Gun geeks flip out over suspension of preschooler

[jaeger19]

Irrelevant to the point. We're talking about why the child got suspended. He got suspended for repeatedly violating the rules.

You're being obtuse.. obviously what rules he violated and what constitutes a violation is very relevant.

Well.. at least if you are using logic and objectivity.

The casing was not the reason for the suspension though, but rather the last of a line of violations.

And as you stated IT WAS THOSE violations for which he was suspended.. .so therefore the casing WAS at the very least PART of the reason he was suspended.

that's how logic works.

He was disqualified five times? No, he was only disqualified once

right.. because of EACH and EVERY violation. And each and every violation.. is a thing to be questioned as to whether the disqualification was legitimate or not.


EACH AND EVERY one of those actions led to his disqualification

And it was only after the fifth infraction he was disqualified, correct? Thus, it was the repeated violations of the rules which led to the DQ, right?

Actually no.. it was each and every infraction that led to him being disqualified. If not for each and every one.. he would not be disqualified.

there.. each and every infraction led in part to his being disqualified and each is a questionable event as to whether the ref made the right call or not.

No, everyone understands it was the fact that after four previous notifications of violations, the fifth triggered the automatic disqualification. Everyone understands you get DQ'd for five fouls, not for a reaching foul.

sorry but everyone understands but for that last reaching foul he would not be disqualified. Anyone watching in the stands leans over to another and says.. "wait.. why did he foul out.. they would say "he got called for reaching in" "and that's his last foul".

Uhh...no, not to anyone who understands logic and basketball. You won't find a single knowledgeable sports fan who will agree with you the UCLA player was disqualified for a reach, whereas they will all agree with me he was disqualified for repeatedly breaking the rules.

Yeah.. obviously who haven't gone to many college basketball games. When the crowd boos the ref when he makes a bad call and gives their star player that last foul.. they boo him for making THAT CALL ON THAT FOUL.. "that wasn't a reach ref... come on"..

Tell you what.. how about when that happens at a game, you correct the fans and tell them... "what the ref called has nothing to do with the disqualification.. it doesn't matter if it was a good call or a bad call... he wasn't disqualified because that foul.. it was because he violated the rules". :lamo

And when they beat your butt into the ground.. you will realize that what the ref called.. what the infraction that was called.. matters.






.

 

[Mario]

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.

I fully agree. Educators are not educating when they espouse fear of an inanimate object. Even worse, when they infuse that fear, into impressionable minds.
It appears that they are clueless, in many areas. That is because of the agenda of their unions.
Someone, I don't remember who it is, uses the term, "mind numbed robots". So sad when they indoctrinate young minds with the same robotic trash.
Nothing is all bad or all good and that should be fully discussed by teachers and students.

 

[jamesrage]

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!".

You think it is perfectly acceptable for a little biddy kid to be suspended for bringing a spent bullet casing?

Honestly, who cares?

You obviously do seeing how you are applauding the schools moronic decision to suspend a little kid for seven days for a spent bullet casing. I got into fights in middle school and high school and was never suspended that long. Yet a little biddy kid who doesn't really know any better is suspended seven days from a preschool for bringing what is basically a hollow brass pipe that can't hurt anyone.

 

[Crimefree]

What policy did he violate that got him suspended again.

Yep you did. You just don't want to admit that truth.

Right there you admit that it was part and parcel of the violations that led up to his suspension. Therefore the casing was reason for the suspension. That's logic.

Yes.. you have done exactly that. You have dismissed the facts in the case.. which are the childs violations involved a shell casing. That the policy violation was over a shell casing. You continuously ignore the REASON for the violation.. or "insubordination". which simply is not logical and demonstrates a complete lack of objective reasoning.

Logic appears not to be part of teachers credentials and is replaced by oppression and a belief in government as the master who must be obeyed. The simple fact the suspension was due entirely to the 22 casing and would not have happened had it not been brought to school escapes such befuddled thinking. Thus there has to be some idiotic knee-jerk policy about such innocent things as a cartridge case or who knows a finger gun......

Teachers have no place in instituting policy that can be shown to be harmful to childrens development. It is inexcusable that they do and dishonour what used to be an admirable profession to which parents must entrust their child.

 

[Slyfox696]

You're being obtuse.

No, I'm being factual. You're trying to engage in red herrings.

We're talking about what caused the suspension. Insubordination is what caused the suspension. Obviously you're trying to make the point that the repeated violations fell under a gun related policy, and thus, this story is about guns, but that's just not true. This story is about insubordination, because the child, much like the basketball player, wasn't suspended for a violation of gun policy, he was suspended for repeatedly violating any policy.

Your argument is irrelevant.

And as you stated IT WAS THOSE violations for which he was suspended.. .so therefore the casing WAS at the very least PART of the reason he was suspended.

No. It wasn't. I've explained this to you too many times for you to continue pushing this false narrative.

The suspension was for repeatedly violating the rules. Whether the child hit another, drop an F bomb or brought a shell casing to school, none of those, individually, were the reason for the suspension. The suspension came only after REPEATED violations.

For you to say the child was suspended for the shell casing, then you'd have to prove the school suspended the child only for the casing. But the school clearly stated they did not and in the letter they explained that it was repeated violations which led to the suspension.

You are wrong.

EACH AND EVERY one of those actions led to his disqualification

Agreed. But it was the cumulative effect of those violations which caused the DQ. Which is exactly what I have repeatedly said with regard to the child. The DQ has nothing to do with the blocking foul, only five fouls total.

sorry but everyone understands but for that last reaching foul he would not be disqualified.

No one gets disqualified for a reaching foul. They get disqualified for a fifth foul.

Anyone watching in the stands leans over to another and says.. "wait.. why did he foul out.. they would say "he got called for reaching in" "and that's his last foul".

And the fact he reached a "last foul" is what got him DQ'd, not that he reached in. It is the cumulative effect, not the individual offense.

Which is why I'm telling you the suspension is not about guns, but rather insubordination. If the child had merely stopped at the fourth foul, he never would have been suspended. If he hadn't made pretend gun toys and still brought the casing, he would not have been suspended. It wasn't the violation which got him suspended, but the repeated violations.

Don't get me wrong, I understand completely what you're arguing. But you're just not correct and this is where your aversion to nuance matters.

Tell you what.. how about when that happens at a game, you correct the fans and tell them... "what the ref called has nothing to do with the disqualification.. it doesn't matter if it was a good call or a bad call... he wasn't disqualified because that foul.. it was because he violated the rules".

I don't have to, fans understand the concept of fouling out.

You can disagree with a specific call, but no one disagrees that a disqualification automatically happens on a fifth foul. Just like you can dispute whether or not there should be a policy which this child violated (which is a separate issue, as I stated long ago), but you cannot dispute the child was suspended for repeatedly violating known policy.

You're incredibly wrong. And each reply you make to my example only highlights it.

And when they beat your butt into the ground.

:roll:

Sir, I've coached and refereed more sporting contests than I can even begin to count. I've been coaching and/or refereeing sporting contests for over 15 years. Do you honestly think I haven't had the, "well, I don't agree with the rule, but it is the rule" talk with many people over that time? Please.

Heck, I had that talk just last week. I currently coach track and it is a rule that all members of a relay team who wear undergarments must all have the same color undergarment. It was cold out so I didn't notice the undershirts my boys 4x200m relay team were wearing (they all had warmups over the uniforms until race time) and luckily the referee was nice enough to not disqualify our relay team after he said something to me about it, but I still had to talk with all the relay runners and one of their parents about the under shirts. And yes, I had to have the "I don't like the rule, but it's the rule" speech then.

Most people understand the concept of rules and the fact there are repercussions for violating said rules, even if they disagree with a rule or the application of it. I'm sure you do as well. But what you don't seem to understand is that when discipline happens for repeated offenses, it is the fact the violations were repeated which led to the discipline, not the one off violation.

 

[jaeger19]

No, I'm being factual. You're trying to engage in red herrings.

We're talking about what caused the suspension. Insubordination is what caused the suspension. Obviously you're trying to make the point that the repeated violations fell under a gun related policy, and thus, this story is about guns, but that's just not true. This story is about insubordination, because the child, much like the basketball player, wasn't suspended for a violation of gun policy, he was suspended for repeatedly violating any policy.

.

Whatever man. You refuse to see logic. If the violation had to do with gun policy.. then its about guns. If it had to do with foul language.. its about that foul language. if it has to do with multiple violations.. it has to do with each and every violation that added toward suspension.

That's using logic.

For you to say the child was suspended for the shell casing, then you'd have to prove the school suspended the child only for the casing. But the school clearly stated they did not and in the letter they explained that it was repeated violations which led to the suspension

Absolutely wrong. If the child was suspended for "repeated violations".. each and every violation responsible. That's using logic.

You can disagree with a specific call, but no one disagrees that a disqualification automatically happens on a fifth foul. Just like you can dispute whether or not there should be a policy which this child violated (which is a separate issue, as I stated long ago), but you cannot dispute the child was suspended for repeatedly violating known policy.

Sure you can dispute it. Because it depends on whether the ref made the right call on any of those supposed fouls.. and in the case of the child.. whether the child was actually in violation of the policy or whether it was overreach or improper decision making on the schools part.

And the fact he reached a "last foul" is what got him DQ'd, not that he reached in. It is the cumulative effect, not the individual offense.

Wrong.. without that individual offense.. in fact without each individual offense.. then there would be no DQ. Its really that simple.

Which is why I'm telling you the suspension is not about guns, but rather insubordination. If the child had merely stopped at the fourth foul, he never would have been suspended. If he hadn't made pretend gun toys and still brought the casing, he would not have been suspended. It wasn't the violation which got him suspended, but the repeated violations.

And your lack of logic in stating that is astounding. I mean.. you really can't be that obtuse can you? Well I guess you can. You just pointed out that if he hadn't made pretend gun toys..and brought a casing.. he would not have been suspended. You just pointed out that it was guns.

And if making pretend guns is a violation.. that's about guns obviously, and it seems an illogical policy that should be questioned.. as a shell casing being a violation should be questioned.

And yes, I had to have the "I don't like the rule, but it's the rule" speech then.

Excuse me.. but according to you.. you don't care what the rule is.. so you can't "not like the rule".

Because according to you.. they are not being dq'd for not wearing the same uniform. They are being disqualified for violating the rules.. and not for not wearing the same uniform.

The fact is.. you are being so obtuse about this that you don't even realize that you just killed your own argument.

You cannot disagree with the rule according to your own premise.. since wearing the wrong jersey is not the infraction they are being dq'd for.

 

[Crimefree]

No, I'm being factual. You're trying to engage in red herrings.

We're talking about what caused the suspension. Insubordination is what caused the suspension.

Your argument is irrelevant.

No. It wasn't. I've explained this to you too many times for you to continue pushing this false narrative.

The suspension was for repeatedly violating the rules. Whether the child hit another, drop an F bomb or brought a shell casing to school, none of those, individually, were the reason for the suspension. The suspension came only after REPEATED violations.

Agreed. But it was the cumulative effect of those violations which caused the DQ. Which is exactly what I have repeatedly said with regard to the child. The DQ has nothing to do with the blocking foul, only five fouls total.

No one gets disqualified for a reaching foul. They get disqualified for a fifth foul.

And the fact he reached a "last foul" is what got him DQ'd, not that he reached in. It is the cumulative effect, not the individual offense.

Which is why I'm telling you the suspension is not about guns, but rather insubordination. ..... It wasn't the violation which got him suspended, but the repeated violations.

Don't get me wrong, I understand completely what you're arguing. But you're just not correct and this is where your aversion to nuance matters.

You can disagree with a specific call, but no one disagrees that a disqualification automatically happens on a fifth foul. Just like you can dispute whether or not there should be a policy which this child violated (which is a separate issue, as I stated long ago), but you cannot dispute the child was suspended for repeatedly violating known policy.

You're incredibly wrong. And each reply you make to my example only highlights it.

At no point have you shown that the suspension required repeated offences by producing the schools policy for the infraction. The fact the schooled claimed that there were repeated infractions simply shows an attempted justification. There have been many cases where this has been the only stated infraction.

It is idiotic to claim that the 22 case did not contribute to the suspension. Thus it cannot be denied that gun control idiocy forms part of schools policy. That policy is oppressive in nature as it punishes children's natural curiosity and desire to indulge in fantasy play. Nor can you deny that acceptable multiple proof of that harm has been presented. That is what is being discussed here.

No amount of weaselling can remove the fact the school indulges in a practice harmful to children. I find it disgusting that you refuse completely to address that failing and continue to attempt to remove it from the discussion.

The fact the schools policy and abominable action is based on flawed information is what is being discussed. That simply cannot be denied. The facts speak for themselves. The child was suspended for having a 22 case. It matters not that it was preceded by other infractions each of which was dealt with and thus punished and paid in full with that punishment. Thus the suspension was for being a repeat offender and the 22 case and no more or less.

The suspension would not have taken place without the 22 case clearly shows the part it played and nothing you have claimed can deny that.

Your previous claims are in tatters in this thread and nowhere have you offered one shred of evidence other than your own inflated opinion which cannot refute a single claim.

Until you can do that with verifiable evidence it is suggested you accept the fact that repetition and browbeating may work with children but that is not what you are dealing with here.

Fact idiotic, erroneous and harmful gun control forms part of schools policy. That is inexcusable for educators. who instead of discussing removal of this oppressive behaviour and policy are trying to justify it and defend it.

 

[Slyfox696]

Whatever man. You refuse to see logic.

Completely false. What I've said IS logical. You're trying to claim that it's about any one of the specific offenses, when the school clearly said it was about the combined total of offenses. That means the suspension was for repeatedly violating policy. The fact the child may have repeatedly violated a firearms policy (and I use the phrase may have, because some of the actions described in the article could also easily fall under a bullying policy...but for argument's sake, we can pretend it was only a firearms policy, I have no problem with that) is irrelevant to the reason for the suspension. Again, assuming all violations were against a gun policy, the school did not ONCE suspend the child for any individual infraction. When the child made pretend guns from his fingers? No suspension. When he used another toy and pretended it was a gun? No suspension. When he pretended to shoot his play guns, possibly at other students? No suspension. The school, in their letter, detailed the fact they had discussed these issues with the child's parents, including that very Monday (if I recall correctly).

No, the suspension was not for any one act, it was all acts combined. Thus, when the suspension is about repeated violations, it is insubordination which is the cause for the suspension. This is not debatable. No matter how badly you want to pretend this is about guns, it is not. I have proven that multiple times. Whether you desire to understand it is, I suppose, up to you, but no matter how many times you ignore the truth or make false statements about parallel examples, it will never become any less true the suspension was for insubordination.

At no point have you shown

Crimefree, at no point have you shown anything even resembling a coherent argument in the face of the facts and logic I have continuously presented. You consistently insult and denigrate both me and the profession I've chosen, all because of your ignorant understanding how the real world works.

You don't get it. You are ignorant of the education and the legal systems. That much has been made painfully clear. What's worse is you have consistently chosen to be ignorant. Despite the plethora of times I have provided you relevant facts, you merely ignore them to insist on your fantasy of what life should be. Well, this suspension didn't happen in a nonsensical fantasy land. It happened in the real world, a place of which you've shown very little knowledge in this discussion. And no matter how many times you post idiotic and demonstrably false ideas of what schools actually care about, it will never change the fact you don't have the first clue as to what you are talking about.

No matter how many times you want to ridiculously claim this story is about guns, it will never make it true. I have proven that more times than I care to count. No matter what carefully selected links you cherry pick to support the persecution complex too many gun supporters hold, it will never change the fact your links are IRRELEVANT to this discussion, as I have repeatedly proven.

You're wrong. You've been wrong. And your posts have contained some of the dumbest arguments possible in relation to this story. The fact you still don't understand the information you've been provided is a reflection on you. As I just said to jaeger, ultimately it is up to you whether you accept the truth or you continue to post stupid things, but no matter how stupid, irrelevant or illogical your future posts may be, it will never change the fact this story is about education and discipline for a problem child, not guns.

In conclusion, before you reply again, actually try reading AND COMPREHENDING next time. The next time you try reading and comprehending the actual logic in my post will likely be the first. You have never once shown the slightest understanding or acknowledgement of the facts and logic I have continuously served you on a silver platter. And no matter how many times you post irrelevant links, personal attacks on me and my profession or idiotic persecution complex nonsense, it will never change the fact you have been wrong this entire thread.

 

[Crimefree]

Completely false. What I've said IS logical. You're trying to claim that it's about any one of the specific offenses, when the school clearly said it was about the combined total of offenses. That means the suspension was for repeatedly violating policy.

No, the suspension was not for any one act, it was all acts combined

Sigh!! our education system is in tatters and the lunatics now run the asylum creating better idiots.

You have danced on the head of a pin and offered not one shred of evidence, lied, made false claims of having refuted counter claims and ignored all requests to show validity.

You are wrong on every claim you have made. All you can do it repeat your idiotic opinion which has been refuted at least a dozen times now. Repeating it over and over will not change that. A superior intelligence would be able to see that an accusation of repetition and browbeating was an accurate description as it was also claimed you had no supporting evidence or validity. Apparently this does not even slow you down long enough to even sink in.

I shall leave it to the legal guys to explain this procedure to you more fully so you may address your glaring deficiency.

Your claim is against all legal tenets and is unconstitutional. It is not possible to repunish past offences, nor may these past offences play any part in the adjudication of guilt for a new offence. Past offences can only impact the severity of punishment for the current offence. It is common cause that this is the principle that applies to any infraction or adjudication. Thus there is no question that the schools suspension can be for no other infraction than the infraction being punished. How dumb does one have to be not to know this?

Have you got it now or would you prefer shorter words?

You may now want to advise the school of the error of their claim. I sincerely suggest you do and speak to them over the idiocy of harming child development with idiotic policy at the same time.

 

[Crimefree]

Whatever man. You refuse to see logic. If the violation had to do with gun policy.. then its about guns. If it had to do with foul language.. its about that foul language. if it has to do with multiple violations.. it has to do with each and every violation that added toward suspension.

That's using logic.



Absolutely wrong. If the child was suspended for "repeated violations".. each and every violation responsible. That's using logic.



Sure you can dispute it. Because it depends on whether the ref made the right call on any of those supposed fouls.. and in the case of the child.. whether the child was actually in violation of the policy or whether it was overreach or improper decision making on the schools part.



Wrong.. without that individual offense.. in fact without each individual offense.. then there would be no DQ. Its really that simple.



And your lack of logic in stating that is astounding. I mean.. you really can't be that obtuse can you? Well I guess you can. You just pointed out that if he hadn't made pretend gun toys..and brought a casing.. he would not have been suspended. You just pointed out that it was guns.

And if making pretend guns is a violation.. that's about guns obviously, and it seems an illogical policy that should be questioned.. as a shell casing being a violation should be questioned.



Excuse me.. but according to you.. you don't care what the rule is.. so you can't "not like the rule".

Because according to you.. they are not being dq'd for not wearing the same uniform. They are being disqualified for violating the rules.. and not for not wearing the same uniform.

The fact is.. you are being so obtuse about this that you don't even realize that you just killed your own argument.

You cannot disagree with the rule according to your own premise.. since wearing the wrong jersey is not the infraction they are being dq'd for.

Apparently in this day and age teachers have no need for facts, logic or healthy children in their care. But like citizens get the government they deserve it seem to work with schools and education as well. If parents who really control what schools do are happy for delusional teachers to imprint their children with gun control crap, then it must be what parents want.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sigh!! our education system is in tatters and the lunatics now run the asylum creating better idiots.

Amazing how often you take a shot at me because you don't understand the facts.

You have danced on the head of a pin

This is a lie. I have been very clear and concise in my arguments. Your lack of understanding is a you problem.

and offered not one shred of evidence

This is another lie. I have repeatedly presented facts from the story, facts from real life, legal facts, anecdotal facts and quality examples.

Is this what you're reduced to now? Having to post lies to escape how wrong you've been?

lied

This is another lie. Not once have I lied. You not understanding facts is a you problem.

made false claims of having refuted counter claims

This is another lie. I most certainly have refuted any counter argument.

ignored all requests to show validity.

And another lie. You cannot show a single argument made I have not supported.

Why are you deliberately posting things which are not true?

You are wrong on every claim you have made.

Except I'm not, as the article and the school has confirmed. It's amazing how you cling to a position counter to every fact in this story.

All you can do it repeat your idiotic opinion which has been refuted at least a dozen times now.

My position cannot be refuted, because it is true.

This suspension was about the repeated violations of policy. No matter how badly any rabid gun supporter wants to feel differently, it won't change the facts. It was only after the child was repeatedly warned and disciplined that the suspension finally fell. The suspension was for insubordination, as stated by the school themselves.

Stop posting things which are provably false.

A superior intelligence

...has destroyed you in this debate. Though, to be fair, my superior intelligence didn't have to work very hard due to your obvious ignorance on the subject.

as it was also claimed you had no supporting evidence or validity.

Someone posting a lie doesn't make it true. That's one of the dumber things I've seen someone say recently.

Your claim is against all legal tenets and is unconstitutional.

Umm...what? What does the Constitution have to do with a preschool punishing a child for insubordination?

No offense, but this is absurd. And it's not against all legal tenets, it literally happens all the time. Again, you seem to have absolutely no concept of reality when it comes to education.

It is not possible to repunish past offences, nor may these past offences play any part in the adjudication of guilt for a new offence. Past offences can only impact the severity of punishment for the current offence.

And the current offense was insubordination. And based on the previous instances of insubordination, the suspension was levied.

Seriously, do you really not understand anything we've been discussing?

How dumb does one have to be not to know this?

You trying to accuse anyone of being dumb when in this discussion you have stated numerous untrue things is laughable.

Have you got it now

Believe me, I understood long ago you don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about. I didn't need you posting more lies and falsehoods to prove that to me.

You may now want to advise the school of the error of their claim.

Says the person completely ignorant about the law and educational systems.

I sincerely suggest you do and speak to them over the idiocy of harming child development with idiotic policy at the same time.

I sincerely suggest you stop talking about topics you clearly don't have the first understanding about, so you can stop posting lies and idiocy to support your ignorance.

 

[Cigar]

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.

Great Time to teach Responsibility, don't pass it up.

 

[Crimefree]

Amazing how often you take a shot at me because you don't understand the facts.

This is a lie. I have been very clear and concise in my arguments. Your lack of understanding is a you problem.

This is another lie. I have repeatedly presented facts from the story, facts from real life, legal facts, anecdotal facts and quality examples.

Is this what you're reduced to now? Having to post lies to escape how wrong you've been?

This is another lie. Not once have I lied. You not understanding facts is a you problem.

This is another lie. I most certainly have refuted any counter argument.
And another lie. You cannot show a single argument made I have not supported.

Why are you deliberately posting things which are not true?

Except I'm not, as the article and the school has confirmed. It's amazing how you cling to a position counter to every fact in this story.

My position cannot be refuted, because it is true.

This suspension was about the repeated violations of policy. No matter how badly any rabid gun supporter wants to feel differently, it won't change the facts. It was only after the child was repeatedly warned and disciplined that the suspension finally fell. The suspension was for insubordination, as stated by the school themselves.

Stop posting things which are provably false.

...has destroyed you in this debate. Though, to be fair, my superior intelligence didn't have to work very hard due to your obvious ignorance on the subject.

Someone posting a lie doesn't make it true. That's one of the dumber things I've seen someone say recently.

Umm...what? What does the Constitution have to do with a preschool punishing a child for insubordination?

No offense, but this is absurd. And it's not against all legal tenets, it literally happens all the time. Again, you seem to have absolutely no concept of reality when it comes to education.

And the current offense was insubordination. And based on the previous instances of insubordination, the suspension was levied.

Seriously, do you really not understand anything we've been discussing?

You trying to accuse anyone of being dumb when in this discussion you have stated numerous untrue things is laughable.

Believe me, I understood long ago you don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about. I didn't need you posting more lies and falsehoods to prove that to me.

Says the person completely ignorant about the law and educational systems.

I sincerely suggest you stop talking about topics you clearly don't have the first understanding about, so you can stop posting lies and idiocy to support your ignorance.

Your responses get more stupid by the day.

Your unevidenced claims remain unevidenced as your idiotic assertions simply grow. This in no way serves to build a case for you of which you have none. Whatever you have claimed has been smashed by verifiable evidence. A person may not be adjudicated on past punished offences. The offence for which punishment was levied was the latest offence. The only part past punished offences can possibly play is in the severity of punishment of the CURRENT offence.

It is inhuman to punish somebody again for past offences but then as you have so aptly proven teachers are only to willing to take the law into their own hands.

Apparently teaching now measures intelligence on an inverse IQ scale which will explain the pompous and idiotic claims of intelligence where none existed.


Until you can prove legal tenets do not exclude double punishment or that the constitution allows teachers to flaunt our rights we are done.

Hopefully your level of superiority is now suitably adjusted to a lot closer to the bottom and you will as everyone else who has had the misfortune to suffer your crap realises just how wrong you are on every count.

 

[Slyfox696]

Your responses get more stupid by the day.

Your inability to understand facts is a you problem. I've told you this many times before.

Your unevidenced claims remain unevidenced as your idiotic assertions simply grow.

If all you're going to do is continue to post lies in order to try and disguise your obvious ignorance on this subject, why do you continue to post?

The only part past punished offences can possibly play is in the severity of punishment of the CURRENT offence.

And the current offense was insubordination and when combined with previous instances of insubordination, the suspension was levied. Thus, the suspension was for repeated violations.

I have explained this too many times to count. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the truth?

EDIT: Also, I have no idea why you keep bringing up the Constitution. Just seems like yet one more thing you don't understand.

 

[Crimefree]

Your inability to understand facts is a you problem. I've told you this many times before.

If all you're going to do is continue to post lies in order to try and disguise your obvious ignorance on this subject, why do you continue to post?
And the current offense was insubordination and when combined with previous instances of insubordination, the suspension was levied. Thus, the suspension was for repeated violations.

I have explained this too many times to count. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the truth?

The current offence was reported in the press as that of bringing a .22 case to school, no more and no less. There is no evidence you have shown of any insubordination involved with the current charges and adjudication. Link it or withdraw or submit you lied on multiple occasions and continue to.

Your asinine false assertions are proof only of your nature.

Verifiable proof or you have nothing. I repeat, try turning that so-called "intelligence" into actually answering the questions or you can link and quote I don't really care which but do not come here and lie about having done it. There is no way for you to get past this requirement.

Your unevidenced claims remain unevidenced as your idiotic assertions simply grow. This in no way serves to build a case for you of which you have none. Whatever you have claimed has been smashed by verifiable evidence. A person may not be adjudicated on past punished offences. The offence for which punishment was levied was the latest offence. The only part past punished offences can possibly play is in the severity of punishment of the CURRENT offence.

It is inhuman to punish somebody again for past offences but then as you have so aptly proven teachers are only to willing to take the law into their own hands.

Apparently teaching now measures intelligence on an inverse IQ scale which will explain the pompous and idiotic claims of intelligence where none existed.

Until you can prove legal tenets do not exclude double punishment or that the constitution allows teachers to flaunt our rights we are done.

Hopefully your level of superiority is now suitably adjusted to a lot closer to the bottom and you will as everyone else who has had the misfortune to suffer your crap realises just how wrong you are on every count.

 

[Slyfox696]

The current offence was reported in the press as that of bringing a .22 case to school

And that same press quoted the school as saying the suspension was not just for the casing and it also cited a letter written by the school in which the school clearly stated to the parents the child has repeatedly violated school policy.

Why would you not be honest about this?

no more and no less.

This is false.

There is no evidence you have shown of any insubordination involved with the current charges

So you didn't even read the article in the OP?!?! Then why the hell are you still posting?

Hunter’s parents got a letter from the school’s director saying Hunter had been suspended for 7 days. The letter says they’d repeatedly been reminded about Hunter using other toys as make believe guns, in violation of school policy including Monday, when Jackson picked Hunter up from the preschool, the day before the shell casing incident.

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.

Why do you continue to post lies?

Link it

It's in the opening post of the thread (and I've quoted it in the thread at least once). As I have told you numerous times, try reading.

or withdraw or submit you lied on multiple occasions and continue to.

Now that your position has been exposed as fictional, admit you were not telling the truth and you were ignorant to the facts of this story. Like I told you.

 

[jaeger19]

Completely false. What I've said IS logical. You're trying to claim that it's about any one of the specific offenses, when the school clearly said it was about the combined total of offenses. That means the suspension was for repeatedly violating policy. The fact the child may have repeatedly violated a firearms policy (and I use the phrase may have, because some of the actions described in the article could also easily fall under a bullying policy...but for argument's sake, we can pretend it was only a firearms policy, I have no problem with that) is irrelevant to the reason for the suspension.

Wrong. That's why you are being illogical. The reason for the suspension relates to the firearms policy and what constitutes violating that and whether that makes sense.

No, the suspension was not for any one act, it was all acts combined. Thus, when the suspension is about repeated violations, it is insubordination which is the cause for the suspension. This is not debatable

And again.. that's illogical.

You have to work hard to be that obtuse to argue that the reasons for those "violations" don't matter.

 

[Slyfox696]

Wrong. That's why you are being illogical.

It is literally the reason the school gave. You're making things up.

The reason for the suspension relates to the firearms policy

No. The reason for the suspension is repeated offenses. The school stated that very thing.

And again.. that's illogical.

Not only is it not illogical, it happens all the time.

You have to work hard to be that obtuse to argue that the reasons for those "violations" don't matter.

I've already addressed this. If the suspension was for gun related reasons, then how come the child was only now suspended, when the child repeatedly violated the policy? The child wasn't suspended because of any one offense, the child was suspended because of repeated offenses.

Your position is not logical in the least because the only way your position works is to ignore the VERY important fact that the child was not previously suspended for any other gun related violations. That's the only way your argument works, to ignore pertinent facts.

Your position is not logical, nor is it accurate, as stated by the school.

 

[Crimefree]

It is literally the reason the school gave. You're making things up.

The school stated correctly it was for bringing a 22 case to school. Had that not occurred no action would have been taken. This dispels the claim past offences were being punished as they obviously existed and were not punished and clearly indicated the punishment was directly caused by the infraction of bringing a 22 case to school. The punishment may or may not have been increased due to the repeated past infractions.

Nothing you have presented one single fact that shows anything different.

No. The reason for the suspension is repeated offenses. The school stated that very thing.

The school is lying and trying to cover the nature of its oppressive policy. Past infractions were dealt with at the time and unless the student was on probation then relieved adjudicated punishment can be reapplied but not increased. No further adjudication may be added as that case is CLOSED. There is no argument to this. Such history may only be used to influence the severity of the new case. Since bringing a 22 case to school can hardly be considered insubordination this is not relevant for any logical conclusion. For propaganda purposes yes.

Not only is it not illogical, it happens all the time.

WTF is this? 20million Jews were killed so it happened all the time.... Schools appear to have completely lost it.

I've already addressed this. If the suspension was for gun related reasons, then how come the child was only now suspended, when the child repeatedly violated the policy? The child wasn't suspended because of any one offense, the child was suspended because of repeated offenses.

There is absolutely no evidence that insubordination played any part in the adjudication. An offence was committed by bringing a 22 case to school and that is all there is to the adjudication. Since the punishment of the 22 case is not given and conjecture on severity is not answered. However the schools claims it increased the severity but it is unknown how.

Your position is not logical in the least because the only way your position works is to ignore the VERY important fact that the child was not previously suspended for any other gun related violations. That's the only way your argument works, to ignore pertinent facts.

The evidence has not been ignore and has been accounted for in terms of legal and constitutional practice.

Your position is not logical, nor is it accurate, as stated by the school.

Your claim is not supported by the school who mentioned insubordination in passing the SENTENCE, not the reason for the adjudication. You appear to be completely out of your depth and way beyond your knowledge and abilities. You have presented nothing but the news report which does not support your fabrication as demonstrated multiple times now.

 

[Crimefree]

And that same press quoted the school as saying the suspension was not just for the casing and it also cited a letter written by the school in which the school clearly stated to the parents the child has repeatedly violated school policy.

FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

Which is incidental to the present case. What is the relevance of this asinine claim?

Which part of the 22 case infraction has you so befuddled you cannot see that absolutely no action would have been taken had it not been brought to school? Which part of that allows you to claim it was not the reason? Why would you keep lying about it?

It is beyond idiotic to claim the child is being punished again for past offences. Try to comprehend and allow cogitation to take place no matter how difficult it is for you.

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction. There is no way past this for you or the school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

See that is how you provide evidence for claims. You should try it.

Why would you not be honest about this?

FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

Why would you keep lying about it?

Why would you attempt to deny that the reason for the action was the bringing of a 22 case to school?

What goes through your mind that clouds your judgement to the extent that you completely ignore the precipitation of action and judgement part played by bringing the 22 case to school?

That in no way is insubordination. Insubordination was a previously punished action which may not be again adjudicated and punished. You cannot be punished twice for the same case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[1][2] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[3]

Like I said how can anyone be so dumb as to suggest that the child be punished twice for the same action.

Go ahead and point out any error I have made. If the school based its judgement on previous acts it is in breach of the constitution and all legal tenets.

I hope the parents sue the heck of the school if that is the case. Any lawyer will tell you that would be grounds to sue the school.

This is false.

No it is exactly correct. FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

So you didn't even read the article in the OP?!?! Then why the hell are you still posting?

FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

Because abject ignorance allows some people to be delusional.

Why do you continue to post lies?

FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

It's in the opening post of the thread (and I've quoted it in the thread at least once). As I have told you numerous times, try reading.

Repetition of refuted crap

Now that your position has been exposed as fictional, admit you were not telling the truth and you were ignorant to the facts of this story. Like I told you.

Then you had best prove that

FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

 

[haymarket]

FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

Which is incidental to the present case. What is the relevance of this asinine claim?

Which part of the 22 case infraction has you so befuddled you cannot see that absolutely no action would have been taken had it not been brought to school? Which part of that allows you to claim it was not the reason? Why would you keep lying about it?

It is beyond idiotic to claim the child is being punished again for past offences. Try to comprehend and allow cogitation to take place no matter how difficult it is for you.

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction. There is no way past this for you or the school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

See that is how you provide evidence for claims. You should try it.



FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.



Why would you attempt to deny that the reason for the action was the bringing of a 22 case to school?

What goes through your mind that clouds your judgement to the extent that you completely ignore the precipitation of action and judgement part played by bringing the 22 case to school?

That in no way is insubordination. Insubordination was a previously punished action which may not be again adjudicated and punished. You cannot be punished twice for the same case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[1][2] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[3]

Like I said how can anyone be so dumb as to suggest that the child be punished twice for the same action.

Go ahead and point out any error I have made. If the school based its judgement on previous acts it is in breach of the constitution and all legal tenets.

I hope the parents sue the heck of the school if that is the case. Any lawyer will tell you that would be grounds to sue the school.



No it is exactly correct. FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.



FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

Because abject ignorance allows some people to be delusional.



FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.



Repetition of refuted crap



Then you had best prove that

FFS. I'm tired of your idiotic unevidence assertions and inflated opinion you have of the importance of your false claims. Either provide evidence or eat it.

Are you asserting that a four year child in a private pre-school has to afforded all the same Constitutional rights and provisions and procedures that an adult would in a criminal proceeding before a court of law?

 

[Crimefree]

Hunter’s parents got a letter from the school’s director saying Hunter had been suspended for 7 days. The letter says they’d repeatedly been reminded about Hunter using other toys as make believe guns, in violation of school policy including Monday, when Jackson picked Hunter up from the preschool, the day before the shell casing incident.

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.

So this is all about idiotic gun control policy in schools.

 

[Cigar]

So this is all about idiotic gun control policy in schools.

Why is a Kid bringing Bullets to School ... ? :roll:

Maybe that's a First Question a responsible parent and Gun owners should ask?

Who knows, maybe his buddies where bringing the Guns to School.

 

[Rucker61]

Why is a Kid bringing Bullets to School ... ? :roll:

Maybe that's a First Question a responsible parent and Gun owners should ask?

Who knows, maybe his buddies where bringing the Guns to School.

It wasn't a bullet. It was an empty brass casing. He was four years old.

 

[Mach]

The school stated correctly it was for bringing a 22 case to school. Had that not occurred no action would have been taken. This dispels the claim past offences were being punished as they obviously existed and were not punished and clearly indicated the punishment was directly caused by the infraction of bringing a 22 case to school. The punishment may or may not have been increased due to the repeated past infractions.
Nothing you have presented one single fact that shows anything different.
The school is lying and trying to cover the nature of its oppressive policy. Past infractions were dealt with at the time and unless the student was on probation then relieved adjudicated punishment can be reapplied but not increased. No further adjudication may be added as that case is CLOSED. There is no argument to this. Such history may only be used to influence the severity of the new case. Since bringing a 22 case to school can hardly be considered insubordination this is not relevant for any logical conclusion. For propaganda purposes yes.

The school specifically stated it was not just the 22 casing in their letter. They detail multiple issues in the classroom, and multiple times having had discussion with the parents and student. This was the "last straw". If you think they are lying just because, then I think you are lying "just because", and the parents are lying "just because". See how useful that is?

Preschool owner says suspension of 4-year-old over more than bullet casing | FOX2now.com

You can see the letter to them, it spells out, on the school letterhead, that it was not the only thing.

He's running a preschool that has code of conduct and behavior rules. Other parents are the ones that flip out typically, they hear what some kid told/showed their kid, and they demand action. Schools are a shared institute, if your child has issues behaving as the school and other parents ultimately, require, they get disciplined, and can be expelled. Are you too snowflake to accept that and you want him and his parents coddled?