No Tolerance or Common Sense

[s_stabeler]

But it wasn't just that she HAD a concealed carry permit, it was that she went out and GOT it.

I still don't think that I agree with it, but it at least gives me an understanding somehow, if there WAS bad behavior, of why they would have that reaction. I don't know what she said or did (and am a little doubtful she said or did anything >_<) but if someone said "I'm gonna kick your ass" I might dismiss it, but if they went out and got a baseball bat the next day, I'd feel different. It's not an "OMG Baseball Bat" thing, it's an "OMG Maybe they actually meant that" thing.

Again, I don't know the context, but at least I can kind of understand why they would have the reaction. Similar to the thing that was mentioned earlier, it didn't come up until her kid threatened someone. It's still a bit ridiculous, but at least I can UNDERSTAND where it's coming from.

I figured there was at least something more, because otherwise it's just inexplicable. It just turns out that, unlike the "Playing with toy guns in the yard," it doesn't make this the right reaction.

not quite- the picture was of her license, it doesn't say the license was new. So it isn't " she went out and got a license" it's "She has a license"- and I will point out that the school has offered no evidence but it's word- and they have lied at least once in this case already (they told one news outlet that it wasn't due to the facebook post, and another that it was. Somebody's lying.)

[Hyena Dandy]

Those two facts taken together indicate that she would have been unlikely to carry on school grounds, rendering the trespass utterly pointless and a gross overreaction to something particularly stupid.

Without knowing what the comments, if there were any, were that they say were troubling. It could range from "I would probably have reacted the same way*" to "That's an overreaction, but I get it**" to "You're being ridiculous***" To outright fabrication****. What it was that she may have said would certainly decide if it really WAS a gross overreaction, and whether or not she has a gun can change your view on things if, for instance, she mentioned wanting to shoot someone. It could also be a case where what she said really was grossly out of line, and they didn't see it that way until now. Unless I know what it is, I don't know if it's something I would call a gross overreaction. I suspect it probably is, but I really don't know the situation well enough.

*If she said, for instance, that a frustrating coworker deserved a bullet to the head, or saying she wanted to kill them, seeing that she has the ability to do that would have freaked me out and made me re-evaluate that.

** Just saying she wanted to hurt someone, or something similar that could be implied as a threat but nothing direct

*** A very vague 'I don't like you' type of thing.

**** I don't need to star this, but the paragraph felt empty without the stars, so...

[Andara Bledin]

Whether or not she has a gun hasn't even been established.

All that we know is that she is legally allowed to carry a gun on her person while not on school property.

Plus, if the knowledge that she is legally allowed to carry was "the straw" that would lead to a legal trespass order being taken out against her, there should absolutely have been a written record of problem conduct prior to that point.

The fact that they're pulling out the, "Oh, well, people thought she was doing odd things but we totally ignored all of that for no good reason" card is particularly telling. If she was exhibiting troubling behavior and they ignored it, that's a very scary thought, considering that they are responsible for the safety of the children in their care. At the very least, they should have revoked her volunteer card if it was at all important.

The idea that her "troubling behavior" wasn't a concern until 'because Gun permit (not even Gun)' says that this has nothing to do with her behavior and everything to do with the heightened and utterly unreasonable level of fear that the general public has in relation to anything even hinting at firearms. It's unhealthy and dangerous and only serves to increase the vulnerability of those unable to react in a rational manner.

[Hyena Dandy]

If she was exhibiting troubling behavior and they ignored it, that's a very scary thought, considering that they are responsible for the safety of the children in their care. At the very least, they should have revoked her volunteer card if it was at all important.

Oh, I agree with this part. But I can't, unless I know, say if that really would change the context. People often give a pass on things that they shouldn't because I know this person, and in that case, anything you didn't know/expect can cause you to re-evaluate things. I'm not saying their response was the right one, but I'm saying I can understand it better IF these comments actually existed.

Additionally, it might not be 'because Gun permit' but it might have, rather than 'Because she has a gun permit' be 'I didn't expect that' which causes you to re-evaluate a lot of things people have said previously, which by taking you out of the narrative, can cause you to look at everything as a whole.

I think this is almost certainly an overreaction, but I don't think that I can say that it's CERTAINLY a TOTAL overreaction. I don't think that I know enough to speak in absolute terms here, like in the self defense thread.

[Andara Bledin]

The "because gun permit" phrasing is because they took actions with the actual reason of "gun permit" and not based on any reasonable criteria. The phrasing is commonly used to convey the lack of legitimacy of the reason given.

And the main reason I consider their excuses to be pulled out of their asses to cover their asses is because they gave Mount her PTO volunteer card back. If the fact that she had a CCP actually caused a re-evaluation that led to the trespass order, her behavior would still be enough to be actionable even if the trespass order itself was over the line. The existence of her CCP is utterly irrelevant to anything except those who get hysterical at the thought of anything gun related.

The only thing the school hasn't taken back was their insistence that they didn't fuck up based solely on the existence of her CCP.

If Mount was a legitimate potential threat to students, then why would the trespass order only apply to a single school and not carry over to the rest of the district and the new school when her child was transferred?

Another article quoted a former area PTA president as stating that the schools in the district would often ban parents from the premises for utterly frivolous reasons. Their lack of apology or admission that what they did wasn't appropriate seems to be SOP.

An example of another parent, this one also a substitute teacher, trespassed for no coherent reason.

[Hyena Dandy]

If Mount was a legitimate potential threat to students, then why would the trespass order only apply to a single school and not carry over to the rest of the district and the new school when her child was transferred?

Possibly, she was believed to be a threat to someone who works in the building, rather than the students.

The fact that this happened before for a reason I really can't say I can think of a reason for (though again, I don't know what the school's reasoning was) really does make it look pretty bad.

[Aethian]

Meanwhile we have made a formal request too see any documents related to the Tanya Mount case, however, as the superintendent explained, there is no district policy requiring documentation be kept.

If it's not in writing it technically never happened. I have a feeling this particular principal is power hungry and anything they feel takes from that power should be banned.

[Titi]

Possibly, she was believed to be a threat to someone who works in the building, rather than the students.

The fact that this happened before for a reason I really can't say I can think of a reason for (though again, I don't know what the school's reasoning was) really does make it look pretty bad.

I think it is also because she looks intimating, (there is a pic of her on the link) so people think she should be. I describe one of best friends as she looks like she would kill you if you look at her the wrong way, but she has a heart of gold.

[s_stabeler]

If it's not in writing it technically never happened. I have a feeling this particular principal is power hungry and anything they feel takes from that power should be banned.

That's not going to go well for the school- saying " we don't have a policy mandating we keep things" is not actually going to cut it as an excuse for destroying evidence ( a policy that you destroy documents after X years will, however, cut it.)

[Titi]

It's probably because the Army is nessecarily associated with guns, so soldier- gun is a logical connection in most people's mind. Along with a garbled knowledge of Sandy Hook (in the Sandy Hook massacre, the shooter stole a gun to commit the crime- they may have forgotten the stolen part) it could freak someone out. still stupid, but not as stupid as it first appears.

My husband is in aviation. He repairs helicopters. When he went to Iraq (during the first invasion) they only had I M16 per hummer. Also my son was in 9th grade when Sandy hook happened (I hugged him as soon he got home from school and he asked where it was coming from and I showed him, and he was on his knees crying saying, "I don't care what you think of your life only a monster would do this!) when the fight happened 2 years earlier my son had never even gotten detention while the other kid had been suspended many times for fights, and had given threats before.

[s_stabeler]

Oh, I'm not disputing it is stupid- just what |I figure is the chain of thought that led to the school taking action.