Save Ferris, er, I mean Let James Tate go to The Prom!

Mental wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Vandalism is a Crime If it doesn't belong to you and you deface, destroy, or damage it without the owner's permission - you have committed the crime of vandalism. So all of you are OK if he did this to your personal property? As long as taggers come back and clean their paint, that's OK too? I'm sure other kids and the following classes won't try to "one up" him either...

It's not Vandalism webster's van·dal·ism    [van-dl-iz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property: vandalism of public buildings. 2. the conduct or spirit characteristic of the Vandals. 3. willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. It's littering. Nothing was destroyed. It's carboard letters. This is the exact type of dangerous thinking that zero tolerance leads too. Now you are punishing him for what others might do to one up him? How is that justified? How is that fair? If the principle was remotely competent or actually interested in teaching the kid a lesson, I am sure she could come up with a more suitable punishment. Instead, she took the easy way out. That is a failure of our education system and an offense far greater than taping some carboard letters on a wall to impress a girl. You are equating spray paint and cardboard. You are way too smart for that. We are supposed to be encouraging this children to think creatively and learn some lessons. To do this we have to allow them to make mistakes and learn these lessons about where the line is. The lesson he is learning is that the establishment doesn't care. That is far worse than the "damage" he did to the wall.

He's not being punished for what others might do. He's being punished for what he did. Keeping others from out-doing him in the future is just icing on the cake.

For those of you disagreeing, at what point do you draw the line, and why do you get to make that decision? And what would you tell the people that think where you drew the line is to Draconian? Cause there will be those people.

spitfirebill wrote:

racerfink wrote: "Bigger and Better Idea"?

Yea that's why they did it. I'm just glad I am not in school and my kids are out of school.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You need more context.

Mental wrote: The lesson he is learning is that the establishment doesn't care.

It is an important lesson nonetheless.

The other important lesson I hope he learns is to never, ever sign your name to anything you don't absolutely have to. Nothing good can come of it.

JG Pasterjak wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Vandalism...end of discussion.

Sounds like your prom was a real barn burner. I think maybe it's time we, as a society, put some of the effort we put into "zero tolerance" policies into removing the collective stick from our asses. Zero tolerance policies are, for the most part, a chickencrap way for people to absolve any real responsibility and not make difficult decisions. "Brought an Advil to school? No, sorry, I can't critically analyze the situation and weight risks and benefits and perhaps make a different decision for you than I would make for someone else. Zero tolerance." Rules are great and all, but we have to recognize that the rules can't account for all the variables. In any case, this kid is now an international personality, and he's probably going to get some mad 'tang off of this stunt, which is probably all he was looking for in the first place. Well played, sir. jg

I get your point, JG....

But where did this kid figure that it would be ok to do that?

This isn't as if I brought an Advil to school as I've been having ache problems, and that violates the no drug rules.

No, this kid thought it would be clever to post a big sign on the side of the school, bringing attention to himself in the process (quite intentionally), and figuring it would be ok. How do you reach the conclusion that doing that on the side of the school is ok, and there will be nobody upset over it?

Someone has to clean it up, afterall.

Would your parents be ok with you doing that? Would you be ok if your kid did that? I don't recall anywhere as a child anyone suggesting that pasting a wall with stuff is an acceptable way to ask somone to a prom.....

Yea, in the scheme of things, it appears to be ok. I just don't get how you get taught that what he did was acceptable as opposed to not. And not acceptable ways of doing things DO have thier consequences.

Cone_Junky wrote: Vandalism is a Crime If it doesn't belong to you and you deface, destroy, or damage it without the owner's permission - you have committed the crime of vandalism. So all of you are OK if he did this to your personal property? As long as taggers come back and clean thier paint, that's OK too? I'm sure other kids and the following classes won't try to "one up" him either...

Do you take this same stance with your neighbors or anyone in your town when you see them putting up flyers? If you're this vehement about it here, the logical conclusion is that the police department has your phone number memorized by now by the hundreds of instances of vandalism you report a year.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Vandalism is a Crime If it doesn't belong to you and you deface, destroy, or damage it without the owner's permission - you have committed the crime of vandalism. So all of you are OK if he did this to your personal property? As long as taggers come back and clean thier paint, that's OK too? I'm sure other kids and the following classes won't try to "one up" him either...

Do you take this same stance with your neighbors or anyone in your town when you see them putting up flyers? If you're this vehement about it here, the logical conclusion is that the police department has your phone number memorized by now by the hundreds of instances of vandalism you report a year.

It appears that society has accpeted the pasting of signs and flyers on poles and certain walls (not all of them).

But has society deemed it to be ok to paste a large message on the side of a school? There is a difference.

People... perspective please.

Appropriate punishment is having to stay late to clean it up or do detention for a day. The old "Listen champ... I know you didn't mean any harm but..." would probably suffice.

This is a kid who was trying to ask a girl/guy to the prom not a criminal that was out to defile a public building. One-size-fits-all rules fit no one.

alfadriver wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Vandalism is a Crime If it doesn't belong to you and you deface, destroy, or damage it without the owner's permission - you have committed the crime of vandalism. So all of you are OK if he did this to your personal property? As long as taggers come back and clean thier paint, that's OK too? I'm sure other kids and the following classes won't try to "one up" him either...

Do you take this same stance with your neighbors or anyone in your town when you see them putting up flyers? If you're this vehement about it here, the logical conclusion is that the police department has your phone number memorized by now by the hundreds of instances of vandalism you report a year.

It appears that society has accpeted the pasting of signs and flyers on poles and certain walls (not all of them). But has society deemed it to be ok to paste a large message on the side of a school? There is a difference.

Yep, that's valid... but to outright call one vandalism, and one not, is not valid.

alfadriver wrote:

JG Pasterjak wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Vandalism...end of discussion.

Sounds like your prom was a real barn burner. I think maybe it's time we, as a society, put some of the effort we put into "zero tolerance" policies into removing the collective stick from our asses. Zero tolerance policies are, for the most part, a chickencrap way for people to absolve any real responsibility and not make difficult decisions. "Brought an Advil to school? No, sorry, I can't critically analyze the situation and weight risks and benefits and perhaps make a different decision for you than I would make for someone else. Zero tolerance." Rules are great and all, but we have to recognize that the rules can't account for all the variables. In any case, this kid is now an international personality, and he's probably going to get some mad 'tang off of this stunt, which is probably all he was looking for in the first place. Well played, sir. jg

I get your point, JG.... But where did this kid figure that it would be ok to do that? This isn't as if I brought an Advil to school as I've been having ache problems, and that violates the no drug rules. No, this kid thought it would be clever to post a big sign on the side of the school, bringing attention to himself in the process (quite intentionally), and figuring it would be ok. How do you reach the conclusion that doing that on the side of the school is ok, and there will be nobody upset over it? Someone has to clean it up, afterall. Would your parents be ok with you doing that? Would you be ok if your kid did that? I don't recall anywhere as a child anyone suggesting that pasting a wall with stuff is an acceptable way to ask somone to a prom..... Yea, in the scheme of things, it appears to be ok. I just don't get how you get taught that what he did was acceptable as opposed to not. And not acceptable ways of doing things DO have thier consequences.

I don't know that he ever thought it would be "okay." More likely, he weighed the potential rewards vs. the potential risks and made a judgment based on what he thought they could be. He applied some analysis and perspective to the situation, but the response was decidedly lacking in perspective.

Would my parents have been okay with this? Eh, probably not. But if that gesture led to me meeting the love of my life, it would have probably been worth it. (I got off easy and just met mine at an Outback Steakhouse).

jg

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: People... perspective please. Appropriate punishment is having to stay late to clean it up or do detention for a day. The old "Listen champ... I know you didn't mean any harm but..." would probably suffice. This is a kid who was trying to ask a girl/guy to the prom not a criminal that was out to defile a public building. One-size-fits-all rules fit no one.

Goes both ways- will the kids and his parents be upset if he has to do detention and clean it up himself? Based on some parental responses, I suspect they would be upset at the school for that, too.

He may not be a criminal, true. But he did earn some kind of punishment. If they accept that lesser punishment is a different story.

This guy was happy with the decision.

There's been quite a few mentions of zero tolerance policies, no case-by-case judgement and one size fits all punishment, but is that actually the case here?

I admit that I haven't read every article about this situation, but is there really a rule at this school that says the standard punishment for vandalism is not going to prom?

I suspect that is not the case, as most vandals would be suspended (at minimum). I actually think this is a very appropriate punishment for this act, but maybe I'm not a romantic at heart.

That_Renault_Guy wrote: There's been quite a few mentions of zero tolerance policies, no case-by-case judgement and one size fits all punishment, but is that actually the case here? I admit that I haven't read every article about this situation, but is there really a rule at this school that says the standard punishment for vandalism is not going to prom? I suspect that is not the case, as most vandals would be suspended (at minimum). I actually think this is a very appropriate punishment for this act, but maybe I'm not a romantic at heart.

I agree with your second point, but not the third. For them to punish him this way sounds alot like "I'm an old bitter basterd who never gets laid, I'm gonna make sure this kid never does either..."

Joey

I say let Terry Tate go in his place:

I am an enforcer man. Don't nothing go down in my house. It's 100% heart, baby. Sure I check a few fools. I give 'em the pain. But sometimes it's about intimidation you know. It's mind games.

You wanna play games Gene? Well Terry's back, and I got a new game for you! It's called "How Much Pain Can Gene Stand, Before Gene Learns Not To Play Games Anymore". That's my game, that's Terry's game, and when it's game time, it's pain time, baby. Whoo!

We're talking scotch tape, not spray paint. The letters were taped to the wall. Major Domo from the school system has an announcement to make later today.

More than 100,000 people have chimed in on this via facebook and other social media.

Yes, according to the local news, who interviewed a teacher who would go on camera---all the "important" school peoples "were busy"---there is a rule that breaking one of the school's rules after April 1st would prevent the "breaker" from going to the prom.

I do not know, obviously, what the wording to "that rule" is. It could range from "vandalism" to an "ethical" violation. And that will be open to interpretation....

This will be yesterday's news by the end of the afternoon.

EDIT: He and his girlfriend were more forthcoming on this whole thing this morning when they were on the Today Show. She's the one who pointed out the rules, and he had no intention of defacing the building. Kid wanted to be a bit romantic, and had this thought. He looked as vicious as a fly. And he did peel off the letters.

Amazing how the school's honchos will not go on camera on their rules and regulations.

He taped removable cardboard to the wall, he didn't deface it. At worst, the school should have ordered him to take it down. Methinks that principal was probably turned down for his own prom... God, let's all take valium and live inside a rigid box for cripe's sake. Rules are good when they let things flow properly and prevent harm to other people. Not when they completely rule out any spontaneity or deviation from the norm.

I would sure hate to live in the kind of sterile, homogenized, rule-bound society some of you out there seem to be advocating. I'll just leave it at that.

you know, rumors are that the kid also exceeded the 25 mph speed limit while driving to school that day. It may have only been by 2 mph, but still, I think he should be facing a ticket and losing his permit to park at the school as well as not being able to go to the prom. Rules are rules, you know.

The white bread kid is hot for a spicy latino chic . He will jump thru fire with a gasoline suit on for her . Makes me feel a little romantic I am going took for a nice junk car for Marie .

Wow.

Not directed at the story, but at some of the comments.

Just wow.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: People... perspective please. Appropriate punishment is having to stay late to clean it up or do detention for a day. The old "Listen champ... I know you didn't mean any harm but..." would probably suffice. This is a kid who was trying to ask a girl/guy to the prom not a criminal that was out to defile a public building. One-size-fits-all rules fit no one.

So sensible that it hurts. Well said.

It's obvious some people here don't have to deal with kids on a daily basis...

BTW, he stole this idea from a movie that came out a little over a month ago. Chances are, it was a desperate attempt by him to get this girl to go out with him. If she's smart, she told him to come up with an original idea.

Ms. Smith, the headmaster of the Shelton, Ct., public school stormed out from the school, stood at the mics and reiterated she would not let him go to the prom.

Took no questions, turned around, and strutted back into the building.

Yeah, and I bet she didn't do anything worse than tape letters on the wall in high school asking someone out for prom.

GPS still has the appropriate response. This is absolutely ridiculous: there was a hit and run of a 3 year old, he's dead; another person was hurt in another hit and run; a Ct nat guardsman serving in the middle east was buried, two local businesses were held up, economy is in the can, 4700 people may be laid off by the state, and....that was the first 15 min of tonight's local, Ct news.

Give the kid his prom; and the good memories that may come from it. If it didn't happen in this little burg in Ct., it'd be a non-issue. I'm outta here.

I see the kids perspective, he wanted to be unique and impress the girl, which he obviously did. +1 for that.

I also see the schools perspective if this became a copy cat or traditional occurrence (worse) things could happen, so maybe that's the reason for zero tolerance (and I totally disagree w/ one size fits all). The punishment was excessive tho, -1 for that.

Regardless, the school custodian will probably be tasked w/ cleanup, minimal as compared to cleanups after pep rallys, sports events, graduations etc. .... it's all cardboard and tape so go figure.

Bottom line: James was made an example of to deter future events, like it or not. Punishment was excessive, detention would suffice. School Principal is an arse.