Another school with its priorities ass-backwards

[Pixilated]

13-year-old schoolboy disciplined -- for disarming knife-wielding classmate

As for my thoughts on this -- the title pretty much sums 'em up.

[Greenday]

Pretty black and white story for once. I understand the school doesn't want to get sued if anyone gets stabbed, but that's not a legit reason for giving someone shit for being a hero.

[fireheart17]

I sure as hell hope that charges are ruled against the kid!

[Panacea]

Wow. I thought Canadians didn't go for this kid of zero tolerance bs.

Granted; we don't want to encourage kids to put themselves in danger. But kicking him out of class for the day? Overreaction.

The best response should have been, "You were very brave in protecting your friend, but I hope you understand you could have gotten hurt yourself. Good job, but don't make a habit of this."

[Pixilated]

Alas, we up here in the Great Frozen (ha) North are up to our butts in that swamp as well ...

Your response would've been perfect. I hope the kid reads at least some of the comments about his actions and feels a little better about himself.

[Gravekeeper]

Wow. I thought Canadians didn't go for this kid of zero tolerance bs.

We don't, I fully expect resignations as this media shit storm spreads. This kid is showing up everywhere on the news up here and good on him for it. He's not backing down from his opinion.

[Andara Bledin]

Your response would've been perfect. I hope the kid reads at least some of the comments about his actions and feels a little better about himself.

Considering how his mother is dealing with it, I don't think he's going to be feeling bad about himself or what he did. She taught him to behave like that and is reinforcing that he did the right thing and that the school has its head up its ass for reacting as they did. From the comments I've caught, most of the public feels the same way.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I'll just point out that what this school did isn't any different than what a retail company will generally do to someone who plays the hero in a robbery regardless of success.

It's not just the liability of it. The boy was effective but the method was crude because he had no training to be doing what he was doing. That also could have ended up with the threatening party impaled on his own knife, the hero ending up impaled on the knife unintentionally if the student had spun in time, and not to belabor the obvious but if no teacher actually saw the altercation it caused the legal problem of being able to prove what actually happened up until the bullies themselves admitted it (they didn't have to.)

So I think everyone is justified in being happy the kid took action because it worked out in the best possible way. But realistically speaking on school grounds, there were multiple ways to de-escalate this situation and he took the risky one. It's like a guy pulling a knife on the subway: do you want an untrained man knocking into a man simply possessing a deadly weapon and possibly hurting other people or do you want him hitting the emergency button in the car. I'd prefer to see heroics saved for imminent threat and checked for context. Not like this articles version which basically has him instinctively tackling because he heard a knife and someone said it. There are very few school classes that don't have one kid who pulls a knife at some point in his career. Open the door and yell knife.

So the utilitarian in me is saying "Go Briar!" The part that calculates probabilities is saying "moron..."

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I'll also add, when we consider the public it is helpful to consider how these articles are worded rhetorically since the public is learning about these events from the press. It's almost a perfect story. It's almost an "if it bleeds it leads" combined with a "little guy vs. the system" narrative with a dash of "look what kids can do." The word used is heroic rather than reckless. The word instinct is used rather than the phrase "without thinking." In the article I linked the school is questioned about what could have happened if the policy was followed. No one asked the student or the mother "what if you'd missed?"

[Kheldarson]

No one asked the student or the mother "what if you'd missed?"

Somebody would've been stabbed. But the situation was already leading up to it. Because there's the other "what if": what if he had gone to get a teacher and the other boy got stabbed in the meantime?

It may have been stupid heroics, but, at the same time, the boy was poised to make a decision between defusing the situation himself in a manner he thought was possible to pull off or of hoping the situation didn't defuse itself in the worst way possible while following proper procedure. He made his choice.

And I don't think it's fair to compare this to a retail situation. In retail, we sign contracts that put us under the company's liability and oblige us to follow by the company's rules and regulations, including what is to be done in the case of an armed robbery.

There's no contract to go to school. Most schools don't even really cover what to do in an armed threat in their handbook codes. On top of that, particularly here in the US (I don't know in Canada), there's a growing idea that schools should be reinforcing/teaching basic values. As dangerous as the situation was, I do believe that, yes, the school is in its rights to mete out some punishment for the fact the student didn't follow some known or unknown procedure that put the student himself in danger, but the school should have also acknowledged that the student did do something that showed great strength of character. Make it a true teachable moment.

[Gravekeeper]

This is not comparable to a retail situation. In a retail situation its a matter of your life not being worth the cash in the till. There's no need to be a hero over the till. In this case, its the potential life of a class mate on the line, not a couple hundred in small bills.

It's like a guy pulling a knife on the subway: do you want an untrained man knocking into a man simply possessing a deadly weapon and possibly hurting other people or do you want him hitting the emergency button in the car.

Why are those mutually exclusive? Also yes I want someone to tackle the guy, provided I don't get to him first. A knife wielding man in a closed space with several people no exits? Are you crazy? It could take the train several minutes to get to a stop with transit police or several minutes for them to arrive even after that. If there's an imminent threat like that you sure as fuck have to do something about it.

Stabby McKidneyLaceration could get through the whole car before help arrived if everybody just hit the emergency button.

So the utilitarian in me is saying "Go Briar!" The part that calculates probabilities is saying "moron..."

You might want to check the math on the part that calculates probabilities. Even the school completely admits someone(s) could have been stabbed to death before a teacher arrived but that that was "Besides the point".

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

This is not comparable to a retail situation. In a retail situation its a matter of your life not being worth the cash in the till. There's no need to be a hero over the till. In this case, its the potential life of a class mate on the line, not a couple hundred in small bills.

I was going to let it go, but since this is the second time its been said "not comparable" I'll play this game. I'll add, if there is an article in which assault with a deadly weapon was in progress, I'll amend my statement. However all that seems to have been established by both articles thus far is one of the bullies showed the knife. And that's the problem I'm having, the logical extension that a bully showed a knife indicates ultimate intent. IF that were true, school stabbings would be far more prevalent than they are.

So the frame I'm working from IS similar. You have a standoff with an armed potential attacker in which you have the choice to wait it out, call the cops, or take action. The kid chose action. The point is NOT you can pay the cash (you pay a bully in fear and cash usually), the point is was this an assault in progress or not. If it was not, the act of tackling the bully was premptive action. That's forcing physical altercation. That's why the school is on him just like why an employer would reprimand or fire their employee.

Why are those mutually exclusive? Also yes I want someone to tackle the guy, provided I don't get to him first. A knife wielding man in a closed space with several people no exits? Are you crazy? It could take the train several minutes to get to a stop with transit police or several minutes for them to arrive even after that. If there's an imminent threat like that you sure as fuck have to do something about it.

Stabby McKidneyLaceration could get through the whole car before help arrived if everybody just hit the emergency button.

Your frame of reference is showing. I said pulled a knife, not physically assaulted passengers. And I'm not sure how familiar you are with a train, but unless you can physically overpower or possess the training to get that knife the people on the train are too close together. Preemptive action leading to any kind of struggle will most likely get someone hurt. Informing the conductor and responding to action stands the LEAST probability of someone leaving in a body bag. Lots of crazies threaten.

You might want to check the math on the part that calculates probabilities. Even the school completely admits someone(s) could have been stabbed to death before a teacher arrived but that that was "Besides the point".

Here are the probabilities I'm using: A non physical standoff leading to a physical altercation leading to deadly force. That probability is lower by definition. The probability of a physical altercation leading to deadly force is going to remain constant. The student escalated the situation to a physical altercation. I don't care if you peg the probability of the non-physical standoff leading to a physical altercation at 99.99% (which is unbelievably high and unworthy of this case), the conditional probability is still lower if you refrain from engaging potential attacker physically until he starts it.

Could the victim have died if another course had been taken? Undisputedly yes. What in the wide, wide, world of strawmen are we trying to build here? The question from the organization's perspective is what course of action minimizes student injury which is why they construct the rules they do. That doesn't mean if you don't follow the rules someone won't be saved anymore than it means following the rules guarantees success. It's a gambling rule of thumb that statistically they expect more people hurt when people physically interject themselves (especially uncoordinated kids) into deadly situations.

You know what else could have happened? The teacher showed up and the bully realized it wasn't worth it. The bully was just threatening and stops after he's made his point (and gets suspended). The bullies bolt when they realize help is coming. The bullies turn on the third party. Or maybe they just have a dance off. There's no way to know how any alternate course of action would have turned out in this case. So all we're left with is probabilities.

[KitterCat]

So the frame I'm working from IS similar. You have a standoff with an armed potential attacker in which you have the choice to wait it out, call the cops, or take action. The kid chose action. The point is NOT you can pay the cash (you pay a bully in fear and cash usually), the point is was this an assault in progress or not. If it was not, the act of tackling the bully was premptive action. That's forcing physical altercation. That's why the school is on him just like why an employer would reprimand or fire their employee.

Per the article linked "Suddenly one of the boys pulled out a knife and began to threaten the other turning an scuffle into a potentially deadly situation." So given the situation when exactly would you condone physical help being given? When the knife is being slashed toward the other kid or does it have to physically be in his kidney? Or can help only be done through an adult? Given the time line someone could have been seriously hurt by the time an adult actually was there. So far the only one forcing physical action was the one welding the knife by brandishing it.

Your frame of reference is showing. I said pulled a knife, not physically assaulted passengers. And I'm not sure how familiar you are with a train, but unless you can physically overpower or possess the training to get that knife the people on the train are too close together. Preemptive action leading to any kind of struggle will most likely get someone hurt. Informing the conductor and responding to action stands the LEAST probability of someone leaving in a body bag. Lots of crazies threaten.

Are you familiar with planes? Pretty similar to a train in movement. Small enclosed space with very little help except your fellow travelers. Noticed how in the last few years people have been tackling people who start acting violent? Notice how their winning?

You seem to putting the onerous on the victims in these situations to mind read what their attackers are about to do. So what if the Bully didn't mean to stab the other kid? He still drew a knife. Brian or any other person there in that situation isn’t going wait to find out if the bully is actually going to use it. They are going to react in some way. Thankfully Brians way worked. Yes it could have gotten someone hurt, but so could theoretically going away and getting a teacher.

Here are the probabilities I'm using: A non physical standoff leading to a physical altercation leading to deadly force. That probability is lower by definition. The probability of a physical altercation leading to deadly force is going to remain constant. The student escalated the situation to a physical altercation. I don't care if you peg the probability of the non-physical standoff leading to a physical altercation at 99.99% (which is unbelievably high and unworthy of this case), the conditional probability is still lower if you refrain from engaging potential attacker physically until he starts it.

So when exactly a victim allowed to engage in physically attacking an attacker? When is a victim allowed to attack their assailant and stop being a victim while winning the attack? Because what your describing to me is what I heard from teachers in schools through out my childhood and as an adult misguided people who think running away is the only option to seeing someone in need to get “proper” help. The Bully is the one who brought possible physical assault into the equation by brandishing a knife, not the other child and not Brian.

What I find really weird about this situation is that if this situation involved three adults it would be considered assault & battery, but because its children police are only considering filling charges. How messed up is that.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

So far the only one forcing physical action was the one welding the knife by brandishing it.

How do you figure this? Do you tackle every person you see who happens to carry a firearm? I'll use the quote you brought up "Suddenly one of the boys pulled out a knife and began to threaten the other turning an scuffle into a potentially deadly situation." If the one with the knife were being physical you would more accurately say "began to attack" and you wouldn't use the word "potentially." The articles tell us what happened. My entire point about probabilities would be moot IF the boy with a knife was physically attacking.

What we're missing here is the second bully who was actually the one currently involved in assault and battery. Mr. Knife was not physically engaged. You're wrong in point of fact. To your larger point, yes my opinion would change the second the likelihood of physical altercation with a deadly weapon is at 100%. A potential threat is not the same as an actual threat. People keep describing this situation as if Bully #2 was running at the physically engaged pair with a knife. No, he was doing a very common kid thing and announcing how big and bad he was because he had a knife. He's an expelled git, but he hasn't graduated to murderous psychopath until... well he actually attempts to kill someone.

Are you familiar with planes? Pretty similar to a train in movement

Not really seeing that as a subway stops every 5 minutes at most which includes rapid deceleration. Now if planes randomly landed constantly I'd see your point. Subways are also packed like sardines half the time. And no, I'm not sure what their winning record is. Then again, attempted highjackings and plane assaults happen... how often? However deadly weapons and "incidents" occur in subways regularly.

To be fair, we're far off the beaten path with this tangent. My only point being if I'm in a subway car and I have a choice between the one person near enough to physically interject or press the button, I want the button pressed. Come back and help if you want, but I want the conductor and the NYPD to know what the hell's going on.

What I find really weird about this situation is that if this situation involved three adults it would be considered assault & battery, but because its children police are only considering filling charges. How messed up is that.

This I absolutely agree with. Children aren't held as responsible for their own actions nor are they taught real consequences for certain behavior. We see this, because it really is "Law of the Jungle" until you get out of high school. We don't prosecute for harassment or restrain predatory behavior which often prompts further predatory behavior.

Modern Primate had a great point here (I'll just speak for boys here) most boys will engage in a level of bullying just sufficient enough that they get left alone. At the outlier are the kids always receiving it and the kids always doing it. But in the end, the entire class is engaging in behavior that in the real world would be criminal or liable for damages.

I believe the assumption is that because childhood brain development happens in stages it's hard to legislate when accountability starts. Five kids in the same class may have vastly different stages of brain development going on.

Anyway, I get why what I'm saying isn't popular. It's C3PO constantly telling Han Solo the odds. No one likes that guy. And when Han comes through, we're waiting for Leia to shut C3PO off because he annoys us and because OF COURSE a screenwriter will have Han pull through. But it's the reason rules like this exist, why Star Wars is fiction, and why the NYPD doesn't post signs that say, "Has a Knife? Kick his ass!"

[Duelist925]

How do you figure this? Do you tackle every person you see who happens to carry a firearm? I'll use the quote you brought up "Suddenly one of the boys pulled out a knife and began to threaten the other turning an scuffle into a potentially deadly situation." If the one with the knife were being physical you would more accurately say "began to attack" and you wouldn't use the word "potentially." The articles tell us what happened. My entire point about probabilities would be moot IF the boy with a knife was physically attacking.

Excuse me, but there is a marked difference between carrying a weapon, and brandishing it. Carrying a weapon usually involved it being holstered or pocketed, or held in a restful way. Brandishing is an aggressive stance, and its usually pretty damn easy to tel the difference. So no, no tackling everyone carrying a weapon. Brandishing one at a friend? Hell yes.

What we're missing here is the second bully who was actually the one currently involved in assault and battery. Mr. Knife was not physically engaged. You're wrong in point of fact. To your larger point, yes my opinion would change the second the likelihood of physical altercation with a deadly weapon is at 100%. A potential threat is not the same as an actual threat. People keep describing this situation as if Bully #2 was running at the physically engaged pair with a knife. No, he was doing a very common kid thing and announcing how big and bad he was because he had a knife. He's an expelled git, but he hasn't graduated to murderous psychopath until... well he actually attempts to kill someone.

You use the term "physically engaged". Had Mr. Knife been physically engaged, the other kid would have been bleeding by the time his friend tackled the knife wielder.

From there...I'll echo what others have said. WHEN would you deem it alright for Tackles Mcgee to have intervened? You say when the likelihood of a lethal or harmful confrontation is 100 percent--when the hell is that? When the kid says "Imma kill you"? When he's actually in the process of stabbing the kid? Should Tackles have waited until the knife was in motion?

Remember, this isn't a situation where you get to sit back and think everything over carefully. This is a split second, "Oh shit that's a knife what do I do" response. When your brain fires up like that, your figuring probabilities in a very different way than when you're calm.

Further, you're calculation of risk isn't seeming to enter into your probabilities correctly--this was a friend in danger. That weighs heavier on the mind than a stranger in danger, and even that can weigh damn heavy on a mind. There's always that little bit of the brain that will go "if I don't do this, this person could die. How will I feel about that?"

snip

This I absolutely agree with. Children aren't held as responsible for their own actions nor are they taught real consequences for certain behavior. We see this, because it really is "Law of the Jungle" until you get out of high school. We don't prosecute for harassment or restrain predatory behavior which often prompts further predatory behavior.

Modern Primate had a great point here (I'll just speak for boys here) most boys will engage in a level of bullying just sufficient enough that they get left alone. At the outlier are the kids always receiving it and the kids always doing it. But in the end, the entire class is engaging in behavior that in the real world would be criminal or liable for damages.

I believe the assumption is that because childhood brain development happens in stages it's hard to legislate when accountability starts. Five kids in the same class may have vastly different stages of brain development going on.

Not much in the way of argument here.

Anyway, I get why what I'm saying isn't popular. It's C3PO constantly telling Han Solo the odds. No one likes that guy. And when Han comes through, we're waiting for Leia to shut C3PO off because he annoys us and because OF COURSE a screenwriter will have Han pull through. But it's the reason rules like this exist, why Star Wars is fiction, and why the NYPD doesn't post signs that say, "Has a Knife? Kick his ass!"

This is an oversimplification--I don't care that you're telling the odds, I care that I think your odds are weighted incorrectly, and you're ignoring the basic psychology of fight or flight and snap, split second decisions.

And the reason the cops don't hang up signs like that is, yeah, most of the time its utterly foolish to attack someone with a weapon, even as simple as a knife, when you're unarmed, without any training.

But in some situations, it's better than the alternative. Or it seems so in the little time you have to think it over.