Teen faces expulsion after brining stun-gun to school to fend off bullies

[runic knight]

It's been noted that the entire reason he was being bullied is because he "looks gay". So why exactly is it wrong to point this fact out to the child, and to suggest to him that if he adjusts his dress, that the problem might go away? No one's saying "stop being gay, kid!", and the school isn't even forcing him to change his dress if he doesn't want to. But his dress is something that he can choose to change, and so telling him "hey, I know you're expressing yourself, but I think your choice of outfits might be part of the reason they're targeting you" is NOT a statement that is intended to offend him or force him to conform to "social norms". If he wants to dress that way anyways, fine, but this is a situation that he could have potentially defused without even involving security or the school. He never actually TRIED this to see if it would work, so we'll never know if it would have worked or not, though I'm certain you'll both happily argue until you're blue in the face that it wouldn't have worked. I, on the other hand, won't, because it's a hypothetical that has already passed. He chose not to try, so we'll never know.

You are right, his choice of dress might have been why he was bullied. And a women in a short skirt might have been raped for the same reason. Telling the victim to change their clothes though is not the right way to do things, as it blames them for the way others treat them and the crimes done to them. If I want to dress like a clown, I STILL expect to be able to have a safe environment to do my school work and not live in fear. Ostracization, certainly, but not threats, violence or the like.
You can not make excuses like this for why people are abused as though the victim is the one who needs to change. The rules apply to everyone and in school, this includes a safe environment free from abuse. Saying the kid should have shut up and sit down only validates the actions of the bullies in the exact same way saying a woman should have dressed head to toe in thick wools would validate a rapist.

And again, the article doesn't state that he has received any sort of actions against him beyond generic "I'm gonna beat you up" verbal threats. I'd point out that these sorts of threats occur every single day in every single school in the United States, and are rarely honest-to-god threats. Bringing a stun gun to school so that you can scare the bully away with a weapon is hardly what I'd call the reaction of a mentally stable individual, or a responsible parent. Were my kid in the same situation, I'd be teaching him how to fight and defend himself from attackers, NOT giving him a weapon. That teaches him that the law isn't important so long as you think you have a good reason for breaking it.

Go ahead and tell a cop you will beat him up. Or a crowded theater you'll set it on fire. Just because they might be empty threats does not make them less serious. You can still get in trouble for making them, and NO ONE should receive them. They create stressful environments and can do psychological trama if the victim legitimately believes them. The fact of if they were going to follow through or not doesn't matter much when they victimize the kid, crowd around him and make threatening behavior enough that he felt, after all other avenues had failed, he had to take a stun gun. But nice to see you taking the high road about his mental stability and assuming he was aware he was breaking the law. A stun gun is a tool for deterrent, non-lethal and used by police to take down people. They are also perfectly legal. For all we know, he could have thought it acceptable. There is also a case that could be made about how the "law" refused to act in this case to the point he presumed he had to act for survival.


But no, keep on telling yourself the bullies were alright to pick on the kid because he didn't conform to their norms, keep telling yourself that threats and the stress and trama they can cause is just harmless. Keep telling yourself the kid acted in spite of the law instead of in ignorance of it, or if indeed in spite, then out of lack of options. The go and apply that logic to hate crimes or rape victims and see how far it goes.

 

[J.d. Scott]

Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

This is such BS. Why should he have to conform? We constantly talk about schools as having safe environments - well is it or isn't it? If it's only safe if you make every effort to not stand out from the crowd, if you hide your identity and act submissively, then that isn't safe. Allowing bullies and hatred to run a school and define the identities of everyone else is utter garbage. Dirty looks and lack of acceptance is one thing - intimidation, threats, insults, and violence is another. It's severely f****d up that a school principal would suggest to a student to conform more, which is basically an acknowledgement that he is utterly useless at enforcing the rules, and he deserve to be expelled nearly as much as the student. The student was wrong for bringing a stun gun, but the school is wrong for creating an environment where a student felt he needed to bring a stun gun.

And it's everywhere. I had to enforce my right to be who I was with a baseball bat and a helping of unbridled rage. If it had happened at school, I would have been expelled. In public, maybe arrested and sent to a reform house. My "crime" was simply being gifted. I can't imagine what it's like to be gay or transgender.

At the end of the day, he does need to get away from that school, but not because he did something wrong, but because they've decided that the much easier solution to failed social policy enforcement is to cover up the policy by blaming the victims and encouraging them to not create situations that highlight their failure to enforce their own policies. That's the type of lazy backwards thinking that should have been abolished years ago. Maybe instead of threatening the bullies, he should have shocked the administrators, because obviously, their hearts have stopped.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Personally, If my child was being bullied and the school system did nothing to stop it. I'd sit down with the parents of the bullying children, offer a cup of tea, and threaten to press charges... Such is the English way.

 

[exessmirror]

to be honest i think he could even used a gun with live ammunition (no blanks or rubbers). if they would attack him he acted out of self defense. someone threatens to hurt him he made sure they could not. he defended himself.

 

[exessmirror]

also am i the only one who think fox news is not reliable as a news source. also this let me think of a funny story a friend of my told me

 

[texanarob]

Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

This is such BS. Why should he have to conform? We constantly talk about schools as having safe environments - well is it or isn't it? If it's only safe if you make every effort to not stand out from the crowd, if you hide your identity and act submissively, then that isn't safe. Allowing bullies and hatred to run a school and define the identities of everyone else is utter garbage. Dirty looks and lack of acceptance is one thing - intimidation, threats, insults, and violence is another. It's severely f****d up that a school principal would suggest to a student to conform more, which is basically an acknowledgement that he is utterly useless at enforcing the rules, and he deserve to be expelled nearly as much as the student. The student was wrong for bringing a stun gun, but the school is wrong for creating an environment where a student felt he needed to bring a stun gun.

And it's everywhere. I had to enforce my right to be who I was with a baseball bat and a helping of unbridled rage. If it had happened at school, I would have been expelled. In public, maybe arrested and sent to a reform house. My "crime" was simply being gifted. I can't imagine what it's like to be gay or transgender.

At the end of the day, he does need to get away from that school, but not because he did something wrong, but because they've decided that the much easier solution to failed social policy enforcement is to cover up the policy by blaming the victims and encouraging them to not create situations that highlight their failure to enforce their own policies. That's the type of lazy backwards thinking that should have been abolished years ago. Maybe instead of threatening the bullies, he should have shocked the administrators, because obviously, their hearts have stopped.

If you bring a weapon to a fight against a group of presumably more violent individuals than yourself, you are a fool not to expect them to retaliate. They are likely more proficient with weaponry than you anyway, and more likely to use it.

At the end of the day, I didn't claim the school had a perfectly safe environment. It doesn't. That isn't practical, and would be terrible preparation for reality. What I said was that there is a reason the bullies picked on the kid, for being overtly camp. There are certain ways people have to learn to act, and ways not to act in certain situations. Its not ideal, but its true. In a room full of evident homophobes, don't parade yourself as homosexual. After all, in the jungle with wild animals I wouldn't try to parade myself as being tasty.

We can't change the way animals act. That doesn't mean we provoke them, either with unwise actions or attacking them.

 

[ElPatron]

snip

From personal experience, I know that bullies are complete pussies. Seems contradictory, right? But that's exactly the reason they often get together in packs and use weapons (like knives).

The minute they see an "escalation" of violence they piss themselves because they never expect it.

I am not a firm believer on tasers but the minute you see a harmless kid shocking a dude and going on a rage fueled rampage, you assess your priorities.

Which is running. Fighting with someone with a taser is a good way to get everyone involved sharing electric hugs.

 

[ElPatron]

If you make a credible threat, we'll call the police. She won't however go get a gun.

"I" am watching her trough the window.

The police will take 5-20 minutes to get here. Let's see how far "I" can go before they get here.

Jesus, this started as a way to try and tell you that you just need a "threat" to be in danger, but you trust people too much. Don't do that.

No, it didn't.

If I point at a random guy and say "I'm going to fucking stop that guy's head in the curb" and you don't stop me you're an awful person.

If you hear someone say "I'm going to kick the shit out of you" and you don't apply the basic instinct of SURVIVAL you just won a Darwin award.

self defense is required to be appropriate to the situation and not excessive. Automatically assuming you should put a bullet in someone because they are in your house will get you jailed in civilized places.

First, I am making an analogy.

The moment you say "You're getting your ass kicked" you put yourself into the "attacker" role. In "civilized" countries the "victim" has the right to respond with all necessary force.

If you actually paid attention to what happened, he was called names and was under the threat of physical abuse.

Also, self-defense if definitely appropriate. When someone enters your house, he is automatically committing attempted murder, rape, kidnap or whatever. Why? Because it's not reasonable to wait for the crime to be committed. That's why it is called self-defense, not "retaliation" or "vigilantism". That is doing justice with your own hands and I definitely do not endorse it.

I live in a "civilized" place.

Do you know what happens in a "civilized" place? I had friends who had to make use of self-defense and got treated like criminals even if the actual criminals were unscratched and legally turned to the police.

Do you know what happens in a "civilized" place? An old guy defending himself got life sentence while the intruder tries claim a compensation.

In "civilized" places victims are treated like shit and criminals do whatever they want because they know that the law protects them against citizens.

After you stun the first one and the other five tackle you, use the stun gun on you, and then beat you to death...

Like I said in the other post, electric hugs.

You don't fight someone with a taser, just like you don't touch a person who just stuck a knife into an electric socket. If you want to fight after you just seen a guy getting tasered, you are getting yourself in a world of hurt and you deserve the pain you're going to get.

 

[IronicBeet]

Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

This is such BS. Why should he have to conform? We constantly talk about schools as having safe environments - well is it or isn't it? If it's only safe if you make every effort to not stand out from the crowd, if you hide your identity and act submissively, then that isn't safe. Allowing bullies and hatred to run a school and define the identities of everyone else is utter garbage. Dirty looks and lack of acceptance is one thing - intimidation, threats, insults, and violence is another. It's severely f****d up that a school principal would suggest to a student to conform more, which is basically an acknowledgement that he is utterly useless at enforcing the rules, and he deserve to be expelled nearly as much as the student. The student was wrong for bringing a stun gun, but the school is wrong for creating an environment where a student felt he needed to bring a stun gun.

And it's everywhere. I had to enforce my right to be who I was with a baseball bat and a helping of unbridled rage. If it had happened at school, I would have been expelled. In public, maybe arrested and sent to a reform house. My "crime" was simply being gifted. I can't imagine what it's like to be gay or transgender.

At the end of the day, he does need to get away from that school, but not because he did something wrong, but because they've decided that the much easier solution to failed social policy enforcement is to cover up the policy by blaming the victims and encouraging them to not create situations that highlight their failure to enforce their own policies. That's the type of lazy backwards thinking that should have been abolished years ago. Maybe instead of threatening the bullies, he should have shocked the administrators, because obviously, their hearts have stopped.

Yes, society is bullshit. Schools don't do anything about bullying. Discrimination is still a big problem. These are all things that have already been established. Sometimes you have to take some bullshit to make the problem go away. Is it the kid's fault that he wants to dress a certain way? No. Is it his fault that some kids in the school are assholes? Certainly not. But if acting and dressing a certain way is going to get him bullied, he should probably try toning down his mannerisms. I'm not blaming him, I'm saying that it's bullshit, but it's still the way things work right now. Not everyone gets to be themselves without fear of discrimination ever, because we don't live in a rainbow fantasy land.

 

[ElPatron]

They certainly wouldn't take more than 5 minutes on a peeper call

I put 5/20 because there might be happening something at the moment and they can't dispatch a car because of reasons.

And don't forget not everyone lives in the city.

If you had done that many times before and not done anything then I'd understand you to be a windbag and no real immediate threat.

Bullies gonna bully.

and you yourself indicated the key word, NECESSARY. Bringing a weapon when there had been no real threat was not necessary. Using the weapon when they hadn't done anything they hadn't done before (ie - it was unlikely they would attack) is not necessary.

Like I said before, your argument is a non-issue. I already stated many times that people should not bring a weapon to school.

Yet his case should have been taken as a self-defense from day one. That is all I am saying.

If you can call the police when you are under threat, that means that it requires some kind of defense. Otherwise you're abusing the emergency system.

If you are not abusing the system, then you need the police. When the police is not there, you defend yourself.

See my point? You're trying to fight what is almost a circular logic. If a threat does not require self-defense, then calling the police is abusing the system because you don't need to be defended.

I live in a "civilized" place.

Clearly not if there is a castle doctorine in place. Then again you might not know the law.

Who said anything about Castle Doctrine? And thanks for implying that the glorious states that prevent victims from being legally prosecuted are not civilized.

Like I said, I live in a "civilized" country where picking up a legal gun and stop an entire gang of intruders and have them at gunpoint until the police arrives is such an inconvenient for the gang (who are the nicest people around and only wanted to make a late night surprise - that's what the ski masks are for) that you will be treated like a criminal.

That happened to a friend of mine. Plus, they took away his gun (worth 3000 euros, because of retardedly high taxes and the stupid "extortion fees" associated with owning a firearm in a Socialist state) so that it could sit in a evidence locker for 3 years until he got it back again.

I find it disgusting to live in a country that calls itself "civilized" when violent crime is on the rise and criminals can fire gunshots at the police, caught a few minutes later and released because they were no longer committing a crime.

That's right. You have to be literally caught in the act to be arrested, because you are totally a nice person and you won't harass your victims to prevent them to testify against you in court.

CIVILIZATION!

 

[Treblaine]

snip

From personal experience, I know that bullies are complete pussies. Seems contradictory, right? But that's exactly the reason they often get together in packs and use weapons (like knives).

The minute they see an "escalation" of violence they piss themselves because they never expect it.

I am not a firm believer on tasers but the minute you see a harmless kid shocking a dude and going on a rage fueled rampage, you assess your priorities.

Which is running. Fighting with someone with a taser is a good way to get everyone involved sharing electric hugs.

Well my strategy for self-defence is any situation I have to arm myself to go into, the option should be considered is how I could not even be in this situation? In other words, the PRIMARY antidote to lions is not a revolver, it is NOT go into the lions den! I'm saying this kid doesn't have to go to this school, he should get out of there and not wait to be expelled. If he has gotten to the position that he even considers a stun gun, that's a time to move school or learn from home.

Now I'm not saying it's never right to arm yourself, if you HAVE to walk through lions territory you'd better arm yourself. There are so many situations where the situation is thrust upon you, such as at home or work where you might be prone to armed robbery, or when travelling and likely to be mugged or hijacked.

But generally - NOT always- but generally escape is the best defence. The current advice on mass-shooting or terrorist attack scenario is to evacuate, get the hell out of there. From 9/11 to Virginia Tech, do NOT stay put, get out of the area. Move.

But that doesn't mean turning your back on your foe, then you'll just be tired and expose your blind side. Look at the survival strategies of animals, if you've ever hunted you'll know at the first sign of danger they flee and if you missed with the first shot you'll probably miss the next. But if you ever do corner them, suddenly they turn and ATTACK! That wild deer that fled so scared suddenly uses his antlers and mauls you getting out.

So hierarchy is (1)avoidance, (2)escape, and (3)sudden retaliation.

It's worth stopping to consider where George Zimmerman may have gone wrong with the little we know. He pursued that kid and assuming what he said was true that the kid punched him that's to be expected, HE CHASED HIM! Zimmerman wasn't a cop, yet was armed, and chasing him. He reasonably thought he meant harm and fought back. Now if it was a cop - who identified himself as a cop - who chased that kid, the kid wouldn't have a reason to suspect he was being attacked by an armed criminal but that the police simply wanted to arrest him for questioning, it is part of their duty to chase them.

The kid did the right thing, he didn't enter a dangerous situation, Zimmerman thrust it upon him, he ran to avoid him, and when cornered he struck back.

It is a VITAL element from a legal and MORAL standpoint that in justified self-defence that you be DEFENSIVE! You avoid dangerous situations, and if in a dangerous situation make at least consideration of escaping it, only using weapons and violence as a last resort. The important thing about this is you can't have a scenario where both sides claim self-defence. If that kid had lived, I'm quite sure he'd say he struck Zimmerman in self-defence, and then Zimmerman would claim he shot the kid in self-defence. When you consider your actions, follow the Golden Rule, would I like others to do unto me as I do unto them?

[NOTE: My personal theory, Zimmerman simply pointed the gun at the kid (itself and over-reaction) and like an idiot with poor trigger discipline accidentally shot him. Makes sense as if you REALLY fear for your life you empty the mag and that is what self-defence firearm courses train. I think a similar thing happened with that Brazilian electrician the UK police shot in the underground metro train, they were too aggressive in arrest with muzzle on him and finger on trigger, one flinch and they fire a shot. Later they rationalise they MEANT to do it when really they were just reacting without thinking]

I don't think this is in contradiction with Florida's "stand your ground" laws (and I think George Zimmerman is NOT protected by them) as that is saying there isn't an absolute legal requirement to flee as sometimes you cannot flee. But it does NOT give people permission to chase people down.

Legally, in the UK I cannot arm myself for defence. But speaking internationally in a moral sense, I'd only seek to arm myself if I thought it likely I'd be forced into a dangerous situation (1), that I could not passively escape (2) that violence could effect defence or escape (3). Incidentally, that is not any part of my life in the UK

 

[Treblaine]

Anything you pick up is a weapon, people. All a weapon is is a tool used as a means of force. If the kid had a pencil in his hand and threw a punch or stabbed a kid with it, it is a weapon. Thus zero tolerance is flawed in concept, to say nothing of the issues it can have in execution.

Only in the sense that "every tool is also a hammer", is every tool a weapon. Really it means you can use any tool as a hammer, you can also use any tool as a weapon.

The point is does it only have one practical purpose, to harm individuals to a significant extent, then it is a weapon. A pencil is a totally impractical weapon and its usefulness as a writing implement far outweighs it's uselessness as a weapon. You can stomp someone to death with shoes on your feet, but it's outweighed by their utility in protecting people's feet in day to day use. Now a carving knife is arguably for carving meat and as a fighting knife is poor for its relative brittleness, but what do you need a carving knife for in maths class? You don't, it clearly exists there as a weapon. Weapons are by why they are brought there.

Zero tolerance rules exist mainly for liability purposes. If a student is caught with a weapon and is let in again and harms or kills another student with the weapon, then the teacher is liable for not expelling that student. Even if it is a 1-in-100 chance that the student will bring another weapon into school and use it on another student, that is a Million Dollar Lawsuit that the school will have to pick up the bill for.

They cannot afford discretion.

You find a way that schools won't be liable if they let a student return to school and harm another schoolmate, even though they'd been caught with a weapon before, THEN you can see an end to zero tolerance weapons policies.

Being a Martial arts don't make your hands and feet much more weapons. Just read some criminal case files on people being beaten to death you'll see the perpetrators didn't have any amazing Far Eastern Kung Fu training, they just were strong and had a huge capacity to inflict suffering. You knock someone down and stomp on their throat, they'll die. You slam someone's head repeatedly into a concrete wall, they'll die. There is not great art to killing, just need a capacity for unrelenting and vicious cruelty. And a martial artist wouldn't kill by accident, beyond some unusual environmental hazards they wouldn't encounter in their dojo. They train their moves and KNOW what they are doing. They'd know the risks involved in trying any particular move.

 

[Grathius22]

I'm currently in school, and I can say that kids are cruel. Especially to people who aren't like them.

In my school, there are a few homosexual kids. Most of them don't ask for extra attention or act any different from normal kids. We're cool with these people.

However, there are one or two kids who do their hair in a womanly fashion, paint their nails, dress in all pink, do a high pitched voice, etc. They're the ones who get picked on.

Yeah, it would be nice if everyone could act and dress the way they wanted, but sometimes you just have to deal with it and fit the common definition of 'normal'.

EDIT: Also, schools will never change. It's just how the Human brain works, to shun what's not normal. Everyone has to deal with it, but some try to act out, and guess what? They deal with the consequences.

 

[talker]

The kid brought a weapon to school. The instant someone does that, you absolutely have to expel the kid, no matter what the circumstances were.

and that's where you're wrong. stun guns and tazers don't fire actual bullets, and it's not like he had a bayonet on the end. the school is to blame. they should have done something about the bullying in the first place, and if anyone's answerable, it's them.

 

[ElPatron]

It is a VITAL element from a legal and MORAL standpoint that in justified self-defence that you be DEFENSIVE! You avoid dangerous situations, and if in a dangerous situation make at least consideration of escaping it, only using weapons and violence as a last resort.

Funny, like I said in another post we are living in a "civilized" area where we think it's normal for criminals to dictate where you can or can't go at night.

I once got off a train and to leave the platform I had to pass trough a tunnel where no natural light could get in and the lighting was very dim. The station had put on a sign saying that we should avoid risky situations.

Sorry to use this buzzword but VICTIM BLAMING. If you want to get off the train you have to go trough the tunnel anyway, the logic of avoiding risks basically means that if you are a hot woman in skirt you're taking "risks" and you should blamed in case you are raped.

Zimmerman

Funny that you mentioned that prick (tired of hearing about him) because you have NO. IDEA. OF. WHAT. HAPPENED.

Zimmerman only drew the gun when he was down and being beaten. After he had called for help and nobody came. Treyvon did not do the right thing, he DID the retarded, thuggish thing to do. "Oh, no a person is looking at me funny. I better stalk him and confront him from behind." - typical "thug" behavior.

Why are you implying it was a negligent discharge when there is photographic evidence of Zimmerman's bleeding head? The police investigated the scene and said it had been a textbook self-defense shooting.

By the way, Zimmerman wasn't a cop but he was properly LICENSED by the state to carry a firearm, which means he had to undergo proper TRAINING.

The point is does it only have one practical purpose, to harm individuals to a significant extent, then it is a weapon. A pencil is a totally impractical weapon and its usefulness as a writing implement far outweighs it's uselessness as a weapon.

Obviously you have never seen someone getting stabbed by a pencil.

Anything is a goddamned weapon, garbage bags, chairs, etc everything can be used to kill.

and that's where you're wrong. stun guns and tazers don't fire actual bullets, and it's not like he had a bayonet on the end. the school is to blame. they should have done something about the bullying in the first place, and if anyone's answerable, it's them.

Swords don't fire bullets, and they are goddamned weapons. L2terminology.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

Jesus christ, she thought giving him a weapon was a more appropriate response than, I don't know, sending him to a different school?

Edit: Also, this is why school uniforms should be compulsory.

I have to agree with this bloke right 'ere mistah.

I never really saw the point of school uniform until i realised what it's like in Non-Uniformed schools.

And if you're going to give you child a weapon that has the /potential/ to kill someone, may as well give him something a bit more scary that a little prod stick.