student punished for pencil sharpener

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Kntx
You crazy americans.

Isn't a pencil way more dangerous that a pencil sharpener?

"Now everyone take out a safety pencil and a circle of paper"

lol...

you obviously didn't click on the article and see that the "pencil sharpener" is little more than a 2" knife

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Kntx
You crazy americans.

Isn't a pencil way more dangerous that a pencil sharpener?

"Now everyone take out a safety pencil and a circle of paper"

lol...

you obviously didn't click on the article and see that the "pencil sharpener" is little more than a 2" knife

It's still ridiculous. Those compass things you use in school are just as dangerous, along with exacto knives, scissors, baseball bats and uh... retort rods!

 

[Bleep]

Wow that's a good argument..not!

another stupid statement by a person that posts fake pix of himself on the internet.
Bleep

 

[0roo0roo]

thats the most dangerous pencil sharperner i've seen. most require you to unscrew the blade from the plastic to hurt someone

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski
Stupid rules(Zero Tolerance/arbitrary consequences without condition) lead to stupid decisions. It wouldn't have taken much to know that this was a pencil sharpener and it was being used as such. That doesn't even seem to matter though, as the Officials seemed fully aware of it, but the rules stated the girl had to be punished so she was. I don't know what is more stupid though, stupid laws or the people who come up with them/choose to live under them?

you can't just not apply the rules. i could bring a straight razor into a school and shave with it in order to show that it is innocuous and then later slice someone up real good.

True enough, but doesn't intent mean anything anymore? It is quite obvious this girl just wanted a sharp pencil, perhaps her sharpener was innapropriate and she should have been told so and refused to allow it back in the school, but to be punished for it is assinine. Especially when you consider the extent her punishment goes. The next generation are going to be a bunch of government ditto heads with less Independent thought than a Soviet.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski
Stupid rules(Zero Tolerance/arbitrary consequences without condition) lead to stupid decisions. It wouldn't have taken much to know that this was a pencil sharpener and it was being used as such. That doesn't even seem to matter though, as the Officials seemed fully aware of it, but the rules stated the girl had to be punished so she was. I don't know what is more stupid though, stupid laws or the people who come up with them/choose to live under them?

you can't just not apply the rules. i could bring a straight razor into a school and shave with it in order to show that it is innocuous and then later slice someone up real good.

True enough, but doesn't intent mean anything anymore? It is quite obvious this girl just wanted a sharp pencil, perhaps her sharpener was innapropriate and she should have been told so and refused to allow it back in the school, but to be punished for it is assinine. Especially when you consider the extent her punishment goes. The next generation are going to be a bunch of government ditto heads with less Independent thought than a Soviet.

:beer:

and :Q - that soviet comment stings comming from a Canuck

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski
Stupid rules(Zero Tolerance/arbitrary consequences without condition) lead to stupid decisions. It wouldn't have taken much to know that this was a pencil sharpener and it was being used as such. That doesn't even seem to matter though, as the Officials seemed fully aware of it, but the rules stated the girl had to be punished so she was. I don't know what is more stupid though, stupid laws or the people who come up with them/choose to live under them?

you can't just not apply the rules. i could bring a straight razor into a school and shave with it in order to show that it is innocuous and then later slice someone up real good.

True enough, but doesn't intent mean anything anymore? It is quite obvious this girl just wanted a sharp pencil, perhaps her sharpener was innapropriate and she should have been told so and refused to allow it back in the school, but to be punished for it is assinine. Especially when you consider the extent her punishment goes. The next generation are going to be a bunch of government ditto heads with less Independent thought than a Soviet.

:beer:

and :Q - that soviet comment stings comming from a Canuck

CkG

hehe

 

[Horsep0wer]

this zero tolerance stuff is a stupid policy.

 

[illustri]

i wonder about the teacher who reported this, did she honestly believe that the president of the school council and honor society was going to slit someone's throat?

or was it that she didn't know who it belonged to?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: illustri
i wonder about the teacher who reported this, did she honestly believe that the president of the school council and honor society was going to slit someone's throat?

or was it that she didn't know who it belonged to?

it doesn't matter. i can walk into a bank casually holding a gun and just go about my regular banking business and you see how long it is before the police are handcuffing me and taking me away.

and i'm sure that had she been threatening someone she'd be in far deeper sh!t than she'd be right now

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: illustri
i wonder about the teacher who reported this, did she honestly believe that the president of the school council and honor society was going to slit someone's throat?

or was it that she didn't know who it belonged to?

This isn't really a good argument against not getting her in trouble...it doesn't matter how much rank and reputation you have, that does not make you any less likely to commit a crime.

I think it's a bit more than a simple "pencil sharpener incident" though...it IS an open blade. Overreaction is where you suspend a student for folding a piece of paper into a gun shape and saying "bang."

 

[ReiAyanami]

folding a piece of paper into a gun shape and saying "bang."

the ones that say "splat" are sent to Remedial Murder class.

those darn lil' terrorists

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: illustri
i wonder about the teacher who reported this, did she honestly believe that the president of the school council and honor society was going to slit someone's throat?

or was it that she didn't know who it belonged to?

This isn't really a good argument against not getting her in trouble...it doesn't matter how much rank and reputation you have, that does not make you any less likely to commit a crime.

I think it's a bit more than a simple "pencil sharpener incident" though...it IS an open blade. Overreaction is where you suspend a student for folding a piece of paper into a gun shape and saying "bang."

do YOU think she intended to hurt someone with it; besides i think its pretty obvious that rank and reputation DOES matter in commiting crimes, or else you would see the demographics of crimminals be equal accross the board instead of mainly concentrated on people most unlike our "perpretrator" here

 

[Medicated858]

For all of you replying that zero tolerance is stupid, do you live in neighborhoods where there are problems with weapons at schools? If you don't then shut the hell up. They have to institute zero tolerance policies because students will bring things like box cutters to school claiming they are "work tools". If they are suspended their genius parents will sue over discrimination or some other stupid thing, then the wimpy amdinistration will roll over and let the student carry a deadly weapon on school grounds. Zero tolerance eliminates this, no one is allowed to carry any type of weapon on school. In a perfect world school administrators would nut up and suspend people with weapons but sadly that doesn't happen.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Medicated858
For all of you replying that zero tolerance is stupid, do you live in neighborhoods where there are problems with weapons at schools? If you don't then shut the hell up. They have to institute zero tolerance policies because students will bring things like box cutters to school claiming they are "work tools". If they are suspended their genius parents will sue over discrimination or some other stupid thing, then the wimpy amdinistration will roll over and let the student carry a deadly weapon on school grounds. Zero tolerance eliminates this, no one is allowed to carry any type of weapon on school. In a perfect world school administrators would nut up and suspend people with weapons but sadly that doesn't happen.

Yep, this seals it for me. Everything is about the lowest common denominator.

Absolutely ridiculous. No one is saying you can't have strict rules but Zero Tolerance is a joke - Period.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Medicated858
For all of you replying that zero tolerance is stupid, do you live in neighborhoods where there are problems with weapons at schools? If you don't then shut the hell up. They have to institute zero tolerance policies because students will bring things like box cutters to school claiming they are "work tools". If they are suspended their genius parents will sue over discrimination or some other stupid thing, then the wimpy amdinistration will roll over and let the student carry a deadly weapon on school grounds. Zero tolerance eliminates this, no one is allowed to carry any type of weapon on school. In a perfect world school administrators would nut up and suspend people with weapons but sadly that doesn't happen.

Zero Tolerance is a punishment weapon of a Dictatorship not a Democracy.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: illustri

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: illustri
i wonder about the teacher who reported this, did she honestly believe that the president of the school council and honor society was going to slit someone's throat?

or was it that she didn't know who it belonged to?

This isn't really a good argument against not getting her in trouble...it doesn't matter how much rank and reputation you have, that does not make you any less likely to commit a crime.

I think it's a bit more than a simple "pencil sharpener incident" though...it IS an open blade. Overreaction is where you suspend a student for folding a piece of paper into a gun shape and saying "bang."

do YOU think she intended to hurt someone with it; besides i think its pretty obvious that rank and reputation DOES matter in commiting crimes, or else you would see the demographics of crimminals be equal accross the board instead of mainly concentrated on people most unlike our "perpretrator" here

It's not a matter of intent or not. I'm replying to the original argument in question here, simply that because she was a member of the Honor Society and president of the School Council she is automatically entitled to a benefit of a doubt. Being privileged in that way does not entitle you to special treatment; she is a student, just like her classmates.

Look at it this way. If President Clinton takes a flight on a commercial airliner, he has to go through security checkpoints like everybody else. He doesn't get special treatment because he was once a U.S. President. While the student may not have had bad intentions, those are irrelevant to the decisionmaking of the school. The school sees a potential weapon (and it's quite a bit more lethal than some of the "pencil sharpeners" I've seen) and it takes appropriate action. I'm not necessarily saying that Zero Tolerance is a good thing, simply that in this case I find it unconscionable that simply because she is a privileged individual she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

If any other student were caught in a similar situation they would probably not be as lucky. I also don't see how you connect rank and privilege in committing crimes to universal demographics...I think it is partially a matter of socialization and injustice that we give certain individuals a chance to explain themselves while others automatically have assumed guilt.

Finally, here's an example. If a ex-convict is caught next to a body, what do you think are the odds he will be ASSUMED guilty, as opposed to any other individual with no criminal record? Look at it that way - in this example, you are biased from the beginning because you assume that past conduct is a good indicator of future conduct. As should be logically obvious, that is a mistaken belief.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: illustri

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: illustri
i wonder about the teacher who reported this, did she honestly believe that the president of the school council and honor society was going to slit someone's throat?

or was it that she didn't know who it belonged to?

This isn't really a good argument against not getting her in trouble...it doesn't matter how much rank and reputation you have, that does not make you any less likely to commit a crime.

I think it's a bit more than a simple "pencil sharpener incident" though...it IS an open blade. Overreaction is where you suspend a student for folding a piece of paper into a gun shape and saying "bang."

do YOU think she intended to hurt someone with it; besides i think its pretty obvious that rank and reputation DOES matter in commiting crimes, or else you would see the demographics of crimminals be equal accross the board instead of mainly concentrated on people most unlike our "perpretrator" here

It's not a matter of intent or not. I'm replying to the original argument in question here, simply that because she was a member of the Honor Society and president of the School Council she is automatically entitled to a benefit of a doubt. Being privileged in that way does not entitle you to special treatment; she is a student, just like her classmates.

Look at it this way. If President Clinton takes a flight on a commercial airliner, he has to go through security checkpoints like everybody else. He doesn't get special treatment because he was once a U.S. President. While the student may not have had bad intentions, those are irrelevant to the decisionmaking of the school. The school sees a potential weapon (and it's quite a bit more lethal than some of the "pencil sharpeners" I've seen) and it takes appropriate action. I'm not necessarily saying that Zero Tolerance is a good thing, simply that in this case I find it unconscionable that simply because she is a privileged individual she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

If any other student were caught in a similar situation they would probably not be as lucky. I also don't see how you connect rank and privilege in committing crimes to universal demographics...I think it is partially a matter of socialization and injustice that we give certain individuals a chance to explain themselves while others automatically have assumed guilt.

Finally, here's an example. If a ex-convict is caught next to a body, what do you think are the odds he will be ASSUMED guilty, as opposed to any other individual with no criminal record? Look at it that way - in this example, you are biased from the beginning because you assume that past conduct is a good indicator of future conduct. As should be logically obvious, that is a mistaken belief.

So you subscribe to the "prove you're not guilty" crowd? Yes past behavior is an indicator of future conduct Who do you think you are kidding. And yes, if Clinton took a flight on a <gasp> commercial airliner - he would get special treatment Again, who are you trying to kid here? Do you live here on Earth? the US?

/me thinks you ate a bit of tainted beef J/K

But yes, to giver her different treatment because she was actually an active student doesn't automatically disqualify her from harmful intent, but it's a good start A history of threats or violence would most definitely have gotten her different treatment, but still, this incident was entirely unnecessary.
Zero Tolerance rules are bad...and I'm a big proponent of Personal Responsibility.:Q
Should action be taken in this case? Sure, but make it fit the offense.
This could have been handled alot better than this. Take it away, write her up, give detention, or something to show that people who bring items that may seem innocent can be "weapons" and that it won't be acceptable to posses them. But removal from her post and the 7 day "special class" was more than ridiculous.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Zero Tolerance is a punishment weapon of a Dictatorship not a Democracy.

care to flesh that idea out?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Bleep

I have seen some fingernails that were just as long and probably just as sharp but they dont prolhibit them in school or on airplanes.

Yet they prohibit fingernail clippers...
IMO, they should require fingernail clippers and force everyone to cut their fingernails before getting onto the plane.

And bring scissors for their hair. They could braid it and strangle the pilot.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

And yes, if Clinton took a flight on a <gasp> commercial airliner - he would get special treatment

Especially if he brought a female intern with him.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Medicated858
Zero tolerance eliminates this, no one is allowed to carry any type of weapon on school. In a perfect world school administrators would nut up and suspend people with weapons but sadly that doesn't happen.

Yeah, people who bring pencils to school should be suspended. Not only are they deadly weapons, they indicate a propensity to give the wrong answers.

The real question is not zero tolerance, but sane enforcement and punishment.

 

[PHiuR]

she should have gotten a warning to not to ever bring that in again...not suspension..thats just over doing it...stupid admins.

 

[PHiuR]

she should have gotten a warning to not to ever bring that in again...not suspension..thats just over doing it...stupid admins.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: MadCowDiseaseIt's not a matter of intent or not. I'm replying to the original argument in question here, simply that because she was a member of the Honor Society and president of the School Council she is automatically entitled to a benefit of a doubt. Being privileged in that way does not entitle you to special treatment; she is a student, just like her classmates.

Look at it this way. If President Clinton takes a flight on a commercial airliner, he has to go through security checkpoints like everybody else. He doesn't get special treatment because he was once a U.S. President. While the student may not have had bad intentions, those are irrelevant to the decisionmaking of the school. The school sees a potential weapon (and it's quite a bit more lethal than some of the "pencil sharpeners" I've seen) and it takes appropriate action. I'm not necessarily saying that Zero Tolerance is a good thing, simply that in this case I find it unconscionable that simply because she is a privileged individual she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

If any other student were caught in a similar situation they would probably not be as lucky. I also don't see how you connect rank and privilege in committing crimes to universal demographics...I think it is partially a matter of socialization and injustice that we give certain individuals a chance to explain themselves while others automatically have assumed guilt.

Finally, here's an example. If a ex-convict is caught next to a body, what do you think are the odds he will be ASSUMED guilty, as opposed to any other individual with no criminal record? Look at it that way - in this example, you are biased from the beginning because you assume that past conduct is a good indicator of future conduct. As should be logically obvious, that is a mistaken belief.

For one when President BUSH I'm sure they didn't subject him to the same security as the guy sporting Islamic style facial hair and a turban, and Clinton would STILL be given VIP treatment on any commercial liner he chose to grace himself on.