I dunno... I think I agree with the school's actions...
It may not have been their place to do something...
But, you've got a person or a group of people threatening harm to another person, and one place they're all sure to be at together... Where do you think the most likely place will be for something to occur?
The simple fact is that if the kid(s) doing the threatening were to ever cross over into actually committing the act, it would almost assuredly happen at the school, where they're all conveniently stuck together for the majority of their time...
So, the school is right in keeping them away... You're not kicking some innocent kids out of school, you're breaking up a potentially violent conflict by seperating the parties involved...
And that's the correct course of action...
And of course, the parents should be involved, and they likely were (heck, a suspension notice is good enough to fill them in on what's going on...lol) However, the school can't just call these parents, tell them what's happening, and then sit back and wait for these (bad? neglectful? perhaps the source of the anti-semitic hatred?) parents to do something about it... What if these kids planned to come in the next day with weapons? Do you think the parents would have gotten around to fixing them overnight?
"Well, Johnny, the school called this afternoon, and said you have a problem... Stop threatening that girl, ok?" "OK Mom! *smiles*"
But yeah, in the end, the school did the right thing: the safest thing... Might not be PC, might not be proper, might not even be legal, but it was right...
[Edit:] Oh, and the others? Who may or may not have even known about the threats, and were suspended for "just looking" at the site? First off, they weren't "just looking" at it, they joined it... Whether or not they knew of the threat beforehand doesn't mean they wouldn't join up with that, too... So, to cover all of the bases, they've got to be kept away as well...
Again this isn't "punishment for being bad off of school grounds", this is "keeping two parties apart to avoid a dangerous event"...
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
But, you've got a person or a group of people threatening harm to another person, and one place they're all sure to be at together... Where do you think the most likely place will be for something to occur? The simple fact is that if the kid(s) doing the threatening were to ever cross over into actually committing the act, it would almost assuredly happen at the school, where they're all conveniently stuck together for the majority of their time... *If* they cross into commiting the act. *If* they do it at the school. *If* several kids happen to want to do it. *If* its even any of the ones suspended. So, the school is right in keeping them away... You're not kicking some innocent kids out of school, you're breaking up a potentially violent conflict by seperating the parties involved... And in doing so telling the kids they expect it to happen. What you're doing is tailoring to the train of thought that *thinking* or even toying with the idea in the slightest is incredibly close to commiting. However, the school can't just call these parents, tell them what's happening, and then sit back and wait for these (bad? neglectful? perhaps the source of the anti-semitic hatred?) parents to do something about it... What if these kids planned to come in the next day with weapons? Do you think the parents would have gotten around to fixing them overnight? What if they didn't ? What if they had nothing at all planned and it was a stupid prank and now they've been completely mauled for it from all sides ? What if in completely overestimating the threat you actually cause *harm* and the possibility of FUTURE threat ? Sure the school should be looking at the parents, perhaps assessing whether the kids have a good home to start with - That ties into other things like social services who are much more qualified in assessing things than some school. But yeah, in the end, the school did the right thing: the safest thing... Might not be PC, might not be proper, might not even be legal, but it was right... Or maybe they caused more harm than good - Spewed out hate towards both the girl, the kids parents and the school itself that maybe wasn't even there before. Its not possible to know. However it IS possible to direct things where qualified professionals have a much better view of things if need be, and to not use a sledgehammer where a simple poke might have been better. [Edit:] Oh, and the others? Who may or may not have even known about the threats, and were suspended for "just looking" at the site? First off, they weren't "just looking" at it, they joined it... Whether or not they knew of the threat beforehand doesn't mean they wouldn't join up with that, too... So, to cover all of the bases, they've got to be kept away as well... And while were at it, lets arrest all of their parents since they obviously let this happen under THEIR noses. And the parents of the parents, for raising the parents in a bad manner. What you've got is a completely variable situation with so many unknowns its not even funny; You've got action being taken *expecting* the worst possible situation. This is the same reason kids get suspended in schools in the US for raising a scissor in the air in a way the teacher finds inappropriate, 'What if the kid stabs them?!' - Guess what, no one I've ever heard of has been stabbed down with a scissor in Denmark. I know plenty of kids in the US who have been suspended from school for 'suspicious' behavior only causing them pain and grief with their parents who are overachievers and folow the school like puppets, and resulting in the kids growing resentment for parents and school systems. Pre-emptive action on empty threats made outside of schooltime without even consulting social services and getting an opinion or even a mental assessment done by a short interview with the kid in question is, in my opinion, completely wrong. Its like telling people not to drive cars when over 30 because the risk of lowered eyesight is greater at that age than when under and they might cause a crash. Cover all bases. Again this isn't "punishment for being bad off of school grounds", this is "keeping two parties apart to avoid a dangerous event"... And do you really think that keeps them apart ? That if the kid REALLY wants something to happen that the school can stop it like that ? Humans are smarter than that. At least, the majority of them are. Keeping everyone apart and trying to prevent every possible bad situation is always going to be hurting legitimately non-bad situations or situations that are nowhere near the level of needing such extreme action a whole lot more. And given how rough I know parents can be in the US in an attempt to make their kids into 'the best of the best', the kids in question might be going through hell and all of a sudden resenting the girl NOW because they link HER to having caused them this. I say that based on situations where I *have* seen that happen, in the US. Don't get me wrong, I don't think no action should be taken. I just think it should be solved in a different manner, because I think there are different options available. | |
Well, regardless of any of that (and yes, they're all good and valid points) I still feel that "better safe than sorry" applies in virtually every situation...
Hurt feelings are meaningless compared to hurt people... | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
Hurt feelings are meaningless compared to hurt people... Definately. But I'm talking about hurt feelings leading TO hurt people ;) | |
To be honest, that thought crossed my mind as well... It's not out of the question that these kids might now select this girl as the "cause" of their problems...
However, this solution gives everyone the time necessary to defuse the situation... If left alone, things could have gone badly right under everyone's noses... Thngs could still go badly, but at least now you've thrown enough water on the fire to give yourself a chance at extinguishing it... It's the difference between looking at a burning fuse and cutting it off, or waiting for the bomb squad to show up... (I just love analogies) [Edit:] Oh wait, I guess you could argue that you've thrown gasoline on the fire...lol In which case I'll switch to the comparison of this act being akin to digging a ditch between the (now raging) fire and the, ummm, "something flammable"...lol | |
D4RK3 54B3R wrote:
I think I smell our society moving towards that depicted by Equilibrium! Or, y'know, the original and superior book 1984, and not some dullard rip-off-cum-matrix film. :p | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
It's the difference between looking at a burning fuse and cutting it off, or waiting for the bomb squad to show up... Ironically thats exactly my point -- The school isn't equipped to make that choice, and might trip the bomb off instead. Anologies aside I think we're mostly going along the same track anyhow and I'll agree to disagree slightly but mostly agree ? ;) | |
Alathon wrote:
*If* they cross into commiting the act. Hooray for thoughtcrime. Welcome to 1984!! | |
YEAH what *IF* they DIDN'T.
Exactly. There is a big differance between them not hurting someone and hurting someone. If there is any chance at all that a child could be hurt then I think they need to take action as quickly as posible. Even if there is a chance they won't. Haven't enough people been hurt or killed in school already for you to see that? Edit: Yeah I did, sorry about that. Edit 2: Well this didn't happen in denmark so stop compairing it. Who cares about denmark. Not me. I think I am going to go over there and stab someone with some sicciors just to make you wrong. | |
Shades wrote:
If there is any chance at all that a child could be hurt then I think they need to take action as quickly as posible. Even if there is a chance they won't. Then lock everybody up. People get hurt all the time. Lock people with illness up too - They might harm others by infecting them. Haven't enough people been hurt or killed in school already for you to see that? All I've seen is social pressure, bad parenting, gun laws and bad choices in action. Bad choices like these, too. Edit 2: Well this didn't happen in denmark so stop compairing it. Who cares about denmark. Not me. I think I am going to go over there and stab someone with some sicciors just to make you wrong. I wonder if you even realize the irony in that statement, given the context of your post. By your own train of thought you should, if you happen to be attending a school of some kind, be detained right now for posting what you just have. I mean after all you might just go to Denmark and stab someone with scissors, since you posted it on the internet and all. | |
Shades wrote:
If there is any chance at all that a child could be hurt then I think they need to take action as quickly as posible. Even if there is a chance they won't. Okay, better outlaw guns totally. Sure they have their uses for hunting, but those don't matter, because they can hurt people. Better outlaw hammers, screwdrivers, and other tools. They can be used as a weapon to hurt children. In the end, it's better just to outlaw people. Keep everyone in jail and nobody will be able to be hurt. :P | |
Jon88 wrote:
Better outlaw hammers, screwdrivers, and other tools. They can be used as a weapon to hurt children. Don't forget glass bottles! Glass fragments can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Also pens and pencils - that sharp pointy bit on the end is just asking for trouble. Oh, and better outlaw fingers too. Fingers can be used to poke people's eyes out! Think of the children's eyes! The poor potentially-blinded children are crying out for pre-emptive justice!!! | |
Actully I agree people are terrible and the entire world would be a much better place if we all died. Outlaw people, lets do it.
The point here is how many times do you hear about someone pubicly threatening someone with a screw driver? Ok, last week I told my manager I would gouge her eyes out with a letter opener, but she didn't do anything about it... You can argue with me all you want, all of the children involved should get the chair at the very least. | |
Shades wrote:
You can argue with me all you want, all of the children involved should get the chair at the very least. The electric chair? O.o | |
Yeah, Shades is an old-time conservative - give 'em all the chair, and let God sort them out!
Beyond any of the highly valid arguments against using the electric chair as punishment (Even as a means of capital punishment - what in all hell is the point of making the guy suffer before he dies? Lethal injections are somewhat more painless, but they're often prepared incorrectly, and the prisoner still suffers), why in all freaking hell would you use it in a situation where you aren't even sure if the kids were threatening to kill someone? I'm sure 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' are both features of your justice system, Shades. | |
I think I smell our society moving towards that depicted by Equilibrium!