Student expelled for pepperspray

School administrators do not currently have their heads in a well-lighted place!
They obviously are unaware that the students have to get to and from school in a semi-hostile environment.
And suppose for a moment that some school hoodlem sprayed Mr. Whipple or Ms. Grundy or one of the staff? How would that look?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
The school gave every student a booklet at the beginning of the year. In the booklet it said that "pepper spray is considered a weapon". Since the school had a clear and unambiguous policy on weapons and descibed exactly what constitutes a weapon, the girl has no legal ground to stand on.

Now if we are talking moral ground, the school's administrators are out of their tiny little minds.

This zero tolerance stuff is out of control. Zero tolerance=Zero thinking.

On a slightly different tack, that the girl gets a year's suspension and those boys who incited a riot and caused physical harm to others also get a year (after the last round of negotiation) is ludicrous. By the way, what in the hell does Rev. Jackson think he is doing there? If those kids were white or asian would he have bothered to read the whole story in his morning Pravda?
 
Mr. McDaniel should be the one expelled.

Lucky for me, most school administrators have more common sense. I've personally talked to the assistant director of safety in my school, and the first thing he said was, "Do you have a pepper spray? I highly recommend that."
 
But this case involves a WEAPON!!!!

Did anyone else really listen to Jackson? And his supporters on Fox News? All kept hammering on the point that there were no knives, no guns involved, so the "school fight" was no big deal.

Translation:
Doing something bad and harmful but not in possession of objects society frowns upon=no big deal.
Doing no harm to anyone but in possession of an ogject society frowns upon=threat to society who must be expelled.

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
I'll play the Devil's Advocate here. As a teacher, I've had to deal with the use (as a prank) of pepper spray (actually mace) in school (spraying in stairwells and "windflow" areas where it would permeate a large part of a floor. It is not very much fun (or fair to a couple hundred students) to be unable to hold classes while the rooms air out. It is not fair and severe liability potential when a 14 year young lady has an severe asthma attack and must be transported to the ER as result of spraying pepper spray as a practical joke. There are health and safety issues involved than just a kid bringing pepper spray to school (and it is a very touchy thing to selectively say it is OK for this student to do something but not this one to do it--discrimination lawsuit in a heartbeat). As previous poster noted, the students were informed that it was considered a weapon and advised of the consequences--maybe I spent to many years in the military, but rules are to be followed regardless of whether I understand them at the time or they make sense. The article stated the pepper spray was bought for a job the student had two years previously. The article is pretty clear the student had no need to have pepper spray at school (the simple answer--particularly, unless you believe the rules don't apply to you--is to leave it in your car). To be honest, you could make the same argument the previous posters have made for student bring a gun to school. That being sad, and giving the student the benefit of the doubt, the punishment is probably too harsh. The incident does require disciplinary action, but even in zero tolerance situations, the administrators should have some room for discretion. Where I teach, it would have landed the student in an alternative school for 15 days--the student is removed from the general education campus, but she would still be receiving an education in a more structured environment.
 
Juliet Charley makes a valid point. Even way back when I was in high school there was the occasional "gassing" of the hallway. Once again we are faced with the question of intent. If a student wrecklessly sprays a class, then they should be severly punished. But, the young lady in this story was carrying purely for self defense and not bothering anybody with it.
One thing which caught my attention was that the spray was found when she was searched after an argument with another student. Since when is an argument probable cause to rifle through someones personal belongings? I think there are more problems here than we realize.

BTW: Some years ago I made a couple of dummy rounds of my kids favorite cartridges, including a large screw eye in the primer hole, so they could use them as key fobs. They thanked me, but said they couldn't use them because possesion of even one dummy round of ammo would get them expelled from school. I've since learned that an empty cartridge casing will also get a student expelled. What moron makes these rules anyway?
 
juliet-
Welcome to The Firing Line.

I'm with Grayfox on this. Your argument, while valid from the standpoint of "necessity", fails on the test of liberty. This young lady has a right to self protection against those larger and stronger than she. Unless she lives at the school, she faces potential danger in the street at least twice a day.

Similar logic to yours is used by those who call for firearms confiscation..."necessity". It would seem that the proper way to go is to make the misuse of such objects very costly; not to ban them for their inherent danger.
Rich
 
Juliet:

That is an excellent point and I thank you for playing the Devil's advocate.

But, if I may, there are two separate factors to consider. First one is the possession of an item. The second is the misuse of said item. In the link provided by Phillip, the student was expelled for possession of a pepper spray. However, she did not misuse the item. The example you have provided is the possession AND misuse of item. In your example, I think the student should be expelled, not because of possession, but because of misuse.

And this comes around to a more rhetorical question. Should certain items be banned because of potential misuse and abuse by a small minority? Smoking can cause second hand smoke. Guns in the wrong hands are used to commit crimes. Cars in the hands of a drunk can kill. Where do we draw the lines?

Or, if I may offer yet another suggestion. Perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree? That, in these cases, it's not the item in question, but the responsible use of such item that's the real issue here. Rather than banning cars, we punish the drunk drivers. Rather than banning guns, we punish the criminals who use them. Should the majority suffer from the acts of the minority? Or is this something that's so vile, so destructive, so evil that it should be banned completely? Will we ever get EVERYone to follow banning? Is the pepper spray so evil, destructive, and vile that it should be banned?

While I follow the rules, I also think sometimes the rules do need to be changed.
 
To be honest, I have really mixed emotions about this issues. My bottom line position would probably be she knew the rules, she chose to break the rules, and if she has to suffer the consequences of breaking the rules so be it. In response to the issue of a search, the Courts have consistenly ruled students have limited rights while at school (both due their status, in most cases, as minors, and the fact that the facilities belong to the school district). Fair, maybe not, but that is the way it is right now. The real issue in terms of limited rights at school will be the mandatory attendance laws when the states say the students must be there THEN limits their rights while they are there. In terms of banning pepper spray, numerous items are banned at school for one reason or another (some good and some bad). For example, in the district where I work males are banned from wearing earrings (fair, probably not), no student (or teacher) can pocess tobacco or alchol (the drinking kind) on campus (works for me), students are not allowed shirts that are obscene, promote drug or alcohol products or use, short shorts are out for the young ladies (probably a good idea, if you want the young men to learn reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic), and the list goes on. To sum, administration should be able to use some (and use) some discretion in these matters based on intent, the student's record (discipline and academic), etc. I really do not see this as a self defence issue which is probably where I differ from the majority of the posters. How many posters agree with Jesse Jackson's stand in Decatur, IL?
 
Juliet, good points all, however your state ment has me a little concerned.

"but rules are to be followed regardless of whether I understand them at the time or they make sense"

Be carefull about following all the rules,laws, and/or orders without question or understanding. If you want to get technical the NAZI's passed laws for everyhting they did, it was all "legal."

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON

Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.

A RAND




[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited November 18, 1999).]
 
Good catch Oberkommando. I hope I made my position a little in clearer in the second post, "she knew the rules, she chose to break the rules, and if she has to suffer the consequences of breaking the rules so be it." I believe rules (at least most of them) serve a useful purpose and should be followed (there is a difference between a liberterian and an anarchist), BUT if we chose to break the rules, we should be prepared to accept the consequences of our actions. (And at least in this country, we have the right and ability to change bad rules for the most part.) I "came of age" during Vietnam and saw many of contemporaris drafted (or enlist) and a few come home in coffins. To this day, I respect those who refused to go and went to jail--they took a stand and stood up; I have no use at all to those who fled to Canada (or elsewhere--including England) and cried "no fair."
 
Juliet, re: Jackson and Decatur--

I said it before and I'll say it again. As Rich points out, what we have here are two cases:
1. Student possesses a tool the school doesn't allow, so is expelled even though she has done NO HARM to anyone, nor taken any dangerous or reckless action.

2. Group of students engages in harmful, dangerous BEHAVIOR and are thus expelled. However, liberals argue that they should be excused because they didn't possess any of the aforementioned banned tools.

This is akin to saying that the person who punched you is OK, because he didn't use a baseball bat; but the person standing there quietly holding a baseball bat is a criminal, because the tool he's holding COULD be used to hit someone. That can't make sense.

BTW, I'm a student teacher, not a "real" one, so I may be spouting nonsense. Consider yourself forewarned. :)

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
IMO it comes down to banning something based on the fact of what it COULD do versus having to show INTENT to harm. If the admin is going to ban something from the students then it should also make a resonable attempt to implement a protection of some sort for the now disarmed students. Writing a memorandum in the office telling the students what is right and wrong is unacceptable. Trained teachers or armed security would not be unresonable. I work for a southern Kalifornia school dist, I see some of the angels that walk the halls. If I were still a kid I'd be worried about having a word on paper as the only deterent to a bg messing with me. Since I'm not a student I don't worry as I carry a 5" Cold Steel blade.
 
Juliet:

For what it's worth, if I was in her shoe, I would not have carried that spray either. But I would have been very vocal about my opposition to that particular school rule.

In the end, there are still plenty of options, including improvised "tools", one could carry that is not only perfectly legal but might work just as well.

Nevertheless, it's a shame.
 
Gwinnydapooh - Jackson and Decatur was in response to posts that implied this was a self defence issue. I do not see this incidence as a self defence issue defence issue than I see Decatur as a racial issue. I see both situations as a matter of good order and discipline.

In response to pocession versus use and/or intent, I do believe (and have stated) that (1) the punishment appears excessive based on what we know about the incident, and (2) the administrator should have and use discretion. The young lady in question is sixteen years old. If she was found to have have a pint of Jack Daniels (or a quarter bag of marijuana) in her purse whether she intended to use or not would not be an issue with the school (or law enforcement).

One more minor point, in many jurisdictions, pepper spray is classified a weapon and regulated to a greater or lesser extent--a baseball is not (subtle, but there is a difference), but if I had told a student he or she not to bring a baseball bat into my classroom, the student would lose a baseball bat (and probably two or three of days in ISS).

Oberkommando - The student evidently never raised the issue of safety or self protection which might throw a different light on the subject. There is nothing to indicate the carrying of pepper spray was motivated by fear. I work at a large high school in a medium sized (population approximatel 110,000). The majority of the students socio-economically deprived and the student body is roughly 75% minorities (about equally Hispanic and African-American)--our campus (and even the surrounding neighborhood) is one of the safest areas in town . A school is what it the administrators, teachers and students make it--you make a school by setting the standards (which includes rules) and enforcing them justly.

You don't say in what capacity you work in a school district. In Texas, if you carry a five inch Cold Steel blade on campus, you have committed a felony, and at a minimum, you can count of losing your job and teaching certificate (or just your job if you are noncertified). Again, it is your choice. I have carried a weapon in situations that have probably pushed the envelope of legality (but never at school) before our state passed a concealed carry law, but I was aware of what of I was doing and willing to accept the risks (our carry laws were very vague) and would not have cried "no fair" if I had been caught.
 
I go between schools and some times our crews leave (to go home) at 12 midnight, bodies have been found at one school and night workers mugged in our district, not to mention bands of rouge dogs almost daily at the same school. I was working at this school with maintenance crew when three chow chows and one Rott nearly attacked student in the field, latter they charged the cops. They went back to squad car to get 870's to kill the beasts, but the principle finally got animal control to send someone out. Before help arrive the whole school was in a state of lock down and no student could go home until the dogs were taken care of. This was something out of a cheesy B movie, we were all essentially held hostage by a large Rottweiler.

When you arrive at a school at 4:30 am or leave at 12pm you could care less for some administrative directive about 1000 feet or some such commie rule when your ass might be on the line by some thug in hidding.

I have also noticed that in my district the teachers and Administration are never the first to enter or last to leave school, if this were common I bet the rules would suddenly have some flexibilty. I agree that you should know the rules(just or otherwise) and consequences of breaking them.

My 5" CS voyager is used for maitenance purposes of course! Schools are full of weapons, or you could call them tools used by the classified grounds keepers, just look in a tool shed.They've got axes and steel paint extension poles in some of the trucks, not to mention Shotguns in the security cars at Fontana high. All these tools become weapons as soon as the intent changes.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited November 20, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited November 20, 1999).]
 
Juliet, I hope I didn't offend you. I was not saying that your stance doesn't make sense itself, only that I think it puts you in agreement with Jesse Jackson's stance, which doesn't make sense. I do understand what you're saying and I think you get what I'm saying, so we can let that stand.

Oberkommando, you know this from posts in the past but I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm not ready to risk carrying a knife in my small-town school (especially since I'm still student teaching--all it takes is for the principal to say the word and I'm out) but there is danger even there. I'm usually out by 6:00, but around here that means it's pitch black and few people around (the school is sort of on the edge of town.)
Several times this year I've forgotten and slipped a knife in my pocket, and I don't really regret it. If I were ever caught in an IL school, however, there'd be absolutely NO wiggle room, since there's no legal CCW even off school grounds.
If I were in YOUR position, non-teacher who has to be in the building practically alone late at night, I wouldn't hesitate to carry.

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
No offence at all Don, I really enjoy a spirited discussion when it stays civil (as this one has). I am a little confused when you say my stance puts me in agreement with JJ's stance. My posts (or at least my initial post) was in response to posters who felt the young lady should NOT be punished. I have held from the beginning that she SHOULD BE PUNISHED--she chose to break the rules (right or wrong), and she should be allowed to suffer the consequences of actions. JJ's stance is the students should not be punished (even though they blatantly broke the rules).

I have learned that I work at really good school (at least compared to Oberkommando's), and that perspective and experience can really effect your view of the situation. (For what's its worth, I carry a Gerber lock blade all the time--I just make sure it is slightly under the legal maximum length--and I have a CHL).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top