If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   What used to be called imagination is now called "A Level 2 look alike firearm", and will get your 10 year old a 3 day suspension   (cnn.com) divider line 68
    More: Asinine, Ohio Department of Education, school year  
•       •       •

11007 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2014 at 6:36 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-04 04:43:45 PM  
8 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: No sympathy.


Fingers, man. A 10 year old kid with fingers.

Your scorn is woefully misplaced.
2014-03-04 04:40:20 PM  
8 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: Your kid was warned


And 10 year olds are known for their ability to model their behavior to conform to arbitrary adult standards.  That's why they make such good witnesses in a court of law.

Public schools are completely and utterly retarded, and zero tolerance is just the icing on the two neuron cake.
2014-03-04 07:18:44 PM  
5 votes:
In the Columbus City Schools District, where Nathan goes to school, 12 students were expelled because of incidents in the "firearm look-a-likes" category, while 69 students were suspended. Contrast that with categories such as harassment and intimidation, in which zero students were expelled, though 1527 were suspended district-wide.

Note: Actual harrassment and actual intimidation/bullying resulted in zero expulsions, while a dozen kids were expelled for "firearm lookalikes".

It's apparently better to harass and bully other children than to point some fingers at someone.
2014-03-04 06:51:02 PM  
5 votes:
i306.photobucket.com
2014-03-04 06:18:08 PM  
5 votes:

Relatively Obscure: They can send out notes saying "any and all child-like behavior from children will not be tolerated," but people will probably still be annoyed when kids kicked out of school for it.


I don't think I want to know a six-year-old who isn't a dreamer, or a sillyheart. And I sure don't want to know one who takes their student career seriously. I don't have a college degree. I don't even have a job. But I know a good kid when I see one. Because they're ALL good kids, until dried-out, brain-dead skags like you drag them down and convince them they're no good. You so much as scowl at my niece, or any other kid in this school, and I hear about it, and I'm coming looking for you!

Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face! Good day to you, madam.
2014-03-04 05:28:18 PM  
5 votes:
I wonder how many different levels of "look alike firearms" there are. This was a level 2. Would a pop tart gun be a lower level or higher? If the kid had said his fingers had a suppressor would it involve federal time? What if he had said "boom" more than once? Is it a fully automatic level 41 look alike?
2014-03-04 04:40:25 PM  
4 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: Entingh said he never received a notice, but was aware of school authorities telling students, including Nathan, that any gun-related behavior would have serious consequences.

Your kid was warned. You knew about your kid being warned. Yet you act all surprised that your kid got suspended? No sympathy.


They can send out notes saying "any and all child-like behavior from children will not be tolerated," but people will probably still be annoyed when kids kicked out of school for it.
2014-03-04 08:50:12 PM  
3 votes:
School shootings that left scores of dead children and the resulting national headlines forced schools to adopt gun-related policies. Part of those policies include early identification of violent or potentially violent students BEFORE any actual problems arise. We have insisted that schools hire resource officers to police school rooms and assemblies. These policies, should ideally include common sense enforcement and fairness. Something that on the surface seems to be lacking in this case.

We penalize high school and college football players for making a throat slashing sign even though there is no knife or razor on the field. If an older student were to threaten another student with a verbal threat of violence, he would likewise face punishment. How young is TOO young? I remember, like many of you running around the playground AND occasionally even the classroom pretending to play cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers or war games. It is a piss poor reflection of the society that we have either created or allowed to be created. The line between a harmless prank and an actual threat can be blurred.

All my nephews and some of my nieces have been taught gun safety and responsibility. My wife and I have 32 total, but no kids of our own. I've stressed for them to be safe and legal marksmen and hunters. We have a large duck and deer camp, and shoot pistols, rifles and shotguns.

The world is bigger and uglier then when we were kids. School shootings went from being a rare threat to a regular tragedy. I don't think this is all about anti-gun sentiment. I don't think that has anything to do with 'political correctness'. I hope each case like this would be handled on an individual basis. A 'zero tolerance' policy seems every bit as unwise as mandatory sentencing guidelines for youthful offenders.

This story makes me sad. Sad, for school shootings. Sad, because innocent children are paying the price for the actions of both the mentally damaged and the students whose hearts are dark with rage and hate.
As much as I am disappointed in hearing of this ten year old's case, I am equally disappointed and angry that some find this to be the only solution.

We praise stupidity. We worship money, success and power. We scorn kindness as weakness and we are manipulated by consumerism, greed and violence. We have substituted brotherly love, for division. We have replaced morals and religion for politics and blame. We have allowed monied interests to dictate our habits and futures. We have either forgotten what creates happiness, or were never given the love and understanding to be able to appreciate it.

I claim no moral highground. I am cynical, dark humored and often inappropriate... especially on FARK. I always want to think the best of everyone, but inevitably I end up disappointed. I wish we all spent more time playing nice and sharing. Feel free to chastise me or remind me, when I do not. Let's all try to do a better job with one another's help.

My two cents.
2014-03-04 07:09:26 PM  
3 votes:
The issue is less the rule or the school's right to enforce it than the excessive character of the punishment for such a petty offense.


Things that should have come well before a 3 day suspension, not necessarily in preferred order:

1) a note to the parents.

2) a trip to the principal's office, and a phone call to the parents.

3) staying inside at recess

4) detention

5) in school suspension

6) one day suspension

I'm not saying the school should have been obliged to do all of these things before a 3 day suspension. Just some of them. Maybe only one or two.
wee
2014-03-04 05:30:40 PM  
3 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: No sympathy.


The kid wasn't carving soap and painting with shoe polish to escape solitary, he was being a 10 year old boy...
2014-03-04 05:06:21 PM  
3 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: Teacher: "Don't do that."

Kid: "But it's not hurting anybody."

Teacher: "I know, but it's against school policy.

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I told you to knock that shiat off!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "Yo, little homie, I told you to stop doing that! Don't do it again!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I have repeatedly asked you to conform to the rules of this school. Since you refuse to do so, I have no choice but to suspend you."

Kid's Parent: "Wha..? Suspended? But they only warned him forty or fifty times!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------

It's a stupid rule to be sure, but it ain't like the kid and the dad didn't know the consequences. They were just suffering from the it-can't-happen-to-me syndrome. When they realize that it can, in fact, happen to them, they act shocked.


When is the last time you talked to a ten year old child?
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-04 10:34:21 PM  
2 votes:

grinding_journalist: Dahnkster: [s1.hubimg.com image 520x313]

[www.bloomberg.com image 627x418]
[www.jdavidstein.com image 800x419][i1005.photobucket.com image 850x566]

Interesting math-number charts. What are you trying to prove, exactly? I *think* I might know, but if my notions are correct, half of your graphs contradict the point you want the other half to make.

So, what exactly?


Also, since we are once again comparing cars and guns you either have to:
1. Throw out all suicides by guns to be fair and balanced, OR....
2. Include all deaths where a car was involved in any way including gassing ones self to death and such.

Otherwise, take your tired bullshiat false sampling charts and use them for kindling.
2014-03-04 08:08:47 PM  
2 votes:

kortex: Isitoveryet: kortex: This is what you get when libtards run the schools.

well rest assured, because there's a libtard fighting to have the Ohio zero tolerance law reversed.

http://wosu.org/2012/news/2013/08/19/bill-would-ban-zero-tolerance-p ol icies-in-ohio-schools/

One libtard doesn't fix the other libtards.  Maybe I could poison libtards like roaches?  That way, when libtards convene, all libtards would be infected?



is your arm numb? are you feeling light headed?
well, you may be having a stroke, call 911 for assistance.
SH
2014-03-04 07:53:57 PM  
2 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: Entingh said he never received a notice, but was aware of school authorities telling students, including Nathan, that any gun-related behavior would have serious consequences.

Your kid was warned. You knew about your kid being warned. Yet you act all surprised that your kid got suspended? No sympathy.


^^^^^ Whatta dick.
2014-03-04 07:32:45 PM  
2 votes:
This is what you get when libtards run the schools.
2014-03-04 07:31:24 PM  
2 votes:
The pants-wetters have won. Commence with full retardation of the nation.
2014-03-04 07:29:34 PM  
2 votes:

Baz744: fredklein: Sin_City_Superhero: Entingh said he never received a notice, but was aware of school authorities telling students, including Nathan, that any gun-related behavior would have serious consequences.

Your kid was warned. You knew about your kid being warned. Yet you act all surprised that your kid got suspended? No sympathy.

"Gun-related behavior". There was no gun.

So you're saying his behavior bore no relationship whatsoever to guns?


When I was little, I had a herd of plastic horses. They were horse-shaped. However, in a pinch we would take them and hold them by the tail or legs and use them as guns. (Often blasters, because Star Wars)

Did that behavior bear any relationship to guns?

He was a kid being a kid and going bang. That's not "gun-related behavior", that's kid-related behavior. Was he beating his classmates, or threatening them with actual physical harm? Was he yelling and screaming Bang! I'm going to kill all of you when I go home and get my dad's gun! Or did he just make an "L" shape with his fingers and say Bang?

All this business about how he needed a lecture, or a stern talking to, or counseling to see why he was "acting out" are also missing the mark. Kids play. Or, at least, they used to. Now any kind of play that consists of anything beyond gaping at the wall is "acting out" and in need of therapy. I find that alarming, to say the least.
2014-03-04 07:19:36 PM  
2 votes:
It's almost as if zero tolerance policies are stupid or something, especially when applied to young children.
2014-03-04 06:59:01 PM  
2 votes:
Welcome to Libtard Land.

images.sodahead.com

lh4.ggpht.com
2014-03-04 06:56:46 PM  
2 votes:
I think it's time for all of America to admit that the Won't Somebody Think of the Children zero tolerance policies in school are actually bad ideas.  I know it would mean that a few people will have to admit they were wrong but we're all adult here.
2014-03-04 06:52:30 PM  
2 votes:

blindpreacher: You can thank the feminization of our school system for this.


We're off to a rapid start for "dumbest thing in the thread."
2014-03-04 06:50:21 PM  
2 votes:
It's probably a good thing I'm not in school anymore; we'd play football, cowboys and Indians and smear the queer all recess. We would have all been suspended for 3rd level violence; 4th level racism and 5th level hate crimes.


/ also 2 degree witness of buffalo sex

// there was a herd of buffalo in the field next door
2014-03-04 04:57:53 PM  
2 votes:
Teacher: "Don't do that."

Kid: "But it's not hurting anybody."

Teacher: "I know, but it's against school policy.

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I told you to knock that shiat off!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "Yo, little homie, I told you to stop doing that! Don't do it again!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I have repeatedly asked you to conform to the rules of this school. Since you refuse to do so, I have no choice but to suspend you."

Kid's Parent: "Wha..? Suspended? But they only warned him forty or fifty times!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------

It's a stupid rule to be sure, but it ain't like the kid and the dad didn't know the consequences. They were just suffering from the it-can't-happen-to-me syndrome. When they realize that it can, in fact, happen to them, they act shocked.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-04 04:37:41 PM  
2 votes:
Revoke the pension of any administrator who stands up for this action, second degree zero tolerance.
2014-03-04 04:34:35 PM  
2 votes:
Entingh said he never received a notice, but was aware of school authorities telling students, including Nathan, that any gun-related behavior would have serious consequences.

Your kid was warned. You knew about your kid being warned. Yet you act all surprised that your kid got suspended? No sympathy.
2014-03-04 11:33:16 PM  
1 votes:

grinding_journalist: Dahnkster: [s1.hubimg.com image 520x313]

[www.bloomberg.com image 627x418]
[www.jdavidstein.com image 800x419][i1005.photobucket.com image 850x566]

Interesting math-number charts. What are you trying to prove, exactly? I *think* I might know, but if my notions are correct, half of your graphs contradict the point you want the other half to make.

So, what exactly?


That "school violence by years" chart has to be the worst thing I've ever seen. The fact that they have to split it out into 25 year bars pretty much proves there IS NO school violence annually, at least, none that matters. See, I can use fancy Latin legal terms: de minimis. Even 60 deaths in school by violence, in a 25 year period (1975-1999) is so few as to be virtually zero when divided by the number of kids in school.

Moreover, that doesn't explain what "violence" is (I'm assuming deaths, because otherwise "60" means nothing) and wndhat a "school" is. Does that include the Vietnam protests of the early 70's? Does it include colleges (which means, for instance, Kent State is in there)? Is it only public schools (which removes the Amish school shooting)? Is it only child-on-child violence (which removes not only Kent State, but also the Sacramento schoolyard shooting)? Does it include gang-related violence (which inflates things in the 80's before anti-gang policies went into effect)? Are day-care centers included (that gets the Murrah Building fatalities into your count)?

Your "mass shooting" chart isn't any better, btw. For purposes of the FBI and VICAP, any shooting where more than four people are shot is a "mass shooting". So that includes Columbine and Aurora Theater and Virginia Tech; it also includes countless murder/suicides here in So Cal; gang shootings without number; it would EXCLUDE, for instance, the Reagan assassination attempt (only three people shot, one died).

Oh, and your use of "res ipsa loquitur" in this context is somewhat odd. The concept of res ipsa in legal terminology means "the thing happens of itself," or, more colloquially, "shiat happens." In court it means that a thing is unlikely to occur absent negligence. So what is your point? That shootings will happen no matter what? I mean, that would be MY point, but it seems strange that it would be YOUR point.
2014-03-04 11:03:48 PM  
1 votes:

gja: The sources are fully disclosed and quite well vetted.


Just as another datapoint to the Mother Jones graph, the 2013 numbers (not on the chart), using the FBI definition of mass shootings, was 28 fatalities, 1 wounded, the majority being domestic violence including 4 fatalities by a police officer -  a number likely unaffected by gun laws. This 28 deaths would be a significant decline from 2012.
2014-03-04 10:39:52 PM  
1 votes:

Dahnkster: Res ipsa loquitur


Yes, latin is fun. But I asked you to explain the point you were trying to make with the charts you posted- simply saying the data speaks for itself when someone is asking for an explanation of why it was presented doesn't work.

For an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at chart #2 comparing auto and firearm fatalities. Here's what the data in that chart says to me: 1. Cars have gotten significantly safer with technological developments over time. 2. Since we're looking at straight quantity, coupled with an increase in total # of guns owned and total population, gun fatalities have essentially stayed flat, if not decreased marginally over time (via ratio of population.)

My guess is that isn't the point you were trying to make, but it's what I've inferred without any explanation from you, and whatever point you were attempting to make is just as valid as mine, since you said the data speaks for itself.

You saying res ipsa loquitur in this instance makes as much sense to me as me asking a bible thumper why something is the way it is in the good book, and they respond with "Because that's the way it is."
2014-03-04 10:29:53 PM  
1 votes:

Dahnkster: [s1.hubimg.com image 520x313]

[www.bloomberg.com image 627x418]
[www.jdavidstein.com image 800x419][i1005.photobucket.com image 850x566]


Interesting math-number charts. What are you trying to prove, exactly? I *think* I might know, but if my notions are correct, half of your graphs contradict the point you want the other half to make.

So, what exactly?
2014-03-04 10:06:46 PM  
1 votes:

gja: Kumana Wanalaia: Kids aren't allowed to say the F word in class. Does it happen? yes. Are there consequences? yes. Is it excusable because kids have no self control and are therefore inherently free from responsibility for their actions? no.

Two words:
False
Equivalencies

One is a filthy word with a near universal connotation.
The other is a playtime gesture.


They're both things that adults have told the children not to do.
The fact that one is vulgarity and the other is pretend violence doesn't mitigate the prohibition.

If "but it was fun" becomes an excuse, that's a problem.
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-04 10:05:08 PM  
1 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: gja: Sin_City_Superhero: I think the rule is stupid.

I ALSO think it's stupid to whine about the punishment after being warned & reminded of the consequences and choosing to ignore that.

The rule is offensive, arbitrary, ignorant, oppressive and wasteful of time, money, effort and already overextended attention on the part of teachers who already have far too much to do and get too little pay for it.

Somewhere along the line these things have to start being fought. Otherwise our schools will continue to have problems they could easily avoid, on top of the inherently unavoidable problems they have to deal with.

So, if some whining and teeth-gnashing helps this along I say "so be it". Anything that gets stupid-ass rules like this bad press ad helps to force them off the books is good, IMHO. We need to stop being the pussies of the developed world.

OK. Let's look at this from a different perspective. Say the teacher had done nothing, and some other kid tells his/her parents. That parent files a complaint, and the teacher gets fired for neglecting their job. The root problem is that a stupid rule is on the books. But the fact is, the rule IS on the books, and the kid put the teacher in an unenviable position. The kid was warned. The parent acknowledges this. He also acknowledges that the teacher reminded the students of the penalties of non-compliance. When the kid willfully ignores the teacher, what's the teacher to do? The teacher has NO CHOICE but to suspend. If not, none of the teacher's other orders carry any weight, and chaos reigns in the classroom.


I did not say to do nothing. My eldest sister is a teacher. They foisted some of these stupidity-laden rules on the staff where she is.
The teachers DID have complaints from parents. The teachers stood up to it and forced the hand of the board.
Now, they have rules that make much more sense. And parents were reminded that teachers are not there to raise your sperm/egg combos.
That's why it's called PARENTING.
2014-03-04 09:34:30 PM  
1 votes:

Dahnkster: The world is bigger and uglier then when we were kids


No.  The world is FAR safer; anecdotally and statistically.  We have become hypersensitive to it.  Pretty much everything you said is categorically wrong.
2014-03-04 09:30:42 PM  
1 votes:

Gordon Bennett: "How much of a threat can it really be for a 10-year-old to hold up his fingers?" said a frustrated Entingh. "I would like for somebody to explain this to me because apparently I don't get it. This is way over the boundary. A teacher could have talked to him and sat him down, given him detention, but a three days suspension?"

This is what happens when extremism becomes normalised. Giving him a stern lecture or a detention is not a just, fair or rational response yet that is taken as some sort of moderate or sane position simply for being less extreme.


What would be sane would be for this to have been a complete non-issue and for no one to have batted an eye at a child making a gun shape with his fingers and saying "bang."


Guns seems to be the only subject on which liberals think that complete and utter ignorance and deception is a good thing.  Of coarse if they can keep the kids as ignorant as possible about guns the better the chances of accidents that they can blame on gun owners and scream and cry for more bans.

"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes." "We have to be repetitive about this," he said.  "We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." -Eric Holder
2014-03-04 08:33:18 PM  
1 votes:

kortex: Isitoveryet: kortex: This is what you get when libtards run the schools.

well rest assured, because there's a libtard fighting to have the Ohio zero tolerance law reversed.

http://wosu.org/2012/news/2013/08/19/bill-would-ban-zero-tolerance-p ol icies-in-ohio-schools/

One libtard doesn't fix the other libtards.  Maybe I could poison libtards like roaches?  That way, when libtards convene, all libtards would be infected?


Why is your user name kortex when you are clearly lacking in one?
2014-03-04 08:24:35 PM  
1 votes:
Public school is child abuse.
2014-03-04 08:17:12 PM  
1 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: Farking hoplophobes.  When is that going to be recognized as a dangerous mental illness?


Licking a dead guy on a stick is pretty weird.
Licking guns is weird, too.


I before E except after dead guys on sticks and guns?

Weirder
2014-03-04 08:07:11 PM  
1 votes:
He was simply describing a current induced magnetic field. The 'bang' was the noise made by the collapsing field.


montessorimuddle.org
2014-03-04 07:48:22 PM  
1 votes:

rkiller1: Life's too short. Learn the lesson, move on.


No doubt the boy learned the lesson, just not the one they were trying to teach.

They hoped to teach that anything about guns or play-acting violence is bad.  They taught the lesson that adults are irrational idiots but you had better go along to get along and stop rocking the boat, even if the rules are nonsensical.  What good little subjects they are indoctrinating.
2014-03-04 07:46:59 PM  
1 votes:

ZAZ: Revoke the pension of any administrator who stands up for this action, second degree zero tolerance.


Pretty much this.

http://spiritplumber.deviantart.com/art/Zero-Tolerance-427102917  Here, I wrote you a story.
2014-03-04 07:46:02 PM  
1 votes:

kortex: This is what you get when libtards run the schools.


well rest assured, because there's a libtard fighting to have the Ohio zero tolerance law reversed.

http://wosu.org/2012/news/2013/08/19/bill-would-ban-zero-tolerance-p ol icies-in-ohio-schools/
2014-03-04 07:40:38 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-03-04 07:32:57 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: ScaryBottles: Obeying the new rule doesn't seem to be much of a problem for all the other ten year olds now does it?

I have no idea.  I didn't see any of the childrens behavior.  I bet you didn't either.  The teacher was the only witness, if we're to believe them.

But it doesn't change the fact that zero tolerance policies are completely and utterly retarded.


There's always one guy in these threads going "B... but what about muh RULLLES?"
2014-03-04 07:31:23 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Sin_City_Superhero: Your kid was warned

And 10 year olds are known for their ability to model their behavior to conform to arbitrary adult standards.  That's why they make such good witnesses in a court of law.

Public schools are completely and utterly retarded, and zero tolerance is just the icing on the two neuron cake.


THIS!

Look for the union label!
2014-03-04 07:30:33 PM  
1 votes:
I'd tell my kid..."Wrong finger, kid.  It's the next finger, and point it at your principal".

blog.sportscolumn.com

That's my boy!
2014-03-04 07:29:44 PM  
1 votes:

Calmamity: Fingers, man. A 10 year old kid with fingers.



Imagine if had he mimed tossing a grenade!!  He'd be on trial as an enemy combatant, sitting in some black hole at Gitmo!!!
2014-03-04 07:25:36 PM  
1 votes:
They have levels for this shiat now?

What the fark is happening to this country?
2014-03-04 07:17:59 PM  
1 votes:

Baz744: So you're saying his behavior bore no relationship whatsoever to guns?


No more than my back yard swing set was related to time travel.
2014-03-04 07:14:51 PM  
1 votes:
10 yr olds are old enough to know what "knock that shiat off" means and when it is appropriate to do so.
2014-03-04 07:12:07 PM  
1 votes:
I'm starting to wonder if all you parents were present at the school board meeting that covered this zero tolerance policy?
2014-03-04 07:09:35 PM  
1 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: Entingh said he never received a notice, but was aware of school authorities telling students, including Nathan, that any gun-related behavior would have serious consequences.

Your kid was warned. You knew about your kid being warned. Yet you act all surprised that your kid got suspended? No sympathy.


"Gun-related behavior". There was no gun.
2014-03-04 07:06:35 PM  
1 votes:
The only solution is to have a "Point your fingers like a gun day". If everyone did it then what are they going to do?
2014-03-04 07:05:34 PM  
1 votes:
He should have held out his palm and said 'here's my concealed carry permit'.
2014-03-04 07:04:18 PM  
1 votes:
The pussification continues. But wait "think of the children" and how we are protecting them. What a load of horse crap. How in God's name is this suspension supposed to show any intelligence on the behalf of the school system.

It makes me wonder where have all the wise men gone? It sure seems that the school boards are run by a bunch of idiots. I really wonder what effect these stupid rules will have on the children. Rules that even a 5 year old thinks are stupid should really been dropped.
2014-03-04 07:03:33 PM  
1 votes:
At least it wasn't an Assault Pop Tart
www.glennbeck.com
2014-03-04 07:03:09 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Sin_City_Superhero: Teacher: "Don't do that."

Kid: "But it's not hurting anybody."

Teacher: "I know, but it's against school policy.

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I told you to knock that shiat off!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "Yo, little homie, I told you to stop doing that! Don't do it again!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I have repeatedly asked you to conform to the rules of this school. Since you refuse to do so, I have no choice but to suspend you."

Kid's Parent: "Wha..? Suspended? But they only warned him forty or fifty times!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------

It's a stupid rule to be sure, but it ain't like the kid and the dad didn't know the consequences. They were just suffering from the it-can't-happen-to-me syndrome. When they realize that it can, in fact, happen to them, they act shocked.

When is the last time you talked to a ten year old child?


Obeying the new rule doesn't seem to be much of a problem for all the other ten year olds now does it? Don't you think its possible just maybe the kid got punished not because of the gesture but because there is a rule and this spoiled little shiat decided to ignore it when none of the other children did. My guess is dear dad saw the notice wadded it up and told the kid he could ignore the rule because freedom and stuff. I super duper double dog dare any of you to try and tell me right wing dipshiats never hide behind the children.

/responsible gun owner before you even start that crap derps. In my house guns were deadly serious business. If I had pretended to shoot someone even with my finger the teacher wouldn't have be the one punishing me.

//raised by Vietnam vet
2014-03-04 07:02:35 PM  
1 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: Teacher: "Don't do that."

Kid: "But it's not hurting anybody."

Teacher: "I know, but it's against school policy.

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I told you to knock that shiat off!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "Yo, little homie, I told you to stop doing that! Don't do it again!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I have repeatedly asked you to conform to the rules of this school. Since you refuse to do so, I have no choice but to suspend you."

Kid's Parent: "Wha..? Suspended? But they only warned him forty or fifty times!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------

It's a stupid rule to be sure, but it ain't like the kid and the dad didn't know the consequences. They were just suffering from the it-can't-happen-to-me syndrome. When they realize that it can, in fact, happen to them, they act shocked.


Fark that noise plain and simple. If you throw a bunch of arbitrary rules at a child they will break them. If the rules are borderline retarted the child will break them. 10 year olds have been making play weapons since forever. If you want to micro manage a childs behavior you can try all you want, and you will fail miserably at it

I mean you can try to put a square peg into a round hole if you want. It might even work to. But the peg and the hole will be damaged for life.

did the child hurt themselves or someone else? Did they create a large distraction or disruption to class? Would anybody have even known about it if you did not make a stink about it?

if no then shut up and get back to teaching class.
2014-03-04 07:01:47 PM  
1 votes:
So zero tolerance here is good.

Zero tolerance for the chick who fired a "warning shot" at her ex is bad.

I LOVE hypocrisy.
2014-03-04 07:01:26 PM  
1 votes:
Look, if school administrators don't harshly punish and severely humiliate these kids, they might develop issues growing up.
2014-03-04 07:01:14 PM  
1 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: Teacher: "Don't do that."

Kid: "But it's not hurting anybody."

Teacher: "I know, but it's against school policy.

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I told you to knock that shiat off!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "Yo, little homie, I told you to stop doing that! Don't do it again!"

Kid: **does it again**

Teacher: "I have repeatedly asked you to conform to the rules of this school. Since you refuse to do so, I have no choice but to suspend you."

Kid's Parent: "Wha..? Suspended? But they only warned him forty or fifty times!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------

It's a stupid rule to be sure, but it ain't like the kid and the dad didn't know the consequences. They were just suffering from the it-can't-happen-to-me syndrome. When they realize that it can, in fact, happen to them, they act shocked.


I don't know what kind of school you went to but the punishment for what you described above where I went to school might have been a trip to the principal's office and a call to your parents.  It certainly wasn't a three day suspension.
2014-03-04 07:00:51 PM  
1 votes:
I hope this was meant to punish the parents because a three day suspension for a finger gun is going to mean zilch to a ten year old.
2014-03-04 06:56:45 PM  
1 votes:
Its Columbus City, they should be thankful it was a pretend gun and not a real one.....
2014-03-04 06:55:59 PM  
1 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: Entingh said he never received a notice, but was aware of school authorities telling students, including Nathan, that any gun-related behavior would have serious consequences.

Your kid was warned. You knew about your kid being warned. Yet you act all surprised that your kid got suspended? No sympathy.


No. The school's in the wrong here.

The Nazis had very good beauracracy. So did Mao and Stalin. None of them were in the right.
2014-03-04 06:55:15 PM  
1 votes:

LasersHurt: blindpreacher: You can thank the feminization of our school system for this.

We're off to a rapid start for "dumbest thing in the thread."


Hard to beat what's in the first one.
2014-03-04 06:45:05 PM  
1 votes:

blindpreacher: You can thank the feminization of our school system for this.


There are plenty of things conservatives do that are outright stupid. This is one for the libs, bless their hearts.
2014-03-04 06:41:59 PM  
1 votes:
What if a kid simulated pushing a button that he claimed was setting off a nuclear bomb? Off to Gitmo?
2014-03-04 06:40:03 PM  
1 votes:
2014-03-04 06:36:22 PM  
1 votes:

scottydoesntknow: EvilEgg: Would he still be in trouble if the thumb wasn't raised?

Of course not. That means the hammer is forward and the gun can't fire. It's totally safe at that point.


What if he had a Double action only finger? Oh god....we narrowly avoided a tragedy.
2014-03-04 06:31:51 PM  
1 votes:
Would he still be in trouble if the thumb wasn't raised? How about if he mimicked shooting an arrow? Or throwing a grenade? If he said squirt instead of boom would he be ok? Or would that be a level2 meta offense?
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report