Another Example of Why "Zero Tolerance" Policies are Lame [Archive] - SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

View Full Version : Another Example of Why "Zero Tolerance" Policies are Lame

KS11

11 March 2008, 06:44

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_us/t_shirt_gun

LANCASTER, Pa. - The family of a middle school student who was given detention for wearing a T-shirt bearing the image of a gun has filed a federal freedom of speech lawsuit against the school district.

ADVERTISEMENT

Donald Miller III, 14, went to Penn Manor High School in December wearing a T-shirt he said was intended to honor his uncle, a U.S. Army soldier fighting in Iraq.

The shirt bears the image of a military sidearm and on the front pocket says "Volunteer Homeland Security." On the back, over another image of the weapon, are the words "Special issue Resident Lifetime License — United States Terrorist Hunting Permit — Permit No. 91101 — Gun Owner — No Bag Limit."

Officials at the Millersville school told him to turn his shirt inside out. When Miller refused, he got two days of detention.

His parents, Donald and Tina Miller of Holtwood, have accused the Penn Manor School District in a lawsuit of violating their son's First Amendment rights with a "vague Orwellian policy" that stifles both patriotism and free speech.

But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy.

"There's a much higher level of sensitivity these days," Penn Manor attorney Kevin French said. "But it's based on reality."

The lawsuit was filed in January. A federal judge will hold a conference on the case March 31.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll admit that the shirt is kind of ghey but last time I checked, the image of a gun has never hurt anyone.

Do you think the parents have a case? IS it a violation of free speech?

Highspeed160th

11 March 2008, 08:31

The shirt rule is stupid. But the failure top follow instructions was unacceptable on his part.

Highspeed160th

11 March 2008, 08:31

The shirt rule is stupid. But the failure to follow instructions was unacceptable on his part.

KidA

11 March 2008, 10:00

The shirt rule is stupid. But the failure top follow instructions was unacceptable on his part.

I wonder if it is a "rule" or if someone just thought it should be and told him it was.

Doesn't mean he shouldn't listen then bring it up at a higher level, but I'm skeptical of the "rule" since it wasn't quoted from the handbook in the article.

10thvet

11 March 2008, 10:22

Shamus375PA

11 March 2008, 11:06

He is 14, he has no freedom of speech.

Guy

11 March 2008, 11:22

He is 14, he has no freedom of speech.Stay safe.

martyusa

11 March 2008, 11:27

I think it really depends on the situation. And let's not forget the media is feeding us half of the story, I'm sure.

Yes, he's only 14. But what are his values at home? Are his parents those type that are just always defiant and find and angle for everything or are they true Americans and believe in our liberties and rights?

Personally, I don't see a problems with it. My son wears a couple of shirts once in a while because he's proud of his Dad. Not to push the envelope, but for support of our fellow Marines fighting for the very right to wear that shirt.

It's a catch 22. As it has been stated, uniforms are the best fix for the problem. This way no rights get effected by someone reading into rules and regulations.

As far as the law Suit, I think it depends on how well the lawyer can convince the judge to interpret the law. But it will never make it that far. The whole purpose of a law suit is to settle.

Greenhat

11 March 2008, 11:50

He is 14, he has no freedom of speech.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

He certainly does have the right of freedom of speech. It may be legitimate to say that it is subject to guidance and controls by his parents (since he is a minor) and other appropriate institutions (such as school), but he has the right. Unalienable right, as one of the people of the United States.

However, unless Congress made the law prohibiting him from wearing that shirt, he doesn't have a case under the First Amendment if it is read for what it says.

okami1

11 March 2008, 20:22

That shirt is stupid.

Does this mean that some wanna-be thug wearing their jeans around their knees so I'm forced to look at their shitty drawers is covered as a free speech act also?

"I do not agree with the way you force me to look at your ass-crack, but I will defend to the death your right to do it." -Voltaire

Shamus375PA

11 March 2008, 20:27

So do 14 year olds have the right to keep and bear arms as well? To vote?

Not being a troll, I am trying to establish that some rights aren't granted to everyone who is a US citizen.

okami1

11 March 2008, 20:30

quick hijack

Shamus375PA- Good to see the Boar's head. My Father's side is Campbell.

Shamus375PA

11 March 2008, 20:31

My dad's side as well. Got Campbell, Wallace, McCully and Sherwood. Pretty much all the pale peoples of the UK.

okami1

11 March 2008, 20:37

Pretty much all the pale peoples of the UK.

And I married a nice Irish girl from Philly. That'll be our kids. :D

chile

11 March 2008, 20:38

i bet you can find an image of a weapon in a history book on campus. what's good for the goose.....

Shamus375PA

11 March 2008, 20:49

I have to rethink my logic. I suppose there are no laws stating that you have to be 18 to have free speech, like there are for owning a gun or voting.

Ace

11 March 2008, 21:18

I have to rethink my logic. I suppose there are no laws stating that you have to be 18 to have free speech, like there are for owning a gun or voting.

You beat me to it, LOL.

Actually, if you look at case law (I can find them if need be), teens under 18 are winning lawsuits more frequently against there parents for the parent violating there rights, so I'm guessing that this kid and his family has a good case.

TPD1280

11 March 2008, 21:58

for the parent violating there rights, so I'm guessing that this kid and his family has a good case.

My kids, while they live in my home, have the right to food, shelter, clothing, education, and a safe environment.

Anything else is a priviledge.

The Dadman giveth, and the Dadman taketh away.

As for the kid and his t-shirt: :rolleyes:

Highspeed160th

11 March 2008, 22:25

martyusa

11 March 2008, 22:31

My kids, while they live in my home, have the right to food, shelter, clothing, education, and a safe environment.

Anything else is a priviledge.

The Dadman giveth, and the Dadman taketh away.

As for the kid and his t-shirt: :rolleyes:

I this the all the way on this one. That is until the step daughter plays her card. I can taketh away and Daddy will giveth back when she gets there. I really try hard to do the best that I can, but a grown man can only take so much from a disrespectful spoiled brat. UHG.

Greenhat

11 March 2008, 22:54

So do 14 year olds have the right to keep and bear arms as well? To vote?

Not being a troll, I am trying to establish that some rights aren't granted to everyone who is a US citizen.

Voting has specific guidance regarding it. Someone can have the inalienable rights and not be allowed to vote. "Keep and bear arms"? Under the same criteria as I noted for freedom of speech (subject to guidance and control of their parents), I'd say so. And I think that the people who wrote the Constitution would agree with me.

SheJAG

11 March 2008, 23:46

The is significant case law that supports limitation of a student's 1st Amendment rights to free speech in the school environment. Most of them deal w/ school newspapers etc and advocating less than civil disobedience in the school environment.

That being said, IMO the lawyer's statement that the dress code restriction was to improve security in school is garbage.

redhawk

12 March 2008, 01:18

the image of a gun has never hurt anyone.
Not that I disagree with you, but the image of a marijuana leaf never hurt anyone. Many schools follow their gun policies in the same manner they follow their drug and alcohol policies.

SheJAG, would this fall under the BONG HiTS 4 JESUS case or was that narrowly restricted to drug-policy only?

Azure

12 March 2008, 01:34

flhshvlhed

12 March 2008, 05:15

Well My two cents is that they should incorpate school uniforms and we wouldnt have these stupid freaking incidents.

A) it would save the parents money
B) it would remove "gang style clothing" from schools
C) any issues with freedom of speech, expressions would be taken care of before hand.

If my lawsuit is thrown out, I would take every school book to court with a picture/drawing/description of a gun or battle or any mention of alcohol and tobbaco* and have it removed from the school property.

I would only do that since in my opionion I think alcohol and tobbaco kills more per year that guns do.

10th - I beg to differ w/ you. Personally, I think the issue dealing w/ uniforms and clothes and such should start at home w/ the parents. If more parents did their damn job, and by that, I mean, being a parent, instead of being the childs "friend", then I think that that would stop the majority of the crap that goes on in schools these days. I'm a single parent of a teenage girl, and I told her - "right now - I'm your parent, the friendship stuff will come later. I'm here to make decisions that I feel are in your best interest - whether you like them or not. Period."

Hell - I remember, when I was in school and given the option of either getting suspended, detention or getting licks - I chose the licks - that way my Dad didn't find out about it. If he found out what I did, then I really got my ass beat, along w/ the joy of letting down my parents, getting grounded AND having to hear about it for who knows how long. In addition to this, was when you got in trouble at the neighbors house, you got your ass whipped at their house, and then again when you got home, due to them calling my parents.

I think if more parents would use a belt on their kids asses more often, then a lot of this stuff would be cut down. To me - that's where this whole BS starts.

Ref alcohol and tobacco - you're correct, however, they have deeper pockets than the gun industry, and are socially acceptable. After all - I've never seen a NASCAR event that was sponsored by Colt, Ruger, S&W, H&K, etc etc, but you damn sure see Budweiser and others out there. They finally did away w/ the "Winston Cup".

Dealing w/ the t-shirt - give me a break. Everyone is afraid of hurting people's feelings these days. I found at my daughter's school, they don't give out "F's" - the give out "NC's" for no credit - give me a damn break. What has this nation become.:mad:

YMMV

Sniper111

12 March 2008, 07:47

Over at the FAL Files there was a guy named FastFreddy whose son got hemmed up for the exact same thing. IIRC it went to a US Circuit Court which upheld the kids right to wear the shirt.

The parallel drawn to a marijuana leaf being displayed is strained at best. Marijuana is a scheduled substance, and possession of it is a criminal act for anyone, adult or minor. Possession of a firearm is not, in and of itself, a criminal act. As for apparrel which displays images/logos of alcohol and/or tobacco; this is closer to the mark, however it still falls short. The ability to possess a firearm is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The ability to possess a beer or a smoke is not.

+1 for the ass whooping.

My grandfather used to remind me that he'd never hit me in the face or belly but an ass was invented by God for whoopings. Personally I believe every child should recieve no less than 3 KEY asswhoopings before he is 10. They are as follows:

1: Lying
2: Stealing
3: Disrespecting

Kid gets those dealt out in a memorable way, chances are he'll turn out OK. I got em and my kid got them too, and so far we seem to be tracking just fine!

The Fat Guy

12 March 2008, 08:13

My grandfather used to remind me that he'd never hit me in the face or belly but an ass was invented by God for whoopings. Personally I believe every child should recieve no less than 3 KEY asswhoopings before he is 10. They are as follows:

1: Lying
2: Stealing
3: Disrespecting

Kid gets those dealt out in a memorable way, chances are he'll turn out OK. I got em and my kid got them too, and so far we seem to be tracking just fine!

S111, I agree with the whole parenting comment, the reason I cut the quote short is because I spit my coffee out when I read your hearts and mind comment...ROTFLMAO

fast eddie sends

Jesus, Someone stop me before I pull a muscle...

The Fat Guy

12 March 2008, 08:51

ALCON,

I have some professional experience dealing with kids, gangs and schools and there are a lot of dynamics when dealing with the three. School administrators often use the right remedy for the wrong problem. Parents, while very adept at the breeding part, are not always competent at the rearing part. Here are some examples...

I agree with the freedom of speech and that pictures of guns never hurt anyone, but I also think that uniforms mask the problem and do not fix them. While uniforms work in areas that probably do not need a uniform policy, when you mask the gun or the weed, you mask the problem. Not all kids wear these things, not all kids will commit a crime. This helps us identify the problems from the wannabe's. The goal is enforcement of a policy that deters violence and drug use, degredation of women etc. We had a similar policy at our facility. What it did for us was let us know who was going to be a problem that day. No matter what you do, these problem kids will find a way to resist. gang colors in the rubber bands in their hair, shoe laces etc. The goal is to stay on top of it and use it as an intelligence tool. What it doesnt do is prevent violence, not directly and not without an alert staff. If every school had an 18F, many of these issues would be identified.

Administrators are tasked with not only teachnig our kids, but keeping them alive while they are in school. While I am convinced that they really do care about these kids, many of them do not want to face facts about the threats that face their schools. I give seminars on campus security and am always asked "What can we do about an active shooter?" While I would like to use Sniper111's comment on hearts and minds, I tell them that the only way to mitigate an active shooter is another active shooter. Most school officials do not accept that answer and they look at me like I am withholding some magic Green Beret secret. Some of them seem to think that if they do things like ban T shirts, confront the non-players about violence and wish real hard that it won't happen on their watch. Too many of them let their political or personel feelings come into play and do not stick to only what really needs to be done to make their school safe.

The main problem, as many of you have stated, is that the parents do not parent. I have seen this in almost every case I dealt with. Either because they are single parents and must work countless hours to make ends meet or becuase their social life is more important. Whatever the reason, they are just not there. The other example of being a friend is another issue we saw, especially with suburban kids .

We worry about too many unimportant things. I saw yesterday a show on spanking that said spanking may alter your child's sexual personality later in life. I say live in a cell with a man known only as "Buck" and see how that changes your sexual inner-self!

Ok, gotta do some work that pays money,

fast eddie sends

Jesus, Someone stop me before I pull a muscle...

Pickpocket

12 March 2008, 10:38

Administrators are tasked with not only teachnig our kids, but keeping them alive while they are in school. While I am convinced that they really do care about these kids, many of them do not want to face facts about the threats that face their schools. I give seminars on campus security and am always asked "What can we do about an active shooter?" While I would like to use Sniper111's comment on hearts and minds, I tell them that the only way to mitigate an active shooter is another active shooter. Most school officials do not accept that answer and they look at me like I am withholding some magic Green Beret secret. Some of them seem to think that if they do things like ban T shirts, confront the non-players about violence and wish real hard that it won't happen on their watch. Too many of them let their political or personel feelings come into play and do not stick to only what really needs to be done to make their school safe.

[snip]

We worry about too many unimportant things. I saw yesterday a show on spanking that said spanking may alter your child's sexual personality later in life. I say live in a cell with a man known only as "Buck" and see how that changes your sexual inner-self!

Rock on, dude.

dag

12 March 2008, 10:55

Is the rule absolute? No gun pictures at all? Would the context of the picture make any difference?

Consider the following things on a T-shirt:

Belt fed 1919 slurping it up at 1200 rpm.
A picture of a Marine holding an M4.
A picture of a gun, with the manufactures logo.
An exploded view of a rifle showing all the parts.
Picture of an AK parts kit (no receiver)
AC-DC "For Those About to Rock" T-shirt with the Cannon.
Picture of the Massachusetts quarter with the minuteman holding a musket.

At what point does it become OK to wear it? Or do all of them get banned?

None of these show a violent intent. If the t-shirt implied VIOLENCE, then I'd have an issue with it, otherwise this no pics of guns in schools is a crock of poo.

SOTB

12 March 2008, 11:32

I believe the rule is GAY.

I believe the kid's choice in clothing demonstrate that his future will include mullets, FATass women who wear their curlers in their hair on Saturday shopping trips to the local K-Mart, and toothless smiles....

P38

12 March 2008, 11:42

Fox News has a picture of the offending shirt:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336793,00.html

Personally, I can see why people would take issue with it in a school environment. The parents claim that it is a symbol of patriotism meant to honor an Uncle who is serving in Iraq. I'm not catching the patriotic message and don't get how it honors the Uncle and his service. If anything, I think the T-shirt has a vigilante message that I don't think is appropriate for school.

On the other hand, I can think of a number of T-shirt 'weapons' that I'd find O.K. even though the school might not. Infantry crossed muskets, MP crossed pistols, Artillery crossed gun tubes, SF crossed arrows, or even something like a picture of an M1 tank or the National Guard Minuteman with musket. If I gave a T-shirt to a nephew and he couldn't wear one of those symbols I'd probably be pissed.

Sniper111

14 March 2008, 01:59

I'll tell you what gets my Irish up in that story...

"The school district is defending its decision, saying it needs to keep students safe during a time of school shootings."

Just like every other worthless "feel-good" measure from the screeching shrews of the left it is an inane, toothless attempt to legislate crime from existence.

How, I ask, does banning a PICTURE make the school safer???

Then again, schools are gun-free zones.

Since they are why do we have school shootings, wouldn't the very fact that they are gun-free zones make a shooting there impossible? After all it is the law right?

I can see the thoughts going through the mind of a potential spree killer....

"Lemme go in here and kill 100 people... oh wait... this is a gun-free zone! Might as well go home and have chocolate milk and cookies instead."

I lived less than 100 yards from the station where Colin Ferguson shot up the LIRR train. I will remember this to the day I die- when asked why he came to NY and shot up a train, his reply was "I knew nobody would be able to stop me since nobody in NY can carry a gun".

Hijack mode off

Slim

14 March 2008, 15:08

martyusa

14 March 2008, 15:44

The shirt is gay, and SOTB's assessment of the kids future is probably spot on IMHO.

However, see the point of the rule. Even in this thread there have been questions about the context of the gun on the t-shirt, and posts suggesting that one image would be okay but another image in a different context would be a no-go. I don't see how a school adiministration could make that distinction. Do you think the parents of the gang banger, who is wearing a shirt depeicting some thug holding a firearm, is NOT going to fire up a shitstorm when their kid is kicked out of school for wearing that shirt, but the son of a Marine, wearing a shirt depicting a Marine holding a rifle, is not kicked out?

If the rule was stated clearly in the student hand book (a point that I agree is in question). It should be enforced.

What irritates me more than these seemingly useless rules is the parents that run to their kids side when the rule is violated. Kids need to get used to it. Grown ups have rules too. We don't like all of them. If you violate them you might get a ticket or go to jail to jail. I think getting kids out of punishment for violating rules they don't like is the wrong way to go, and more of an issue than the stupidity of the rule itself.

Some very good points. And I do agree to a point. Yes, we need to accept responsibility for our own actions. And yes there are rules in place that must be followed. If you don't like those rules then find an alternative solution for educating your children.

However, how much is too much. As the Government SLOWLY takes away certain little rights the more they think they can take. And it is getting out of hand, fast.

Only if the media would not harp on all the negatives of the world. Focus on the good things. Sure report the bad, but not the big story on action news. It's always, who was murdered, raped, robbed, pillaged and what corporate company has stolen from us. Has anything good happened anywhere? But good news doesn't sell.....

Back to the subject....A very easy fix would have been mandatory uniforms. And none of this would have happened. As a matter of fact, I am going to bring that up to my local school administration. My son can wear a small EGA for his old man. The last thing we need is more of this rubbish getting into the media. Ooh Rah.

P38

14 March 2008, 16:09

What irritates me more than these seemingly useless rules is the parents that run to their kids side when the rule is violated. Kids need to get used to it. Grown ups have rules too. We don't like all of them. If you violate them you might get a ticket or go to jail to jail. I think getting kids out of punishment for violating rules they don't like is the wrong way to go, and more of an issue than the stupidity of the rule itself.

+1

I just took a quick look at the Fox News "Education" related articles and cherry picked a few headlines related to the topic of conforming to school rules. I clearly don't have the patience to be an educational professional.

Judge OKs ‘Hitler Youth’ Buttons to Protest School Uniform Policy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297514,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education

SCHOOL SUED OVER TEEN'S 'WINNIE THE POOH' SOCKS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260105,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education

COLORADO STUDENT FILES LAWSUIT OVER COMMENCEMENT SPEECH THAT MENTIONED JESUS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295432,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education

DAD UPSET KID BANNED FROM WEARING PAGAN SYMBOL AT INDIANA SCHOOL

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269778,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education

Slim

14 March 2008, 16:24

However, how much is too much. As the Government SLOWLY takes away certain little rights the more they think they can take. And it is getting out of hand, fast.

It is hard to say how much is too much, or too little. I am tracking you with the Goverment slowly whittling away rights, but I don't think that fits this scenario. It's not the Federal government, it's a local school district. If the community thinks the rule is too strict they will get their panties in a bundle and pressure the administration to change it. In the meantime, the rule was broken and the kid should get whatever is coming to him. What should NOT happen is the kid getting off because the rule isn't fair.

Slim

14 March 2008, 16:54

+1
SCHOOL SUED OVER TEEN'S 'WINNIE THE POOH' SOCKS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260105,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education

form the article.
unconstitutionally vague
Holy crap! since when is vaugeness prohibited by the constituiton? I don't suppose they made it vague intentionally in order to give people some form of discretion within the rules.:rolleyes:

As an aside, I love foxes headline. There was a little more to the story than Whinnie the Pooh socks.

martyusa

14 March 2008, 19:26

Winnie the Pooh and the ACLU. Cause this isn't about Tigger too. This one is about a rebel without a cause. I didn't see in the article if the student had been complying to the rule and just one day decided to start crap or this was the first day. This is just a complete waste of the Local ACLU's funds.

I cannot believe that the ACLU even considered getting involved with this!!

That just blows me away, I want my 50 bucks back.