Posted on 10/28/2012 4:51:20 AM PDT by real saxophonist
Boy does right thing, school suspends him
By Christian Boone
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
When 8-year-old Andrew Berry discovered he had accidentally brought his unloaded pellet gun to Newton County Theme School at Ficquett on Monday, he immediately notified his teacher.
He “did the right thing” by turning in the weapon, discreetly, said his mother, Kristy Berry, whose husband serves as a combat flight medic in Afghanistan. “The principal told me [Andrew] handled it the right way,” she said. “So did the police.”
But she said a school resource officer also told her son that he had broken the law. The third-grader was suspended for no less than 10 days for what everyone agrees was an innocent mistake. Andrew is scheduled to appear before a school tribunal on Oct. 31, day seven of his suspension, according to his mother.
“He absolutely did the right thing by reporting it immediately. But a rule was still broken: A gun was brought to school. And there are mandatory consequences for that,”
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
Pellet gun or one of those airsoft things?
Yep...
So, what these dumbass school administrator type arsewipes have just taught this kid is this:
If you make a mistake, do not own up to it. Keep your mouth shut and continue on as though nothing happened. Don’t try to rectify the situation, don’t admit anything. Lie if you have to. Because once you have made that innocent mistake we are going to screw you over if we find out about it, no matter what you do.
A cop. Complete with the batman belt and the power to arrest.
“If you make a mistake, do not own up to it. Keep your mouth shut and continue on as though nothing happened. Don’t try to rectify the situation, don’t admit anything. Lie if you have to.”
If those school administrators have taught this boy that lesson, or more likely taught his more observant classmates, then they have learned the essential survival technique of surviving and thriving undre conditions of socialism.
Not a bad lesson, really, for the next generation.
“If you make a mistake, do not own up to it. Keep your mouth shut and continue on as though nothing happened. Don’t try to rectify the situation, don’t admit anything. Lie if you have to.”
If those school administrators have taught this boy that lesson, or more likely taught his more observant classmates, then they have learned the essential survival technique of surviving and thriving undre conditions of socialism.
Not a bad lesson, really, for the next generation.
So then you agree that the young one's gun-carrying is infringed... then how can you derive a restriction [on age] where none exists?
The title of [ART I, ] SECTION I is RIGHTS OF PERSONS.Do you intend to assert that the boy is not a person? {There is nothing in the previous-posts's cited constitution segments which justifies an age restriction.}
This knee-jerk response has no bearing on the instance covered by the article. Free obedience to just law is the issue here, as was Peter's reaction to just and unjust regulation. Justin Martyr was a student of Peter, reportedly.
Even so, if it happens, a shot to the back of the head is not the end of everything. They can only kill the body. Think of Paul Schneider and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who were meek to the right and rebellious to the wrong, not vice versa.
Think of the old tale of George Washington, who took a whipping, rather than tell/act a lie. That is what the boy of this article accomplished, knowing the consequence.
Perhaps from his father, who says, "Son, don't take that BB gun out of this yard, and don't point it at anybody, or I'll take it away from you and ground you for two weeks." In the same fashion that Dad says, "You talk to me that way again, and I'll tar your hide." Are you getting this? The infringement is present, right, and just. Needs no Bill of Rights. The boy has none in this context. His role is to learn, not dictate.
As your reply was both thoughtful and detailed, I shall attempt to reply with both thought and detail.
I posted the following: “He absolutely did the right thing by reporting it immediately. But a rule was still broken: A gun was brought to school. And there are mandatory consequences for that,”
Jawohl!
ALLES IN ORDNUNG!”
You seem to have conflated Prussian militaristic behavior with the Third Reich. It is a very common mistake, However, the Prussians would have despised the Nazis.
Next, your: “This was not Naziism — it is following the rules or the law. In America, if we instituted a law or rule that is not satisfactory or commonly agreed, we change it. Ignoring or disobeying the rules or the law, or flouting it, is lawlessness. In my Bible, it is the word “Sin.”
Law, unless that of a totalitarian state, is tempered with “judgment”. “Es La Ley” (Spanish for “It’s the law”) has been the excuse for some of history’s scoundrels. Worse, I would like to suggest is that you seem to have overlooked the American tradition of rejection of legal perfectionism Legal perfectionism is the theory that law must treat all alike under the same circumstances. It was a theory when the Greek City States were home to their ancient philosophers. Said philosophers rejected legal perfectionism as impossible. Why - because the Greek City/State was too large for mere Man to write laws capable of fairness for all. Thus the 40,000 voting citizens agreed with their leading intellectuals that human judgment was essential.
That judgment was to be exercised by the Pooblik Skruel Collective employees - instead, judgment was replaced by a edumacator blabbering platitudes.
As for your application of “sin” in this case, perhaps thou standeth on thin ice. Consider that sin requires knowledge of doing wrong and willingly so doing. Lawyers call this “Mens Rea”. I suggest that mere forgetfulness does not rise to the level of either “sin” or “mens rea”.
As for your recitation of Liberal education ‘principles’, if I may be forgive using such a word to describe the usually principle-deficient acts of edumacators in the Collective, fixing the rule smacks of “brain washing, wouldn’t you agree? Remembering a rule is one thing, making blind acceptance of it the habit of tyrants.
Emphasis is one thing, but since you used the abuses of the Third Reich, isn’t what the edumacator response was relative to the “offense’ and the student attempt to do the right thing - somehow doesn’t that excess remind you of how the Nazi’s executed 100 of the nearest villagers in the case of a partisan killing a Nazi solder? Technically, I am trying to raise the issue of disproportionate response.
“demonstrating the cost that to make rules stick, the consequence must be at least a bit more expensive than the cost of consequences from the unacceptable activity.”
If you meant “the cost of the consequences must be more expensive than the cost of the consequences, I am puzzled by this redundancy which seemingly you found significant.
“You are coaching others to disregard the rule of law in American life and call insistence upon it Naziism?”
What you claim I wrote is only what you wanted to read into it. Law is to be followed by teh citizen, and executed by teh courts, with judgment. I objected to the rigid and judgment averse behavior of the minor level mind in a tax payer supported position. Rather than concern with what was best for the student, Mr/MS/It Edumacator merely cowered behind the most restrictive view and penalized, Penalized, Penalized!!! what was clearly a case with little to no mens rea. Typical edumacator behavior, unless the offense is aprt of the Pooblik Skruel Collective Agenda. Had the student been caught ‘fisting’ on campus after a “sex ed” class one can’t help thing that such a student would be “counseled” rather than penalized.
Such is the edumacator mentality in all too many of America’s public schools.
Back to your post. Regarding theological demands for submission to the King, Are you familiar with teh thought that Americans are unique in the world in that we consider ourselves “sovereign citizens” and that we are the beneficiaries of rejection of the Medieval iron fisted rule of Church and King?
We do expect to judge the facts, the laws, and their application. That is our right, and the concept of the Jury being the final authority in the court is based upon the American concept of the supremacy of a jury of sovereign citizens exercising their judgment.
Blind submission to law is not the American way.
Whpooer toime, Good Sir. You posted:
“You mean, somehow the boy “forgot” he had the gun?
Could well be - many responsible adults have.
“You want me to “forget” that I am carrying a concealed deadly weapon (and have a license to do so)(and I do)(and I’m getting ready to go to church in a few moments, where my pastor also carries)(but not to a Post Office, the VA, or a public school, for instance)?
I would hope a fellow FReeper would not forget Concealed Carry regs, but should you so do, I also hope (and expect) the authorities would remember the issue of intent and not mindlessly penalize you for being human and forgetting.
” Take your mindset back to Obama, who forgets who he is, and lies.
Sorry, I can’t respect your reply to this article.”
Might I inquire as to what is the reason for such seemingly deeply felt animosity?
Are you perhaps a public school employee? If so, please remember that a primary rule of all polite discourse is that present company is always excepted from the discussion. This is particularly necessary in FR discussions regarding education as I am aware that some very conservative, even strict construction advocate FR members are employees of the Pooblik Skruewl Collective.
Nothing I post in this thread was meant personally.
Lastly, I come from a family of educators, was once a Liberal in my 20’s, and am now somewhat beyond my 40’s. And I did read Churchill, the education community has read my papers, and while I reread Churchill and left Liberals, educators read my papers (tripped over truth) and also did as Churchill predicted - got up and proceeded on with no change in behavior.
So, in regards to your suggestion regarding my return to Liberalism:
1. I can’t (they won’t have me). ;-) ;-) ;-)
2. I won’t (there are things no gentleman ever does).
Sorry.
In this case, the entire purpose of the school's action was to teach submission to arbitrary rule-making by a minor bureaucrat, having little to do with "law" as historically understood.
Me, too, that your model keeps on making excuses for disobedience as the justifiable response rather than as an exception to the rule of law in a civilized society. In contrast, by the age of eight this boy demonstrates the development of a moral compass together with the cementing of the cost of abandoning it.
I am also sorry that your understanding of "sin" -- of its definition and practice -- is not Biblical. In the lengthy unabridged Webster's Third New International Dictionary, its succinct and comprehensive definition of the intransitive verb is:
1. to violate religious law : to commit an offense against God
2. to commit an offense
There is no component of intention involved in the definition, nor is there any mention of degree.
The boy's gravest error (and he committed two) was not so much that (1) the pellet gun was brought into school, but rather that (2) he forgot that it was in his possession.
However, you are using error (2) as a forgivable excuse (misplaced compassion) for error (1). He knew, and I know, that it was wrong to forget (2), especially in the light that he clearly had not entertained an intention to disobey (1).
Your proposed system of excuses does not seem to recognize that. That is where your system fails, and undermines the rule of law. Ignorance is no excuse. Intent may have a bearing on the adjudicated consequences, but failure to even stay aware that one is carrying a prohibited article, and thus responsible for its disposition, is an inexcusable offense. In this case, it might even have been an AirSoft pellet gun and hence not itself a dangerous instrument. But failure to be aware of transporting it into school was a fault worthy of rebuke and exemplary chastisement in the face of the site's well-known rule. On the other hand, the child's response and integrity was worthy of commendation. Thus, invoking both concurrently but separately might be a just resolution. A practice of one cancelling the other would not. QED.
Contrarily, your view would excuse his fault and rebuke his integrity. I say, "For shame!" to that capricious result.
Capisce?
Not the case here; here we have a rule set up in direct violation of the state and federal Constitutions.
I didn't see anything about his dad there.
Are you getting this? The infringement is present, right, and just. Needs no Bill of Rights. The boy has none in this context. His role is to learn, not dictate.
That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. You are not only agreeing that the prohibited is present, but calling it right and just and legitimate.
You claim that the role of "learner" absolves him of rights, well then should not the German soldiers have been acquitted as their roles were "command-followers"?
Young Guns: Perfect Practice Makes Perfect Shooters
which will give an indication as to the bent of my thoughts on getting guns into the hands of minor children, and of proper respect toward firearms as a needful part of one's education, under the governance of the US and state constitutions, and parental authority.
It is the case. By placing the minor child in the care of the public (or private) school, the parent implicity agrees that the school is acting in loco parentis as well as in absentia parentis. IIRC. If these are not in charge of the child, the state will be, like it or not.
... here we have a rule set up in direct violation of the state and federal Constitutions.
Your assumption here is completely incorrect. The parent is responsible and accountable for the behavior of the minor child. In the article cited, it is the mother acting as the responsible parent, legally, morally, and constitutionally. Parental rule over the child is a right established long before the Constitution.
I didn't see anything about his dad there.
So?
That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. You are not only agreeing that the prohibited is present, but calling it right and just and legitimate.
Apparently, your understanding of the rights of a minor child is deeply flawed. You need to examine the law(s) on the emancipation of a minor before proceeding on this soliloquy. Until an emancipation is granted by a court, a minor is still subject to the rules of their parents or guardians. In some cases, emancipation can be granted without due court granting when the minor is bound to make a decision for himself in the absence of his parents (who may be already dead or who may have abandoned the minor). In other words, the child has no particular rights not granted by the parent or subrogated to the school or state. (I am also afraid, sadly, that this also applied to the unborn infant, who may not be permitted to see the light of day, under Roe v. Wade.) In particular, the child has no access to or remedy by the Second, or any other of the Amendments. IMHO.
You claim that the role of "learner" absolves him of rights, ...
I made no such claim. I said the minor child has no unalienable rights except the right to life, and that is a bare, bald fact. To wit, at the time of the Declaration, it was only free humans of the male gender that had access to these stated rights -- women, children, and slaves were not emancipated. Even indentured servants were chattels, and could be bought and sold in their term of yielded independence. Also, a father could indenture children for their training into a craft or trade, up until the 20th Century. You haven't read the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches novels, have you?
... well then should not the German soldiers have been acquitted as their roles were "command-followers"?
This is not apropos to the issue here; but, yes, most were. Only the outstanding leaders and butchers giving commands were subjected to imprisonment and/or execution. We had a few Americans who executed inconvenient German prisoners, also, it has been reported (but not recorded). IIRC.
Your response here is the absurdity, not what I wrote. Check out the references, please.
Not necessarily true; the "implicit agreement" could be legally coerced: look into the legality of homeschooling. -- Furthermore, under this philosophy there is absolutely nothing wrong with the schools taking teens out to get abortions, after all they are "acting in loco parentis as well as in absentia parentis."
>>... here we have a rule set up in direct violation of the state and federal Constitutions.
>
>Your assumption here is completely incorrect. The parent is responsible and accountable for the behavior of the minor child. In the article cited, it is the mother acting as the responsible parent, legally, morally, and constitutionally. Parental rule over the child is a right established long before the Constitution.
You are again conflating parents, whom I agree can so restrict minors, and government [agents] which is bound by the Constitution. You are saying, in effect, that because the parents have ceded 'parenthood' to the government the government is no longer restricted by its Constitutions. This is false, it is the same as saying that because someone has a limited power of attorney they have full power of attorney. {EX: Limited to selling some limited amount of stuff [say comic books, games, etc] and paying upkeep on a house [mortgage, repairs, etc] for a family-member while they're deployed, yet that person goes out and drains the life's savings on booze and parties while the deployment goes on.}
Apparently, your understanding of the rights of a minor child is deeply flawed.
It's more about limitations imposed upon the government; the Constitutions are quite clear that the government should not do what it is doing. Period.
You need to examine the law(s) on the emancipation of a minor before proceeding on this soliloquy.
Nope. All I have to do is show that the Constitution[s] prohibit what the government agents are doing; I have done so. I have even shown precedent for such -- I hate precedent, as it amounts to little more than Judges playing the children's game of 'Telephone' with the legal rights of the people.
Until an emancipation is granted by a court, a minor is still subject to the rules of their parents or guardians. In some cases, emancipation can be granted without due court granting when the minor is bound to make a decision for himself in the absence of his parents (who may be already dead or who may have abandoned the minor). In other words, the child has no particular rights not granted by the parent or subrogated to the school or state. (I am also afraid, sadly, that this also applied to the unborn infant, who may not be permitted to see the light of day, under Roe v. Wade.) In particular, the child has no access to or remedy by the Second, or any other of the Amendments. IMHO.
This is deeply flawed an argument: for if it were utterly true then there could be no murder/manslaughter charges for killing the unborn -- but there are. Roe v. Wade, is not actually about such emancipation, it is about the Federal Government [wrongly] asserting superiority to the States: in the case here, the supreme court rendered null and void the legislative decisions of the States despite that the 14th Amendment (sec 1) requires the states to protect lives/rights of its citizenry and the 10th Amendment quite specifically limits the realm of the entire federal government, this must logically include the US Supreme Court.
IOW, just because the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional [or not] does not mean it actually is; the case of Schenck v. United States illustrates this perfectly. The man whose infraction brought the case to the supreme court was distributing pamphlets asserting WWI to be an immoral war, the draft to be therefore immoral [and therefore to be refused], and the people to petition Congress to cease warfare; his violation was the sedition acts passed by Congress. This political speech is what the first amendment was specifically made for, but the Supreme Court upheld the convictions with that silly [and vacuous] "fire in a crowded theater" argument. The Constitution is clear that Congress cannot make laws restricting speech, the reasoning in the case was that to make the Constitution of no effect. {The correct answer [to "shouting fire"] is to hold such a yeller to civil liability for the injuries caused, and criminal prosecution for the deaths caused.}
Jesus himself noted similar in his day. Mark 7:6-13 [J.B. Phillips New Testament]
Jesus replied, “You hypocrites, Isaiah described you beautifully when he wrote—‘This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’. You are so busy holding on to the traditions of men that you let go the commandment of God!”Note that I am not equating the constitution to God's word; what I am doing is illustrating the [fallen] nature of man, and it is fully within that nature to deny the greater authority while asserting the lesser authority derived from it (that is to say, rebellion).
Then he went on, “It is wonderful to see how you can set aside the commandment of God to preserve your own tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honour your father and your mother’ and ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death’. But you say, ‘if a man says to his father or his mother, Korban—meaning, I have given God whatever duty I owed to you’, then he need not lift a finger any longer for his father or mother, so making the word of God invalid for the sake of the tradition which you hold. And this is typical of much of what you do.”
Therein lies your fundamental mistake: you accept as legitimate everything that an authority says, even if what is said clearly lies outside the authority of the person.
I am finding my time unexpectedly shorter than I had anticipated, as the time of this post indicates.
Perhaps the crux of our disagreement lies in your line:”your model keeps on making excuses for disobedience as the justifiable response rather than as an exception to the rule of law in a civilized society”.
What I discussed at some length was that the situation was clearly one of “forgetting” rather than “disobedience”.
As Carry_okie said, that socialism inclined pet was teaching submission, not judgment or honesty.
May I suggest that had the soi dissant educator used the boy’s forgetfulness AND also the fact that said student had immediately reported to the schools adults (’adults’ used here in a deplorably casual sense) his unloaded pellet gun, when the trough feeder would have created a “Teaching Moment”, rather than the authoritarian circus which actually occurred.
“In contrast, by the age of eight this boy demonstrates the development of a moral compass together with the cementing of the cost of abandoning it.”
I suggest the boy did not abandon his moral compass at all. He did forget. The two are not the same.
Gun safety is taught with a near ‘messianic zeal’ though I am unconvinced such behavior does much to reduce accidental discharges or accidental shootings.
As a noted Russian gun instructor said “IS GUN! IS NEVER SAFE!!!”
‘But is always better than any other alternative’ - me.
That boy did not receive a lesson in anything other than raw, arbitrary abuse of power. That educator wanted to give the boy an unforgetible negative lesson regarding guns in the hope of furthering the educator’s Liberal agenda.
Perhaps I should have used another paraphrasing from another socialist collective - “Agenda Uber Alles”, in the instant case, the anti-gun agenda of the Libtard and educators.
school tribunal?? Sounds ominous.
You apparently do not understand that rights in a state or the US constitution limit government. They do not limit parental rights.
Parents and the states are two very different institutions. One generally has the best interest of its child at heart, the other almost never does. I suspect you may not guess which is which, but I will give you a chance to try.
Thanks, but I do not believe that is a privilege or information that is yours to give. One decides, case by case, without your help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.