In Iowa the concept of a weapon is equivalent to carrying a firearm
H-M-S board expels student for three policy violations
A student in the Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn School District threatened another student. He said he was going to bring a gun to school. Although the student did not actually have access to any firearms he was expelled as the district has made the idea of a gun equivalent to actually possessing one.
The vote, which was taken in open session, calls for a 12 calendar month expulsion of an unnamed student. During the hearing, it was determined that the student had violated three school policies: 502.8, student to student harassment/bullying; 503.1, student conduct; and 502.7, weapons, which covers weapons, look-alike weapons and the threat of weapons, according to Superintendent Lynn Evans.
The threat of a weapon has been elevated to being exactly the same as actually having a weapon. They have made a verbal threat equivalent to the felony offense of carrying a loaded firearm at school.
Many years ago it was common practice to cut off the hand of a thief. We stopped doing that when we as a culture matured to the point where we demanded punishment appropriate to the crime. We are sliding backward again.
Contact information:
Superintendent Lynn Evans
Boardmember Sherry Rosenberg
Boardmember Merlin Sandersfeld
Boardmember Brad Smith
Boardmember Jean Snyder
Boardmember Janet Stoneking
Boardmember Bill Treimer
“There are a number of options based on the outcome of the court proceedings. We will be billed if the student is placed in a facility, otherwise there are other options available,” Evans said.
Obviously money is no object. This is adult discipline for someone who has never had an adult choice. Removed from public scrutinity is the issue of whether he ever received competent preparation or is simply the product of an incompetent education system.
There is plenty of precedent in law for threatening someone. Assault is not the actual hitting of a person, it is the threatening to hit a person. Battery is the hitting of a person.
Same here. If he threatens to bring a gun to school we have to take him seriously. Threats are meant to be intimidating — and the treat of bringing a gun to school would threaten me!
In law there is a very real difference between assault and battery. This school has made simple assault equivalent to aggravated battery.
That should be “assault with a deadly weapon”, not “aggravated battery”.
I would have to agree with Barry as far as it does need to be taken seriously but you do not expel someone for a threat. That used to be what detention and suspention where for. If he had a weapon then you expel him.
I would be willing to bet the student would have been better of just to punch the guy he was threatening rather then us that naughty G word.
Barry, you were close in stating that assault is a threat, but you didn’t go far enough. In this case, it wasn’t assault. To be considered assault, the person making the threat has to be able to immediately carry out the threat. “Assault with a deadly weapon” would mean that he would have to have a weapon on his person when he made the threat, or simply pointing the gun at the person.
From the dictionary at findlaw.com “Assault: 1: the crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact”. Also look up “assault” in the Iowa Penal Code (that’s where this occurred).
I side with the school in principle, but the “expulsion” (can we really call it that anymore?) is extreme.
As for the cutting off the hands of a theif, that was because they had actually (in the eyes of the judge) stolen something. Here, the kid hasn’t even done anything. We’ve already slid backward… and then some.
How many people would he have had to threaten to shoot before it became an expellable offense? Five? Ten? Would two have been sufficient? What if the threat was against a teacher, administrator, or other staff member?
Sorry, but the threat to bring a weapon to school is a serious offense and needs to be seriously dealt with. I won’t pass judgement on whether this constitutes such a case, but I think that kicking him out for such a threat is not an unreasonable option (emphasis on the word OPTION — I don’t know if it should be mandatory).
Yeh right. It was determined he didn’t have access to firearms. If I yell out I’m going to destroy the world(which is definitely a serious threat, but one with which i cannot follow thu) should the UN have me assassinated?
Wesley gets it. Not all threats are credible.
Assault requires an element of imminence.
Simply put, if you swing at someone it’s assault; if you connect it’s battery.
How many people would he have had to threaten to shoot before it became an expellable offense? Five? Ten? Would two have been sufficient
Precinct, while I think there should have been some sort of consequence for making a threat, I have to say that your argument appears to be in support of mean-spirited ZT. The fact is, the article makes no mention of him having made previous threats. If they (principal, et al) had discussed the implications with the kid on the first threat (not expelling him for first offense, for crying out loud), and THEN he made further threats, I would say expel him. But tossing him out for making a verbal threat for which he had no means to back up will do nothing but ostracise him, and will do nothing to protect the kid he threatened. If the kid was intent on hurting someone, he doesn’t have to do it at school during school hours, now does he? It’s just another CYOA tactic by the administration that has no real benefit.
The success of zero tolerance is based on the idea that using an extreme punishment for a minor offense eliminates the risk of social chaos. The reduction in crime rate in NYC is often used a a broad example of supportting these tyranical social control. Some more recent observation are, the reduction of violent crime in NYC was followed by a similar rise in violent crime in surrounding rural areas. The behavior of people is endemic and herdlike, so a rise in crime is naturally followed by order. The NY Times also reported there is evidence legal abortion reduced the numbers of unwanted children reaching puberty.
The Miracle That Wasn’t
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/opinion/16tierney.html?incamp=article_popular_5
There is no evidence to believe that more extreme punisments produce a more ethical society; I would argue that ostracizing people is most likely to create renegades and helplessness.