If it was your son...wwyd?

[BakersDozen]

 

You sound a little adversarial so I dont think you will likely be able to connect with him.

I'm sorry to come across this way as I do not feel adversarial at all in my heart. I am honest about this boy - more so than his parents will be. I know this kid. I've had this kid in my home for months on end for years on end. I am respected by this boy in a way he respects no other (even though he does challenge me daily...I always win and he knows that ;)). I do not hate him but I intensely dislike how he behaves. I intensely dislike how things went down after the incident (which was far more than him simply bringing a crowbar to school; he thought out his decision, planned for it, and is now bragging about it).

[SKL]

Wouldn't a crowbar in a backpack be considered a concealed weapon? And the child bragged about the intent...even saying that he HAD committed assault.

 

I don't think a crowbar in a back pack, w/the expressed intent to smash a child in the face is a neutral act.

 

 

No, a tool is not a weapon unless and until it is used as a weapon.

 

Also, that kind of thinking (which is getting too popular nowadays) is troublesome to me. First, it is NOT a crime to (a) own a tool, (b) carry a tool, © think about hurting someone, (d) talk about thinking about hurting someone, or even (e) make up stories about having hurt someone. Second, equating a tool in a backpack to a crime has caused a lot of good kids to get into trouble for completely innocent acts. Bringing a butter knife to eat their lunch, forgetting to take their boy scout knife out of their backpack, having a multi-tool in their car which is legally parked in the school lot.

 

There are many kids who think and even talk about hurting others, and don't get in trouble. (Haven't you ever pictured yourself kicking someone's butt after they obnoxiously hurt your loved one?) The difference here is that this boy does not seem to think like a normal person, with clear damage to himself and possible damage to others. This is a psychological problem. Maybe it could lead to a crime, but it is not a crime based on the facts we have now. Lots of people "talk big" but would never actually follow though and hurt another person, especially not with a heavy tool. You can't punish for something that has not happened and might never have.

[Impish]

No, a tool is not a weapon unless and until it is used as a weapon.

 

Also, that kind of thinking (which is getting too popular nowadays) is troublesome to me. First, it is NOT a crime to (a) own a tool, (b) carry a tool, © think about hurting someone, (d) talk about thinking about hurting someone, or even (e) make up stories about having hurt someone. Second, equating a tool in a backpack to a crime has caused a lot of good kids to get into trouble for completely innocent acts. Bringing a butter knife to eat their lunch, forgetting to take their boy scout knife out of their backpack, having a multi-tool in their car which is legally parked in the school lot.

 

There are many kids who think and even talk about hurting others, and don't get in trouble. (Haven't you ever pictured yourself kicking someone's butt after they obnoxiously hurt your loved one?) The difference here is that this boy does not seem to think like a normal person, with clear damage to himself and possible damage to others. This is a psychological problem. Maybe it could lead to a crime, but it is not a crime based on the facts we have now. Lots of people "talk big" but would never actually follow though and hurt another person, especially not with a heavy tool. You can't punish for something that has not happened and might never have.

I think what gets me is that there is no use nor need for a child to have a crowbar in a backpack to start w/, other than his stated intention. I mean, a kid is going to have use for a crowbar at school? It's just not an innocent act. Big diff btwn a butter knife and a crowbar, imo.

 

To me, there is a diff btwn thinking, saying (depending...uttering threats is an indictable offence) and prepping for it by having a crowbar in a backpack.

 

I guess I'm thinking about the intended victim and his parents. I know if a kid brought a crowbar in his backpack, intended to smash my kid in the head w/it, I wouldn't consider it a neutral act. At all.

 

What prevented the assault from happening? Did the op mention that?

[SKL]

I think what gets me is that there is no use nor need for a child to have a crowbar in a backpack

 

What prevented the assault from happening? Did the op mention that?

 

Whether all contents of a kid's backpack have a school-oriented purpose is not (thank goodness) a criterion for whether a crime has been committed.

 

The second part above is a good question - I too wonder.

 

I think we also need to remember that we don't know the other side of the story. Are we sure the boy didn't bring the crowbar because he was afraid he might need to defend himself against another kid's threatened or feared attack? I know he isn't saying that . . . but it's pretty clear we can't rely entirely on his words. Boys often won't tell that they feel like a victim. This is especially true if the child is being sexually harassed or abused. Some food for thought.

 

I'd be very afraid for my child if he thought bringing a crowbar to school was the solution to whatever problem he was facing. Very alarmed. I'd take action. But the fact remains that he didn't commit a crime. If I act like he did, I'm acting crazy and not giving him a very good example to follow.

[Soror]

Crowbars are really heavy. I'm just trying to imagine how effectively a 12 year old could swing one around without anyone noticing.

 

Not all are though. Any small enough to fit in a backpack probably wouldn't be too heavy.

 

I want to sign up for the bubble of perfect kids and put in my order now before the teen years :)

[BakersDozen]

Fast update: This afternoon the mom of the 12yo came by and I casually asked how the community service was going and would her ds be done by the time his suspension was over? Turns out the community service (40 hours) replaced the 2-month suspension so the end result of this boy's actions is just community service. No counseling. The mom said her ds had been asking to work at the rescue ranch for a while so "he is really happy to be doing that".

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Okay, I have EXTENSIVE experience with troubled kids and I don't think this thread is full of pat silly useless answers at all.

 

I had one sister in and out if drug rehab and juvie for seven years, and two other siblings who partied really hard but got away with it. I have also had fourteen years experience with troubled youth in inner-city Chicago both in and out of the foster care system.

 

A kid struggling in the way the OPs kid is needs an entirely new context that includes entirely new friends and tons of adult supervision. He also needs to work hard physically and be waaaaaay busier.

 

I would have chosen community service.

 

I would not allow the kid back at the same public school. EVER.

 

I would get therapy for the kid, as well as some serious exercise, whether that means being involved in a sport or jogging morning and night with dad.

 

Martial arts would be at least on a moratorium. I was in martial arts myself for two years, and my school had a strict policy against inappropriate violence. OPs kid should not be in martial arts until he has earned the right to be there.

 

I think one of the parents should cut down work hours significantly to spend more time with the kid.

 

Kid's social life would become heavily supervised, and socializing would occur only in my home or with a parent present.

 

None of this has to be ugly or mean--it can be done in a positive manner.

 

The kid in the OP is standing on the edge of a cliff. Drastic measures are needed to save his life. I am not exaggerating, and I have the YEARS of experience under my belt to say so.

 

To Chucki and others puzzled about the trial--it was probably a juvenile court trial, which is totally different from an adult criminal court trial. Standards for charges and so forth are totally different.

 

I have to agree totally. I would also take away electronics/TV/music unless it was of my choosing such as an occasional educational show or show withing character values/morals or classical music.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Sorry, this isnt what FAPE is about. FAPE says we educate everyone in the US. Not just the kids who sit quietly.

 

Unfortunately, I just learned that FAPE may not apply to all kids. It only applys to only those with disabilities which to me is unbelievable. To me all kids should be entitled to a appropriate education which to me includes being safe and not subjected to abysmal behavior. I think emotionally disturbed kids who attack others or subject others to wildly inappropriate behavior should be educated in special classrooms in another building so that the other students may have an appropriate education too:glare: I was talking to an early elementary teacher who told me of kids who attacked others and who exposed themselves and touched themselves on an almost daily basis in the classroom. If my kid was in this class, I would be taking him home and getting a lawyer!!!! I just do not understand how the law supposedly allows for this. Of course, I want to see disabled children protected too but not to the extent that the classroom becomes unsafe or totally inappropriate.