Kid playing Airsoft in own yard facing school expulsion

[TheFeniX]

One year deferred education.

A seventh-grade student was suspended from his Virginia middle school for shooting an airsoft gun — yet the 13-year-old boy was not using the "zombie hunter" on school property or even at the local bus stop, he claims.

A three-member disciplinary panel unanimously voted to suspend Larkspur Middle School student Khalid Caraballo for one year, a Virginia Beach city public schools official told the Daily News on Tuesday. However, the panel voted to hold the suspension in abeyance to allow Khalid to attend an alternative education program at Renaissance Academy Middle School.

I'm not posting the entire article. But I find it "hilarious" that the concerned caller's kid was involved in this "violent shoot-out" and dodged any punishment.

Unrelated, but it reminded me when a bunch of kids thought it would be funny to moon one of the APs at our high school when they noticed his car behind the bus. He followed them to the school, stormed the bus yelling about suspensions and charges, then noticed his own son was the instigator, and left in an embarrassed huff.

Even in gun happy America, that would be unlawful discharge of a firearm, illegal use of a firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm, which are all felony charges. Plus attempted murder which is also a felony. That would be 4 felony counts. Definitely a crime. Unless your name is Dick Cheney, you are going straight to jail.

Don't bother. We're talking about a class of people who equate Nerf Guns with the real thing.

Several students at a Washington state elementary school were suspended after shooting guns at school, except the weapons were only harmless Nerf guns and the kids say it was their teacher who permitted them to bring them to class.

Regardless of the weapons being toys, the children violated the school's "zero tolerance" policy on guns of any kind when they were caught shooting off the foam darts Friday before class, administrators said.

It's an old quip, but it will always hold true: "No Tolerance should be called for what it is: No Thinking." I remember our AP Physics teacher had a "potato cannon" she would let us fire off (with foam balls, mind you) if we did exceptionally well on an assignment. These days, foam darts may as well be 9mm Black Talon Cop Killer Super-Specials FMJ Hollow-point Explosive tips. Damn, I brought one of my old NES Zappers (along with R.O.B.) with the cord cut off (it broke) to elementary school for show and tell. I never knew how much of a killer-in-training I was till now. It's a good thing society has evolved to the point where kids should understand complex social problems, even though we won't bother with education in that department.

But seriously guys, please think of the children because if we don't punish them for being ignorant by withholding education, how will they ever learn?

NOTE: apologies, my sarcasm center broke just now.

[TheHammer]

Washington Times

Larkspur Middle School principal Matthew Delaney issued a statement that the “children were firing pellet guns at each other, and at people near the bus stop,” adding that one child “was only 10 feet from the bus stop, and ran from the shots being fired, but was still hit.”

Presuming that's accurate - or at least reported to the school and they had cause to believe it - I could see grounds for them taking disciplinary action. If they were shooting at students who weren't involved, yet on their way to the bus stop, even if they weren't quite at the location.

I think I've heard about schools being able to punish students in situations similar to that, such as jumping a kid on their way home from the bus stop or whatever. Not 100% sure about that one and I'll admit extending it such that "to and from the bus stop" is within the school's jurisdiction could get a little vague.

I think this sums it up in a nutshell. Whether or not this is the "nanny state, zero tolerance run amuck", or a justified action from the school depends entirely on how accurate the principal's statement is. Generally speaking, children on the way to and from school (without parental supervision) would typically be considered under the jurisdiction of the school. Being attacked in some manner by another student, whether they themselves were on their own property or not, would warrant action being taken.

If the statement is accurate, then the topic of this post is extremely misleading and should read "Kid firing pellet gun at students on their way to school bus facing expulsion". This is not nearly the same situation as the "nerf-gun" expulsion which clearly IS a case of nanny state zero tolerance run amuck.

[TheFeniX]

I think this sums it up in a nutshell. Whether or not this is the "nanny state, zero tolerance run amuck", or a justified action from the school depends entirely on how accurate the principal's statement is. Generally speaking, children on the way to and from school (without parental supervision) would typically be considered under the jurisdiction of the school. Being attacked in some manner by another student, whether they themselves were on their own property or not, would warrant action being taken.

That sounds like a situation where cops could show up and make an informed decision on if action should be warranted (Shooting any type of "weapon" at someone is assault) and decide whether arrests or warnings are appropriate: not 3 people on a board acting as judge and jury.

Besides, that not what they popped them for:

Khalid and his friend Aidan, 13, were suspended for “possession, handling and use of a firearm.”

That was the crux of the argument, that they brought a "firearm" onto school property, or close enough to a bus stop to qualify. But it works out because schools have a much lower standard of evidence (read: zero) when it comes to enforcing discipline. I have to wonder what they would have come up with if the kids had instead been whiffing tennis balls at each other. But tennis balls aren't "guns" so I doubt anything would have come of it because no one would have called the cops in the first place.

Anways, From Here

WAVY.com located the 911 caller and spoke to her. She confirmed Khalid was taking target practice using a zombie hunter airsoft gun to kill the zombies. There was also a net behind the target to catch the plastic pellets.

Still, the second 911 call further confirms Khalid Caraballo did not leave his private property during the September 12 incident.

Virginia Beach Police say they do not proactively seek out to enforce this code unless "the juveniles are not exercising reasonable care." Reasonable care is defined as "the gun is discharged in a manner so the projectile is contained on the property by a fence or backstop."

Ironically, that 911 caller's son was playing with Khalid and Aidan in the Caraballo front yard on September 12 -- the incident that got the boys in trouble. There were six children playing in an airsoft gun war.

"We see the bus come. We put the gun down. We did not take the airsoft gun to the bus stop. We did not take the gun to school," Khalid explained.

Aidan admits shooting the 911 caller's son in the arm, and Khalid admits shooting another friend in the back.

"He knew we had the airsoft gun. He knew we were playing. He knew people were getting shot. We were shooting at the tree, but he still came, and even after he was shot, he still played," Aidan said, referring to the son of the 911 caller.

Yea, shooting their friend was stupid (in a "my dad is going to beat my ass for doing this" way), but this wasn't some kind of bus stop drive-by. And those assaulted obviously weren't too broken up about it.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I think this sums it up in a nutshell. Whether or not this is the "nanny state, zero tolerance run amuck", or a justified action from the school depends entirely on how accurate the principal's statement is. Generally speaking, children on the way to and from school (without parental supervision) would typically be considered under the jurisdiction of the school. Being attacked in some manner by another student, whether they themselves were on their own property or not, would warrant action being taken.

If the statement is accurate, then the topic of this post is extremely misleading and should read "Kid firing pellet gun at students on their way to school bus facing expulsion". This is not nearly the same situation as the "nerf-gun" expulsion which clearly IS a case of nanny state zero tolerance run amuck.

I call bullshit. No, only if they're on transportation provided/chartered by the school. Otherwise, the school would be responsible for kids walking/driving to/from school. What are the odds a school would take responsibility if a kid was injured on the way to school, say walking to school and hit by a car along the side of the road or a teenager driving home from school is in a wreck? A big fat zero. Hell, I doubt schools would even take responsibility for students waiting at a bus-stop unless it was physically on school grounds. Kid gets abducted while waiting unsupervised at a bus-stop to go to school, who failed their responsibility to safeguard their charges? The parents, that's who.

[Highlord Laan]

I hope the father challenges the asinine school board in court, dragging their names through the mud as he does it. The only way to make brainless shit stains like the "disciplinary panel" actually do their jobs correctly is to publicly shame them into it. That, and it's always fun making ignorant, hand-wringing pansies like the mother that made the 911 call squirm when they get called out for their moronic bullshit.

[aieeegrunt]

Jesus Christ, by this retarded standard I would have been suspended every other day when I was a kid. How did any of my generation survive into adulthood?

As a parent by this standard my daughter would probably be suspended every week at a minimum. Thank God I love out in the country far away from suburban citiot.

Seriously, this kid's whole educational year is now fucked up by that asshole.

[TheHammer]

I think this sums it up in a nutshell. Whether or not this is the "nanny state, zero tolerance run amuck", or a justified action from the school depends entirely on how accurate the principal's statement is. Generally speaking, children on the way to and from school (without parental supervision) would typically be considered under the jurisdiction of the school. Being attacked in some manner by another student, whether they themselves were on their own property or not, would warrant action being taken.

If the statement is accurate, then the topic of this post is extremely misleading and should read "Kid firing pellet gun at students on their way to school bus facing expulsion". This is not nearly the same situation as the "nerf-gun" expulsion which clearly IS a case of nanny state zero tolerance run amuck.

I call bullshit. No, only if they're on transportation provided/chartered by the school. Otherwise, the school would be responsible for kids walking/driving to/from school. What are the odds a school would take responsibility if a kid was injured on the way to school, say walking to school and hit by a car along the side of the road or a teenager driving home from school is in a wreck? A big fat zero. Hell, I doubt schools would even take responsibility for students waiting at a bus-stop unless it was physically on school grounds. Kid gets abducted while waiting unsupervised at a bus-stop to go to school, who failed their responsibility to safeguard their charges? The parents, that's who.

For disciplinary purposes they are considered under the jurisdiction of the school. If a kid is beaten up by classmates while walking to school, or walking home the school would have jurisdiction.

For your "take responsibility" examples to have any sort of legal grounds, you'd need to show some sort of negligence on the part of the school. If any of the events you just highlighted happened outside of a school settings we would rarely blame the parent, unless that parent showed some sort of negligence. Same concept.

[Zwinmar]

My problem comes down to the fact that school administration, board members, PTA, or whatever else that may apply, is not a court of law. They can and do make arbitrary decisions based on gossip, rumors, and hearsay. As such, they should not be allowed to make decisions like this. If off of school grounds, and not a school function, it is none of their damn business. I would even say a student getting arrested is none of their damn business until said student is convicted of a crime in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion.

That said: When I was growing up the schools and teachers had too much power to punish arbitrarily, and now the teachers have too little. If kids are shits they get left behind so the other students can learn without disruption and a special class/school/whatever-as-I-dont-have-a-good-idea for the disruptive ones. And I means the ones who have real problems, not the ones they try to claim have ADHD because they have never been disciplined.

[Wing Commander MAD]

In hindsight, I'll agree the examples are not very good and poorly thought out. Instead, I'll ask you a question and would like you to clarify your reasoning since you appear to be making the positive statement.

Do have any sources for a child either on their way to or from school being considered under the jurisdiction of the school, specifically when they are not aboard some means of transportation provided by the school?

Please explain why you believe the school should have disciplinary powers over individuals for something that did not occur on school grounds, nor did it occur when the school is acting in loco parentis for said individuals. Apparently the wrong doing was “possession, handling and use of a firearm" and this did not occur on school grounds. It at best occurred on public property, which would bring it under the legal jurisdiction of whatever municipality the bus-stop was located within (assuming that “possession, handling and use of a firearm” was illegal there) and at worst occurred on private property where said laws may theoretically have no jurisdiction at all depending on the wording of the law. The last time I checked jurisdiction over criminal matters was reserved solely for the state and federal governments, and enforcement specifically given to certain government apparatuses and not others.

[TheHammer]

To be clear, I don't feel it is solely the schools responsibility, but it is certainly a shared responsibility along with the parents of the children. Both parties would generally be expected to take reasonable and necessary actions to protect the children.

As for what those actions entail, well I'm sure the specifics may vary from district to district and state to state. But the fact that there are school speed-zones on streets near schools, which specifically state "On School days when children are present..." is a prime example that from a legal standpoint, children are granted extra protections when traveling to and from school that they would not otherwise have.

In many districts, where houses are deemed to be too close to a school to provide bus service, the school still must establish a "safe walking route" to the school. i.e. it can't be through a construction zone, or across a busy street. Many school districts also provide crossing guards for streets that are busy. This is something I've had personal experience with.

Finding a specific applicable example of this has been difficult due to the search terminology returning a lot of irrelevant links, but I did find this:
http://www.njsba.org/sb_notes/20070620/dismissal.html. It doesn't exactly fit, but establishes the precedent for a school being responsible for a student even hours after dismissal. The short of it is, that schools must take reasonable actions to protect students or they could be held liable.

This isn't even about whether or not a school has the "power to" suspend, because as we've seen suspensions upheld on far more questionable grounds (nerf guns, facebook posts etc), they clearly do have the discretionary power to act be it reasonable or otherwise. The question in this case is that exercise of power reasonable?

Quite frankly, I would expect a school to have disciplinary authority on student behavior to and from school. If a child were jumped by classmates on his way to a bus stop, would you then presume the school could do nothing because it "didn't happen on school grounds"? The idea is absolutely asinine. The child would not be traveling those streets if not for the fact that they had to go to school. Failure to do anything to address incidents like that would certainly open the school up to being held liable for negligence.

But what's the truth for this particular example? If the children in question really were firing at people at or on their way to the bus stop, as the principal states, then the principal's actions were absolutely justified. If they were not, then the child's parents should sue the principal for slander.

[TheFeniX]

As for what those actions entail, well I'm sure the specifics may vary from district to district and state to state. But the fact that there are school speed-zones on streets near schools, which specifically state "On School days when children are present..." is a prime example that from a legal standpoint, children are granted extra protections when traveling to and from school that they would not otherwise have.

The protection is provided by the state and local government, not the school. They don't suspend students of assholes who speed in school zones. Speeding, ignoring crossing guards, and hitting students are crimes.

Finding a specific applicable example of this has been difficult due to the search terminology returning a lot of irrelevant links, but I did find this:
http://www.njsba.org/sb_notes/20070620/dismissal.html. It doesn't exactly fit, but establishes the precedent for a school being responsible for a student even hours after dismissal. The short of it is, that schools must take reasonable actions to protect students or they could be held liable.

That's an issue with the transfer of custody. The school is still responsible because just letting a student off school grounds doesn't transfer said custody. If anything, that would argue the parents still had custody of the "shooters" since they don't become school property until the enter they bus.

Quite frankly, I would expect a school to have disciplinary authority on student behavior to and from school. If a child were jumped by classmates on his way to a bus stop, would you then presume the school could do nothing because it "didn't happen on school grounds"? The idea is absolutely asinine. The child would not be traveling those streets if not for the fact that they had to go to school. Failure to do anything to address incidents like that would certainly open the school up to being held liable for negligence.

That's a job for local law enforcement to decide the punishment and for a judge/jury and/or counselor to advise the school on whether or not extra precaution is needed. The term "jumped" is loaded anyways as it belies unprovoked assault.

But what's the truth for this particular example? If the children in question really were firing at people at or on their way to the bus stop, as the principal states, then the principal's actions were absolutely justified. If they were not, then the child's parents should sue the principal for slander.

And the taxpayer picks up the tab while a kid's education suffers while the court system takes it's time getting a resolution. The onus should be on the parent's of the "wronged" kids to press charges in that situation. Just like if I'm accused of a crime, I don't get convicted first, then have to sue my way out of prison. But that would require living in a world where you can't suspend kids for saying mean things about their teachers on the interwebs.

But in this situation, if they actually were assaulting kids at the bus stop, you'd think they'd get busted with more than a "possession of a firearm" bit from the school. Or you'd think the cops would have actually done something because shooting at random people with an airsoft pistol is a crime.

Like I said, if they were chucking tennis balls at people, the school would have been completely hamstrung in all likely-hood, making the entire point moot.

[TheHammer]

But in this situation, if they actually were assaulting kids at the bus stop, you'd think they'd get busted with more than a "possession of a firearm" bit from the school. Or you'd think the cops would have actually done something because shooting at random people with an airsoft pistol is a crime.

Your real dispute seems to be that you don't believe the principals account of events. If he's lying, then that's a whole different ball game.

If he's telling the truth, do you still believe the school would be out of bounds for taking disciplinary action?

[TheFeniX]

Your real dispute seems to be that you don't believe the principals account of events. If he's lying, then that's a whole different ball game.

If he's telling the truth, do you still believe the school would be out of bounds for taking disciplinary action?

If my kid was waiting for the bus and got hit by... pretty much anything in an unprovoked assault, even if the attacker thought it was in good fun, I'd be more pissed the cops just walked away.

If it was just kids being stupid and my kid got hit, but the cops couldn't do anything, yes: I could see the school getting involved. Bus privileges suspended, maybe some in-school suspension and a workshop on not being an irresponsible idiot. But a fucking 1-year expulsion (sorry, alternative education) because he had "a firearm" even though the law itself doesn't classify airsoft as firearms: pfft.

[Phantasee]

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-own-fro/] “This is not a real one, but it makes people uncomfortable. I know that it makes me [uncomfortable], as a mom, to see a boy pointing a gun.”

I hope he takes up paintball, and sends pictures and video of it to this stupid bitch.

What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you think it's acceptable to use this sort of sexist language? Get all of the way the fuck out of here.

[Ralin]

What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you think it's acceptable to use this sort of sexist language? Get all of the way the fuck out of here.

SD.net moderators have stated that "bitch" is acceptable language here. So shove it.

[Borgholio]

I didn't think that "bitch" was even all that bad of a word, given how often we see fuck, shit, asshole, cunt, and a myriad of other curse words posted here.

[Phantasee]

What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you think it's acceptable to use this sort of sexist language? Get all of the way the fuck out of here.

SD.net moderators have stated that "bitch" is acceptable language here. So shove it.

I'm sorry, I'm supposed to grab my dictionary from the mods when I sign in here? Get the fuck outta here. His post was contentless and needlessly offensive. SD.net's policies on language have consistently said "it's the content that matters, not the presentation" so when I see a post devoid of content, the only thing left is the presentation.

[Batman]

How, exactly, was that post devoid of content? I think it got across his disgust over this woman's action rather accurately. If you want to argue his post doesn't do anything to further whatever rational discussion is currently going on on the topic, just say so. Yeah. People airing their 'You gotta be kidding me's about N&P topics in N&P. Shocking. Totally never happened before.
And I'm with Ralin here-bitch is nothing by local standards.

[His Divine Shadow]

Jesus christ this place...

[TheFeniX]

Anyways, there's a bit of an update that I missed on release. I'll post some excerpts I find relevant.

Delaney made it clear his investigation found the children were running on the street and had left Khalid's private property. Khalid disagrees with that, and the other children confirm Khalid never left his property.

What WAVY.com did not know on Monday was there was another related 911 call from September 12 – the day of the incident that got the boys in trouble. We learned of that second call Tuesday morning when Virginia Beach City Public Schools posted it on Facebook and claimed WAVY had not covered the call in Monday’s report.

Had WAVY known that call existed, it would certainly have been included in Monday’s report because it further proves Khalid was not one of the children running on the street.

Speaks for itself.

Virginia Beach School Board Chairman Daniel Edwards attached a letter defending the school’s disciplinary actions against the boys: "Yet somehow student safety has taken a back seat in the intense media coverage of this case. This is not an example of a public educator overreaching. This was not zero tolerance at all. This was a measured response to a threat to student safety."

Then why use a No Tolerance policy to punish them? Measured my ass.

In the tweet, Edwards said, "We can share that this is not Khalid Caraballo's first disciplinary infraction. He has been disciplined six times in less than 18 months for increasingly aggressive behavior including harassment, bullying and fighting that resulted in injuries."

"I think he's a bully to attack him," said Solangel. "I was shocked that a grown man with authority over the school system would tweet about Khalid's past ... He's 13-years-old ... it had nothing to do with him playing in the front yard."

This is semi-legal because the news reporter went to the school to get a waiver to discuss the incident, then got the mother to sign in order to get the whole story. What isn't kosher is using twitter in defense to random assholes on the Internet instead of releasing the information in an official statement.

This is just one huge clusterfuck and why school districts should not be able to act in this capacity. They don't have the objectivity nor the legal training to handle this. And when they get sued, taxpayers pick up the tab. Imminent threats are one thing, but increasingly violent infractions by a student are an issue for the police. Not "hey, he used a gun on his property, now we got him!"

[Tinkerbell]

What I've been noticing more and more of lately is a decreased clarity in what, specifically, is the role of the school and parent in a child's upbringing and discipline. So then this happens.

School districts have been asked to take an increasing level of responsibility and oversight in their children. I'm speaking particularly in regards to online bullying that takes place outside of school. As it's not a criminal offense for teenagers to be snotty twats to eachother online, parents are asking the school districts to do something about it. I think that was one of the first big instances of the line being blurred regarding the jurisdiction of the school.

I think that playing with (airsoft or any other) guns in a neighborhood where other people might be injured is stupid. It doesn't matter how powerful or flimsy the airsoft gun was. Even if it couldn't have shot far, you're still not teaching safety and reasonable caution to your kids. That being said, the school shouldn't be able to say fuck-all about it.

I think if they had brought the guns onto the school bus it would be a different story, but this just seems out of hand.

[Batman]

Just how likely is it people would get injured? How dangerous is an airsoft gun projectile compared to a frisbee, a baseball, a thrown tennis ball etc? Should kids be forbidden from using those too on the off chance that somebody might be hurt in the process? There's reasonable caution, and there's avoiding everything that could theoretically result in somebody getting hurt, which means pretty much everything kids like to do.

[energiewende]

“He is pointing the gun, and it looks like there’s a target in a tree in his front yard,” she told the dispatcher. “This is not a real one, but it makes people uncomfortable. I know that it makes me [uncomfortable], as a mom, to see a boy pointing a gun.”

This raises an interesting question: suppose that Mrs Nervous Neighbour had not mentioned the fact that the gun was not real even though she knew that it was not real, the police showed up and shot the kid. Could the neighbour be charged with manslaughter, or reckless endangerment?

[Vendetta]

How dangerous is an airsoft gun projectile compared to a frisbee, a baseball, a thrown tennis ball etc?

Airsoft doesn't rely on the force available to the person throwing it. So yes, it's more dangerous than those things in the hands of a child, especially if it hits the eyes.

If your child is playing airsoft, they need eye protection. If they're playing frisbee, not so much.

[TheFeniX]

I think that playing with (airsoft or any other) guns in a neighborhood where other people might be injured is stupid. It doesn't matter how powerful or flimsy the airsoft gun was. Even if it couldn't have shot far, you're still not teaching safety and reasonable caution to your kids. That being said, the school shouldn't be able to say fuck-all about it.

What about Nerf Guns and Water Guns? At what point does something become enough not like an actual firearm for people to say "that's ok."

I had one of these bad motherfuckers when I was in high school. It hit like a battering-ram and could easily blind you if fired at close range. I would classify it as dangerous and not for general water-gun shenanigans. But to apply that to all water guns is asinine.

Airsoft doesn't rely on the force available to the person throwing it. So yes, it's more dangerous than those things in the hands of a child, especially if it hits the eyes.

You can throw a tennis ball with more power (and likely accuracy) than you could fire pellets out of the cheap airsofts you find at WalMart. We were playing wall-ball and the Little League (or whatever they put you in during middle school) pitcher playing hit another guy in the head hard enough to stagger him and force him to sit down for a minute. It left a noticeable welt. Had that been a baseball, the kid could easily have been killed. You're fucking crazy if you classify airsoft as more dangerous than a baseball. Maybe in the hand of a toddler, but these kids were around 13 years.

Those "professional grade" Airsoft weapons which people dump money into like cars are another story. Those things can be "effective" up to 200ft and I'm sure they can break skin easily. Still, a choice between standing in front of that airsoft or a guy who knows how to throw a baseball? Easy choice.

There just isn't any force behind the spring-action pistol airsofts. I have one of the cheap 1911 knock-offs. It won't even break the skin at point blank range. It could run a high risk of blinding you however, but only at incredibly short ranges, like point blank. That's probably why it came with a set of safety glasses.