You just wrote them off as having 0 hope. Why try? You might as well sentence them to death. Again. Do you even vaguely understand how sickening that is? I hope to God you aren't a teacher of any kind. Separating a kid because you don't like his attitude?
Do you realize it is the obligation of the teacher and the school to actually try and create success in that "****ty" kids life? Create some hope? That "successful" kid you seem to think is special? He isn't. He will be fine. You could drop him in any school.
But that bully? Unlikely. That kid is the one who actually needs the attention. I've been that 1 person in a kids life before. And the difference it makes is amazing. 1 positive role model. And actually being able to show the kid that being a bully is what causes them to be ostracized and disliked? And that maybe if they were around good kids? And they weren't a dick?
I mean holy **** man. There is no reason to separate kids. They are kids. We are supposed to be a nation of equal opportunity. And you are arguing to separate a kid because they have an attitude?
As for "walking in their shoes," I don't buy it. I don't think you really understood it. If you did...then you would understand the obligation to work with the kids. And you are talking to someone who WAS bullied. Until the day I threatened to put a kid into the hospital...I was bullied.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, this story is not about guns.
?
Regarding guns.No, the reason for discipline was the consistent failure to obey the rules of the school.
In other words, had the child consistently used foul language, he would have been just as suspended
If the child had consistently struck other students, he would have been just as suspended.
The only difference is most people in this thread would suddenly not care.
The school made it very clear the suspension was for repeated violations of policy, not because it involved guns.
Of course it is. Do you even begin to understand how school works?
Let's ignore the school's comment on the subject and just believe the word of random stranger on the Internet. That's a GREAT plan with no chance of backfiring at all. :roll:
Here's the school's statement: "The school’s vice-president told Fox 2 the suspension was for more than the shell casing; that the school was simply following its discipline policy. He said he couldn’t go into further detail, citing confidentiality concerns."
But sure, parents have NEVER been known to lie before where their children are concerned.
No, you still don't seem to understand the point. The point is that it was MULTIPLE INFRACTIONS which led to the suspension. Whether it was related to guns, speech or physical violence, the fact is that it was the fact it had happened repeatedly which led to the suspension.So the discipline had nothing to do with a spent .22 shell. because if it did.. then it certainly had to do with guns.
*read, but removed for character count*
Of if the child had been suspended for hitting other students in the course of defending himself or another person.... then people would very much care. In fact.. there are multiple times that's been demonstrated.
Clearly you don't. Again, I literally had to spend hours gathering video footage to aid in our school's defense against a lawsuit from a woman who sued because she was required to wait 15-20 minutes before taking her dirty dog through our school cafeteria, so the dog wouldn't be in there during lunch.Very much. the old "its cause of lawsuits".. or "its cause of the law".. is often used by schools to justify inane policies that it really can't legitimately defend.
Way to completely miss the point. Try again.If you think its not nuts... then you should be able to provide a plethora of cases won by plaintiffs because of someone bringing an empty .22 shell to school.
good luck on finding those cases.
Federal law (FERPA) prevents a school under its umbrella from publicly discussing an individual child's student records. The letter shown to Fox News clearly stated the child had violated school policy on multiple occasions and that the parents had been notified on multiple occasions.There may be something there, however that statement also reels of trying to silence criticism by deflecting behind a policy
Are you just not going to acknowledge you said something absolutely ridiculous by claiming the school had a kneejerk reaction because of their actions before the child violated policy?
Your position is ridiculous. A school can't have a kneejerk reaction by enforcing a policy written before the child committed the offense. It is most illogical to claim otherwise.
Just because you don't understand the need, doesn't make them "bad, false", etc. It just means you disagree with them.
Do you know what kind of person use illogical statements to accuse others of acting improperly because they don't understand the purpose and disagree with it?
So your answer is that you have no idea what you are talking about and have no idea about the stuff schools deal with.
Why not just admit your ignorance up front and save us both time? You have no idea the nonsense schools have to deal with, you've made that clear. And your ignorance on the subject is leading you to post statements which absolutely fail the logic test, all because...you know, GUNS!!!
Just stop. I clearly am far more educated on this subject than you are, which is why your argument has been exposed as the utter nonsense it always was. You don't understand what you're talking about. And that's fine, there are many subjects on which I am ignorant. For example, I wouldn't begin to tell a surgeon how to perform an operation. But when it comes to schools and how they are run, I am far far more educated on the subject than you seem to be.
My best advice to you would be to simply acknowledge your inferior knowledge of the situation and bow out of the discussion.
Its not about guns? What are you talking about?. The whole reason for the disciplining and the school policy was ABOUT GUNS.
And the existing policy was not about compliance with existing laws.. nor was it to mitigate the risk of lawsuit. That's nuts.
Says the person who has been completely wrong about this entire story.It's trying and difficult to deal with people who lack any comprehension and decide what they think something meant.
You said "knee jerk". Either you don't understand what that phrase means, or you said something really dumb. Which is it?Only an idiot would have thought I was referring to the act rather than the schools policy.
An intelligent person doesn't use a phrase whose meaning they don't understand.An intelligent person would have asked.
So you don't know what the phrase "knee-jerk" means?Schools policy with regard to fantasy play with weapons is knee-jerk, idiotic and counter to the available research.
If you could use phrases correctly the first time, it would go a long way to getting your point across. Do you really not understand how asinine it is for you to use a phrase incorrectly and then act offended when someone thinks you used the phrase it was supposed to be used? In the future, should I just assume most of what you say is incorrect?That much was obvious from my original comment which three times I have told you that you still do not understand. Have you got it now or must I repeat again?
I have explained it multiple times. Go read. I find it amusing you act offended when someone doesn't realize you used a phrase incorrectly intentionally and then you continue to ignore the point the other person has made repeatedly.What possible need is there for idiotic policy on fantasy play?
I have repeatedly. Again, try reading.You ever going to post something that backs up your rhetoric?
Yes, this post has made me painfully aware.Do you know what kind of idiots ignore evidence
Please provide your evidence this is "knee-jerk" policy. I bet you can't. Because policy isn't, as anyone educated on the subject knows.in order to harm children's development or force their knee-jerk policy on?
Wait...you think suspending a student after numerous and repeated violations of school policy is "dangerous"?So you need to tell people what you think my answer is in order to put forward your dangerous ideology?
Yes, but think of how much time you could save people if you would just admit your ignorance on the subject.There is no need for me to do that, people will form their own opinion of what is written here.
The logic I have provided numerous times and you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge. Again, try reading.What logic test did you apply to the fact schools policy on fantasy play was made in knee-jerk reaction and is counter to the childes development health?
You think suspending a child for repeatedly violating school policy is oppressive and dangerous? You must be an anarchist. Why do you believe in anarchy?Simply put your ideas are oppressive and dangerous.
I have, repeatedly. Try reading.I'll do that the moment you post something factual and applicable.
And I don't think any intelligent person would be stupid enough to refuse to understand what schools deal with when the information is literally shoved before their nose.You see I don't think any educator worth their salt has any business forcing children to conform to harmful idiocy in teachers behaviour or schools policy.
Says the person who has been completely wrong about this entire story.
You said "knee jerk". Either you don't understand what that phrase means, or you said something really dumb. Which is it?
An intelligent person doesn't use a phrase whose meaning they don't understand.
So you don't know what the phrase "knee-jerk" means?
SOAPBOX GRANDSTANDING DELETED FOR LENGTH REQUIREMENTS.
Again, you still think this is about guns. It's not. I've explained why its not. We're not having a gun argument, we're have an education argument and you are seriously outgunned in this debate with me.
As I have said repeatedly, try actually reading before you post next. It will save both of us a lot of time. Also, learn how to use phrases correctly. It'll make our conversation much better.
You still don't get it. You're still trying to argue this like it's about guns, even though I have demonstrated repeatedly it is not. If you don't want to repeat yourself a fourth (or fifth) time, then take the time to understand MY argument before you post again. Seriously, actually read this post and understand what it says, not what you want to believe it says.Repetition of your refuted claims is wasting my time. For the forth time now......
*read, but omitted for character count*
Do make the effort now.
Your ignorance of the education profession is not cause for educator dismissal. That's one of the stupidest positions I've ever read. Just because you don't understand how the real world works, it doesn't mean teachers should be fired for doing their jobs, following school policy which follows legal concerns.Now do you understand why such educators should be fired as unworthy of the profession
You still don't get it. You're still trying to argue this like it's about guns, even though I have demonstrated repeatedly it is not. If you don't want to repeat yourself a fourth (or fifth) time, then take the time to understand MY argument before you post again. Seriously, actually read this post and understand what it says, not what you want to believe it says
.
You're using the phrase wrong and it sounds ridiculous. A knee-jerk reaction is an involuntary and unthinking reaction to immediate external stimuli. If I were to punch you in the face and you were to punch me back, yours would be a knee-jerk reaction, but mine would not. School policy is not a knee-jerk reaction. For it to be a knee-jerk reaction, there would have had to have been an immediate external stimuli and the policy would have had to be passed immediately and without proper consideration.
No, it's not, for reasons I've mentioned numerous times now.No sir.. you still don't get it.. it is about firearms
But that's irrelevant because, as I've said, had the child repeatedly ignored warnings about using foul language, the child would be just as suspended. If it was about guns, then why wasn't the child suspended the numerous times he violated the policy previously?and its been repeatedly pointed out that's what precipitated his suspension. You claim.. it was failure to follow school policy. Right and what policy did that concern.. oh right guns.
How can it be a knee-jerk reaction when they alerted the parents multiple times throughout the school year?Sorry sir but you are wrong again.. its most likely a knee jerk reaction.
They don't need to, as the child wasn't suspended for a shell casing, he was suspended for insubordination. As I've said repeatedly.I highly doubt that the school has a SPECIFIC POLICY THAT ADDRESSES EMPTY .22 Shells.
I'm not. You know how I know that? Because the very facts in the article tell me I'm not. Have you even bothered to read the article?So sir.. you are completely wrong.
No, repeated violations of school policy is. What do you not get about this?Your ignorance, nor the ignorance of school administrators of firearms is not cause for student dismissal
Then you'll be relieved to know you're wrong about this. :shrug:It is one of the stupidest positions ever heard.
Says the person who is still claiming this is about guns.Just because you and school administrators in this case don't understand how the real world works
Please direct me to where I said it was. You're making things up now.(and that a spent .22 shell is NOT dangerous)
No, the fact the child repeatedly violated school policy is why the student was removed from the classroom.doesn't mean that students should be removed from the classroom.
Again, you make things up.You keep talking about a fantasy play where somehow.. a policy about firearms.. has nothing to do with firearms.
No one claimed that. Stop making things up.Where a spent .22 shell is dangerous and represents some type of potential for lawsuit.
We're not talking about firearms, for the roughly 3273897608923476897340897689th time.The only one exposing ignorance here is you when it comes to firearms.
No, it's not, for reasons I've mentioned numerous times now.
But that's irrelevant because, as I've said, had the child repeatedly ignored warnings about using foul language, the child would be just as suspended. If it was about guns, then why wasn't the child suspended the numerous times he violated the policy previously?
It's not about guns.
.
How can it be a knee-jerk reaction when they alerted the parents multiple times throughout the school year?
They don't need to, as the child wasn't suspended for a shell casing, he was suspended for insubordination. As I've said repeatedly.
No, repeated violations of school policy is. What do you not get about this?
We're talking about the child's suspension, not debating the merits of the policy. If you could at least post about the right thing, it would be incredibly helpful.
No one claimed that. Stop making things up.
We're not talking about firearms, for the roughly 3273897608923476897340897689th time.
Boy suspended for taking shell casing to preschool, mom's Facebook post goes viral | Fox News
And of course there is the predictable chorus of "OMG stoopid lib'rals that's not a shotgun bullet it's a child-killer 4000 bullet!".
Honestly, who cares?
It is highly irresponsible for these parents to allow their kids to bring gun crap to a preschool. If you don't know that the kid has a bullet in his backpack odds are he could sneak a gun into the preschool. Kudos to this preschool for removing their kid. I wouldn't ever send my kid to a place with irresponsible gun owners like that.
No sir.. you still don't get it.. it is about firearms.. and its been repeatedly pointed out that's what precipitated his suspension. You claim.. it was failure to follow school policy. Right and what policy did that concern.. oh right guns.
Sorry sir but you are wrong again.. its most likely a knee jerk reaction. I highly doubt that the school has a SPECIFIC POLICY THAT ADDRESSES EMPTY .22 Shells.
I would defy you to find a school policy.. any school policy that specifically deals with empty .22 shells. Most likely its a general policy against "weapons"... and the school administrator(s) made a knee jerk reaction in determining that a fired and empty .22 shell constituted a dangerous weapon.. and made another knee jerk reaction that the appropriate reaction was to suspend the child.
So sir.. you are completely wrong.
Your ignorance, nor the ignorance of school administrators of firearms is not cause for student dismissal... It is one of the stupidest positions ever heard. Just because you and school administrators in this case don't understand how the real world works (and that a spent .22 shell is NOT dangerous).. doesn't mean that students should be removed from the classroom.
Just stop. You don't know what you are talking about and you have made that abundantly clear. You keep talking about a fantasy play where somehow.. a policy about firearms.. has nothing to do with firearms. Where a spent .22 shell is dangerous and represents some type of potential for lawsuit. . The only one exposing ignorance here is you when it comes to firearms. The only one incapable of grasping the facts right now is you and your insistence that a policy on firearms has nothing to do with firearms.
The kids last name is Jackson. How much you wanna bet he is black and a victim of White Privilege? Had his name been Simon La Fleur he would have been instantly let go.
Just to point out.. you are not a "victim of white privilege"..
BTW.. don't internet stalk me just because I keep proving you wrong. .
Kid definitely should have been suspended. The parents should be investigated and most likely jailed as a result too...
How obvious can you get Bod? :roll: Quite the winner....
Consequences are a part of life...
It wasn't even a bullet, it was a casing. there is nothing that could be done with it. It wasn't even a piece of metal.
Boy suspended for taking shell casing to preschool, mom's Facebook post goes viral | Fox News
And of course there is the predictable chorus of "OMG stoopid lib'rals that's not a shotgun bullet it's a child-killer 4000 bullet!".
Honestly, who cares?
It is highly irresponsible for these parents to allow their kids to bring gun crap to a preschool. If you don't know that the kid has a bullet in his backpack odds are he could sneak a gun into the preschool. Kudos to this preschool for removing their kid. I wouldn't ever send my kid to a place with irresponsible gun owners like that.
No, you clearly don't get it. The problem is about REPEATED violations. That's what got the child suspended. No matter how many times you say otherwise, you cannot change the facts.Of course its about firearms. If the child had ignored warnings about using foul language.. the issue would be foul language and what constitutes foul language.
This is really dumb because I've already provided you the evidence where the school said it was NOT for the shell casing and we have the letter from the school which says the child has repeatedly violated the policy.how many times did the child bring a empty .22 shell into the school? Please show me the specific policy that concerns empty .22 casings.
But it was the insubordination which led to the suspension, not the firearms policy.nd the insubordination had to do with their firearms/weapons policy
The school has clearly said otherwise. You're wrong... and yes.. it was the .22 shell casing that prompted the suspension.
Because it wasn't about the shell, but repeated violations. How many times are you going to re-post this lie?Again. the schools policy on firearms.. which by the way.. most likely did not specify a empty .22 shell.
Your example is incredibly imperfect, so allow me to align it closer to what happened here.According to your premise.. if a school had a policy about not gay people in school.. and it suspended a student once they suspected he was gay... ..according to you.. it has nothing to do with sexual orientation but simply violating policy.
No, that's just false and you are clearly conflating the two issues.The merits of the policy is the REASON that we are discussing the childs suspension.
Again you reference a one off, when this was not a one off, this was a suspension for repeated violations.Just like we would be discussing the merits of a policy for a kid that's suspended for saying.. "I think Trump is racist".
You said something factually inaccurate, claiming that I said a spent .22 shell is dangerous and leads to lawsuits. That's false, no one said that. What I said is that a firearms policy is necessary for various reasons, including legal concerns such as lawsuits. And I never once said an empty casing is dangerous.BS.. you claimed the policy was in part because of potential lawsuits... so don't lie.
So you DON'T care about nuance and details? You don't care that you are literally making things up which we know for a fact are not true? Is your dedication to firearms really so great that you intentionally post things which are not true?Yes we are.. no matter how "nuanced" your position is.
And again you literally make things up which are not true. Being gay is a state of being, it is not an action. This child was suspended for repeated actions which violated school policy.It means that you would defend a child being suspended because he was gay...(since he violated the rules by being gay!).
No, you clearly don't get it. The problem is about REPEATED violations. That's what got the child suspended. No matter how many times you say otherwise, you cannot change the facts.
This is really dumb because I've already provided you the evidence where the school said it was NOT for the shell casing and we have the letter from the school which says the child has repeatedly violated the policy.
?
This is really dumb because I've already provided you the evidence where the school said it was NOT for the shell casing and we have the letter from the school which says the child has repeatedly violated the policy.
Slyfox said:You are seemingly trying to dispute the actual facts because they are inconvenient for you. That's not honest. We KNOW the school didn't suspend him just for the casing, they said that very thing and it is also in a letter. So stop making things up which are not true.
If the school had a policy about no homosexual activity (kissing, fondling, etc. between two members of the same sex) on school grounds, and a kid repeatedly violated this policy by kissing his boyfriend, despite being told not to and being given detention for the first and second offense, in-school suspension for the third offense, etc., then the resulting suspension after numerous violations would be for insubordination, not for his sexual orientation.
.You said something factually inaccurate, claiming that I said a spent .22 shell is dangerous and leads to lawsuits. That's false, no one said that. What I said is that a firearms policy is necessary for various reasons, including legal concerns such as lawsuits. And I never once said an empty casing is dangerous
So you DON'T care about nuance and details? You don't care that you are literally making things up which we know for a fact are not true? Is your dedication to firearms really so great that you intentionally post things which are not true?
And again you literally make things up which are not true
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?