The horror of suicide

[The Pecman]

The day you take away our cellphones is the day you take away our freedoms. Cell phones don't bully people, people do.

I think this is exactly true. Blaming the technology for this crime is insane. Trust me, there's 1000 times more bullying that goes on with laptops, including online torments that have driven people to suicide. Do we ban laptops?

The schools just have to teach that it's wrong to torment and hurt somebody by embarrassing them, especially with videos and pictures, especially in a private situation.

But kids are just incredibly stupid and have bad judgement. Look at the number of kids who get caught every year by shooting videos while they do illegal activities, like beating up homeless people, breaking windows, or shooting passers-by with paint guns. Tons and tons of arrests have been made just on the evidence of the videos the kids stupidly upload to YouTube. Do we take away their cameras? That's not going to stop them from the crimes. The problem is the way they think, not the technology that lets them do it.

[Cole Parker]

Pec wrote:

The schools just have to teach that it's wrong to torment and hurt somebody by embarrassing them, especially with videos and pictures, especially in a private situation.

But kids are just incredibly stupid and have bad judgement. Look at the number of kids who get caught every year by shooting videos while they do illegal activities, like beating up homeless people, breaking windows, or shooting passers-by with paint guns. Tons and tons of arrests have been made just on the evidence of the videos the kids stupidly upload to YouTube. Do we take away their cameras? That's not going to stop them from the crimes. The problem is the way they think, not the technology that lets them do it.

I agree 100%.

C

[Hoskins]

So, in some school districts, having prescribed pharmaceutical drugs on school grounds will get you expelled or suspended. Diabetic kids go to the school nurse for insulin. Can't carry an inhaler without specific authorization. Kids have died because of these rules. But I guess that's okay? If it is, then it's okay to have a device that can be used to bully, and humiliate, and cause the death of a student, but it's not okay to have life saving drugs. Zero tolerance, they call it, and lots and lots of parents advocate that there will be no drugs in school.

Got it.

Back to the point, and so far people seem to have been missing my point: Control cellphone use during school hours. Not after, not before. Not at home, not at work. At school, during school hours, only. That's all I'm addressing here.

But kids are just incredibly stupid and have bad judgement. Look at the number of kids who get caught every year by shooting videos while they do illegal activities, like beating up homeless people, breaking windows, or shooting passers-by with paint guns. Tons and tons of arrests have been made just on the evidence of the videos the kids stupidly upload to YouTube. Do we take away their cameras? That's not going to stop them from the crimes. The problem is the way they think, not the technology that lets them do it.

"Here is a gun, son. Take to school, that's fine, I know you want to show it to your friends. I know everyone has one, so here's yours. I know you've had classes about it, so just don't fire it and everything will be fine". Really? The asshole bully that filmed this kid and sent the video to his friends used that phone as a weapon. That's what he did. Full stop.

Blaming the technology for this crime is insane. Trust me, there's 1000 times more bullying that goes on with laptops, including online torments that have driven people to suicide. Do we ban laptops?

Well it's good to know I'm sane, then, because I'm not "blaming the technology" at all, unless you consider that I don't consider the technology mature enough to be handled by immature children. I blame the assholes that use it to bully others and I define that bully as an immature child.. And I'm saying that the technology available to children should be controlled during school hours. That's all.

Do we ban laptops? No. Why not? Because you can control how a laptop is used in a school. It's controlled by the school network and firewall and user accounts and other software. If an unauthorized device attempts to connect to a school network, the connection is refused by the network itself.

I work on school networks. I do have subject matter expertise, here. They're very tightly controlled (or should be if they're worth a crap). Heck, if you want a website to be made accessible by the students that's currently blocked, you usually have to go to the school board to request access. It would be very difficult to bully someone using a laptop in a school environment and that is by design.

It is becoming more and more common for schools to issue tablets and laptops to students for their use? Why is that? Because the devices can be controlled and managed by the school staff. The software to do this is readily available and ubiquitous. The ability to control a personal cellphone using a school resource is not there yet, for legal and technical reasons.

But, go to a school, whip out a cell phone on a 4G network that's not connected to the school, and you can go nuts. Post anything you want anywhere, because a cell phone is not controlled by the school network.

So, ALL that I'm saying is that the use of cellphones should be controlled, if not by using technical means as above (which would be very difficult and probably illegal - you can't just jam a 4G network for a given physical area and get away with it), then by controlling access to the device.

I 100% agree that teaching kids to use these devices responsibly and properly is the solution to the problem. But I don't think, based on what I know about how kids use these devices, that you can get there from here, not yet. Teachers don't understand these devices well. Neither do parents. And again, based on what I know, I think the proper solution for the short term is to take the device away at 8 AM and give it back at 3 PM.

Note that I have never, ever advocated taking away their phones forever, or that kids shouldn't have cellphones. I've never said anything about how these kids use the devices while not at school. I'm talking about controlling them at a specific location (in school) and during specific times (during school hours). Nothing about taking a phone to a game, or a dance, or anything else. During this period of time, in this location, you can't have a cellphone.

Note that I strongly believe, as I think most reasonable people do, that the staff that runs a school should be in full and complete control of the school and the activities that happen there. Cellphones by their very nature remove this control. I think that's wrong.

[Hoskins]

Note: I acknowledge that I was hyperbolic in the beginning of that post, there. Please read the whole thing before you flame me, thanks.

[Cole Parker]

Hoskins, you're not alone in advocating this. I did, too, early on in this thread. I think kids should either not bring their phones to school, or relinquish them during homeroom and get them back at the end of the day.

I was flayed by Colin who said this was impractical because all the kids had to do was lie about not having a phone and there'd be nothing the teacher could do then. Well, I heartily disagree. What they can do is promulgate a rule that all phones are to be handed in to the homeroom teacher first thing in the morning unless they have a waiver from the principal saying they can have it because of some special need. The rule would then go on to say that anyone discovered with a phone that had not be turned in --and that 'I forgot' wouldn't be accepted as an excuse -- would get a 3-day suspension the first time and expelled on being caught a second time.

My feeling is that in a school, there are too many people around to see anyone using a phone who shouldn't be. Kids who did this would be caught. So the effect would be, kids would hand in their phones. Or not hand them in but refrain from using them, and so the effect would be the same.

C

[The Pecman]

There are thousands and thousands of schools around the country that allow students to use cell phones, and nobody has used them to destroy anybody's life yet. This is a new and unique situation. We can't say, "use a phone, go to jail." It's not going to work. (I'm reminded of recent school shooting incidents where the frantic parents were extremely grateful that the kids were able to use cell phones to call the cops when the terrorist started shooting.)

Again: you could outlaw phones and I could just bring a GoPro camera (4" square) to school, and cause the exact same effect. The prankster waits until they get home to copy it to their computer, then posts it to the net... a life ruined in 30 seconds. Nothing to do with a phone, nothing to do with WiFi... everything to do with stupidity and bad behavior.

One of our members is a high school teacher, and I'd be curious to see what his feelings are on this if he chooses to weigh in. I can tell you I did research what the modern day rules are in LA County public schools, and they do permit the use of cell phones on campus but not during class. Teachers do routinely confiscate phones used in class, then give them back to the student later on (with a warning). Too many warnings, you get suspended.

But again: if somebody really, really wants to ruin somebody else's life, they don't need a phone to do it. There's a thousand ways to accomplish this, as I said in my previous messages. The problem is the behavior, not the technology, and they need to teach kids to understand the consequences for bad behavior. That is what the real issues are here: bad judgement, bad behavior, terrible consequences. We have to make them understand what a bad idea it is to ruin somebody's life in the first place. There's a huge difference between hitting a kid in the back of the head with a spitball, vs. posting an embarrassing video that goes way, way over the line.

[Cole Parker]

Actually, my principal reason for turning in cell phones before school begins each day isn't to prevent someone taking a video of a kid jerking off in a bathroom stall. That's simply an ancillary advantage. No, my reason is to prevent them from texting and going online and all of the other distractions they permit. No phones, one fewer serious distraction.

You do have a point about being able to call when there's an emergency at school, but I don't feel that argument outweighs the general good of kids not having the phones. As was pointed out earlier, some kids will still have them, having risked not turning them in and planning not to use them. Other kids will have had permission to have one because they have some special need for it. And teachers will have theirs. So I don't think that argument is very strong.

C

[DesDownunder]

My argument is different in that it recognises that, like computers, the phones will become, if they aren't already, both the subject of, and the means to supporting the child's education in certain areas of both technology and information.

With that in mind, the education should begin with teaching the responsible use of the phone and it's accessories and ancillary apps. Already, the cell phone and the portable computer's lines of demarcation are blurred as both shrink in size, whilst they expand in facilities. I don't doubt that misuse will occur; the education must also include what the consequences will be for such misuse. The age of technology is upon us and it's limiting to dismiss it from the education environment.

Even more important is education which opens the pathway to adapting our attitudes to accepting newer technologies of the future as they will undoubtedly occur. Even though my background has been with the technologies of yesteryear, I find it interesting to consider that some of my angst with modern phones is that I wasn't taught to expect changing and evolving technology as I aged. Some I have been able to learn but others have exceeded my ability to cope, or at least my physical dexterity with icons and avatars that have no tactile response to my fingers. I find this fascinating as my curiosity continues to offer challenges to my aging mind. (I wonder what happens if I press this?)

I would make notes for my reincarnation if I could just remember where I put the pen and paper...wait! I can use the computer to leave notes for my descendants...if I had descendants, but that's another story.

[Cole Parker]

Des, if we are to allow for phones because they aid the school curriculum, then we must also make sure that every student has one. A lot of families can certainly afford the cost of the phone and the monthly charge for being hooked to a network, but there are some who can't. That would be a problem to address.

C

[DesDownunder]

I agree Cole, but I would suspect that in Australia, the government supplying phones would not be all that difficult in our more socialist country.

Also it won't be too long before those computer devices will afford fully functioning cell phone capabilities.

Discounts for student phones is another possibility' sort of like Medicaid for cell phone ownership...Affordable cell phone legislation would leave no child without a phone or a network connection.

As an interesting, contrasting and ironic thought, student based cell phones could be handed out by the teachers at the beginning of the day, semester or year, and then collected at the end of the period. In any case such speculation is predictive, but then so too was the availability of computers at one time.

[Hoskins]

In many school districts, and even more so in some districts where there is a prevalence of lower income families, schools and districts are taking advantage of programs that put tablets in the classrooms and in some cases are issued to the students to carry with them everywhere. The tablets have the requisite software to allow kids to manage their homework, assignments, and schedules, as well as allow them to participate in interactive experiments and assignments with their classmates. The devices don't supplant a phone, but they do allow kids that wouldn't have the ability to "keep up" to do so, at least during the school day. I suppose part of the concept is to level the playing field between kids that can afford their own devices and those that can't.

These tablets are managed by the school and are usually docked to a mobile cart when the kids aren't using them. The management software allows the devices to be very specifically configured - anything from "wide open access" to being restricted to only certain programs, right down to yes, disabling device functions like integrated cameras and enabling/disabling messaging between the devices. They can be remotely wiped if stolen, and fully restored to a default state at the end of a school day or, if needed, at any time by the teachers or IT staff. They represent a really neat way to get kids (and teachers) thinking about how these things can break down the "digital divide" and let the kids innovate (sometimes by allowing the kids to hack them successfully - in some tech curriculums this is rewarded).

This is what I was talking about - staff-managed access and control. By providing a school-issued device, the need for a personal device is removed or diminished to a "social" device, not one that's necessary to carry with them.

I think, as Des and Pecman and Cole do, that it's critical to teach kids how to use technology properly. I believe the country is coming around, very slowly, to the concept that we must teach kids how to use it, how to create with it, and how to be really great users of new stuff. A huge part of this education is teaching kids the very real threat that online access can be to themselves and to others.

In the event that cellphones are banned in a school or classroom, if a student NEEDS to use their cellphone to call a parent or something during the school day, there's no reason they wouldn't be allowed to in a controlled way. Or be allowed to use it for a short period occasionally through the day to check their messages or texts or missed calls. I'm not blind to the idea that Being Connected Is Really Important these days. It's important to me, too.

As Cole said, the idea is to control access and keep the focus on education. Sure kids are going to sneak a phone or "forget it" at home or whatever. But that behavior can and should be discouraged through consequences.

It's all a bit of a rosy view of the future and we're a bit far from it at the moment, but I think the country is getting close to possibly coming near the corner that needs to be turned on some of these ideas. I really would like to hear our resident teacher's views on this stuff, too.

[Merkin]

I believe that any device that is required to be used by each student must be furnished by the school, to ensure equality of opportunity and to prevent the 'mine is better/more expensive/more up-to-date than yours' mentality kids seem to fall so easily into.

[The Pecman]

I believe that any device that is required to be used by each student must be furnished by the school, to ensure equality of opportunity and to prevent the 'mine is better/more expensive/more up-to-date than yours' mentality kids seem to fall so easily into.

What if the kid drives a BMW 760Li to school? Does everybody get one of those?

There are $15 Tracfones out there that work fine as simple cell phones. Everybody's got them. Again, I already know in LA County, they ban the students from any phone conversations in classrooms -- period. Hallways are permitted, lunchrooms are permitted, outside on school grounds is permitted. The problem is the bad behavior.

Trust me, people's lives can be ruined with an audio recorder, or a video camera, or even email. This goes far beyond the specifics of the incident here. There have been half-a-dozen school suicides in the last couple of years just from students bullied on social media like Twitter and Facebook -- no cell cameras involved. The results are the same.

[colinian]

Hoskins, you're not alone in advocating this. I did, too, early on in this thread. I think kids should either not bring their phones to school, or relinquish them during homeroom and get them back at the end of the day.

I was flayed by Colin who said this was impractical because all the kids had to do was lie about not having a phone and there'd be nothing the teacher could do then. Well, I heartily disagree. What they can do is promulgate a rule that all phones are to be handed in to the homeroom teacher first thing in the morning unless they have a waiver from the principal saying they can have it because of some special need. The rule would then go on to say that anyone discovered with a phone that had not be turned in --and that 'I forgot' wouldn't be accepted as an excuse -- would get a 3-day suspension the first time and expelled on being caught a second time.

My feeling is that in a school, there are too many people around to see anyone using a phone who shouldn't be. Kids who did this would be caught. So the effect would be, kids would hand in their phones. Or not hand them in but refrain from using them, and so the effect would be the same.

C

Cole,

This has been tried and found impractical because the kids won't turn in their cells. Unless you're going to strip-search them and their backpacks you won't find them. Some schools have put jammers on campus, but jammers are omnivores — they jam every cellphone. If you think kids are going to use their phone where someone in authority can see it, you don't know teens. I read about one school that put a bounty on cellphones — turn someone in and get $50. So kids would buy cheap phones (you can buy them for under $5) and split the reward with a friend who "turns them in."

The thing that bothers me the most is the idea that if you're caught with a cellphone that you didn't turn in, you get 3 days suspension, and the second time you get expelled. That's like the first time you get a parking ticket and you lose your license for three days, the second time you lose your license forever. Bullies don't get punished that way, but kids who refuse to turn in their cellphone and get caught do? Nonsense.

Who's at fault here? The kid whacking himself in a cubicle with the door closed and latched? Or the kid who took the video?

Colin

[The Pecman]

Who's at fault here? The kid whacking himself in a cubicle with the door closed and latched? Or the kid who took the video?

Exactly. The camera kid is the real perpetrator here, and the person who be severely punished. Punishing all students by forbidding them to have cell phones won't solve the problem. (My niece and nephew are 9 and 10, respectively, and their schools will allow them to have cell phones... but my brother and sister-and-law believe they won't be ready to own one until they're in junior high. I understand that thinking, since kids tend to lose stuff.)

BTW, my partner (who's been keeping an eye on this story for me) tells me they did have the preliminary hearing for the camera kid today in San Diego, but his attorneys have begged off, requesting "more time to prepare for his defense." I'm aghast at that, since the incident happened on November 15th, 2013, but what are you gonna do? (The victim, Burdette, died on November 29th, exactly two weeks later.)

[colinian]

BTW, my partner (who's been keeping an eye on this story for me) tells me they did have the preliminary hearing for the camera kid today in San Diego, but his attorneys have begged off, requesting "more time to prepare for his defense." I'm aghast at that, since the incident happened on November 15th, 2013, but what are you gonna do? (The victim, Burdette, died on November 29th, exactly two weeks later.)

What ever happened to "The right to a speedy trial"? It seems that in many cases it's turned into "The right to a trial that's been delayed so long most of the witnesses have forgotten about what they saw or they've died."

Colin

[gwilym.pocock]

I don't think mobile are that big an issue as a cause for distraction. In my old school anyway. It was not worth playing on your phone in lesson because you are sure to be caught, your phone confiscated and given a detention.

It is usually pretty obvious that someone is on their phone.

[Cole Parker]

Cole,

This has been tried and found impractical because the kids won't turn in their cells. Unless you're going to strip-search them and their backpacks you won't find them. Some schools have put jammers on campus, but jammers are omnivores — they jam every cellphone. If you think kids are going to use their phone where someone in authority can see it, you don't know teens. I read about one school that put a bounty on cellphones — turn someone in and get $50. So kids would buy cheap phones (you can buy them for under $5) and split the reward with a friend who "turns them in."

The thing that bothers me the most is the idea that if you're caught with a cellphone that you didn't turn in, you get 3 days suspension, and the second time you get expelled. That's like the first time you get a parking ticket and you lose your license for three days, the second time you lose your license forever. Bullies don't get punished that way, but kids who refuse to turn in their cellphone and get caught do? Nonsense.

Who's at fault here? The kid whacking himself in a cubicle with the door closed and latched? Or the kid who took the video?

Colin

OK, my purpose isn't to resort to draconian punishment; it's to have the consequences of not giving up your phone is school harsh enough that the vast majority of kids will go along with the rule. If there's a better, more successful way to do that than a two-step approach, that's fine with me. I'd just like to see phones no longer universal in schools, and kids not using them when their focus should be elsewhere.

C

[Merkin]

OK, so the 'good citizen' students will give up their phones, and the 'less than good citizen' students will conceal them, and go on taking pictures in the johns and posting online. It seemes to come down to having two alternatives available:

A) Go with the approach suggested by Des and bring the phones into play within the curriculum so acceptable usage can be taught. Or,

B) Punish the kid so severely who took and posted the picture so that case law has an adequate draconian outcome to cite as precedent and that we can use in the future to threaten the students who misuse their phones.

I believe we must go with the second alternative, although a few enlightened school districts here and there might opt to spend time on the first.

[Cole Parker]

Sad, isn't it.

C

[The Pecman]

What ever happened to "The right to a speedy trial"? It seems that in many cases it's turned into "The right to a trial that's been delayed so long most of the witnesses have forgotten about what they saw or they've died."

My partner-the-lawyer says that delaying tactics like this are often used in trials like this, partly to give the (new?) attorneys a chance to come up with a reasonable defense, and partly to put as much distance between the incident and the trial. He's seen 2-3 years go by in some cases, even serious ones like rape or murder.

Don't forget that the courts already dismissed the parents' lawsuit against the school for not protecting their bullied (and now unfortunately dead) son. But there is a chance the parents will try a different tactic and sue them on other grounds.

I'm stymied as to why the DA can't go after the camera kid on the basis of child pornography. It seems to me that this is pretty cut-and-dried, particularly when the camera kid was deliberately trying to cause embarrassment & suffering on the part of the person he was surreptitiously shooting.

[colinian]

My partner-the-lawyer says that delaying tactics like this are often used in trials like this, partly to give the (new?) attorneys a chance to come up with a reasonable defense, and partly to put as much distance between the incident and the trial. He's seen 2-3 years go by in some cases, even serious ones like rape or murder.

Don't forget that the courts already dismissed the parents' lawsuit against the school for not protecting their bullied (and now unfortunately dead) son. But there is a chance the parents will try a different tactic and sue them on other grounds.

I'm stymied as to why the DA can't go after the camera kid on the basis of child pornography. It seems to be that this is pretty cut-and-dried, particularly when the camera kid was deliberately trying to cause embarrassment & suffering on the part of the person he was surreptitiously shooting.

I agree with you. The DA seems to be a wuss, or maybe one of those boys-will-be-boys types. Or he thinks he'd lose the case at trial; I disagree if he's careful to find the right judge, or to put it more accurately, to avoid the wrong judge.

Colin

[The Pecman]

I'm still mulling this over and would challenge my fellow authors: what possible ending could you write for this story if it were fiction? I read an awful lot and see a good chunk of films & TV, but I'm very hard-pressed to come up with a satisfying ending here.

One thing I did think of: if the segment was only 6 seconds on Vine, it would've theoretically been possible for the parents to immediately compel Vine to pull the clip off the service within 24 hours of the incident. YouTube, Google, Vine, Snapchat, Twitter, and a bunch of other services have whole departments in case to deal with potential child pornography, libel, or other legal problems, and they can and will get the videos down quickly.

The best I could hope for would be, yank the video down, keep the kid out of school, and when he comes back, just deny everything. "Nope, that wasn't me." As long as nobody actually downloaded the video, he could theoretically be fine. Unless there are complications I don't see here.

[Cole Parker]

The more compelling story would be to follow the facts, maybe only omitting the suicide. That should be the challenge.

C

[Merkin]

Lead with the suicide, then do backstory for both boys. Use a third boy for POV, as he watches two lives crash and burn. Stay with the third boy as he teeters on the verge of some important action/decision. Extract some kind of lesson learned.