|
|
Post by rr on Sept 19, 2014 10:02:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 20, 2014 5:57:44 GMT -5
I am not sure why you would expect any public disclosure of the results of a security investigation. Do you, or would you reasonably doubt the thoroughness of such an investigation?
Holding someone accountable would imply that someone was arrested etc. I guess not. But that would be the police department and the District Attorney, more so than the school district.
Now, let me list all of the bombings and mass shootings since before Columbine, where the bombers or shooters phoned-in threats, or wrote threats on bathroom mirrors before committing their acts:
[nil] and [nil].
There were none. Bombers plant bombs and detonate them at the worst possible moment, or send their bombs off in a letter which will kill or maim the recipient upon opening; they don't ever send the letter ahead of the bomb. Mass shooters only get to be mass shooters by strapping-on ammo and assault weapons, walking into their chosen venue, and opening fire on their unsuspecting targets.
So, then, why do schools take any phoned-in threat seriously? Why do they react to adolescent writing on bathroom mirrors in lipstick by locking-down a school and turning it upside-down?
""Seriously""?
Chris Wendt
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 15:11:56 GMT -5
I am not sure why you would expect any public disclosure of the results of a security investigation. Do you, or would you reasonably doubt the thoroughness of such an investigation? Holding someone accountable would imply that someone was arrested etc. I guess not. But that would be the police department and the District Attorney, more so than the school district.
Now, let me list all of the bombings and mass shootings since before Columbine, where the bombers or shooters phoned-in threats, or wrote threats on bathroom mirrors before committing their acts: [nil] and [nil]. There were none. Bombers plant bombs and detonate them at the worst possible moment, or send their bombs off in a letter which will kill or maim the recipient upon opening; they don't ever send the letter ahead of the bomb. Mass shooters only get to be mass shooters by strapping-on ammo and assault weapons, walking into their chosen venue, and opening fire on their unsuspecting targets. So, then, why do schools take any phoned-in threat seriously? Why do they react to adolescent writing on bathroom mirrors in lipstick by locking-down a school and turning it upside-down? ""Seriously""? Chris Wendt
www.wfsb.com/story/26439268/arrest-made-in-bristol-school-bomb-threatwww.nbc4i.com/story/26424440/south-high-school-placed-on-lockdown-for-bomb-threatwww.news-daily.com/news/2014/sep/17/police-arrest-student-in-bomb-threat-at-forest/pix11.com/2014/09/16/li-teenager-arrested-for-making-a-bomb-threat-via-social-media-app-police/Just wondering, seriously wondering, how other districts get it done so thoroughly, expeditiously, decisively… and publicly. Seems to me like the lack of accountability is like a license to ______________ (fill in the blank with the crime of your choice). Oh wait- this is a moot point. Here, in good ol' Wantagh, we shouldn't get caught up in responding to threats made against our schools and those who are in them, like our students. … so suggests an ex-Board of Education President.Laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 22, 2014 5:43:15 GMT -5
None of these threats is serious; not one ever has been serious, anywhere. But here in Wantagh, as is the case everywhere, the leadership puts on worried faces and goes through the motions of pretending to take seriously adolescent pranks; we shut down education along with our common sense; we lock down the schools along with our better judgment; we go through the tedious rigmarole of searching, and, by doing so, we provide ample entertainment to the student body and instant gratification to the pranksters until the inevitable "all clear" is sounded, marking the slow return to what passes for sanity or normalcy, and then the three wheels of justice-Wantagh-style start turning: an "INVESTIGATION" is launched with the following prescribed outcomes... - If any "special" kid is determined to have made the threat, well, we can't have anything get out about that; that is part of being "special"; normal rules do not apply
- If any kid of prominent parents is determined to have made the threat, well, we can't have anything get out about that; that is part of what having prominent parents is all about; no rules apply
- If a rank-and-file child of ordinary means is found to have been the culprit, well, then his parents will need a good lawyer and a new school.
That is how I see it. Chris Wendt |
|
|
|
Post by rr on Sept 22, 2014 7:56:14 GMT -5
Chris,
I have to say I think you're way off base on your logic here. All threats are meaningless until they're not...and to pay no attention to a threat against a school and our kids and not take it seriously is a recipe for disaster. You may feel differently if the threat was against a school where your kids or grandchildren were in or your church - perhaps then it wouldn't be something to be dismissed. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't or won't - I would think you would have that in your mind so close to 9/11.
That said, I believe the threat was likely a prank and I want that person to be held accountable, as should you...after all it is our tax dollars that fuel the cost of having the police come, sweep the school, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 22, 2014 10:11:09 GMT -5
I acknowledge your criticism, but honestly, these pranks existed during my entire life, including when I, my kids, and my grandkids were in school.
Holding teenagers accountable for being teenagers has accomplished what, exactly?
The major reason to hold a teenager "accountable" (whatever that means) for pulling a prank is the breadth of the reaction by paranoid adults, which reaction is what interrupts school, education, testing, etc.
In other words, the cost of the adult reaction to such adolescent pranks far exceeds the cost of the pranks themselves.
Certainly the greatest element of cost from adult over-reaction is the ceding of control over future events to other teenaged pranksters, and inviting repeated threats by insuring both an overblown reaction and a captive audience, with pretty much NO CHANCE OF HAVING TO FACE ANY CONSEQUENCES!
Listen, I realize the impracticality of my position, but I honestly feel that way. None, zero, of the spectacular bombings and mass shootings was preceded by a written or telephoned threat. None of the fatalities or casualties were dependent upon the official reaction, or lack of official reaction, to threats that were never made.
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
|
Post by rr on Sept 22, 2014 12:42:52 GMT -5
you usually have valid points that I can point to and agree with but I can't really find one agreeable point on this. Seems to me like you're basically saying that we, the public, should just accept and allow teens to call in bomb threats to our schools and disrupt school activities, create chaos and do all this with no fear of being held accountable for their actions and misbehavior? It's against the law to do this - prank or not, and you seem to be advocating that since nothing bad has ever really happened because of a bomb threat we should just continue to let it go on? Seriously? Does a shooting or bombing have to be 'spectacular' to make you change you stance? What if the shooting threat is made and only 2 people get killed? Not 'spectacular' enough? What if one of the 2 people killed was a loved one, is that 'spectacular' enough to potentially change your position?
That's a surprising stance based on my very limited knowledge of you based on your posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 22, 2014 13:23:57 GMT -5
...Seems to me like you're basically saying that we, the public, should just accept and allow teens to call in bomb threats to our schools and disrupt school activities, create chaos and do all this .... Generally best if you do not put your words in my mouth, and then accuse me of saying something that I never said, and then disagreeing with me for what you think I said. What are disrupting school activities and creating chaos are the adults who over-react to "threats" which really are not threats at all. One way to combat this is to deploy technology that does not allow any phone call or message without a caller ID to reach a school; all calls to any school should be recorded and tagged with Caller ID and the time/date stamp. A policy could be instituted for all time lost from the academic day due to processing "threats" to be made up after school that same day, meaning, everyone stays an hour later, and what gets cut is not teaching time but after school activities, including clubs, sports practices, and games. Number one priority on the same-day makeup list would, of course, be the tests, which the "bomber" was trying to evade. There needs to be an incentive for the "good" kids to rat-out the "bombers". Forfeiting a basketball game or baseball game could provide such an incentive. Chris Wendt |
|
|
|
Post by rr on Sept 22, 2014 15:02:03 GMT -5
I believe I wrote that "it seems to me", which generally means I'm stating how your words are being interpreted by me and the question marks at the end of the statement represent question and doubt, not accusation. However, you have written little to alter my interpretation, so my statements stand.
Your pie in the sky technology response to the issue is a reach at best - whats to stop someone from calling in a threat from a pay phone or someone else's phone or a business phone? Also, forfeiting a sports game is hardly an incentive for anyone to do anything. We shouldn't be promoting 'ratting people out' - we should be promoting that you are to be held accountable for your own actions.
Of course in today's "opt-out" culture nothing surprises me and people are setting examples for kids that the school has no authority and if you don't want to take a test, you can opt-out...or call in a threat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 21:14:22 GMT -5
Chris Wendt asserts that, "None, zero, of the spectacular bombings and mass shootings was preceded by a written or telephoned threat. None of the fatalities or casualties were dependent upon the official reaction, or lack of official reaction, to threats that were never made." Chris Wendt is incorrect, as in unequivocally wrong.
The failed bombing and subsequent mass shooting at Columbine HS, for example, was widely "advertised" by the perpetrators, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, as early as 18 months prior to the attack. Harris, specifically, posted hundreds of vitriolic threats on his website. Both boys went so far as to submit essays and short stories to their teachers, during both their senior and junior years, in which they basically spelled out precisely what they intended to do and why they intended to do it. Both boys maintained elaborate journals as well, one referring his as "The Book of God." They also videotaped themselves issuing threats and conducting target practice once they procured their firearms at a gun show. In many of the videos, most of which are still available on You Tube, other students can be seen laughing along at what they believed to be Eric and Dylan's hijinks. The guns used in the attack, as a side note, were never purchased by Klebold and Harris. They were purchased by a classmate who, among others, was fully aware of the cache of pipe bombs that the boys were constructing in their free time. Many thought it was all going to be part of a senior prank. In the end, every shred of research into what went wrong prior to the shooting suggests that there was a systematic failure on the part of the school (both adults and students), law enforcement, and the community to identify and respond to the obvious signs that forecasted what, exactly, was going to take place.
Now, let's flash forward 15 years to May 2014 in Isla Vista, CA, right near UC Santa Barbara. Elliot Rodger posted a video on You Tube just hours before he began his rampage. Of course this was after he wrote, copied, and distributed his manifesto, titled "My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger," to about a dozen people including his therapist, former schoolteachers, and childhood friends.
Are most of the threats idle pranks? Probably. Maybe. But what happens when one, just one, isn't. Should the FDNY stop responding to calls as a result of all of the false alarms? Should the EMS stop responding to calls for help as a result of all of the frivolous calls that they receive? Is triggering a fire alarm in the school worse than writing a threat on the wall?
In the end, how many attacks have been averted by responding in the same manner in which Mt. Sinai SD reacted last week? Or Connetquot SD in 2007 and 2010, when teens posted numerous threats against their high school? In the case of the 2007 threat, the kid conveniently left his journal in the local McDonalds for all to see. It was found, he was taken into custody, and what happened when the police investigated him? They found a stockpile of guns and homemade explosives in his home. Tragedy averted? Most would agree that it was.
You see, I'd rather see every delinquent, my word, or teen prankster, your term, who writes, says, posts, phones in, texts, tweets, or whatever mode of communication that they use, something threatening aimed at another student, group of students, or the school at large ARRESTED. I mean taken out of the school in handcuffs and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Then and only then do I believe that they will begin to consider the consequences of their behavior more carefully.
But hey, until that day comes, the middle school will be hosting Rachel's Challenge this year. Rachel Scott was the first child to be gunned down outside Columbine HS. I believe that the high school is hosting it as well. I suggest that you attend one of the presentations and make your opinion of how best to deal with threats known, Chris, in a public forum, to the program's facilitators. You seem to really have your finger on the pulse of how best to deal with these matters. No one is going to pull the wool over your eyes. I'm sure that they would love to hear from you.
www.rachelschallenge.org
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 23, 2014 5:58:02 GMT -5
Investigating signs, taking seriously writings and other evidence, reporting statements and having a procedure to collect and evaluate these kinds of things is certainly proper, and lack of those kinds of procedures was a factor in the incidents cited above. But are you suggesting, for instance, that Columbine High should have been locked-down for the entire 18-month period during the perpetrators' Junior and Senior years? Or at any time prior to the actual event? Based on what?
In your world, you would be arresting a lot of kids. I mean, except for the special kids, whom you could not arrest because they are special, and except for the kids of prominent parents, whom you would not dare arrest. You, meaning the muckety-mucks of the school district who kowtow to prominent parents of prominent kids, in the latter instance.
I got a kick out of your embellishing your verdict on me being not just (plain or simply) wrong, but unequivocally wrong.
Inasmuch that my statements and position were and remain unequivocal on this topic, then if you determine that my statements and position are "wrong", meaning that you disagree, then certainly I would have to be, by definition, unequivocally wrong. There is no higher form of being...wrong. You should get the Munchkins of Munchkin Land, the Lullaby League and the Lollipop Guild to put this to music, to the tune of "Ding-Dong The Witch is Dead".
Chris Wendt is not only really, realy wrong...he is UN-EQUIVOCALLY WRONG!
That's me...
Chris Wendt, unequivocal as always.
|
|
|
|
Post by rr on Nov 20, 2014 15:19:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Nov 21, 2014 6:57:28 GMT -5
This is informative, but perhaps you should articulate your intended implication, rather than just hang this out there for people to form potentially contradictory inferences of their own.
My own inference is that the girl who dumped this guy (or her parents, if they even knew) did not properly process his extreme reaction to having been rejected by her. He got a gun...there's another entire debate unto itself, but given his age and location it could easily have been a lawfully possessed weapon. He took the gun to school...another debate we are not prepared to have (metal detectors in schools). He privately invited his victims, personally and directly, to their own murder scene and then shot them...locking down the school, etc...where or how could that or any procedure have stopped or prevented that mayhem? Nobody raised any alarm. The victims went willingly to meet their classmate for lunch, but met their fate at his hand, instead.
We should discuss, further.
Perplexed.
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
|
Post by rr on Nov 21, 2014 10:34:57 GMT -5
My point was simply that although many/most times a text, a Facebook post or a bathroom scribble is simply the work of some dope with nothing behind it there are instances where one of those things do mean something and there are consequences and we can't simply look the other way. Can you imagine if there was a threat and it was ignored and something horrific happened in our schools, to our kids? That was point…obviously this kid in Seattle had some cryptic texts and it wasn't a threat against the school or anything but the point is we shouldn't just look the other way when someone is crying out for help - if we turn the other way, things could go sideways and people get hurt.
|
|
