Honor Roll High School Student Faces Expulsion

[sepe]

But but but everyone other than me and you think there should be different rules for everyone...

 

[Mourtegoul]

But but but everyone other than me and you think there should be different rules for everyone...

All men are created equal. But all men are not equal. Everyone makes choices. Know a tree by the fruit it bears.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some repercussion for her actions (or lack of actions as the case may be) but I am saying that the punishment should fit the crime. A zero tolerance policy does not allow for that.

1. It was secured in the trunk.
2. As there was no ammo for it, it was no more dangerous than a tire iron
3. It was not displayed, and its presence was not known (prior to her admission).
4. She voluntarily came forward with information about its presence.
5. As far as we know she has no history of violence.

To me, that doesn't added up to expulsion from school. And it doesn't matter that she's on the honor roll. She could be a C average student or even be failing home economics for all I care, but that wouldn't change the points above.

Even diabolical criminals get more consideration for confession than that.

Just like anything else, if you want to minimize an activity, tax it. In this case, the activity is honesty with authority and the 'tax' is a draconian policy implementation.

--Mourty

 

[sepe]

Expulsion unlikely in school gun case - Daily Inter Lake: Local/Montana

READ THIS ARTICLE FOR ALL YOU EXPULSION FOLK. Administration isn't saying she is done for the year. Their suspensions can only be 20 days, 21 is called expulsion.

 

[IndianaResident]

I appreciate this board more for the arguments found here.
I get enough hardline conservatism with no tolerance for other sides of an issue in my own head.

 

[Doug]

But but but everyone other than me and you think there should be different rules for everyone...

Anyone who believes that how good a student someone is has anything to do with making there punishment less, is only a stones throw away from saying that a certain sect of people is better than/ deserves to be treated differently than others.

I'm not saying that I hope the girl is expelled and her future destroyed, but I have no pity for stupid people.

I'm not saying she should receive less punishment because she is an honor student; I'm saying Zero Tolerance policies are stupid and wrong.

If a disruptive student with below average grades had forgotten a legal firearm in his trunk, I wouldn't want him punished any more than the honor role student. Absent stated or implied intent to do harm, I would want them admonished and sent home for the rest of the day.

As far as "no pity for stupid people," I felt much the same until a loved one made a mistake. Then, I made a mistake and realized everyone makes a blunder sooner or later. If you have good habits and/or God looks out for you, there is no tragedy and you can ask forgiveness. We all fall short of perfection.

 

[sepe]

There are clearly a number of people saying BECAUSE she is an honor roll student she shouldn't have her future ruined by a mistake. I honestly don't think that this would ruin her future at all. Leave it up to Barry O and all of our futures are ruined, the republicans aren't any better though.

 

[navarre1095]

It would have been just as easy to say," Here's a pass. Run home real quick and get that damn gun out of here!"

 

[Roadie]

There are clearly a number of people saying BECAUSE she is an honor roll student she shouldn't have her future ruined by a mistake. I honestly don't think that this would ruin her future at all. Leave it up to Barry O and all of our futures are ruined, the republicans aren't any better though.

Personally, yes, I think it matters that she is an Honor Roll student. Why? Because character SHOULD count for something! Intent should count for something.

Zero tolerance policies put Honor Roll Students, and thugs with criminal records, in the same boat under the guise of "equality", and you agree with that??

Do you think Judges should not consider the testimony of character witnesses during a trial? Should Judges ignore criminal history? By your logic a career criminal who intentionally runs over his girlfriend during a fight should be punished exactly the same as a Minister who lost control of their car and accidentally hit a pedestrian. The action and the outcomes are the same, right? Both situations involved a car, hitting a person. Zero Tolerance, just consider the act, not the intent and sentence them both the same??

 

[Bill of Rights]

Zero Tolerance is the first part of the problem. The rest of it is that there is anything to have to be "zero tolerant" of in the first place. Yeah, there's a federal law against it. The "law" is WRONG! She committed an act that harmed no one and indeed, affected no one at all. Is there a state law against what she did? If there is, that law is wrong, too!

We need to consider two legal concepts here that seem to be forgotten of late:

1. Mala prohibita
2. Mala in se

In the first, an act is "bad" because it is forbidden; in other words, it's bad because someone said so, not because there's any inherent harm caused by doing it. In the second, an act is "bad" because of the nature of the act.

Take, for example, using a syringe to inject a substance into a food item. Is this a bad thing to do? Should there be a law forbidding it?

Such a law would be malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Why? Because there are several factors to consider. Are we talking about someone injecting poison into candies at Halloween to kill children? Are we talking about injecting Rohypnol into your date's steak so that you can have your way with her when she passes out? Or are we talking about using THIS while cooking for your family?

Intent is, as demonstrated, very important.

Stop enforcing and start repealing laws that criminalize possession of an item. Maybe pass laws that criminalize using weapons (or not) to cause harm to other people! Oh wait. They have those already. They don't stop the act, they just allow it to be punished.

Consider that prior to all of the "no guns at schools" screed, there was no enormous problem to address, no "school shootings" as a major crime problem. When the (formerly Marine-trained!) killer climbed the clock tower at University of Texas at Austin in 1968, he was up there for quite a while, but the part that is rarely reported is that faculty and staff with rifles of their own in their offices helped keep him pinned down so that the number of people he killed was far lower than it might have been without them doing so.

These laws fail on every test to do what they were claimed to do and fail to claim what they actually do. They claim to protect the innocent. They actually make the innocent more vulnerable. They claim to stop crime. They actually cause it. They claim to make our children safe by removing firearms from their lives. They actually make our children less safe by ensuring that only the criminal (and the few cops that might be around... maybe....) have weapons available for use.

Ever hear of a school shooting in Utah? Care to guess which state plainly put in their laws (back in 2002!) that a holder of a state-issued permit may lawfully carry a firearm at a K-12 school?

The law is wrong. It needs repealed, not defended. The girl needs an apology and the opportunity to make up whatever work she missed because of bad laws and incompetent "authorities".

But hell, what do I know?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[sepe]

I am NOT defending zero tolerance at all. I would have no problem with the laws being changed to get rid of much of the stupid crap gun people have to deal with. I'm saying the school had to act and they did. I never had a problem in school knowing that people had rifles or shotguns in their truck because they were going hunting after school. I don't think she should be punished any more than she already has been. Let her get back to class and get on with life(which is pretty much what is going to happen based on the other newer articles I've seen on this). The administration is saying they aren't going to expel her for the year, the term expulsion used for suspensions over 20 days. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth with the "but she is an honor roll student". Would the people saying "but she is an honor roll student" feel the same if she was a C student at best and they didn't mention much about her character? I'm guessing if she wasn't an honor roll student, this wouldn't have made the news as much as it has.

I hate the fact that there are places I can't carry, on campus is an example. I'm carrying my little pink piece of paper and my intent is to protect myself and those around me if anything happens. I know what would happen if I was caught carrying because of the stupid zero tolerance crap. I am not defending the school system or zero tolerance. I am saying that while she made a mistake(and wasn't intending to harm anyone), it is a mistake that could've brought on worse results than being suspended from school. There are quite a few articles about this situation and it seems that most are only reading the article that was posted in this thread. It wasn't hard for me to find articles that explained the term expulsion in this situation and it wasn't hard for me to find an article that states that the school administration is NOT going to recommend expelling her for the rest of the school year. Zero tolerance is stupid but people are getting hung up on terms. If she is just suspended, I highly doubt she will have her future ruined. I personally knew honor roll students with poor character that did get suspended for fighting and breaking other rules, not a single one of them had their future ruined. Some of them still ended up going to college on partial scholarships(since simply being an honor roll student doesn't mean you're going to get scholarships in the first place).

 

[singlesix]

Personally, yes, I think it matters that she is an Honor Roll student. Why? Because character SHOULD count for something! Intent should count for something.

Zero tolerance policies put Honor Roll Students, and thugs with criminal records, in the same boat under the guise of "equality", and you agree with that??

Do you think Judges should not consider the testimony of character witnesses during a trial? Should Judges ignore criminal history? By your logic a career criminal who intentionally runs over his girlfriend during a fight should be punished exactly the same as a Minister who lost control of their car and accidentally hit a pedestrian. The action and the outcomes are the same, right? Both situations involved a car, hitting a person. Zero Tolerance, just consider the act, not the intent and sentence them both the same??

You are equating being smart (Honor Roll) with good character? I believe only intent should count. So a D average student should get punished more than a Honor Roll Student?

I don't agree with Zero Tolerance Polices; if you look at our laws, intent is codified into our laws. Isn't this why someone, based on intent, can be charge with manslaughter vs. Murder in the 1st Degree vs. Murder in the 2nd Degree?

 

[Bill of Rights]

You are equating being smart (Honor Roll) with good character? I believe only intent should count. So a D average student should get punished more than a Honor Roll Student?

I don't agree with Zero Tolerance Polices; if you look at our laws, intent is codified into our laws. Isn't this why someone, based on intent, can be charge with manslaughter vs. Murder in the 1st Degree vs. Murder in the 2nd Degree?

IIUC, the point is that if two students, one earning a straight 70% average and the other earning a 95% average both are found to be in possession of unloaded rifles in their vehicles ("found" by whatever means; I get that the student in the story told on herself) and both are suspended from school for identical periods of time, the A student is already punished more because while it is unlikely that the barely-C student will be trying to go to college where admission is competitive if at all, the A student probably has high aspirations that necessitate not only a university degree but that it be a university with an excellent reputation. Such a place would look disfavorably on the applicant with as much as a reprimand, let alone a disciplinary suspension. I would be surprised if the latter did not result in an automatic disqualification of consideration.

Intent is important when one commits a crime of violence, yes. Is it really so important when the crime is one that harms no one?

Being smart does not indicate good character, no. I look at it more that the C student could be of equal intelligence but lackadaisical in commitment. Far less likely that the student with a solid A average, honor roll, etc. is there without effort. Of greater value in indicating the girl's character is the fact that she realized she'd done something wrong and told on herself despite knowing it would likely result in punishment anyway. I think that while she may have been hoping for clemency, the fact that she told without a guarantee of it says far more than anything else here.

The problem is the laws. Not the act, not the intent, not the "zero tolerance" aspect... the laws themselves are wrong. They need changed.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ghostinthewood]

I still think this is BS, but to be fair, the above poster is right.

I had all honor classes and I dipped out on school all the time. We had open campus and I knew how to break in to the school before the remodel (WHS). I also got in some trouble, although I weaseled my way out of it most of the time. The handbook gets more and more specific every year. =p Point being honors =/= character. I do understand the argument that people are trying to make, because it does seem like this person is a good kid. However, the honor roll isn't a good measuring stick.

Besides, everyone knows that the honors kids are just better cheaters. Haha.

 

[Roadie]

You are equating being smart (Honor Roll) with good character? I believe only intent should count. So a D average student should get punished more than a Honor Roll Student?

I don't agree with Zero Tolerance Polices; if you look at our laws, intent is codified into our laws. Isn't this why someone, based on intent, can be charge with manslaughter vs. Murder in the 1st Degree vs. Murder in the 2nd Degree?

No, I am not over simplifying it to that degree at all. I realize that Honor Roll Students can have bad character, however, I would think that usually that is not the case. Being on the Honor Roll isnt just about intelligences. It is about discipline and dedication as well. Both good character traits, yes?

 

[Roadie]

IIUC, the point is that if two students, one earning a straight 70% average and the other earning a 95% average both are found to be in possession of unloaded rifles in their vehicles ("found" by whatever means; I get that the student in the story told on herself) and both are suspended from school for identical periods of time, the A student is already punished more because while it is unlikely that the barely-C student will be trying to go to college where admission is competitive if at all, the A student probably has high aspirations that necessitate not only a university degree but that it be a university with an excellent reputation. Such a place would look disfavorably on the applicant with as much as a reprimand, let alone a disciplinary suspension. I would be surprised if the latter did not result in an automatic disqualification of consideration.

Intent is important when one commits a crime of violence, yes. Is it really so important when the crime is one that harms no one?

Being smart does not indicate good character, no. I look at it more that the C student could be of equal intelligence but lackadaisical in commitment. Far less likely that the student with a solid A average, honor roll, etc. is there without effort. Of greater value in indicating the girl's character is the fact that she realized she'd done something wrong and told on herself despite knowing it would likely result in punishment anyway. I think that while she may have been hoping for clemency, the fact that she told without a guarantee of it says far more than anything else here.

The problem is the laws. Not the act, not the intent, not the "zero tolerance" aspect... the laws themselves are wrong. They need changed.

Blessings,
Bill

I agree with you except on the "not the "zero tolerance" aspect" part.
Zero Tolerance is a problem, and not just on this issue. Take for example, the little girl that got stripped searched in school looking for her Midol she brought to school, under their "zero drug tolerance" policy.

Zero tolerance is PC garbage that turns into laziness on the Official's part.

 

[singlesix]

No, I am not over simplifying it to that degree at all. I realize that Honor Roll Students can have bad character, however, I would think that usually that is not the case. Being on the Honor Roll isnt just about intelligences. It is about discipline and dedication as well. Both good character traits, yes?

Of course. My point is it should not matter about the character of the student unless it bears on intent. I'm a D avg. student. I am lazy. I am happy go luck and great kid that will do anything for anyone. I go hunting and forget my gun in my trunk. I inform the teacher. Should I be treated any different from the Honor Roll Student?

Or I am pretty much a A-Hole Student. Late many times. Skips School. I do the same thing above. Should I be punished more? If the answer is no than I misread your posts.

 

[Roadie]

Of course. My point is it should not matter about the character of the student unless it bears on intent. I'm a D avg. student. I am lazy. I am happy go luck and great kid that will do anything for anyone. I go hunting and forget my gun in my trunk. I inform the teacher. Should I be treated any different from the Honor Roll Student?

Or I am pretty much a A-Hole Student. Late many times. Skips School. I do the same thing above. Should I be punished more? If the answer is no than I misread your posts.

I see your point. Intent is WAY more important than the Honor Roll, I was just assuming Honor Roll implied good character in most cases.

If kid A, honor roll student, comes into school with a gun to act "bad" they should be punished more harshly than kid B, a lazy D student, who had an unloaded hunting rifle in the locked trunk.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree with you except on the "not the "zero tolerance" aspect" part.
Zero Tolerance is a problem, and not just on this issue. Take for example, the little girl that got stripped searched in school looking for her Midol she brought to school, under their "zero drug tolerance" policy.

Zero tolerance is PC garbage that turns into laziness on the Official's part.

You're on the right track, Roadie, but that there is a law, rule, whatever that says someone cannot bring OTC or prescribed medication (prescribed for them) to school is the root of the problem. Yes, "zero tolerance" is a problem. It's not THE problem here, just a symptom of it.

I think if a school authority catches a student with some "forbidden" substance, maybe someone should call the child's parents and inform them, and let them mete out discipline as they see fit. You know, since they are the parents, after all.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Disposable Heart]

Zero tolerance is PC garbage that turns into laziness on the Official's part.

I agree here, but another completely different yet associated element to consider is the parents themselves. The Parents usually drive for these things, they vote in people, they attend the meetings, they watch the media, then while in a media driven frenzy over school shootings push administration to "do something", protect the kids, etc...

Zero tolerance is CYA on the part of the administration, but is also appeasement to parents who "want something done". Parents obviously do not think their kids are going to shoot up a school or park in a handicapped zone, but it happens. When parents try to push responsibility upon administration and vice versa, it ends in stalemate. Zero tolerance is a PC (albeit dreck) policy so that parents think their kids are safe and continue to vote in "insert school related politician here" and the administration can make decisions that won't "anger" the parents.

Bear in mind: Not all parents use common sense. My mother sure didn't, that is why I am still here today! Joking aside, they want to school to teach their kids, not them. They want the school to "handle" their kids, instead of having to discipline the kid themselves and taking responsibility for their child's actions. They want the school to do everything for them. It's a ridiculous combination of politics, CYA, stupidity and laziness. It's CYA with only what the administration sees as a minority that are pissed when they make broad stroke zero tolerance decisions.

Honestly, I do not see grades as charector. From what I have seen, alot of the school shooters were actually model students! Not defending 0 tolerance, but schools do need to have a template in order to frame their decision, but a decision must be made.

 

[singlesix]

I see your point. Intent is WAY more important than the Honor Roll, I was just assuming Honor Roll implied good character in most cases.

If kid A, honor roll student, comes into school with a gun to act "bad" they should be punished more harshly than kid B, a lazy D student, who had an unloaded hunting rifle in the locked trunk.

It is sad we are even having this discussion about a kid that made a simple mistake and owned up to it. Honor Roll or no Honor Roll, isn't being a kid about making some mistakes and learning from them? OK off my