Kid suspended for drawing a gun
 

http://www.knbc.com/education/13948033/detail.html

Not "drawing" as in "pulling a real gun out of a holster." Drawing as in with a pen on a piece of paper. No threat, no depiction of anyone, real or fake, getting killed. Just a drawing of a gun.

TV should be suspended from life for showing guns.

Can't see the forest for the trees much?

Oy

When I was that age (when I wasn't perspiring) I liked to draw guns. And rockets. And a pickle exploring a cave.

I drew a pickle exploring a septic tank.

This is just a veiled promo for Dude Can't Draw, isn't it?

Hmmm. I don't know. Why would he be drawing this on homework that he was going to turn in to his teacher?
I could see it being seen as a threat of some sort.

He's 13. I drew on everything that a pen would write on when I was 13.

I'm imagining a teacher correcting homework papers all alone in a classroom by herself after all the kids have left. Could be scary.
:shrug:

absurd

Bah, all boys draw crap like that. 13-year olds don't think far enough down the line to understand how it could be perceived... they're TEENAGERS, not a group known for its beyond-the-personal-sphere thinking.

Perhaps it warranted a sit down with the school counselor to remind him of what's appropriate when. Perhaps. But suspension?

Don't you know? Teenagers are just mini adults now!

It's exactly what it warranted.

By suspending him, IMO, they could be creating an adversarial relationship between the boy and "authority." They've taught the boy nothing by suspending him (except, perhaps, that those in authority (which I agree) are often a bunch of clueless, reactionary idiots).

I don't consider this treating them like an adult. I had a coworker who has as his screen saver an animation of how to assemble and disassemble a pistol. He is a gun collector and a National Guard fire arms trainer, and the kind of guy who would make a stink just to prove some sort of 1/st/2nd amendment point. Our boss noticed it. What our boss did NOT do was send him home for 3 days. What he did do was talk to him and explain why it was inappropriate. He removed the screen saver without further issue. THAT'S treating someone like an adult. I wish they HAD treated him like an adult, maybe he would have responded to it.

I think a 13 year old can handle having a conversation about "inappropriate" vs. "appropriate". If after that, he continued to turn in homework with questionable drawings, then you got something. But to suspend him like that is a massive over reaction.

Of course, I'll add the disclaimer that it's entirely possible that we are only seeing a fraction of the real story as the parents can say whatever they want to the reporters while the school, wisely, is not commenting.

The school overreacted – plain and simple.

In Jr High, my best friend and I drew far worse things, and we turned out…um…… on second though... bad example.

Perhaps nothing, that should have been step one. Without a doubt.
I understand their zero tolerance thing. I do. Better that then doing something after the fact after this kid did something. Everyone would be saying, 'Why didn't the school address this beforehand?'
I can assure you that he nor his classmates will be doing that again.

As a kid, I wasn't allowed to draw/doodle on anything I was turning in. Especially homework. Granted, I'm not saying that the kid should have been suspended just for that. But since when is doodling on homework acceptable?

For me, if this kid turns out to be the kind to return with a gun at any point later in his life, I'd be asking "Why didn't the school address this better?" I might even cite that his suspension helped to create who he became.

Sure, better than nothing - but barely.

I only said "perhaps" because, depending on the kid and the exact circumstances, for a first-time thing, it could have been handled by the teacher without elevating it to the level of school counselor which often backfires depending on the quality of the school counselor and the kid's attitude.

We don't know if there's history with this kid either. There may be other issues.

Besides, it's three days off from school. What kid wouldn't want that? :D

On a side note, I changed my avatar from the cat with the gun to the current one, because I kinda felt uneasy about seeing that gun all the time. It kinda made me nervous. Don't know why.
:)

I knew I should have suspended your account...

I think you should suspend yourself for your current avatar.
:D

Creepy!

This is my weapon, this is my gun
This one's for fighting, this one's for fun...

I would have been launched in some sort of probe to Mars for the drawings I did in junior high.

I did have one really concerned teacher, who sat me down with my parents to ask about some of the things I drew; she was one of the few I can recall and respect.

No, no. I meant that he is supposed to know better being treated like an adult. The kid is 13. He is a 13 y/o boy! Last time I checked 13 y/o boys weren't known for their thinking things through before they do it.

I agree with you. I talking to should have been done.

I wonder if any books in the school library have pictures of guns.

Burn 'em.

It's not every picture of guns. It's one drawn by a student, who put in it on his homework and then was given to a teacher in a post-Columbine world.
Didn't the Columbine gunmen have a journal with drawings in it?
I'm just saying...

I think they also had hit lists, real guns acquired illegally, a plan, and explosives.

Would it be OK if he drew a gun at home? Would that not raise some sort of red flag just as drawing one at school would?

I'm sorry, but the whole guns are evil in and of themselves thing just irritates me. No tolerance shouldn't mean no intelligence.

If he drew the gun at home on his homework and then handed it in, yes. It's just not appropriate.

If I was the parent, and I saw it, it may just be a red flag. Not a finalized judgement on my son, but I would definitely keep an eye on him for anger issues, search his room for guns, etc.

Guns are made to kill or wound something/someone or to put holes is something. How could anyone think that guns are evil?

I agree with scaeages, to a point.

But guns in the paws of Cats certainly are freaky, and I'm glad Gemini Cricket changed his avatar.

Yes-- the school isn't at liberty to discuss punishments, so who's to say there wasn't a history of problems? And no, I don't tend to always trust what parents say. I remember first-hand a boy in my class who picked on me incessantly (worms or pepper in my hair, pushed down into the dirt, etc) and when my mother called to ask his mother for help, she denied her son had done anything of the sort.

That said, if there were no prior missteps, suspension seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Perhaps the teacher should have returned the assignment with a drawing of a paddle?

I probably would have been sent to some psycho therapy camp for my copies of the Faber Book of Murder and the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Serial Killers.

According to Disneyland (when buying tickets) one is an adult at 10.

Kid should have said it was a picture of a Squirt-Gun.

Guns have also done some wonderful things. They've saved lives and freed oppressed people. Sometimes they put holes in people that are hurting others. A gun is a tool. Countless people have committed suicide by jumping off of the Brooklyn Bridge, yet this tool of suicide is not an evil thing.

Is he from a military family? Do they go hunting? Or, perhaps, he watches TV/sees movies/surfs the internet/talks to friends/reads books? Guns are a part of this world, and children are not in bubbles.

If the kid drew a boxing glove, should we worry that he's a bully, or that he's into professional sports? If he drew a whip, does it mean he's a sadomasochist, or a fan of Indiana Jones? If he drew himself flying an airplane, does it mean he's going to fly one into a building?

:snap: :snap: :snap:

I'm talking about the history of guns in schools. It was/is a huge problem. It's about the safety of the kids and teachers. Boxing gloves, whips, airplanes have nothing to do with what I'm saying. I find those examples absurd. A gun was used to kill people in a school in Virginia as recently as this year. I think the school acted correctly in this case. Yes, kids are not in a bubble, part of not being so is realizing the world they're in. A thirteen year old is old enough to know about Columbine or the wacko in Virginia.

I actually think the kid, at 13, is barely old enough to know the implications of a Columbine massacre, just as I wasn't ever old enough to understand that school shooting by Brenda Ann Spencer in 1979. Sure, I was 1 when that shooting happened and he was 4 (?) when Columbine happened, but I just don't think he's going to have the same grasp on the situation as adults, particularly his teachers and counselors.

Unfortunately, school shootings and mass murders have been a part of our lives for well beyond our years. I don't say this to take it lightly, but it's pretty clear to me that in the last 80 years that we, as citizens, they as education professionals, haven't learned an effective way to manage these problems. As these events become more sensationalized, it seems as though teachers, administrators and counselors know how to deal with it less and less, instead of more and more. There's something very backward, to me, about how we - as a country - deal with our youth.

Adolescence is a time where children need as much or more guidance than they did as babies and toddlers. That doesn't mean treating them like babies and toddlers, but to recognize that the buck stops with each and every one of us to solve the problems around us. Whether it was the 1st, 2nd, 10th, 20th time this kid drew a gun on his homework, it just sounds like that kid's school passed the buck onto someone else.

As a collective, we're handling these situations worse and worse each and every time. Of course, we're only hearing about the egregious situations - not the times when a kid was pulled aside and talked with.

I have to admit, I'm curious to see the actual drawing. All we know is it's a picture of a gun. That could mean a lot of things. I like to think it's a picture of an old-fashoined blunderbuss. Or maybe a Marvin the Martian styled ray gun, or an 18th century duelling pistol, or a starter pistol for that matter. Better yet, maybe it was a picture of a gun with a flag popping out of the barrel that unfurls to read BANG!

With no context whatsoever, I certainly don't know what to make of it.

That was the shooting that the Boomtown Rats wrote I Don't Like Mondays about. I thought it sounded familiar.

Yes, he may be well aware of such episodes. I don't think that matters in the slightest.

It doesn't mean that a drawing of a gun has anything to do with the act of taking an actual gun in hand, loading it, pointing it at a fellow human being, and attempting to end their existence. You may find my examples absurd - I find the correlation between drawing something and the act of doing something absurd. If all a child draws is guns, then yes, there is some concern there. But one drawing, with no prior history, no threats, no nothing - that is ridiculous.

What if he likes guns - is it not ok to like guns, ever? What if he actually drew his BB gun? I learned about Uzi guns when I was studying Israeli history - what if I decided to draw one? What if he drew a knife? What kinds of knives are ok to draw? A Bowie knife in American History class during discussions of the Alamo? A butcher knife, because he watches Top Chef? A table knife? Would that be too pointy, too threatening? What if he has studied dadaism and wanted to draw random objects?

In other words - this is all thoughtcrime bullsh.t and it's one of the worst symptoms of a society in fear. The suppression of thought....of art.....of self-expression....of actually recognizing the fact that a gun exists.....this is pretty damn messed up in my book.

Soon after Columbine hit, my high school friends had their play CENSORED by the staff. It's a musical titled "Working" which was written many years before. In the play a young office worker has a monologue about how he hates his coworkers and talks about killing them - not in any real sense, just out of frustration. Everyone has said at some point or another "I just want to strangle them!" or "I swear, if he does that just one more time, I'll kill him." Even so, the staff CENSORED the play (I just hate that word, one of the ugliest used in a free country) and my friend was left making strangling gestures without his lines.

Pretending things don't exist is not going to fix anything. Sorry Brad - this is a hot button issue with me. :)

To be fair, though, we don't know if the child had a history, and we can't know because they don't release their information. Had he made threatening remarks to a teacher or a classmate? Had he lashed out violently before?

And then I suppose it begs the question-- if someone makes a threat ("I'm going to get a gun and shoot you," for instance) and then takes passive-agressive action (say, drawing a gun on an assignment) is it still thoughtcrime? Or a valid reason to talk to and perhaps punish a child?

I'm feelin' ya, CP. I don't understand why people are so afraid. Columbine was an aberration in the day-to-day scheme of things. A reminder to stay in touch with our children; to love them more than we love ourselves. It was not a mandate to bubble-wrap them in 14 layers of pussyfication.


That said, I think that a gun drawn on a homework assignment is a valid reason to bring the boy in for a talk. Depending on the child's history, this could be anything from an informal, discreet, chat with a school counselor to a serious and direct discussion with the child and his parents. But I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario in which a suspension is the appropriate course of action. If this child does indeed have a 'past history' or is raising actual red flags - as opposed to bogeymen red flags that so bedevil CP - I don't see authority's boot being all that constructive. Surely we can do better for the angry and disenfranchised youth than poking and calling them flawed.

Total agreement with SacTown here. Whether it's schools or courts, the tricky question is always what to do with the person. To me, while I would like more context, the drawing of a gun on homework is cause for concern. If the kid had drawn a swastika, we would not speculate that perhaps he liked its symmetry or was thinking about its ancient origins that predate the Nazis' appropriation of the symbol. We'd say, "What the f*** is this?"

Back in my grade school days, us boys used to draw pictures of guns (usually big guns, like tanks, cannons, missile launchers, machine guns) and actually turn them in for a grade. Granted, it was art class, but weaponry, whether military or science fiction related, was an extremely common subject, and didn't raise an eyebrow. (Though, I imagine our art teachers probably ROLLED their eyes after the umpteenth battle zone picture they received per week.) I have to wonder if this kids' picture, though inappropriately doodled in the margins of a homework assignment, came from this same place. (We liked this imagery because we associated it with exciting comic books and movies we had seen.)

We don't know the history of this kid. You seem to be designing one. I think that erring in the name of keeping the school safe is better than something bad happening. I also would like to point out that if there was a shooting and warning signs were ignored, quite possibly the same people who are bashing the school now would bash the school for doing nothing.

No one's saying the boy shouldn't like guns. No one's saying that drawing a gun is bad. Drawing a gun on homework is not cool and can be seen as a threat by someone. It's inappropriate. I think the children of this school will be thinking twice before doing something like this again.

This is not a suppression of art. If this was done in an art class, I'd say cool. But it doesn't seem like it was. There are times to express yourself in art, even illustrating a creative writing piece with pictures but on homework that seems to not have required pictures, it's inappropriate.

Your examples are going to extremes, claiming suppression of everything. What the kid did was wrong and he paid the price.

Steps were not taken before Columbine and now people are criticizing a school that's trying to prevent another one. I'd rather people learn from mistakes in the past than just ignoring them. I mean, what's really being suppressed is the past and the history of violence in schools.

Haw haw! :D I just found the infamous gun picture:


Hmmm. It barely even looks like a gun! :D

Very true, but it's still an interesting hypothetical question. Assuming an ideal kid, or even semi-ideal (not a perfect angel, but never done anything that deserved more than an occasional talking to or lunch detention). Would suspension be the right reaction if that kid did this?

I think the only people afraid here are teachers and administrators who are afraid of getting their butts sued and/or fired if some aberration did happen. It is a complete and total CYA.

Maybe the suspension was for bad artistic talent

That cannot be the actual drawing. If so, this only proves how arts funding cutbacks have hurt kids.

looks like a tazer gun to me... wouldn't work, not like the random stuff i drew on my tests cause i was bored...

What gets me, they suspended him for drawing it... and not why he drew it or even had him counseled about why he drew it??

My generation has the cutbacks... but it might not be that, it could have simply been because he didnt have photoshop and mouse... (why take notes when you can doodle in class :evil: ) or ruler and protractor and other great tools for shortcuts... Besides not everyone is Picasso.


Still, Why was he suspended for 5, then deminished to 3 days for drawing?

I have some sympathy for the school. They're in a tough position. As more and more parents take a hands-off approach to raising their own kids, a bigger and bigger burden gets piled on schools. They don't just teach anymore - now they have to teach to the standardized exam, try to teach self-control without infringing on wittle pwecious's right to free expression, walk the line between exposing kids to a variety of ideas and fending off parents who want Stepford children. Sometimes "zero tolerance" policies seem like the only realistic solution; there just aren't the resources to evaluate individual circumstances.

That doesn't mean zero tolerance policies are appropriate. As others have said, we don't know the surrounding circumstances. I know I'm suspicious after past zero tolerance sweeps rounding up kids as drug peddlers for passing out an aspirin or Midol.

I'm also concerned because if it *was* nothing, this is the kind of thing that "turns a good kid bad." Granted, I have a unique perspective from spending my grade school years in surrounded by neurotic high achievers, but if you had suspended one of us for something we felt was unjust - that was it. The record was blemished. All hope of getting into the Ivys would be dashed and one might as well head out back to smoke.

I guess my thinking is, if it was part of some larger pattern of intimidation or insubordination, then THAT was the offense: intimidation or insubordination or whatever. And I think school's are within their rights to punish those sorts of behaviors. And maybe that's what it was - goodness knows the media wouldn't report "student suspended for disobeying teacher" when they could go with "student suspended for drawing a gun."

Kid drew a bad-ass automatic. Fry him.

I'm not talking about this particular kid, because I don't know his history. I guess I didn't get this across. GD said it well -If a child repeatedly draws guns all over the place then yes, they should talk to the child. I don't see suspension as a constructive option, ever. It does not fix the possible problem of a violent child. Like Sac said above. Anyone who would bash a school for "ignoring" a first time offense is just scared sh.tless.

Just because something CAN be seen as a threat doesn't mean it IS a threat. I find that a particularly weak argument because lots of things can be seen as a threat, or inappropriate.

I used to doodle on my homework. Why? Why would I put something on there for the teacher to see? Because I was bored. Because I hated homework. Sometimes it was because I felt confined by the textbooks and repeated pet tricks I had to pull to keep my grades in line. Other times, though, it was because I actually liked my teacher, and the idea of a certain kind of banter with them was fun. I recently unearthed some of these (which I SAVED, because I enjoyed them so much) and they involve silly faces, odd quotes from songs, odd conversational snippets. I asked my teacher to write NBC and protest the cancellation of Quantum Leap. I made jokes about the homework, I wondered aloud about current events, you name it. This was my coping mechanism with the tediousness of school.

Lots of other kids doodled on their homework. They'd inscribe the logo of their favorite car, or band. I remember 7th grade well in that respect - many of the girls I knew write NKOTB on every paper they touched. Yes, a gun is a whole other class of things to put on the homework. But like I tried to illustrate with my knife example, where does it end?

Yes, and they are going to think twice before drawing a whole world of other objects and ideas, or crossing any other set boundaries for them. It's called fear.

It was wrong? Drawing a gun where a teacher will see it is wrong? I know you don't like my examples, but where does it end? Is it wrong to draw a knife, or a pair of scissors, or a caveman's club?

For a while I had this odd image I liked to draw - a heart with a cupid arrow through it, with blood dripping out of the wounds. Yeah, I was an overdramatic kid. Are arrows wrong? Is blood wrong? Is the idea that love can be painful wrong? Is expressing my own pain wrong? If I were a teen and I was suspended because of that drawing, what does that tell me?

I'm not comparing Columbine to this kid because again, I don't know this kid's scenario. However, the fact that those Columbine kids did the worst possible thing conceivable now means that no child ever in any public school shall ever draw a weapon that may be seen by a teacher is, to borrow a word, WRONG. This is like having your firstborn die of drowning so you never let your second kid near water. Overcompensating fear BS cripples our society, and doesn't even help the kids it's supposed to help!

Sometimes I hate this country.

Out of curiosity, I checked, and the image that GC posted is the actual drawing.

Corroboration

From Kevy's link

Y'know, I don't find that funny. At all. The idea that anyone thought that this was a threat is disgusting.

A more in-depth story

How awful for this family. How terrible for the other students. Did you catch this nugget?

I'm so sad and angry at the same time....and I'm worried about when my future kids hit school and I have to teach them about thoughtcrime, so they don't have dings on their record for simply doodling. What a disappointment our society is.

:mad:

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.

In the aftermath of any of the incidents, Columbine or otherwise, did you really think, "Gosh, if only the school had punished those kids more, this wouldn't have happened!"?

I come from a public school teaching family. Each of my parents has 30+ years of on-campus experience in the LAUSD, including many years in schools in what are considered dangerous neighborhoods. At risk of speaking for them, but knowing them fairly well, I'd be shocked if their answer to my posed hypothetical of this drawing being a first "offense" were any different than mine. They went to work each day with the idea in mind to teach and help their students, not to punish them. Punishment was a useful tool when necessary, but it was never a first line action.

Maybe if they had been, they would be changed people now and not dead murderers.

Seriously? You think punishment is the answer?

I guess I don't have anything more to say to that. I couldn't disagree more. I saw way too many of my classmates go into self-destructive spirals because all the school ever did to "address" their obvious social issues was punish them and punish. And when that didn't work, they punished them more. Until they just gave up and kicked them out of school. They made no effort to actually help these kids, they just suspended them over and over. It was atrocious.

Accountability for one's actions. I'm quite serious.

Indeed... what I think they're trying to say, though, is that just "dealing"-- booting a kid, without counseling or communication-- is not a sufficient way to deal with a problem.

(That said, in this situation we don't actually know if they didn't communicate or counsel, do we?)

As a completely hypothetical, though, if the child was suspended without attempt to discuss the situation openly and honestly, I would say that is not "dealing" at all, but rather, pushing a problem out of site without dealing with it.

How will they learn accountability, though, if you aren't talking to them about what they did, or why they did it, or how it can be misconstrued (or correctly interpreted.) I highly doubt that Columbine could have been prevented if they just suspended the kids. If they'd recognized their cries for help and responded with counsel and communication, that's one thing. Suspension? Really?

Yep. I think this kid knows how serious the situation is as do his parents. If there are any questions about this kid in the future at least the parents and teachers will notice.

And, yes, we don't know the whole story. I haven't seen any updates on it...

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know what the other parents of kids in his class think. If I was one of them, I would be okay with the school's decision. AND I would sit my own kid down and talk to them about the incident.

See, that's just it. Suspension without reason isn't addressing anything, it's copping out and deferring to "the future". If it IS something more than just doodling, NOW is the time to figure that out, not the time to smack him and hope that fixes it.

But isn't that what suspension is? It's the school saying, 'Parents, fix this'? They are putting it in his parents' court.

I don't absolve a parent's role, but it should start with informing the parents and letting them know that if there continues to be a problem, punishment will follow. But handing out punishment in the absence of communication is turning the school into an adversarial authority and an uncaring institution, the exact thing that fuels angry kids to act out.

Stories from the same state...
 

Source

Source

The schools in the state may be on alert because of issues like these above. Maybe that's why the punishment seems harsh. In context with stories like these (granted the 2nd story doesn't say if it's the students or not) I find what the school did to that kid to be just.

If the same incident happened to our family, he'd probably change his mind and issue us all firearms.
:)

I stand by my insistence that suspension isn't the answer. It's an answer, and I suppose any attempt is better than none, but I feel that this could have a negative repercussion if there is a bigger issue at hand with the child.

I was suspended once, for a prank. I carried the least part in it, had been a model student, and yet I got the greatest punishment. Not only was I suspended, I had to go to "Saturday School." The suspension was a mere nuisance, and I got to chill out at home. (I am not even sure mom knew what was really going on). My biggest problem was how angry I felt toward the school administration for my seemingly excessive punishment in relation to my crime. Had I been having other issues who knows where it could have led. It was in my senior year of high school, and I still carry a distrust of authority that I have no doubt was only affirmed by my incident.

I feel that there is almost no situation in which suspension would be the correct course of action. Nothing ever really gets learned with suspension. It's usually just another prime example of authority not really doing anything but pretending to punish. "Let's get so-and-so out of our hair." The most effective part of my punishment was probably the Saturday School. Even a detention would have made more sense (to me) than a suspension.

Oh well.

Distrust, yes. But are you emotionally scarred by the incident and more likely to become a Columbine-esque murderer because of it? I'm thinking, no. But you do remember the suspension, don't you? ;)

I was never suspended from school. I was never sent to the principal's office for my actions. (I voluntarily went to see the principal to complain about the shoddy job of teachers of mine, and I also went to protest the mandatory church services at my high school, but I never went because of something I did.) Why? Because I didn't do messed up things. Even when I was ten, I'd know that anything I put on homework goes directly to the teacher's eyes. I wasn't dumb.

I was raised to be accountable for my actions and if I mess up, I pay for it.

As was I, but I was never punished for the sake of punishment without accompanying dialog as to why what I did was wrong, to find out why I did it, and to discuss what a more appropriate behavior would have been. That's what's missing with the "Suspend first, ask questions later" attitude. The hypothetical kid did something wrong, but unless someone bothers to talk with him, learn why, and find out if he needs help finding better ways to express himself, nothing is solved. Best case, you've got a frustrated kid who feels he can't trust school administration. Worst case, you've given a troubled kid something to be angry about.

You, my friend, have not lived. Poor bugger. ;)

Got suspended myself for fighting... my parents always said, "Never hit first, but if they hit you, hit them back and make them bleed." And they supported me getting suspended for it, because that's exactly how it happened. Lost the fight, technically, but they were right that the person would never mess with me again.

But I guess you could see a disrespect for authority being bred by the fact that both people get suspended regardless of who the instigator was - like what, I'm just going to sit there and let some chica pound my face in so she can abuse me the rest of the school year? I don't think so.

Ha ha. :D
Being the son of a cop and a fundamentalist Catholic mom, I was an angel.
:blush:
Which means I merely influenced others to do mischief. :D
I never got into fights because I had bodyguards. One was named "Psycho" the other was a Kung Fu black belt. Also, everyone was scared of my dad... including me.

Because other people have done awful things, otherwise innocent people are persecuted. Sounds really familiar to me.

In any case, you've already answered the question regarding the hypothetical, and you believe that suspension teaches the appropriate lessons, so there's not much more to be said. I totally disagree with you.

I'm surprised at this response. In reading Erica's post again -
She didn't say that she learned that the prank was wrong, she said she learned that schools punish pranks excessively, and that if she had other issues with authority, it would have made things worse. I fully agree with this.

Thing is, I did messed up things. I didn't want to bring this up but here goes....I once wrote a threat, regarding a teacher, on a desk in pencil. I said I wanted to kick him in the balls. Yeah, not smart. I had an odd communication with a kid in the same classroom at a different period, writing pencil notes on the desk. The other kid said they wanted to bring in a gun and kill the teacher, and I said I'd kick him in the balls.

:eek: :eek: :eek: OH MY GOODNESS, OBVIOUSLY THESE CHILDREN ARE A DANGER TO THOSE AROUND THEM!!! OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE GOING TO KILL PEOPLE!!!

I can't speak for the other girl, whom I met later. She had many other warning signs floating around her. I'm sure she could have benefitted from a talk (not a talking TO, but a counseling session). I, however, had never been in trouble before. I had never been in the principal's office. I had never been suspended. But here I was, sobbing in the office, because they were coming down hard on me, and I had no prior experience in dealing with them.

I was suspended for a day. I didn't care about that - it was all about having to tell my parents such a dumb story and having to face the wrath of the staff. I didn't care about my record that much, as I was never the college-bound type.

Thing was, the teacher deserved a kick in the balls, since he was a total prick. Not that I would have ever done such a thing. I've never purposely kicked anyone in the balls, not even my annoying brothers in the middle of a wrestling match. It's not something I would do.

Thinking on it now, I realize what I learned from that situation. People think about doing awful things their whole lives....they may despise their coworkers, their family may drive them crazy, they may hate their spouse or their boss or their local mailman.....but we have to pretend we don't feel these things. We have to bottle this crap up and smile and eat sh.t. We need to keep our conflicting emotions and needs inside until it eats the bottom out of our stomachs. We have to bend our values in order to lick the ass of the alpha person in our committee. All of this starts with the institution called school, where we learn how all institutions work. There is no room for honesty in such an environment - only for compliance.

I could not act out against the charlatans of the school environment. I had no recourse. I was stuck in the system and if the teacher was incompetent or apathetic or just a power-hungry prick I still had to visit their little show every day for 9 months. I did my share of changing classes and bringing mom in to get me shifted about but in the end, you're going to have some jerks, and if it's not the teachers, it's the administration.

My bottled rage came out in drawings and writings and yes, scribbled threats. Seeing as how I'd never have the nerve to break the "no Discmans" rule, it was pretty obvious that my drawings involving voodoo dolls and hangman's nooses weren't going to come to fruition. My frustrations are as real as anyone else's on this planet, and just as suppressed.

Back on topic, slightly - if I had not been able to express myself at all in doodles, wherever they land on the scale of wrongness, my rage would have grown. My frustration with the system would have grown. My need to act out would have grown.

Suppression is suppression and it doesn't bode well.

One more thing, GC - I've asked before, where does it end? Where do you draw the line as something that's ok to draw on your homework? When is it time to tattle, to persecute, to control?

So doodle, create, do what you need to but there's a place for that. And putting a picture of a gun on a piece of paper that is going to be seen by a teacher is not appropriate. It, like the last line in the article says, disrupts the process.

I don't see this as an act of suppression. I see it as a lesson of appropriateness in a period of time post-Columbine. Your friend's comment (bringing a gun in to kill a teacher) may not have been taken seriously at all back then, nowdays it would be. A kid saying that stuff now would be seen as a danger to those around her.

It's a different time from when we were in school. There weren't huge shooting sprees in schools when I was a kid. Now there are.

And, to answer your question, unless it's stipulated in the homework itself, it's never okay to turn in homework with doodles on it. At least that's the way it was in my school. You'd get your paper handed back to you and you'd have to re-write the entire thing.

Anytime there's an occurrance that is threatening or can be miscontrued as a threat, that's when it's okay for the school to address it. There are varying degrees of penalty, but there needs to be some sort of sense of accountability for someone's actions. If there isn't, then it gives the message that it's okay to continue that behavior.

I'd like it noted that I think the parents in the real case here are total scumbags for going to the media. It's a petty way to deal with an issue that should be dealt with by going in and talking to the administration.

Hell, if you choose to go public with it, I think that should absolve the school from any requirement of confidentiality.

I agree. Apparently, there's a second kid involved whose parents didn't go to the media.

I, too, grew up with guns, but this is a reason to get an alarm system (or steal someone else's sign), not a gun. I find it odd that in this thread with all this pro-gun criticism of fear, fear, fear and the assumption that all adverse risk of a random Columbine situation must be eliminated, that there's no recognition that the pro-gun mentality is to a large extent about fear, fear, fear and the willingness to declare the pernicious societal consequences of gun worship acceptable and justified by the desire of each individual to protect himself from statistically unlikely random violence.

Now, I recognize that an alarm system is just a way to call in the folks with the guns and that the police only represent a delegation of power that we would be justified in exercising ourselves. Still, somewhere along the line, and perhaps only at the borders of where this issue is debated, gun ownership got unhealthily fetishized from the sad recognition of the need for self-protection to a worship of killing power.

Are you prepared to use it before it's taken from you and used against you? I saw this video where a fellow robbed a convenience store with a shotgun and set the shotgun down on the counter while he bagged the money that the clerk gave him. The clerk took the shotgun and pointed it at the guy. The guy ran out of the store. Ten seconds later, he came back, hopped the counter and started struggling for the shotgun before deciding to leave again. I guess he thought--to the extent he did think--that the clerk did not seem like the type to shoot him.

It was taken seriously and as I understood it, her actual-threat-to-a-teacher's-life got her much more punishment than I got. In fact, I believe we were both treated with punishments equal to what we actually did, shock of shocks, since we both had actual threats involved. Yes, it wasn't the same.

There's the heart of it, right there. I personally don't think that changing our fear level actually prevents anything. I personally think that measures like these are just a lot of posturing, much like supposed bag searches that don't do a thorough job. It's all icing on a rotten cake.

I don't think anything has changed. I feel the same way in a post-Columbine world as I do in a post-9/11 world - that others have used these tragedies to steal freedoms. That the measures taken don't protect or help anybody. That we are feeding on our own fears and are making things worse. That the terrorists and the Columbine kids did achieve something - they made America into a land of quivering cowards who feel better when people in authority overstep their bounds.

Yeech. All your teachers were like that? You went to public school? When I think of all the art I saw on other people's papers...

Again, you're sticking to general concepts, and I want to know where the cutoff is. If I doodle something on my TrapperKeeper, and someone overreacts to it, is that ok for the school to interfere? I've mentioned many different things....knives, scissors....how about an iron maiden, or a cowboy brandishing a pistol? Can you, GC, you personally, draw a line as to what is permissible and what is a threat, or is that at the mercy of whatever fear-ridden shmuck decides is a threat to them? Is it ever ok to say to that shmuck, "You're being a shmuck, just calm the fvck down, it's a goddamned doodle"?

If you cannot draw an objective line, you cannot enforce it, and if you cannot enforce it, it must be thrown out as subjective posturing BS, in my humble opinion.

However, I'd like to restate that if a child seemingly has actual issues, they need counseling.

CP ~ I went to a private school. Nuns and priests. And yes, they were all like that. I got hit if we did stuff wrong...

How can you possibly say that that nothing has changed from then and now? Nothing Columbine-esque happened when I was in school. Kids weren't packing when I was in school. Maybe the odd bee bee gun or slingshot but not real guns.

You keep bringing up examples and I keep telling you that anything inappropriate that gets turned in to a teacher is fair game. I'm handing this paper to you and it has a gun on it. That's a threat in my book. Especially when it isn't in context with what was written. ie. An illustration of a gun in a creative writing story.

I think we do live in a society of fear. We have this administration to thank for that. But like you said it's the half-assed nature of it that's wrong. Hastily checked bags, extra security one day then it's gone the next... I'd rather people be consistent. At times, I feel it's justified, sometimes I don't. In this case, I'd rather them err in the name of safety. I don't feel that in every case, but in this case I do.

No, we have ourselves to thank for that. The potential existed long before hanging chads were a part of the national vernacular.

Of course it did. But this administration exploited it.

But is Columbine the EXCEPTION or is it an indicator of a prevalent problem? I think the extremity of the crime served as a bit of a wake up call, but it is still just an aberration (IMO).

I was real good at doing mischief but not getting caught.

I miss the innocent, carefree days of yesteryear when America knew Hanging Chad only as the male talent in a Linda Lovelace flick. Le sigh.

Then, dude, I love you and all, but I have to say, if that's the model you were shown, then there's no reconciling it, eh?

So what? It could have happened at any time. The ability for a child to bring a parent's gun to school has always been possible. Are you going to feel differently about schools because of a few aberrations (thanks Kevy for the word), because it actually happened? I, personally, do not. I am not going to let fear change my view of this world. Nothing has changed for me, whether I'm sending a future kid to school or getting on a plane. If it does change in my head, I'm living in fear, and that's not only pointless, it's destructive.

I understand that, you have said that over and over, and you still haven't answered my question about where to draw the line. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, and should probably stop posting, as we aren't getting anywhere. If your standard of measure is Catholic private school, I don't expect it to go any further anyway.

Love you Brad. :)

rather than beginning a new thread...as a non-parent, this article strikes me as more of the same

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...07/detail.html
Tag (the game) Banned in elementary school

to say "I dont get it" falls far short of my thoughts. bitch about overweight kids then ban the games that actually have them running...


I just dont get it. someone please explain WTF is going on with parenting and kids now. soon I foresee children in full body condoms, blindfolded and being under house arrest until they graduate college "to keep them safe"

then having complete mental breakdowns the first time they miss a green traffic signal

I just dont get it

I never cared much for tag, so I never played it. If somone "tagged" me, I wouldn't chase them back. Problem solved. If these kids don't want to be chased, they shouldn't run.

right! or play something else....or go read or go...to the bathroom and sulk...whatever....

but c'mon.....banning tag? is the world that big of an oversensitive pussy now? and if so....dont you think this stuff is what made them that way??

/rant off

You ever tell a three year old to go out for a pass and then drill him in the back of the head with a Nerf football? Good times.

um...well, yeah. I have :blush:






:evil:

yes, I have firearms in my home for defense of my own life and that of my family and I have indeed been in a situation where a firearm was (in my opinion and upon reflection) the best option in the circumstance. however, as a gun owner I also strongly believe that if I feel threatened to the point where I so strongly felt the need to produce and use it (which luckily I didnt have to), then I also feel confident that, while I would take little joy in it, I would also have little remorse in such a situation.

mostly because I feel in my heart of hearts that it is they that created said situation, not I. I just happened to be prepared.

so yes, in the situation the clerk faced, I'd have shot him and felt little remorse although I'd have been very angry that HE made me do so.

Ally... you know you can rehearse your reaction in your mind, so that if you're ever faced with such a situation your brain will already be trained on how to react. Better to think it out a few times ahead of time while your mind is clear so that you have a plan in place for when you're under stress.

You know the old saying- I'd rather have a gun and not need it than be in a situation where I needed one but didn't have it? I think that sums it up for me. I have a 9mm and I would absolutely not have a problem using it if I thought myself or my family was in danger. I'm a good shot, too.

Good for you, WB. Gun owners like you make society a safer place. If there were more citizens like you that took the responsibilty seriously and had the training necessary, there were far less crime.

I don't need a gun to protect my family. Odds are I'll take your gun and make you eat it before you ever have a chance of shooting me. And just what the hell would I do with a gun in the face of an armed intruder....have a shootout with my family in the crossfire? Dumb.