# Zero Tolerance for Self-Defense



## wushu2004 (Mar 25, 2008)

I read an article in a magazine about this.  I had never really thought about it before so now I'm wondering how widespread this stupid policy is across the country.  From what I can tell of my own school, they take it on a case by case basis.  Any thoughts?


BTW sorry if this has already been discussed...


----------



## tellner (Mar 25, 2008)

It's widespread and growing. "Zero tolerance" came in with the War on Unsubsidized and Untaxed Drugs. It spread quickly. Now we have Zero Tolerance for gangs, tobacco, and "violence" among other things. In foreign policy it has led to the "One Percent Doctrine" which states that if there's a one percent chance of anything bad happening it must be treated as a certainty.

This is, of course, complete insanity. For tiny incremental reductions in a problem you take on infinite costs in money and unintended consequences. 

When I was a child fighting was forbidden in schools. But officials were allowed to exercise judgment and discretion. They could figure out who had done what to whom and act accordingly. Now it's not a question of what happened or why it happened or who was the perpetrator. It's all about punishing the _concept _of violence. In the case of bullies it turns to complete slock. A dozen bullies want to harm one victim. One of them beats him up. He fights back. They have both been VIOLENT. They both get suspended. The victim comes back to school. Another one does the same thing. Now he's a habitual offender. The rules have been followed. Violence has been punishment.

Hip-****ing-hooray


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 25, 2008)

It isn't just zero tolerance in public schools that is running rampant.  Many work places have a zero tolerance policy on "violence".  Doesn't specify attack or defense... Just violence, and will be punished by immediate termination.  My company has just such a policy and you have to sign their little form each year saying that you understand that you'll be fired if you engage in any sort of violence on company property.  As I'm a truck driver this extends to anywhere I drive while in the truck.  If I'm attacked while at a truckstop fueling up in the middle of the night then, poof, I'm gone for not letting someone kill me.  I've always signed the policy form but have always annotated somewhere on the form that I reserve the right to defend myself.  The first time I did it it got me an *** chewing.  Since then it's just considered part of my "quirky" disposition.


----------



## Drac (Mar 25, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> It isn't just zero tolerance in public schools that is running rampant. Many work places have a zero tolerance policy on "violence". Doesn't specify attack or defense..


 
One of the bus driver here was attacked awhile ago from behind..He was a former boxer who never let his skills lapse...When he felt the attack he reacted quicky and knocked this POS out...He was terrified of losing his job..I got about 20 witnesses statements and I wrote a great report so when the Review Board investigated the incident they ruled Self Defense..


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2008)

Back in my day in High School I got 2 days of detention because some guy walked over to me and tried to hit me in the face. I moved and put him on the floor. The principal saw the whole thing but because he was on the floor and I was standing I got one day of detention and he got none. I got the second day because I said ok how about if I sit on the floor will he get detention then. I got 2 days he got none and he attacked me.

 But that was back in the stone age things are different now I guess.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 25, 2008)

Drac said:


> One of the bus driver here was attacked awhile ago from behind..He was a former boxer who never let his skills lapse...When he felt the attacck he reacted quicky and knocked this POS out...He was terrified of losing his job..I got abot 20 witnesses statements and I wrote a great repot so when the Review Board investigated the incident they ruled Self Defense..


 
The Review Board clearly acted the way we would want them to act - investigate the incident and be fair in the ruling.  But all too often that doesn't happen.  Judgement has been thrown out in favour of a mix and match chart in which violent action = suspension/expulsion/termination.  There is no recourse, there is no mitigation.

I think that Tellner nailed the root of the problem with Zero Tolerance programs.  They are aimed at concepts rather than specific acts.  Look at those things we have a zreo tolerance attitude towards - drugs, gangs, terrorism.  They are massive aglomerations of myriad things.  How do you police that?  You can't, so they don't even try.  Draco would love the way things are going these days.


----------



## grydth (Mar 25, 2008)

I have always thought that Zero Tolerance = Zero Justice.

I have always thought Zero Tolerance was primarily intended so cowardly administrators would have Zero Accountability...... and they have to do Zero Deliberating, Zero Thinking, Zero Fairness.

This is especially insidious in this age of record keeping and Zero Privacy.... what better way to turn a good kid into a criminal by unfairly treating him as one after a sham proceeding.... and then put a cyber scarlet letter on him.

Well, with my profession, you can run but you can't hide. I have told my kids to fight back as needed if attacked. Treat my daughters this way and I will show you ZERO MERCY in the court room and in the media. To me, this is nothing less than condoning violence against innocent young women. 

I have my own policy when it comes to those who would hurt my girls. ZERO PRISONERS.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2008)

Any zero tolerance policy is a zero-thinking policy.  And they end up producing stupid responses very quickly.

It is possible to send the message that you will not tolerate certain behavior without removing thought from the process.  It just means you actually (shudder) have to TRUST the people who work for you.  School boards have to trust principals, bosses have to trust employees, and so on.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 25, 2008)

I wish each case of fighting in schools or elsewhere would be viewed on individual basis but we all know that is not the case. 
Schools, businesses, etc. are to afraid of being sued by someone because they failed to act when violence happens, rather than taking the time to review what happened and why it happened


----------



## Ray (Mar 25, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Any zero tolerance policy is a zero-thinking policy.  And they end up producing stupid responses very quickly.
> 
> It is possible to send the message that you will not tolerate certain behavior without removing thought from the process.


"will not tolerate" in other words "will have no tolerance" or "zero tolerance."  My problem with the whole thing is the phrase "zero tolerance."  Obviously it should be 2.25" +/- .020.

It's not that certain actions won't be tolerated, it is the application of punishment without directing it to achieve the desired results; and that's the problem with zero tolerance.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2008)

Ray said:


> My problem with the whole thing is the phrase "zero tolerance."  Obviously it should be 2.25" +/- .020.



:roflmao:   :lfao:  :lol: :lol2: :lol: :lfao: 
:roflmao:


----------



## wushu2004 (Mar 25, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> I wish each case of fighting in schools or elsewhere would be viewed on individual basis but we all know that is not the case.
> Schools, businesses, etc. are to afraid of being sued by someone because they failed to act when violence happens, rather than taking the time to review what happened and why it happened



Yea but then they get sued by the victim anyway because the zero tolerance rule infringes on a person's right to defend themself, or something like that...


----------



## arnisador (Mar 25, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Back in my day in High School I got 2 days of detention because some guy walked over to me and tried to hit me in the face.



They tried to suspend me for something like that once...once. After my mother verbally eviscerated the principal for trying to suspend me for defending myself he backed down.

But this was 1978 or so.


----------



## morph4me (Mar 26, 2008)

When my kids were in school they had a zero tolerance policy, I taught my kids that they had a right defend themselves and they were to do so anytime it was necessary and I would deal with the administration and they wouldn't get in trouble at home.


----------



## MJS (Mar 26, 2008)

Seems to me that its pretty much the norm nowadays.  I would say its in place to discourage workplace violence.  Now, this is not a bad thing, as people shouldn't be fighting at work or school.  On the other hand, I don't feel that one should be a punching bag either.  

I had an altercation with a co-worker at my last job.  Apparently something I said, disagreed with him, pissed him off, and he proceeded to come after me.  As I was walking away from him, he pushed me from behind.  Of course I turned around, expecting something else to happen.  It didn't.  He actually walked away, got in his car and left...and I proceeded to walk upstairs to the HR dept., told them what happened and he was fired.  

Its a fine line.  Had I turned around and hit him, I most likely would've been looking for a new job as well.  But, should I have started to run, having him chase me all over the dept.?  Of course not.  As I always say, nothing wrong with trying to verbally defuse something, but it may not always work.  So, if something more happened aside from the push, I'm not going to just stand there.  So that leaves 2 options...defend yourself and risk losing your job or do nothing and risk time in the ER.  Alot just may come down to what you do and how you do it.  Frankly I'd rather risk the job than my well being. 

Mike


----------



## DngrRuss (Apr 17, 2008)

I agree with most of the posts here re. the 0-Tolerance issues.  I do, however, take a little different tactic as to how to deal with them.

As an example- I have had more than one student over the years approach me with a bully problem in school.  They do not want to get into trouble at school and weren't sure what to do.  So I start talking statistics.

Most assaults are committed by someone known to the victim.  In the case of a bully- the attack is not just about the violence, it is usually about humiliation as well.  A bully will "warn" his intended victim more often than not.  The point is, that the attack is not, usually, a "surprise".  The victim usually knows that it is coming.

That being the case, I encourage them to immediately go to 1- their parents, and 2- teachers and administrators with this information.  If the parent is not sure what to do or unwilling to do anything ( I can't believe when that happens), the next step for either parent or student is to go to administrators and demand that the meeting be put on the record, and bring their own recording devices and, if needed, a legal representative.  Once the meeting begins- the student or parent outlines what the problem is and who the problem is with- then asks the simple question, "my safety is in jeopardy, what are you, the responsible adult, going to do about this."  If or when the administrator refuses to do anything, the student and/or his parent responds by saying that the administration has been warned of this issue, the threat still exists, and if the student fears for his safety or is actually assaulted, he will defend himself appropriately and there will be no reprisals against him.  If the administrator says otherwise or falls back on the 0-tolerance policy, then all records of said meeting will be handed over to local media, the school board, and any city/county/state agencies that govern both the school and child safety.

Some of my students have done just this with great success.  If the Administrators are going to be lazy or cowardly, why not manipulate them for ourselves?


----------



## wushu2004 (Apr 17, 2008)

Wow I like that.  This info will come in handy.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 17, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> *Any zero tolerance policy is a zero-thinking policy. And they end up producing stupid responses very quickly*.
> 
> It is possible to send the message that you will not tolerate certain behavior without removing thought from the process. It just means you actually (shudder) have to TRUST the people who work for you. School boards have to trust principals, bosses have to trust employees, and so on.


well said.

and to look at it from the perspective of the people actually involved...
All the "violence is never the answer" stuff is a load of horse-****.  Those that are self-reliant enough to protect themselves are penalized.  Those that are good little sheep and allow themselves to be victimized not only have to deal with the immediate effects, but--I'd imagine--some long-term psychological issues related to constantly allowing yourself to be treated as a victim.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 17, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> All the "violence is never the answer" stuff is a load of horse-****.



From Trancers 4


> Prospero: Killing isn't always the answer.
> Jack Deth: No, but it's usually a pretty good guess.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 17, 2008)

arnisador said:


> They tried to suspend me for something like that once...once. After my mother verbally eviscerated the principal for trying to suspend me for defending myself he backed down.
> 
> But this was 1978 or so.


Well, back it up 10 years further, Arni, and your arrive at my day. In those days, self-defense was self-defense. And if you just had a beef with another *fighter*, you took it off campus at lunch or after school, and the last man standing was probably the winner (although I saw one guy with both eyes streaming so much blood he couldn't see, so it's a toss up who won that one). BTW, we _never _had a single case of a friend stepping in till it was over, and that was only to help someone make it to his car or back to campus.

Makes you kind of miss the old days.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 18, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Well, back it up 10 years further, Arni, and your arrive at my day. In those days, self-defense was self-defense. And if you just had a beef with another *fighter*, you took it off campus at lunch or after school, and the last man standing was probably the winner (although I saw one guy with both eyes streaming so much blood he couldn't see, so it's a toss up who won that one). BTW, we _never _had a single case of a friend stepping in till it was over, and that was only to help someone make it to his car or back to campus.
> 
> *Makes you kind of miss the old days*.


As long as we're doing the "back in my day" thing I'll chime in.:uhyeah:  When I was in high school you could still carry a knife in your pocket or on your hip... to class.  You could still carry your hunting rifle to school in your gun rack on your pick-up.  We had fights but no-one ever drew a weapon.  It was just a point of honor, I guess, to be able to take care of business with your bare hands.  Back then the teachers and principals did their investigations, figured out what happened and took it from there.  Maybe knowing that someone actually gave enough of a damn to figure out who did what was something of a deterent to pushing things too far.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 18, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> As long as we're doing the "back in my day" thing I'll chime in.:uhyeah:  When I was in high school you could still carry a knife in your pocket or on your hip... to class.  You could still carry your hunting rifle to school in your gun rack on your pick-up.  We had fights but no-one ever drew a weapon.  It was just a point of honor, I guess, to be able to take care of business with your bare hands.  Back then the teachers and principals did their investigations, figured out what happened and took it from there.  *Maybe knowing that someone actually gave enough of a damn to figure out who did what was something of a deterent to pushing things too far*.


Yep, I think you're right.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 18, 2008)

I was ganged up on by two cheerleaders in 1980.  Apparently it was fine that they got to call me all sorts of names, bully me endlessly right up to the punch in the face ... and when they did so, I was apparently supposed to wait until the attack was over and then report them to an adult.

Bull ****.

I punched the one who hit me first. Can you say glass contact lenses?  Her friend bloodied my nose and ran too fast for a geeky girl holding her nose.

They tried to suspend all three of us for a week.  My parents fought hard for me and I listened until the principle turned to me (I'd been quiet the whole time) and commented on my (then) meekness and his surprise at my reaction to the attack.  I promptly told him I was kind but I was not stupid and would not fail to at least try to defend myself when attacked regardless of anyone's ridiculous idea that one must allow oneself to be victimized. 

My parents threatened to sue the board of education if they did not place on my record that I acted in self-defense. They noted it, I got one day off. The others got a week.  Still got to be cheerleaders tho. Politics are great, ain't they? :shrug:



DngrRuss said:


> That being the case, I encourage them to immediately go to 1- their parents, and 2- teachers and administrators with this information.  If the parent is not sure what to do or unwilling to do anything ( I can't believe when that happens), the next step for either parent or student is to go to administrators and demand that the meeting be put on the record, and *bring their own recording devices* and, if needed, a legal representative.  Once the meeting begins- the student or parent outlines what the problem is and who the problem is with- then asks the simple question, "my safety is in jeopardy, what are you, the responsible adult, going to do about this."  If or when the administrator refuses to do anything, the student and/or his parent responds by saying that the administration has been warned of this issue, the threat still exists, and if the student fears for his safety or is actually assaulted, he will defend himself appropriately and there will be no reprisals against him.  If the administrator says otherwise or falls back on the 0-tolerance policy, then all records of said meeting will be handed over to local media, the school board, and any city/county/state agencies that govern both the school and child safety.


(emphasis mine)

This practice has been denied in many school districts because of the legal implications.  Special education parents used to tape meetings to help their case in getting services for their children and holding schools and districts accountable for their promises.  Much money has been lost because of that practice, so I would be careful in advising people to do anything illegal - like recording people without their permission in states where that is illegal ... and I think your state is one of those, fyi. :asian:


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 18, 2008)

I failed to interject my opinion on zero-tolerance for self-defense but I think it's pretty clear I think it's ridiculous.  The ideal of pacifism is wonderful and romantic and perhaps we can all get there someday ... but not without some kind of divine - NOT governmental - intervention.

Violence is not looked upon as okay as a general rule - just look at the reactions to police violence, the tactics used by defense lawyers for rapists, and the long list of women currently in prison for brutally defending themselves from their abusers.  

Some people need to wake the hell up.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 18, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> I was ganged up on by two cheerleaders in 1980. Apparently it was fine that they got to call me all sorts of names, bully me endlessly right up to the punch in the face ... and when they did so, I was apparently supposed to wait until the attack was over and then report them to an adult.
> 
> Bull ****.
> 
> ...


 
OK I'll chime in.

I had 2 kids walk up to me in high school one I knew and did not much like and apparently a much larger friend of his. The larger friend took a really bad swing at me and missed I dropped the guy I knew with a strike to his throat (these were my TKD Days :EG the really big guy saw him fall and ran away and the principal watched the whole thing. He came running over helped the kid up made sure he was ok, even asked him if he needed an ambulance. He gave me 3 days detention let that kid go and never asked anything about the really big guy that swung first and ran away.

But then I was also ban form the School Library of that High School for the "rest of my life" (direct quote form the Librarian) in that school too, High School Justice I guess ...whatever it matters not these days anyways


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 18, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> This practice has been denied in many school districts because of the legal implications.  Special education parents used to tape meetings to help their case in getting services for their children and holding schools and districts accountable for their promises.  Much money has been lost because of that practice, so I would be careful in advising people to do anything illegal - like recording people without their permission in states where that is illegal ... and I think your state is one of those, fyi. :asian:



If you're going to consider recording, find out what the laws are in your state.  For example, Virginia is a one-party consent state.  So long as one party consents to the recording, it's NOT illegal.  The other party doesn't even have to know about it!  But, Maryland is a two-party consent state; both people must (generally) know of and agree to recording.  And it gets more complicated...

If you're getting into a situation, like sparring with the school board over your kid's education, get yourself a lawyer with expertise in the appropriate area.  You can be sure that the school will have one...  And it's amazing how different answers become when you have your own attorney sitting there, or requesting a recording of the meeting.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 18, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> The ideal of pacifism is wonderful and romantic and perhaps we can all get there someday ... but not without some kind of divine - NOT governmental - intervention.



Again, the zero-tolerance policies have nothing to do with pacifism, anti-violence, safety or anything else to do with the children themselves.  Their actions have shown that school administrations are quite comfortable with violence.  Zero-tolerance policies are designed to protect the school from liability and lawsuits, and nothing more.


----------



## wushu2004 (Apr 20, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Again, the zero-tolerance policies have nothing to do with pacifism, anti-violence, safety or anything else to do with the children themselves.  Their actions have shown that school administrations are quite comfortable with violence.  Zero-tolerance policies are designed to protect the school from liability and lawsuits, and nothing more.




Yea but then a parent would most likely go and sue the school board and all parties involved...so what would be the point?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 21, 2008)

wushu2004 said:


> Yea but then a parent would most likely go and sue the school board and all parties involved...so what would be the point?



I don't really understand your objection.  If the school has done their CYA, I don't see how the school board would then be liable.  Their actions are designed to avoid liability, after all.


----------



## tellner (Apr 21, 2008)

If you're in a two party state you can be upfront. Put the tape recorder right in the middle of the desk with the little red light pointing at the school officials. "This conversation is being recorded. I don't have any trouble with other people knowing what I say here. If you're honest you won't either."


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 21, 2008)

Heh. Have any of you *tried* this? See, I have. The meetings were promptly cancelled. The Parkrose School District and the Evergreen School District have a strict policy about recording devices at all meetings between staff and parents.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 21, 2008)

if anyone's interested, this thread on WarriorTalk relates an incident involving a daughter of one of the members.  She defended herself, the father stood up to the principal...she stayed in school with no penalties.

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=32405&highlight=daughter
(you may have to register to read the thread)


----------



## tellner (Apr 21, 2008)

Shesulsa - my parents actually did this successfully when I was in trouble for exactly that. I don't know if it was the particular school officials, the way they did it or something else. I was fairly young at the time.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 21, 2008)

tellner said:


> Shesulsa - my parents actually did this successfully when I was in trouble for exactly that. I don't know if it was the particular school officials, the way they did it or something else. I was fairly young at the time.


Yes, my folks recorded our meeting on my fight (other thread) but that was, as you say, a long time ago.  This practice was halted not long after I arrived in the PNW (1995).


----------



## thardey (Apr 21, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Yes, my folks recorded our meeting on my fight (other thread) but that was, as you say, a long time ago.  This practice was halted not long after I arrived in the PNW (1995).



Then what options do they give you? Can you draft an agreement between you and the board and both sign it? How do they record a CYA? Can you get a copy of their records?

(This question is aimed at everybody, BTW.)


----------

