Boy suspended for pointing chicken finger like gun

LightningLink · February 1, 2001, 10:06 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/31/chi....ap/index.html

Quote:

Boy suspended for pointing chicken finger like gun
January 31, 2001
Web posted at: 7:48 PM EST (0048 GMT)

JONESBORO, Arkansas (AP) -- An 8-year-old boy was suspended from school for three days after pointing a breaded chicken finger at a teacher and saying, "Pow, pow, pow."

The incident apparently violated the Jonesboro School District's zero-tolerance policy against weapons. The boy was suspended last week.

In March 1998, four students and a teacher were killed and 10 others wounded when two youths opened fire on a schoolyard at Jonesboro's Westside Middle School.

Kelli Kissinger, mother of first-grader Christopher, said she believed the punishment was too severe.

"I think a chicken strip is something insignificant," she said. "It's just a piece of chicken. How could you play like it's a gun?"

South Elementary principal Dan Sullivan said he was prevented by law from discussing Christopher's suspension.

Sullivan said the school has zero-tolerance rules because the public wants them.

"People saw real threats to the safety and security of their students," Sullivan said.

A school discipline form provided by the boy's mother and signed by Sullivan says the child was suspended because he "took a chicken strip off his plate, pointed it at (a teacher) and said 'Pow, pow, pow,' like he was shooting her."

Sullivan said punishment for a threat "depends on the tone, the demeanor, and in some manner you judge the intent. It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind. Is a plastic fork worse than a metal fork? Is a pencil a weapon?"

Someone said it before, and I'll say it again, zero-tolerance = zero-intelligence. For you Star Trek TNG fans, zero-tolerance reminds me of that episode where they're on some "safe, crime free" planet. While running around, Wesley trips and lands on some "protected" flowers. His punishment: Death! Zero Tolerance maintains the peace! Is it just a matter of time before a chicken finger will get you 5 years in JDC for "Attempted homicide by poultry"?

I only have one other word to say about the whole thing ... sigh

LL

Caeca Invidia Es · February 1, 2001, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Sullivan said the school has zero-tolerance rules because the public wants them.

The public wants kids suspended for having chicken?

Betty · February 1, 2001, 10:56 AM

Ban chicken!

Chaingun · February 1, 2001, 10:59 AM

Ban the egg.

BMAN · February 1, 2001, 11:12 AM

...but which one came first???

Tamara · February 1, 2001, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Sullivan said the school has zero-tolerance rules because the public wants them.

Any of you recall being consulted on this? I sure wasn't. I wonder who they mean by "public"... Oh, yeah, the liability-conscious public school board! That must be the "public" they're referring to.

iso1 · February 1, 2001, 11:51 AM

Ok, one more time:

"Hey, he's attacking us with a chicken! What should we do?"

"Set phasers for......crispy!"

Seriously, this is ridiculous! It's a PIECE OF FOOD!

I mean, come on! How many of us played "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" when we were kids? It didn't turn me into a murderer! If playing those kinds of games was an indication of intent to commit harm, just about every one of us would be in prison by now!

That's it. I've finally decided once and for all. I don't care if I have to work three jobs...my kids will be HOMESCHOOLED. The only zero-tolerance in my home will be for violations of the Four Rules of Firearm Safety!

Jeff Thomas · February 1, 2001, 11:52 AM

Friends ... please support school choice. This is the kind of idiocy we can always expect from government schools.

And, they are government schools ... we should never forget that. Just as we use the proper terms to describe the enemies of peace in the anti-self defense movement, we shouldn't kid ourselves that these are 'public' schools. They are government schools, and this kind of foolishness is exactly what we should expect.

Fortunately, even government schools will become better through competition with charter and private schools. That's the nice thing about free markets. 'Course, don't expect the NEA and the rest of the government school establishment to ever agree - they prefer a monopoly.

Christopher and his mom have learned a difficult but important lesson. Hope she finds a better place for the boy.

Regards from AZ

Tamara · February 1, 2001, 11:55 AM

PJ O'Rourke once wrote something to the effect that "To label something as public is to define it as filthy, insufficient, and dangerous; 'public restroom' for example."

HankB · February 1, 2001, 12:38 PM

WHO PROVIDED THIS WEAPON TO AN 8-YEAR OLD??? That's the question the boy's parents should be asking. The PROVIDER of this weapon should be named as the defendant in a ten million dollar lawsuit.

If the school's administration knew of, and permitted, these weapons to be distributed, then they should be named as co-conspirators. Maybe even prosecuted under the RICO laws.

After all, aren't there penalties for arming children? Doesn't the school's "zero tolerance" policy apply to lunchroom staff?

Seriously, when I read stuff like this, I'm convinced the lunatics are running the asylum. And it's looking like the only way to stop this stuff is to nail them in court, using their own arguments and stated polices against them. (Of course, from some of the decisions handed down, I sometimes think the judge's black robes should be exchanged for a strait jacket . . . )

ds1973 · February 1, 2001, 01:03 PM

"It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind."

Uh, can you say "THOUGHT CONTROL"?!?!?

Jeff OTMG · February 1, 2001, 01:41 PM

I don't think the fact that is was a chicken strip is the least bit important. It could have been his finger. It does not appear to have been meant in jest or fun, but as a threat. That would qualify it as a 'terroristic threat' in many areas. It is illegal to state or imply, through action or deed, that you are going to kill someone. Age doesn't matter. It is not socially acceptable behavior to threaten to kill people.

bruels · February 1, 2001, 01:53 PM

Is it acceptable to point a chicken finger and utter a voodoo curse?

SlackO · February 1, 2001, 02:07 PM

Jeff, I hope you're kidding. I think all boys play 'cowboys and indians' to some degree. I know I did. I thought this article was a joke at first (CHICKEN FINGERS?!?!?!? [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]?).

This crap is rediculous.

Oatka · February 1, 2001, 02:15 PM

. . . and would you believe it's running 50-50, with a numerical edge to the Nos? We need help here folks.

Have schools' zero-tolerance policies on weapons gone too far?
Yes 50% (7066 votes)
No 50% (7142 votes)

The poll is on the lower right, scroll down to near the bottom.

POLL

SplorerTom · February 1, 2001, 02:28 PM

What did you expect from a poll from CNN?

If the poll were given in the context of the "kid with chicken" story, I bet the results would be different.

Remember, CNN = communist news network aka Pravda
(formerly, clinton news network)

The whole thing should be an outrage, but people are so numb to stupidity from our "leaders" that they don't seem to react anymore. If it were my kid, I'd definately be fighting it. I hate to make a lawyer rich, but this would be one of those times where a lawyer would come in handy.

Tom

Paul B. · February 1, 2001, 02:29 PM

IMNSHO. Zero tolerence is the epitome of assinity.
Paul B.

Phillip · February 1, 2001, 04:43 PM

Was the cafeteria lady arrested for supplying the assault styled chicken finger?

JimDiver · February 1, 2001, 05:39 PM

If you wish to contact this principal involved in this insanity and who ordered the suspention, his email address is [email protected].

The www site for the school district in question is http://www.jps.k12.ar.us/

Write and call early and write often.

Apple a Day · February 1, 2001, 05:53 PM

What the article doesn't mention is that the kid's brother is also suspended for making the same sort of threat. I think there is more going on that what the article you posted says. I am the first to get annoyed about the 'zero tolerance' rule I have to work with every day but this may be a case where there is a legitimate threat.

Jason Demond · February 1, 2001, 06:25 PM

They make it so hard to be a kid these days.

Ron Ankeny · February 1, 2001, 07:13 PM

I am half way through my 22nd year teaching in a public school, and frankly, I think it is important to have zero tolerance policies. We have zero tolerance policies for drugs, alcohol, and weapons just to name a few. The fact is, in order to receive Federal Funds, we need to adopt such policies, and they are a good idea anyway. Keep in mind, even zero tolerance policies are admininistered with flexibility on a case by case basis. What zero tolerance means is that if a person is guilty of violating the policy, there will (not may) be consequences.

For those of you who are so blinded by emotion that you can't see straight, you need to go read the article again. The kid got the boot for, "...the tone, the demeanor, and in some manner you judge the intent. It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind." Sounds to me like the violation was not a weapons policy violation, it is more like "open and willful disrespect of school personnel". The kid probably learned how to be a jerk where most kids learn it, in the home.

Jeff OTMG · February 1, 2001, 07:50 PM

Playing cowboys and indians (oops, land grabbers and native americans) or cops and robbers or having a picture of a gun because you like to shoot or any of the other stupid things we hear of kids getting into trouble for would NOT qualify as a terroristic threat. The key is the last part of the article: 'Sullivan said punishment for a threat "depends on the tone, the demeanor, and in some manner you judge the intent. It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind.' In Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statute there is a section which discusses 'criminal intent'. Without the 'intent' to commit the crime no crime is committed. If the kid was seriously threatening his teacher then he committed a criminal act even if it was his finger. When playing with classmates there is obviously no criminal intent. Like the guy said, 'It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind.' You cannot threaten to kill people, that is one of the exceptions to the First Amendment and it is not considered protected speech nor is inciting to riot nor is yelling 'Fire.' in a theater. There are limits to our rights, those rights come with certain responsibilities, that is why there are restrictions on them.

[Edited by Jeff OTMG on 02-02-2001 at 03:06 PM]

Tamara · February 1, 2001, 08:28 PM

Quote:

It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind

Orwell had a word for that...

HankB · February 1, 2001, 08:45 PM

Jeff OTMG wrote:

Quote:

"... it's the thought in the mind...If the kid was seriously threatening his teacher then he committed a criminal act...When playing with classmates there is obviously no criminal intent..."

So school officials are now miraculously endowed with telepathic ability to judge intent? And they determined that pointing a chicken finger - A CHICKEN FINGER! - and saying "pow-pow-pow" is "seriously threatening" harm to a school official on the part of an eight year old, whereas if doing the same with a classmate there is OBVIOUSLY no intent?

Sorry, Jeff, unless you know something about the incident not included in the story at the beginning of this thread, we have profound differences in our read of what's going on.

HankB.

P.S. Any idea of whether or not the weapon was confiscated and tagged as evidence? Or was justice obstructed by discarding the weapon?

February 1, 2001, 10:59 AM	#4
Chaingun Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2000 Location: Caliban: Within the belly of the beast Posts: 265	You got that wrong... Ban the egg.

February 1, 2001, 11:55 AM	#9
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	Jeff Thomas, PJ O'Rourke once wrote something to the effect that "To label something as public is to define it as filthy, insufficient, and dangerous; 'public restroom' for example." __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

February 1, 2001, 01:03 PM	#11
ds1973 Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Grand Island, NY Posts: 545	THOUGHT??? "It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind." Uh, can you say "THOUGHT CONTROL"?!?!?

February 1, 2001, 02:15 PM	#15
Oatka Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 1999 Location: Nevada Posts: 3,076	CNN has a poll on Zero Tolerance . . . . . . and would you believe it's running 50-50, with a numerical edge to the Nos? We need help here folks. Have schools' zero-tolerance policies on weapons gone too far? Yes 50% (7066 votes) No 50% (7142 votes) The poll is on the lower right, scroll down to near the bottom. POLL

February 1, 2001, 05:53 PM	#20
Apple a Day Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2000 Location: Poquoson,Virginia Posts: 1,524	What the article doesn't mention... What the article doesn't mention is that the kid's brother is also suspended for making the same sort of threat. I think there is more going on that what the article you posted says. I am the first to get annoyed about the 'zero tolerance' rule I have to work with every day but this may be a case where there is a legitimate threat.

February 1, 2001, 10:56 AM	#3
Betty Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2000 Location: southern U.S. Posts: 1,807	Ban chicken!

February 1, 2001, 11:12 AM	#5
BMAN Junior Member Join Date: January 20, 2001 Location: New York Posts: 13	...but which one came first???

February 1, 2001, 11:51 AM	#7
iso1 Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2000 Location: Reno, Nevada Posts: 573	Ok, one more time: "Hey, he's attacking us with a chicken! What should we do?" "Set phasers for......crispy!" Seriously, this is ridiculous! It's a PIECE OF FOOD! I mean, come on! How many of us played "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" when we were kids? It didn't turn me into a murderer! If playing those kinds of games was an indication of intent to commit harm, just about every one of us would be in prison by now! That's it. I've finally decided once and for all. I don't care if I have to work three jobs...my kids will be HOMESCHOOLED. The only zero-tolerance in my home will be for violations of the Four Rules of Firearm Safety!

February 1, 2001, 11:52 AM	#8
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	Friends ... please support school choice. This is the kind of idiocy we can always expect from government schools. And, they are government schools ... we should never forget that. Just as we use the proper terms to describe the enemies of peace in the anti-self defense movement, we shouldn't kid ourselves that these are 'public' schools. They are government schools, and this kind of foolishness is exactly what we should expect. Fortunately, even government schools will become better through competition with charter and private schools. That's the nice thing about free markets. 'Course, don't expect the NEA and the rest of the government school establishment to ever agree - they prefer a monopoly. Christopher and his mom have learned a difficult but important lesson. Hope she finds a better place for the boy. Regards from AZ

February 1, 2001, 12:38 PM	#10
HankB Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2000 Location: Central Texas, outside of Austin Posts: 1,698	WHO PROVIDED THIS WEAPON TO AN 8-YEAR OLD??? That's the question the boy's parents should be asking. The PROVIDER of this weapon should be named as the defendant in a ten million dollar lawsuit. If the school's administration knew of, and permitted, these weapons to be distributed, then they should be named as co-conspirators. Maybe even prosecuted under the RICO laws. After all, aren't there penalties for arming children? Doesn't the school's "zero tolerance" policy apply to lunchroom staff? Seriously, when I read stuff like this, I'm convinced the lunatics are running the asylum. And it's looking like the only way to stop this stuff is to nail them in court, using their own arguments and stated polices against them. (Of course, from some of the decisions handed down, I sometimes think the judge's black robes should be exchanged for a strait jacket . . . )

February 1, 2001, 01:41 PM	#12
Jeff OTMG Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 1998 Location: OKC, OK & Austin, Tx Posts: 3,707	I don't think the fact that is was a chicken strip is the least bit important. It could have been his finger. It does not appear to have been meant in jest or fun, but as a threat. That would qualify it as a 'terroristic threat' in many areas. It is illegal to state or imply, through action or deed, that you are going to kill someone. Age doesn't matter. It is not socially acceptable behavior to threaten to kill people.

February 1, 2001, 01:53 PM	#13
bruels Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1998 Location: Hayden, ID, USA Posts: 1,102	Is it acceptable to point a chicken finger and utter a voodoo curse?

February 1, 2001, 02:07 PM	#14
SlackO Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 1999 Posts: 345	Jeff, I hope you're kidding. I think all boys play 'cowboys and indians' to some degree. I know I did. I thought this article was a joke at first (CHICKEN FINGERS?!?!?!? [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]?). This crap is rediculous.

February 1, 2001, 02:28 PM	#16
SplorerTom Member Join Date: August 28, 2000 Location: Chattanooga, TN Posts: 19	What did you expect from a poll from CNN? If the poll were given in the context of the "kid with chicken" story, I bet the results would be different. Remember, CNN = communist news network aka Pravda (formerly, clinton news network) The whole thing should be an outrage, but people are so numb to stupidity from our "leaders" that they don't seem to react anymore. If it were my kid, I'd definately be fighting it. I hate to make a lawyer rich, but this would be one of those times where a lawyer would come in handy. Tom

February 1, 2001, 02:29 PM	#17
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,932	IMNSHO. Zero tolerence is the epitome of assinity. Paul B.

February 1, 2001, 04:43 PM	#18
Phillip Senior Member Join Date: February 27, 1999 Location: TX Posts: 403	Was the cafeteria lady arrested for supplying the assault styled chicken finger?

February 1, 2001, 05:39 PM	#19
JimDiver Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2000 Location: San Jose, PRK Posts: 545	If you wish to contact this principal involved in this insanity and who ordered the suspention, his email address is [email protected]. The www site for the school district in question is http://www.jps.k12.ar.us/ Write and call early and write often.

February 1, 2001, 06:25 PM	#21
Jason Demond Senior Member Join Date: May 10, 1999 Location: Mivonks, Michigan Posts: 1,846	They make it so hard to be a kid these days.

February 1, 2001, 07:13 PM	#22
Ron Ankeny Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2000 Posts: 316	I am half way through my 22nd year teaching in a public school, and frankly, I think it is important to have zero tolerance policies. We have zero tolerance policies for drugs, alcohol, and weapons just to name a few. The fact is, in order to receive Federal Funds, we need to adopt such policies, and they are a good idea anyway. Keep in mind, even zero tolerance policies are admininistered with flexibility on a case by case basis. What zero tolerance means is that if a person is guilty of violating the policy, there will (not may) be consequences. For those of you who are so blinded by emotion that you can't see straight, you need to go read the article again. The kid got the boot for, "...the tone, the demeanor, and in some manner you judge the intent. It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind." Sounds to me like the violation was not a weapons policy violation, it is more like "open and willful disrespect of school personnel". The kid probably learned how to be a jerk where most kids learn it, in the home.

February 1, 2001, 07:50 PM	#23
Jeff OTMG Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 1998 Location: OKC, OK & Austin, Tx Posts: 3,707	Playing cowboys and indians (oops, land grabbers and native americans) or cops and robbers or having a picture of a gun because you like to shoot or any of the other stupid things we hear of kids getting into trouble for would NOT qualify as a terroristic threat. The key is the last part of the article: 'Sullivan said punishment for a threat "depends on the tone, the demeanor, and in some manner you judge the intent. It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind.' In Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statute there is a section which discusses 'criminal intent'. Without the 'intent' to commit the crime no crime is committed. If the kid was seriously threatening his teacher then he committed a criminal act even if it was his finger. When playing with classmates there is obviously no criminal intent. Like the guy said, 'It's not the object in the hand, it's the thought in the mind.' You cannot threaten to kill people, that is one of the exceptions to the First Amendment and it is not considered protected speech nor is inciting to riot nor is yelling 'Fire.' in a theater. There are limits to our rights, those rights come with certain responsibilities, that is why there are restrictions on them. [Edited by Jeff OTMG on 02-02-2001 at 03:06 PM]