It's weird. I got it from Fox "News" and yet there's another drawing with the smiley faces all over it. Two different pictures. (???)
:shrug:

Edit to add: I should have put a link to my source when I posted the pic. I forgot.

CP ~ Not sure where you're getting the idea that I or anyone would think that drawing an arrow with blood is wrong or that I'm not validating your pain. I'm confused.

The act was seen as inappropriate, the officials saw it as a threat. There it is.

This kid can bounce back from something like this. It's not a scar for life unless he and his parents treat it that way.

I don't find this an issue of censorship, either. It's about appropriateness.

I still don't know where you stand, GC, on the hypothetical question posed.

If a kid had a clean record with no prior indication of behavior issues, authority issues, depression, etc., would a single drawing of a gun be enough, in your opinion, to justify suspension without any attempt to address it with either teacher talking to the kid to a visit the school counselor first?

It depends on where the drawing was. If it's on homework to turn in to a teacher as this kid did, yes. On a test, yes. If it was his own journal or at home or in an art class, no.

I have an issue with the school doing it without having something in the student handbook about it. They should have been more clear on it.

See, this is where I part completely with you. For all of the reasons CP listed above. A drawing of a gun in isolation, with no other behavioral indicators of a problem, should not be enough to warrant suspension. If the teacher talks to him and he gets defiant about it, absolutely. If a teacher or counselor has warned him not to do it again and he does it again, suspend his ass. If a counselor talks to him and learns that he's dealing with some issues at home...no, scratch that, that should prompt more counseling, NOT punishment.

Going straight to punitive measures for a simple act of expression, even somewhat inappropriate expression, with zero attempt at resolving it with communication is a recipe for disaster. It's telling ALL students, not just this one, that they will not be listened to, that they need to be afraid that what they might say or express will get them in trouble. That, to me, is the kind of thing that leads to Columbine.

I hear you. The Columbine shooters were bullied and were not backed up by the school officials. Then they snapped and committed horrendous crimes. I think the people that were not letting them express themselves were their classmates. There was a lot of bullying going on, from what I remember. (I'm not justifying what they did. They were wackos.)
There were warning signs with Columbine and those signs were ignored. I'd rather a school be diligent about these warning signs than ignore them.

You're getting locked into "Columbine" as the only example. There are plenty of others where bullying wasn't the issue. The only real constant between any of them was that the perpetrators were in desperate need of help and didn't get it for one reason or another.

Blindly suspending students for expression is not diligence. It's simply the other end of the spectrum from completely ignoring it. It's, "We're incapable of treating you as an individual, so we're just going to hope the problem just goes away." Bad bad news.

On closer look, the dangling charm intrigues me. It looks like a stick figure of a person, as if the charm is the equivalent of old west notches on the gun. My searching skills don't come up with anything on the subject, but I am curious if gangbangers adorn their guns in such a manner. Anybody?

I use Columbine as an example because it was one of the worst events dealing with students and guns. It was and is a huge deal. People are still debating about the incident.

I think this has little to do with expression and the censorship thereof. It was inappropriate and the kid was rapped for it. It's not a blind suspension, it was seen as a threat. They dealt with it.

I come from a law enforcement family as well. Things like this are very black and white for me. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is.

I found Ally's post interesting because my dad (police sargeant for 30 years or so) does not want me to get a gun. He has many, but doesn't think and of his kids should have them. Ralphie's father insisted upon us having them.