Zero Tolerance for Self-Defense

[wushu2004]

I read an article in a magazine about this. I had never really thought about it before so now I'm wondering how widespread this stupid policy is across the country. From what I can tell of my own school, they take it on a case by case basis. Any thoughts?


BTW sorry if this has already been discussed...

 

[tellner]

It's widespread and growing. "Zero tolerance" came in with the War on Unsubsidized and Untaxed Drugs. It spread quickly. Now we have Zero Tolerance for gangs, tobacco, and "violence" among other things. In foreign policy it has led to the "One Percent Doctrine" which states that if there's a one percent chance of anything bad happening it must be treated as a certainty.

This is, of course, complete insanity. For tiny incremental reductions in a problem you take on infinite costs in money and unintended consequences.

When I was a child fighting was forbidden in schools. But officials were allowed to exercise judgment and discretion. They could figure out who had done what to whom and act accordingly. Now it's not a question of what happened or why it happened or who was the perpetrator. It's all about punishing the concept of violence. In the case of bullies it turns to complete slock. A dozen bullies want to harm one victim. One of them beats him up. He fights back. They have both been VIOLENT. They both get suspended. The victim comes back to school. Another one does the same thing. Now he's a habitual offender. The rules have been followed. Violence has been punishment.

Hip-****ing-hooray

 

[theletch1]

It isn't just zero tolerance in public schools that is running rampant. Many work places have a zero tolerance policy on "violence". Doesn't specify attack or defense... Just violence, and will be punished by immediate termination. My company has just such a policy and you have to sign their little form each year saying that you understand that you'll be fired if you engage in any sort of violence on company property. As I'm a truck driver this extends to anywhere I drive while in the truck. If I'm attacked while at a truckstop fueling up in the middle of the night then, poof, I'm gone for not letting someone kill me. I've always signed the policy form but have always annotated somewhere on the form that I reserve the right to defend myself. The first time I did it it got me an *** chewing. Since then it's just considered part of my "quirky" disposition.

 

[Drac]

It isn't just zero tolerance in public schools that is running rampant. Many work places have a zero tolerance policy on "violence". Doesn't specify attack or defense..

One of the bus driver here was attacked awhile ago from behind..He was a former boxer who never let his skills lapse...When he felt the attack he reacted quicky and knocked this POS out...He was terrified of losing his job..I got about 20 witnesses statements and I wrote a great report so when the Review Board investigated the incident they ruled Self Defense..

 

[Xue Sheng]

Back in my day in High School I got 2 days of detention because some guy walked over to me and tried to hit me in the face. I moved and put him on the floor. The principal saw the whole thing but because he was on the floor and I was standing I got one day of detention and he got none. I got the second day because I said ok how about if I sit on the floor will he get detention then. I got 2 days he got none and he attacked me.

But that was back in the stone age things are different now I guess.

 

[Steel Tiger]

One of the bus driver here was attacked awhile ago from behind..He was a former boxer who never let his skills lapse...When he felt the attacck he reacted quicky and knocked this POS out...He was terrified of losing his job..I got abot 20 witnesses statements and I wrote a great repot so when the Review Board investigated the incident they ruled Self Defense..

The Review Board clearly acted the way we would want them to act - investigate the incident and be fair in the ruling. But all too often that doesn't happen. Judgement has been thrown out in favour of a mix and match chart in which violent action = suspension/expulsion/termination. There is no recourse, there is no mitigation.

I think that Tellner nailed the root of the problem with Zero Tolerance programs. They are aimed at concepts rather than specific acts. Look at those things we have a zreo tolerance attitude towards - drugs, gangs, terrorism. They are massive aglomerations of myriad things. How do you police that? You can't, so they don't even try. Draco would love the way things are going these days.

 

[grydth]

I have always thought that Zero Tolerance = Zero Justice.

I have always thought Zero Tolerance was primarily intended so cowardly administrators would have Zero Accountability...... and they have to do Zero Deliberating, Zero Thinking, Zero Fairness.

This is especially insidious in this age of record keeping and Zero Privacy.... what better way to turn a good kid into a criminal by unfairly treating him as one after a sham proceeding.... and then put a cyber scarlet letter on him.

Well, with my profession, you can run but you can't hide. I have told my kids to fight back as needed if attacked. Treat my daughters this way and I will show you ZERO MERCY in the court room and in the media. To me, this is nothing less than condoning violence against innocent young women.

I have my own policy when it comes to those who would hurt my girls. ZERO PRISONERS.

 

[jks9199]

Any zero tolerance policy is a zero-thinking policy. And they end up producing stupid responses very quickly.

It is possible to send the message that you will not tolerate certain behavior without removing thought from the process. It just means you actually (shudder) have to TRUST the people who work for you. School boards have to trust principals, bosses have to trust employees, and so on.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I wish each case of fighting in schools or elsewhere would be viewed on individual basis but we all know that is not the case.
Schools, businesses, etc. are to afraid of being sued by someone because they failed to act when violence happens, rather than taking the time to review what happened and why it happened

 

[Ray]

Any zero tolerance policy is a zero-thinking policy. And they end up producing stupid responses very quickly.

It is possible to send the message that you will not tolerate certain behavior without removing thought from the process.

"will not tolerate" in other words "will have no tolerance" or "zero tolerance." My problem with the whole thing is the phrase "zero tolerance." Obviously it should be 2.25" +/- .020.

It's not that certain actions won't be tolerated, it is the application of punishment without directing it to achieve the desired results; and that's the problem with zero tolerance.

 

[Carol]

My problem with the whole thing is the phrase "zero tolerance." Obviously it should be 2.25" +/- .020.

:roflmao: :lfao: :lol: :lol2: :lol: :lfao:
:roflmao:

 

[wushu2004]

I wish each case of fighting in schools or elsewhere would be viewed on individual basis but we all know that is not the case.
Schools, businesses, etc. are to afraid of being sued by someone because they failed to act when violence happens, rather than taking the time to review what happened and why it happened

Yea but then they get sued by the victim anyway because the zero tolerance rule infringes on a person's right to defend themself, or something like that...

 

[arnisador]

Back in my day in High School I got 2 days of detention because some guy walked over to me and tried to hit me in the face.

They tried to suspend me for something like that once...once. After my mother verbally eviscerated the principal for trying to suspend me for defending myself he backed down.

But this was 1978 or so.

 

[morph4me]

When my kids were in school they had a zero tolerance policy, I taught my kids that they had a right defend themselves and they were to do so anytime it was necessary and I would deal with the administration and they wouldn't get in trouble at home.

 

[MJS]

Seems to me that its pretty much the norm nowadays. I would say its in place to discourage workplace violence. Now, this is not a bad thing, as people shouldn't be fighting at work or school. On the other hand, I don't feel that one should be a punching bag either.

I had an altercation with a co-worker at my last job. Apparently something I said, disagreed with him, pissed him off, and he proceeded to come after me. As I was walking away from him, he pushed me from behind. Of course I turned around, expecting something else to happen. It didn't. He actually walked away, got in his car and left...and I proceeded to walk upstairs to the HR dept., told them what happened and he was fired.

Its a fine line. Had I turned around and hit him, I most likely would've been looking for a new job as well. But, should I have started to run, having him chase me all over the dept.? Of course not. As I always say, nothing wrong with trying to verbally defuse something, but it may not always work. So, if something more happened aside from the push, I'm not going to just stand there. So that leaves 2 options...defend yourself and risk losing your job or do nothing and risk time in the ER. Alot just may come down to what you do and how you do it. Frankly I'd rather risk the job than my well being.

Mike

 

[DngrRuss]

I agree with most of the posts here re. the 0-Tolerance issues. I do, however, take a little different tactic as to how to deal with them.

As an example- I have had more than one student over the years approach me with a bully problem in school. They do not want to get into trouble at school and weren't sure what to do. So I start talking statistics.

Most assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. In the case of a bully- the attack is not just about the violence, it is usually about humiliation as well. A bully will "warn" his intended victim more often than not. The point is, that the attack is not, usually, a "surprise". The victim usually knows that it is coming.

That being the case, I encourage them to immediately go to 1- their parents, and 2- teachers and administrators with this information. If the parent is not sure what to do or unwilling to do anything ( I can't believe when that happens), the next step for either parent or student is to go to administrators and demand that the meeting be put on the record, and bring their own recording devices and, if needed, a legal representative. Once the meeting begins- the student or parent outlines what the problem is and who the problem is with- then asks the simple question, "my safety is in jeopardy, what are you, the responsible adult, going to do about this." If or when the administrator refuses to do anything, the student and/or his parent responds by saying that the administration has been warned of this issue, the threat still exists, and if the student fears for his safety or is actually assaulted, he will defend himself appropriately and there will be no reprisals against him. If the administrator says otherwise or falls back on the 0-tolerance policy, then all records of said meeting will be handed over to local media, the school board, and any city/county/state agencies that govern both the school and child safety.

Some of my students have done just this with great success. If the Administrators are going to be lazy or cowardly, why not manipulate them for ourselves?

 

[wushu2004]

Wow I like that. This info will come in handy.

 

[KenpoTex]

Any zero tolerance policy is a zero-thinking policy. And they end up producing stupid responses very quickly.

It is possible to send the message that you will not tolerate certain behavior without removing thought from the process. It just means you actually (shudder) have to TRUST the people who work for you. School boards have to trust principals, bosses have to trust employees, and so on.

well said.

and to look at it from the perspective of the people actually involved...
All the "violence is never the answer" stuff is a load of horse-****. Those that are self-reliant enough to protect themselves are penalized. Those that are good little sheep and allow themselves to be victimized not only have to deal with the immediate effects, but--I'd imagine--some long-term psychological issues related to constantly allowing yourself to be treated as a victim.

 

[FearlessFreep]

All the "violence is never the answer" stuff is a load of horse-****.

From Trancers 4

Prospero: Killing isn't always the answer.
Jack Deth: No, but it's usually a pretty good guess.

 

[kidswarrior]

They tried to suspend me for something like that once...once. After my mother verbally eviscerated the principal for trying to suspend me for defending myself he backed down.

But this was 1978 or so.

Well, back it up 10 years further, Arni, and your arrive at my day. In those days, self-defense was self-defense. And if you just had a beef with another *fighter*, you took it off campus at lunch or after school, and the last man standing was probably the winner (although I saw one guy with both eyes streaming so much blood he couldn't see, so it's a toss up who won that one). BTW, we never had a single case of a friend stepping in till it was over, and that was only to help someone make it to his car or back to campus.

Makes you kind of miss the old days.