For today's massive over reaction we go to... *spins wheel* Virginia Beach, VA!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Meanwhile in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

http://www.wavy.com/news/local/va-beach/has-zero-tolerance-gone-too-far

A suspended seventh grade Virginia Beach student will find out soon if he is expelled for the rest of the year for shooting an airsoft gun.

Like thousands of others in Hampton Roads, Khalid Caraballo plays with airsoft guns. Caraballo and his friend Aidan were suspended because they shot two other friends who were with them while playing with the guns as they waited for the school bus.

The two seventh graders say they never went to the bus stop; they fired the airsoft guns while on Caraballo's private property.

Aidan’s father, Tim Clark, told WAVY.com what happened next lacks commons sense. The children were suspended for possession, handling and use of a firearm.

Khalid's mother, Solangel Caraballo, thinks it is ridiculous the Virginia Beach City Public School System suspended her 13-year-old son and Aidan because they were firing a spring-driven airsoft gun on the Caraballo's posted private property. "My son is my private property. He does not become the school's property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school."

The bus stop in question is 70 yards from the Caraballo's front yard.

Solangel Caraballo was not at home when this incident occurred. She was taking her young son to a Head Start class. She left her 16-year -old daughter in charge.

Khalid and Aiden aren't only suspended, they were recommended to be expelled for a year for "possession, handling and use of a firearm."

This story that addresses Zero Tolerance extending to private property began on September 9 with a 911 call from a concerned citizen.

A neighbor saw Khalid shooting the airsoft gun in his front yard. She told the dispatcher, "He is pointing the gun, and it looks like there's a target in a tree in his front yard".

WAVY.com located the 911 caller and spoke to her. She confirmed Khalid was taking target practice using a zombie hunter airsoft gun to kill the zombies. There was also a net behind the target to catch the plastic pellets.

The caller also knew the gun wasn't real and said so, "This is not a real one, but it makes people uncomfortable. I know that it makes me (uncomfortable), as a mom, to see a boy pointing a gun," she told the 911 dispatcher.

The airsoft guns are designed to be non-lethal. Plastic pellets are used, and not copper bb's.

Ironically, that 911 caller's son was playing with Khalid and Aidan in the Caraballo front yard on September 12. There were six children playing in an airsoft gun war. "We see the bus come. We put the gun down. We did not take the airsoft gun to the bus stop. We did not take the gun to school," Khalid explained.

Aidan admits shooting the caller's son in the arm, and Khalid admits shooting another friend in the back. "He knew we had the airsoft gun. He knew we were playing. He knew people were getting shot. We were shooting at the tree, but he still came and even after he was shot he still played," referring to the son of the 911 caller.

WAVY.com reached out to the principal of Larkspur Middle School, Matthew Delaney. In a letter obtained by WAVY.com he said his investigation found the "children were firing pellet guns at each other, and at people near the bus stop." The letter from Delaney says one child “was only 10 feet from the bus stop, and ran from the shots being fired, but was still hit."

Khalid insists all the shots fired were on his private property. The three children firing the guns were suspended. The three others who did not fire the guns were not suspended.

Khalid thinks it’s unfair. "Yes, it's unfair because we were in our yard. This had nothing to do with school. I didn't have anything at school at anytime."

The Virginia Beach City Code isn't clear, and goes back and forth. It reads no person "shall...discharge any firearm, spring-propelled rifle or pistol...within...150 yards of any building." Then it reads "no person shall use a pneumatic gun except at approved shooting ranges or within private property."

Solangel says, "That is exactly my point. It is private property."
However, the Code also requires shooting with "permission of the owner." In this case, the parent is the owner, and she did not give her son, Khalid, permission to fire the gun. He disobeyed her.
"How dare he disobey me, but this is a home issue. It's not a school issue and it won't happen again. He will never do this again," Solangel says looking back at Khalid with a stern face.

Virginia Beach Police say they do not proactively seek out to enforce this code unless "the juveniles are not exercising reasonable care." Reasonable care is defined as "the gun is discharged in a manner so the projectile is contained on the property by a fence or backstop."

Police are not charging anyone in this case. They would not discuss the specifics because the people involved are juveniles.

Khalid said he will never do this again. "It's terrible. I won't get the chance to go to a good college. It's

on your school record. The school said I had possession of a firearm. They aren't going to ask me any questions. They are going to think it was a real gun, and I was trying to hurt someone. They will say 'oh, we can't accept you.' "

More then a little ridiculous really, and I'm shocked VA/Va Beach have laws to cover airsoft toys. Hell in Middle School and School much of my weekends and large parts of my weekdays were involved in protracted airsoft and paintball battles and our toys were certainly more worrisome both from a "potential damage caused" and "looks" stand point. While paintball guns are pretty clearly paintball guns, those suckers hurt! and since my band of buddies were all military fan boys (of the eight of us, four enlisted, one went to ROTC, one joined the Fire Academy and the other two still play competitive airsoft)

For reference this was my airsoft rifle growing up, a Tokyo Marui M16A2

The only difference is it had an orange tip as required by local law. The only police interaction we got out of it was the Sheriff's Deputy who lived up the street wanted to see our gear, and make sure we were being safe, then he borrowed a pair of glasses and spent about 45 minutes playing with us and teaching us good stances and stuff.
Paintball markers looked like this stripped of hopper and gas tank.

Back to the actual situation, sounds like this young boy and his friends were having fun, and he was being a lot safer then we ever were back in the day. This is a massive overreaction by the school and well out of their jurisdiction.

**col. krazy kenny**

I hope the parents hire a lawyer to handle this.Because the mom has a very good point.

**hotsauceman1**

I read it wrong at first, If they where paying Airsoft at the bus stop that might be a problem(Here In Cali the schools are responsible for you one you leave your parents sight and until you get home.)
But yeah this is stupid.

**djones520**

When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

**xole**

djones520 wrote:
When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

That line was crossed with the internet.

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

It's not the question of "private property" but rather when exactly the kids become the responsibility of the school system.

It is always amusing that when it goes against their kids, parents are against the school taking responsibility too soon but when it goes for their kids they can't wait to shovel their kids off to the school system.

**sebster**

The article is called 'zero tolerance gone too far'.

Well yeah, that's what zero tolerance is - taking the normal notion of punishment being proportionate to the crime and rejecting it, in favour of going too far and not tolerating any kind of misbehaviour at all. It's just a terrible, terrible idea, and one that needs to be dumped as soon as possible.

**djones520**

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

It's not the question of "private property" but rather when exactly the kids become the responsibility of the school system.

It is always amusing that when it goes against their kids, parents are against the school taking responsibility too soon but when it goes for their kids they can't wait to shovel their kids off to the school system.

You're assuming these parents are the type who want to shovel their kids off.

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

It's not the question of "private property" but rather when exactly the kids become the responsibility of the school system.

It is always amusing that when it goes against their kids, parents are against the school taking responsibility too soon but when it goes for their kids they can't wait to shovel their kids off to the school system.

You're assuming these parents are the type who want to shovel their kids off.

No actually I'm not. I'm saying that "when it goes against their kids, parents are against the school taking responsibility too soon".

With the usual divergence of "let's play the context game" out of the way, it's not unheard for a school system to be considered "in session" starting when the kids leave the door to go to the bus stop. I know that it got me in trouble a few times in middle school when there was a fight at the bus stop--which was the end of my driveway--when the bus would be pulling up.

**motyak**

To be honest I'm amazed Khalid is alive, last I saw he was dead on a table in Irenicus' dungeon.

**djones520**

motyak wrote:
To be honest I'm amazed Khalid is alive, last I saw he was dead on a table in Irenicus' dungeon.

I thought it was Dynaheir who bit it? Khaleed was to loved to kill off.

**motyak**

djones520 wrote:
motyak wrote:
To be honest I'm amazed Khalid is alive, last I saw he was dead on a table in Irenicus' dungeon.

I thought it was Dynaheir who bit it? Khaleed was to loved to kill off.

Both of them I could have sworn...I'll play it through again in November and necro this with an answer (kidding mods)

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

That was my first reaction when I read the article too. Somehow the school is attempting to expand their jurisdiction by saying that the children involved were on their way to school

**djones520**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
djones520 wrote:
When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

That was my first reaction when I read the article too. Somehow the school is attempting to expand their jurisdiction by saying that the children involved were on their way to school

Which is bs. If that's the case, I want my old high school to compensate me for impound fees when a fellow student stole my car from school and used it in the commission of several felonies. If they are responsible for the students when they aren't on school property, then they should have been responsible for that.

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
djones520 wrote:
When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

That was my first reaction when I read the article too. Somehow the school is attempting to expand their jurisdiction by saying that the children involved were on their way to school

Which is bs. If that's the case, I want my old high school to compensate me for impound fees when a fellow student stole my car from school and used it in the commission of several felonies. If they are responsible for the students when they aren't on school property, then they should have been responsible for that.

Argument would probably only fly if they were considered a minor.

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
Which is bs. If that's the case, I want my old high school to compensate me for impound fees when a fellow student stole my car from school and used it in the commission of several felonies. If they are responsible for the students when they aren't on school property, then they should have been responsible for that.

I agree that it is absolute BS, and that had the tables been turned and someone injured in the yard after school that the school would be denying liability, saying that the child was at home and not on his way home and still in the care of the school.

**Jehan-reznor**

I wonder if they will be trailed like adults

**LoneLictor**

Is there anyone, democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, black or white, christian or atheist, teacher or student, who actually agrees with the school in this scenario? Anyone? Anyone at all?

**dogma**

LoneLictor wrote:
Is there anyone, democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, black or white, christian or atheist, teacher or student, who actually agrees with the school in this scenario? Anyone? Anyone at all?

I don't agree with the school's actions, but I don't disagree with them either. There is too much missing information for me to reach a conclusion, and the school may well have been legitimately covering its ass or enforcing existing rules.

Also, this:

"My son is my private property. He does not become the school's property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school."

Really? I hope that is an emotionally motivated reply, or a misquote.

**Frazzled**

col. krazy kenny wrote:
I hope the parents hire a lawyer to handle this.Because the mom has a very good point.

The school has no standing to impose punishment of any sort in this instance. Hiring a lawyer to talk to the principal is the easy course.

Alternatively the school board should fire everyone involved.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
When schools start regulating what you do on private property, we've certainly crossed a line.

It's not the question of "private property" but rather when exactly the kids become the responsibility of the school system.

It is always amusing that when it goes against their kids, parents are against the school taking responsibility too soon but when it goes for their kids they can't wait to shovel their kids off to the school system.

No.
It was private property
The school is only responsible when the school is, you know, responsible.
If an accident occurred the school would deny liability based on the above reasons.

**PredaKhaine**

So reading this...

13 yr old has an airsoft gun, is left with a 16yr old for supervision.
13 yr old shoots things.

School conducts an investigation which finds that the kids were
"children were firing pellet guns at each other, and at people near the bus stop"
The kids admit shooting each other, but deny being near the bus stop.

1)Where did the other guns come from in the school statement? Theres only mention of one gun.

2)Solangel Caraballo was not at home when this incident occurred. How can she say for certain her kid wasn't near the bus stop? Other than by taking his word for it - If I was 13 and had gotten carried away while shooting friends with a pellet gun, I'd've lied like hell to get out of it...(just sayin) (When I was a kid, I never got caught though...)

3)How the hell does a spring-driven airsoft gun equate to "The children were suspended for possession, handling and use of a firearm"

4)Virginia Beach Police say they do not proactively seek out to enforce this code unless "the juveniles are not exercising reasonable care." Reasonable care is defined as "the gun is discharged in a manner so the projectile is contained on the property by a fence or backstop."
Police are not charging anyone in this case.

If the police aren't concerned - then why should the school be?

**Frazzled**

Its not even a BB gun...jeez

**PredaKhaine**

Next up, 6 yr old boy makes a catapult out of underpant elastic and is summarily pre-expelled from high school for firearms offenses.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Nope, that's a siege engine. Expelled and turned into the BATFE for possession of a Class IV Destructive Device.

**Frazzled**

Even worse, clearly he's a terrorist. Send him to Gitmo.

**hotsauceman1**

The school may have a claim, depending on how dirty the undwear are.
And I do think schools are responsible for child when they are n the bus and going to school

**Spacemanvic**

This is all a part of progressive conditioning to make the populace afraid of guns, as well as to widen the gap between child/parent. An 8yo was suspended for having chewed his Pop-Tart into a gun shape. This is just ridiculous.

**PredaKhaine**

When I was a kid - we always got told whatever we trouble we got into would be a school matter IF we were wearing our uniform as it brought the school into disrepute.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:
This is all a part of progressive conditioning to make the populace afraid of guns, as well as to widen the gap between child/parent. An 8yo was suspended for having chewed his Pop-Tart into a gun shape. This is just ridiculous.

Pop Tarts = WMD. FACT.

**Alfndrate**

PredaKhaine wrote:
When I was a kid - we always got told whatever we trouble we got into would be a school matter IF we were wearing our uniform as it brought the school into disrepute.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:
This is all a part of progressive conditioning to make the populace afraid of guns, as well as to widen the gap between child/parent. An 8yo was suspended for having chewed his Pop-Tart into a gun shape. This is just ridiculous.

Pop Tarts = WMD. FACT.

We had a similar policy at my grade school. We had kids causing trouble while in their school uniforms (no crests or anything, but we were one of the only schools in the area that made their kids wear uniforms, so it was pretty easy to tell where we were from). We were told we had to go directly home after school, we couldn't go to the park, etc... because the school was 'responsible' for us until we reached our doors.

Edit: Hot Pop Tarts are WMDs, cold pop tarts are just sad

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
The school may have a claim, depending on how dirty the undwear are.
And I do think schools are responsible for child when they are n the bus and going to school

And you would be correct. Once they are on the bus, they are legally liable.