Gun geeks flip out over suspension of preschooler

chromium · Mar 29, 2017

blackjack50 said:
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

separate them because one is a *disruption* to the other. Great if you can make a difference someone to not be a worthless dickhead, fine, but in the meantime they can't be allowed to ruin others' lives

A lot of bullies aren't ostracized at all, but to the contrary their victims are. You really are clueless of what it's like to be different in a small town, or how infested with gangs the inner cities are

That someone would need to fight back to that extent shows how unfit K-12 is to prepare anyone for the real world. You just try to threaten to hospitalize someone at work or college or hell, the meijer parking lot and see what happens. In fact, if you transplant those same 15-18 year olds to another setting, such as the meijer parking lot, and they act the way do in school, expect the cops to be called

jaeger19 · Mar 29, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
No, this story is not about guns.

?

So the discipline had nothing to do with a spent .22 shell. because if it did.. then it certainly had to do with guns.

No, the reason for discipline was the consistent failure to obey the rules of the school.

Regarding guns.

In other words, had the child consistently used foul language, he would have been just as suspended

That's right.. and what would be of concern was that content of that language and if it was truly 'foul".
I highly doubt that you would be claiming that in that instants the content of his language was "not the subject".

If the child had consistently struck other students, he would have been just as suspended.

And we would be questioning what the circumstances were that the child was striking other students. Was it in self defense.. or was it bullying?

The only difference is most people in this thread would suddenly not care.

Au contraire.. if the child had been suspended for speech that really was not foul. For example stating that his "two dads are married"..

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.

The school made it very clear the suspension was for repeated violations of policy, not because it involved guns.

Except that the violations were to its gun policy.. which means that it involved guns.

no matter how much wordsmithing was being done.

Of course it is. Do you even begin to understand how school works?

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.

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.

EMNofSeattle · Mar 29, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
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.

There may be something there, however that statement also reels of trying to silence criticism by deflecting behind a policy

Slyfox696 · Mar 30, 2017

jaeger19 said:
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.

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.

The suspension was not about guns, it was about repeated insubordination. The insubordination related to a violation to a policy related to guns, but the discipline was for repeated violation of a rule.

It may seem like a subtle difference, but it is a very important difference.

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.

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.

No, you clearly don't understand how these things work. Lawsuits are going to happen. They are. The job of the school is to enact policies so that when a lawsuit does occur, the school can say "Look, we have this policy and that's why we did what we did."

Your assertion that schools use it to justify inane policies is ignorant of reality. When my mother was superintendent, our school was sued or had complaints filed against it on multiple occasions by nutjobs just looking for a handout. For example, see the dog example above. We also were once sued by a land developer because he purchased land which has a long history of rising and falling with the seasons (due to the area being a swampland I assume), yet he sued the school claiming our building addition caused the problem (when, in fact, the problem was occurring long before we built our addition, which I know for a fact because I used to live in that area). We once had parents, in actually a very similar situation to this, file a complaint (or sue, don't remember which) because their child was prohibited from going on overnight field trips because he was a horrible person on the last one he had attended. What made that situation similar is his parents ran to the local press and flatly lied to them about what happened and about the kind of student he was (for example, they claimed he was a straight A student and never had discipline problems, both of which were lies). And, to the best of my knowledge, the school never lost any of those cases because we had good attorney reviewed policies and because my mother was insistent about documenting EVERYTHING.

No, you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't understand how these things work and you don't seem to understand the ridiculous nonsense schools have to deal with all the time. Is that to say schools don't sometimes do stupid things or staff doesn't do stupid things? Of course not, they do. But your argument policies are there to justify inane policies is completely ignorant.

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.

Way to completely miss the point. Try again.

EMNofSeattle said:
There may be something there, however that statement also reels of trying to silence criticism by deflecting behind a policy

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.

The school addressed the issue with the parents multiple times before the suspension...the parents apparently did nothing. The school (presumably) cannot speak to the specific transgressions of the child, due to federal law. It's not deflecting behind policy, it literally may be the only thing they are legally allowed to say.

Crimefree · Mar 31, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
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.

It's trying and difficult to deal with people who lack any comprehension and decide what they think something meant. Only an idiot would have thought I was referring to the act rather than the schools policy. An intelligent person would have asked. Schools policy with regard to fantasy play with weapons is knee-jerk, idiotic and counter to the available research. 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?

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?

What possible need is there for idiotic policy on fantasy play? You ever going to post something that backs up your rhetoric?

Do you know what kind of idiots ignore evidence in order to harm children's development or force their knee-jerk policy on?

So your answer is that you have no idea what you are talking about and have no idea about the stuff schools deal with.

So you need to tell people what you think my answer is in order to put forward your dangerous ideology?

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!!!

There is no need for me to do that, people will form their own opinion of what is written here. 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 appear to be making delusional statements.

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.

I would not allow you within 1000 yds of my children. Simply put your ideas are oppressive and dangerous.

My best advice to you would be to simply acknowledge your inferior knowledge of the situation and bow out of the discussion.

I'll do that the moment you post something factual and applicable. 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. You clearly do and have admitted a greater priority to a host of irrelevant money orientated measures YOU falsely claim are more important than the childes psychological well-being and development. Apparently you are so blinded by some idea of superiority you cannot even see that. I suggest you quit before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

Crimefree · Mar 31, 2017

jaeger19 said:
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.

It gives some idea of the raving lunatics running schools these days and forming policy based on abject fear of guns and other objects. One would have thought in this modern day of supposed enlightenment that teachers and educators were better informed and cared enough to find out the facts before making knee-jerk and harmful policy. These idiots are a danger to society polluting the minds of children. A move on gun controls part to increase fear of guns in future generations that should be stopped as soon as possible.

Slyfox696 · Apr 3, 2017

Crimefree said:
It's trying and difficult to deal with people who lack any comprehension and decide what they think something meant.

Says the person who has been completely wrong about this entire story.

Only an idiot would have thought I was referring to the act rather than the schools policy.

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 would have asked.

An intelligent person doesn't use a phrase whose meaning they don't understand.

Schools policy with regard to fantasy play with weapons is knee-jerk, idiotic and counter to the available research.

So you don't know what the phrase "knee-jerk" means?

That's a you problem. No intelligent person uses a phrase incorrectly and then becomes exasperated when the other person assumes they used the phrase correctly.

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?

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?

To address your point about fantasy play, nothing you said counters what I have long said. Do I need to repeat that for you once more, or do you think you can take the time to actually comprehend something someone else says?

What possible need is there for idiotic policy on fantasy play?

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.

Try reading more. It'll help you avoid saying things which are dumb and will help you comprehend another's words better.

You ever going to post something that backs up your rhetoric?

I have repeatedly. Again, try reading.

Do you know what kind of idiots ignore evidence

Yes, this post has made me painfully aware.

in order to harm children's development or force their knee-jerk policy on?

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.

So you need to tell people what you think my answer is in order to put forward your dangerous ideology?

Wait...you think suspending a student after numerous and repeated violations of school policy is "dangerous"?

Again, you CLEARLY don't understand what's going on here. You want to make this about guns, because that's what you want. This isn't about guns, as I've said repeatedly. Again, try reading.

There is no need for me to do that, people will form their own opinion of what is written here.

Yes, but think of how much time you could save people if you would just admit your ignorance on the subject.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you that any intelligent and educated person will see you have no idea what you're talking about. But you could just save them time by admitting it up front.

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?

The logic I have provided numerous times and you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge. Again, try reading.

Simply put your ideas are oppressive and dangerous.

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?

I'll do that the moment you post something factual and applicable.

I have, repeatedly. Try reading.

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.

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.

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.

Crimefree · Apr 3, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
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.

Repetition of your refuted claims is wasting my time. For the forth time now......

Do not try such idiotic bully type ploys as go read it with me. Either provide the quote or reference. Otherwise you concede it does not exist. Arrogance and egotistical outburst only show your own nature and the fact you are incapable of defending your claims. On that alone unless it improves this will be my last response in kind just to show two can play.

As I have provided a list of references that show that the policy is knee jerk policy from idiots you associate with teaching and schools there is nothing more to be said. The fact you miss applied my reference to knee-jerk policy to the current event is your mistake not mine. That you cannot grasp that fact speaks volumes for the fallacy of your idiotic claim it has to apply to the current event. An impossibility for existing policy. Heaven alone knows what kind of stupidity makes that mistake. Your attempt to associate it with me has failed.

There is no evidence you have produced or provided that preventing children's fantasy play is not harmful to child development or that inducing aversion by punishment serves an educational function and is not harmful of child development. That alone makes your ideology abhorrent and intolerable.

Now either produce the links and quotes that prove your case or admit you have nothing.

This was posed in response to you, obviously you did not read it. Do make the effort now.

#117

If that will make it easier for you to understand.

I do not think, I know child's fantasy play is vital to development and to punish that is simply crazy and born of abject ignorance coupled with idiotic fear. Which part of kids play acting cops and robbers or some other game did you not understand was curtailed by uninformed emotionally driven incorrect school policy and asinine behaviour?

A Child's Work: The Importance of Fantasy Play - Paley

Killing Monsters: Our Children's Need for Fantasy, Heroism and Make-believe Violence - Jones

War, Conflict and Play - Hyder

We don't play with guns here: War, Weapon and Superhero Play in the Early Years (Debating Play) - Holland

Empowering Childhood
Inspiring Compassion, Communication, Co-operation and Connection
Children Need Gun Play
https://empoweringchildhood.wordpres...need-gun-play/

Now do you understand why such educators should be fired as unworthy of the profession and a curse to enlightenment by harming children with their own fears and weakness. A knee-jerk reaction has no sense of timing. This is the forth time you are being corrected and obviously are not capable of learning.

Slyfox696 · Apr 4, 2017

Crimefree said:
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.

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.

First of all, stop saying it is a knee-jerk policy. 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. You have no such evidence of that and school policy is almost never knee-jerk reaction. School policy is almost always guidelines set by a school, in response to legal and ethical concerns, many times with input from school attorneys. The fact you still don't understand this, even though I've told you this on multiple occasions, reflects poorly on your grasp of reading, as well as further demonstrates ignorance on how schools work.

Second of all, this is not about guns. This is about insubordination. The child wasn't suspended because he played with pretend guns or brought a casing to school, he was suspended for repeated violations of school policy. Whether it was for guns, foul language or physical violence, what matters is it was repeated offenses, even after school had notified the parents on numerous occasions.

Finally, your research is irrelevant, so I have no idea why you keep mentioning it. You keep talking about how you think fantasy gun play is good for kids (thus claiming the position the school's policy is a bad one). But that has NOTHING to do with what I'm saying, even if I were to accept as absolute fact your research is true. I'm saying the school has to craft policies to satisfy legal and ethical concerns. You earlier claimed (paraphrasing) that the school is caring more about money than the child's development, but that's just stupid. Attorneys don't work for free and every hour they work on a needless lawsuit is more hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars leaving the school district, which hinders the educational development of ALL students. If needless lawsuits can be easily won or avoided by merely having students abide by a strong school policy, then that's the responsible and ethical thing to do, not only to the children who use the money for educational needs, but also to the taxpayers whose dollars are wasted on a needless lawsuit. Your 4 year old child can play pretend guns at home all he wants and get whatever development you believe it provides.

You're wrong. You're REALLY wrong. And with each post you make, you only shine a brighter light on your ignorance of both the educational and legal systems. This is not about guns, this is about repeatedly violating a valid school policy, which was not enacted in a knee-jerk manner, but rather for various legal and ethical reasons. Just because you may see the world as always persecuting gun enthusiasts like yourself, the simply reality is that is not the case.

Again, as I said long ago, if you wish to bemoan the fact society has progressed to the point where we allow frivolous lawsuits and we have children entering schools to kill others, I'll agree with you wholeheartedly on that. I'll even agree with you that I wish such a school policy wasn't necessary, that schools could do their job without stifling legal concerns. But that's not reality and you're just going to have to accept that.

The world doesn't exist in the idealism of Crimefree. The sooner you realize that in this thread, the sooner you'll stop making ridiculous posts on this subject.

Now do you understand why such educators should be fired as unworthy of the profession

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.

Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about, you've made that abundantly clear. You keep talking about fantasy play as if it is relevant to this topic, when it is not, only exposing ignorance when it comes to educational matters. The only one incapable of grasping facts right now is you and your insistence of making this a gun issue when it clearly is not.

jaeger19 · Apr 4, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
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
.

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.

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.

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.

Slyfox696 · Apr 4, 2017

jaeger19 said:
No sir.. you still don't get it.. it is about firearms

No, it's not, for reasons I've mentioned numerous times now.

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.

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.

Sorry sir but you are wrong again.. its most likely a knee jerk reaction.

How can it be a knee-jerk reaction when they alerted the parents multiple times throughout the school year?

How is it so many people don't even understand the meanings of phrases they use?

I highly doubt that the school has a SPECIFIC POLICY THAT ADDRESSES EMPTY .22 Shells.

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.

Why do you keep saying things already disproven? Do you think if you say it often enough it'll suddenly become true?

So sir.. you are completely wrong.

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?

Your ignorance, nor the ignorance of school administrators of firearms is not cause for student dismissal

No, repeated violations of school policy is. What do you not get about this?

It is one of the stupidest positions ever heard.

Then you'll be relieved to know you're wrong about this. :shrug:

Just because you and school administrators in this case don't understand how the real world works

Says the person who is still claiming this is about guns.

(and that a spent .22 shell is NOT dangerous)

Please direct me to where I said it was. You're making things up now.

Do you not get tired of saying things which are not true?

doesn't mean that students should be removed from the classroom.

No, the fact the child repeatedly violated school policy is why the student was removed from the classroom.

Seriously, do you not get tired of being wrong?

You keep talking about a fantasy play where somehow.. a policy about firearms.. has nothing to do with firearms.

Again, you make things up.

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.

We're talking about why the child was suspended, not whether the policy is a good one (though we have touched on that as well, where I explained to you the necessity of such a policy). The child was not suspended because of guns, but because of repeated insubordination. The school made that very clear.

Where a spent .22 shell is dangerous and represents some type of potential for lawsuit.

No one claimed that. Stop making things up.

The only one exposing ignorance here is you when it comes to firearms.

We're not talking about firearms, for the roughly 3273897608923476897340897689th time.

If you are incapable of understanding nuance, please do not reply to me. The facts of the case are quite clear and while I understand rabid gun supporters love to feel persecuted in society, the facts simply do not support said persecution complex at this time.

You are wrong. You are grossly out of your element in this discussion and you have made it abundantly clear you have no understanding of how the educational or legal world works. If you're not even going to bother attempting to understand nuance, then please let me know so I won't bother wasting my time on someone who chooses willful ignorance.

Thanks.

jaeger19 · Apr 4, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
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.
.

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.

no matter how you try to argue that firearms aren't the central issue.. they most certainly are.

How can it be a knee-jerk reaction when they alerted the parents multiple times throughout the school year?

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.

The school administration made a call.. and it was a knee jerk reaction by reacting to the .22 shell as if was something dangerous.

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.

nd the insubordination had to do with their firearms/weapons policy.. and yes.. it was the .22 shell casing that prompted the suspension.

No, repeated violations of school policy is. What do you not get about this?

Again. the schools policy on firearms.. which by the way.. most likely did not specify a empty .22 shell.

Seriously why do you not get your intellectual disconnect.

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.

Sorry but your argument simply doesn't fly.

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.

Wow.. that's an incredibly stupid statement to make. The merits of the policy is the REASON that we are discussing the childs suspension.

Just like we would be discussing the merits of a policy for a kid that's suspended for saying.. "I think Trump is racist".

No one claimed that. Stop making things up.

BS.. you claimed the policy was in part because of potential lawsuits... so don't lie.

We're not talking about firearms, for the roughly 3273897608923476897340897689th time.

Yes we are.. no matter how "nuanced" your position is.

The fact that you cannot or refuse to understand that is disturbing.

It means that you would defend a child being suspended because he was gay... because according to you it wasn;t about being gay.. it was because "he was insubordinate". (since he violated the rules by being gay!).

jet57 · Apr 4, 2017

AtlantaAdonis said:
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.

That IS pretty stupid.

Bodi · Apr 4, 2017

Kid definitely should have been suspended. The parents should be investigated and most likely jailed as a result too...

Bodi · Apr 4, 2017

jaeger19 said:
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.

jaeger19 · Apr 4, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
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. .

Bodi · Apr 4, 2017

jaeger19 said:
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. .

Internet Stalking? :lol:

So you are saying that even though the name is Jackson we should not assume that the kid was black and as such a criminal?

BretJ · Apr 4, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
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....

Bodi · Apr 5, 2017

BretJ said:
How obvious can you get Bod? :roll: Quite the winner....

Consequences are a part of life...

BretJ · Apr 5, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
Consequences are a part of life...

Sorry Bod. Too obvious. Not taking the bait. Nice try though.

DarkWizard12 · Apr 5, 2017

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.

BretJ · Apr 5, 2017

DarkWizard12 said:
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.

In all fairness, had the kid taken a rock he could have pounded the spent case down into a relatively sharp, small piece of metal and then used the rock to put an edge on it. He could have then taken a piece of string and stick to make a handle for it. Though he may not have been allowed to have string at school. Don't want kindergartners bringing garrotes to school.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 5, 2017

AtlantaAdonis said:
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.

You didn't read the article, did you?

it was a spent .22 casing that he found. it's disgusting seeing a pre-school act so abusively to a pre-schooler because of thier hoplophobia.

Slyfox696 · Apr 5, 2017

jaeger19 said:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

nd the insubordination had to do with their firearms/weapons policy

But it was the insubordination which led to the suspension, not the firearms policy.

Again, if it was violation of gun policy which led to the suspension, how come the child wasn't suspended all those times before?

.. and yes.. it was the .22 shell casing that prompted the suspension.

The school has clearly said otherwise. You're wrong.

Again. the schools policy on firearms.. which by the way.. most likely did not specify a empty .22 shell.

Because it wasn't about the shell, but repeated violations. How many times are you going to re-post this lie?

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.

Your example is incredibly imperfect, so allow me to align it closer to what happened here.

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.

Again, it is the REPEATED action which led to the suspension. Your example is not appropriate because it was a one off and referenced a state of being, not an action...this child wasn't suspended for a one off or a state of being, we know this for a fact. The child was suspended for REPEATEDLY violating the policy. How do you not understand this yet?

The merits of the policy is the REASON that we are discussing the childs suspension.

No, that's just false and you are clearly conflating the two issues.

There are two issues at play here.

1) Why was the student suspended?

A) Because the student repeatedly violated school policy

2) Is the school policy a fair one?

A) Yes, because of all the reasons I've previously mentioned.

You're trying to conflate the two issues. You're trying to argue issue 2 by disagreeing about issue 1. You cannot do that and have a quality discussion.

Just like we would be discussing the merits of a policy for a kid that's suspended for saying.. "I think Trump is racist".

Again you reference a one off, when this was not a one off, this was a suspension for repeated violations.

BS.. you claimed the policy was in part because of potential lawsuits... so don't lie.

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.

Why will you not honestly address what I said? Are you so afraid of answering what I said honestly that you will literally make things up?

Yes we are.. no matter how "nuanced" your position is.

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?

It means that you would defend a child being suspended because he was gay...(since he violated the rules by being gay!).

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.

Why can't you post without resorting to making things up which are not true?

jaeger19 · Apr 5, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
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.

?

No.. clearly YOU don't get it. 1. The last violation.. the one FOR WHICH HE WAS SUSPENDED.. had to do with its "gun policy".. it was for a spent .22 casing. That's about guns. No matter how much you want to change the facts.

If he was suspended for foul language. He would have been suspended for foul language.

If he was suspended for being gay.. it was for being gay etc.

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.

sure.. And what was the violation of the school policy for.. oh wait.. bringing a .22 shell casing.

in fact ... you admit it...

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.

Wait.. I thought he wasn't suspended for the CASING? So it had nothing to do with guns right? Oh wait.. so now you admit that school did suspend him for the casing. Whether its "just the casing" or "because partly the casing".. its again.. their gun policy.

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.

Sure it would be about sexual orientation. It specifies.. no homosexual activity. the issue is about sexual orientation.

In your example it didn't say heterosexual or homosexual activity.. only homosexual activity.

However.. EVEN if your example stated ANY sexual activity... if a child was suspended for that activity... the issue WOULD STILL BE THAT ACTIVITY.

for example expelling a 7 year old for giving his female classmate a hug. No sane and rational person would make the argument ... "he wasn't suspended for a hug, he was suspended for violating the schools policy"...

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

.

Wait.. now we are back to the firearms policy and whether a .22 shell casing falls into a reason to suspend a child.

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?

Umm..the only one posting things that aren't true are you. When you state.. its not about guns... that's blatantly not true. He was suspended because of a .22 shell casing. Trying to claim the child was suspended for violating policy.. you are creating a nuanced position.. because what was the policy that was violated? Firearms policy. So yes.. its about guns.

Then you tried to claim that the school had to follow this policy with a .22 shell because of liability. and that's a falsehood as well..

And again you literally make things up which are not true

No sir.. that's simply a falsehood on your part.

The child was suspended for violating school policy REGARDING FIREARMS/WEAPONS. That makes it about firearms.

JUST LIKE .. a child that's suspended for violating school policy regarding gay students... MAKES IT ABOUT BEING GAY.

The only one being dishonest here is you.

Gun geeks flip out over suspension of preschooler

chromium

jaeger19

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

Slyfox696

Crimefree

Crimefree

Slyfox696

Crimefree

Slyfox696

jaeger19

Slyfox696

jaeger19

jet57

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

jaeger19

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

BretJ

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

BretJ

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot

BretJ

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

Slyfox696

jaeger19