|
|
Post by Noble Work on Feb 4, 2010 15:06:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tillions on Feb 4, 2010 15:57:21 GMT -5
Yes. Like the mother said. . common sense was not used in this case. people get upset when kids grow up too fast but we are doing too much not letting kids be kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Feb 4, 2010 16:09:06 GMT -5
LOL!!!
OF COURSE the principal took this too far! She is an idiot! As the mom said its a COMMON SENSE issue but to be fair, common sense is not common anymore. You have to be a special kind of individual to hold such a prize.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oren Ishii on Feb 4, 2010 16:52:54 GMT -5
That principal is a dumbass. 2 inches long? FGS!
|
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Feb 4, 2010 17:19:22 GMT -5
I know. I am in complete agreement with you all.
This was waaayyy over the top. I understand 0 tolerance yada, yada, yada but this isn't a fake gun. It's not even a water pistol or bb gun. It's a Lego. And I'm sure she had to follow procedure and blah, blah but use your head lady. There are absolutely NO moving parts on this toy. I guess they'll start hauling them in for paper airplanes next.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oren Ishii on Feb 4, 2010 18:18:12 GMT -5
The kicker was that fact that they showed a pic of it next to a ruler. That's what got me. I couldn't breathe for like...2 minutes!
|
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on Feb 4, 2010 18:36:03 GMT -5
*Unpopular opinion*
No toy guns means...NO TOY GUNS.
It's the rule and it can't be left up to children or parents to decide what TYPE of toy gun is ok.
What happens when a kid decides...well, it's CLEARLY a water gun...so what's the problem?
Or, it's CLEARLY a fake gun because XYZ.
The principal went to far and made a mockery of the rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dasani on Feb 4, 2010 19:57:46 GMT -5
^^^
agrees no toy guns means no toy guns. Yet and still the principle over reacted and did not use common sense. All the extra was not necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Feb 5, 2010 12:37:31 GMT -5
Yea but isn't there "reasons" why toy guns were banned? Like, it could be used as a weapon? Clearly, there is no way that a non-movable parts toy gun could of been used as a weapon or pose a threat.
Now water guns? Yea I can see that. But Lego? and two inches? Yea, common sense missed the bus that morning. A simple "put the toys away" could of sufficed. Or she could of taken it and and a note sent home perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Feb 5, 2010 12:40:55 GMT -5
Exactly Levelone...there were so many non-controversial and shall we repeat COMMON SENSE methods to handle this issue. Im sure looking back at this, the principal would have wished she had her V8 that morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Feb 5, 2010 13:53:06 GMT -5
*Unpopular opinion* No toy guns means...NO TOY GUNS. It's the rule and it can't be left up to children or parents to decide what TYPE of toy gun is ok. What happens when a kid decides...well, it's CLEARLY a water gun...so what's the problem? Or, it's CLEARLY a fake gun because XYZ. The principal went to far and made a mockery of the rule. ITA Log. When you start interpreting rules rather than treating them as binary (did you or didn't you), you get into problems. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Feb 5, 2010 16:14:58 GMT -5
The mother considering a law suit is going too far. The toy should have been taken and held til either the prinicipal could discuss the issue with the parents or sent home at the end of the day with a note and phone call to the parents. Yes it was obivously a toy but the school does have a policy against toy guns. The question becomes when does it end. The kid being "traumatized" and not wanting to go to school because the principal may have been mad at him? Seriously kid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Feb 5, 2010 16:53:56 GMT -5
The mother considering a law suit is going too far. The toy should have been taken and held til either the prinicipal could discuss the issue with the parents or sent home at the end of the day with a note and phone call to the parents. Yes it was obivously a toy but the school does have a policy against toy guns. The question becomes when does it end. The kid being "traumatized" and not wanting to go to school because the principal may have been mad at him? Seriously kid? Pep you right. And I can see how much the parents talked him into played a role into "not wanting [him] to go to school". But, I can see how this would scare him. In the child's mine he was only playing with a toy. But this definitely could of been handed in many ways. A law suit could possibly traumatize the lil fellow....lol |
|
|
|
Post by Oren Ishii on Feb 5, 2010 17:05:49 GMT -5
But doensn't this type of over the top, unilateral enforcement lead to the common "letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law" debate? *Unpopular opinion* No toy guns means...NO TOY GUNS. It's the rule and it can't be left up to children or parents to decide what TYPE of toy gun is ok. What happens when a kid decides...well, it's CLEARLY a water gun...so what's the problem? Or, it's CLEARLY a fake gun because XYZ. The principal went to far and made a mockery of the rule. ITA Log. When you start interpreting rules rather than treating them as binary (did you or didn't you), you get into problems. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Feb 5, 2010 21:10:05 GMT -5
The mother considering a law suit is going too far. The toy should have been taken and held til either the prinicipal could discuss the issue with the parents or sent home at the end of the day with a note and phone call to the parents. Yes it was obivously a toy but the school does have a policy against toy guns. The question becomes when does it end. The kid being "traumatized" and not wanting to go to school because the principal may have been mad at him? Seriously kid? Pep you right. And I can see how much the parents talked him into played a role into "not wanting [him] to go to school". But, I can see how this would scare him. In the child's mine he was only playing with a toy. But this definitely could of been handed in many ways. A law suit could possibly traumatize the lil fellow....lol Somehow I think mom and dad's reaction contributed to the kid's fear more than the principal's actions. If the principal spoke to the parents prior to issuing disciplinary action, she could have CYA in that she knows that she knows the parents were aware of the policy. Does anyone remember the little GI Joe figures/dolls? Are those not allowed in schools anymore? |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Feb 6, 2010 0:39:57 GMT -5
Suing isn't taking it to far if the situation will stick in the little boys file. I'd sue too
|
|
|
|
Post by Oldskool on Feb 6, 2010 16:16:49 GMT -5
*Unpopular opinion* No toy guns means...NO TOY GUNS. It's the rule and it can't be left up to children or parents to decide what TYPE of toy gun is ok. What happens when a kid decides...well, it's CLEARLY a water gun...so what's the problem? Or, it's CLEARLY a fake gun because XYZ. The principal went too far and made a mockery of the rule. I agree with this 100%. EXALT. Also, if he gets away with this toy gun, he will bring the next size and the next size, and so on. It's best to nip it right away. |
|
|
|
Post by 123Diva on Feb 7, 2010 7:25:02 GMT -5
He shouldn't have brought it to school. Lego or not. I don't think the question is whether or not the toy posed a hazard. I view it as a matter of it being a replica of a dangerous weapon that does hurt and kill people in real life. Let's not replicate violence.
Now, do I believe this issue is worth the child being traumatized, etc? NO! Afterall, he didn't hurt anybody. But next time, he and his parents will think twice. It is still a rule that he broke.
|
|
