Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ebfd11 on October 15, 2013, 09:15:52 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20576121
All I can say is wtf...
LawnDart
-
Helping someone in the commission of a crime?
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Remember this next time an under age drunk asks you for a ride home.
-
Helping someone in the commission of a crime?
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Remember this next time an under age drunk asks you for a ride home.
How did this "crime" affect you, or society in general?
-
Helping someone in the commission of a crime?
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Remember this next time an under age drunk asks you for a ride home.
While I don't condone underage drinking. I think that she shouldn't have been punished considering she didn't drink, nor was there when her friend drank anyways. She was just trying to help her friend get home safely. But I can't change your opinion on the matter, so :cheers:
Personally, even though she got punished for doing a 'good deed'. I would rather read an article like that, even though she got punished (but the school got flak for it, so +1 on that), than reading an article of an underage drinker found dead due to a motor vehicle accident (or getting ran over).
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
Helping someone in the commission of a crime?
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Remember this next time an under age drunk asks you for a ride home.
Giving an underage drunk a ride is not a crime.
-
Giving an underage drunk a ride is not a crime.
Agreed. It's a service to the community, if one thinks about it logically.
-
Crap I've been breaking the law when I get the call at 3AM that another underage Soldier needed a ride home to the barracks after getting to drunk at a party...... :bolt:
-
School administrators make stupid decisions all the time.
-
School administrators make stupid decisions all the time.
No Tolerance Policy.
~~Translation~~
No Common Sense.
:joystick:
-
Helping someone in the commission of a crime?
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Remember this next time an under age drunk asks you for a ride home.
Not a crime.
Neither is being drunk. Possessing alcohol or buying or selling alcohol to a minor is. I don't know what Gestapo state you may live in but come on what's wrong with helping out a friend?
-
I'm very curious what time she got off work and what time her friend's parents expected her home. This story is very one-sided and I'm not sure I buy it.
I don't know where she works but I'd imagine a place that employs a high school kid is going to close shop at an hour that would make it a pretty early end to the party for her and her friend (is her friend a complete lush that plans on going home that drunk that early to her still-awake parents?)
I think what really happened here is she showed up late to the party, not to pick up a friend and immediately leave, but to party (not necessarily drink). The police showed up, her school was going to crack down on athletes near booze, so she says she was only there to pick up a friend, immediately leave, and do a good deed.
This was either the truth, or just a smart story, but regardless she played her card well and the school should rethink its decision because it will have unintended consequences (it does tend to promote drinking and driving).
-
After reading that story, I definitely have the feel something is missing there...
-
According to the story at least, for what thats worth, all she's dealing with is a school suspension from her ball games for 5 games. She wasnt arrested. She isnt in legal trouble. She committed no crimes. She just got in the way of educators waving their fingers trying to act Holier then the one next to them.
I guess things have changed since the '70s. :uhoh
-
What's next? Charging the designated driver for DUI? :aok
-
Before I can really have an opinion I need to know more than what is written in that article, such as:
How many minutes with regard to "Minutes after Cox showed up at the party to give her friend a lift home, police showed up, according to the Cox family's attorney, Wendy Murphy." 5? 10? 30? 45?
If she was there for any longer than just to "pick up a drunk friend", she was attending the party. If one's purpose is to be a taxi-cab, there would have been no need to go inside, at all.
Also, the misleading vividness fallacy evident in statements such as: "By punishing Erin Cox, the North Andover School District sends a contrary and very dangerous message -- that young people are better off letting their friends drive drunk," Murphy said in a statement to ABC News." are completely ridiculous.
Some could also say that picking her friend up to give her a ride, when intoxicated, sends a message that it is OK to drink when underage, as long as you have a sober friend to call, which is a misleading vividness fallacy of equally ridiculous proportions
Perhaps the zero-tolerance rule is ridiculous. Apparently, the school does not want their athletes drinking underage or being near a situation where alcohol is being consumed by underage persons. Fair enough, it is their school, they can make the rules. The problem is that this young volleyball player agreed to the terms when deciding to play volleyball at this school.
Her friend had other options such as: don't drink, call a parent, call a cab , possible spend the night, call a different friend, etc. This young lady could have called someone else, that didn't play volleyball, to pick her friend up. There were other options available, I refuse to believe that there weren't.
We are also assuming that her friend actually drove to that party...
As others have said, there is more to the story than is told in that article.
-
Before I can really have an opinion I need to know more than what is written in that article, such as:
How many minutes with regard to "Minutes after Cox showed up at the party to give her friend a lift home, police showed up, according to the Cox family's attorney, Wendy Murphy." 5? 10? 30? 45?
If she was there for any longer than just to "pick up a drunk friend", she was attending the party. If one's purpose is to be a taxi-cab, there would have been no need to go inside, at all.
Also, the misleading vividness fallacy evident in statements such as: "By punishing Erin Cox, the North Andover School District sends a contrary and very dangerous message -- that young people are better off letting their friends drive drunk," Murphy said in a statement to ABC News." are completely ridiculous.
Some could also say that picking her friend up to give her a ride, when intoxicated, sends a message that it is OK to drink when underage, as long as you have a sober friend to call, which is a misleading vividness fallacy of equally ridiculous proportions
Perhaps the zero-tolerance rule is ridiculous. Apparently, the school does not want their athletes drinking underage or being near a situation where alcohol is being consumed by underage persons. Fair enough, it is their school, they can make the rules. The problem is that this young volleyball player agreed to the terms when deciding to play volleyball at this school.
Her friend had other options such as: don't drink, call a parent, call a cab , possible spend the night, call a different friend, etc. This young lady could have called someone else, that didn't play volleyball, to pick her friend up. There were other options available, I refuse to believe that there weren't.
We are also assuming that her friend actually drove to that party...
As others have said, there is more to the story than is told in that article.
Since when is attending a party illegal? If you need to drive a long distance to the party and back it's often most convenient to attend the party instead of driving back home. And who said you can't party sober anyway?
-
wow...i cant count on my hands how many times i took a drunk or friends home from a party... let alone 2 of those being pulled over and the officer not heckling me one bit over it...
-
Helping someone in the commission of a crime?
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Remember this next time an under age drunk asks you for a ride home.
Wrong. Giving an underage person who's drunk a ride is not a crime. Buying them alcohol is another story, or providing a place for them to drink on your property as well. Common sense here please.
-
Wow, that story is so typical of today's (sic) "journalism".
It presents the teen's side of the story, not anything else other than the "zero" tolerance policy the school has for alcohol. Too many questions to answer before any judgement is passed.
-
Wow, that story is so typical of today's (sic) "journalism".
It presents the teen's side of the story, not anything else other than the "zero" tolerance policy the school has for alcohol. Too many questions to answer before any judgement is passed.
No, not really. Although in today's world there is an endless amount of handwringing to call it like you see it. Here the statement from the superintendent Kevin Hutchinson:
"While some may decry the Administration’s actions as unfair or inconsistent with the principles of due process, our Administration wholeheartedly disagrees. To be clear, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that participation in interscholastic athletics is a privilege. Rather than simply revoking the privilege, our Administration has consistently afforded its student-athletes a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a disciplinary decision is made"
All he has to say is 'gee, it's legal for us to suspend her so that is just what we did'....
This is where common sense needs to be applied. If the girl goes to a restaurant where beer is served, is that also a zero tolerance issue?
-
Not a crime.
Neither is being drunk. Possessing alcohol or buying or selling alcohol to a minor is. I don't know what Gestapo state you may live in but come on what's wrong with helping out a friend?
Apparently being drunk under age is a crime in Arizona.
Now I know I didn't make great decisions here, but.... I was issued an MIC at the hospital. I had smacked my after falling from my long board, my friends dragged me in to get my head looked at, and the cop slaps me with a court date.
-
I dont agree with underage drinking at all, but when I was in high school I attended several parties where underage kids were drinking, I dont drink, never have so I was one of the few sobers there, but none the less there and having a good time. We had the cops show up at one and arrested quite a few kids, except for the few sobers :lol we were just told to go home. As far as the school, I feel they have WAY too much power these days. I dont feel like its ANY of their business what any student does on their own time, should be between parents and kids. This story for example
http://www.webpronews.com/high-school-senior-expelled-for-twitter-f-bomb-2012-03
this sort of thing takes someone to be watching what kids do and not just the parents watching :noid
-
Since when is attending a party illegal? If you need to drive a long distance to the party and back it's often most convenient to attend the party instead of driving back home. And who said you can't party sober anyway?
Good thing she wasn't charged with a crime, just repercussions from her school.
-
Group of us older gents were discussing current topics including this one. We all decided we are glad to be "on the back nine"
of our lives. Common sense has been lost. It ain't gonna get better.
-
Good thing she wasn't charged with a crime, just repercussions from her school.
She was issued a summons for minor in possession.
"Erin Cox, was suspended for five games and stripped of her captaincy of the volleyball team at North Andover High School for the incident two weeks ago. She received a call from a drunk friend at a party. When she arrived police were already there making arrests and handing out summonses to everyone at the party for underage drinking. Cox was given a summons even though she hadn’t been drinking and at least one officer had vouched for her sobriety. The school acted because it has a zero tolerance policy for drinking."
The charge probably won't stick, but she DID get charged for MIP.
-
*shakes head and walks slowly away*
-
It's called looking out for your friends. You don't leave your friends out, you help them when they are in need. Hell if she's didn't take her home should could have fell face first a died in a ditch or from puke... Only to be punished for potentially saving a friends life.
-
No, not really. Although in today's world there is an endless amount of handwringing to call it like you see it. Here the statement from the superintendent Kevin Hutchinson:
"While some may decry the Administration’s actions as unfair or inconsistent with the principles of due process, our Administration wholeheartedly disagrees. To be clear, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that participation in interscholastic athletics is a privilege. Rather than simply revoking the privilege, our Administration has consistently afforded its student-athletes a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a disciplinary decision is made"
All he has to say is 'gee, it's legal for us to suspend her so that is just what we did'....
This is where common sense needs to be applied. If the girl goes to a restaurant where beer is served, is that also a zero tolerance issue?
I am not going to play a game with you. If you can not see the multitude of unanswered questions in the article (such as whether she left immediately from the party) and a host of other questions, than no amount of discussion with you is going to make you see things reasonably.
-
The title of this thread most likely affords many NSFW google video results
-
The title of this thread most likely affords many NSFW google video results
:lol
-
Hell, when I was a teen I used to call my parents at ungodly hours to come get me because I was drunk and wouldn't drive. They would rather get up and pick me up at 4am rather than me drive. Things change it seems, hopefully that's all she gets is a wrist slap from the school. While I do agree with most of you, she was doing what any normal person would do if a friend called looking for a ride because they were drunk, we all know how the media works.
-
It's called looking out for your friends. You don't leave your friends out, you help them when they are in need. Hell if she's didn't take her home should could have fell face first a died in a ditch or from puke... Only to be punished for potentially saving a friends life.
If we're assuming that she's telling a 100% truthful story. That a captain of a sports team in high school has no intention of actually socializing with her peers, and is only showing up to a party for a fleeting moment to save a friend before whisking her away to sober safety watching lifetime reruns together in their parents living room.
OK....
-
She was issued a summons for minor in possession.
"Erin Cox, was suspended for five games and stripped of her captaincy of the volleyball team at North Andover High School for the incident two weeks ago. She received a call from a drunk friend at a party. When she arrived police were already there making arrests and handing out summonses to everyone at the party for underage drinking. Cox was given a summons even though she hadn’t been drinking and at least one officer had vouched for her sobriety. The school acted because it has a zero tolerance policy for drinking."
The charge probably won't stick, but she DID get charged for MIP.
Didn't see that in the link posted.
Regardless, waiting outside may have not gotten her in trouble at all, with school or police.
-
Waiting outside for someone who's drunk? Come on! Have you ever tried to get someone who's drunk out of anywhere?
-
Good thing she wasn't charged with a crime, just repercussions from her school.
If the school gives 'repercussions' for something that's not illegal she should sue the school to high smitherines.
-
Waiting outside for someone who's drunk? Come on! Have you ever tried to get someone who's drunk out of anywhere?
Yes, many times. You grab them by the back of the head and tell them, "OK, time to go now", Otherwise, you leave them there. Go ahead and tell me how terrible of a friend that I am. The bottom line is that I didn't make them that drunk.
My point is that if she was so worried about her volleyball status, knowing the rules, she would have kept her arse far from the action.
All I am seeing is excuses about this "poor girl" and how noble her actions were to "help a friend in need" at a time that was conveniently after her work shift.
I smell a big, steaming pile of horse-apples and a teenager that is trying to duck her responsibilities.
Of course she wasn't drinking, the cops got there right after she did. She didn't have a chance to start, yet.
-
If the school gives 'repercussions' for something that's not illegal she should sue the school to high smitherines.
Horse crap.
The school made the rules, she agreed to them as part of her participation as an athlete (which most schools require now) and she broke them.
Most school rules aren't about things that are illegal. That's what the law is for. There are many, many school rules that have nothing to do with legality, such as public displays of affection, no cell phones in class, dress codes and some teachers even have rules about chewing gum in class. Violating any of those rules has repercussions.
Using that logic, I suppose that my kids should be able to sue me when I punish them for not obeying my rules, since they aren't doing anything illegal?
-
Yes, many times. You grab them by the back of the head and tell them, "OK, time to go now",
From outside, when they're inside? You're good!
Otherwise, you leave them there. Go ahead and tell me how terrible of a friend that I am.
Can't speak to that, but you do kind of come off as a dick.
Although it's hard to believe, some people don't drink by choice when they're out. The school stuff, whatever. If their policy is no attending parties where there's alcohol, that's the end of it.
Charging her with being in possession of alcohol or drinking is BS though if she wasn't.
Wiley.
-
Yes, many times. You grab them by the back of the head and tell them, "OK, time to go now", Otherwise, you leave them there. Go ahead and tell me how terrible of a friend that I am. The bottom line is that I didn't make them that drunk.
Well, yeah... The times I've been in that situation have had a couple of variables, like: I was getting paid to get the band back home from 500 km away. The problematic guy had one and a half of my weight, at least. With the attitude of a three-year-old rebel during his negative age. Having been drinking three days in a row. And continuing that for a week or two after getting home. It usually took an hour or so to get him into the car. No way getting him aboard by sitting in the car just waiting. But of course a weeping sloppy drunk teen princess whom nobody loves would be an easier case to fetch. :t
Not saying this story were waterproof by what's been told here so far...
-
From outside, when they're inside? You're good!
Can't speak to that, but you do kind of come off as a dick.
Although it's hard to believe, some people don't drink by choice when they're out. The school stuff, whatever. If their policy is no attending parties where there's alcohol, that's the end of it.
Charging her with being in possession of alcohol or drinking is BS though if she wasn't.
Wiley.
Obviously not. You go in and tell them it's time to leave, sometimes you have to be more persuasive than others. There are many times that I have had to go shepherd drunken GI's back to post.
I am not going to dispute that. Point is, there have also been many times where I have left GI's at the hotel when they became belligerent and there was no making them go. If they wanted to miss formation, it becomes their problem, I wasn't their Daddy. You can only help people so much.
In forty years, I have never seen a bottle or can jump up and pour itself down someone's neck. If you are talking about peer pressure, perhaps it is high time that one learns to say no. If your are referring to someone forcing someone else to drink, that is another matter entirely.
-
Well, yeah... The times I've been in that situation have had a couple of variables, like: I was getting paid to get the band back home from 500 km away. The problematic guy had one and a half of my weight, at least. With the attitude of a three-year-old rebel during his negative age. Having been drinking three days in a row. And continuing that for a week or two after getting home. It usually took an hour or so to get him into the car. No way getting him aboard by sitting in the car just waiting. But of course a weeping sloppy drunk teen princess whom nobody loves would be an easier case to fetch. :t
Not saying this story were waterproof by what's been told here so far...
That is my biggest point, so far. I don't think that anyone has the full story, yet.
As to getting paid for the rounding up of drunken band members, sometimes you just gotta use a wheelbarrow :D
-
In forty years, I have never seen a bottle or can jump up and pour itself down someone's neck. If you are talking about peer pressure, perhaps it is high time that one learns to say no. If your are referring to someone forcing someone else to drink, that is another matter entirely.
Ah, ok. I realize my words were unclear. From what I've absorbed from the first (admittedly fairly histrionic) article I read about this situation, the kid apparently wasn't drinking and got nailed with a Minor In Possession.
What I meant about the 'don't drink by choice' was, it's not implausible that if she was there for however long, she wasn't drinking. Some people choose not to drink, is what I should've said.
If they've proven she did have alcohol in her system, my apologies for being uninformed and I retract the statement. My only point of contention is about the MIP for basically being present where others were consuming.
IMO dealing with GI's that you're responsible for (MP?) or trying to help out is a bit different than a drunk friend. I'm a man of few people I actually call 'friends'. The ones I do are pretty much family, and they're the ones I'd drop almost anything to go to help whatever the situation was.
Acquaintances who imposed on me to come get them when they're hammered, which is about the level I'd put the GI's you're dealing with by the sound of it, I can understand being a lot more curt with. <g>
Wiley.
-
This kind of logic is to be expected in the people's republic of Massachusetts. I escaped Mass ten years ago. Maine is a little better, but not much. Maine hunting and fishing are better though!
-
Ah, ok. I realize my words were unclear. From what I've absorbed from the first (admittedly fairly histrionic) article I read about this situation, the kid apparently wasn't drinking and got nailed with a Minor In Possession.
What I meant about the 'don't drink by choice' was, it's not implausible that if she was there for however long, she wasn't drinking. Some people choose not to drink, is what I should've said.
If they've proven she did have alcohol in her system, my apologies for being uninformed and I retract the statement. My only point of contention is about the MIP for basically being present where others were consuming.
IMO dealing with GI's that you're responsible for (MP?) or trying to help out is a bit different than a drunk friend. I'm a man of few people I actually call 'friends'. The ones I do are pretty much family, and they're the ones I'd drop almost anything to go to help whatever the situation was.
Acquaintances who imposed on me to come get them when they're hammered, which is about the level I'd put the GI's you're dealing with by the sound of it, I can understand being a lot more curt with. <g>
Wiley.
When the cops walk in the door, they are going to charge just about everyone present with the violation. If there are adults present, they are going to get charged with supplying the alcohol. Notice I didn't say convicted, there is a difference. It's like throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.
They are then going to leave it up to the attorneys sort it out.
-
sounds like some of y'all work for the school district.
-
sounds like some of y'all work for the school district.
Perhaps it is just that some folks don't live in a fantasy world where we try to do everything in our power to not face the music when confronted with the impropriety and consequences of our own actions...
From the information afforded so far:
The girl was on the volleyball team.
School rule was zero tolerance with regard to alcohol.
Girl willingly and knowingly entered the premises of a party where alcohol was present.
Cops came.
Everyone got caught.
Even if she wasn't drinking, she was there. That was against school policy. I doubt the criminal charges will stick.
I'll be the first to say that zero-tolerance seems like a draconian doctrine.
I will also be the first to point out that she choose to be there, even though she knew what the possible consequences were.
All I see is a teenie soap-opera where everyone is boo-hooing to the media about having to pay the piper.
If you agree to terms, regardless of how ridiculous they are, violate those terms and then cry about the hammer falling, it shows a lack of integrity.
I don't see the the apologetic view of why this girl shouldn't have to face the consequences of her own actions.
-
No Tolerance Policy.
~~Translation~~
No Common Sense.
:joystick:
:aok +1
-
I'll be the first to say that zero-tolerance seems like a draconian doctrine.
I will also be the first to point out that she choose to be there, even though she knew what the possible consequences were.
All I see is a teenie soap-opera where everyone is boo-hooing to the media about having to pay the piper.
If you agree to terms, regardless of how ridiculous they are, violate those terms and then cry about the hammer falling, it shows a lack of integrity.
I don't see the the apologetic view of why this girl shouldn't have to face the consequences of her own actions.
with consideration of her actions, without proof that there were any improprieties on her part other than as stated, the punishment did not fit the crime. simple. you don't get equal justice under the law, so there is no reason the school board shouldn't do a full review and make a decision based on fact rather than "blanket rules".
-
with consideration of her actions, without proof that there were any improprieties on her part other than as stated, the punishment did not fit the crime. simple. you don't get equal justice under the law, so there is no reason the school board shouldn't do a full review and make a decision based on fact rather than "blanket rules".
I don't have a copy of the rules but, if she violated them, knowing what the punishment would be, shouldn't she face the music according to what the rules are?
I would love to have more details of both the rules and the actions leading up the the police showing up to the party.
-
I don't have a copy of the rules but, if she violated them, knowing what the punishment would be, shouldn't she face the music according to what the rules are?
I would love to have more details of both the rules and the actions leading up the the police showing up to the party.
Burn the witch! :devil
:salute
PS: The sky is falling......
-
Burn the witch! :devil
:salute
PS: The sky is falling......
You bet the sky is falling...
-
You bet the sky is falling...
This is why it's good to live way up north,the sky has further to fall.... :devil
:salute
-
I don't have a copy of the rules but, if she violated them, knowing what the punishment would be, shouldn't she face the music according to what the rules are?
I would love to have more details of both the rules and the actions leading up the the police showing up to the party.
mitigating circumstances your honor... why should the school board (governed by the state) rules be any different than state and federal statutes?
sorry but, since there was no out right offense other than her untimely presence, i stand by what i said...
with consideration of her actions, without proof that there were any improprieties on her part other than as stated, the punishment did not fit the crime. simple. you don't get equal justice under the law, so there is no reason the school board shouldn't do a full review and make a decision based on fact rather than "blanket rules".
-
The stupid thing about this is that it is local newspaper stuff only in my mind..... with so many other issues and news worthy stories in the world and this is a main newsroom story...to make things worse it was probably picked out by some journo whilst surfing the web ...so sad..... where are the journalists these days....just no grunt work in it these days...
As for the consequences as read .... they have no grounds ... the policy is for drinking, not party attending( from what we read)...
maybe there is more..maybe not... We just won't know till a real journo takes over....hmmmm...story isn't worth it hahaha
-
Waiting outside for someone who's drunk? Come on! Have you ever tried to get someone who's drunk out of anywhere?
:rofl
Point taken.
-
mitigating circumstances your honor... why should the school board (governed by the state) rules be any different than state and federal statutes?
sorry but, since there was no out right offense other than her untimely presence, i stand by what i said...
You can add to but not take away....pretty sure the school has that authority for extracurricular activities which is a privilege.
Still thinks it's wrong...not a good message sent by the school.
-
who's to say she didn't go there to get loaded and just came in at the right time and came up with the "im here to pick up my drunk friend" story
wait a minute, who cares
-
The stupid thing about this is that it is local newspaper stuff only in my mind..... with so many other issues and news worthy stories in the world and this is a main newsroom story
:aok :cheers:
-
I'm gonna get crucified for this one, but what the hey :D
I vividly recall a time that when you left school for the day, you were no longer their "property" as it were ;)
One can only assume that due to the fact the "Administration" claims that playing sports is a "privilege" at said school, they obviously allow whomever wishes to participate to do so, and for free I must add. If that is not the case, well there is problem number 1
Now as I have read the thread, and little from other sources as well. My take was basically that the cops were already there, she showed up and "viola" instant summons. Mostly because she was on the property, and nothing more.
So, she pays a price for being there. Nothing more and nothing less than that, simple enough right? Perhaps.
I have a 23 yr old daughter, who just happens to play volleyball in the Big 10. Had she done what this girl did, I would have been thrilled she did, because that means she was compassionate enough and smart enough to realize what the consequences of possibly allowing that person to drive may have been.
Oh, and FWIW she in fact has done so, several times actually.
I turn 50 :old: in a few short months, as I have aged, and gone thru life I have noticed a few things about our society that quite frankly bewilders me.
Here is a case that can be looked upon as a situation where this young lady in fact did a good thing, heck did the right thing, only to be shamed and penalized. Sure the cops gave her a summons, they basically had no choice. She went out of her way to help another, and not only did the law penalize her for her actions, so did the very people we pay to educate her to.......... wait for it............make the right choices in life.
I defy anyone here to meet me face to face over the age of 35 and tell me this girl did a bad thing, cause bottom line she didn't!!! Simple as that folks.
Our society or educational system no longer supports or attempts to impress on the younger generation to do the right thing, think before you do, use common sense in every facet of your daily life. Instead, it has as I see it become a society and system that has no clue how to instill or teach any of those things as a whole. It's sad :(
Some will argue it's all up to the parents, and I agree to a point, but the reality is this. Or educational system used to carry it beyond the home and parents, when they lost the ability to do so.... We all lost
:salute
-
To be frank I think the common school practice of forbidding student athletes from taking performance-degrading drugs is short sighted and stupid. I think one of the greatest ways in the world to keep kids off drugs in the first place and to to get them back off them later on is to give them something better to do with their time, and sports are just that. If any kid ever NEEDED to be on a sports team, it's a kid that just started to use drugs. Throwing them off is the worst thing you can do.
I think a much better alternative to suspension would be a strategic cut in playing time - let the kid play but also hold them back while their team is down - especially if they are a better play - watch them squirm and let them know exactly what their drug use is doing and how it is letting the team down. Chanel that pack instinct and get their head back into the game... Don't send them to their room where what's happening on the field is out of sight out of mind.
-
Horse crap.
The school made the rules, she agreed to them as part of her participation as an athlete (which most schools require now) and she broke them.
Most school rules aren't about things that are illegal. That's what the law is for. There are many, many school rules that have nothing to do with legality, such as public displays of affection, no cell phones in class, dress codes and some teachers even have rules about chewing gum in class. Violating any of those rules has repercussions.
Using that logic, I suppose that my kids should be able to sue me when I punish them for not obeying my rules, since they aren't doing anything illegal?
The school is a public institution, not your parents. Perhaps your constitution doesn't state that all kids have a right to education or something. Therefore a school should not be a form of opression.
-
Here is what has not been told or at least I have not come across yet....what was the age of her friend she picked up? The article does not mention why the cops were there in the first place and if anyone else there was ticketed or arrested. Most businesses in MA close at 9:00pm so it is conceivable that she just got off work. True, it does seem like there is some missing info here. The fact that she was slapped with MIP is silly if she was not in possession. The school has a zero tolerance policy, but according to the current story/facts she did not break that policy by giving someone a ride home. This could affect her chances for college scholarship since she has been suspended 5 games. I do not know where they are at in their volleyball season but just missing out 5 games could have a negative impact.
-
The school is a public institution, not your parents. Perhaps your constitution doesn't state that all kids have a right to education or something. Therefore a school should not be a form of opression.
This situation has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality or a child's right to education.
I haven't read anywhere where she was not allowed to get an education. It does not appear that she is suspended from school.
I also do not see where the school is a form of oppression. The citizens of that particular school district chose the folks they wanted to make the rules.
School rules or policies, beyond state regulated standards for education, are decided upon by the school board of that school's particular school district.
School board members are publicly elected officials, chosen by the persons residing in that school district.
As with any other elected official in this country, it is possible to prevent them from making silly rules by not voting them into the position of school board members.
In my experience, the folks with the loudest opinions about silly rules of any type, are the same folks that are conspicuously absent from the polls come election time.
EDIT:
Just to add something. I feel that the zero-tolerance rules are ridiculous. I do not feel that they are unconstitutional, however. The rules were created, and voted upon, by elected school board members. They can be changed to something a bit less final by board members that feel they are unfair. If enough parents/residents of the school district put the screws to the school board, I have no doubt that they could be changed. The best thing an elected official can do to keep their office is to listen to the opinions of their constituents, otherwise, they will be out of a job come next election time..
As said by others, more information should have been obtained before any decisions were made.
I DO think that her right to any form of due-process was trampled. This is what I believe that people should be up in arms about, not the rules themselves. Innocent until proven guilty. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies) The innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence that proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As I have stated before, the cops will arrest or at the very least, issue a summons to everyone present. This is SOP, just about everywhere. That is their job, to enforce the law, not interpret it. Cox was issued a summons, a few others were arrested.
Where the school has erred, in my opinion, is in her suspension and demotion as captain before any legal guilt or innocence was determined. If she was found innocent of the MIP, nothing should happen. If found guilty, then she should certainly be subjected to the penalties as agreed upon by her as an athlete at that school.
-
This is poor implementation of Policy I believe.
Kids make mistakes. Even very good kids make mistakes. I have no tolerance for zero tolerance over piddling offenses. Its one thing to rob a grocery store and its another thing for a kid to make a stupid mistake where nobody is harmed.
You cant pound every good person into dust for every piddling thing just because you have the power to do so.
-
<snip>
School rule was zero tolerance with regard to alcohol.
Girl willingly and knowingly entered the premises of a party where alcohol was present.
- - -
Even if she wasn't drinking, she was there. That was against school policy.
Reminds me of the old story where a woman was accused for something she had not done just because she had the means to do it, and she counter-accused the judge for raping because he had all the equipment to do so.
Such zero tolerance to alcohol means that viewing a magazine containing a beer ad should be punished. Or passing by a liquor store. Or going to a supermarket where alcohol is being sold, even if just for buying candy. How about going to church on Sunday? I suppose the American version of Lord's Supper includes wine which is an alcoholic beverage...
-
Well here is an update...
School lawyer lied about 'arrest' of girl suspended for trying to help drunken pal, attorney says
It was bad enough when a Massachusetts school threw the book at an honor student who tried to help a drunken friend get home from a party, but the district's lawyer made things even worse when he lied to a judge and claimed would-be designated driver Erin Cox was arrested, Cox's attorney charged.
The allegation leveled by lawyer Wendy Murphy is the latest development in a case that has already generated widespread outrage. Cox, 17, was suspended from the North Andover High School volleyball team for five games and demoted as captain, all for simply responding to a texted plea last month from a pal who was too drunk to drive home from a party. Minutes after Cox showed up, Boxford police arrived and shut it down. Some students were arrested, but most — including Cox — were given summonses for underage possession of alcohol. Police later backed Cox's version of events.
Murphy said the school district compounded its own injustice toward a kid when its attorney, Geoffrey Bok, said in court that Cox was arrested at the party. She was not.
“That a school would then lie to a judge in a court of law is an outrage and shows the length some school officials will go to to retaliate against a family that dares to challenge an irrational zero tolerance policy,” Murphy said in a statement.
“That a school would then lie to a judge in a court of law is an outrage and shows the length some school officials will go to to retaliate against a family that dares to challenge an irrational zero tolerance policy."
- Wendy Murphy, Cox family attorney
“In fact, as the police officer at the scene reported in a statement that was provided to the principal and the judge, Erin was not arrested and did nothing wrong,” Murphy added. “He added that she had not been drinking, had no intention of drinking, was there to help a friend and did not have even the ‘slightest’ odor of alcohol on her person.”
Bok's claim, according to Murphy, came last week as she sued the district on behalf of the Cox family. Although that state court ruled it had no jurisdiction, Murphy vowed to pursue cases against both North Andover High School Principal Carla Scuzzarella and Bok in federal court.
Bok had no comment on the case, or even on Murphy's charge that he lied in court. Scuzzarella referred inquiries to North Andover Public Schools Superintendent Kevin Hutchinson, who defended the punishment in a statement to FoxNews.com.
"While some may decry the Administration’s actions as unfair or inconsistent with the principles of due process, our Administration wholeheartedly disagrees," the statement read. "To be clear, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that participation in interscholastic athletics is a privilege. Rather than simply revoking the privilege, our Administration has consistently afforded its student-athletes a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a disciplinary decision is made."
Since the story made national headlines, Cox has been lauded in many quarters for coming to the aid of a friend, and for trying to keep a drunk driver off the road.
"The story of Erin Cox, the Boston high school student suspended for being called in as a designated driver is unconscionable," former Florida congressman Allen West wrote on his website. "Sadly, it is indicative of the statist drive permeating our culture to negate individual initiative, personal responsibility, accountability, and acts of honor."
Oddly, not everyone is taking Cox's side in the dispute. Mothers Against Drunk Driving President Jan Withers told FoxNews.com the school was right to come down on the teen.
“Underage drinking is so very dangerous, that’s why MADD appreciates this school’s effort,” said Withers, who praised Cox's intentions but said she should have called an adult. “I’m not there and I don’t know all of the details, but indeed, their efforts to prevent underage drinking through zero tolerance are admirable."
Cox’s mother, Eleanor, sued the school district, but a judge ruled last week that the court did not have jurisdiction. Federal court is expected to be the family's next move.
“We want this nightmare to go away,” Eleanor Cox told FoxNews.com. “We have nothing else to say.
* Taken from the Fox News Site
LawnDart
-
This situation has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality or a child's right to education.
I haven't read anywhere where she was not allowed to get an education. It does not appear that she is suspended from school.
I also do not see where the school is a form of oppression. The citizens of that particular school district chose the folks they wanted to make the rules.
School rules or policies, beyond state regulated standards for education, are decided upon by the school board of that school's particular school district.
School board members are publicly elected officials, chosen by the persons residing in that school district.
As with any other elected official in this country, it is possible to prevent them from making silly rules by not voting them into the position of school board members.
In my experience, the folks with the loudest opinions about silly rules of any type, are the same folks that are conspicuously absent from the polls come election time.
EDIT:
Just to add something. I feel that the zero-tolerance rules are ridiculous. I do not feel that they are unconstitutional, however. The rules were created, and voted upon, by elected school board members. They can be changed to something a bit less final by board members that feel they are unfair. If enough parents/residents of the school district put the screws to the school board, I have no doubt that they could be changed. The best thing an elected official can do to keep their office is to listen to the opinions of their constituents, otherwise, they will be out of a job come next election time..
As said by others, more information should have been obtained before any decisions were made.
I DO think that her right to any form of due-process was trampled. This is what I believe that people should be up in arms about, not the rules themselves. Innocent until proven guilty. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies) The innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence that proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As I have stated before, the cops will arrest or at the very least, issue a summons to everyone present. This is SOP, just about everywhere. That is their job, to enforce the law, not interpret it. Cox was issued a summons, a few others were arrested.
Where the school has erred, in my opinion, is in her suspension and demotion as captain before any legal guilt or innocence was determined. If she was found innocent of the MIP, nothing should happen. If found guilty, then she should certainly be subjected to the penalties as agreed upon by her as an athlete at that school.
When the school starts to shell out arbitrary rules concerning the private free time of the students, that's a form of opression. Especially if the student was doing nothing morally wrong - quite the contrary and is obliged by law to attend as they're down here. In my country the school can not say anything about any activities the students do on their free time - even on their trip to school. Only activities that happen inside school grounds and during school time are controllable and punishable.
-
If one's purpose is to be a taxi-cab, there would have been no need to go inside, at all.
Her friend had other options such as: don't drink, call a parent, call a cab , possible spend the night, call a different friend, etc. This young lady could have called someone else, that didn't play volleyball, to pick her friend up. There were other options available, I refuse to believe that there weren't.
We are also assuming that her friend actually drove to that party...
As others have said, there is more to the story than is told in that article.
You make some valid points, however;
1) Perhaps the friend was too drunk to find their way out, or passed out while the ride was en-route. I'd personally go in to drag the drunkard away.
2) Yes, the perhaps the drunkard had other options, but think from a different perspective. Do you really think that a teenager who is drinking at a party will be responsible enough to A) save the number of a cab company to their phone, B) will call their parents and face punishment? It wouldn't be possible to spend the night if the cops showed up, and probably would have spent a night in detainment to for under-age drinking. Also, how would calling a different friend have turned out any differently? Does that person even have any other responsible friends that can drive?
There will always be more to the story than any article will provide, but without even reading the article, it's easy to ascertain that the school 'leaders' made a decision that wasn't very well thought out.
-
You make some valid points, however;
1) Perhaps the friend was too drunk to find their way out, or passed out while the ride was en-route. I'd personally go in to drag the drunkard away.
2) Yes, the perhaps the drunkard had other options, but think from a different perspective. Do you really think that a teenager who is drinking at a party will be responsible enough to A) save the number of a cab company to their phone, B) will call their parents and face punishment? It wouldn't be possible to spend the night if the cops showed up, and probably would have spent a night in detainment to for under-age drinking. Also, how would calling a different friend have turned out any differently? Does that person even have any other responsible friends that can drive?
There will always be more to the story than any article will provide, but without even reading the article, it's easy to ascertain that the school 'leaders' made a decision that wasn't very well thought out.
Remember the case of teachers spying students through their school laptop webcams and then punishing them for behaviour that happened in the privacy of their ROOMS? You guys live in an Orwellian society, scary as chuck.
-
Naw in the last 30 years Ive seen an overall trend towards zero tolerance for everything in schools. And they "teachers" can be real softballs about it too. Bullying is one thing but if two boys of equal age and size throw a few punched its just silly to call the police and start screeching "we want them arrested", let alone suspended. It was better in my day when nobody would even notice two boys fighting, or if they did they might just give you a smack and threaten to call your Mom, who would threaten to tell the Old Man. Now educators just give me a headache with all their self righteousness.
A little common sense should be in order. I dont doubt this story probably happened exactly as it was reported.
I dont know whats happened to this world. I am constantly confused by it.
-
Remember the case of teachers spying students through their school laptop webcams and then punishing them for behaviour that happened in the privacy of their ROOMS? You guys live in an Orwellian society, scary as chuck.
naw that was wrong. the school admited it was wrong. and somebody could have gone to jail for taking pics of underage students while undressing.
we have laws, just some people are too stupid to understand.
semp
-
if two boys of equal age and size throw a few punched its just silly to call the police
Its the same today, especially round my way. If you try to break it up, even if it is kids, you get turned upon. Police wouldn't even bother either
-
naw that was wrong. the school admited it was wrong. and somebody could have gone to jail for taking pics of underage students while undressing.
we have laws, just some people are too stupid to understand.
semp
The whole idea that someone in the school saw it appropriate to monitor students while they were at home shows that the attitudes are just problematic. Spying a student through the web cam is an unbelievable invasion of privacy and it should have screamed BAD IDEA on so many different levels.
It's really amazing that the responsible person didn't get jail time for that as it violates every basic right the students and their families could have.
-
I think the most important question is why anyone believes a single word about anything that's written about this.
School boards often are poorly run, often by parents or former parents of kids in the school district with no regard for anything but their kid (who may or may not be a little toejam, and often is), and really don't have any idea what they're doing and just want to protect their kids interests. They're often governed by ridiculously petty politics. All of these assumptions are fair.
BUT
On top of that, local news is usually pretty incompetent, full of incredibly unprofessional people wanting to make a name for themselves running ridiculous sensationalist stories. Reporters often have way too much stake in and are far too close to the issue they're writing about an make absolutely no effort to write without bias. Petty, stupid 'my child is an angel and would never lie about what happened' politics and influences dominate this world the same way they dominate the terrible incompetent school boards, if not to a much larger extent.
Speaking of personal experiences, local media outlets would often time run gross exaggerations or blatant lies about events that happened in our school. A little digging usually turned up that articles were written by parents of students, or their friends, with pretty clear biases and agendas. Now having talked with kids from around the country about the politics in their school districts and areas, I know that this is an extremely common theme in school district level politics. These articles are always vaguely written, with the protagonist child seemingly almost unrealistically pure, and the whole thing just doesn't 'seem' right. That's usually just because they're not.
Articles will contain ridiculous details, blah blah blah kid was captain of x team and got straight A's whatever. Applied and early accepted to a really great honors program in a good university.
The experience of me and my friends in various top, internationally ranked schools has shown that these are exactly the kids that, on top of not really being any more morally tight than their peers in high school, rather just a bit smarter about covering it up, often are the ones that can be found in hospitals getting their stomachs pumped during freshman orientation week.
What really happened in this situation? Certainly no one outside of the community knows, and most people there probably only know misrepresentative gossip.
What probably happened? The kid was at the party and maybe even had a couple of drinks and got arrested for it. Her parents knew someone who writes for the local paper and got that person to write a story blasting the school board, either because they really were naive enough to fall for their kid's manipulation, or with more sinister intent. The story blew up because people love sensationalism and lack sense.
-
The whole idea that someone in the school saw it appropriate to monitor students while they were at home shows that the attitudes are just problematic. Spying a student through the web cam is an unbelievable invasion of privacy and it should have screamed BAD IDEA on so many different levels.
It's really amazing that the responsible person didn't get jail time for that as it violates every basic right the students and their families could have.
no the idea was not to spy on kids while they were at home. it was because too many kids were saying they "lost" they laptop. so the idea was to take a picture of the location and report it.
semp
-
Zero tolerance is often accompanied by zero common sense.
-
Zero tolerance is often accompanied by zero common sense.
na, Zero tolerance IS zero common sense.
Judges exist for a reason....
-
no the idea was not to spy on kids while they were at home. it was because too many kids were saying they "lost" they laptop. so the idea was to take a picture of the location and report it.
semp
So did this kid who got punished for something that happened in his/her room, report his/her laptop lost?
-
So did this kid who got punished for something that happened in his/her room, report his/her laptop lost?
which kid.
semp
-
which kid.
semp
Well its kind of hard to say, looks like they took 30,000 or so pictures.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/pa-school-district-laptop-spying-case-settled
-
Well its kind of hard to say, looks like they took 30,000 or so pictures.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/pa-school-district-laptop-spying-case-settled
was wondering if he actually read the story of if he was just repeating what I said.
semp