Pennsylvania girl, 5, suspended for soap bubbles gun

[jimnyc]

I understand that we need to teach/educate our children about guns, but this crap is going too far. Maybe take the gun away, maybe have a chat with her in the office, maybe talk to her parents - but "terroristic threats" and a 10 day suspension? C'mon, overkill and dumb.


A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten.

Her family has hired an attorney to fight the punishment, which initially was 10 days for issuing a 'terroristic threat.' But her punishment was reduced to two days after her mother met with school officials and had the incident dropped to 'threatening to harm another student,' which apparently carries a lesser punishment.

"It's laughable," Robin Ficker, the girl's attorney told FoxNews.com. "This is a girl who had no idea about killing or what happened in Connecticut."

He was referring to the recent shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that claimed 26 lives.

Ficker says Mount Carmel Area School District officials said the girl made the threat on Jan. 10 as she waited for a school bus with friends. A school official overheard the remark and searched the girl's backpack and did not find the Hello Kitty gun, he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pennsylvania-girl-5-suspended-for-threatening-to-shoot-girl-with-pink-toy-gun/#ixzz2IR6JNHry

[WiccanLiberal]

and yes I know the caption is wrong but it is still cool.

[aboutime]

This kind of story is just more proof about how STUPID, DUMB, IGNORANT, and SELFISH so many Uneducated Americans really are.

And the sad part is. NONE of us will hear a Peep from the Obama administration, while A.G. Holder is probably applauding such STUPIDITY.

[tailfins]

I'm not sure this is a bad thing. It is a durable lesson on what government is all about.

[WiccanLiberal]

I still don't understand why the school didn't just confiscate the TOY as inappropriate for school and instruct the kids mother not to allow her to bring it in again. Absolutely overkill on their part.

[ConHog]

I understand that we need to teach/educate our children about guns, but this crap is going too far. Maybe take the gun away, maybe have a chat with her in the office, maybe talk to her parents - but "terroristic threats" and a 10 day suspension? C'mon, overkill and dumb.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pennsylvania-girl-5-suspended-for-threatening-to-shoot-girl-with-pink-toy-gun/#ixzz2IR6JNHry

in defense of the school Jim, zero tolerance means zero tolerance.

It takes the entire question of claims of favoritism out of the equation, and frankly makes administrator's jobs easier. I certainly wouldn't pursue criminal charges, but I'd let the suspension stand.

[tailfins]

in defense of the school Jim, zero tolerance means zero tolerance.

It takes the entire question of claims of favoritism out of the equation, and frankly makes administrator's jobs easier. I certainly wouldn't pursue criminal charges, but I'd let the suspension stand.

This confirms I was right in teaching my kids not to socialize at school; save that for church. School employees should be considered cops and treated as such.

[ConHog]

This confirms I was right in teaching my kids not to socialize at school; save that for church. School employees should be considered cops and treated as such.

what does that even mean?

[tailfins]

what does that even mean?

If that five year old girl didn't say anything beyond what is absolutely necessary she wouldn't be in trouble now. Kids should be Mirandized on the first day of each school year.

[Voted4Reagan]

4360

The Keltec Hello Kitty plr-16

Cute and Deadly

[jimnyc]

in defense of the school Jim, zero tolerance means zero tolerance.

It takes the entire question of claims of favoritism out of the equation, and frankly makes administrator's jobs easier. I certainly wouldn't pursue criminal charges, but I'd let the suspension stand.

I understand and don't have an issue with zero tolerance - when applied to the appropriate offenses. I have trouble seeing 10 day suspension and a terroristic threat, from someone without even a weapon, "threatening" another with a bubble gun.

While zero tolerance has it's place in schools, there should also be common sense and right and wrong. When such rules are made about guns/threats, do we really believe the idea behind it was to prevent children from acting like children? And do we want to be so heavy handed on a child, to bring unwarranted fears, not to mention embarrassment? I think a simple talking to and a pointed finger should be sufficient.

I understand that a school or schools want to remain consistent and not have tolerance about threats and guns, but I also think that sometimes they need to look and see if it was REALLY a threat and what the likelihood was, whether there's a legit weapon... It just sounds like a way to severely punish a child who did LESS than what we did when we were kids. And yes, I understand that rules have changed, but being a kid hasn't. That's why I say reserve the tough stuff for those doing things a kid wouldn't.

[jimnyc]

4360

The Keltec Hello Kitty plr-16

Cute and Deadly

If they want "adult" type regulations for these kids, then the kids should also have 2nd amendment and carry rights. INNOCENT!! :)

[ConHog]

I understand and don't have an issue with zero tolerance - when applied to the appropriate offenses. I have trouble seeing 10 day suspension and a terroristic threat, from someone without even a weapon, "threatening" another with a bubble gun.

While zero tolerance has it's place in schools, there should also be common sense and right and wrong. When such rules are made about guns/threats, do we really believe the idea behind it was to prevent children from acting like children? And do we want to be so heavy handed on a child, to bring unwarranted fears, not to mention embarrassment? I think a simple talking to and a pointed finger should be sufficient.

I understand that a school or schools want to remain consistent and not have tolerance about threats and guns, but I also think that sometimes they need to look and see if it was REALLY a threat and what the likelihood was, whether there's a legit weapon... It just sounds like a way to severely punish a child who did LESS than what we did when we were kids. And yes, I understand that rules have changed, but being a kid hasn't. That's why I say reserve the tough stuff for those doing things a kid wouldn't.

That's fine in the abstract Jim, but in the reality you are talking about schools who's administrators are dealing with hundreds if not thousands of kids. It's just simply easier to have a one size fits all policy.

Also, yes this threat seems silly on the surface , but the idea is to make sure it doesn't escalate into something else later on down the road.

[jimnyc]

That's fine in the abstract Jim, but in the reality you are talking about schools who's administrators are dealing with hundreds if not thousands of kids. It's just simply easier to have a one size fits all policy.

Also, yes this threat seems silly on the surface , but the idea is to make sure it doesn't escalate into something else later on down the road.

How many possible cases of a child, talking about a childs gun, which "shoots" bubbles? No matter how many they may administer, it can't be very hard to specifically look at a case like this which comes up how many times? Imagine if an 8 year old made the same threat, but with a real gun. Nevermind the authorities, the school would give him the same penalty. I don't think a little girl with a bubble gun deserves the same penalty. I know I may not change policy, but that's just my opinion.

[ConHog]

How many possible cases of a child, talking about a childs gun, which "shoots" bubbles? No matter how many they may administer, it can't be very hard to specifically look at a case like this which comes up how many times? Imagine if an 8 year old made the same threat, but with a real gun. Nevermind the authorities, the school would give him the same penalty. I don't think a little girl with a bubble gun deserves the same penalty. I know I may not change policy, but that's just my opinion.

I think you would be SHOCKED to know how many little children make such threats.

As for the same punishment, not hardly. The punishment for bringing a real gun to school would be expulsion immediately from most any school I would imagine. Not just a suspension.

And of course the legal ramifications.

[jimnyc]

As for the same punishment, not hardly. The punishment for bringing a real gun to school would be expulsion immediately from most any school I would imagine. Not just a suspension.

So the punishments CAN vary. That one would be appropriate, to fit the crime. And I think punishments SHOULD be different depending on the severity, and intent.

[ConHog]

So the punishments CAN vary. That one would be appropriate, to fit the crime. And I think punishments SHOULD be different depending on the severity, and intent.

Sure, obviously common sense differentiates between a fake gun and a real gun. Zero tolerance however dictates at minimum a suspension for certain activities.

My guess is that this was spelled out in no uncertain terms in a handbook that the parents of this girl signed indicating that they had read and agreed to abide with school policies

I think we can all agree that that it is fair to expect one to live up to their end up of a contract.

[aboutime]

BS is BS. Plain and simple BS. Most 5 year old children have no idea what they are doing. And holding the parents responsible for a 5 year old using a HELLO KITTY pretend BUBBLE shooting gun to make a THREAT????

Really? A THREAT?

BULL SHIT is running rampant in this country, and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS has replaced values, common sense, logic, and Adult Thinking.

[ConHog]

BS is BS. Plain and simple BS. Most 5 year old children have no idea what they are doing. And holding the parents responsible for a 5 year old using a HELLO KITTY pretend BUBBLE shooting gun to make a THREAT????

Really? A THREAT?

BULL SHIT is running rampant in this country, and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS has replaced values, common sense, logic, and Adult Thinking.

How exactly were the parents held responsible here?

oh and have you ever actually taken part in administering a school? If you had you would know that ignoring seemingly minor events is how things get escalated.

also, a 5 year old who threatens to shoot someone certainly knows what they are doing.

[aboutime]

How exactly were the parents held responsible here?

oh and have you ever actually taken part in administering a school? If you had you would know that ignoring seemingly minor events is how things get escalated.

also, a 5 year old who threatens to shoot someone certainly knows what they are doing.


You tell us.

[ConHog]

You tell us.

nonresponsive

[aboutime]

nonresponsive


I agree. And I prefer YOU remain that way. Thanks for the heads-up. Most of us here rarely speak with children who brag about everything....School Admin?????

Need a shovel for your BS?

[ConHog]

I agree. And I prefer YOU remain that way. Thanks for the heads-up. Most of us here rarely speak with children who brag about everything....School Admin?????

Need a shovel for your BS?

school board is an elected and unpaid position that administers schools. Now do you have anything to add to the actual discussion?

[Robert A Whit]

This country has gone to shit when a toddler, a small kindergarten kid, has a bubble ejector and gets suspended. Not for ejecting bubbles, but for saying she would eject bubbles.

My god. I am so happy I went to school when humans acted reasonable.

This country that is not hard core left wing is tainted left wing. It is rubbing off on some so called conservatives.

[aboutime]

school board is an elected and unpaid position that administers schools. Now do you have anything to add to the actual discussion?


Yes. What kind of shovel would you prefer?

[jimnyc]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38767-Staff-actions-going-forward

[ConHog]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38767-Staff-actions-going-forward

anyway, back to the topic. Can you understand why schools don't have much leeway? They simply can't.

[Gaffer]

Just more knee jerk over reaction to a child being a child.
There needs to be a ban on bubble guns.

[ConHog]

Just more knee jerk over reaction to a child being a child.
There needs to be a ban on bubble guns.

Since when is one 5 year old threatening to shoot another considered "a child being a child?"

I would suggest that THAT attitude is part of the problem. I hope that as a gun owner you teach kids to NEVER even joke about shooting someone.

I've read several accounts of this incident and this wasn't a child joking, this was a child who didn't understand the difference between a pink bubble gun and a real gun and who a statement as a threat.

Schools MUST take all threats SERIOUSLY, no matter how trivial they might sound to outsiders.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just more knee jerk over reaction to a child being a child.
There needs to be a ban on bubble guns.

Yes, ban bubble gum too. Some kid may just threaten to blow a bubble OR TWO! :laugh:
Insanity rules when common sense and logic are tossed out the window!
Defending schools for THEIR insane policies takes a special breed IMHO. -Tyr

[ConHog]

Yes, ban bubble gum too. Some kid may just threaten to blow a bubble OR TWO! :laugh:
Insanity rules when common sense and logic are tossed out the window!
Defending schools for THEIR insane policies takes a special breed IMHO. -Tyr

Hey Tyr, guess what. Toy guns and threats are already banned in schools and have been for quite some time. It isn't some liberal ploy to get your guns. It's called schools doing what they have to to keep your kids safe.

This child's parents either knew the policy because they signed the form saying they had received a handbook or they signed it without reading the policies either way, that is NOT the schools' fault. I thought you were about personal responsibility?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hey Tyr, guess what. Toy guns and threats are already banned in schools and have been for quite some time. It isn't some liberal ploy to get your guns. It's called schools doing what they have to to keep your kids safe.

This child's parents either knew the policy because they signed the form saying they had received a handbook or they signed it without reading the policies either way, that is NOT the schools' fault. I thought you were about personal responsibility?

I am and I am also about using common sense too. I did not argue the point that some rule was not broken. I merely stated how stupid some of the rules are. A kid was suspended because a plastic butter knife was in her lunchbox, or fingernail clippers.. When common sense is not allowed to be used we get insanity. Sexual harassment because a 6 year old little boy kissed a little girl, its idiocy on parade..
Zero tolerance for kids that age is dumbass on parade.
How about zero tolerance for adults that are deliberately breaking the law by not submitting a budget as the law commands. How about zero tolerance for those Senators and Reid? YOU SEE THAT'S COMMON SENSE AND ABOUT ADULTS.--Tyr

[ConHog]

I am and I am also about using common sense too. I did not argue the point that some rule was not broken. I merely stated how stupid some of the rules are. A kid was suspended because a plastic butter knife was in her lunchbox, or fingernail clippers.. When common sense is not allowed to be used we get insanity. Sexual harassment because a 6 year old little boy kissed a little girl, its idiocy on parade..
Zero tolerance for kids that age is dumbass on parade.

really? so you want to take yet another tool away from schools when it comes to disciplining kids? You realize if you take away zero tolerance that EVERY parents who's kid does something wrong will be down haranguing the school for a different standard?

By the way zero tolerance teaches them that in life there is zero tolerance as well. Committ a crime, you're punished. End of story. At least it should be that way



How about zero tolerance for adults that are deliberately breaking the law by not submitting a budget as the law commands. How about zero tolerance for those Senators and Reid? YOU SEE THAT'S COMMON SENSE AND ABOUT ADULTS.--Tyr

^ That is irrelevant to THIS thread. Go start a thread about it and I'll join you in calling for their being brought up on charges of dereliction.

[Gaffer]

Since when is one 5 year old threatening to shoot another considered "a child being a child?"

I would suggest that THAT attitude is part of the problem. I hope that as a gun owner you teach kids to NEVER even joke about shooting someone.

I've read several accounts of this incident and this wasn't a child joking, this was a child who didn't understand the difference between a pink bubble gun and a real gun and who a statement as a threat.

Schools MUST take all threats SERIOUSLY, no matter how trivial they might sound to outsiders.

She is a child. She made a child's threat. A threat she would not even remember by the next day.

Zero tolerance is fine as long as it's tempered with common sense.

This was the equivalent of telling the other girl she had cooties. It's only news because of the anti-gun hysteria being hyped in the media.

[tailfins]

anyway, back to the topic. Can you understand why schools don't have much leeway? They simply can't.

If little kids are going to be held to adult standards, provide them with adult due process. It's time to start insisting kids get access to a jury trial. If we're going to play this game, let's play it all the way.

[ConHog]

If little kids are going to be held to adult standards, provide them with adult due process. It's time to start insisting kids get access to a jury trial. If we're going to play this game, let's play it all the way.


A jury trial is only constitutionally afforded in criminal cases. This little girl was NOT charged with a crime. She was charged with breaking school policy. Which is another matter entirely.

However , let me add this. She no doubt DID get a jury of sorts anyway because school officials are NOT empowered to suspend students on their own. The system is the same everywhere. The principle, or superintendent will recommend suspension or even expulsion to the school board who votes whether to accept the recommendation . Most of the time it's pretty straight forward yes but every once in awhile a case comes up where a school board disagrees with the administration.

Once again, this is all spelled out right in the rules handbook that the parents were supposed to read at the beginning of the school year.

But bottom line when it comes to your argument. She was NOT charged with a crime so no right to a jury trial.

[Kathianne]

The parents are right to bring a case if the suspension isn't removed. This is nonsensical from the beginning. She didn't have the bubble making plastic gun at school, nor did she even attempt the evil finger gun. Instead of using the 'threat' as a lesson in making apologies, the school went nuts.

The parents have no reason to believe that this will not be kept in her permanent file. I wouldn't trust them.

[Kathianne]

BS is BS. Plain and simple BS. Most 5 year old children have no idea what they are doing. And holding the parents responsible for a 5 year old using a HELLO KITTY pretend BUBBLE shooting gun to make a THREAT????

Really? A THREAT?

BULL SHIT is running rampant in this country, and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS has replaced values, common sense, logic, and Adult Thinking.

IF she'd had the toy bubble making gun at school, suspension would have been indicated, probably states so in the handbook. In this case though, she didn't have the 'gun.' She verbalized that she'd get her with bubble gun. Really.

[ConHog]

IF she'd had the toy bubble making gun at school, suspension would have been indicated, probably states so in the handbook. In this case though, she didn't have the 'gun.' She verbalized that she'd get her with bubble gun. Really.

I understand that. Makes no difference. You can't allow students to make threats at school, no matter how silly they seem.

There was a time when pretty much any threat was ignored by school officials. That day is past.

[Kathianne]

I understand that. Makes no difference. You can't allow students to make threats at school, no matter how silly they seem.

There was a time when pretty much any threat was ignored by school officials. That day is past.

Not so. Many schools actually have both administrators and staff with common sense. This school lacks such as do a few others that make headlines. Personally I'd never want to have my children attend such a school.

[ConHog]

Not so. Many schools actually have both administrators and staff with common sense. This school lacks such as do a few others that make headlines. Personally I'd never want to have my children attend such a school.

Common sense? Common sense is punishing children who make threats, no matter how "minor" those threats sound to some.

[Kathianne]

Common sense? Common sense is punishing children who make threats, no matter how "minor" those threats sound to some.

No, that would be adults teaching children that they don't know the difference between serious and frivolous. That means that adults lack the commonsense that most twelve year old babysitters have.

Kids have pencils at school. Most Boston brand electric sharpeners put a very decent point at the end of those. A child that loses their temper and throws at or threatens to stab another would deserve a suspension. Getting mad and saying, "My dad's going to get your dad," is not in the same ballpark; unless it's 'commonly known' that the child saying that, has a crazy father.

[ConHog]

No, that would be adults teaching children that they don't know the difference between serious and frivolous. That means that adults lack the commonsense that most twelve year old babysitters have.

Kids have pencils at school. Most Boston brand electric sharpeners put a very decent point at the end of those. A child that loses their temper and throws at or threatens to stab another would deserve a suspension. Getting mad and saying, "My dad's going to get your dad," is not in the same ballpark; unless it's 'commonly known' that the child saying that, has a crazy father.

This has NOTHING to do with guns Kath and you know it. Schools can't tolerate threats. PERIOD. If a kid threatened to stab another kid with a sharpened pencil he would be suspended for 10 days as well.

why you think it's about guns is beyond me.

[Kathianne]

This has NOTHING to do with guns Kath and you know it. Schools can't tolerate threats. PERIOD. If a kid threatened to stab another kid with a sharpened pencil he would be suspended for 10 days as well.

why you think it's about guns is beyond me.

No, that's not true. Neither is 'zero tolerance' in most schools, if it were there wouldn't be these oddball cases all over the news. Kids threaten other kids, it's up to reasonable adults to make meaning of the threats. Pretty clear that when it's a bubble gun, the 'threat' is not substantial. Worth discussing? Yes, if from that more appropriate response to being provoked isn't forthcoming, bring the parents in.

Funny how many pencil and compass jabs are 'accidental.' Required for school though.

[gabosaurus]

My mine saw this in the paper. She thinks some people are losing their brains.
It's like the elementary school kids at recess last week (I forget where) who were arguing. One kid told the other "I should blow your brains out!" A school aide supervising the kids called police. Who, fortunately, were more upset about the aide wasting their time than the threat.

[ConHog]

My mine saw this in the paper. She thinks some people are losing their brains.
It's like the elementary school kids at recess last week (I forget where) who were arguing. One kid told the other "I should blow your brains out!" A school aide supervising the kids called police. Who, fortunately, were more upset about the aide wasting their time than the threat.

Sounds like some shitty police to me. The police aren't just there to arrest people. A little kid threatening to blow people's brains out needs some intervention.

I would bet a million dollars that not one of these jerkoffs who have committed any of these horrible crimes such as Sandy Hook began there. That's not the way it works. They begin with "minor" things that get ignored "kids being kids" and such.

I can't even imagine the ass kicking I would have gotten , or that my kids will get for that matter, if they ever threaten to blow someone's brains out.

Have you people lost your god damned minds?

[Kathianne]

Sounds like some shitty police to me. The police aren't just there to arrest people. A little kid threatening to blow people's brains out needs some intervention.

I would bet a million dollars that not one of these jerkoffs who have committed any of these horrible crimes such as Sandy Hook began there. That's not the way it works. They begin with "minor" things that get ignored "kids being kids" and such.

I can't even imagine the ass kicking I would have gotten , or that my kids will get for that matter, if they ever threaten to blow someone's brains out.

Have you people lost your god damned minds?

I'd say that Gabby and myself are dealing with the daily stuff at schools pretty rationally. If you would kick your 5 year old for saying they were 'going to get their bubble gun' and the other kid would be 'sorry' or what have you, you deserve all that DCF would hand you. Really, that is reportable.

[ConHog]

I'd say that Gabby and myself are dealing with the daily stuff at schools pretty rationally. If you would kick your 5 year old for saying they were 'going to get their bubble gun' and the other kid would be 'sorry' or what have you, you deserve all that DCF would hand you. Really, that is reportable.

A spanking is reporteable now? I think not.

[Kathianne]

A spanking is reporteable now? I think not.

You didn't say, spanking, you said, "ass kicking".

[ConHog]

You didn't say, spanking, you said, "ass kicking".



And youre intelligent enough to understand what I mesnt was not literally kicking a kid. Jesus.

[taft2012]

I can divine exactly what was behind this incident. Those who work in the schools simply *HATE* to be given directives of any kind, particularly if they happen to be in teachers' unions. To undermine any sort of oversight they deliberately make idiotic applications of rules like this to discourage interference in how they run the school/classroom.

And because they are willing to go to extreme lengths to prove their points, they are often very successful. As a consequence, our schools are screwed up and the children learn nothing.

In NYC, criminal incidents in schools are tracked and schools experiencing a negative crime trend may have the principal and administrative staff replaced. One high school in Queens was undergoing such a crime trend and the principal directed his people not to call 911 until he's had a chance to review what happened first.

Everybody knew he meant calling 911 for the police to try to keep down reported criminal incidents. But when a young girl suffered a stroke, instead of calling for an ambulance immediately these inhuman unionized monsters decided to be smart asses and follow the principal's ruling to the letter of the law, just to show him. There is absolutely nothing more insidious than teachers' unions.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/queens-school-failed-mariya-fatima-stroke-article-1.242863



The typed words on the school memo are as direct as they are stunning: "No Deans are permitted to call 911 for any reason."


An assistant principal at Jamaica High School wrote the order just two weeks before ninth-grader Mariya Fatima suffered a stroke at the Queens school in April.


Employees waited more than an hour before calling 911, according to court records, costing Mariya crucial minutes of medical treatment, a delay that may have made her paralysis worse.


A month after Mariya collapsed, the same assistant principal sent out another memo, flip-flopping and telling the deans it was okay to call 911, but instructing them to downplay assaults.


The author of the memo and the school's principal have both since left Jamaica High School, but that's little comfort to Mariya's family.


Yeah, the principal was a jackass and gave vague and poorly worded directions. *BUT*.... you don't risk the life of a little girl to make your point.

I can live to be 100 years-old, and no one will ever convince me the teachers' unions give a shit about the children. What happened to this girl with the soap bubble gun is bad, but our teachers are capable of a lot worse.

Yeah, there are a lot of good teachers ... but this "fight the power" mindset a lot them have, especially the unionized teachers, is just sick.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

really? so you want to take yet another tool away from schools when it comes to disciplining kids? You realize if you take away zero tolerance that EVERY parents who's kid does something wrong will be down haranguing the school for a different standard?

By the way zero tolerance teaches them that in life there is zero tolerance as well. Committ a crime, you're punished. End of story. At least it should be that way


^ That is irrelevant to THIS thread. Go start a thread about it and I'll join you in calling for their being brought up on charges of dereliction.


I get it. You want to keep a very harsh ,one size fits all punishment even for the very small children. You think common sense application case by case among small children is what?-to hard ?, too costly?, too time consuming? Good grief, if extra care can not be taken with our kids what the hell are we coming to!
It would n nice and make the job so much easier if a doctor had a one pill cure all but life isn't like that.
Creating a rule with zero exception, zero tolerance should not be extended down to very young children.
The same libs that apply zero tolerance to these small children absolutely refuse to apply that metric to adult criminals! That's the hypocrisy and highlights their error in thinking as well. -Tyr

[revelarts]

That's fine in the abstract Jim, but in the reality you are talking about schools who's administrators are dealing with hundreds if not thousands of kids. It's just simply easier to have a one size fits all policy.
Also, yes this threat seems silly on the surface , but the idea is to make sure it doesn't escalate into something else later on down the road.
The school "system" is not dealig with the kid a Teacher is dealing with a 5 year old. A adult with and degree in teaching of some kind and knowledge of Childrens behavoir. Con it's crazy to assume that this needed anything more than a verbal correction IF THAT.





Since when is one 5 year old threatening to shoot another considered "a child being a child?"
http://mynetbox.info/images/xtra/andy-opie-guns72.jpg
I would suggest that THAT attitude is part of the problem. I hope that as a gun owner you teach kids to NEVER even joke about shooting someone.
I've read several accounts of this incident and this wasn't a child joking, this was a child who didn't understand the difference between a pink bubble gun and a real gun and who a statement as a threat.(:rolleyes:)



A jury trial is only constitutionally afforded in criminal cases. This little girl was NOT charged with a crime. She was charged with breaking school policy. Which is another matter entirely.
However , let me add this. She no doubt DID get a jury of sorts anyway because school officials are NOT empowered to suspend students on their own. The system is the same everywhere. The principle, or superintendent will recommend suspension or even expulsion to the school board who votes whether to accept the recommendation . Most of the time it's pretty straight forward yes but every once in awhile a case comes up where a school board disagrees with the administration.
Once again, this is all spelled out right in the rules handbook that the parents were supposed to read at the beginning of the school year.
But bottom line when it comes to your argument. She was NOT charged with a crime so no right to a jury trial.
Tht another problem where we haven't followed the constitution where we have "infractions" handled by Imperial judges instead of Jurys

But what you described above is not like a Jury it's more like a military tribunal.



If you had you would know that ignoring seemingly minor events is how things get escalated.
also, a 5 year old who threatens to shoot someone certainly knows what they are doing.

...Schools MUST take all threats SERIOUSLY, no matter how trivial they might sound to outsiders...

Common sense? Common sense is punishing children who make threats, no matter how "minor" those threats sound to some.

A little kid threatening to blow people's brains out needs some intervention.

That's not the way it works. They begin with "minor" things that get ignored "kids being kids" and such.



And you're intelligent enough to understand what I meant was not literally kicking a kid. Jesus.
A grown Adult certainly knows what he's doing when he threatens to kick a Chlid's A55!
I think you might need some intervention and Jim should call the police and Social services and give them your IP address CON, Sorry but we have ZERO tolerance here. People say thing like that and you know that's how it starts, Threatening your kids then other others kids and then we have a mass shooting on out hands. Escalation. Gov'ts got to keep an Eye on comments like that we can't assume you ddn't mean it seriously I've heard other adult make that threat and DO IT.

Jim send his IP address on the proper authorities, along with transcript of his transgressions here. can't be to careful.
It's for your own good and the good of the community ConHog sorry buddy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The school "system" is not dealig with the kid a Teacher is dealing with a 5 year old. A adult with and degree in teaching of some kind and knowledge of Childrens behavoir. Con it's crazy to assume that this needed anything more than a verbal correction IF THAT.







Tht another problem where we haven't followed the constitution where we have "infractions" handled by Imperial judges instead of Jurys

But what you described above is not like a Jury it's more like a military tribunal.




A grown Adult certainly knows what he's doing when he threatens to kick a Chlid's A55!
I think you might need some intervention and Jim should call the police and Social services and give them your IP address CON, Sorry but we have ZERO tolerance here. People say thing like that and you know that's how it starts, Threatening your kids then other others kids and then we have a mass shooting on out hands. Escalation. Gov'ts got to keep an Eye on comments like that we can't assume you ddn't mean it seriously I've heard other adult make that threat and DO IT.

Jim send his IP address on the proper authorities, along with transcript of his transgressions here. can't be to careful.
It's for your own good and the good of the community ConHog sorry buddy.

The reply to this is going to be interesting. That is if a refutation is even attempted. -Tyr

[tailfins]

You didn't say, spanking, you said, "ass kicking".

My older half brothers got a55 kickings, which is why they are HALF brothers. I guarantee you an a55 kicking is NOT a spanking. My mom's first husband used to brag that she could "take a beating like a man". Being a good Baptist, she stayed with him until he started in on the kids, all of whom were already moved out before I was born. An a55 kicking involved bruises and broken body parts.

[ConHog]

The school "system" is not dealig with the kid a Teacher is dealing with a 5 year old. A adult with and degree in teaching of some kind and knowledge of Childrens behavoir. Con it's crazy to assume that this needed anything more than a verbal correction IF THAT.







Tht another problem where we haven't followed the constitution where we have "infractions" handled by Imperial judges instead of Jurys

But what you described above is not like a Jury it's more like a military tribunal.




A grown Adult certainly knows what he's doing when he threatens to kick a Chlid's A55!
I think you might need some intervention and Jim should call the police and Social services and give them your IP address CON, Sorry but we have ZERO tolerance here. People say thing like that and you know that's how it starts, Threatening your kids then other others kids and then we have a mass shooting on out hands. Escalation. Gov'ts got to keep an Eye on comments like that we can't assume you ddn't mean it seriously I've heard other adult make that threat and DO IT.

Jim send his IP address on the proper authorities, along with transcript of his transgressions here. can't be to careful.
It's for your own good and the good of the community ConHog sorry buddy.


Did I break a board rule that I , or my legal guardian, signed an agreement to abide by? If so Jim certainly has a case to enforce the rules, otherwise your comparison is invalid.

Also, once again, I will remind that the school charged the little girl with breaking the RULES, not the law, and so there is no right to trial.

If you break a rule at work, do you get a trial?

Of course not

You're smarter than that Rev

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My older half brothers got a55 kickings, which is why they are HALF brothers. I guarantee you an a55 kicking is NOT a spanking. My mom's first husband used to brag that she could "take a beating like a man". Being a good Baptist, she stayed with him until he started in on the kids, all of whom were already moved out before I was born. An a55 kicking involved bruises and broken body parts.

^^^^ That at the least.
In my definition, bleeding, bruising , busted body parts and often --knocked the hell out and knocking out a few teeth too. Always a serious matter to contemplate doing!
Asskicking is a very serious matter as its not an ordinary fight. My dad and granddad taught me it was to be used only in very "special" cases and never , I repeat never to be half-ass done! Never , never to be applied to women no matter what they had done! Strictly for male punishment only..
Also was never to be administered to family members-at least never to close family members.
People I ran with and was around during my wild younger years pretty much agreed with your listed definition as a minimum .Its one thing to give a man a fair fight ,beat his ass and then let it go. Its entirely another thing to go out to be giving an asskicking-or as we called it "ass-stomping". Serious harm was the call of the day in an administered ass-stomping. It was to be a punishment that taught a lifelong lesson. Taught the victim to never repeat the offense he was guilty of ever again. I've given more than my fair share but all were justified, especially the one I DELIVERED TO A RAPIST LONG AGO. Also a man beating a woman called for an ass stomping to be sent his way, I have delivered several for that reason too! And no it was not a woman I was involved with at the the time..
I repeat, never was it to be used as punishment within a family unit or meted out on a woman.
May sound harsh/barbaric but often is the only method to send the proper message and get the proper results.-Tyr

[ConHog]

^^^^ That at the least.
In my definition, bleeding, bruising , busted body parts and often --knocked the hell out and knocking out a few teeth too. Always a serious matter to contemplate doing!
Asskicking is a very serious matter as its not an ordinary fight. My dad and granddad taught me it was to be used only in very "special" cases and never , I repeat never to be half-ass done! Never , never to be applied to women no matter what they had done! Strictly for male punishment only..
Also was never to be administered to family members-at least never to close family members.
People I ran with and was around during my wild younger years pretty much agreed with your listed definition as a minimum .Its one thing to give a man a fair fight ,beat his ass and then let it go. Its entirely another thing to go out to be giving an asskicking-or as we called it "ass-stomping". Serious harm was the call of the day in an administered ass-stomping. It was to be a punishment that taught a lifelong lesson. Taught the victim to never repeat the offense he was guilty of ever again. I've given more than my fair share but all were justified, especially the one I DELIVERED TO A RAPIST LONG AGO.
I repeat, never was it to be used as punishment within a family unit or meted out on a woman.
May sound harsh/barbaric but often is the only method to send the proper message and get the proper results.-Tyr


you guys' definitions certainly differ from mine.

However I seriously doubt anyone here actually thought I was talking about harming my children in such a manner.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

you guys' definitions certainly differ from mine.

However I seriously doubt anyone here actually thought I was talking about harming my children in such a manner.

Conhog, I didnt have you in mind or anything you post here when making my comments.
My comments were strictly about the definition of asskicking as I was taught..
Tailfins to me gave the bare minimum in his description but he was right about it being a serious matter.
Just sorry to hear that it was applied improperly in the information he related. As a man has no right to beat his wife, muslims do that and I absolutely condemn it and them too..
I never even read your comment of which you speak.. -Tyr

[ConHog]

Conhog, I didnt have you in mind or anything you post here when making my comments.
My comments were strictly about the definition of asskicking as I was taught..
Tailfins to me gave the bare minimum in his description but he was right about it being a serious matter.
Just sorry to hear that it was applied improperly in the information he related. As a man has no right to beat his wife, muslims do that and I absolutely condemn it and them too..-Tyr

I know you didn't. I was merely responding to your definition of ass kicking. Far different from mine. Yours is abuse, mine is not.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I know you didn't. I was merely responding to your definition of ass kicking. Far different from mine. Yours is abuse, mine is not.

ok, "abuse" .. Mine is the delivery of a lesson for extremely serious offenses not small personal matters etc.
Call it abuse but one thing is sure nobody ever came back for more or repeated the offense when the ass stomping was delivered correctly. And only one person ever took it to the cops. I paid my fine and he moved out of state to avoid the second helping. Apparently I was too soft on him the first time . A mistake he knew THAT I WOULDN'T MAKE THE SECOND TIME AROUND.

If your definition is so pure, how about giving it for consideration.. I gave mine with no concern about who does or who does not think it appropriate. -Tyr

[ConHog]

ok, "abuse" .. Mine is the delivery of a lesson for extremely serious offenses not small personal matters etc.
Call it abuse but one thing is sure nobody ever came back for more or repeated the offense when the ass stomping was delivered correctly. And only one person ever took it to the cops. I paid my fine and he moved out of state to avoid the second helping. Apparently I was too soft on him the first time . A mistake he knew THAT I WOULDN'T MAKE THE SECOND TIME AROUND.

If your definition is so pure, how about giving it for consideration.. I gave mine with no concern about who does or who does not think it appropriate. -Tyr

I gave mine. SPanking, a good old fashioned spanking never hurt anyone.

[aboutime]

To all of the WISE ASSED supporters of this little girl's suspension.

Explain how THIS...4362


qualifies...IN ANY WAY, as a terrorist THREAT?

If anyone see's it as a violation of School Rules of safety.

You really do...NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD'S EXAMINED FOR vacuum space between your ears.

And, if you continue to insist....THERE IS A TRIGGER on that Bubble Gun....

We should be banning everything with a Trigger... like this 4363

[ConHog]

To all of the WISE ASSED supporters of this little girl's suspension.

Explain how THIS...4362


qualifies...IN ANY WAY, as a terrorist THREAT?

If anyone see's it as a violation of School Rules of safety.

You really do...NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD'S EXAMINED FOR vacuum space between your ears.

And, if you continue to insist....THERE IS A TRIGGER on that Bubble Gun....

We should be banning everything with a Trigger... like this 4363


NO ONE said it was a terrorist threat, that is a dishonest argument. If it were a terrorist threat the cops would have gotten involved.

It IS however against school rules to issue ANY sort of threat.. That's the part you are missing, maybe deliberately. We don't allow our children to even jokingly talk about blowing other kids' brains out.

And before you get started , it is a well established principle that kids do not enjoy unlimited rights while at school.

This girl broke the rule about threatening other kids, case closed. That it was an empty threat is irrelevant.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I gave mine. SPanking, a good old fashioned spanking never hurt anyone.

I do not disagree with that but schools do not allow corporal punishment these days.
Spanking within the family when conducted properly is right.
But we were discussing asskicking /stomping replying to tailfin's post on that subject when you called my definition --"abuse". I replied in context to that subject not this school topic and the bubble gun threat the little girl made.

[aboutime]

NO ONE said it was a terrorist threat, that is a dishonest argument. If it were a terrorist threat the cops would have gotten involved.

It IS however against school rules to issue ANY sort of threat.. That's the part you are missing, maybe deliberately. We don't allow our children to even jokingly talk about blowing other kids' brains out.

And before you get started , it is a well established principle that kids do not enjoy unlimited rights while at school.

This girl broke the rule about threatening other kids, case closed. That it was an empty threat is irrelevant.


No. The case is not closed. Not because you say it is. Nobody died and left you in charge, or the last source of honest information.

If you. And I DO MEAN YOU. Are who you claim to be, as in related to a school administration. And your mental capacity is THAT LOW when looking at that Bubble Gun. YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR HEAD EXAMINED. Because you've got to have ROCKS in your head. As my Father liked to say so long ago.

Your claims at intelligence have lost all credibility if you see it that way. And, even if you don't care what others say here.
YOU STILL do not have the power, or the Intelligence to CHANGE THE TRUTH.

[ConHog]

I do not disagree with that but schools do not allow corporal punishment these days.
Spanking within the family when conducted properly is right.
But we were discussing asskicking /stomping replying to tailfin's post on that subject when you called my definition --"abuse". I replied in context to that subject not this school topic and the bubble gun threat the little girl made.

we still use corporall punishment. albeit only if we have parental consent

[revelarts]

Did I break a board rule that I , or my legal guardian, signed an agreement to abide by? If so Jim certainly has a case to enforce the rules, otherwise your comparison is invalid.
Also, once again, I will remind that the school charged the little girl with breaking the RULES, not the law, and so there is no right to trial
If you break a rule at work, do you get a trial?
Of course not
You're smarter than that Rev


you guys' definitions certainly differ from mine.

However I seriously doubt anyone here actually thought I was talking about harming my children in such a manner.

Con I was Just pointing out that you have a double standard here.

For your "threats" we are suppose to use common sense and disregard it as an offhand comment and forgeta bout it. But for a 5 year kids "threats" were suppose to have zero tolerance , suspend her, and have a police intervention, and nip this kids murder spree mind set in the bud. nip it, nip it, nip it.

It's a double standard and overkill from the start Con, you don't need intervention and neither did the child.


you sound like this

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HqEIt-rQqbM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Longer version with music
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/de_P2aUZJyA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[ConHog]

Con I was Just pointing out that you have a double standard here.

For your "threats" we are suppose to use common sense and disregard it as an offhand comment and forgeta bout it. But for a 5 year kids "threats" were suppose to have zero tolerance , suspend her, and have a police intervention, and nip this kids murder spree mind set in the bud. nip it, nip it, nip it.

It's a double standard and overkill from the start Con, you don't need intervention and neither did the child.


you sound like this

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HqEIt-rQqbM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" width="640" frameborder="0" height="360"></iframe>

Longer version with music
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/de_P2aUZJyA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" width="640" frameborder="0" height="360"></iframe>



how is it a double standard rev? Jim certainly has a rule about threatening other posters. I expect that rule to be enforced no matter how asinine the threat might appear. Wouldn't you?

We've agreed to that rule when joining so then it should come as no surprise if Jim suspends us from the board if we break the rule.

Now should a guy who posts "I'd kick your ass" be suspended for the same amount of time as another poster who posts "I'm going to hunt you down and cut your fucking head off while your kids watch" or whatever ? Probably not, but each is a violation of the rules and warrants some form of punishment.

I am not a hypocrite sir, I believe 100% in equal treatment for all, in ALL regards.

And when you are dealing with a thousand kids , and consequently 2000 parents sometimes you have to do things which might seem extreme in response to one but are absolutely necessary for the protection of the many.

Last month we voted to suspend a kid for 5 days for throwing BBs in class. Now certainly throwing BBs in and of itself is not a big deal. But , as far as the rules go, he brought ammunition to school. Yes BB gun ammunition, but ammunition nonetheless. Should we as school board members have ignored that b/c it was "just BB gun ammo?"

[revelarts]

I didn't mean any serious disrespect Con. I just thought it was Funny. maybe i went to far. I apologize. I respect you and your work as an officer. And by no means to you come across as Barney Fife in general.

But i stand by my double standard comments.
it's overkill to treat a 5 year old that way. Especially when a grown man with guns can say publically that he's going to kick some A55 and rightly expect people to blow it off. A kids threat with a Bubble Gun is NOTHING -it shouldn't even be a conversation- Your right the Kid Probably did know EXACTLY what she was talking about "I'm going to shot you with a BUBBLE GUN. that's a threat to be concerned about Con , really?

Why have so many people so fearful,
"Saddam MIGHT still have or get WMDs.... Iran Might Attack somebody one day when they get a weapon.... Terrorist might get us if we don't look down grandmas panties and the kids shoes.... If people have guns someone might get hurt... If we don't torture we might all die..."
the gov't must fix ALLL of that. it's all of piece. a MISPLACED fear culture that the gov't exploits to gain MORE control and more imagine authority to do to people whatever the heck they want to,
for your safety.

[taft2012]

Last month we voted to suspend a kid for 5 days for throwing BBs in class. Now certainly throwing BBs in and of itself is not a big deal. But , as far as the rules go, he brought ammunition to school. Yes BB gun ammunition, but ammunition nonetheless. Should we as school board members have ignored that b/c it was "just BB gun ammo?"

Just out of curiosity...

I always understood "BB"s to be short for "ball bearings". Am I wrong?

If not, how did you conclude that these BBs were BB gun ammunition, and not just run of the mill ball bearings?

[ConHog]

I didn't mean any serious disrespect Con. I just thought it was Funny. maybe i went to far. I apologize. I respect you and your work as an officer. And by no means to you come across as Barney Fife in general.

But i stand by my double standard comments.
it's overkill to treat a 5 year old that way. Especially when a grown man with guns can say publically that he's going to kick some A55 and rightly expect people to blow it off. A kids threat with a Bubble Gun is NOTHING -it shouldn't even be a conversation- Your right the Kid Probably did know EXACTLY what she was talking about "I'm going to shot you with a BUBBLE GUN. that's a threat to be concerned about Con , really?

Why have so many people so fearful,
"Saddam MIGHT still have or get WMDs.... Iran Might Attack somebody one day when they get a weapon.... Terrorist might get us if we don't look down grandmas panties and the kids shoes.... If people have guns someone might get hurt... If we don't torture we might all die..."
the gov't must fix ALLL of that. it's all of piece. a MISPLACED fear culture that the gov't exploits to gain MORE control and more imagine authority to do to people whatever the heck they want to,
for your safety.



You're missing the larger context Rev. It isn't about the level of the threat.

Our school teaches

Honor
Honesty
Bravery
Kindness
Charity

and our rules are based on such. We don't take violations of those principles lightly. Not even from a 5 year old.

Would I have suspended her for 10 days? No. Personally I would have voted for a 2 days suspension, OR one of her parents could come in and work with the school for one day. Often times that is more effective than suspending the child, parents tend to act more cooperatively in explaining the rules to their children when it impacts them directly.

BUT , that doesn't change the fact that we have rules. You don't threaten other kids, at all. NONE ZERO, not even jokingly.

I compare it to this Rev. I have a swimming pool in my backyard. For some odd reason little kids love to play a game where they pretend they are drowning. I have a ZERO tolerance policy for that game. You pretend your drowning or cry for help or whatever just as a game, you get to get out of the pool for awhile. Every kid that comes over knows this, and yet nearly everytime we have kids over one of them does it. And then acts bewildered when they are made to get out of the pool. There immediate response is "I didn't hurt anyone" and often times their parents if there will object as well "they didn't hurt anyone"

Doesn't matter, I explained the rules to them before hand, and by using my pool they agreed to abide by them.

The LEVEL of the threat absolutely should dictate the severity of the punishment, BUT the ACT of the threat is what determines that there should be punishment to begin with.

So, yes the girl needed to be punished, personally I think 10 days is a bit much; but I'm not on that school board so I don't know all the facts that they used to come to that punishment.

[ConHog]

Just out of curiosity...

I always understood "BB"s to be short for "ball bearings". Am I wrong?

If not, how did you conclude that these BBs were BB gun ammunition, and not just run of the mill ball bearings?

BB doesn''t really stand for anything. It was originally used to denote ammunition that was roughly the same size as bird shot found in shotgun shells.

In fact when Daisy introduced the Red Ryers and standardized their air rifle barrel size they tried to rename the ammunition air rifle shot, but BB was already commonplace so they just went with it.

and we knew for fact because he admitted it was BBs.

[taft2012]

BB doesn''t really stand for anything. It was originally used to denote ammunition that was roughly the same size as bird shot found in shotgun shells.

In fact when Daisy introduced the Red Ryers and standardized their air rifle barrel size they tried to rename the ammunition air rifle shot, but BB was already commonplace so they just went with it.

and we knew for fact because he admitted it was BBs.

I just Googled.... some places say "ball bullet", some say "ball bearing."

If I had a pocket full of ball bearings and you asked me what they were ... I might say "BB"s.

I think this kid got a raw deal.

Now that a girl has been suspended for a soap bubble gun, does that set a precedent for bringing in "ammunition" for a soap bubble gun as well? Will someone bringing bubble bath to school now be suspended?

[ConHog]

I just Googled.... some places say "ball bullet", some say "ball bearing."

If I had a pocket full of ball bearings and you asked me what they were ... I might say "BB"s.

I think this kid got a raw deal.

Now that a girl has been suspended for a soap bubble gun, does that set a precedent for bringing in "ammunition" for a soap bubble gun as well? Will someone bringing bubble bath to school now be suspended?

she was not suspended for a bubble gun. She was suspended for making a threat.

[aboutime]

This thread just verifies the endless Stupidity caused by whining, ill-informed, politically correct idiots who are Offended, Bothered, Insulted, Hurt, and Deranged over the activities of other human beings who are insulting to them in any way.

DUMB IS DUMB. And punishing a five year old girl for this STUPIDITY is just proof. The STUPIDITY comes from those who enforce it.

[taft2012]

she was not suspended for a bubble gun. She was suspended for making a threat.

She was suspended for threatening to shoot someone with a soap bubble gun.

I think a threat to shoot someone *WITHOUT* holding any sort of gun is a more serious infraction, in that the type of weapon threatened is unknown.

In this case the threatening weapon was known, and she was still suspended. Therefore, she *WAS* suspended for a soap bubble gun.

[ConHog]

She was suspended for threatening to shoot someone with a soap bubble gun.

I think a threat to shoot someone *WITHOUT* holding any sort of gun is a more serious infraction, in that the type of weapon threatened is unknown.

In this case the threatening weapon was known, and she was still suspended. Therefore, she *WAS* suspended for a soap bubble gun.


Re read. She in fact did NOT have the gun. She didn't bring it to school. She did say she would do so.

she threatened to blow a kid's brains out, her exact words. Now IF she understood that her gun was just a bubble gun wouldn't she also understand that it is incapable of blowing anyone's brains out?

This little girl deserved a suspension, you don't voice that you are going to blow someone's brains out, not even jokingly.

[aboutime]

Re read. She in fact did NOT have the gun. She didn't bring it to school. She did say she would do so.

she threatened to blow a kid's brains out, her exact words. Now IF she understood that her gun was just a bubble gun wouldn't she also understand that it is incapable of blowing anyone's brains out?

This little girl deserved a suspension, you don't voice that you are going to blow someone's brains out, not even jokingly.


SO NOW. You agree to authorize the suspension of a Five year old girl because of WORDS she said????

You really are much DUMBER than I thought.

Children hear those words on Television every day....check out the cartoons YOU may have watched when you were younger. Bugs Bunny, etc????

[ConHog]

SO NOW. You agree to authorize the suspension of a Five year old girl because of WORDS she said????

You really are much DUMBER than I thought.

Children hear those words on Television every day....check out the cartoons YOU may have watched when you were younger. Bugs Bunny, etc????

Are you capable of issuing a single post that doesn't insult someone? I ask that in all seriousness.

And Bugs Bunny, nor any of his cohorts, ever threatened to blow anyone's brains out, nor did anyone even die in those cartoons. However, Wile E Coyote used to have an anvil fall on his head , doesn't mean I want kids dropping anvils on other kids' heads at school either.

[mundame]

The child didn't even HAVE a bubble-gun, whatever that is. She was just talking.

I very much question suspending anyone, even a 17-year-old, for just TALKING. Having a gun is one thing; talking about one is another.

The fact that it was a five-year-old and not even in school and she didn't even have a gun ------ this is madness, and no wonder sensible people are bailing out of public schools as fast as they can. Here is a very small child traumatized for no reason she can understand ---- and no reason anyone else can understand, either!

Besides, bubble guns presumably are FOR shooting other children, right? Aren't you supposed to shoot each other with them?

This is total cultural madness.

[ConHog]

The child didn't even HAVE a bubble-gun, whatever that is. She was just talking.

I very much question suspending anyone, even a 17-year-old, for just TALKING. Having a gun is one thing; talking about one is another.

The fact that it was a five-year-old and not even in school and she didn't even have a gun ------ this is madness, and no wonder sensible people are bailing out of public schools as fast as they can. Here is a very small child traumatized for no reason she can understand ---- and no reason anyone else can understand, either!

Besides, bubble guns presumably are FOR shooting other children, right? Aren't you supposed to shoot each other with them?

This is total cultural madness.

Traumatized? LOL

come on now, she was suspended, she didn't get tortured. Oh and she knows what she did wrong. Guarantee that.

Oh , also. The threat DID happen on school grounds. The gun wasn't on school grounds though.

what part of " you can not tell another child you are going to blow their brains out" do you not get? The validity of the threat is inconsequential. It is enough that a threat was made. Schools can't tolerate that. It is detrimental to the educational process.

You know when I was in school, kids didn't even get punished for fighting up to a certain point. I mean they would break up a fist fight and as long as no one was seriously injured they would just say "kids will be kids" and that sort of attitude is where schools started falling apart. It was the end of kids actually respecting teachers and rules and of schools actually trying to teach kids how to do the right thing.

and here is an example of a school fighting to get those things back and you guys are slamming on them. Why? Because a gun, even a toy one, is peripherally involved in the story? Because you just don't like public schools?

you speak of trauma, what about the child who was threatened? Having a threat to blow your brains out has to be as equally traumatic as getting suspended for making the threat.

[Kathianne]

I know you didn't. I was merely responding to your definition of ass kicking. Far different from mine. Yours is abuse, mine is not.

You are too intelligent to think that you do not use words concisely. If you'd meant 'spanking' I'm quite certain you understand the definition of that and would have used that. You chose a different word, then 'flatter us into assuming you meant spanking.'

[ConHog]

You are too intelligent to think that you do not use words concisely. If you'd meant 'spanking' I'm quite certain you understand the definition of that and would have used that. You chose a different word, then 'flatter us into assuming you meant spanking.'

Not the case at all. Poorly chosen words on my part, yes. But I would NEVER literally kick a child's ass. I think you probably know that.

[Kathianne]

To all of the WISE ASSED supporters of this little girl's suspension.

Explain how THIS...4362


qualifies...IN ANY WAY, as a terrorist THREAT?

If anyone see's it as a violation of School Rules of safety.

You really do...NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD'S EXAMINED FOR vacuum space between your ears.

And, if you continue to insist....THERE IS A TRIGGER on that Bubble Gun....

We should be banning everything with a Trigger... like this 4363

As I said earlier, if she'd brought the toy to school and the administration/staff had any qualms about her behavior outside of that, that would in all likelihood have broken the published rules in the handbook. A 'trigger=gun' toy or not. That is also where 'discretion' comes into play. She DID NOT have the toy at school.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/kindergartner-suspended-over-bubble-gun-threat/


A 5-year-old girl was suspended from school earlier this week after she made what the school called a “terrorist threat.”


Her weapon of choice? A small, Hello Kitty automatic bubble blower.

The kindergartner, who attends Mount Carmel Area Elementary School in Pennsylvania, caught administrators’ attention after suggesting she and a classmate should shoot each other with bubbles.


“I think people know how harmless a bubble is. It doesn’t hurt,” said Robin Ficker, an attorney for the girl’s family. According to Ficker, the girl, whose identity has not been released, didn’t even have the bubble gun toy with her at school.



http://www.examiner.com/article/girl-5-suspended-terroristic-threatening-after-chatting-about-bubble-gun


..The family has retained an attorney, Robin Flicker (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/01/girl_5_in_trouble_over_bubble.html#incart_river), who has refrained from releasing the name of the girl and her family. Flicker gave the following version of events. The young girl was talking with a friend and said something along the lines of “I’m going to shoot you and I will shoot myself”. Officials at the elementary school learned of the conversation the following day.

The young girl was questioned for thirty minutes without a parent present. After that, the student was declared a “terroristic threat” and suspended for ten days (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/01/girl_5_in_trouble_over_bubble.html#incart_river). She was also required to be evaluated by a psychologist.

Flicker contacted the family after he heard of the story. The school was asked to expunge the record, but instead reduced the suspension to two days. The school claimed the reason for the change was that the charge against the 5-year-old was changed from to a (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/01/girl_5_in_trouble_over_bubble.html#incart_river) “threat to harm another student”. This writer was unaware that bubbles were harmful.

...


I've been reading some of the articles, not one mentions her shooting 'brains out' of either herself or friend. These the two 'versions' repeated in all the stories I read.

Before anyone goes amateur psych on us, it's not unusual for kids to say, "We'll both get it," referring in this case to bubbles.

Unless this school has documentation of unusual behavior regarding this 5 year old, I would pull my kids out of that school. They seem incapable of reasonable judgment. Having your kids in a school run like this is basically setting your kids up for abuse.

[Kathianne]

NO ONE said it was a terrorist threat, that is a dishonest argument. If it were a terrorist threat the cops would have gotten involved. The school originally did label it a 'terrorist threat' and gave a 10 day suspension, after questioning the child for over 1/2 hour without parents. They lowered it to a threat and changed the suspension to 2 days, instead of expunging the incident. NOW if the school has other behavior issues with the child, there might be some reasoning here. However, that doesn't sound likely considering the parents fighting the 2 days.


It IS however against school rules to issue ANY sort of threat.. That's the part you are missing, maybe deliberately. We don't allow our children to even jokingly talk about blowing other kids' brains out. I keep looking for this 'blowing other kids' brains out,' not finding it. Not finding accusation of multiple kids. Just between her and a friend, nothing about 'brains' rather discussion of bubble gun.


And before you get started , it is a well established principle that kids do not enjoy unlimited rights while at school.

This girl broke the rule about threatening other kids, case closed. That it was an empty threat is irrelevant.

Case isn't really closed, that will become more clear as time goes on. It's even questionable if there was ever a 'threat' or was it an over zealous staff or parent monitor overhearing kid talk and misinterpreting from the get go?

[Kathianne]

I just Googled.... some places say "ball bullet", some say "ball bearing."

If I had a pocket full of ball bearings and you asked me what they were ... I might say "BB"s.

I think this kid got a raw deal.

Now that a girl has been suspended for a soap bubble gun, does that set a precedent for bringing in "ammunition" for a soap bubble gun as well? Will someone bringing bubble bath to school now be suspended?

bubble gun used for play, not a problem. 5 year old making another kid drink bubbles or pouring it over a pet? Serious problem.

[Kathianne]

Re read. She in fact did NOT have the gun. She didn't bring it to school. She did say she would do so.

she threatened to blow a kid's brains out, her exact words. Now IF she understood that her gun was just a bubble gun wouldn't she also understand that it is incapable of blowing anyone's brains out?

This little girl deserved a suspension, you don't voice that you are going to blow someone's brains out, not even jokingly.

I really would like to see that link about 'blowing out brains.' I can't find it. Not on ABC, FOX, Examiner...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sounds like some shitty police to me. The police aren't just there to arrest people. A little kid threatening to blow people's brains out needs some intervention.

I would bet a million dollars that not one of these jerkoffs who have committed any of these horrible crimes such as Sandy Hook began there. That's not the way it works. They begin with "minor" things that get ignored "kids being kids" and such.

I can't even imagine the ass kicking I would have gotten , or that my kids will get for that matter, if they ever threaten to blow someone's brains out.

Have you people lost your god damned minds?

^^^ OK, THERE IS THE QUOTE. KEPT READING ABOUT IT SO HAD TO FIND IT .
Conhog you clearly indicated what a bad asskicking you would have gotten then go on to declare that your kids will get if ever threatening to blow somebody's brains out! Words have clear meanings.

Lets take your comment first , "I can't imagine the asskicking I would have gotten"--that clearly indicates how bad, how unimaginably bad the punishment would have been..
next, you state, "or that my kids will get". That clearly indicates your intent and revelation that you would deliver the same extremely harsh beating upon your own kids..
Neither part indicates a simple spanking. Had it been intend a simple spanking you could have used the word-spanking- that you chose not to has serious meaning.
A bit late to attempt to go back and amend your statement IMHO. Nobody with any sense or integrity would buy it !
Rev was right , I see a double standard at play here. And an attempt at rewriting your own words..
Fess up, dont play games.
I doubt that your boast is punishable by law so why not admit your mistake?-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I really would like to see that link about 'blowing out brains.' I can't find it. Not on ABC, FOX, Examiner...

descriptive violence added in for effect!! Often a tactic used to beef up one's side in an argument. Just toss in some harsh words to impress others then go with it as if it were fact.. I too never read any part that stated, "blowing out brains"!! -Tyr

[ConHog]

The school originally did label it a 'terrorist threat' and gave a 10 day suspension, after questioning the child for over 1/2 hour without parents.


as you know, kids are often questioned by schools without their parents being present. Personally, I prefer it not to be handled that way when it's little kids, at our school the parents would have been notified immediately and if one or both of them couldn't come in THAT day to discuss the matter the Superintendenat is in that instance empowered to immediately suspend the child until such time that the parents make themselves available. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many parents think they can just ignore a problem at school and it will go away.)



They lowered it to a threat and changed the suspension to 2 days, instead of expunging the incident. NOW if the school has other behavior issues with the child, there might be some reasoning here. However, that doesn't sound likely considering the parents fighting the 2 days.


Correct, the school determined that it was still a threat though.


I keep looking for this 'blowing other kids' brains out,' not finding it. Not finding accusation of multiple kids. Just between her and a friend, nothing about 'brains' rather discussion of bubble gun.


to be honest, I'm not sure where that came from, may be somthing i just thought I read. In either case since I don't have an actual quote I will stop saying it. I don't need it to make my case.



Case isn't really closed, that will become more clear as time goes on. It's even questionable if there was ever a 'threat' or was it an over zealous staff or parent monitor overhearing kid talk and misinterpreting from the get go?

The case should be closed, any judge should tell these parents to get the hell out of his court room but not before writing a check to pay for the school's legal defense.

When you send a child to school you agree that THEY are the final arbiters in deciding school punishments. It's right in the handbook. That's standard boilerplate. These parents have EVERY right to take their child to another school. Go for it, what they do NOT have the right to do is sue the school b/c they don't like that little Sally got suspended.

They WILL lose, and I WILL laugh. Stupid shit like this is indicative of a much larger problem. When Americans don't get their way they cry and run to a court trying to get money from someone else.

It's a 2 day suspension, here's what's stupid. These people are going to waste untold resources fighting a 2 day suspension. Wouldn't it have been easier, not to mention better, had they had when they gave Sally her little pink gun told her "now dear, just because you have a pink gun don't threaten to use it on people when you get angry"

oh, and let's stop pretending like this child didn't know EXACTLY what she was talking about when she threatened to shoot another child. She wasn't offering her a bubble bath.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not the case at all. Poorly chosen words on my part, yes. But I would NEVER literally kick a child's ass. I think you probably know that.

Actually unless somebody knows you personally and well why wouldn't they think you meant exactly
what your words say?? Do you plead the lameness of poorly chosen words often ??
If you have then say so and we can discuss that to verify.. Perhaps you could point out such examples in the past.. Give clear examples.. etc.
Inquiring minds want to know. -Tyr

[mundame]

Traumatized? LOL

come on now, she was suspended, she didn't get tortured.

My guess is that your definition of traumatized is substantially more robust than that of a five-year-old girl......or mine.


what part of " you can not tell another child you are going to blow their brains out" do you not get? The validity of the threat is inconsequential. It is enough that a threat was made. Schools can't tolerate that. It is detrimental to the educational process.

I went back to the original post to see where this "blow your brains out" quote came from, but I did not see any reference to such a tough-guy statement. Just this: "A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten."

And I say again: you are SUPPOSED to shoot each other with a Hello Kitty bubble gun, aren't you? That's the play value of it. It's a toy, and that's how you use it. She presumably got it for her birthday and she's offering to play or talking about playing.



You know when I was in school, kids didn't even get punished for fighting up to a certain point. I mean they would break up a fist fight and as long as no one was seriously injured they would just say "kids will be kids" and that sort of attitude is where schools started falling apart. It was the end of kids actually respecting teachers and rules and of schools actually trying to teach kids how to do the right thing.

and here is an example of a school fighting to get those things back and you guys are slamming on them. Why? Because a gun, even a toy one, is peripherally involved in the story? Because you just don't like public schools?

No, I don't like public schools, and I think shootings and crimes and the widespread bullying that goes on in public schools is a good reason to take the "public" out of public schools. However, a tiny little five-year-old kindergarten girl talking about playing with her Hello Kitty toy is hardly bullying, and is not a threat to anyone. This is crazy overreaction and it reminds me of why a friend took her son out of school and put him into private school when he was ten. We both live on farms, and of course there is a certain inevitable use of guns inherent to farm living. And this is a farming county! But when he mentioned a rifle in class discussion, his young, left-wing teacher went nuts. The thing is, guns are deep in our culture, and to tell children they can't even talk about them, even when they see movies about them constantly and video games and their parents have them and they get a Hello Kittie bubble gun for a present, darn --- this is so crazy! Why shouldn't they talk about guns, you know? Let them talk!

So my farm friend pulled her son out of public school and he became an Eagle Scout and won many 4-H contests and is going to a good college right now to become an engineer. I question how wise it is for the public school system to drive away all the best students the way they do because of pure PC craziness.

[ConHog]

My guess is that your definition of traumatized is substantially more robust than that of a five-year-old girl......or mine.

my guess is you are probably right




I went back to the original post to see where this "blow your brains out" quote came from, but I did not see any reference to such a tough-guy statement. Just this: "A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten."

already conceded the point, making that a non issue




And I say again: you are SUPPOSED to shoot each other with a Hello Kitty bubble gun, aren't you? That's the play value of it. It's a toy, and that's how you use it. She presumably got it for her birthday and she's offering to play or talking about playing.



not at school

[Kathianne]

as you know, kids are often questioned by schools without their parents being present. Personally, I prefer it not to be handled that way when it's little kids, at our school the parents would have been notified immediately and if one or both of them couldn't come in THAT day to discuss the matter the Superintendenat is in that instance empowered to immediately suspend the child until such time that the parents make themselves available. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many parents think they can just ignore a problem at school and it will go away.)


Correct, the school determined that it was still a threat though.


to be honest, I'm not sure where that came from, may be somthing i just thought I read. In either case since I don't have an actual quote I will stop saying it. I don't need it to make my case.



The case should be closed, any judge should tell these parents to get the hell out of his court room but not before writing a check to pay for the school's legal defense.

When you send a child to school you agree that THEY are the final arbiters in deciding school punishments. It's right in the handbook. That's standard boilerplate. These parents have EVERY right to take their child to another school. Go for it, what they do NOT have the right to do is sue the school b/c they don't like that little Sally got suspended.

They WILL lose, and I WILL laugh. Stupid shit like this is indicative of a much larger problem. When Americans don't get their way they cry and run to a court trying to get money from someone else.

It's a 2 day suspension, here's what's stupid. These people are going to waste untold resources fighting a 2 day suspension. Wouldn't it have been easier, not to mention better, had they had when they gave Sally her little pink gun told her "now dear, just because you have a pink gun don't threaten to use it on people when you get angry"

oh, and let's stop pretending like this child didn't know EXACTLY what she was talking about when she threatened to shoot another child. She wasn't offering her a bubble bath.

No one is pretending or twisting, other than perhaps yourself. No hyperbole was used by anyone else, though bringing up Obama would be sort of off-track. Nevertheless, you were the one claiming 'blow brains out.' If you stop using it, after 15 or so times in the past, ok. I brought up the possibility this girl may have had other behavior issues that added to concern, if that's the case, the parents would be nutty for making this a national story. If not, the school will not be laughing when all is said and done.

There's been little context given to what transpired to make this into a national story. Kids at 5 are not always up to snuff in what's a threat and what's not. I brought up the idea that this may have been no more than a kid that got a bubble gun, speaking to her friend and saying, "We should have a bubble gun fight." The other girl responding,"I don't have one." The 'threat maker,' "We can shoot each other with mine or I'll shoot you, then myself. We'll both be covered in bubbles."

Not saying that happened, but is entirely feasible.

Kids at ages 4-7 make weird threats and 'challenges' often not involving themselves, but others. I still remember my best friend driving her daughter and my son to preschool when they were 3. Somehow they went from talking about baby diapers, to 'Who's dad is the biggest pig?' They then recounted what each of their fathers could pork out on. They ended up hitting each other, my friend laughing had to stop the car and tell them that neither of their fathers were 'pigs.' 5 year olds are a bit more sophisticated, but not all the time and not in all circumstances.

[ConHog]

No one is pretending or twisting, other than perhaps yourself. No hyperbole was used by anyone else, though bringing up Obama would be sort of off-track. Nevertheless, you were the one claiming 'blow brains out.' If you stop using it, after 15 or so times in the past, ok. I brought up the possibility this girl may have had other behavior issues that added to concern, if that's the case, the parents would be nutty for making this a national story. If not, the school will not be laughing when all is said and done.

There's been little context given to what transpired to make this into a national story. Kids at 5 are not always up to snuff in what's a threat and what's not. I brought up the idea that this may have been no more than a kid that got a bubble gun, speaking to her friend and saying, "We should have a bubble gun fight." The other girl responding,"I don't have one." The 'threat maker,' "We can shoot each other with mine or I'll shoot you, then myself. We'll both be covered in bubbles."

Not saying that happened, but is entirely feasible.

Kids at ages 4-7 make weird threats and 'challenges' often not involving themselves, but others. I still remember my best friend driving her daughter and my son to preschool when they were 3. Somehow they went from talking about baby diapers, to 'Who's dad is the biggest pig?' They then recounted what each of their fathers could pork out on. They ended up hitting each other, my friend laughing had to stop the car and tell them that neither of their fathers were 'pigs.' 5 year olds are a bit more sophisticated, but not all the time and not in all circumstances.

we agree there. But they can certainly learn. I would say a 2 day suspension might just teach her that you don't threaten to shoot another child, even jokingly, at school. It's a matter of when and were things are appropriate.

Another thing to consider is that one child who has been taught that a pink gun is probably not dangerous will probably have a different understanding of that then a child who's parents have chosen not to introduce guns into their lives. And those parents have that right, and the school is charged with protecting the rights of ALL children, and by extension their parents while those children are in their care.

That means IF I choose to not have my kids exposed to guns and or talk of guns, I should expect the school to not allow another child to introduce a threat that my child may not understand is not actually a real threat (and I dispute that Sally didn't mean it as a real threat anyway, I think she absolutely did)

Let me use another example from our school. Last Christmas one of our more ummm rambunctious second graders took it upon himself to run around the class room during the class Christmas party screaming that Santa Claus didn't exist. The teacher removed him from the class room and he got to spend the rest of the day in the principle's office while the other children enjoyed their party.

That night I received no less than 20 phone calls from pissed parents. Little Johnny's parents were pissed that Little Johnny was removed from the party, and all the other parents were pissed that the little brat "outed" Santa.

Now tell me, what was the right call in that situation. Do we just allow kids to do whatever they want, or be labeled as liberal dumb asses?

These parents threatened to sue saying that my teacher and my principle "over reacted" no different than you are saying here.

In fact there reasoning was pretty much the same "hey he wasn't hurting anyone, Santa is fake and kids need to learn that eventually"

My response was simple " Where I , or someone who answers to me , can help it YOU will not decide what is and what isn't best for other children"

And that wasn't even a violation of the rules , it will be next year though I guarantee you that.

You can call me a liberal, an asshole, stupid, whatever you like. I don't care.

My ONLY concern when I am making decisions as a school board member is "what is best for as many kids as possible" and allowing some to make threats certainly doesn't fit that .

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^^^ OK, THERE IS THE QUOTE. KEPT READING ABOUT IT SO HAD TO FIND IT .
Conhog you clearly indicated what a bad asskicking you would have gotten then go on to declare that your kids will get if ever threatening to blow somebody's brains out! Words have clear meanings.

Lets take your comment first , "I can't imagine the asskicking I would have gotten"--that clearly indicates how bad, how unimaginably bad the punishment would have been..
next, you state, "or that my kids will get". That clearly indicates your intent and revelation that you would deliver the same extremely harsh beating upon your own kids..
Neither part indicates a simple spanking. Had it been intend a simple spanking you could have used the word-spanking- that you chose not to has serious meaning.
A bit late to attempt to go back and amend your statement IMHO. Nobody with any sense or integrity would buy it !
Rev was right , I see a double standard at play here. And an attempt at rewriting your own words..
Fess up, dont play games.

I doubt that your boast is punishable by law so why not admit your mistake?-Tyr

I have not seen that you conceded the point made about your own words I commented on.
Care to address or explain it..??-Tyr

[ConHog]

I have not seen that you conceded the point made about your own words I commented on.
Care to address or explain it..??-Tyr

it was addressed. You just ignored it.

DOn't bother asking again b/c you will get NO response from me.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^^^ OK, THERE IS THE QUOTE. KEPT READING ABOUT IT SO HAD TO FIND IT .
Conhog you clearly indicated what a bad asskicking you would have gotten then go on to declare that your kids will get if ever threatening to blow somebody's brains out! Words have clear meanings.

Lets take your comment first , "I can't imagine the asskicking I would have gotten"--that clearly indicates how bad, how unimaginably bad the punishment would have been..
next, you state, "or that my kids will get". That clearly indicates your intent and revelation that you would deliver the same extremely harsh beating upon your own kids..
Neither part indicates a simple spanking. Had it been intend a simple spanking you could have used the word-spanking- that you chose not to has serious meaning.
A bit late to attempt to go back and amend your statement IMHO. Nobody with any sense or integrity would buy it !
Rev was right , I see a double standard at play here. And an attempt at rewriting your own words..
Fess up, dont play games.
I doubt that your boast is punishable by law so why not admit your mistake?-Tyr


it was addressed. You just ignored it.

DOn't bother asking again b/c you will get NO response from me.

Just as I suspected , when busted you immediately go to the ignore route.
It was not addressed.. You tossed out a feeble attempt at spinning away from your quoted words then abandoned those words as soon as possible. I am not the only one that questioned and you gave no real explanation!
Simply declaring you meant spanking is hilarious dude. If I say "cut a man's damn head off" Im not taking about stabbing his little finger with fingernail clippers!
Don't try to give me that bull.. Your excuse of "poor words" is pitiful especially since you remind all how well you debate and write.
When have you ever typed , "Sorry yes I was wrong "?? Never that I've seen... -Tyr

[Kathianne]

we agree there. But they can certainly learn. I would say a 2 day suspension might just teach her that you don't threaten to shoot another child, even jokingly, at school. It's a matter of when and were things are appropriate.

Another thing to consider is that one child who has been taught that a pink gun is probably not dangerous will probably have a different understanding of that then a child who's parents have chosen not to introduce guns into their lives. And those parents have that right, and the school is charged with protecting the rights of ALL children, and by extension their parents while those children are in their care.

That means IF I choose to not have my kids exposed to guns and or talk of guns, I should expect the school to not allow another child to introduce a threat that my child may not understand is not actually a real threat (and I dispute that Sally didn't mean it as a real threat anyway, I think she absolutely did)

Let me use another example from our school. Last Christmas one of our more ummm rambunctious second graders took it upon himself to run around the class room during the class Christmas party screaming that Santa Claus didn't exist. The teacher removed him from the class room and he got to spend the rest of the day in the principle's office while the other children enjoyed their party.

That night I received no less than 20 phone calls from pissed parents. Little Johnny's parents were pissed that Little Johnny was removed from the party, and all the other parents were pissed that the little brat "outed" Santa.

Now tell me, what was the right call in that situation. Do we just allow kids to do whatever they want, or be labeled as liberal dumb asses?

These parents threatened to sue saying that my teacher and my principle "over reacted" no different than you are saying here.

In fact there reasoning was pretty much the same "hey he wasn't hurting anyone, Santa is fake and kids need to learn that eventually"

My response was simple " Where I , or someone who answers to me , can help it YOU will not decide what is and what isn't best for other children"

And that wasn't even a violation of the rules , it will be next year though I guarantee you that.

You can call me a liberal, an asshole, stupid, whatever you like. I don't care.

My ONLY concern when I am making decisions as a school board member is "what is best for as many kids as possible" and allowing some to make threats certainly doesn't fit that .

I would say that if the child hadn't any other behavior concerns, the school has traumatized both her and her parents. They are issuing a suspension, part of permanent file. The parents should fight that, to have expunged. The citizens of the school district should be 'up in alarm' regarding the piss poor judgment of administration and school board-if indeed they approved.

[ConHog]

I would say that if the child hadn't any other behavior concerns, the school has traumatized both her and her parents. They are issuing a suspension, part of permanent file. The parents should fight that, to have expunged. The citizens of the school district should be 'up in alarm' regarding the piss poor judgment of administration and school board-if indeed they approved.

LOL you just completely ignored everything I wrote. I don't know why I wasted my time typing it out. Not the behavior I expect from you Kath. Caustic ? Yes, but unlike some of these others, I have always felt that you at least gave weight to the other side of an argument.

Looks like that has changed, mores the pity, I will accept that this is no longer a discussion it is simply a bunch of you screaming that I'm an idiot and I'll move on to another topic.

Quite disheartening

[tailfins]

The school originally did label it a 'terrorist threat' and gave a 10 day suspension, after questioning the child for over 1/2 hour without parents.

What do you suppose would happen if a kid said: "I don't talk to government employees without my parents present", then clammed up? It is also a "teachable moment" about self-incrimination.

[Kathianne]

we agree there. But they can certainly learn. I would say a 2 day suspension might just teach her that you don't threaten to shoot another child, even jokingly, at school. It's a matter of when and were things are appropriate. see previous post.


Another thing to consider is that one child who has been taught that a pink gun is probably not dangerous will probably have a different understanding of that then a child who's parents have chosen not to introduce guns into their lives. And those parents have that right, and the school is charged with protecting the rights of ALL children, and by extension their parents while those children are in their care.

That means IF I choose to not have my kids exposed to guns and or talk of guns, I should expect the school to not allow another child to introduce a threat that my child may not understand is not actually a real threat (and I dispute that Sally didn't mean it as a real threat anyway, I think she absolutely did) Wrong. Now you are getting into the first amendment rights of children and yes, they are protected to this degree in school. Not to make threats, but they have the right to discuss guns, religion, Santa's existence or lack there of. Certainly a teacher can discuss appropriate ways to do so, but not suspend them for doing so.


Let me use another example from our school. Last Christmas one of our more ummm rambunctious second graders took it upon himself to run around the class room during the class Christmas party screaming that Santa Claus didn't exist. The teacher removed him from the class room and he got to spend the rest of the day in the principle's office while the other children enjoyed their party. His classroom behavior of running around and screaming made the afternoon with the principal a good call.


That night I received no less than 20 phone calls from pissed parents. Little Johnny's parents were pissed that Little Johnny was removed from the party, and all the other parents were pissed that the little brat "outed" Santa.

Now tell me, what was the right call in that situation. Do we just allow kids to do whatever they want, or be labeled as liberal dumb asses?

These parents threatened to sue saying that my teacher and my principle "over reacted" no different than you are saying here.

In fact there reasoning was pretty much the same "hey he wasn't hurting anyone, Santa is fake and kids need to learn that eventually"

My response was simple " Where I , or someone who answers to me , can help it YOU will not decide what is and what isn't best for other children"

And that wasn't even a violation of the rules , it will be next year though I guarantee you that.

You can call me a liberal, an asshole, stupid, whatever you like. I don't care.

My ONLY concern when I am making decisions as a school board member is "what is best for as many kids as possible" and allowing some to make threats certainly doesn't fit that .

I already answered your questions. I didn't call you any names as you are implying. Stop that, please.

[Kathianne]

What do you suppose would happen if a kid said: "I don't talk to government employees without my parents present", then clammed up? It is also a "teachable moment" about self-incrimination.

A 5 year old? Really? Give. Me. A. Break.

[Kathianne]

LOL you just completely ignored everything I wrote. I don't know why I wasted my time typing it out. Not the behavior I expect from you Kath. Caustic ? Yes, but unlike some of these others, I have always felt that you at least gave weight to the other side of an argument.

Looks like that has changed, mores the pity, I will accept that this is no longer a discussion it is simply a bunch of you screaming that I'm an idiot and I'll move on to another topic.

Quite disheartening

I answered more fully in second post from yours.

[tailfins]

A 5 year old? Really? Give. Me. A. Break.

Mine were eight before they understood that. However, I bet the five year old in the OP might understand after all this. I would explain it like "people that work at the school like to trick you and get you into trouble".

[Kathianne]

Mine were eight before they understood that. However, I bet the five year old in the OP might understand after all this. I would explain it like "people that work at the school like to trick you and get you into trouble".

I'm thanking your post on the principle, though it's possible this girl has other behavior incidents. I'll wait to find out more. I tend to think not though, that someone seriously failed to use judgment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Looks like that has changed, mores the pity, I will accept that this is no longer a discussion it is simply a bunch of you screaming that I'm an idiot and I'll move on to another topic.
Quite disheartening


Actually, its more like you being questioned on your boast/threat about beating your kids , then offering a feeble nonsensical excuse and saying ff-off to those of us not silly enough to accept it. Now it must be pointed out that you made the comment and included your kids not others. Nothing bad or insulting was said about your kids but your excuse of "poor words" certainly was laughable IMHO.
THERE WAS NO GREAT GROUP ATTEMPT TO ATTACK YOU. No bunch of people screaming you were an idiot.
You chose not to fess up ,tossed a silly excuse and then when it was rightly rejected you in essence said , "f- you all. " And told me , you are to be ignored. A fine defense dude but one that reveals so very much about true character IMHO.-tYR

[gabosaurus]

I think some of you are getting a bit off base. Keep in mind that you are talking about a five year old. There is NO FREAKING WAY a five year old should be punished this severely for talking about anything.
A normal five year old is incapable of judging the nature of their comments. They are prone to fits of anger.
Any teacher or administrator who holds a five year old accountable for something like this deserves to be fired, as they don't belong in charge of kids this young.

[Nukeman]

in defense of the school Jim, zero tolerance means zero tolerance.

It takes the entire question of claims of favoritism out of the equation, and frankly makes administrator's jobs easier. I certainly wouldn't pursue criminal charges, but I'd let the suspension stand.BS it takes THOUGHT out of the eqauation.. Zero Tolerance means ZERO thought!!!


That's fine in the abstract Jim, but in the reality you are talking about schools who's administrators are dealing with hundreds if not thousands of kids. It's just simply easier to have a one size fits all policy.

Also, yes this threat seems silly on the surface , but the idea is to make sure it doesn't escalate into something else later on down the road.Once again BS out of those thousand kids how many actually cause REAL disturbances?? NOT many just as in real life a few dirt bags do most of the crimes... punishing otherwise good kids for the misdeeds of the few is STUPID!!!!!


Sure, obviously common sense differentiates between a fake gun and a real gun. Zero tolerance however dictates at minimum a suspension for certain activities.

My guess is that this was spelled out in no uncertain terms in a handbook that the parents of this girl signed indicating that they had read and agreed to abide with school policies

I think we can all agree that that it is fair to expect one to live up to their end up of a contract.IT was a freaking BUBBLE maker!!! YOU really have no thought that you can not differentiate the 2????


Since when is one 5 year old threatening to shoot another considered "a child being a child?"

I would suggest that THAT attitude is part of the problem. I hope that as a gun owner you teach kids to NEVER even joke about shooting someone.

I've read several accounts of this incident and this wasn't a child joking, this was a child who didn't understand the difference between a pink bubble gun and a real gun and who a statement as a threat.

Schools MUST take all threats SERIOUSLY, no matter how trivial they might sound to outsiders.WOW talk about your ZERO thought.. I am sure YOU are all for the suspension of the little boys that play cops and robber at school and use their... dare I say it.. *gasp* FINGERS in a threatening manner.... ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO THOUGHT!!


I think some of you are getting a bit off base. Keep in mind that you are talking about a five year old. There is NO FREAKING WAY a five year old should be punished this severely for talking about anything.
A normal five year old is incapable of judging the nature of their comments. They are prone to fits of anger.
Any teacher or administrator who holds a five year old accountable for something like this deserves to be fired, as they don't belong in charge of kids this young.Thank you VERY much for THOUGHT instead of HIDING behind your "policy" and blaming the parents for NOT reading the "handbook"

[aboutime]

Actually, its more like you being questioned on your boast/threat about beating your kids , then offering a feeble nonsensical excuse and saying ff-off to those of us not silly enough to accept it. Now it must be pointed out that you made the comment and included your kids not others. Nothing bad or insulting was said about your kids but your excuse of "poor words" certainly was laughable IMHO.
THERE WAS NO GREAT GROUP ATTEMPT TO ATTACK YOU. No bunch of people screaming you were an idiot.
You chose not to fess up ,tossed a silly excuse and then when it was rightly rejected you in essence said , "f- you all. " And told me , you are to be ignored. A fine defense dude but one that reveals so very much about true character IMHO.-tYR


Tyr. What is written above, just happens to be the first time I actually agree with CH. But his interpretations...despite sounding childlike, do make perfect sense...and I agree with anyone he thinks, called him anything.

[Kathianne]

Time to recap some of what has gone down here:


Sounds like some shitty police to me. The police aren't just there to arrest people. A little kid threatening to blow people's brains out needs some intervention.

I would bet a million dollars that not one of these jerkoffs who have committed any of these horrible crimes such as Sandy Hook began there. That's not the way it works. They begin with "minor" things that get ignored "kids being kids" and such.

I can't even imagine the ass kicking I would have gotten , or that my kids will get for that matter, if they ever threaten to blow someone's brains out.

Have you people lost your god damned minds?


I'd say that Gabby and myself are dealing with the daily stuff at schools pretty rationally. If you would kick your 5 year old for saying they were 'going to get their bubble gun' and the other kid would be 'sorry' or what have you, you deserve all that DCF would hand you. Really, that is reportable.


A spanking is reporteable now? I think not.


You didn't say, spanking, you said, "ass kicking".


And youre intelligent enough to understand what I mesnt was not literally kicking a kid. Jesus.


The school "system" is not dealig with the kid a Teacher is dealing with a 5 year old. A adult with and degree in teaching of some kind and knowledge of Childrens behavoir. Con it's crazy to assume that this needed anything more than a verbal correction IF THAT.







Tht another problem where we haven't followed the constitution where we have "infractions" handled by Imperial judges instead of Jurys

But what you described above is not like a Jury it's more like a military tribunal.




A grown Adult certainly knows what he's doing when he threatens to kick a Chlid's A55!
I think you might need some intervention and Jim should call the police and Social services and give them your IP address CON, Sorry but we have ZERO tolerance here. People say thing like that and you know that's how it starts, Threatening your kids then other others kids and then we have a mass shooting on out hands. Escalation. Gov'ts got to keep an Eye on comments like that we can't assume you ddn't mean it seriously I've heard other adult make that threat and DO IT.

Jim send his IP address on the proper authorities, along with transcript of his transgressions here. can't be to careful.
It's for your own good and the good of the community ConHog sorry buddy.


My older half brothers got a55 kickings, which is why they are HALF brothers. I guarantee you an a55 kicking is NOT a spanking. My mom's first husband used to brag that she could "take a beating like a man". Being a good Baptist, she stayed with him until he started in on the kids, all of whom were already moved out before I was born. An a55 kicking involved bruises and broken body parts.


Did I break a board rule that I , or my legal guardian, signed an agreement to abide by? If so Jim certainly has a case to enforce the rules, otherwise your comparison is invalid.

Also, once again, I will remind that the school charged the little girl with breaking the RULES, not the law, and so there is no right to trial.

If you break a rule at work, do you get a trial?

Of course not

You're smarter than that Rev


^^^^ That at the least.
In my definition, bleeding, bruising , busted body parts and often --knocked the hell out and knocking out a few teeth too. Always a serious matter to contemplate doing!
Asskicking is a very serious matter as its not an ordinary fight. My dad and granddad taught me it was to be used only in very "special" cases and never , I repeat never to be half-ass done! Never , never to be applied to women no matter what they had done! Strictly for male punishment only..
Also was never to be administered to family members-at least never to close family members.
People I ran with and was around during my wild younger years pretty much agreed with your listed definition as a minimum .Its one thing to give a man a fair fight ,beat his ass and then let it go. Its entirely another thing to go out to be giving an asskicking-or as we called it "ass-stomping". Serious harm was the call of the day in an administered ass-stomping. It was to be a punishment that taught a lifelong lesson. Taught the victim to never repeat the offense he was guilty of ever again. I've given more than my fair share but all were justified, especially the one I DELIVERED TO A RAPIST LONG AGO. Also a man beating a woman called for an ass stomping to be sent his way, I have delivered several for that reason too! And no it was not a woman I was involved with at the the time..
I repeat, never was it to be used as punishment within a family unit or meted out on a woman.
May sound harsh/barbaric but often is the only method to send the proper message and get the proper results.-Tyr


you guys' definitions certainly differ from mine.

However I seriously doubt anyone here actually thought I was talking about harming my children in such a manner.


I know you didn't. I was merely responding to your definition of ass kicking. Far different from mine. Yours is abuse, mine is not.


I gave mine. SPanking, a good old fashioned spanking never hurt anyone.


NO ONE said it was a terrorist threat, that is a dishonest argument. If it were a terrorist threat the cops would have gotten involved.

It IS however against school rules to issue ANY sort of threat.. That's the part you are missing, maybe deliberately. We don't allow our children to even jokingly talk about blowing other kids' brains out.

And before you get started , it is a well established principle that kids do not enjoy unlimited rights while at school.

This girl broke the rule about threatening other kids, case closed. That it was an empty threat is irrelevant. Really, the threat doesn't matter, only the permanent records do, for something of no merit. Insane from the beginning. Rules have to do with meaning, otherwise they are without merit. Same with laws for that matter.


[QUOTE=revelarts;608451]Con I was Just pointing out that you have a double standard here.

For your "threats" we are suppose to use common sense and disregard it as an offhand comment and forgeta bout it. But for a 5 year kids "threats" were suppose to have zero tolerance , suspend her, and have a police intervention, and nip this kids murder spree mind set in the bud. nip it, nip it, nip it.

It's a double standard and overkill from the start Con, you don't need intervention and neither did the child.


you sound like this

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HqEIt-rQqbM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Longer version with music
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/de_P2aUZJyA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


You're missing the larger context Rev. It isn't about the level of the threat.

Our school teaches

Honor
Honesty
Bravery
Kindness
Charity

and our rules are based on such. We don't take violations of those principles lightly. Not even from a 5 year old.

Would I have suspended her for 10 days? No. Personally I would have voted for a 2 days suspension, OR one of her parents could come in and work with the school for one day. Often times that is more effective than suspending the child, parents tend to act more cooperatively in explaining the rules to their children when it impacts them directly.

BUT , that doesn't change the fact that we have rules. You don't threaten other kids, at all. NONE ZERO, not even jokingly.

I compare it to this Rev. I have a swimming pool in my backyard. For some odd reason little kids love to play a game where they pretend they are drowning. I have a ZERO tolerance policy for that game. You pretend your drowning or cry for help or whatever just as a game, you get to get out of the pool for awhile. Every kid that comes over knows this, and yet nearly everytime we have kids over one of them does it. And then acts bewildered when they are made to get out of the pool. There immediate response is "I didn't hurt anyone" and often times their parents if there will object as well "they didn't hurt anyone"

Doesn't matter, I explained the rules to them before hand, and by using my pool they agreed to abide by them.

The LEVEL of the threat absolutely should dictate the severity of the punishment, BUT the ACT of the threat is what determines that there should be punishment to begin with.

So, yes the girl needed to be punished, personally I think 10 days is a bit much; but I'm not on that school board so I don't know all the facts that they used to come to that punishment.


Re read. She in fact did NOT have the gun. She didn't bring it to school. She did say she would do so.

she threatened to blow a kid's brains out, her exact words. Now IF she understood that her gun was just a bubble gun wouldn't she also understand that it is incapable of blowing anyone's brains out?

This little girl deserved a suspension, you don't voice that you are going to blow someone's brains out, not even jokingly.


You are too intelligent to think that you do not use words concisely. If you'd meant 'spanking' I'm quite certain you understand the definition of that and would have used that. You chose a different word, then 'flatter us into assuming you meant spanking.'


Not the case at all. Poorly chosen words on my part, yes. But I would NEVER literally kick a child's ass. I think you probably know that. First hint that 'kicking his child's ass would involve more than a spanking.


[QUOTE=ConHog;608547]as you know, kids are often questioned by schools without their parents being present. Not for issues that pertain to 10 suspension, even if knocked down to 2 days. Not for a 5 year old, nor for that matter a 14 year old. I do not KNOW that.
Personally, I prefer it not to be handled that way when it's little kids, at our school the parents would have been notified immediately and if one or both of them couldn't come in THAT day to discuss the matter the Superintendenat is in that instance empowered to immediately suspend the child until such time that the parents make themselves available. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many parents think they can just ignore a problem at school and it will go away.)


Correct, the school determined that it was still a threat though.


to be honest, I'm not sure where that came from, may be somthing i just thought I read. In either case since I don't have an actual quote I will stop saying it. I don't need it to make my case. This has to do with the 'she said, quote' blowing the kids' brains out.' He may have read, thought he read, quoted x number of times as 'fact.' [quote]



The case should be closed, any judge should tell these parents to get the hell out of his court room but not before writing a check to pay for the school's legal defense.

When you send a child to school you agree that THEY are the final arbiters in deciding school punishments. It's right in the handbook. That's standard boilerplate. These parents have EVERY right to take their child to another school. Go for it, what they do NOT have the right to do is sue the school b/c they don't like that little Sally got suspended.

They WILL lose, and I WILL laugh. Stupid shit like this is indicative of a much larger problem. When Americans don't get their way they cry and run to a court trying to get money from someone else.

It's a 2 day suspension, here's what's stupid. These people are going to waste untold resources fighting a 2 day suspension. Wouldn't it have been easier, not to mention better, had they had when they gave Sally her little pink gun told her "now dear, just because you have a pink gun don't threaten to use it on people when you get angry"

oh, and let's stop pretending like this child didn't know EXACTLY what she was talking about when she threatened to shoot another child. She wasn't offering her a bubble bath.

Inane, to assume a 5 year old on playground was thinking as an adult.