Boy does right thing, school suspends him

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 28 Oct 12 | Christian Boone

[real saxophonist]

Boy does right thing, school suspends him

By Christian Boone

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

When 8-year-old Andrew Berry discovered he had accidentally brought his unloaded pellet gun to Newton County Theme School at Ficquett on Monday, he immediately notified his teacher.

He “did the right thing” by turning in the weapon, discreetly, said his mother, Kristy Berry, whose husband serves as a combat flight medic in Afghanistan. “The principal told me [Andrew] handled it the right way,” she said. “So did the police.”

But she said a school resource officer also told her son that he had broken the law. The third-grader was suspended for no less than 10 days for what everyone agrees was an innocent mistake. Andrew is scheduled to appear before a school tribunal on Oct. 31, day seven of his suspension, according to his mother.

“He absolutely did the right thing by reporting it immediately. But a rule was still broken: A gun was brought to school. And there are mandatory consequences for that,”

[TangoLimaSierra]

Email to principal: meneguzzo.james@newton.k12.ga.us

Sir,

In the case of Andrew Berry, your “Resource Officer” is an idiot. He/she is teaching an 8-year-old that doing the right thing is a criminal act. Someone trying to qualify their job at the expense of an innocent is unconscionable and should be fired. Hopefully you and the board will rectify this.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

The kid is looking good, GG, 100% swamp critter. He will be 21 in June, all blue twisted steel and brains.

[wrencher]

Yes, there ought to be a law.... Oh wait, there’s already how many 100’s of 1000’s of them? Lawyers have a stanglehold on common sense, nobody is allowed to apply it because it will interfere with someone else’s perceived right to a risk-free life.

[wesagain]

His lesson for the day........how ignorant the publik skool sistem is.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Same as a Zampolit.

[Ted Grant]

It’s a tough lesson, but the sooner every child learns that authority figures, law enforcement, judges & courts, bosses, etc simply can not be trusted to do the right thing with any kind of reliability, the better off they will be.

[Terabitten]

Please do not change the name of the source when posting an article. It’s not cute or funny, and it prevents others from re-posting your article on other websites (ie Facebook or a blog) because it’s juvenile.

Let the other side act like children.

[Ol' Sox]

Damned fools and their zero-tolerance. My son intervened when another kid in his junior high class attacked their pregnant teacher. He put the attacker on the ground and got suspended for “fighting” in school. He was treated like a hero at home during his suspension, and when he went back to school, the principal bought him lunch. He got A’s from the teacher for the rest of the year. As I told him, sometimes you have to take a hit for doing the right thing, but don’t ever let that stop you.

[Stosh]

A ten day suspension from a school like that is like being banned from a crack house - it should be viewed as a badge of honor rather than a punishment.

Heck, he’ll probably learn more during those two weeks then he would have normally. Given the kid a computer, the urls to K-8, Kahn Academy and Free Republic, and set him loose.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

The lesson this young man and others who have found themselves in this situation has nothing to do with the importance (snicker, snicker) of a zero-tolerance policy as it relates to the safety of students. It certainly is not about the truth and doing the right thing.

Lesson learned: Hide whatever it is, and hope you can get through the day without the offending item being noticed.

This young man and his classmates have learned that the adults in charge are going to nail them regardless. The adults in charge see no difference between an honest young man and a gangbanger.

The children have learrned that lying (even by omission) is the preferred course of action.

[imardmd1]

“He absolutely did the right thing by reporting it immediately. But a rule was still broken: A gun was brought to school. And there are mandatory consequences for that,”

Jawohl!

ALLES IN ORDNUNG!

This was not Naziism -- it is following the rules or the law. In America, if we instituted a law or rule that is not satisfactory or commonly agreed, we change it. Ignoring or disobeying the rules or the law, or flouting it, is lawlessness. In my Bible, it is the word "Sin."

Deliberately, or unintentionally, the boy disobeyed the rule, hence the penalty: (1) partly to fix the rule in his mind; (2) partly to emphasize the rule in the minds of other students, their parents, and the staff; and (3) demonstrating the cost that to make rules stick, the consequence must be at least a bit more expensive than the cost of consequences from the unacceptable activity.

The boy expected that revealing his culpability, he must pay the cost. That is a golden demonstration of integrity, which the lack of the penalty negates his integrity.

You are coaching others to disregard the rule of law in American life and call insistence upon it Naziism?

I reject your approach.

If you don't like the law, change it if you can, but obey it if you can't.

That is Scriptural.

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise if them that do well, for such is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, anf not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." (1 Peter 2:13-16)

You mean, somehow the boy "forgot" he had the gun? You want me to "forget" that I am carrying a concealed deadly weapon (and have a license to do so)(and I do)(and I'm getting ready to go to church in a few moments, where my pastor also carries)(but not to a Post Office, the VA, or a public school, for instance)?

Take your mindset back to Obama, who forgets who he is, and lies.

Sorry, I can't respect your reply to this article.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a “school tribunal” before.

And it happens once he has "served time" .. I'd flip off that little group. All rules were followed, time served, end of story.

[nonsporting]

Boy does WRONG thing.

Do not cooperate with these rights destroyers. They want to condition us to confess our so-called sins to them. Teach your children, even 8 year olds, the truth. Steel their hearts.

[CPOSharky]

Zero tolerence sux. Even cases involving felony acts take “intent” in to account. The kid obviously had no intent.

Petty bureaucrats...

[deoetdoctrinae]

Former ACLU of Georgia Legal Director Gerry Weber, who represented a Gwinnett sixth-grader suspended for 10 days because the chain on her Tweety bird wallet violated the school district’s no-weapon policy, said students may be less inclined to do the right thing, as Andrew did, when they see the type of punishment he received.

Color me surprised that I find myself agreeing with an ACLU'er, but I do. The next student will be strongly motivated not to self-report.

[FunkyZero]

we went through a similar situation with my oldest son (9 yrs old) who was being bullied at his new school. I spoke with him an length about how he wanted to handle the situation and as you would expect, he did NOT want me getting involved and he did NOT have any desire to report the abuse... we all know the obvious social implications at that age.

In the end, my son was expelled from school for 5 days for landing a few on this kids face.

Zero tolerance at it's finest. But, he was awarded dinner of his choice that evening for both accuracy and well executed defense (both of my boys have been doing youth boxing and jui jitsu for several years). He is beginning to understand the consequences of liberalism and the people who hide behind it.

[OneWingedShark]

This was not Naziism -- it is following the rules or the law. In America, if we instituted a law or rule that is not satisfactory or commonly agreed, we change it. Ignoring or disobeying the rules or the law, or flouting it, is lawlessness. In my Bible, it is the word "Sin."

Deliberately, or unintentionally, the boy disobeyed the rule, hence the penalty: (1) partly to fix the rule in his mind; (2) partly to emphasize the rule in the minds of other students, their parents, and the staff; and (3) demonstrating the cost that to make rules stick, the consequence must be at least a bit more expensive than the cost of consequences from the unacceptable activity.

Whoa, hold it. You're starting with a bad premise: that this 'rule' is legitimate.
Here in America we have Constitutions which are the supreme laws of the jurisdiction to which they apply (US Constitution for federal government, State Constitution for state government).
So let's see what the State's Constitution says:

ARTICLE I, SECTION I, Paragraph VIII. -- Arms, right to keep and bear.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

So, the state cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms, and by claiming the pellet-gun was a 'gun' they are admitting that it is a weapon and therefore arms.

Further, the federal constitution says:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is a lot of smoke, lies and misdirection about this amendment, mostly because it's very simple and following the simplicity would erode a big chunk of power the government has amassed for itself, in short: the government may not restrict people from owning, storing, or using weapons. (The results of using weapons is different because it's the action that's punished; i.e. using a weapon doesn't make murder, manslaughter, etc worse.)

Note also the use of the passive voice, this is used when the actor is irrelevant and the action is the important element. If the actor is irrelevant than it applies not only to the federal government, but the states, counties, and cities as well.

Lastly, let us turn to the Supreme Court to see what they have said on the issue:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

So then, your entire argument is null and void because the very law wherein he is accused prohibits that very accusation from being legitimate.

[Nebr FAL owner]

A school resource offizer is a cop assigned to your public schools because the students are best described as FERAL HUMANS. These “students” will rape/rob/murder each other while the “Education Administration” wrings its hands & the “parents” of these students proclaim to anyone stupid enough to listen “My baby didn’t do nuffin”! Does this answer your question?

[Nebr FAL owner]

While one of these days you will find yourself at the edge of an open mass grave staring down at dozens if not hundreds of corpses wondering how you got there just before a single pistol shot to the back of your head rings out.

The apparatchiks of the state are not your friend ,the open mass grave that is the history of the 20th century prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[imardmd1]

Whoa, hold it. You're starting with a bad premise: that this 'rule' is legitimate.

Sorry, your premise is wrong. An eight-year-old child is not fully and accountable as a citizen until reaching majority; the parent is in charge, able to impose all sorts of infringements (with his/her rules to be obeyed). The school acts in place of the parent and for the government, with its own rules clearly understood and accepted by the parent placing the child into the school's care.

This particular child was clearly not to bring a pellet gun to school, which is a gun regardless of propellant; and presumably he was not with the implicit permission of the parents, either. Furthermore, his conscience (correctly) told him he was wrong. So he confessed without attempting to hide or misdirect attention to his error, admitted it before being "caught," suffered the just consequence, and moved ahead from this with a clear conscience toward a later age when his circumstances and/or the law would change.

All your talk about the Constitution (and I know it pretty well) only serves to set the background. The situation does not find the Constitution wrong. The premise is that the rule was the same as when I went to grade school about 70 years ago, and with the community I lived in, who elected the school board, operating under county and state laws, and included the parents who governed my behavior and expected community standards to be observed.

Please do not think the Constitution excuses one from lawful limitations, especially to those imposed by the child's authorities. I took my hits at that age, and learned thereby.

You seem to just be attempting to use the Constitution to excuse infringing the right of a parent or his/her agent, the school, from governing a minor child however they see fit.

You may add to this a couple of side notes: (1) my first play gun was a broken-stock old octagon-barreled .32 single-shot dropping block rifle (we had no money for cap-gun toys); and (2) I learned how to shoot well in junior high school with Crosman .22 CO2 guns, under adult supervision (no one ever imagined that it would be permitted to bring a Daisy BB gun to school}, the guns being locked up when practice was over.

Again, if you don't like it, change the laws and rules the Constitution permits. Under it, the right of a minor child to have and carry a gun is going to be infringed, like it or not.