During the beginning of October an eighth-grader in Connecticut posted the following message on their Facebook account: “I swear to God I’m going to kill Mr. Robinson” to which a female classmate responded with “Let’s bomb the school together,” both were quickly arrested.
According to the Gothamist the student has been charged with disorderly conduct, second-degree breach of peace and threatening. Both students were also suspended for 10 days, while expulsion has also been put on the table.
The boys mother has blamed the school, stating that her own comments about and clashes with Principle Robinson caused her son to be suspended, apparently threatening to kill the principal and destroy their school had nothing to do with it.
The boy’s mother said to the New Milford News-Times
“If I was arrested every time I told my children I was going to kill them because they didn’t do what I asked, I’d be on death row.”
Seriously? You tell your kids you are going to kill them all the time, this is definitely a case of blame the parents.
The boys mother has said her constant clashes with the Principle led her to complain to Superintendent Paddyfote, however Paddyfote is on Robinson’s side as she is considering an expulsion of the student.
Kids need to realize that their actions have consequences, the argument has been made that emotions can become amplified by Facebook, Twitter and other online resources, but that doesn’t excuse the actions of these students. Perhaps if the boys mother spent less time threatening to kill him, he would spend less time doing the same to others.
What are your thoughts on the entire situation? Should both 13-year-old children be expelled? Or is suspension enough to teach them a lesson.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
That was way too harsh. They shouldn’t have been suspended for idle threats, kids say that stuff all the time.
I aso think the author of this article was very judgemental of the Mother. My parents have, in a moment of anger, said somthing along the lines of ‘I’ll kill you if you don’t…’
I’ve never feared for my life, seen it as a serious threat, or thought my parents were doing a bad job. I wonder if the author has children, do they realise how frustrating they can be? And how they drive parents to often say things they don’t mean? Have they never made an off hand comment about a teacher or an idle threat they weren’t serious about?
I think we all have, the only difference is, their comments weere on faceboook. They are just kids, I don’t think they should be punished so harshly.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
Yes I was very judgmental of the mother who said she tells her kids all the time that she is going to kill them, then tries to justify their actions when they say they are going to kill their principal and bomb the school.
Read the sentence again, she says “If I was arrested EVERYTIME” so it was not a one or two off type scenario.
BTW, if they would have said those words in the school, they would have had the same consequence on Facebook, which like a school is another public platform should you allow your comments to be viewed outside of your friends list in any way, shape or form.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
If we could just ignore these incidents most of the perpetrators would stop bluffing and school would simply proceed in a normal fashion. Unfortunately they know that we can’t afford to do that.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
So the first amendment doesn’t apply to Facebook, why?
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
Steve, I think you need to go back and look over what the constitution provides then take a closer look at case law.
First, saying you want to kill someone in a forum where they can read it is assault. Actually attacking that person is battery. They performed an act of assault.
Threatening to blow up a school, which can cause wide spread panic is not blanketed by the 1st Amendment and can be considered an act of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater.
Acts covered by the 1st Amendment are vastly different than what occurred in this case.