Students Suspended For Wearing Crucifix

[grydth]

Both the form and substance of Post 18 by Punisher need to be addressed.

The boxed quote there is from Empty Hands, though curiously the box does not show that. The quoted language further down is from me, though that is not specified either. Nor in the "you" form of address is it clear that the quotes are from 2 different members. I do not appreciate situations where I am lumped in with someone else or where language used by others appears to be attributed to me. If that's the way this thread will run, I will be off to better environs pdq, with a message to the mods as I go.

I respect what punisher is doing for a living, and sincerely wish that person both safety and success. But any inference that John Q. Public has no business posting here or can have no useful input is just wrong. One need not be a school safety officer to have experience with criminals. I was putting gang members in jail when many here were deciding what to wear to the Jumior Prom. As part of my present job, I frequently investigate and evaluate individuals who may pose a security risk.... maybe its just me, but my investigations go a lot deeper than what bling somebody may wear. So do our countermeasures.

We have 4 children. I own land and a home, and I pay taxes.... which means, Punisher, that people like me pay the salary of people like you. Those things alone give me the right to post opnions here.... and as the sucker who pays the bills, I am growing tired of the nonsense I see and read about on these threads. As someone who has managed in the public sector, the private sector and the military sector, I have small patience for superficial measures that make it appear something meaningful is being done.... and even less for measures which may harm the innocent.

You want to believe taking crucifixes away won't hurt innocent kids and will stop gangsters...... you have that right. I don't buy it, not for one second.

 

[jks9199]

Both the form and substance of Post 18 by Punisher need to be addressed.

The boxed quote there is from Empty Hands, though curiously the box does not show that. The quoted language further down is from me, though that is not specified either. Nor in the "you" form of address is it clear that the quotes are from 2 different members. I do not appreciate situations where I am lumped in with someone else or where language used by others appears to be attributed to me. If that's the way this thread will run, I will be off to better environs pdq, with a message to the mods as I go.

I suspect that Punisher just hasn't mastered the QOUTE function; it can be a little complicated. (It's worth noting at this juncture that there is a "multi-qoute button" that lets you incorporate multiple posts in your reply; it's the one between the Qoute and Quick Reply buttons. When you've selected the posts you want to qoute from, just hit the Qoute button on the last one.)

I respect what punisher is doing for a living, and sincerely wish that person both safety and success. But any inference that John Q. Public has no business posting here or can have no useful input is just wrong. One need not be a school safety officer to have experience with criminals. I was putting gang members in jail when many here were deciding what to wear to the Jumior Prom. As part of my present job, I frequently investigate and evaluate individuals who may pose a security risk.... maybe its just me, but my investigations go a lot deeper than what bling somebody may wear. So do our countermeasures.

We have 4 children. I own land and a home, and I pay taxes.... which means, Punisher, that people like me pay the salary of people like you. Those things alone give me the right to post opnions here.... and as the sucker who pays the bills, I am growing tired of the nonsense I see and read about on these threads. As someone who has managed in the public sector, the private sector and the military sector, I have small patience for superficial measures that make it appear something meaningful is being done.... and even less for measures which may harm the innocent.

You want to believe taking crucifixes away won't hurt innocent kids and will stop gangsters...... you have that right. I don't buy it, not for one second.

As I said -- it's not the crucifix or Rosary in and off itself, it's the package that goes with it. And I'm a very firm believer that you treat the "wannabes" and "imitators" just like the so-called "real" bangers.

I don't know the specifics in this case; I don't know what the Rosary or crucifix looked like. But if I found a kid wearing a blue & white Rosary, blue shirts, baggy jeans or Dickies, and some more details -- yeah, we'd have a chat.

 

[grydth]

That last section is where we really part ways on this one. I would not criminalize - or treat as criminal - only based on looks.

A lot of people once sported Che Guevara T-Shirts, and I'd wager the huge majority had very little idea who he was or what he did. Does that make them ignorant slaves to fashion? I'd say so...... but does that further mean they'd be the stereotypical commie subversive spies of the Cold War era? Should we have called the FBI on 'em? No way!

Young people get involved in all sorts of goofy fashion trends.... and usually mean nothing sinister by it. Bad fashion sense isn't a crime.

You know as well as I that the law dos not allow the state to go after "wannabe" or "imitators". Punitive government action is only pernissible against those who have committed criminal offenses..

When gangs do appropriate religious of national symbols, or clothing, a police response winds up denying those to innocent kids. I seriously do not believe that simply banning a gang symbol is going to get serious gang members out of that life style....

We need dedicated police officers like you protecting us from the real bad guys, not 'having a talk' with innocent kids.

 

[jks9199]

That last section is where we really part ways on this one. I would not criminalize - or treat as criminal - only based on looks.

A lot of people once sported Che Guevara T-Shirts, and I'd wager the huge majority had very little idea who he was or what he did. Does that make them ignorant slaves to fashion? I'd say so...... but does that further mean they'd be the stereotypical commie subversive spies of the Cold War era? Should we have called the FBI on 'em? No way!

Young people get involved in all sorts of goofy fashion trends.... and usually mean nothing sinister by it. Bad fashion sense isn't a crime.

You know as well as I that the law dos not allow the state to go after "wannabe" or "imitators". Punitive government action is only pernissible against those who have committed criminal offenses..

When gangs do appropriate religious of national symbols, or clothing, a police response winds up denying those to innocent kids. I seriously do not believe that simply banning a gang symbol is going to get serious gang members out of that life style....

We need dedicated police officers like you protecting us from the real bad guys, not 'having a talk' with innocent kids.

The thing is that those "innocent kids" do one of two things: either they start immitating the criminal acts, or they get attacked and even killed by the real bangers.

We've learned, through tragedy, that wannabes are generally "gonnabes". I said we'd have a chat, not that I'd arrest them. We've found that fighting gang requires a three-prong approach; suppression (arrests, deportation, disrupting their meetings, and similar tactics), intervention (getting the wannabes and hang-arounds out before they really commit to the gang lifestyle, getting families help to kep kids out, even teen programs, and more), and education (getting the word out to the public, to teachers & schools, and others so that they can get kids lined up for intervention or more).

Note that I described several factors that combine to suggest that someone is on the fringes of gang activity. I'd make contact with them, and determine what was really up, and then take the appropriate action. In this case -- there's really not enough to know what was up. One kid did leave school rather than go to the office; that does suggest to me that maybe there was more to his involvement than simply dressing the part. In fact, knowing how reluctant schools in most areas are to label a kid as a gang member (we've had arguments over labeling kids who tagged up their locker with gang marks, had gang tattoos, dressed the part, or even admitted membership, and tried to get pictures into the school year book throwing up gang hand signs!), I suspect that there was more to document these kids's gang involvement than a crucifix.

 

[Archangel M]

people need to stop making snap judgements about the police based on snippets from the news or the internet. Either they are letting the media shape their opinion without all the facts, or misinterpreted facts [which wouldnt offend the media at all], or they are expressing their own biases using the story to support what they already believe.

 

[grydth]

The thing is that those "innocent kids" do one of two things: either they start immitating the criminal acts, or they get attacked and even killed by the real bangers.

We've learned, through tragedy, that wannabes are generally "gonnabes". I said we'd have a chat, not that I'd arrest them. We've found that fighting gang requires a three-prong approach; suppression (arrests, deportation, disrupting their meetings, and similar tactics), intervention (getting the wannabes and hang-arounds out before they really commit to the gang lifestyle, getting families help to kep kids out, even teen programs, and more), and education (getting the word out to the public, to teachers & schools, and others so that they can get kids lined up for intervention or more).

Note that I described several factors that combine to suggest that someone is on the fringes of gang activity. I'd make contact with them, and determine what was really up, and then take the appropriate action. In this case -- there's really not enough to know what was up. One kid did leave school rather than go to the office; that does suggest to me that maybe there was more to his involvement than simply dressing the part. In fact, knowing how reluctant schools in most areas are to label a kid as a gang member (we've had arguments over labeling kids who tagged up their locker with gang marks, had gang tattoos, dressed the part, or even admitted membership, and tried to get pictures into the school year book throwing up gang hand signs!), I suspect that there was more to document these kids's gang involvement than a crucifix.

Okay, now be fair to me.... but most especially be fair to yourself. Compare this fine and thoughtful message to what you said in #22. A whole lot different, wouldn't you say?

What's more, it is clear that you are following a thorough and purposeful strategy, not only focusing on symbols. I wish you safety and success.

 

[ChadWarner]

That last section is where we really part ways on this one. I would not criminalize - or treat as criminal - only based on looks.

A lot of people once sported Che Guevara T-Shirts, and I'd wager the huge majority had very little idea who he was or what he did. Does that make them ignorant slaves to fashion? I'd say so...... but does that further mean they'd be the stereotypical commie subversive spies of the Cold War era? Should we have called the FBI on 'em? No way!

Young people get involved in all sorts of goofy fashion trends.... and usually mean nothing sinister by it. Bad fashion sense isn't a crime.

You know as well as I that the law dos not allow the state to go after "wannabe" or "imitators". Punitive government action is only pernissible against those who have committed criminal offenses..

When gangs do appropriate religious of national symbols, or clothing, a police response winds up denying those to innocent kids. I seriously do not believe that simply banning a gang symbol is going to get serious gang members out of that life style....

We need dedicated police officers like you protecting us from the real bad guys, not 'having a talk' with innocent kids.

I would have to say it is the rule of law and not the officers of it. This also includes judges and magistrates. The US constitution really has a solution for most problems. The fact that some things are implied rather than laid out word for word is where the problems begin.

The rule of law is a shady thing at best now. At worst it is a tool used by government and corporations to extract money from the middle class and working poor otherwise there would be a progressive tax instead of a regressive tax and corporations would be taxed on gross income.

It is not the kids- never really has been. It is who is raising the kids and how they are raising them. I don't understand what happened to holding parents accountable for their kids actions until their kids are 18. Seems to me that would hold all parties accountable- the law is already in place so who is responsible for not enforcing it?

 

[punisher73]

Both the form and substance of Post 18 by Punisher need to be addressed.

The boxed quote there is from Empty Hands, though curiously the box does not show that. The quoted language further down is from me, though that is not specified either. Nor in the "you" form of address is it clear that the quotes are from 2 different members. I do not appreciate situations where I am lumped in with someone else or where language used by others appears to be attributed to me. If that's the way this thread will run, I will be off to better environs pdq, with a message to the mods as I go.

I respect what punisher is doing for a living, and sincerely wish that person both safety and success. But any inference that John Q. Public has no business posting here or can have no useful input is just wrong. One need not be a school safety officer to have experience with criminals. I was putting gang members in jail when many here were deciding what to wear to the Jumior Prom. As part of my present job, I frequently investigate and evaluate individuals who may pose a security risk.... maybe its just me, but my investigations go a lot deeper than what bling somebody may wear. So do our countermeasures.

We have 4 children. I own land and a home, and I pay taxes.... which means, Punisher, that people like me pay the salary of people like you. Those things alone give me the right to post opnions here.... and as the sucker who pays the bills, I am growing tired of the nonsense I see and read about on these threads. As someone who has managed in the public sector, the private sector and the military sector, I have small patience for superficial measures that make it appear something meaningful is being done.... and even less for measures which may harm the innocent.

You want to believe taking crucifixes away won't hurt innocent kids and will stop gangsters...... you have that right. I don't buy it, not for one second.

My apologies, I have not used the "quote" function from specific posts before. I used the copy/past with the little "quote" button on the message toolbox.

That being said. I have NOTHING against people posting their opinions on ANY public forum. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that I said no one can not have or post an opinion. I have re-read my post several times. I talked about "WHY" the students were suspended. Again, they were not told they could not wear them period, they just could not put them on display. That's a big difference.

You say that you pay taxes and pay my salary etc. I do too, so I basically pay for my own salary, so consider this next one on the house...

I do have issues with people who offer nothing to the discussion at hand other than to criticize without offering some type of solution. Your first post was this.

GRYDTH:

The gangs now have a way to bring us down..... This month, let's have the Bloods adopt the American Flag, the Crips use Uncle Sam, the Latin Kings take the Star of David and M13 have the School Mascot.... next month they can switch to the Armed Services emblems.... next to the people pictured on our coins and currency.

Skool Sheeple will have to rush to ban each in succession to fight gang influence... pass a penny or a fiver - - - You Crip, You!!!

There should be a sub section here devoted to these foibles.... no wonder Johnny is illiterate and Jane can't think.

From your background, it sounds like you do have some experience in the area. What are your suggestions? It's easy to say that the schools have it wrong, but what do you suggest? How would YOU address the problem and try to make it safe for all kids so that Johnny isn't illiterate and Jane can think? It's hard to teach and learn when your school is on lockdown all the time because there was just a gang fight or someone got stabbed. HOW do you keep innocent kids from being targeted by gangs for wearing gang symbols/colors? Like I said, I have had this discussion with my school several times and I'm open to all suggestions to find a solution that works. How do you address the fact that "no child left behind" policies just keeps kids in school that don't want to be there have no desire to get an education, and just keep causing disruptions because they want to promote/recruit for their gang?

 

[grydth]

In Post 26, I expressed agreement with the detailed approach jks9199 outlined in Post 24. We had disagreed on an earlier version, but I believe this respected LEO is part of a thorough and well thought out program.