News American School Makes Boy Remove American Flag From His Bicycle

[Evo]

No doubt that reminds many of the famous Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.

We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.

 

[JaredJames]

You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.

We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.

I have to say, there should never be a question of safety when it comes to something like this.

Any child who threatens another should be removed from the school. Once again they are making allowances for bad behaviour and showing that it does pay off.

We won't remove the person(s) threatening to use violence, we'll punish those who have done no wrong. I personally won't stand for this kind of attitude.

 

[Evo]

I have to say, there should never be a question of safety when it comes to something like this.

Any child who threatens another should be removed from the school. Once again they are making allowances for bad behaviour and showing that it does pay off.

We won't remove the person(s) threatening to use violence, we'll punish those who have done no wrong. I personally won't stand for this kind of attitude.

Did you read Bob's post about the sequence of events? It's unlikely they even knew who might be a threat.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2988697&postcount=48

Seriously, if my kid was harmed or killed because the school failed to take immediate action to protect my child, there would be hell to pay. Nothing comes before my child's welfare and while at school, the school is responsible for my child's welfare.

 

[JaredJames]

Did you read Bob's post about the sequence of events? It's unlikely they even knew who might be a threat.

"Some students had complained about it and had apparently made threats."

If they've complained, someone must know who they are. Especially if it's gone this far.

Seriously, if my kid was harmed or killed because the school failed to take immediate action to protect my child, there would be hell to pay. Nothing comes before my child's welfare and while at school, the school is responsible for my child's welfare.

Certainly, but would you want the school to remove the child being threatening or penalise your child for doing nothing wrong?

By penalising the child for not doing any wrong all you do is show these children that violent and threatening behaviour gets your own way.

I speak as a person who has never been on the "violent and threatening" end of things. I'm part of the group that behaviour is aimed towards.

 

[Evo]

"Some students had complained about it and had apparently made threats."

If they've complained, someone must know who they are. Especially if it's gone this far.


Certainly, but would you want the school to remove the child being threatening or penalise your child for doing nothing wrong?

By penalising the child for not doing any wrong all you do is show these children that violent and threatening behaviour gets your own way.

You bet they'd better remove my child from harm. If it's something he/she is wearing or has on a bicycle, get rid of it. Nothing is worth harming my child. Safety first. Details can be figured out later.

When Evo Child was in middle school she wore a girls shirt with a pink teddy bear on it. When the school couldn't reach me to come get her, they made her wear it inside out. They had just placed a ban on clothes with symbols or logos on them. While this really didn't fit the ban, the teacher decided it would be nothing for anyone just so there wouldn't be any arguments. They are in school to learn, not to compare fashion. So while we laughed about how stupid it was, it made sense for having thirty 12 year old children in a room with a teacher. The school did let up on the decorations as long as they weren't obscene or inflammatory, since it was virtually impossible to buy girl's clothes for that age group that was void of designs.

 

[JaredJames]

I went to a school with a uniform for exactly that reason. Makes sense to me why all children should be viewed equally within a school environment.

My problem is with the fact it was on his bike. He wasn't flaunting it around the school or at least it doesn't appear to be the case.

Again, removing your child from harm is best served by removing the person creating the problem, not the innocent victim.

Yes, initial action should be prevent the problem but it should be followed by immediate action regarding the offender.

This school is simply punishing this child for no good reason and then (from what it appears) allowing the people doing the threatening to go free.

You can't just airbrush the problem away. These people will see that threatening others works and they can get away with it and will use it again when they need to achieve their goals.

 

[Evo]

I went to a school with a uniform for exactly that reason. Makes sense to me why all children should be viewed equally within a school environment.

My problem is with the fact it was on his bike. He wasn't flaunting it around the school or at least it doesn't appear to be the case.

Again, removing your child from harm is best served by removing the person creating the problem, not the innocent victim.

Yes, initial action should be prevent the problem but it should be followed by immediate action regarding the offender.

This school is simply punishing this child for no good reason and then (from what it appears) allowing the people doing the threatening to go free.

You can't just airbrush the problem away. These people will see that threatening others works and they can get away with it and will use it again when they need to achieve their goals.

You do know about the history behind this, the flag problem at the school on Cinco de Mayo that caused the ban? There was a large group involved, that there was no single "identified" threat to remove?

 

[JaredJames]

You do know about the history behind this, the flag problem at the school on Cinco de Mayo that caused the ban? There was a large group involved, that there was no single "identified" threat to remove?

Not a clue. Just read about it, that is despicable. Pure vandalism there.

So they've all out banned flags there now or in all schools?

The fact this flag was on the kids bike for two months says it all for me. There shouldn't be an issue. If it's taken 2 months to react then it's clearly not been a problem until someone suddenly decided it was.

Regardless, I stand by my point. If you want to live in the US, don't expect the people in the US to accommodate you by changing their lifestyles.
I don't care who lives next door to me, but don't expect me to change anything about my life to accommodate you.

Unless this kid was specifically responding to something then I don't see any argument against him carrying a flag. The Cinco de Mayo thing is nothing more than an idiot acting up. I see no similar action here.

If there are people making threats, get rid of them. They are no different to the idiot above.

 

[drankin]

I'm in complete agreement with jarednjames on this issue. Usually I don't share the same feeling about things with the folks in the UK. I would have no problem sending my child to school with the flag on their bike despite this madeup security concern.

Maybe kids should be wearing helmets and bullet proof clothing at all times in this case. I mean come on, it's the schools responsibility to keep our kids safe, right?

So and so is offended and may become voilent by a childs hairdo, ban the hairdo?

 

[Gokul43201]

Wouldn't it have been a lot less intrusive if the school simply informed the kids parents of the threat, so they could take whatever action they deemed appropriate (i.e., have kid remove flag if they thought safety was more important, or have kid not remove flag if they considered the freedom of expression more important)?

 

[BobG]

You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.

We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.

You should reread your response.

You're suggesting that if kid A threatened kid B with physical violence the response of the schoolmaster would be to beat kid B so kid A wouldn't have to? (Actually, I could imagine a scenario where the schoolmaster would tell kid A to quit complaining and to stick up for himself, but that probably wouldn't be a politically correct response today, either. Irrelevant, but did they even have bicycles in Ben Franklin's time?)

Would punishing the victim be acceptable if the victim were a woman lodging a sexual harrassment complaint? In other words, would simply transferring the woman to a new workplace so she wouldn't have contact with the sexual harrasser be a sufficient solution?

 

[BobG]

You do know about the history behind this, the flag problem at the school on Cinco de Mayo that caused the ban? There was a large group involved, that there was no single "identified" threat to remove?

Actually, the large group didn't threaten the Cinco de Mayo celebrators. They wore American flag T-shirts as a counter-statement. Regardless of the lameness of protesting a Cinco de Mayo celebration, it wasn't a particularly disruptive protest.

(Protesting a Cinco de Mayo celebration is more or less the equivalent of protesting a St Patrick's Day celebration. Why would a person take offense at either celebration (unless they were members of MADD, perhaps) - especially to the point of protesting it?)

 

[JaredJames]

I agree with dranking and bobg on what they have said.

The school is avoiding the real issue here. Which is bullying and threatening behaviour.

I agree, make it safe for the kid, but punishing the victim isn't the way to go about it.

Nowhere else in life would we accept this. As bobg said, shifting the woman who makes a sexual harrassment complaint to another department and ignoring the person who caused the problem is wrong.

So and so is offended and may become voilent by a childs hairdo, ban the hairdo?

Exactly, it's showing people that this behaviour is an acceptable way to get their own way. Completely wrong on so many levels.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

A complaint is made about an american flag on a bicycle and it is immediately slated for removal... a kid wears a shirt with the mexican flag on it and if anyone dares say anything about it we have an international incident on our hands and are trying to deny a child's cultural heritage.

W T F

 

[JaredJames]

A complaint is made about an american flag on a bicycle and it is immediately slated for removal... a kid wears a shirt with the mexican flag on it and if anyone dares say anything about it we have an international incident on our hands and are trying to deny a child's cultural heritage.

W T F

Precisely.

As with most laws supposedly there to protect groups of people, whether they are for race, religion, sex etc. They are all bias in some way.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Precisely.

As with most laws supposedly there to protect groups of people, whether they are for race, religion, sex etc. They are all bias in some way.

It seems to me the civil liberties of immigrants (and even citizens of other countries) are being "protected" at the price of our own... I can't believe some of the ridiculous stuff that is done today in the name of political correctness.

 

[Evo]

You should reread your response.

You're suggesting that if kid A threatened kid B with physical violence the response of the schoolmaster would be to beat kid B so kid A wouldn't have to? (Actually, I could imagine a scenario where the schoolmaster would tell kid A to quit complaining and to stick up for himself, but that probably wouldn't be a politically correct response today, either. Irrelevant, but did they even have bicycles in Ben Franklin's time?)

Would punishing the victim be acceptable if the victim were a woman lodging a sexual harrassment complaint? In other words, would simply transferring the woman to a new workplace so she wouldn't have contact with the sexual harrasser be a sufficient solution?

We're talking about kid B breaking a school rule back then. Kid B would be the one getting the punishment. Just showing him that bringing Benjamin Franklin into this thread doesn't back up what he's trying to say.

 

[Al68]

You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.

We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.

The post I responded to referred also to governments reaction to 911.

As far as this kid's safety goes, prohibiting his display of the flag for that reason is despicable, and a victory to bullies everywhere, even if it doesn't directly violate anyone's rights.

Schools might as well force kids to wedgie themselves to save the bullies the trouble, and for their own safety.

Irrelevant, but did they even have bicycles in Ben Franklin's time?)

No, but equally irrelevantly, they did have tricycles.

 

[JaredJames]

Pupil: "Sir, Joe's bullying me. He steals my lunch money everyday and threatens to beat me up if I don't give it to him."

Teacher: "Well, I think it's best if I take your lunch money and let your parents know of the problem and see if they want you to change schools. Problem solved."

 

[BobG]

A complaint is made about an american flag on a bicycle and it is immediately slated for removal... a kid wears a shirt with the mexican flag on it and if anyone dares say anything about it we have an international incident on our hands and are trying to deny a child's cultural heritage.

W T F

Did the latter actually occur? And do you have a reference to that incident?

Or are you actually referring to last Spring's http://www.ktvu.com/news/23491978/detail.html , but didn't remember what actually happened?

There is one very significant detail that is common to both controversies: both schools felt their reaction (ordering the removal of the flag) was a mistake. In fact, it's surprising the school in the Veteran's Day controversy remembered the controversy part of the Cinco de Mayo incident while overlooking the school's regretting it's actions.

 

[Evo]

As far as this kid's safety goes, prohibiting his display of the flag for that reason is despicable, and a victory to bullies everywhere, even if it doesn't directly violate anyone's rights.

We'll agree to disagree then, because nothing is more important than my child's safety, nothing.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

We'll agree to disagree then, because nothing is more important than my child's safety, nothing.

The problem isn't just the child's safety, I want to know what scum is complaining about a display of the American flag, and why civil liberties groups aren't up in arms about it? What has become of our country when immigrants can threaten harm to anyone that displays patriotism, and we cave into it?!

 

[Evo]

The problem isn't just the child's safety, I want to know what scum is complaining about a display of the American flag, and why civil liberties groups aren't up in arms about it? What has become of our country when immigrants can threaten harm to anyone that displays patriotism, and we cave into it?!

Immigrant scum? Is this the reason Fox news made such a big deal of it? Is this why people are outraged? Just curious.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Immigrant scum?

Well those two terms were in different sentences but I may be getting a bit wound up. Let me put it this way- who it teaching kids they should be offended and threaten violence when they see an act of American patriotism?

 

[JaredJames]

We'll agree to disagree then, because nothing is more important than my child's safety, nothing.

I agree with you, but you have to realize what angle people are talking about here.

Removing the flag doesn't remove the problem. They are leaving the bullies in place who used violence to get their own way.

This is not a good example to set.

The first action should be the protection of your child, if it is an immediate threat get them out of the situation. They should then remove the problem child and allow your child to go back to their normal routine.

Are you honestly saying the school should punish your child and not the bullies? That your child should sacrifice something because someone is threatening violence if they don't get their own way?
That sort of behaviour isn't acceptable and shouldn't be tolerated.

What I'm seeing from you is a person who would rather see their child stripped of any freedoms they have, within their own country, to ensure they don't offend anyone else. This is something I cannot support nor agree with.

 

[BobG]

The problem isn't just the child's safety, I want to know what scum is complaining about a display of the American flag, and why civil liberties groups aren't up in arms about it? What has become of our country when immigrants can threaten harm to anyone that displays patriotism, and we cave into it?!

How do you know it was an immigrant? My ex and her family are pretty passionate about St Patrick's Day and I think their great grandfather was the immigrant. In fact, they go so far as to yell supportive cheers and sing songs for terrorist organizations and root them on in recovering Ireland's "Fourth Green Field". (Personally, I think they really do all that just as a celebration of getting drunk, but who am I to comment about their true passions.)

(And, for the record, I'm not actually anti-Irish. In fact, I guess I'm not really anti-ex's family, even though there are some things about them that are really, really annoying.)

 

[Al68]

We'll agree to disagree then, because nothing is more important than my child's safety, nothing.

Was that an implied ad hominem attack, Evo? It must be because you used the word "because", indicating that you are claiming that is the reason we disagree.

Are implied personal insults OK per forum rules?

 

[Dembadon]

Pupil: "Sir, Joe's bullying me. He steals my lunch money everyday and threatens to beat me up if I don't give it to him."

Teacher: "Well, I think it's best if I take your lunch money and let your parents know of the problem and see if they want you to change schools. Problem solved."

...
As far as this kid's safety goes, prohibiting his display of the flag for that reason is despicable, and a victory to bullies everywhere, even if it doesn't directly violate anyone's rights.

Schools might as well force kids to wedgie themselves to save the bullies the trouble.

Not all issues that arise from racial tension are analogous to wedgies and/or stolen lunch money. Some can result in severe injuries or death, even at the middle school level. Thirteen-year-olds are capable of extremely dangerous behavior.

We can't assume anything about the seriousness of the racial tension issues because the article doesn't give enough information.

Losing one's lunch money or receiving a wedgie isn't the worst thing that could happen in a situation like this, and it would be foolish to assume so.

 

[Evo]

Well those two terms were in different sentences but I may be getting a bit wound up. Let me put it this way- who it teaching kids they should be offended and threaten violence when they see an act of American patriotism?

I thought you might be a bit worked up.

I think the original Cinco de Mayo incident was handled wrong. But I understand the overreaction for this kid's safety and the school reconsidered and retracted. No different than what happened with my daughter's shirt. It was stupid, and the rules were changed.

 

[JaredJames]

Not all issues that arise from racial tension are analogous to wedgies and/or stolen lunch money. Some can result in severe injuries or death, even at the middle school level. Thirteen-year-olds are capable of extremely dangerous behavior.

We can't assume anything about the seriousness of the racial tension issues because the article doesn't give enough information.

Losing one's lunch money or receiving a wedgie isn't the worst thing that could happen in a situation like this, and it would be foolish to assume so.

With all due respect I was using a touch of sarcasm there. Outlining how ridiculous the proposal of punishing the innocent is.

Any person threatening violent behaviour towards another should be removed. Problem solved. Removing the flag and leaving the violent person in place simply shifts the problem to another day when the person becomes 'offended' by someone else's actions.

You are inhabiting the US, you abide by their laws and benefit from their countries assets and facilities. You do not move there to gain all of this and then demand people already there change their ways to accommodate you. You can be as patriotic to your own country as you like, but don't you dare be offended when someone shows support for their country and you definitely have no grounds to complain of someone wearing the flag of the country you are inhabiting. If you don't like it, leave. If you are going to use violence to try and get your own way you should be thrown out.

I know it sounds exceptionally brutal but frankly I'm sick of this "we should accommodate everyone" approach being taken recently, especially in the UK. It is the current residents who are suffering because the government is ignoring what they want and going straight to the needs of immigrants.

 

[Evo]

Was that an implied ad hominem attack, Evo? It must be because you used the word "because", indicating that you are claiming that is the reason we disagree.

Are implied personal insults OK per forum rules?

Nope. I was sincerely saying that we disagree and that's fine, my child is of utmost importance to me and there is no point in arguing. Don't try to make things up that don't exist, and don't try to put words in my mouth that aren't there. Doing what you just did, twisting something around and making false accusations is not okay per forum rules though.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

How do you know it was an immigrant?

You're right, I shouldn't have assumed the complaint was made by a child immigrant. Still I ask again- who is teaching kids they should be offended and threaten violence when they see an act of American patriotism? Are there really American kids offended and disgusted by the sight of their own flag?!

My ex and her family are pretty passionate about St Patrick's Day and I think their great grandfather was the immigrant. In fact, they go so far as to yell supportive cheers and sing songs for terrorist organizations and root them on in recovering Ireland's "Fourth Green Field". (Personally, I think they really do all that just as a celebration of getting drunk, but who am I to comment about their true passions.)

(And, for the record, I'm not actually anti-Irish. In fact, I guess I'm not really anti-ex's family, even though there are some things about them that are really, really annoying.)

And your family is what makes America great. BUT, I'll bet they don't complain (and/or threaten violence) when an American flag is displayed on a bicycle or a shirt... By the same token I'm not making threats when I see a four-leaf clover on St. Patrick's day!

Something is festering at the heart of our society, and I want to know what it is!

 

[Al68]

Not all issues that arise from racial tension are analogous to wedgies and/or stolen lunch money. Some can result in severe injuries or death, even at the middle school level. Thirteen-year-olds are capable of extremely dangerous behavior.

We can't assume anything about the seriousness of the racial tension issues because the article doesn't give enough information.

Losing one's lunch money or receiving a wedgie isn't the worst thing that could happen in a situation like this, and it would be foolish to assume so.

I meant the wedgie as a metaphor for the school telling the kid he can't display the flag, not as an example of a threat to the kid's safety. Although a wedgie can be pretty dangerous.

 

[WhoWee]

Rather than take the flag away from a single student - perhaps they should hand out flags to all of the students and teach them about it's history and symbolism. A great many Americans have given their lives to defend the Red, White, and Blue.

 

[Al68]

Nope. I was sincerely saying that we disagree and that's fine, my child is of utmost importance to me and there is no point in arguing. Don't try to make things up that don't exist, and don't try to put words in my mouth that aren't there.

OK, I must have completely misconstrued your post. You used the word "because" to indicate that the fact that your child's safety is important to you is completely unrelated to the reason we disagree.

Sorry for "making up something that doesn't exist". My bad.

Doing what you just did, twisting something around and making false accusations is not okay per forum rules though.

Sorry I violated forum rules by construing the word "because" to mean something other than a completely unrelated remark.

 

[Al68]

Rather than take the flag away from a single student - perhaps they should hand out flags to all of the students and teach them about it's history and symbolism. A great many Americans have given their lives to defend the Red, White, and Blue.

Yeah. Or maybe have a big flag in front of the school, in the hallways, and in each classroom. What a novel idea.

 

[Evo]

OK, I must have completely misconstrued your post. You used the word "because" to indicate that the fact that your child's safety is important to you is completely unrelated to the reason we disagree.

Sorry for "making up something that doesn't exist". My bad.Sorry I violated forum rules by construing the word "because" to mean something other than a completely unrelated remark.

Finally, someone understands how my mind works!

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah. Or maybe have a big flag in front of the school, in the hallways, and in each classroom. What a novel idea.

By giving each child their own personal flag, they can take ownership and have an opportunity to participate in an American tradition. Hopefully, when/if they take it home, their parents will respond in a positive manner.

 

[BobG]

You're right, I shouldn't have assumed the complaint was made by a child immigrant. Still I ask again- who is teaching kids they should be offended and threaten violence when they see an act of American patriotism? Are there really American kids offended and disgusted by the sight of their own flag?!




And your family is what makes America great. BUT, I'll bet they don't complain (and/or threaten violence) when an American flag is displayed on a bicycle or a shirt... By the same token I'm not making threats when I see a four-leaf clover on St. Patrick's day!

Something is festering at the heart of our society, and I want to know what it is!

Personally, I think I might be twice as excited by Cinco de Mayo celebrations as I am about St Patrick's Day celebration, but I'd need a calculator to be sure. The grandchild is about 25% (or less) Mexican descent and, 12.5% (or less) Irish descent. Or does the fact that I have four kids that are 25% (or less) Irish descent mean I should be more excited by St Patrick's Day? But then how do I figure in the fact that the ex is 50% Irish and, well, she's an ex for a reason?

And when it comes to my personal ancestory, I need a calculator and perhaps a rule book (do I count my Guernsey ancestors as being their own nationality, or do I count them as French since all of them came to Guernsey Island from Normandy; and what do I do about the whole Shclesswig-Holstein thing since sometimes it belonged to Denmark and sometimes it belonged to Germany?)

Everything has context. In the Cinco de Mayo controversy, the students, themselves, told people they were wearing the American flag T-shirts as a protest against the Cinco de Mayo celebration. The flags on the T-shirt weren't the problem per se, although a purist might mention that the student's motivation for wearing the flag wasn't in line with the traditional reasons people display the flag. Likewise, removing the T-shirts wasn't really the appropriate solution.

The original root issue was protesting a Cinco de Mayo celebration. Protesting the Cinco de Mayo celebrations were a matter of free speech, but free speech doesn't mean the people you insulted don't have the their own right to voice their opinion about your protest. Unless tempers flared to the point of violence erupting, then the school really didn't need to discipline anyone.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The original root issue was protesting a Cinco de Mayo celebration. Protesting the Cinco de Mayo celebrations were a matter of free speech, but free speech doesn't mean the people you insulted don't have the their own right to voice their opinion about your protest. Unless tempers flared to the point of violence erupting, then the school really didn't need to discipline anyone.

The most confusing part of it all- the kids were "insulted" at other kids wearing american flags during cinco de mayo while they were wearing mexican flag memorabilia, a practice which is frowned upon IN MEXICO!

 

[CRGreathouse]

The most confusing part of it all- the kids were "insulted" at other kids wearing american flags during cinco de mayo while they were wearing mexican flag memorabilia, a practice which is frowned upon IN MEXICO!

Well, the gesture was apparently intended as an insult, so I'm not surprised it was taken as such. But I generally feel that the best answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.

 

[BobG]

The most confusing part of it all- the kids were "insulted" at other kids wearing american flags during cinco de mayo while they were wearing mexican flag memorabilia, a practice which is frowned upon IN MEXICO!

Which part - the Cinco de Mayo celebration which might also be celebrated at a Mexican tourist resort frequented by Americans but nowhere else in Mexico or wearing the national flag as apparel, which is frowned upon by most countries, including the US.

In either case, why would the students care what Mexico thinks about it? They live in the US.

Cinco de Mayo isn't a celebration of nationality - it's a celebration of ancestry and culture.

 

[Char. Limit]

Personally, I place the school administrators in the wrong. A few anonymous complaints does not excuse the administrators telling the kid that he couldn't put a flag on his bicycle. ESPECIALLY not when there's already other flags flying EVERYWHERE in the school. If the complainers are offended by that kid, they should be offended by every classroom, office, and the big flagpole outside!

Also, did they really forbid him from flying a flag on his bicycle when what he does on his bicycle has no connection to the school whatsoever!? Unless he rides it around in the halls, what he does on the bicycle is his business. He could fly a Nazi flag on the bicycle and they can't make him take it down.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nah you're much more likely to be killed by people of the 'same gang'. It's much more complicated than a blue vs. red analogy that the media loves. Gangs that associate with the 'bloods'(red) kill each other far more often than fighting anyone else.

This of course, makes perfect sense, once a gang stabilizes (relatively speaking), most of the action is going to be internal moves for power, territory, or the settling of dispute. Ask any homicide detective and they'll tell you the truism: "Nearest and Dearest" are most likely to have committed the crime... why wouldn't that apply to a gang? The only time inter-gang violence would spike is during a "gang war" or some other dispute, but they tend to be brief if bloody.


Anyway, this whole issue should have been ignored if these things didn't end in people getting hurt. That said, there hast to be something better than just saying, "No Flags Allowed", which doesn't address the actual tensions. You can reduce risk of fire by removing tinder, but if you're dealing with saaaay, a national park's worth of brush, you have to deal with the cause (drought, weather, etc) and not count on getting ever single dry pine needle and dead tree.

 

[Dembadon]

With all due respect I was using a touch of sarcasm there. Outlining how ridiculous the proposal of punishing the innocent is.

Any person threatening violent behaviour towards another should be removed. Problem solved. Removing the flag and leaving the violent person in place simply shifts the problem to another day when the person becomes 'offended' by someone else's actions.

You are inhabiting the US, you abide by their laws and benefit from their countries assets and facilities. You do not move there to gain all of this and then demand people already there change their ways to accommodate you. You can be as patriotic to your own country as you like, but don't you dare be offended when someone shows support for their country and you definitely have no grounds to complain of someone wearing the flag of the country you are inhabiting. If you don't like it, leave. If you are going to use violence to try and get your own way you should be thrown out.

I know it sounds exceptionally brutal but frankly I'm sick of this "we should accommodate everyone" approach being taken recently, especially in the UK. It is the current residents who are suffering because the government is ignoring what they want and going straight to the needs of immigrants.

I share your concern about attempting to accommodate everyone, but we don't know the specifics about the racial issues in this particular school. Sometimes the best solutions are preventative in nature, although it seems a bit silly that the school felt they could regulate Cody's actions while he wasn't even at school. In this case, their regulation probably should have been a suggestion. Also, the school isn't ignoring the troublemakers.

From the article (emphasis mine):

After being contacted by FOX40 Friday morning, Denair's Superintendent says Cody will be allowed to keep the flag on his bike. He told FOX40 he and the school are patriotic, but their main priority is keeping students safe; the school will focus on the students who are causing uprisings.

 

[Dembadon]

I meant the wedgie as a metaphor for the school telling the kid he can't display the flag, not as an example of a threat to the kid's safety. Although a wedgie can be pretty dangerous.

I think a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgie#Variations" would probably be more dangerous than a wedgie, depending on angle.

 

[JaredJames]

From the article (emphasis mine):

Of course, but my problem is with the fact their main attempt to control the issue was via the guy with the flag.

I agree, a suggestion to him / his family regarding wearing it should have been made, but they shouldn't impose a sanction on him immediately.

 

[Dembadon]

Of course, but my problem is with the fact their main attempt to control the issue was via the guy with the flag.

...

Preventative measures, in and of themselves, aren't always bad, especially when the risks are high and information is scarce. For instance, if it were likely that Cody's life was in danger, and the school didn't have enough information to take immediate action, a quick way to calm the situation would be to ask him to put the flag away until they have more information, rather than risk finding him curb-stomped one day because his rights were more important than his safety. This is an extreme case, I know, but not one that can be ignored without more information.

 

[JaredJames]

Oh of course dembadon, get rid of the danger as soon as possible.

But they didn't just ask him not to display it, they banned him from doing so. It's one thing to tell someone you believe them to be in danger and that they shouldn't display it until they know what's going on to ensure they remain safe, but it's something else when you simply ban it.

Again, if you don't like the US flag, don't live in the US. If you want to live in a country don't get mad when you see symbols that represent that country.