School bus driver gets fired after taking a knife way from a student

[Vic Reign93]

My mind can't comprehend the amount of rubbish this scenario brings up. If I was him I would say " I will happily protect the image of the school, but only if I'm still working for it. I know I'm very simple minded for saying that, but if someone fired me for stopping a potential death and THEN asking me to lie to protect their "Image", I may be forgiven in the eyes of some if I kick up a lawsuit inducing storm.

 

[Ibonibo]

Same country:

http://grist.org/list/dad-arrested-...s-up-from-school-on-foot-instead-of-in-a-car/

 

[a6m5]

Reminds me of my coworker calling Social Security. Instead of getting help, they help him set up an appointment. In this appointment, they will call him back from their local office. A month later. Instead of getting help when he called, they tell him someone else will call him back, about a month later. They gave him not only the exact date, but also time. Unreal.

Can you imagine this system in the real world? Everyday I feel closer to Libertarians.

I guess these teachers were following the same type of "the rules say I don't have to do anything so I won't" protocol and waiting for the police to show up:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/1...ged-bullying-lawsuit-alleges/?intcmp=obinsite

This is the part I liked:

The girl later transferred to another school due to an “incessant fear of a reoccurrence of the incident,” the lawsuit reads.

In front of school staffs, in the very meeting discussing this bully, bully starts beating the crap out of her as school staff watches on. If true, I think she's right about the school's security protocol needing work.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Reminds me of my coworker calling Social Security. Instead of getting help, they help him set up an appointment. In this appointment, they will call him back from their local office. A month later. Instead of getting help when he called, they tell him someone else will call him back, about a month later. They gave him not only the exact date, but also time. Unreal.

Can you imagine this system in the real world? Everyday I feel closer to Libertarians.

This is the part I liked:


In front of school staffs, in the very meeting discussing this bully, bully starts beating the crap out of her as school staff watches on. If true, I think she's right about the school's security protocol needing work.

That's the culture this type of thinking fosters. Don't touch, don't get involved, don't do anything, it's Big Brother's responsibility. In Ontario Schools here many have adopted a "no touching" policy for schoolyard play. Not "no beating", not "no punching" not "no aggression" but you literally cannot touch another human being during recess and at lunch. That means no King of the Hill, no touch football, no tag for God's sake. I haven't watched a schoolyard recently but I imagine most of the kids just ignore the rules because if they didn't, they'd all be standing around like zombies

 

[Jay.]

Same country:

http://grist.org/list/dad-arrested-...s-up-from-school-on-foot-instead-of-in-a-car/

I watched the guys videos and this cop is a complete retard.
And the school policy is ridiculous, where kids have to walk a mile or more to get to their parents car.
One of the dads children is apparently a special needs child.
Would you want your child to walk a mile to your car on a busy highway?
If I hadn't seen the videos myself I would have asked if this was a joke.

 

[a6m5]

That's the culture this type of thinking fosters. Don't touch, don't get involved, don't do anything, it's Big Brother's responsibility.

Me & the guys were bs'ing at work today & I think this also applies: They need to bring back spanking.

 

[Grayfox]

I watched the guys videos and this cop is a complete retard.
And the school policy is ridiculous, where kids have to walk a mile or more to get to their parents car.
One of the dads children is apparently a special needs child.
Would you want your child to walk a mile to your car on a busy highway?
If I hadn't seen the videos myself I would have asked if this was a joke.

What about the one where the dad lost his visitation rights because he would not take the kid to macca's

 

[Jay.]

What about the one where the dad lost his visitation rights because he would not take the kid to macca's

Unbelievable. Some people just amaze me.

 

[The Bman]

So you have a school bus driver who takes a knife away from a student and gets fired, you have a parent who gets fined for not packing their student a grain in their lunch, and a father who gets arrested for walking his kids home.

School policies never fail to amuse me.

 

[Scaff]

Many people may also remember UK pensioner Tony Martin, charged and imprisoned with murder & attempted murder for shooting at burglars WITHIN his own home. ???

I also remember that he held the weapon illegally and the scientific evidence (which his account did not match) showed that he had shot the buglers in the back when they had been fleeing (which is not self defense). Two appeals found the exact same thing and reduce his sentence to manslaughter.

So he held he weapon illegally, lied in his evidence, did not issue a warning of any kind and did not act in self-defence (as laid out by UK law). Example are great things to use, but please at least be accurate with them.

 

[BobK]

Just out of curiosity, what constitutes "holding a weapon illegally", as opposed to holding one legally?

 

[PeterJB]

My guess is it would be either stealing it, not having the required license for it, or producing it in public.

 

[Scaff]

Just out of curiosity, what constitutes "holding a weapon illegally", as opposed to holding one legally?

He didn't hold a shotgun license (required for a shotgun) or a firearms certificate (required for a shotgun with a capacity over three rounds in the UK).

 

[BobK]

Ah, so it's hold in the sense of "possess", not in the sense of "grasp". Thanks for that clarification.

 

[Jay.]

Returning to previous posts...
Whether a household occupant legally uses a weapon or not and regardless of whether or not warnings are issued, ANY person that has already committed a crime of breaking and entering should then forfeit any safety and protection rights if then injured within the illegally entered property.

@Scaff - I agree with most of your post above, though IMO Tony Martins case had many questionable elements, as the only 'witnesses' were the travelers and their friends.

 

[Scaff]

Returning to previous posts...
Whether a household occupant legally uses a weapon or not and regardless of whether or not warnings are issued, ANY person that has already committed a crime of breaking and entering should then forfeit any safety and protection rights if then injured within the illegally entered property.

So even if you are in no danger you believe that you should be able to kill someone for B&E?

@Scaff - I agree with most of your post above, though IMO Tony Martins case had many questionable elements, as the only 'witnesses' were the travelers and their friends.

Which is why the majority of the actual evidence was from the objective scientific evidence, nothing changes the fact that they were shot in the back wile exiting the premises, or that he lied about the location he was standing or that he should not have owned the gun in question, etc.

Very little weight was given to eyewitness 'evidence' as in law it actually carries little weight, the forensic evidence however does.

 

[Kent]

I get the feeling this driver wasn't fired because of overstepping authority but instead because of not acting strictly enough. Zero tolerance policies generally have something like this ending with a student being arrested and suffering life long sanctions for bringing a weapon to school.
The school probably expected the driver to not only isolate the child and accept the knife but also file a report with police and have the child arrested.

 

[BobK]

Close. He was required to call the police and let them take the knife from the kid. He was prohibited from doing it himself.

 

[Jay.]

So even if you are in no danger you believe that you should be able to kill someone for B&E?

No, the point I was trying to make in other posts was that people who commit these crimes and especially those who use force against any residents of the property should not be able to claim injury rights if they are hurt when said resident is defending themselves lawfully. I don't condone murder at all, but if I was in a situation, in fear of my life or any danger to my family, the consequences of my defensive actions would be worth it.

There was a case recently in Birmingham where a rapist filed a claim against his victim because she used a can of hairspray to defend herself. The woman WAS raped and suffered various injuries and trauma, yet the rapist was still able to claim for damages claiming he could have been blinded.

There are many cases like this involving different crimes but the criminals still claim against their victims. It's PC bullcrap gone wrong.

Close. He was required to call the police and let them take the knife from the kid. He was prohibited from doing it himself.

My 15 year old daughter is being told at school that fighting in retaliation or defense is just as bad as any crime. She was told to walk away and phone for help.
She's 5ft nothing, and if some guy was going to try and harm her, walking away and trying to call the police isn't going to help when the guy grabs her from behind. She's been told to go for the nuts and the jugular, otherwise SHE would be the victim.

 

[Grayfox]

My 15 year old daughter is being told at school that fighting in retaliation or defense is just as bad as any crime.

This is because the people that make these rules think like an adult and not a kid.

A bully will just keep bullying a child that ignores them, telling the teachers makes it worse cause they know they are getting to you.

The only way to deal with it is to fight back