I’ve heard of youthful offenders but this is taking it too far
Bingham County investigates firearm brought to class
Earlier this week a Bingham County student brought a gun and ammunition to school. It was his father’s weapon and was normally kept in a gun safe. The student was suspended and will be expelled as mandated by both the state’s zero tolerance weapon law and the federal Guns Free School law.
He is 5 years old. Leniency is permitted only for handicapped students.
Principal Jennifer Mathis said the boy did not intend to do harm, and was under supervision the entire time the gun was in school.
So no damage was done and there was no real danger and even the school officials believe that no harm was intended. Still no leniency is permitted and he will be expelled from school at five years old.
“The district has a zero tolerance policy. It comes down to the safety of our staff and students,” [Superintendent Patti] Mortensen said.
…
Mortensen said students receive gun safety education at school, and educators teach an entire curriculum dedicated to it. Children are also told not to bring any type of weapon, real or fake, to school.“That is a message we tell the kids consistently,” she said.
Patti seems to have disregarded the reports from her employees and all of the particulars of this case. Then again, that’s what Zero Tolerance is all about.
Mortensen said she hopes the incident will raise awareness about gun safety.
It’ll raise awareness all right. The awareness that zero tolerance laws are perfect for ruining the scholastic career of a child of five for making a single mistake.
As much as I’d like to agree, I can’t really - a child brought up in an environment where the parents don’t notice he’s gone to school with a gun and ammo (which are of course ‘usually kept in a gun safe’ - aren’t they all) is a liability.
If the child ‘didn’t know what the gun could do’ as they usually claim, why did he bring the ammunition too?
Whether intentional or accidental, it’s still a liability the school cannot afford to ignore, and with a child of that age, punishments that operate on the ‘rational level’ of thought do not work as most kids of that age don’t think that way yet - cause and effect is mostly beyond them. The best option is to keep them out of the way.
Not a popular view, I’d imagine - but this is a world away from a ’shotgun in car after 17 year old student went hunting’ situation.
I disagree Harvey. There are much better ways to take care of this than expelling the student. As you said, cause and effect is very iffy at this age. Expelling the boy isn’t going to help him at all. Instruction, explanation, punishment, negative reinforcement, there’s a whole gamut of things that can be done to deal with him that will help him. This can also be used as a learning experience for the school. The point is that mandatory expulsion eliminates all other options out of hand.
As far as the parents…you’re damned right that there’s a problem there. They need to be charged with child endangerment for a start.
If he brought a fake gun to school, he would have been treated the same way.
Jim, expelling a student isn’t about helping the student, it’s about stating that educating that student is beyond the means of that facility.
While mandatory and zero-tolerance policies do not make sense in many cases (as bettina said, expelling the boy if he’d brought a toy gun would clearly be BS) I think in this case the punishment is reasonable - if I was a parent, there’s no damn way I’d let my child go to a school where a kid that age brings a gun and ammo in and is allowed to come back. Whether it’s the boy’s fault, or their parents’ fault, until the situation has been remedied and the cause determined, they need to be elsewhere. Once people have found out how it happened and made sure it can’t happen again, when they can come to school without presenting a very clear danger to others, then they can be taught alongside them.
That’s exactly my point. Once they’ve determined how this happened and made sure it can’t happen again and it is assured that this kid is not an accidental (or intentional if that’s the case) danger to others, he cannot be taught alongside them because he was expelled. There is no option to handle this case intelligently and independently based on its own particulars and the child’s own merits because the zero tolerance policy has mandated the final solution.
No comments about “Leniency is permitted only for handicapped students.” ? The handicapped get special reserved parking spaces, but are still allowed to park in the spaces of valid people. Parking in their space can result in a fine greater than that for running a red light, an act that can result in several deaths. Now it seems that if you are handicapped you can get away with a potentially lethal act that would get a valid student expelled. Sounds like when a handicapped student shows up at my kid’s school, I should get my kid out before he exercises his license to kill.