• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m saying that if I were a principal and the FBI let me know they talked to a kid my response wouldn’t be to wait for him to show up, regardless of what the rules say, because I care more about kids not getting shot than the rules. Which is why I’m not a principal.

    Also, if the threat wasn’t credible enough to suspend him, it was definitely not credible enough to remove the guns from his parents’ possession. The guns would still have been there.

    Anyways, this topic pisses me off more than the awful conference call I’m avoiding so I’m not going to respond anymore.

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I agree its good you’re not the principal.

      And I would disagree on not being able to seize weapons, hell they can seize anything without a crime today, that’s what civil asset forfeiture is. No crime even needs to be committed, no arrest needs to be made, and its legal for them to do today. Republicans would lose their collective marbles over it though - but fuck them.

      But directly incarcerating (or punishing kids based on an unknown set of anonymous sources) would absolutely be a problem.

      I hope your day gets better.

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Just wanted to mention, more information has come out.

      The investigation was in May 2023. His dad bought him the gun used to kill two children and two teachers as a Christmas present, in 2023. After the visit from the FBI.

      His dad has now been arrested as well.