Self Defense in Public Schools

[lvwhitebir]

I've arrested men who've boiled the skin off babies because they wouldn't stop crying.

This is a thread about self-defense at school. I believe your view would be more correct for a prison setting. We're talking about 13-year-old kids, not 33-year-old hardened killers.

I could care less if these kids had rough childhoods while they are killing innocent people, it doesn't matter to me.

I'm sorry I brought up Columbine. No one here has said they were innocent in what they did. The point is we need to understand how to prevent future acts of atrocities, which I think is usually possible. Not everyone is a born mass-murderer. Sometimes society makes them. In this case, the school environment was a huge influence on these kids; if we remove the influence that made them violent, maybe we can prevent future violence. If we don't try, we won't prevent anything.

Because I find it kind of bizarre that you can justify the murder of 13 innocent people so easily

I haven't read anything that someone said that justifies their actions, so I think your response is misdirected.

Let's bring this thread back on track.

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

Personally, I think if you have the choice between fighting and not fighting, for the same punishment, go ahead and fight. I did.

Accounting for the fact that fighting alone can get either you or him killed or seriously injured, I think that's incredibly bad advice. Defend yourself from harm, negate the attack by escaping it, but to willfully and intentionally fight back for no other reason than you're going to get a suspension anyways is silly. That's the reasoning that get's you put in jail later on in life.

WhiteBirch

 

[shesulsa]

First, I apologize for veering off topic.

Second, clearly the administration at public schools is too broadly spread to really track students who are vulnerable. Though most of them will survive without a great deal of intervention, enough will not to raise the eyebrow.

I have seen kids punch, kick, trip and choke other kids right behind the recess duty's back. I almost think awareness training is more needed for the supervising adults (at least in elementary school, anyway).

What worries me more is the rampant carriage of pocket knives in public school starting at about 5th grade. So when we think about the need for self-defense in this situation, we need to think kid vs. kid or kid vs. teacher. Not too many elementary school-aged kids are really going to know much about how to weild a knife, but most teachers nor other kids know how to clear their bodies of the weapon, either. And now, in the entitlement decade, tempers seem to flair more quickly as does the lack of respect for authority, rules, and common decency.

 

[Shogun]

Accounting for the fact that fighting alone can get either you or him killed or seriously injured, I think that's incredibly bad advice. Defend yourself from harm, negate the attack by escaping it, but to willfully and intentionally fight back for no other reason than you're going to get a suspension anyways is silly. That's the reasoning that get's you put in jail later on in life.

WhiteBirch

Yes, for no other reaon than your going to get expelled anyways is bad advice. Let me tell you what I meant. I say "I did" because two years ago I had a Forestry and Natural resuources class in high school. I didnt know before joining, but the reason the other kids joined this class is so they could run off into the woods, and try Meth, Marijuana, shrooms, and other drugs. we were supposed to be surveying land and making trails, but I was attacked by a kid with a Machete. If I would have said "naw, I'll get suspended if I defend my self" I wouldnt be telling you this right now. My friend was beaten and pissed on, by the way. The kids were expelled, but I think if you are in danger, fighting should cross you mind. sometmes running isnt possible. (ever try running in a clear-cut?)

My attitude is very law-friendly. I am a Sheriff Explorer, and I have been told my thoughts on fighting are such by LEO from different fields.


Kyle

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is a thread about self-defense at school. I believe your view would be more correct for a prison setting. We're talking about 13-year-old kids, not 33-year-old hardened killers.



I'm sorry I brought up Columbine. No one here has said they were innocent in what they did. The point is we need to understand how to prevent future acts of atrocities, which I think is usually possible. Not everyone is a born mass-murderer. Sometimes society makes them. In this case, the school environment was a huge influence on these kids; if we remove the influence that made them violent, maybe we can prevent future violence. If we don't try, we won't prevent anything.



I haven't read anything that someone said that justifies their actions, so I think your response is misdirected.

WhiteBirch

Actually, no, the topic changed when we started talking about Columbine, and they were not 13 years old. They were, for all intense and purposes, adults. Further, i've read about a couple dozen posts that tried to justify the attacks. I think we've all changed the topic at this point. You and I weren't discussing 13 year old kids defending themselves, we're discussing Harris and Klebold, a topic I did not bring up. If you want to change the topic back, that's fine, but don't pretend i'm the only one off topic. I wasn't discussing 13 year old kids fighting amongst each other, I was discussing the premediated murder of innocent people.

As for people not being born a mass murderer, fine. I suggest you try and prevent them from becoming one by all means available. I'll applaud that effort, and i'll congratulate you if you are successful. Because at the point at which they do become one, they deserve nothing but societies wrath and eternal hatred, and they no longer deserve our mercy. So try to prevent them from turning in that direction, because once they do they get to deal with people like me, and I have no sympathy for them once they've crossed that line. That's all i've really got to say about this topic as it seems to have run it's course.

 

[sgtmac_46]

They took their anger out on the Instution that allowed it to happen.

The School. The Other Students.

To put it more plainly... EVERYONE THAT WASNT ON THEIR SIDE.

Lemme use your argument for a moment...

If they were just psychopaths, they would have killed anyone they came across...

You still haven't pointed to one single victim that was a friend to these killers. Without that, you've already lost this argument.

This type of argument is what I meant by an attempt to justify. I could be wrong, but it seems as if a couple of people are trying to validate Harris and Klebold, and it's that that makes me angry, because I know there are families and friends of 13 people who will never see their loved ones again, all because Klebold and Harris thought they had the right to kill them. So, when someone seems to be suggesting that Harris and Klebold DID have the right to kill those people, simply because, as the author above said, those people weren't a "friend to these killers", it makes me more than a little angry. So not knowing someone or being their friend is justification for murder? If you've mistated your point and that's not what you're saying, then fine. But if this is really your point of view, there's a problem. These two posts will be my last word on this matter as this debate has about run as far as it's likely to go in this forum. So, to each their own.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes, for no other reaon than your going to get expelled anyways is bad advice. Let me tell you what I meant. I say "I did" because two years ago I had a Forestry and Natural resuources class in high school. I didnt know before joining, but the reason the other kids joined this class is so they could run off into the woods, and try Meth, Marijuana, shrooms, and other drugs. we were supposed to be surveying land and making trails, but I was attacked by a kid with a Machete. If I would have said "naw, I'll get suspended if I defend my self" I wouldnt be telling you this right now. My friend was beaten and pissed on, by the way. The kids were expelled, but I think if you are in danger, fighting should cross you mind. sometmes running isnt possible. (ever try running in a clear-cut?)

My attitude is very law-friendly. I am a Sheriff Explorer, and I have been told my thoughts on fighting are such by LEO from different fields.


Kyle

I personally have no problem with the self-defense situation you described above. I'd have arrested the machette wielder and charged him with unlawful use of a weapon and let the school do what it wants seperately. It probably wasn't these kids first rodeo anyway, so to speak. Here's what you have to remember when defending yourself. You have to make that choice on your own, and not everyone will agree with every decision you make.

But you know what choice you had, live with it and move on. If I make the right choice, even if I have to answer to people who are clueless about the dynamics of the choice, I can live with it, even if those people place consequences on me for it. Being right and being accepted are two different things.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Actually, no, the topic changed when we started talking about Columbine, and they were not 13 years old. They were, for all intense and purposes, adults.

I didn't mean to imply Harris and Klebold were 13. My statement was that most school-age kids are 13-year-olds and not hardened killers.

but don't pretend i'm the only one off topic.

I did not mean to imply you were the one that took us off-topic. I only suggest that there were off-topic responses and we needed to pull it back. This is a very good discussion. I think school-age kids have an incorrect mindset when it comes to what's self defense and what isn't.

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

I could be wrong, but it seems as if a couple of people are trying to validate Harris and Klebold, ..., all because Klebold and Harris thought they had the right to kill them. So, when someone seems to be suggesting that Harris and Klebold DID have the right to kill those people, simply because, as the author above said, those people weren't a "friend to these killers", it makes me more than a little angry.

I believe you misinterpreted the authors intent. IMO it's not that they weren't guilty, it's that there were a lot of steps that could have been taken earlier that could have prevented the killings. That is to say, there's a lot of "guilt" to go around.

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

but I was attacked by a kid with a Machete. If I would have said "naw, I'll get suspended if I defend my self" I wouldnt be telling you this right now.

I agree with the situation you described. But that's far different than your previous post implied. I believe you should defend yourself. I have a clear distinction between the definition of "fighting" and "self-defense", however. It all boils down to the intent of your fighting back.

If you fight back against an imminent, credible threat to your safety, from which you can't escape, and you stop at the earliest opportunity to escape, then I believe it's self defense.

All other situations are fights. Which means:
1) You could have fled before the threat arrived (e.g., you "took it outside")
2) The threat isn't credible (e.g., a 3-year-old threatened you)
3) You chase him after he flees or beat him after he's down and unconcious.

Legally, you are culpable for fights, but legally justified for self-defense.

WhiteBirch

 

[loki09789]

I agree with the situation you described. But that's far different than your previous post implied. I believe you should defend yourself. I have a clear distinction between the definition of "fighting" and "self-defense", however. It all boils down to the intent of your fighting back.

If you fight back against an imminent, credible threat to your safety, from which you can't escape, and you stop at the earliest opportunity to escape, then I believe it's self defense.

All other situations are fights. Which means:
1) You could have fled before the threat arrived (e.g., you "took it outside")
2) The threat isn't credible (e.g., a 3-year-old threatened you)
3) You chase him after he flees or beat him after he's down and unconcious.

Legally, you are culpable for fights, but legally justified for self-defense.

WhiteBirch

Well said. I don't think there is a single school that would tell a student to take a beating to avoid suspension. I DO think that schools are leaving the message that violence is not going to be tolerated and, even in the case of self defense, the 'victim' is partially responsible because of a failure to use other options to resolve/report/flee/avoid the majority of situations.

It comes down to choice, sort of a school version of 'tried by 12 not carried by 6.' Personally, I would trade a few days of suspension because I laid a kid out in a fight where I had to defend myself....

of course as a hot blooded, testosterone laden youth I might be too short sighted to see what I could learn for future situations or what I might have done better in this one and focus on "Hey I was the victim here!" Comes with the age. THere are even medical reports about the 'concrete' and 'ego centric' personallity of teens. This is not a negative judgement. It is just a statement of how teens are developmentally as they grow into adulthood. I am sure there are many 30+ males that remember how they 'use to be' and aren't that way anymore.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I believe you misinterpreted the authors intent. IMO it's not that they weren't guilty, it's that there were a lot of steps that could have been taken earlier that could have prevented the killings. That is to say, there's a lot of "guilt" to go around.

WhiteBirch

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I come at this whole conversation from a different point of view. If we are referring to bullying at school being a problem, than yes, i'll agree that it should not be tolerated. Further, if steps can be put in place that prevent school violence, I endorse those as well. I just disagree that much could have been done short of seperating them from other children in the Harris and Klebold case and other similar school shootings. But that's a topic for a much different forum.

I personally plan on sending my daughter to a private school. I heard it once said that public school is the only place and time of your life when you will be exposed directly and intimately to people from all strata of society. From the poorest to the wealthiest, future doctors, lawyers, factory workers, murderers, rapists, etc, all under one roof. Further, if we want to discuss one of the worst places kids are congragated, and where the worst violence and bullying takes place, we have to discuss school buses. School buses have got to be one of the most traumatic places for young children to have to endure. Imagine you're a 6 year old child and this occurs in front of you OR TOO YOU. http://www.wftv.com/education/2620828/detail.html. That's why I feel that private schooling is a much better alternative as it tends to weed out a great deal of the kind of individuals that perpetrate this kind of violence. Further, it's easier to get permanently removed from private school.

 

[loki09789]

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I come at this whole conversation from a different point of view. If we are referring to bullying at school being a problem, than yes, i'll agree that it should not be tolerated. Further, if steps can be put in place that prevent school violence, I endorse those as well. I just disagree that much could have been done short of seperating them from other children in the Harris and Klebold case and other similar school shootings. But that's a topic for a much different forum.

I personally plan on sending my daughter to a private school. I heard it once said that public school is the only place and time of your life when you will be exposed directly and intimately to people from all strata of society. From the poorest to the wealthiest, future doctors, lawyers, factory workers, murderers, rapists, etc, all under one roof. Further, if we want to discuss one of the worst places kids are congragated, and where the worst violence and bullying takes place, we have to discuss school buses. School buses have got to be one of the most traumatic places for young children to have to endure. Imagine you're a 6 year old child and this occurs in front of you OR TOO YOU. http://www.wftv.com/education/2620828/detail.html. That's why I feel that private schooling is a much better alternative as it tends to weed out a great deal of the kind of individuals that perpetrate this kind of violence. Further, it's easier to get permanently removed from private school.

I think that a generalization about public schools like this is stretching reality. The tax base, economic status and general feel of a community will dictate how much scum factor your child will be exposed to in public school. Exposure/socialization is part of the school experience and I have spent some time with students that went to private schools and public schools in college. Admittedly, one of the hardest working classmates I knew was a private school grad (but was a scholarship case and not the norm at her private school either). BUT, she was also the WORST savvy girl I have met. No street sense, no solid 'people skills' outside of school. She wasn't a ditz, just ignorant/naive.

Just recently, in a school district that has lured families away from the local private schools, there was a Halloween Arson of a housing development under construction....the minors were three of the local golden boys who had fathers/mothers as lawyer/doctor type professionals and were attending a local private school....

the money just changes the costume and at times makes it more convenient for the families to 'cover up' or sweep the issue under the table....poorer families that have kids in trouble can't afford to do that. In that same community, a middle/middle class 50 something man that lived in a million dollar home shot and killed his wife...

Sometimes 'priviledge' translates to 'excused from the rules' or a lack of 'responsibility' in the mind of children/teenager.

I think there are only two true advantages of a private school:
1. Smaller classes sizes mean more time with each student and more class control.

2. The power to truly 'kick a student out' that the public schools are not allowed to do as easily. Private schools can 'weed out' the ones that don't know how to play the game during the day....but that doesn't mean that these kids are 'better kids' than public school kids. It just means they know when to be Eddie Haskel's when the grown ups are watching....but some of these 'good kids' are drug dealers, date rapers, thugs/bullies....when they are hanging out away from adults..

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think that a generalization about public schools like this is stretching reality. The tax base, economic status and general feel of a community will dictate how much scum factor your child will be exposed to in public school. Exposure/socialization is part of the school experience and I have spent some time with students that went to private schools and public schools in college. Admittedly, one of the hardest working classmates I knew was a private school grad (but was a scholarship case and not the norm at her private school either). BUT, she was also the WORST savvy girl I have met. No street sense, no solid 'people skills' outside of school. She wasn't a ditz, just ignorant/naive.

Just recently, in a school district that has lured families away from the local private schools, there was a Halloween Arson of a housing development under construction....the minors were three of the local golden boys who had fathers/mothers as lawyer/doctor type professionals and were attending a local private school....

the money just changes the costume and at times makes it more convenient for the families to 'cover up' or sweep the issue under the table....poorer families that have kids in trouble can't afford to do that. In that same community, a middle/middle class 50 something man that lived in a million dollar home shot and killed his wife...

Sometimes 'priviledge' translates to 'excused from the rules' or a lack of 'responsibility' in the mind of children/teenager.

Apples and oranges. Parents who excuse their childrens behavior are another topic, and one that i've already covered. At no point did I say "scum", I did point out that schools are the biggest melting pot we have in society, and that for the rest of our lives after leaving public school, we tend to congregate with people who share our interests and lifestyles. That is why there seems to be a lack of tolerance in schools, because we put every type of person together in one small community.

I think you misunderstood my comments as far as the different strata of society and assumed I meant poor people were the only ones who commit crime. As a police officer, i'm fully aware of the spectrum of criminal behavior, and wealthy teenage boys are often the worst offenders, mostly because they know mommy and daddy can afford good attorneys (or are good attorneys), so they believe they are above the law and can do whatever they want (i.e. pick any Kennedy).

My point about private schools is that problem children are booted out rather easily compared to public schools who are forced to take everyone until problems arise serious enough to warrant expulsion.

 

[shesulsa]

Exposure/socialization is part of the school experience and I have spent some time with students that went to private schools and public schools in college. Admittedly, one of the hardest working classmates I knew was a private school grad (but was a scholarship case and not the norm at her private school either). BUT, she was also the WORST savvy girl I have met. No street sense, no solid 'people skills' outside of school. She wasn't a ditz, just ignorant/naive.

Being someone who came from private elementary and middle school, I can tell you that truer words have yet to be spoken. There is little need to defend oneself at the kind of schools I was brought up in - Private, protestant academies where devotion is a school subject you get a grade in, attendance at Chapel, Sunday school and Church are counted as part of your grade as well. Conflict is dealt with quickly and seriously, long before it gets out of hand.

FEAR rules the roost in private schools. Fear of expulsion, fear of the Board of Education (a paddle with holes drilled into it and a picture drawn on it of a man spanking a boy hard), fear of a bad grade, fear of being ostracized.

When I transitioned to public high school it was the hardest thing I ever did and I never really fit in.

I saw two knives on different kids my first day of 9th grade. I learned what a gang was from first-hand experience. Book learning and world learning are entirely different. I had a new fear when I went there - fear for my life.

My kids are WAY more savvy than I was at their ages and good for them! What they are truly lacking from public education is they are not as advanced as private schools would have them be. And they are exposed to far more things than I was at their age, such as sex, drugs and violence. But they work it out.

 

[loki09789]

Apples and oranges. Parents who excuse their childrens behavior are another topic, and one that i've already covered. At no point did I say "scum", I did point out that schools are the biggest melting pot we have in society, and that for the rest of our lives after leaving public school, we tend to congregate with people who share our interests and lifestyles. That is why there seems to be a lack of tolerance in schools, because we put every type of person together in one small community.

I think you misunderstood my comments as far as the different strata of society and assumed I meant poor people were the only ones who commit crime. As a police officer, i'm fully aware of the spectrum of criminal behavior, and wealthy teenage boys are often the worst offenders, mostly because they know mommy and daddy can afford good attorneys (or are good attorneys), so they believe they are above the law and can do whatever they want (i.e. pick any Kennedy).

My point about private schools is that problem children are booted out rather easily compared to public schools who are forced to take everyone until problems arise serious enough to warrant expulsion.

Never said you said 'scum' it was my term for 'trouble makers' (basically because it was shorter than spelling out 'trouble makers'). I did not assume that YOU meant that only poor people committed crimes. As a former LEO/MP type myself between training, shop talk and direct experience, I was simply making the point that the 'priviledge mentallity' of a private school format can create problems that are the same in nature as public school but may look different in scenario. I remember the havoc that the 'Preps' or the 'Beautiful People' in school caused because they thought they could either get away with more or that they deserved more and how that behavior was learned by family upbringing ("Suzy didn't get the lead in the musical, I'll sue). So, there is an Apples and Apples link between a priviledge minded student and the excusing parent IMO.

the two advantages of Private school from my previous post are right in line with your idea about discipline and private schools. That toesn't mean that a child in private school is not going to face more subtle but still very damaging forms of emotional/physical attacks. Under tighter restrictions kids can get very sneaky and tricky....If they would only use their power for good

Another one I was thinking about is the possibility of more parental invovlement/supervision when Mom and Dad are watching the money leave the checking account and little Jonny/Janie is not providing a behavioral or academic return on that investment. "We are paying good money for you to ...." sort of stuff.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Another one I was thinking about is the possibility of more parental invovlement/supervision when Mom and Dad are watching the money leave the checking account and little Jonny/Janie is not providing a behavioral or academic return on that investment. "We are paying good money for you to ...." sort of stuff.

My point exactly.

 

[Cryozombie]

This type of argument is what I meant by an attempt to justify. I could be wrong, but it seems as if a couple of people are trying to validate Harris and Klebold, and it's that that makes me angry, because I know there are families and friends of 13 people who will never see their loved ones again, all because Klebold and Harris thought they had the right to kill them. So, when someone seems to be suggesting that Harris and Klebold DID have the right to kill those people, simply because, as the author above said, those people weren't a "friend to these killers", it makes me more than a little angry. So not knowing someone or being their friend is justification for murder? If you've mistated your point and that's not what you're saying, then fine. But if this is really your point of view, there's a problem. These two posts will be my last word on this matter as this debate has about run as far as it's likely to go in this forum. So, to each their own.

You make me giggle.

 

[47MartialMan]

But has violence really changed in the school system, or has it surface whereas teacher, principals, parent, and the law now want to pint at each other instead of combing the issue and take in on as a group

 

[lvwhitebir]

From the statistics I've seen recently, school violence has actually decreased. I don't think the type of violence has really changed (usually just fist fights or whatever).

I don't see teachers, parents, and law enforcement really blaming the other. I think they're all just not addressing the issues and are putting it off as "boys being boys" or whatever. It's not until a major school event happens that people even look at the issue. And then the reaction is generally to clamp down on the violence at the school by shoving the kids out the door instead of dealing with them (solve the problem by moving it off school grounds).

The problem is extremely complex with no easy answers, but it has to be looked at.

WhiteBirch