Okay, so now that everybody has had a chance for some outraged virtue signalling, let's bring this back down to Earth.
The reported five-day suspension does seem a ridiculous overreaction. But hey, Americans have been in love with minimum-sentencing laws and such that remove all discretion from the justice system; if A, then B, and don't let logic interfere. That kind of thinking then leads to nonsense like this, which I'm sure is the result of blindly applying real-class rules to virtual class.
Otherwise, all we have is the parents' outraged claims about how little the kid did with that toy gun. At least as reported on local Fox Denver, according to the sheriffs report, there was another boy present who did point the gun at the computer, and pulled the trigger. And the vice principal didn't "call the cops", but sent a school resource officer to ascertain that it was indeed a toy gun, which seems reasonable to me.
Um, no.
1) According to the parents, the county sent deputies to the residence. cf
NERF GUN SUSPENSION: 12-year-old suspended over toy gun seen in virtual class
2) According to the same story, the school principal called the sheriff's office. Hence the deputies.
3) According to another story, The "resource officer" - Steven Paddack - is an EPSO LEO. Officer Paddack went to the school, viewed the video, recorded it on his body cam, and went to the house. cf
Middle schoolers suspended in toy gun crackdown while schooling at home
4) The teacher in question notified the principal, then emailed the mother, who told the teacher that what she saw was a toy gun.
5) Meanwhile, the principal called the sheriffs office, which sent the RO. The principal later called the mother and told her LE was being sent to the home.
6) The first story also quotes the mother as saying the police threatened to press charges against the child.
So, the school did "call the cops", with an indeterminate number of law enforcement showing up at the house, despite verbal clarification that the dangerous item was a toy. The deputy went to the home and, presumptively, clarified that the toy was a toy. The suspension was nonetheless issued.
At the risk of assuming the reporting is accurate, the LEOs did exactly what they were obligated to do. That said, this was all unnecessary. It was clearly defined as a non-threatening situation; the sole officer identified had the best possible information that it was a toy, and even the teacher in question has waffled, as cited in the SO report stating that she assumed it was a toy gun.
And BTW, the school recorded the lesson, without consent or the parent's knowledge. The school refused to give the parents a copy of the recording, afterward stating "It is not our current practice to record classes at this time."
If there's virtue signaling here, it's lost in the overreacting, buffoonery, and wholly unfounded disciplinary action. Thanks to Colorado law, the school will avoid privacy claims (Colorado is a one-party consent state.) The rest of the parents' claims are unsubstantiated.
A sorry, unnecessary mess.
I believe Tennises just passed a law that barrs parents from sitting in on virtual classes?? Are you kidding me.
Balto MD I believe. of course-
