What's Wrong with School Administrations These Days?

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by kozmo

 

Murder is wrong.



Oh no, I'm an absolutist!

No I'm far from an absolutist. I have common sense that says when I'm on someone else's property, I obey their rules. Can I come over to your house and rub my muddy boots on your couch? Why not? Screw your rules man, I'm American!

Someone else's property? Dude, that is YOUR property! MY property! We're not talking about rules... we're talking about control - BIG difference. The fact that you can't discern between the two is testament to why this country is swirling down the loo!

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Okay, so now I know that you were at least human at one point in time. I'm still of the opinion they can take thier "zero tolerance" policy and stick it where the sun don't shine though.

Thanks.

You're entitled to that opinion on zero-tolerance policies. In fact, if you could drum up a good speech about it and get a chance to speak to your local school district, you may even get them to change their minds. Unlikely,but possible.

reply to post by DaTroof


Hey, speaking about "Zero tolerance" policies... how about the liberals implement that for murder, armed robbery etc...? Instead, criminal get let our of "Good behavior" and commit the same crimes over and over again!

Freaking "Zero tolerance" is applied to children, but not criminals! Unbelievable. So done with this debate because it isn't even a debate - it is an attempt to get someone so completely brainwashed to see the light and they're just not capable.

Again, testament to why the country is swirling down the loo! G'bye America!

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by kozmo

 

Murder is wrong.



Oh no, I'm an absolutist!

No I'm far from an absolutist. I have common sense that says when I'm on someone else's property, I obey their rules. Can I come over to your house and rub my muddy boots on your couch? Why not? Screw your rules man, I'm American!

Someone else's property? Dude, that is YOUR property! MY property! We're not talking about rules... we're talking about control - BIG difference. The fact that you can't discern between the two is testament to why this country is swirling down the loo!

Try going on to any school campus right now claiming ownership. I dare you. Yes, we the taxpayers pay for it, but it is not OURS.

There is zero difference between ignoring a NO GUNS, LOOKALIKE GUNS OR THREATS warning and a NO TRESPASSING sign, which are also around schools.

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Hey, speaking about "Zero tolerance" policies... how about the liberals implement that for murder, armed robbery etc...? Instead, criminal get let our of "Good behavior" and commit the same crimes over and over again!

Freaking "Zero tolerance" is applied to children, but not criminals! Unbelievable. So done with this debate because it isn't even a debate - it is an attempt to get someone so completely brainwashed to see the light and they're just not capable.

Again, testament to why the country is swirling down the loo! G'bye America!

Prisoner release has nothing to do with lawmakers and everything to do with judges. Learn the legal system before you blindly point fingers.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by kozmo

 

Murder is wrong.



Oh no, I'm an absolutist!

No I'm far from an absolutist. I have common sense that says when I'm on someone else's property, I obey their rules. Can I come over to your house and rub my muddy boots on your couch? Why not? Screw your rules man, I'm American!

So if a child, tracks some mud in from being outside playing your response is to pick them up and throw them out? How very authoritive of you......with that kind of attitude I would hate to be your offspring.

reply to post by DaTroof


Really, lawmakers couldn't pass a law that mandates minimum sentencing standards??? Hmmmmm, that's news to me. You'd better let the LEGISLATURE know that they can no longer pass laws on such things. I guess I should just blame stupid "Zero tolerance" policies on judges then... Good to know!

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Not necessarily. A kid brought a gun to my junior high school back around 1992. He threatened the kid and told him he had the gun that day. Luckily, word got to the teacher and police were called to raid his locker before class ended that period. I'm sure the one who brought the gun made gestures of that nature leading up to him actually bringing the gun to school.

Being over-reactive sucks sometimes, but being inactive can have very dire consequences. Much worse than detention or suspension. I was an honor roll student and was in detention or suspended at least once every year. It's part of growing up. Kids get in trouble when they do bad things. Parents shouldn't be so quick to contest a punishment doled out by the school system.

Honestly, I agree with you. detention or suspension for gun references is one thing. Expulsion, which, in most school districts is mandatory now when dealing with guns or threats, is a whole other. To expel a kid for making a finger gun, or for having a toy gun, the same way you would if a kid had a real gun, is stupid.

'No Gun' policies in schools is fine. Zero -tolerance with a minimum punishment of expulsion is not.

reply to post by Darkphoenix77


That's not what I'm saying. My kids get punished in my house for breaking my rules. If they break the neighbor's rules at the neighbor's house, then yes the neighbor should punish him/her. If I'm not comfortable with that, I won't allow my child at the neighbor's house.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


The problem with leniency is that eventually someone will bring a real threatening weapon to school if not told it's an absolute no-no. Kids learn through fear of punishment. It's not sadistic if punishment is used as a deterrent to keep guns out of schools, even toy ones.

..."we just need to brainwash people..."~1995, Eric Holder

Yep, pretty soon there won't be any recollection of the rights we took for granted! The younger generation won't have a clue if TPTB get their way.

www.youtube.com...
Video of Eric Holder

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

That's not what I'm saying. My kids get punished in my house for breaking my rules. If they break the neighbor's rules at the neighbor's house, then yes the neighbor should punish him/her. If I'm not comfortable with that, I won't allow my child at the neighbor's house.

The neighbor should not put his hands on your child he should call you and let you deal with it.....prove my logic wrong.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

That's not what I'm saying. My kids get punished in my house for breaking my rules. If they break the neighbor's rules at the neighbor's house, then yes the neighbor should punish him/her. If I'm not comfortable with that, I won't allow my child at the neighbor's house.

The neighbor should not put his hands on your child he should call you and let you deal with it.....prove my logic wrong.

I didn't say strike, I said punish. That can mean putting them in time-out while contacting me, or simply stopping them from whatever misbehavior they're getting in to. If my kid was at your house getting ready to open up your gun cabinet, how would you stop him?

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

The problem with leniency is that eventually someone will bring a real threatening weapon to school if not told it's an absolute no-no. Kids learn through fear of punishment. It's not sadistic if punishment is used as a deterrent to keep guns out of schools, even toy ones.

You don't punish children through pre-crime sorry, that is not how the system is designed to work.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

That's not what I'm saying. My kids get punished in my house for breaking my rules. If they break the neighbor's rules at the neighbor's house, then yes the neighbor should punish him/her. If I'm not comfortable with that, I won't allow my child at the neighbor's house.

The neighbor should not put his hands on your child he should call you and let you deal with it.....prove my logic wrong.

I didn't say strike, I said punish. That can mean putting them in time-out while contacting me, or simply stopping them from whatever misbehavior they're getting in to. If my kid was at your house getting ready to open up your gun cabinet, how would you stop him?

With a lock. I believe a warning like, "hey those aren't toys, get over here!" would be sufficient followed by going and getting the child if necessary and locking the door.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

The problem with leniency is that eventually someone will bring a real threatening weapon to school if not told it's an absolute no-no. Kids learn through fear of punishment. It's not sadistic if punishment is used as a deterrent to keep guns out of schools, even toy ones.

You don't punish children through pre-crime sorry, that is not how the system is designed to work.

There isn't any punishment for pre-crime happening. Making a threat violates the student policy. Bringing guns or lookalike guns to school, (even tiny toy guns) violates the student policy. When children break the rules, they are then punished.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

The problem with leniency is that eventually someone will bring a real threatening weapon to school if not told it's an absolute no-no. Kids learn through fear of punishment. It's not sadistic if punishment is used as a deterrent to keep guns out of schools, even toy ones.

I simply dont agree with that, and statistics are on my side. Simply put-gun are, and always have been, a no-no at school. Kids still bring them.

And to show leniency (if that what you'd call suspending a kid for making a finger gun) in some cases does not promote anything. To give a lesser punishment to the kid who is playing g.i. joe on recess than to the kid who threatens to kill students with his dad's arsenal is logical-it isnt leniency. I'd venture to say that 99% of young boys in the U.S. play something that has to do with guns at some point in their childhood. The vast majority never go on to killing, or even trying to kill anyone.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

That's not what I'm saying. My kids get punished in my house for breaking my rules. If they break the neighbor's rules at the neighbor's house, then yes the neighbor should punish him/her. If I'm not comfortable with that, I won't allow my child at the neighbor's house.

The neighbor should not put his hands on your child he should call you and let you deal with it.....prove my logic wrong.

I didn't say strike, I said punish. That can mean putting them in time-out while contacting me, or simply stopping them from whatever misbehavior they're getting in to. If my kid was at your house getting ready to open up your gun cabinet, how would you stop him?

with a lock

edit on 1-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

He's still managed a way to get it open. Now what? No more dancing around the issue.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

The problem with leniency is that eventually someone will bring a real threatening weapon to school if not told it's an absolute no-no. Kids learn through fear of punishment. It's not sadistic if punishment is used as a deterrent to keep guns out of schools, even toy ones.

I simply dont agree with that, and statistics are on my side. Simply put-gun are, and always have been, a no-no at school. Kids still bring them.

And to show leniency (if that what you'd call suspending a kid for making a finger gun) in some cases does not promote anything. To give a lesser punishment to the kid who is playing g.i. joe on recess than to the kid who threatens to kill students with his dad's arsenal is logical-it isnt leniency. I'd venture to say that 99% of young boys in the U.S. play something that has to do with guns at some point in their childhood. The vast majority never go on to killing, or even trying to kill anyone.

I have not agreed with you much lately captin, but here we see completely eye to eye and are on the same page.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

That's not what I'm saying. My kids get punished in my house for breaking my rules. If they break the neighbor's rules at the neighbor's house, then yes the neighbor should punish him/her. If I'm not comfortable with that, I won't allow my child at the neighbor's house.

The neighbor should not put his hands on your child he should call you and let you deal with it.....prove my logic wrong.

I didn't say strike, I said punish. That can mean putting them in time-out while contacting me, or simply stopping them from whatever misbehavior they're getting in to. If my kid was at your house getting ready to open up your gun cabinet, how would you stop him?

with a lock

edit on 1-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

He's still managed a way to get it open. Now what? No more dancing around the issue.

How'd this happen, did he beat me over the head with a baseball bat and take my keys? If it is locked he won't get it open, end of story. refer to my edit as the appropriate response.