Violence vs Self Defense in schools.

[JakeStarkey]

We made it very clear, as a school board, to the supe and the principals and teachers and staff that no tolerance was to be given to bullies. In other words, adults were expected to interfere using the least force necessary to secure the situation. The security personnel knew exactly what we meant.

By the end of September, the bullies also knew what that meant and they submitted meekly. By January, we had no problems for the rest of the year.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well, it seems as if it would be pretty cut and dry with the right people pushing the issue. I mean, if they took religion out of the schools based on it be "unconstitutional", then how could they possibly insist that a child does not have the right to self defense, though it's written within the constitution that they do?

Self defense isn't in the constitution anywhere? Of course it is, so how is it that it's being left out of our school systems, a place that we are instructed by law that we will be punished for not sending our children.

These type of things infuriate me to no end, and as a veteran, even more so. People wonder why so many of the people going postal in the nation are ex-military. Chances are, they shouldn't have been told to swear to an oath that states "I promise to defend this country and constitution, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. When it's your own government that continues to violate constitutional boundaries that millions of men have shed their blood over, is there any real wonder?

People are proud to serve, and the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, or you just might get it."

Children don't have the same rights as adults though, people can rape a child in this country and get a suspended sentence and community service, happens all the time. If the system hardly cares about kids being raped why should they care about kids having a tough time in school?

Exactly right, and another prime example our country is being led by racketeers. A person committing tax evasion is likely to get a longer sentence for not sending "our government" (so they like to be called) their money, as opposed to some freak who played hide the winky in your little kid.

Justice served? Nope, but they by golly found a way to get that money heh? Oh, yeah

After the Casey Anthony trial someone told me that the system is not about finding justice for people.

 

[BrutalTruth]

We made it very clear, as a school board, to the supe and the principals and teachers and staff that no tolerance was to be given to bullies. In other words, adults were expected to interfere using the least force necessary to secure the situation. The security personnel knew exactly what we meant.

By the end of September, the bullies also knew what that meant and they submitted meekly. By January, we had no problems for the rest of the year.

That's a pretty good theory and approach to a situation that's already ongoing @Jake. What happens though is that there is in no way enough teachers/staff to possibly be around at the exact moment they are needed, and violence occurs before staff can be on hand, more often than not.

In that instance and specific time, a student is forced with the decision, lay down and be hit, possibly die, until someone comes to the rescue, or...practice the constitutional right of self defense.

So... during the time period between September to January, any child that practiced self defense was just simply "out of luck" so to speak? That's not tolerable, nor constitutional. Nor is it safe for anyone to send their children to your school during those months until "staff" can get themselves figured out....right?

Children should have zero tolerance in getting beat up because "someone said so".

That's zero tolerance in purity.

 

[BrutalTruth]

I say, if you were really thinking about it, and being quite literal, the policy would state this:

Dear fellow students, I'd like to talk to you about violence in school. Please don't fight. If you find yourself in way of physical harm, "Please bend over, grab your ankles, and take it like a man", until one of our faculty members "happen to notice what's going on". Fighting back and avoiding the pain or threat to life is futile, and you will face consequences. Our onsite nurse will gladly give you a sucker, and if you feel abused in any way, we have counselors who have been trained in telling you that you are still a winner.

Sincerly,

Superintendent: Bob Blow

Does this sound about right?

 

[High_Gravity]

I say, if you were really thinking about it, and being quite literal, the policy would state this:

Dear fellow students, I'd like to talk to you about violence in school. Please don't fight. If you find yourself in way of physical harm, "Please bend over, grab your ankles, and take it like a man", until one of our faculty members "happen to notice what's going on". Fighting back and avoiding the pain or threat to life is futile, and you will face consequences. Our onsite nurse will gladly give you a sucker, and if you feel abused in any way, we have counselors who have been trained in telling you that you are still a winner.

Sincerly,

Superintendent: Bob Blow

Does this sound about right?

Yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. Where it was possible to sort out the "truth" we did the best we could.

Did some kid suffer. Probably. But not nearly as many who would have if did not put the program into effect.

We got throught withou signficant injuries to the staff, though three or four student bullies got smashed face front into walls before they could be subdued. The local LEO and magistrates were very understanding to the school district and very, very hard on the bullies.

There have been no real incidents in two years now, for which we are grateful.

We also put into effect an edict that any fighting, boy or girl, would lead to automatic suspension frome extra cirricular activities. Then were threatened by a couple of parents, but we took care of that as well.

We have a safe school district now.

We made it very clear, as a school board, to the supe and the principals and teachers and staff that no tolerance was to be given to bullies. In other words, adults were expected to interfere using the least force necessary to secure the situation. The security personnel knew exactly what we meant.

By the end of September, the bullies also knew what that meant and they submitted meekly. By January, we had no problems for the rest of the year.

That's a pretty good theory and approach to a situation that's already ongoing @Jake. What happens though is that there is in no way enough teachers/staff to possibly be around at the exact moment they are needed, and violence occurs before staff can be on hand, more often than not.

In that instance and specific time, a student is forced with the decision, lay down and be hit, possibly die, until someone comes to the rescue, or...practice the constitutional right of self defense.

So... during the time period between September to January, any child that practiced self defense was just simply "out of luck" so to speak? That's not tolerable, nor constitutional. Nor is it safe for anyone to send their children to your school during those months until "staff" can get themselves figured out....right?

Children should have zero tolerance in getting beat up because "someone said so".

That's zero tolerance in purity.

 

[BrutalTruth]

Not at all. Where it was possible to sort out the "truth" we did the best we could.

Did some kid suffer. Probably. But not nearly as many who would have if did not put the program into effect.

We got throught withou signficant injuries to the staff, though three or four student bullies got smashed face front into walls before they could be subdued. The local LEO and magistrates were very understanding to the school district and very, very hard on the bullies.

There have been no real incidents in two years now, for which we are grateful.

We also put into effect an edict that any fighting, boy or girl, would lead to automatic suspension frome extra cirricular activities. Then were threatened by a couple of parents, but we took care of that as well.

We have a safe school district now.

We made it very clear, as a school board, to the supe and the principals and teachers and staff that no tolerance was to be given to bullies. In other words, adults were expected to interfere using the least force necessary to secure the situation. The security personnel knew exactly what we meant.

By the end of September, the bullies also knew what that meant and they submitted meekly. By January, we had no problems for the rest of the year.

That's a pretty good theory and approach to a situation that's already ongoing @Jake. What happens though is that there is in no way enough teachers/staff to possibly be around at the exact moment they are needed, and violence occurs before staff can be on hand, more often than not.

In that instance and specific time, a student is forced with the decision, lay down and be hit, possibly die, until someone comes to the rescue, or...practice the constitutional right of self defense.

So... during the time period between September to January, any child that practiced self defense was just simply "out of luck" so to speak? That's not tolerable, nor constitutional. Nor is it safe for anyone to send their children to your school during those months until "staff" can get themselves figured out....right?

Children should have zero tolerance in getting beat up because "someone said so".

That's zero tolerance in purity.

So what you are saying then is that "in the event, you could find out who started the altercation, the child that was merely defending themselves was not given an offense, and your staff did the best they could to keep it all from happening?

If so, that's really about all that can be asked for, and I agree with that policy. If a child is "ever" punished for defending themselves, that is not a policy I can support.

As a parent, I could not imagine any parent supporting the idea that their child should lay down and get beat, and if they don't, they get punished. It is happening at many schools, and for the life of me, I just can't, nor will get it.

 

[Ernie S.]

August 17 1786 Davy Crockett born near Limestone, Tennessee. Hero and backwoods statesman, his motto was:
“Be always sure you are right, then go ahead.”

The dif between violence and self-defense.

The dif[ference] between violence and self-defense -- is what?

I take it you get the shit kicked out of you daily?