Don't let your children draw pictures of guns...

[frommycolddeadhands]

My God, how ridiculous!! I know times have changed, but arresting an 11 year old for drawing a picture is beyond the pale. A long time ago, when I was a kid, we actually played with toy guns that you could load with "caps" and when you pulled the trigger, they popped. Anyone else remember these? And we used to point them at each other and shoot each other. (Gasp!!) The one "shot" would fall down dead and lay there for a minute or two, then get up and we would act out another scenario. You know what? None of us has ever shot or theatened to shoot anyone yet. We all understood it was just play; our parents and other adults didn't pay any attention to us. They knew we were just kids, playing. There were even holsters for the toy guns, sheriff's badges, etc. We had a lot of fun and none of us ever took it seriously, we knew it was play. There is the crux of the matter: thanks to the media and tv, kids today are confused as to what is real and what is not, what is play and make believe. That and all the anti gun propoganda. Hell, I had MY OWN .22 rifle when I was 10; went hunting with my grandfather. Never pointed it at anything that wasn't potential food. Parents and other adults spent more time actually raising their kids and keeping tabs on what they were doing than parents today seem to do. Raising your children was actually deemed a worthwhile endeavor. Now before you flame me, please understand I am NOT saying that all or even many parents neglect or ignore their children. I'm not saying that at all. But we live in much busier times and sometimes it seems that raising kids is just another activity, like you job, or a leisure time activity. I don't know exactly how to put it. It no longer seems like the central theme of family life, just something to be squeezed into the day. If you doubt me, take a look at our overflowing jails and prisons. Funny how those of us that grew up in very involved families never ended up in one of those. I am NOT slamming anyone on here or anywhere else. It has been proven that there is a direct correlation between lack of good parenting and crime. I was more afraid of my parents than the police! We live in a faster world and also a world where we have the opportunity to do so many things, get involved in so many activities, both as children and adults. How can you possibly have any quality family time when everyone goes their separate ways all the time? We ate breakfast and dinner together, as a family. Lunch we were at school and parents were working. I know I have gotten OT here, but I feel this is related to the topic. If this kid had drawn a picture like this back when I was a kid, it wouldn't have gotten a second glance.

Yup, I used to have the Lone Ranger cowboy set. Came with twin revolvers, two holsers, the mask and a little plastic sheriff badge. Many a-time did I defend the playground from incoming Comanche's, cattle rustlers, and at odd times space aliens. A good time was had by all.

And I agree that if this kid had simply been playing a game, or drawing a picture, or even playing with a plastic toy gun then this would have been a non issue.

The fact that the kid wrote about killing a teacher turned a simple kids picture into a disturbing threat, and I think that the teacher had the right to raise a red flag on this one. I don't think law enforcement needed to be involved. I think that a call to the kids parents would have sufficed.

Acknowledging that kids play games is one thing. Turning a blind eye to a possible homicidal ideation is another.

 

[marshaul]

So then you should understand that words were written by the boy. Words that stated "teacher must die" I believe was the exact quote.

Absent those words, the picture was simply stick figure people holding things.

Is it a threat because the teacher saw the paper?

What about the fact that he didn't show it to her, she intercepted it?

Is it a threat to draw pictures of killing people you don't like, if you don't show that person those pictures and they never see them?

What about just fantasizing about killing a person? Is that a threat?

 

[marshaul]

Trying to have a conversation and I am not sure how ignoring the question is productive. To me the repercussions of how you would handle this are a possible infringement on 1st amendment rights with the possibility of that translating into other infringements on rights. Are you willing to accept that? I, for one, am not.

It's eye95.

That's what he does: injects a little useless sophistry, and then "moves on".

It's a passive-aggressive tactic.

 

[Twiztid Angel]

All the more reason the homeschool your children.....I see their art as just that ART!!!

 

[marshaul]

All the more reason the homeschool your children.....I see there art as just that ART!!!

And perhaps a reason not to as well.

 

[wrightme]

Is it a threat because the teacher saw the paper?

What about the fact that he didn't show it to her, she intercepted it?

Is it a threat to draw pictures of killing people you don't like, if you don't show that person those pictures and they never see them?

What about just fantasizing about killing a person? Is that a threat?

Once it is on paper and seen, it is. Had it never seen the light of day, who cares? But, choosing to toss it out where it can be retrieved did bring it to light. Once it hit the light of day, it is valid to treat it as an actual threat.

There was no need to show it to the teacher for it to be considered a threat. Once someone sees it, it is a known. Keeping that under wraps gets exponentially more difficult with each person who sees it.

 

[wrightme]

http://www.kdvr.com/kdvr-arvada-res...over-violent-drawing-20110302,0,1074725.story

“This detention, on its face, may seem egregious,” the City of Arvada said in a statement.

“However, there is background in this case that cannot be publicly discussed because the information regarding this juvenile is protected information and by law, we cannot release these facts.“

I wonder if the whole true story will ever see the light of day.

 

[Twiztid Angel]

And perhaps a reason not to as well.

LOL when your writing in a hurry you tend to make mistakes there...their better

Sorry I did not know I had to be perfect in my forum grammar, I will try to be more precise in the future.:lol:

 

[marshaul]

Once it is on paper and seen, it is. Had it never seen the light of day, who cares? But, choosing to toss it out where it can be retrieved did bring it to light. Once it hit the light of day, it is valid to treat it as an actual threat.

There was no need to show it to the teacher for it to be considered a threat. Once someone sees it, it is a known. Keeping that under wraps gets exponentially more difficult with each person who sees it.

Just to be clear, your definition of "threat" doesn't require intent. Correct?

 

[marshaul]

LOL when your writing in a hurry you tend to make mistakes there...their better

Sorry I did not know I had to be perfect in my forum grammar, I will try to be more precise in the future.:lol:

It's not that you have to maintain perfect grammar on a forum.

Expect the irony to be noted, however, whenever grammatical mistakes are coupled with statements about the preferability of one form of education over another.

 

[Claytron]

Just to be clear, your definition of "thread" doesn't require intent. Correct?

Just to be clear, after seeing how worked up you get when you see people not typing on par with you, surely when you say "thread" you dont mean "threat"?

If "thread" was what you meant to type, what exactly are you talking about? I didnt notice him say anything about threads in that post or his few previous posts.

 

[marshaul]

Just to be clear, after seeing how worked up you get when you see people not typing on par with you, surely when you say "thread" you dont mean "threat"?

See, whereas I was making a joking observation of irony, your post has no point, as it's perfectly clear what I meant to type.

It should be pretty obvious that it's amusing when an obvious grammatical error like confusion of "their" vs "there" is coupled with a statement of educational preferences. This, by the way, has nothing to do with typing ability. The difference between "there" and "their" is more than a single character, and their confusion indicates a failure to appreciate the difference, rather than a simple typo. So, in that grammatical correctitude reflects education, and typos reflect typing ability, your attempt to call me out comes across as a total non sequitur. The irony icing on the cake is the fact that, in light of your complete failure to recognize the facetious intent behind my correction, you have become the spelling nazi, not I.

So there.

 

[Twiztid Angel]

It's not that you have to maintain perfect grammar on a forum.

Expect the irony to be noted, however, whenever grammatical mistakes are coupled with statements about the preferability of one form of education over another.

Perfect grammar and manners should only be expected from 8am to 1pm daily Sometimes our brains don't always function as quickly as our fingers....which happens to be my case as I speed type lol.


Either way the child was under professional care and the school thought the child was no threat. It shouldn't have went where it did, they went too far. I feel bad for this child now he will forever remember that expressing himself in a nonviolent way (by drawing instead of acting) is not acceptable.

 

[marshaul]

Either way the child was under professional care and the school thought the child was no threat. It shouldn't have went where it did, they went too far. I feel bad for this child now he will forever remember that expressing himself in a nonviolent way (by drawing instead of acting) is not acceptable.

I agree.

I do wonder what the "background" in the case makes the detention less "egregious".

I'm inclined to agree that it's possible a threat could reasonable have been construed, given that we don't know the "totality of circumstances". But I'm inclined to reject wrightme's definition of "threat", which doesn't require intent.

A threat without intent is, what? Reckless endangerment? Nothing?

 

[Twiztid Angel]

I agree.

I do wonder what the "background" in the case makes the detention less "egregious".

I'm inclined to agree that it's possible a threat could reasonable have been construed, given that we don't know the "totality of circumstances". But I'm inclined to reject wrightme's definition of "threat", which doesn't require intent.

A threat without intent is, what? Reckless endangerment? Nothing?

The child was instructed by his counselor to use art as a way to express himself. I was a Autistic therapist for a few years and the children we worked with were given similar instructions, I can't say we ever took what they drew as a threat even though we would get thrown off of buildings or run over by cars in their drawings (this was children who were more Asbergers than straight Autism). Their intent was not to actually do those things but to let anger out over their frustrations. The fact that the child threw it away (the children are instructed to draw and then throw them away to get the feelings out and in a way get over them....they hang onto them as long as they wish and then when it bothers them no more they throw them away) means he harbored no ill intent and was just getting his frustration out.

 

[marshaul]

The child was instructed by his counselor to use art as a way to express himself. I was a Autistic therapist for a few years and the children we worked with were given similar instructions, I can't say we ever took what they drew as a threat even though we would get thrown off of buildings or run over by cars in there drawings (this was children who were more Asbergers than straight Autism). There intent was not to actually do those things but to let anger out over there frustrations. The fact that the child threw it away (the children are instructed to draw and then throw them away to get the feelings out and in a way get over them....they hang onto them as long as they wish and then when it bothers them no more they throw them away) means he harbored no ill intent and was just getting his frustration out.

Right, this is why I am seriously disinclined to throw intent out the window.

Without intent, where exactly do you draw the line against construing anything as a threat?

 

[Twiztid Angel]

Right, this is why I am seriously disinclined to throw intent out the window.

Without intent, where exactly do you draw the line against construing anything as a threat?

I think all parties involved need to realize this is an 11 year old child, he did not bring a weapon to school to do harm, he did not yell it at the top of his lungs while lunging toward his teacher. He made a drawing that he was content with throwing away.

If he had verbally said "I want to kill you" while in manner or attitude that showed force then yes that would be a threat but being 11 its hard to say. I think his age is a big giveaway to how someone else that age would react and children unfortunately use those kinds of words amongst themselves meaning nothing.

My children are 11 and 14, my daughter-11 tells my son-14 shes gonna kill him all the time (ahhhh sibling love and I can blame there uncle as he started it after he got hooked on video games lol) but she doesn't mean she is litterly going to kill him. He doesn't take her seriously and neither do we because we know the child and know that she loves him and truly wouldn't do anything to harm him. She does get punished when she says it but she is usually mad for the moment and apologizes afterward.

 

[Claytron]

See, whereas I was making a joking observation of irony, your post has no point, as it's perfectly clear what I meant to type.

It should be pretty obvious that it's amusing when an obvious grammatical error like confusion of "their" vs "there" is coupled with a statement of educational preferences. This, by the way, has nothing to do with typing ability. The difference between "there" and "their" is more than a single character, and their confusion indicates a failure to appreciate the difference, rather than a simple typo. So, in that grammatical correctitude reflects education, and typos reflect typing ability, your attempt to call me out comes across as a total non sequitur. The irony icing on the cake is the fact that, in light of your complete failure to recognize the facetious intent behind my correction, you have become the spelling nazi, not I.

So there.

Im not a spelling nazi, im a trend nazi and im calling you out for saying non sequitur.

If i hear you talk about strawmanning someones argument it better be a wizard of oz thread, or i'll be goosestepping my way down the yellowbrick road right in your direction. Bro.

 

[END_THE_FED]

Im not a spelling nazi, im a trend nazi and im calling you out for saying non sequitur.

If i hear you talk about strawmanning someones argument it better be a wizard of oz thread, or i'll be goosestepping my way down the yellowbrick road right in your direction. Bro.

?

 

[marshaul]

?

:lol: That was my reaction.

Seriously, though, for the record: Twiztid Angel, I was just giving you a hard time. I have been known to give substantive advice on rare occasion, but I don't really need to call people out for minor mistakes and/or typos. I just couldn't resist in this once instance. And I was only doing it to rib you a little.