Fezmid Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/26/drawings...s.ap/index.html I have to agree with the parents on this one. They're *kids* and they didn't actually *do* anything. This is right up there with the girl who was charged with a felony for writing a story where people died. Lunacy. EDIT: Sorry, forgot the (OT); I'm usually so good about including that too... Mods, feel free to modify the subject line. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Ya know, I'm all about letting kids be kids, and not letting "the man" get so over involved, but these kids were drawing actual depictions of killing a classmate. I mean, when i was 11, if we didn't like someone, you fought em, and that was that. Now with Columbine, kids popping Ritalin like pez, and the age of "he can't be charged as an adult", I'm glad the authorities stepped in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 Ya know, I'm all about letting kids be kids, and not letting "the man" get so over involved, but these kids were drawing actual depictions of killing a classmate. I mean, when i was 11, if we didn't like someone, you fought em, and that was that. Now with Columbine, kids popping Ritalin like pez, and the age of "he can't be charged as an adult", I'm glad the authorities stepped in. 219145[/snapback] Steve, they're being charged with a FELONY. You could go rob the local convenience store, injuring the clerk in the process, and not be charged with a felony. And their "actual depictions" were stick figures.. It's just another over-reaction to Columbine. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Ya know, I'm all about letting kids be kids, and not letting "the man" get so over involved, but these kids were drawing actual depictions of killing a classmate. I mean, when i was 11, if we didn't like someone, you fought em, and that was that. Now with Columbine, kids popping Ritalin like pez, and the age of "he can't be charged as an adult", I'm glad the authorities stepped in. 219145[/snapback] It was much more fun to deliver a swift kick to the crotch or hit them upside the head with a stapler when they werent looking. Screw that "fair fight" tactic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob4Bills Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 BOGUS! The family/school are all that's needed here for corrective action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 It's just another over-reaction to Columbine. And "over-reaction" is something is done beforehand, but if they didnt "over-react" and "Columbine" happened, the school is "negligent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 Why'd this get moved? We can talk about companies firing people for smoking, but not kids being arrested for drawing? Weird. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 And "over-reaction" is something is done beforehand, but if they didnt "over-react" and "Columbine" happened, the school is "negligent". 219154[/snapback] Yeah, so ruin a 9/10 year old child's life by giving them a criminal record that'll follow them forever. Removing corporal punishment from schools was an excellent idea. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Benjamin Spock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 And "over-reaction" is something is done beforehand, but if they didnt "over-react" and "Columbine" happened, the school is "negligent". 219154[/snapback] Plenty of stupid people on both sides of this one. Obviously, the 'zero tolerance' nonsense that leads to the arrest of a nine year old for drawing stick figures is absurd. What's next? Suspending kids for playing cops and robbers because they are 'shooting' each other with their fingers? This is part of what children do. It's how they explore and learn about the world. Pretending is how they learn to grasp the reality of the actions. Unfortuantely, sometimes the kids is hard wired wrong and becomes Dylan Klebold, but that isn't the school's or society's fault. The only people who were negligent in Columbine were the shooters and their clueless parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/26/drawings...s.ap/index.html I have to agree with the parents on this one. They're *kids* and they didn't actually *do* anything. This is right up there with the girl who was charged with a felony for writing a story where people died. Lunacy. EDIT: Sorry, forgot the (OT); I'm usually so good about including that too... Mods, feel free to modify the subject line. CW 219136[/snapback] I guess I assume they can no longer play the game "Hangman" at school anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Yeah, so ruin a 9/10 year old child's life by giving them a criminal record that'll follow them forever. Removing corporal punishment from schools was an excellent idea. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Benjamin Spock. 219163[/snapback] A charge of a felony is a bit much. No argument there. But I have ZERO problem with the school taking note of this behavior and taking some kind of action, probably directly with the parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 A charge of a felony is a bit much. No argument there. But I have ZERO problem with the school taking note of this behavior and taking some kind of action, probably directly with the parents. 219189[/snapback] Using the laws of today, I would've probably been charged with a felony while I was a student in high school. Why? I did a lot of fiction writing, and in one of my longest (and best) stories, a high school student kills a couple of student as well as a couple of teachers and a police officer. (it's later found out that he's been possessed by a demon). I even had one of my old English teachers read and comment/correct portions of it, and she thought it was very well done. If I did that in today's day and age, the teacher would probably be forced to report it to the school who would in turn contact the police. Lovely. I'm sure Stephen King would be proud. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I am sorry... But that is intent to kill... Are death threats a felony? What is the age of reason? 7? Maybe these kids are a few years behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Yeah, so ruin a 9/10 year old child's life by giving them a criminal record that'll follow them forever. Removing corporal punishment from schools was an excellent idea. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Benjamin Spock. 219163[/snapback] Another brilliant statement from the Great White North... Ya, sure... Without removal of corporal punishment, what would they being doing then... hanging the kid in effigy?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I am sorry... But that is intent to kill... Are death threats a felony? What is the age of reason? 7? Maybe these kids are a few years behind? 219227[/snapback] Huh - drawing a picture to be mean is intent to kill?? Did they show the kid in question the drawings? How is it intent to kill by drawing a picture? However you look at it it is absurd. I know I used to draw pictures of stick people running over people, of stick people mortally wounding other stick people with swords, knives and all sorts. It's just what kids do. The parents and school need to be involved at that stage to talk to the kids abotu WHY they drew it - what it means to the kid - and why that sort of thing is wrong. My mum would tell me it's wrong - the same should happen in this case. It's not about age of reason at all. If we say age of reason is 7 - why don't we let kids drink at age 7, have sex at age 7, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Ya know, I'm all about letting kids be kids, and not letting "the man" get so over involved, but these kids were drawing actual depictions of killing a classmate. I mean, when i was 11, if we didn't like someone, you fought em, and that was that. Now with Columbine, kids popping Ritalin like pez, and the age of "he can't be charged as an adult", I'm glad the authorities stepped in. 219145[/snapback] Steve...if I ever meet you, I'm going to kill you. Now try to have me arrested for that. You can't. First Amendment. The expression is not the crime. (Note to moderators: I'm just trying to make a point. I don't actually intend to kill Steve if I ever meet him. I respectfully request that, as my intent is not actually threatening, but pedagogical, you let this post pass...) (Note to you sick people out there: "pedagogy" has absolutely nothing to do with "pederasty". Get your friggin' minds out of the gutter...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Huh - drawing a picture to be mean is intent to kill?? Did they show the kid in question the drawings? How is it intent to kill by drawing a picture? However you look at it it is absurd. I know I used to draw pictures of stick people running over people, of stick people mortally wounding other stick people with swords, knives and all sorts. It's just what kids do. The parents and school need to be involved at that stage to talk to the kids abotu WHY they drew it - what it means to the kid - and why that sort of thing is wrong. My mum would tell me it's wrong - the same should happen in this case. It's not about age of reason at all. If we say age of reason is 7 - why don't we let kids drink at age 7, have sex at age 7, etc? 219286[/snapback] Nick, how goes the WW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Another brilliant statement from the Great White North... Ya, sure... Without removal of corporal punishment, what would they being doing then... hanging the kid in effigy?... 219229[/snapback] Yeah, I think hanging definitely falls under corporal punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Feel free to hate your local prosecutor who will do anything and run over anybody for face time. It's a testament to the basic fairness and decency of the American public that they and lawyers aren't assisinated with regularity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 Well, at least now I understand why the thread was moved... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts