Florida Officials Bow to Doc's "Three Points" of ZT


PDA






AZRickD
December 26, 2007, 10:47 PM
I think Point #3 tripped them up.

Your cards and letters helped... :neener:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=B9CD5AA2D9F452B2B8213749A4E8ED4C?contentId=5320255&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

OCALA, Fla. (AP) -- Authorities have dropped a felony weapons charge against a 10-year-old girl in Ocala who brought a kitchen knife to school to cut up her lunch.

The girl, whose name has not been released, was arrested after teachers at Sunrise Elementary School saw her use a 41/2-inch knife on a steak. She was also suspended from school for three days.

After reviewing her school record and interviewing her, investigators with the Department of Juvenile Justice recommended that the State Attorney's Office not prosecute the child. The attorney's office agreed.

Assistant State Attorney Ric Ridgway told the Orlando Sentinel that nothing in the girl's school history suggested she was a troubled child.

If you enjoyed reading about "Florida Officials Bow to Doc's "Three Points" of ZT" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jmr40
December 27, 2007, 09:54 AM
Not to burst any ones bubble but the outcome of this case was pre-determined long before it hit the internet. There is a system in place to deal with cases like this and everyone involved did exactly what they had to do. In this case the system worked, and justice was served. This is exactly the outcome I predicted in the origional thread.

Doc2005 correctly stated in the origional thread that this case did not rise to the level of the ZT laws. Where we disagree is that I believe that the system has to be allowed to work, or you set yourself up for future problems.
Any time drugs, alcohol, sex, weapons, violence, or the threat of violence are involved the police must be called in my system, and in any school system that I am aware of. It is not the schools place to determine if a crime has taken place, but if any of the above are not reported the school and teachers can be held accountable both criminally and in a civil case.

If the prosecutors determine that no crime has taken place it is kicked back to the school to determine what, if any punishment is necessary. This is what happened in this case and the school system basically gave the girl a slap on the wrist with the minimum punishment allowed by thier policy.

If you do not allow the system to play out you open yourself up to a lot of future problems. As I stated in the original thread, if the knife had simply been taken and the parents called, every student in the entire school system would have heard about it within a few days. I can promise you that the thugs would have started carrying steak knives, and if caught would have stated that they were for lunch. Now what do you do?

Old Fuff
December 27, 2007, 10:30 AM
I can promise that the thugs would have started carrying steak knives and if caught would have stated that they were for lunch. Now what do you do?

It is fairly safe to say that "the thugs" would be older, and have records of past infractions. With evidence of intent, they could have been arrested - if that was called for.

The real reason this case didn't go forward was the public outrage it generated. The Sheriff officers that made the arrest in the first place should have known there wasn't a case. It was simply a matter of everyone protecting their own behinds at the little girl's expense.

Buttermilk
December 27, 2007, 11:02 AM
This is some more of "a police state" crap that America has slowly been led into "for the good of all"! Those laws need to be taken off the books or codified to apply to just what they were intended for: special circumstances. The school officials could have determined intent without the police having to step in. It is time to give schools back to their leaders and get all the others out.
I guess nobody can tell the government "NO" because of all the money that comes from the government with strings attached.
Let's let the professionals (school administrators) do what they do best and get "big brother" out of everything.
What happened to plain old horse sense?

jmr40
December 27, 2007, 11:12 AM
Public outrage had nothing to do with the outcome of this case. I've known of dozens of cases just like this that had the same exact outcome where the facts were never made public.

Yes, everyone was protecting their behinds, and for good reason. There are lots of horror stories out there where people did not follow the proper procedure and it came back to bite them in the butt.

FLORIDA KEVIN
December 27, 2007, 11:28 AM
The public can be and has been manipulated by the press too often to allow public opinion to decide matters of law ! The reason the legal system was involved in the first place is to protect the scool officials from making responsible decisions and being held accountable ! Yes the system worked it should have ,it has to !! The only thing tat bothers me is it all seems to be set up to provide legal butt covering for people whu are in charge but not willing to make a decision ! kevin

mekender
December 27, 2007, 05:32 PM
the worst part is that the "system" worked as it was not intended... the object (a steak knife) was not a weapon... it was being used as a tool, not a weapon... if the girl had threatened someone, then it becomes a weapon...

Robert Hairless
December 27, 2007, 07:00 PM
Assistant State Attorney Ric Ridgway told the Orlando Sentinel that nothing in the girl's school history suggested she was a troubled child.

But it does now. If that 10-year-old girl wasn't troubled before this incident she most certainly should be troubled as a result of it.

Many adults become troubled when they are forced to live through felony investigations for non existant crimes. Who could possibly believe that a kid can escape serious damage.

At the very least this child--and others--has been taught that people get slammed by the system unfairly and need to fear it. No one should torment children, no matter what justification they fabricate.

AZRickD
December 27, 2007, 07:50 PM
If anyone doubts that the heat generated by the forums, blogs, and FoxNews didn't play a role in this doesn't know much about activism. You would have to discount all the times that a six-year old was suspended from school for drawing a picture.

We Rock. Don't let the nay-sayers tell you different.

Rick

xjchief
December 27, 2007, 08:08 PM
I think the case just illustrates how useless the government is at everything from education to investigating felonies committed by a little girl eating her lunch. If you think this system is working when all that has to take place over a lunch knife then you need your head examined.

I hope I can afford to send my kids to a private school where they won't be subjected to the retardation of the public school system.:rolleyes:

jmr40
December 28, 2007, 02:28 AM
AZRickD, I applaud your activism, and would encourage you to continue to do so, but I am convinced this case would have ended the same if the media had never reported the story. Occasionally one of the media giants runs one of these stories to jack up their ratings, but the truth is that for every story you see on TV, there are 100's more that are successfully resolved with no help from the internet.

We have 2 or 3 incidents each year where a student brings a knife to school where I teach. Multiply that by 28 years in the classroom and I have seen quite a few kids in trouble. Never had a single one make the paper, and I have never seen a kid prosecuted after it was determined to be a simple mistake.

The thing most people seem to be upset about is that the police were called even though the girl threatened no one. Teachers are not trained investigators and do not have the tools or time to do the job. Quite often something that seems clear as day at first glance turns out to be something very different after careful examination.

jmr40
December 28, 2007, 02:55 AM
Part 2

Most kids that bring a knife to school do so because they are afraid of something. It could be another student, but you would be surprised at the conditions some kids live in at home. Parents who are abusive or who are using or making Meth. I have had 3 former or current students commit suicide in the last 18 months, ages 12, 16, and 19. Acting out or getting caught doing something very wrong is sometimes used by kids as a way of seeking help for things they cannot control in their lives. Until someone asks the right questions we dont know if someone just made a simple mistake or if there are other issues.

jmr40
December 28, 2007, 03:15 AM
Part 3 Covering my butt

About 6 or 7 years ago at a neighboring high school a sophmore was involved in a similar incident. The offense clearly was not criminal but by policy should have been reported to the police. This young man was an honor student with a spotless discipline record. The principal knew the parents as upstanding members of the community, so he decided to use "good judgement" and suspend the guy for a few days and not file a police report.

2 years later the same young man commited a much more serious offense and served 2 years in prison. Another student's family sued the school and principal. When the lawyers found that he had commited another offense 2 years earlier that had not been reported that was all they needed to prove negligence. Cost the school system several $100 K and the principal suffered financially as well. The guy had to retire a few years earlier than planned.

If I report a student for having a weapon at school 1 of 3 things are going to happen. If it was a simple oversight I am confident the student will not be prosecuted, but will be punished for violating school rules. If there is criminal intent he will be prosecuted. If he needs help he will get it.

jmr40
December 28, 2007, 08:01 AM
Part 4
Sorry for the rambling. I believe in activism, and think it is great that we can use forums like this to get things changed. In this case the activism was misdirected, however. Contacting the school was a total waste of time. After the case was handed over to law enforcement it was completely out of their hands. After the Duke Lacross incident I certainly hope The DA was not paying attention to any opinion polls and made his decision based on the facts and the law.

My personal opinion. The laws could be better and we should contact the people who make our laws, not the ones who enforce them.

Mannix
December 28, 2007, 08:54 AM
It's kind of a hollow "victory", I still can't believe this stupidity ever even made it to the SA's desk. It should have been handled with a gentle "Honey, you can't bring knives to school", and a talk with the parents. Done, finished, everyone lives happily ever after. Instead a 10 year old with no prior disciplinary problems was facing possible FELONY charges. That's insane, It makes me wonder if the administrator wasn't smoking crack prior to making that brilliant decision :scrutiny:.

joab
December 28, 2007, 09:16 AM
She was arrested because she brought a knife to school violation of state law, not ZT policy
She was taken into custody only because the officers could not reach her parents
The DA chose not to charge the girl simply because there was no benefit in doing so
Everyone involved with the issue knew full well the amount of "heat" that their actions would generate beforehand

Whether we agree with the law or not a crime was committed and needed to be investigated,
It was and it was determined that prosecution would not be advantageous to any involved

Disagree all you want but there was never any intentions of taking this to felony court

TexasRifleman
December 28, 2007, 09:57 AM
That's real nice and all, but the girls life is still ruined. She was still expelled from school for 3 days, this will still go on her school record. For the rest of her time in schools she will always have in her files that this occurred. If anything else ever happens, no matter how innocent, she will be looked at as the 'girl that brought a weapon to school'.

So if there was never any intention of causing harm to the girl, or taking this to court, why was it not handled in a more expedient manner? If this had been dealt with on the scene, or at least the day of the incident, her record might have been spared. To drag this out so long still does harm.

This is not a happy ending for this girl.

joab
December 28, 2007, 10:43 AM
The girl's life is not ruined, that's an over the top exaggeration
She was not expelled she was suspended and she will only have it on file that she broke the law and school policy by knowingly, willfully and repeatedly breaking state law and school policy about bringing knives on campus, should she ever do it again she will not have the "I didn't know" excuse to fall back on

There was an attempt to deal with this on the scene but once again her parents were not there when needed.
That would not have stopped her from being suspended for three days and having an entry on the dreaded Permanent Record

Eight years from now there will be no record of this incident anywhere, she was never handcuffed, and was released to her uncle shortly after getting to the PD
Hardly a life altering tragedy, but possibly an eye opener

GRB
December 28, 2007, 10:47 AM
In my opinion it is absolutely ridiculous that there is zero tolerance in the firs tplace,let alone that you beleive it should work.

AZRickD
December 28, 2007, 08:14 PM
JMR misunderstands my activism
AZRickD, I applaud your activism, and would encourage you to continue to do so, but I am convinced this case would have ended the same if the media had never reported the story... Contacting the school was a total waste of time.

The point of this activism is to intrude into their echo chamber. Both the school and many of these prosecutors have no idea that people with opinions different from themselves actually exist. This was a wake up call.

To the other nay-sayer, If you think I stopped at contacting the school, you don't know me very well.

This is an example of my activism -- it gets very personal and serves as a warning to any other bureaucratic gunphobes:

http://free_arizona.tripod.com/montini.htm

I called my local school and had a nice conversation with someone who turned out to be an anti-ZT administrator. I am sure that knowing there was moral support out there will one day help him make the right decision one day. I also contacted gunnie friends in Florida who were mostly unaware of the situation and began spreading the word there.

If I had the time to find contact info for the police and county attorney, I would have contacted them as well.

Lastly, Joab convicts a 10-year old who wasn't indicted and didn't go to trial.

...by knowingly, willfully and repeatedly breaking state law...

She broke a law, you say? Do you remember this post in the original thread? You posted right after I posted it. You had no response then.

The Florida legislature modified the wording of the "weapons" statutes (Chapter 790) to further define a knife. This was because some criminals beat concealed weapon charges for carrying meat cleavers and the like. The intent was not to turn an ordinary culinary tool into a classified weapon.

This was changed during the 2005/2006 legislative session and the new "extended" definition of knife to not include a common table knife or a plastic knife. This was more than likely due to some unpopular cases in 2004 on which the 4th District Court of Appeals overturned in 2007 even!

So the history of the law is that this was a knee jerk political response to the police being unable to prosecute or arrest someone for carrying a common table utensil! In the end, it all comes down to the purpose of the "weapon" Otherwise, I need to get rid of all my steak knives in my home. (I have a CWFL, so I guess I don't have to.)

So, is it just easy to say that she should have known it is a weapon... or, did she and her parents think it was a utensil!!! It is like saying that the little league baseball player knew his bat was a weapon, when he brought it to school to play baseball.

Let me help this thread out by offering some actual (read... real) case law about this topic...

Under the undisputed facts, the steak knife may be a dirk, or an innocent household item. But that determination is one for the finder of fact based on a consideration of the circumstances, for example, the manner in which it was carried, how [accessible] it was to the accused, its purpose, or the accused's motive for carrying it, and its ability to cause harm to another.
Reference: Walthour, 876 So. 2d at 597
also see...
Reference: Coultas v. State, —So.2d—, (4DCA 2007)

Again, Joab minimalizes:
Hardly a life altering tragedy, but possibly an eye opener

They likely created a future libertarian activist.

Rick

Geno
December 28, 2007, 08:53 PM
Wow, I wish I could actually take even a fragment of credit for the good outcome. Cases like this make me regret becoming a graduate professor of educational administration and leadership, instead of remaining in public educational administration. Regret number two that I have, is not having become an education attorney. Children and families such as these need well-experienced educators-turned-litigators. Education is among the most highly legislated areas of law, and it is so for a reason...predictability and smoothness of operation. All these fools had to do was connect the dots.

Those who maintain that this case has progressed as it was supposed to, are so very sadly incorrect. The child's Constitutional protections to substantive and procedural due process were horridly violated. Her privacy and her family's federally mandated privacy were horridly violated.

In Michigan, in such instances a suit could now go forward. In the event the school lost, and it would, and in the event it did not have sufficient funds to settle, the district would be mandated to levy a mil or three to make payments on-going to the child and her family. I would suggest a $1,000,000.00 settlement placed into a college fund. As an alternate settlement, $5,000,000.00 into a national Children's Educational Defense Fund could be established by those involved, even if each participant had to take 5 mortgages to do so.

No, my THR friends, the system did not work as it was supposed to have worked. The system failed because the participants were ignorant, incompetent or derelict in their duties. The system ultimately bailed out a pack of unprofessional "educators" and a pack of unprofessional "LEOs".

I will close only by saying that it is this school's, and these LEOs' great fortune that this was not my child. Were she my child, there would be a steam of legal retribution the likes which this state would never have seen, even if required that I matriculate myself into law school, pass the bar and all-states in order to unleash Hades on earth to make my child feel vindicated.

Doc2005

joab
December 28, 2007, 09:19 PM
The child's Constitutional protections to substantive and procedural due process were horridly violated.She was arrested for violating state law she was only taken into custody when her parents could not be reached, how were here limited constitutional rights violated

Her privacy and her family's federally mandated privacy were horridly violated.What was her and her family's name?

Geno
December 28, 2007, 09:38 PM
joab:

You will have to reread the posts. I have already stated the violations very clearly. As I just said in this thread, education is among the very highest structured by statute as to the what-must-be. That what-must-be, wasn't. Time for this child's family to lawyer up.

Re: the child's life being destroyed, it is too early to say if it has been or not. We'll let the lawyers fight that fight, and therein is also part of the lawsuit. Deep-pockets anyone? Deep-pockets.

Doc2005

Geno
December 28, 2007, 09:41 PM
Ooops.

Well, what the hay...

Privacy had nothing to do with names. Hint...recall only parents (or in urgent cases a judge) can give police permission to talk to child. She also had 5th Amendment protection; that was violated. He had the right to a hearing before being suspended. Where to begin is not the problem; where to end with legal payback is the only question remaining. Go back to the original thread. There is conisderable info there, and some nice links.

Doc2005

TexasRifleman
December 29, 2007, 04:09 AM
The girl's life is not ruined, that's an over the top exaggeration
She was not expelled she was suspended and she will only have it on file that she broke the law and school policy by knowingly, willfully and repeatedly breaking state law and school policy about bringing knives on campus,

Have you applied to a college lately? I'd almost guarantee that this comes up when this girl does. She may very well be denied entrance to a university because of that note in her school record. You don't think that has the potential to drastically change the outcome of her life?

Doc is right, she should lawyer up.

jmr40
December 29, 2007, 07:20 AM
Zero tolerance laws exist today because the public demanded them. Teachers have always opposed them because we knew from the beginning that eventually good kids would get caught in a trap designed to get bad kids out of school. It is the teachers who have pushed to get policies changed so that now there is a way out for kids who make a mistake like the girl in Florida.

If this girl is harmed from this event it will be from the media attention. Most of these cases are handled with only the police, the family, and a few school administrators ever knowing about it. Most families like it that way and are thankful their kid only got a few days suspension.

No one seems willing to admit that this girl bears some responsibility. Signs are clearly posted all over schools and teachers and administrators are required to discuss weapons policies several times a year. Counting kindergarten this kid has been in school for 5 1/2 years now.

joab
December 29, 2007, 09:22 AM
Hint...recall only parents (or in urgent cases a judge) can give police permission to talk to child.Was the girl questioned by the police?
Do they need the parents permission to take her into custody?

You know that it was ruled long ago that a child's rights are severely limited while on school grounds understate control
You seem to be filling in the blanks with your own logic
No where has it been said that she was interrogated by police and no state in the country requires parent permission before an arrest for a felony can be made
A student can have a hearing to appeal a suspension but where is it mandated that there be one before hand?
Ans was there one in the days between the story breaking and this new news of the suspension?

If the child's life is destroyed over this she had no spirit to begin with and she can blame her parents, who so far have not impressed me much


Have you applied to a college lately? I'd almost guarantee that this comes up when this girl does. She may very well be denied entrance to a university because of that note in her school record. You don't think that has the potential to drastically change the outcome of her life?No I haven't and I doubt you have either
My son is 17 and he is applying
He has been suspended twice in high school
Once for telling a teacher to "F" off after she disrespected Puerto Ricans in front of him, not knowing that he was half PR
And once for bringing porn to school on his I Pod or phone or something ( Man
taking a dump in a field with an amorous donkey)
He was suspended in 9th grade for fighting
He was brought into the principles office and interrogated by his teacher, a school counselor, a rep for DCS, along with the school resource officer
Because a teacher overheard him say the word "Gun" to another student when he was 10

Not once have the incidents been brought up

Geno
December 29, 2007, 10:06 AM
A couple of facts here:

School administration must execute the investigation of the ZT 3 criteria, not the police.

The student(s) have the right to have their parent(s)/guardians present when questioned. I say it is mandatory.

The student(s) have the right to have legal representation when questioned. I strongly suggest it if the investigation can result in legal charges.

The student(s) have the right to call witnesses in their defense. I say it is mandatory if there are others who have knowledge of the event.

If and only if, the school's administration determines that all three ZT criteria are met, should the student be suspended pending expulsion hearing at the Board. The administration must then also notify the police.

The student and/or the parent(s)/guardian(s) have the right to request an appeal, or to request a stay from the courts regarding the process, and this is especially necessary where either substantive or procedural due process are in question.

The police have virtually no authority on school campuses, unless the school administration request their involvement. That is where the police belong...off campus. The school's administration needs to involve parents, and other students proactively, not the police reactively.

As I have already stated, I have escorted a couple of LEOs right off school grounds, because they pushed for me to violate these standards. Fact is, if these "LEO"s had felt they had such a solid case against a child, they never would have sought short-cuts through me, right? As I already have said, I have been called up, under oath, more than once regarding how the investigation went down.

Judges tend to affirm the adherence to substantive and procedural due process, whether you do or not. The judges always have approved of my method, as did parents, and students, etc. Why? I did it right. There is something uncommon about common sense.

Doc2005

Coronach
December 29, 2007, 10:53 AM
Have you applied to a college lately? I'd almost guarantee that this comes up when this girl does. She may very well be denied entrance to a university because of that note in her school record. You don't think that has the potential to drastically change the outcome of her life?In light ofThe girl, whose name has not been released, was arrested after teachers at Sunrise Elementary School saw her use a 41/2-inch knife on a steak. She was also suspended from school for three days.(emphasis mine) I'm going to go with "No, I don't think it does."

Still stupid, though. I carried a steak knife with my pack lunch. How else are you supposed to cut up meat and fruit and such?

Mike

jmr40
December 29, 2007, 11:31 AM
AZRickD, I would like to ask where you and all of your activist buddies were 15 or 20 years ago when the Zero Tolerance laws were being forced down the throats of teachers who opposed them. When we tried to warn of possioble dangers we were shouted down by another group of hot headed activists demanding safer schools. Instead of flooding a school with e-mail, letters, and phone calls complaining about laws the teachers also oppose, your efforts should have been directed to those who can change the law.

That is what teachers have done. This kid was not charged with a crime. She did not serve one day in a youth detention center, and she was not expelled from school. Contrary to published reports I seriously doubt she was ever placed under arrest. All of these things would have happened if not for teachers and school administrators fighting to change policy.

AZRickD
December 29, 2007, 04:31 PM
Coro: "I'm going to go with "No, I don't think it does."

You don't think that having that charge on her record won't pose problems when left-wing college admissions droids review her records? Please tell us why you think that.

JMR: "AZRickD, I would like to ask where you and all of your activist buddies were 15 or 20 years ago..."

Yours is a very odd question. I wasn't aware that time travel had any bearing on this particular activism. But, to humor you, we were paying visits to our state legislators to keep them from passing laws that backed up these mere school-based policies. Several bills threatened to shut down high-school rifle teams among other things. Those bills were defeated.

No one seems willing to admit that this girl bears some responsibility...

She's ten. She broke no laws. Her only infraction was to violate a ZT rule which defies logic to a little girl who couldn't summon an adult skill-set to create the cognitive dissonance required for her to make sense of a situation where the peaceful use of an eating utensil equates to FELONY PROSECUTION and a PRISON SENTENCE.

Do you really think that any of us liberty-minded THRers would buy your equation?

To reiterate, since she "bears some responsibility," to follow your statement to its logical conclusion, she should be indicted, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, imprisoned, and, maybe even pay a fine.

Your time would be better spent thanking the county attorney for not biting on the school lunch droid's hysteria.

Anyone have contact information for that office? At least we could get some activism out of this.

AZRickD
December 29, 2007, 04:41 PM
http://www.djj.state.fl.us/

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/contact_us/index.html

http://co.hernando.fl.us/judicial/#state/

E-mails sent.

I'm sure it was "just a waste of time." :neener:

tabsr
December 29, 2007, 08:15 PM
Too many state laws that violate the Constition and have not been tested due to $$. Instruct your children to keep quiet and state "I need to call my attorney". Have them carry the attorney card or phone number. This will cause total flummox with the school officials and arresting police officers.

Do not trust the school administration or the liberal teachers judgement. Regretfully, intelligence and reason no longer matter.

AZRickD
December 29, 2007, 08:43 PM
As with legislatures, whacko ZT-loving administrators are under requirement to prove that their policies "work to reduce violence." But I don't think ZT-LA implement these policies toward that goal. They just like control.

http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2443510
"Playing with guns is good for boys" (2003)

"Boys who have been banned from playing at soldiers, pirates, or superheroes, become disruptive and live up to a 'bad boy' image... nurseries that had relaxed their ban on guns, swords and violent games reported that boys had more fun together, made closer friendships, and became more creative in other areas of play, such as dressing up as princes in fairy tales. Most such nurseries found that the amount of real fighting between boys declined."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtmlxml=/news/2007/12/29/nguns129.xml

now only at http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/McDNLmain.htm

in abbreviated form

"Guns return to the nursery school toy chest" (2000)

"A BAN on toy guns in nurseries is being relaxed as new research suggests that they reduce aggression. Far from encouraging violence, they lead to more imaginative and calmer play, says Penny Holland, of the University of North London, a lecturer in childhood studies..."

Jim K
December 29, 2007, 08:55 PM
So ZT means no discretion at all about calling the police every time some kid does something that is politically incorrect? OK, Johnny frowns at Billy, the teacher calls the cops who burst into the Kindergarten class with grenades and machine guns and kill everyone in sight. Good show! The ZT people are happy, the principals (who stayed out of the line of fire) are happy, the KKK is happy if the kids are black, the VPC and the Brady campaign are happy.

So what could possibly be the problem?

Jim

Geno
December 29, 2007, 09:08 PM
ZT, as was originally designed and intended for application, was a great idea. However, in the modern world, many educators exercise zero common sense. When the 3 criteria are followed, the law is great. When the 3 criteria are not followed, lives can be ruined.

I worked with ZT for quite a while and never had to put a child out. But then, I exercised exceptional common sense, and openly expressed that I treated the students exactly the same as I treat my own family. My commitment to the school board was:

...to treat the students like they are my own younger brothers/sisters. Because we care about our brothers/sisters, we do not ever over-look their misdeeds, but we balance our actions it with compassion and a proper measure of discipline when needed.

Know what? It worked.

Doc2005

joab
December 29, 2007, 09:11 PM
School administration must execute the investigation of the ZT 3 criteria, not the police.OK, but it's the police that arrest you for violating state law on a felony level.
That is what the girl did and why she was arrested by the police

I won't bore every one with a point by point

The parents could not be found
School policy is to notify the police whenever a weapon is confiscated, this is written in the policy book that the student and/or the parents signed

Beyond that we don't know what the scope of the investigation on the school's part
We do know that the girl was taken into custody for the felony of bringing a weapon, as defined by state statute, to school

We also do not know whether the parents protested the three day suspension

Again I ask you what of the limited constitutional rights of this child were violated by being arrested for knowingly and admittedly breaking a state law
What privacy laws were violated?

The bulk of your outrage seems to be fueled by supposition
My lack of outrage is fueled by the known facts

So what could possibly be the problem?Too much hyperbole for your post to be taken seriously?

Geno
December 29, 2007, 09:22 PM
joab:

I have stated this multiple times, and very clearly. Return to the original post and read it.

1) Under the FPA, the LEOs are not allowed even to be in the same room with the child unless the parents are present...period, end of any discussion. To hades with the uncle.

2) At best the uncle has limited authority, i.e., he could take the child home if she were ill. However, he can not sign for surgical procedures, nor can he allow LEOs to talk to the child.

3) Also, as I said earlier, the school did not even get to confirming the 3 criteria thus requiring the LEOs be called. She did not break the law; she broke a rule. If she had broken the ZT law, then, and only then are the LEOs to be called, but only after the parents have been called. IMPO, they should lawyer up, and meet the LEOs are the school office with an attorney.

4) If the school was correct, and the LEOs were correct, why have all charges been dropped?

Heads will roll; heads should roll. :evil:

Doc2005

Mustanger1
December 29, 2007, 09:27 PM
JAOB and JMR40 you are two prime examples of HUA.

Geno
December 29, 2007, 09:44 PM
A gentle reminder, we can disagree, and we can even disagree vigorously. But in doing so, we have to contest positions, not people's character. Otherwise, this thread too will go the way of the previous. Closed.

Doc2005

AZRickD
December 29, 2007, 10:06 PM
Jim said,
So ZT means no discretion at all about calling the police every time some kid does something that is politically incorrect?
Looks like you read my links. :)

ZT started with guns and then it continued with nail clippers, Midol, insulin injectors, asthma inhalers, naughty words, hurt feelings, PC, and cartoon pictures of laser wars.

On the other hand, it appears that Joab and jmr haven't read much of anything. Joab continues to say that the child committed a felony when an earlier post in this and the previous thread showed that NO law was broken.

Doc, this thread is dead. Some people get upset when others activate. That shouldn't get us down. Just soldier on, bro.

Rick

Geno
December 29, 2007, 10:34 PM
Rick:

You may well be correct that this thread too will close. At least we have logged our words in these searchable threads. Others, who care, can sort through the facts versus the retorts.

Doc2005

joab
December 29, 2007, 11:01 PM
1) Under the FPA, the LEOs are not allowed even to be in the same room with the child unless the parents are present...period, end of any discussion. To hades with the uncle.Were the police even in the same room when she was questioned?

2) At best the uncle has limited authority, i.e., he could take the child home if she were ill. However, he can not sign for surgical procedures, nor can he allow LEOs to talk to the child.The article only states that she was released to the uncle, not how that permission was obtained or what authority the ungle had been given by the parents to act
Can you cite the law that says a juvenile cannot be taken into custody for committing a felony on school grounds?

3) Also, as I said earlier, the school did not even get to confirming the 3 criteria thus requiring the LEOs be called. She did not break the law; she broke a rule. If she had broken the ZT law, then, and only then are the LEOs to be called, but only after the parents have been called. IMPO, they should lawyer up, and meet the LEOs are the school office with an attorney.It has already been established in the other thread that there is indeed a state law forbidding bringing knives onto a school campus unless authorized
So yes she broke a state law.
It has also been established that knives are forbidden by school policy and it has been established that school policy is to report any weapon on school grounds to the police
It has also been established that the parents were unreachable
4) If the school was correct, and the LEOs were correct, why have all charges been dropped?
Happens all the time
It simply means that prosecution was not in the best interest of the state, for any of many reasons

JAOB and JMR40 you are two prime examples of HUA.
Perhaps you would care to explain that comment

AZRickD
December 29, 2007, 11:52 PM
It has already been established in the other thread that there is indeed a state law forbidding bringing knives onto a school campus unless authorized
So yes she broke a state law.

That is a lie. I posted twice on that subject. Her actions did not rise to the level of a statute violation.

What on Earth is your problem?

jmr40
December 30, 2007, 12:13 AM
AZRickD, We agree on more points that we disagree. #1, Zero Tolerance laws need to be changed. It places everyone involved in a difficult situation. The thing that frustrates me is the way teachers have been talked about on these threads. We didn't ask for these laws and don't want them anymore than anyone else. But we look like crap when we get caught in the middle of something like this.

Geno
December 30, 2007, 12:29 AM
joab:

I finally have to ask, precisely what is or was your employment? I'm not trying to be a smart posterior, I simply am curious if you have been employed in education, specifically as an administrator? Have you worked under the ZT laws? Have you studied specifically school law, which varies radically from other areas of law?

Other areas of law are open to interpretation; educational law is not nearly as open to interpreting. Educational law is what it is, for predictability sake. Too, this is the reason public school administrators have such extensive powers, and not merely on campus, and not merely during the school year. An administrator possesses those legal powers over the students, 24/7 for whatever duration a child is matriculated in the district, even while that child is on vacation out-of-state. It was the administrative team that should have questioned the child, and should have done so when the parents were present. There was no clear and present danger in the child. ZT laws are perfectly clear.

I am not quite certain if you merely are being Devil's Advocate, or trying to have some on-going fun, but the extent to which you persist in misinterpreting ZT, in spite of me clarifying it, leads me to question the extent of your sincerity. When someone here, such as 1911tuner advises us on 1911s, it seems few question his expertness. Yet, in spite of my best efforts at advising and in fact having clearly, and accurately projected precisely what would happen, and for fact did happen in this case, you sit back and persist in this "folly". It rather boggles the mind.

We are talking about the life of an innocent, wonderful, sweet, little girl, not a 17-year-old gang-banger-thug. Given the fact that these matters have already been addressed in this, and other threads, I will simply respond to your questions by saying,

"Asked and answered. Re-read the posts."

Doc2005

joab
December 30, 2007, 09:43 AM
No Doc I am not a teacher nor do I have experience with ZT policies other than a father who was a retired teacher and a child that is in the school system now and a BIL that is a detective who spent about ten years of his career dealing specifically with juveniles
And I am aware that schools are a different set of rules

We seem to be butting heads on the whole ZT thing

There is no indication that she was interviewed by the police
She was suspended for willfully violating school policy on knives in school not expelled as ZT would indicate
She was arrested under state felony statutes forbidding knives on school property
There were attempts to contact the parents
When they failed she was taken into custody instead of being sent home

You can spout ZT theory and attempt to belittle my argument all you want, that doesn't change the fact that she willfully broke stated school policy and state law and that the school followed their stated policy of reporting all weapons to the police

It is the hyperbole and suppositions that I object to most of all
How do you know that this is a sweet wonderful 10 year old and not a little brat that finally got what was coming to her?I have seen absolutely no reference either way
When an argument degrades to these types of grand platitudes it become meaningless


We do not know if her parents were able or even chose to dispute the suspension
We do not know whether the police were in any way involved in questioning the girl. although indications are that they were not
We don't know half of the things you are presenting as fact


The facts we know are simple
She willfully broke state law and was arrested
She willfully broke school policy and was suspended

If you don't like the laws or rules work to change them
Don't try to paint this girl as a blameless victim who simply didn't know any better
Don't try to call griping about enforcing this policy in this single incident by sending expected, unread, and deleted whiny emails from the safety of your anonymous keyboard as activism

If you want to be an activist then be one and get the rules changed don't try to say that this girl didn't really violate the rules so she should be exempt from enforcement in this case

Anyone with access to a computer can send an e-mail
It takes a real activist to go down to the next school board meeting, town meeting or even request an audience with the governor and failing that a stage protest at where ever he is

Protesting isolated incidents by nit picking whether the individual actually met ALL the criterion for the rule to be enforced only reinforces the validity of the rule as it is written

Someone once said
"If you're not just a little uncomfortable with your position, it isn't radical enough"
I submit that if sending e-mails makes you even just a little uncomfortable then you aren't activist enough to wear the moniker

Geno
December 30, 2007, 10:47 AM
joab said:

You can spout ZT theory and attempt to belittle my argument all you want, that doesn't change the fact that she willfully broke stated school policy and state law and that the school followed their stated policy of reporting all weapons to the police

Interesting take, joab. I have never "spouted ZT theory..."; I have merely stated the facts of the law's intent. Nor have I attempted to belittle you. I asked a legitimate question, that being, are/were you an educator with knowledge of ZT, and merely having fun trying to pull people's chains.

My final statement in this thread is this: the school employees and the LEOs willfully violated several laws, and thereby the child's rights. The whole matter should have been dealt with via common sense. There, hopefully, will be some legal payback.

Doc2005

joab
December 30, 2007, 11:07 AM
I asked a legitimate question, that being, are/were you an educator with knowledge of ZT, and merely having fun trying to pull people's chains.In other words since my argument cannot be considered valid I must just be having fun

What laws were broken other than the codified law against bringing knives onto school property, which is what she was arrested for?
She broke 790.115 (2)(a), a third degree felony
Which ones did the school or police break in taking her into custody for violating this law?

But of course she should sue that would be the only way to attempt to absolve herself of the blame for her willful actions in the case
But perhaps her parents will finally step up and use this as a life lesson and not blow this out of proportion as a life ruining event

She broke state law she was arrested for it, happens all the time

AZRickD
December 30, 2007, 12:24 PM
No. She did not violate that law. You need to read the law and the case law which was presented earlier in this thread and the previous thread. Both of which you've read but continue to ignore and not address.

Let me quote it for the third time:
The Florida legislature modified the wording of the "weapons" statutes (Chapter 790) to further define a knife. This was because some criminals beat concealed weapon charges for carrying meat cleavers and the like. The intent was not to turn an ordinary culinary tool into a classified weapon.

This was changed during the 2005/2006 legislative session and the new "extended" definition of knife to not include a common table knife or a plastic knife. This was more than likely due to some unpopular cases in 2004 on which the 4th District Court of Appeals overturned in 2007 even!

So the history of the law is that this was a knee jerk political response to the police being unable to prosecute or arrest someone for carrying a common table utensil! In the end, it all comes down to the purpose of the "weapon" Otherwise, I need to get rid of all my steak knives in my home. (I have a CWFL, so I guess I don't have to.)

So, is it just easy to say that she should have known it is a weapon... or, did she and her parents think it was a utensil!!! It is like saying that the little league baseball player knew his bat was a weapon, when he brought it to school to play baseball.

Let me help this thread out by offering some actual (read... real) case law about this topic...

Quote:
Under the undisputed facts, the steak knife may be a dirk, or an innocent household item. But that determination is one for the finder of fact based on a consideration of the circumstances, for example, the manner in which it was carried, how [accessible] it was to the accused, its purpose, or the accused's motive for carrying it, and its ability to cause harm to another.
Reference: Walthour, 876 So. 2d at 597
also see...
Reference: Coultas v. State, —So.2d—, (4DCA 2007)

And how you continue to imply that a ten-year old girl should have knowledge of all that (she would have to be to be fully culpable, right?) is beyond me.

JMRthe way teachers have been talked about on these threads.

Yes, I'm aware that these policies were pushed not by the teachers themselves, but their proxies. The administrators (former teachers), the NEA (teachers union), and the School Board (in bed with all of the above).

So, to say that current rank-and-file teachers didn't want ZT, might be correct. But former teachers and their philosophical mates are. It's a tangential defense at best, since 20 years post ZT, none of the objecting teachers have moved the pendulum the other way as they assume admin, union and school board powers.

You asked where was I 15 years ago on this issue. I ask, where are those teachers now?

Rick

joab
December 30, 2007, 12:45 PM
This will be my only response to Rick as I inadvertently temporarily removed him from my ignore list

I would suggest that you actually read the statute you are claiming exempts this girl from 790.115

The exception in House Bill No. 1291 is for pocketknives, PLASTIC or BLUNT BLADED table knives not steak knives which at the very least implies a sharp if not serrated blade

So once again you are incorrect, she did violate the sate statute making it a 3rd degree felony to bring a knife onto school property
The only difference is that under the new definitions she would be charged with possession of a weapon, not a knife

And now we all know why we should never take someone's unsubstantiated opinionated rhetoric as fact

jmr40
December 30, 2007, 12:48 PM
If you will read my posts carefully I never said that the girl broke any laws. I believe that the biggest sticking point between you and I, is that I think it wise to involve the police in the investigaton. When these incidents happen at my school the following happens. The police and parents are both called. The kid goes home with the parents and is not allowed back until the conclusion of the investigation. Usually 2-3 days. If the police determine there was never the intent of a crime the ball is handed back to the school. The kid returns, and the days he has missed are considered his suspension and life goes on. If it is determined to be a crime the kid is first withdrawn, and arrested off campus. I believe it wise to allow police to conduct the investigation because they have information about things going on at home and in the community that may be a factor that the school would have no way of knowing. Gang activity, child abuse etc. Right up to the point where the girls parents could not be found it appears Florida officials were using the same exact procedure.

jmr40
December 30, 2007, 01:15 PM
Sorry for several short posts, but I'm having trouble when I try to post one long one. I"m not just a teacher, I am also a parent, uncle and soon to be grandfather. I would like to see further changes to these laws, but if this had happened 10 years ago the punishment would have much worse. There were few if any ways out for a kid who made a simple mistake. Teachers have pushed for these changes from the beginning.

Several posters have implied that we as teachers should have ignored the law and simple taken the knife and shut up. As tempting as that is if you read my previous posts that can come back to haunt you later. For what it is worth I have done so in the past, but only when there were no other witnesses and I was 100% sure of the kid. We all comply with laws everyday that we don't agree with. It is simply not worth risking my career or freedom to protect a kid from a 3 day suspension.

chieftain
December 30, 2007, 01:24 PM
Zero Tolerance rules/laws are irrational. It should read ZERO REASON!

Instead we are a country rapidly become a country of no tolerance. Unfortunately that is EXACTLY one of our founding principles.

If reason does not apply, it is not reasonable.

Just for a simple example. Let's make a very reasonable law/rule that anyone that kills some one is a criminal.

So much for accidents and self defense. REASON MUST BE APPLIED TO ALL ACTS. We can argue about what is reasonable, but do not take reason away.

The lack of reason allows rule's NAZI's to do their worst. They do much damage in the name of following the rules, and no tolerance or reason is allowed.

That is not the country I grew up in, or a country that will continue. Zero tolerance also means zero liberty, and zero freedom in the end. After all you can't do that because we don't allow it FOR ANY REASON.

Think how that is or would be applied to your guns.

Go figure.

Fred

langenc
December 30, 2007, 02:10 PM
Whatever happened (or is it still happening) to the young lady, medal winning trapshooter that took several boxes of shotgun shells to schooll with her on the back seat of her vehicle??

No intent to do anyone any harm.

Mustanger1
December 30, 2007, 02:52 PM
I'm staying with my first posting and that opinion! JAOB has contacted me by private mail today and informed me that unless I explain myself he will have me removed from the forum. I don't respond very well to threats, I did break a rule so I suppose I am as guilty as that little girl, and undoubtly this will be my last posting. You have a great forum, I enjoyed the time spent here reading the questions and opinions.

joab
December 30, 2007, 03:40 PM
JAOB has contacted me by private mail today and informed me that unless I explain myself he will have me removed from the forum.That is a lie
I asked you to explain your post
I do not have the power to have anyone removed and never implied that I did
I simply told you to explain your comment or I would notify the moderator of it
As I also said I am sick and tired of these simplistic little immature comments from people that are to lazy to actually participate in the forum

I am also tired of the unequal enforcement of forum rules when I get nasty notes from mods or threads get shut down when I defend myself against stupid little comments like your's

And I see that you still have not bothered to explain the comment, but you do play the victim well
Nice twist also

Geno
December 30, 2007, 03:56 PM
langenc:

Was that in Montmorency county, MI? I have not heard of that one, but am deeply interested.

Question: Do you recall the mad-bomber up in Montmorency county, 1989-1990 school year? (I won't say which high school). Dang...now that was uuuugly! The ATF, MSP & FBI busted him in Atlanta, MI in the spring of 1990.

Doc2005

AZRickD
December 30, 2007, 05:25 PM
joab:
I would suggest that you actually read the statute you are claiming exempts this girl from 790.115
Case law, joab. Case law. It's controlling.

You want the 10-year old girl to be familiar with case law? The school administrators and police can't get it straight. How can you possibly support felony prosecution against a girl for behaving normally?

joab:
I get nasty notes from mods or threads get shut down when I defend myself

That should tell you something. You're not a nice person. The foul language you sent to me via PM last week would have gotten you banned had it appeared in the open forum.

Rick

joab
December 30, 2007, 05:47 PM
OK so I was wrong, I can't let things go when they are directed at me

How can you possibly support felony prosecution against a girl for behaving normally?
Here we go again
Can you where have I supported prosecuting her?
I can show where I did not
You want the 10-year old girl to be familiar with case law?
Can you show me where I said that
I can show you where I said she should be aware of the rules against carry knives to school and where another poster supported that through his personal experience
The school administrators and police can't get it straight
Where did they not get it straight
She received a minor suspension for violating school policy and was arrested for carry an illegal weapon on school property in violation of state law, which I have provided.
You have provided nothing to demonstrate that she did not violate state law other than your opinion
That should tell you something. You're not a nice person.Actually a not nice person would be one that calls for the banning of a member simply because he does not agree with me and will not unquestioningly buy into my incorrect comments and after he shows that I was wrong and I am unable to counter his facts ( you did that not me)
The foul language you sent to me via PM last week would have gotten you banned had it appeared in the open forum.Which would explain why I sent it in PM
I could not adequately express just how cowardly and dishonest your last post was in open forum, so according to past moderator suggestions I went PM

You want me to play nice, try not twisting my comments to fit your argument

joab
December 30, 2007, 05:58 PM
I have made my points
So unless you or anyone can show where she had the legal right to carry a weapon as defined by 709.1 onto school property or that the police did not have the legal right to take her into custody after attempts to contact her parents (amazingly no one finds fault with that)
And unless you are willing to back up the comments that you are attributing to me I am done with this juvenile twistfest

It has done nothing but demonstrate who here does not have the intellectual capacity to follow a discussion and keep arguments confined to actual comments made and that certain people have no idea what true activism really is

AZRickD
December 30, 2007, 06:42 PM
that calls for the banning

As you very well know, Mr. joab, I didn't call for "banning" you, I called for a "two-week suspension" of you...

And, I did this (you know this as well) as a rhetorical tool to show you how ZT policies can be applied. You violated the rule of this forum by engaging in debate when the purpose of this forum is to call for activism. You knew it was wrong to attempt to hijack this that thread, and yet you did it any way. And you did so with malice. YOU fit Doc's 3-Points of ZT, not the girl.

And then you hijacked this thread. Two strikes just in one week from you.

Perhaps we should teach you a lesson and put you on our Ignore lists for two weeks. :neener:

joab
December 30, 2007, 07:00 PM
Perhaps we should teach you a lesson and put you on our Ignore lists for two weeksYou said that last time but as I proved you lied about that also
You would not have received the PM if I was on your ignore list

Yes I posted in the activism thread but just because I don't kow tow to you does not mean that I did it with malice

What you were/are advocating is not activism it's simple bitchin' nothing more

Furthermore your lack of research is showing again

The rules regarding knives have been in place as long as this girl has been in school
She or her parents signed an agreement to follow those rules before attending the school
This activism forum was not an entity when I joined here and I signed nothing stating that I would only participate in it if the issues was activism worthy

You yourself are in violation of your made up rules in that you have not advocated activism you have only suggested a feel good activity with no useful purpose and then proclaimed yourself the victor when the game played out as was predictable

You asked me questions about my position and I answered them
I asked you to defend your position and you resort to your diversionary rectal tool instead.
I call that cowardly and dishonest

I used to come here for intelligent debate not immature game playing and disinformation
So perhaps you can show me some rule that says that a member can only participate in an activism thread if he is signing on
I can show you the rule and law that says that a person cannot carry a steak knife onto school property

And I see that predictably you once again dodge my direct challenge for you to back up your words about there being no law broken by the girl with the steak knife

AZRickD
December 30, 2007, 09:10 PM
Lied about it? How can I lie about a rhetorical? The purpose was to show you that you can't apply to yourself, the same rules you'd apply to a little girl. I'm never put anyone on my Ignore List.

I used to come here for intelligent debate

You knowingly (twice) violated forum rules by hijacking a thread about activism for your own purposes of debate.

If you want to debate the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the school, police or prosecutors, there is a forum for that (it's called "Legal").

This forum is for activism.

One thing I have learned in my nearly two-decades of activism is that those who activate are rare. Those who throw tomatoes from stage-left (that would be you), are a dime a dozen. Far too many times we've begun a campaign (large and small) and there will always be one or two who want to debate with us one whether we should do it or not or how we should do it or not. They take these pot-shots (on-line) all the while we are at home making picket signs, making calls to bureaucrats, legislators and the press.

As one might suspect, these activism nay-sayers are NEVER seen doing any activism with us or on their own. They just like to yammer.

So, joab, I know you all too well. And, while I'd like to have a few-dozen THR'er teach you a lesson on Zero-Tolerance by putting you on their ignore lists for you violations of forum rules, I simple can't, because you require monitoring.

Thank you to all who have contacted people about this sad little activity in Florida. Joab is incorrect about the worthiness of an e-mail campaign. I've been at this for 20 years. You were heard and you made a difference.

I'm done here.

Geno
December 30, 2007, 09:19 PM
I think Art's Grandma would be pretty upset at this thread. Anyone who doesn't know what I am saying can go read some of the sticky threads around THR.

Here is a link: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=270523

Doc2005

AZRickD
December 30, 2007, 11:19 PM
Here are the rule for the Activism forum as seen in the "Read This Before Posting" thread on top:

How this forum works. READ THIS BEFORE POSTING
HERE!

This forum is dedicated to activism to promote the RKBA.

Please use this forum to coordinate and work together. This is the place to organize. Use this forum for campaigns, legal gatherings, letter writing, talking points to push on the media, and things of this nature.

This is not the place to come up with ideas, use L&P for that. This is not the place to debate ideas.

There will be absolutely no arguments or comments about whether a given course of action is a good one. Such arguments always occur in L&P, about every single idea, and then no course of action is taken. This is the place to co-ordinate, not to talk somebody else out of doing anything.

If you cop a defeatist attitude in this forum, we’ll boot you. We don’t have time for crying. Any extraneous posts not directly related to the activity get deleted.

There will be no preferences given to any political party. If you have an activity to organize Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians, it doesn’t matter. Any bashing on any party is not allowed. If you want to do that, take it to L&P. This is not the place to muddy the waters.

In other words, this forum is not L&P II, and we’re not going to let it turn into that. This is a forum to get work done.

joab
December 30, 2007, 11:31 PM
Well reading that it seems like we have both violated the rules, you going into a self imposed suspension?
That would be the unhypocritical thing to do
Are you going to call for the suspension of all others that have participated in the debate including moderators and Doc?

And are you ever going to accept my origoinal challenge or do these dodges speak for themselves

Art Eatman
December 30, 2007, 11:56 PM
Holidays, visiting with friends, watching feetsball games...All that fun stuff.

And then find an off-topic three-page squabble and rant-session? Duh?

C. L. O. S. E. D.

Humph.

Activism forum. As in something like, "How can we change these ZT rules?" but not just ranting on and on about untoward ZT events.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Florida Officials Bow to Doc's "Three Points" of ZT" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!