Kid playing Airsoft in own yard facing school expulsion

[TheFeniX]

Washington Times

A 7th-grade student in Virginia Beach, Va., suspended from school for shooting an airsoft gun in his front yard will find out on Monday if he is expelled for the rest of the year, a local television station reported.

Khalid Caraballo, 13, and some friends were playing with airsoft guns on his front lawn as they waited for the bus one morning, WAVY first reported. Airsoft guns are non-lethal replica firearms that fire plastic pellets by way of spring-driven pistons.

A concerned neighbor called 911 to report the incident.

“He is pointing the gun, and it looks like there’s a target in a tree in his front yard,” she told the dispatcher. “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.”

Ironically, the caller’s son was playing with Khalid and Aidan in the Caraballo front yard.

Khalid and his friend Aidan, 13, were suspended for “possession, handling and use of a firearm.” The airsoft guns reportedly never made it to school property. The bus stop is reportedly 70 yards from the yard.

Aidan’s father, Tim Clark, said he doesn’t allow his son to play with the replica guns unsupervised, and the suspension lacks common sense.

“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,” said Khalid’s mother, Solangel Caraballo, according to WAVY.

Larkspur Middle School principal Matthew Delaney issued a statement that the “children were firing pellet guns at each other, and at people near the bus stop,” adding that one child “was only 10 feet from the bus stop, and ran from the shots being fired, but was still hit.”

Police said no one will be charged in the case.

“We understand that a number of juveniles possess air soft guns and have ‘airsoft gun’ wars with each other, but as it relates to the city code referenced above, they are in violation of the code if the juveniles are not exercising ‘reasonable care,’ ” the Virginia Beach Police Department said in a statement. “We want to stress to the parents of the juveniles and the operators of these type of ‘pneumatic guns’ that they need to be handled responsibly and with reasonable care to ensure that the projectile is properly contained.”

The boys had a hearing Monday afternoon to determine if they will be kicked out of their school for the entire year, the station reported.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2fplIS06L
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Schools have gone incredibly overboard the past decade or so with this "what you do on your own time is our business" line of bullshit.

[Alyeska]

Its still incredibly stupid to play airsoft in an urban environment. Where was the safety protection? What about innocent bystanders? Eye protection? The kids acted stupidly and the father was an idiot for letting them play with these toys in that situation.

[Spekio]

Its still incredibly stupid to play airsoft in an urban environment. Where was the safety protection? What about innocent bystanders? Eye protection? The kids acted stupidly and the father was an idiot for letting them play with these toys in that situation.

Yet it is not a matter for the school to handle.

[TheFeniX]

Its still incredibly stupid to play airsoft in an urban environment. Where was the safety protection? What about innocent bystanders? Eye protection? The kids acted stupidly and the father was an idiot for letting them play with these toys in that situation.

Kids do stupid shit all the time: news at 11. Jesus, we used to pull the foam padding off our nerf bats and beat the crap out of each other in a vain attempt to live out lives as Ninja Turtles. How is this different from that or kid playing with fireworks?

If the kids displayed some kind of depraved indifference, that's one thing, which the cops would/should have recognized and taken action, then seeing if the school needed to get involved for the safety of other students. But considering expulsion for kids being stupid outside school isn't a good "solution" to whatever problem the school seems to think there is. And the school shouldn't have the right to enforce discipline outside their property or when students aren't officially attending school.

[Alyeska]

Its still incredibly stupid to play airsoft in an urban environment. Where was the safety protection? What about innocent bystanders? Eye protection? The kids acted stupidly and the father was an idiot for letting them play with these toys in that situation.

Kids do stupid shit all the time: news at 11. Jesus, we used to pull the foam padding off our nerf bats and beat the crap out of each other in a vain attempt to live out lives as Ninja Turtles. How is this different from that or kid playing with fireworks?

If the kids displayed some kind of depraved indifference, that's one thing, which the cops would/should have recognized and taken action, then seeing if the school needed to get involved for the safety of other students. But considering expulsion for kids being stupid outside school isn't a good "solution" to whatever problem the school seems to think there is. And the school shouldn't have the right to enforce discipline outside their property or when students aren't officially attending school.

I didn't comment on the school actions. I commented on the kids actions. And the father claiming it was supervised makes him a colossal jackass too. I have no respect for people who ignore safety with Airsoft and Paintball.

[Covenant]

I agree with Alyeska, playing with your airsoft guns in an urban environment (rather than an area clear of houses and people) is taking an unnecessary risk. However, I do think they were wearing eye protection (big heavy sunglasses), and the airsoft gun they were using was the 25 dollar Walmart-brand Zombie Hunter with the target. Compared to what I thought they were using, this rinky dink spring gun has got to be functionally incapable of firing 70 meters to hit someone at the bus stop. It can penetrate paper from close range but that's about it.

I think they really need to re-evaluate the idea of charging them with "handling and use of a firearm," especially since in a lot of places going hunting with your dad (and using a real gun) is sacrosanct when outside of school. Why does the school have a public interest in invading the private lives of kids and punishing them for that if they're acting just fine in-school? Hell, I was explicitly requested by my schools to go to other neighborhoods with a gang of my fellow classmates and beat the shit out of kids. They even provided us with faculty to help, and when we had beaten up most of the other schools in the area (in front of their parents, no less), the school threw us a big school-wide party for our delinquent behavior on the football field. And yet a kid goofing around with a glorified squirt-gun gets expelled?

For serious?

[Zwinmar]

The school is headed by an idiot as it is not their business in the slightest. Can you fire someone for beim
ng that stupid or is that discrimination?

We had "walnut wars" as kids as well as with roman candles and with bb guns.

[Highlord Laan]

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-own-fro/] “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.”

I hope he takes up paintball, and sends pictures and video of it to this stupid bitch.

I agree with Alyeska, playing with your airsoft guns in an urban environment (rather than an area clear of houses and people) is taking an unnecessary risk. However, I do think they were wearing eye protection (big heavy sunglasses), and the airsoft gun they were using was the 25 dollar Walmart-brand Zombie Hunter with the target. Compared to what I thought they were using, this rinky dink spring gun has got to be functionally incapable of firing 70 meters to hit someone at the bus stop. It can penetrate paper from close range but that's about it.

I think they really need to re-evaluate the idea of charging them with "handling and use of a firearm," especially since in a lot of places going hunting with your dad (and using a real gun) is sacrosanct when outside of school. Why does the school have a public interest in invading the private lives of kids and punishing them for that if they're acting just fine in-school? Hell, I was explicitly requested by my schools to go to other neighborhoods with a gang of my fellow classmates and beat the shit out of kids. They even provided us with faculty to help, and when we had beaten up most of the other schools in the area (in front of their parents, no less), the school threw us a big school-wide party for our delinquent behavior on the football field. And yet a kid goofing around with a glorified squirt-gun gets expelled?

I shot my BB gun at tin cans and paper targets in my back yard growing up, as did my brothers, sister and the majority of our friends. I sometimes wonder how we survived, as apparently it was an open warzone.

[TheFeniX]

I didn't comment on the school actions. I commented on the kids actions. And the father claiming it was supervised makes him a colossal jackass too. I have no respect for people who ignore safety with Airsoft and Paintball.

Fair enough. Sorry if I took that away from your post.

I think they really need to re-evaluate the idea of charging them with "handling and use of a firearm," especially since in a lot of places going hunting with your dad (and using a real gun) is sacrosanct when outside of school.

They aren't even "charging" them with anything. From my understanding, the board just gets together and decides if they broke school rules (even though the rule only applies on campus or at school functions). After that, your only recourse is to sue.

In the meantime, your kid gets a "free" vacation that will only ensure his education suffers.

The school is headed by an idiot as it is not their business in the slightest. Can you fire someone for beim
ng that stupid or is that discrimination?

Meh, being a teacher can suck wind at times. There really aren't any standards when it comes to what the school board can and cannot do.

I assume had this not involved a "gun" and was just kids wailing on each other with nerf bats, nothing would have come of it. And you can be fired for no reason in states like Texas, but you cannot be fired for any reason. You can't be fired for "being stupid" unless said stupidity leads to incompetence that affects job performance. Teachers can however get shit-canned due to the retarded "morality clauses" many (if not all) districts require them to adhere to.

Remember kids: being attractive and wearing a bikini on a boat means you're a whore.

[Forgothrax]

While, as Alyeska has stated, allowing children to use airsoft guns without supervision and proper safety equipment is execrable, I see no reason why the school needs to get involved. Have the cops talk to the kids and maybe the dad, sure, but the school has neither jurisdiction nor reason to intervene at this point.

[PeZook]

You know, it's funny how similar it is to attitude a lot of people hold towards adults who get in trouble: punish them viciously and forever! As harshly as possible! Destroy them completely and utterly! THAT WILL TEACH 'EM!

Let's be frank: kicking the kid out of school is absurdly vicious. At best it will disrupt his education while he's moved to another school, at worst it could mean he's basically screwed forever (depending on his father's means and local educational opportunities)

[RogueIce]

Washington Times

Larkspur Middle School principal Matthew Delaney issued a statement that the “children were firing pellet guns at each other, and at people near the bus stop,” adding that one child “was only 10 feet from the bus stop, and ran from the shots being fired, but was still hit.”

Presuming that's accurate - or at least reported to the school and they had cause to believe it - I could see grounds for them taking disciplinary action. If they were shooting at students who weren't involved, yet on their way to the bus stop, even if they weren't quite at the location.

I think I've heard about schools being able to punish students in situations similar to that, such as jumping a kid on their way home from the bus stop or whatever. Not 100% sure about that one and I'll admit extending it such that "to and from the bus stop" is within the school's jurisdiction could get a little vague.

[Simon_Jester]

Just because I like poking at borderline cases...

Suppose that instead of harmless kids playing with air rifles, a school was dealing with kids who had seriously injured or even killed someone off of school property? Would the school then be justified in expelling them? I would... kind of hope so in that case. Because it sets a precedent that these children are unusually likely to threaten or attack fellow children, so much so that it's already happened, and they pose a disproportionate threat to the other children at the school.

What's making this a problem is that a rule which makes sense in the context of "what if four kids beat another bloody with rocks" stops making sense in the context of "what if three kids are playing with air rifles?"

[Eternal_Freedom]

If they had killed or seriously injured another student, it would be a matter for the police, same as if they had killed/wounded someone with rocks.

[aerius]

No crime, no foul, the school can go fuck itself. If the parents of the kid who was allegedly shot at and hit decided to press charges and got the charges to stick, the school can then take action against the Airsoft shooters. But they didn't and there are no charges, plus everything is off school property so this a matter for the kids & parents of the kids involved to resolve.

To answer Simon's hypothetical, if it's something serious where the police get involved and criminal charges are laid then it becomes reasonable for the school to consider suspension or expulsion. To use an example, there was a case in my school where several students were involved in a stabbing which took place off school property. All students were suspended once the police notified the school of the charges, and when they were convicted they were expelled. Not that it mattered since they were in jail. There was also another case where a student had the shit beat out of him to the point where he was in a wheelchair for a month, but he didn't talk so no charges were ever pressed. Pretty much everyone knew what happened and who did it, but with no charges and not enough proof the school either couldn't or chose not to do anything.

[Fiji_Fury]

If actions taken by students outside of school drift into the school in terms of consequences, there is a an argument for the school to be involved. That doesn't seem to be the case here. The school board, based on the information from the posted article, is overreacting and interfering with student activities outside of the school setting. This is not appropriate. There must be municipal bylaws that could be used on a complaint basis if any of the neighbors were unhappy with the airsoft games in the front yard, or perhaps the police could have been contacted to lodge a complaint, or... SHOCKER... maybe the neighbors could have spoken to the kids/parents about their concerns.

[Irbis]

No crime, no foul, the school can go fuck itself.

Gee, so if I target someone with AK-47 and spray full mag of bullets in their direction but miss, no crime, no foul, the police can go fuck itself?

While expelling might be going to far, hello, school is responsible for well being of its students. If someone can callously shoot at others with airsoft gun (which according to some dumb posts here are 'safe' - gee, I wonder why airsoft teams wear heavy padding and thick goggles then) the kid shows he can be potentially unsafe for others. While talk to parents/reprimand could have sufficed if it's first problem with him (do we even know that?) the school board could have played it safe out of fear of being sued.

[Serafina]

“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,” said Khalid’s mother, Solangel Caraballo, according to WAVY.

Just wanted to point out how extremely fucked up that is.
It could just be a comparision or figure of speech - but given that the USA did not sign the UN Convention on the rights of children, and that there are plenty of US-americans who actually regard children as property of their parents (mostly fundamentalist christians, particularly quiverful ones), i really doubt that.

[Borgholio]

Gee, so if I target someone with AK-47 and spray full mag of bullets in their direction but miss, no crime, no foul, the police can go fuck itself?

Shooting a gun at someone is definitely a crime, shooting at a target in a tree is typically not...so your example fails. Is there any actual proof the kids were shooting at other children at the bus stop as the school claims?

[Korto]

Gee, so if I target someone with AK-47 and spray full mag of bullets in their direction but miss, no crime, no foul, the police can go fuck itself?

If you look closely, I think you'll find that even in the US, firing an AK-47...
Oh, too late. Damn you, Borgholio.

Personally, I wouldn't put any weight in the school's statement that they were firing at other people, but equally little weight in the father's statement of "always supervised", either or both could be too easily engaged in arse covering. The only statement I put any weight in is the caller's, who said

“He is pointing the gun, and it looks like there’s a target in a tree in his front yard,” she told the dispatcher. “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.”

because it hardly puts her in a good light. That puts him in his own yard, shooting at a tree, with a toy gun. She call 911 because it makes her feel emotionally uncomfortable to see a boy holding a toy gun.

Whether or not the children were in the yard is important. The school has a reasonable claim of responsibility if the children are going to or from school, this is a principle I've seen in workplace injury cover, and God knows someone will try to hold them responsible if anything was to happen. If they're playing in a yard, it's none of the school's business. Perhaps if charges were laid, there may be precautionary grounds; but there were no charges so the issue doesn't arise.

Serafina - When I first read the piece, I thought it said “My son was on my private property." His actual words are... a bit of a concern.

[Eternal_Freedom]

It may simply be a turn of phrase, replace "property" with "business" or "concern" and it's perfectly fine.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Just because I like poking at borderline cases...

Suppose that instead of harmless kids playing with air rifles, a school was dealing with kids who had seriously injured or even killed someone off of school property? Would the school then be justified in expelling them? I would... kind of hope so in that case. Because it sets a precedent that these children are unusually likely to threaten or attack fellow children, so much so that it's already happened, and they pose a disproportionate threat to the other children at the school.

What's making this a problem is that a rule which makes sense in the context of "what if four kids beat another bloody with rocks" stops making sense in the context of "what if three kids are playing with air rifles?"

It really shouldn't matter as the school should have no jurisdiction off of school property. In my eyes the only times that the school should have any authority is when they're acting in loco parentis or something happens involving students on school property. Mind you, I include the latter simply to deal with cases such as students vandalizing school property after hours, as I believe that the extra punishment on top of whatever legal recourse is sought is justified. That means that students assaulting another on a bus, would be a valid case for the school to be involved in because they at that point are acting in loco parentis, but if it's a kid walking to or from school or waiting at a bus stop to go to school, then no, the school should have no jurisdiction as they are not acting in loco parentis at that time. That doesn't however mean that it should be ignored or that it's not a legal matter, just that the school has no authority over the matter.

[TheFeniX]

“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,” said Khalid’s mother, Solangel Caraballo, according to WAVY.

Just wanted to point out how extremely fucked up that is.
It could just be a comparision or figure of speech - but given that the USA did not sign the UN Convention on the rights of children, and that there are plenty of US-americans who actually regard children as property of their parents (mostly fundamentalist christians, particularly quiverful ones), i really doubt that.

Children technically are property, at least when it comes to this. They have limited rights, but many of those rights can be waived by the parent (or school depending) at any time. Schools take possesion of kids once they step on the bus as part of their in loco parentis bit. Before that happens they don't have any authority over the kids.... well, at least they didn't back when I was in school.

However, "my kid is my property" is not something I could ever hear myself say. But I will say this style of "morality police" bullshit is cropping up everywhere. Even employers are monitoring facebook accounts and other social media for current and prospective employees and spanking them when they see something they don't like.

No crime, no foul, the school can go fuck itself.

Gee, so if I target someone with AK-47 and spray full mag of bullets in their direction but miss, no crime, no foul, the police can go fuck itself?

The sad part is people like you exist. "But AKs are scury turrest gunz!" You literally are the screeching "Won't someone please think of the children" stereotype and people like you ensure no tolerance policies stay in effect. Props though for using mag instead of clip.

Suppose that instead of harmless kids playing with air rifles, a school was dealing with kids who had seriously injured or even killed someone off of school property? Would the school then be justified in expelling them? I would... kind of hope so in that case. Because it sets a precedent that these children are unusually likely to threaten or attack fellow children, so much so that it's already happened, and they pose a disproportionate threat to the other children at the school.

Being stupid doesn't automatically mean you're either depraved or prone to performing your "violence" at a later time (namely: at school). I don't consider airsoft pistols all that harmless, but still only at the level of "only pussies wear helmets" in order to pressure someone into something stupid.

Your post is a good example of why no tolerance policies are stupid: we should be judging incidents on a case by case basis. But suspension while this goes on shouldn't be the first goto. Obviously, something purposely violent may, but in this case cops had already shown up and didn't even think the case was worth offering written warnings. Shit, at least kids these days have airsoft. All we had were lever action BB guns.

To sum up: the school has every right to remove students to protect the safety of other students. But a stern talking to by the police would be enough in this instance, but according to the school that is good enough cause to warrant expulsion, even if they vote no to, it was still on the table. Shit, I was a pretty damn good kid growing up, but I can think of a few incidents among friends (mutual "violence") that would likely get me crucified today.

[aerius]

No crime, no foul, the school can go fuck itself.

Gee, so if I target someone with AK-47 and spray full mag of bullets in their direction but miss, no crime, no foul, the police can go fuck itself?

Even in gun happy America, that would be unlawful discharge of a firearm, illegal use of a firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm, which are all felony charges. Plus attempted murder which is also a felony. That would be 4 felony counts. Definitely a crime. Unless your name is Dick Cheney, you are going straight to jail.

[Patroklos]

Its still incredibly stupid to play airsoft in an urban environment. Where was the safety protection? What about innocent bystanders? Eye protection? The kids acted stupidly and the father was an idiot for letting them play with these toys in that situation.

Its your normal build and repeat subdivision with large front yards. VA Beach is pretty much a sea of such developments.