Student Charged After Refusing To Remove NRA Shirt

[rhandric]

The focus is being drawn away from the initial act, the teacher asking for the shirt to be removed, everything after that is irrelevant. Should it have been handled better, absolutely, but it shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. He doesn't want to debate that part.

You know, I'm fine with the teacher asking for the shirt to be removed. I'm fine with the student refusing to, under grounds that it didn't violate the written policy. Going from there, to him being arrested, obviously means we're missing information.

And Zhangfei, since I know you'll jump all over my statement that "it didn't violate the written policy", well, it didn't. It violated the ex post facto decision (that didn't stick) that his shirt might not be appropriate.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 04:44 PM ----------

Self-reflection is a wonderful thing and admirable.

You might want to try it.

[theturn]

Self-reflection is a wonderful thing and admirable.



The teacher has the authority to do that (as in, replace t-shirt or flip it inside out, not just removal) given the school codes and WV law. That's not even in question.

Must not be a teacher. You are not allowed by any law to touch a student unless given reason too. Teacher has no reason to even approach the student. The only reason he did anything was because it offended him. If the shirt had broken school rules he would have been asked to remove the shirt immediately and not allowed to wear it again. Neither of those things happened. It wasn't till this teacher took it upon himself to get the shirt removed that a problem occurred.

[Zhangfei]

You know, I'm fine with the teacher asking for the shirt to be removed. I'm fine with the student refusing to, under grounds that it didn't violate the written policy. Going from there, to him being arrested, obviously means we're missing information.

Yes. The student flipped out after being taken for disciplinary procedure. I wouldn't be surprised the teacher and student had a history and he felt hard done by and we all know from adolescent psychology that young men, especially young men who engage in violent pursuits, will feel their manhood challenged in group settings and respond aggressively (not necessarily physically.)

And Zhangfei, since I know you'll jump all over my statement that "it didn't violate the written policy", well, it didn't. It violated the ex post facto decision (that didn't stick) that his shirt might not be appropriate.

The rule is written in the code long before the student challenged it. And the rule is there for situations like this.

Must not be a teacher. You are not allowed by any law to touch a student unless given reason too.

Correct. When did I suggest the teacher touched the student, exactly?

You might want to try it.

Oh I do it all the time. I'm just glad it worked for you.

[rhandric]

Yes. The student flipped out after being taken for disciplinary procedure. I wouldn't be surprised the teacher and student had a history and he felt hard done by and we all know from adolescent psychology that young men, especially young men who engage in violent pursuits, will feel their manhood challenged in group settings and respond aggressively (not necessarily physically.)

The rule is written in the code long before the student challenged it. And the rule is there for situations like this.

Show me proof that he flipped out. Until then, it's unsubstantiated speculation on your behalf, which leads you to erroneous conclusions.

And sure, the rule was written into the code before the occurrence, but the applicability is arbitrary at best. An example I used earlier in the thread: What's to prevent the following from happening? Me, as a (teacher, administrator) has a dog run over by a black vehicle. I decide, as a result, that I don't like the color black, so decide that I'll make the color black violate the dress code. Sure, it's arbitrary, but I, as an administrator (or teacher, as you claim has the authority) has final say in what's considered appropriate, right?

[Vyxn]

This is NOT a free speech issue, we have told that like 13947284 times already in this thread alone this is a DRESS CODE issue. And it is the same reason you cant go to school with a shirt with a nazi swastika on it. doesnt matter if you think it is free speech so go around with a swastika in school it still will be ordered to be removed.

so what are you implying? that the dress code should be inline with what ever the teachers political leaning dictate

[rhandric]

Oh I do it all the time. I'm just glad it worked for you.

I don't think you do.

[Zhangfei]

Show me proof that he flipped out. Until then, it's unsubstantiated speculation on your behalf, which leads you to erroneous conclusions.

The proof is within the arrest. If he hasn't become aggressive, then the police wouldn't have been called. Let me reiterate, directly opposing a repeated request from a teacher to do something can and should be considered at minimum willful disobedience and is the first step towards aggressive disobedience.

Considering the charges laid against him, let me ask you what you think happened? The arrest and charges are facts, the student's version of the story is not. Why'd you believe that is beyond me against multiple adults in various roles.

And sure, the rule was written into the code before the occurrence, but the applicability is arbitrary at best. An example I used earlier in the thread: What's to prevent the following from happening? Me, as a (teacher, administrator) has a dog run over by a black vehicle. I decide, as a result, that I don't like the color black, so decide that I'll make the color black violate the dress code. Sure, it's arbitrary, but I, as an administrator (or teacher, as you claim has the authority) has final say in what's considered appropriate, right?

The administration wouldn't support you and your fellow administrators would lambast you. You'd also probably be taken to court. That's the checks and balances in question here, it is categorically not the student's role to resist.

I don't think you do.

I do, but you have a track record of making up shit to support your view rather than posting things like laws and school rulings.

so what are you implying? that the dress code should be inline with what ever the teachers political leaning dictate

There shouldn't be any politicking in schools, and having a t-shirt with a gun on it close to a school shooting is, at best, disgraceful.

[rhandric]

You're assuming that the arrest was actually warranted. Without a timeline of events, that argument does not fly. http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zero_..._and_well.html is only one of several examples of why assuming an arrest means it was worthwhile. Plus, presumably you know the little thing about innocent before proven guilty...but maybe you think that only applies to adults. Again, whether or not it is what happened in this case, we don't have the evidence, but citing the arrest as proof that he flipped out is a non-sequitor.

And please, show me what I've made up to support my views? I beg of you, show me the error of my ways

And I've made it perfectly clear in this thread what I think happened.

[Tinykong]

You're assuming that the arrest was actually warranted. Without a timeline of events, that argument does not fly. is only one of several examples of why assuming an arrest means it was worthwhile. Plus, presumably you know the little thing about innocent before proven guilty...but maybe you think that only applies to adults. Again, whether or not it is what happened in this case, we don't have the evidence, but citing the arrest as proof that he flipped out is a non-sequitor.

From a conjecture stand point, all things being equal, I'll side with law enforcement being truthful (they are sworn) over a person being truthful. Courts share the same opinion, which is why when it's your word against the cop's, the cop wins.

Them's the breaks.

[rhandric]

From a conjecture stand point, all things being equal, I'll side with law enforcement being truthful (they are sworn) over a person being truthful. Courts share the same opinion, which is why when it's your word against the cop's, the cop wins.

Them's the breaks.

Sure, in the court of law, typically the cop will be deemed more reliable. However, this isn't court, and considering the numerous examples I've seen (and cited) where the cops arrested a student for frivolous reasons, the mere existence of the arrest is not in and of itself proof.

[Skalme]

If you had read earlier pages you would know that schools employ catchall rules for situations like this, simply because it is ludicrous and utterly impractical to specify every single item that can and cannot be worn. [...] The school policy refers to items that can cause a disturbance, among other things, which essentially says that it is at the teacher's discretion to decide if and when an item is violating said policy.

Did the shirt actually violate policy, even the catchall?
Clearly not because the student has been allowed back to school wearing the same shirt and others have been also been allowed to wear the same or similar shirts. Thus the apparel did not, and does not, create a disturbance.

Did the teacher overstep their authority?
No, but it does not make that teach less wrong about trying to enforce personal bias using the school code.

Was the student wrong for refusing?
Clearly not.

That much should be bloody obvious, but you seem hellbent on taking every last detail literally to defend your flimsy argument, so again we have to spell things out for you logically.

Logic dictates that when your argument is demonstrably wrong, you stop trying to twist things so that you are right.

Yet you still insist on spouting nonsense.

The child is wearing an NRA t-shirt.

True

The NRA defends gun laws and gun use.

And here is where your thinking starts to get muddled. The NRA supports lawful and responsible gun use, and tries to protect the restriction of 2nd amendment rights.

Gun laws have directly been related to ease of access to guns by children.

Provide a source.

Children shooting up schools happens year in year out.

While school shootings to happen, the do not only happen in the US, and they are not only performed by people under 18.

Simply put, I will use the standard comment of "Correlation does not imply Causation".

Thus, the connection is quite simple - wearing a t-shirt advocating gun use in a school is unethical as it promotes freedom of gun use, this being in the context of a school environment.

You are drawing a false conclusion based on your own personal bias.

If you are going to seriously tell me that the teacher's are victimising this stubborn brat for promoting gun use around other impressionable kids and young adults, then you are either burying your head in the sand or are of questionable intelligence to see the blatant justification.

The teacher raising this issue, and bringing it to the attention of the other students with a raised voice, certainly had a greater impact than the student just wearing the shirt. Again, I will resort to a cliche, "What is the best way to get a teen to do something? Tell them that they cannot."

Further, the US culture (and history) is suffused with guns and the glorification of violence/guns. One person in a t-shirt will have far far less impact than the years of bombardment by the media.

But then, you do seem to think one person's rights somehow trump the potential for promoting another massacre by kids with guns. You know, the kinds of massacres that have been an epidemic over the last ten years.

First, there is no epidemic of school shootings. There is a perception of such, because the media milks any/every single incident for weeks or months until the next incident that can get them ratings.

Second, guns != violence. That was established 10 or so pages back.

Third, I repeat (again) that promoting legal and responsible gun use is not the same as promoting a massacre.

[anyaka21]

after reading the story, it still comes down to the kid wearing the t-shirt and was instigated by a teacher because the kid wore the t-shirt.

teacher was wrong to confront him publicly like that. Sounds more like the teacher wanted to embarass him in front of the whole school.

[Deleted]

so what are you implying? that the dress code should be inline with what ever the teachers political leaning dictate

*sigh* I go away for ten pages and you're still making every statement and comment politically orientated. What is it with you? He is not implying that the dress code should be in line with the teacher's political leaning. The dress code should be in line with the school's catchall policy, which it was not. The teacher's enforced the rules of the school. End of debate. Stop trying to turn this into some conspiratorial political move on behalf of the school.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 11:26 PM ----------

after reading the story, it still comes down to the kid wearing the t-shirt and was instigated by a teacher because the kid wore the t-shirt.

teacher was wrong to confront him publicly like that. Sounds more like the teacher wanted to embarass him in front of the whole school.

Assuming that your statement is true (which there is no evidence to suggest) is it now wrong to set examples of people in public? Maybe the police shouldn't arrest people out in the open anymore and should surreptitiously guide them to the station where they can be arrested properly in case they hurt the offender's feelings.

[Templar 331]

Sure, in the court of law, typically the cop will be deemed more reliable. However, this isn't court, and considering the numerous examples I've seen (and cited) where the cops arrested a student for frivolous reasons, the mere existence of the arrest is not in and of itself proof.

You aren't arrested for no reason. The officer doesn't walk in, slap handcuffs on you, then walk you out without asking some questions. He/she surveys the situation and acts accordingly. If the little punk was belligerent, this being the case, he'd be escorted off school grounds and to the police station. You aren't arrested for following the rules/laws, your arrested for breaking them in some way or form. This child refused to do as he was told and faced the consequences.

"When the police came, I was still talking and telling them that this was wrong, that they cannot do this, it's not against any school policy. The officer, he told me to sit down and be quiet. I said, `No, I'm exercising my right to free speech.' I said it calmly,"

Telling a police officer "no" is a pretty easy way to go to jail. It doesn't matter what he/she said to do, you'd best do it. He/she knows what he/she can legally tell you to do. Refusing to sit down and stay quiet is causing a disturbance, which is what this kid was arrested for along with obstructing an officer. And incase the second charge isn't clear, the officer was trying to survey the situation and the little punk wouldn't shut up. You aren't charged with obstructing an officer by just sitting quietly and answering all the questions he asks. Your charged because you didn't shut up. And we KNOW this is a fact because the little punk said it himself.

[Deleted]

<snip>.

Points noted and thank you for making them respectfully rather than in an angry fashion like some others here. But regardless, I disagree with everything you have said.

[rhandric]

-snip-

Of course. But it's easier to sensationalize than to reason

You aren't arrested for no reason. The officer doesn't walk in, slap handcuffs on you, then walk you out without asking some questions. He/she surveys the situation and acts accordingly. If the little punk was belligerent, this being the case, he'd be escorted off school grounds and to the police station. You aren't arrested for following the rules/laws, your arrested for breaking them in some way or form. This child refused to do as he was told and faced the consequences.

Telling a police officer "no" is a pretty easy way to go to jail. It doesn't matter what he/she said to do, you'd best do it. He/she knows what he/she can legally tell you to do. Refusing to sit down and stay quiet is causing a disturbance, which is what this kid was arrested for along with obstructing an officer. And incase the second charge isn't clear, the officer was trying to survey the situation and the little punk wouldn't shut up. You aren't charged with obstructing an officer by just sitting quietly and answering all the questions he asks. Your charged because you didn't shut up. And we KNOW this is a fact because the little punk said it himself.

It'd help if you actually read and thought, rather than react. Again, show a clear timeline and we'll talk. There's still no evidence that the police were rightly involved.

[araine]

I dropped two quotes. I didn't edit them or even have commentary attached to them. They stand for what they are. You on the other hand must not understand what terms l..................................................

Being able to google and copy and paste something is irrelevant if you don't understand what you are finding.

The last paragraph is what lots of kids in school today needs to learn, you dont finish a paper by doing a goggle search and copy and paste the answer from wikipedia.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 10:46 PM ----------

Was the student causing a loss of "control and conduct?" Not until the teacher got involved. If he had been standing on a table yelling "go guns" then yes he should be removed and the shirt never seen again. But he wasn't, there is nothing that suggests he was doing anything to cause a disruption. The teacher instigated the disruption.

this strawman logic means when it comes to other areas that nothing wrong have been going on until authorities steps in, extrapolate that view point further and it will be viewed perfectly fine to let someone drive 100mph in a 55 zone, since nothing had happened that hurt anyone else until the police pulled him over for speeding.

[Templar 331]

It'd help if you actually read and thought, rather than react. Again, show a clear timeline and we'll talk.

I think you need to reread the article. It has a pretty clear timeline in it.

Marcum's stepfather, Allen Lardieri, said the youth was waiting in line in the school cafeteria Thursday when a teacher ordered the eighth-grader to remove the T-shirt or to turn it inside out.

Marcum said was sent to the office where he again refused the order.

"When the police came, I was still talking and telling them that this was wrong, that they cannot do this, it's not against any school policy. The officer, he told me to sit down and be quiet. I said, `No, I'm exercising my right to free speech.' I said it calmly," he said.

Police charged him with disrupting an educational process and obstructing an officer, he said.

If that's not clear enough for you, I don't know what to do. We are missing what happened after he told the officer no, but you can pretty much guess what happened.

[Vyxn]

*sigh* I go away for ten pages and you're still making every statement and comment politically orientated. What is it with you?

because the reason the teacher asked the student to remove the shirt was motivated by the teachers politics

[Skalme]

Assuming that your statement is true (which there is no evidence to suggest)

This previously linked ABC story actually does provide evidence that his statement is true.

1. The t-shirt was either acceptable, or not unacceptable enough to bother with, for 5 classes before lunch.
2. The t-shirt is fine for this student, and others, to wear after the student returned from his suspension.

Based on this, it is clear that the teacher was attempted to enforce personal bias under the guise of school policy.

Here's a simple question, would other students be wearing that t-shirt if not for the attention drawn to it by the teacher?

Points noted and thank you for making them respectfully rather than in an angry fashion like some others here. But regardless, I disagree with everything you have said.

I would not expect anything different. I am well aware of the futility of trying to convince anyone of anything, especially over the internet.