PDA

View Full Version : Misc Teens attack, burn KC teen headed home from school


Mr. Laz
02-29-2012, 04:30 PM
what the hell is wrong with you people :mad:

Teens attack, burn KC teen headed home from school
Posted on Wed, Feb. 29, 2012 04:32 PM

Kansas City police are investigating an after-school assault during which a teenager was burned when one of his assailants ignited a can of gasoline.

The 13-year-old victim told police that two older teens followed him from East High School on Tuesday afternoon to his house in the 2200 block of Quincy Avenue. As he was attempting to unlock the front door, one of the assailants grabbed him in a bear hug, he told police.

The second suspect picked up a can of gasoline and said, “This is what you get,” according to police reports.

The suspect pulled out a lighter, and when the boy tried to grab the can from the suspect, it dropped to the ground, spilling gasoline. The suspect then lit the gasoline, producing a “fireball,” according to the reports. The victim’s face was burned and his hair was singed. The suspects ran away.

The boy was taken to Children’s Mercy Hospital for treatment.

Kansas City Police Detective Stacey Taylor said the victim did not know the assailants and did not know why they attacked him.

He said one of the suspects was wearing a blue hat, a blue jacket and blue/green tennis shoes with the number 23 on them.

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to call the TIPS Hotline at 816-474-8477.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/29/3460148/teens-attack-burn-kc-teen-headed.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

mlyonsd
02-29-2012, 04:31 PM
Again I have to ask, what is wrong with people?

Inmem58
02-29-2012, 04:32 PM
I'll have the burnt ends

Bump
02-29-2012, 04:32 PM
I don't care how old they are, that should be punishable by death assuming there could be 0% doubt.

Bane
02-29-2012, 04:33 PM
Attempted murder IMO.

Bump
02-29-2012, 04:34 PM
Attempted murder IMO.

deserve to die IMO

La literatura
02-29-2012, 04:34 PM
Boys will be boys. I remember when a certain kid in my class ripped out my eyeball in 4th grade with a pair of scissors. The optic nerve had been stretched out, so my eyeball was just dangling by the thread.

I still get chuckles when I think of my eye that day.

Bane
02-29-2012, 04:35 PM
deserve to die IMO

Agreed.

Inmem58
02-29-2012, 04:36 PM
Boys will be boys. I remember when a certain kid in my class ripped out my eyeball in 4th grade with a pair of scissors. The optic nerve had been stretched out, so my eyeball was just dangling by the thread.

I still get chuckles when I think of my eye that day.


WTF lmao

BigMeatballDave
02-29-2012, 04:36 PM
My son is 13. Frightening.

tredadda
02-29-2012, 04:37 PM
Amazing to think this stuff happens. It was unheard of when I was a child.

Bane
02-29-2012, 04:38 PM
My son is 13. Frightening.

I have one 12 year old and two 13 year olds so yeah shit like this freaks me out.

Inmem58
02-29-2012, 04:38 PM
My son is 13. Frightening.


Have him wear FRC's to school lol

lazepoo
02-29-2012, 04:39 PM
Sounds fake to me. I bet the kid lit a fireball and burned himself.
Posted via Mobile Device

KCUnited
02-29-2012, 04:41 PM
I'd be hot under the collar as a parent.

Setsuna
02-29-2012, 04:41 PM
Sounds fake to me. I bet the kid lit a fireball and burned himself.
Posted via Mobile Device

Clearly you have no idea what a human being is capable of. Their capacity for evil is limitless.

Otter
02-29-2012, 04:41 PM
Back in my day we settled things with a can of Aqua Net and match.

lazepoo
02-29-2012, 04:51 PM
Clearly you have no idea what a human being is capable of. Their capacity for evil is limitless.

It runs neck and neck with the capacity for idiocy, especially among teens.

Setsuna
02-29-2012, 05:01 PM
It runs neck and neck with the capacity for idiocy, especially among teens.

Not even close dude. Don't be an idiot.

Fritz88
02-29-2012, 05:04 PM
People should never marry unless they pass rigorous paper, medical, and mental tests. Those who don't pass will:
1) Force Vasectomy on the men who fail.
2) Force Oophorectomy on the women who fail.
3) Repeat process until we weed out shitheads from the universe.
4) Each family will have a max of two children, if these children prove to be smart and fit, the parents will be allowed to have another pair of kids.

This will solve any problem in the world.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oYZD1sQBdlE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bump
02-29-2012, 05:06 PM
This shit will continue at a higher rate. Kids today can't let any aggression out in school or they immediately get expelled or sent to jail or juvy. Back in the day, there were fist fights all of the time, every week at least, the kids got their aggression out, suspended for a few days and that was that and the parents dealt with it. Now these kids are too scared to do that in school so the anger builds up and manifests into evil. Especially since the most people reproducing, shouldn't be and shit is gonna get scary in schools. Maybe to a point where there will a lottery type system to enlist kids to go to whichever school (I think some large cities already do this actually). Only the elite can afford private school. We aren't doing anything to prevent gangs and gang members have mutliple kids each and once they hit puberty, violence will be their only answer because it's all they know until we go into a downward spiral and it starts hurting YOUR kids.

Rain Man
02-29-2012, 05:15 PM
Sounds fake to me. I bet the kid lit a fireball and burned himself.
Posted via Mobile Device


I must admit that I'm curious how the gas can fell to the ground and then lit, and burned the kid's face and singed his hair, but nothing else. Admittedly, my knowledge of fireballs is limited, but it's not difficult to imagine him doing something goofball and then telling a story about "older teens he didn't know" to avoid getting in trouble with his parents.

I hope that's the explanation, anyway. Random drive-by flamings are mean.

jspchief
02-29-2012, 05:18 PM
Sounds fake to me. I bet the kid lit a fireball and burned himself.
Posted via Mobile Device

I think I'm on board with this theory. The kid's story seems iffy.

Pestilence
02-29-2012, 05:24 PM
I know this family. They're obviously fucking distraught over this.

KCUnited
02-29-2012, 05:26 PM
Fox 4 just suggested it may be a hate crime.

Bump
02-29-2012, 05:26 PM
I know this family. They're obviously ****ing distraught over this.

really? any clue what the motive is? their race?

Cephalic Trauma
02-29-2012, 05:28 PM
Boys will be boys. I remember when a certain kid in my class ripped out my eyeball in 4th grade with a pair of scissors. The optic nerve had been stretched out, so my eyeball was just dangling by the thread.

I still get chuckles when I think of my eye that day.

This is a really poor attempt at a joke.:shake:

KCUnited
02-29-2012, 05:29 PM
really? any clue what the motive is? their race?

Kid is white, suspects are being reported as black.

jspchief
02-29-2012, 05:31 PM
Clearly reverse racism

Bump
02-29-2012, 05:34 PM
gang initiation most likely

Hydrae
02-29-2012, 05:34 PM
Clearly a hate crime

FYP :D

La literatura
02-29-2012, 05:41 PM
This is a really poor attempt at a joke.:shake:

You should see my other posts. That's about par for the course for me.

Pestilence
02-29-2012, 05:42 PM
really? any clue what the motive is? their race?

Nope. 13 year old white boy.

Valiant
02-29-2012, 06:18 PM
The tough thing in trying to catch them in that area of KC is finding someone who will tell the police.. Best guess, if the kids are real and actually go/went to school is school cameras.. Or local cameras..

el borracho
02-29-2012, 06:25 PM
Ah, KC loves its BBQ.

el borracho
02-29-2012, 06:25 PM
Fox 4 just suggested it may be a hate crime.

Obviously this kids a flamer.

Mr. Laz
02-29-2012, 06:26 PM
Sounds fake to me. I bet the kid lit a fireball and burned himself.
Posted via Mobile Device
i don't know about all that but i wouldn't be surprised to hear that the kid actually DID know the guys who did it and was just afraid to nark.

'this is what you get' indicates to me that they knew him somehow

Extra Point
02-29-2012, 06:55 PM
i don't know about all that but i wouldn't be surprised to hear that the kid actually DID know the guys who did it and was just afraid to nark.

'this is what you get' indicates to me that they knew him somehow

Yeah. He got "it" for being white.

lazepoo
02-29-2012, 07:04 PM
i don't know about all that but i wouldn't be surprised to hear that the kid actually DID know the guys who did it and was just afraid to nark.

'this is what you get' indicates to me that they knew him somehow

The fact that the article had a description of the random assailants instead of a note about police questioning likely suspects led me to believe that the kid actually didn't know who it was.

That coupled with burns on his face and hair makes me think he was looking over a puddle of gasoline as he lit it on fire and that a larger than expected fireball caught him.

The next most likely scenario is that he actually does know who the kids were and that he just isn't telling. He's probably under a lot of pressure from police and his parents, though, and I just can't see the benefit in not telling police about the kids that tried to kill him.

I have a hard time believing that he was targeted randomly, though.

Mr. Laz
02-29-2012, 07:13 PM
Yeah. He got "it" for being white.
very possibly and the kid doesn't want to have to run for his life every day so he doesn't want to nark on the black kids from his school.

Setsuna
02-29-2012, 07:28 PM
I'd just like to say that I am proud of you all for saying "black" and not the retarded "African American." I'm so happy, I might cry. I love you guys.

Mr. Laz
02-29-2012, 08:15 PM
I'd just like to say that I am proud of you all for saying "black" and not the retarded "African American." I'm so happy, I might cry. I love you guys.
hey ... my skin isn't white either

as soon as everyone starts calling me 'european american' or something then i will change.

just bullshit to bitch about

WhiteWhale
02-29-2012, 08:17 PM
I'd just like to say that I am proud of you all for saying "black" and not the retarded "African American." I'm so happy, I might cry. I love you guys.

Every black person I know hates that term. They want to be called black, so that's what I call them.

Only white people bitch at me for saying 'black'. It's amusing to me. Such guilt.

Also, I'm with the people who say he was playing with fire, hurt himself, and then made up a story.

Demonpenz
02-29-2012, 09:03 PM
back when I was a kid they shot up schools

|Zach|
02-29-2012, 09:05 PM
Ah, KC loves its BBQ.

Really?

:shake:

Extra Point
02-29-2012, 09:14 PM
I'd just like to say that I am proud of you all for saying "black" and not the retarded "African American." I'm so happy, I might cry. I love you guys.

Thank you, Paul Mooney.

Pestilence
02-29-2012, 10:49 PM
Obviously this kids a flamer.

He's not.....and you can go fuck yourself.

Phobia
02-29-2012, 11:00 PM
I'd just like to say that I am proud of you all for saying "black" and not the retarded "African American." I'm so happy, I might cry. I love you guys.

My 8 year old daughter has always said "brown". I've never felt remotely inclined to correct her. I think that's even better.

J Diddy
02-29-2012, 11:01 PM
The fact that the article had a description of the random assailants instead of a note about police questioning likely suspects led me to believe that the kid actually didn't know who it was.

That coupled with burns on his face and hair makes me think he was looking over a puddle of gasoline as he lit it on fire and that a larger than expected fireball caught him.

The next most likely scenario is that he actually does know who the kids were and that he just isn't telling. He's probably under a lot of pressure from police and his parents, though, and I just can't see the benefit in not telling police about the kids that tried to kill him.

I have a hard time believing that he was targeted randomly, though.

I agree. Random inner city violence never happens with teenagers.

:rolleyes:

J Diddy
02-29-2012, 11:03 PM
My 8 year old daughter has always said "brown". I've never felt remotely inclined to correct her. I think that's even better.

I can honestly say the only thing my son has said concerning another race is darker than me. I'll live with that as well.

WhiteWhale
03-01-2012, 04:39 AM
I agree. Random inner city violence never happens with teenagers.

:rolleyes:

The thing is they usually make some form of logical sense.

They were going to burn him alive (okay) in front of his house (weird) in plain sight (...) but during the struggle the gas they were using to soak him in was knocked to the ground (amazing since the kid was in a 'bear hug')and they proceeded to light the spilled gas which burned only the victim.

There are a lot of significant red flags here. More than likely the kid did what happens far more often... he was fucking around with gasoline (probably lighting dead squirrels or something on fire) and he caught a fireball in the face while he was looking down at it. Then lied because he's scared his folks are gonna bitch slap him around for playing with fire.

blaise
03-01-2012, 05:27 AM
My 8 year old daughter has always said "brown". I've never felt remotely inclined to correct her. I think that's even better.

That's what my kids used to say. Until the school felt the need to give my 2nd grader a lesson on MLK. Now he understands there's different races. It kind of made me mad, not that he was taught about MLK, but because until that point he never seemed to know really there was such a thing as race. Now he knows there's "black" and "white".

La literatura
03-01-2012, 06:23 AM
That's what my kids used to say. Until the school felt the need to give my 2nd grader a lesson on MLK. Now he understands there's different races. It kind of made me mad, not that he was taught about MLK, but because until that point he never seemed to know really there was such a thing as race. Now he knows there's "black" and "white".

I would love to hear the historical relevance of an MLK lesson that made no attempt to address American racism against black people.

kepp
03-01-2012, 06:37 AM
People should never marry unless they pass rigorous paper, medical, and mental tests. Those who don't pass will:
1) Force Vasectomy on the men who fail.
2) Force Oophorectomy on the women who fail.
3) Repeat process until we weed out shitheads from the universe.
4) Each family will have a max of two children, if these children prove to be smart and fit, the parents will be allowed to have another pair of kids.

You really think women can be forced to not watch Oprah?

blaise
03-01-2012, 06:38 AM
I would love to hear the historical relevance of an MLK lesson that made no attempt to address American racism against black people.

From what I could gather from the sheet he brought home it was that he fought for justice for blacks and was shot and killed for it. That's a fine lesson, but I think second grade is too young. If my kid was oblivious to the concept of different races, then I assume most of his classmates were, as well. I don't see the need to introduce that concept to them at that age. He never said anything to me about someone being "black" or "white" before that, and I think that's a good way for a kid to see the world.
They did the lesson near MLK day, so I'm sure they were explaining why school was closed. But, in my opinion, for a 7 year old, saying, "He fought for justice for people," would have sufficed.

La literatura
03-01-2012, 06:43 AM
From what I could gather from the sheet he brought home it was that he fought for justice for blacks and was shot and killed for it. That's a fine lesson, but I think second grade is too young. If my kid was oblivious to the concept of different races, then I assume most of his classmates were, as well. I don't see the need to introduce that concept to them at that age. He never said anything to me about someone being "black" or "white" before that, and I think that's a good way for a kid to see the world.
They did the lesson near MLK day, so I'm sure they were explaining why school was closed. But, in my opinion, for a 7 year old, saying, "He fought for justice for people," would have sufficed.

In what grade would you prefer the actual history of Martin Luther King, Jr. to be taught?

Hog Farmer
03-01-2012, 06:55 AM
Amazing to think this stuff happens. It was unheard of when I was a child.

That's because when you were a child they hadn't invented television or newspapers yet.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-01-2012, 07:01 AM
That's because when you were a child they hadn't invented television or newspapers yet.

Jim BoB Cooter disapproves of this message.

blaise
03-01-2012, 07:03 AM
In what grade would you prefer the actual history of Martin Luther King, Jr. to be taught?

I don't know, but I think second grade is too young, judging from my interactions with second graders I know.
How old do you they they should be?

La literatura
03-01-2012, 07:09 AM
I don't know, but I think second grade is too young, judging from my interactions with second graders I know.
How old do you they they should be?

I don't know. But, I will presume that educators who have spent their careers working with children-students are able to put together an age-appropriate classroom curriculum. And I don't think "My kid used to call them 'brown,' but ever since he learned about MLK at school, and the things he did with the civil rights movement, he knows there are black people" does not override that presumption.

It sounds like your kid was educated to some degree about MLK and the history of racism in America. Being educated about important things is the entire point of school. Is your kid a racist, now? Is he suspicious of black people?

blaise
03-01-2012, 07:15 AM
I don't know. But, I will presume that educators who have spent their careers working with children-students are able to put together an age-appropriate classroom curriculum. And I don't think "My kid used to call them 'brown,' but ever since he learned about MLK at school, and the things he did with the civil rights movement, he knows there are black people" does not override that presumption.

It sounds like your kid was educated to some degree about MLK. Being educated about important things is the entire point of school. Is your kid a racist, now? Is he suspicious of black people?

You don't know who put together the lesson, do you? How do you know a teacher didn't just think, "The kids might want to know this. Let me pass out a ditto and tell them." You seem to think teachers are infallible and their lesson plans are not to be questioned.
I think my statement actually does override your presumption. Most second graders have stuffed animals, and need help opening their milk in school. I really don't think they need to know about people being assassinated for standing up to racial inequality.
I don't really get your question about him being racist or suspicious of black people. The answer is no, but I don't know what they has to do with anything.

J Diddy
03-01-2012, 07:19 AM
That's because when you were a child they hadn't invented television or newspapers yet.

I know you said this in jest but it does have some truth to it. When I was a kid no internet, cable tv was just beginning to spread, etc.

I don't think things like this are significantly more wide spread. I think it's because we have access to more information than we did then.

La literatura
03-01-2012, 07:26 AM
You don't know who put together the lesson, do you? How do you know a teacher didn't just think, "The kids might want to know this. Let me pass out a ditto and tell them." You seem to think teachers are infallible and their lesson plans are not to be questioned.
I think my statement actually does override your presumption. Most second graders have stuffed animals, and need help opening their milk in school. I really don't think they need to know about people being assassinated for standing up to racial inequality.
I don't really get your question about him being racist or suspicious of black people. The answer is no, but I don't know what they has to do with anything.

I have no idea who put together the lesson. I presume it was a teacher who has a four year degree in early childhood education and at least 7 months of experience working with 2nd graders.

I don't think they're infallible. I just presume that they know more about early childhood education than the layman because that is their career; they have studied it, talked about it, read about it, and lived it.

I can remember a few things about myself as a 2nd grader, and I think I was smart enough to recognize that people have different physical characteristics [in fact, learning to discriminate among objects is one of the first things we are taught as kids: "this is a circle. No, idiot, the square block can not fit into the circle."], but I could be taught that those physical characteristics don't make them less valuable or less loved by God or less important than myself. I think I was smart enough to learn that many people in American history acted the exact opposite of that, and that those thoughts were very wrong and evil.

My questions to you were about what has changed since he learned about MLK? What are the damages?

J Diddy
03-01-2012, 07:26 AM
You don't know who put together the lesson, do you? How do you know a teacher didn't just think, "The kids might want to know this. Let me pass out a ditto and tell them." You seem to think teachers are infallible and their lesson plans are not to be questioned.
I think my statement actually does override your presumption. Most second graders have stuffed animals, and need help opening their milk in school. I really don't think they need to know about people being assassinated for standing up to racial inequality.
I don't really get your question about him being racist or suspicious of black people. The answer is no, but I don't know what they has to do with anything.

The truth is that they're probably going to hear about it anyway with black history month and everything flying around everywhere. I disagree, personally, with your take on this. Even that young they can look at someone and see that they are different, this just puts a name to it and gives them a glimpse into why racism is wrong.

In terms of the assassination aspect of it, the typical 2nd grader has no real clue about death. Assassination is nothing but a word.

blaise
03-01-2012, 07:32 AM
I have no idea who put together the lesson. I presume it was a teacher who has a four year degree in early childhood education and at least 7 months of experience working with 2nd graders.

I don't think they're infallible. I just presume that they know more about early childhood education than the layman because that is their career; they have studied it, talked about it, read about it, and lived it.

I can remember a few things about myself as a 2nd grader, and I think I was smart enough to recognize that people have different physical characteristics, but I could be taught that those physical characteristics don't make them less valuable or less loved by God or less important than myself. I think I was smart enough to learn that many people in American history acted the exact opposite of that, and that those thoughts were very wrong and evil.

My questions to you were about what has changed since he learned about MLK? What are the damages?

The damages, if you want to call it that, is that he now knows that there's differences in race. He already understood that there were different physical characteristics, but the concept of race was not known to him.
And you really are saying teachers are infallible, because you're just taking the fact that they have a degree to mean whatever lesson they taught was the right time for it to be taught. You're basically saying, "Because they have a degree, it is right." Are you saying they never reevaluate their lesson plans?

blaise
03-01-2012, 07:36 AM
The truth is that they're probably going to hear about it anyway with black history month and everything flying around everywhere. I disagree, personally, with your take on this. Even that young they can look at someone and see that they are different, this just puts a name to it and gives them a glimpse into why racism is wrong.

In terms of the assassination aspect of it, the typical 2nd grader has no real clue about death. Assassination is nothing but a word.

I'm not outraged by it or anything, I would just prefer that he was older than he is when the lesson was taught. I'd rather he was older before he knew the kids on his soccer team or cub scout den were black instead of just kids he played with.

La literatura
03-01-2012, 07:40 AM
The damages, if you want to call it that, is that he now knows that there's differences in race. He already understood that there were different physical characteristics, but the concept of race was not known to him.
And you really are saying teachers are infallible, because you're just taking the fact that they have a degree to mean whatever lesson they taught was the right time for it to be taught. You're basically saying, "Because they have a degree, it is right." Are you saying they never reevaluate their lesson plans?

I'm in no way saying that the teachers or their lessons are infallible. I am saying that I have a presumption that favors their decision. If the decision ends up being unhealthy in some aspect, I am more than willing to say their decision was wrong.

For instance, if after the MLK lesson, a number of the 2nd graders start segregating themselves based on some immutable characteristic like race, I would say that the point of the lesson was perverted. The kids were too young to understand the importance of the decision.

Your only complaint seems to be that now your kid understands "race" and you think that is too young. Why is it too young? Understanding American history is an important part of education at all ages. Why is knowing that there are different skin colors, and that some skin colors were immorally discriminated against, a bad thing?

La literatura
03-01-2012, 07:42 AM
I'm not outraged by it or anything, I would just prefer that he was older than he is when the lesson was taught. I'd rather he was older before he knew the kids on his soccer team or cub scout den were black instead of just kids he played with.

He already knew they were black. What's wrong with learning that in American history, his black soccer teammates would have been discriminated against? For instance, in many cities, he could not have gone to the same school as his black soccer teammates. That seems like a great learning moment.

blaise
03-01-2012, 07:50 AM
I'm in no way saying that the teachers or their lessons are infallible. I am saying that I have a presumption that favors their decision. If the decision ends up being unhealthy in some aspect, I am more than willing to say their decision was wrong.

For instance, if after the MLK lesson, a number of the 2nd graders start segregating themselves based on some immutable characteristic like race, I would say that the point of the lesson was perverted. The kids were too young to understand the importance of the decision.

Your only complaint seems to be that now your kid understands "race" and you think that is too young. Why is it too young? Understanding American history is an important part of education at all ages. Why is knowing that there are different skin colors, and that some skin colors were immorally discriminated against, a bad thing?


I don't think the value of a 2nd grader knowing the history of racial discrimination in this country outweighs the value of him thinking the kid next to him at soccer is just another kid, rather than a black kid. I think it teaches differences. Is there some rush to teach MLK history?
You would agree that there's age appropriate lessons, right? It's obviously subjective. You wouldn't teach a child about concentration camps, would you? I'm saying, in my opinion, the MLK lesson could have waited. You're saying, "No. Teachers know better. Therefore it's good."
You're also the person who thinks teachers are qualified to go through each child's lunchbox, evaluate the nutritional content, and if not satisfied require that the child purchase items from the school cafeteria, so I'm not surprised.

blaise
03-01-2012, 07:53 AM
He already knew they were black. What's wrong with learning that in American history, his black soccer teammates would have been discriminated against? For instance, in many cities, he could not have gone to the same school as his black soccer teammates. That seems like a great learning moment.

Do you think there's an age where a child is too young to be told, "Your friend is black. That's a different race than you. His forefathers were discriminated against."
Should the Jewish players be pointed out, and the concept of the holocaust explained?

Lzen
03-01-2012, 07:57 AM
Clearly racism

FYP

Nothing reverse about it. Racism is racism.

J Diddy
03-01-2012, 08:01 AM
Do you think there's an age where a child is too young to be told, "Your friend is black. That's a different race than you. His forefathers were discriminated against."
Should the Jewish players be pointed out, and the concept of the holocaust explained?

I think that you could explain some things to a child without getting too graphic or too far above their comprehension level. If you explain it and they comprehend it well then it was the right time to teach them.

I hate that my sons knows this stuff now and is beginning to grasp that the world isn't all full of sunshine and rainbow and that his father is just a guy trying to do his best and is not a superhuman or a god.

In the end when I examine the details I come up with a question: Does me having a problem with him learning things in his comprehension level bother me because I think it hurts him or because I don't like the idea of him growing up?

To me, the answer is usually the latter.

La literatura
03-01-2012, 08:04 AM
I don't think the value of a 2nd grader knowing the history of racial discrimination in this country outweighs the value of him thinking the kid next to him at soccer is just another kid, rather than a black kid. I think it teaches differences. Is there some rush to teach MLK history?
You would agree that there's age appropriate lessons, right? It's obviously subjective. You wouldn't teach a child about concentration camps, would you? I'm saying, in my opinion, the MLK lesson could have waited. You're saying, "No. Teachers know better. Therefore it's good."
You're also the person who thinks teachers are qualified to go through each child's lunchbox, evaluate the nutritional content, and if not satisfied require that the child purchase items from the school cafeteria, so I'm not surprised.

Yes, there are age-appropriate lessons. I'm still waiting for some evidence from you why 2nd grade is age-inappropriate to learn about racism in American history. I'm not saying it isn't inappropriate. I'm saying that between an educated teacher whose career is centered around working with 2nd graders, and you, a person whose kid now knows a little about racial differences, I'm presuming that she had an appropriate lesson plan and no damages came from it. In fact, some benefits came from it.

La literatura
03-01-2012, 08:06 AM
Do you think there's an age where a child is too young to be told, "Your friend is black. That's a different race than you. His forefathers were discriminated against."
Should the Jewish players be pointed out, and the concept of the holocaust explained?

Yes, there probably is an age when the child is too young. That age is when 1) the lesson is pointless because the kid doesn't have any cognitive ability to understand it and/or 2) the lesson is detrimental because the kid perverts the lesson by taking the wrong morals away from it (i.e.: racism is a good thing. Martin Luther King was a bad person).

Why is 2nd grade that age? That's what you're mad about, I think. "He shouldn't be in taught this in 2nd grade. Wait til he's in ___ grade, instead!"

blaise
03-01-2012, 08:09 AM
I think that you could explain some things to a child without getting too graphic or too far above their comprehension level. If you explain it and they comprehend it well then it was the right time to teach them.

I hate that my sons knows this stuff now and is beginning to grasp that the world isn't all full of sunshine and rainbow and that his father is just a guy trying to do his best and is not a superhuman or a god.

In the end when I examine the details I come up with a question: Does me having a problem with him learning things in his comprehension level bother me because I think it hurts him or because I don't like the idea of him growing up?

To me, the answer is usually the latter.

Yes, that last part is certainly part of it.
I think it's obviously subjective as to the best time to teach kids some lessons. I don't expect him to think the world is sunshine and rainbows. But I don't get the rush to point out the differences in races with lessons like the MLK one. It's a concept I'd rather he wasn't introduced to yet in the name of an MLK lesson. I think the net benefit of an MLK lesson in 2nd grade is small compared to his being told, in my mind, that races are different. That the kid next to him is not the same. I think it creates a sort of mental division.
It's not something I wrote the school about, or chastised the teacher over. I would just prefer he was older.

blaise
03-01-2012, 08:12 AM
Yes, there probably is an age when the child is too young. That age is when 1) the lesson is pointless because the kid doesn't have any cognitive ability to understand it and/or 2) the lesson is detrimental because the kid perverts the lesson by taking the wrong morals away from it (i.e.: racism is a good thing. Martin Luther King was a bad person).

Why is 2nd grade that age? That's what you're mad about, I think. "He shouldn't be in taught this in 2nd grade. Wait til he's in ___ grade, instead!"

And then there's you, who just says, "Because the school taught it in second grade, it's good."
Do you think schools sometimes reevaluate the age level where they teach history lessons about 9/11, or MLK, or World War 2 atrocities? Do you think they change their lesson plans after reevaluations? Or are you just saying, "Once it's decided. It is good."

J Diddy
03-01-2012, 08:13 AM
Yes, that last part is certainly part of it.
I think it's obviously subjective as to the best time to teach kids some lessons. I don't expect him to think the world is sunshine and rainbows. But I don't get the rush to point out the differences in races with lessons like the MLK one. It's a concept I'd rather he wasn't introduced to yet in the name of an MLK lesson. I think the net benefit of an MLK lesson in 2nd grade is small compared to his being told, in my mind, that races are different. That the kid next to him is not the same. I think it creates a sort of mental division.
It's not something I wrote the school about, or chastised the teacher over. I would just prefer he was older.

I get your point and I think that it is true that is totally subjective.

smittysbar
03-01-2012, 08:17 AM
Sounds fishy

La literatura
03-01-2012, 08:24 AM
And then there's you, who just says, "Because the school taught it in second grade, it's good."
Do you think schools sometimes reevaluate the age level where they teach history lessons about 9/11, or MLK, or World War 2 atrocities? Do you think they change their lesson plans after reevaluations? Or are you just saying, "Once it's decided. It is good."

Either I'm doing a horrible job explaining my position, or you are having a horrible time understanding it.

In no way am I passing ultimate, permanent judgment on the teacher or the lesson. I am allowing a presumption, one that is subject to change, upon evidence and reason, that the teacher and the lesson were age-appropriate. This presumption is based on the teacher being a professional whose career is early childhood education.

Of course schools sometimes reevaluate the age level in light of new evidence and reason. I'm completely open to the idea that 2nd grade is not the right time to learn that American history has a significant element of racism involved. However, give me the evidence and reasons for that decision! Simply saying, "I don't like it. It's too young." is not sufficient. Why is it too young? Is it because 2nd graders don't understand, to the point where it is pointless? Is it because 2nd graders pervert the lesson and take the wrong morals out of it?

blaise
03-01-2012, 08:36 AM
Either I'm doing a horrible job explaining my position, or you are having a horrible time understanding it.

In no way am I passing ultimate, permanent judgment on the teacher or the lesson. I am allowing a presumption, one that is subject to change, upon evidence and reason, that the teacher and the lesson were age-appropriate. This presumption is based on the teacher being a professional whose career is early childhood education.

Of course schools sometimes reevaluate the age level in light of new evidence and reason. I'm completely open to the idea that 2nd grade is not the right time to learn that American history has a significant element of racism involved. However, give me the evidence and reasons for that decision! Simply saying, "I don't like it. It's too young." is not sufficient. Why is it too young? Is it because 2nd graders don't understand, to the point where it is pointless? Is it because 2nd graders pervert the lesson and take the wrong morals out of it?

You're asking me for evidence to say that my opinion is my child was too young to be explained the differences in race, for the sake of an MLK lesson?
I've explained why I think it's too young. I don't think the value of teaching him black vs white outweighs the need for him to learn about racial discrimination.
You're telling me to give you evidence about why I feel that way? Are you insane? Have you presented evidence that the lesson was good? Have you presented evidence that second grade is the correct time for a lesson in racial discrimination? Do you know the teacher? Do you have experience in second grade education? Do you have experience with second grade age children? Do you have evidence about how his teacher arrived at the decision to teach this lesson?
What the hell are you talking about? You're asking for evidence to refute your presumption that the lesson was valid, even though you have basically no facts or evidence aside from, "A teacher decided it was the right time." You don't even have evidence that it's part of the entire second grade lesson plan.
You have no evidence that it was age-appropriate. There's no need for me to present evidence that it wasn't in order to refute your presumption that the lesson was a good idea.
I arrived at my opinion based on interactions with my child, and based on experience with children in that age group. Your opinion is based on nothing more than, "The teacher decided it was a good idea."
Well, that and the fact that you're kind of an argumentative woman.

La literatura
03-01-2012, 09:00 AM
You're asking me for evidence to say that my opinion is my child was too young to be explained the differences in race, for the sake of an MLK lesson?

Yes, exactly. What supports your argument? If I'm trying to decide the relative worth of a classroom curriculum, why should I think an MLK lesson in 2nd grade is generally a bad idea?

I've explained why I think it's too young. I don't think the value of teaching him black vs white outweighs the need for him to learn about racial discrimination.

I know you've said that. It seems like learning about MLK and racial discrimination is an important part of American history. I still don't see why 2nd graders being more aware of skin color is a bad thing. Will 2nd graders, upon learning of MLK, and becoming more aware of skin color, treat minorities with more distaste? Will they treat them differently? Has your own child neglected his black soccer teammates now?

You're telling me to give you evidence about why I feel that way? Are you insane?

Yes. In an argument, it's common to give evidence or reasons to support your beliefs. This is quite rational. Say, for instance, that I want to help shape my kid's school's curriculum. Someone has proposed that in 2nd grader, the teacher spend some time talking about American history, and how blacks were not treated well, and a lot of people, including Martin Luther King Jr. started standing up to it. What should my response be? "Too young." Someone else: "Nuh uh." Me: "Yes, uh." That would get nowhere.

Have you presented evidence that the lesson was good? Have you presented evidence that second grade is the correct time for a lesson in racial discrimination? Do you know the teacher? Do you have experience in second grade education? Do you have experience with second grade age children? Do you have evidence about how his teacher arrived at the decision to teach this lesson?

I have as much evidence that the lesson was good as you have given me that the lesson was bad: zero. I have as much evidence that second grade is the correct time for a lesson in racial discrimination as you have given me that second grade is the wrong time for a lesson in racial discrimination: zero. I do not know the teacher, but I think I'm on safe ground in saying that (1) she has a four year degree (2) in early childhood education (3) that she was hired by an administration who presumably hires well-qualified and intelligent people to teach the children and (4) she has thought about the lesson plans she gives to her students.
I have no experience in second grade education, that is why I am giving a presumptive deference to the person that does have experience in second grade education (which would be your son's second grade educator). I have no evidence about how his teacher arrived at the decision to teach this lesson, but I presume that it was made under some degree of consideration and in the best interests of her class.

You have no evidence that it was age-appropriate.

You have given me no evidence that it was age-inappropriate. I have some evidence that tends it was likely age-appropriate: a qualified educator determined it was so.

There's no need for me to present evidence that it wasn't in order to refute your presumption that the lesson was a good idea.

There is only a need if you want to present a good argument for why it wasn't a good idea.

I arrived at my opinion based on interactions with my child, and based on experience with children in that age group.

Great! What are those? Depending on what these are, they could really help us decide whether 2nd grade was an appropriate or inappropriate time. Why have you neglected to share these? Wait no longer.

blaise
03-01-2012, 09:04 AM
So, your evidence is that a teacher decided it was good, and you're asking me to provide evidence that I think it was too young?
Does that summarize that whole thing?

La literatura
03-01-2012, 09:11 AM
So, your evidence is that a teacher decided it was good, and you're asking me to provide evidence that I think it was too young?
Does that summarize that whole thing?

I think that's sufficient. You started off by basically saying it was wrong. I'm basically wanting to know why.

blaise
03-01-2012, 09:24 AM
I think that's sufficient. You started off by basically saying it was wrong. I'm basically wanting to know why.

And I've told you why, repeatedly. I don't believe the value of a lesson on racial discrimination outweighs the value of my son thinking that his classmates are just people who look a little different from him, rather than someone of another race. I would prefer, at this point in his life, that the issue of race isn't something he considers when he looks at other people. There's plenty of other topics in school that he could study.
I think the MLK lesson puts a seed in his mind that there's some sort of division. That's obviously subjective. If you want to teach your kids about black/white differences when he's 4, go ahead.
If you're asking me for evidence that it's not beneficial to him, no, I'm not going to present evidence as if it's a court of law. I didn't ask the school to change their lesson plan. I didn't ask the school to reprimand the teacher. I don't feel my child was irreparably harmed by the lesson. You appear to be more passionate about defending a school and teacher you know almost nothing about that I was over the lesson itself.

El Jefe
03-01-2012, 09:32 AM
Attempted murder IMO.

Yes, exactly.

Pestilence
03-01-2012, 09:34 AM
Awesome job of hijacking a thread. Fucking Christ...

blaise
03-01-2012, 09:35 AM
Awesome job of hijacking a thread. ****ing Christ...

Yes, I feel kind of dirty.

La literatura
03-01-2012, 09:42 AM
And I've told you why, repeatedly. I don't believe the value of a lesson on racial discrimination outweighs the value of my son thinking that his classmates are just people who look a little different from him, rather than someone of another race. I would prefer, at this point in his life, that the issue of race isn't something he considers when he looks at other people. There's plenty of other topics in school that he could study.
I think the MLK lesson puts a seed in his mind that there's some sort of division. That's obviously subjective. If you want to teach your kids about black/white differences when he's 4, go ahead.

So, here's your evidence for why 2nd grade is too young: "The MLK lesson puts a seed in his mind that there's some sort of division." Okay. You also seem to imply that this 'seed' can lead to damages: Your son starts neglecting his former black friends, he starts acting out with racial pretexts, he somehow changes his behavior, which was once race-free and innocent. However, it seems to me that 1) kids already recognize racial differences among themselves in 2nd grade and 2) it's a stretch to say that learning about this alleged "division" will in fact lead to those damages. It seems more plausible to me that learning about the alleged "division" and American history will cause him to appreciate his country's history and his black friends more. And when I ask you if your son has changed because of the lesson, you can give me, what? Any evidence of that?

If you're asking me for evidence that it's not beneficial to him, no, I'm not going to present evidence as if it's a court of law. I didn't ask the school to change their lesson plan. I didn't ask the school to reprimand the teacher. I don't feel my child was irreparably harmed by the lesson. You appear to be more passionate about defending a school and teacher you know almost nothing about that I was over the lesson itself.

Just having a conversation. I think American history, early childhood education, and friendships are important things, so it's a conversation worth having.

CoMoChief
03-01-2012, 09:43 AM
I have one 12 year old and two 13 year olds so yeah shit like this freaks me out.

why because they're around the same age? That doesn't make any sense.

That's like hearing a newscast that a 18 yr old died when she wrapped her car around a pole and then saying "oh my child is also 18 yrs old man that sure does hit home w/ me".

Having that said, that's pretty fucked up and anyone who was involved should be be sent to the death penalty highway express. Taking out a gun and shooting someone is one thing (which is also very bad) but literally trying to light someone on fire is just a sick demonic act.

Extra Point
03-06-2012, 09:36 AM
Six days later, it was nationally reported:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/teenagers-set-boy-on-fire_n_1320993.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl12%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D140795

"And they rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," the boy's mother Melissa Coon told KCTV. "One of them poured the gasoline, then flicked the [lighter], and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy'."