student arrested for showing up at school too many days (3) in a row

[dead0man]

link

A New York high schooler was arrested for attending class in person when he was scheduled for a virtual day, The Washington Post reports.

Maverick Stow, 17, of Long Island, New York, has been showing up to school to protest virtual learning.

He was suspended from William Floyd High School in Mastic Beach, New York, on Tuesday for attending school in person when he was supposed to be in class from home.

According to the newspaper, he was informed by the school that the police would be called if he came back when he was not supposed to. When he showed up for class on Thursday, Stow was arrested and charged with criminal trespass by the Suffolk County Police Department.

If Stow returns to the school, classes will go completely online for all students, the school said in a statement. Currently, the school is operating on a hybrid model amid the coronavirus pandemic.

[John Dule]

What a nerd!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Did Kamala Harris try to charge his parents for raising an anti-truant child?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FF. If only more of us would show his courage.

Stupidity is more like it.

I can understand not being happy with hybrid learning.  I can even understand why some people would reject the reasoning behind it.  But he has no right to impose his view that a higher level of transmission risk is acceptable upon others, and he was explicitly warned of the consequences of his actions if he continued his unwanted physical attendance with the other cohort of his school.

Service providers have every right to determine what services and what level of service they will provide. While the circumstances are completely different, at the most abstract level, I challenge our yellow- and blue-avatared backers of this kid to explain how his presumption that he can demand service from an unwilling provider is okay while demanding customized wedding cakes be provided by an unwilling baker is not okay.  At the most abstract level, both cases are about the freedom of service providers to refuse service. At least in the wedding cake case, no risk of physical harm to others was involved, whereas this kid's behavior did increase such risk.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I love that his first name is literally Maverick. Congrats, Sarah Palin!

As a teacher who lives with people who are at heightened COVID risk and doesn't want them to die in a heap, I support virtual learning even though it's, yes, a terrible substitute for actually going to school; however, there has to be a way to enforce it (and other COVID restrictions) without this sort of tut-tut punitiveness.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I support virtual learning even though it's, yes, a terrible substitute for actually going to school; however, there has to be a way to enforce it (and other COVID restrictions) without this sort of tut-tut punitiveness.

One would hope so, but the cat came back the very next day after being suspended. It's all nice to say something else should be tried, but what else would you suggest?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FF. If only more of us would show his courage.

Stupidity is more like it.

I can understand not being happy with hybrid learning.  I can even understand why some people would reject the reasoning behind it.  But he has no right to impose his view that a higher level of transmission risk is acceptable upon others, and he was explicitly warned of the consequences of his actions if he continued his unwanted physical attendance with the other cohort of his school.

Service providers have every right to determine what services and what level of service they will provide. While the circumstances are completely different, at the most abstract level, I challenge our yellow- and blue-avatared backers of this kid to explain how his presumption that he can demand service from an unwilling provider is okay while demanding customized wedding cakes be provided by an unwilling baker is not okay.  At the most abstract level, both cases are about the freedom of service providers to refuse service. At least in the wedding cake case, no risk of physical harm to others was involved, whereas this kid's behavior did increase such risk.

It's a public school.

The student showed up as a deliberate act of protest. He understood that he would face consequences for his supposed malfeasance. The point was to demonstrate that the rules are absurd.

Well, then why complain about him facing the consequences?

[John Dule]

Well, then why complain about him facing the consequences?

I think that we can probably agree that, while he shouldn't have been on the campus, charging him with criminal trespass is overkill.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, then why complain about him facing the consequences?

I think that we can probably agree that, while he shouldn't have been on the campus, charging him with criminal trespass is overkill.

I'll agree with the former, but not the latter.

Are you neglecting that he had previously been suspended and told this would be the result if he came back when not scheduled?  I get that you and Averroës are both apparently of the opinion that being allowed to ignore anti-coronavirus measures is more important than allowing people who do seek to engage in some degree of social distancing to do so. But what other measures were available to keep this kid away from those seeking to social distance? If you have an idea for a lesser measure that could have been used, I'd like to hear it.

[morgankingsley]

oh my god

[It’s so Joever]

You are in a dead0man thread.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

ACAB