Self Defense in Public Schools

[rutherford]

Move, because eleven year olds are acting their age? You have got to be joking. Children learn by living, and by sorting out their own difficulties. If Shesulsa were to be the Mother Hen here and move around every time her daughter encounters a problem, her daughter will never move out of the house after highschool! :rofl: As any parent knows, this is the ultimate goal. :rofl:

Knives and fistpacks in school is typical behavior for 11-year olds?

Admittedly, many 11 year olds own a gun in my new area - far more than where I grew up, but I also see them being more responsible about weapon use.

 

[shesulsa]

I send her back at this point because she is quite mature for her age, feels that the situation is under reasonable control at this point and has a good feel for when it might get out of control or might be escalating to something more than she can handle. She has a good feel for karma and knows when to take and leave opportunity.

There are many nuances to dealing with people that she understands and employs for a girl her age.

We will be moving, but motivated by a better school educationally speaking, not because the kids there are necessarily nicer.

 

[rutherford]

NOTE: THe "you" I am using in this case is not "you" R-man, but the "you" as in generic person in these situations.

It would be fine if it was the "you" in particular, because I totally agree with you.

There's definitely a lot of depth to the topic of self defense, and what's appropriate in a situation. And, I haven't done a lot of thinking about it and trying to put it into words. I'm finding a lot of value in this discussion in forming my own ideas, based on the experiences of my own life.

 

[KenpoTex]

And your talk of bodybags and putting folks down for keeps is something that totally disturbs me

Oh well.

and I find wholly inappropriate for these type of situations.

But, I also want to make totally clear that sometimes a punch is just a punch and requires no follow-up. I think anybody who worked as a bouncer or fought a lot in school will agree with me.

This is where we disagree, you say "these types of situations" and that "sometimes a punch is just a punch." True. However, this is because we have the benefit of being able to "monday morning quarterback" past incidents. You don't know going into an altercation whether it's going to be like the majority in which nothing serious happens; or whether it's going to be like the handfull of incidents where someone ends up dead. As a result, you have to have the good sense to walk away from the stupid stuff, and if you are cornered, treat it like a serious threat. I'm NOT saying to "whack" every person that looks at you cross-eyed, but to be prepared to respond with whatever level of force is necessary. Whether that means parring a punch or push and walking away, or taking more drastic measures will be determined by the situation and the behavior of your assailant.

 

[GAB]

Knives and fistpacks in school is typical behavior for 11-year olds?

Admittedly, many 11 year olds own a gun in my new area - far more than where I grew up, but I also see them being more responsible about weapon use.

Hi All,

Eleven year olds don't own guns, they might possess one, but they certainly can not own one...

Something is terribly wrong with this picture, It is way out of line.

Regards, Gary

 

[sgtmac_46]

In the short term, I agree with you, but - according to the 'anti-bullying' crowd as well as the soft stylists of martial arts - 'yielding' in a tactical sense (not necessarily taking a beating per se) or the old 'not giving them a fight to push against' can make it impossible for them to get what they want - a struggle/situation where the bully can 'prove himself superior.' If you don't give him that fight, he may find other targets.

If you do 'fight back' in a bad way (untimely, humiliation...) it may also lead to other fights because he/she has to get back on top psychologically - only now the game is on and the tactics will be meaner, sneakier and more brutal.

Based on your response, it does seem that you are differentiating between 'standing up for yourself' and 'defending yourself.' The first is a 'pride' fight, which will only extend the situation - and prove that you are not capable of finding alternatives to violence when faced with violence. The second is the attempt to stop someone from causing you harm only - which might (but not automatically) mean that you need to work on some 'street smarts' so that you can read the signs and diffuse the situation before it gets to that self defense phase.

NOTE: THe "you" I am using in this case is not "you" R-man, but the "you" as in generic person in these situations.

That's like telling the gazelle "Just ignore the lion if he bothers you, that way you won't encourage his violent behavior". Bullies don't need someone to "fight with", they need someone to brutalize and intimidate. If you'd seen how most fights on the street or in a school start, it's usually some predatory bully who invents pretext to assault and beat a weaker, smaller opponent. He doesn't want him to fight back, he just wants to give out a beating. Your advice will only insure that the beating takes place.

Further, it's the sheep myth, perpetuated by fear, that fighting back will make the bully more dangerous. I've found that a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined, usually avoids any further violence. I've seen this type of fight on the street, and the guy that gets that type of beating doesn't come back like you imagine. He avoids that kind of situation for the rest of his life.

Of course, that's just me. Sheep can handle the situation however they want, which usually consists of creating myths around human behavior that justify their pacivity. Violence and aggression are in-born aspects of human behavior, millenia old, and it can't simply be placed in a box and ignored.

There are rules to conflict. "Street smarts" and avoiding violent situations is good advice, but part of that is knowing when pro-active violence needs to be applied. Look at nature, it's the grass eaters who live constantly in fear of attack, watching over their shoulders, and honing their "street savy". The lions just bask lazily in the warm sun, and play with their children. Why? Because the male is ready to engage in extreme violence on their behalf. He doesn't spend his life necessarily looking for conflict, but he doesn't avoid it either. When the hyenas come calling, he wades in with intent and will.

It's the irony of the world that sometimes those who look for peace the hardest, are the ones who have a hard time finding it. In fact, it is the threat of violence itself that holds our society together.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

 

[rutherford]

Oh well.

This is where we disagree, you say "these types of situations" and that "sometimes a punch is just a punch." True.

However, this is because we have the benefit of being able to "monday morning quarterback" past incidents.

You don't know going into an altercation whether it's going to be like the majority in which nothing serious happens; or whether it's going to be like the handfull of incidents where someone ends up dead. As a result, you have to have the good sense to walk away from the stupid stuff, and if you are cornered, treat it like a serious threat. I'm NOT saying to "whack" every person that looks at you cross-eyed, but to be prepared to respond with whatever level of force is necessary. Whether that means parring a punch or push and walking away, or taking more drastic measures will be determined by the situation and the behavior of your assailant.

In fact, I find little in your statement with which I disagree. I've bolded the part I want to speak to.

The use of force is a continuum, and for people with no requirement to make an arrest or fight a war or protect somebody weaker, the primary goal should be survival. In High School, it is a reality of the situation that respect, both having it and getting it, is often key to survival.

However, this can be accomplished effectively without simply escalating the use of force to one level higher than that of your attacker or, as you seemed to do in your first post, going straight to the top and treating every altercation as a combat situation. As a trained fighter, that is a sure way to get somebody killed and this is contrary to the primary goal - even if the punk deserves it.

I don't believe that we can only make these decisions in hindsight. I've certainly made the correct ones as they happened. Although in my case this took experience, and the road that took me there involved many poor decisions and several trips to the hospital.

I've tried to point out some of the more interesting cases so that people can be aware of them, and I think I've been upfront about the difficulty in making these decisions and the split-second nature of them.

Thank you for making clear the penalties for making poor choices.


sgtmac_46, you and I have fundamental differences in our opinions, and I believe you're attacking a staw man but I'll let loki09789 speak to that if he so desires. However, yours is definitely the philosophy I followed as a teenager. And, I must admit I regret some of my actions.


Gary, in High School I went to French class one day only to find that the guy who normally sat next to me would never be back to school. He'd shot a cab driver the night before during a robbery.

That kid had easy access to an illegal weapon, and used it. Where I live now, there are even more kids with easy access to guns they obtained as gifts from parents, family members, or other people. In the vast majority of cases, I find these kids to be far more responsible about gun ownership and use than those I grew up around.

Personally, I keep my head down and don't let my kids or even my dog go into the woods anywhere near hunting season. But, I respect others who make different choices.

 

[lvwhitebir]

That's like telling the gazelle "Just ignore the lion if he bothers you, that way you won't encourage his violent behavior".

Actually it's telling the gazelle that he has other outlets to stop the violent bahavior. There're teachers, principles, parents, and the police if necessary. There is usually no need to attack back. Go ahead and defend your life, but to "fight" in defense of your ego is wrong and is punished by society. Why not teach your children that.

Bullies don't need someone to "fight with", they need someone to brutalize and intimidate. If you'd seen how most fights on the street or in a school start, it's usually some predatory bully who invents pretext to assault and beat a weaker, smaller opponent. He doesn't want him to fight back, he just wants to give out a beating. Your advice will only insure that the beating takes place.

If you're assertive in your behavior, there is no intimidation and the bully will move on to more available targets. Yes, if you're passive the bully is given exactly what they want. But, if you're aggressive, there is ample evidence to believe he will strike back in revenge or has the right to bring the law down on you.

I've found that a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined, usually avoids any further violence.

If I had a child who was rendered unconcious or was attacked with the level of violence which you describe, I would file both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. I know that there is little that a child can do to warrant that type of reaction. This is similar to the Columbine incident where the kids took so much abuse that they struck back with everything they had. That's not the proper response to a situation like this.

Violence and aggression are in-born aspects of human behavior, millenia old, and it can't simply be placed in a box and ignored.

I don't want to ignore it. I want to teach children and adults that there are other ways of dealing with people. Violence should be only used as a last resort.

There are rules to conflict. "Street smarts" and avoiding violent situations is good advice, but part of that is knowing when pro-active violence needs to be applied. Look at nature, it's the grass eaters who live constantly in fear of attack, watching over their shoulders, and honing their "street savy". The lions just bask lazily in the warm sun, and play with their children. Why? Because the male is ready to engage in extreme violence on their behalf. He doesn't spend his life necessarily looking for conflict, but he doesn't avoid it either. When the hyenas come calling, he wades in with intent and will.

But in our society, there's something bigger than the lion that can reign him in and punish him for his actions, it's called the law. Not so with the gazelles. Society is not based on the law of the jungle. The belief that it is is what spurs on bullys. Your analogy makes it sound like being the bully is the best thing; everyone else lives in fear.

It's the irony of the world that sometimes those who look for peace the hardest, are the ones who have a hard time finding it.

I believe that if you truly look for it you'll find it and have it. I believe that many that proclaim to look for it actually have a block on their shoulder and are just waiting to unleash hell when someone knocks it off.

WhiteBirch

 

[loki09789]

Actually it's telling the gazelle that he has other outlets to stop the violent bahavior. There're teachers, principles, parents, and the police if necessary. There is usually no need to attack back. Go ahead and defend your life, but to "fight" in defense of your ego is wrong and is punished by society. Why not teach your children that.



If you're assertive in your behavior, there is no intimidation and the bully will move on to more available targets. Yes, if you're passive the bully is given exactly what they want. But, if you're aggressive, there is ample evidence to believe he will strike back in revenge or has the right to bring the law down on you.



If I had a child who was rendered unconcious or was attacked with the level of violence which you describe, I would file both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. I know that there is little that a child can do to warrant that type of reaction. This is similar to the Columbine incident where the kids took so much abuse that they struck back with everything they had. That's not the proper response to a situation like this.



I don't want to ignore it. I want to teach children and adults that there are other ways of dealing with people. Violence should be only used as a last resort.



But in our society, there's something bigger than the lion that can reign him in and punish him for his actions, it's called the law. Not so with the gazelles. Society is not based on the law of the jungle. The belief that it is is what spurs on bullys. Your analogy makes it sound like being the bully is the best thing; everyone else lives in fear.



I believe that if you truly look for it you'll find it and have it. I believe that many that proclaim to look for it actually have a block on their shoulder and are just waiting to unleash hell when someone knocks it off.

WhiteBirch

You hit all the things I was going to respond with....one thing I would like to say in my own words though:

Bullies do need prey if they are the predatory and true predators don't seek out tough prey, they seek easy pickings. In the long run, simply demonstrating that you are not afraid to go to the administration, police, parents...and that you are not going to be intimidated WITHOUT resorting to 'counter bullying' as a first resort will usually encourage the bully to move on to another target... unfortunate that someone else is there but "gee whiz better than me" at a basic survival level mentallity.

Laying a beating on anyone, even a Bully, to the point of unconsciousness is illegal, excessive and just as wrong as the bullying your responding to when you do it.

THere are ways of being confident, calm and mature about your responses that don't make you look sheepish. If pride and ego put you in a position where you feel less 'manly' because you don't use violence in response....then you're a potential bully to someone else...

Again the 'you' disclaimer applies here.

 

[GAB]

In fact, I find little in your statement with which I disagree. I've bolded the part I want to speak to.

The use of force is a continuum, and for people with no requirement to make an arrest or fight a war or protect somebody weaker, the primary goal should be survival. In High School, it is a reality of the situation that respect, both having it and getting it, is often key to survival.

However, this can be accomplished effectively without simply escalating the use of force to one level higher than that of your attacker or, as you seemed to do in your first post, going straight to the top and treating every altercation as a combat situation. As a trained fighter, that is a sure way to get somebody killed and this is contrary to the primary goal - even if the punk deserves it.

I don't believe that we can only make these decisions in hindsight. I've certainly made the correct ones as they happened. Although in my case this took experience, and the road that took me there involved many poor decisions and several trips to the hospital.

I've tried to point out some of the more interesting cases so that people can be aware of them, and I think I've been upfront about the difficulty in making these decisions and the split-second nature of them.

Thank you for making clear the penalties for making poor choices.


sgtmac_46, you and I have fundamental differences in our opinions, and I believe you're attacking a staw man but I'll let loki09789 speak to that if he so desires. However, yours is definitely the philosophy I followed as a teenager. And, I must admit I regret some of my actions.


Gary, in High School I went to French class one day only to find that the guy who normally sat next to me would never be back to school. He'd shot a cab driver the night before during a robbery.

That kid had easy access to an illegal weapon, and used it. Where I live now, there are even more kids with easy access to guns they obtained as gifts from parents, family members, or other people. In the vast majority of cases, I find these kids to be far more responsible about gun ownership and use than those I grew up around.

Personally, I keep my head down and don't let my kids or even my dog go into the woods anywhere near hunting season. But, I respect others who make different choices.

Hi All,

Kenpotex you are a security person and that is a different cup of tea, when I was on the job pre-emptive strike was the name of the game..They don't get the first hit or the first shot off they do the wrong move at the wrong time I hurt someone that simple...

I remember a time when I had the job of covering and I did not like what I saw I ran up crashed into the other officer (my junior) grabbed the suspect pulled him out of the car and slammed him to the ground smashed his face into the ground put my knee into him and we looked over and there was a 1911a1 hammer back...took it out and one was in the snout and ready to go...
The suspect would not keep his hands in the air, I just had a feeling
and followed it...

I saved myself and my partner that day, at the reunion I went to last year it was still brought up in a conversation....The good old days I miss them...

Now School is a different matter, guns in school you don't go back you are gone.

Responsible 11 year old with a gun who is a responsible person who takes a gun to a school???

Even a penknife will get them out...but you know they still carry sharp pencils and pens and books and notebooks and other things, when in my hands are a deadly weapon...

A key with an extended holder, I'd push that so far into their eye, they would have a hard time getting it out...(doctor) not the person who I placed it in there with a definite purpose...

A pencil into the ear drum that will get their attention..

I think you get the idea...

Kids going to school need to do that, go to school and have a good life.
If it is not in the area you are in, move...

Find a spot that is better...Lots of people have done it, it just takes guts "go west young man"...was that an easy decision...I don't think so...look at all the stories of the pioneers strewn across the country going some place and not making it...

We are in a different time and place...It has gotten better not worse...

Make good decisions, think and then make the decision. Pull them out of school, home study... You only have to think, then make the decision...

Regards, Gary....

 

[still learning]

Hello, It's terrible that fights in schools is so common. Most kids know they will be either suspended or kick-out of the school.

Who is to blame? I believe we(parents) teach our kids how to behave from our own actions. Kids learn from us,friends,TV,peers.etc. Teach'em to always fight back...they will. What do we do about the "bullies" ? Schools cannot control them. Is our society teaching this to kids to fight? Must be?.

We live in a world where there is all kinds of people, some nice and not so nice. How do we control those tempers of ours?

We are all to blame....because of what we had learn before? It can be change? How long? maybe another 100 years before we realize fighting isn't the answer. .....Just my thoughts....Aloha

 

[KenpoTex]

The use of force is a continuum, and for people with no requirement to make an arrest or fight a war or protect somebody weaker, the primary goal should be survival. In High School, it is a reality of the situation that respect, both having it and getting it, is often key to survival.

However, this can be accomplished effectively without simply escalating the use of force to one level higher than that of your attacker or, as you seemed to do in your first post, going straight to the top and treating every altercation as a combat situation. As a trained fighter, that is a sure way to get somebody killed and this is contrary to the primary goal - even if the punk deserves it.

If you look at my previous posts, you will see that in each of them I alluded to the "continuum of force" idea

If they try, do whatever you have to do to keep them from succeeding whether it's blocking, shoving them back and walking away; or putting them down for keeps.

and,

Whether that means parring a punch or push and walking away, or taking more drastic measures will be determined by the situation and the behavior of your assailant.

Let me try to clarify what I meant. I'm not saying that getting shoved or having someone take a swing at you is justification to smash his knee, hit him in the throat, and stomp his head when he hits the floor. Your responce should be dictated by the context of the situation. However, like I mentioned before, you should not ASSume that this is just going to be another run of the mill shoving match. You should be prepared to escalate if necessary.
In my case, this is the voice of experience, I tried the "just walk away approach" once (I made the mistake of turning my back on him), the problem was that my assailant took this as the signal to jump me from behind and try to choke me out with a rear naked-choke and I had to put him down a lot harder than I probably would have if I had handled the oringinal situaion differently. On positive note, I had no further problems with this person.
The problem with this type of discussion is that there is not a simple "this is what you do" answer. You just have to handle the situation to the best of your abilty and if force is required, use only that which you feel is necessary based on the situation.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Actually it's telling the gazelle that he has other outlets to stop the violent bahavior. There're teachers, principles, parents, and the police if necessary. There is usually no need to attack back. Go ahead and defend your life, but to "fight" in defense of your ego is wrong and is punished by society. Why not teach your children that.



If you're assertive in your behavior, there is no intimidation and the bully will move on to more available targets. Yes, if you're passive the bully is given exactly what they want. But, if you're aggressive, there is ample evidence to believe he will strike back in revenge or has the right to bring the law down on you.



If I had a child who was rendered unconcious or was attacked with the level of violence which you describe, I would file both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. I know that there is little that a child can do to warrant that type of reaction. This is similar to the Columbine incident where the kids took so much abuse that they struck back with everything they had. That's not the proper response to a situation like this.



I don't want to ignore it. I want to teach children and adults that there are other ways of dealing with people. Violence should be only used as a last resort.



But in our society, there's something bigger than the lion that can reign him in and punish him for his actions, it's called the law. Not so with the gazelles. Society is not based on the law of the jungle. The belief that it is is what spurs on bullys. Your analogy makes it sound like being the bully is the best thing; everyone else lives in fear.



I believe that if you truly look for it you'll find it and have it. I believe that many that proclaim to look for it actually have a block on their shoulder and are just waiting to unleash hell when someone knocks it off.

WhiteBirch

You only find peace because others stand ready to do violence on your behalf. The fact that you acknowledge that something bigger than the lions is required to reign the lions in is an acknowledgement of my point. It isn't "coping skills" but the threat of a larger stick that helps kids get through a school day without being attacked. That larger stick are adults willing to intervene. Without that threat of violence, those coping skills would mean nothing. However, every day we erode societies ability to control some of it's more violent elements.

Violence and it's implied threat is what keeps society from tearing itself apart. Don't kid yourself into thinking that it is your reasoning power that keeps you safe. It's only the threat of violence implied by someone else that keeps you safe. The fact that adults are willing to intervene is the only thing preventing what i've described from being necessary. The fact that you and those like you believe that communication skills are all that is required is nothing more than proof of the effectiveness of the systematic threat of violence that our society uses to enforce order.

My statements aren't meant so much as a suggestion on how a school kid should respond to violence, as it is a general discussion of the role of violence in the social order. I believe there is a great deal of naive wishful thinking involved in suggestions of non-violence in many cases. Labeling something "Ego" is a reductionist way of dealing with a much more complex evolutionary process. Also, simply saying "It's a school fight" is a bit reductionist as well. I've seen school fights that have resulted in hospitalization.

Unfortunately, there are kids out there who are more than willing to beat another child senseless, and those kids have parents who do nothing but play attorney for their child whenever that child faces consequences. I've seen several boys and girls during the course of my career who saw it as their right to beat anyone they want with impunity, and they always seem to dodge any real consequence for that. And yes, those same parents would sue another child for attacking their baby. They'll also sue a school for holding their child responsible for his actions. In this society everyone sues for everything. You can be perfectly right and be sued.

Of course I guess it is a good sign that society has evolved enough that most people think that non-violence is the key. Not everyone is that evolved, however, and thinking so is wishful thinking. I do know a thing or two about it. I've spent the last 10 years of my life studying violence and the evolutionary psychological underpinnings of violence. In that time i've concluded that much of what most people think they understand about violence and it's causes are not true.

Further, our "Legal system" is very poor at punishing and dealing with the truly violent. It's usually only after an extreme act of violence, long after numerous other violent incidents, many truly violent individuals are dealt with. Society is only as peaceful as it's defenders are effective at dealing with it's most violent elements. In places where law and order have nearly broken down, such as the inner city, violence is endemic.

Of course, this is probably a topic better reserved for a different topic, as the issue of schools and children aren't the core of my point, and they tend to bring an emotionality to this type of discussion not prevelent when discussing adults. It does bear noting, however, that perhaps teaching children that there is always a peaceful solution to problems is a double edged sword. On the one hand it does teach them how to solve minor inter personal problems without the use of violence, which is good. There is a certain falseness in the statement "Violence never solved anything" or "Violence isn't the solution".

As for bullies being the "best thing", that's never what I said. Bullies are usually cowards who predate on the weak. What I suggest is that it's ideal to be strong, powerful and assertive people. That's the ideal. If a bully feels that you are willing to do anything to avoid a confrontation with him, he wins. If he feels that there is a limit to how far he can push you, he'll usually leave you alone. It is important to teach children to respect others, but it is also important to teach them that they are not someone else's door mat. The "Ego" game may seem silly to those who think of themselves as enlightened, but it is also a key aspect in interpersonal human behavior. To dismiss it as childish is and refuse to deal with it for what it is, is a misunderstanding of it's larger role in human affairs.

Finally, as for your comment about Columbine,

"If I had a child who was rendered unconcious or was attacked with the level of violence which you describe, I would file both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. I know that there is little that a child can do to warrant that type of reaction. This is similar to the Columbine incident where the kids took so much abuse that they struck back with everything they had. That's not the proper response to a situation like this."

it is based on the myth of Columbine. Harris and Klebold, contrary to popular myth, did not commit the crime they did because they were "picked on by the jocks". The fact is that they did not even seek out the jocks who allegedly tormented them. They fired their shots at individuals who had never engaged in any kind of ridicule of them. They knew where the "jocks" would be at that time of morning, and stayed far away from there, because their act was about power, not revenge. They were not wronged, they were not tormented, they were simply defective human beings. Further, they also weren't "children". They committed a cold and calculating act that showed adult sophistication and they did it for power, not revenge. It was the evil act of two sociopaths.

At any rate, using violence as a last resort is a good thing. Eliminating violence as an option at all isn't.

 

[GAB]

Hi all,

I remember when I had an employee (horse ranch 28 head).

We are walking by an area and he sees a black widow spider.
He said to me I can't wait till, "Paradise comes" and we will all get along.
The Spider and the and Rattle Snake and all of gods creatures.

I looked at him and said where do I fit in (agnostic)???
You won't be there he said...I said, hey kill that *******black widow!
She probably just finished killing her mate...He did...

We had many discussions he worked for me a couple of years...He was going to college, was going to be a computer tech. Last I heard he was working
for Sacramento Utilities. One of his elders got him the job...

When he left and went on with his hopes and rewards, I gave him bonus money and wished him well...Takes all kinds to make up a civilization...

Regards, Gary

 

[shesulsa]

Gary, what, may I ask, does your post have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Andrew Green]

The school system is a mess, do what is right and accept what comes.

Sadly that is the way of the schools.

Punish both people regardless of who was in the right or wrong.

Unless of course it is a teacher or staff, then just punish the student.

Doesn't do much to deter bullying and fighting though, cause by punishing everyone that doesn't say "Starting a fight is wrong" that says we don't like it when people fight and will punish anyone that is involved.

The fact that teachers can get away with anything and student complaints just get the student in trouble doesn't help either. Which to me says "If you got the power you can do what you want, it's not about right and wrong, it is about dominance."

There have been studies (not any more due to "ethics") where teachers where biased grading was prooved.

- Give a bunch of tests to the teachers and attach random photos, the boys do better in math and sciences, the girls do better in english and social studies and the natives do bad in everything...

- Give a student a good history and they will get good marks, give them a bad one and they will get bad marks. Say they are a good student and they won't get in trouble, say they are a trouble maker and they will.... regardless of what the student actually does. Those files that follow students around are not just what has happened but what WILL happen...

Not to mention the fact that it is made out to be the most important thing ever. If you do bad on a test it could ruin the rest of your life... It won't. Marks aren't as important as work ethics and social skills. At the end of the day you got to get the piece of paper saying you graduated, thats all.

Fighting, while not good, does have its benefits. Hence the reason that martial arts is a good thing People that never fight are always letting people walk all over them. The one thing school doesn't teach you ithat it should s how to fight... well maybe not physical fighting... but Critical thinking and arguing should be in there. I can't rememebr doing too much in school that basically didn't come down to "Your essay is to right out my (the teacher) opinion on this .... Any opinion other then my own (again, the teachers) is wrong. "

 

[lvwhitebir]

Before I start, I understand that bullying in general is a huge issue that isn't being dealt with correctly in schools.

You only find peace because others stand ready to do violence on your behalf.

I find peace because others are willing to stop violence on my behalf, not perpetrate it.This is the same in life as well. My point is to teach kids the lessons of proper use of the law and not use violence in its stead. Unfortunately, too many people think that physically fighting back is required no matter what, where the law says it's not. The law in the real world says that a violent reponse is only OK in self-defense, not in fighting.

However, every day we erode societies ability to control some of it's more violent elements.

Oh how I agree. But we must try to bring it back without resorting to violence ourselves.

Labeling something "Ego" is a reductionist way of dealing with a much more complex evolutionary process. Also, simply saying "It's a school fight" is a bit reductionist as well. I've seen school fights that have resulted in hospitalization.

I don't mean to say that the potential for damage isn't there because it's a stupid fight over someone's tennis shoes. Any time physical contact is made on another there is a potential for hospitalization, no matter what the reason was. My point is that because of that, you should have a darn good reason for making the contact and that should be for more reason than your feelings were hurt.

Unfortunately, there are kids out there who are more than willing to beat another child senseless,

Because they've been taught that a violent response is appropriate in any situation. Where do they go next? In the adult world, this will only get them into further trouble. Their parents help perpetuate this, that's why the parents stick up for their children. We need to break the cycle with today's kids.

You can be perfectly right and be sued.

Yes, but you're saying that a child whose offers up "a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined" is always right? IMO, it's extremely rare that it's right.

Of course I guess it is a good sign that society has evolved enough that most people think that non-violence is the key. Not everyone is that evolved, however, and thinking so is wishful thinking.

I agree that not everyone is that evolved. But should I lower myself and become violent in response when there are better procedures in place? Your response ("a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined") makes me think that you don't believe non-violence is the key.

Further, our "Legal system" is very poor at punishing and dealing with the truly violent. It's usually only after an extreme act of violence, long after numerous other violent incidents, many truly violent individuals are dealt with.

Many are dealt with at the lower levels, but they just continue their behavior. It's after the extreme act that we try to completely remove them from society. According to recent statistics, our legal system is doing better. Violent crimes are on the decline.

There is a certain falseness in the statement "Violence never solved anything" or "Violence isn't the solution".

I agree. But violence should not be the first response.

It is important to teach children to respect others, but it is also important to teach them that they are not someone else's door mat.

I agree. But violent responses aren't the only way to declare you're not a door mat. Being assertive is not the same as being aggressive.

At any rate, using violence as a last resort is a good thing. Eliminating violence as an option at all isn't.

I agree, I would never advocate that it never has a place. But I also don't think a 7-year-old knows when violence is appropriate without being taught. And I think they need to be taught the steps to be tried before resorting to violence.

WhiteBirch

 

[GAB]

Gary, what, may I ask, does your post have to do with the topic of the thread?

Post 31.

Regards, Gary

 

[Cryozombie]

it is based on the myth of Columbine. Harris and Klebold, contrary to popular myth, did not commit the crime they did because they were "picked on by the jocks". The fact is that they did not even seek out the jocks who allegedly tormented them. They fired their shots at individuals who had never engaged in any kind of ridicule of them. They knew where the "jocks" would be at that time of morning, and stayed far away from there, because their act was about power, not revenge. They were not wronged, they were not tormented, they were simply defective human beings. Further, they also weren't "children". They committed a cold and calculating act that showed adult sophistication and they did it for power, not revenge. It was the evil act of two sociopaths.

This is Untrue, and not the "Myth" of Columbine. TAG Investigators spent a lot of time interviewing people and recreating what happened with those boys, building up what caused their mental state, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that the "Jocks" WERE beating them and the school was made aware, and chose not to take action, becuase the athletic department was more important in their views. In the words of one of their friends: "I know its wrong to think this way, but all I could think was Its about time SOMEONE did somthing"... Granted TAG found this was not the ONLY factor, but it was the MAJOR factor.

I suggest you check out "Investigative Reports: Bullied to Death" and "Columbine, Investigating Why" before you make up your mind what their motive was.

 

[GAB]

This is Untrue, and not the "Myth" of Columbine. TAG Investigators spent a lot of time interviewing people and recreating what happened with those boys, building up what caused their mental state, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that the "Jocks" WERE beating them and the school was made aware, and chose not to take action, becuase the athletic department was more important in their views. In the words of one of their friends: "I know its wrong to think this way, but all I could think was Its about time SOMEONE did somthing"... Granted TAG found this was not the ONLY factor, but it was the MAJOR factor.

I suggest you check out "Investigative Reports: Bullied to Death" and "Columbine, Investigating Why" before you make up your mind what their motive was.

Good one techno.

I saw a lot of this when I was LEO...We knew what was happening and the system finally caught up. Late as usual..
The idea don't fix til it's broke, is the major malfunction regarding all of this..Better to do prementative maintenance then replace the engine or car...

I just finished a short story by Elmore Leonard that fits this to a tee called "40 lashes minus one" I liked it...

Regards, Gary