4th grader nearly suspended over a lego!

[minakichan]

I think-- and this is total speculation, as the article doesn't mention this at all-- that perhaps the principal acted not because she thought a 2 inch toy had any potential threat of hurting someone, but because of, I suppose, what she thought of the boy's mindset. In other words, if he had been drawing a picture of a gun, he might have been called out and possibly suspended for the same reason. For one, I guess, showing off guns and talking about it in school is kind of inappropriate, and for another, some people think that kids who are into guns have all these issues and are going to grow up "wrong." I guess. So the principal might have been trying to punish a "thought crime" rather than attempt to protect students or whatnot.

It's sort of like, if kids were playing video games in school, bringing Pokemon would be OK, but bringing GTA might not be.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Heh, I remember having to take the Sigarms sticker off my binder. Because, you know, gun are ONLY used for school shootings and it so wasn't a rural school...


The whole thing's ridiculous. He was taken to the principal's office when the teacher coulda just said, "hey, put that away"?

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I think-- and this is total speculation, as the article doesn't mention this at all-- that perhaps the principal acted not because she thought a 2 inch toy had any potential threat of hurting someone, but because of, I suppose, what she thought of the boy's mindset. In other words, if he had been drawing a picture of a gun, he might have been called out and possibly suspended for the same reason. For one, I guess, showing off guns and talking about it in school is kind of inappropriate, and for another, some people think that kids who are into guns have all these issues and are going to grow up "wrong." I guess. So the principal might have been trying to punish a "thought crime" rather than attempt to protect students or whatnot.

It's sort of like, if kids were playing video games in school, bringing Pokemon would be OK, but bringing GTA might not be.

A suspension still doesn't match the offense though. Punishment should be in line with the crime. It would not have been out of line for them to simply tell him to put the gun away. Kids need to understand the 'whys' of what they're being told and punishment, when necessary, should be fair.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Guys, I think Nate is bringing up some very good points. I think a lot of people who are seemingly disregarding what he has to say needs to reevaluate the situation and see it from the eyes of the other side.

[Wikiwalker]

Just recently my little cousin was suspended for talking about a hunting video game, not a shooting video game, a video game where you hunt animals that it is legal to hunt in real life. I'm fairly certain this is overreaction week or something.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Guys, I think Nate is bringing up some very good points. I think a lot of people who are seemingly disregarding what he has to say needs to reevaluate the situation and see it from the eyes of the other side.

And I have absolutely no issue with anything Nate said. Yeah, the principal did their job in investigating the issue obviously. But, and this is something Nate said as well, they should have dropped it when they found out it was a two-inch plastic assault weapon. The biggest thread this offered was a stab in the eye or a choking hazzard as far as physical problems go. If the problem occured simply because, in Nate's scenario, a child exclaimed that it was awesome and a teacher misinterpreted, that's fine (Comma splicing! Yaaay!). If it was a child that was scared and offended, then the little boy should have been taken aside, had the situation explained to him (Kids aren't dumb. Most can understand when something scares someone, or at least understand "Please don't bring it to school again.") and it should have been dropped from there.

Suspension goes on your permanent record, and this kid was an 'A' student already. The crime he was committing (bringing a simulacrum of a violent impliment) hardly fit the punishment he was already given.

Now as far as the principal's recriminations... She's obviously been shown the error of her ways, and dropped them even before the press stepped in so this is all seriously a moot point. All we're doing is slandering someone who made a mistake while honestly doing their job. We've all misinterpreted a situation before. the light knows I do it all the time myself. I would say ease up on the lady. At least this didn't go as far as the honor roll kid bringing his boyscout pocket knife in his trunk and not even taking it in the school building.

[Rusty Claymore]

I'm not saying it's likely, I'm just saying it's possible.

I'm pretty sure that the last two pics are CGI... And the first looks vaguely photoshopped. And the accuracy of that gun can't be constant for more than 2 feet. Also, for pennetration it would have too be a plum shot, otherwise it'd have a high probability of richochet. There are just too many factors that make this article goofy, even if it is valid. Ich1990 has a point. The physics just don't line up.

But for this whole thing, somebody in the chain of command (not necessarily the prin,)did their job wrong. You can't shut down school because a little kid says, "I saw a Gun!" You have to confim it first, which is probably where the mess started, some teacher didn't think to confirm the actual gun. Simple Mistake, simple apology.

[minakichan]

A suspension still doesn't match the offense though. Punishment should be in line with the crime. It would not have been out of line for them to simply tell him to put the gun away. Kids need to understand the 'whys' of what they're being told and punishment, when necessary, should be fair.

Oh no, I'm not saying it was justified, just that the principal's way of thinking might not be the same as what we assume. People are saying that she was stupid for thinking the toy was possibly a danger to other students, but that's not necessarily what she was considering. But we don't know.

Guys, I think Nate is bringing up some very good points. I think a lot of people who are seemingly disregarding what he has to say needs to reevaluate the situation and see it from the eyes of the other side.

And while sometimes I agree with you and Nate, sometimes I don't. I'm not saying that I do or don't in this particular situation (I feel like we don't know enough about the case to evaluate it completely), but that in this case, it is certainly possible for someone to look at this objectively and still fail to come to the same conclusion that you and Nate have. It's not like one side is perfectly logical and objective and the other is a screaming mob.

[TGJesusfreak]

Doesn't every little boy play with plastic army toys? How is playing with legos any different? The fact is that the principal just wants to control everyone. I mean, you can't read your bible in school any more!

If you had a kid who came home crying because he was punished for playing with his plastic army toys, would you be a bit upset? This goes beyond ridiculous.

[Radical Dreamer]

And yet, judging from the responses of everyone here, they're doing just that.

I haven't seen a single person besides Roy say "Gee, she had the right idea, but she took it a bit far." No, everyone seems content to say "HA HA SHE'S SO STUPID LOOK AT HER DUH IT'S A LEGO NOBODY HAS COMMON SENSE."

This isn't directed at you, Fish (far from it, you and Roy seem to be the only ones actually reading posts in it), but judging from people's responses even AFTER my post, it seems I'm merely posting just to read my own words. Everybody seems content to read the opening post, read the headline of the story, and then just say "She dumb, Legos are small, she dumb!"

It seems everyone here is content to think that the principal walked by him at a school lunch table, saw a Lego gun, and said "A gun, that's dangerous, he'll kill us all that psycho!" Despite the fact that this is obviously not what even came close to happening.

etc.

Nate, while your theory about what happened may be true, it's still just that--a theory. You admit that there's a wide gap in the story from "playing with legos" to "calling the boy's mother," but there's just as little evidence to support your theory as there is to support anyone else's. It may very well be that the school went into disorder and mayhem because a teacher heard a little boy had a gun, and it may very well be that a teacher thought a little boy playing with a toy gun was inappropriate. But to say that either is "more truthy" is faulty, as well as calling out other members on taking the scenario "too lightly," because the article simply doesn't say. Granted, that falls upon the reporter to release an unbiased story, and this one in particular does seem pretty biased towards the mother of the boy. Either way, there's no need to get so worked up about it, and there's certainly no need to imply the stupidity of other members who didn't see the story the way you do.

And because I didn't see this before I posted:

And while sometimes I agree with you and Nate, sometimes I don't. I'm not saying that I do or don't in this particular situation (I feel like we don't know enough about the case to evaluate it completely), but that in this case, it is certainly possible for someone to look at this objectively and still fail to come to the same conclusion that you and Nate have. It's not like one side is perfectly logical and objective and the other is a screaming mob.

Exactly. XD

[Fish and Chips]

The fact is that the principal just wants to control everyone. I mean, you can't read your bible in school any more!

[Nate]

You can't shut down school because a little kid says, "I saw a Gun!" You have to confim it first, which is probably where the mess started, some teacher didn't think to confirm the actual gun.

What.

WHAT?

No, seriously, what?

Okay, by your logic:

You can't evacuate a school if a fire alarm goes off. You have to confirm there's an actual fire before you can make everyone exit the building.

You can't evacuate a school if someone calls in a bomb threat. You have to search the building to confirm there's an actual bomb before you can make students leave.

Sorry, no. There's a reason you take gun sightings, bomb threats, and fire alarms seriously. Because people can possibly die or be hurt if you do not take them 100% seriously. You don't go out and confirm if someone has a gun before you take action, THAT'S STUPID. People could be injured or KILLED if you do not take action before you confirm it's a hoax. Know why people get in loads of trouble if they pull a fire alarm just for fun? It is because 1) the building must be evacuated because there's no time to say "Hey, it could be a hoax, better not leave until we've confirmed it!" and 2) the fire department is automatically and immediately notified when a fire alarm goes off and come to visit. The fire department can't say "Hey, we got an alarm, but it could be a hoax! Better not send a truck until someone calls us and confirms there's a fire!"

Which means the principal DID EVERYTHING RIGHT. See, this is what I was talking about when I told Fish that everybody absolutely was attacking the principal for doing her job and doing her job correctly.

You admit that there's a wide gap in the story from "playing with legos" to "calling the boy's mother," but there's just as little evidence to support your theory as there is to support anyone else's. It may very well be that the school went into disorder and mayhem because a teacher heard a little boy had a gun, and it may very well be that a teacher thought a little boy playing with a toy gun was inappropriate.

I admit I don't have all the facts either. But here we have two options: one, the principal did everything correct, because she was performing her job duties. Two, the principal is an idiot and did everything wrong.

Now, why would someone think the principal is an idiot? The only way to come to that conclusion is to assume she is an idiot in the first place, and that requires circular logic. Why is the principal an idiot? She thought a two-inch toy gun was dangerous. Why did she think a two-inch toy gun was dangerous? Because she is an idiot.

See? Circular reasoning. However, if you do not assume the principal is an idiot, then what becomes the thinking process? Why would the principal think a two-inch toy gun was dangerous? She didn't. She didn't know it was a two-inch toy gun. How would she not know it was a two-inch toy gun? Because she probably didn't even see it until the boy was in her office. How did she hear about it then? Someone probably told her. Why would the person who told her think a two-inch toy gun was dangerous? Because they probably didn't see it either.

See where I'm going with this? The only way to assume that this scenario is stupid is to assume "Someone saw a two-inch gun and thought it was dangerous, thus making them an idiot."

Okay, but it wasn't the principal. Therefore it was someone ELSE who is the idiot. So call THEM an idiot, not the principal. If the principal didn't know it was a toy gun, she likely took all the appropriate steps to protect lives. While I can't CONFIRM that, why should I suspect she didn't do her job properly? There's no evidence that she did anything wrong except the little boy was scared. Big whoop, I was scared of teachers too and they never did anything wrong to me. They were just mean. Mean is not the same as being incompetent or stupid. Since I can admit the principal is mean, this has nothing to do with the competency of her job level and is not a valid point to counter the assumption that she did her job properly.

Again, the ONLY reason to assume she didn't do her job properly is "She is an idiot." If asked why she is an idiot, the only response could possibly be "She didn't do her job properly." Which, once again, is our good friend circular reasoning.

The fact is that the principal just wants to control everyone. I mean, you can't read your bible in school any more!

[Cognitive Gear]

I admit I don't have all the facts either. But here we have two options: one, the principal did everything correct, because she was performing her job duties. Two, the principal is an idiot and did everything wrong.

Now, why would someone think the principal is an idiot? The only way to come to that conclusion is to assume she is an idiot in the first place, and that requires circular logic. Why is the principal an idiot? She thought a two-inch toy gun was dangerous. Why did she think a two-inch toy gun was dangerous? Because she is an idiot.

This seems like a false dichotomy to me. The job duties of a principal are not clear cut and defined (nor should they be) for every possible scenario. As such, there is no "all or nothing" present here. It's obvious that many in this thread felt that the Principal had made a poor judgement call.

As far as the "idiot" issue...

I don't think that name calling, direct or indirect, from any side solves anything. In fact, it tends to derail from the real issue. However, the sentiment behind calling the principal an idiot comes out from a knee jerk reaction to a very real problem: Zero tolerance leads to zero sense. The principal was about to suspend the kid for bringing an accessory to a toy doll (or action figure, if you prefer). To suspend the kid, as the principal originally intended to, is an inappropriate punishment for the crime.

[Warrior4Christ]

What.

WHAT?

No, seriously, what?

Okay, by your logic:

You can't evacuate a school if a fire alarm goes off. You have to confirm there's an actual fire before you can make everyone exit the building.

You can't evacuate a school if someone calls in a bomb threat. You have to search the building to confirm there's an actual bomb before you can make students leave.

Okay, it's reasonable to have him sent to the principal's office if there was an alarm that went off and there was widespread panic and everything. A possible scenario would be, as you said:
1. Kid and friend play with plastic gun and LEGO(TM) men.
2. Another kid sees them and yells "HE'S GOT A GUN!!!!"
3. Teacher hears and sets off the alarm and everyone panics.
4. Eventually they find the kid who has the gun and take him to the principal.

The article doesn't say anything about an alarm or panic, so it's possible, but highly likely. In that case, I'm surprised it should be elevated to the principal at all.
What does the article say?
I understand that news articles do distort the truth at times, and that these statements are subjective... however:
"The principal got so upset" - boy
"I thought the principal was mad at me" - boy
"Lack of common sense is the issue" - parent
"My child was harassed and bullied over nothing" - parent
"It's clear from the media attention that this is ridiculous and overkill" - parent
The kid was in tears, alright!?

[Rusty Claymore]

What.

WHAT?

No, seriously, what?

Okay, by your logic:

You can't evacuate a school if a fire alarm goes off. You have to confirm there's an actual fire before you can make everyone exit the building.

You can't evacuate a school if someone calls in a bomb threat. You have to search the building to confirm there's an actual bomb before you can make students leave.

Qualifier: Little kid.
My logic dictates you shouldn't get hysterical because a little kid says something. That doesn't mean you don't take precautions.
Should you go hysterical when the fire alarm goes off or there is a bomb threat?
I stated that someone did something the wrong way, not that nothing should have been done. Please read my posts more carefully.

[Radical Dreamer]

Again, the ONLY reason to assume she didn't do her job properly is "She is an idiot." If asked why she is an idiot, the only response could possibly be "She didn't do her job properly." Which, once again, is our good friend circular reasoning.

This is leaving out a lot of variables, though. This still only speaks to the theory that a rumor went out that a kid had a gun. For instance, check out this related article about the incident.

The fourth-grader and a classmate were playing with their Lego figures and miniature toy guns in the school cafeteria Tuesday.

Then Patrick was taken to the principal's office and told to fill out paperwork admitting an "A-4 infraction."

"She told me to write that I had a gun," Patrick said. "She said, 'A gun is a gun.'"

Only his gun was a teeny-tiny plastic machine gun, about as deadly as a crayon.

"The principal made an error in judgment by overreacting when the toy was found," acknowledged Education Department spokesman Matthew Mittenthal.

Now, looking at this (and watch the video, too--the boy says that the principal found his toys and told him to take his books to the office), it sounds to me like it was more about the fact that the boy was playing with a toy that represented a deadly weapon, rather than a misunderstanding with the higher-ups about what the boy actually possessed. So in reading that, yeah, I'd say the principal did her job incorrectly because she made a bad judgement call and treated the kid like he had brought an AK-47 to school, instead of treating him like he had brought a plastic, 2" toy to school. Does that make her an idiot? Of course not, one mistake doesn't define a person. But it does mean she made a bad judgement call, which could be defined as her doing her job incorrectly.

Speaking of doing jobs correctly, I'm gonna ask again that this conversation cool off. Again, if there's no need to call a principal you don't know an idiot, then there's no need to treat the members on this site as such, either.

[Nate]

Okay. See, that article explains a bit more about the situation. So now, I agree with my initial assessment. She did the right thing, but she did overreact. I don't think this makes her an idiot. It means she overreacted.

I think she probably would have done better to sit him down and explain the situation to him a bit better (Fish and I were just talking about this on Skype), saying something like if they allowed fake guns in school then maybe one day a kid takes a real gun to school because they think it's okay. This might have worked a bit better, to explain a reason to him. So now that there's more information, I can say my assessment was wrong, but I still don't think she's an idiot (and the new article confirms this; she did overreact and was poor at explaining it to the kid, but she didn't do anything wrong).

I understand that news articles do distort the truth at times, and that these statements are subjective... however:
"The principal got so upset" - boy
"I thought the principal was mad at me" - boy
"Lack of common sense is the issue" - parent
"My child was harassed and bullied over nothing" - parent
"It's clear from the media attention that this is ridiculous and overkill" - parent
The kid was in tears, alright!?

The kid was in tears but that proves nothing. I've seen kids start crying when their parents say "No, I won't buy you a box of cookies." Is the parent being horrible and unreasonable and lacking common sense? No, the kid just isn't getting their way. Children cry when they don't get their way! Some adults do too but that's neither here nor there. The kid being in tears proves nothing, really, except that he felt he wasn't being treated fairly (of course, as with the cookie example, what kids classify as fair is different from what adults classify it as).

As far as the "lack of common sense" thing the mother said, it's her son. She's going to defend him no matter what. Parents tend to believe their kids no matter what (unless they have evidence to the contrary of course). Heck, my mom's husband was a drug dealer and his mother keeps saying "Oh he was framed, the cops are corrupt, he never dealt drugs" despite the overwhelming evidence that he DID. Parents defend their kids, so her statements don't mean a lot.

Qualifier: Little kid.
My logic dictates you shouldn't get hysterical because a little kid says something. That doesn't mean you don't take precautions.
Should you go hysterical when the fire alarm goes off or there is a bomb threat?

While kids are neither innocent angels who always tell the truth, nor are they conniving devils who constantly lie, if a kid says something that could be dangerous it needs to be taken seriously.

There's a difference between "Aliens are outside in the playground!" and "Jimmy has a gun on the playground!" One of these is an overactive imagination; the other might not be.

As for your statement about should you go hysterical if there's a bomb threat? Gee I dunno. Try going to an airport and saying "I have a bomb, ha ha!" and see what happens. I don't think they take those things too lightly. Probably because lives are at stake.

While not EVERYTHING a kid says should be taken seriously, kids need to be treated with respect. In the old days of Sesame Street, Snuffleupagus was only seen by the kids and the adults never believed them when they talked about him. Eventually, the producers of the show thought this sent the wrong message, that by seeing the adults always think the kids were lying or imagining it, that kids would be reluctant to open up to adults about more serious matters. To alleviate this, there was an episode where the adults finally met Snuffy and apologized to the kids for not believing them.

When you say things like "Qualifier: Little kid" it's dangerous thinking because that opens up all sorts of doors to passing off serious problems as nothing more than overactive imaginations.

[Bobtheduck]

Something about this reminds me of Wild at Heart... The Christian book, not the David Lynch movie. If this is a matter of "He's playing with a toy gun and we don't want that" I mean.

[Rusty Claymore]

While kids are neither innocent angels who always tell the truth, nor are they conniving devils who constantly lie, if a kid says something that could be dangerous it needs to be taken seriously.

There's a difference between "Aliens are outside in the playground!" and "Jimmy has a gun on the playground!" One of these is an overactive imagination; the other might not be.

As for your statement about should you go hysterical if there's a bomb threat? Gee I dunno. Try going to an airport and saying "I have a bomb, ha ha!" and see what happens. I don't think they take those things too lightly. Probably because lives are at stake.

While not EVERYTHING a kid says should be taken seriously, kids need to be treated with respect. In the old days of Sesame Street, Snuffleupagus was only seen by the kids and the adults never believed them when they talked about him. Eventually, the producers of the show thought this sent the wrong message, that by seeing the adults always think the kids were lying or imagining it, that kids would be reluctant to open up to adults about more serious matters. To alleviate this, there was an episode where the adults finally met Snuffy and apologized to the kids for not believing them.

When you say things like "Qualifier: Little kid" it's dangerous thinking because that opens up all sorts of doors to passing off serious problems as nothing more than overactive imaginations.

Hey there, calm down. You seem to be getting way too excited. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between us on the definition of hysterical. I've always heard it as "Out of your mind". As in mass panic chickens without heads. In that case the absolute worst thing you could do in a bomb threat is go hysterical. If you ever watch a bomb squad, they aren't running around in a panic.
Taking the words of a little kid as the words of a little kid is not dangerous. Litle kids say stuff without thinking of the consequences of how they say it. I had stated in the same thought that proper precautions should be taken. If the kid is really just playing with a gun, walking up and asking to look at it will solve the problem. The only time issues arise is when the kid fires it on accident or is a murderous psyco. Either case you usually don't find out till it's past, and proper unbaised education on guns and what happens to someone when they are shot is the best remedy. You can do anything while speaking softly, and that is where the whole sha-bang went wrong. People (who probably didn't know how to handle a gun, so understandably yet inexcusably) just got a little too excited, and the media flies descended.

[Lynna]

So hmm. How many people here would be calling the principal an idiot and irresponsible if that had turned out to be a real gun and the kid had shot other kids? All of them? Most of them? "I thought it was a toy." Yeah, I bet a lot of people would be saying "What an idiot, he needs to get his head out of his [rectum] thinking it was just a toy, now kids are dead and it's his fault!"

Just throwing that out there.

Yes, we're so paranoid. I mean, it's not like this sort of thing has ever happened before or anything, right?

I wasn't saying that it never happens. I'm just saying it was an over reaction

[S.M.O.G.]

This is idiocy.

Idiocy?


THIS


IS


AMERICA!!


[SIZE="1"]Unfortunatly, there doesn't seem to be much of a differance, especially when things like this happens.[/SIZE]

[minakichan]

Then Patrick was taken to the principal's office and told to fill out paperwork admitting an "A-4 infraction."

"She told me to write that I had a gun," Patrick said. "She said, 'A gun is a gun.'"

This line is probably the scariest thing to me of all. Taking a kid to an office, alone with an intimidating figure, and instructing them to write and sign a statement that, you know, kind of tells the truth but is really intentionally vague and incriminating and uses terminology that a kid isn't going to understand, that's... really not what should be going on in America. Like, if we ignore everything that happened with the initial reaction to the toy itself, at the very least, come on, these are practically mafia tactics. It really makes me wonder if the principal had some kind of ulterior motive.

[TGJesusfreak]

I got a bit frustrated. I guess I wouldn't go so far to say that she was trying to control him REALLY. But seriously, it's a lego. Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

[Nate]

Hey there, calm down.

Who isn't calm?

Taking the words of a little kid as the words of a little kid is not dangerous. Litle kids say stuff without thinking of the consequences of how they say it.

Sorry, I disagree with you. I think it is dangerous, since as I already said, it can lead to the child thinking that adults will never believe them that their uncle touched them in a place that made them feel bad. Just because they don't think about the consequences of how they say something doesn't mean we can ignore them or write it off as "Oh it's just a kid."

Either case you usually don't find out till it's past, and proper unbaised education on guns and what happens to someone when they are shot is the best remedy.

But we can't be teaching our children about guns and violence and death, that's evil commie talk.

That was sarcasm, by the way. XD I agree with you on that point.

You can do anything while speaking softly, and that is where the whole sha-bang went wrong. People (who probably didn't know how to handle a gun, so understandably yet inexcusably) just got a little too excited, and the media flies descended.

I agree with this too, so I don't really have anything to add on that.

Taking a kid to an office, alone with an intimidating figure, and instructing them to write and sign a statement that, you know, kind of tells the truth but is really intentionally vague and incriminating and uses terminology that a kid isn't going to understand, that's... really not what should be going on in America.

As stated before, she should have done a better job at explaining why he had to sign the paper and what the reason for the paper was. I don't know if the statement is vague (I haven't read it) but it certainly isn't incriminating, otherwise the authorities would have gotten involved (and as far as I know they didn't). Unfortunately there isn't anything online that says what an A-4 Infraction paper actually says.

If she'd explained exactly why he got in trouble I think that would have worked a lot better.

come on, these are practically mafia tactics.

...wait what? How are these mafia tactics? I didn't hear any statements about the principal saying anything like "Better not bring this toy to school again...otherwise your grades might suffer" or "It'd be a real shame if something was to happen to your family...yep, a real shame indeed." Nor do I think the principal had a weapon of her own with which to threaten.

Taking someone into a room and saying "You broke a rule, sign this paper that says you broke a rule" is not mafia tactics. If it was then my last job employed mafia tactics when my supervisor made me come into the office and sign a formal counseling sheet that said I did not make 100% production in my work. "Being really mean" is not mafia tactics either. In fact, a lot of those mafia guys are pretty nice...as long as you do what they say.

[Fish and Chips]

...wait what? How are these mafia tactics? I didn't hear any statements about the principal saying anything like "Better not bring this toy to school again...otherwise your grades might suffer" or "It'd be a real shame if something was to happen to your family...yep, a real shame indeed." Nor do I think the principal had a weapon of her own with which to threaten.

Though coincidentally, the threat of cement shoes at the bottom of the Hudson would do wonders for our national grade average.

[minakichan]

Right, so I said "mafia tactics" because I really didn't want to use the word "Communist" = _ = ;;; Because that'd just open a whole new can or worms.

I mean, she's telling him to make a written confession that he brought a gun to school, which really isn't completely accurate, but such a written confession could totally be used against him. Furthermore, she's an authority figure, which might make him think that he has to do it or is supposed to do it when really, a kid shouldn't be writing statements like this without first consulting his parents, and really, he probably doesn't know anymore than we do what an "A-4 infraction" even means. If she just told him to write "I brought a toy to school and it was wrong of me to do so," that'd be fine, but to write that he brought a GUN to school, without any clarification? Having that, in writing, is definitely incriminating.

[Nate]

I don't know if making someone sign a piece of paper is Communist either.

How would this be used against him? School permanent records are anything but; as soon as you graduate the only thing anyone cares about your school record is your grades, and even then they really only care about your grades in high school. I got in trouble in first grade for showing a girl my underwear, and I got written up in eighth grade for writing a hardcore sex story about girls in my classroom, and as far as I know I'm not on any sex offender lists and nobody even knew about it after I left middle school.

A kid shouldn't be writing statements like this without consulting his parents? School is not a police station, and children don't have very many legal rights. I want to know what school you went to where your parents had to be around every time you signed a piece of paper. I got suspended in tenth grade and my parents weren't around when I signed that piece of paper that said "Yes, I raised my voice at a fellow student and punched them." That would be ridiculous if they did have to be.

And again the fact that police did not get involved proves it is not incriminating. Incriminating relates to crime. Crime means breaking the law. Breaking the law means police get involved. Last I checked he had to sign a paper saying he did something wrong (not against the law, talking in class is wrong but it's not against the law) and no police officers were called. If no police officers were called, he didn't commit a crime. If he didn't commit a crime, he cannot, by default, have been incriminated.

[Lunis]

Hey, if they were going to freak out about the gun, they should at least be consistent and have a cow about the axe, too. XD

And ROFL at whoever started this srs(ly stupid) debate about a lego, thinking they needed to flex their debate-muscle in order to prove they're deep and intellectual. Or maybe someone just has an unhealthy one-upmanship obsession.

[Fish and Chips]

And ROFL at whoever started this srs(ly stupid) debate about a lego, thinking they needed to flex their debate-muscle in order to prove they're deep and intellectual. Or maybe someone just has an unhealthy one-upmanship obsession.

I'm almost positive Roy Mustang doesn't appreciate you talking about him behind his back like that.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Hey, if they were going to freak out about the gun, they should at least be consistent and have a cow about the axe, too. XD

And ROFL at whoever started this srs(ly stupid) debate about a lego, thinking they needed to flex their debate-muscle in order to prove they're deep and intellectual. Or maybe someone just has an unhealthy one-upmanship obsession.

Looking for straws that don't exist? I don't anyone debating on the desire to be pretentious...