Student Faces Expulsion For Playing With Toy Gun In His Own Yard

[Brovane]

What the heck does that have to do with this case? The Police, administration and legal department were involved in the investigation along with the principal and the administration and legal department were involved in the judge and jury phase as well. If you are going to argue the point on this case you could at least bother to use relevant information.

First - a trial is not the only method to get an un-biased result out of the incident. Second - we have no idea if the parents were there to present their side of the story or have a 'hearing'. You cannot use the fact that a news story didn't report something as proof it didn't happen.

Lets see the police didn't see any need to file charges during their investigation. If the kids where firing at other children that where walking to the bus stop that is clear evidence of criminal activity. The fact that no police charges where filed tells me that not enough evidence was found to warrant a criminal complaint. The school district resources are essentially acting as judge and jury in this case. No un-bias 3rd party was brought in to decide if the actions occurred as claimed by the school district in the disciplinary action against the students involved. The legal department and administration of the school district is not a un-bias 3rd party.

 

[Exterous]

Lets see the police didn't see any need to file charges during their investigation. If the kids where firing at other children that where walking to the bus stop that is clear evidence of criminal activity. The fact that no police charges where filed tells me that not enough evidence was found to warrant a criminal complaint.

IANAL but I don't believe that is anywhere close to correct. In cases where the Police did not witness the event I am almost positive they need someone to press charges or at least tell them that an assault happened. For all we know the police and parents of the children at the bus stop decided not to do so because they thought the school decision went far enough. I am not up on how long juvenile records stay with you but perhaps everyone (including the Police) agreed that a suspension would be a far more fitting punishment than an official criminal record.

If someone tells them the assault happened I believe the police have the ability to decide if the school punishment is fitting unless someone files charges

No un-bias 3rd party was brought in to decide if the actions occurred as claimed by the school district in the disciplinary action against the students involved.

And you know this how? Your statement is in direct contradiction with the schools statement that the investigation was conducted with the police and this is the conclusion that they arrived at. What information are you in possession of that disproves their statement and supports yours?

The legal department and administration of the school district is not a un-bias 3rd party.

I agree but that doesn't prove the ruling was incorrect or inappropriate. Face it - you have no proof that anything was ill advised or didn't happen they way the school said it did. I see no other parents coming out to support the kid - no teachers or school personnel disagreeing with the ruling (and they can do so). No one is reporting the investigating officer is telling a different story. I don't even see the parents avowing to fight the decision and take it to the school board directly.

If information actually comes out that proves otherwise I will certainly change my stance but until then you may want to consider taking off your tin foil hat

 

[Exterous]

Also relevant:

City Code 38-3, primarily section (d) “ Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm, spring-propelled rifle or pistol, from, on, across or within one hundred fifty (150) yards of any building, dwelling, street, sidewalk, alley, roadway or public land or public place within the city limits.”

Section (f) “No person shall use a pneumatic gun in the area of the city described in (a) above except (i) at approved shooting ranges or (ii) on or within private property with permission of the owner or legal possessor thereof when conducted with reasonable care to prevent a projectile from crossing the bounds of the property. For purposes of this subsection, "pneumatic gun" means any implement designed as a gun that will expel a BB or a pellet by action of pneumatic pressure, including but not limited to paintball guns. Further, for the purpose of this subsection "reasonable care" means that the pneumatic gun is discharged in a manner so the projectile is contained on the property by a backstop, earthen embankment or fence. The discharge of projectiles across or over the bounds of the property shall create the rebuttable presumption that the use of the pneumatic gun was not conducted with reasonable care and shall constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor. “

No care was taken to ensure that the pellets didn't cross the boundary and the parents state the child did not have permission to use the gun while they were not there (violating the permission clause)