Karl`s PC Help Forums

Student with knife arrested
scholar - 18-12-2007 at 12:43

A ten-year-old girl is facing felony charges for carrying a "weapon" to school--a steak knife that was packed in her lunch, intended for her to use to cut her steak. She was arrested and removed from the school be deputies, and it's possible she may not be allowed to return to the school.

Since she had used the knife to cut her meat at lunch several times before, she was really surprised to be arrested for a felony and removed.

I think this is incredibly stupid! What do you think?Dangerous ten-year-old lunch-eating criminal


janet - 18-12-2007 at 13:02

I suspect there is a great deal more to the story than is being presented.

It's clear that the school system has a clear policy against bringing any such thing to school.

Whether or not the child should be facing charges - or will face them - is one thing. But since it's clear that such a thing should never have come to school, there is obviously something amiss.

But the arguments are a bit off, "She's been a good student up till now" really doesn't cut it when someone breaks a rule.


scholar - 18-12-2007 at 13:16

I don't think she should have been charged with a felony and haulled off to be processed into the criminal system. Now, if she is ever asked on a job application, "Have you ever been arrested for a felony?" she must honestly answer "Yes.":(:(:(


janet - 18-12-2007 at 13:19

As I say, I suspect there is a good deal more to the story than is reported in one press release. It's clear that the policy about knives was well known.


LSemmens - 18-12-2007 at 13:57

A follow up story is eagerly anticipated. For now, it appears that megalomania is rife.


marymary100 - 18-12-2007 at 17:47

No knives means NO knives.

Why was she having steak in her lunchbox? Isn't a salad, a slice of pizza or a sandwich more common?

What kind of parents would send a child to school with a steak and a knife? They would have been the first to complain if their little darling had been threatened by someone else's knife I suspect.


Badgergirl - 18-12-2007 at 22:17

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
I suspect there is a great deal more to the story than is being presented.

It's clear that the school system has a clear policy against bringing any such thing to school.

Whether or not the child should be facing charges - or will face them - is one thing. But since it's clear that such a thing should never have come to school, there is obviously something amiss.

But the arguments are a bit off, "She's been a good student up till now" really doesn't cut it when someone breaks a rule.


I think that being a good student should usually count for you mind. It makes it a lot more likely it was an innocent mistake.


Dreamweaver - 18-12-2007 at 22:36

Sounds a bit OTT much like this one------- sausages

Looking at both sides it seems the man was "always shouting" and the child reacted ,wrongly admittedly, but what if the man ( over 70 I think) had smacked the child?


scholar - 18-12-2007 at 22:39

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
I think that being a good student should usually count for you mind. It makes it a lot more likely it was an innocent mistake.

If the knife was OK the first two or three times it was brought to school, I'm sure the girl thought it was OK. It was just a kind of table knife, after all--not a switchblade, hunting knife, or even a food prep knife.

There is also the possibility that someone else packed the lunch and put in the appropriate utensil for that food, unaware that that there was any rule against it--especially after nothing was heard to the contrary when it was packed previously.

Why was steak sent in the lunch? I would guess that means the family had eaten steak, and some was left. It's a good way to use up a single odd steak.:):)


marymary100 - 18-12-2007 at 23:10

A steak knife isn't just a table knife. Which was it?


janet - 18-12-2007 at 23:28

And really - who would think it appropriate to send a child to school with a steak knife?

Regardless of the hype, the point remains- the school system has a zero tolerance policy for knives and this family must have known that - and still sent a knife to school.

Consider what the press reports would be saying about the school if the knife had been used to injure someone?


Redwolf5150 - 18-12-2007 at 23:29

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Now, if she is ever asked on a job application, "Have you ever been arrested for a felony?" she must honestly answer "Yes.":(:(:(


She's ten-years old.

The offense will be handled in juvenille court.

Her juvenile record is sealed at age 18 unless she commits another serious offense.

When a potential employer asks about felony convictions, they are asking about adult charges.

If she had brought a steak knife to school here in Merrill, the same thing would have happened. It is a published rule that all parents are informed of at the start of the year via the "Code of Conduct" each school sends home with the kids on the first day of school.

kewl_glasses


scholar - 18-12-2007 at 23:46

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Regardless of the hype, the point remains- the school system has a zero tolerance policy for knives and this family must have known that - and still sent a knife to school.
This idea that the family MUST have known about the policy--did you just make that up out of nothing? The article certainly didn't say that.:)


scholar - 18-12-2007 at 23:53

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
A steak knife isn't just a table knife. Which was it?

I think a steak knife is a table knife. In my family, the table was regularly set with a steak knife.


Badgergirl - 19-12-2007 at 00:14

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
A steak knife isn't just a table knife. Which was it?

I think a steak knife is a table knife. In my family, the table was regularly set with a steak knife.


That's why I was confused about the article. We have meals with steak knives a lot. Even if the family knew about the policy, then I'm not sure everyone would think Ill of a steak knife?


janet - 19-12-2007 at 00:19

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Regardless of the hype, the point remains- the school system has a zero tolerance policy for knives and this family must have known that - and still sent a knife to school.
This idea that the family MUST have known about the policy--did you just make that up out of nothing? The article certainly didn't say that.:)


No, I did not make it up out of nothing. Education is my business, remember?

The article said the school system has a zero tolerance policy.

IME - which is fairly extensive when it comes to schools - policies are disseminated to parents and carers, when those policies impact on what children can and can not do.

I would be *very* surprised to find out that the school did not tell parents what was and was not allowed - in fact, based on a reasonably wide experience of schools, policies, etc., I'd assume the default situation is that the school had made the information available.

Unless you can show otherwise, that it is common practice for schools to have policies, which carry penalties, yet do not make parents and carers aware of those policies?


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 00:23

And that would also mean no machettés for trimming up your pineapples, too.

roffle


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 00:25

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
A steak knife isn't just a table knife. Which was it?

I think a steak knife is a table knife. In my family, the table was regularly set with a steak knife.


That's why I was confused about the article. We have meals with steak knives a lot. Even if the family knew about the policy, then I'm not sure everyone would think Ill of a steak knife?


Here in the States, a "steak knife" is usually very sharp and usually has a serrieted (sp) blade.

Wicked little instrument in hand-to-hand fighting, IMHO. Even in the hands of a little girl.

kewl_glasses


janet - 19-12-2007 at 00:32

UPDATE

And the parents handbook from the school makes the no tolerance toward weapons policy pretty clear.

So yes, the parents certainly had every opportunity to know about it - if they did not, it was not the fault of the school.


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 00:35

Such information is commonly available--but that is not the same as saying the family must have known.

I've known schools to inform students of rules verbally--but that doesn't mean the students remember them, or tell the parents.

I've known schools to print up rules and give them to the students, to take home--but that doesn't mean the students don't lose them before they get home.

Students can bring papers home and not present them to the parents.

If every step works, up to the point of the parent getting the school manual, that still doesn't mean the book is read.

If the parents read the book, that doesn't mean the parents remembered it. How many schools quiz the parents on the rulebook? I've never been quizzed in that way.


janet - 19-12-2007 at 00:38

These are the rules of the school.

Do you not think that parents have a responsiblity to know the rules of the school?

Again, I reiterate - if the parents did not know about this, it was not the fault of the school. It was information which was clearly, easily available - it took me less than a minute of searching to find it, and I'm not even in the same country, much less have a child at that school.


Dreamweaver - 19-12-2007 at 00:42

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Such information is commonly available--but that is not the same as saying the family must have known.

I've known schools to inform students of rules verbally--but that doesn't mean the students remember them, or tell the parents.

I've known schools to print up rules and give them to the students, to take home--but that doesn't mean the students don't lose them before they get home.


Students can bring papers home and not present them to the parents.

If every step works, up to the point of the parent getting the school manual, that still doesn't mean the book is read.

If the parents read the book, that doesn't mean the parents remembered it. How many schools quiz the parents on the rulebook? I've never been quizzed in that way.


To sum up? Ignorance/forgetfulness is not always bliss.


janet - 19-12-2007 at 00:43

"Ignorance is not bliss"

Nope - nor is it particularly useful for students


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 00:46

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
So yes, the parents certainly had every opportunity to know about it .
Exactly my point. To have an opportunity to know something does not mean one MUST know it.

If that were so, every student would perfectly retain everything presented to them in textbook or lecture. Of course, that isn't the case. And you surely know that.kewl_glasses


janet - 19-12-2007 at 00:53

Ok scholar, fair enough. Let me change, "Parents must have known about it" to "parents should have known about it and had every opportunity so to do"

Now that little side issue is taken care of, perhaps we can get back to the point of the thread.


Dreamweaver - 19-12-2007 at 00:57

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
So yes, the parents certainly had every opportunity to know about it .
Exactly my point. To have an opportunity to know something does not mean one MUST know it.

If that were so, every student would perfectly retain everything presented to them in textbook or lecture. Of course, that isn't the case. And you surely know that.kewl_glasses


I am sure Janet does Scholar.But your argument is from students telling their parents, Janets is from the knowledge available to parents in the first case.


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 01:05

Quote:
Mosley said she sympathized with the girl.

"I do feel sorry for the little girl, because she was innocent in this situation," she said.

Quote:
School Board member Bobby James agreed with Mosley that the board needs some flexibility to consider such situations individually.

"It's one of those things where we're going to have to use some judgment," he said. "If you just read it on face value, we need to look at what we're doing here."
That sounds good to me. Instead of assuming out of thin air that the parents MUST have known about the rule, use some judgment.

Instead of doing nothing the first several times the little girl finds the knife in her lunch bag, and then hauling her off under felony arrest, how about something more reasonable--like taking the knife away the first time, explaining it to the child, phoning the parents, and sending a note home?


Dreamweaver - 19-12-2007 at 01:12

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
That sounds good to me. Instead of assuming out of thin air that the parents MUST have known about the rule, use some judgment.

Instead of doing nothing the first several times the little girl finds the knife in her lunch bag, and then hauling her off under felony arrest, how about something more reasonable--like taking the knife away the first time, explaining it to the child, phoning the parents, and sending a note home?


Just Maybe.....like the parents "must have known", lets consider she wasn't observed using the knife in the three prior incidences...... now who is at fault?


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 01:21

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
I am sure Janet does Scholar.But your argument is from students telling their parents, Janets is from the knowledge available to parents in the first case.
It isn't the case that people MUST know what is available to them, whether from the students telling them (indirect knowledge) or from what has been before their very eyes (direct opportunity).

People don't even actively retain everything that they have known at one time. Retroactive memory interferance can degrade information one has just learned. And we don't know if the parents learned it in the first place.


Janet, it's great if all the parents of all your students read all the requirements, again and again, until they can recall every rule flawlessly. In my experience, I have not found the parents of my students, or my students themselves, do this. Indeed, I have found the opposite--it's not uncommon for them to think that some reasonable adjustments might be made, beyond what the rules allow, even if they are aware it would break the letter of the law. And, they are right! I do make reasonable adjustments, when I have the lattitude to do so. ;)


Dreamweaver - 19-12-2007 at 01:25

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
I am sure Janet does Scholar.But your argument is from students telling their parents, Janets is from the knowledge available to parents in the first case.
It isn't the case that people MUST know what is available to them, whether from the students telling them (indirect knowledge) or from what has been before their very eyes (direct opportunity).

People don't even actively retain everything that they have known at one time. Retroactive memory interferance can degrade information one has just learned. And we don't know if the parents learned it in the first place.


Janet, it's great if all the parents of all your students read all the requirements, again and again, until they can recall every rule flawlessly. In my experience, I have not found the parents of my students, or my students themselves, do this. Indeed, I have found the opposite--it's not uncommon for them to think that some reasonable adjustments might be made, beyond what the rules allow, even if they are aware it would break the letter of the law. And, they are right! I do make reasonable adjustments, when I have the lattitude to do so. ;)


Rest assured Scholar if I /a lot of people got a "NO knives allowed I/we would act upon it.


Dreamweaver - 19-12-2007 at 01:31

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar[/]


Janet, it's great if all the parents of all your students read all the requirements, again and again, until they can recall every rule flawlessly. In my experience, I have not found the parents of my students, or my students themselves, do this. Indeed, I have found the opposite--it's not uncommon for them to think that some reasonable adjustments might be made, beyond what the rules allow, even if they are aware it would break the letter of the law. And, they are right! I do make reasonable adjustments, when I have the lattitude to do so. ;)


We're only talking of one student + possibly 2 parents here Scholar, But "don't bring knives" is slightly more memorable than "don't forget to bring a pen/pencil to school". wouldn't you say?


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 01:41

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
That sounds good to me. Instead of assuming out of thin air that the parents MUST have known about the rule, use some judgment.

Instead of doing nothing the first several times the little girl finds the knife in her lunch bag, and then hauling her off under felony arrest, how about something more reasonable--like taking the knife away the first time, explaining it to the child, phoning the parents, and sending a note home?


Just Maybe.....like the parents "must have known", lets consider she wasn't observed using the knife in the three prior incidences...... now who is at fault?
My guess is, that is exactly what happened. The people at school didn't notice the knife at all. It would have been more likely for her to be noticed and scolded for poor manners if she would have picked up a whole steak and eaten it with her hands and teeth, without it being properly cut.

After innocently eating with the use of the knife a number of times, I think that, even if either parent had ever known of the no knife rule, she would have answered any inquiry by saying, "It's OK. I've done it already and nobody says a word against it."

I think it is insanity for the adults at the school to bounce between two extremes:

First time:
It's not even important enough to direct one's eyes over the table, to see if there is compliance.

Second time:
It's not even important enough to direct one's eyes over the table, to see if there is compliance.

Third time:
It's not even important enough to direct one's eyes over the table, to see if there is compliance.

Fourth time:
It's not even important enough to direct one's eyes over the table, to see if there is compliance.

Eventually:
Arrest the studdent! Call the armed police! Haul her off to a cell! Suspend her from school! Put her in felony detention with other juvenile felony criminals! She deserves the worst punishment the law has for her, the same as if she had been a drug dealer, sex offender, or murderer. HOW DARE SHE CUT HER MEAT WITH A KNIFE! shocked_yellowshocked_yellowshocked_yellow


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 02:10

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
We're only talking of one student + possibly 2 parents here Scholar, But "don't bring knives" is slightly more memorable than "don't forget to bring a pen/pencil to school". wouldn't you say?
You might think so.

I've just looked at the parent-student handbook. It is 27 pages!shocked_yellowshocked_yellowshocked_yellow Do you think a single line about not bringing knives might be missed, buried in all that material?

And, IT DOESN'T SAY "NO KNIVES"!shocked_yellowshocked_yellow

Page 15, which deals with the cafeteria, has no rule against knives. In fact, I would guess that knives are supplied to those who eat the provided meals.

Page 16 Says, under "NO TOLERANCE BEHAVIORS"
"3. Drugs, weapons, alcohol"

It doesn't say what is considered a weapon, or that silverware (or flatware, if you prefer) is a weapon.

When a little girl uses a knife to cut her food, as anyone else using a knife in the cafeteria is doing, is she using a "weapon"?

It could be used as a weapon. So could a fork, or a sharp pencil.

I think the adults at the school are in the wrong.


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 04:17

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Such information is commonly available--but that is not the same as saying the family must have known.

I've known schools to inform students of rules verbally--but that doesn't mean the students remember them, or tell the parents.

I've known schools to print up rules and give them to the students, to take home--but that doesn't mean the students don't lose them before they get home.


Students can bring papers home and not present them to the parents.

If every step works, up to the point of the parent getting the school manual, that still doesn't mean the book is read.

If the parents read the book, that doesn't mean the parents remembered it. How many schools quiz the parents on the rulebook? I've never been quizzed in that way.


To sum up? Ignorance/forgetfulness is not always bliss.


They have an old saying here in the Midwest:

"Ignorance of the law is no defense."

Wouldn't it have been easier for the girl to cut her meat up at home?

kewl_glasses


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 04:22

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar

Page 16 Says, under "NO TOLERANCE BEHAVIORS"
"3. Drugs, weapons, alcohol"

It doesn't say what is considered a weapon, or that silverware (or flatware, if you prefer) is a weapon.


Have you ever considered a career in LAW?

That's the sort of argument that got O.J. off!

A knife is a weapon in these parts, as I'm sure it is in the OTHER 49 States. Try boarding an airplane with a steak knife in your carry on bag and see what happens.

And look at prisons. A toothbrush isn't considered a weapon... until you sharpen the handle end and make it into a shiv.

kewl_glasses


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 04:51

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
They have an old saying here in the Midwest:

"Ignorance of the law is no defense."
This is true. The section you quoted was part of my argument against Janet's statement that the parents must have known that knives weren't allowed.

As I was composing that part, I had not read the handbook, which does not mention knives at all.


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 05:26

When I attended grade school, every student who bought a lunch got a knife. You might use it to cut your spaghetti, or to cut and butter your roll, or anything else you needed to do to your food. No one said, "Horrors! The students are being armed with weapons in the lunch line!"
shocked_yellowshocked_yellowshocked_yellowshocked_yellow

I think, as the little girl looked around and saw the dozens of other students using knives on their food, she would have to go bizzaro to think, "Everyone around me has knives. That means they are weapons, and I am not allowed to eat my steak with one."penguinypenguinypenguiny


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 05:27

* Throws up hands *

Okay, from Dictionary.com (note No. 2, which I took the liberty of highlighting for you)

knife /naɪf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nahyf] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural knives /naɪvz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nahyvz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, verb, knifed, knif·ing.
–noun
1. an instrument for cutting, consisting essentially of a thin, sharp-edged, metal blade fitted with a handle.
2. a knifelike weapon; dagger or short sword.
3. any blade for cutting, as in a tool or machine.
–verb (used with object)
4. to apply a knife to; cut, stab, etc., with a knife.
5. to attempt to defeat or undermine in a secret or underhanded way.
–verb (used without object)
6. to move or cleave through something with or as if with a knife: The ship knifed through the heavy seas.
—Idiom
7. under the knife, in surgery; undergoing a medical operation: The patient was under the knife for four hours.
[Origin: bef. 1100; ME knif, OE cnīf; c. D knijf, G Kneif, ON knīfr]

shocked_yellow


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 05:35

One more for you, same source:

weap·on /ˈwɛpən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wep-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.
3. Zoology. any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.
–verb (used with object)
4. to supply or equip with a weapon or weapons: to weapon aircraft with heat-seeking missiles.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME wepen, OE wǣpen; c. G Waffe, ON vāpn, Goth wépna (pl.)]

—Related forms
weaponed, adjective
weap·on·less, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Since a knife meets the first definition (an instrument, et al) it is, by definition, a weapon.

kewl_glasses


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 05:53

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
One more for you, same source:

weap·on /ˈwɛpən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wep-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.


Since a knife meets the first definition (an instrument, et al) it is, by definition, a weapon.

kewl_glasses
If the little girl brought in a device to use to attack someone, or to defend against an attack in combat, such as a sword, rifle, or cannon, I think she broke the rule.

If she brought in a flatware utensil to use on food, she did not break the rule.

Are you thinking her steak knife looked like this?shocked_yellow


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 05:55

I'm done trying to talk sense into you Mr. Cochran.

I guess the knife didn't fit in her hand, either?

kewl_glasses


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 05:59

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
?noun
1. an instrument for cutting, consisting essentially of a thin, sharp-edged, metal blade fitted with a handle.
2. a knifelike weapon; dagger or short sword.shocked_yellow

If the little girl did, in fact, bring in a dagger or short sword with which to cut her meat, I would agree she broke the rule.


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 06:05

Jamie, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Might we find common ground in thinking the people at the school over-reacted, in having her hauled away as a criminal? Would it have been sufficient to take the knife away, and explain that only weapons supplied in the cafeteria are allowed? :D


janet - 19-12-2007 at 11:00

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
I am sure Janet does Scholar.But your argument is from students telling their parents, Janets is from the knowledge available to parents in the first case.
It isn't the case that people MUST know what is available to them, whether from the students telling them (indirect knowledge) or from what has been before their very eyes (direct opportunity).

People don't even actively retain everything that they have known at one time. Retroactive memory interferance can degrade information one has just learned. And we don't know if the parents learned it in the first place.


Janet, it's great if all the parents of all your students read all the requirements, again and again, until they can recall every rule flawlessly. In my experience, I have not found the parents of my students, or my students themselves, do this. Indeed, I have found the opposite--it's not uncommon for them to think that some reasonable adjustments might be made, beyond what the rules allow, even if they are aware it would break the letter of the law. And, they are right! I do make reasonable adjustments, when I have the lattitude to do so. ;)


Did you read the report I linked to, scholar?


janet - 19-12-2007 at 11:02

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Jamie, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Might we find common ground in thinking the people at the school over-reacted, in having her hauled away as a criminal? Would it have been sufficient to take the knife away, and explain that only weapons supplied in the cafeteria are allowed? :D


Do you understand the concept of "no tolerance"?

It does not mean "We'll forgive you once and explain things".

It means - no tolerance.


Daz - 19-12-2007 at 11:21

For the record, steak knives and table knives are different objects altogether...

One would assume it'd be quite difficult to inflict a serious injury with a table knife, a steak knife however, would be a handy weapon to inflict injury with.

I'm not sure I'd even want my 10 year old using a steak knife at home, never mind carrying one to school... They could do some serious damage to themselves if they slipped while cutting their meat with a steak knife, and if they thought it a good idea to start showing off with such a knife....Well, who knows.....? If the meat was that hard to cut it should of been done at home, by an adult, using the steak knife.

Sending a child anywhere with a sharp knife like a steak knife is just plain madness, IMHO.

Just for clarification, on the left, a common STEAK KNIFE, an the Right, a common TABLE KNIFE.


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 13:53

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Regardless of the hype, the point remains- the school system has a zero tolerance policy for knives and this family must have known that - and still sent a knife to school.
No, knives designed and used for dining are not mentioned in the parent-student handbook. There is no rule against them.

If there was "zero tolerance" for eating utensils, then no child would have a knife for spreading the butter patty on their bread or roll.

The school board member who declared the girl "innocent" was correct.

Yes, Janet, I did read the report.:)


Dreamweaver - 19-12-2007 at 14:03

I think your just being pedantic now Scholar.waggyfinger :P

Or are you saying if I murdered you with a knife it wouldn't be murder? shocked_yellow


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 14:22

If you murdered me with ANYTHING, it would be murder--a sharp pencil, a fork, hitting me over the head with a chair.

To be a weapon, something must either be a weapon by design (such as a Rambo knife, a throwing knife, a short sword) or used as a weapon. Steak knives are designed to be used as eating utensils. If it is used in agreement with its design (as the other students were using their knives for food, and no other purpose), then it is not a weapon. And the rule book does not make any mention of knives, or have any rule against them--only against weapons, which this knife was not, either by design or use.:)


Dreamweaver - 19-12-2007 at 14:33

Any item taken outside the home environment can and will be classed as a weapon.


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 15:08

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
If you murdered me with ANYTHING, it would be murder--a sharp pencil, a fork, hitting me over the head with a chair.


And in the police report under MURDER WEAPON it would list what was used.

I second Dreamweaver's opinion that you are not seeing reason in this case..

If the school board feels so strongly about all the attention this case has generated, they will amend the rules.

UNTIL then, the district has a zero tolerance policy on weapons in school. That is what the school administrators must go by. To do otherwise would be inviting disaster and charges of favoritism.

The district attorney also has the option of not trying the case. In this instance I could see that happening.

But the school board is charged by the voters to protect ALL children in the district's schools. They have to keep that in the forefront of their minds when they make decisions that affect their schools.

In this instance, the right decision was made. It is better to err on the side of caution than have a child stabbed with an "eating utensil."

kewl_glasses


LSemmens - 19-12-2007 at 15:17

I have steak knives that look very similar to that scholar, and, yes, they would make lovely little weapons as they are sharp, serrated and pointed. They are deigned for cutting meat, guess what people are made out of????


marymary100 - 19-12-2007 at 15:57

scholar, if/when you start your new job.............don't argue the toss about every point. waggyfinger


Redwolf5150 - 19-12-2007 at 15:59

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
scholar, if/when you start your new job.............don't argue the toss about every point. waggyfinger


Or he/she might boss you out on your keester.

roffle


marymary100 - 19-12-2007 at 16:12

My steak knives look exactly like those sharp ones pictured. My table knives are flat with rounded tops.


janet - 19-12-2007 at 17:37

In essence - the school has a no tolerance policy. The student breached that.


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 19:07

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
In essence - the school has a no tolerance policy. The student breached that.
The school has a no tolerance policy against weapons, not eating utensils. If it had a "no knives" policy, none of the students would be using them to cut their spaghetti or butter their bread. Since the knife was not designed for weapon use, nor was it made a weapon by using it as one, there is no rule against it.

If the school wants to add a rule in next year's book to the effect that no student is allowed to bring a knife from home, they can do so. But they can't say that there is no tolerance for knives as food utensils at school, when they hand out a knife with every tray of food from the kitchen.:)


marymary100 - 19-12-2007 at 19:14

black
white
black
white
black
white
black
white
black
white
black
white
black
white..........................ilovekarls_f


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 21:12

ilovekarls_f too.

I predict that, since the school does not have a no tolerance policy against knives designed for and used for food at one's table (as far as anything printed in the handbook is concerned), either the charge will be dropped or the girl will be found not guilty.

I think the school board, of whom some have already declared sympathy to the girl, will try to retreat and smooth things over. I certainly hope so. It should not be a crime for one little girl to cut her food, while she can plainly see it is not a crime for all the other children who are cutting theirs.:)


scholar - 19-12-2007 at 21:16

On the other hand, I know of some guys who used to bring their rifles to school and leave them in their school lockers during their day of classes. Then, after school, they would do a little hunting before they got home.

Now, THOSE were weapons, and would be against this school's policy.:)


Daz - 20-12-2007 at 00:28

I think Scholar's CUT should be changed to "Wind up merchant"....!!! ;) :D ;)

Surely the issue is, IMO anyway, why is a 10 year old taking to school a VERY sharp knife, when there would have been cutlery in the school canteen anyway. Seems an odd decision to me, and one that would obviously lead to trouble, no matter what the intentions are/were.

Carrying a knife like that anywhere, is a stupid thing to do, IMHO anyway, and if it were found would obviously have ramifications on the individual carrying it.

I used to have kittens everytime at the airport, as I have to travel with scissors and hyperdermic needles when away for any length of time, even though I had numerous Doctor's letters explaining the need for such equipment. (That was pre 9/11, I dread to think how I'd manage nowadays!) :o


marymary100 - 20-12-2007 at 07:16

I know what you mean. My daughter has to carry an epi-pen and always needs to explain it before being scanned. They've been fine so far and once she even had a sewing kit and they, surprisingly, didn't seem that bothered.


Badgergirl - 20-12-2007 at 18:57

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Ok scholar, fair enough. Let me change, "Parents must have known about it" to "parents should have known about it and had every opportunity so to do"

Now that little side issue is taken care of, perhaps we can get back to the point of the thread.



I've taken to saying "If I don't know there is an elephant in the next room, I don't know I've to go and feed it".

Perhaps I had every oppertunity to know so, but even so, even I'd wonder about a Steak Knife being included in the dangerous list!


Redwolf5150 - 20-12-2007 at 23:55

Quote:
Originally posted by Daz
I think Scholar's CUT should be changed to "Wind up merchant"....!!! ;) :D ;)


Nah, change it to "Bagpipes."

Full of air and some people find them annoying.

(Not me, however. I like bagpipes and enjoy batting Scholar around like a cat does a ball)

:D


Badgergirl - 21-12-2007 at 11:28

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Jamie, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Might we find common ground in thinking the people at the school over-reacted, in having her hauled away as a criminal? Would it have been sufficient to take the knife away, and explain that only weapons supplied in the cafeteria are allowed? :D


Do you understand the concept of "no tolerance"?

It does not mean "We'll forgive you once and explain things".

It means - no tolerance.


Is that something you agree with?
It seems a bit harsh for a 10 yr old, and rather an Unchristain way of dealing with an honest mistake.


Redwolf5150 - 21-12-2007 at 21:06

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Jamie, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Might we find common ground in thinking the people at the school over-reacted, in having her hauled away as a criminal? Would it have been sufficient to take the knife away, and explain that only weapons supplied in the cafeteria are allowed? :D


Do you understand the concept of "no tolerance"?

It does not mean "We'll forgive you once and explain things".

It means - no tolerance.


Is that something you agree with?
It seems a bit harsh for a 10 yr old, and rather an Unchristain way of dealing with an honest mistake.


Like 10-year olds can't be the target of a bully and want to retaliate with something that would "even the playing field."

Sadly, it happens here way too often for anything less than a zero tolerance policy to be in place.

kewl_glasses


janet - 21-12-2007 at 22:50

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Jamie, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Might we find common ground in thinking the people at the school over-reacted, in having her hauled away as a criminal? Would it have been sufficient to take the knife away, and explain that only weapons supplied in the cafeteria are allowed? :D


Do you understand the concept of "no tolerance"?

It does not mean "We'll forgive you once and explain things".

It means - no tolerance.


Is that something you agree with?
It seems a bit harsh for a 10 yr old, and rather an Unchristain way of dealing with an honest mistake.


Whether or not it's a Christian way of dealing with things is a complete red herring - this is about a public school system.

I agree, however, that no tolerance means no tolerance.

The point hinges on the definition of "weapon".

In this country, carrying anything with a blade of more than three inches is going to open you to problems with the law, for instance, except in specific circumstances.

But why in heaven's name throw in "unChristian"? It's got nothing to do with faith at all.


victor - 22-12-2007 at 00:31

I do not believe it.

By the way the sausage throwing boys case has been dropped.


the bear - 22-12-2007 at 07:46

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Jamie, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Might we find common ground in thinking the people at the school over-reacted, in having her hauled away as a criminal? Would it have been sufficient to take the knife away, and explain that only weapons supplied in the cafeteria are allowed? :D


Do you understand the concept of "no tolerance"?

It does not mean "We'll forgive you once and explain things".

It means - no tolerance.


Is that something you agree with?
It seems a bit harsh for a 10 yr old, and rather an Unchristain way of dealing with an honest mistake.


Its certainly "Un-Christian" if that ten year old child goes on to stick the knife in another pupils chest. I think the school has acted correctly and were fully justified in doing so: no tolerance means no tolerance.
Its good that some people / schools / organisations are prepared to draw the line in the sand.

Regards the Bear


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 09:38

The most interesting aspect of the whole case to me, as a teacher, is why neither parent was able to be contacted when the school tried to get in touch immediately after the incident.

Maybe the whole episode resulted from inadequate parenting?


the bear - 22-12-2007 at 10:50

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
The most interesting aspect of the whole case to me, as a teacher, is why neither parent was able to be contacted when the school tried to get in touch immediately after the incident.

Maybe the whole episode resulted from inadequate parenting?


I agree whole-heartedly with MM, The parents should be answerable for thier child being in posession of a weapon at school at the age of 10. What would the legal position be if the said child had injured someone, is she old enough to be charged with an offense? The school would most certainly come under fire if another pupil had been harmed!!!!


Regards the Bear


Daz - 22-12-2007 at 12:23

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Maybe the whole episode resulted from inadequate parenting?


Hang on, maybe that's true, but as yet we don't know they weren't unreachable for very genuine reasons...

Innocent 'til proven an' al that...


Badgergirl - 22-12-2007 at 20:44

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Jamie, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Might we find common ground in thinking the people at the school over-reacted, in having her hauled away as a criminal? Would it have been sufficient to take the knife away, and explain that only weapons supplied in the cafeteria are allowed? :D


Do you understand the concept of "no tolerance"?

It does not mean "We'll forgive you once and explain things".

It means - no tolerance.


Is that something you agree with?
It seems a bit harsh for a 10 yr old, and rather an Unchristain way of dealing with an honest mistake.


Whether or not it's a Christian way of dealing with things is a complete red herring - this is about a public school system.

I agree, however, that no tolerance means no tolerance.

The point hinges on the definition of "weapon".

In this country, carrying anything with a blade of more than three inches is going to open you to problems with the law, for instance, except in specific circumstances.

But why in heaven's name throw in "unChristian"? It's got nothing to do with faith at all.


You kept on mentioning the "zero tolerance" approach, as it was held in this school. However as we are not dealing here with an adult environment, instead, a place to teach children, perhaps the honest, peaceful mistake should have been dealt with using common sense, understanding and forgivness.

I was wondering if you mentioned "Zero Tolerance" as you agreed with the schools actions, or simply that you understood those were the rules and she broke them.

The "Unchristian" Comment is asking how you, personally (all of you) would have handled an innocent mistake, with no intent to do any harm. Should it have been explained to the girl upon the removal of the offending object, instead of punished?


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 21:49

I suspect that it was the school's inability to contact the parents that led to her being removed from the school in the way that she was.

Either we accept that the girl is old enough to know what she was doing and suffer the consequences of her actions or we have to consider that her parents should be overseeing her lunches, reading all school rules and seeing that they are adhered to, being available for emergency contact etc.

Personally, I would not be putting any 10 year old out to school with a lunch they had prepared themself.


janet - 22-12-2007 at 21:58

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Jamie, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Might we find common ground in thinking the people at the school over-reacted, in having her hauled away as a criminal? Would it have been sufficient to take the knife away, and explain that only weapons supplied in the cafeteria are allowed? :D


Do you understand the concept of "no tolerance"?

It does not mean "We'll forgive you once and explain things".

It means - no tolerance.


Is that something you agree with?
It seems a bit harsh for a 10 yr old, and rather an Unchristain way of dealing with an honest mistake.


Whether or not it's a Christian way of dealing with things is a complete red herring - this is about a public school system.

I agree, however, that no tolerance means no tolerance.

The point hinges on the definition of "weapon".

In this country, carrying anything with a blade of more than three inches is going to open you to problems with the law, for instance, except in specific circumstances.

But why in heaven's name throw in "unChristian"? It's got nothing to do with faith at all.


You kept on mentioning the "zero tolerance" approach, as it was held in this school. However as we are not dealing here with an adult environment, instead, a place to teach children, perhaps the honest, peaceful mistake should have been dealt with using common sense, understanding and forgivness.

I was wondering if you mentioned "Zero Tolerance" as you agreed with the schools actions, or simply that you understood those were the rules and she broke them.

The "Unchristian" Comment is asking how you, personally (all of you) would have handled an innocent mistake, with no intent to do any harm. Should it have been explained to the girl upon the removal of the offending object, instead of punished?


I mentioned zero tolerance because that's what the school system - not just the school - had, and it was a policy that the parents had every opportunity to know. As I said above, it took me less than two minutes' searching to find it...

How I would handle the situation is immaterial - I'm unlikely to ever be in such a situation, as I'm not employed in schools in that way.

And I still don't think "Christianity" comes into it; it's a red herring. Although I'd not say that my faith is separate from my work in education, I would also not say that colleagues who do not share my faith do their jobs any differently, with any less compassion or any less integrity than I do.


janet - 22-12-2007 at 21:59

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100


Personally, I would not be putting any 10 year old out to school with a lunch they had prepared themself.


Heh - with you, there. Once my kids *could* do something for themselves, they were encouraged/required to do so. I remember someone asking me what my secondary school age kids ate for lunch - how would I know? We had talked to them, agreed a sum of money per week to cover travel and school meals - from there, it was up to them.


LSemmens - 23-12-2007 at 14:17

My kids were more than capable of preparing food for themselves at ten, and often did prepare their own lunch. Time they were in their teens, they could even prepare a full meal (Roast with all the trimmings, Spag Bol, Steak and veg). They had to as I was at work and SWMBO was too ill to do it for them, she'd supervise.


marymary100 - 23-12-2007 at 14:19

There's the rub! She'd "supervise". My point, entirely!


marymary100 - 23-12-2007 at 14:26

WATERBURY, CT - A fourth grade Oakville student has been expelled from a Waterbury school for bringing a toy gnu onto the property. The action falls under the school district's 'zero tolerance' policy, according to administrators. Officials believe the student, who is dyslexic, tried to intentionally break the policy.
Toy Gnu
"We're convinced he intended to bring a toy gun." said Meredith Simmons, Principal of Waterbury Elementary. "His reading disability may have confused him about what is prohibited in the policy, but we can't take any chances. That's why it's called zero tolerance."

The expulsion received full approval from the superintendent's office. "We support Principal Simmons' decision." said Milton Decker, Assistant Superintendent. "The toy gnu may seem harmless, but we can't ignore the underlying intent. I seriously doubt any of our students even know what a gnu is."

The student, who requested to remain amomynous, will be eligible for admission next year following a psychological evaluation and sensitivity training. The toy gnu was confiscated and destroyed by janitorial personnel.


Redwolf5150 - 27-12-2007 at 17:36

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
WATERBURY, CT - A fourth grade Oakville student has been expelled from a Waterbury school for bringing a toy gnu onto the property. The action falls under the school district's 'zero tolerance' policy, according to administrators. Officials believe the student, who is dyslexic, tried to intentionally break the policy.
Toy Gnu
"We're convinced he intended to bring a toy gun." said Meredith Simmons, Principal of Waterbury Elementary. "His reading disability may have confused him about what is prohibited in the policy, but we can't take any chances. That's why it's called zero tolerance."

The expulsion received full approval from the superintendent's office. "We support Principal Simmons' decision." said Milton Decker, Assistant Superintendent. "The toy gnu may seem harmless, but we can't ignore the underlying intent. I seriously doubt any of our students even know what a gnu is."

The student, who requested to remain amomynous, will be eligible for admission next year following a psychological evaluation and sensitivity training. The toy gnu was confiscated and destroyed by janitorial personnel.


Gnu's can be very deadly when riled, you know.

Even toy ones!

kewl_glasses


victor - 27-12-2007 at 19:51

Could have been worse if he had taken a toy crocodile. ;)


scholar - 27-12-2007 at 21:17

Since alligators are native to America, one of them might be more likely.

Then again, maybe not. Many children have play sets of African animals.

I remember one set of "Jungle Animals" from China which included dinosaurs, along with modern animals. :D


victor - 27-12-2007 at 23:10

Now that's one hell of a thread drift. :D


marymary100 - 28-12-2007 at 10:32

At least it didn't drift all the way into RSE.


LSemmens - 28-12-2007 at 13:16

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
At least it didn't drift all the way into RSE.
Plenty of time for that!


Redwolf5150 - 30-12-2007 at 23:28

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
At least it didn't drift all the way into RSE.


Not yet, anyway.

:D


marymary100 - 31-12-2007 at 00:50

Give it time...............


Theravad - 31-12-2007 at 01:54

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
At least it didn't drift all the way into RSE.


Not yet, anyway.

:D


have faith.....

(oops)

T


the bear - 31-12-2007 at 01:57

Quote:
Originally posted by Theravad
Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
At least it didn't drift all the way into RSE.


Not yet, anyway.

:D


have faith.....

(oops)

T



"I believe", "I believe"


Regards the Bear


scholar - 31-12-2007 at 02:06

Would Jesus turn a child in to be arrested as a weapons violator for using a knife to cut her food at lunch, while all the other children were allowed to use knives to cut their food without being bothered?:D:D:D


the bear - 31-12-2007 at 02:11

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Would Jesus turn a child in to be arrested as a weapons violator for using a knife to cut her food at lunch, while all the other children were allowed to use knives to cut their food without being bothered?:D:D:D



It had to happen, "thread drift alert", "dive" "dive" "dive", open RSE in readiness.


Regards the Bear waveysmiley


scholar - 31-12-2007 at 08:14

Quote:
Originally posted by the bear
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Would Jesus turn a child in to be arrested as a weapons violator for using a knife to cut her food at lunch, while all the other children were allowed to use knives to cut their food without being bothered?:D:D:D



It had to happen, "thread drift alert", "dive" "dive" "dive", open RSE in readiness.


Regards the Bear waveysmiley
My question was not serious. Bear. It was just a joking response to the several earlier remarks about RSE.


LSemmens - 31-12-2007 at 08:20

Quote:
Originally posted by the bear
Quote:
Originally posted by Theravad
Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
At least it didn't drift all the way into RSE.


Not yet, anyway.

:D


have faith.....

(oops)

T



"I believe", "I believe"


Regards the Bear


ROFL