“1st-Grader Threatens To Shoot Classmate”

green gun
not this kid… or WAS IT???

KCRA reports:

A first-grader at a Sacramento school threatened to shoot a classmate over an argument, police said.

Authorities were called to Caroline Wenzel Elementary School at 6870 Greenhaven Drive at 11:45 a.m. Monday to assist school officials with an investigation, Officer Norm Leong said.

The 6-year-old’s father was contacted and advised of the threat. No arrests were made.

Investigation? No arrests made? You don’t say. I’m glad the principal, Judy Montgomery/Philip Moore according to SCUSD’s website, didn’t decide to go off book and handle this themselves. If this was my kid, I would be so livid that I would probably forget to scold him for being such a dingbat. Is that really the district’s policy when it comes to these things?

The only mitigating circumstance I can think of is that the school could have had reason to believe the kid could actually carry something out — like his dad was an ex-con or something, or they knew there were unlocked guns in the home. But I think it’s way more likely that the administrators here simply made the wrong call (IMHO). I’m going to do some digging and see if the police report has any helpful details…

Advertisements

Author: CoolDMZ

"X-ray vision to see in between / Where's my kimono and my time machine?"

6 thoughts on ““1st-Grader Threatens To Shoot Classmate””

  1. I saw this in the news yesterday and tried not to read it for fear of it making me dumber.

    And behold, this morning, I forgot how to tie my shoes. D’oh!

    Like

  2. But just to play devil’s advocate, try to imagine what the principal was thinking:

    1. Duh this is a dumb situation with a kid who just needs some guidance, Just use common sense, take the kid out to the woodshed or whatever and be done with it. OR,

    2. Man if I use common sense this could blow up in my face, who knows about kids these days, what if Johnny shows up to school the next day with handgun and makes good on his promise? Then parents will ask me why I didn’t call the authorities and we’re going to have another Columbine on our hands and then there will be dead kids and I’ll lose my job …. umm, better call the cops just to make sure I cover all the bases. Because who knows about kids these days?

    Not to wax poetic but unfortunately (cue the violins) society is (obviously) different today than it was when we were growing up. And when I wanted to hurt someone back when I was in elementary school because I was bullied or they took my toy, it stayed in fantasy land. Not only was there not the means to carry out the imagined annihilation, it simply wasn’t possible because to actually do it was absolutely unthinkable. Like, not an option. These days, though …

    So all I’m saying is that yeah, what a dumb headline and overkill on the principal’s reaction, but you have to admit that educators are put in a tough spot. They must walk around all the time what that “what if …” mentality. Not an enviable position to be in.

    Like

  3. Great comment, a. I agree that educators these days are not in an enviable position, and I try to disclaim that as often as I can since I spend a lot of time complaining about them when they make mistakes. I feel like treating this like a criminal situation could screw the little kid up way more than treating it like a parenting situation. The more principals fail to trust their instincts and help their kids feel protected at school — I’m talking about this little boy — the more other principals will overreact.

    Of course, it’s possible we have a little homicidal maniac on our hands, in which case I take it all back…

    Like

  4. At ages 3-6, children begin to understand death as something very sad, but think it is temporary and attach “magical thinking” to it. At ages 6-9, they begin to understand the finality of death, but are still not capable of a complete, adult understanding.

    I agree that this should be treated with seriousness, as it is a great learning opportunity for the children and the parents to begin to understand this topic, but criminal? Ridiculous. Of course, the police have to be called (it is the law), but there is a huge different between a twelve-year-old making threats and a six-year-old doing the same. Once the threat of danger is over, the learning can begin.

    Unfortunately, they have to deal with the fact that six-year-olds have taken guns to school before, and their young age and lack of understanding of death does not exclude the possibility that they could kill another student.

    Like

  5. Looking again at the report, maybe I’m wrong to assume “police said… Authorities were called… investigation” means actual detectives were on site. Seems like there would be a police counselor or something that could be dispatched, rather than a detective… And I’m also assuming (based on the article) that the police were called first and then the parent was simply informed that their son was the subject of a police investigation…

    Like

  6. Quick- put the highly compensated administrators on it! They’ll solve all our problems.

    Oh the days when the principal would just paddle the little future ex-con. No police, no litigation, no guns in school.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s