Maybe you all live in an area where everyone knows everyone and a phone call will clear up the situation in a heart beat. That is a great advantage for you and your kids if they ever get into trouble.
If my 1st Sgt. or Lt. got a phone call from someone stating they were the assistant principal at a school and asking them to clarify a situation that occurred during the shift, they would take their name. Then, when the chance presented itself, they would call me and the other officer either into the station or to designate a spot to meet and ask us both what happened. Then they would talk it over with their supervisor who would pass it along to the public information officer who would then call the school back, asking for the name of the person who had called. They would then verify that it was that person who had inquired about the situation and they would give them the disposition of what happened. This might take an hour or two or two days.
That process might have been shortened if the school had a Community Resource Officer stationed at the school who could call dispatch and get the disposition over the phone. Not every school has a CRO stationed at the school.
Yes, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Let’s not even get into a school system’s procedures for handling cases, let’s take the more professional approach of the criminal justice system. The way you are expressing it, it sounds like everyone goes about their life while the process moves along to prove they are either innocent or guilty. Individuals sit in jail for days, months, and maybe even a year before some investigations are completed and the case is heard in court. Is it easy to say after the adjudication has been pronounced that they were guilty or innocent? Yes, a lot easier than when it is being investigated and there are facts in evidence showing both they could be guilty and innocent.
This will be my last post on this topic. So, I’ll ask a couple of questions I hope everyone can be honest about. Did everyone base their opinion on the original article alone or did you google it and read a couple of other articles and watch a video of the situation reported by other news sources?
Did you read the headline which is written to generate interest and cause an emotional response by a pro 2A organization to draw you into the story and then say to yourself. No, he didn’t get suspended because he went to the range with his mom. He got suspended because a Safe2Tell complaint was made against him because of a social media post he made. The headline states, “Colorado Student Banned from School for going shooting with his mom.” Is that why he was banned from school? Did you separate your emotional response from the way the initial article was written to responding to the actual facts as they occurred found in not only the article posted but several other sources that provided a wider view of the situation as it happened?
As a pro Second Amendment person, I feel I have a duty to realize several of our media sources are just as biased as anti-2A media sources and not go off half cocked, sorry for the pun, until I know the facts. I applaud people here on both sides of the argument in this discussion for standing up for what they believe. I just interpret what actually happened differently than some of you. Again, this will be my last post because I’m not going to change the way anyone feels about this particular event, and I apologize for the length of my response.
Edit to add: I was PM’d saying I should post the facts released from the family themselves so others in the discussion have them. The kid was suspended on a Wednesday while the school investigated. Thursday morning at the start of school, after the 5 minute meeting with the school, he went back to classes. From the kid’s own mouth, “People nowadays just jump to conclusion, but again, there is a lot of violence and a lot of school shootings, a lot of stuff like that, so I somewhat understand,” “If I ever post something like that again, I’m going to make sure I say something like, ‘I’m going to the range’."