Yet another Richland 2 high school student has been arrested. Are these threats (and commission) of crimes contagious? Who else is concerned about these reports?
This time it was a Westwood High School student. If you don't know where Westwood High School is, look it up on the District's website.
The student allegedly posted an online threat on Wednesday and, on Thursday, a school employee spotted it.
The student was identified only as 17 years old. Possibly male, since The State reporter mentioned "he" (the student) threatened to kill someone.
I say "possibly" male, because today's trend in reporting tends toward gender-neutral descriptions unless gender to known and available. Today's generation of reporters may not know, or may have forgotten, that "he" could mean he or she when not wishing to disclose gender. Too often we read in the printed media "they" being used to describe a single (one) person when wanting to avoid he or she.
OK, so out of 27,000 students there are going to be a few bad apples; right?
I'm curious what is being done in Richland 2 schools (high schools, middle schools and elementary schools) to create good citizens with critical thinking skills who wish to avoid committing crimes and finding themselves in jail with futures destroyed by dumb actions.
What race was the 17-year-old boy? Is there a hint in the news article, where the student's Instagram post reportedly included "better watch y'all back"?
Send the kid back to English class. Teach him the possessive case of "y'all". Shouldn't he have written "better watch y'all's back"? Or correct grammatically, "better watch your back".
OK, I'm assuming the kid was black. Maybe he is one of the young African-American males about whom Board Trustee Elkins-Johnson is so worried (Watch the 10/15/19 YouTube school board recording at 1:08:20 on the timer), when she made her comments at the board meeting on Tuesday night during the discussion about the two (white) employees who have been carrying concealed firearms as they go about the District administrative tasks. You know the ones; the ones who might appear aggressive or loud-spoken. (Are they really just boys who need to be understood culturally.)
Friday, October 18, 2019
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Wrong information on guns carried on school grounds
During the long discussion on carrying weapons at the October 15 board meeting, Supt. Davis said that the two employees (Director and Asst. Director of Emergency Services) were not carrying openly on school grounds. They carried concealed firearms.
Then he said (at 1:05:30), "they did have the authorization to do so", meaning to carry openly.
No, they didn't. South Carolina state law does not allow civilians to carry handguns in the open.
Had the two employees carried openly, they could have been arrested.
Did Supt. Davis mean that he had authorized them to violate state law? That's probably not what he meant.
State guns laws are very specific, technical, and very difficult to understand. Even those who have studied them closely will listen carefully to a question and then try to answer it by what the law really says.
And whether the two employees were even "authorized by law" to carry on school grounds is open to interpretation and to question. Both men may be retired law-enforcement officers. Federal law allows retired (just just former, but retired) officers to carry. But once they take a job, they are no longer "retired".
And I would posit that a retired law-enforcement officer loses his privilege to carry, once he accepts employment, especially in a school, which is, as I understand it, specifically identified as a Gun-Free Zone under Federal law.
A school superintendent cannot grant permission for an employee to break State or Federal laws.
Then he said (at 1:05:30), "they did have the authorization to do so", meaning to carry openly.
No, they didn't. South Carolina state law does not allow civilians to carry handguns in the open.
Had the two employees carried openly, they could have been arrested.
Did Supt. Davis mean that he had authorized them to violate state law? That's probably not what he meant.
State guns laws are very specific, technical, and very difficult to understand. Even those who have studied them closely will listen carefully to a question and then try to answer it by what the law really says.
And whether the two employees were even "authorized by law" to carry on school grounds is open to interpretation and to question. Both men may be retired law-enforcement officers. Federal law allows retired (just just former, but retired) officers to carry. But once they take a job, they are no longer "retired".
And I would posit that a retired law-enforcement officer loses his privilege to carry, once he accepts employment, especially in a school, which is, as I understand it, specifically identified as a Gun-Free Zone under Federal law.
A school superintendent cannot grant permission for an employee to break State or Federal laws.
Box cutter? Tool or Weapon?
Want to drive me crazy?
It's a great thing that I could not hear Trustee Shadd mumbling in a low voice at the school board meeting on October 15, when he asked about a box cutter in a shop class. If a teacher has a box cutter in a shop class, does he have a weapon?
And later Teresa Holmes made a refereence to box cutters.
As I saw in the audience, I thought, "I have a weapon right here in my hand." I was holding an EnerGel Liquid Gel Ink writing pen full of blue ink. Is that a weapon?
Are my eyeblasses weapons? Are my hands weapons? My feet? Is a No. 2 pencil a weapon? What about a nail file and a hair clip? What about the buckle on my belt? Heck, what about the belt itself? Or my shoelaces?
The board room Tuesday night was full of weapons!!!
This nonsense drives me crazy.
We have trustees on the school board who apparently cannot discern between a tool and a weapon. Sure, this will anger them to read this. Well, it angered me to hear them waste public time with that drivel.
Yes, a box cutter is a weapon if someone holds it up to my neck and threatens to slice off my head.
No, it is NOT a weapon when used to cut open a box!!!
When Mr. Shadd mentioned knives and said "of a certain length", the staffer seemed to be agreeing. But I don't think the policy refers to length. If a student shows up with his Swiss Army Knife on his belt, he's going to jail.
It's a great thing that I could not hear Trustee Shadd mumbling in a low voice at the school board meeting on October 15, when he asked about a box cutter in a shop class. If a teacher has a box cutter in a shop class, does he have a weapon?
And later Teresa Holmes made a refereence to box cutters.
As I saw in the audience, I thought, "I have a weapon right here in my hand." I was holding an EnerGel Liquid Gel Ink writing pen full of blue ink. Is that a weapon?
Are my eyeblasses weapons? Are my hands weapons? My feet? Is a No. 2 pencil a weapon? What about a nail file and a hair clip? What about the buckle on my belt? Heck, what about the belt itself? Or my shoelaces?
The board room Tuesday night was full of weapons!!!
This nonsense drives me crazy.
We have trustees on the school board who apparently cannot discern between a tool and a weapon. Sure, this will anger them to read this. Well, it angered me to hear them waste public time with that drivel.
Yes, a box cutter is a weapon if someone holds it up to my neck and threatens to slice off my head.
No, it is NOT a weapon when used to cut open a box!!!
When Mr. Shadd mentioned knives and said "of a certain length", the staffer seemed to be agreeing. But I don't think the policy refers to length. If a student shows up with his Swiss Army Knife on his belt, he's going to jail.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Weapons Policy: McKie (No); Caution-Parker (Abstain)
When it was time to vote on a Motion at last night's school board meeting, there were two votes that were not surprising.
The Administration had submitted a revision of Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct. The revision was first discussed at the September 24th board meeting, where it was eventually postponed (rather than "tabled"). A number of board members voiced desired changes.
The Administration returned last night with the same revised policy. The bullet point pertains to employee conduct that would be viewed as an Misconduct.
The existing policy: ● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law)
The proposed revised policy: ● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)
Upon motion by Dr. Elkins-Johnson and seconded by Teresa Holmes, the board approved removing the entire parenthetical portion, leaving the proposed revision as "...possessing weapons on district property."
The vote was 5-1-1, with McKie voting "No" and Caution-Parker Abstaining.
Why would McKie vote "No"? Was it because Supt. Davis' authority was being diminished?
Why would Caution-Parker abstain? There is a clue on the website of the Richland 2 Black Parents Assn.(BPA) The BPA has this to say on its website about Caution-Parker:
"Her claim to fame is her 30 plus years and multiple roles in Richland School District Two. Her tenure on the board has been one of going along to get along. Her platform has basically been whatever the district decides or feels like doing should be supported regardless of the economic burden that it creates for the community. With Ms. Caution-Parker it's all about district first, and everyone else next including parents and students. She demonstrates a commitment to maintaining status quo and approves all initiatives of district with zero questions."
Actually, McKie's "No" vote shouldn't be counted (even though it would not have affected the outcome), and the motion needed a different trustee to second it, since both McKie and Holmes are not legal members of the board.
Just yesterday a Columbia attorney asked me why McKie and Holmes are permitted to sit at the board, and he asked me if I was seeking to have all decisions swayed by their votes since November 13th invalidated. He hit the nail right on the head! He had no hesitation to opine that, if McKie and Holmes took the oath of office before they were eligible to do so (which they did!), then they are not legally on the board.
The Administration had submitted a revision of Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct. The revision was first discussed at the September 24th board meeting, where it was eventually postponed (rather than "tabled"). A number of board members voiced desired changes.
The Administration returned last night with the same revised policy. The bullet point pertains to employee conduct that would be viewed as an Misconduct.
The existing policy: ● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law)
The proposed revised policy: ● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)
Upon motion by Dr. Elkins-Johnson and seconded by Teresa Holmes, the board approved removing the entire parenthetical portion, leaving the proposed revision as "...possessing weapons on district property."
The vote was 5-1-1, with McKie voting "No" and Caution-Parker Abstaining.
Why would McKie vote "No"? Was it because Supt. Davis' authority was being diminished?
Why would Caution-Parker abstain? There is a clue on the website of the Richland 2 Black Parents Assn.(BPA) The BPA has this to say on its website about Caution-Parker:
"Her claim to fame is her 30 plus years and multiple roles in Richland School District Two. Her tenure on the board has been one of going along to get along. Her platform has basically been whatever the district decides or feels like doing should be supported regardless of the economic burden that it creates for the community. With Ms. Caution-Parker it's all about district first, and everyone else next including parents and students. She demonstrates a commitment to maintaining status quo and approves all initiatives of district with zero questions."
Actually, McKie's "No" vote shouldn't be counted (even though it would not have affected the outcome), and the motion needed a different trustee to second it, since both McKie and Holmes are not legal members of the board.
Just yesterday a Columbia attorney asked me why McKie and Holmes are permitted to sit at the board, and he asked me if I was seeking to have all decisions swayed by their votes since November 13th invalidated. He hit the nail right on the head! He had no hesitation to opine that, if McKie and Holmes took the oath of office before they were eligible to do so (which they did!), then they are not legally on the board.
Curb Gun Violence?
Are you interested in curbing gun violence in Richland County? How about curbing all violence?
Okay, turn off the TV and show up at Rehoboth Baptist Church tomorrow, Thursday, October 17, 2019, at 6:00PM. The church is located at 4646 Hard Scrabble Road, just south of Summit Parkway.
Who will be there?
Richland County Sheriff's Department
Columbia Police Department
Community organizations, including MOMs Demand Action
The Pastor of the Church is Ivory Torrey Thigpen, who is also a S.C. State Representative (House District 79) and a local chiropractor (D.C.).
A while back I offered to participate in any community focus or advisory group that he might assemble to help him with information about proposed gun legislation. I wanted to help him understand what "assault weapons" are (and that they have been generally outlawed in the U.S. since 1934), but I've never been called.
Apparently, I didn't even make it onto his email distribution list for announcement of meetings of this type. I'm glad that I happened across a member of MOMs Demand Action at last night's school board meeting and didn't delay in looking at the MOMs webpage today.
Look for me at tomorrow night's meeting. I'll be the one who is wearing the blue NRA cap in the sea of red MOMs t-shirts. I just hope that no madman shows up with a gun at Pastor Thigpen's church, because we'll all be defenseless in the gun-free zone there.
Okay, turn off the TV and show up at Rehoboth Baptist Church tomorrow, Thursday, October 17, 2019, at 6:00PM. The church is located at 4646 Hard Scrabble Road, just south of Summit Parkway.
Who will be there?
Richland County Sheriff's Department
Columbia Police Department
Community organizations, including MOMs Demand Action
The Pastor of the Church is Ivory Torrey Thigpen, who is also a S.C. State Representative (House District 79) and a local chiropractor (D.C.).
A while back I offered to participate in any community focus or advisory group that he might assemble to help him with information about proposed gun legislation. I wanted to help him understand what "assault weapons" are (and that they have been generally outlawed in the U.S. since 1934), but I've never been called.
Apparently, I didn't even make it onto his email distribution list for announcement of meetings of this type. I'm glad that I happened across a member of MOMs Demand Action at last night's school board meeting and didn't delay in looking at the MOMs webpage today.
Look for me at tomorrow night's meeting. I'll be the one who is wearing the blue NRA cap in the sea of red MOMs t-shirts. I just hope that no madman shows up with a gun at Pastor Thigpen's church, because we'll all be defenseless in the gun-free zone there.
Should a student be tasered?
Is Richland Northeast High School the most dangerous school in the Richland 2 District? Wasn't it just in the news within the past two weeks?
At last night's school board meeting a speaker addressed the board on the topic of weapons and firearms, which would be discussed later by the board as part of its review of Board Policy GBEB. He mentioned the tasering of a student. Watch the YouTube recording, starting at 20:46 on the timer.
At the time of the meeting I hadn't heard about the fight on Monday at Richland Northeast High School. After returning home, I read this article on TheState.com.
My answer to the question is a resounding "Yes!"
If an SRO responds to a fight on school grounds and three punks are punching and kicking a student on the ground, if the SRO can't quickly break up the fight, then he will begin using "such force as is necessary". If that's a taser, use it!
And if the taser doesn't work and one of the punks is about to kill or seriously injure the kid on the ground, then the SRO is very likely going to shoot him. And he shouldn't have to worry about getting fired over it.
A taser is a less-than-lethal weapon. A death or serious injury usually does not occur after its use.
But I've got to ask - What is really going on at Richland Northeast High School?
What are the demographics of that school compared to, say, Blythewood High School or Ridge View or Spring Valley?
I've already been told (not by anyone connected with the school district), "A school with a high percentage of black students should have a black SRO, because he'll understand the black culture."
I responded to my acquaintance that I thought many Richland 2 schools probably have black SROs, but I don't agree with the idea that you must assign a black SRO to a "black" school. If you want to promote separation and racism, then that's what you do. We expect the SROs to be color-blind in the administration of justice, and that's exactly what the students and parents should be.
But what about the "school-to-prison pipeline"? you ask? What about the "loud voices" of African American males, as school trustee Shadd asked at a previous school board meeting? What about Trustee Elkins-Johnson's question and comment last night about understanding African-American boys.
Here's my take. Like it or not. All students (black, white, brown, red, yellow, etc.) should be expected to be polite and respectful. For some, they are going to have to learn this at school. If they carry weapons or threaten to kill other students or teachers, then they are going to get sucked into the school-to-prison pipeline. They should learn that in first grade.
At last night's school board meeting a speaker addressed the board on the topic of weapons and firearms, which would be discussed later by the board as part of its review of Board Policy GBEB. He mentioned the tasering of a student. Watch the YouTube recording, starting at 20:46 on the timer.
At the time of the meeting I hadn't heard about the fight on Monday at Richland Northeast High School. After returning home, I read this article on TheState.com.
My answer to the question is a resounding "Yes!"
If an SRO responds to a fight on school grounds and three punks are punching and kicking a student on the ground, if the SRO can't quickly break up the fight, then he will begin using "such force as is necessary". If that's a taser, use it!
And if the taser doesn't work and one of the punks is about to kill or seriously injure the kid on the ground, then the SRO is very likely going to shoot him. And he shouldn't have to worry about getting fired over it.
A taser is a less-than-lethal weapon. A death or serious injury usually does not occur after its use.
But I've got to ask - What is really going on at Richland Northeast High School?
What are the demographics of that school compared to, say, Blythewood High School or Ridge View or Spring Valley?
I've already been told (not by anyone connected with the school district), "A school with a high percentage of black students should have a black SRO, because he'll understand the black culture."
I responded to my acquaintance that I thought many Richland 2 schools probably have black SROs, but I don't agree with the idea that you must assign a black SRO to a "black" school. If you want to promote separation and racism, then that's what you do. We expect the SROs to be color-blind in the administration of justice, and that's exactly what the students and parents should be.
But what about the "school-to-prison pipeline"? you ask? What about the "loud voices" of African American males, as school trustee Shadd asked at a previous school board meeting? What about Trustee Elkins-Johnson's question and comment last night about understanding African-American boys.
Here's my take. Like it or not. All students (black, white, brown, red, yellow, etc.) should be expected to be polite and respectful. For some, they are going to have to learn this at school. If they carry weapons or threaten to kill other students or teachers, then they are going to get sucked into the school-to-prison pipeline. They should learn that in first grade.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Soon, two fewer guns at Richland 2
At tonight's board meeting, parents addressed the board on Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct and its provision that has allowed two Richland 2 employees to carry their firearms concealed on school grounds. As a result of comments by parents and community members, and an anonymous letter to Dr. Elkins-Johnson, there is now a strong possibility that those guns will vanish from Richland 2 grounds.
After comments during the Public Participation segment (see the video on YouTube as soon as it is published (probably October 17)) and the board's discussion. It was vigorous, and almost everyone participated.
I'll say again, thank goodness for the YouTube recording. Tonight it was very difficult to hear the remarks of Dr. Elkins-Johnson, Mr. Shadd, Mrs. McKie, even Supt. Davis. Usually he leans forward and speaks directly in his microphone. The two staffers at the podium could not be heard throughout the room, either.
Dr. Elkins made a motion to remove parenthetical wording in GBEB about possessing weapons on district property. The Administration had proposed changing the bullet point identifying one item of misconduct from "possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law) to "possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)".
At the September 24th school board meeting I spoke during the Public Participation segment and told the board that there had been a man in the board meeting carrying a concealed firearm before the start of the meeting. It was my opinion that none on the board was aware that any employee of the District was armed. I suggested that it should be the Board that authorizes such possession of weapons, not the superintendent.
Speakers tonight were not required to give their names. A woman read a long statement regarding the revision to Policy GBEB. For her full statement, view the YouTube recording. She enumerated conditions that she would find acceptable to authorization for designated employees to carry, which included being certified as law enforcement officers, training, mental-health evaluation annually.
After she left the meeting, I stepped out to speak with her, and I invited her to send me her statement for publication here and said I would be happy to publish it verbatim. Te hear her full statement, go to the YouTube recording. Fast-forward to 29:53 on the timer.
At tonight's meeting the Board discussion about Policy GBEB Staff Conduct begins at 55:04 on the YouTube recording. Dr. Elkins said she had first learned of employees' carrying guns through an anonymous letter. Dr. Elkins made a motion to delete "(unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)" from the Policy. After a vigorous discussion, the motion passed 5-1-1. Amelia McKie voted against the motion. Dr. Caution-Parker abstained. The vote tonight was only on the motion, not on the revision itself.
At the October 29 board meeting Policy GBEB will come up for a vote. Parents should keep the pressure on the board by email, telephone and personal visits.
After comments during the Public Participation segment (see the video on YouTube as soon as it is published (probably October 17)) and the board's discussion. It was vigorous, and almost everyone participated.
I'll say again, thank goodness for the YouTube recording. Tonight it was very difficult to hear the remarks of Dr. Elkins-Johnson, Mr. Shadd, Mrs. McKie, even Supt. Davis. Usually he leans forward and speaks directly in his microphone. The two staffers at the podium could not be heard throughout the room, either.
Dr. Elkins made a motion to remove parenthetical wording in GBEB about possessing weapons on district property. The Administration had proposed changing the bullet point identifying one item of misconduct from "possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law) to "possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)".
At the September 24th school board meeting I spoke during the Public Participation segment and told the board that there had been a man in the board meeting carrying a concealed firearm before the start of the meeting. It was my opinion that none on the board was aware that any employee of the District was armed. I suggested that it should be the Board that authorizes such possession of weapons, not the superintendent.
Speakers tonight were not required to give their names. A woman read a long statement regarding the revision to Policy GBEB. For her full statement, view the YouTube recording. She enumerated conditions that she would find acceptable to authorization for designated employees to carry, which included being certified as law enforcement officers, training, mental-health evaluation annually.
After she left the meeting, I stepped out to speak with her, and I invited her to send me her statement for publication here and said I would be happy to publish it verbatim. Te hear her full statement, go to the YouTube recording. Fast-forward to 29:53 on the timer.
At tonight's meeting the Board discussion about Policy GBEB Staff Conduct begins at 55:04 on the YouTube recording. Dr. Elkins said she had first learned of employees' carrying guns through an anonymous letter. Dr. Elkins made a motion to delete "(unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)" from the Policy. After a vigorous discussion, the motion passed 5-1-1. Amelia McKie voted against the motion. Dr. Caution-Parker abstained. The vote tonight was only on the motion, not on the revision itself.
At the October 29 board meeting Policy GBEB will come up for a vote. Parents should keep the pressure on the board by email, telephone and personal visits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)