malice are punished in lieu of them is idiocy at its finest," he said in his written documentation of the situation.
via ifeminists
Who proves intent, Amy?
She can claim that she just happened to have it in her car because she's a hunter, and she's a straight A student and all-around good girl, so of course we have to believe her.
And what happens if the school's notorious dopehead, dealer, straight F student, all-around troublemaker shows up with a rifle in the trunk of his car? Do we let him go, too, when he protests he's just going hunting after school? Or do we have different sets of rules for the people we like and the people we don't like? Only honor students are allowed to bring hunting rifles to school?
I feel for the girl, and I do believe the school's overreacting...but she did a stupid, stupid thing and the school cannot let this one off with a slap on the wrist unless everyone who does this gets the same.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 12:54 AM
Thank you Patrick for embodying all the stupidity and evil of zero tolerance.
What is the stupid stupid thing she did? Forgetting what was locked in her trunk? Most people call that an accident and are able to dole out a reasonable, logical, and natural punishment, which might involve classes, community service of some sort, but short of expulsion. Which yes, can take into account the differences between an honor student and a trouble maker with a record. (Hint: police and courts do this all the time.)
Or was the stupid, stupid thing she did volunteering the information to the school?
Jerry at December 10, 2010 1:31 AM
I have to agree with Jerry on this one.
She simply forgot she had it in her car, anyone can make that mistake. When she remembered, she volunteered the information. There is no apparent harmful intent, no criminal mind or sadistic murderous thought here.
You don't have two different sets of rules for people, what you do have is flexibility of punishment on the basis of action and intent.
In short they should have options to decide how to punish people, and choose the appropriate option, not just one single tool and they hammer everybody in the head with it the exact same way no matter what the circumstances.
Robert at December 10, 2010 2:08 AM
Yes, well, when the next school shooter is found to have a rifle in the trunk of his car, he'll just protest that he's a hunter and forgot it was there. And when he's not believed and ends up getting arrested, the school will have a nice lawsuit to deal with for discrimination.
Brilliant, Rob and Jerry. You just provided a ready excuse if a prospective school shooter gets busted with a rifle in the trunk of his car.
Do you really believe "different sets of rules for different students" is going to fly?\
And by the way, Jerry, since apparently you can't argue without availing yourself of strawmen, perhaps you missed the part where I said that the school overreacted. A person who doesn't have his head up his ass would infer that I don't believe expulsion was appropriate.
But whatever should be done with her has to be done to any student who has a rifle in the trunk of their car.
And by the way, I would say forgetting you have a gun in the trunk of your car would qualify as a stupid, stupid thing. A person with brains keeps track of things like that. That isn't yesterday's newspaper, you know.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 3:32 AM
You can't have different rules for different kids at school. To expect teachers to do psychological profiles of all their students in order to assess whether or not they should be allowed to have weapons is a very tall order. It places too much liability on the teachers.
The girl was a dumbass. This isn't a case of a plastic butter knife or
an aspirin. This is a rifle.
I do think that the fact that she volunteered the info should have been taken into account.
NicoleK at December 10, 2010 3:49 AM
Forgetting your rifle in the trunk of your car is really freaking stupid, along the lines of leaving a briefcase full of cash in there. It's not a mistake anybody can make, it's leaving a valuable object improperly secured.
That said, expulsion sounds kind of steep for having an unloaded, cased weapon locked in the trunk and not in the school building. Further, the WND article never actually says what the school administration plans to do to the girl, while also stating that penalties can be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I suspect Miss DeReu won't have her future spoiled.
By the way, can contraband dogs sniff out a cased hunting rifle locked in the trunk of a car?
Old RPM Daddy at December 10, 2010 4:22 AM
It wasn't a "stupid, stupid" thing. It was forgetful. But even if it was "stupid," she doesn't deserve to have her life derailed for it.
And yes, Nicole and Patrick, you can have different sets of rules for different kids. The girl is an honor student and by all accounts, a straight-arrow. At least when I was in school, everyone knew who the "good kids" were, and everyone knew who the troublemakers were.
It would be pretty easy to have two sets of rules at school. Your melodrama aside, Nicole, there's no need for psych profiles. All it would take would be an administrator with some guts and half a brain. Which I guess is too much to ask.
Tom at December 10, 2010 4:26 AM
Tom: And yes, Nicole and Patrick, you can have different sets of rules for different kids.
No, you can't.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 4:35 AM
It's too much of a spectrum. There are a lot of kids between the straight-A honor student and the drug dealer. What about the kid who doesn't skip class, but hangs out during breaks with the druggies in the parking lot even though s/he doesn't do drugs her/himself? Where does that kid fit on the spectrum?
In any case, at my high school, it was the straight-A honor student who shot himself. Not on campus, though.
Grades are not a good indicator of whether or not someone is psycho. Neither is being a slacker.
NicoleK at December 10, 2010 5:01 AM
First mistake she made was being in a public school.
Second mistake was volunteering that she had a rifle.
Patrick, stop being such a pussy.
brian at December 10, 2010 5:11 AM
As someone who has actually been in a school shooting, I think this is an appropriate punishment. She may have volunteered the information--and how widely I wonder?--but it was still a "loaded" rifle.
I wouldn't want that in my parking lot and I don't care who it belongs to.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 5:24 AM
Yes, you can. Or do hate crime laws cover white heterosexual men?
Steve at December 10, 2010 5:57 AM
I can't help but think a lot of hassle would have been avoided had she, upon hearing about the dogs on campus, just invented an excuse or illness, driven her ass home, unloaded the gun, and returned to school with an empty trunk. Problem solved. Anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention for the past decade should know better than to bring or admit to bringing a weapon onto school property. The sad part is that she's being punished for being truthful and doing what he thought was the right thing.
mse at December 10, 2010 6:01 AM
That last comment was for Patrick.
Anon,
Did you read the article? The rifle wasn't "loaded" (why the scare quotes?)
but when she returned home forgot her unloaded hunting rifle was cased and locked in the trunk of her car.
It was unloaded and cased (locked up), and in her trunk, where no one could even see it.
Oh the horror. This is stupidity (on behalf of the school), at it's finest.
Steve at December 10, 2010 6:02 AM
"And yes, Nicole and Patrick, you can have different sets of rules for different kids."
Yes, you can. And most schools do, at least unofficially. I could get away with absolutely anything I wanted, because I had good grades and didn't cause trouble. If I wanted to not go to school that day, or skip a class, no one ever said squat. The troublemakers did not have that luxury.
The school's idiotic. Even the cops cut you slack on real crimes if you're honest up front. Should a law-abiding teen get different treatment than potheads?
momof4 at December 10, 2010 6:13 AM
Fox news' story has some more information than the Wing Nut Daily's sensationalistic coverage. One key fact is missing from WND's story.
(From http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/09/honor-roll-students-future-balance-gun-law/)
"She was suspended from school for violating federal and state gun laws."
In other words, this isn't a school zero tolerance fiasco, she violated federal law. Whether the law is idiotic or not is another question, but what is not in question is the fact that she broke - albeit accidentally - federal law.
Mike at December 10, 2010 6:17 AM
Whether people think you should have different rules for different kids, infomally there always are...that's why some kids get in trouble and others don't for the same "offenses."
And if the gun is unloaded, in a locked case, and there's no ammo in the trunk, I'm not worried...it's how I brought my gun home after buying it and mine travels around town in my trunk too when I go to and from the range.
Catherine at December 10, 2010 6:17 AM
Tom: And yes, Nicole and Patrick, you can have different sets of rules for different kids.
No, you can't.
Posted by: Patrick at December 10, 2010 4:35 AM
Well, you've certainly made a convincing argument.
We have different rules for different groups of people all the time. As Steve pointed out, for hate crime laws. Or for sexual offenders. Or for minors vs. adults. Or citizens vs. non-citizens. Or for convicted felons. Or for people on a terror watch list. Or for people on probation. Or for members of the military or law enforcement. The list goes on. In each of these cases, the rules are different for different people based on past behavior. There's absolutely no reason why an administrator can't do the same thing.
But instead they fall back on this hyper-PC BS that treats everyone the same, despite the fact that everyone is different, and based on prior behavior it's pretty easy to get a general idea, especially in a relatively small population, of who the good kids are and who need special rules.
Tom at December 10, 2010 6:30 AM
>>You Can Kill Somebody By Running Them Over
Or slitting their throat with an art-class scissors.
True enough Amy.
But "I forgot" is never a good enough excuse when a gun is involved, in any circumstances.
I also totally agree with NicoleK: "I do think that the fact that she volunteered the info should have been taken into account."
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 6:55 AM
M4: Yes, you can. And most schools do, at least unofficially. I could get away with absolutely anything I wanted, because I had good grades and didn't cause trouble. If I wanted to not go to school that day, or skip a class, no one ever said squat. The troublemakers did not have that luxury.
Oh, sure M4. Just sharpen your finger at the straight A student who brought a rifle to school, but when the druggie shows up with one in the trunk of his car, have him arrested.
And you don't think this won't come up in court? You don't think there will be a parade of witnesses to testify that another student did the exact same thing, got off scot-free and charge the school with discrimination?
Have some more Kool Aid. You obviously enjoy it.
Tom, I don't need an argument. Your statement was a self-evident absurdity. You seem to think a school can discriminate and punish different students differently for the same offense. And remember, we're not talking about cheating on homework assignments. We're talking about bringing a weapon to school.
Yeah, right. Say, "Naughty, naughty" to the straight A student, and have the druggie taken away in handcuffs for the same offense. And the druggie's parents won't sue the school. You and Momof4 drinking from the same pitcher.
Brian, I would respond by saying, "Brian, don't be such a bitter queen," but that's like saying, "Brian, don't be Brian."
Patrick at December 10, 2010 6:57 AM
This is riduculous. For one thing, school shooters are not going to volunteer the fact that they have a gun. That right there shows she had no ill intent. Plus, the gun was unloaded. Double proof she's not a threat.
This is like the case I shared where the middle school girl, my daughter's friend, found a gun in her duffle bag while on a field trip. She had borrowed the bag from her dad's closet, not realizing the gun was hidden there. When she found it, she immediately told the chaperones, which was the right thing to do. But she was immediately expelled from school and had all kinds of issues because of it.
So, the moral is: If you find a gun at school, say nothing.
I can't believe the criticism heaped on this girl for doing the right thing...or saying she should've made up a lie and driven the gun home. Why should she have to do that?! What values are we teaching?
I think she had a reasonable expectation that her school administrators wouldn't be so idiotic as to believe she'd tell them about a gun she was planning to use. One without any bullets too. Where is the common sense?
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 7:09 AM
You know, there's never been an incident of a school shooting involving a bolt action hunting rifle locked in a student's car, or even retrieved from an unlocked car. That's not how they've gone down.
Here's the thing that's really doing to send some of the pants wetters here into a tizzy. If someone wants to shoot up a school, they just walk in and do it. A rifle locked in the truck of a car is of no use to a shooter, they can't even get at it. A hunting rifle is of very limited use. An unloaded rifle is of absolutely no use, except perhaps to bludgeon people. So none of the relevant details here are indicative of a threat.
This policy is purely symbolic, to give comfort to the weak minded.
I think that this is what we need to resolve. How do you pursue a modern society were a significant proportion of the population is psychologically incapable of modulating their risk sensitivity?
joal at December 10, 2010 7:11 AM
Jody: I also totally agree with NicoleK: "I do think that the fact that she volunteered the info should have been taken into account."
That might be nice, but that's not up to the school. Guns on school grounds are serious. As Mike points out, this is now in the hands of the authorities. You think the school board is going to take care of this now and punish it at their discretion?
In a word, "HA!"
Note, before the hissy-queens pitch their fits, I didn't say one word, not one, about whether or not involving the authorities is appropriate or should be done. I merely pointed out that that's where it is now. Whether or not they should be is a whole other discussion, but I didn't say one way or another.
I have to point these things out on this board, because it's been my experience that if I don't, I get 20 paragraph tirades directed at me about how horrible I am for suggesting that the authorities should be involved, and I have to write four or five posts explaining that I said no such thing.
Asking some people to read what's written without reading into what's written is a bit too much to ask. So, let's just see if some pre-emptive work can defuse things before it gets started.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 7:18 AM
Patrick, you seem hell-bent on ignoring the fact that our laws, our society, and even our schools "discriminate" against different groups all the time in making disciplinary decisions and rules.
If a student has a history of bad behavior, they should indeed be "discriminated" against when it comes to discipline. If a student has a history of good behavior, they should be given more leeway when a mistake is made. That's how life works.
As far as I can tell, your argument for potentially damaging/ruining someone's life with a BS charge hinges on your fear of a hypothetical lawsuit.
Tom at December 10, 2010 7:19 AM
I am not sure this was a violation of any federal gun laws. I was in a situation once where I needed to know how restrictive federal gun laws were and as I recall, they are very narrowly tailored to apply to federal buildings only such as post offices and federal court houses. For example, with the commander's consent I could store my guns at my office on a US Air Force base, and there was no law against me bringing them on base. These federal gun laws also do not apply to federal lands, which are often open for public hunting or buildings leased by the federal government where they may or may not have offices. I think the writer of this article was probably mistaken about the violation of federal laws as most school and government officials are not smart enough to recognize the difference between a "law" and a "policy"
Isabel1130 at December 10, 2010 7:21 AM
I agree w/ you lovelysoul. The fact that she came clean to the school board that she'd forgotten about having her unloaded locked gun still in her trunk does say an enormous deal about her criminal intent, or rather, lack thereof.
For those who say what she did was "stupid stupid(!)", yeah, it was dumb. Guess what, 16 year olds do DUMB things all the time! (Really, people, have you forgotten how teenagers are?) She tried to then do the RIGHT thing by alerting the school officials. That alone should have weighed far more heavily in her favor. Cause guess what, the guy who's looking to shoot up the school, who has criminal intent, isn't going to be telling on himself like that.
Common sense is dead. Sigh....
other Beth at December 10, 2010 7:21 AM
Right. It's like we've lost all faith in common sense, and, since we can't trust anyone to use common sense - even our teachers or school administrators - we completely remove that option. No one can weigh the facts and assess risks appropriately.
Why not do that with cops too? How can we trust them to properly weigh life-threatening situations? How do we know they have any common sense? Let's just make it law that cops must shoot people under certain sets of circumstances, regardless of any mitigating factors, such as someone being mentally challenged.
It's a lost world when we've can't trust trained educators to properly assess a situation like this. If they are that stupid, I don't want them teaching my kids.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 7:22 AM
Lovelysoul: This is riduculous. For one thing, school shooters are not going to volunteer the fact that they have a gun. That right there shows she had no ill intent. Plus, the gun was unloaded. Double proof she's not a threat.
I agree that the girl is highly unlikely to have had any intention of wrongdoing, and as I said before, the school over-reacted. But you'd be amazed at the number of people who get shot by "unloaded" guns.
joal: You know, there's never been an incident of a school shooting involving a bolt action hunting rifle locked in a student's car...
First time for everything. Understandably, people are concerned about guns at school. By the way, I don't think I've seen you here before. Nice to meet you.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 7:24 AM
Tom: As far as I can tell, your argument for potentially damaging/ruining someone's life with a BS charge hinges on your fear of a hypothetical lawsuit.
See what I mean? I said three times that school over-reacted, but asshats must have their strawmen.
I thought I took care of this possibility when I pointed out, at length, that I never said one way or another that the authorities should be involved. But obviously, I should have forseen the suggestion that I'm advocating ruining this girl's life.
Never said that. In fact, I said (now four times) the school over-reacted. I should have written several paragraphs pointing out that the girl should not be labeled a domestic terrorist, and should be spared every other possible apocalyptic scenario that would befall her if found guilty of some crime.
But the asshats will find something else to lie about.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 7:31 AM
Patrick, I agree that it seems like you're looking at this purely from the lawsuit angle...like you're the school board's lawyer.
But this kind of fear of liability is destroying our country. So what if another kid sues? I suspect that few kids bring guns to school, and fewer still would have the exact same circumstance of confessing to an unloaded gun in their trunk, like this girl, so the probability that this would ever result in a lawsuit for this school board is very low. Letting that fear be the determining factor in ruining a straight A student's college propects is unconscionable for an entity that is entrusted with educating our children. THAT is supposed to be their primary goal, not covering their asses.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 7:34 AM
See what I mean? I said three times that school over-reacted, but asshats must have their strawmen.
Leaving aside your name-calling, since I know children will be children:
You can say the school overreacted until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that you're advocating a zero tolerance approach towards gun possession on school grounds. Which inevitably results in the exact "overreaction" that you're claiming you oppose.
Tom at December 10, 2010 7:40 AM
Patrick: "Asking some people to read what's written without reading into what's written is a bit too much to ask. So, let's just see if some pre-emptive work can defuse things before it gets started."
Tom (to Patrick): "As far as I can tell, your argument for potentially damaging/ruining someone's life with a BS charge hinges on your fear of a hypothetical lawsuit."
Tom,
You are a useful nitwit!
(See Patrick's comment!)
>>For those who say what she did was "stupid stupid(!)", yeah, it was dumb. Guess what, 16 year olds do DUMB things all the time!
The other Beth,
Granted.
And "dumb" and "gun" can make a deadly mix.
Jesus, how many times in these threads do we hear from genuinely responsible gun owners pointing out that they ALWAYS follow certain basic safety rules - as if it is impossible for a responsible gun owner to be distracted, ever?
(I understand the girl here was distracted, did no harm - and behaved with utmost responsibility/maturity when she realized her error.)
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 7:41 AM
Yes, well, when the next school shooter is found to have a rifle in the trunk of his car
I don't think a shooter will be volunteering that information. And I doubt the firearm will be unloaded. And a hunting rifle is terrible weapon in a close-quarters combat situation. A shotgun or pistol are much better choices.
This is the TSA thing, writ small you're going to be treated like you're a criminal.
If she kept her mouth shut, or suddenly felt "ill" and had to "go home", no one would have been the wiser.
Moral of the story: perfect honesty is good in a pefect world.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 10, 2010 7:43 AM
Jody, if you can be bothered to make a point before beginning the name-calling:
What do you see as Patrick's point here? He claims that the school overreacted. He also thinks schools cannot treat students differently, and that guns on school grounds are a serious matter. Ergo, a gun on school grounds, regardless of the past behavior of the owner or intent must be reported to the authorities. Resulting in the overreaction that Patrick is decrying.
Please show me where I'm wrong.
Tom at December 10, 2010 7:50 AM
"Why should she have to do that?"
Why? Really? Because, as is pointed out on a near-daily basis on this very blog, you simply cannot trust bureaucratic authorities to do right by you, even when you're being honest and trying to do the right thing. Yes, it sucks. No, it does not teach good morals. But it's true. This is a hard way for the girl to learn that, and I'm absolutely not saying it's right or that her situation is being handled fairly. I'm saying this: "anything you say can and will be used against you." not that I approve of this situation or outcome.
mse at December 10, 2010 7:51 AM
If she kept her mouth shut, or suddenly felt "ill" and had to "go home", no one would have been the wiser.
Moral of the story: perfect honesty is good in a pefect world.
This is something that we've had to instill in our daughter. She's very honest, but that honestly is dangerous in the presence of teachers and school administrators. It's a hard lesson to introduce to a child, because you have to explain that the people who they see everyday, and who they like, are out to get them.
Honestly the longer I interact with public school employees, the less respect I have for them.
Jerry Price at December 10, 2010 7:55 AM
Accidents happen, even with responsible people, who've done it right a million times before.
For instance, people drown, for no apparent reason. The way I met my fiance was at a charity event for a diver who drowned. He was in his early 30s, with a baby on the way, and he was highly trained rescue diver. Been down there successfully a million times, but, one time, he didn't come up.
Yet, we can't say there should be no swimming. Kids shouldn't ever be around a body of water because some drown. Or can we? I'm suprised schools even have swim teams anymore. I mean, they're doing away with playgrounds because sometimes kids fall off a swingset and break an arm. Where does it end?
In areas where people hunt, it's not uncommon to keep a gun in a vehicle. This is only considered "stupid" because of the current zero-tolerance climate at school. Her "stupidity" was not in having the gun, unloaded and safely stowed in her trunk, but in forgetting she had the gun there and going to school, which is a lapse anybody could make. Upon remembering, she did the right thing. This should be rewarded, not penalized.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 7:57 AM
Jody, you renew my faith in the intelligence on this board. You're a breath of fresh air.
Tom, I am not advocating anything, and nothing in my posts said I did. I am saying, based upon my observations of how the world works these days, or at least this country, I am merely pointing out what I think will happen.
Do I think the girl's life should be ruined, especially since she acted appropriately after making a stupid, stupid mistake? (Yes, I do believe she did a stupid, stupid thing. Guns are not yesterday's paper. You don't go forgetting where they are. You don't believe me? Walk into a crowded laundromat and announce that you misplaced your book and ask if anyone's seen it. The five days later, do the same thing, but announce it was your gun you misplaced. Chances are you'll see a dramatically different reaction!) No, I don't believe her life should be ruined over this.
Do I believe, based upon my own personal observations that this is a very real possibility? Yeah, I do. Doesn't mean I want it to happen.
Never said there should be a zero-tolerance policy. Never said allowances shouldn't be made for the girl's conduct.
But I do I believe, based upon my observations of how the world works, that this will bite the school in the ass if they don't apply the rules evenly? Yeah, I do. For reasons I already explained. Yes, I do believe that lawsuits are a real possibility over this, something the school can ill-afford.
Doesn't.
Mean.
I'm.
Advocating.
It.
Get it now? Can you please stop telling me what I'm advocating? There's a difference between cynically believing something will occur, or could occur and wanting it to occur or advocating its occurrence.
Jody seems to easily be able to see what I'm suggesting will probably happen vs. advocating something. You, on the other hand, have a huge problem with this.
And I'm sorry you don't like being called an asshat, Tom, but to paraphrase an old saying, "If the head fits, then shove it up your ass."
Patrick at December 10, 2010 8:05 AM
It wasn't so long ago that public schools had rifle teams. So you had kids with rifles in their cars, in school lockers, lying around in the range area. Strangely no one was killed.
moe at December 10, 2010 8:06 AM
>>Please show me where I'm wrong.
Tom,
Reread your own comment!!!
You write: "What do you see as Patrick's point here? He claims that the school overreacted. He also thinks schools cannot treat students differently, and that guns on school grounds are a serious matter."
Patrick is making TWO points.
Why does this boggle your mind so?
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 8:08 AM
Yes, it's the same as the TSA bullshit. We don't trust those TSA workers to properly distinguish between an elderly midwestern guy with a colostomy bag and an Islamic extremist carrying a bomb in his pants.
Maybe in their case, it's true. They aren't the brightest folks, and only have a few training hours before working that job. Maybe they're too stupid to be trusted, so they should treat everyone the same.
But we used to have faith that principals of schools had some intelligence and common sense. We used to believe that they were capable of figuring out who the bad and good students were, and making rational judgments regarding punishments.
None of the school shooters were real suprises. They were all troubled kids, writing disturbing things and sending distress signals well before the shootings. I think 9 out of the major 13 had either been on antidepressants or were still taking them.
A halfway intelligent principal should be able to discern the difference between those kids, who may pose a real threat, and a girl like this, who clearly had no ill intent.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 8:13 AM
@Jody T:
Yes, I agree with you that while "dumb" and "gun" can make a deadly mix, there's a vast difference between, Oh-shit-I-left-my-weapon-in- my-trunk-from-the-weekend-dumb and weapons handling dumb.
I doubt very highly that we're talking about the same type of dumb. People who are properly taught to handle weapons--and presumably this girl was taught by a dad/uncle--don't get "distracted" to the point that they have a negligent discharge. It's a muscle memory thing.
other Beth at December 10, 2010 8:15 AM
Patrick - you repeatedly state that schools cannot treat students differently. That they must treat them the same for fear of a lawsuit. Yet our society, and schools, often treats people differently and creates different sets of rules for different people, and gets away with it.
But you are dismissing out-of-hand the possibility of anything less than a zero tolerance policy for gun possession on school grounds. You refuse to even entertain the idea, based on your "No you can't" reply above.
Therefore, you are advocating a zero tolerance policy, without any wiggle room. Your position may be based on a cynical belief rather than an actual desire for such a policy, but the end result is the same. I could be completely and totally against a policy of child molestation in the schools, but as soon as I state that there is no other option, I'm putting myself in the pro-child molestation corner.
Oh, and when you and Jody are done fellating one another, go fuck yourself.
Tom at December 10, 2010 8:18 AM
You write: "What do you see as Patrick's point here? He claims that the school overreacted. He also thinks schools cannot treat students differently, and that guns on school grounds are a serious matter."
Patrick is making TWO points.
Why does this boggle your mind so?
Jody, no, he's not. The two points are connected. The school overreacted precisely because they don't treat students differently. If the school treated students differently based on past behavior, it wouldn't have overreacted.
Tom at December 10, 2010 8:21 AM
"...It wasn't so long ago that public schools had rifle teams. So you had kids with rifles in their cars, in school lockers, lying around in the range area. Strangely no one was killed...."
Not only that, but when I was in high school, it was commonplace in rural areas for kids to bring their rifles to school during big-game season and stack them in the corner of the classroom until the end of the school day.
What's really sickening is that this panty-wetting PC hysteria has spread to *MONTANA* of all places. Montana used to be the last semi-sane place in the lower-48, but it looks like they've caved in too.
jay-w at December 10, 2010 8:22 AM
She's very honest, but that honestly is dangerous in the presence of teachers and school administrators.
Yes. It's an unpleasant, but important life lesson. Honesty is not the best policy when it comes to petty government functionaries, bureaucrats, and the police.
Christopher at December 10, 2010 8:41 AM
I understand the hysteria. I have a 16 yr old at school right now, and I know for a fact that kids have brought guns to her school in the past with the intent to use them. Luckily, they were caught (one made a list of who he was going to kill, and another kid found it and turned it in. They BOTH ended up in juvenal programs, which has never seemed fair for the kid who told).
We've seen a dramatic increase in school shootings, and no one seems to know why our generation, and those before us, did not shoot at each other, even with easy access to guns (I attended school in the south, where everybody had rifles in their trucks).
Was it just that it had never been done, so kids never even had that thought? Certainly, kids were bullied and had grievances against teachers and other students before.
My daughter's high school has a full-time police officer, a couple of counselors, plus the principal. Even if we couldn't trust one of them to make a sound judgment and risk assessment in a situation like this, seems like the group of them should be able to. The police officer deals with the problem kids every day. She knows the ones who bring drugs to school, fight, and have emotional problems. So do the counselors, and the administration.
I worry for my child, like anybody else, but now, the fear is not only that your child could be shot, but that he/she might have their future ruined for being honest, or innocently associated with the wrong kid. This zero-tolerance is a fear in and of itself.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 8:49 AM
>>It's a muscle memory thing.
Other Beth,
Please tell me you did that deliberately!
Quoted George Clooney's paranoid ex-bodyguard character in the black comedy "Burn After Reading"?
"After 20 years, you don't even think twice - it's just muscle memory..."
(Then, of course, he blows poor Brad Pitt away!)
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 8:55 AM
Tom-the-braindead writes: But you are dismissing out-of-hand the possibility of anything less than a zero tolerance policy for gun possession on school grounds. You refuse to even entertain the idea, based on your "No you can't" reply above.
Tom, again, we're not talking about cheating on arithmetic papers. We're talking about, according to the source Mike posted above, a Federal offense.
For one thing, it's out of the school's hands. They have no more say on the subject.
But even if they did, I have said repeatedly, if you don't apply these things even-handedly, the parents of the child who's punished more severely, will likely sue you for discrimination.
THAT IS NOT ADVOCACY, YOU STUPID FUCK!
It is telling you, perhaps cynically, what will happen if you don't apply the rules with an even hand.
I never said I advocated anything. My God, did Crid pay you off to annoy me with your obtuseness? He chose well, if he did. I'll give him that.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 9:06 AM
When I read this story, that's the first thing that popped into my head. How do you "forget" your gun is in the car?
It's a gun ... on school grounds. No matter how innocent the reason it was there or how normally rules-abiding the perpetrator is, authorities should be involved - if only to slap the girl on the wrist and admonish her not to do it again.
The school board's attorneys probably insisted the policy be equally applied to every student, no matter how exemplary their past behavior, to avoid lawsuits.
Even though, as has been pointed out already, society regularly has different standards for different people. For instance, if you're brought up before a judge for an offense and your lawyer is able to point out to the judge that you are normally a law-abiding citizen and this is your first offense then, depending upon the offense, you will probably get off with probation and will probably get R-O-R on bail. On the other hand, if you have a past record of crimes and offenses, you will probably get a stiffer sentence and be required to pay actual bail.
Conan the Grammarian at December 10, 2010 9:08 AM
You can't really apply California\New York etc attitutdes to Montana\Idaho etc. This time of year, it's pretty common to see people walking around with rifles. When I moved here 20 years ago, it wasn't all that unusual to see some men walking around with six-shooters.
There was also an issue here right after Columbine that was resolved by not allowing teenagers to bring their hunting rifles onto school grounds anymore (kept in their lockers), but they were allowed to keep them in their locked cars on the parking lot.
(Speaking of memory- I just found out that one of my Greatest heroes, Muhammad Ali, is still alive. I thought he died about 5-7 years ago.)
Eric at December 10, 2010 9:15 AM
The belief that the prohibition against discrimination applies to selective enforcement upon individuals is a common misconception. Anti-discrimination policies apply to groups, and they concern patterns of behaviors and outcomes.
guest at December 10, 2010 9:25 AM
"She later parked in the school parking lot but when she heard a "contraband dog" was to be working the lot, she remembered her unloaded rifle and volunteered the information to school officials"
She "volunteered" the information when she knew she was going to get
caught.
Where are her parents in this? Why aren't they being called on the carpet?
It's always easy to blame teachers, school administrators, school boards, etc. Some of you posting here seem to feel these people and bodies are incompetent.
Right. Then give up your day job, and half your income, and stay home and homeschool your kids.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 9:26 AM
Hiya All...First time commenter, long time lurker..
Sadly, you all seem to be missing a cultural point here. I graduated high school in that area, and I can tell you that back then ('86-'90) it was not unusual at ALL for rifles to be brought to school during the season. Most of the boys just put 'em in the gun rack in the truck when the season opened, and left 'em there until it closed. Hunting is more of a religion or an occupation than a hobby up here.
What you all may see as a bad/stupid thing for where you are from, has been perfectly normal behavior up here for a lot longer than we have been alive, and as such this is an over-reaction of magnificent proportions.
My $0.02
Mystified in MT at December 10, 2010 9:28 AM
There are not, nor should there be, different rules for different students. The "rule" in this case is: don't bring guns to school. That is a rule that applies to everyone. What should be different depending on the situation is the punishment. Expulsion should only be considered is there is reason to believe that the student intended to use the weapon. The fact that the gun was unloaded should be enough proof; the student volunteering the information should make it perfectly clear. (By the way, being an honor student has nothing to do with it). There are other ways of determining intent, like if the student has been making threats.
I do think she should get some sort of a punishment. My choice would be to revoke her parking priveledges, since she has trouble keeping track of what is in her car.
KarenW at December 10, 2010 9:32 AM
Thank you for coming, Conan. So glad to hear another voice of reason in the sea of self-righteousness.
But of course, you realize now, that since you gave a reasoned argument as to why, for the school's protection, a zero-tolerance policy is applied, you're advocating it, together with ruining this girl's life and searing her with the brand of "domestic terrorist." And you support all of it.
:::insert massive eyeroll here:::
Patrick at December 10, 2010 9:36 AM
Patrick's main point, if I understand him correctly, is:
"...if you don't apply these things even-handedly, the parents of the child who's punished more severely, will likely sue you for discrimination."
The question I don't think anyone has asked is this: "so what?" Let the sue. Let the parents of the kid already convicted of 7 burglaries and 5 assault ask a judge why their kid shouldn't be given a second (or is it 13th?) chance. Any judge worth his salt will tell them where to stuff it, and make them pay the legal costs on top of it.
And if the judge doesn't? If our legal system is broken, that is no excuse for screwing up our schools to match.
"Blind justice" refers to the fact that justice should not care about your color, gender, income, etc. No serious jurist would ever say that justice should ignore your previous behavior. Look at criminal sentencing. Nearly all laws provide for a wide range of penalties. This flexibility is meant to allow the court to account for the specifics of the case.
This is even true in this particular case! The Montana law specifically says "the trustees may authorize the school administration to modify the requirement for expulsion of a student on a case-by-case basis" (emphasis mine).
Note that the girl has not yet been expelled. In a few days, we will find out whether the school board in big sky country is composed of humans, or mindless robots.
a_random_guy at December 10, 2010 9:40 AM
The true solution is to simply not park on school grounds. It's a rare school with no other options at all. My kids will be parking and walking on in, when they are old enough.
momof4 at December 10, 2010 9:52 AM
I did ask, "So what?" Let them sue. I agree that the same level of response should be employed in these situations, which is not to go berserk on either child. It doesn't matter what their grades are. An honest child with an unloaded gun in a trunk, who can confirm he/she was using it for hunting (ask his family!) is NOT A THREAT and should not be treated as one! If a school administrator treats them like one, and ruins their academic opportunities, over an innocent mistake, they should be sued.
Like I said, this "zero-policy" hysteria is becoming as much of a fear for parents as their child being hurt. We have a right to expect the school adminstration to use enough common sense to differentiate between an accident and a threat.
But that is not what's happening. They are expelling good kids, who made a mistake, or whose parents (in the case of the duffle bag) made a mistake. If my daughter had been the one to find the gun in her friend's duffle bag, SHE probably would've been expelled.
It's craziness! Like the witchunts of Salem. And it's frightening how many of you accept it. Like this:
"Right. Then give up your day job, and half your income, and stay home and homeschool your kids."
Wow, that's a solution. I personally did that, but when it gets to the point that a parent HAS to homeschool because the school system is so paranoid and lacking in common sense, we should all be concerned.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 9:59 AM
@JT; ha! no, sorry, I can't take credit for that one...should I be embarrassed to admit that I haven't even seen that movie yet?
I'm military (USMC) and I guess if I think about it, the term "muscle memory" isn't all that mainstream, but we use it all the time--whether when talking weapons handling or drill or anything that requires repetitive motion until your hands or feet learn the steps...playing an instrument would be another example.
Patrick, you need to chill, seriously. You get so worked up on here sometimes.
other Beth at December 10, 2010 10:06 AM
@Mystified wrote: I graduated high school in that area, and I can tell you that back then ('86-'90).
And how many school shootings have there been since then?
anonymous at December 10, 2010 10:13 AM
Thank you for your service to our country, Beth.
Feebie at December 10, 2010 10:13 AM
@Conan--I think if we're talking about a teenager who was using it over the weekend and hadn't opened her trunk that morning, it's entirely possible. I don't think a 16 year old is going to automatically going to be aware enough to think of the gun in that light. Kid went hunting, had it in her trunk, forgot it was there until something clicked when they announced the contraband search. Some have already mentioned it, but in many areas of the country, having a gun in your trunk isn't going to be any stranger than having a tennis racket and gym bag in there. Especially not to a teenager who hasn't been around long enough to truly appreciate all the implications of carrying a gun onto school property.
I don't think a slap on the wrist by authorities is a bad thing necessarily, a stern warning perhaps. Her situational awareness has likely been increased 100 fold because of this situation and I'd bet money that she'll never again make this mistake and be far more cautious in the future. But that's what is was, a mistake, an error.
other Beth at December 10, 2010 10:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1796607">comment from other BethBeth is absolutely right, and thank you, too, Beth, for serving.
To those of you who are using this as some sort of character impeachment of the girl or as a negative reflection on her parents: How many times have you left your phone in your car -- as an adult -- or some other thing you shouldn't have?
The fact that she left the rifle in there is a sign she's human.
And again, if you want to eliminate possible murder weapons from the schoolground, clear the parking lot of cars. It's probably a lot easier to run somebody down than to hit them with a tiny weeny bullet, unless you are an expert marksman.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2010 10:25 AM
You're very welcome Feebie! I'm honored to do so...
other Beth at December 10, 2010 10:26 AM
>>@JT; ha! no, sorry, I can't take credit for that one...should I be embarrassed to admit that I haven't even seen that movie yet?
Actually, I envy you then, other Beth!
Because you still have the joy of seeing "Burn After Reading" for the first time. Clooney's slow transformation in the movie from super cool sex bomb/US Marshal to a nervous wreck is total magic.
(That was a very neat definition of "muscle memory" btw! They do use the term correctly in the film too.)
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 10:27 AM
"Wow, that's a solution. I personally did that, but when it gets to the point that a parent HAS to homeschool because the school system is so paranoid and lacking in common sense, we should all be concerned."
Great, so when kids are angry, don't agree with the rules, break up with someone and go a bit psycho, or, just have some form of untreated mental illness (that their parents can't be bothered to deal with), they can be home schooled and shoot their parents instead of their teachers and fellow classmates.
There's a win-win situation if I ever saw one.
Think back to Columbine. The parents of one of those boy killers didn't even know he was building bombs in his bedroom. How did "hands-off parenting" work in that situation?
This is an isolated incident--and I'm sure this girl was breaking a law, so there's that to contend with so the school HAD to report it--and we're acting as if it's happening everyday everywhere. It's not.
Safety should trump everything when it comes to kids.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 10:30 AM
It's easier to dodge a vehicle than it is to dodge a bullet. I wonder if the Virginia Tech shooter would have been as successful if he'd gotten behind the wheel of a car instead.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 10:35 AM
"This is an isolated incident--and I'm sure this girl was breaking a law, so there's that to contend with so the school HAD to report it--and we're acting as if it's happening everyday everywhere. It's not."
People are carrying concealed weapons everywhere, and they're not breaking the law. A guy just shot himself in the leg at McDonalds. He reached in his pocket to keep his hands warm, and somehow hit the trigger. But he had a cw permit.
There's no comparison to what he did and what this girl did...or to the Columbine shooters at all! That is where the problem lies. It's an enormous leap to compare this girl with Dylan Kleibold. A reasonable person can see the difference, which is pretty glaring.
Her rifle was unloaded. It was safely locked in her trunk. She turned it in herself. All of this proves she is not a psychotic school shooter. Frankly, I don't want teachers or administrators working in a school if they are too stupid to see that...or if they think a plastic knife is the same as a real one.
What if she'd gone camping and forgot her camping knife was in the trunk? I guarantee it's the same offense, as far as school policy goes.
Nobody wants weapons on campus, particularly in the hands of unstable kids with ill intent, but there's a big difference between bringing a weapon into school, where it could discharge or be used, and simply forgetting that one is in the trunk of your car.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 10:47 AM
Virginia Tech was also a "Gun-Free Zone" with a draconian zero tolerance policy. The idiocy of this is that all the laws in the world won't stop a motivated maniac with a gun. These rules masquerade as protection but they are only useful as punishment. Unfortunately, the punishment only occurs after the blood has been mopped up. Better to let innocent people defend themselves.
the wolf at December 10, 2010 10:47 AM
Someone asked why the increase in school shootings. Probably has something to do with the fact that teachers cant punish kids for bad behavior, bullies get 'written up' rather then suspended. I remember a kid in my high school got jumped by two bullies, three teachers stood by and did nothing. Why? Becuase the year before when the same damn thing happened a teacher actually dared to touch a child and pulled the attacker of his victim and was rewared with being fired and the parents of the bully pressing assult charges against the teacher.
Mix in the fact that most famiiles, if the parents are even married, have both parents working and not paying as much attention to their kids as they should. Add to that most parents in refuse to let their kids go play for fear of kidnapping and random roving child molesters, so kids are growing up in this protective bubble where they never learned how to deal with others, or how to deal with the fact that life isnt always fair.
Pile on the fact that most public schools are more interested in having asses in chairs and teaching kids how to pass the latest NCLB test rather then teaching any real educational material and you have a bored throng of kids who know, trust me they know, how pointless their presence really is.
So now we have a sea of bored, over indulged, emotionally stunted, children with nothing to do but relive themselves by harassing each other. Inevetable someone goes too far, someone else snaps.
And as for the kid who as beaten up? He broght an air pellet gun to school and scared the lead bully so baddly he pissed his pants, got tased by the cops leaving the classroom and charged with 22 counts of kiddnapping. The three guys who beat him up were sentenced to 150 hours of comunity service. And as they were football players and it was football season werent even suspended.
School shootings are a symptom, not a problem in and of themseves, for the most part.
A zero tolerance policy of guns isnt going to deter the students who think killing their tormenters is the only releif they'll get.
The only thing a zero tolerance gun policy is going to do is punish people who make innocent mistakes
lujlp at December 10, 2010 10:51 AM
The wolf wins this one.
Flynne at December 10, 2010 10:51 AM
How many were there before then? Or have we blown the actual danger of a school shooting entirely out of proportion?
Since it's her gun and there was no mention of it being new, presumably she's gone hunting before and later to school without leaving it in her trunk. She got sloppy this time.
Her humanity is not in question. Her being responsible enough to own a firearm is.
Agreed. I hope the authorities and school board see it that way as well.
In the end, the situtation did not rise to the school shooting level of danger it's being made out to be.
An unloaded hunting rifle was left in a locked trunk on school grounds. No one but the owner of the car knew it was there. While there was some danger of the car being broken into, it's probably unlikely that the thief would have subsequently gone on a school shooting rampage or a killing spree.
If there was a contraband search that required dogs and a parking lot search, this was probably not the Ozzie and Harriet version of middle America some are trying to make it out to be.
Conan the Grammarian at December 10, 2010 10:51 AM
Safety should trump everything when it comes to kids.
Posted by: anonymous
SO that means a closed campus?
No sports? No gym, No PE?
Nothing for lunch but perfectly portioned meals?
No driving to school, everyone comes in on a bus?
Everyone entering the school must walk thru a TSA body scanner and then get a body cavity search just to be sure?
Saftey trumps everything, right?
lujlp at December 10, 2010 10:58 AM
Patrick, it's amazing when someone agrees with your left wing bullshit "it's a breath of fresh air".
All, I grew up with guns. From Wyoming, every kid was armed and like some said, in deer season all the gun racks were full. What I see in these posts is just anti gun bullshit from people who are afraid of guns. Having an unloaded gun locked in a trunk should never be an offense in this country that was brought to being by guns. Most of you folks are just left wing morons who want "zero tolerance" rules because you are unable to use your own judgement. Lemmings
ron at December 10, 2010 11:00 AM
Okay and loojy too.
Flynne at December 10, 2010 11:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1796625">comment from anonymousIt's easier to dodge a vehicle than it is to dodge a bullet. I wonder if the Virginia Tech shooter would have been as successful if he'd gotten behind the wheel of a car instead.
The Virginia Tech shooter would have been a lot less successful if a teacher had been packing.
Furthermore, an unloaded weapon locked in the trunk of a car is no more dangerous than a crowbar locked in the trunk of a car. Weapons don't shoot up schools; sick fucks do. Punishing a kid like this for a gun inadvertently left in her trunk will not stop school shooters. (Do you think they're concerned about punishment for violating school gun laws, and that this will somehow prevent them from mass killings?) Always good to apply reality when thinking of policy.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2010 11:01 AM
AND...ron's made it a three-way for the win. Those three are the most sane, calm, and common sense posts on this thread. Thanks, guys.
Flynne at December 10, 2010 11:03 AM
No, Conan, searches are happening at schools all over now. I imagine it was more for drugs than guns. She probably would've been fine not saying anything, but she is obviously an honest girl.
The ironic thing is if some psychotic kid opened fire at the school, someone like her might be able to save lives by getting to her gun in the trunk. And, if she did knock out the shooters, before the swat team arrived, she'd be a hero.
I agree none of these policies are actually going to prevent school killings. We have a very metally ill society now. A lot of kids on drugs -prescribed and otherwise. Same with parents (amazing how many parents are on antidepressants and pain meds). We live in a more comfortable time than any previous generation, but we are less happy.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 11:05 AM
We live in a more comfortable time than any previous generation, but we are less happy.
Totally agree. And why is that?
Flynne at December 10, 2010 11:07 AM
"Totally agree. And why is that?"
I don't know. Maybe because we have so much more leisure, and victimhood has become celebrated.
It's especially shocking to me how many kids are on meds - ADD, anxiety, antidepressants, etc. Teenage brains aren't fully formed yet. That is one theory with the school shooters, as many of them were either on meds or had recently stopped taking them. Some were medicated in elementary school. Messing around with young kid's brain chemistry may have disastrous effects. And coming off the meds too quickly can make them suicidal and/or psychotic.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 11:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1796633">comment from FlynneWe live in a more comfortable time than any previous generation, but we are less happy. Totally agree. And why is that?
Are "we" less happy? Robert H. Frank, the economist, does discuss how people are satisfied or dissatisfied in relative terms: If you have a grass hut while your neighbors all live with no roof over their heads, you are going to feel you have primo dwelling quarters, but if you live in a grass hut where everyone else is in suburban homes, you're likely to feel bad.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2010 11:21 AM
"It wasn't so long ago that public schools had rifle teams. So you had kids with rifles in their cars, in school lockers, lying around in the range area. Strangely no one was killed."
That was before hoplophobia became a social norm. It has been over 30 years since I last visited Montana and it is truly saddening that the citizens of that state succumbed to such a destructive meme.
BTW, Rules are important. They are what morons use instead of intelligence.
parabarbarian at December 10, 2010 11:28 AM
Ron, what left-wing bullshit? Give me one left wing position in this thread that I advocated, much less that Conan agreed to.
Beth, oh, gee. Can't imagine why anyone should get so worked up...I mean, why should it bother me when morons decide for me what I believe.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 11:34 AM
Nobody wants "zero tolerance" rules ... except when they're directed at "the other guy."
People advocate these policies in the delusion that the policies will actually make them safer and in a misguided attempt to be "fair."
People afraid of guns want them banned in a mistaken belief that it will lower violent crime. But it won't. Ban guns and incidents of people being beaten with a sack of doorknob will increase. Ban doorknobs and....
Banning guns from campus doesn't mean a thing. The person intent upon killing someone on campus is unlikely to stop at the edge of the campus because it's a "gun-free" zone.
And is unlikely to announce to the authorities that she left her rifle in the trunk.
I was thinking that, too.
But she did own up to violating a known rule and took responsibility, telling the school authorities before it got out of hand ... wait ... too late, hysteria swooped in and ruled the day.
Conan the Grammarian at December 10, 2010 11:44 AM
>>Someone asked why the increase in school shootings. Probably has something to do with the fact that teachers cant punish kids for bad behavior...
lujlp,
...such as bringing a gun to school!
If a student knows that a specific behavior when on school property - whether or not the student personally considers it to be "bad" - is absolutely and unambiguously prohibited - the student should expect punishment if caught.
There is irony here!
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 11:44 AM
Amy, you're welcome...ditto my reply to Feebie
Patrick, ok.
Well, hope all have a great weekend. Cheers!
other Beth at December 10, 2010 11:46 AM
Whatever policy is applied, zero-tolerance or otherwise, it needs to be applied evenly. You can't ignore it when the straight-A student does it and the call out the SWAT-teams when the less than stellar student does it.
Now, please note, for the impossibly dense, I did not advocate a zero-tolerance policy. However, if such a policy is in place, it needs to be applied evenly across the board.
If you have a three-strikes and you're out system, this might be "strike one" for Madame Straight A, who apparently suffers from intermittent amnesia. However for the druggie, solid F student, this might be strike three.
And for those of you who say, "So, what?" if the school gets sued, I will keep that in mind the next time a school gets sued. I'll write the school and tell them to send the bills for their legal expenses to you personally, since you seem to think a lawsuit is no big deal.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 11:52 AM
The parents should be held at least partially responsible. The girl is 16. That means she's a minor. Why aren't they being vilified here along with the schools, the laws, etc.?
Schools are places where students come to learn, not to be nannied. School administrators should not be the ones telling this young girl she shouldn't have a gun on school premises, no matter where it is, locked up or not. That's the parents' job. Just like keeping noisy kids quiet in restaurants is the parents' job, not changing dirty nappies on coffee shop tables is their job, etc.
And teachers carrying guns? Now there's a suggestion that's just off the charts.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 11:53 AM
Yeah, Conan, I have to second what lovelysoul said, contraband searches happen (probably) everywhere. I went to highschool in Orfordville, WI and graduated in a class of 85 students. It was a country school and most of the students were farm kids. It's not a place where you would be expecting search dogs, but we still had them at least once during my high school years, probably more times though I just don't remember. They weren't a big deal (maybe because I never had any contraband?), the teachers all shut their doors and the dogs were walked through the halls.
My friend's younger brother got caught with weed in his car a few years after we graduated too, so I guess the parking lots were searched too.
Angie at December 10, 2010 11:54 AM
If the administrators don't need to use any judgement, why do we need to overpay them so much?
MarkD at December 10, 2010 12:16 PM
Maybe I'm getting old. I don't remember a single school-wide locker search when I was in high school. Specific lockers were sometimes searched ... usually those belonging to the troublemakers.
And they never used dogs. Or metal detectors.
Of course, the biggest dangers to students in my high school was the Tuesday meatloaf surprise and the driver's ed instructor's driving.
Conan the Grammarian at December 10, 2010 12:23 PM
Playing devils advocate here but I haven't seen this point mentioned.
What if the girl got off with a slap on the wrist, nothing happened and it turns out she is a real psycho. The next day she is involved in a school shooting. Can you imagine everyone reaction as to why they didn't do anything the first time a rifle was found in her car?
Ppen at December 10, 2010 12:25 PM
If the administrators don't need to use any judgement, why do we need to overpay them so much?
Do you know how they actually GET paid? I ask because if you did, I don't think you'd be asking this kind of a question.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 12:32 PM
Patrick: "Yes, well, when the next school shooter is found to have a rifle in the trunk of his car, he'll just protest that he's a hunter and forgot it was there."
Check for hunter licenses (you buy those prior to hunting), see if he can name his hunting location and blinds, ask him the proper load for the game he sought to kill, etc.
Any incompetent cop could determine if a hunter is talking within 30 seconds. A competent one will take less time.
Such things are how you prove intent, BTW.
Spartee at December 10, 2010 12:43 PM
"Safety should trump everything when it comes to kids."
One of the stupidest things ever written.
Spartee at December 10, 2010 12:51 PM
Hoplophobia should be classified for what it clearly is: A severe and debilitating mental illness that renders its victims incapable of coherent rational thought. Such people, as with other cases of the mentally ill, are sadly off the rails and thus pose an obvious threat to society and should be institutionalized. Sadly, there seem to be a few victims of this terrible mental illness on this very forum amongst us.
Lobster at December 10, 2010 12:55 PM
Patrick, I would suggest most of your posts are left wing, including the things like "when it comes to kids, safety should be the most important". When I was a kid, teachers had the right to smack you (with your parent's consent). The left did away with that. We road around without helmets, big brother took caree of that. We went to school to learn, and we had sack lunches. I am sure now they search your 8 year old's lunch box. The left has destroyed our society almost completely with this nanny bullshit. As far as drugs, why do parents allow their minors to be diagnosed with things like ADD. We didn't have that when I was a kid. We had stupid kids and smart kids and all things in between. I dont want the government doing anything when it comes to my kids
ron at December 10, 2010 12:59 PM
"What if the girl got off with a slap on the wrist, nothing happened and it turns out she is a real psycho. The next day she is involved in a school shooting. Can you imagine everyone reaction as to why they didn't do anything the first time a rifle was found in her car?"
Anything could happen, but that doesn't mean we suspend our common sense. I know that's the justification for doing so..."but what if...what if?"..so let's treat everyone like a potential killer.
I'm sure whenever there is a school shooting, hindsight reveals lots of "what ifs" and missed opportunities where it may have been prevented. Signs were there in the Columbine case, the VA tech shooting, and they will always be there, but that doesn't mean it's truly preventable. We can't lock up every unstable-seeming person.
The chances of this girl being a psycho school shooter are very slim. For one thing, most mass school killers have been male. Not that we should dismiss the idea of a female being a threat, but, based on the facts, she doesn't match the profile of a school shooter. Unless there were other reasons to be concerned about her - such as a history of emotional and social problems - it just doesn't make sense to treat her the same, or view this as anything more than a mistake caused by forgetfulness.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 1:06 PM
"As far as drugs, why do parents allow their minors to be diagnosed with things like ADD."
I suspect it's partly connected to what you mention - the way teachers have been restricted from disciplining. There is tremendous pressure on parents who have a more active or rambunctious child to calm him or her down.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 1:10 PM
But lovelysoul,
that's PROFILING. And god forbid, we introduce something as common sense as that.
@Patrick
>Yes, well, when the next school shooter is >found to have a rifle in the trunk of his car, >he'll just protest that he's a hunter and >forgot it was there.
I'd like you to show me a single school shooter who bothered to leave the gun locked up in his/her trunk, and went back for it later to begin shooting. They all walk into the school armed and ready. So what you propose, isn't going to happen.
Steve at December 10, 2010 1:19 PM
"Safety should trump everything when it comes to kids."
One of the stupidest things ever written.
Spartee, you're saying this to a teacher who evacuated a classroom full of young people during a school shooting.
Sorry you find it stupid, but if one of your kids had been one of my students? What then?
I got them out first, before me, and made sure they were accounted for. Most of the other profs did the same.
Their parents were very grateful.
Still think it's stupid?
anonymous at December 10, 2010 1:19 PM
@Anon
"And how many school shootings have there been since then?"
How many happened before then? How many of those would even have been attempted, when half the senior class could have opened up on the shooter instead of cowering in fear? I hunted plenty of mornings before AND afternoons after school. The truck was where my gun rested in between. I was FAR from the only one. Oh, and all the adults knew too.
You may find it hard to believe, but none up here that I am aware of off the top of my head. It seems a parking lot load of filled gun rack equipped pickups has had a deterring effect.
@parabarbarian
"..it is truly saddening that the citizens of that state succumbed to such a destructive meme."
These jackass admin types are not natives, but Coastal transplants that have been educated beyond their intelligence. Common sense still rules the smaller school districts that do not have a large migrant influx.
Mystified in MT at December 10, 2010 1:20 PM
Wouldn't a contraband search of cars in the parking lot equal an illegal search (no probable cause to merit being awarded a search warrant) as it and its contents are private property? I could see sniffing lockers and such (not that I agree with it at all) because it is actually school property whereas the cars and their contents are not, they are just sitting upon school property.
I graduated in 1999 from a private school in a rural area. It was very common for students to have hunting rifles in their cars. No problems were ever caused and no one complained. Keep in mind that I was in high school during the mass hysteria of school shootings including the one at Thurston High a couple hours south. I wouldn't doubt that students still carry hunting rifles in their vehicles during hunting season.
BunnyGirl at December 10, 2010 1:29 PM
Despite the recent school shootings, juvenile violent crimes have been dropping sharply for almost 20 years now. Last time I checked it was still the lowest it's been since the DOJ started tracking the numbers.
Not being able to take into account the individual who has broken the rules when it comes to consequences is stupid. A straight-A cheerleader is not the kid who makes death lists. A kid who volunteers that they broke the rules should be treated differently than one who tries to hide their actions.
I also wonder whether if she actually forgot the rifle was in there. An equally likely scenario to my mind is that she intended keeping it in there for the season or to do some after school hunting and when the time came to tell the school officials she told them she "forgot" about it so they wouldn't think she deliberately flouted the rules.
Elle at December 10, 2010 1:33 PM
I too find it surprising that this is in Montana. I guess things have changed boatloads since I left Wyoming
ron at December 10, 2010 1:48 PM
Ron: Patrick, I would suggest most of your posts are left wing, including the things like "when it comes to kids, safety should be the most important".
Oooh, you got me there, Ron. That's sure proves my left-wing bias. Too bad I'm not the one who wrote that statement, you imbecile.
And periods go inside the quotation marks.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 2:06 PM
anonymous - you never did back to me on the suggestion of minium wage guys digging aroud in you daughters vaginal canal, and your asshole, in order to secure the saftey of the students
lujlp at December 10, 2010 2:07 PM
Steve: I'd like you to show me a single school shooter who bothered to leave the gun locked up in his/her trunk, and went back for it later to begin shooting.
Ooh, brilliant. I'm beset by mental giants in this thread. When they're not erecting strawmen, the arrive and these fantastically illogical conclusions, like "Since something never happened in the past, that proves that it can never happen."
Following that logic, 9/11 was a figment of our collective imagination. I guess Thomas Fuller had it right. "A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time."
And I'm sure I don't know why you think it's so implausible that a prospective shooter could leave his munitions in the trunk, then return for them at the intended time. The fact that no school shooter ever did it is no argument.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 2:20 PM
Everyone's talking about commonsense, well here's some for you:
No gun on the premises, no shooting. Gun on the premises, possible chance of shooting, no matter how remote.
More commonsense:
The chances of this girl's life actually being "ruined" are slim to none. She's getting a good shaking up, the message is getting out to everyone--no guns at school--and her life is going to go on. She will go to another high school having learned her lesson. Commonsense, people, commonsense, let's keep the hysteria in check, okay?
@mystified: I was making the point that you graduated 20 years ago. Things have changed a bit since then.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 2:31 PM
"No gun on the premises, no shooting. Gun on the premises, possible chance of shooting, no matter how remote. "
By that reasoning, no one should ever be allowed to take a gun anywhere, ever. After all, they might use it to shoot somebody!
"The chances of this girl's life actually being "ruined" are slim to none. "
Right. Her life is not altered at all. She'll just have a felony conviction on her record, which means she won't be admitted to most colleges, won't be able to get a government job (which pretty soon will account for all jobs), won't be legally able to own a weapon to defend herself, can have her kids taken away from her if she ever has any, etc. Hey, maybe they should put her on the sex offender list! That'll really teach her a lesson!
"She was suspended from school for violating federal and state gun laws."
There is no applicable federal law. The Gun Free School Zones Act was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the U.S. vs. Lopez decision. I know many schools have not gotten the message yet, but the courts finally are: the Second Amendment really is in the Constitution, and it really does mean what it says.
Cousin Dave at December 10, 2010 3:01 PM
I think it's a bit more than slim to none. Being expelled alone can really mess up her college plans, especially for this offense. That will be on her records.
"Although she had no intent to break any rules or laws, or harm anyone, Demarie is at risk of having her college education derailed and maybe even being identified forever as a domestic terrorist," Marbut reported.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 3:09 PM
"WND has reported on a number of similar situations, including when a Colorado high-school student was informed of a 10-day suspension for having non-functioning drill team rifle replicas in her car in a parking lot at school.
A Texas school also threatened its students for even talking about guns, and a shirt was banished from a school campus because it had the image of a gun."
So, even a nonfunctioning replica can get you suspended, and a student can't even have a T-shirt photo of a gun? How is any of this common sense?
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 3:14 PM
Let's check in with this girl in a few month's time. Let's just see how badly her life goes, okay?
It's December 10th now...let's check and see how things are going for her on May 10th, 2011. I think it will be patently and ridiculously obvious how alarmist a lot of you are being.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 3:18 PM
Anonymous (why don't you use a screen name?), let's do that. If it isn't going so well, I'm guessing you won't be back here to explain yourself.
But also: it's beside the point. The point is, what the school and the "authorities" are doing is patently unjust and probably unlawful. AFAIK, it is legal in all 50 states to carry an unloaded hunting weapon in the locked trunk of your car (someone who's more familiar with the laws, jump in here). "It's just a little punishment" is not an excuse. A conviction is a conviction. It has repercussions. That's the idea. When the government decides to make up the law as they go along just because they don't like something... well, that's one reason the Second Amendment exists.
Cousin Dave at December 10, 2010 3:38 PM
Also: Once upon a time, in order to convict someone of a crime, it was necessary to demonstrate that they had intent to commit a crime ("mens rea"). In the age of strict liability, that's pretty much a dead letter now. But it was a good idea and it should apply in this case.
Cousin Dave at December 10, 2010 3:41 PM
I'm using "anonymous" because the institution I teach at has a "no-publication policy" regarding the shooting and I would prefer not to antagonize the people I work for. We've been asked not to speak to the press and while this isn't exactly the press, I still prefer not to identify the insitution. It's only part-time, but I like my job.
Besides that there were families of killed and injured students and I would prefer to respect them as well. If one of the them pops up here and starts reading about the shooting again, I wouldn't feel good about being the person who caused that.
And tell me, how does "Cousin Dave" add up to a meaningful identity?
The girl is a minor. I doubt very much a felony charge is going to stick. I take it judges have some discretion and sense and they will see the situation for what it is. Saying that, sometimes making examples of people has value. Read your Machiavelli.
"By that reasoning, no one should ever be allowed to take a gun anywhere, ever. After all, they might use it to shoot somebody."
Yes, and apparently that's exactly what a lot of people do. Use their guns to shoot people.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 3:51 PM
@patrick,
First, pull your panties out of your ass crack, they're cutting off the circulation to your head.
Second, you're not making any sense. Saying something isn't going to happen in the future, means I'm saying that something that did occur, didn't? See the above.
Third, you have absolutely no way of knowing my political leanings, as I have never even come close to stating them.
Fourth, and probably most important of all, is that every single person that has gone on a shooting rampage, has one thing in common. They all planned their shootings meticulously. And not a single one, EVER, has wasted time with locking things up in a case, in the trunk of their car, unloaded.
While yes, I should have said that it was unlikely to ever happen, your willingness to take offense and insult people who aren't insulting you, really makes you out to be the pussy that brian calls you. Well done
Steve at December 10, 2010 4:00 PM
"Let's check in with this girl in a few month's time. Let's just see how badly her life goes, okay?"
That's like saying, "Let's check in and see if that 15 yr old who received a nude photo from his girlfriend is REALLY going to be charged as a sex offender. Probably not."
How about we just don't have absurd laws? How about that? How about we don't put innocent people through needless stress and legal expense over things that should not be labeled crimes in the first place?
Just because you think it probably won't come to anything isn't very comforting. It's shocking that you work for a university, and presumably around young people, yet are so complacent about having kids face unfair charges that could dramatically effect their lives, even if, in the end, they're dropped.
The growing number of teens that are being added to sex offender registries, due to this type of hysteria, is testament that it doesn't always work out positively. The way to fight this is to change the laws, not naively trust the system to always do the fair thing.
lovelysoul at December 10, 2010 4:16 PM
^^^^ what she said.
Well stated lovelysoul
Steve at December 10, 2010 4:21 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1796955">comment from lovelysoullovelysoul is exactly right.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2010 4:33 PM
I really can't help myself
@Anonymous
Concerning your evacuation of students before yourself, well what do you want, a fucking medal? Is your behaviour supposed to trump whatever anyone else has to say? Are the rest of us supposed to validate that action from you somehow? No duh the parents are thankful. I would think it goes without saying that the proper behavior in such a horrible situation is to evacuate the students (Unless you have a gun where you then have the option of, I don't know, possibly defending the innocent lives).
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm
But earlier you said-And teachers carrying guns? Now there's a suggestion that's just off the charts.
So with the above linked story in mind, do you think that the parents of the would-have-been slaughtered are thankful? I should think so. You don't have a monopoly on righteousness.
abersouth at December 10, 2010 4:36 PM
abersouth, there is certainly no lack of righteousness from some of the wackos posting here
ron at December 10, 2010 5:15 PM
"I too find it surprising that this is in Montana. I guess things have changed boatloads since I left Wyoming"
You and me both Ron. I was raised in
Wheatland and now live in Cheyenne. Guns were quite common in a rack in the back window of most of the pickup trucks parked around the high school. Never had one problem. Just remember that most school teachers and administrators are union members and dems. (They KNOW whats best for all of us. Trust them. :-)sarcasm off)
Isabel1130 at December 10, 2010 5:30 PM
Long-time lurker here, too.
I went to college in Billings, MT (2005-2009), and for Christmas one year I got a Colt Single Action Army. Working sidearm. Very large .45 Long Colt caliber. The classic Western sidearm. Didn't get a holster with it, so I went to the local Scheel's in Rimrock Mall to find one (this is also where the firearm was purchased). Note that I was able to walk right into the mall carrying this unloaded large-caliber weapon, and not one person batted an eyelid at me. Just had to notify the store, but not for the reason that they know just in case I start shooting up things. They just wanted to know that I wasn't stealing it.
Got to the section with the holsters, and found a good leather one that fit perfectly. Bought, and left. Walked right past an on-duty police officer on my way out who complimented me on my taste in handguns. And no, I didn't get visited by authorities later, and in fact still own the weapon. I could have probably kept my SKS in my car and gotten no trouble except from people wanting to buy it (authentic Soviet model; those are hard to find).
When I was in Montana, firearms were treated with respect, and not fear. Even the hard-core leftists, usually associated with militant anti-second amendment stances, were pro-gun in Montana. Guess not everyone in the state got the memo.
Blake at December 10, 2010 6:04 PM
We've seen a dramatic increase in school shootings, and no one seems to know why our generation, and those before us, did not shoot at each other, even with easy access to guns (I attended school in the south, where everybody had rifles in their trucks).
I think we've created a climate that makes mass shootings more viable, and attractive to those who are so inclined. There's an hystericism about firearms that's set in among a large swath of the population. It's not just that many people are unacquainted with guns, they're absolutely terrified of them to the point of panic. So when a shooter enters an unguarded public or private space they're encountering victims who literally freeze and lay on the ground. It's this response that enables the perpetrators to rack up such a large number of casualties (e.g. VT ). They're able to proceed unimpeded, and are actually counting on that fact.
This is one reason that Law Enforcement has gradually been revising their 'active shooter' doctrines. The old approach, which almost always advised that people hide and comply, is being modified with ones that promote active evasion and resistance, where appropriate. But the other critical element, the mindset of the public, is harder to change.
As counter-intuitive as it may seem, less stigma, and more practical familiarity with firearms, would probably result in fewer mass shootings. If you can reduce the likelihood of success for perpetrators, you're reducing their incentive.
For instance, if the accurate range of a handgun were common knowledge, people would be able to determine when it's safe to flee the scene of an incident. Not knowing has meant that people will stay in the setting, and become victims.
JMB at December 10, 2010 6:08 PM
I think the people overreacting in this situation are the community members trying to defend this girl. I just read the article, and from what I can tell, the school is following their normal protocol for students who bring guns on campus.
Although there will be consequences to her mistake, the school board does appear to intend to be fair with her punishment, which includes keeping her good student standing in mind.
Per the school superintendent:
"Nicosia, the school superintendent, told FoxNews.com he could not comment specifically on DeReu's situation, but he said board members generally are unlikely to dole out a severe, future-derailing punishment for a student in good standing who made a mistake.
A student in similar situation as DeReu would be unlikely to face lengthy expulsion and might not even be expelled at all, he said."
Expulsion is only a possible punishment and sounds like it's one of the more drastic measures. If Nicosia's isn't full of crap, than the girl's punishment is likely to be far less severe.
I don't think this girl's life should be ruined, but there definitely needs to be consequences for the mistake she made. She violated state and possibly federal law. The school administrators had to react the way that they did. It would be unfair to them to risk their jobs and tenure, because of her error. And let's face it, forgetting about your gun is a really dumb error.
I think she's going to be fine. And if they do expel her, then people can unleash the hell hounds. It sounds like the school board is being punished before having done anything wrong.
Lilandra at December 10, 2010 6:09 PM
I'ld also like to add that I find it infuriating when threads like this about a nanny state get hijacked and turned into some debate about guns being evil. Here it started with the first sentence of the first comment. Perhaps I'm putting meaning into Patricks words (another option being they have none) but the whole "Who proves intent?" thing and then the immediate hysterical what ifs defending the state that follow that set the tone for the whole thread really irks me. I can understand differing points of view and wanting a policy intended to stave off liabilities.
Suffice to say I don't like feel-good policies that produce sacrificial lambs to the altar of the nanny state.
Abersouth at December 10, 2010 6:47 PM
So anonymous, on the one hand we should wait rationally until after judgment has been rendered to comment on the girls situation, and on the other hand we must react midlessly and immediatly to secure the saftey of students no matter the cost. Strange dicotomy you have going there.
Also are you alergic to latex? Cant have you going into a severe allegic episode while the stormtroopers are probing your ass looking for weapons to harm the widdle childwen
lujlp at December 10, 2010 6:56 PM
So anonymous, on the one hand we should wait rationally until after judgment has been rendered to comment on the girls situation, and on the other hand we must react midlessly and immediatly to secure the saftey of students no matter the cost. Strange dicotomy you have going there.
Also are you alergic to latex? Cant have you going into a severe allegic episode while the stormtroopers are probing your ass looking for weapons to harm the widdle childwen
lujlp at December 10, 2010 6:57 PM
My second post above is dumb. After thinking about it, I shouldn't have posted most of it. It is better to have a debate with opposing points of view than an echo chamber. The thread wasn't hijacked and Patricks comments were pertaining to the subject. I just ranted without thinking. Sorry all.
I do stand behind the statement of not liking lambs on altars though. Sorry again.
Abersouth at December 10, 2010 7:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1797089">comment from AbersouthI do stand behind the statement of not liking lambs on altars though.
I prefer them on the rare side, on my plate.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2010 7:36 PM
I suggested we wait and see because I'm that confident that nothing terrible is going to happen to this girl.
Realistically, none of us is in a position to determine or influence the outcome of this situation, so we may as well wait until we get more conclusive proof about where things are headed.
I'm attempting to bring some rationality and calm to this discussion. I was level-headed and focussed during the shooting. As a result, I was able to help quite a few other people.
Being calm and taking the long view is an asset, Lovelysoul, one that most parents would want their kids' teachers to have in the event of an emergency. Hopping around hopping mad and shouting "unfair" at everything usually doesn't solve a lot of problems.
Read Lilandra's post. The school board sounds like they are going to respond reasonably. But they need to do something...otherwise they could end up with an angry mob of parents asking them why they didn't. They can't win but because none of you are educators, you can't see that.
Abersouth: If you had gone through a shooting and the issue came up on a blog are you really telling me you wouldn't say anything? Please!
No, I don't want a medal. There's nothing heroic about what happened to me; it was an accident of fate and I did my duty. (And btw, it's not a given that every teacher could--some of them were too hysterical to do much.) I was responding to Spartee's comment about how "stupid" a comment of mine was (about putting safety for students first). Maybe you missed the irony? Sure sounds like you did.
I'm going by "anonymous" for a few reasons, one of which is precisely because I don't want to call attention to myself personally.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 7:36 PM
Anonymous, unfortunately, the message this incident is communicating to students is not "honesty is the best policy." It's about being open, honest, and responsible (when you've made a stupid, stupid mistake), and being punished for it.
The message she's more apt to take from this is that if you do something wrong, hide it, and pray you're not caught.
You seem to feel that nothing serious will happen to this girl. I submit something already has.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 7:49 PM
"This is one reason that Law Enforcement has gradually been revising their 'active shooter' doctrines. The old approach, which almost always advised that people hide and comply, is being modified with ones that promote active evasion and resistance, where appropriate."
JMB: I'm really glad you brought this up because I made the decision to evacuate. Not all profs did and as a result, they were holed up and barricaded in classrooms for hours. There was a lot of confusion because at first it was thought that there was more than one shooter. That's why there was so much hysteria. People outside thought there was a team of shooters going after the people still left inside.
A detective with the local police, who I know personally, told me that evasive action was always better, but that that wasn't the "official line." I was glad I made the choice to leave, even though it felt like I was putting the students at risk was we wended our way through a hall and down four floors of a staircase.
The students said afterwards that we had cleared out in about 30 seconds--which I believe is an under-estimation, btw--but it felt sooooo much longer for me. It felt like it took forever. And then the pandemonium outside was like nothing I'd ever experienced before. So much hysteria, screaming, yelling, people having seizures, collapsing from whatever strong emotion it was they were feeling, etc. It got especially worse after we kept hearing shots.
Anyway...thank you for your thoughtful post. A lot of us were torn afterwards about whatever decision we had made, either to stay or go.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 8:04 PM
"You seem to feel that nothing serious will happen to this girl. I submit something already has."
Something has of course happened to this girl, but then all of us learn lessons the hard way at times.
I don't think the correctives taken here will turn her into a life-long victim. My sense is that she will learn to be more careful with firearms, not that she will learn that lying is better.
anonymous at December 10, 2010 8:11 PM
Anonymous: I don't think the correctives taken here will turn her into a life-long victim. My sense is that she will learn to be more careful with firearms, not that she will learn that lying is better.
I truly doubt that. She did a stupid, stupid thing, and she did the best possible thing she could have done under the circumstances. She came clean...and was punished for it.
She has undoubtedly had days to think about it, and probably told by many sources that she should have just kept her mouth shut as it is extremely unlikely that a bomb-sniffing, drug-sniffing dog will find an encased rifle in the trunk of a car.
She came clean, and was punished for it. Had she hidden her mistake, chances are nothing would have happened to her.
Tell the truth, get punished. Lie by omission, nothing happens. You figure it out.
Patrick at December 10, 2010 8:19 PM
Anonymous, point by point.
I don't share your confidence in nothing terrible happening to this girl. Her fate is in bureaucratic hands. Translation-crapshoot.
As far as influence to her fate, I wonder if the attention brought to bear is getting those same judges to think about their judgement, so they don't have to deal with blowback. If the attention wasn't there my guess is that she would more likely be hung out to dry. Time will tell. I hope more people agitate in her defense.
Applause for rationality and calm. What else can I say?
Next paragraph to me is indecipherable.
Reasonable people can disagree as to what is reasonable. Sacrificing a by all accounts good kid to appease a need to do something doesn't seem reasonable to me. Perhaps I just have a desire to not see someones life be needlessly ruined. I don't care to get on a soapbox about victimless crimes.
And then you addressed me. How do you know I haven't gone through a shooting? How do I know you really have? Even if you have and I haven't, that doesn't mean whatever you say trumps anything I say. You bring an anecdotal story to the table. I brought one too. Did you read it? Why didn't you respond to that? Its a story about a principal who stopped the killing, didn't just escape from it. It is a different viewpoint from yours. I brought it up because you specifically called the idea of school staff wielding weapons as off the charts. Can you show me that what that principal did was a bad idea? Did I not refute your assertion?
People also have different ideas about what is best for bringing about safety. To reiterate, my anecdote brought about safety by actively defending his life and his students. Not being satisfied with merely being prey. Fighting fire with fire. I hope this isn't too hard to comprehend. Hope you respond fully. I hope I can tease something resembling an argument more than just school should be a safe place to learn. As has been stated ad naseum, criminals (and I'm talking specifically about would be psychopathic mass murderers) don't give a hoot about any feelgood laws decreeing a campus to be a gun free zone. How does that not breed a free fire zone? Yes, Virginia Tech. I am of the opinion that such legislators are partially culpable in those deaths. That's me and my opinion. The world keeps turning.
I really don't care about nametags. I call myself Abersouth but nobody here knows me. You could call yourself king-ding-dong and it wouldn't make a spit of difference to me. However, your moniker does not get any points for originality.
Abersouth at December 10, 2010 8:37 PM
Apoligies for the quick double post.
@anonymous again, concerning irony. I love irony. I was blind to your attempt. Are you blind to the the possiblity that having a gun could well have been the best deliverance of safety to your students? Either in your hands or one of theirs? Irony.
Abersouth at December 10, 2010 8:50 PM
"She came clean, and was punished for it. Had she hidden her mistake, chances are nothing would have happened to her." Yep. From this point on, this is going to be my advice to any high-school or college student that asks my advice: adopt a stance of minimally required legal cooperation, and not an inch more. Never volunteer anything; never admit to anything. If they want to search your person, or the locked trunk of your car, respond with "No warrant, no search". If they search you anyway, make it clear that you will sue their asses off, and then do it.
That's the real ironic thing in the case of this girl. Since she volunteered the information that she had the gun in the car, she gave probable cause to justify a search of her car. Had she kept her mouth shut, then either they would not have found it, or if they had forced their way into her car trunk, the evidence would be inadmissible in court because it was obtained via an illegal search.
And I'll point this out one more time: at the federal level, there is no applicable law. The Supreme Court took care of that in U.S. v. Lopez.
Cousin Dave at December 10, 2010 9:07 PM
When I was in the LAUSD, I put, as a prank, a timer driven fireworks display (ie bomb) on a school roof.
It was found, and the bomb squad was called in.
Everyone knew who must've done it and they threatened to charge me. I was read the riot act since if the bomb squad has been injured I could have been charged with murder (I guess.)
But since I was a straight A student, they let me go, and I never heard of it again.
Went to college, and found out that a good friend of mine, had,
as a prank, put a timer driven fireworks display (ie bomb) on the school roof. But because he was a straight A student, nothing happened to him.
Fast forward 20 years, and the son of a good friend of mine, as a prank, hid a METRONOME in the roof of a classroom. They threatened him with all sorts of charges for the crime of HIDING A METRONOME.
Most of you guys suck, and you are the banality of evil. You know who are.
some anon at December 10, 2010 11:00 PM
Cousin Dave: If they want to search your person, or the locked trunk of your car, respond with "No warrant, no search". If they search you anyway, make it clear that you will sue their asses off, and then do it.
The police can search any vehicle they want to, with or without your consent or a warrant. All that's needed is the magical phrase, "I thought I smelled marijuana," and BINGO! Suddenly, you have probable cause.
Patrick at December 11, 2010 3:02 AM
I don't believe in guns at school period, Abersouth.
You might want to ask yourself why you're feeling so provoked by this discussion. Hotheadedness is one reason why I think a lot of people shouldn't own guns.
Thanks for supporting my view.
anonymous at December 11, 2010 4:24 AM
Anonymous: I don't think the correctives taken here will turn her into a life-long victim. My sense is that she will learn to be more careful with firearms, not that she will learn that lying is better.
"I truly doubt that. She did a stupid, stupid thing, and she did the best possible thing she could have done under the circumstances. She came clean...and was punished for it."
Okay Patrick, you win. She's a life-long victim. Poor thing, what a horrible life she's going to have. Let's all make a circle, start wringing our hands and singing dirges. Boo-hoo.
Feel better now?
anonymous at December 11, 2010 4:47 AM
"Spartee, you're saying this to a teacher who evacuated a classroom full of young people during a school shooting."
Sorry you went through something so traumatic, but yes, I'm afraid it is "stupid", even if understandably so. It is precisely *because* you went through something that traumatic that you are too emotional about it to be rational, and to keep your eye on the facts, and be able to have a good objective overview or how rare and unusual such incidents remain, how to retain common sense, and what the actual problems are and actual solutions. It's just human to become over-emotional and lose rationality after something like that, but it certainly doesn't make it smart, and it certainly doesn't automatically give you any kind of 'upper hand' in winning a rational argument on this matter (though perhaps you hope we'll become emotional and not wanting to hurt your feelings by pointing out the truth, thereby 'winning' your argument based on an appeal to emotion fallacy instead of rational arguments). Truth is paramount. Always. No matter how emotional a topic is, truth and rationality must never, ever be sacrificed on the alter of anything.
Lobster at December 11, 2010 5:37 AM
"I don't think the correctives taken here will turn her into a life-long victim. My sense is that she will learn to be more careful with firearms, not that she will learn that lying is better."
She wasn't even being "uncareful" with firearms. As many have said, having an unloaded gun, cased and locked in your trunk, isn't irresponsible gun ownership. It wasn't "stupid stupid" either. It's not like she brought it into school and waived it around carelessly. She simply forgot it was in her trunk after a long, holiday weekend.
The only message she will learn from this, just like my daughter's friend who turned over her father's gun and was expelled and faced charges, as well as the boy who turned over the shooter's note he found and went to juvenile prison, is that lying is the way to go.
I mean, those are just local anecdotes I know about. But they didn't get any press, which is what will probably save this girl from more serious repercussions.
I flat out told my daughter that if anything like that happened again - if she ever found a weapon at school or on a field trip - to NOT turn it in. We'll have to find a way to anonymously report it. Of course, she already figured that out from seeing what happened to her friend, who absolutely did the right thing and was punished for it.
Anonymous, you are viewing this only from your experience with the shooting, and I commend you for how you handled that situation, but you are apparently unaware of what is happening with these kinds of incidences, at least at the lower school level. These lack-of-common-sense policies are not stopping school killings, but they are hurting kids who try to do the right thing, and sending the clear message that lying is best.
lovelysoul at December 11, 2010 5:41 AM
As an aside, if I was a teacher and there was a gunman wandering around, I'd probably just try use my own concealed handgun to neutralize the threat, should the opportunity present itself. Why aren't more teachers armed? (Wait, what's that? You say people now use the 2nd Amendment as toilet paper?)
Lobster at December 11, 2010 5:43 AM
Lobster, I imagine even teachers with concealed weapon permits are not allowed to bring guns to school. I'm not even sure if the school cop is allowed to be armed. I haven't really noticed whether she has a holster. Surely, she is armed. It would be absurd for her not to be. But, quite honestly, she's about 300 pds, very out of shape, so trusting my daughter, and all those students, to her defense is not terribly comforting.
lovelysoul at December 11, 2010 5:56 AM
anonymous, you are exactly what I experienced when in college. Liberal drooling professors with absolutely zero respect for common sense and unreasonable dreams of a perfect world. Get real and get packing. Quit teaching the next generation to be pacifist pansies
ron at December 11, 2010 6:04 AM
I do believe guns ought to be available to any responsible person for the purpose of self defense, and that said persons should be given the liberty to carry said guns most anywhere, period.
I took anonymous's advice and ask myself, "Self, why do I feel so provoked by this discussion?" Then my self answered back- "Uh, provoked? I don't feel provoked or hotheaded or anything of the sort. That is ridiculous. It would be better described as incredulous that a non-thinking person seems to believe they know what is best for everyone but refuses to actually engage in a discussion, doesn't reply when asked questions, and just thinks that a belief that guns shouldn't be near schools, period, is somewhow an argument. Well that is no argument, it is a belief. It is a statement that I have refuted and you don't seem interested in replying to with any sense."
My self doesn't feel hotheaded at all. It feels contempt for a person who won't play ball but seems to insist that somehow I illustrated support for their view. My self does wish to be shown how I inadvertantly supported the contrasting view. My self also thinks to myself, "Well self, didn't I kinda show that this anonymous persons point of view is bullshit? And self, what the fuck is up with this person who doesn't know me who is implying I'm hotheaded and therefore ought not be trusted to own a gun. Why can't said person discuss like an adult rather than shut down and act like a child?" and then I have to remind myself that I am likely arguing with a fool and what do I gain by doing that? Such is life.
As to your statement that hotheadedness is a reason that people should not own guns, my retort is stupidity is one reason I believe a lot of people shouldn't procreate. But they will keep on doing it. That is also life. Owning guns is a right. I don't like guns in the hands of violent people either. But guns get into the hands of bad people and then you have to deal with it. I will never advocate taking a persons right to self defense away from them. I prefef to have the option to meet a threat with force if I need to. I am not satisfied with wishful thinking such as "I don't believe in guns at school" makes a good policy. Violent sociopaths, if anything, love useful idiots like you. I don't have much sympathy with your addlebrained view. My point of view is not a manifestation of me being hotheaded. It is closer to exasperation with idiots. There is a difference. Hope you can see it.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 6:20 AM
Yes, anonymous, I do know how much school superintendents are paid. The school budget is a public document. The search for new superintendents is covered by the newspapers, and salaries are listed.
Do you think you could say, "I have no choice in the matter" for $150,000 a year? If so, you'd be a bargain, and we are one of the smallest school districts around. We pay a lot more.
MarkD at December 11, 2010 6:35 AM
"It would be better described as incredulous that a non-thinking person seems to believe they know what is best for everyone but refuses to actually engage in a discussion, doesn't reply when asked questions, and just thinks that a belief that guns shouldn't be near schools, period, is somewhow an argument. Well that is no argument, it is a belief"
To be brutally honest, when schizophrenics become that completely impervious to reality and rational thought as the rabid anti-gun nuts, we call it what it is: "Psychosis". For some reason when the same symptoms appear in people who become hysterical about either guns, children or both, we hold different standards.
Lobster at December 11, 2010 6:38 AM
"But guns get into the hands of bad people and then you have to deal with it."
In the real world, there exist bad people, and it's not nice to have to deal with them. Taking out the trash is dirty work, but someone has to do it. The anti-gun nuts seem to operate under the principle of blind hope that 'someone else' will always be able to come in time to take out the trash for them, so that they don't have to think about the horrible thought of actually having to possibly kill someone in self-defense themselves. It is a blind and false and futile hope, because at those brief moments in time where it is just between you and the trash, there simply rationally cannot be anyone else who has arrived fast enough. Like it or not, the onus is on every single one of us to protect our children from madmen by exercising our 2nd amendment rights and being willing to do the dirty job of taking out the trash.
Leaving it to 'the authorities' is actually a surefire way to KILL children, because banning guns from schools leaves schools an open target. That's right: The anti-gun crowd are KILLING OUR CHILDREN. Let's wake up here.
Lobster at December 11, 2010 6:44 AM
To continue my thoughts.
I think addlebrained persons fear of guns is not a good reason to ban them (ban the guns that is, I'm all for banning addlebrains, but that deserves another thread).
Concerning this girl. I fail to comprehend why anyone wants to make an example out of her. I disagree with anonymous and Patrick. I don't think the girl bringing an unloaded hunting rifle to a school parking lot is a "stupid, stupid thing". I also don't understand the superlative stupid stupid. If something is stupid, isn't stupid enough? Doesn't stupid suffice? I don't understand doubly stupid. And what would stupid stupid stupid be? Is it an additional stupid or do they multiply? Can we measure stupid or is it just, well, stupid? And what of her actions is supposed to be the first stupid and what the second stupid? Very mysterious. Reminds me of stupid idiots, mainly the once oft repeated retort of, is there another kind?
I agree with the above persons who advocate not exposing themselves to the capricious nature of a truly stupid zero-tolerance rule.
My thought is that the rule is stupid (or infinity times stupid if that makes it more reasonable somehow [Hope nobody trumps that with infinity plus one times stupid]). The rule is making a victim when there doesn't need to be a victim. The adherance to stupidity decrees that a farcical show trial has to be observed. The stupidity needs to be blind to the intent of the victim. The stupidity is voracious. The stupidity means we conflate victim and perpetrator. The stupidy is by its nature insensible to any motive to any behavior. The stupidity just wants to be stupid. Stupid truly is as stupid does. The stupidity apparently allows some people to feel better, somehow think that they are safer I guess. I think that is stupid.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 7:11 AM
Plus, I agree with Lobster. He isn't stupid.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 7:14 AM
'I don't think the girl bringing an unloaded hunting rifle to a school parking lot is a "stupid, stupid thing"'
Yeah, the mind simply boggles at that argument.
The reasoning error seems more apparent if we use a different example: Pretend for the sake of argument that there was a 'zero-tolerance' law banning apples (the fruit) from being 'anywhere near a school', and if you're caught with an apple, well your life is ruined, it will be on your record for life. In light of such a law, it would indeed be 'stupid, stupid' to accidentally leave an apple in your car trunk. Would the action of leaving an apple in your car trunk be inherently stupid? No, only because some looneys managed to pass a looney law. An unloaded rifle in a car trunk? Who cares, I really don't see the issue. Guns don't jump up by themselves, load themselves and start shooting people. And if you want to argue that a nutjob might've taken it to shoot children, well, there is already absolutely nothing (thanks to the looneys who decided the 2nd amendment is toilet paper) stopping a nutjob with a rifle from walking into a school and starting to shoot people.
I used to sometimes try debate the issue of guns with a rabid anti-gun Western European, thoroughly brainwashed as they are there by their government that "guns are bad". I tried to make headway with step by step arguments. For example her primary arguing premise was to state "guns are bad, guns are bad, our government tells us guns are bad" (she said that at least a million times). I made some headway when I proposed the argument, "if guns are bad, then shouldn't we prevent the police and military from having them"? This is an interesting counter-question because it does help make people re-think a fundamental premise. With step-by-step logic, a few times she finally actually came round to actually seeing my point. But a few days later, she would always go right back to square one with a "guns are bad, guns are bad" semi-hysteria. I don't know what to make of that.
Lobster at December 11, 2010 7:36 AM
I can clarify the use of contraband-sniffing dogs: they are allowed to show up and walk around pretty much anywhere. The Supreme Court ruled that a contraband-sniffing dog is not an invasion of privacy and is not considered a search, since all they do is walk through an area and sniff. I see them every day on the mass transit in my area. If, however, a dog picks up a scent, then that's the policeman's just cause to search your belongings/vehicle/whatever.
Les at December 11, 2010 7:41 AM
"The reasoning error seems more apparent if we use a different example: Pretend for the sake of argument that there was a 'zero-tolerance' law banning apples (the fruit) from being 'anywhere near a school',"
ObSelfDefenseAgainstFruit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
jerry at December 11, 2010 8:43 AM
"but she did a stupid, stupid thing"
I suspect you said the word 'stupid' twice not as an intensifier but because subconsciously you knew this is a tenuous claim and perhaps hoped this would trick us into taking the claim as axiomatic instead of arguing.
Lobster at December 11, 2010 8:53 AM
"Zero Tolerance" policies are more appropriately called "Zero Judgment" policy. It is way for lazy bureaucrats to avoid making difficult decisions and to avoid responsibility for the decision. "I was following the policy." Reminds me of other government bureaucrats in Nuremberg that were only following orders.
Bill O rights at December 11, 2010 8:59 AM
I love that I'm being accused of being over-emotional and just seeing the situation from my "limited" point of view.
Let's see how that approach works with our troops:
"Sorry, we know you just came back from Afghanistan and we know you must be emotional about it, so you'll have to excuse us but we're really not going to take anything you say seriously. Hope you don't mind!"
Guns and kids don't mix. What are you people, retarded?
anonymous at December 11, 2010 9:37 AM
I just don't envision this is a "zero tolerance" case - after reading the Fox News article to which that Mike linked (Thanks, btw, Mike). Although it does state that the school has a zero tolerance policy towards guns at school, the article stated it was based on both state and federal law, which (as the article further states) allows wiggle room/leniency on a case-by-case basis. The school board is having a hearing about the student's case on Monday (and, I'm assuming, she, her parents and her lawyer have been given a chance to present their side of the case and/or will be allowed to speak at the hearing and the authorities have had a chance to investigate as well). While I agree that true zero tolerance policies are idiotic because they don't take into account any extenuating circumstances at all (and, in schools, don't take into account that we're dealing with children), I think the school has behaved pretty reasonably so far in this case - they suspended the student to remove a potential threat to the student body while the matter is being investigated. The student is being given a chance to be heard and the other factors (such as her past record as a good student, her history of hunting with her family, etc.) are being taken into account. If the facts are what have been presented in the articles that Amy and Mike have posted, I would hope she wouldn't be expelled. I'd like to wait until the school board passes judgment on Monday before giving an opinion.
factsarefacts at December 11, 2010 9:48 AM
@factsarefacts
I do not agree the school is acting reasonably. I don't accept that treating a kid who went hunting then left their gun in the trunk of their car as a criminal suspect is reasonable at all. Why do you? Did you hear "gun" and then immediately jump to a conclusion that this person is a potential threat? Guilty until she can prove her innocence when no harm has been done or by any account intended? Does society at large have to infantilize everything? See my post above about stupid. I think you are complicit in the dance.
@anonymous. I wouldn't call you overly emotional. I will throw out there that I think you are stupid. Guns and kids can mix. Just because you can't see how it can happen responsibly doesn't mean it can't happen. And it does happen. It just shows you are simpleminded, aka- stupid. Oh and thanks for responding to all my questions. Your silence tells me all I care to know.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 10:11 AM
Abersouth, you only know the facts as presented in one article (which represents pretty much only the student's side) - and if you know more, please share. If a kid brings a gun to school, I think it's prudent to investigate the matter and find out all the facts. (For example, what if this same student had written a murder/suicide note on her home computer - which would only be discovered after some investigation, would that be something you might want to know?) You don't think that it's prudent or reasonable to conduct some kind of investigation to verify her story? Well, sorry, but I do. This isn't infantilizing "everything" - this is about a weapon. Amy previously posted an article about a young girl suspended, pursuant to a zero tolerance policy, for giving another student a piece of candy - I thought that was ridiculous.
In addition, as Patrick correctly pointed out, there are other considerations as well - such as threats from future lawsuits by other students committing the same offense. Letting her have "her day in court" after an investigation is a legal and practical way of handling the matter.
factsarefacts at December 11, 2010 10:32 AM
Abersouth: I'm not interested in engaging with people who rant and especially those who rant nonsense. The fact that you're feeling so outraged and indignant is your problem, not mine.
@factsarefacts: good luck with your message. It's a good one.
Unfortunately, this thread is being followed by people less interested in facts and more interested in hysteria.
Batten down the hatches--you might be hit by a wave of it.
anonymous at December 11, 2010 10:58 AM
Yes, I know the statements as presented in one article. I take issue with your idea of prudence. You follow up with an inevitable "what if". WTF. That is not what was stated in the article. Do we have to have a trial for every time a person stores a gun in their trunk? Sure seems like kafkaesque reasoning to me. And does any investigation ever come up with all the facts? With this hearing she is guilty until proven innocent. Welcome to the wonderful world of a police state. Totalitarian creep. I'll agree that my use of the term "infantilizing" wasn't they best way to convey what I'm trying to get across. This is about a weapon, and to what extent the brew-ha-ha over it's discovery should be escalated. As soon as there is reason to believe that it's placement was an oversight, the story should be over. Lock it back up and take it home at the end of the day. That is not what happened. It's been escalated. I think that is stupidity run amok.
As to your addition, Patrick pointed something out, I'm not sure it was correct and I don't think such considerations should mean we have to send a kid through a meat grinder. It may be the legal way, but it is far from the practical way of handling the manner (unless you desire a metaphorical hanging).
Also, I'm glad you can see the stupidity of a zero tolerance policy about candy and can make a distinction between guns and candy. They are indeed different.
I think the biggest difference in our arguments is you want to rely on what ifs. What if she is secrectly suicidal. What if she is secretly intent on blowing the school up? What if she is secretly planning on taking over the world? "What if this same student had written a murder/suicide note on her home computer - which would only be discovered after some investigation. . ." How is this not hysterical? You can never really know what is in another persons head. You could have all the investigations you want. You still won't really know. I don't want to live in that world. I would rather investigations happen after somebody actually gets hurt than treat everyone as a suspect before nobody was even threatened. But what if the what ifs never end? What if black was white and dogs could fly? That would be different. But really, should we not investigate everybody because somebody might have written a suicide note? How fucking practical is that? Only when we have reason to believe. And how much time, money and effort should we spend doing this. But don't you want to know? It's the job of the kids family to make sure she is alright. No evidence has been presented that she has ever been or wants to be a threat to anybody. No amount of ridiculous "what ifs" should ever trump that.
I should add that I am trying not to paint this in an either/or dichotomy where one side has to be right. I'm not trying to conciously create a false dichotomy. Maybe I'm overstating your position too much. I just think your position as you have presented it is flat out wrongheaded.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 11:22 AM
@Anonymous - If there had been armed professors or students at VT, there would not have been 30 dead. Period. You cannot make any argument at all that disproves that.
Furthermore, your argument that more guns == more dead is provably false. Violent crime has dropped in every single state that has instituted concealed carry on a shall-issue or liberal may-issue basis. More guns == Less dead.
VT was a gun-free zone. Which is WHY Cho Sueng-Hui chose to do his work there. He knew in advance that he had a large gathering of unarmed victims with no hope of stopping him.
@factsarefacts - Actually, the lawsuit will do nothing to expunge the accusation and arrest from her record. On every job application she ever fills out for the rest of her life, she will now have to answer "yes" to the question "Have you ever been charged with a felony?".
In other words, she is a perpetual victim, "anonymous" bullshit notwithstanding. Her life has been impacted no less than the 17 year old boy who is forever on the sex offender registry because his 15 year old girlfriend got him off in the back seat of the car after the prom.
And for an example close to my home - We wouldn't be in the middle of a massive trial of two dirtbags for multiple murders if one man had walked down the basement stairs with a pistol. And his wife and daughters would still be alive.
Lives are destroyed by these bullshit policies. Zero tolerance and hoplophobia need to be wiped out as aggressively as expansionist Islam.
brian at December 11, 2010 11:30 AM
@anonymous
I did engage in a little nonsense, but it was nonsense that I tried to have a meaning behind, to illustrate something. So is it still nonsense? I don't think I ranted, but you would know best, right? Because my indignation is my problem. I don't really understand this dismissal. If it makes sense to you, great.
If you care to read more about Joel Myrick (because I'm interested in facts) and how he handled an actual school shooting while it was happening, and other instances of a gun actually saving someone, I'll offer this link from Reason.
http://reason.com/archives/2000/06/01/loaded-coverage
If you are going to call me (I'm assuming you were talking about me) hysterical, I would like to know a reason why. Please illustrate. You are obviously interested in this thread. Why can't you actually debate? What is going on here?
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 11:42 AM
@Abersouth - 'anonymous' isn't hear to debate, she's here to preach. Guns bad. That's all the leftist sheep know, and all they bleat. They will not be swayed by reason or observable fact. Their only response: "Guns Baaaaaaaaad."
brian at December 11, 2010 11:49 AM
I know it Brian. I just have a pipe dream I can perhaps show (persuade or convince) a few here and there of there folly. It's frustrating and thus a pipe dream. I want to live in a world with more responsible people and liberty, not sheople. Can they change? Again, another thread. I'm glad you brought up hoplophobia earlier (I think it was you). I was not familiar with the word.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 12:10 PM
'"Sorry, we know you just came back from Afghanistan and we know you must be emotional about it, so you'll have to excuse us but we're really not going to take anything you say seriously. Hope you don't mind!"'
Nice strawman, but we're happy to take anything you say seriously provided it actually makes some logical sense. We're not taking your seriously because you're not making a coherent argument. I don't care if you come from Afghanistan or Mars, one thing and one thing only matters, and that's whether your arguments rational. Yours aren't.
Lobster at December 11, 2010 12:34 PM
Hi Abersouth, yes, thanks for reading my post carefully. But I have a few more points:
You stated: "Do we have to have a trial for every time a person stores a gun in their trunk?" My answer is NO. But, in her case, she wasn't just violating a school rule - she was violating federal law and, for those people who are for state's rights, STATE LAW. Again, with the candy example, there are rules and laws that I, and most everyone else, deem as minor. Is sharing a piece of candy that horrible? Is driving over the speed limit by 5 mph serious - as compared to 50? It's about degrees. Certainly, people can and do have disagreements over what they deem to be serious violations and what aren't. In my opinion, bringing a gun to school in violation of not only school policy but also federal and state law is a serious matter that is worthy of, at a minimum, an investigation.
You stated: "As soon as there is reason to believe that it's placement was an oversight, the story should be over." How do you determine if there is reason to believe it's placement was an oversight? Is it OK to just take the student's word for it? Is a call to her parents enough? I generally agree with your statement, but in order to determine that the gun's placement was an oversight, some kind of investigation needs to be performed. And, personally, I don't think solely taking her or her parents' word for it is sufficient; many people lie to protect themselves and their children.
Your question as to how much time and money should be spent on such an investigation is an excellent one. Another factor to consider, which was mentioned in the Fox News article (but I forgot to reference), was that the school district can lose federal funding for not being in compliance with the law. Sure, complying with many laws is at times, completely annoying, sometimes unreasonable, sometimes prohibitively expensive. I don't know the facts as to how much money and time (although it appears that the length of the investigation cannot have exceeded a couple of weeks) is being spent on this case by the school district. But, if, hypothetically, the district is spending $5,000 on this case, in order to keep, $200,000 in federal funding - I would say that this is very pragmatic, business-like decision. This is another factor as to why I believe the district is behaving reasonably given the circumstances in which it finds itself.
I generally agree with your disdain for cases where people are considered guilty before being proven innocent. But, her only punishment to date, judging by the 2 articles I've read, is that she's been suspended until the hearing while the matter was being investigated - she has not been arrested or charged with a felony (which Brian indicates [Brian, do you have any links to show that she has been indeed be charged with a felony at the state or federal level?]) She hasn't been expelled, at least not yet, and she very well might not be. I think a suspension (the articles don't state how long she has been suspended, but judging from the fact that the hunting went on over Thanksgiving, her suspension has probably been about 2 weeks) from school for violating school policy, as well as federal and state law, by bringing a gun onto school property isn't that bad of a punishment; granted, we will have to wait for the hearing to see if she'll be given any other punishment.
Unfortunately, reality dictates that sometimes a person is treated guilty until they are proven innocent. Do you temporarily suspend an airline pilot about whom you received an anonymous tip that she's doing drugs until a drug test can be successfully completed? Do you temporarily remove a child from a home when child abuse is suspected - at least until it can be investigated?
I just don't think a school suspending a student for bringing a gun onto school property for a couple of weeks while they investigate the matter is that harsh or unrealistic.
factsarefacts at December 11, 2010 12:41 PM
"Guns and kids don't mix"
Do you have any evidence for that extraordinary claim? You are clearly hysterical, please, calm down, take anti-psychotics, and stop thinking that your psychotic delusional hysteria gives you the right to trample on the liberties the US was founded on. If you can't handle firearm rights, there are plenty of other countries that ban guns.
Lobster at December 11, 2010 12:43 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1797639">comment from Lobster"Guns and kids don't mix" Do you have any evidence for that extraordinary claim?
I learned to shoot a beebee gun at Camp Michigania (University of Michigan family camp for nerds) when I was about 8, and then also shot a bow and arrow at targets. I found that beebee guns and I mixed rather well, although I wasn't as fond of the bow and arrow business (mainly because it took place in the hot sun).
Amy Alkon at December 11, 2010 1:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1797640">comment from factsarefactsI just don't think a school suspending a student for bringing a gun onto school property for a couple of weeks while they investigate the matter is that harsh or unrealistic.
I think zero tolerance laws are harsh, unrealistic, and stupid, and encourage nonthink. When I was in school, the principal was expected to exercise judgment. No more -- just blind following of the rules.
Amy Alkon at December 11, 2010 1:26 PM
I once bought a bag of apples, all were fine except one, I threw the whole lot in the trash.
All terrorism acts in recent history had been undertaken by young, middle eastern muslims, so instead of profiling them, we are told it's best to profile everyone but them.
I see that what is right is now wrong, to all you political correctness freaks, thanks alot.
jksisco at December 11, 2010 1:47 PM
Hi Amy, I completely agree with you. I just don't think that this is the best example of a zero tolerance case. The matter is being investigated and the school board is having a hearing - so clearly, other factors are being considered aside from the fact that, on its face, the student violated the law. Sure, you can accuse the principal of not thinking; but isn't is possible that the principal was thinking? Is the principal solely qualified to conduct an investigation as to the student's reasons for bringing a gun to school? Is the principal responsible for the safety of all the students at his school? Can the principal be fired if the school district loses federal funding over the matter because the DEA feels the principal mishandled the situation - or will the principal maybe just have to fire a couple of teachers if that happens? If the principal lets this student off scott-free, what will the effect be, if any, on other students who may be thinking of breaking school rules, as well as state and federal law? Is a couple of weeks of suspension an effective way of teaching this student that she needs to be cognizant of school policy, federal and state law - and that she needs to take responsibility for knowing the locations where she can bring her gun?
Again, I admit I don't know all the facts. But judging from the 2 articles that I've read, she hasn't been prosecuted at either the state or federal level. If she was prosecuted, and the facts are as presented (i.e., that she simply had a brain fart and forgot that she left her gun in her car), then I would wholeheartedly agree that this is yet another example of an idiotic zero tolerance law.
factsarefacts at December 11, 2010 1:55 PM
Thanks for the reply factsarefacts.
Concerning your opinion that bringing a locked up gun to school is a serious violation of federal and state law, I humbly reply that many of these laws are stupid, poorly designed and only serve as feel good measures that snatch up people that aren't threats. I'm all for a nation with the rule of law, however I would prefer laws that respect an individuals unenumerated rights.
Concerning how you and I differ on what rationale ought to be used and by whom to determine who is and is not a threat. Well. I like to use obvious indicators. She volunteered the information for one. Maybe I just assume too much, but the indisputable fact that she did that just screams at me that it was an oversight. I don't understand the disconnect here. How does she automatically get categorized as a potential threat in your mind deserving further investigation? What evidence could clear her in your mind of ill intent? We come back to reason. Is there any? To me the exculpatory reason from what has been revealed to us is self evident. It just makes sense. A person could keep prying I suppose. I'm not interested in going there.
Then you say "I generally agree with your disdain for cases where people are considered guilty before being proven innocent. But, her only punishment to date, judging by the 2 articles I've read, is that she's been suspended until the hearing while the matter was being investigated." Glad you agree with me that far. I have a problem with your "but". Punishment for innocently forgetting about where you put an item that hurts nobody and can't realistically harm anyone is wrong. It's not an argument for me about degree of punishment that is appropriate, it is about whether it is appropriate to punish at all. I obviously don't think it is. I realize this gets into conflict with laws again, and I would like to just add what used to matter. Dolus culpa. Having to prove an intent. First, no harm, then with this victimless crime (not taking into account the conflation of victim and violator) you have no dolus culpa. So we have a show trial that is supposed to give her a healthy lesson. I don't see it that way. Plus I doubt that this "investigation" is really an investigation at all. I bet it is a conference where people are trying to figure out what they think the best thing for them to do is. I doubt it has anything to do with her so much as their concern to seem fair and balanced and judicious. What are they investigating? What is there to investigate? Non-story.
And Lastly we have Reality dictating that sometimes we have to treat a person as guilty until they can prove they are innocent. This just seems like a topsy turvy idea. We are talking about the idea of a suspect. Again, in this case no evidence has yet crossed my eyes that any harm was going to happen. But still guilty. You use an example of an anonymous note fingering a pilot for drug use. I guess you use this example to have a person responsible for lives being accused of wrongdoing. Won't even address the drugs. In this country we have the right to face our accuser. Airline companies are private and people who fly for them enter into the contracts willingly (so far as I know). If an anonymous note can derail a persons career I think something isn't working right. Hopefully a manager will dismiss such nonsense out of hand, unless there is a reason. A self evident compelling reason. A dispute, something, anything that actually has grounds for a review. Strange behavior, or irrational talk. Not seeming like his normal self. This is hard to compare with a public school. Private vs. public entities.
I like your second example better. First, there better be a reason why child abuse is suspected, otherwise it is patently groundless on its face. Emaciated child, bruises, listless behavior or something. It starts with a reason in my mind. If something is obviously wrong I have no problem with authorities intervening. If it isn't so obvious, you have the option of ferreting out what is going on. Doesn't mean you have to go in with the guns ablazing accusing first and making the parents prove their innocence. Basically have a concern (that isn't groundless) and then find out. I don't think this really compares well with the girl we are talking about with the gun in her trunk. To me, the existence of a gun isn't reason enough to cast suspicion of evil intent upon a person. That's just how I am. Hope this helped.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 2:01 PM
Zero tolerance is often a policy used to keep irate and stupid parents off teachers' and administrators' backs. It's a public relations tool more than anything else.
It's amusing to see how seriously some of you are taking it.
anonymous at December 11, 2010 3:41 PM
Guns and kids don't mix"
Do you have any evidence for that extraordinary claim?
Lobster, even my dog rolled over and groaned when I read this out loud.
And then she farted, which just about sums up what I think of most of commemts being posted here.
anonymous at December 11, 2010 4:13 PM
factsarefacts, for my edification will you please point out by statute which federal law you think was violated in this case? I REALLY want to know, because I am not sure there was a federal violation. There was a gun free school zone act of 1990 but that was ruled unconstitutional in 1995. The new law that replaced it allows for guns that are being transported locked in a trunk as this one was so I don't see the clear violation of Federal law. Even then after Heller and McDonald I don't think the 1996 law would pass a constitutional challenge.
Isabel1130 at December 11, 2010 5:44 PM
anonymous, you clearly are here to preach rather than debate. A number of other posters have challenged points you made and asked relevant questions, and you have ignored them and simply kept repeating the points you made in your first post.
So you know what? I'm calling bullshit on you. You were never involved in any school shooting. You made that up so you can give your argument an air of moral superiority, and so you can feel smug about how much smarter you are than everyone who disagrees with you. Your "guns and kids don't mix" statement is easily disprovable; you have already been provided with counter-examples, and I could provide you with a number more (including myself). And when this was done, your response, rather than addressing the point, was to taunt the person who made it.
You aren't serious. You're just here to be smug and preach to the yahoos who would dare to disagree with you. And I challenge every word you've said here. As James Randi always said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You were in a school shooting? Prove it. Otherwise you're just a BS artist.
Cousin Dave at December 11, 2010 5:46 PM
Sorry, Abersouth, it doesn't help that much. There are a lot of facts and factors that we don't know. Has this girl ever been in trouble before (we just have the one article stating her side of the story and displaying her positive qualities)? Does the school have disciplinary problems in general and does it feel it needs to make a statement to other students that rule-breaking won't be tolerated - or that excuses, such as "Oops, I innocently forgot" aren't acceptable? Did they search her car and locker for bullets? When were the parents called to provide confirmation about the hunting trip? As many parents have lied to protect their children, were the parents asked to provide circumstantial evidence that the hunting trip did, indeed, occur? Etc., etc.
She stated that the contraband-sniffing dog jogged her memory that she had the gun in her car. Is it possible that she decided the punishment would be lighter if she confessed up front rather than waiting to be caught? Maybe she had something more nefarious planned (with someone else), but was finding a way to chicken out of it? Probably not - but I do think a principal owes it to the student body and his faculty to conduct some kind of investigation to ensure their safety.
I do agree with you that it's entirely plausible that the investigation/school board hearing is really a sham - not just to appear judicious, but also, possibly, to satisfy the Dept. of Education so that the school doesn't risk losing federal funding (or even state funding for that matter). Part of the investigation may have been contacting the school board's attorney to investigate and/or contacting the Dept. of Education directly for guidance on the way to proceed. No, it's not pleasant (or even fair), it's reality. If I was the principal or on the school board, I would not want it on my head if funding was lost over this matter. After all, this year, someone at New Jersey's Department of Education botched up an application by including the wrong year's budget and cost New Jersey $400 million in federal funds. See: http://gothamist.com/2010/08/25/jersey_cant_read_directions_loses_r.php
It is an interesting question that you may have alluded to - do students have a right to carry guns onto school property? I know the Supreme Court has had mixed rulings about other rights - students do have certain first amendment rights (for example, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), ruled that students could not be punished for wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam War); but students have a lower expectation of privacy (New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), which ruled a teacher had a right to search a student's purse after suspecting the student of smoking, in violation of school rules, in the bathroom). I'm not aware if the SC has ever ruled that students have a right to bring guns to school - but something tells me, that, the conservative and liberal wings would probably agree that they would not; I could be wrong - you never know.
factsarefacts at December 11, 2010 6:08 PM
Sorry, Isabel, I missed your question. The Fox News article I read (thanks to Mike) states that the law is the federal Gun Free School Act. Here's the link to the article: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/09/honor-roll-students-future-balance-gun-law/.
And, after reading the article again, I will make a few corrections. The gun was discovered/disclosed on December 1st (i.e., she allegedly forgotten that she had a gun in her car for several days, as it was a Thanksgiving hunting trip) - so her suspension could only be for, at a maximum, one week.
In addition, please read not only the law - but also the rules/policies enacted by the Dept. of Education with regard to interpretations and enforcement of the law.
factsarefacts at December 11, 2010 6:37 PM
So if nothing else this may show us the priorities of a school board. Possibly forced to choose between enforcing a federal law in the name of money or ignoring it in the name of justice. Money or letting a kid be free to live her life. I still think this is a great example of the stupidity of zero-tolerance laws. It puts people in a pickle who don't deserve to be. It introduces some wonderful moral hazard. In any case, I very happy that this girl is lucky enough to have a big base of support that can turn into a hornets nest in her favor. Depressing for the next poor kid who does the same thing but isn't popular, and for any whose lives have already been ruined.
Here is an very similar example to the case we have been discussing. I wonder if the parents knew about it and responded accordingly.
http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-50892.html
After searching around a bit, it seems the defendant (I hate having to call him that) pleaded no contest to a lesser charge to appease the state. Did some community service. I think that is screwed up. I hope this example turns out better.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 7:15 PM
"You were in a school shooting? Prove it. Otherwise you're just a BS artist."
JMB wrote a really thoughtful post a few posts back. He talked about police policies regarding taking aversive/evasive action instead of inaction and/or giving in to a criminal. I responded because it became a central debate at my institution after the shooting.
I cannot get over how touchy everyone is getting over this!
What the heck! If you all want to live in Hysterical-land go ahead. I won't stand in your way.
I just think this is all going to blow over tomorrow (or whenever) when a judgement is rendered over this girl's error.
anonymous at December 11, 2010 7:19 PM
@ anonymous
Hysterical-land? Really? Are you ten or something?
How do you function on a day to day basis? Can you say anything that isn't vapid, vacuous or belittling?
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 7:39 PM
Abersouth, why are you and some of the other posters here so bitter? I experienced a school shooting; I discussed it and stated my belief that guns being in schools is a bad idea.
WTF?
anonymous. at December 11, 2010 7:49 PM
So tell me factsarefacts - which federal law did she violate?
Also what kind of 'what if' suicidal/homocidal shool shooters doesnt load a gun, leaves it inside a case, locked in a trunk, and tells school admin about it?
'What if' you acctually use that paper weight inside your skull and generate some actual thoughts for a change?
lujlp at December 11, 2010 7:55 PM
Yes, yes, you were in a school shooting, one you cant talk about, or even let us know your name becaue, why was that again?
Local paper didnt catch the story somehow?
And you are under some sort of unoffical illegal gag order for admin, not leagally binding but they'll fire you for letting on about it.
So that leads us to conclude if you arent full of shit, that you are working for a private school who doenst want word of this leaking as they propbaly sell prosepctive parent on a stronger saftey record then public schools.
How close am I?
So do you feel good about you self helping to cover up a spree shooting? Ignoreing the fact that your employer is lying to prospective clients about their saftey record?
And you claim to care about kids saftey, the only thing you care about is your fucking job - otherwise you'd have hauled your ass in to your local news affiliate and spread your story as far and as wide as you possibly could have.
Maybe you should change your name to hypocrite, you sactimonius self-serving jackass
lujlp at December 11, 2010 8:10 PM
"In addition, please read not only the law - but also the rules/policies enacted by the Dept. of Education with regard to interpretations and enforcement of the law."
Let's distinguish between a "law" and a "rule or a policy" based on it. If in doubt the only thing that is necessary enforceable and subject to a constitutional interpretation or a criminal prosecution is the law itself. Let me give you an example.
The Department of the Interior has a large facility in Lakewood, Colorado where they have many buildings, perform a lot of agency functions and hold classes. They have a gun free policy for this property but there is no federal law stating that it is illegal to either bring or to attempt to bring guns onto the property. If there was a federal law involved, the gate guards could call the police or FBI and have you arrested for bringing a gun onto the facility. But because the 'no guns' is a rule and a policy but not a law, their only recourse is to have you leave the facility or not come on in the first place if you have a gun in your car, that is otherwise legal in the state of Colorado. Because the law in question applies to the interior of federal buildings like post offices, I can legally have a gun in my car when I am in the parking lot of the post office, but I am violating the law if I carry it into the building. This is a big distinction, and a legally recognized one.
"Rules and policies" are an agency's interpretation of of what the law means and how they plan to enforce it. There is a HUGE difference between having an unloaded gun locked in a case in a car in a school parking lot and the same gun, actually inside a school building.
This is one thing I have a real problem with as a libertarian. I think schools should have "rules" and "policies' and not be a quasi law enforcement agency. School administrators are neither trained or equipped to act as either attorneys or police and have no business making a determination of whether or when a federal law has been violated. These lines have been blurred for several years now, and it is one of the primary reasons that I oppose the DARE program. It puts the police in a quasi official capacity in the school asking personal questions of minor students, when if they were in official capacity the law would not allow them to question children at all without a parent or an attorney present. Federal funding as a hook to get school administrators to assume a quasi law enforcement role is not the kind of supervision I believe in, or the kind of school I want my kids attending.
A intelligent and kind administrator,who had been approached by this girl would have told her. "I didn't hear what you just told me. Here is a pass, go home and come back when you get this issue straightened out." Obviously the administrator this girl talked to was a nervous ninny (and an idiot) and what should have been a non incident has become a federal case. This is what happens when you demonize guns, box cutters, and nail scissors because political correctness won't allow you to focus on bad actors. If I were a parent in this "f"ing district in Montana, I would be on a one woman crusade to fire the administrator responsible for blowing this out of proportion and would follow it up by mounting a campaign to defeat any school board member who thought that this was the appropriate response.
Isabel1130 at December 11, 2010 8:35 PM
Hi lujlp, as the Fox News article that Mike referenced (the "Fox Article") (upon which I based my statement about federal law), the law is the Gun Free School Act. Please note that I have not bothered to read the law or the Dept. of Education's policies or interpretation of it. If you or Isabel or anyone else would like to - please feel free and report your findings here. Please also note that I based my statement about loss of federal funding for violations of the law, again, on what was stated in the Fox Article.
I wasn't aware that you thought me a dunderhead based on all my previous postings. I actually thought you sometime agreed with me (on previous topics such as gay marriage). Alas, my mistake. If you think I'm stupid, fine. But I think it's stupid to completely forget you have a gun in your car for several days. I think it's stupid to bring a gun onto school property in violation of school policy as well as state and federal law (collectively, the "Rules"). I think it's stupid to think that (regardless of the fact that the principal found out you broke the Rules because you told him yourself and the fact that no one was hurt) you can break the Rules and expect that you will suffer absolutely no consequences. I hope you bothered to read my previous posts where I've speculated about other factors that the principal may have been considering that went way beyond the gun safety issue - you may think I'll full of shit - maybe I am - maybe I'm not.
Abersouth, thanks for your link to the article about the kid who got expelled for his final year for, essentially, the same rule violation. It stated that the student, MAY have had to face felony charges. Do you know what happened in that case? I did notice to that the article (which had an editorial tone to it), did state that an appropriate punishment should be: "In a reasonable world, Liston's offense would have warranted a good scolding, maybe even a few days' suspension, and a mandatory refresher course on gun safety."
For what it's worth, I do think a one-year's suspension was too severe - based solely on the facts presented in the link. I also think it would have been unfair to prosecute him (or convict him) for any crime (felony or misdemeanor).
factsarefacts at December 11, 2010 8:40 PM
@ factsarefacts
From what I could tell based on comments to now gone linked newspaper reporting, After being expelled, he pleaded no contest to a negotiated lesser charge (misdemeanor) and did some community service. I read he wanted to get into the cattle business but I have no information as to his fate now. Maybe someone else is better at googling than me?
And yes, the article had a definate editorial tone. Can't say I agree with it completly.
Abersouth at December 11, 2010 8:57 PM
Please note that I have not bothered to read the law or the Dept. of Education's policies or interpretation of it.
And yet even without knowing the specifis of the law, whether or not the law is even constitutional(which has been pointed on on at least THREE occasion before your post that the supreme court said it wasnt) the Dept of Ed policys on the law, or the local school boeard and schools policy on the law - you still KNOW she violated federal law.
And just as a side question, when was the last time you came back from a long holiday camping trip and remebered to unpack ABSOLULTY EVERYTHING? When was the last time anyone managed to pull of that feat?
Also just beacuse we occasonally agree does not abrogate my right to insult you on internet web forums when you are acting in a manner that requiers, yes REQUIERS, that someone call you on your brian dead shit.
And should the day ever come that I say somethings stupid, as we all know it hasnt happened yet, I would expect you and everyone else here to do the same - how else would we learn if none pointed out our failings and mistakes?
lujlp at December 11, 2010 9:36 PM
OK. I'm guilty - I was trying to, alas, get someone else (either lujlp or isabel) to actually do some legal research. [PS: My fee, for my legal research, runs anywhere between $200 to $300/hour - and, frankly, I don't feel like paying money on Lexis or Westlaw searches, which is my custom)] I'm not aware of your legal qualifications, if any, luj - but Isabel has mentioned her law degree before.
Cousin Dave did mention the Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Lopez (1995), in which, yes, the court struck down an anti-gun law. But it did so, not because it was a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but because the language violated the Commerce Clause.
"Following the Lopez decision, Congress made minor changes requiring that the firearm in question 'has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce,' and re-enacted the law with President William J. Clinton's signature as the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 Title 18 U.S.C Section 922(q). As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. Although The 1995 GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v Dorsey the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised 1995 version of the law.
Other convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 include:
United States v Danks (1999); United States v Tait (2000); United States v Haywood (2002); United States v Smith (2005); United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007); United States v Weekes (2007); United States v Benally (2007);
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990.
You can also read the text of the act at the link as well. PS: I confirmed much of what was on wikipedia by skimming a Duke Law article on the topic. I think I've done enough research - especially considering some others (must I name names??) haven't bothered to do any. In addition, I asked Isabel to research the Dept. of Education's policies because, as a person with a law degree (I'm sure she's aware), the law doesn't always state everything - such as, a Dept's policy that it will yank federal funding for violations of a law. Under the domain of administrative law (with which I'm sure you're completely familiar), this is not uncommon. For example, this summer, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the University of Hastings when it decided to withhold funding from a Christian students' group that did not comply with the school's anti-discrimination policy (which was based on California law).
factsarefacts at December 11, 2010 11:02 PM
Just going off the wikipedia summary of the law
Given the wording of paragraph A, one could argue that a gun locked in a case, and that case being locked in a trunk of a car, hunndereds of yrads away from the current location of the owner - that said fire arm is not in the possesion of said owner.
Given the wording of subsection 2 of paragraph B, as the girl is licenced to own the gun the law does not apply
Given the wording of subsection 3 of paragraph B, as the weapon was unloaded and stored properly the law does not apply
Given the wording of section 3, as the girl never attempted to fire the weapon the law does not apply.
Also it requires that the person in possesion of a loaded firearm on school propery KNOW that said fire arm at some point in its sale history crosses interstae or national borders, good luck proving that
So 30 second after reading the text of this federal lawI found 5, count them FIVE, ways in which the very text of this law states that this girl is not in violation of the law.
Also I went to link and read the entire text of the law, I saw nothing preventing someone who has the means for creating their own gun parts from building a weapon and carrying such a loaded 'homemade' weapon so long as any of the individaul peices comprising that gun, or the gun in its entirty had ever been sold accross state lines
lujlp at December 12, 2010 12:17 AM
"So that leads us to conclude if you arent full of shit, that you are working for a private school who doenst want word of this leaking as they propbaly sell prosepctive parent on a stronger saftey record then public schools.
How close am I?"
Not even in the ballpark.
It was on CNN within minutes. The area around the institution was a "jammed" zone--cell phones weren't working because the network was overwhelmed. Myself and about a dozen students started walking and once we got about a few streets away, the phones started working again.
One of the students got a call from her parents, who were vacationing in Florida. We were stunned when they told us they were watching events unfold on CNN. I mean, it felt as if it had only started five minutes ago!
The student was hysterical and couldn't talk to her parents. So I took the phone and explained that she was with me, some other students, and that she was safe.
The "no-publication" rule is out of respect for the families of the dead and the injured survivors. And, it's a public institution AND, I'd like to hang on to my job.
I'm not about to compromise my income because I'm being baited by some of idiots on this thread. Sorry, but you're just not worth it.
You're coming across like a bunch of sore losers because YOU can't say YOU had the experience.
I still contend this student is going to get off with a slap on the wrist. Why aren't people willing to wait and see what happens? Relishing that feeling of righteous indignation over nothing?
anonymous at December 12, 2010 5:08 AM
"A intelligent and kind administrator,who had been approached by this girl would have told her. "I didn't hear what you just told me. Here is a pass, go home and come back when you get this issue straightened out."
Isabell30--do you know how often this exact thing happens? That a teacher or an administrator will give a student a free pass over something? It happens all the time, everyday and I'm sure in schools around the world.
I did it just last week. A student handed an assignment in late--after I set a very strict deadline--but I took the paper in quietly because I know he's dealing with a difficult domestic situation at home. I gave him a pass as do 99% of teachers/professors I know.
I'm guessing the girl said it in front of more than one person. That compromises the potential of privacy over the issue. One teacher or one administrator, alone, can make that kind of an arbitrary decision. But say it in front of more than one adult working at the institution, and you've got yourself a little situation.
These teachers and administrators probably like their jobs as much as anyone else. I keep going back to the parents because it's probably their vehicle, if not their gun. They need to be held accountable too.
Why is everyone focusing their hatred on the schools and the administrators? They aren't raising this kid, the parents are, and it seems to me they fucked up mightily here.
anonymous at December 12, 2010 5:17 AM
"Why is everyone focusing their hatred on the schools and the administrators? They aren't raising this kid, the parents are, and it seems to me they fucked up mightily here."
Are you kidding? They fucked up raising a straight A student, who made the very common mistake of forgetting to unpack her trunk after a long weekend? You've never forgotton your cellphone or your car keys or anything?
Somehow, you can twist this whole mess into being the PARENTS' fuck up, while using every imaginable justification to excuse the school from having to use any degree of common sense?
You are the very type of cover-your-ass bureaucratic "teacher" that is the problem here. So what if you took an essay late? You wouldn't have given this girl a pass like that if she'd come to you alone. You'd be practically wetting your pants until you could run to the administration to tell. Then, you'd sleep at night by reassuring yourself that you "had no choice" and that probably nothing too bad will happen to her.
lovelysoul at December 12, 2010 7:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1798123">comment from lovelysoulAgain, lovelysoul is exactly right. There have been a couple occasions when I left my computer in the hidden area of my little hatchback, or left my phone in my car -- and I live in an area where people will smash your window and steal your stuff if they see it. And I am a responsible, 46-year-old adult.
Amy Alkon at December 12, 2010 7:17 AM
"You are the very type of cover-your-ass bureaucratic "teacher" that is the problem here. So what if you took an essay late?"
Hmmm...I think it mattered to the student. Why don't you ask him, not her?
"You wouldn't have given this girl a pass like that if she'd come to you alone."
You have no idea how I'd react. Did you get your information from the Psychic Hotline? I think Dionne Warwick would like to hear from you.
"You'd be practically wetting your pants until you could run to the administration to tell."
I don't have bladder control issues, Lovelysoul.
"Then, you'd sleep at night by reassuring yourself that you "had no choice" and that probably nothing too bad will happen to her."
Yes, right after I finished sitrring my cauldron and adding eye of newt to my poison stew. It's how I like to spend my Thursday evenings.
This is getting too funny.
The car doesn't belong to the school, it belongs to the parents. It's in their car on school property. I think you need to check with the legal eagle on the list (factsarefacts) to get the low down on the legality of that issue.
Lovelysoul you just sound like a woman with a guilty conscience when it comes to children. Bit louche as a parent, were you?
anonymous at December 12, 2010 7:51 AM
And, unable to come up with anything beyond an emotional defense for her position (I was in a school shooting, so I'm right), she resorts to the ad hominem.
Next up: The '"Shut up", She explained' closer.
You don't accept being charged with a federal felony with an "Oh, it will all work out in the end". Why don't you ask Cory Maye how that shit works.
When this girl ends up doing time for a bullshit firearms violation that technically didn't occur, or has her scholastic and professional ambitions shredded due to merely being accused of violating some pinhead's interpretation of an illegal law, I expect you to quit your job in solidarity with her.
But you won't do that, you sanctimonious twat. Entering a public school does NOT entail the forfeiture of Constitutional rights.
brian at December 12, 2010 8:03 AM
Anonymous, I don't need to be psychic to know how you'd react. It's in everything you've written. I mean, it's not even bad enough for you that the girl is in trouble, now you want the parents to face some sort of charges too!
You do not come off as a teacher who would do anything other than report an incident like this because you're clearly one of those rigid, by the book people, who won't dare use common sense if you might get into trouble.
I'm not a lax parent, but I know how teens forget stuff. We don't own a gun, or go hunting, but if we did, I'm sure my 16 yr old could very well forget the gun in her trunk too. Teens are very forgetful and easily distracted. It happens.
I would hope that she'd be given a pass by a smart teacher, who knows her character and that she isn't a threat, but, due to the fact that there are so many pussies like you in the classroom, who care more about covering their asses and avoiding liability than actually doing what's best for their students, it's increasingly doubtful.
lovelysoul at December 12, 2010 8:15 AM
@Brian. You said:
"...she resorts to the ad hominem."
And of course NO ONE has been doing that to me. How far back have you read?
@Lovelysoul. You said:
"Anonymous, I don't need to be psychic to know how you'd react."
No, of course not. You can count on those messages you're getting from outer space, the messages coming through the fillings in your teeth.
Why aren't you people willing to wait for the outcome? We're covering old ground here, and while I love the chance to hurl funny insults, especially at such deserving targets(!), we're not getting any further and won't until we know how the school board decides.
anonymous at December 12, 2010 9:22 AM
Here's something really worth worrying about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading
anonymous at December 12, 2010 2:30 PM
"No, of course not. You can count on those messages you're getting from outer space, the messages coming through the fillings in your teeth."
Or I can note that you haven't disputed, even once, my assertion that you'd run to the administration rather than tell the girl to drive home and not get her into trouble. You know what you'd do in these very same set of circumstamces - cover your ass - then take a "wait and see" approach. If not, then you'd be offended by my suggestion. You clearly believe in these policies, and comfort yourself that teh outcome isn't going to be "too bad", despite several posters showing you cases where kids have indeed been hurt.
lovelysoul at December 12, 2010 2:47 PM
Another interesting fact:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
anonymous at December 12, 2010 3:02 PM
The girl may talk about the gun or may have already mentioned it to another student. If this other student "talks" and it comes to light that the teacher knew about the weapon being on school property--and apparently that's breaking a law--then what do you think is going to happen to the teacher who kept quiet and acted kindly?
You're making it sound like "covering your ass" is the equivalent of butchering puppies. How many people "cover their asses" at work--in one way or another--everyday so they can stay out of trouble with their employers?
Teachers aren't the only ones worried about their paychecks. Because of the housing situation and the loss of taxable income, municipalities are laying public sector employees off in record numbers, closing public libraries, elminating services that were once thought essential, etc. Are you living in a cave or what?
Stop it with the hippy-dippy navel-gazing, look up and take a good hard look at the economy. Or is economics a subject that's too challenging for you?
Yeah, I want to be the hero teacher who kept my mouth shut AND THEN LOST MY JOB.
Lovelysoul, this is just a guess, but I'm guessing that at one point in your life you just did too many drugs.
anonymous at December 12, 2010 3:31 PM
> "Guns and kids don't mix"
When I was 13, our school let every single single student shoot with rifles - real ones - to see who could shoot, for the school shooting team. This was considered perfectly normal, it would not even have occurred to anyone to imagine that it was not, it was done at most schools then where I come from, and I never heard of a single incident. I never heard of one shooting, by an adult or child. I never heard of one accident. I know kids of 13, 14, 15 now who are awesome shooters competing at a high level. I went hunting with a good friend of mine a while ago, his 6-year old came along to shoot his second wild animal. Supervised, of course. He's also very good, and very responsible. There really isn't an issue. To see how hysterically rabidly stupid people have become now about this issue is so sad and crazy.
I 'get' that someone might want to protect the kids from madmen. But hello, creating so-called 'gun free zones' does PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE. It doesn't protect anyone, it renders them COMPLETELY UNPROTECTED. To be incapable of seeing this requires some kind of defect in one's ability to think.
Lobster at December 12, 2010 4:01 PM
"It doesn't protect anyone, it renders them COMPLETELY UNPROTECTED."
Anonymous, if schools are 'gun free zones' then please tell me what *you* think can be used to protect anyone when a mad shooter walks onto the school premises? Mace?
Lobster at December 12, 2010 4:24 PM
Well, in our defense, you deserved it. You're the one making the arguments that have been conclusively debunked numerous times. When called on it, you offer no defense other than your feelings.
Look, it's people like you what support the idiots that made the economy the bucket of fail it is. What do I mean by "people like you"? People who vote for Democrats.
In case you hadn't noticed, we've got too many government employees. That's a pretty good reason why we're in the hole we are.
And people with the addled thinking you've exhibited here are responsible for those government employees being used to steal our liberties one at a time.
brian at December 12, 2010 5:22 PM
"You're making it sound like "covering your ass" is the equivalent of butchering puppies. How many people "cover their asses" at work--in one way or another--everyday so they can stay out of trouble with their employers?"
Well, yes, it is kind of like "butchering puppies" only it's children. You are a TEACHER, supposedly concerned about what's best for them, not YOU. But, apparently, it's all about YOU.
"Lovelysoul, this is just a guess, but I'm guessing that at one point in your life you just did too many drugs."
Really? I don't do drugs, but I'm guessing that at one point in your life you decided it was all about YOU. Narcissist! You actually expect people to support you turning over an innocent kid because she might have talked to someone else, which might get you into trouble, as the basis for potentially wrecking an innocent kid's future.
You are what's wrong with education today. My mom was a teacher, and she would go to the ends of the earth for her students...and she did. She fought many times against the administration when she thought they weren't serving the needs of kids, even when it put her job in jeopardy. The economy be damned! It's called ethics! You are a selfish, self-absorbed, egotistical person, who has forgotten who you're in the classroom for. Hint: It's not YOU.
Teaching is supposed to be a noble profession. It would be like expecting us to feel sympathy for a doctor who let patients die rather than sue him because "the economy is bad." Are you kidding? You expect understanding when you'd sell a student out for your ass?
lovelysoul at December 12, 2010 6:00 PM
"I 'get' that someone might want to protect the kids from madmen. But hello, creating so-called 'gun free zones' does PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE. It doesn't protect anyone, it renders them COMPLETELY UNPROTECTED. To be incapable of seeing this requires some kind of defect in one's ability to think."
Lobster, I'm really considering this as a reason for the rise in school shootings. In my day, no school shooter would expect to get away without there being others shooting back. Seems so simple an explanation, but I think you may be on to something.
lovelysoul at December 12, 2010 6:33 PM
@Brian: Ouch, you caught me. I've only been skimming the posts for respondable stuff because I don't need to have something so plainly commonsensical explained to me by people who just don't get it.
Factsarefacts was doing a much better job of explaining it than I was...I mean explaining how all of you seem to be reacting hysterically to a situation that I doubt will amount to much.
I'm outta here because I need the company of some sane people. I'm going to wait to see if this girl gets the death penalty or not, okay kids?
anonymous at December 12, 2010 6:55 PM
You mean some sissy people, like yourself? Go ahead and tell yourself you're a good teacher. Surround yourself with those who will echo it. But you are NOT a good teacher. It has been revealed here. You are a self-absorbed bitch who is unfortunatly in the position to shape and influence lives.
lovelysoul at December 12, 2010 7:11 PM
So just to be clear - a school featured on a NATIONAL news broadcast has threated to fire you for ever talking about what happened in 'reverence' for the dead, even though everybody already knows what happened?
And we wonder why public schools are failing to teach students anything. I mean the twisted reasoning that makes that edict make any sort of sense is beyond me
lujlp at December 12, 2010 7:13 PM
Folks, I'm convinced that "anonymous" is a bullshit troll who has never been anywhere near a school shooting. He/she is simply looking to cover himself with glory and stroke his own ego by using this thread to demonstrate his inherent moral superiority to the lesser people. He probably works at the DMV. Assuming he has a job at all.
Cousin Dave at December 12, 2010 9:03 PM
I dont know Cousin Dave - the sort of brain dead logical prezels anonymous keeps dropping is typical fo public school employees. So is the self serving attitude that lovelsoul called anonymus to task for.
Ofcourse the shooting claims could be total BS, but I can buy such an idiot being a school teacher
lujlp at December 12, 2010 11:13 PM
Call me a troll and a liar all you want. The difference between you and me is the fact that I don't just come on to threads like this and bitch about things I don't like. And, you people have gotten quite nasty with me and the worst I did was try to be funny in response. Shows what kind of characters you all have: shitty!
I get active. I was a union rep for many years (yes, I can hear the moans already), I gave workshops on incoming computer programs to other teachers for years. I trained myself first, in my spare time, and then taught others.
When I get pissed off at something the government is doing, I write letters to my local representative. In the last few years, I've written about 4 or 5 and I've actually gone to the person's office and given them in by hand so they know I'm serious. I've attended rallies and protests--some of which were organized by students to fight rising tuition fees.
The latest rally I attended was for gun control. And I went because of the experience I had. Brian you're just a frustrated guy with a "wish I was a hero" complex and you can't stand the fact that someone who's actually experienced a shooting is writing on this thread. Maybe getting a life might help?
I volunteer to do this stuff in my spare time, outside of my working hours. When's the last time any of you volunteered to do anything to help young people?
You can hate my politics all you like--and it's obvious that you do--but I've yet to hear one of you talk about taking any sort of action apart from sitting yourself down in front of your computer and bashing me.
And just in case you think I have a problem with students, I routinely get asked to right letters of reference for students going on to graduate school. I get asked a lot more than my colleagues. And do you want to know why? Because I'm helpful, love teaching and my students respect me.
You people are just full of hot air. Bitch, bitch, bitch, moan, moan, moan. Get off your probably quite fat arses and actually do something. Then we'll talk.
And lovelysoul, you are so obviously misinformed about what's going on in education, it's hilarious.
anonymous at December 13, 2010 6:02 AM
@anonymous -
True charity does not seek praise. True honor does not need to advertise itself.
That you went to a gun control rally tells us all we need to know about you. You're an idiot new-age progressive who things that happy thoughts are all that's needed to make the world better. You fail at life.
We, on the other hand, did get off our asses and do something reasonable. It's called 60 Democrats retired.
brian at December 13, 2010 6:56 AM
@Anon
Who cares if it was 20 years ago, I still live here. It's still common practice.
Mystified in MT at December 13, 2010 7:58 AM
Brian, nothing I do is going to please you, so why don't you just stop it with the worthless insults.
Are you quoting the bible, btw? You sound like a precious bible thumper, with God and all that righteous indignation on your side.
anonymous at December 13, 2010 8:50 AM
"And lovelysoul, you are so obviously misinformed about what's going on in education, it's hilarious."
No, you just see it from your childless, union rep, bureaucratic angle. I've had 2 kids go through the system, so I know better than you what is actually going on with kids in school today.
Plus, I was a guardian-ad-litem/child advocate for over 20 years. You have no monopoly on service to the community. In fact, you mostly serve yourself. Nothing that you wrote on this thread shows any true concern for what this girl is going through, or how these ridiculous zero-tolerance policies are hurting good kids.
You're in denial about this because of what happened to you...or what could happen to you and your precious job...or how much the students supposedly like you (nothing about how much you like them) It's all about you. Clearly, you'd sell out a student in a heartbeat to protect your job.
And Brian is not a bible thumper. That's hilarious.
lovelysoul at December 13, 2010 9:33 AM
Oh, and the locals are "up in arms" over the situation as it stands. The general consensus up here seems to be along the lines of "...A gun in the trunk of a car under these circumstances, is no more of a threat to anyone than is a set of golf clubs or fishing rod". Local culture people, local culture.
Mystified in MT at December 13, 2010 9:47 AM
Yes, but, mystified, how can we know...and if we know, how can we know we know? And who's responsibility is it to know? Shouldn't it be a multi-week long collaborative effort to perform a study on how we really know we know she's not a threat, especially so nobody's ass is hanging out in the breeze for making a judgment call? Anonymous sure thinks so.
I don't know how it is in Montana, but where my kids go to school, most of the teachers have known them, and our family, since elementary school, some since kindergarten. They know the kid's characters. It should be quite simple for a principal or a teacher, or group of teachers, staff, and counselors, if they must share the decision, to make a judgment call regarding whether a student poses a genuine risk or simply made an honest mistake. And I believe they should be able to make that call on the very same day. It shouldn't take assembling a focus group or something.
I mean, good grief, she turned the unloaded rifle over herself. If she was planning to shoot people, she would've gotten it and started shooting. How much common sense does it take to come to that conclusion?
lovelysoul at December 13, 2010 10:22 AM
As an example of what is happening in schools, a friend's son just got charged with assault for poking another kid with a thumbtack.
Not that it was good what he did, but, years ago, that was the kind of thing kids would get away with - or maybe go see the principal about, stand in the corner, or get a paddling over - but he was actually arrested at school the other day and will have to face a judge.
So, he ODed on Robitusin Fri nt, and was airlifted to a hospital. Now, he's in a psych ward.
His downward trajectory went like this: brought a bong and some weed to school, got arrested on drug charges (I think 3 charges), then poked a kid with a thumbtack, got arrested for assault, is sent to a juvenile shelter, where he ODs.
This kid is only 15. Obviously, he has issues, but I can't see where all these criminal charges are helping. All it's doing is labeling him a "bad kid" and making him feel there is no hope.
Schools used to handle these things internally, but now the police are involved immediately. There is a cop at the school, so what used to be dealt with by the principal, or school counselor, is now criminal in many cases.
lovelysoul at December 13, 2010 10:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1799119">comment from lovelysoulI hit Jeannie Williker over the head with a dustpan in third grade when she wouldn't sweep. I got a stern talking-to from the principal, and I don't think they even called my parents. I was mortified, and have chosen a path of non-violence ever since.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2010 11:04 AM
I know, Amy. It used to be the school would handle it, or call parents and have a little chat. Now, parents find out their kid had a squabble on the playground when the school calls to inform them an arrest has been made.
Particularly when my son was in high school, my stomach would knot up if I even saw the school was calling me. Boys will be boys, so it was a constant worry. A little roughhousing can turn into an assault charge like that.
That's what I mean when I say these zero-tolerance rules are actually causing as much stress to parents (and kids) as the fear of a school shooting. Actually, the rules have become a bigger and much more common threat.
lovelysoul at December 13, 2010 11:33 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/10/you_can_kill_so.html#comment-1799224">comment from lovelysoulI know, Amy. It used to be the school would handle it, or call parents and have a little chat. Now, parents find out their kid had a squabble on the playground when the school calls to inform them an arrest has been made.
Crazy. I was a remorseful good girl who'd taken a bad turn, and I was treated as such. Had I been treated differently (arrested, treated in a way that was overblown for what I'd done), I might've turned out differently. I was just a third-grade kid who need the lesson that I learned -- use your words; it is uncivilized to haul off and clock somebody.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2010 2:26 PM
Lovelysoul:
"I've had 2 kids go through the system, so I know better than you what is actually going on with kids in school today."
Really? I thought you home-schooled your kids.
anonymous at December 13, 2010 3:14 PM
For people who like facts:
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_30256480-0282-11e0-ac8f-001cc4c03286.html
anonymous at December 13, 2010 4:25 PM
Anonymous, I homeschooled my son from 5th - 8th grade, but, other than that, we've been in the public school system. Look at the examples I've just posted of how fucked up the school system is. I know you don't want to see it, because it's your livelihood, but these zero-tolerance laws are ruining the lives of good kids.
lovelysoul at December 13, 2010 6:26 PM
I mean, a pushpin is an assault "weapon"? These are the cases that don't get press. That girl will likely be fine because she's getting press, but there are hundreds of kids falling victim to these laws who don't.
lovelysoul at December 13, 2010 6:32 PM
“There are not really any harsh feelings [toward the district], but I really wish they’d re-evaluate it,” she said."
I think that's how we all feel, and how a concerned, ethical teacher would feel, not justifying the "sheeople" (love that word!) in the administration blindly following the law.
She is facing expulsion, which, as a junior or senior, is a very real threat to her college prospects. Maybe, if she's lucky, and because of the press, she won't get that, but other kids are getting that and more. If you care about kids, Anonymous, you'd care about changing these laws to give school administrators more leeway.
lovelysoul at December 13, 2010 6:47 PM
She's getting press because she's a good kid. We have her history; we don't have the history of the other kids. All I can tell you is that we take the kid's overall behaviour into consideration in all matter disciplinary.
I had a situation recently where a student plagiarized a paper. He and his family went to Hawaii for three weeks in the middle of the semester (very dumb obviously) and he failed to submit his first essay because of it.
I gave him some leeway and allowed him to write it and submit it after the end of term.
The thing is, when the students write it when they're supposed to, they get a warning from me to stay away from a particular website. I didn't think to warn this kid because I was busy grading final papers and just forgot. I was also giving him a break anyway. The paper had been due two months earlier.
He lifted stuff straight from the website. When I confronted him, he went home and came back with the excuse that the paper he submitted was actually a first draft and he had his final draft with him.
In other words, he was busted, he asked someone at home for help wiggling out of it, and the advice they gave him was to say the plagiarized paper was actually a draft. I'm pretty sure it was his mother because she phoned me, irate, and insisted I was doing something terribly unfair to her son.
Long story short, the kid failed the paper and the course and I thought the situation was over. Not so. He's a star athlete and because he failed my course, he was pulled from his team the following semester. So he kept coming to me and begging me to let him re-write the paper yet again (this would be the third time) to allow him to pass.
The problem is this: I couldn't do this because technically, I had to report the plagiarism. It's a new rule, I would get into trouble if I didn't follow it, and I warned him that if he kept asking me for a re-write, I could only do it under the auspices of this new rule.
What did this mean? It meant I would have to take things a step higher and report the plagiarism. I repeated this to him several times because I was trying to save him from himself. I told him one semester of not playing his sport was better than a letter on his file and possible explusion.
He didn't listen; his mom got involved again, all irate, and that's when I felt I had no choice but to get advice.
So I went to my department chair, quietly to ask her what I should do. Taking into account the mother's aggressive phone calls to me, she felt she had to report the situation to the dean. I couldn't keep taking these calls from her without taking some kind of action.
Guess what? I had to write a letter of apology to the dean explaining why I hadn't reported the plagiarism as soon as I had detected it at the end of the previous semester. In other words, I was called on the carpet for trying to "quietly and kindly" help this kid stay out of real trouble. I'm lucky my dean is understanding too, but that didn't get ME fully off the hook.
The point is, we don't have as much power as you people on this thread seem to think. I actually feel bad for this kid. I felt that failing the course was enough of a punishment. But given our new guidelines, and his aggressive mother, I had no say in the matter of his further punishment. It was taken out of my hands.
And when you think of how competitive graduate school is, plagiarism really is a serious problem. I've had great students--really wonderful kids--who couldn't get into grad school when they wanted. On the other hand, I've seen well-off kids coming in with papers I'm almost 100% sure they didn't write, but I can't prove it, although I'm getting a lot better at devising ways to catch them.
Laws aren't perfect. They are a framework upon which judges hang their decisions. Laws cannot be written to fit every possible event and that's why we have to rely on reasonable judges being in the system to make the law fit the event, the gravity of the offence, etc.
This kid is a straight-A kid so that's why I am pretty sure nothing serious is going to happen to her. And I know this because I see these kind of judgements happening around me all the time.
Those other kids who you think are being victimized by the system? You may not have all the facts in hand. They may get a rougher ride because there's some history there that's causing a problem. And the legal system is desiged to protect minors, so there's that added secrecy. If you're not intimately involved in a case, it's really hard to know the truth.
anonymous at December 13, 2010 8:18 PM
I am intimately involved in the case, Anonymous. The boy lives on my property, and his father works for me. I've heard all the details and seen the father reach out for help.
It shouldn't matter if this girl is a straight A student. A kid could be a straight D student and that wouldn't make him or her a school shooter! It wouldn't make this any less of an innocent mistake.
That is partially the problem. Kids get labeled "bad" and then the system is really on them. I'm not sure if the kid I wrote about would've been charged with "assault" over a tiny thumbtack if he hadn't already been charged over the pot he'd brought to school. He was already in that cop's radar, so she was probably itching to arrest him again.
The plagarism incident you cite isn't that relevant. No one is disputing that a student shouldn't be disciplined when they genuinely do wrong, just that the punishment be proportionate to the crime, and that there should be some leeway to make a judgment call regarding intent. Obviously, the kid who plagarized had ill intent, so he arguably deserved what happened, but it's often a different matter with these "zero-tolerance" policies, such as in this girl's case, and I don't think "our hands are tied" is a valid excuse.
There are some professions where the aim is supposed to be higher than oneself - medicine, for instance. Would we really tolerate a doctor letting a patient die on the table because he/she was worried about being punished over some bureacratic hospital rule that made no sense? If given that kind of choice, it's clear which way the doctor should choose.
Teaching is another of those professions. It is never acceptable for a teacher to put his/her livelihood or personal interests above doing what's best for a student. A teacher is supposed to stand up and do the right thing, even if there are repercussions.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2010 12:07 AM
Why did I bother sharing this story? It's obvious nothing I say is going get you to see things from a different perspective.
I'm not saying judgements are based on grades, it's based on behavioural history...even if a kid has so-so grades but hasn't done anything bad, it's the same deal. Although, saying that, bad grades usually do go hand in hand with kids not attending school and getting up to mischief. It's not often that drug-addled kids get straight As. It's just commonsense.
Why are you so convinced teachers are the bad guys?
"A teacher is supposed to stand up and do the right thing, even if there are repercussions."
Like getting fired? In this economy? Are you crazy? A teacher who loses their job over insubordination would probably never be hired by another school board. It would end not only their job but their career. You need to get real.
I think the story I just told you shows you I too a risk for this kid and didn't report his plagiarism when I could have. And you're being totally unrealistic here. You say that the situation I describe is one that is justifiable. Yeah? Talk to this kids parents. They'll say otherwise. But then they aren't telling the whole story to everyone.
With regard to your situation, I doubt you are hearing the whole story too. And, this isn't the first time I've heard you say that you're "intimately" involved in a situation, so you are losing credibility with me.
What do you do for a living? Spend time sticking your nose into everyone else's business? Looking for victims of bureacratic abuse? Because it sure sounds like you find a lot of it. Sounds like everyone's a victim to you except people like us who have to occasionally deal with psycho parents. Amy's not the only one who encounters them.
I'm wondering how much of the stuff you say is actually true.
Lovelysoul I am never responding to a thing you say again. You make up shit and just don't listen.
anonymous at December 14, 2010 3:45 AM
"Why did I bother sharing this story? It's obvious nothing I say is going get you to see things from a different perspective."
You mean the perspective that you should be able to protect yourself at the expense of a student because of the bad economy? You're right. I'll never see,"my hands are tied" as a valid excuse for a teacher when there are reasons to believe a student did nothing to warrant the punishment being imposed.
Excusing plagarism is actually the wrong case in point if you want respect. I'm not asking you to excuse bad behavior to prove you're a good teacher. I'm expecting you to advocate for common sense and fairness, even if that might put you in jeopardy. You can always find another job, but you can't get another conscience.
My issue with you is how willing you are to let injustices happen under the guise of bureaucratic helplessness. Evil flourishes when good people do nothing, and you seem to epitomize that. Your attitude seems to be that if you can dodge any personal responsibility, you should. That's a chickenshit way to go through life and a poor example for your students. Have you no courage?
As for what I do for a living, I own a resort and marina, so it's part of my job to know the people who live here, along with their kids. Believe me, there have been many times when I've had to choose between my economic benefit and doing what's best for an individual or family, and I haven't found that to be the difficult choice it apparently is for you.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2010 4:22 AM
Also, I reject the "we just don't know all the facts" excuse either. Sometimes, we do know all the facts, and the facts clearly prove an injustice. You can refuse to dig for facts, or invent other, completely unfounded scenarios because you want to avoid involvement - it's easier just to believe bad things only happen to bad kids - but that's also cowardly and wrong.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2010 4:35 AM
I walked away from this thread a while back, now I wish I hadn't. I am always so fascinated by the propensity to read things that were never written. It's absolutely mind-blowing.
There's only two explanations for this: 1) the offenders are trolling, or; 2) the offenders are simply very stupid.
Here's from anonymous: "Okay Patrick, you win. She's a life-long victim. Poor thing, what a horrible life she's going to have. Let's all make a circle, start wringing our hands and singing dirges. Boo-hoo."
At what point did I say her life was ruined? I didn't. I said she was punished for coming clean, and she was. How far this punishment goes is anyone's guess, but she has already been punished.
And Cousin Dave is right. Honesty is not the best policy. Just keep your mouth shut and pray they don't find it.
I will not back down from my statement, however. She did a dumb thing. Forgetting a gun is in the back of your car is stupid.
Lovelysoul, I like the "we just don't know all the facts" argument. Reminds me of one of the more offensive comments I read on this board. Someone wrote the unethical ethicist, explaining that he was dating a woman who was getting child support from a man when at least one of the children might not have been his.
Someone who thought it was positively appropriate that a man should pay for kids that aren't his kept saying, "Oh, we don't know what her motivations are...we don't know all the facts...she could be trying to make amends (for what?)..." blah, blah, blah.
We know perfectly well what her motivations are: to get money, even if she has to lie to do it.
It seems to be a fallback position of those who are advocating despicable behavior. "We just don't know all the facts..." Yeah, right.
Patrick at December 14, 2010 5:21 AM
Patrick, I was being bombarded with insults at the time and guess what? I'm someone who has survived a shooting. I was sick of all the hand-wringing going on saying this girl's life would be ruined. I knew it wasn't going to be.
And no, you don't know all the facts. During the fall of 9/11 I went to London, England to work on a project.
We were collecting responses from teachers across the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the States. That information coming in was fascinating. Teachers were given a chance to state their opinions about what they thought was wrong with teaching in the present climate.
The report would have been very useful. One of the main points made by teachers, across all countries, independently of each other, was some variation on the theme that parents were expecting teachers to raise their kids. (The surveys were mailed to teachers' homes with return envelopes and postage paid.) I got a chance to look through some of the several hundred of these responses (from the thousands) that were mailed in. We were meant to make a report out of it.
Guess what? Out of the blue, we staffers working on the project all got a message that we were no longer needed. We were given airline tickets, our pay, and sent home two months early, with no real sensible explanation.(We were told the information wasn't going to be useful after all.)
My guess? The powers that be decided the information was too incendiary and squashed the report.
So yeah...don't kid yourself. You are NOT getting the full information.
anonymous at December 14, 2010 5:51 AM
Anonymous, the problem is that you can't even make a judgment call on the facts that you have. Supposing that what is presented in the article about this girl are the complete and only facts, you still won't say what's happening here is wrong. Your only position is that it won't really harm her in the end, which you strangely are certain of, even while claiming you don't know all the facts. When challenged, you make up scenarios for which there is no supporting evidence, just to support the school's position. That is troubling.
If these are the only facts - that a good student went hunting and forgot her unloaded, but safely cased, rifle in the trunk of her car, then turned it over to the school - can you not agree that expulsion is too severe a penalty? Do you not agree that she shouldn't face any long-term effects from this?
You have not said so. Suggesting she likely won't face long-term effects isn't the same as advocating that she shouldn't. You seem all too willing to act as an apologist for the school administration, no matter what the outcome. If she is expelled for a year, and/or has her college prospects derailed, you'll hang it back on the "we don't know all the facts" excuse.
That's too convenient. There can always be some innuendo that supposedly justifies the school, but I would not be satisfied with that explanation...that there must be some unknown facts. If a severe penalty is to be doled out, and a student's future impacted, I think we should know all the reasons why. And the only reason that would be acceptable in this case is that they would have evidence that she was indeed a threat.
If she is not a threat, she should not be treated like one. Why can't you at least take a stand on that?
lovelysoul at December 14, 2010 6:18 AM
@Patrick: I worked on another project a few years later. It was a project to determine whether or not the IB, Internatioal Baccalaureate program, would be useful to bring into one of our feeder high schools or colleges.
I worked for an entire semster with a Biology prof. At the end, we compiled all sorts of information to prove that it wouldn't be worth the price.
When we'd finished, the supervisor of the project patted us on the back, said we'd done a great job and would be sending the final copy of the report to his secretary to be "cleaned up".
The report was changed almost entirely. The report stated that would bringing the IB in would be beneficial, stated stats proving it, etc. The report in no way reflected on the work my colleague and I had done.
My guess? The supervisor lifted a report done by someone else soomewhere else and substituted for ours it after we had broken up for the summer. It was only by accident that I got the final copy--when the secretary kept "forgetting" to send me a copy, I asked a colleague to pick one up for me,
We were infuriated, but the report had gone out.
Teachers don't get a lot of respect and even we don't get all the information. If you and others are pissed off about the law, then write to your congressman and DO something instead of just moaning here on this list.
anonymous at December 14, 2010 7:30 AM
Why can't you at least take a stand on that?
Posted by: lovelysoul
Dindt anonymus already kinds asnwer that?
I beleive it was
"In this economy? Are you crazy?"
lujlp at December 14, 2010 7:42 AM
lol, Luj. That's exactly what I'm hearing.
You know, my mom was such a great teacher and a brave lady that maybe I unfairly compare. Maybe I'm expecting too much. I remember my mom, who taught kindergarten and early elementary, refusing to stop letting little kids climb in her lap to read a story, despite all the pedophilia stuff that made a lot of teachers too afraid to do so anymore. She wasn't going to be intimidated or frightened into changing her effective way of teaching.
Anonymous thinks we should all do more, but she's in the classroom. We wouldn't have to do more if teachers like her would take a stand for common sense, rather than pass the buck, cover their asses, and run from accountability.
I know if I were a teacher, and this happened, I'd be the one saying, "I didn't hear what you said, but you look like you don't feel well...here's a pass...why don't you go home...hint hint". And if I got into trouble for keeping a good kid out of trouble, it wouldn't matter to me. Right is right.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2010 8:00 AM
An update:
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_96a4baac-073d-11e0-a8e8-001cc4c002e0.html
For those of you who insulted me and called me names--and there are a lot of you--feel free to continue doing so.
anonymous at December 14, 2010 11:34 AM
And Lovelysoul: Shut the fuck up.
anonymous at December 14, 2010 11:36 AM
Oh, that's mature, Miss Professor. Consider the ordeal this kid has gone through, and consider you never once sided with her, or agreed that this policy was wrong, or said you would've done anything to prevent this from happening to a student under similar circumstance.
No, to you, it's all well and good because she (fortunately, through tremendous press and an e-mail campaign launched on her behalf) didn't get expelled, even though she's crying her eyes out and worried her 2 Fs will still effect her college plans.
“I honestly expected to be expelled today,” she said after the meeting."
No kid should have to go through this, and they wouldn't have to go through it if teachers like you and principals like this weren't such cowards and concerned solely about yourselves and your jobs. The fact this kid was saved from a much worse fate by no means absolves you of being a self-absorbed and terrible teacher.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2010 12:05 PM
Had it not been for the public outcry she would have been expelled, according to the very article you selected anonymous other students in that school district had been suspend at these trustee meetings rather than reintated
lujlp at December 14, 2010 1:57 PM
lovelysoul,
She's a self-absorbed and terrible person. Unfortunately, that bleeds over into her profession. The fact is, even though the school is now saying that they will do letter campaigns to whatever college she wants to attend, those 2 F's will hurt her, since she is a 3.0 student.
I lived in Kalispell, which is just a few miles down the road from Columbia Falls, and when I left there in 98 things were getting bad with school administration. It's worse now. And idiots like anono-weenie, are the reason. It's about tenure and union force, and no longer about education.
Sad, really.
Steve at December 14, 2010 4:30 PM
Well, it's nice to see all my predictions about "anonymous" come true, anyhow.
The Internet saves another white suburban girl from Zero Tolerance. And make no mistake about it, that's the only reason the media even cared about it.
brian at December 14, 2010 4:31 PM
"No, to you, it's all well and good because she (fortunately, through tremendous press and an e-mail campaign launched on her behalf) didn't get expelled, even though she's crying her eyes out and worried her 2 Fs will still effect her college plans."
Yeah, the actions of the lynch mob are fully justified because the rope broke.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2010 7:05 PM
"Call me a troll and a liar all you want."
Troll. Liar.
"And, you people have gotten quite nasty with me and the worst I did was try to be funny in response. "
This from the person who tells everyone who disagrees with him/her to fuck off.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2010 7:12 PM
No no no no no.
Jules: This was Divine Intervention! You know what "divine intervention" is?
Vincent: Yeah, I think so. That means God came down from Heaven and stopped the bullets.
Jules: Yeah, man, that's what it means. That's exactly what it means! God came down from Heaven and stopped the bullets.
Vincent: I think we should be going now.
Jules: Don't do that! Don't you fucking do that! Don't blow this shit off! What just happened was a fucking miracle!
Vincent: Chill the fuck out, Jules, this shit happens.
Jules: Wrong! Wrong, this shit doesn't just happen.
brian at December 14, 2010 7:38 PM
Maybe you'd like to see this again?
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_96a4baac-073d-11e0-a8e8-001cc4c002e0.html
anonymous at December 15, 2010 5:13 AM
I dont know, do you want to see this again?
Had it not been for the public outcry she would have been expelled, according to the very article you selected anonymous other students in that school district had been suspend at these trustee meetings rather than reintated
lujlp at December 15, 2010 5:24 AM
hys·ter·i·a (h-str-, -stîr-)
n.
1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause, apart from stupidity.
anonymous at December 15, 2010 6:29 AM
Looking in a mirror again, Anonymous?
Look, you were wrong, you've been wrong from the beginning, and you'll be wrong until the heat death of the universe.
The fact remains that had there been no public outcry (and in the majority of cases there is none) this girl would be expelled from school, would be unlikely to get in to college, and would very likely also have a felony firearms charge on her record.
So, absent the outcry against the imbecilic Zero Tolerance rules and the forfeiture of fourth amendment rights on school grounds, this girl would likely have been stripped of her rights to own firearms and vote.
But, since everything turned out alright, the system worked, right?
No, the system did not "work".
She got lucky because she's a popular girl and a good student and managed to get the media's attention.
Luck is not a plan.
brian at December 15, 2010 7:42 AM
Brian, I think you should try yoga. Might calm your nerves.
anonymous at December 15, 2010 9:49 AM
Wow. She one-ups herself by suggesting I engage in new-age bullshit.
brian at December 15, 2010 4:43 PM
If this kid spins it right, she's got a helluva college essay.
NicoleK at December 19, 2010 11:05 AM
Leave a comment