Was Suspended from School for Having Leatherman Micra. Seriously?

[killgar]

Have you ever served in the U.S. military.

No, I haven't. Which is why I began my statement with "My understanding is".

Commanders have WIDE latitude.

Do they? And how many allow recruits to carry knives, or other personal weapons, during basic?

And how about commanders in combat? Do they allow soldiers to carry any firearm they want? Are soldiers allowed to use any ammunition they want? Are they allowed to use hollow-points in they pistols? Or are there strictly enforced rules against such things, with no latitude whatsoever on the part of commanders?

Those with zero tolerance mentalities do not make it far or long.

I wonder how long of a military career a commander would have if they exercised their "WIDE latitude" and allowed recruits to carry personal weapons in basic? Or how long of a career they would have if they allowed troops to carry whatever type of ammo they wanted (hollow-points, tracers, fragmenting, etc).

My understanding from people I know who serve and have served, is that there are VERY strict rules in the military, and those who break the rules can find themselves reduced in rank, not being promoted, out of a career, dishonorably discharged, or in prison. I don't imagine that many commanders are going to risk any of that by exercising "WIDE latitude", especially when they don't have to.

 

[markpmc]

The golden rule for any student athlete is: Listen, Look, Act. Do this and you pretty much can excel at any sport or subject in school.

Sounds like you skipped #1.

It gets worse in grownup land.

 

[TOM1960]

I'm a junior in high school. 3.9 GPA, sports, honor roll, etc, etc. Basically, a pretty cool kid. So, my school has an all-encompassing no weapons rule. But, the rule doesn't specifically state what the school considers a weapon. Of course, I'm not going to go wearing a plate carrier with a BK9 strapped to my pack, but within reason I'd like to be able to depend on myself. The Micra is perfect for a keyring, and it's what I use at school. Or, at least use to use. I was in class, and had to cut a thread on my jeans that wasn't coming out. The teacher (we'll call her Ms. Sheeple who's watched too much Dateline) was walking by. She saw this, and immediately gasped in horror. She grabbed my keyring out of my hand, called the resource officer, all the while saying that I was going to stab my fellow classmates and making a huge scene. Because Ms. Sheeple is incredibly tactful and knows how to manage herself when stressed. Ultimately, I was escorted home by the officer, lost my keys, and was suspended for a week. It kinda sucked. A lot. All of my peers strongly disagreed with the decision, and made their voices heard. in retaliation, the school is barely allowing safety scissors in the classrooms. I'm not nearly as old as a lot of you guys here, but I strongly believe that this is a big issue with how kids are being raised nowadays. Sounds odd, coming from someone who is still a kid himself. All of the teachers except for a small handful supported the decision to make the campus "safer" but not allowing any knives, tools, or pointed objects whatsoever. This is just wrong. I want to know what you guys think of this. Thanks!

Also, it all worked out in the end. I just transferred to a much nicer technical school, and three out of the five schooldays, we do our schooling downtown. I openly carry my Leatherman Surge, Blacked out Manix 2 XL, and a shiny, brand new Micra on my keys.

Still, it was an ordeal that I don't want to go through again. What do you guys think?

Honestly, I feel for you. Recently, a guy in a neighboring state (NH) who worked as a clerk at a Shell gas station shot a criminal who was trying to rob him at knifepoint. He was fired from his job as a result. A guy in Michigan who worked at WalMart saved a woman from being kidnapped. He was fired for his good deed. Common sense in this once-great nation has been replaced by political correctness, to the detriment of us all. Well, look at it this way, one door closed and another one opened. You are far better off learning a trade, given the current workplace environment. Many college graduates cannot get jobs, unless you go into nursing or some other female-dominated field. Your (former) teachers, including the complete piece of buffalo s**t who ratted you out to the cops, are brainwashed liberals who are only concerned with their careers, getting tenure as teachers and eventually retiring with nice pensions and benefit packages. I know it hurts, but you are far better off out of there. For future reference, keep your EDC knife completely concealed. I carried knives for years when I went through school. Times back then were more relaxed, but concealed means concealed. If nobody sees what you carry, you will be OK. Best of luck to you.

 

[TOM1960]

Depending on where you live, you may be able to get away with it. I know that in the state of Missouri, if the blade is less than 4" it is not even considered a knife.

That's the law of the land here, anyway.

A kid here in Massachusetts not only got permanently expelled from school but also arrested and charged with possession of ammunition without a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card (a felony!). His crime? He brought a spent .22 Short rimfire shell casing to school to show his friends. He fired it from his older brother's rifle over the weekend. How's that for "justice"?

 

[TOM1960]

No, I haven't. Which is why I began my statement with "My understanding is".

Do they? And how many allow recruits to carry knives, or other personal weapons, during basic?

And how about commanders in combat? Do they allow soldiers to carry any firearm they want? Are soldiers allowed to use any ammunition they want? Are they allowed to use hollow-points in they pistols? Or are there strictly enforced rules against such things, with no latitude whatsoever on the part of commanders?

I wonder how long of a military career a commander would have if they exercised their "WIDE latitude" and allowed recruits to carry personal weapons in basic? Or how long of a career they would have if they allowed troops to carry whatever type of ammo they wanted (hollow-points, tracers, fragmenting, etc).

My understanding from people I know who serve and have served, is that there are VERY strict rules in the military, and those who break the rules can find themselves reduced in rank, not being promoted, out of a career, dishonorably discharged, or in prison. I don't imagine that many commanders are going to risk any of that by exercising "WIDE latitude", especially when they don't have to.

Wide latitude? In Iraq, when the "Mighty Mattels" were jamming up on the fine dust known as desert sand, our troops were using captured enemy AK 47 rifles. If I was a grunt, and I am damned glad sure that I never had the misfortune to be one, I would save my own ass first and worry about the legal consequences later. People get out of prison every day, including servicemen and women from military prison. Dead men do not get out of their tombs. The only one that I know who did was our Savior, Jesus Christ. In combat, it is every man for himself. Do your best to save your own life and come home to your family.

 

[killgar]

I'd say that there is a big difference between "zero tolerance" policies, and specific rules such as "no knives on campus". "Zero tolerance" policies can be quite ridiculous (like suspending children for a squirt gun, pointing their finger and saying "bang-bang", etc, etc.). But a rule that says "no knives" is a very simple, specific, reasonable, and easy rule to follow. Do children need knives at school? Is the "right" of a child to carry a knife at school of the utmost importance? As far as I know, there is no such "right".

In my opinion, some of what I see in this thread is what I think is wrong with this country- A sense of entitlement. Many people believe that they should be able to do whatever they want to do, and claim that they have some sort of "right" to do it. And they view any law or rule that says they can't as some form of oppression.

I think that some knife enthusiasts take their love of knives to the extreme and believe that anyone should be allowed to carry a knife anywhere they want. I like knives about as much as anyone, and I openly carry a fixed-blade almost everywhere I go and I don't give a rats ass if people don't like it because it's LEGAL. But when I go to a school function, I leave my knife locked in my car. My "right" to carry the knife I want ends where the law says it ends.

People like to mention that there are other things at school that can be used as weapons, like pens, pencils, chairs, etc. But here's the difference between those items and knives- those items are NECESSARY in school and have a legitimate reason for being there, kids don't NEED knives at school. And just because a pencil can be used as a weapon doesn't mean that school administrators should allow kids to carry knives.

There was an incident here in San Diego recently that sticks in my mind, it didn't happen in a school, but it's still relevant- Two young friends were playing out in front of one of their houses. One of the kids (12 years old) became angry with his friend, so he ran inside his house, grabbed a kitchen knife, ran back outside, and stabbed his friend TO DEATH. No surprise that the little murderer had a history of psychological/behavioral problems. Here are a few interesting things about this story, and relevant to this discussion- the kid didn't use his fists, he wanted to use a knife. He didn't have a knife on his person, he had to go get one. He didn't grab a pencil, or a pen, or a chair, or any other potentially lethal item, he went straight for the knife. The knife he retrieved was not designed as a "weapon", it was a kitchen knife. The kid committed premeditated murder over a childish dispute, he took the time to go find the weapon, and come back to where his intended victim was.

Now I wonder what that same child, or one just like them, would do on the playground at recess if they had a knife in their pocket when another child (perhaps YOUR child) did something that made them angry. It's not like the kid could run inside and grab a kitchen knife. And though it would be nice to believe that the story of this kid was unique, sadly, I've seen several such cases over the past years.

When it comes to topics like this, I can't help but wonder how many who participate have kids in school. If you don't have kids in school, then for you to say that kids should be allowed to carry knives at school is no different then someone who never flies saying that there shouldn't be metal detectors at the airport. It's very easy to gamble with the lives of other people, or their kids.

And on a personal note, in regards to how times have changed, I went to high school in the late eighties. During my time in high school there might be an occasional fistfight, but they were very rare. And I never saw a cop on campus. Today, and for the past ten years or so, my old high school has had a police officer, not a security guard, but an actual ARMED cop, stationed at the school every school day. This wasn't done because of any threat of mass shootings, it has been done because the level of violence in that school had increased dramatically.

 

[leghog]

No, I haven't. Which is why I began my statement with "My understanding is".

Do they? And how many allow recruits to carry knives, or other personal weapons, during basic?

I had a knife.

And how about commanders in combat? Do they allow soldiers to carry any firearm they want?

Specious argument, but no. They can't supply the proper cartridges; however, most don't give a crap what knife you carry. None of my commanders did, neither did I when I commanded.

Are soldiers allowed to use any ammunition they want?

again, a specious argument. How would you expect them to supply themselves.

I wonder how long of a military career a commander would have if they exercised their "WIDE latitude" and allowed recruits to carry personal weapons in basic?

You wonder because you don't have a clue.

I snipped your comments about reduction in rank, prison, and dishonorable discharges because they're simply just too ridiculous to address.

 

[killgar]

Wide latitude? In Iraq, when the "Mighty Mattels" were jamming up on the fine dust known as desert sand, our troops were using captured enemy AK 47 rifles. If I was a grunt, and I am damned glad sure that I never had the misfortune to be one, I would save my own ass first and worry about the legal consequences later. People get out of prison every day, including servicemen and women from military prison. Dead men do not get out of their tombs. The only one that I know who did was our Savior, Jesus Christ. In combat, it is every man for himself. Do your best to save your own life and come home to your family.

I think you missed the point. No one is arguing that troops under fire shouldn't do whatever they have to to win/survive, the point is- there are rules, those rules are enforced, and those in charge do not bend those rules.

Or correct me if I'm wrong. Are recruits allowed to carry knives and personal weapons during basic? Are troops allowed to bring any type of firearm they want with them when they go to war? Are troops allowed to bring whatever type of ammo they want when they go to war? Are troops allowed to shoot anyone they want, or do they have strict rules of engagement. Are MP's allowed to use whatever weapons and ammo they want here at home? Or are there STRICT rule prohibiting such things. Rules that are strictly enforced.

There are rules of conduct that everyone has to follow depending on who they are and where they are. Whether it's a child in school, an employee at work, or a soldier in the military. That's the point.

 

[leghog]

I think you missed the point. No one is arguing that troops under fire shouldn't do whatever they have to to win/survive, the point is- there are rules, those rules are enforced, and those in charge do not bend those rules.

Standards are set by Army. Most rules within a unit are set (and enforced) by the commander. Yes, wide latitude.

 

[killgar]

I had a knife.

In compliance with the rules, or in violation of them.

Specious argument, but no. They can't supply the proper cartridges; however, most don't give a crap what knife you carry. None of my commanders did, neither did I when I commanded.

again, a specious argument. How would you expect them to supply themselves.

You wonder because you don't have a clue.

I snipped your comments about reduction in rank, prison, and dishonorable discharges because they're simply just too ridiculous to address.

You can call my points "specious" or "ridiculous", but it was you who said that commanders have "wide latitude". Either there are rules or there aren't. Either those rules are strictly enforced or they aren't. Can commanders be punished if they break the rules and allow soldiers to carry whatever they want? Or is that a "ridiculous" assumption?

I'm sure that if they were allowed, that many soldiers would carry their own personal firearms with them into combat. Whether it was a tricked-out AR or a handgun more powerful than that which they were issued. And I'm sure there are many personal weapons owned by military personnel that use the same ammunition as those supplied by the military.

I've known several soldiers who would have preferred to carry a .45 pistol rather than a 9mm. I'm sure if they were allowed that they could figure out how to bring enough .45 ammo with them, or keep themselves supplied (like having loved ones ship it to them). But my understanding is that soldiers are not allowed to carry whatever firearm they want.

Again, does the military have strict rules regarding what soldiers can carry or don't they? Do commanders have the authority to disregard those rules at their own discretion?

 

[DB731]

Also, I wonder if military commanders have to worry about lawsuits as much as civilian administrators.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

You can call my points "specious" or "ridiculous", but it was you who said that commanders have "wide latitude". Either there are rules or there aren't. Either those rules are strictly enforced or they aren't. Can commanders be punished if they break the rules and allow soldiers to carry whatever they want? Or is that a "ridiculous" assumption?

Stop playing word games. Commanders having wide latitude means some rules are more flexible than others. It is not a question of either/or.

 

[leghog]

In compliance with the rules, or in violation of them.

In compliance with what the commander allowed. His latitude.

Again, it is the commanders who sets "rules" for his unit. Commanders DO have wide latitude. Even in enforcement. That latitude comes with being entrusted with command authority. You just don't get it, and at this point it is quite apparent you will not get it. You are arguing from a point of ignorance on the subject simply basing your arguments on what you assume to be true.

The reason I called some of your arguments specious is because you want to somehow compare school administrators setting zero tolerance policy and rules (local policy) to a nation signing onto mutually agreed to treaties and conventions (law). That's not even akin to comparing apples to oranges. It's more akin to comparing apples to Mars. The arguments were specious/fallacious.

 

[Karda]

At this, point there is likely nothing productive going in this thread. The OP has plenty of opinions on his predicament and understands his responsibility in the matter.