A Terrible Truth (NOT Bonzai Kittens)
 

At my school, I know this student who as coming home one night from a wrestling match. Now he is your ordinary kid, academic, smart. But he was carrying a knife for self defence (I dont' know why).

He had to walk home, and on his way, some kids tried to jump him. So he showed them the knife (without pulling out the blade) to scare them off. It worked, but then he was reported for having a weapon on school grounds. he has been expelled from school until Feb 9 of next year and has community service. And if he gets sued, it's thtree more year for each kid.

In my opinion, this is pure bullshit. Even though the princible wished to discard the matter, he had to file a punishment for the broken law.

So a fairly decent kid uses a knife, without actually using it, for self defence and the actual epople that pose a threat to society get nothing and the innocent gets phnishment. Your thoughts? Ideas on how to lower his punishment?

I can't say much for this kid. I mean if all's as you say it is, then the lad shouldn't be punished. They whould know it was self defence, but he will still be bitched about for carrying an offensive weapon.

But one of my friends used to carry a knife around to school. For personal purposes, I never fully knew why she did. I mean one day she was just incredibly pissed off at the world and told me she was going to stab on of the lads she hated. I mean I dislike the guy, but I'd never want him hurt.

Now, she'll hate me for saying this. But she used to be a violent angry person [she's not anymore, she's sweetness]. So I was shatting myself that she would actually stab him. So after pulling her into corridor, I took knife off her. And I carried it about in my bag for 3 weeks, until at one point, after she talked to me after school about wanting to hurt someone again, I burst into tears.

Alright, so kinda offtopic, but I think that it's unnecessary for people to have knives, for self protection or otherwise. It causes to much stressums. He shouldn't have had the knife anyways, so for that he should be punished. Not for protecting himself.

- Rexy

Sounds like he knew the kids were going to jump him.

He should have reported it instead of being stupid enough to bring a weapon to school.

I think it's perfectly fine that they grabbed that kid for illegal weapon possession on school grounds. Weapons do not belong on a school, not for assault nor defence. However, the fact that they punnish him from something that didn't happen on school grounds (if I get it right) is kind of silly. It's more of a matter for the police. Yes he was jumped, and yes the knife helped defend him and scare them off, that still doesn't justify having a knife at school.
I'm all for protecting yourself when you know you're going to dangrous places at dangrous times, but not just everywhere you go. I had times where I had to go to a dangrous area in the city in the middle of the night to get a large ammount of cash from an ATM. I didn't even doubt about bringing my gun along, even though it wasn't loaded. Luckily I never had to draw it, but I don't want to take the chance.
That still doesn't mean I take an unloaded gun everywhere I go for self protection.

Anyway, as for him being punished and other roaming free with much bigger weaponry, that's how the world works, deal with it.

Hrm, I dunno about this. I don't think it should have been so harsh on this kid, I mean, he didn't hurt anyone and it was in self-defense, but it's true he shouldn't have a weapon at school. But then there's that issue, well what if the kids who'd jumped him had a weapon, if he'd been killed... I mean people who actually hurt people with knives and such at school are the reason some people feel the need to protect themselves.

So basically, if those people who use their weapons don't care about the rules and hurt people anyway, no wonder some kids feel the need to have some form of protection... Okay, does anyone understand what I'm getting at... Nevermind...:fuzemb:

I agree that is bull. Ok I'm fine for him being punished, but being expelled till Feb 9 of next year that is taking it too far. He didn't even use it all he did is show it to kids who were trying to jump him and it scared them off. AqauticAmbi I dont think he knew about it just that it was a bad part of town and he was expecting it.

He posed a threat to society (we was technicaly armed).

The guy trying to rob him should also be punished (easpecialy if he admits to it).

Also, please check grammer! It took me a fair while to get waht "I know this student who as coming home one night from a wrestling match" meant.

There's always the 'What if' issue. What if the school council did decide to just let the kid go without doing anything about it. Then I can guarantee you that this thread wouldn't have been about 'A Terrible Truth', no, in that case it would have been about how a school just allowes students to carry weapons in school and does nothing about it. And don't tell me that wouldn't happen, cuz we all know it would!

Okay, lets say that the kids didn't attack him, lets say he strolled on home without any trouble at all, and would still be the quiet contemplative kid in my english class free of all this trouble. But this DID happen, these kids DID try and jump him, so he has a good reason for carrying that knife. Although I am normally against the whole "blaming someone else" defence, if this kind of event can happen on regular school grounds on a regular event, then I should hope that the princible and super intendent are fast at work trying to fix these things before they happen, they are partly respnsible for the conducts of the school.

As for the student council, they could probably care less. That stupid excuse for student poiltics are too sluggish and weak minded to try and be an activist in anything. Christ, the only good thing they did this year that I know of was divise the dance for the girl with brain cancer. The council is nothing more than a popularity statement.


As for you Adder, I will try and avoid typos if thats what you mean, but for Gods sake, use your brain. It wasn't that big of a grammar problem. If Super Munch can get what I'm saying on AIM then I would think you could as well. ;)

That sucks.

Pfft, read your own post before you attack him. ;)

Used: If the kid didn't get attacked, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. What's your point?
The point I tried to make was that there is always a 'What if' situation, but that it should be ignored. We are here to discuss the events as they happend, not to discuss what MIGHT have happend if stuff went diffrently.

I have no problem with the kid getting in trouble for having a weapon. I mean, you can get a robber in trouble for holding a gun and not using it, right? But that's different. I have a problem that the school did not punish the others. Under my rules of my school, imdimation and threats get the same punishment. Give the others suspenation and community service. It's just that people are over concern about weapons these days. I mean, heres a sillier story than that. At my school, a fifth grader gets in trouble for bringing and showing a swiss army knife to his friend. It takes the school a day later to make the school board to realize it was an "accident". When my dad heard this he laughed and made fun of the notice. This is just unbelivable.

Oh, come on!
He would have gotten the crap beat out of him if it weren't for the knife.
He can't run to the principal with a bunch of bigger kids chasing him.

Used, I say that you should go to the principal and say something like what you have told us. Tell her/him that the kid wanted self defence so that is why he pulled it out.

I would have done that already, but the truth of the matter is, the princible's hands are tied in this. He wanted this matter to just be discarded away, but weapon regulations have been taken very seriously since Colombine. I might try and send a petetion to the school board to try and lower or even dissolve his punishment.

And you are right, gangs tend to surround their victim, in order to force the victim into a fight, rather then pile in front of him.

Forgot to say, this violates the second ammendment: the right to bear arms. Wait is that just for people above the age of eighteen? Wait how old is he?

14-16 probably this answer your question. And arms are guns not weapons in general. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regardless, it has nothing to do with the second amendent. You can't bring weapons and such to certain places. Otherwise, it'd be perfectly legal for people to carry guns on airplanes.

Yeah and if one went off in the plane , then all the peeples wood get suked out! and then the plane would crash in zombie land! And the zombies loved toasted cheese sandwhiches!

Sorry , just another one of my fantasies

The system is corrupt. If you want to lower the punishment , make like a sheet which says that what happened isn't fair, and get 50 people to sign it. Or you can keep complainning until things go your way.

Outlaw King, please try not to spam.



I think this goes for 18 and over, but either way, Ambi is right. You can't go anywhere while armed.

I'd like to bring up an incident which is kinda similar. There's was this kid at school with emotional porblems (his dad was a drug addict), and one day I was workin' in a computer lab getting some homework done and this as*wipe starts looking at porn. Luckly the teacher caught him and told hi to log off and do his write his work. Anyway, he grabs his book and as he exits a friend of mine sayd "see ya" to him. Next thing you know he gets pissed off for no reason and smack my friend over the head with his books. The teacher was actually seeing this but he was standing like an idiot. My friend gets up and says: " Why did you do that for?". The big idiot grabs him and smashed his face into some broken tables which were stacked in a corner. Even after seeing my frien was on the ground and couldn't get up, he does it again and this time harder then he pushes and kick him while he's on the ground. The teacher doesn't do anything and the big idiot just runs out crying. I had to take my friend to sickbay which was unconscious due to many hits on the head. His head looked deformed and he could've had serious brain damage. Man was I filled with rage and need for vengance. At luchtime I started eating with my friends and we saw the idiot in the co-ordinator's office. He was actually smiling, what a phsyco. Apparantly the punishment was a talk from the teacher. No suspension! Not even a bloody detention. But when he saw the hatred in my eyes he knew the whole school was after him, so he left the school. He didn't even get expelled! Can you believe that? ach...

Wrong. It never stated or implied "Guns". It just said "Arms".

As far as I know arms are any type of weapon in general.

Godless IS correct there I'm afriad.

Ambi, now airplanes are different, that is a much much more sensitive situation. Of course you shouldn't bring guns on an airplane, thats transportation. But this student, you would never expect anything like a terrorist attack in a place like this, things are more dangerous out here.

I think the student would disagree with you. School can be dangrous, especialy with this generation of 'I listen to fitty cent so I'm cool when I shoot someone' morons that populate schools these days.
But yes, Airplanes are a diffrent matter because I hijacked airplane can be a threat to millions of lifes. Weapons in a school won't claim more then a few hundred at the very most. And it hardly even comes to that.

:fuzmad:
But seriously, what? Really? *doesn't remeber a thing* Oh, Christ. 0_0
Anyways, when kids are bullied they're not thinking straight. Instead of trying to cover their arses, the governors of these schools could try considering *why* they broguht a weapon in the first place. 'The system' just seems weighted towards ignoring bullying than dealing with it.

I assume you ment "slaveless".

Still, the constiution simply states "...the right to bear arms". It does not say "arms and ammunition" {which would imply guns} or anything that would indicate/define "arms" {like "arms, such as (but not limited to) rifles"}.
Without a definition in the constitution itself, there is no limit to arms you can bear. Weapons grade plutonium or a H-bomb would be just as protected by the constitution in current form as any hand-held pistol.

Actually they DID mean guns and firearms wehen they used the term Arms, or any kind of weapon. But those were confusing times when they didn't have police and people had to fend for themselves.

I would actually assume that he was talking about godlesswanderer. Why don't you double check before being an ass?

A perfect example of a system that doesn't work.

The system works, kind of, but the cost is far too high a price. However, I neglected the fact that he did have a chance to make a reasonable decision. There are signs everywhere that state the anti-weapon policy, so he should have known this was a risk.