Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    No, we don't. You made the argument yourself, that a school is legally responsible for the welfare of students while in its care. Is a student on his parents' property outside of school hours in the school's care? Obviously not. Is a student on a public street who is waiting for a school bus, without school supervision (there was no school monitor or guard there) under the school's care? Obviously not.

    [/LIST]
    I don't think we know the law well enough to say that. I'm going to look this up tonight. Laws in relation to schools can be weird.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,441
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    In order for an Airsoft gun to break the skin, one would need to break the gun and stab someone with the broken plastic.



    If there was a random drive by shooting at the school bus stop would the school be liable? No.

    Yet people think the school would be liable for toy guns?????????????
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,342
    So, my question was whether Virginia Beach Schools has a legal responsibility for the safety of the students at the bus stop. This is what I found.

    First, I found that the rules were not the same everywhere.

    http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/progra...-what-regulati


    http://news.yahoo.com/suspension-vir...004553898.html

    A parent of one of the students said the boys were firing the pellet guns on private property and should never have been disciplined by the school system.

    But Eileen Cox, a spokeswoman for the 68,000-student Virginia Beach, Virginia, school system, said it has responsibility for students' safety to and from school.

    School officials said one of the boys had been disciplined six times over the past 18 months for bullying, harassment and fighting that caused injuries.
    So, does Eileen Cox mean a legal responsibility? That's my question. I find it interesting that one of these kids was already getting into trouble on a constant basis for doing things that made students unsafe. That doesn't mean the school system should have disciplined him for what took place near the bus stop, but it does suggest he's not an innocent victim.

    But this still doesn't completely answer my question.

    From the website of Virginia Attorney General:

    http://virginiarules.com/virginia-ru...sponsibilities

    This is under the responsibilities of the student.

    ollow school conduct expectations and rules set forth in the school division’s Student Code of Conduct (remember: these apply on the bus to and from school and at school-sponsored activities – even away from school and outside school hours);
    So, there you have it from a government official.

    School officials are required by Virginia law to report the following offenses to law enforcement agencies if these offenses occur on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored activity:
    Then, it goes over the rules. Would being at the bus stop be considered a school sponsored activity?

    And they say it once again.

    It is important to understand that your code of student conduct applies not only when you are on school grounds but also when you are on the bus going to and from school and at schools-ponsored activities, even when the activity is away from school or at another school.
    So, I would think it's important to take these issues to Virginia legislature. Demand clarity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    So, my question was whether Virginia Beach Schools has a legal responsibility for the safety of the students at the bus stop. This is what I found.

    First, I found that the rules were not the same everywhere.

    http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/progra...-what-regulati


    http://news.yahoo.com/suspension-vir...004553898.html



    So, does Eileen Cox mean a legal responsibility? That's my question. I find it interesting that one of these kids was already getting into trouble on a constant basis for doing things that made students unsafe. That doesn't mean the school system should have disciplined him for what took place near the bus stop, but it does suggest he's not an innocent victim.

    But this still doesn't completely answer my question.

    From the website of Virginia Attorney General:

    http://virginiarules.com/virginia-ru...sponsibilities

    This is under the responsibilities of the student.



    So, there you have it from a government official.



    Then, it goes over the rules. Would being at the bus stop be considered a school sponsored activity?

    And they say it once again.



    So, I would think it's important to take these issues to Virginia legislature. Demand clarity.

    The rules don't apply until you step inside the school bus. For instance if a child was chewing gum at the bus stop and gum was not allowed on the bus, he could not get in trouble for chewing gum if he spit out the gum before getting on the bus.

    "School sponsored" simply means extra curricular and education based activities such as sports, dances, banquets, field trips, organizations and clubs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I don't think we know the law well enough to say that. I'm going to look this up tonight. Laws in relation to schools can be weird.
    One of the great things about America, at least in the beginning, was that laws were supposed to be written so that anyone could understand them and comply with them. If we are at the point where we cannot determine the legality of our day-to-day actions without consulting counsel, then we are already too far gone to worry about our liberties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    So, my question was whether Virginia Beach Schools has a legal responsibility for the safety of the students at the bus stop. This is what I found.

    First, I found that the rules were not the same everywhere.

    http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/progra...-what-regulati


    http://news.yahoo.com/suspension-vir...004553898.html

    A parent of one of the students said the boys were firing the pellet guns on private property and should never have been disciplined by the school system.

    But Eileen Cox, a spokeswoman for the 68,000-student Virginia Beach, Virginia, school system, said it has responsibility for students' safety to and from school.

    School officials said one of the boys had been disciplined six times over the past 18 months for bullying, harassment and fighting that caused injuries.
    So, does Eileen Cox mean a legal responsibility? That's my question. I find it interesting that one of these kids was already getting into trouble on a constant basis for doing things that made students unsafe. That doesn't mean the school system should have disciplined him for what took place near the bus stop, but it does suggest he's not an innocent victim.

    But this still doesn't completely answer my question.

    From the website of Virginia Attorney General:

    http://virginiarules.com/virginia-ru...sponsibilities

    This is under the responsibilities of the student.

    follow school conduct expectations and rules set forth in the school division’s Student Code of Conduct (remember: these apply on the bus to and from school and at school-sponsored activities – even away from school and outside school hours);
    So, there you have it from a government official.



    Then, it goes over the rules. Would being at the bus stop be considered a school sponsored activity?

    And they say it once again.

    It is important to understand that your code of student conduct applies not only when you are on school grounds but also when you are on the bus going to and from school and at schools-ponsored activities, even when the activity is away from school or at another school.
    So, I would think it's important to take these issues to Virginia legislature. Demand clarity.
    There is clarity. In other words, the code of conduct only applies when the school has custody of the student, such as on a school-sponsored activity, even when the activity is away from school (i.e., a field trip). Waiting at a bus stop is not a "school-sponsored activity." Certainly, waiting on your own property is not. The school has no jurisdiction.

    Also, the claims that the students had been disciplined for bullying in school is irrelevent. The issue is whether the school can suspend them for actions in their own home, where they are under the authority of their parents. One can argue that if a student is arrested, then the school can remove them for the safety of other students, but that goes back to the initial character of the arrest, which involved possession and use of a toy during play. The police should have simply told the kids to put the guns away and told the neighbor to mind her own business. An arrest was completely unwarranted.

    Several years back (okay, decades), I put together a Halloween costume which included a wooden parade rifle; I was dressed as a classic GI Joe, complete with Kung Fu grip (I had a lever on my sleave). While I was on my way to the party, a cop stopped me, looked at the rifle, and let me go on. That was the correct response. Today, a kid who was in my shoes would be arrested and booked. That's idiotic.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,912
    If anyone was ever shaky on the term mindless, this kind of reaction should clear up any confusion. This is the reason for these idiotic zero tolerance policies. They remove any thought process and just live by an umbrella policy. This further proves that liberalism is a mental disorder.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,054
    Some additional facts:

    1. There were two 911 callers, not just one.

    The first 911 call was the woman described above. She knew the guns were fake because her son was playing with Khalid and Aidan in an airsoft gun war in the front yard. Aidan shot the 911 caller's son in the arm. The second caller, however, didn't know if the guns were real or not and called 911. This second caller did demonstrate that one child, Aidan, left private property and went out into the street.


    http://www.wavy.com/news/local/va-be...e-gone-too-far

    However, a second 911 call from a different caller on Sept. 12 is what schools officials say led to the investigation and then suspensions. WAVY.com was unaware of the second 911 call on Monday, during our first report of the incident...

    " ... the white child appeared to have a gun, and he was chasing the other child ... when he saw me he kind of stuck it in his pants. I don't know if it was a toy or if they were playing," said the 911 caller in the Sept. 12 call.

    The caller was speaking about 12-year-old Aidan Clark, who admits he ran off Caraballo's property into the street in front of Khalid's house.
    To me it's odd that one of the 911 callers was the mother of a kid playing with the toy guns. What was her motivation? The other caller didn't seem to know that the guns were toys. I find myself wondering how aggressively these boys were playing to frighten two people into calling the police, especially one parent who knew the guns were fake. Maybe it was her way of dealing with the aggressiveness of the other boys toward her kid? Hard to tell.

    2. Virginia Beach actually has a law against using air guns too near buildings

    The law is apparently a little fuzzy and not often enforced, but it is in the code. Khalid and Aidan officially broke a law and the school can use this in their case. Aidan, in fact, left private property and went out into the street. However, the police didn't charge any of the boys.

    http://www.wavy.com/news/local/va-be...e-gone-too-far

    The Virginia Beach City Code isn't clear, and goes back and forth. It reads no person "shall ... discharge any firearm, spring-propelled rifle or pistol ... within ... 150 yards of any building." Then it reads "no person shall use a pneumatic gun except at approved shooting ranges or within private property."

    ...However, the Code also requires shooting with "permission of the owner." In this case, the parent is the owner, and she did not give her son, Khalid, permission to fire the gun. He disobeyed her.

    "How dare he disobey me, but this is a home issue. It's not a school issue, and it won't happen again. He will never do this again," Solangel said while looking back at Khalid with a stern face.
    The complete text of the law is at the link.


    3. One kid (Khalid) had a disciplinary record at school.

    Khalid has been disciplined 6 times in 18 months for harassment, fighting, bullying that has become "increasingly aggressive" and has "resulted in injuries." One fight got him a three-day suspension. Khalid claims self defense and the older kid in the fight with him got a 5-day suspension. I am prepared to believe that this kid is no angel, despite the sweater vest he wears in the news reports, and that the school might have wanted an excuse to get rid of him. The school's principal certainly wanted him expelled, but the school board just gave long term suspensions with the possibility of being allowed back in sooner. Khalid's mother signed a waver, which is why the school released the suspension record. However Aidan's parents did not, so we don't know what Aidan's disciplinary record is.

    Whether or not these issues played a part in the decision of the school isn't clear. The school board keeps talking about student safety, but there's no evidence that the kids were shooting anyone other than each other. Either the school is overreating and overreaching because toy guns were involved or the principal really wants these kids expelled for other reasons and saw the opportunity with this incident. Hard to tell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,912
    Elspeth, what's missing is the absurdity of kids can't even play with toy guns anymore.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,054
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Elspeth, what's missing is the absurdity of kids can't even play with toy guns anymore.
    I know. I just wonder if there is more behind this case that we don't know about and toy guns are being used as a convenient excuse. This principal was vehement and angry.

    Of course, the very fact that they can use toy guns as an excuse is the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Some additional facts:

    1. There were two 911 callers, not just one.

    The first 911 call was the woman described above. She knew the guns were fake because her son was playing with Khalid and Aidan in an airsoft gun war in the front yard. Aidan shot the 911 caller's son in the arm. The second caller, however, didn't know if the guns were real or not and called 911. This second caller did demonstrate that one child, Aidan, left private property and went out into the street.




    To me it's odd that one of the 911 callers was the mother of a kid playing with the toy guns. What was her motivation? The other caller didn't seem to know that the guns were toys. I find myself wondering how aggressively these boys were playing to frighten two people into calling the police, especially one parent who knew the guns were fake. Maybe it was her way of dealing with the aggressiveness of the other boys toward her kid? Hard to tell.

    2. Virginia Beach actually has a law against using air guns too near buildings

    The law is apparently a little fuzzy and not often enforced, but it is in the code. Khalid and Aidan officially broke a law and the school can use this in their case. Aidan, in fact, left private property and went out into the street. However, the police didn't charge any of the boys.



    The complete text of the law is at the link.


    3. One kid (Khalid) had a disciplinary record at school.

    Khalid has been disciplined 6 times in 18 months for harassment, fighting, bullying that has become "increasingly aggressive" and has "resulted in injuries." One fight got him a three-day suspension. Khalid claims self defense and the older kid in the fight with him got a 5-day suspension. I am prepared to believe that this kid is no angel, despite the sweater vest he wears in the news reports, and that the school might have wanted an excuse to get rid of him. The school's principal certainly wanted him expelled, but the school board just gave long term suspensions with the possibility of being allowed back in sooner. Khalid's mother signed a waver, which is why the school released the suspension record. However Aidan's parents did not, so we don't know what Aidan's disciplinary record is.

    Whether or not these issues played a part in the decision of the school isn't clear. The school board keeps talking about student safety, but there's no evidence that the kids were shooting anyone other than each other. Either the school is overreating and overreaching because toy guns were involved or the principal really wants these kids expelled for other reasons and saw the opportunity with this incident. Hard to tell.
    You raise valid points, but there is one issue within the law regarding discharge of the guns, which is that it specifies an exemption for use on private property, and the front yard was private property. One kid left the yard, and in doing so, may have violated the law (although the complaint doesn't specify whether he fired his gun after leaving the yard), but the other was within the letter of the law.

    I agree that there is more to it than what is in the stories, especially given the vehemence of the school officials, but given what we do know, the incident does not justify the response, and using a non-incident to justify a punishment for something else is pretty tyrannical.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •