Gun found at Wilson

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is what Fox 5 DC says:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/56175121-story

"The father of the teen says that his son may have brought the weapon to school because he feared for his own safety and wanted it for protection. FOX 5’s Bob Barnard say the student had been expelled from the school earlier in the school year and was later reinstated."

The news story confirms that the gun was loaded. Extremely scary.

This is starting to sound like a major fail on the part of the school. If the kid was reinstated, they should have been offering lots of supports, supervision, etc. for this kid. If this kid was still feeling threatened enough that he was bringing a loaded gun to school, then
this kid's not able to apprpriately deal with situations (no matter how grave) and shouldn't have been reinstated yet. School also clearly didn't have a handle on the situation, as they didn't understand how threatened this kid felt, and weren't doing enough to address the situation.

Keep in mind that it was the kid's father who said the kid felt threatened. Also remember that the kid put the gun in another kid's backpack. I can't really square feeling threatened with trying to frame another kid. So, I would take the father's word with a grain of salt.

Agreed, but even if this is the father's spin, I think the critique of the school's approach is still valid. They made the call to suspend the kid, and then they reinstate the kid. I just question how much attention they were paying and what kind of monitoring/supports/interventions they had in place for successful and safe reintigration of this kid into the school.
If the kid truly just feared for his life, it's a fail--they didn't help the kid feel safe.
If the kid had plans for agressive acts, it's also a fail--they didn't sufficiently monitor this kid who already had demonstrated dangerous behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless its the kid who was threatening him?

It shouldn't matter. Bringing a loaded gun to school is highly inapproproate and illegal under any circumstances. The student shoukd forfeit any chance to return to Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is what Fox 5 DC says:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/56175121-story

"The father of the teen says that his son may have brought the weapon to school because he feared for his own safety and wanted it for protection. FOX 5’s Bob Barnard say the student had been expelled from the school earlier in the school year and was later reinstated."

The news story confirms that the gun was loaded. Extremely scary.

This is starting to sound like a major fail on the part of the school. If the kid was reinstated, they should have been offering lots of supports, supervision, etc. for this kid. If this kid was still feeling threatened enough that he was bringing a loaded gun to school, then
this kid's not able to apprpriately deal with situations (no matter how grave) and shouldn't have been reinstated yet. School also clearly didn't have a handle on the situation, as they didn't understand how threatened this kid felt, and weren't doing enough to address the situation.

Keep in mind that it was the kid's father who said the kid felt threatened. Also remember that the kid put the gun in another kid's backpack. I can't really square feeling threatened with trying to frame another kid. So, I would take the father's word with a grain of salt.

Agreed, but even if this is the father's spin, I think the critique of the school's approach is still valid. They made the call to suspend the kid, and then they reinstate the kid. I just question how much attention they were paying and what kind of monitoring/supports/interventions they had in place for successful and safe reintigration of this kid into the school.
If the kid truly just feared for his life, it's a fail--they didn't help the kid feel safe.
If the kid had plans for agressive acts, it's also a fail--they didn't sufficiently monitor this kid who already had demonstrated dangerous behavior.

You have no idea - none - of the circumstances here. You don't know the child, don't know his father, don't know what happened the first time the kid was suspended, don't know why he was reinstated, don't know why he brought a gun to school, and don't know how the disciplinary process will play out moving forward. You have no idea of any of these things.

It is a big, big problem that this kid brought a gun to school, and that he got it through security. But speculating on facts about which you have no knowledge whatsoever makes you look like a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is what Fox 5 DC says:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/56175121-story

"The father of the teen says that his son may have brought the weapon to school because he feared for his own safety and wanted it for protection. FOX 5’s Bob Barnard say the student had been expelled from the school earlier in the school year and was later reinstated."

The news story confirms that the gun was loaded. Extremely scary.

This is starting to sound like a major fail on the part of the school. If the kid was reinstated, they should have been offering lots of supports, supervision, etc. for this kid. If this kid was still feeling threatened enough that he was bringing a loaded gun to school, then
this kid's not able to apprpriately deal with situations (no matter how grave) and shouldn't have been reinstated yet. School also clearly didn't have a handle on the situation, as they didn't understand how threatened this kid felt, and weren't doing enough to address the situation.

Keep in mind that it was the kid's father who said the kid felt threatened. Also remember that the kid put the gun in another kid's backpack. I can't really square feeling threatened with trying to frame another kid. So, I would take the father's word with a grain of salt.

Agreed, but even if this is the father's spin, I think the critique of the school's approach is still valid. They made the call to suspend the kid, and then they reinstate the kid. I just question how much attention they were paying and what kind of monitoring/supports/interventions they had in place for successful and safe reintigration of this kid into the school.
If the kid truly just feared for his life, it's a fail--they didn't help the kid feel safe.
If the kid had plans for agressive acts, it's also a fail--they didn't sufficiently monitor this kid who already had demonstrated dangerous behavior.

You have no idea - none - of the circumstances here. You don't know the child, don't know his father, don't know what happened the first time the kid was suspended, don't know why he was reinstated, don't know why he brought a gun to school, and don't know how the disciplinary process will play out moving forward. You have no idea of any of these things.

It is a big, big problem that this kid brought a gun to school, and that he got it through security. But speculating on facts about which you have no knowledge whatsoever makes you look like a fool.

It doesn't matter. Bring a loaded gun to school and you're done. I don't care what the sob story is. He put students and faculty at risk of deadly harm.

[Anonymous]

i agree. How could they possibly let him back with all the gun violence we've seen this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is what Fox 5 DC says:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/56175121-story

"The father of the teen says that his son may have brought the weapon to school because he feared for his own safety and wanted it for protection. FOX 5’s Bob Barnard say the student had been expelled from the school earlier in the school year and was later reinstated."

The news story confirms that the gun was loaded. Extremely scary.

This is starting to sound like a major fail on the part of the school. If the kid was reinstated, they should have been offering lots of supports, supervision, etc. for this kid. If this kid was still feeling threatened enough that he was bringing a loaded gun to school, then
this kid's not able to apprpriately deal with situations (no matter how grave) and shouldn't have been reinstated yet. School also clearly didn't have a handle on the situation, as they didn't understand how threatened this kid felt, and weren't doing enough to address the situation.

Keep in mind that it was the kid's father who said the kid felt threatened. Also remember that the kid put the gun in another kid's backpack. I can't really square feeling threatened with trying to frame another kid. So, I would take the father's word with a grain of salt.

Agreed, but even if this is the father's spin, I think the critique of the school's approach is still valid. They made the call to suspend the kid, and then they reinstate the kid. I just question how much attention they were paying and what kind of monitoring/supports/interventions they had in place for successful and safe reintigration of this kid into the school.
If the kid truly just feared for his life, it's a fail--they didn't help the kid feel safe.
If the kid had plans for agressive acts, it's also a fail--they didn't sufficiently monitor this kid who already had demonstrated dangerous behavior.

You have no idea - none - of the circumstances here. You don't know the child, don't know his father, don't know what happened the first time the kid was suspended, don't know why he was reinstated, don't know why he brought a gun to school, and don't know how the disciplinary process will play out moving forward. You have no idea of any of these things.

It is a big, big problem that this kid brought a gun to school, and that he got it through security. But speculating on facts about which you have no knowledge whatsoever makes you look like a fool.

It doesn't matter. Bring a loaded gun to school and you're done. I don't care what the sob story is. He put students and faculty at risk of deadly harm.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Just following this thread makes me feel so good my kids will never set foot in this school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is what Fox 5 DC says:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/56175121-story

"The father of the teen says that his son may have brought the weapon to school because he feared for his own safety and wanted it for protection. FOX 5’s Bob Barnard say the student had been expelled from the school earlier in the school year and was later reinstated."

The news story confirms that the gun was loaded. Extremely scary.

This is starting to sound like a major fail on the part of the school. If the kid was reinstated, they should have been offering lots of supports, supervision, etc. for this kid. If this kid was still feeling threatened enough that he was bringing a loaded gun to school, then
this kid's not able to apprpriately deal with situations (no matter how grave) and shouldn't have been reinstated yet. School also clearly didn't have a handle on the situation, as they didn't understand how threatened this kid felt, and weren't doing enough to address the situation.

Keep in mind that it was the kid's father who said the kid felt threatened. Also remember that the kid put the gun in another kid's backpack. I can't really square feeling threatened with trying to frame another kid. So, I would take the father's word with a grain of salt.

Agreed, but even if this is the father's spin, I think the critique of the school's approach is still valid. They made the call to suspend the kid, and then they reinstate the kid. I just question how much attention they were paying and what kind of monitoring/supports/interventions they had in place for successful and safe reintigration of this kid into the school.
If the kid truly just feared for his life, it's a fail--they didn't help the kid feel safe.
If the kid had plans for agressive acts, it's also a fail--they didn't sufficiently monitor this kid who already had demonstrated dangerous behavior.

You have no idea - none - of the circumstances here. You don't know the child, don't know his father, don't know what happened the first time the kid was suspended, don't know why he was reinstated, don't know why he brought a gun to school, and don't know how the disciplinary process will play out moving forward. You have no idea of any of these things.

It is a big, big problem that this kid brought a gun to school, and that he got it through security. But speculating on facts about which you have no knowledge whatsoever makes you look like a fool.

It doesn't matter. Bring a loaded gun to school and you're done. I don't care what the sob story is. He put students and faculty at risk of deadly harm.

Are you dense? Because that is exactly what is happening here. The child is not in school. He is - according to the article - in police custody, and will remain so until the legal case plays out. So what are you complaining about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just following this thread makes me feel so good my kids will never set foot in this school.

Thankfully, the kids at Wilson are much more level-headed, are aware of the actual facts of the situation, and are handling this entire thing much better than the know-nothings on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is what Fox 5 DC says:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/56175121-story

"The father of the teen says that his son may have brought the weapon to school because he feared for his own safety and wanted it for protection. FOX 5’s Bob Barnard say the student had been expelled from the school earlier in the school year and was later reinstated."

The news story confirms that the gun was loaded. Extremely scary.

This is starting to sound like a major fail on the part of the school. If the kid was reinstated, they should have been offering lots of supports, supervision, etc. for this kid. If this kid was still feeling threatened enough that he was bringing a loaded gun to school, then
this kid's not able to apprpriately deal with situations (no matter how grave) and shouldn't have been reinstated yet. School also clearly didn't have a handle on the situation, as they didn't understand how threatened this kid felt, and weren't doing enough to address the situation.

Keep in mind that it was the kid's father who said the kid felt threatened. Also remember that the kid put the gun in another kid's backpack. I can't really square feeling threatened with trying to frame another kid. So, I would take the father's word with a grain of salt.

Agreed, but even if this is the father's spin, I think the critique of the school's approach is still valid. They made the call to suspend the kid, and then they reinstate the kid. I just question how much attention they were paying and what kind of monitoring/supports/interventions they had in place for successful and safe reintigration of this kid into the school.
If the kid truly just feared for his life, it's a fail--they didn't help the kid feel safe.
If the kid had plans for agressive acts, it's also a fail--they didn't sufficiently monitor this kid who already had demonstrated dangerous behavior.

You have no idea - none - of the circumstances here. You don't know the child, don't know his father, don't know what happened the first time the kid was suspended, don't know why he was reinstated, don't know why he brought a gun to school, and don't know how the disciplinary process will play out moving forward. You have no idea of any of these things.

It is a big, big problem that this kid brought a gun to school, and that he got it through security. But speculating on facts about which you have no knowledge whatsoever makes you look like a fool.

It doesn't matter. Bring a loaded gun to school and you're done. I don't care what the sob story is. He put students and faculty at risk of deadly harm.

Are you dense? Because that is exactly what is happening here. The child is not in school. He is - according to the article - in police custody, and will remain so until the legal case plays out. So what are you complaining about?

I don't think you understand. Apart from whether he is released from custody or how the criminal case eventually turns out, the student can never be allowed to return to Wilson. That's a purely administrative decision that the school system can make. There can be no extenuating or mitigating circumstances when a student intentionally brings a loaded weapon into the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is what Fox 5 DC says:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/56175121-story

"The father of the teen says that his son may have brought the weapon to school because he feared for his own safety and wanted it for protection. FOX 5’s Bob Barnard say the student had been expelled from the school earlier in the school year and was later reinstated."

The news story confirms that the gun was loaded. Extremely scary.

This is starting to sound like a major fail on the part of the school. If the kid was reinstated, they should have been offering lots of supports, supervision, etc. for this kid. If this kid was still feeling threatened enough that he was bringing a loaded gun to school, then
this kid's not able to apprpriately deal with situations (no matter how grave) and shouldn't have been reinstated yet. School also clearly didn't have a handle on the situation, as they didn't understand how threatened this kid felt, and weren't doing enough to address the situation.

Keep in mind that it was the kid's father who said the kid felt threatened. Also remember that the kid put the gun in another kid's backpack. I can't really square feeling threatened with trying to frame another kid. So, I would take the father's word with a grain of salt.

Agreed, but even if this is the father's spin, I think the critique of the school's approach is still valid. They made the call to suspend the kid, and then they reinstate the kid. I just question how much attention they were paying and what kind of monitoring/supports/interventions they had in place for successful and safe reintigration of this kid into the school.
If the kid truly just feared for his life, it's a fail--they didn't help the kid feel safe.
If the kid had plans for agressive acts, it's also a fail--they didn't sufficiently monitor this kid who already had demonstrated dangerous behavior.

You have no idea - none - of the circumstances here. You don't know the child, don't know his father, don't know what happened the first time the kid was suspended, don't know why he was reinstated, don't know why he brought a gun to school, and don't know how the disciplinary process will play out moving forward. You have no idea of any of these things.

It is a big, big problem that this kid brought a gun to school, and that he got it through security. But speculating on facts about which you have no knowledge whatsoever makes you look like a fool.

It doesn't matter. Bring a loaded gun to school and you're done. I don't care what the sob story is. He put students and faculty at risk of deadly harm.

Are you dense? Because that is exactly what is happening here. The child is not in school. He is - according to the article - in police custody, and will remain so until the legal case plays out. So what are you complaining about?

I don't think you understand. Apart from whether he is released from custody or how the criminal case eventually turns out, the student can never be allowed to return to Wilson. That's a purely administrative decision that the school system can make. There can be no extenuating or mitigating circumstances when a student intentionally brings a loaded weapon into the school.

OK - it's nice that have that opinion, regardless of the fact that you have no idea - none whatsoever - of the specifics involved here. There is no reason to think that the child won't be kicked out of Wilson for good - and probably end up in jail for a while. There is nobody advocating for him to stay at Wilson, and the Administration has not indicated he will stay. Why are you acting like there are people fighting you about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is what Fox 5 DC says:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/56175121-story

"The father of the teen says that his son may have brought the weapon to school because he feared for his own safety and wanted it for protection. FOX 5’s Bob Barnard say the student had been expelled from the school earlier in the school year and was later reinstated."

The news story confirms that the gun was loaded. Extremely scary.

This is starting to sound like a major fail on the part of the school. If the kid was reinstated, they should have been offering lots of supports, supervision, etc. for this kid. If this kid was still feeling threatened enough that he was bringing a loaded gun to school, then
this kid's not able to apprpriately deal with situations (no matter how grave) and shouldn't have been reinstated yet. School also clearly didn't have a handle on the situation, as they didn't understand how threatened this kid felt, and weren't doing enough to address the situation.

Keep in mind that it was the kid's father who said the kid felt threatened. Also remember that the kid put the gun in another kid's backpack. I can't really square feeling threatened with trying to frame another kid. So, I would take the father's word with a grain of salt.

Agreed, but even if this is the father's spin, I think the critique of the school's approach is still valid. They made the call to suspend the kid, and then they reinstate the kid. I just question how much attention they were paying and what kind of monitoring/supports/interventions they had in place for successful and safe reintigration of this kid into the school.
If the kid truly just feared for his life, it's a fail--they didn't help the kid feel safe.
If the kid had plans for agressive acts, it's also a fail--they didn't sufficiently monitor this kid who already had demonstrated dangerous behavior.

You have no idea - none - of the circumstances here. You don't know the child, don't know his father, don't know what happened the first time the kid was suspended, don't know why he was reinstated, don't know why he brought a gun to school, and don't know how the disciplinary process will play out moving forward. You have no idea of any of these things.

It is a big, big problem that this kid brought a gun to school, and that he got it through security. But speculating on facts about which you have no knowledge whatsoever makes you look like a fool.

I'm PP who made the statement you bolded, and actually, I don't think I'm speculating at all. I know I don't know exactly what happened, and I know I never will due to privacy issues and the fact that it's a minor. I'm offering the different scenarios to point out that REGARDLESS of what the circumstances are, I don't think the school handled this well.
We all know of situations where "the quiet kid" who has never had any problems before "snaps". I can understand that it would be difficult for a school to have a crystal ball that would allow them to identify those kids. That's not what happened here. Again, regardless of the situation (and yes I know I don't and will never know all the particulars, PP) this kid should have been under a significant amount of extra monitoring and interventions. Kid had already demonstrated risky behavior.

[Anonymous]

Do all DC high schools have metal detectors? If not, why just Wilson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do all DC high schools have metal detectors? If not, why just Wilson?

All DCPS high school do. Not sure about charters.

[Anonymous]

Wilson has them, but they are not used effectively. Lots of kids avoid them by going in other doors.