Boys suspended for playing with toy guns at home
- Thread starter SLM
- Start date
The school letter says they were suspended for shooting pellet guns, not firearms.
They also state that it happened at the bus stop, according to witnesses bearing the marks from having been hit.
Like I said in my opening post... he said/she said, but if the school is right, it's not a simple issue of 'playing in their own yard with toys'.
A pellet gun is a firearm. Airsoft aren't pellet guns. A pellet is lead. Airsoft shot is rubber.
This is a good laugh...
A few days later, several kids were seen with Khalid playing an airsoft gun war, including the 911 caller's son.
This is a good laugh...
A few days later, several kids were seen with Khalid playing an airsoft gun war, including the 911 caller's son.
This thread has gotten a lot more action that I actually anticipated it would. Anyway, this is how I interpret the article, in my opinion, rightly or wrongly:
Their yards meaning one of the two boys, not one of the neighbours yards.
Now this is the first thing that jumped out at me as ridiculous.
What really jumped out at me about that in all honesty was a few years back our local college kids had one hell of a block party, burning police cars,etc. It made international news. College couldn't do anything discipline wise because it was off school grounds. So it strike me as weird. Could be the difference between adult and minors but, school grounds are school grounds no?
Based on how I interpret the events, where things took place, I think the school may be over reaching. I definitely think the neighbour is out to lunch...the neighbour never cited anything about firing at people at the bus stop, only that seeing a boy with a toy gun made her uncomfortable. And admitting to being aware they were fake and still tying up emergency services, she needs to give her head a shake.
Having said all that, if they were firing even a rubber pellet gun at someone not engaged in play with them, they need to have their ears boxed.
Their yards meaning one of the two boys, not one of the neighbours yards.
(This is what made me draw the conclusion the the phrase in the first paragraph of the article 'one of their yards' referred to one of the boy's yards.)
Now this is the first thing that jumped out at me as ridiculous.
The boy's are in Khalid's yard (as established in the above paragraphs), the neighbour knows the guns are fake but calls 911 anyway because it makes her uncomfortable to see a boy playing with a toy gun. 911 is for emergencies, big piece of stupidity there, in my opinion.
That I interpret as they're in Khalid's yard but, apparently, firing at people at the bus stop. It doesn't say whether it's a school bus stop or a transit bus stop. If it's a transit bus stop, the school as I understand it has absolutely no say on the conduct of it's students when they are off school grounds. If it's a school bus stop, my first thought would be they would be banned from the bus, not expelled from school. But I won't quibble on that point, the way it's written it makes it seem as if the school investigated and came to a conclusion, which again off school property presumably at a time when the school bears to responsibility or liability for the conduct of it's students.
What really jumped out at me about that in all honesty was a few years back our local college kids had one hell of a block party, burning police cars,etc. It made international news. College couldn't do anything discipline wise because it was off school grounds. So it strike me as weird. Could be the difference between adult and minors but, school grounds are school grounds no?
This I sincerely hope is a language issue, because damn, human chattel makes a big comeback.8O
Based on how I interpret the events, where things took place, I think the school may be over reaching. I definitely think the neighbour is out to lunch...the neighbour never cited anything about firing at people at the bus stop, only that seeing a boy with a toy gun made her uncomfortable. And admitting to being aware they were fake and still tying up emergency services, she needs to give her head a shake.
Having said all that, if they were firing even a rubber pellet gun at someone not engaged in play with them, they need to have their ears boxed.
You are exactly right on target SLM. My thoughts concur with your evaluation. Well, maybe box the neighbor's ears too just because she's a busy-body. ;-)
It could possibly just be missing from the article (is it just me, or is the media getting sloppier and sloppier?) but there was no mention whatsoever of the police response. No 'warning was issued' or 'police responded'. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be left out, my guess is they figured the neighbour for a crackpot and didn't show.
It's not so much about being able to kill someone, you can cause injury with a projectile toy.
"It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye"....it's not just a catchy phrase.
OK I'm from Northern Alberta, not Virginia, but the way this would have worked when/where I went to school (30ish years ago), this is a tricky case, as the one kid was "home" (which was the custodial boundary), but IF they were accosting other kids on their way home from school, they would have been disciplined by the school board and most likely suspended. We can talk about toys all we want but the reality is air soft pellets can pose a real danger to eye sight and they can sting pretty good depending on where you get hit and the type of gun (my teenage nephews were into them for a while).
Whoever is trying to make this about "firearms" is an idiot. Again assuming they were targeting students on their way home, these kids sound like hooligans who did something stupid and deserve to face the consequences for their actions. I don't think they warrant criminal charges and they're not facing them, but continuing this type of activity would.
Whoever is trying to make this about "firearms" is an idiot. Again assuming they were targeting students on their way home, these kids sound like hooligans who did something stupid and deserve to face the consequences for their actions. I don't think they warrant criminal charges and they're not facing them, but continuing this type of activity would.
It's about the eyes. (Not potato eyes, people eyes)
Until they start growing them on peoples foreheads, we only have the two to work with.
Yup. When I was 7 my buddy Sean lost an eye in a shoot out. We had to go back to shooting birds with our Daisys until the following year when Sean and I both got Cooey .22s for Christmas. The valley was crow free for quite sometime afterwards.
I got a Cooey Single Shot .22 when I was about eight years old. What were my parents thinking about? Me and a couple other little monsters shot the glass insulators off telephone poles. We drastically reduced the bird population, I think squirrels just left the province. I next wanted a Winchester 30:30.........My dad said I could have one if I bought it myself and bought my own ammo......That took another seven or eight years. It would have taken longer if I had realized how much 30:30 ammo cost.
The 1894? My dad gave me my grandfather's and I still hunt with it. fantastic rifle. The balance is amazing and the short barrel makes it an exceptional rifle for pushing bush. I have the 100th anniversary 1866 that was dad's but it's never been fired. I'll dig up the pic of it.
Here we go. My pride and joy.
Here we go. My pride and joy.
My 30:30 has had so many shots pushed through it you can now shove a new cartridge down the muzzle right to the shoulder of the shell. The bullets probably come out sideways. I have a new Winchester but I clean that one......:smile:
Depending on the hunt, I'll use my Tikka. Now that I'm aging I'll be adding optics this season. I was at Cabela's yesterday but was motivated to "make up my mind or make my own dinner". Now she knows how I feel when being dragged along shoe shopping.