OT-Zero Tolerance policies gone way too far...

[Teal]

I think it's quaint how you always introduce your extreme views on these incendiary topics to the forum by posting these threads and acting like your viewpoint is so rational and common-sensical...only to have it get blown out of the water by the truly rational posters in this forum.

Truly rational...ok. If you consider yourself one of the "enlightened ones", then there's no use talking any more about this. You, of course, are right, if only because you are in the majority in an internet forum.

You may continue to believe this if you so choose, Mo. I will continue to voice my heartfelt opinion even if I'm the only one that has it. I don't really care if it's not the majority opinion or not. You go on thinking what ever it is that you think.

I'm done with defending my views from you. There's no need to defend them from you or anyone else. You seem to think I'm some backwater hick anyway, I guess. I love the elitism in the uses of phrases like "I think it's quaint how you always introduce your extreme views" like you are somehow above the fray, and anyone who disagrees with you is some lower form of life to be pitied. What a joke...

[Brando70]

It's in black and white in the Constitution. What irrational is trying to reason away the Constitution by "interpreting" the intentions of the people who wrote it.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Actually it is as far from black and white as you can get. Especially when you break it down.

The first clause
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State

The second clause
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

From my understanding of the constitution the SECOND clause is CONTROLLED by the FIRST clause.

How did this 9 year old know that the fellow child he was selling the gun to would use it to protect the United States or as it was ratified in 1791 to protect against theives, bandits, Native Americans or GASP a slave uprising.

Wait a second... We now let Native Americans and African Americans carry guns, as long as they have the proper permits. Oh how times and the constituion have changed.

Black and White? Furthest thing form the truth.

Good post, BD. The whole problem with the Second Amendment is that it isn't clear.

I read an interesting article by a Texas history professor, H.W. Brands, discussing this. Part of it said that people act like changing the Constitution is like committing heresy, when in fact the Constitution was set up to be altered regularly. He said we should amend it to clarify the Second Amendment, especially since the ideas of militias are outdated. He wasn't arguing pro or con for guns, just saying why not have a formal amendment and settle the issue once and for all. I thought it made a lot of sense, and I think gun ownership would probably remain legal since so many Americans want to own guns.

[Teal]

So let's say two kids make a pact to kill another kid. They draw up a plan, but never make it to school grounds. You're saying since it was just the idea of killing the kid, the school shouldn't take any action.

What does it say about a 9-year old who pulls off a well-planned B&E to get his grandpa's gun? You want that kid sitting next to yours?

When I was in high school (and granted, it was Catholic school), the school had a policy that if you were caught with alcohol or drugs outside of school grounds (e.g. at a party), you could be suspended. At the time, I thought it was the biggest bunch of crap I'd ever heard. But now I get what they were trying to do.

Also, anyone who talks about knee jerk teachers blah blah blah should go spend a week at a school. My father-in-law just retired from 30 years of teaching at a high school that went slowly down the toilet, a school that developed some fairly serious gang problems. Imagine what your workday would be like if you had to:

--walk through a metal detector.
--listen to people reporting to you (i.e. students) swear at you and refuse to cooperate, and you couldn't fire them.
--break up fights.
--deal with d*****bag parents telling you how to do your job.
--constantly search for illegal and possibly dangerous contraband.
--had to deal with other people's screwed up family situations.

Most schools don't deal with all of these problems, but every single one deals with at least a couple.

One, Brando, killing a kid vs. obtaining an Xbox amounts to apples vs. oranges. Stretching this thing out to an illogical conclusion doesn't do it any good. Better to keep it within the parameters of what actually transpired, rather than the "what if" stuff.

Two, I have no need to talk with your father in law. My dad was a teacher for eight years and a prinicipal for 20, the principal of my high school. I know a little about all the s**t that a teacher has to put up with and deal with.

Kids now have teachers running scared, and that's what causes unnecessary things like this to happen. As to the "well planned B&E", I don't believe the story. I think the grandpa may be trying to cover his behind. He may not be, but I don't think the investigation has gone far enough to know for sure.

I just fail to see how a suspension is in order here. Driving under the influece is illegal. This is like the police knocking on your door and arresting you for having alcohol in your home, because you might have gotten in your car at some point. Better safe than sorry has it's limits...

[pk500]

The right-wing position on guns is not wildly irrational. It's in black and white in the Constitution. What irrational is trying to reason away the Constitution by "interpreting" the intentions of the people who wrote it.

I think it's fine for the school to call police in this case. It was entirely appropriate.

What's stupid is suspending the kid because the weapon "could have been brought" to school. That could open the door to all sorts of invasions of privacy. They could suspend him for getting in trouble with law and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but enforcing school rules outside school is idiotic. I know lots of kids growing up who went hunting with their dads. Going by the school's logic, they'd be in trouble too.

I agree with Fatty 100 percent. I'm glad the school called. Was it the school's place? Probably not. But was it responsible use of common sense that probably prevented a tragedy? Yes.

As for suspending the kid, that's ridiculous. The weapon never entered school premises.

Think about it guys: If your boss found a small bottle of Jack Daniels that you won in a corporate golf outing in your briefcase, how would you feel if you were fired or laid off because "you might have brought that booze to work and been drinking on the job?" Or what if you were canned because your shotgun was in the gun rack of your truck that you drove to work on the first week of hunting season, and your boss feared you might shoot up the place?

School administrators were right to call the parents. They were wrong to suspend the kid. That only reinforces the message to the parents that they don't have to be responsible for their kids' welfare and discipline because the school will do it for them.

But I do agree with the school's role in notifying the parents. That's just common sense -- a no-brainer.

Take care,
PK

[Leebo33]

Better safe than sorry has it's limits...

Not when it concerns guns and kids.

[Teal]

i'm a little confused.

he didn't draw a picture of a gun.
he didn't make a finger gesture of a gun.
he didn't bring a gi joe doll gun into school.
he didn't merely utter the word "gun."

No, and he didn't bring a gun to school, either. Had he actually attempted to enter school grounds with it, then I'd agree. Suspend him. But to take what at that time was a family and police matter (he stole his grandpa's gun, and it was still at home) and inject school policy outside of school jurisdiction? I think that's really pushing it.

[Teal]

The right-wing position on guns is not wildly irrational. It's in black and white in the Constitution. What irrational is trying to reason away the Constitution by "interpreting" the intentions of the people who wrote it.

I think it's fine for the school to call police in this case. It was entirely appropriate.

What's stupid is suspending the kid because the weapon "could have been brought" to school. That could open the door to all sorts of invasions of privacy. They could suspend him for getting in trouble with law and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but enforcing school rules outside school is idiotic. I know lots of kids growing up who went hunting with their dads. Going by the school's logic, they'd be in trouble too.

I agree with Fatty 100 percent. I'm glad the school called. Was it the school's place? Probably not. But was it responsible use of common sense that probably prevented a tragedy? Yes.

As for suspending the kid, that's ridiculous. The weapon never entered school premises.

Think about it guys: If your boss found a small bottle of Jack Daniels that you won in a corporate golf outing in your briefcase, how would you feel if you were fired or laid off because "you might have brought that booze to work and been drinking on the job?" Or what if you were canned because your shotgun was in the gun rack of your truck that you drove to work on the first week of hunting season, and your boss feared you might shoot up the place?

School administrators were right to call the parents. They were wrong to suspend the kid. That only reinforces the message to the parents that they don't have to be responsible for their kids' welfare and discipline because the school will do it for them.

But I do agree with the school's role in notifying the parents. That's just common sense -- a no-brainer.

Take care,
PK

Right on, PK. Kudos to the school for contacting the parents. They would have been irresponsible to know this information and not share it. But suspending him is not the right course of action...

[pk500]

And one other thing: How does suspending a child for five days from school for something he "might" have done further the mission of the school, which is to educate the student?

That kid will miss five days of classroom instruction, five days that he could be learning. And with irresponsible morons as parents who leave loaded guns around their house, I'm sure that kid will be sitting at home watching TV or playing video games all day while pigging out on junk food during the duration of that suspension.

Wow, that boy sure is learning his lesson.

I don't think the school should have suspended the kid. But if it wanted to play Big Brother in a constructive way and try to discipline the child, then it could have forced him to stay in detention or stay for extra tutoring after school for five days.

That's not a pleasant thing for a 9-year-old when his friends all are leaving school on time, and it also would benefit his education a hell of a lot more than just leaving him home with trailer-trash parents for a week.

The irony that this suspension, which is the school version of "capital punishment," is supported by so many here with liberal leanings is not lost on me. Throw the kid away and lock him out of education for a week instead of keeping him under a tight leash in the school environment where he can keep up on his studies -- yeah, that's the kinder, gentler form of education that liberals espouse so often.

Zero tolerance, my ass. It should be called zero intelligence.

Take care,
PK

[Diablo25]

Imagine what your workday would be like if you had to:

--walk through a metal detector.
--listen to people reporting to you (i.e. students) swear at you and refuse to cooperate, and you couldn't fire them.
--break up fights.
--deal with d*****bag parents telling you how to do your job.
--constantly search for illegal and possibly dangerous contraband.
--had to deal with other people's screwed up family situations.

This is so true. I teach at a "good" high school and I have to put up with most of this stuff on a weekly basis. I can't imagine what its like in an inner city school. Hey, I realize that I chose this profession but some of the crap going on in public schools these days is a joke. Don't even get me started on "No Child Left Behind". Teachers are constantly having to deal with students rights, parents "views" on curriculum (and other issues they have NO CLUE on), discipline, etc. It gets worse when you have administrators that don't back or support the teachers. Liberals

Sorry for the OT rant.

[pk500]

Diablo:

You mean "No Standardized Test Left Behind?"

Thanks to Bush, we're raising a generation of skilled test takers instead of thinkers.

I don't know of a single educator -- including my sister, a 20-year veteran of elementary education -- who thinks "No Child Left Behind" is a good idea. But meanwhile, Washington knows what's better for American schools than the educators on the ground.

Education is one of the many areas where Bush is a complete f*ck-up.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

One, Brando, killing a kid vs. obtaining an Xbox amounts to apples vs. oranges. Stretching this thing out to an illogical conclusion doesn't do it any good. Better to keep it within the parameters of what actually transpired, rather than the "what if" stuff.

Okay, fair enough. But still, we're talking about a child on his way to school with a loaded gun. That's at least a red flag in terms of behavior. We're they just a couple kids doing something stupid? Probably. But the suspension also gives the school a chance to investigate. I don't think that's running scared at all. It's not like he was bring firecrackers to school.

Two, I have no need to talk with your father in law. My dad was a teacher for eight years and a prinicipal for 20, the principal of my high school. I know a little about all the s**t that a teacher has to put up with and deal with.

Again, fair argument. All I know is I was absolutely floored by some of the stuff he had to deal with -- and he was a pretty tough, gun-toting Vietnam vet.

Kids now have teachers running scared, and that's what causes unnecessary things like this to happen. As to the "well planned B&E", I don't believe the story. I think the grandpa may be trying to cover his behind. He may not be, but I don't think the investigation has gone far enough to know for sure.

Good point about the grandpa, I didn't think of that. However, I think in light of what's happened in schools, this isn't running scared. Sadly, it's not unthinkable anymore for a 9-year old to shoot someone. It's more believable to think a 9-year old with a loaded gun will likely hurt another student accidentally, too.

I just fail to see how a suspension is in order here. Driving under the influece is illegal. This is like the police knocking on your door and arresting you for having alcohol in your home, because you might have gotten in your car at some point. Better safe than sorry has it's limits...

Well, now I think you've gotten out the oranges Possessing liquor in your home is not illegal. Walking around with a loaded gun that isn't yours is. It's more like you're standing at your car with your keys in one hand, opened 40 of malt liquor in the other.

And I agree that schools overreact sometimes. My youngest brother got suspended shortly after Columbine because he said he was going to "kill someone," the way a lot of young boys say "I'm going to kill you." The school had adopted a zero-threat policy and suspended him. It was actually win-win for him -- my parents didn't get mad because it was silly, and he stayed home and played Diablo for 2 days!

[Teal]

Diablo:

You mean "No Standardized Test Left Behind?"

Thanks to Bush, we're raising a generation of skilled test takers instead of thinkers.

I don't know of a single educator -- including my sister, a 20-year veteran of elementary education -- who thinks "No Child Left Behind" is a good idea. But meanwhile, Washington knows what's better for American schools than the educators on the ground.

Education is one of the many areas where Bush is a complete f*ck-up.

Take care,
PK

PK, I'm going to surpise you. Ready? I agree with this wholeheartedly. Bush has dropped the ball with the "No Child Left Behind" stuff. My sister is a Spanish teacher, and hates NCLB. It's fluff, and doesn't accomplish much except maybe inflating the numbers. Politicians and schools...ugh.

[Teal]

One, Brando, killing a kid vs. obtaining an Xbox amounts to apples vs. oranges. Stretching this thing out to an illogical conclusion doesn't do it any good. Better to keep it within the parameters of what actually transpired, rather than the "what if" stuff.

Okay, fair enough. But still, we're talking about a child on his way to school with a loaded gun. That's at least a red flag in terms of behavior. We're they just a couple kids doing something stupid? Probably. But the suspension also gives the school a chance to investigate. I don't think that's running scared at all. It's not like he was bring firecrackers to school.

Two, I have no need to talk with your father in law. My dad was a teacher for eight years and a prinicipal for 20, the principal of my high school. I know a little about all the s**t that a teacher has to put up with and deal with.

Again, fair argument. All I know is I was absolutely floored by some of the stuff he had to deal with -- and he was a pretty tough, gun-toting Vietnam vet.

Kids now have teachers running scared, and that's what causes unnecessary things like this to happen. As to the "well planned B&E", I don't believe the story. I think the grandpa may be trying to cover his behind. He may not be, but I don't think the investigation has gone far enough to know for sure.

Good point about the grandpa, I didn't think of that. However, I think in light of what's happened in schools, this isn't running scared. Sadly, it's not unthinkable anymore for a 9-year old to shoot someone. It's more believable to think a 9-year old with a loaded gun will likely hurt another student accidentally, too.

I just fail to see how a suspension is in order here. Driving under the influece is illegal. This is like the police knocking on your door and arresting you for having alcohol in your home, because you might have gotten in your car at some point. Better safe than sorry has it's limits...

Well, now I think you've gotten out the oranges Possessing liquor in your home is not illegal. Walking around with a loaded gun that isn't yours is. It's more like you're standing at your car with your keys in one hand, opened 40 of malt liquor in the other.

And I agree that schools overreact sometimes. My youngest brother got suspended shortly after Columbine because he said he was going to "kill someone," the way a lot of young boys say "I'm going to kill you." The school had adopted a zero-threat policy and suspended him. It was actually win-win for him -- my parents didn't get mad because it was silly, and he stayed home and played Diablo for 2 days!

Good post, Brando. The liquor in the home thing...I don't think I said it right. What I meant to say was that it would be like the police arresting you at your home for being drunk, in order to prevent you from possibly, at some point, getting in your car.

BTW, I appreciate the fact that we can have a civil discussion without demeaning each other...it's refreshing.

[FatPitcher]

First, on the constitutional thing, the 2nd Amendment says 2 things:
1. A well-regulated militia is necessary
2. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

It doesn't say that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed if and only if a well-regulated militia is still necessary.

That being said, gun control laws have very little to do with this incident, and I don't think even the most extreme NRA member supports 9 year olds taking guns to school. The right-wing loonies remark was just a hateful little gibe that doesn't apply to this case at all.

Second, yes, I think the kid should be suspended, but not because he was thinking about bringing a gun to school. There should be a school policy (if there isn't already) that if you get in trouble with the police, you get in trouble at school, too. In other words, I have no problem with the kid being suspended or expelled. It's the reasoning behind it that is silly. The school is taking on the role of police outside the school, and that's not their place.

Now, the article probably doesn't give the full story. If the "real" story is that the police investigated, the kid admitted he was going to being the thing to school, and the school is suspending him as a safety measure pending the outcome of the court's findings, that's fine. If the school is proactively punishing the kid for something that he hasn't even been found guilty of, that's a different matter. In the end, it's just semantics and the result is likely the same, but I'm a big fan of the whole "due process" thing, even for kids. The end doesn't justify the means.

[Diablo25]

Diablo:

You mean "No Standardized Test Left Behind?"

Thanks to Bush, we're raising a generation of skilled test takers instead of thinkers.

I don't know of a single educator -- including my sister, a 20-year veteran of elementary education -- who thinks "No Child Left Behind" is a good idea. But meanwhile, Washington knows what's better for American schools than the educators on the ground.

Education is one of the many areas where Bush is a complete f*ck-up.

Take care,
PK

Couldn't have said it better myself. Right now Im sitting in school where our schedule is so screwed up because we are giving the state standards tests to the Jr's. The Whole day is a waste because of these tests that G Dub's ridiculous plan bases everything on. JOKE. I'm not against changing for the better...but Bush's educational plan is beyond a mockery.
The "decision makers" in DC have NO IDEA what is best for schools.

[bdoughty]

First, on the constitutional thing, the 2nd Amendment says 2 things:
1. A well-regulated militia is necessary
2. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

It doesn't say that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed if and only if a well-regulated militia is still necessary.

Now you are the one speculating on what it may or might not mean. It is logical to assume that we will always need a well-regulate militia. There will always be a need to defend ourselves. The emphasis for the first clause controlling the second clause was almost like they knew how the Amendment could be abused, just not to what extreme. The drafters of our constitution never lived in a world with David Koresh (Waco) the Columbine shootings, etc.

Do you honestly believe that if our constitution was written today the 2nd Amendment would be so vague?

[thebigcaptain]

i'm a little confused.

he didn't draw a picture of a gun.
he didn't make a finger gesture of a gun.
he didn't bring a gi joe doll gun into school.
he didn't merely utter the word "gun."

No, and he didn't bring a gun to school, either. Had he actually attempted to enter school grounds with it, then I'd agree. Suspend him. But to take what at that time was a family and police matter (he stole his grandpa's gun, and it was still at home) and inject school policy outside of school jurisdiction? I think that's really pushing it.

my mistake.
i'm not the one that is confused.
you are.

you say the school is injecting school policy outside of school jurisdiction.

the school has imposed a suspension, not an expulsion, upon this student pending police investigation of that same student's attempt to trade a handgun that he had stolen to another student in the school.

the offer to trade this stolen handgun was made on school property to another student of this school. if he had not stolen this handgun, and was therefore in no position to offer it in trade, then i might understand your position.

but he had stolen the handgun. that fact renders your assertation that he didn't have the gun with him at the time he made this offer as moot, or in other words, completely meaningless.

he was in possession of this stolen handgun, even if he wasn't carrying it on school property at the time he made his offer.

a simple "yes" from the other boy with the xbox and that stolen loaded handgun appears for certain on school property in the hands of children.

exactly how do you justify your statement that the school is injecting school policy outside of the school jurisdiction?
they didn't suspend him for stealing grampy's gun.
he was suspended for offering it to another student on school property.
the school would never have even known about the theft of grampy's gun had the student not made that offer.

the school is not encarcerating this young man.
the school is not removing this young man from his home environment.
they are merely suspending his privilege to attend classes until the facts have been sorted out.
that is a proper and entirely justified application of school policy within school jurisdiction and i don't care where anyone stands on the issue of the constitutional right to bear arms.
this case has nothing to do with that.

[skidmark]

The drafters of our constitution never lived in a world with David Koresh (Waco) the Columbine shootings, etc.

No, but they didn't live in Candyland either...

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-Thomas Jefferson

[pk500]

Again, can any of the pro-suspension group explain to me why it's better to keep this kid out of school for five days, at home eating Cheetos and watching "Rugrats" with his irresponsible parents or a sitter, instead of in the classroom where he belongs, all for something he <i>might</i> have done at school?

The punishment simply does not match the offense. I don't believe any school discipline is necessary -- this is a home offense. But if the school really wants to play Big Brother, then detention or extra after-school tutoring -- neither of which kids like but do benefit them -- will teach this kid a greater lesson than sitting at home and playing Mario Brothers all day.

Think about when you were 9: If someone told you that you were missing the next five days of school, you'd feel elated rather than humiliated or chastened.

"Five days with no school? Yippee!"

"Five days with detention or after-school tutoring? That sucks -- I must have done something wrong."

Take care,
PK

[bdoughty]

The drafters of our constitution never lived in a world with David Koresh (Waco) the Columbine shootings, etc.

No, but they didn't live in Candyland either...

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-Thomas Jefferson

Never said they didn't but I am pretty sure school shootings by children were not the hot topic of the day back in the 1700's.

All that quote does is show how far off Thomas Jeffersons wisdom is when it relates to the world we live in TODAY. It does not take a rocket scientist to look at the worldwide homocide/gun related death rate to see that countries that have lax gun control are at the top.


Oh and #1 South Africa (who has 8 times the nearest homocide rate then any other country) just got worse

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/afric ... rime.reut/

The #1 culprit is...........

Survey says

[bdoughty]

Think about when you were 9: If someone told you that you were missing the next five days of school, you'd feel elated rather than humiliated or chastened.

"Five days with no school? Yippee!"

"Five days with detention or after-school tutoring? That sucks -- I must have done something wrong."

Take care,
PK

I am 110% sure your parents raised you better then that and once you realize what those 5 days at home would have been like you might reconsider your stance. I know that if I was SUPENDED for 5 days of school my life would have been a living hell and I would have loved detetnetion. My parents would have beaten my ass cherry red and then for 5 days I would have worked my ass off (manual labor).

[skidmark]

Pk, your beef seems to be much more with the educational system's ludicrous methods of punishment rather than the fact that they punished him.

The reporting we see here obviously isn't the whole story, but if I was a school administrator, I would have no problem in punishing a kid for the act of negotiating a gun for xbox deal at the school.

I do agree with you that sending any kid home for 5 days to a family that isn't going to back up any discipline is silly and is wrecking havoc with kids today. If they don't have the parenting in their lives to prevent them from walking down that road to begin with, a 5 day stay at home isn't helping any... its a sad situation but heightening teacher or school involvement is not the answer to it.

[Brando70]

Again, can any of the pro-suspension group explain to me why it's better to keep this kid out of school for five days, at home eating Cheetos and watching "Rugrats" with his irresponsible parents or a sitter, instead of in the classroom where he belongs, all for something he <i>might</i> have done at school?

The punishment simply does not match the offense. I don't believe any school discipline is necessary -- this is a home offense. But if the school really wants to play Big Brother, then detention or extra after-school tutoring -- neither of which kids like but do benefit them -- will teach this kid a greater lesson than sitting at home and playing Mario Brothers all day.

Think about when you were 9: If someone told you that you were missing the next five days of school, you'd feel elated rather than humiliated or chastened.

"Five days with no school? Yippee!"

"Five days with detention or after-school tutoring? That sucks -- I must have done something wrong."

Take care,
PK

It's not like the kid got caught with Playboys in his backpack. He was going to bring a freaking gun to school. A loaded gun. And it was in his backpack. If they investigated the story, and the gun was still around the house somewhere, I could see the point of not suspending him or even discounting the whole story. But if it's in his backpack, I would assume he at least considered bringing it to school.

Whether or not he is punished by missing school is beside the point. He should have his ass beat IMHO. But if his guardians don't punish him, that's their problem. Plus, since his guardians also seem a bit negligent, the suspension is a way to punish them, too, since they have to make arrangements for him during the suspension.

[thebigcaptain]

Again, can any of the pro-suspension group explain to me why it's better to keep this kid out of school for five days, at home eating Cheetos and watching "Rugrats" with his irresponsible parents or a sitter, instead of in the classroom where he belongs, all for something he <i>might</i> have done at school?

The punishment simply does not match the offense. I don't believe any school discipline is necessary -- this is a home offense.
Take care,
PK

this is not a home offense.
one student has stolen a gun and offered it to another student on school property. i repeat, this is not a home offense for which he is being suspended. the offer to exchange the stolen gun was made to another student on school grounds. this is why he was suspended.

would you want your child sitting next to someone exhibiting this type of behavior without at least some sort of investigation that would determine the suitability of allowing this student back into the classroom?

[thebigcaptain]

Again, can any of the pro-suspension group explain to me why it's better to keep this kid out of school for five days, at home eating Cheetos and watching "Rugrats" with his irresponsible parents or a sitter, instead of in the classroom where he belongs, all for something he <i>might</i> have done at school?

one other point i neglected in my previous note.
he didn't "might" have done anything.
he absolutely did offer to trade a gun that he stole to another student.
what may have happened as a result afterwards is conjecture.
what will happen from here on in is what will determine when he is able to resume attending classes.