POPS VA
Regular Member
Marshaul you just nailed it
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Private Property, Boys suspended
- Thread starter papa bear
- Start date
Marshaul you just nailed it
(speaking descriptively not normatively)
It's called "IN LOCO PARENTIS". School authoritah's have rather broad discretion to "police" (these are not criminal matters, but admin matters, so that term is a bit inapplicable) conduct that happens at the school AND at the school bus stops, which are effectively extensions of the school for admin matters. School bus stops are within their locus of control.
As an example, we had a bunch of kids at local high school do "fight club" after school let out. In one instance, they conducted their fight on one of the school's playing fields. School security responded and the kids were administratively punished by the school. Police were not involved.
They quickly learned to hold their fights on NON school properties (church parking lot, etc.). WA state has no law against fighting in public. It is NOT assault if it is mutual combat (agreed upon by both parties) and thus the private property owners would call police to break up the fight on the property and eject the kids, but that was it. No criminal action was takne, since there was no crime, and the school couldn't touch them since it wasn't school property.
We could break up such fights on public etc. properties under our community caretaking function, but it would be a noncriminal thang . Break it up. take the kids home and let the parents deal with punishment, if any. Our purpose in breaking up the fights was protective, not criminal . Parents appreciated our actions but were pissed off in some cases that no court actions could be/would be undertaken for the fights. If the fights were organized, etc. and/or they charged admission etc. then they could be sanctioned for conducting unlicensed boxing etc. matches RCW 67.08
There have been several free speech cases won by students who posted negative stuff about teachers on websites, facebook, etc. - as long as the postings were done from an off campus location the school could not touch them.
We explained to the school that we could not "punish' the kids for fight clubs, since it wasn't criminal. The school, though can and does punish kids for all sorts of stuff that isn't criminal (as well as stuff that is), but violates school rules of conduct as long as it happens at a school property or during a school function (like a field trip) where school authoritah's retain in loco parentis authoritah.
Also, see the "bong hits for jesus " case which established school authoritah pretty convincingly for off campus school functions (terrible reasoning in this case imo but it is the law of the land)
Last edited:
That is all well and good, but this neither happened on school property nor at a school function.
The General Assembly has reserved for itself the right to pass laws regarding guns - we call it "preemption".
Also Virginia is a Dillon Rule state - meaning that municipalities cannot pass ordinances for which the state has not granted them specific permission.
The school board doesn't have the option of declaring itself a state agency (thereby possibly bypassing preemption) because they are clearly an agency of the municipality. Therefore they are subject to the same limitations.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Way to conflate unrelated contexts.
Color me unimpressed.
I didn't relate my comment to any other context, you are jumping to conclusions. It is just that long guns seem to scare sheeple, and they lose rational thinking.
This is a clear case of irrational thinking so it must have been long gun airsoft.
blade10
Regular Member
Another news clip, for anyone interested.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/09/24/virginia-school-suspends-7th-grader-playing-toy-gun-his-yard
Blade
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/09/24/virginia-school-suspends-7th-grader-playing-toy-gun-his-yard
Blade
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
carolina guy
Regular Member
My indigestion with this is that the school appears to be expanding the "bus stop" to include the kid's entire yard. If the bus doesn't stop there, it is not a bus stop...
JustaShooter
Regular Member
Some punishment is appropriate, I'll grant, but not by the school - they do not, nor should they, have any "jurisdiction" over what happens on private or public property outside of the school grounds or actual bus stop. At most, the school should have notified the parents of the students who were unwilling participants and they should have handled it outside of the purview of the school. When I were a lad, their parents would have talked to my parents, and I'd have had my backside tanned, airsoft confiscated for an appropriate (to my parents) amount of time and I'd have had to apologize to the targets - I mean unwilling participants.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
The school claims that its zero-tolerance policy does extend to private property. from link
Oh really? Where did they learn that? Likely in school. Re---tard school.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
According to the school guy (forget his title), these petty delinquents did shoot other kids at (or at least walking to) the bus stop, and who weren't on the aforementioned private property either. And it was those kids who reported it, moreover.
In this case, I might opine that the school would be a better (less bad?) source of punishment than, well, the law. I think it's self-evident the parents aren't going to provide it in this case, for what that's worth.
De facto expulsion is way too far, however.
Last edited:
mpguy
Regular Member
It's sounds more like he said she said at this point. Dunno what to say really on the matter.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2
wrearick
Regular Member
I live on a corner lot and have a school bus stop right on my corner. Every year I have to train the parents and kids to not sit on my landscaping stones (they are not held in by anything but gravity). The grass on the strip between the sidewalk and the street is just about gone but I believe that is "city" property anyway, although I am responsible for keeping it cut. I have asked the school to move the bus stop but they have repeatedly refused. I sometimes leave for work while the "crowd" is gathered out there but as I work on a base I am not carrying a personal protection firearm. I wonder if I were to walk to/from my car or my truck (parked on the side parralel with the sidewalk, OCing what kind of reaction I would generate. Maybe it would be enough to get the school to find another spot to bestow their bus stop? I would, in the interest of self protection, make sure I had a camera running from the house and a voice recorder on me. The school can not suspend me but some of the soccer moms who wait with the kids (and sit on my landscaping bricks) might get verbal or initiate a MWAG call to the local LEOs. Just thinking out loud.
esmart
Regular Member
Found this scanning VCDL Legislation tracking
Does not this law completely handle this situation or am I missing something?
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+22.1-277.07
§ 22.1-277.07. Expulsion of students under certain circumstances; exceptions.
excerpt:
"Firearm" means any weapon, including a starter gun, that will, or is designed or may readily be converted to, expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material or the frame or receiver of any such weapon. "Firearm" does not include any pneumatic gun, as defined in subsection E of § 15.2-915.4.
"One year" means 365 calendar days as required in federal regulations.
"School property" means any real property owned or leased by the school board or any vehicle owned or leased by the school board or operated by or on behalf of the school board.
In other words, it's not a firearm and it's not school grounds by definition.
Does not this law completely handle this situation or am I missing something?
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+22.1-277.07
§ 22.1-277.07. Expulsion of students under certain circumstances; exceptions.
excerpt:
"Firearm" means any weapon, including a starter gun, that will, or is designed or may readily be converted to, expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material or the frame or receiver of any such weapon. "Firearm" does not include any pneumatic gun, as defined in subsection E of § 15.2-915.4.
"One year" means 365 calendar days as required in federal regulations.
"School property" means any real property owned or leased by the school board or any vehicle owned or leased by the school board or operated by or on behalf of the school board.
In other words, it's not a firearm and it's not school grounds by definition.
Last edited:
carolina guy
Regular Member
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
The Virginia Beach school system put a copy of a "memo" issued by a suit on their Facebook page today.
https://www.facebook.com/VBSchools
It basically says that the students "were witnessed" shooting at other students at the bus stop - outside their property boundaries.
BTW, I don't buy the "didn't have permission from the parents" hogwash, the kids lived there, it's their yard too. Sure, they're minors, but you don't have to explicitly grant your minor children permission to be present on your property to avoid trespassing, makes no sense that they would have to obtain explicit permission from a parent to shoot a bb gun. No legal juice there, just the TFred law of common sense.
The problem I have with this is that now we have a situation where a government authority has acted as prosecutor, judge and jury regarding a matter of facts that are in dispute. That is what juries are for, and legal representation to competently cross-examine "witnesses."
At this point, unless the parents have changed their claim that the students shot only on their own property, we have a serious violation of judicial process here, as these students have suffered demonstrable, and permanent harm by this incident being placed in their permanent school record.
Lawyer time, big time.
TFred
https://www.facebook.com/VBSchools
It basically says that the students "were witnessed" shooting at other students at the bus stop - outside their property boundaries.
BTW, I don't buy the "didn't have permission from the parents" hogwash, the kids lived there, it's their yard too. Sure, they're minors, but you don't have to explicitly grant your minor children permission to be present on your property to avoid trespassing, makes no sense that they would have to obtain explicit permission from a parent to shoot a bb gun. No legal juice there, just the TFred law of common sense.
The problem I have with this is that now we have a situation where a government authority has acted as prosecutor, judge and jury regarding a matter of facts that are in dispute. That is what juries are for, and legal representation to competently cross-examine "witnesses."
At this point, unless the parents have changed their claim that the students shot only on their own property, we have a serious violation of judicial process here, as these students have suffered demonstrable, and permanent harm by this incident being placed in their permanent school record.
Lawyer time, big time.
TFred
All true, but "pneumatic gun" is included in the statute:
§ 22.1-277.07
".....to have possessed a firearm or destructive device as defined in subsection E, a firearm muffler or firearm silencer, or a pneumatic gun as defined in subsection E of § 15.2-915.4 on school property or at a school-sponsored activity.
However the limiting/restrictive factor "on school property or at a school-sponsored activity" still exists; therefore, there is no basis in law for the school board's decision and they cannot make it up to suit their agenda. Preemption and the Dillon Rule are alive and well precisely to stop this kind of unauthorized response. The school board is wrong IMO.
TFred
Regular Member
I believe the school authorities are asserting that the students shot pellets at other students who were walking to the bus stop, and therefore, that would fall under the "school-sponsored activity."
TFred
Last edited:
That is more than a long stretch of the term - it is a misapplication.
Basketball and football games are "school sponsored" activities.
Walking down the street, even waiting for the bus, are not "school sponsored". Stopping at a local quick stop to buy a candy bar while on the way to school is not a "school sponsored activity".
I am not buying what the school board is selling - IMO they are grasping at straws to justify their inappropriate, unauthorized response.
If there is a legal issue, violation of law, then the local PD should consider going through the magistrate and the CA would determine whether or not to proceed.
The school board would seem to have acted as prosecutor, judge and jury, and with no legal basis for their actions. Note also that this was done w/o providing/allowing for legal defense of the kids. I think this is what we call a kangaroo court.
nuc65
Activist Member
loss of consortium -?!? One would hope NOT!!!
Loss of consortium does not relate solely to sexual favors. Other conditions have application too.
JustaShooter
Regular Member
As I understand it, they were en route to the bus stop but not at it, so to me that excludes the school from "jurisdiction". If they were at the bus stop, then involvement by the school would be appropriate, but only then (and as you say, expulsion is way too strict of a punishment for a first offense of this nature). But if they were not at the bus stop, then it is inappropriate for the school to be involved, otherwise you give the school system power it does not possess and in my opinion should not possess. I also do not think it should be dealt with by law enforcement initially, but by the parents. And yes, if the parents do nothing *and* a similar offense is committed afterward then it would be appropriate to involve local law enforcement.