Actually fighting is not always considered assault... nor is it always criminal in the "adult" or any other world: Voluntary (Mutual) Combat law Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other. Source: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pers... School boards want to suggest that fighting is always inappropriate or even criminal when this clearly isn't the case. So, get real!
ever heard of Mutual (Voluntary) Combat aw? "Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other. However, if one falls, and the other takes advantage of the situation by kicking him and causing injury, that act may well be considered to be an excessive use of force which would support a cause of action."
The punishment needs to fit the "crime." Also, as Milton Friedman argued, victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes ("illegal" drug use, prostitution, etc etc.). In many, many fights in HS 2 people mutually agree to it... so there is actually no victim. In assaults there are victims, but in many cases of fighting there aren't (because there is mutual consent). When will the schoolboard understand that? Zero-tolerance criminalize behavior that in the old days was not considered so bad. Zero-tolerance policies are the epitome of hypocrisy.
I think the ministers and families have a point. Expulsion after a fight is always too draconian. Like Rev. Merrell said:
“We can understand suspension as a just consequence for a fistfight that resulted in no bodily injury and involved no weapons, but an expulsion during your senior year when your record is void of any violations is incomprehensible,” Mr. Merrell said.
To me that's very reasonable. No weapons, no injury? 2-3 days suspension should be maximum punishment under those circumstances. Now if it's assault or worse, that would make me change my mind. But if it was a mutually agreed fight, like most HS fights, these zero-tolerance policies actually do more harm than good. They criminalize normal HS or MS behavior.
When students fight, schools must react
Actually fighting is not always considered assault... nor is it always criminal in the "adult" or any other world:
Voluntary (Mutual) Combat law
Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other.
Source: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pers...
School boards want to suggest that fighting is always inappropriate or even criminal when this clearly isn't the case. So, get real!
March 24, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Black ministers to speak out about Warren schools policy
ever heard of Mutual (Voluntary) Combat aw?
"Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other. However, if one falls, and the other takes advantage of the situation by kicking him and causing injury, that act may well be considered to be an excessive use of force which would support a cause of action."
March 23, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. permalink suggest removal
When students fight, schools must react
The punishment needs to fit the "crime." Also, as Milton Friedman argued, victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes ("illegal" drug use, prostitution, etc etc.). In many, many fights in HS 2 people mutually agree to it... so there is actually no victim. In assaults there are victims, but in many cases of fighting there aren't (because there is mutual consent). When will the schoolboard understand that? Zero-tolerance criminalize behavior that in the old days was not considered so bad. Zero-tolerance policies are the epitome of hypocrisy.
March 21, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Black ministers to speak out about Warren schools policy
I think the ministers and families have a point. Expulsion after a fight is always too draconian. Like Rev. Merrell said:
“We can understand suspension as a just consequence for a fistfight that resulted in no bodily injury and involved no weapons, but an expulsion during your senior year when your record is void of any violations is incomprehensible,” Mr. Merrell said.
To me that's very reasonable. No weapons, no injury? 2-3 days suspension should be maximum punishment under those circumstances. Now if it's assault or worse, that would make me change my mind. But if it was a mutually agreed fight, like most HS fights, these zero-tolerance policies actually do more harm than good. They criminalize normal HS or MS behavior.
March 20, 2008 at 5:48 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Valley news
Why report on fights in HS? They happen, always have, always will. No big deal.
February 23, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. permalink suggest removal