Boys suspended for gun play at home

Two 13-year-old Virginia Beach boys were suspended for the rest of the school year for shooting a pellet gun on private property, reports WAVY News. Seventh graders Khalid Caraballo and Aidan Clark were playing with a spring-driven airsoft gun in the Caraballo front yard, which is near a school bus stop.
gun
Six boys were playing with the “zombie hunter” gun in the yard on Sept. 12, says Khalid. “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.”

The boys were charged with “possession, handling and use of a firearm.”

Airsoft guns use plastic pellets, rather than bbs.

In a letter, Principal Matthew Delaney said one student was hit by a pellet while 10 feet from the bus stop.

Clark will be homeschooled. Caraballo will attend an alternative school.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. Mike in Texas says:

    The truth is probably somewhere in between. Apparently these kids WERE shooting at each other, and some airsoft guns are capable of firing a pellet at over 500 fps, so injury is possible.

    I suspect there was a lawyer involved who told the school district to err on the side of safety.

  2. Richard Aubrey says:

    Neighbor called and said she was uncomfortable. So, as a blogger put it, her discomfort means your liberty is restricted.
    Had nothing to do with school. Takes and educrat to pull this kind of thing.
    Said it before; they have to get more practice on pretending to be puzzled about the rise of homeschooling.

    • Mike in Texas says:

      It would be interesting to see what the courts have said about student behavior at bus stops. Is the school liable if a student is injured at t a bus stop?

    • Richard,

      I, too, get upset when folks seem to over-react, but from the principal’s letter it is more than a neighbor called to say she was uncomfortable.

      [the principal] was advised by the Virginia Beach Police Department Thursday, Sept. 12 that a passing motorist had seen a child with a gun chasing another child in the
      street near a Larkspur bus stop.

      I’m not yet prepared to suggest that the default policy for folks who think they see someone chasing someone else with a gun should be to ignore it. Maybe at a park, but not everywhere.

       

      Further, it sounds like the kids weren’t just playing with each other:

      In the course of the investigation, conducted in concert with a police officer and the school division Office of
      Safety and Loss Control, we identified the children who were firing pellet guns at each other and at people near
      the bus stop.

      Note the “and at people near the bus stop.”

       

      I’m not convinced that this is something that the school should be handling, but it isn’t a simple as a neighbor was uncomfortable with the way two kids were playing with each other.

  3. Sonysunshine says:

    These overreactions by our public employees are great opportunities for me to talk to my children about what kind of society we live in. Do they think it fair that a neighbor would call the police on young boys just because she doesn’t like their style of play? Are toy guns a real threat? If not, why the overreaction? Why are adults turning to draconian measures to punish young children? What is really behind these adults’ actions?

  4. Pigs

  5. Obi-Wandreas says:

    It definitely sounds like there was grounds for the school to investigate this.

    That said, once the school determined that it was not actually at the bus stop, their involvement should have ended right then and there. If it’s not at a school-related event or location, then it is none of their business – period.

    Police involvement would be warranted if they were indeed shooting at each other or at others. If no others were hit or property damaged, then a warning would probably be sufficient, though.

    In any case, calling something a firearm which, by definition, does not employ any fire should be grounds for immediate dismissal for any school employee due to incompetence.