self defense in public schools

[donald1]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

@gpseymour I'm disappointed in you, man.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@gpseymour I'm disappointed in you, man.

For?

 

[Steve]

For?

For encouraging balrog in his lunacy.

 

[Balrog]

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]

For encouraging balrog in his lunacy.

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

 

[Steve]

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

 

[Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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.