Scouts and Fixed Blades; New viewpoint

[TAHAWK]

Broward County, Florida honor roll student cut a peach in half with what even the school called a "butter knife."

“This is a set of a spoon, fork and knife for toddlers — one year old,” the girl’s mother, Andrea Souto, added. “It is made for children to learn how to eat properly. She’s used it since she was baby.”

"11-year-old suspended for violation of school’s ‘weapons policy’ after sharing fruit with a friend."

Her "case" was turned over to the State's Attorney for further criminal proceedings. 

 

PHILADELPHIA –  A 10-year-old girl was placed in handcuffs and taken to a police station because she took a pair of scissors to her elementary school.

School district officials said the fourth-grade student did not threaten anyone with the 8-inch shears, but violated a rule that considers scissors to be potential weapons.

Administrators said they were following state law when they called police Thursday, and police said they were following department rules when they handcuffed Porsche Brown (search) and took her away in a patrol wagon.

"My daughter cried and cried," said her mother, Rose Jackson. "She had no idea what she did was wrong. I think that was way too harsh."

Police officers [that is, adults] decided the girl hadn't committed a crime and let her go.

However, school officials suspended her for five days. Administrators will decide at a hearing whether she may return to class, or be expelled to a special disciplinary school.

The scissors were discovered while students' belongings were being searched for property missing from a teacher's desk.

School district officials have promised a crackdown on unruly students this year, and new policies give administrators the power to expel students for infractions as minor as violating the dress code, chronic tardiness or habitual swearing.

Administrators say the steps are needed to regain control over a notoriously unruly school system, but some parents have complained that discipline has been overly harsh and that school officials have been too quick to call police about minor problems."

 

"Josh Welch, a second-grader at Park Elementary School in Baltimore, Maryland, was suspended for two days because his teacher thought he shaped the strawberry, pre-baked toaster pastry into something resembling a gun. WBFF, the FOX affiliate in Baltimore, broke the story.

Welch, an arty kid who has reportedly been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, said his goal was to turn it into a mountain, but that didn’t really materialize."

 

We put our precious children into the power of these pathetic excuses for "teachers," a title that should be one of honor.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"There is a no more stupid, or more dangerous way of making decisions, than to put those decisions in the hands of those who pay no price for being wrong."
Thomas Sowell

Edited December 10, 2017 by TAHAWK

[Back Pack]

5 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

Zero tolerance DOES mean "leaving good judgment at the door."  It's zero tolerance.  No use of judgment, no consideration of circumstances, no exceptions.  If you are using judgment to say some infractions are excused because of the circumstances, it's not zero tolerance.  That's why zero tolerance is a bad idea.  It "sounds" good to many people, but as I said before, many of those people don't understand what it means.

That would depend on how the statue is defined. We’re learning this in constitutional interpretations class now. Lawmakers could narrowly Or broadly define the infraction and the methods of dealing with it. If they leave in language for judgment it would seem you can have both. No? 

[NJCubScouter]

14 minutes ago, Back Pack said:

That would depend on how the statue is defined. We’re learning this in constitutional interpretations class now. Lawmakers could narrowly Or broadly define the infraction and the methods of dealing with it. If they leave in language for judgment it would seem you can have both. No? 

No. If you leave room for the exercise of judgment it isn’t zero tolerance, regardless of what you call it.  You can call a poodle a wolf if you want to, but it’s still a poodle.

[EmberMike]

I'm being lazy and not wanting to read through a bunch of posts about school policies.  So apologies if this is already asked and/or answered.

As I understand the fixed-blade policy in BSA, it applies to carry specifically, right? Has there ever been any real rule on the books preventing fixed blade knife usage in a troop toolkit alongside an axe or saw? I always thought that we were never really prevented from teaching bushcraft techniques with sheath knives as long as we always stopped short of letting the boys out them on their belts and carry them. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by EmberMike

[TAHAWK]

EmberMike, a good question.   BSA never prevented use or carrying of any knife whatsoever.  A couple of yeasr ago it made that point explicit rather than implicit.

It was a matter of local option, so you had to ask each of the units or Councils what they meant by their variously-worded restrictive rules.

I can tell you that a couple years ago, Camp Frontier assertedly prohibited fixed-blade knives "on the camp property."  When I pointed out to the Camp Director that his store sold 8"-bladed fixed-blade knives (in sheaths, but not he carrying kind) and that fixed-blade knives were use in the handicraft area, he said the rule predated him and he didn't know it's reason or its purpose.  He asked that we not have our Scouts "walking around with big honking knives on their belts."  The PLC thought that was reasonable as it had enacted a 4" blade rule years before.  Thus, 4" was neither "big" nor "honking."  Very few Scouts ever carried anything other than a pocket knife as a matter of choice.  Those that did always carried in a small pack with books, food, and other "possibles."

Until five years ago, our council camp prohibited "sheath knives" "at camp."  The author of that, and many other ZT rules was sacked.  Now we have the Scout Law.

[Stosh]

It's gotta be kinda hard working at non-mess hall camps prepping all the food with a 3" pocket knife.   I've always thought my fillet knife in the sheath was safer than just dumping it in my gear.  6" of fillet knife sticking out the side of my pack posed a safety hazard in the parking lot.

[Back Pack]

3 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

No. If you leave room for the exercise of judgment it isn’t zero tolerance, regardless of what you call it.  You can call a poodle a wolf if you want to, but it’s still a poodle.

I thought legislation could be drawn up to do anything. It just takes time and good knowledge of the law. 

[TAHAWK]

BP, your statement is correct; however, a law allowing an exercise of judgment as to whether possessing a knife on school property is a crime would not be a "zero tolerance" knife law.  The whole point of such laws is that, if the triggering event of possessing a "knife" on the premises takes place, the school official can say, "I have no choice." All infractions of the rule, regardless of circumstances, especially regardless of intent, are punished - even the punishment is often not subject to adjustment to the circumstances.   We do not allow a minor of 17 to enter into a contract to buy a disk player, but we expel a child of 8 for not understanding that a pastry might look like a "weapon"," triggering a zero tolerance rule.  

Watch pointing that finger.

[RememberSchiff]

I'm glad new laws are no longer blaming knives rather locations. It is not an illegal knife, it is a location-restricted knife. 

Your Honor, it's not my fault, my knife was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Edited December 11, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[Back Pack]

9 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

BP, your statement is correct; however, a law allowing an exercise of judgment as to whether possessing a knife on school property is a crime would not be a "zero tolerance" knife law.  The whole point of such laws is that, if the triggering event of possessing a "knife" on the premises takes place, the school official can say, "I have no choice." All infractions of the rule, regardless of circumstances, especially regardless of intent, are punished - even the punishment is often not subject to adjustment to the circumstances.   We do not allow a minor of 17 to enter into a contract to buy a disk player, but we expel a child of 8 for not understanding that a pastry might look like a "weapon"," triggering a zero tolerance rule.  

Watch pointing that finger.

That’s my point. You can’t write a law that says no knives on school property because the school is already violating their own law by supplying metal knives in the cafeteria. So by some folk’s definition of zero tolerance the law is de facto already broken. If I have a 2” emergency blade in my safety kit how and use a knife at lunch, a I guilty twice? Should their be a difference in bringing a two inch blade versus using a 4” knife to cut my Salisbury steak? If yes, then we’ve already built discretion in to the law (bringing a knife versus being supplied a knife) which refutes NJ’s argument that zero tolerance can’t have discretion since it already has some forms of discretion in them. I’m just saying take it a bit furether. 

[Col. Flagg]

23 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

Zero tolerance DOES mean "leaving good judgment at the door."  It's zero tolerance.  No use of judgment, no consideration of circumstances, no exceptions.  If you are using judgment to say some infractions are excused because of the circumstances, it's not zero tolerance.  That's why zero tolerance is a bad idea.  It "sounds" good to many people, but as I said before, many of those people don't understand what it means.

 

1 hour ago, Back Pack said:

That’s my point. You can’t write a law that says no knives on school property because the school is already violating their own law by supplying metal knives in the cafeteria. So by some folk’s definition of zero tolerance the law is de facto already broken. If I have a 2” emergency blade in my safety kit how and use a knife at lunch, a I guilty twice? Should their be a difference in bringing a two inch blade versus using a 4” knife to cut my Salisbury steak? If yes, then we’ve already built discretion in to the law (bringing a knife versus being supplied a knife) which refutes NJ’s argument that zero tolerance can’t have discretion since it already has some forms of discretion in them. I’m just saying take it a bit furether. 

I think BP makes a good point.

If the school supplies metal knives AND has a "zero tolerance" rule about knives, they are already exercising "judgement" on when to apply the rule and when not. They clearly allow knives on campus because they supply them. I suspect the statute is nor written in so much detail as to to say "Knives are only permitted if the school supplies them", because that, as you say @NJCubScouter would not be "zero tolerance; so at the onset the is no real "zero tolerance" in the law. And give the administrators and teacher exercise judgement every day when they don's suspend student from using knives in the cafeteria, clearly judgement of some kind *IS* being exercised.

So this begs the question, can you even have a zero tolerance policy around knives or weapons without exercising some sort of judgement? 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[TAHAWK]

You do make a good point.

However, the rule might be, for example, "No student shall bring a knife onto school property" - excepting other actors and excepting the school's knives.

Cleveland's absolute prohibition of any knife 2.5" blade or longer was not enforced against restaurant patrons.  However, it was found to violate the State constitution not for erratic enforcement but as contrary to an Ohio statute criminalizing only concealed carry of "weapons."  The Cleveland ordinance did not allow consideration of whether the knife was a "weapon" vs. a tool.  LEO's tell me the primary use of the ordinance historically was to pile another charge on a juvenile arrested for some other crime(s) in order to encouraged "pleading out."

Uneven application of a zero tolerance rule was raised as a defense on behalf of a student in an actual case.  Faculty had violated the rule and not been punished.  The defense was disallowed and the student punished as provided in the rule.   Our recent history has many examples of those in authority refusing to enforce the laws they are supposed to enforce.  Such misfeasance does not decriminalize conduct violating the law.  Try telling the judge that not all speeders are ticketed.  She will not be amused, and your argument will fail.  Now if you can make and support an Equal Protection argument (e.g., only Hispanic students arrested), then the law may be stricken as unconstitutional as applied.  (Children per se are not a constitutionally protected class.)

I am confident that BP could write a reasonable rule.   But zero tolerance rules are not about reasonableness, and they get written and enforced, evenhandedly or not.  That is simply reality.

To be other than "zero tolerance," all persons would have their cases considered in light of the circumstances - not just one or more favored classes of persons and not erratically.

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

Can we take a step back a bit and go back to some basics?  We're discussing one thing in the context of another which is getting both wrong.

 

There are very few laws written to have a zero tolerance in them.  Legislators don't like writing them and the Judiciary doesn't like being constrained by them.  Even mandatory sentencing laws can be overcome with creative effort by a judge.  By laws, I also include ordinances of municipal governments.

What is being discussed are policies and not laws.  Policies are created by non-legislative governmental bodies like school boards and library boards.  They cannot pass laws, but they can create policies to govern their little fiefdoms. as long as the policies don't conflict with laws.  Almost every instance we hear of about zero tolerance are zero tolerance school policies.  The worst part about these policies is that it is the school board that enforces them.  A school principle, bound by the school boards policies suspends a student - who does the student appeal to?  The school board that created the policy.  The student can take it to court but as long as the policy isn't an actual violation of state law, the policy is going to stand because states give school boards the right to create their own policies.

[TAHAWK]

Yes.  Few.

[Eagle94-A1]

One regarding BSA and Knives, while they do have policies, those policies stress"legally owned" so knife laws do need to be considered. As for school policies, how many Scouts have gotten in trouble for carrying a spork to school? Anyone remember the Eagle Scout with camping gear in the trunk of his car, including a knife and axe, that was suspended?  Graduating senior, West Point bound, and a volunteer firefighter if memory serves, yet got suspended b/c of wood TOOLS ( emphasis) in the runk of his car.