Two more high-school bullyings

[shesulsa]

Can you get an advocate from an asperger association.

It is *extremely* difficult to get services in Washington State - at least, it has been for me. I don't think this mom even has her boy in the system yet, largely because of the toe-dragging. I'm working on convincing her that he NEEDS to get into the system.

If this bully has already broken the boys nose. Where is the lawsuit? The school should have suspened or even expelled the bullies. This episode is making me angry at the asperger boys parents for not aggressively defending their son with all LEGAL recourse.
Props for trying. Ous.

The parents are pressing charges on the boy who broke his nose and with some prodding, they have spoken with the teachers ... but I'm confounded why they don't want to go to the principal. I'm with you - the other kid verbally assaulted the boy and should be dealt with firmly. The school has advised Mom and Dad to get a legal protection order against the kid who broke his nose and it looks like they are pursuing it.

I'll be dealing with the mom who told my daughter to shut up when she was defending the bully.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

The mother defending her son's cruelty should have her nose broken, get laughed at then successfully sued out of all the equity of her property, forced into bankruptcy, then laughed at again for having a crooked nose. She should be turned down for all available forms of help until she developes a guilty conscience, caves and apoligizes first to her own son for encouraging unexcusable behavior and then to the boy with asperger's. Then she would be eligible for minimal support and will have hopefully developed some empathy.

 

[shesulsa]

Her son exhibited the behavior that put the recipient into a suicidal state. She *knows* this.

Believe me - if she's still volunteering as a booster by the fall season, she's gonna be looking for another position.

 

[Balrog]

What bothers me more about the situation is that my student's parents are willing to let their son get suspended if necessary and likely won't fight for him if he has to defend himself.

That is so wrong. There is only one recourse against zero-tolerance policies and that is for the parents to rain unmitigated hell down on the heads of the school authorities, including filing both criminal charges and civil liability suits against them.

 

[shesulsa]

That is so wrong. There is only one recourse against zero-tolerance policies and that is for the parents to rain unmitigated hell down on the heads of the school authorities, including filing both criminal charges and civil liability suits against them.

I'm thinking there must be some underlying legal problem for this family they don't want known. That or they are just uneducated or just plain ol' stubborn.

Regardless, the boy is no longer being bullied. That's the important thing.

 

[Kittan Bachika]

The sad fact is that 'Zero Tolerance' policies serve mostly to protect the bullies themselves.

The reality is that Zero Tolerance policies were never actually designed to protect students, they were designed to protect school systems from lawsuit by creating a one size fits all that can't get them sued for the allegation of applying it 'unfairly' toward any given student.

Since all they fear is litigation, the way to fix the problem is to sue the school systems in to instituting common sense solutions.

It's ironic that we as a society are increasingly acknowledging the fundamental right of self-defense in the adult world........but are increasingly attempting to prevent children from having the same fundamental rights.

Not only does it protect bullies, but bullies usually come from severely dysfunctional homes which is why they act that way. In other words they have nothing to lose since their lives are a living hell anyway.

Zero Tolerance is CYA for schools but it is proving to be completely useless and ineffective since there are more cases proving that it does not stop bullying.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

A bully has to be made an example of by the system. The faculty has to better understand the politics of school (particularly high school) popularity and youth should be no defense. They wag the dog and sweep it under the carpet while the victim suffers. The atmosphere and the impotence promote and condone bully behavior. Tease that dog with a stick. Keep poking him and poking him, then shoot him when he bites you. Everyone downplays the seriousness of it or gives you a "when I was your age" speech that sanctimoniously insults the victim's intelligence, agonizingly patronizes them and just makes things worse. Ever stood up to a bully and had your teeth kicked in? That's why students get shot up, people have thesholds.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A bully has to be made an example of by the system. The faculty has to better understand the politics of school (particularly high school) popularity and youth should be no defense. They wag the dog and sweep it under the carpet while the victim suffers. The atmosphere and the impotence promote and condone bully behavior. Tease that dog with a stick. Keep poking him and poking him, then shoot him when he bites you. Everyone downplays the seriousness of it or gives you a "when I was your age" speech that sanctimoniously insults the victim's intelligence, agonizingly patronizes them and just makes things worse. Ever stood up to a bully and had your teeth kicked in? That's why students get shot up, people have thesholds.

Actually, no, i've never stood up to a bully and gotten my teeth kicked in. I've had friends who tried to appease and ignore bullies and gotten their teeth kicked in.

As for students getting shot up, most school shooters weren't 'bullied, contrary to the popular myth of Columbine, though many of them did have a persecution complex coupled with an unhealthy dose of not-so-contradictory narcissism.

Fuselier and Ochberg say that if you want to understand "the killers," quit asking what drove them. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were radically different individuals, with vastly different motives and opposite mental conditions. Klebold is easier to comprehend, a more familiar type. He was hotheaded, but depressive and suicidal. He blamed himself for his problems.

Harris is the challenge. He was sweet-faced and well-spoken. Adults, and even some other kids, described him as "nice." But Harris was cold, calculating, and homicidal. "Klebold was hurting inside while Harris wanted to hurt people," Fuselier says. Harris was not merely a troubled kid, the psychiatrists say, he was a psychopath. http://www.slate.com/id/2099203

School shootings are the ultimate act of BULLYING, not the ultimate expression of being bullied. And, the most effective thing we've been doing lately, ironically enough, is teaching a school program that teaches students to attack shooters, en masse, if they are unable to flee or escape. Because, like all bullies, school shooters are individual cowards, but cowards that all the school policies in the world can't deter. But the fear of fellow students not being compliant certainly can.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A prime example of how teaching kids that 'violence is never the answer' and 'be passive and let someone else handle it' is as wrong-headed and backwards as can be. http://www.youtube.com/user/ResponseOptions#p/a/u/0/A8yBlVurL2A

On May 21, Kinkel drove his mother's Ford Explorer to the high school. He wore a trench coat to hide the four weapons he carried: a hunting knife, a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol, a Ruger .22 semi-automatic rifle, and a Ruger .22 pistol. He was carrying 1,127 rounds of ammunition.[3]
He parked on North 61st street two blocks away from the school, entered the patio area or commons from behind the school, and fired two shots, one fatally wounding Ben Walker and the other wounding Ryan Atteberry. Kinkel then entered the cafeteria and, walking across it, fired the remaining 48 rounds from the 50-round magazine in his rifle, wounding 24 students[4] and killing 16-year-old Mikael Nicholauson. Kinkel fired a total of 50 rounds, accumulating 37 hits, and two fatalities.[3]
When his rifle ran out of ammunition and Kinkel began to reload, wounded student Jacob Ryker — recognizing from his own experience with guns that Kinkel was out of ammunition — tackled him, and was soon assisted by several other students. Kinkel drew the Glock, and fired one shot before he was disarmed, injuring Ryker again as well as another student. The students restrained Kinkel until the police arrived and arrested him.[5] A total of seven students were involved in subduing and disarming Kinkel.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Kinkel

http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/21/school.shooting.pm.2/

If you've never heard of the Thurston Highschool shooting, there's a reason. Unlike Columbine and other incidents, where the students acted as conventional 'wisdom' says they should have, cower and cover, the students at Thurston attacked the shooter and subdued him, saving countless lives.

Note, also, that far from being an angry victim of bullying, Kipland P. Kinkel is obviously a sociopath.

 

[DeLamar.J]

Bullying is such a touchy thing to deal with, because if a parent handles it, then the student being protected will not gain the respect of the people doing the bullying. Then as soon as they catch them alone, and they will, you can guarantee it will happen again.
I think its a great thing to teach kids to be non violent. But there is a grey area where its is ok.
violence is appropriate only when
1.to protect yourself from violence (you have been attacked)
2.to protect others from violence (you have witnessed a loved one being attacked)
3.to prevent violence. (to much to go into on this one, use common sense)

 

[sgtmac_46]

Bullying is such a touchy thing to deal with, because if a parent handles it, then the student being protected will not gain the respect of the people doing the bullying. Then as soon as they catch them alone, and they will, you can guarantee it will happen again.
I think its a great thing to teach kids to be non violent. But there is a grey area where its is ok.
violence is appropriate only when
1.to protect yourself from violence (you have been attacked)
2.to protect others from violence (you have witnessed a loved one being attacked)
3.to prevent violence. (to much to go into on this one, use common sense)

It seems increasingly as though society wishes to prevent children from becoming fully functional self-reliant human beings and, instead, prefers they become compliant, reliant and docile worker drones.

 

[MA-Caver]

It seems increasingly as though society wishes to prevent children from becoming fully functional self-reliant human beings and, instead, prefers they become compliant, reliant and docile worker drones.

Of course... compliant, reliant, docile workers are less likely to resist the governing body of society. Functional, self-reliant human beings are going to definitely question authority and resist.

:cuss: I think it's total absolute B.S. that the ones getting busted violating the so called ZERO policy rules in school are usually the ones defending themselves against the ones actually breaking the policies. Happened to me as well in my jr. high and high-school years as well, though we didn't have so called zero policies then... just a "no fighting allowed" ... usually offenders were sent home to return next day with a note and back to class or oft times just plain paddled and sent back to class.
Yet I was more-n-likely be labeled as the instigator of the "ruckus" than the jerkweed who actually started it. SIGH! It was probably because I was "always" fighting... funny how they never called it defensive fighting.

Either way it's just something your students should learn how to defend against and teach them when they're at a middle or higher belt to learn the art of verbal attacks and manipulation... something along the lines of "dude, lets wait til after school and meet somewhere and we can just go right at it"... then using their skills... can finish the harassment once and for all... before it goes TOO FAR.

No it's not very MA-thinking I'll agree... but dammit enough is enough!
A person pushed too far will either self-destruct or find themselves in worse trouble (read: jail/prison) than if they basically confronted and defeated their antagonist(s).

 

[sgtmac_46]

Of course... compliant, reliant, docile workers are less likely to resist the governing body of society. Functional, self-reliant human beings are going to definitely question authority and resist.

:cuss: I think it's total absolute B.S. that the ones getting busted violating the so called ZERO policy rules in school are usually the ones defending themselves against the ones actually breaking the policies. Happened to me as well in my jr. high and high-school years as well, though we didn't have so called zero policies then... just a "no fighting allowed" ... usually offenders were sent home to return next day with a note and back to class or oft times just plain paddled and sent back to class.
Yet I was more-n-likely be labeled as the instigator of the "ruckus" than the jerkweed who actually started it. SIGH! It was probably because I was "always" fighting... funny how they never called it defensive fighting.

Either way it's just something your students should learn how to defend against and teach them when they're at a middle or higher belt to learn the art of verbal attacks and manipulation... something along the lines of "dude, lets wait til after school and meet somewhere and we can just go right at it"... then using their skills... can finish the harassment once and for all... before it goes TOO FAR.

No it's not very MA-thinking I'll agree... but dammit enough is enough!
A person pushed too far will either self-destruct or find themselves in worse trouble (read: jail/prison) than if they basically confronted and defeated their antagonist(s).

That's why I prefer to teach grappling skills like trips and sweeps for self-defense in that environment. Sweep the guy in to the floor, throw your hands up and act as though he fell trying to attack you. Punch someone, though, and everyone recognizes that. Same with kicks.

Most folks won't have the slightest clue what you did, least of which would be the teachers or principles involved. Proclaim, innocently, that the guy came running at you, you tried to step out of the way, and the next thing you know he must have slipped on some water that was on the floor.

Yell 'Leave me alone, that's my PURSE! I don't know you!' at the top of your lungs the entire time.

Also, teach parents and students the strategic power of threatening to sue the principal, the school board and the school, when threatened with suspension for defending oneself. Proclaim some (bogus if necessary) aggrieved group status........such as 'You're just doing this because i'm 1/16th Cherokee! You'll hear from the ACLU if you insist on doing this!' It works for other folks.

 

[Hapkidoman]

I would speak with the School principle and inform him that regardless the School's "0" tollerance policy, that I will not allow my child to be harmed by another with out having the "right" to defend him/her self. If for any reason the school is either unwilling or unable to protect the my child from physical harm, I will take leagal action against the school officials to include the "elected" Officials on the school board. I will sue each and everyone of them Individually, not collectively as a governing body. I will further make every attempt to get the local press, and local legislators, involved in the action. The bigger the stink you make, the farther it can be smelled.