6-year-old expelled over Cub Scout utensil

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

COMMON SENSE AT WORK!




That's not a knife.




Now THAT'S a KNIFE.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

COMMON SENSE AT WORK!




That's not a knife.




Now THAT'S a KNIFE.

A knife is a knife. Either one can inflict injury. It is a slippery slope indeed to try and have different ways of handling a weapon based whether a person thinks one weapon is not as big as the other or some other such foolishness.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

The Scouter in me feels constrained to point out that, as excited as this kid was, he wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been allowed to carry that or any other knife at any Scout functions. Before a knife can be carried, the Scout must earn his whittling chip, which is typically earned as a Bear Scout (third grade) and which demonstrates that he knows how to use a knife safely.

[MysticCat]

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.

What should happen (in my view):

Teacher sees kid with knife. Teacher asks him about it. He tells her he just joined Cub Scouts and it's his new knife from his mess kit. Teacher says, "I know you're excited and I'm glad for you, but you know it's against the rules to bring a knife to school. I'm going to need to take it for now; it will be in the office. Your parents can pick it up there. Please remember not to bring knives to school again. Thanks." (Can't give it back to him in case he rides a bus or something.) When the parents pick it up, they are reminded, nicely, that son can't be bringing knives to school. Done.

But thanks to a variety of occurences, many school boards have decided that, for the kids' safety and because of liability concerns, they have to demonstrate ZERO TOLERANCE. The something comes along to show how ZERO TOLERANCE is an over-reaction, and how one size doesn't fit all, and we hope some common sense creeps in.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Did you actually SEE what he took to school? it was more than a piece of "cutlery." What's goofy is a bunch of folks acting like a knife is acceptable at school.

I haven't seen anyone acting like a knife is acceptable at school. People have been saying that there are better ways to handle a situation like this.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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

I don't really think so. That's not at all a universal phenomenon. It's waning in some places but not in others, and even where school systems are not supportive, per se, they're not necessarily antagonistic -- they just don't let recruiting or meetings happen on school property. (Or they let it happen on school property as long as it's the PTA and not the school itself in charge.) Many school systems are quite supportive of Scouting. (And in my experience, at least, most teachers are.) Some systems that aren't as supportive aren't because of the things that gather media support, while others have reached the decision that even though they'd have no problem letting the Scouts (Boy and Girl) in, they can't because then they might not be able to say "no" to a group they don't like.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

What should happen (in my view):

Teacher sees kid with knife. Teacher asks him about it. He tells her he just joined Cub Scouts and it's his new knife from his mess kit. Teacher says, "I know you're excited and I'm glad for you, but you know it's against the rules to bring a knife to school. I'm going to need to take it for now; it will be in the office. Your parents can pick it up there. Please remember not to bring knives to school again. Thanks." (Can't give it back to him in case he rides a bus or something.) When the parents pick it up, they are reminded, nicely, that son can't be bringing knives to school. Done.

^^^Common sense AT WORK!

[srmom]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

What should happen (in my view):

Teacher sees kid with knife. Teacher asks him about it. He tells her he just joined Cub Scouts and it's his new knife from his mess kit. Teacher says, "I know you're excited and I'm glad for you, but you know it's against the rules to bring a knife to school. I'm going to need to take it for now; it will be in the office. Your parents can pick it up there. Please remember not to bring knives to school again. Thanks." (Can't give it back to him in case he rides a bus or something.) When the parents pick it up, they are reminded, nicely, that son can't be bringing knives to school. Done.

Yes, this is the answer.

In this particular case, the boy had no intention of bringing a "weapon" to school. He had never been told it was a "weapon", it was just a nifty eating gadget.

Intention should be taken into consideration.

[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.