# self defense in public schools



## Michael Robinson (Dec 7, 2016)

Do your guys belive in self defense in public schools if you fight back in school You might get iss - in school suspension or oss - out of school suspension or expelled from school because I self defense my self in school when i was in 8th grade but now i am in 10th grade i got introuble and  they give me iss and oss because i have punch the white boy back because he punch me frist and he got away with it he did not got introuble only i did if you don't fight back bully will still pick on you or you might kill your self like people do when they get bully or the bully might beat you up if you go tell you school you getting bully they will not doing nothing untill you kill your self or fight back like the girl die in her highschool bath like a group of boys and girl jump her in the girls bathroom and she die and the school was asking these racist question if i am a blood gang member or gang bang or if the gang tell me to fight him but i did not say nothing but i do cyber school online now and read this link about the girl got kill in her school bathroom ?Three girls charged in Delaware bathroom death  - CNN.com


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 7, 2016)

I might suggest the addition of some punctuation in your post. It's really tough to read a really long run-on sentence like that.

As for defending yourself in school, that's a choice. When I was in school, I knew I'd probably be suspended if I defended myself. I did so anyway, and just accepted the consequences. Just make sure you didn't do anything to foster the fight (don't talk smack, don't push people, don't tell them they wouldn't dare, etc.), so you know you were defending yourself, and not fighting - those are two very different things.


----------



## Michael Robinson (Dec 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I might suggest the addition of some punctuation in your post. It's really tough to read a really long run-on sentence like that.
> 
> As for defending yourself in school, that's a choice. When I was in school, I knew I'd probably be suspended if I defended myself. I did so anyway, and just accepted the consequences. Just make sure you didn't do anything to foster the fight (don't talk smack, don't push people, don't tell them they wouldn't dare, etc.), so you know you were defending yourself, and not fighting - those are two very different things.


 Ok I will .


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 7, 2016)

Michael Robinson said:


> Do your guys belive in self defense in public schools if you fight back in school You might get iss - in school suspension or oss - out of school suspension or expelled from school because I self defense my self in school when i was in 8th grade but now i am in 10th grade i got introuble and  they give me iss and oss because i have punch the white boy back because he punch me frist and he got away with it he did not got introuble only i did if you don't fight back bully will still pick on you or you might kill your self like people do when they get bully or the bully might beat you up if you go tell you school you getting bully they will not doing nothing untill you kill your self or fight back like the girl die in her highschool bath like a group of boys and girl jump her in the girls bathroom and she die and the school was asking these racist question if i am a blood gang member or gang bang or if the gang tell me to fight him but i did not say nothing but i do cyber school online now and read this link about the girl got kill in her school bathroom ?Three girls charged in Delaware bathroom death  - CNN.com


Do your guys belive in self defense in public schools if you fight back in school? You might get iss - in school suspension or oss - out of school suspension or expelled from school.

I self defense my self in school when i was in 8th grade but now i am in 10th grade. I got introuble and they give me iss and oss because i have punch the white boy back because he punch me frist and he got away with it he did not got introuble only i did. If you don't fight back bully will still pick on you, or you might kill your self like people do when they get bully, or the bully might beat you up if you go tell you school you getting bully they will not doing nothing.
Untill you kill your self or fight back like the girl die in her highschool bath. 

A group of boys and girl jump her in the girls bathroom and she die and the school was asking these racist question if i am a blood gang member or gang bang or if the gang tell me to fight him, but i did not say nothing but i do cyber school online now.

Read this link about the girl got kill in her school bathroom: Three girls charged in Delaware bathroom death  - CNN.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I added punctuation in. Avoided changing words around since I didn't want to change your post on you (I did delete three words just because they were run-ons, so otherwise I wouldn't be able to add periods, but that was it). Hopefully this makes it more readable for everyone.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 7, 2016)

I will let you in on a little secret. All fights have consequences. You get suspended you get hurt you hurt someone else.  That is why fighting is not something to engage in lightly.

But if the reason for fighting is good enough then sometimes you have to fight regardless of the consequences.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 7, 2016)

Just realized I never actually answered the question: I have no issue with self-defense. I got into a couple fights in school, and got ISS for one of them (the one that got found out). I don't regret any of them, as I probably would have been bullied had I not fought. However, things could have ended a lot worse, and you need to be sure you're ready for the consequences, and it's worth the risks, before fighting someone. Especially in the situations where your life is not in danger.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 7, 2016)

Michael Robinson said:


> Do your guys belive in self defense in public schools if you fight back in school


 I tell my son to fight back and defend himself.  Being suspended from school is a healthier alternative to getting your but kick.  Spending time at home away from school vs time in the hospital is an easy choice for me.  As a kid, this was the rule that I followed.  



gpseymour said:


> When I was in school, I knew I'd probably be suspended if I defended myself. I did so anyway, and just accepted the consequences.


I had no problems fighting back and often did as kid.  I was harassed a lot as kid. I wouldn't say that I was bullied because it was always a different person and after I stood my ground it stopped.  Kids just need to put their safety and well being before anything else. 



drop bear said:


> I will let you in on a little secret. All fights have consequences. You get suspended you get hurt you hurt someone else. That is why fighting is not something to engage in lightly.
> 
> But if the reason for fighting is good enough then sometimes you have to fight regardless of the consequences.


I agree 100%.  If a fight can be avoided then avoid it.  But don't avoid it, it's going to put you in more danger than fighting back.

Kids these days are brutal and I think it's because no one beat that butt earlier on in life, so they feel they can get way with stuff.


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 8, 2016)

Avoid all fights if possible, but I would say to go all in if you do fight seriously so as to suppress future fights.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2016)

Public schools in the UK are those really expensive schools like Eton, Harrow and Rugby which have been going for centuries with pupils from various aristocracies and royalty etc ( it needs more than money to get you into these places) so it's unlikely you would get expelled for fighting, you might get suspended but as boarding schools it's more likely you'd get some other punishment.
In our other schools, who knows, each one is different with different rules.


----------



## Buka (Dec 8, 2016)

Be  careful, Michael, school can be tough. Avoid as much as you can, but defend yourself as need be.

As was said, try to punctuate your sentence, we can read it easier and get a better feel for what you're going through. This online stuff is sometimes hard to decipher.

There's always a racial thing to any fights in school between kids of different races. Even if there really isn't - others want to make it seem like there is. That's another reason to avoid as much as possible.

Wishing you the best, bro. Stick it out, only a couple years to go.


----------



## marques (Dec 8, 2016)

Self-defence is self-defence. In schools and out the law is the same. 

The difference is there is more one entity asking for an *explanation*. You just need to articulate your behaviour. If you used minimum (or reasonable) force... bla bla bla... and you articulate it well, you have all on your side. They cannot punish you! 

The problem is the other guy(s) that probably will look for revenge...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I tell my son to fight back and defend himself.  Being suspended from school is a healthier alternative to getting your but kick.  Spending time at home away from school vs time in the hospital is an easy choice for me.  As a kid, this was the rule that I followed.
> 
> I had no problems fighting back and often did as kid.  I was harassed a lot as kid. I wouldn't say that I was bullied because it was always a different person and after I stood my ground it stopped.  Kids just need to put their safety and well being before anything else.
> 
> ...



The kids I grew up with were just as brutal, even though most were upper-class (unlike me). Some of the worst I knew got spanked (some even beaten). Good discipline isn't a matter of physicality or not - it's a matter of getting the right lesson through. Punishment is a necessary part of the process, but it has serious issues in the results it gets. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2016)

marques said:


> Self-defence is self-defence. In schools and out the law is the same.
> 
> The difference is there is more one entity asking for an *explanation*. You just need to articulate your behaviour. If you used minimum (or reasonable) force... bla bla bla... and you articulate it well, you have all on your side. They cannot punish you!
> 
> The problem is the other guy(s) that probably will look for revenge...



Not entirely accurate. Schools have the authority to punish defenders, too. "Zero tolerance" is idiotic, but exists, nonetheless. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## marques (Dec 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Not entirely accurate. Schools have the authority to punish defenders, too. "Zero tolerance" is idiotic, but exists, nonetheless.
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


So they should loss in court. Grey area maybe...

In that case, I go with you. Better time at home than in the hospital.  Furthermore, psychological issues doesn't heal as fast... Better beat the bad guys and keep confident. BUT not overconfident neither neglect prevention...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 8, 2016)

Michael, I going to guess you can see there are many answers to your question.  There are several problems with your question as well.  We only know your side.  I'm not saying your are in the wrong or telling lies.  But I don't know if there may be other reasons for bullying you.  That might give us insight as to how you should best react.

For example if you aren't inclined to fight for whatever reason, but you don't wish to seem a coward, so you talk back, or react in some way the ego of the bullies think they have to defend their reputation.  Or you constantly taunt other boys just to anger them, then don't want to fight.  Or whatever.  How do you see the actions of the bullies?

In schools, zero tolerance usually means if two people fight, both are punished.  I think it is a dumb way to act, and doesn't stop bad behavior.  I also think it is cowardly on the part of school systems.  But it is the policy of so many schools.  So you have choices to make.

I am curious though.  Have you talked to your parents or any of your teachers about this?  Would you share what you asked them and what they told you?  Are there no other black students there?  Are all students or all black students asked about gang membership by school administrators?

Also, I see in your avatar that you apparently take martial arts.  What do you study?  Did you use it in the fight?  Have you talked to your martial arts teacher about this?  If you used your martial art, your teacher there has a stake in this too.  Also, martial arts teachers may have better answers about how to deal with violence.  That is one of the big things martial arts are about.

I sure wish you luck with this.  There aren't always easy answers to these situations.  I would just encourage you to always try to take the high road.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 8, 2016)

Michael Robinson said:


> Do your guys belive in self defense in public schools


The law allows you to defend yourself, it does not however permit you to fight, fighting is usually illegal outside the confines or a sanctioned sporting contest.  Schools cannot take away your legal right to defend yourself.  The problem is that male martial artists confuse fighting with self defence because fighting is the only skill they have (There is a saying; When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail) and so this is their default response when dealing with self defence.  This is why people get into trouble for fighting.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Public schools in the UK are those really expensive schools like Eton, Harrow and Rugby which have been going for centuries with pupils from various aristocracies and royalty etc ( it needs more than money to get you into these places) so it's unlikely you would get expelled for fighting, you might get suspended but as boarding schools it's more likely you'd get some other punishment.
> In our other schools, who knows, each one is different with different rules.


Public vs private schools is used opposite in America than in the UK.  You know this, as this has come up in the past.  Why intentionally muddy the waters?


----------



## marques (Dec 8, 2016)

marques said:


> Self-defence is self-defence. In schools and out the law is the same.
> 
> The difference is there is more one entity asking for an *explanation*. You just need to articulate your behaviour. If you used minimum (or reasonable) force... bla bla bla... and you articulate it well, you have all on your side. They cannot punish you!
> 
> The problem is the other guy(s) that probably will look for revenge...


Ok, this may not apply everywhere. But it was my experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> The law allows you to defend yourself, it does not however permit you to fight, fighting is usually illegal outside the confines or a sanctioned sporting contest.  Schools cannot take away your legal right to defend yourself.  The problem is that male martial artists confuse fighting with self defence because fighting is the only skill they have (There is a saying; When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail) and so this is their default response when dealing with self defence.  This is why people get into trouble for fighting.


That's a rather sweeping generalization without proper evidence.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's a rather sweeping generalization without proper evidence.


I didn't think it needed to be clarified, clearly I over estimated our readership, so to clarify "most" male martial artists not "all".

As for evidence, pick a thread in the self defence section...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 8, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> I didn't think it needed to be clarified, clearly I over estimated our readership, so to clarify "most" male martial artists not "all".
> 
> As for evidence, pick a thread in the self defence section...


Actually, the issue is more a matter of semantics. Many (most?) of us use "self-defense" to refer to the physical defense once an attack starts. I use the term "self-protection" and similar terms for the over-arching topic that includes things like avoidance, de-escalation, etc. It's not a confusion of fighting with self-defense, but a different use of the terms.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, the issue is more a matter of semantics. Many (most?) of us use "self-defense" to refer to the physical defense once an attack starts. I use the term "self-protection" and similar terms for the over-arching topic that includes things like avoidance, de-escalation, etc. It's not a confusion of fighting with self-defense, but a different use of the terms.


At best, it's a term that is subject to being defined in a way that is convenient in that moment.  It means fighting to each side from time to time, and then when it's inconvenient to define it that way, someone trots out an Abernathy podcast and drops the microphone.  I'm waiting for someone to reference the "monkey dance" (not to be confused with the safety dance, which, even though it sounds like it should be relevant, has nothing to do with safety...  I mean, you can dance if you want to....).


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2016)

Regarding fighting in schools, it really depends on the school and on the environment in that school.  I got into a lot of fights through middle school.  By the time I got to high school, I had learned to avoid them for the most part, but it was an urban school and I was, as a Caucasian, a minority.  We had gangs, bullies, drugs, and all that, and I ended up in a few fights that I couldn't avoid. 

Fast forward, my oldest kids were at a school where fighting just isn't very common.  There are bullies, but the environment is very different.  They're both adults and out of the house now.  My youngest is at a school, and it was hilarious.  She told me there are only three bullies in her entire school, and everyone knows who they are.  It really seems like social pressure is working well at that school to cause the bullies to be ostracized until they fix their behavior (as opposed to being emboldened by kids who are afraid of becoming victims of bullying themselves).  Pretty cool, I think. 

Point is, I wouldn't expect any of my kids to ever get into a fight around here at school.  However, if they went to an urban, public school like the one I went to (and perhaps the one you're going to in PA), then maybe, yeah.  But only if you can avoid it.

Regarding the law and all that, I think that involving the police in schools is not always the best policy.


----------



## King Kobra (Dec 8, 2016)

My position on this is if the other person gets physical first you can respond in kind and with equal intensity, however in school it usually starts with people beaking each other and just don't engage them in that, ignore them, fully, like they don't exist because at this moment they are proving they are not worth the few seconds it would take to beat them up. If that fails then...

They grab u=break their hold and push them back or step back to create distance and state calmly that you just want to go to class or whatever and begin leaving the other way and let them decide if it's worth continuing

They hit you=a quick shot back to a vulnerable area, you'd be surprised how it takes the wind out of someone's sails when you knock the wind out of them or smack them in the nuts. Then re state your desire not to fight and attempt another exit the other way.

If they pursue it further after that then yeah, hurt them until they no longer want to fight and leave. If you don't act like a punk kid and beak them after and just walk away like the martial artist you are you'll get more respect than if you try to act like a tough guy, the school will more likely be on your side after that as well. Also don't brag about it after, everyone else will brag you up anyways...its school.


----------



## Buka (Dec 8, 2016)

Steve said:


> Regarding the law and all that, I think that involving the police in schools is not always the best policy.



So true.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2016)

King Kobra said:


> They grab u
> 
> They hit you


Or better still, control the distance so they don't get close enough to do either of these things.  In my experience once you do that, they realise you are not the victim they thought you were, so they move on.  Bullies want a victim to beat on, not someone who will fight back as that means they could get hit, and they don't want that.

Also physically taking control of the distance is something they have not encountered before, and it throws them off guard.  They are used to the people they have selected as victims either trying to apologies, or getting aggressive back in an attempt to put them off.  Suddenly they are now confronted with a situation they are not used to and it can throw them off and they don't know how to react.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 9, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Or better still, control the distance so they don't get close enough to do either of these things.  In my experience once you do that, they realise you are not the victim they thought you were, so they move on.  Bullies want a victim to beat on, not someone who will fight back as that means they could get hit, and they don't want that.
> 
> Also physically taking control of the distance is something they have not encountered before, and it throws them off guard.  They are used to the people they have selected as victims either trying to apologies, or getting aggressive back in an attempt to put them off.  Suddenly they are now confronted with a situation they are not used to and it can throw them off and they don't know how to react.


Controlling the distance wouldn't have worked with most of the bullies at my high school. They had friends, and were going to put their hands on you. Your choices were submit or defend. Those backing away simply hadn't made that decision yet.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Controlling the distance wouldn't have worked with most of the bullies at my high school.


No method works 100% of the time, it's just another option.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 9, 2016)

What worked for me in school was that I learned how to fight (through martial arts)  I sparred against people who were bigger and older than me and as a result I got used to the feeling of that and so I wasn't intimated by bigger and older students.

Through that I learn how to "be more than what people want to deal with."  My game plan was always prey on the confidence of the bully and to make him doubt that he actually had the ability to easily beat me up or intimidate me.  The first rule of this is to be calm with a lack of emotion for the situation.  Bullies expect their victim to be scared or get hot headed.  They don't know what to do with someone who is calm and emotionless.  If the bully told me that he would beat me up then I would calmly reply in an emotionless manner "maybe you will maybe you won't"   This creates an assumption that I don't care about the outcome because at this point I'm emotionless.  Bullies and people in general try to read a situation by the emotions and facial expressions that we give in response to what they are saying.  Think of emotionless as a blank poker face that hides a person's true intent or true fears.

Here's what has happened at this stage.
1. I haven't shown fear, anger, or any sign that I'm intimidated by what is before me.
2. I haven't given any clues on my ability or lack of them
3. I haven't backed down and I haven't really "stood up" in a flashy way.
4. I have presented the bully with uncertainty about his success of winning and my success of defending
5. I haven't escalated the situation because my responses are emotionless which doesn't fuel my opponents action
6. My lack of action gives him the option to back out of the conflict and save face.  So he can back out and still look tough even if he calls me a name before backing out.
7. My lack of action clearly highlights who the aggressor is, which comes in handy for high-lighting "who started the confrontation"

Here's what I'm doing when I'm in emotionless response mode.
1. I'm analyzing the guy in front, working on a plan of where I should attack if needed.
2. I'm preparing myself mentally for what may turn out to be a physical fight.
3. I'm analyzing the crowd around us if any. Trying to identify any other threats that I may need to be aware of
4. I'm positioning myself and my footing to put me in the best possible position if the person decides to attack me.  This could be either keeping my distance or moving to the left or right of the bullies center.  This means that he has to make bigger motions to get to me which will warn me of his attack.

Overall while my bully is talking smack, I'm trying to position myself in the best possible position to win the fight.  But I would only do this if you know how to fight. For the most part bullies will stop if they think it's going to be too much trouble to fight you.  But sometimes you just have to throw fists, so don't do this as a bluff for a guaranteed conflict ending strategy.  If the fight still happens then you would have played enough of a mental game on your bully to have a better advantage once the fight starts.


----------



## Steve (Dec 9, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Controlling the distance wouldn't have worked with most of the bullies at my high school. They had friends, and were going to put their hands on you. Your choices were submit or defend. Those backing away simply hadn't made that decision yet.


Thinking back to my high school, I don't recall there being any bullies.  I can think of some guys I thought were jerks, but the imminent threat was from gang members, and that was particularly true if you were a white, dope smoking, class skipping hooligan like me who was seldom where he was supposed to be.   But I did look pretty tough in my Iron Maiden shirt and parachute pants.


----------



## Steve (Dec 9, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> What worked for me in school was that I learned how to fight (through martial arts)  I sparred against people who were bigger and older than me and as a result I got used to the feeling of that and so I wasn't intimated by bigger and older students.
> 
> Through that I learn how to "be more than what people want to deal with."  My game plan was always prey on the confidence of the bully and to make him doubt that he actually had the ability to easily beat me up or intimidate me.  The first rule of this is to be calm with a lack of emotion for the situation.  Bullies expect their victim to be scared or get hot headed.  They don't know what to do with someone who is calm and emotionless.  If the bully told me that he would beat me up then I would calmly reply in an emotionless manner "maybe you will maybe you won't"   This creates an assumption that I don't care about the outcome because at this point I'm emotionless.  Bullies and people in general try to read a situation by the emotions and facial expressions that we give in response to what they are saying.  Think of emotionless as a blank poker face that hides a person's true intent or true fears.
> 
> ...


Staying calm is a big deal.  I always did the same thing, but I didn't try to stay emotionless.  I tried not to change a thing.

I would also initiate the contact if I thought there might be trouble.  For example, if I thought someone was sizing me up, I'd go up and ask him for a smoke, talk to him for a minute, thank him and then leave.  It was my way of saying, "Hey, I know you're trying to figure out if I have anything worth stealing.  I don't."  Worked almost every time.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 9, 2016)

Steve said:


> But I did look pretty tough in my Iron Maiden shirt and parachute pants.


Age alert lol.  Good thing you used that t-shirt and those pants back then.. Not sure they would have the same effect now.  Parachute pants = awesome time travel.


----------



## Steve (Dec 9, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Age alert lol.  Good thing you used that t-shirt and those pants back then.. Not sure they would have the same effect now.  Parachute pants = awesome time travel.


The number of zippers you had on your clothes back then held a direct correlation to how badass you were.  My parachute pants had about 10 zippers.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 10, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Public schools in the UK are those really expensive schools like Eton, Harrow and Rugby which have been going for centuries with pupils from various aristocracies and royalty etc ( it needs more than money to get you into these places) so it's unlikely you would get expelled for fighting, you might get suspended but as boarding schools it's more likely you'd get some other punishment.
> In our other schools, who knows, each one is different with different rules.



In my first boarding school, a minor scrap would involve being put in a room. The pair would have to make up until they could leave. Serious stuff, and not that I can remember an typical instance these days, I do know you were sent home. And for a few of us who didn't like being at home, that threat was a massive deterrent. 

So in those days, a handshake really was the best way to disfuse tension between pupils. I wondered a few years later why the teachers allowed us to play hockey lol.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 10, 2016)

marques said:


> Self-defence is self-defence. In schools and out the law is the same.
> 
> The difference is there is more one entity asking for an *explanation*. You just need to articulate your behaviour. If you used minimum (or reasonable) force... bla bla bla... and you articulate it well, you have all on your side. They cannot punish you!
> 
> The problem is the other guy(s) that probably will look for revenge...



If I am reading this right, I have to agree. In my boarding schools, the second being more of a naughty lad school, what you say is very realistic. At least in my personal experience, I am not saying for others here.

Yeah. Goading, quick digs and such like, could always be conveyed as being playful. So yeah, the teachers couldn't say much more than take it outside. Yes that sounds really stupid, but the teachers I guess now, involved reverse psychology. However, at my second school, fights would involve having severe restrictions on pupils. One for me involved being confined to being inside the school.

So as such, there was a boarders rule that any enmity that would result in a fight, our behaviour around the teachers was all geared towards the idea that at dorm time, it was ding dong time. Got to say though, my schools were not like the poncy Harrows and Etons etc, so peasants like me have different viewpoints on boarding.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 10, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> poncy Harrows and Etons etc, so peasants like me have different viewpoints on boarding.



LOL, the rules are different at them which of course carries over to when they are grown up and in the government!
I know a lot of people who sent their children to boarding school because the children preferred it to moving around all the time which military families do and there's huge discounts for military families which helps. I don't know any though that could afford or would want to send them to public schools. I have known a few army officers who went through prep school ( boarding) public school then Oxbridge. They tend to have funny ideas about 'matron', I always thought that's why so many Tory men loved Maggie Thatcher, she reminded them of matron.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 10, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> LOL, the rules are different at them which of course carries over to when they are grown up and in the government!
> I know a lot of people who sent their children to boarding school because the children preferred it to moving around all the time which military families do and there's huge discounts for military families which helps. I don't know any though that could afford or would want to send them to public schools. I have known a few army officers who went through prep school ( boarding) public school then Oxbridge. They tend to have funny ideas about 'matron', I always thought that's why so many Tory men loved Maggie Thatcher, she reminded them of matron.



Matron, oh hell you just brought back a memory lol. Yeah, at my first, the Matron was a pretty much a witch


----------



## drop bear (Dec 10, 2016)

King Kobra said:


> My position on this is if the other person gets physical first you can respond in kind and with equal intensity, however in school it usually starts with people beaking each other and just don't engage them in that, ignore them, fully, like they don't exist because at this moment they are proving they are not worth the few seconds it would take to beat them up. If that fails then...
> 
> They grab u=break their hold and push them back or step back to create distance and state calmly that you just want to go to class or whatever and begin leaving the other way and let them decide if it's worth continuing
> 
> ...



See my view on that is if you are trapped in there with them an they are going out of their way to be a tool.  You don't have to take that day in.  Day out.  Even if it is verbal.

That is why the ***** slap was invented. Nail them. Show that their actions have consequences. Move on.

Then take your suspension like a man.

If you wanted to go completely nuts. Get a notebook and record all the passive aggressive bullying you have endured. Still dlap the guy and still take the suspension like a man.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 10, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Show that their actions have consequences.


This is what's lacking in the U.S. now. The understanding that actions have consequences.  If you gotta go out, then go out with style lol






Or you can hit em up like this


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2016)

Steve said:


> Thinking back to my high school, I don't recall there being any bullies.  I can think of some guys I thought were jerks, but the imminent threat was from gang members, and that was particularly true if you were a white, dope smoking, class skipping hooligan like me who was seldom where he was supposed to be.   But I did look pretty tough in my Iron Maiden shirt and parachute pants.


We were lacking in gangs. The bullies came in almost gang-like groups (except that one of the "gangs" was just entitled preppie kids who thought it was fun to grab guys (4 people to grab them) and ram their crotches into poles. It happened often enough it had it's own term: "Dude, did you see John got 'poled' at lunch?"


----------



## donald1 (Dec 14, 2016)

Students need to be able to defend themselves should the need occur. People know bullies can be violent. Why should you or anyone else have to suffer because a fellow student cant control their emotions.  Teachers say things like "report it to the teacher" or "turn the other cheek", but neither of those things will stop the physical or emotional pain. A well placed block will prevent it though. As long as they can control themselves then they should.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 14, 2016)

donald1 said:


> Students need to be able to defend themselves should the need occur. People know bullies can be violent. Why should you or anyone else have to suffer because a fellow student cant control their emotions.  Teachers say things like "report it to the teacher" or "turn the other cheek", but neither of those things will stop the physical or emotional pain. A well placed block will prevent it though. As long as they can control themselves then they should.



Also the "report it to the teacher" Heard that from parents back in the day. Parents should also take responsibility for bullying. I mean that in a general sense here, not accusing anybody. All manner of social things play into how a bully becomes just that, including teachers actually having the will to do something about. Sadly the majority don't. I do agree with you on a good post.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 15, 2016)

Michael Robinson said:


> Do your guys belive in self defense in public schools if you fight back in school You might get iss - in school suspension or oss - out of school suspension or expelled from school


My $0.02 worth is this:  No one - not the school board, not the principal, absolutely no one - has the right or the authority to tell anyone that they cannot defend themselves against an assault.  So-called "zero tolerance" policies do exactly that.

I have had to intervene a couple of times when one of my students had to defend against an assault.  In almost every case, after I educated the principal on the difference between fighting and self-defense, my student was reinstated with no adverse consequences.  I have had only one time where the principal was going to stand behind the zero-tolerance policy at all costs.  I turned to the parents and told them to call the police and file criminal charges against the other kid and against the principal as an accessory to the assault.  I also told them to contact a lawyer and file a massive lawsuit against the school board in general and the principal in particular, as well as calling the local TV stations and reporting this.  They love this kind of stuff and would have cameras and mikes all over the principal within hours.

She backed down and my student got reinstated.  I was actually running a bluff on her, because I don't think that we could have gotten her arrested as an accessory.  Fortunately, she didn't know that, either.  

If you are the victim of an assault, you should never be punished for defending yourself.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2016)

Balrog said:


> My $0.02 worth is this:  No one - not the school board, not the principal, absolutely no one - has the right or the authority to tell anyone that they cannot defend themselves against an assault.  So-called "zero tolerance" policies do exactly that.
> 
> I have had to intervene a couple of times when one of my students had to defend against an assault.  In almost every case, after I educated the principal on the difference between fighting and self-defense, my student was reinstated with no adverse consequences.  I have had only one time where the principal was going to stand behind the zero-tolerance policy at all costs.  I turned to the parents and told them to call the police and file criminal charges against the other kid and against the principal as an accessory to the assault.  I also told them to contact a lawyer and file a massive lawsuit against the school board in general and the principal in particular, as well as calling the local TV stations and reporting this.  They love this kind of stuff and would have cameras and mikes all over the principal within hours.
> 
> ...


Lol.   If I were the principal I would have disciplined you for misconduct and fired you if possible.   

Itbdoesnt sound like your principal has much more sense than you, but between the two of you, Jesus that school is in trouble.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2016)

Just want to add a bit more now that I'm not on a phone.  Zero-tolerance policies are often a bad idea.  I don't want to give the impression that I believe that they are a good thing.  They aren't.  I said earlier and believe that the police get involved too often and turn situations that are relatively benign into something that can shape the course of a young person's life.  When you're talking about a child who is talking to the police because he shot another student with a rubber band, things have gone too far. 

But, all of that aside, having blowhard teachers inciting parents, encouraging litigation and pouring gasoline on an already volatile situation is good for no one.  It doesn't help the family or the school better educate the children.  And, frankly, it seems like you have reacted to a bad policy with advice that is worse.  The problem with zero-tolerance is that it removes the opportunity to exercise judgment and discretion, and to keep a situation from blowing up out of proportion to the events.  Reacting by inciting parents to sue and involve the cops themselves does just the opposite.  The only thing it accomplishes is to make what to me looks like an otherwise frustrated, powerless teacher (or whatever your actual position is in the school) feel powerful and influential.  

In my opinion, the best advice that can be given to the parents is to get involved with their school boards, and with advocacy groups.  I have found that, as a parent, I have a lot of influence over school policy, and can often exert pressure by moving up the line.  And when policies are beyond my ability to influence alone, working with a  block of parents gets the job done.  I choose my battles, and I'll be the first to admit that our school district does some things that are pretty hair-brained.  But working within the system can work well.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> And, frankly, it seems like you have reacted to a bad policy with advice that is worse.  The problem with zero-tolerance is that it removes the opportunity to exercise judgment and discretion, and to keep a situation from blowing up out of proportion to the events.  Reacting by inciting parents to sue and involve the cops themselves does just the opposite.


Quite wrong.  If one does not take a strong stand against zero tolerance, it will continue unchecked.  If the principal in that one case had not backed down, the parents were fully prepared to do everything that I suggested and they said so.  The principal finally saw the light and realized that hiding behind the zero tolerance policy was absolutely the wrong thing to do.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2016)

Balrog said:


> Quite wrong.  If one does not take a strong stand against zero tolerance, it will continue unchecked.  If the principal in that one case had not backed down, the parents were fully prepared to do everything that I suggested and they said so.  The principal finally saw the light and realized that hiding behind the zero tolerance policy was absolutely the wrong thing to do.


Quite wrong?  I think you have an overinflated sense of your role, and a distorted opinion about what an actual, strong stand looks like.

Like I said, if you worked for me, I'd have your *** for acting like that.  I don't know what your collective bargaining agreement looks like, but I'd wager there's ample provision for misconduct to reprimand you, at the very least beginning the process of progressive discipline, if not fire you outright.  Your insubordination is the least of the concerns.  Advising parents to sue the school district and intentionally misrepresenting your authority as a representative of the school, I'd say there's plenty of grounds even within a very labor friendly contract to let you go take your misguided stands somewhere else.

Edit:  Just want to add that the irony that you appear to be very proud of bullying your principals is not lost on me.  I feel sorry for you and for your bosses.  Dealing with self righteous bullies is no fun, but for managers, it can't be avoided.  If you really do act like this at work and aren't just blowing smoke, it's a shame you've been emboldened either by a system that is ineffective or managers who are conflict avoidant.


----------



## Buka (Dec 15, 2016)

I don't have kids, but I have a lot of "nephews". (who now have kids) I've had a lot of students over the years, too. And I've worked in public schools. I know times have changed, but I still have strong opinions.

I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves, anywhere. If a "zero tolerance policy" includes punishing a child for defending themselves against assault, it's just plain wrong, and constitutionally offensive.

There doesn't seem to be any common sense any more. Bullies assaulting victims, on a continued basis, should be weeded out. (And I do mean "on a continued basis", not a one time thing.) Police should be kept out of the equation, as should lawyers. Schools need to step up and toss out kids. Yes, it will permanently screw up their lives, probably lead to prison. Good, I don't care. F' em and their parents who raised them that way. Or didn't raise them at all.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2016)

Buka said:


> I don't have kids, but I have a lot of "nephews". (who now have kids) I've had a lot of students over the years, too. And I've worked in public schools. I know times have changed, but I still have strong opinions.
> 
> I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves, anywhere. If a "zero tolerance policy" includes punishing a child for defending themselves against assault, it's just plain wrong, and constitutionally offensive.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be any common sense any more. Bullies assaulting victims, on a continued basis, should be weeded out. (And I do mean "on a continued basis", not a one time thing.) Police should be kept out of the equation, as should lawyers. Schools need to step up and toss out kids. Yes, it will permanently screw up their lives, probably lead to prison. Good, I don't care. F' em and their parents who raised them that way. Or didn't raise them at all.


You touch on a couple of interesting points, Buka.  First, I agree with you regarding "zero tolerance" policies.  While I believe they were originally coming from a good place (a strong, principled stand against violence in the schools), they are often a way for schools to avoid taking responsibility for 1: exercising sound judgment within the context of the specific events and 2: advocate for the kids who are involved.

They do also typically end up inviting police involvement to a sometimes ridiculous degree.

Schools should, in my opinion, have clear, reasonable policies in place to address issues.  These policies should afford the school the latitude to exercise sound judgment.  There should also be a way for parents to appeal any adverse actions taken by the school.

The other, balancing side of this is that all of the kids, yes, even the bullies, have a right to education.  While not a guaranteed right under the US Constitution (although it should be, IMO), most State constitutions guarantee this right, and those States which don't still recognize the need to provide a foundational education.  Add to this that many bullies, most bullies, grow up to be decent human beings, and anything more than a short term suspension can significantly change the trajectory of a child's life (particularly if school is that child's only real relief from a difficult life outside of school).  

Point is, I agree with you, but with the caveat that any discussion that involves kids needs to consider the welfare of ALL of the kids, which includes the bullies, in my opinion.  All kids are incomplete human beings, in my opinion.  They're all learning to be happy, healthy and productive adults. 

Ultimately, we already have too many non-criminals in prison.  A bunch of pot smoking hippies just clogging up the system, learning to become criminals.  I think we should save the jails for the actual criminals and avoid, if we can, drumming up business.


----------



## Buka (Dec 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> You touch on a couple of interesting points, Buka.  First, I agree with you regarding "zero tolerance" policies.  While I believe they were originally coming from a good place (a strong, principled stand against violence in the schools), they are often a way for schools to avoid taking responsibility for 1: exercising sound judgment within the context of the specific events and 2: advocate for the kids who are involved.
> 
> They do also typically end up inviting police involvement to a sometimes ridiculous degree.
> 
> ...



Yeah, you're probably right.

I hope they do something about the zero tolerance thing. Really needs to be addressed.
I was victim of it myself, as a cop. Worked out, though, thankfully.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2016)

@gpseymour I'm disappointed in you, man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> @gpseymour I'm disappointed in you, man.


For?


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> For?


For encouraging balrog in his lunacy.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> Quite wrong?  I think you have an overinflated sense of your role, and a distorted opinion about what an actual, strong stand looks like.
> 
> Like I said, if you worked for me, I'd have your *** for acting like that.  I don't know what your collective bargaining agreement looks like, but I'd wager there's ample provision for misconduct to reprimand you, at the very least beginning the process of progressive discipline, if not fire you outright.  Your insubordination is the least of the concerns.  Advising parents to sue the school district and intentionally misrepresenting your authority as a representative of the school, I'd say there's plenty of grounds even within a very labor friendly contract to let you go take your misguided stands somewhere else.
> 
> Edit:  Just want to add that the irony that you appear to be very proud of bullying your principals is not lost on me.  I feel sorry for you and for your bosses.  Dealing with self righteous bullies is no fun, but for managers, it can't be avoided.  If you really do act like this at work and aren't just blowing smoke, it's a shame you've been emboldened either by a system that is ineffective or managers who are conflict avoidant.


Ummm....deep breath, Steve.

I am self-employed.  I run a Taekwondo school.  The incident I referred to was one where a student of mine (I'll call him Bob) had another kid at his school (I'll call him Joe) try to punch him in the face. Bob did a simple block and counter, and it was very low-key.  He then disengaged and reported it to a teacher.  As a result, the principal was going to suspend Bob for fighting as well as suspend Joe.  I have no problem with Joe getting booted; he was the aggressor.  Bob's parents had no success with the principal and asked me to accompany them for a second meeting.  

There was no bullying whatsoever.  We simply responded to the principal's lack of common sense (and IMNSHO, lack of integrity).  Sometimes people have to be smacked across the face with The Wet Trout Of Reality before they understand that their actions are not reasonable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> For encouraging balrog in his lunacy.


I agree with his attitude, though not necessarily with his choice of solutions.


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2016)

Yeah.  Okay.  General attitude that zero tolerance is a bad idea.  Everything else is a hot mess.


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2016)

Balrog said:


> Ummm....deep breath, Steve.
> 
> I am self-employed.  I run a Taekwondo school.  The incident I referred to was one where a student of mine (I'll call him Bob) had another kid at his school (I'll call him Joe) try to punch him in the face. Bob did a simple block and counter, and it was very low-key.  He then disengaged and reported it to a teacher.  As a result, the principal was going to suspend Bob for fighting as well as suspend Joe.  I have no problem with Joe getting booted; he was the aggressor.  Bob's parents had no success with the principal and asked me to accompany them for a second meeting.
> 
> There was no bullying whatsoever.  We simply responded to the principal's lack of common sense (and IMNSHO, lack of integrity).  Sometimes people have to be smacked across the face with The Wet Trout Of Reality before they understand that their actions are not reasonable.


 As is said, I think you're lucky to have thus far run across people whom you could bully around.

Saying unreasonable things in a reasonable way doesn't make them reasonable.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 18, 2016)

Steve said:


> As is said, I think you're lucky to have thus far run across people whom you could bully around.
> 
> Saying unreasonable things in a reasonable way doesn't make them reasonable.


Do you know anything whatsoever about bullying and the prevention of bullying?  If you did, you would have immediately realized that the principal was the bully.  Our response was simply a matter of showing the bully that she wasn't intimidating us.

But since that simple point seems to have sailed over your head, there's not much sense in continuing this discussion.


----------



## Steve (Dec 18, 2016)

Balrog said:


> Do you know anything whatsoever about bullying and the prevention of bullying?  If you did, you would have immediately realized that the principal was the bully.  Our response was simply a matter of showing the bully that she wasn't intimidating us.
> 
> But since that simple point seems to have sailed over your head, there's not much sense in continuing this discussion.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.  I am confident that the version you like to tell where youre the shining knight isn't the version that principal tells to her friends.   Don't get me wrong.  She may be completely incompetent.  But while I'm not sure about that either way, you've said enough to convince me that your own behavior was out of line.  

As that simple point seems to be going over your head, you can go back to telling yourself lies about how you're a real hero.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 20, 2016)

Steve said:


> Whatever helps you sleep at night.  I am confident that the version you like to tell where youre the shining knight isn't the version that principal tells to her friends.   Don't get me wrong.  She may be completely incompetent.  But while I'm not sure about that either way, you've said enough to convince me that your own behavior was out of line.
> 
> As that simple point seems to be going over your head, you can go back to telling yourself lies about how you're a real hero.


Were you there?  Were you a part of what happened?  No.  Therefore, you cannot speak with any accuracy about the situation.  However, that doesn't seem to deter you.

And my friend, to that family - I AM a hero.  I helped prevent their son from being punished for being the victim of an assault.  By your logic, you would side with the bully in the situation.


----------



## Steve (Dec 20, 2016)

Balrog said:


> Were you there?  Were you a part of what happened?  No.  Therefore, you cannot speak with any accuracy about the situation.  However, that doesn't seem to deter you.
> 
> And my friend, to that family - I AM a hero.  I helped prevent their son from being punished for being the victim of an assault.  By your logic, you would side with the bully in the situation.


See That's part of the problem.  You see it as one kid deserves to win and the other to lose.  I think both kids need help.

Edit to add that I wasnt there but I'm very familiar with your brand of lunacy based on your own words.


----------



## Tames D (Dec 21, 2016)

Balrog said:


> And my friend, to that family - I AM a hero. I helped prevent their son from being punished for being the victim of an assault.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 21, 2016)

Steve said:


> See That's part of the problem.  You see it as one kid deserves to win and the other to lose.  I think both kids need help.
> 
> Edit to add that I wasnt there but I'm very familiar with your brand of lunacy based on your own words.


And with that little piece of snark, you have proven conclusively that you don't know jack about anything.  Let's rephrase the situation in terms that you might possibly be able to comprehend.

You're minding your own business.  Someone comes along and assaults you.  You defend yourself.  Now you're arrested for fighting.  Would you just roll over and play dead, or would you fight it by all means, including getting someone to help you?


----------



## Steve (Dec 21, 2016)

Balrog said:


> And with that little piece of snark, you have proven conclusively that you don't know jack about anything.  Let's rephrase the situation in terms that you might possibly be able to comprehend.
> 
> You're minding your own business.  Someone comes along and assaults you.  You defend yourself.  Now you're arrested for fighting.  Would you just roll over and play dead, or would you fight it by all means, including getting someone to help you?


Dude I'm not being snarky.  I just view yiur actions as destructive.  

Look man.  Yiure the guy who threatebed a principle with a lawsuit you admit was ********.  You knowingly manipulated the parents.  You poured gasoline on an already volatile situation. 

You think yiure a hero.  I don't.  Why are you spending so much energy arguing about it?


----------



## Balrog (Dec 22, 2016)

Steve said:


> Dude I'm not being snarky.  I just view yiur actions as destructive.
> 
> Look man.  Yiure the guy who threatebed a principle with a lawsuit you admit was ********.  You knowingly manipulated the parents.  You poured gasoline on an already volatile situation.
> 
> You think yiure a hero.  I don't.  Why are you spending so much energy arguing about it?


Because I didn't manipulate the parents.  They asked me to join in.  But mainly because I stood up for a student of mine who was being bullied by the principal of a school, and you're making me out to be the bad guy.

Amigo, you have been so far wrong in this entire conversation that you aren't even in the same zip code with right.  I've pointed that out to you repeatedly, and yet you persist.  You act like a Democrat, and you have gone from being annoying to being a pain in the butt.  Just drop it.


----------



## Steve (Dec 22, 2016)

Balrog said:


> Because I didn't manipulate the parents.  They asked me to join in.  But mainly because I stood up for a student of mine who was being bullied by the principal of a school, and you're making me out to be the bad guy.
> 
> Amigo, you have been so far wrong in this entire conversation that you aren't even in the same zip code with right.  I've pointed that out to you repeatedly, and yet you persist.  You act like a Democrat, and you have gone from being annoying to being a pain in the butt.  Just drop it.


Okay, Amigo.  I have a little more time and a proper keyboard, so I will try to explain a little better why I continue to view you as... not THE bad guy... but definitely A bad guy in this scenario.  First, though, I'll highlight your own words that really led me to this conclusion.  I'll break it down as best I can, because, to be clear, I agree with you that zero-tolerance policies are generally a bad idea.  My opinions about your behavior are specific to your behavior, as described by you.



Balrog said:


> My $0.02 worth is this:  No one - not the school board, not the principal, absolutely no one - has the right or the authority to tell anyone that they cannot defend themselves against an assault.  So-called "zero tolerance" policies do exactly that.


Getting into the details a bit, I agree with you that zero-tolerance policies are often misapplied and can be a convenient way for school staff to avoid applying sound judgment.  Whether it's a "right" with a small "r" or a "Right" with a big "R" (as in constitutional), I agree that students should be able to defend themselves.  However, there is also the matter of a students right to an education, which in some States is implied, but in others is actually stipulated in their State constitution.   Kids, even bullies, have a right (or a Right) to education.  And, there is precedent that schools have a duty to provide a safe environment for kids conducive to learning, and that this can, in some cases, supersede some rights.

But in general, I agree with you that students, should have a right to defend themselves in a reasonable way (as should teachers).

This is where you get squirrely...


> I have had to intervene a couple of times when one of my students had to defend against an assault.  In almost every case, after I educated the principal on the difference between fighting and self-defense, my student was reinstated with no adverse consequences.


So, key words here: "had to."  I understand that now, after many posts, you've backed off of your tough guy stance quite a bit, and are saying, "asked to" by the parents.  But, either way, frankly, this is concerning to me.  Not overly so, yet, but this suggests that you have an elevated opinion about your role.  You're a guy who runs an extracurricular activity for kids.  You are on par with a football coach or a clarinet instructor.  Which is why it's odd to me that you're involved at all.

This is also why I initially misunderstood and presumed you actually had a proper role in the situation. When you use the words "had to" that implies that you were required to.   As a teacher who either witnessed the actual fight or who was this student's teacher (I mean actual teacher in the school, not coach), I can understand your being involved, even if I think you've grossly overstepped.  As a coach for an extracurricular activity, I don't know why the heck you were even in the room, even at the parent's request it seems off to me.    





> I have had only one time where the principal was going to stand behind the zero-tolerance policy at all costs.  I turned to the parents and told them to call the police and file criminal charges against the other kid and against the principal as an accessory to the assault.  I also told them to contact a lawyer and file a massive lawsuit against the school board in general and the principal in particular, as well as calling the local TV stations and reporting this.  They love this kind of stuff and would have cameras and mikes all over the principal within hours.  She backed down and my student got reinstated.


This is terrible.  I've outlined why several times and won't rehash.  But damn.  This is you being a villain.  And further, you know it.  Because you are very proud that you were knowingly intimidating the principal.  





> I was actually running a bluff on her, because I don't think that we could have gotten her arrested as an accessory.  Fortunately, she didn't know that, either.


It's clear that you see yourself as the hero who can come in a save the day.  But, that isn't actually the story you're telling.  You're telling the story of a bully, against the backdrop of a kid who got into a fight at school.  You're the bully.

But to sum up what you have said (not me).  You're a guy who spends a few hours each week with a kid as the TKD instructor.  You don't have first hand knowledge of the fight and are not an employee of the school.  I'm guessing your version of the story is third hand, from the kid to parents to you.  You have made it clear you view yourself as some kind of hero.  From this snapshot and this version, you presume that the kid for whom you are advocating is entirely innocent and the other kids are entirely at fault for starting the fight.  And you have demonstrated that you are willing to knowingly lie, mislead and intimidate others to get what you want, and are proud of it.


> If you are the victim of an assault, you should never be punished for defending yourself.


See, this I agree with.  But, at the same time, you have to be accountable for your actions.  If you, as the grown up, aren't willing to be accountable for your own deplorable behavior, I wonder about the kids for whom you are a role model.

So, there it is.  I've taken another stab at this, but honestly, I don't think it's going to sink in for you.  This appears to be the first time someone has pointed out to you that the fiction you're writing for yourself isn't necessarily the entire truth.  There are multiple sides to every story, and you seem shocked at the idea your behavior isn't universally revered.  I'm not sure I can explain it in a way that will get through, but I've given it my best shot.


----------



## Steve (Dec 22, 2016)

A point that has come up but I would hate to be lost.  I think it's important that we all remember that schools have a responsibility to advocate for all of the children.  We only have a desire to advocate for the kids we're connected to.  Our own or those whom we coach.  And it's possible (or probable) that the kid we think is a little angel, isn't.  And conversely, the kid we believe is the devil also isn't.  

While we all have an understandable tendency to believe our kids' versions of stories without a lot of analysis, my experience has been that most fights go both ways.  Kids bully each other in many ways, and if they don't have the proper tools to deal with conflict in a healthy way, they will learn to survive in an unhealthy way, which is what we generally define as bullying.  But, it's not just physical.  There are kids who bully others intellectually and emotionally.  While a physical altercation is pretty clear cut, the kid who appears to be the bully may be the one standing up to a bully.  

The point is simply that when you put a bunch of kids together, there are countless interactions that are completely unobserved and it's difficult when your own kid is involved, to remain objective.  The unfortunate consequence, however, is that you might be reinforcing negative behaviors in your kid.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 23, 2016)

Steve said:


> So, there it is.  I've taken another stab at this, but honestly, I don't think it's going to sink in for you.  This appears to be the first time someone has pointed out to you that the fiction you're writing for yourself isn't necessarily the entire truth.  There are multiple sides to every story, and you seem shocked at the idea your behavior isn't universally revered.  I'm not sure I can explain it in a way that will get through, but I've given it my best shot.


You haven't even come close.

My involvement in all three episodes was by parental request.  In all three episodes, I educated the principal about the difference between fighting and self-defense.  In two of the episodes, the principal agreed that the child involved should not be punished for defending himself.  In the third, the principal refused to budge and hid behind the zero-tolerance guideline as justification.  That was the action she took.  I then pointed out to her that there were going to be consequences to that action, and that they weren't going to be pleasant for her because the action that she took was wrong.  That point has consistently sailed over your head.

But enough of this.  I'm tired of explaining it to you repeatedly.  Have a nice holiday season.


----------



## Steve (Dec 23, 2016)

Balrog said:


> You haven't even come close.
> 
> My involvement in all three episodes was by parental request.  In all three episodes, I educated the principal about the difference between fighting and self-defense.  In two of the episodes, the principal agreed that the child involved should not be punished for defending himself.  In the third, the principal refused to budge and hid behind the zero-tolerance guideline as justification.  That was the action she took.  I then pointed out to her that there were going to be consequences to that action, and that they weren't going to be pleasant for her because the action that she took was wrong.  That point has consistently sailed over your head.
> 
> But enough of this.  I'm tired of explaining it to you repeatedly.  Have a nice holiday season.


attackng me won't change the fact that you acted in a way that is pretty darned despicable.   The right thing to do would be to set a good examp,e for the kids whom you coach by acknowledging your actions, being accountable, apologizing to that principal and adjusting your approach in the future,

The only other alternative is that you made up your initial account.   Were you making up the story or exaggerating to play up your role as the savior?

It's hard to accept that you are a bully,   I realize that this isn't part of your self image of being the cowboy in the white hat.   But it's not that simple.   I think you're a good guy who didn't realize that your actions crossed a bright line,   But they did, and if you continue to hide your eyes, you'll probably always be a bully.   A well meaning ******* is still an *******.

And I hope you have a merry Christmas, too.


----------



## senseiblackbelt (Dec 27, 2016)

why would you get suspended if your defending yourself from something that ciukd kill you?


gpseymour said:


> I might suggest the addition of some punctuation in your post. It's really tough to read a really long run-on sentence like that.
> 
> As for defending yourself in school, that's a choice. When I was in school, I knew I'd probably be suspended if I defended myself. I did so anyway, and just accepted the consequences. Just make sure you didn't do anything to foster the fight (don't talk smack, don't push people, don't tell them they wouldn't dare, etc.), so you know you were defending yourself, and not fighting - those are two very different things.


----------

