W.VA. teen arrested after "almost inciting riot"

[BongRipz]

Clearly he just wanted attention regardless if he believes in what hes talking about or not. Its what kids do. There was no reason for the adults to escalate things so much and involving the police. Is this how things are now in schools?

 

[Exorcet]

There was no reason for the adults to escalate things so much and involving the police. Is this how things are now in schools?

Clearly he just wanted attention regardless if he believes in what hes talking about or not. Its what kids do.

I'd think blanket assumptions contribute to things like the former quote. What you said may be accurate for this case, I don't know, but shutting your eyes and blindly proclaiming "kids will be kids" and then reacting always with a pre set script is probably a good way to make something simple escalate.

There's no reason why a 14 year old can't successfully and consistently make adult decisions. Statistically though, we know people tend to make better decisions as they age.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So by your own words, this kid had no right to defend himself when he did nothing wrong ? Lets just sit back and take some verbal abuse from some teacher who has a hard on against guns and the 2nd amendment ? I think not. I think the kid acted appropriately.

Why do you assume it's verbal abuse? The article only says that the teacher "raised his voice".

If I have a class of thirty fourteen year-olds, they can - and regularly do - get a bit noisy. And the noise tends to escalate, as students talk louder and louder to be heard over one another. Eventually, it gets to the point where they start getting distracted by the conversations and stop working, so I need to bring them back to the task at hand. In order to do this, I have to raise my voice in order to be heard over thirty individual voices. I have raised my voice, but I have not verbally abused them. I have simply had to make myself heard.

Likewise, if I see a behaviour in the playground that I do not think is safe, I will raise my voice, particularly if that behaviour continues. For instance, just the other day, I had a group of year 10 students who were restraining a year 8 student. When I told them to stop, they insisted he was their friend and didn't mind, though the kid's expression made it pretty clear that he wanted out. When they didn't let him go straight away, I raised my voice, using that to make it pretty clear that if they didn't release the kid immediately, there would be trouble. Again, I raised my voice, but I didn't start screaming at them.

The article you posted says nothing about the teacher yelling at the student in question. Nor does it say that when the teacher raised his voice, it was to challenge his views on gun ownership. In fact, this is all it says:

Marcum's lawyer, Ben White, said that when the teen was told to remove the shirt or turn it inside out, he attempted to engage the teacher in a debate.

[...]

White said that Marcum had been wearing the shirt without causing any problems from homeroom at the beginning of the school day through fifth period, and was confronted by one of the school's teachers while getting his lunch. When Jared refused to remove or reverse the shirt, the teacher began to raise his voice, and it caught the attention of students eating their lunch, White said.

Marcum was eventually arrested and taken away by police after refusing to remove the shirt. White said that when police told the teen they were going to arrest him, he stuck his hands out and said, "Fine."

So how do you know that the teacher was yelling at the student for promoting gun ownership? How do you know that he didn't just raise his voice to caution the student that his refusal to follow an instruction was not going to be tolerated? And how do you know that the lawyer quoted in the article hasn't presented the events in such a way that they favour his client much more than they actually did?

You honestly think that this case and your "yelling fire" scenario are on the same scale ? Not even remotely close.

I'm simply trying to make a point: if you're going to exercise your rights, you have to accept that there are certain responsibilities that come with exercising them.

Let's just say that you're right, and this whole issue between student and teacher was a matter of rights. The kid cannot wear a shirt to school promoting one point of view in a contentious issue and expect that everyone will be happy with it.

If the teacher is trampling on the kid's right to free speech, then so too is the kid trampling on the teacher's. If the kid is allowed to express an opinion in favour of gun ownership, then the teacher is equally allowed to express an opinion against it. If the teacher if guilty of denying the kid his rights by asking him to obscure the print on his shirt, then the kid is equally guilty by starting legal action and trying to get the teacher fired (if that is indeed what he s trying to do).

So if the kid wants to exercise his right to free speech, then he has the responsibility to recognise that other people can and do have opposing views. He has to be held to the same standard as the teacher, or else the system breaks down.

You pointed this out in one of your first posts in this thread. Obviously he knew what he was doing. Remember ...

If he knows about the use of and respects firearms, then surely he understands the issues that come with him. The topic of guns in schools is highly contentious, and tragedies related to them regularly make headlines around the world. Surely it should have occurred to him that wearing a shirt promoting the right to bear arms in a school might provoke some kind of reaction?

Why did he think that wearing that shirt to school was an appropriate way of expressing a point of view?

Without justifiable cause he attempted to make the kid do this. Again, the kids shirt met the criteria of the school dress code. So who does this teacher in question think he is by attempting to make this kid do something that is against his rights ?

A dress code is not a hard and fast set of rules, and it is often open to interpretation. The dress code says that students should not wear clothing that promotes violence. It's not difficult to see how a teacher might associate the image of a high-powered hunting rifle with violence.

The teacher was on a power trip. Obviously wanting to flex his muscle and show his control over the kid.

Again, you have no evidence of that. You're assuming that the teacher started screaming at the kid because he opposed gun ownership, and yet the article does not support this. It only says that he raised his voice to the student, and I have presented an entirely justifiable example of how this might have happened.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

The dress code says that students should not wear clothing that promotes violence. It's not difficult to see how a teacher might associate the image of a high-powered hunting rifle with violence.

I lol'd. An NRA t-shirt does not promote violence, if anything it does the complete opposite - unless you can provide me with a source where the NRA states that it supports violence and the illegal use of firearms. If the teacher makes that connection, that is his issue because he clearly doesn't understand the aim of the NRA and that a gun is simply a tool that fires a projectile, and not something designed solely to injure and/or kill. The vast majority of gun owners aren't murderers, or at all violent for that matter.

If the teacher is trampling on the kid's right to free speech, then so too is the kid trampling on the teacher's. If the kid is allowed to express an opinion in favour of gun ownership, then the teacher is equally allowed to express an opinion against it. If the teacher if guilty of denying the kid his rights by asking him to obscure the print on his shirt, then the kid is equally guilty by starting legal action and trying to get the teacher fired (if that is indeed what he s trying to do).

Are you seriously a teacher?

There is expressing opinion, and then there is imposing your opinion on others. If both the student and the teacher were both able to freely express their opinions about the subject without anyone imposing on them, that is fair. If the teacher tried to tell the student to remove/hide his t-shirt, even though the student had broken no school rules, he is imposing on the students right to express his opinion.

I also totally support the student if he is seeking legal action with the aim to get the teacher fired, as schools should be places where opinions can be shared, discussions can be had, and new perspectives can be learned, not places where students are spoon-fed and not encouraged to call upon critical thinking.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I lol'd. An NRA t-shirt does not promote violence, if anything it does the complete opposite - unless you can provide me with a source where the NRA states that it supports violence and the illegal use of firearms. If the teacher makes that connection, that is his issue because he clearly doesn't understand the aim of the NRA and that a gun is simply a tool that fires a projectile, and not something designed solely to injure and/or kill. The vast majority of gun owners aren't murderers, or at all violent for that matter.

I never said that the NRA promotes gun violence. Only that if the teacher saw an image of a high-powered assault rifle on a student's shirt, then you can understand why he might believe that the image of the gun - and the image of the gun alone, as I said in the above post - would be violent imagery, and therefore in violation of the dress code.

Are you seriously a teacher?

Yes, I am. I fail to see what this has to do with anything in the discussion, though.

There is expressing opinion, and then there is imposing your opinion on others. If both the student and the teacher were both able to freely express their opinions about the subject without anyone imposing on them, that is fair. If the teacher tried to tell the student to remove/hide his t-shirt, even though the student had broken no school rules, he is imposing on the students right to express his opinion.

And if the student is launching legal action against the teacher, then that is imposing upon the teacher's right to express his opinion.

After all, the argument that the teacher imposed upon the student's rights is not supported by any evidence given in this thread.

I also totally support the student if he is seeking legal action with the aim to get the teacher fired, as schools should be places where opinions can be shared, discussions can be had, and new perspectives can be learned, not places where students are spoon-fed and not encouraged to call upon critical thinking.

Except that getting the teacher fired on the basis that the teacher was denying the student the right to express himself does not allow opinions to be shared, discussions had, or new perspectives learned. Because the teacher was only expressing an opinion of his own. And while he might have stifled the student's opinion for an hour, the student is stifling the teacher's opinion for life.

I guess that when two people have an argument over an issue to do with rights, the first one to launch legal action wins.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I never said that the NRA promotes gun violence. Only that if the teacher saw an image of a high-powered assault rifle on a student's shirt, then you can understand why he might believe that the image of the gun - and the image of the gun alone, as I said in the above post - would be violent imagery, and therefore in violation of the dress code.

Maybe if it was an image of a bullet entering a skull or something similar, but a gun on its own is not a violent image. A gun is a tool, and the people who don't realise that are often the ones too caught up in associating them with violence.

For the record, very few states allow functioning assault rifles to be owned by the public, and I imagine that even less allow ownership of high-powered assault rifles. The gun that the anti-gun lobby has been focusing on mostly (the AR-15) is a semi-automatic rifle (not an assault rifle) that most commonly fires a .223 intermediate (meaning less powerful than a high-powered round) round. The gun on the students t-shirt was (AR experts, correct me if I'm wrong) a semi-automatic AR-15 chambered in .223.

Yes, I am. I fail to see what this has to do with anything in the discussion, though.

I was just wondering, no need to go on the defensive.

And if the student is launching legal action against the teacher, then that is imposing upon the teacher's right to express his opinion.

After all, the argument that the teacher imposed upon the student's rights is not supported by any evidence given in this thread.

Err, nope. From what I can gather so far, a teacher told a student to remove or cover his t-shirt even though he had no grounds to do so under the school rules - seemingly telling the student what to do because he feels that he can.

The teacher has been able to voice his opinion, but at the point he imposed that opinion on the student by telling him to cover or remove his t-shirt that falls within school rules, he has failed to protect the rights of his students, and therefore failed at his duty as an educator. Nobody has told the teacher what his opinion can and can't be, so his rights have not been imposed upon.

Except that getting the teacher fired on the basis that the teacher was denying the student the right to express himself does not allow opinions to be shared, discussions had, or new perspectives learned. Because the teacher was only expressing an opinion of his own. And while he might have stifled the student's opinion for an hour, the student is stifling the teacher's opinion for life.

I guess that when two people have an argument over an issue to do with rights, the first one to launch legal action wins.

The teacher will still be free to voice his opinion, teaching career or no teaching career, just that he will no longer be in a position to impose it on students. The timescale doesn't matter, a failure to protect the rights of the student is the failure of the teacher to do his job.

Usually the way legal action works is that a court decides based on evidence... not sure if you know that...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Maybe if it was an image of a bullet entering a skull or something similar, but a gun on its own is not a violent image. A gun is a tool, and the people who don't realise that are often the ones too caught up in associating them with violence.

Be that as it may, the school's dress code only specifically banned students from wearing articles of clothing displaying images of violence. It gives no further definition of what qualifies as violence. Therefore, an images of a gun could easily fit into the definition of a violent image.

For the record, very few states allow functioning assault rifles to be owned by the public, and I imagine that even less allow ownership of high-powered assault rifles. The gun that the anti-gun lobby has been focusing on mostly (the AR-15) is a semi-automatic rifle (not an assault rifle) that most commonly fires a .223 intermediate (meaning less powerful than a high-powered round) round. The gun on the students t-shirt was (AR experts, correct me if I'm wrong) a semi-automatic AR-15 chambered in .223.

And that doesn't really change anything. The fact is that the shirt contained an image of a rifle, which a teacher evidently felt to be promoting violence, and thus asked the student to obscure it.

Err, nope. From what I can gather so far, a teacher told a student to remove or cover his t-shirt even though he had no grounds to do so under the school rules - seemingly telling the student what to do because he feels that he can.

Like I said, the dress code only bans violent images. If the teacher felt the image of a gun was a violent image, then he probably thought he had a case to ask the student to remove it.

The teacher has been able to voice his opinion, but at the point he imposed that opinion on the student by telling him to cover or remove his t-shirt that falls within school rules, he has failed to protect the rights of his students, and therefore failed at his duty as an educator. Nobody has told the teacher what his opinion can and can't be, so his rights have not been imposed upon.

Except that if the kid is trying to get the teacher fired, it's effectly saying "you can't express that opinion because it will get you fired". But again, everyone is assuming that the teacher is in the wrong here simply because the student says he is.

The teacher will still be free to voice his opinion, teaching career or no teaching career, just that he will no longer be in a position to impose it on students. The timescale doesn't matter, a failure to protect the rights of the student is the failure of the teacher to do his job.

But the student is free to impose his opinion on everyone else, because if a teacher opposes it with an opinion of their own, they get in trouble.

Usually the way legal action works is that a court decides based on evidence... not sure if you know that...

I know that. Do you?

Everyone here has judged the teacher to be guilty, simply because the student claims he had his rights violated.

 

[Zenith]

If the teacher is trampling on the kid's right to free speech, then so too is the kid trampling on the teacher's. If the kid is allowed to express an opinion in favour of gun ownership, then the teacher is equally allowed to express an opinion against it. If the teacher if guilty of denying the kid his rights by asking him to obscure the print on his shirt, then the kid is equally guilty by starting legal action and trying to get the teacher fired (if that is indeed what he s trying to do).

So if the kid wants to exercise his right to free speech, then he has the responsibility to recognise that other people can and do have opposing views. He has to be held to the same standard as the teacher, or else the system breaks down.

The student isn't suing the teacher for disagreeing with him, he's suing the school for having him arrested.

I never said that the NRA promotes gun violence. Only that if the teacher saw an image of a high-powered assault rifle on a student's shirt, then you can understand why he might believe that the image of the gun - and the image of the gun alone, as I said in the above post - would be violent imagery, and therefore in violation of the dress code.

Guns =/= Violence.

A car crash is violent. A picture of a car is not violent.

Also, the gun on the shirt is a 20" AR15 chambered in .223. That is what we call a varmint rifle.

It shoots these.

And if the student is launching legal action against the teacher, then that is imposing upon the teacher's right to express his opinion.

Except that getting the teacher fired on the basis that the teacher was denying the student the right to express himself does not allow opinions to be shared, discussions had, or new perspectives learned. Because the teacher was only expressing an opinion of his own. And while he might have stifled the student's opinion for an hour, the student is stifling the teacher's opinion for life.

Once again, the teacher had the student arrested. Not sure what article you're reading... Or trying to strawman.

Seriously man... Just... Dude...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The student isn't suing the teacher for disagreeing with him, he's suing the school for having him arrested.

And he was arrested because he refused to ignore an instruction from a teacher, which led to unrest in the cafeteria. Common sense dictates that the smartest course of action for the student would be to follow the teacher's directions, and then follow up on it with the school's principal or deputy instead of making a spectacle in the cafeteria.

Also, the gun on the shirt is a 20" AR15 chambered in .223. That is what we call a varmint rifle.

How can you reasonable expect someone to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of these things? You're assuming that because you are aware of a highly-specific piece of information, that everyone should easily be able to identify it by sight and make an informed decision based on it.

The teacher no doubt felt that whatever the type of weapon or ammunition used, it represented an image of violence.

Let me ask you this: if a kid brought a 20" AR15 chambered in .223 to school, what do you think the teachers would do? Would they stop and question him about the type of weapon an ammunition, and let him keep it because it is used for shooting vermin? Or would they call the police straight away?

A picture of a weapon is a picture of a weapon, regardless of its type, use or intended purpose. The teacher in question evidently felt that this was in violation of the school's dress code, and so asked the student to somehow obscure or remove the image. It is the student's behaviour from this point that led to his arrest. There was a better, smarter course of action that he could have taken, one that would have resolved the situation without the police being called. He chose not to take that.

Once again, the teacher had the student arrested. Not sure what article you're reading... Or trying to strawman.

Actually, that was the school's decision. Not the teacher's. The teacher in question would have informed another teacher of the situation, and remained in the cafeteria to try and control the situation, probably assisted by other teachers nearby. The teacher who was first informed would have gone to the school's administration, who would have made a decision from there.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Be that as it may, the school's dress code only specifically banned students from wearing articles of clothing displaying images of violence. It gives no further definition of what qualifies as violence. Therefore, an images of a gun could easily fit into the definition of a violent image.

Like I said, the dress code only bans violent images. If the teacher felt the image of a gun was a violent image, then he probably thought he had a case to ask the student to remove it.

http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/400x/19789999.jpg

The very definition of the word 'violence' allows us to see that a gun on its own is not violent. I guess this teacher wasn't part of the English department...

And that doesn't really change anything. The fact is that the shirt contained an image of a rifle, which a teacher evidently felt to be promoting violence, and thus asked the student to obscure it.

I was just trying to educate you a little, so that you can avoid being misled by the anti-gun sensationalism.

Except that if the kid is trying to get the teacher fired, it's effectly saying "you can't express that opinion because it will get you fired". But again, everyone is assuming that the teacher is in the wrong here simply because the student says he is.

But the student is free to impose his opinion on everyone else, because if a teacher opposes it with an opinion of their own, they get in trouble.

No, the teacher could have just said "An NRA t-shirt? I'm not a fan of guns, but it's cool that they're something that you enjoy responsibly" which would be expressing his opinion without imposing it, which would be totally fine and a very positive way to handle that situation. As soon as he asked the student to remove his t-shirt, despite the school having no rules against it (see the definition of violence/violent at the top of this post) he was imposing his opinion, which he had no place in doing.

I know that. Do you?

I do, hence why I questioned your apparent misunderstanding of how legal action works.

Everyone here has judged the teacher to be guilty, simply because the student claims he had his rights violated.

If the teacher imposed his views on the student with no grounds to, he violated the rights of the student.

Plus the whole having the student arrested for sharing his opinion thing.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the teacher imposed his views on the student with no grounds to, he violated the rights of the student.

And that's the problem - whether or not the teacher did anything wrong has not been resolved. However, everyone is assuming that he did simply because the student said so.

Plus the whole having the student arrested for sharing his opinion thing.

Where are you getting that from?

This is what the article says:

White said that Marcum had been wearing the shirt without causing any problems from homeroom at the beginning of the school day through fifth period, and was confronted by one of the school's teachers while getting his lunch. When Jared refused to remove or reverse the shirt, the teacher began to raise his voice, and it caught the attention of students eating their lunch, White said.

Marcum was eventually arrested and taken away by police after refusing to remove the shirt. White said that when police told the teen they were going to arrest him, he stuck his hands out and said, "Fine."

Logan City Police Chief E.K. Harper told ABCNews.com that Marcum was not arrested for wearing a t-shirt, but for "disrupting the school process."

Not once does it say that the teacher had the student arrested. In fact, I'd be shocked if the teacher did, because teachers don't have that power. Every school has a behavioural management plan that teachers have to follow. It can result in the police being called to a school, but that has to go through the school's administration first, except in extreme circumstances where the need for the police is immediate and obvious (ie, one student attacking another and causing serious injury).

So I don't know where you're getting this whole "the teacher had the student arrested" nonsense from, because it's not supported by the article.

 

[Crash]

I think this is a pretty clear cut case. A student was exercising his right to political speech, and a teacher tried to suppress that particular speech. That was the wrong thing for the teacher to do.

Just because you have a right, it's not a licence to exercise it when and wherever you like without consequence. You have the responsibility to exercise your rights in the appropriate manner.

For example, you have the right to free speech. You are well within your rights to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. However, it is also expected that you don't shout it where there is no fire to speak of.

The US Supreme Court has certainly ruled that there are limits to free speech and there are consequences to certain speech. However, shouting fire and saying you support maintaining your ability to have access to certain types of firearms are hardly the same thing, or hardly the same type of speech for that matter.

I have to question just how much the kid understands the issue he was promoting. If he really understood it as much as his lawyer is making out, then he would know that the subject of guns in schools is highly contentious, and that wearing a shirt - and promoting a viewpoint - in favour of owning guns to school is a stupid idea. Did he think that there would be no consequences to his actions?

Free speech doesn't end at stupid. If that's the case, most of Youtube would be in jail right now.

If you can blame someone else for your actions though, then surely, this applies beyond gun control/gun rights? Should a student be banned from wearing a shirt that promotes gay rights (currently a contentious topic)? What if someone then that . Should a student be banned from wearing a shirt saying "I don't believe in God" (another contentious topic)? What if another student then stops believing in God? Does that make the original student responsible? Should a student be banned from wearing a shirt that is against birth control (another contentious topic)? What if another student sees it, engages in sexual intercourse, and passes either an STD to the partner or gets pregnant? Should the original student be responsible?

On the other hand, if he doesn't understand the issue he is promoting, then again, why is he wearing the shirt in the first place? It's patently irresponsible to promote a cause that you don't understand. So, again, did he think that there would be no consequences to his actions?

Irresponsible? Perhaps. Illegal? Absolutely not. Someone not fully understanding an issue should never be the sole basis for banning that person's speech. Should heterosexuals be prevented from stating an opinion on homosexual relationships? After all, many heterosexuals have never had homosexual relationships, so they don't fully understand the issue. Should non-gun owners be prevented from stating an opinion about gun ownership? After all, many non-gun owners don't fully understand the nuances, responsibilities and joys of gun ownership. Should we be prevented from stating an opinion on North Korea's treatment of its citizens? After all, we've never been to North Korea (much less lived in North Korea), so we don't truly understand what it's like to live there and be under the Kims' rule.

By the same token, should anyone who has not thoroughly and completely studied every single candidate or issue be denied the right to vote? After all, voting is merely a form of promoting a cause or candidate, albeit in an anonymous fashion.

At the same time, I'm sure everyone here has expressed an opinion on something in life before thoroughly thinking through every single rebuttal, disagreements, consequences, or subsequent actions that anyone in this would can take from it. Should everyone on here been prevented from expressing his/her opinion?

If you are assuming that the student does not understand a shred about the debate on gun ownership, then I think you're underestimating the kid. If you are assuming that the student actually at least mostly understands the current debate around gun ownership, but are merely playing devil's advocate, then your point is moot and irrelevant to this particular debate.

Far too many people seem to think that "I'm exercising my rights" means "I can do what I want and the consequences be danmed". You can exercise your rights all you want, provided that you are willing and able to live with being held responsible for your actions. if you aren't willing or able to take responsibility, then you can't call out "I'm exercising my rights" and expect to walk away.

Of all people, this kid understands the grave responsibilities that come with exercising freedom of speech. This kid even understands that there are people who would try to silence him by arresting him, and he was still willing to stand up for his freedom of speech.

Bravo to this kid.

Again, if you want to exercise a right, you have to take on the responsibilities that go with it.

If you want to defend your right to own a gun, go for it. But you have the responsibility to do it in an appropriate manner. Advocating gun ownership is fine. Advocating gun ownership at a school is not, given how the issue of gun violence in schools is such a sensitive issue.

So what if it's at a school? Should Chicago residents be prevented from advocating gun ownership?

Gun violence in and of itself is a highly sensitive issue in the US right now, not just in schools. With that in mind, should no one in the US be allowed to advocate for gun ownership at all?

If that's true, then apparently "I was defending my rights" or "I was exercising my rights" is an excuse for people to do whatever they want, and suffer no consequences for it. Do you want to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre? Go ahead. If you cause a stampede and eighty people die, you can't be held responsible, because you were just exercising your right to free speech, and all those people caught up in the stampede should have realised that there was no fire to begin with, so it's their fault; not yours. Rather than take responsibility for your actions, you'd rather just claim that someone was denying you your rights and make it their problem. Because why should you be held accountable for what you do?

And why do you keep using the shouting "fire" example? The US Supreme Court has ruled very clearly speech such as lewd and obscene speech that serves no artistic or political purpose is not protected. Neither is libelous or defamatory speech; neither is replication of copyrights. Political speech, on the other hand, is very clearly protected. I think wearing a shirt that supports responsible gun ownership when there is a large national debate going on about it clearly constitutes political speech, and is protected, even if the speech was made as tastelessly as in a public space right outside a victim's funeral.

Or at least, that's what some people here seem to think. It's scary that with one breath, they will vehemently defend this kid ... and with another, they'll call for Dzhokar Tsarnaev to be stripped of his rights.

I'll defend this kid's right to political speech. I'll also defend Tsarnaev's right to be treated with due process under the US Constitution. Hell, I'll even defend a terrorist or an "enemy combatant's" ability to be given and be protected by the rights of due process in the US Constitution.

So far as I can tell kids these days have got no respect for teachers, things can't have changed that much since I was at school, but give a kid an inch, and at least half the class of them will take a mile. So 'raising their voice' is a total non-event as far as I'm concerned... standing with his face 1 inch from yours, shouting at the top of his voice would be a little harsh, but it's what used to happen in my day!

I can see the teacher was probably wrong to have an issue with the T-shirt in the first place, but at the same time, for all we know the kid had been pushing his luck for months, and this was just the tipping point.

I do think it's ridiculous to be hoping the teacher gets sacked, regardless of weather or not they might be a good educator or not... Always siding with the students is why kids think they can get away with so much... then, later in life, when the kids struggle to get a job because they fink it ok 2 talk lk this, they go and blame their schools and teachers.

I think I agree with what you're saying overall. A teacher raising his/her voice is not always be a bad thing, and may sometimes even be necessary. The issue I have is what the teacher is trying to do.

I hate to say it, but prisonermonkeys is right.

In school you have no rights, it has been said so in the Supreme Court. You must play by the rules of what someone in a school system says. If a teacher, for any reason, tells you that the shirt you are wearing is inappropriate then you have to obey that teacher. If you ignore those directions then you will get in trouble.

Does that mean the teacher is right? No, but it still doesn't matter. If the teacher says something and you disobey, don't expect to not get in trouble.

Completely wrong.

"First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years." - Justice Fortas, writing for the majority, opinion delivered in 1969.

Why do you assume it's verbal abuse? The article only says that the teacher "raised his voice".

If I have a class of thirty fourteen year-olds, they can - and regularly do - get a bit noisy. And the noise tends to escalate, as students talk louder and louder to be heard over one another. Eventually, it gets to the point where they start getting distracted by the conversations and stop working, so I need to bring them back to the task at hand. In order to do this, I have to raise my voice in order to be heard over thirty individual voices. I have raised my voice, but I have not verbally abused them. I have simply had to make myself heard.

Likewise, if I see a behaviour in the playground that I do not think is safe, I will raise my voice, particularly if that behaviour continues. For instance, just the other day, I had a group of year 10 students who were restraining a year 8 student. When I told them to stop, they insisted he was their friend and didn't mind, though the kid's expression made it pretty clear that he wanted out. When they didn't let him go straight away, I raised my voice, using that to make it pretty clear that if they didn't release the kid immediately, there would be trouble. Again, I raised my voice, but I didn't start screaming at them.

The article you posted says nothing about the teacher yelling at the student in question. Nor does it say that when the teacher raised his voice, it was to challenge his views on gun ownership. In fact, this is all it says:

So how do you know that the teacher was yelling at the student for promoting gun ownership? How do you know that he didn't just raise his voice to caution the student that his refusal to follow an instruction was not going to be tolerated? And how do you know that the lawyer quoted in the article hasn't presented the events in such a way that they favour his client much more than they actually did?

It really doesn't matter whether the teacher was screaming at the top of his lungs or talking like Bob Hope. The act of telling the student that he cannot express his opinions via the shirt is the problem.

Let's just say that you're right, and this whole issue between student and teacher was a matter of rights. The kid cannot wear a shirt to school promoting one point of view in a contentious issue and expect that everyone will be happy with it.

If the teacher is trampling on the kid's right to free speech, then so too is the kid trampling on the teacher's. If the kid is allowed to express an opinion in favour of gun ownership, then the teacher is equally allowed to express an opinion against it. If the teacher if guilty of denying the kid his rights by asking him to obscure the print on his shirt, then the kid is equally guilty by starting legal action and trying to get the teacher fired (if that is indeed what he s trying to do).

So if the kid wants to exercise his right to free speech, then he has the responsibility to recognise that other people can and do have opposing views. He has to be held to the same standard as the teacher, or else the system breaks down.

The kid is free to express an opinion in favor of gun ownership. The teacher should also be free to express an opinion contrary to it. However, neither is the student or the teacher is free to impose their opinion on others or prevent others from expressing their opinion by forcing the other party to silence. Since the teacher is clearly in the position of authority, the teacher is the one who has the ability to force the student to silence by threatening punishment.

That is exactly what the teacher does. The teacher goes as far as to calling the police on this kid, in a bid to prevent the kid from expressing his opinion. If the teacher simply says, "I disagree with you, and I think here are the reasons why gun ownership should be further restricted...," then that's fine, and completely within his right to do so. But to threaten and carry through punishment to the kid in this situation is insane.

If he knows about the use of and respects firearms, then surely he understands the issues that come with him. The topic of guns in schools is highly contentious, and tragedies related to them regularly make headlines around the world. Surely it should have occurred to him that wearing a shirt promoting the right to bear arms in a school might provoke some kind of reaction?

Provoking a reaction such as debate is fine, but forcibly silencing the student and infringing on his right to free political speech is not fine.

Why did he think that wearing that shirt to school was an appropriate way of expressing a point of view?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Evelyn Beatrice Hall

And if the student is launching legal action against the teacher, then that is imposing upon the teacher's right to express his opinion.

The courts cannot and should not order that the teacher be fired. The court can however order a remedy in which the student is fairly compensated for the damage caused by the teacher violating the student's rights.

Also, if the teacher simply engaged the student in a debate about gun ownership, rather than trying to force the student to silence, I highly doubt that the student would have been wronged in any way, and I would then doubt that the student would have any standing to sue for damages. In fact, if that was the case, I would highly doubt that this would even have made the news.

Except that getting the teacher fired on the basis that the teacher was denying the student the right to express himself does not allow opinions to be shared, discussions had, or new perspectives learned. Because the teacher was only expressing an opinion of his own. And while he might have stifled the student's opinion for an hour, the student is stifling the teacher's opinion for life.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with a teacher engaging in debate or even expressing an opinion against gun ownership (or expressing an opinion on any other topic). I think people here have an issue with the teacher stifling the student's opinion.

For the record, attempting to forcibly silence someone else's protected speech via coercive means is not the same as expressing one's own opinion.

Except that if the kid is trying to get the teacher fired, it's effectly saying "you can't express that opinion because it will get you fired". But again, everyone is assuming that the teacher is in the wrong here simply because the student says he is.

...

But the student is free to impose his opinion on everyone else, because if a teacher opposes it with an opinion of their own, they get in trouble.

Again, the kid isn't suing because the teacher stated an opinion. The kid is suing because the teacher violated the kid's right to political speech by attempting to forcibly and coercively silence the student.

And he was arrested because he refused to ignore an instruction from a teacher, which led to unrest in the cafeteria. Common sense dictates that the smartest course of action for the student would be to follow the teacher's directions, and then follow up on it with the school's principal or deputy instead of making a spectacle in the cafeteria.

Ignoring a teacher's instructions is now grounds for arrest? So perhaps this teacher is in the right and the student should have been arrested?

At a certain point, when does others actions become their own responsibility? Are you always responsible of others actions? Is Gran Turismo responsible for street racing? Is Rodney King responsible for the 1992 LA Riots?

In a way, I'll give the kid some credit, he's not dumb. If he had just conducted a private meeting later on with the teacher and/or administrator, it's all going to end up being nothing more than a game of "he said, she said." In something like that, the kid is almost certainly going to lose.

Actually, that was the school's decision. Not the teacher's. The teacher in question would have informed another teacher of the situation, and remained in the cafeteria to try and control the situation, probably assisted by other teachers nearby. The teacher who was first informed would have gone to the school's administration, who would have made a decision from there.

If the school was the one that decided to arrest the kid, then the school should be named as a co-defendant and be sued also for damages along with the teacher.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

And that's the problem - whether or not the teacher did anything wrong has not been resolved. However, everyone is assuming that he did simply because the student said so.

Well, the teacher did do something wrong - he imposed his opinion on a student with no grounds to do so. No other teacher had had an issue with the t-shirt that day and there is no school rule that his t-shirt would break. As a teacher you should know the definition of violence (it is part of your duty to protect your students from it after all) and know that a picture of a gun alone doesn't fit that description.

Where are you getting that from?

So I don't know where you're getting this whole "the teacher had the student arrested" nonsense from, because it's not supported by the article.

If the teacher had expressed his opinion and moved on, there would have been no escalation and no arrest in this situation. Instead, there was an escalation resulting in the police being called due to his (the teachers) inability to handle something relatively simple. If the teacher had said nothing (as he should have done if he felt unable to respect the opinion of the student) again, there would have been no escalation.

I've seen very similar situations unfold in very similar ways during my schooling career, and one of the most common factors was a member of staff who doesn't know how to be anything other than confrontational when they disagree with a student. Oddly, the teachers who stayed calm, respected the opinions of others (and took a genuine interest) and dealt with any problems appropriately (moving the problem student away from the group for a quiet chat, explaining the school rules and what is expected, allowing senior management to take over when the teachers ability to teach was being compromised) had very few problems.

The more you try to force someone to do something, the more resistance they put up. The smart way is to persuade them and make them feel like they have decided to do something by their own will.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think this is a pretty clear cut case. A student was exercising his right to political speech, and a teacher tried to suppress that particular speech. That was the wrong thing for the teacher to do.

Rubbish.

This is a child who got in trouble for doing something, and then decided to try and get out of it. That's all there is to it. The fact that he (or, more likely, his parents) tried to make a constitutional issue out of it is just muddying the water, because it doesn't actually address the issue at hand: the kid deliberately disobeyed an instruction from a teacher. If he had a problem with that, then he should have complied with it and then approached the school administration after the fact. Instead, he chose to stand in the middle of a cafeteria and make a scene.

So the real question in all of this is: why didn't he follow the appropriate course of action to file a complaint and instead go straight to a lawyer?

If the teacher had expressed his opinion and moved on, there would have been no escalation and no arrest in this situation. Instead, there was an escalation resulting in the police being called due to his (the teachers) inability to handle something relatively simple. If the teacher had said nothing (as he should have done if he felt unable to respect the opinion of the student) again, there would have been no escalation.

Again, you're assuming that the teacher a) raised his voice in anger and b) confronted the kid over making a political statement he disagreed with. But there is no evidence of this. The kid said that's what happened, but the kid is fourteen years old. He'll say anything to get out of trouble, and his lawyer will present the events in a way that favours the kid.

It's far more likely that the teacher asked him to cover up the image, and the kid said no because he was being belligerent, and when the teacher started cautioning him, the other students sensed trouble and fanned the flames.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

So the real question in all of this is: why didn't he follow the appropriate course of action to file a complaint and instead go straight to a lawyer?

You really think a student should have to accept his rights being stepped on at all? Anyone who truly cares about their rights would not accept that for one second, nor should they have to.

Again, you're assuming that the teacher a) raised his voice in anger and b) confronted the kid over making a political statement he disagreed with.

Please quote where I said these things. Oh, wait... you can't, so stop putting words in my mouth.

All I've said is that the teacher imposed on the rights of the student without grounds to, which is unacceptable.

But there is no evidence of this. The kid said that's what happened, but the kid is fourteen years old. He'll say anything to get out of trouble, and his lawyer will present the events in a way that favours the kid.

It's far more likely that the teacher asked him to cover up the image, and the kid said no because he was being belligerent, and when the teacher started cautioning him, the other students sensed trouble and fanned the flames.

There is more evidence for the version of events that I have arrived upon, than for the situation you have just proposed. I particularly liked the part where you assume that because he is 14 years old that he must be a bad student trying to wriggle his way out of trouble. Typical teachers, eh?

I'm pretty sure the student has the right to say no, whether he was being belligerent or not, because he has a right to freedom of speech. He hasn't broken any school rules, so the teacher has no grounds for telling him that he can't wear that particular t-shirt.

The teacher has attempted to restrict the students freedom, the student has, quite rightly, not accepted that. The teacher had no place to be asking the student to cover his t-shirt, and so he shouldn't have asked him to do it. It's quite simple.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Please quote where I said these things. Oh, wait... you can't, so stop putting words in my mouth.

I did quote you. Right here:

If the teacher had expressed his opinion and moved on, there would have been no escalation and no arrest in this situation. Instead, there was an escalation resulting in the police being called due to his (the teachers) inability to handle something relatively simple. If the teacher had said nothing (as he should have done if he felt unable to respect the opinion of the student) again, there would have been no escalation.

How do you know that the teacher confronted the student and started shouting at him because of his own personal beliefs. Your entire argument hinges on this being true.

All I've said is that the teacher imposed on the rights of the student without grounds to, which is unacceptable.

Where is your evidence that this happened?

There is more evidence for the version of events that I have arrived upon, than for the situation you have just proposed.

What evidence? A lawyer claiming that something happened? Lawyers are paid to represent their clients. They do this by presenting a version of events that is favourable to their client.

I'm pretty sure the student has the right to say no, whether he was being belligerent or not, because he has a right to freedom of speech. He hasn't broken any school rules, so the teacher has no grounds for telling him that he can't wear that particular t-shirt.

Again, you're assuming the teacher told him to obscure the logo because he, personally, did not agree with it.

The teacher has attempted to restrict the students freedom, the student has, quite rightly, not accepted that. The teacher had no place to be asking the student to cover his t-shirt, and so he shouldn't have asked him to do it. It's quite simple.

Again, you're assuming. The kid has said "my rights were violated" and you've instantly agreed with him despite having no independent confirmation of it.

It's a bit like that girl who tried to make a constitutional issue out of her Spanish teacher setting work for her that required her to actually speak and understand Spanish at the level that she was required to in order to pass the course.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Well, I'm done here (for now, at least). I'm tired of repeating myself - I now fully understand why so few members on this site want to get into discussion with you, and it's certainly not because you make good points.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm tired of repeating myself

If you explained how you knew that the teacher started yelling at the student for wearing a shirt that he personally objected to, rather than raising his voice because the student was deliberately disobeying instructions - whatever those instructions might have been - then maybe you wouldn't feel that way. Because all you've done so far is work on the assumption that it must be true because the kid says it happened that way. Until you produce some actual, independent evidence that the kid's version of events is true, I'm going to keep questioning how you know it to be true.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well, I'm done here (for now, at least). I'm tired of repeating myself - I now fully understand why so few members on this site want to get into discussion with you, and it's certainly not because you make good points.

Finally we can agree on something. 👍👍

 

[BobK]

This is a child who got in trouble for doing something, and then decided to try and get out of it. That's all there is to it. The fact that he (or, more likely, his parents) tried to make a constitutional issue out of it is just muddying the water, because it doesn't actually address the issue at hand: the kid deliberately disobeyed an instruction from a teacher. If he had a problem with that, then he should have complied with it and then approached the school administration after the fact. Instead, he chose to stand in the middle of a cafeteria and make a scene.

So let me get this straight. If the teacher had exposed himself to the student then ordered the student to perform fellatio on him, the student should have complied with the teacher's orders and then later raised the issue with the school administration?

You are saying that if a teacher orders a student to do something the student must do it, regardless. Riiight.

 

[Zenith]

How can you reasonable expect someone to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of these things? You're assuming that because you are aware of a highly-specific piece of information, that everyone should easily be able to identify it by sight and make an informed decision based on it.

I said nothing remotely of the sort. I am bringing attention to the fact that you, the one accusing others of manipulating the true story to suit their argument, just referred to the illustration of a varmint rifle as a "high powered assault rifle" when it is neither a high powered rifle nor an assault rifle.

We have been over this numerous times. "Weapon" is a condition for an object. A gun can be a weapon, a hammer can be a weapon, a car can be a weapon. The image on the student's shirt did not convey any violence whatsoever and no amount of attaching spin words to the illustration will change that.

Your arguments on teacher's authority and the disruptiveness of wearing a T shirt are equally ridiculous but I would just be restating what others have said.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So let me get this straight. If the teacher had exposed himself to the student then ordered the student to perform fellatio on him, the student should have complied with the teacher's orders and then later raised the issue with the school administration?

Did I say that?

No, I did not.

 

[Grayfox]

Did I say that?

No, I did not.

I think it was when you inferred or is it implied that you have to follow a teachers orders even if you disagree with them.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No, it's a straw man argument intended to discredit my point by offering an extreme scenario that no-one can possibly support.

If a teacher asks a student to do something, and it is a reasonable request, then it is generally expected that a student will follow through on it. Asking a student to cover up an image on a t-shirt that a teacher feels violates the dress code is not an unreasonable request. However, deliberately defying that teacher an inciting other students to cause trouble could be considered an unreasonable reaction.

 

[BongRipz]

I'd think blanket assumptions contribute to things like the former quote. What you said may be accurate for this case, I don't know, but shutting your eyes and blindly proclaiming "kids will be kids" and then reacting always with a pre set script is probably a good way to make something simple escalate.

There's no reason why a 14 year old can't successfully and consistently make adult decisions. Statistically though, we know people tend to make better decisions as they age.

Actually I would say a 14 year old cannot "successfully and consistently make adult decisions". A 14 year old is not an adult. In the eyes of American law a 14 year old cannot make the adult decisions required to do such as driving a car or consuming alcohol. Its not just about experiences or knowledge either. A 14 year old's brain is not going to function the same as an adult brain.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, it's a straw man argument intended to discredit my point by offering an extreme scenario that no-one can possibly support.

If a teacher asks a student to do something, and it is a reasonable request, then it is generally expected that a student will follow through on it. Asking a student to cover up an image on a t-shirt that a teacher feels violates the dress code is not an unreasonable request. However, deliberately defying that teacher an inciting other students to cause trouble could be considered an unreasonable reaction.

The student didn't think it was reasonable obviously.

 

[Exorcet]

Actually I would say a 14 year old cannot "successfully and consistently make adult decisions".

So no 14 year old, ever, would be able to do this?

A 14 year old is not an adult... Its not just about experiences or knowledge either. A 14 year old's brain is not going to function the same as an adult brain.

On the whole. But this isn't a hard truth. Turning 18 makes you a legal adult, but it does not mean someone who is 18 is automatically better at making decisions than someone who is 14. You can jumble the ages quite a bit and that would still probably hold.

My point is, it's better to look at things on a case by case basis than making assumptions.

 

[Zenith]

I don't know about you, Ex, but I was overjoyed to receive my government supplied box of responsibility and logical decision making in the mail when I turned 18.

 

[Joel]

I got mine a few months back. No idea how I ever made any decisions before it. It really is amazing, September 29th I was a bumbling idiot but on the 30th I felt responsible enough to vote, join the military, and buy a gun. Amazing stuff.

 

[RVDNuT374]

How to live in fear 101.

We should probably ban kids from talking about video games at school then too.

Soon only topics approved by Congress will be allowed for discussion among all American citizens.