6-year-old expelled over Cub Scout utensil

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by gamma

Where is your brilliant analysis?

Do you think it is ok for students to bring knives to school?

Let me try to make this easy for you. Whether I think it is okay for kids to bring knives to school (even if they are Cub Scout camping knives that are duller than what would be in the cafeteria) and whether I think there are due process issues involved are completely unrelated questions.

I have not offered a due process analysis, largely because one or two news stories don't provide enough information to make any reasonable analysis. But were I too undertake a due process analysis, it would not begin with whether the policy is a good or bad policy. It would probably begin with the question of whether automatic suspension, possibly without any hearing or appeal rights, implicates the due process rights of the student. A due process analysis would typicall have to do with how the consequences of violating the rule were imposed, not with whether the policy was valid or was violated to begin with.

deepimpact basically said it was school policy, intended to include students like him and he violated it. As a second- or third-year law student, she should know (1) that whether a law or policy applies to someone who violated it is usually irrelevant to a due process question, and (2) people's convictions for crimes are overturned everyday not because they didn't violate the law but because they were denied due process.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Let me try to make this easy for you. Whether I think it is okay for kids to bring knives to school (even if they are Cub Scout camping knives that are duller than what would be in the cafeteria) and whether I think there are due process issues involved are completely unrelated questions.

I have not offered a due process analysis, largely because one or two news stories don't provide enough information to make any reasonable analysis. But were I too undertake a due process analysis, it would not begin with whether the policy is a good or bad policy. It would probably begin with the question of whether automatic suspension, possibly without any hearing or appeal rights, implicates the due process rights of the student. A due process analysis would typicall have to do with how the consequences of violating the rule were imposed, not with whether the policy was valid or was violated to begin with.

deepimpact basically said it was school policy, intended to include students like him and he violated it. As a second- or third-year law student, she should know (1) that whether a law or policy applies to someone who violated it is usually irrelevant to a due process question, and (2) people's convictions for crimes are overturned everyday not because they didn't violate the law but because they were denied due process.

As someone who has practiced law for several years, you should recognize that there is a difference between the majority of cases where the courts decided that due process rights had been violated and this case.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

As someone who has practiced law for several years, you should recognize that there is a difference between the majority of cases where the courts decided that due process rights had been violated and this case.

Of course there are -- many, many differences. In fact, believe it or not, I agree with you that there isn't likely a due process issue here.

That doesn't change the fact that those criminal cases show why simply saying it was policy and he violated the policy isn't a due process analysis at all.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course there are -- many, many differences. In fact, believe it or not, I agree with you that there isn't likely a due process issue here.

That doesn't change the fact that those criminal cases show why simply saying it was policy and he violated the policy isn't a due process analysis at all.

I don't recall saying it WAS a due process analysis.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

As someone who has practiced law for several years, you should recognize that there is a difference between the majority of cases where the courts decided that due process rights had been violated and this case.

Wow. It's pretty gutsy (read: ignorant) for a law student to call out someone with professional accomplishments the likes of MysticCat's.

ETA: I had completely intended to write "read: arrogant" instead of what's above. In fact, I honestly thought that's what I actually typed until I read someone's post with my statement quoted. Part of me feels like I should apologize... most of me doesn't. I think either "arrogant" or "ignorant" is appropriate here.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Wow. It's pretty gutsy (read: ignorant) for a law student to call out someone with professional accomplishments the likes of MysticCat's.

Yeah isn't MC a member of the Supreme Court Bar?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Yeah isn't MC a member of the Supreme Court Bar?

And your point?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Wow. It's pretty gutsy (read: ignorant) for a law student to call out someone with professional accomplishments the likes of MysticCat's.

Actually it isn't. After all, a majority of the people around here seem to feel that they can call out people in our government who have far more experience than they do in handling certain matters.

And if you notice, MC did say that I was right about the differences and the fact that there really isn't likely a due process issue at stake here.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Actually it isn't. After all, a majority of the people around here seem to feel that they can call out people in our government who have far more experience than they do in handling certain matters.

You mean like the people on here who called out the Bush Administration about interrogation tactics, without being privy to the precise intelligence information?

(Not saying I support them, just pointing out that the "first-hand experience cannot be questioned" argument cuts both ways)

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You mean like the people on here who called out the Bush Administration about interrogation tactics, without being privy to the precise intelligence information?

(Not saying I support them, just pointing out that the "first-hand experience cannot be questioned" argument cuts both ways)

I didn't see those posts so I don't know what was said.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I didn't see those posts so I don't know what was said.

My point was that people tend to make that argument when their favored politician is in office - when the other party is in office, it then tends to be ok to criticize the President. As an example, under that logic, no one could criticize Bush's policy choices, as he had intelligence available to him that wasn't available to the general public.

As to this particular story: I don't have a problem with "a" punishment for the kid bringing a knife to school, but I think that the punishment in question was a bit out of line. If you have a kid bringing a gun to school, then fine, I think that raises things to another level.

But there, with the tool involved, I wonder why they don't have this policy: take away the item, bring the kid to the principal's office, and call the parents. I feel like in situations like this, a procedure like that would suffice.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Something to think about.... the waning popularity of the scouting movement among parents, school systems, and communities?

Is popularity really waning? I'd agree, in that my perception is that it seemed like a lot more kids were in the scouting program when I was a little kid, but I also haven't worked in early childhood education for a few years. I also haven't seen any stats that speak to that issue.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't recall saying it WAS a due process analysis.

You said:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

And I fail to see how his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated. It was a school policy. He violated it. So what if he is six? They knew that 6 yr olds would be included in the group affected by the policy.

Usually, when someone makes a statement ("I fail to see how his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated.") and then immediately gives reasons ("It was a school policy. He violated it. So what if he is six? They knew that 6 yr olds would be included in the group affected by the policy."), you can reliably predict that people are going to interpret the reasons you gave as your reasons for the statement -- i.e., the reasons you don't think 14th Amendment rights were not violated, i.e., your analysis.

But go ahead. Tell me I'm twisting what you said, because that's the way it always goes.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You said:
Usually, when someone makes a statement ("I fail to see how his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated.") and then immediately gives reasons ("It was a school policy. He violated it. So what if he is six? They knew that 6 yr olds would be included in the group affected by the policy."), you can reliably predict that people are going to interpret the reasons you gave as your reasons for the statement -- i.e., the reasons you don't think 14th Amendment rights were not violated, i.e., your analysis.

But go ahead. Tell me I'm twisting what you said, because that's the way it always goes.

You know folks...I am just an average Joe here, legal jargon aside...but back to what ForeverRoses and I were alluding to earlier...whatever happened to simply calling the parents to the school and having a private discussion with the admin and said parents and K.I.M?

Have we become that paranoid a society that we have to get the law involved for everything?

Times like this (not to mention the fact the we need crash helmets for kids with Big Wheels) is why I DON'T want kids.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You know folks...I am just an average Joe here, legal jargon aside...but back to what ForeverRoses and I were alluding to earlier...whatever happened to simply calling the parents to the school and having a private discussion with the admin and said parents and K.I.M?

Exactly.

The good thing is that overreacting isn't standard protocol across school systems and schools. There are schools that still call the parents FIRST whether the kid is 6 or 16.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You know folks...I am just an average Joe here, legal jargon aside...but back to what ForeverRoses and I were alluding to earlier...whatever happened to simply calling the parents to the school and having a private discussion with the admin and said parents and K.I.M?

Have we become that paranoid a society that we have to get the law involved for everything?

Times like this (not to mention the fact the we need crash helmets for kids with Big Wheels) is why I DON'T want kids.

Columbine happened. White upper middle class kids killed white upper middle class kids and all of a sudden, zero tolerance everywhere.