New Jersey School Suspends Students For Going to Range with Parents.

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Not if you stay there.

You can’t even grow a set and answer a question honestly.

Perfect for you considering you’ve been lying throughout this thread

 

[panamaican]

Thanks. But I'm more interested in how a case that says you can punish kids for some criminal offenses (but not all) allows for kids to be punished for something Constitutionally protected.

It says that punishing kids for everything that might be a criminal offense is too broad a category. Punishing kids for something specific isn't too broad.

 

[The Russian]

Libtard gonna lib...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It says that punishing kids for everything that might be a criminal offense is too broad a category. Punishing kids for something specific isn't too broad.

Can kids be punished for attending the wrong political rally? Or for eating the wrong foods? Provided of course a rule was created to that effect.

 

[panamaican]

I said they are keeping them from doing it. Deer runs from sept 23- feb 17th turkey is oct 20-nov 11. Then out of the entire slew of small game in NJ ONLY woodchuck is available to hunt from June-August, the typical school break.

http://www.eregulations.com/newjersey/hunting/small-game-hunting-seasons/

Like others have said typical hunting seasons are fall to spring. Yes they aren’t banning it, but the typical best harvest for food (deer, fowl, rabbit, turkey) are forbidden.

And all I said is that they aren't banning it. I'm unaware of a constitutional right to hunt whatever you want, whenever you want. Hunting seasons themselves are already regulated. There's no legal basis that a school age student can bring that entitles them to hunt as they so choose. Even the very act of legally hunting requires them to obtain a license first. So it's a restriction on students but there's nothing unlawful about it.

 

[jonharrison]

It wouldn't be any different as far as the suspended kids are concerned. It would be an argument that these school employees got preferential treatment and deserve some of kind of punishment.

All of your examples are of people who weren't punished and should be. But that's just the same argument that I addressed previously "I shouldn't be punished because some other people avoided punishment." It would justify increasing punishment against others, not mitigating punishment against you.

Ok, I did some research during my lunch break. Here’s what the New Jersey Administrative Code has to say about disciplinary actions for students outside of school hours:

6A:16-7.5 Conduct away from school grounds
(a) School authorities have the right to impose a consequence on a student for conduct away from school grounds that is consistent with the district board of education’s code of student conduct, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1.
1. This authority shall be exercised only when it is reasonably necessary for the
student’s physical or emotional safety, security and well-being or for reasons relating to the safety, security and well-being of other students, staff or school grounds, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:25-2 and 18A:37-2.
2. This authority shall be exercised only when the conduct that is the subject of the proposed consequence materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.
3. The consequence pursuant to (a) above shall be handled in accordance with the district board of education’s approved code of student conduct, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1, and as appropriate, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2, 7.3, or 7.4.
(b) School authorities shall respond to harassment, intimidation, or bullying that occurs off school grounds, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 and 15.3 and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-1.3, 7.1, and 7.7.


As I read this, there are certain conditions that need to be met, the first being that it needs to be reasonably necessary for the safety of students, staff, or school grounds. Their behavior was being conducted in a safe manner, however the school will most likely make the argument that the weapons pose a threat to safety in a school shooting situation. You can argue the reasonableness of this assumption back and forth. The second clause is what I feel makes this rule contrary to the NJAC. It would be difficult to argue that the students’ behavior materially or substantially interfered with the requirements of appropriate discipline within the operation of the school. Their behavior had no bearing whatsoever on the operation of the school.

 

[panamaican]

Can kids be punished for attending the wrong political rally? Or for eating the wrong foods? Provided of course a rule was created to that effect.

I wrote a long post to alanb a few post above, #189. I don't feel like retyping the salient points.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

There's hunting in June, July, and August. Per google - woodchuck and crows are 2 options in NJ.

Crows ?

 

[panamaican]

Ok, I did some research during my lunch break. Here’s what the New Jersey Administrative Code has to say about disciplinary actions for students outside of school hours:

6A:16-7.5 Conduct away from school grounds
(a) School authorities have the right to impose a consequence on a student for conduct away from school grounds that is consistent with the district board of education’s code of student conduct, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1.
1. This authority shall be exercised only when it is reasonably necessary for the
student’s physical or emotional safety, security and well-being or for reasons relating to the safety, security and well-being of other students, staff or school grounds, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:25-2 and 18A:37-2.
2. This authority shall be exercised only when the conduct that is the subject of the proposed consequence materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.
3. The consequence pursuant to (a) above shall be handled in accordance with the district board of education’s approved code of student conduct, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1, and as appropriate, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2, 7.3, or 7.4.
(b) School authorities shall respond to harassment, intimidation, or bullying that occurs off school grounds, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 and 15.3 and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-1.3, 7.1, and 7.7.


As I read this, there are certain conditions that need to be met, the first being that it needs to be reasonably necessary for the safety of students, staff, or school grounds. Their behavior was being conducted in a safe manner, however the school will most likely make the argument that the weapons pose a threat to safety in a school shooting situation. You can argue the reasonableness of this assumption back and forth. The second clause is what I feel makes this rule contrary to the NJAC. It would be difficult to argue that the students’ behavior materially or substantially interfered with the requirements of appropriate discipline within the operation of the school. Their behavior had no bearing whatsoever on the operation of the school.

I wrote in response to this above at post #189.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I wrote a long post to alanb a few post above, #189. I don't feel like retyping the salient points.

No worries. Maybe Alan will chime in since he's the Constitutional lawyer here anyway.

 

[jonharrison]

I wrote in response to this above at post #189.

My bad, I’ve been at work so haven’t read all the way through.

 

[panamaican]

My bad, I’ve been at work so haven’t read all the way through.

No problem. I just wrote it a little while ago so it's easier for me to reference, rather than retype.

 

[jonharrison]

No problem. I just wrote it a little while ago so it's easier for me to reference, rather than retype.

I can see the point you’re making, and it really boils down to whether the students seek a ruling on this. It’s certainly not clear cut, but I happen to personally think that the reasonableness of the rule itself can be called into question as there are instances where it would be quite necessary to engage in an activity with a “weapon” outside of school, without posing any interference to school operation. However I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree until there’s something more substantively ruled upon.

 

[panamaican]

I can see the point you’re making, and it really boils down to whether the students seek a ruling on this. It’s certainly not clear cut, but I happen to personally think that the reasonableness of the rule itself can be called into question as there are instances where it would be quite necessary to engage in an activity with a “weapon” outside of school, without posing any interference to school operation. However I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree until there’s something more substantively ruled upon.

I think the school's response would be that if there is something necessary then the student can request permission before hand. And if it happens to be an emergency then the school has the discretion under the NJ law on how to handle the suspension.

The NJ law requires a hearing prior to any suspension where the students can argue their version of events.

Since they received a 5 day in-school suspension instead of the 10 day minimum called for under the NJ law, I'd say that they were granted some leniency in this matter.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I can see the point you’re making, and it really boils down to whether the students seek a ruling on this. It’s certainly not clear cut, but I happen to personally think that the reasonableness of the rule itself can be called into question as there are instances where it would be quite necessary to engage in an activity with a “weapon” outside of school, without posing any interference to school operation. However I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree until there’s something more substantively ruled upon.

Not to mention these stats don't say much.

Experience using weapons and access to them was common for many attackers. Nearly two-thirds of the attackers had a known history of weapons use, including knives, guns, and bombs (63 percent, n=26). Over half of the attackers had some experience specifically with a gun prior to the incident (59 percent, n=24), while others had experience with bombs or explosives (15 percent, n=6). However, fewer than half of the attackers demonstrated any fascination or excessive interest with weapons (44 percent, n=18), and fewer than one-third showed a fascination with explosives (32 percent, n=13) prior to their attacks. Over two-thirds of the attackers acquired the gun (or guns) used in their attacks from their own home or that of a relative (68 percent, n=28).

The relevant population isn't just attackers. It's all kids who have access to/experience with weapons. If a million kids handle weapons and one kid becomes an attacker that's hardly significant from a statistical perspective. Saying people who attack with weapons had previous experience with weapons just kinda makes sense.

 

[Bald1]

Not to mention these stats don't say much.



The relevant population isn't just attackers. It's all kids who have access to/experience with weapons. If a million kids handle weapons and one kid becomes an attacker that's hardly significant from a statistical perspective. Saying people who attack with weapons had previous experience with weapons just kinda makes sense.

And those who kill with knives have used them before. Those who run into crowds with vehicles have driven before. It's empty rhetoric.

 

[jonharrison]

I think the school's response would be that if there is something necessary then the student can request permission before hand. And if it happens to be an emergency then the school has the discretion under the NJ law on how to handle the suspension.

The NJ law requires a hearing prior to any suspension where the students can argue their version of events.

Since they received a 5 day in-school suspension instead of the 10 day minimum called for under the NJ law, I'd say that they were granted some leniency in this matter.

But is it reasonable for a student to ask permission for fear of a suspension? The fact that a student would need to ask for clarification about an activity that could potentially lead to a year long suspension would indicate to me that the rule isn’t clearly written. As an example, did the students know that going shooting with their parents would lead to a suspension? Did their parents? Would they have even known to ask permission before hand? The fact they were granted leniency is nice, but doesn’t really make a difference to how reasonable the suspension itself was.

 

[Scrody]

You can’t even grow a set and answer a question honestly.

Perfect for you considering you’ve been lying throughout this thread

I did answer it honestly lol and where have I lied? It's okay to be what I know you are Kong.

 

[Lord Coke]

Did you read the Safe School Initiative? I linked it shortly after that post.
Ok, I'm going to disagree with you based on reading the linked case, NJ 6A:16-7.1, .5; 18A:37-2. First and foremost, your cited case supports the ability of the school to discipline for conduct away from school grounds.

The regulation in the cited case was dismissed as being overly broad because it penalized all activity that would be a criminal or juvenile delinquency offense. Nor was it limited to drug and alcohol offenses. To emphasize the overly broad nature of the regulation, the court noted that even littering would trigger the penalty. It was not dismissed based on a lack of authority over away from school conduct.

I do not think the regulation here is over broad. It is specific to weapons and a period of time. NJ has a broad definition of "weapons" and that appears to be the definition that the district is applying.

If the authority to discipline for actions away from school grounds stands then there has to be a nexus between the activity and the operation of the school. IMO, the reference to the Safe School Initiative (SSI) and the recent history regarding school shootings provides a defensible nexus for the school. One of the key findings from the SSI is the following:



Based on those findings, the school has a reasonable argument that the safety and well-being of other students is at issue when students are found to be familiarizing themselves with weapons away from school grounds. That this regulation exists to "prevent the occurrence of problem behaviors" which is something their code of conduct is allowed to address.

And then I'd point to this regarding 2 different NJ students who were threatening shootings in their school district. All adding credence to the school district's argument that protection of other students is a good enough reason for this regulation.

I don't think we are disagreeing on the holding of the case. Just whether the regulation is in fact over broad or not. I think that the fact this governs weapons handling with parental supervision will be found to be overly broad and or has a nexus with school activity. I think that this exception would swallow the rule which is there must be some conduct that is outside of the schools purvey and if so intimate time with family would be included.

You don't. It sounds like we are about to find out one way or another soon.

Same as to the 1a claim. If we plead the it is done for expressive purposes then I just don't see how range time with family could be a substantial disruption to school activities.

Although I am on the fence about taking this case. Today the local attorneys started talking about taking the case and I have plenty of work here. If someone else wants to sue I may let them because working in New Jersey is a real hassle for a number of reasons.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I did answer it honestly lol and where have I lied? It's okay to be what I know you are Kong.

You’ve been lying throughout the thread.