Gov't Gone Wild: An Eagle Scout Made a Felon

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 6, 2013 9:48:53 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 6, 2013 9:30:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm glad to see the situation is turning in the man's favour.

He obviously has deep respect for the rules (the only reason he is in the news is because he broke the rules) for going out of his way to get the weapon off of school property (or was he removing evidence of his crime?). A man shouldn't be penalized for doing the right thing (so calling someone to remove the evidence is the right thing?), especially when he's caused no harm (so a plot foiled should not result in consequence?).

I don't support a "zero tolerance" policy but if there is one, it needs to be enforced.

There's no such thing as a zero tolerance policy- as evidenced by the non-felon, walking free assistant principal.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

What's truly scary about this situation- other than the fact that some idiot school administration can arbitrarily ruin a young man's life; is the fact that while this busy bodies are flitting and twitting about pretending that rules like this have anything to do with keeping kids safe, there's a real threat against the lives of innocent children and teachers brewing out there somewhere. I think for me, this is the bottom line: fix this mistake on the part of the school as quickly as possible and get it behind them. Then immediately repeal this rule, and amend it to make some sense- reflect the values of the community. Frankly, not only should this kid not be in trouble for violating the rule- there shouldn't be a rule against keeping a gun that is otherwise legally being transported / carried locked in the truck. Why is the school parking lot, other than the politics of scaring kids concerning guns, more important than the Wal-Mart parking lot, or the parking lot at the local police station? Answer: it's not. We need to stop pretending this rule and rules like it have one single thing to do with school safety. It's about indoctrination. It's about starting young and sending a simple message to kids in schools: guns are bad. In any and every context. That's the only explanation for a rule like this in the first place.

[Virgil Showlion]

Intent is always tricky. His goal was to get the gun off campus without involving school authorities. In a non-zero tolerance situation, he easily could have gone to an authority and gotten permission to run it home quickly. Seems "his intent was to conceal the mistake from authorities (by getting) the gun off school property".

Well maybe.

As Sarah says, it worked out in the end. He was penalized for breaking the rule, but granted leniency due to the circumstances.

I'm with Paul on this one. If "zero tolerance" policies are this draconian, they aren't worth it.

ETA: The more I think about it, if the point of this rule is to increase student safety, it really is a stupid rule. I can't conceive of how it would make anybody safer except the one-in-a-million possibility that a would-be shooter brings a weapon and leaves it somewhere rather that using it immediately, the weapon is discovered and (successfully) confiscated before the would-be shooter returns, and the shooter is immediately jailed so that he can't simply go home and get another weapon with which to massacre his schoolmates.

[tallguy]

ETA: The more I think about it, if the point of this rule is to increase student safety, it really is a stupid rule. I can't conceive of how it would make anybody safer except the one-in-a-million possibility that a would-be shooter brings a weapon and leaves it somewhere rather that using it immediately, the weapon is discovered and (successfully) confiscated before the would-be shooter returns, and the shooter is immediately jailed so that he can't simply go home and get another weapon with which to massacre his schoolmates.

To play devil's advocate here, there would also be the presumably slightly more than one-in-a-million possibility that, instead of the gun being found and confiscated, it was found and stolen by someone whose interest did NOT lay in preventing people from being shot....  

[billisonboard]

May 6, 2013 19:19:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

What's truly scary about this situation- other than the fact that some idiot school administration can arbitrarily ruin a young man's life; ...

A zero tolerance policy actually takes the ability to "arbitrarily" punish a person away from idiot school administrations.

[Deleted]

 If some non-Eagle Scout had exhibited similar recklessness, would/should they be disciplined more strictly ?

[EVT1]

It's a PBP thread.  Of course an Eagle Scout deserves special treatment.

Of course had that been a black kid with a hoodie.....  Probably would have searched for burglary tools and dope. 

White boy with a tire iron= smart preparation  Black boy with a tire iron= burglar.

In the real world 'eagle scout' is irellevant unless the elements of the crime involve that organization.

[EVT1]

Word of advice to anyone talking to the police- don't.  Unless you have an attorney be polite and shut up.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 7, 2013 2:05:59 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 If some non-Eagle Scout had exhibited similar recklessness, would/should they be disciplined more strictly ?

I don't think ANY student who was attempting to rectify a mistake should be 'disciplined' at all.  Disciplinary action is for the purpose of discouraging others from doing the wrong thing.  This purposeless rule doesn't protect anyone, and even if it did- the only reason to discipline someone is for deliberately breaking the rule and trying to fix it.  

As I and others have already said, you do not do anything to discourage these kids to keep quiet and not own up to their mistakes.  You don't teach kids to conceal information from the authorities- to discourage trust in the authorities because the rules are senseless and the authorities are stupid.  That's not a lesson you want to teach, and it's not a society you want to live in.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 7, 2013 2:56:10 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Word of advice to anyone talking to the police- don't.  Unless you have an attorney be polite and shut up.

Guess so.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 6, 2013 22:25:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 6, 2013 19:19:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

What's truly scary about this situation- other than the fact that some idiot school administration can arbitrarily ruin a young man's life; ...

A zero tolerance policy actually takes the ability to "arbitrarily" punish a person away from idiot school administrations.

Well, unless you're the assistant principal.

[Deleted]

I think we have achieved a circular argument now.

If memory serves - I'm not rereading this stuff at this point - the assistant principal was suspended for a couple of days.  So punished, not terminated.  The kid got a slap on the wrist, but was not expelled for a year.

The school's policy doesn't let them ignore a violation, but clearly they have some latitude in the punishment applied.  That seems reasonable to me.

Were the assistant principal and the eagle scout used as examples to reinforce the message that you can't have guns on a school campus?  A little bit, yeah.  Seeing as we were just talking about a 7 year old bringing a gun on a school bus, that is a message that needs to be reinforced.


Paul had asked why a school parking lot is so special, since you can have guns in your car at Walmart.  My hunch would be voluntary association.  Because children are legally obligated to attend some type of schooling, and the public school is the default, the kids don't have a choice about being there.  If they don't go to school, they can be arrested.  But nobody makes you go to Walmart.  So the schools can be a little more stringent about ensuring a safe environment.

[billisonboard]

May 7, 2013 6:40:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 6, 2013 22:25:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A zero tolerance policy actually takes the ability to "arbitrarily" punish a person away from idiot school administrations.

Well, unless you're the assistant principal.

Or was the zero tolerance policy violated in that case? What is the published policy for adults and guns brought onto campus in the district? What are the published consequences? Schools do have different rules for adults and students. Teachers who don't have their supplies in class are not given detention.

[Tennesseer]

Maybe the vice principal was just ahead of his time.

(North Carolina) Public School Protection/Firearm Amendments.

www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/HTML/S27v1.html

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Ah, so this honor student and Eagle Scout was not in compliance with a rule / law that wasn't in effect a full month before he was charged? Even more reason to let it slide. Even more reason to employ a common sense, "Oh, yeah- we just passed that stupid law that has nothing to do with anything because politicians wanted to be seen as protecting schools; so let his mother come get the weapon as requested, and let's be more careful next time." approach.

[Virgil Showlion]

To play devil's advocate here, there would also be the presumably slightly more than one-in-a-million possibility that, instead of the gun being found and confiscated, it was found and stolen by someone whose interest did NOT lay in preventing people from being shot.... 

I suppose so, but theft can happen anywhere. And if you're suggesting that rather than bring his own weapon, a would-be shooter notices a gun somewhere on school grounds and thinks "Hey, a gun. I should go and shoot up the school today.", you're still well inside one-in-a-million territory.

Maybe the vice principal was just ahead of his time.

(North Carolina) Public School Protection/Firearm Amendments.

www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/HTML/S27v1.html

Where's the usual crowd squawking about armed guards in schools?

[Tennesseer]

May 7, 2013 10:37:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

To play devil's advocate here, there would also be the presumably slightly more than one-in-a-million possibility that, instead of the gun being found and confiscated, it was found and stolen by someone whose interest did NOT lay in preventing people from being shot.... 

I suppose so, but theft can happen anywhere. And if you're suggesting that rather than bring his own weapon, a would-be shooter notices a gun somewhere on school grounds and thinks "Hey, a gun. I should go and shoot up the school today.", you're still well inside one-in-a-million territory.

Maybe the vice principal was just ahead of his time.

(North Carolina) Public School Protection/Firearm Amendments.

www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/HTML/S27v1.html

Where's the usual crowd squawking about armed guards in schools?

I am under the impression Paul wants armed guards, tuna casserole-serving cafeteria workers, toddlers in tiaras, etc.armed in the schools.

[mmhmm]

May 7, 2013 10:37:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

To play devil's advocate here, there would also be the presumably slightly more than one-in-a-million possibility that, instead of the gun being found and confiscated, it was found and stolen by someone whose interest did NOT lay in preventing people from being shot.... 

I suppose so, but theft can happen anywhere. And if you're suggesting that rather than bring his own weapon, a would-be shooter notices a gun somewhere on school grounds and thinks "Hey, a gun. I should go and shoot up the school today.", you're still well inside one-in-a-million territory.

Maybe the vice principal was just ahead of his time.

(North Carolina) Public School Protection/Firearm Amendments.

www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/HTML/S27v1.html

Where's the usual crowd squawking about armed guards in schools?

Avoiding this?

[Virgil Showlion]

I am under the impression Paul wants armed guards, tuna casserole-serving cafeteria workers, toddlers in tiaras, etc.armed in the schools.

It's a curious problem. The negligible probability that a school will be attacked (such that allowing weapons would be a good thing) versus the negligible probability that an accidental shooting occurs on school grounds (such that allowing weapons would be a bad thing).

So long as they had some firearms training, I personally wouldn't have a problem with an armed lunch staff at my workplace. If that's what makes them feel safe, so be it.

[djAdvocate]

May 7, 2013 11:05:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I am under the impression Paul wants armed guards, tuna casserole-serving cafeteria workers, toddlers in tiaras, etc.armed in the schools.

It's a curious problem. The negligible probability that a school will be attacked (such that allowing weapons would be a good thing) versus the negligible probability that an accidental shooting occurs on school grounds (such that allowing weapons would be a bad thing).

So long as they had some firearms training, I personally wouldn't have a problem with an armed lunch staff at my workplace. If that's what makes them feel safe, so be it.

i would never encourage firearms at my place of work.  it opens to door to massive liability, imo. 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 7, 2013 12:11:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 7, 2013 11:05:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's a curious problem. The negligible probability that a school will be attacked (such that allowing weapons would be a good thing) versus the negligible probability that an accidental shooting occurs on school grounds (such that allowing weapons would be a bad thing).

So long as they had some firearms training, I personally wouldn't have a problem with an armed lunch staff at my workplace. If that's what makes them feel safe, so be it.

i would never encourage firearms at my place of work.  it opens to door to massive liability, imo. 

I know. Lawyers ruin everything.

[Deleted]

 2% Milk is emblematic of the cultural shift destroying this once magnificent empire... or so we've been told numerous times.
 LOL

[tallguy]

May 7, 2013 10:37:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

To play devil's advocate here, there would also be the presumably slightly more than one-in-a-million possibility that, instead of the gun being found and confiscated, it was found and stolen by someone whose interest did NOT lay in preventing people from being shot.... 

I suppose so, but theft can happen anywhere. And if you're suggesting that rather than bring his own weapon, a would-be shooter notices a gun somewhere on school grounds and thinks "Hey, a gun. I should go and shoot up the school today.", you're still well inside one-in-a-million territory.

They wouldn't necessarily have to be intent on shooting up the school.   Maybe just the one guy they don't like who just "stole" their girl, or the two that are bullying them.  It wouldn't even have to be used at the school at all to be a problem. 

Honestly though, I just wanted to give you an alternative.  I didn't want you to think that you had to agree with Paul. That's the kind of thing that causes nightmares.

[Deleted]

 Guns should not be left lying around where impulsive, unstable and/or hormonal people have easy access to them... hence the prohibition on school grounds.
 It's as simple as that.

[EVT1]

Probably why employers with high turnover don't like the idea of guns in employee cars either.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 7, 2013 20:23:43 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 Guns should not be left lying around where impulsive, unstable and/or hormonal people have easy access to them... hence the prohibition on school grounds.
 It's as simple as that.

It wasn't an issue until 2013.  So, obviously they functioned for years without this rule / law.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The bottom line is that this was a mistake on the part of the school. The people that pay their salaries, and fund their little government run indoctrination center boondoggle have spoken, and the servants are ultimately going to obey their masters. As it should be. But we cannot and will not catch them all.

This is sadly indicative of yet another, wider, and growing problem with government run schools- and further evidence that letting the government run education is just too irresistible a conflict of interest.

Nevermind the lawmakers, and other politicians- the problem we're facing in this country really beings in the school house- it is the unConstitutional fourth branch of government: the bureaucracy. It's the little Hitlers hiding around every corner in every administrative office of every government building, government agency, government bureau, etc. and it's at all levels of government. It's a huge and looming crisis in America- unelected, largely unaccountable people with power- often power that is either directly hand-on-a-gun power, or in this case a connection to the guns which they can pull on people at any time.

And with a huge and growing list of 'crimes' that can be committed, and the convoluted way in which these endless laws, rules, regulations etc at all levels are passed, are worded, and are enforced- it gives those busy bodies with the hall monitor personality that we used to just be able to ignore without a second thought- the power to arbitrarily assault our individual liberties at any time, for virtually any reason.

We're going to have to stand up to it- we're going to have to deal with it. The legislative roll back- which will eventually happen- of government will follow a near civil war of citizen vs. bureaucrat fought in hundreds upon hundreds of tiny battles like this one. We will wear them down, or they will wear us out- but rest assured, someone is going to win. And it had better be us.

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure the school had a "no weapons" policy before 2013.  The rhetoric has been heightened through zero tolerance language, but I'm pretty sure the basis of the policy has not.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 8, 2013 7:24:03 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

I'm pretty sure the school had a "no weapons" policy before 2013.  The rhetoric has been heightened through zero tolerance language, but I'm pretty sure the basis of the policy has not.

I'm sure they did.  Another poster attempted to "correct" the record of the assistant principal's infraction (also, btw a felony at the time it happened) by pointing out that this latest law wasn't passed until this year.

[Tennesseer]

May 8, 2013 7:54:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 8, 2013 7:24:03 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

I'm pretty sure the school had a "no weapons" policy before 2013.  The rhetoric has been heightened through zero tolerance language, but I'm pretty sure the basis of the policy has not.

I'm sure they did.  Another poster attempted to "correct" the record of the assistant principal's infraction (also, btw a felony at the time it happened) by pointing out that this latest law wasn't passed until this year.

LOL Paul and your understanding of laws and the process of creating them. The law has yet to be passed.