Student with air gun suspended, arrested

donnasharon26 (anonymous) says...

put him out. ZERO TOLERANCE

October 14, 2008 at 3:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

beefsaver (anonymous) says...

Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence

Like Early said, there is little in this story to go on regarding the threat posed by the student and his unloaded "toy" gun. The writer couldn't even specify whether it was a BB or Air-soft gun! Journalism is hard.

Expelling this student because he brought an unloaded BB gun to school is ridiculous; even loaded the potential danger is minimal. Suspend, then in-school suspension with community service... but not expulsion. The all-or-nothing mentality with school discipline is a prime example of us failing our students. Don't the professional administrators actually have some acumen in doling out effective punishments besides the old heave-ho?

I'd rather some discipline be laid down and the kid still get an education, rather than an express ticket towards academic failure and economic burden for his family. If anyone thinks that a 7-month cessation of school for a 7th-grader will do anything productive for him besides "intro to thug life 101," let me know, because I'm missing it.

October 14, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

coahtrtaylor (anonymous) says...

Early are you being serious? Regardless what he had going on after school, there is no reason for a gun, toy or otherwise to be on school property. I agree ZERO tolerance, he should be put out of school. I sure as hell do not want him in classes or roaming the halls with my children, if my children were in that school.

October 14, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lou9 (anonymous) says...

beefsaver - the reason that there are zero tolerance policies is that in the past when administrators tried to use some "acumen in doling out effective punishments" the parents of these miscreants would cry "foul", get a lawyer and sue the school district. Also, if they showed leniency and gave a child a slap on the wrist then what happens when that child bringa a weapon to school again, this time it's loaded and he shoots someone with it? That's right, you will have some more parents getting lawyers and suing the district for failing to protect their children, saying that the school knew he had a prior incident. You can't fault the schools for zero tolerance policies. Parents who allow their children to break the rules and suffer no consequences for their actions are the problem. I believe that the students and parents are told up front at the beginning of the school year what the rules are governing proper behavior. This kid has no excuse for what he die.

October 14, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsence (anonymous) says...

This situation is what the discipline school is for. You have to remove the student from his home school - parents deserve to know their child is not at risk from this kid. On the other hand, he is too young to write off educationally. Send him to Murray Hill for a semester and let him earn his way back to CE Wiliams with good behavior and better decision making.

October 14, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iceman1978 (anonymous) says...

I have mixed feelings on zero tolerance policies. This is clearly a case where the kid should be suspended at minimum and possibly be expelled. Even though it wasn't real he could have threatened kids with it as though it was.

Where I have a problem with zero tolerance is when they suspend kids for having Tylenol, cough drops or Midal.

October 14, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ckc (anonymous) says...

When i went to CE i would catch the bus at the 7-eleven on wappoo rd with my shotgun.I would buy a couple of 12 ga.shells at the store,get on the bus with my books,shotgun and shells,ride to school,take the gun and shells to the priciples office where he would keep them till school got out,i would then hunt all the way home down the railroad tracks.Time sure have changed.

October 14, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RTC (anonymous) says...

iceman, I agree about zero tolerance.
Zero tolerance is another policy that puts every action under the same umbrella.
Bringing a knife or gun to school is not on equal grounds with cough drops or Tylenol.
Sometimes incidents need to be looked at on an individual basis.

October 14, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

512c (anonymous) says...

zero tolerance is the excuse we have for zero education responsibility. teaching kids can be extremely hard, especially when they go home to a world of tv where most commercials and shows have at least one gun in them.

October 14, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lucy_fan (anonymous) says...

I agree with iceman and RTC (how ya doing, my friend!) You can't lump all infractions together like that. Bringing any kind of weapon, even an air gun, is not aceptable and totally different than bringing pamprin or cough drops.
And yes, ckc, times have definitely changed- and not necessarily for the better.

October 14, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigSargeofSC (anonymous) says...

As sad as the "zero tolerance" policy maybe, our society had made it a nessacary part of the school system. With the most popular word in the English language being "sue'em", the schools have to protect themselves against law suits. Yes, a cough drop is just that, but what if a student gives one to another student and they choke on it or have an alergic reaction? As soon as the parents leave the hospital, they'd head straight for a lawyer's office. Hate the zero tolerance policy, disagree with it all you want; however, face the fact that we, as a society, made zero tolerance as part of the school system.

October 14, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WSM (anonymous) says...

SWAT TEAM RESPONDS, FEDS DENY ASSISTANCE

Charleston County SO SWAT responded today to CE Williams Middle School in response to an emergency of life-threatening proportions.

Sheriffs' Office spokesperson Det. D. Tracy stated that C. E. WIlliams Middle School requested law enforcement asistance in regards to violence and drug use on the school property to preserve human life, safety, tolerance, inclusion, and make sure that the administration didn't have to make one disciplinary decision.

Assistant Principal Amanda Wasteofbreath stated that they originally recieved a report of violence and drugs on the playground through a paid classroom informant. "Given the gravity of the situation, and the fact that I don't want to to make a decision, I decided to go straight to the Feds for help," she said.

A call was made to JFK Special Warfare Center and School at FT Bragg, N.C., where pleas for assistance met deaf ears.

SFC N. Fan Tree, Public Information Contact for JFKSWC stated, "I thought this bitch had lost her #@$%*&! mind! She called us and asked for Delta Force to come in and take two kids off to 'Gitmo because they were reading a copy of the American Rifle Association magazine and drinking a Mountain Dew! She said it was some crap about 'zero tolerance' policy for weapons and drugs, and kept screaming that caffine was a drug, because the DARE program said so. I've seen some pretty awful school systems in third world countries I've been to, but those poor bastards in Charleston need help, and I mean big time. Isn't that that county you people had where the state took over the schools? NO? You mean there's ones that are worse!?!?!?"

CCSO stated that they responded because Charleston City Police stated that dealing with these idiots in Charleston County School District once a day for stupid crap was enough for anyone.

Det. Tracy said that follow-up raids were requested and planned by Charleston County Schools and DSS, when it was determined that the children involved attend a Christian denomination, eat meat, have two parents in the home, and have been spanked. Raids were counducted on the church house itself, with the pastor arrested for conspiracy to commit child abuse due to the mental harm of teaching children absolute standards.

The parents are not available for questioning, as they have been detained and are being questioned by authorities. The children in question will be turned over to foster families at Bayside Manor, and will be attending mandatory deprogramming sessions at MUSC.

The reporter for this story is V.I. Lenin, and may be reached at VILenin@overreaction.com

October 14, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DaisyMae (anonymous) says...

I had an experience last year regarding the "zero tolerance" policy in Dorchester county (D2). To shorten the story, a boy in 7th or 8th grade pushed my daughter (7th grade. Both hands on her shoulder and shoved. So. Like any well bred, well taught Southern Belle who has an orange belt in Karate (and a mildly hot temper) she slugged him. She was suspended for a day and he was suspended (not sure how long). Although, I am sure when he came back to school, he took shots for getting beat up by a girl.

Point here is that she was suspeneded for defending herself against a boy who was larger and stronger than she was. I told her Asst Principal that it was fine and I understood that she needed to be suspended for a day however, if she is faced with the same position again, she would defend herself in the same way.

Now, the asst principal agreed that he didn't want to suspend her, but that he had no choice with the rules as they are. Which, I understand. But, what was she supposed to do? He claims she should have waited and talked to the teacher about it when the teacher got back in the classroom. Yeah... he wasn't in there when this happened. My thought was that she would have been jumped later for "tattling" and it would have been way worse.

Also, just as a sidebar, she had 2 teachers approach her and tell her she did exactly the right thing and one even said that she'd have suspended my daughter if she hadn't have slugged the boy.

So, it's hard, without the details to say what's right and wrong in a "zero-tolerance" situation. We can say it's stupid that the kid got suspened and possibly expelled, but as stated above; was there a threat? was there a reason that the kid had the gun? Unknown, but until we find the details, we shouldn't cast stones.

October 14, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Girleygirl (anonymous) says...

LMAO @ WSM

I especially like what NFanTree said......

lol

October 14, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

carolinagal (anonymous) says...

It was an unloaded air gun for crying out loud. If no one was threatned with this toy gun then whats the big effing deal? Saturday school for a few weeks, maybe a suspension, but to expell him is stupid. If he is expelled, do you think he will ever be a productive member of society? I dont.
Teach him a lesson, dont ruin his life.

October 14, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigSargeofSC (anonymous) says...

I only stole a little bit...
I'm not that drunk...
I only hit him once...
I was just a lookout..

Guess what? It don't matter how minor or major the offense when it comes down to school security. He knew better and still made a choice to bring a toy gun to school. What I am wondering is why he brought it in the first place? "Hey, look at me! I'm an idiot kid who brought a toy gun to school!"

October 14, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MooMoo (anonymous) says...

Wish I could take credit for this - sums up the truth about zero tolerance:

Parents need to challenge and expose primary and secondary school administrators' mindlessly inflexible enforcement of so-called "zero-tolerance" policies, which dictate that all infractions -- however minor or inadvertent -- against certain regulations will be punished as major offenses.

Don't get me wrong -- I understand the desire to make a strong statement against drugs, weapons, and harassment in schools. I can even understand it when school administrators reserve for themselves the right to punish infractions according to their own discretion and judgement, after taking into account the individual circumstances of each particular case -- even though the violations may sometimes appear to be minor, or merely technical.

What I can't understand is when school administrators deny themselves such discretion, and refuse to take into account the particular circumstances of each case -- elevating "zero-tolerance" into a rigid and absolute standard that is more important than teaching and learning, and also more important than common sense and justice.

This intentional self-lobotomization on the part of school administrators, this deliberate choice to turn themselves into mindlessly inflexible bureaucrat-droids, has produced results that would be pathetically ludicrous -- except that it's no laughing matter when innocent children, who have no criminal or malicious intent, have their learning disrupted by long expulsions, or are labelled as "drug-smugglers", "weapons-carriers", or "sexual harassers" in semi-permanent academic records that may be shown to law-enforcement officials or potential employers.

Apparently some bureaucrats feel that the highest purpose of educational policy is to produce a maze of rules and regulations in the spirit of "CYA", a code which will prescribe administrators' minutest decisions -- and so allow them to fend off all legal or political second-guessing by pointing out that their actions were dictated by, and were in full conformance with, sub-section §547862(b)(xcvii) sub-paragraph ±37½ clause 97-D. Well, I have news for these so-called "educators": taxpayers pay their salaries in order for them to make wise decisions in the furtherance of learning (remember "learning"?), not to be automatons with well-shielded rear ends. When administrators (or school boards) bind their own hands in this way with rigid and inflexible codes, what they're really saying is that they have no confidence in their own ability to do the job that the public expects them to do (to make good decisions based at least partly on the particular details of each individual matter) -- in which case they should perhaps consider going into some other line of work.

October 14, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MooMoo (anonymous) says...

Having offered an argument against the use of zero tolerance policies in general, I will add that in this case, the article doesn't supply us with enough information to determine whether the student should be expelled. We don't know if the student brought the gun to school. We don't know whether or not he threatened anyone. We don't know enough about his current academic and behavioral record to know what his punishment should be. The school administrators do know all of these things, and should therefore weigh all of this information to determine whether expulsion is warranted. My question for CCSD is: are they using this type of reasoning to recommend the child for expulsion, or adhering to a mindless, district wide zero tolerance policy?

What we do know is that the student had in his possession -all together now - A TOY AIR GUN with no "ammo"! By what stretch of common sense is that fact alone grounds for expulsion? Answer: It isn't!!

THINK! It's not illegal...YET...

October 14, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

halfsheli (anonymous) says...

Unfortunately, zero-tolerance stems from a WAY over-litigious society. Who can afford to be sued for which the silly stuff that people actually sue (and win). Want to stop zero-tolerance? Get the civil court system under control.

October 14, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MooMoo (anonymous) says...

What you are really alluding to, Halfsheli, is the preponderence of liberal judges who allow frivolous law suits to go to trial. THAT is one of the causes of overburdened civil court dockets - not the absence of zero tolerance policies.

Zero tolerance policies cause more lawsuits than they prevent. And let me tell you, if some pseudointellectual school beaurocrat expelled one of my children over a minor infraction due to the mindless adherence to one of these asinine policies, I's sue the HELL out of their school district, too. They would PAY for attempting to ruin my child's life rather than administer an appropriate punishment that would actually TEACH my child a lesson.

October 14, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MooMoo (anonymous) says...

Well, BigSarge, judging by your reasoning skills - or rather, a lack thereof - I'd love to know where you went to school...

October 14, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

postman01 (anonymous) says...

Moo Moo's logic is superior. Why not listen and learn instead of arguing when everything this poster says is OBVIOUS and is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that EVERYONE has been exposed to on a long term by the news media that we have all known since our earliest memory?

This poster is pointing out that most public school administrators are INFERIOR. Does anyone really want their children's lives being in the hands of the inferior?

October 14, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )