A BB Gun and a Minor Facial Injury

keystone

Own_My_Own wrote: »

How do we know he didn't hear it ?

Because the school having questioned all invoved tell me that he didn't. I trust them on this.

If the op didn't want his daughters actions questioned , he should not have posted on a discussion forum.

I have already said that she must carry part of the blame for this. The question is to what degree? I have no problem with her actions being questioned at all. In fact it helpos me achieve perspective on what happened.

The reason I posted was (although after nearly 200 posts there is bound to be some thread creep) was that I was agonising over whether to involve the police at that precise moment. The more the thread progresses the more I am all the more content that we are handling this in the right way

Cheers

Now I really am off because I'm now late.

prowla

My boys have BB guns, and they are dangerous if used incorrectly and unsupervised. The BBs can break the skin, so imagine if it did hit the wrong place (organized events require the use of face masks).

There is no reason for having one in a public place, and no excuse for shooting one at somebody.

If it is a realistic one then it may also be illegal to take it out, and I would have informed the police.

The "I was provoked" is not a mitigating circumstance.

Own_My_Own

keystone wrote: »

I continue to find this assertation/association both illogical and irrational.and although I keep asking why nobody ever answers. So I'm going to ask again. Why please?

Actually in the interim I have though of two possible answers why:

1. Those proposing it are just "projecting" their own prejudices and opinions.

2. Those proposing it seem to expect teenagers to think like adults and to be of like mind to themselves. Err - no! .

Why? Or you also projecting?

I also notice my question about certain high profile WASP terrorists (Anders Brevik, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber) went unanswered too in relation to the demand of to know whether the boy is asian/arabic/middle eastern. He isn't. (see below) So fact I'm going to venture to suggest that such an automatic association is possibly verging on the racist in itself..

I think I've already answered that earlier in the thread.

That now being off my chest an update from today (seeing as I promised it) following some internal investigations within the school:

1. The boy concerned is mixed race AfroCaribbean/White English.
2. My daughter's friend who made the dare is also mixed race AfroCaribbean/White English.
3. It was my daughter who made the "terrorist" comment within the Group of girls.
4. It was made far enough away from the boys group that not one of them heard it.

I suppose (sigh) there will be another feeding frenzy now.

Cheers

keystone wrote: »

Was just on my way to work but feel I should respond to this (my comments in red)

Own_My_Own wrote: »

The information is-

Ops daughter took his scooter twice without his permission. Correct
Boy pulled out gun. Correct
Ops daughter told him he would make a good terrorist. Turns out to be incorrect as investigated by school - I posted about this yesterday. Not one of the boys heard this it was within the girls Group only.
Boy shot gun. Correct.

So how do you know he was trying to look big. How do you know he wasn't terrified of the ops daughter ? How do we know that the taking of the scooter wasn't in response to some provocation in the oipposite direction.

You don't. But one thing is clear. The ops daughter caused this action by her own actions. No it is not clear at all.

Hopefully she will now think twice before she purposely provokes someone again. Concur.

Indeed so.

As a matter of interest what stopped me leaving when I had intended to was a telephone call from the Safeguarding Team at the hospital. They have questioned me about the action that is being taken and have said as a result of me telling that the action is entirely proportionate and are pleased that we are taking care of the welfare of both children involved. Now I am off.

Cheers

Sorry can't highlight as an on phone, but yesterday you said your daughter did say it. Today you say she didn't. Your story is changing constantly.

This is the second time you have corrected me in error, when I have only been repeating what you have written.

Whether he heard it or not she said it.

LannieDuck

I'm surprised you're even asking the question. If my daughter had been deliberately shot, I would have involved the police immediately.

FatVonD

keystone wrote: »

Could it be that he has been the aggressor in school or outside and taking the scooter was just one of a girl who had had enough?

Oh, purlease!

If your daughter had been shot at from someone's bedroom window as she walked past you'd have had no hesitation in reporting it to the Police. You haven't because you know yourself that (no matter how disproportionate the boys reaction) there was some provocation on the part of your daughter (no matter how much you try to downplay it by calling it horseplay.)

But never mind all that, you just carry on making excuses for her and name calling anyone that disagrees with you :rotfl:

Own_My_Own

FatVonD wrote: »

Oh, purlease!

If your daughter had been shot at from someone's bedroom window as she walked past you'd have had no hesitation in reporting it to the Police. You haven't because you know yourself that (no matter how disproportionate the boys reaction) there was some provocation on the part of your daughter (no matter how much you try to downplay it by calling it horseplay.)

But never mind all that, you just carry on making excuses for her and name calling anyone that disagrees with you :rotfl:

Totally agree.
And I think the op realises that it doesn't matter how many people on here agree with him, what his daughter did would be taken very seriously by the police. Whether the boy heard it all not she made a racist comment to the boy. Along with taking his scooter without permission twice.
The goody brigade may say it was larking about but the police call it a race hate crime, whether they like it or not.

keystone

Own_My_Own wrote: »

Sorry can't highlight as an on phone,

Thats OK.

but yesterday you said your daughter did say it.

Thats correct.

Today you say she didn't.

Umm no I didn't. You quoted two posts of mine. The school have established that she did use the word - I have revealed that without any compunction. The school have established that it was not within earshot of the boy - Point 4 on the first post you quote. How does my response to your post now deny that? It doesn't - not for one single solitary microsecond.

Your story is changing constantly.

No it's not.

This is the second time you have corrected me in error, when I have only been repeating what you have written.

Actually no on both counts. Yes I did correct you in error on ONE occasion. Not only that once I realised my error I had the grace and the cojones to not only a) apologise in public to you for which you thanked me but also b) go back and modify my post to remove the misunderstanding. My mistake the first time was to reference a post of mine but used the wrong number post number which you questioned biut I got hold of the wronfg end of the stick. Sorry but you didn't repeat what I said at all on that occasion. On this occasion you have also not repeated what I said and yet you accuse me of inconsistency. Please read the post again.

Your post says that she told him "he was a good terrorist" and suggests that this is the reason he fired the weapon.

Whether he heard it or not she said it.

Now your amendment seems to accept that he didn't hear it.

Tell me please how can that be used as a reason to fire it if he didn't even hear what was said and the phrase/sentence/expression wasn't even spoken to him in the first instance. Thanks

I'm not denying she said it for one minute. Thats a different issue though isn't it? It will be dealt with appropriately.

Cheers

keystone

LannieDuck wrote: »

I'm surprised you're even asking the question. If my daughter had been deliberately shot, I would have involved the police immediately.

At the risk of repeating myself I asked the question to get some advice on the matter. My first inclination was to involve the Police immediately and frankly I was a little aghast that both the Hospital and the School took great pains to tell me that they would not. My thought processes overnight then turned to what if its not that clear cut so I turned to here to ask for help in making that decision. I'll say again. I am not convinced that he meant to harm her. I'm not even convinced that he knew it was loaded. I canot agree, yet, that the use of the word deliberately is appropriate. Hope that clarifies.

Cheers

keystone

FatVonD wrote: »

If your daughter had been shot at from someone's bedroom window as she walked past you'd have had no hesitation in reporting it to the Police.

Yes you are correct.

You haven't because you know yourself that (no matter how disproportionate the boys reaction) there was some provocation on the part of your daughter (no matter how much you try to downplay it by calling it horseplay.)

But never mind all that, you just carry on making excuses for her and name calling anyone that disagrees with you :rotfl:

Please don't cherry pick a single sentence out of context and use it to beat me round the head with. That which you quote was posted in direct response to a "what if" suggestion (although seemingly presented as fact) as a "what if" alternative. I have not shied away from the likelyhood that some provocation on her behalf happened. I said it right at the top of the thread. Your suggestion that I haven't yet (please note the use of the word yet because I will if it becomes necessary) gone to the Police due to that is, quite frankly, absurd. At no time have I made excuses for her unless you want to use that cherry picked sentence as "evidence" that I am. That would be quite absurd as being totally out of context.

Also please be kind enough to show me where I have indulged in name calling? I've certainly thought of a few for at least one poster but refrained from articulating them. Unless you want to suggest that the use of certain adjectives to describe attitudes or projected attitudes constitutes name calling? In which case tough. I would remind you that I have been called a moron, an idiot, a racist and by implication, from a couple of posts, a liar on this thread. I certainly haven't sunk that low and have no intention of so doing..

Purlease don't make things up that aren't there.

Cheers

Own_My_Own

keystone wrote: »

Thats OK.

Thats correct.

Umm no I didn't. You quoted two posts of mine. The school have established that she did use the word - I have revealed that without any compunction. The school have established that it was not within earshot of the boy - Point 4 on the first post you quote. How does my response to your post now deny that? It doesn't - not for one single solitary microsecond.

No it's not.

Actually no on both counts. Yes I did correct you in error on ONE occasion. Not only that once I realised my error I had the grace and the cojones to not only a) apologise in public to you for which you thanked me but also b) go back and modify my post to remove the misunderstanding. My mistake the first time was to reference a post of mine but used the wrong number post number which you questioned biut I got hold of the wronfg end of the stick. Sorry but you didn't repeat what I said at all on that occasion. On this occasion you have also not repeated what I said and yet you accuse me of inconsistency. Please read the post again.

Your post says that she told him "he was a good terrorist" and suggests that this is the reason he fired the weapon.

Now your amendment seems to accept that he didn't hear it.

Tell me please how can that be used as a reason to fire it if he didn't even hear what was said and the phrase/sentence/expression wasn't even spoken to him in the first instance. Thanks

I'm not denying she said it for one minute. Thats a different issue though isn't it? It will be dealt with appropriately.

Cheers

I didn't say it did. I simply pointed she said it. And it was a racist comment, used against a boy with ' a foreign sounding name'.

You are going round in circles now aren't you.
You know that your daughter was not larking about. You just can't admit it. She is 13 not 7, and at secondary school. At secondary school all pupils learn what racism is, but she still felt it was OK to use such language.

You obviously know a lot more about the incident and are just not saying on here. Which I think says it all really.