Boy Arrested for Drawing Inappropriate Stick Figures by Police in Colorado, Taken Away in Handcuffs, page 13
Pages: <<  10    11    12    13  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times


reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 12:06 PM by oaf21
Originally posted by filosophia
reply to
post by DimensionalDetective



yes, we get it, he got in trouble for the gun and not the remark about music, but I think it's just an interesting thing to say, "Music sucks" on the same page as the stick figure shooting a gun. Maybe there is some connection between the child's view of music and his irrational nature towards his peers. I mean he could have said anything, he could have said "I hate school" but instead he chose to say "music sucks" interesting.


The kid was probably in music class at school... which I agree can be very very boring (and I am a musician)! That would be the only thing that would give any kind of sense to that comment.

I can see how someone who doesn't think things through can see how those drawings can be disturbing. However, it's better the kid vents his anger with these drawings instead of actually, as someone on here so eloquently put it, pulling a Columbine.


reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 12:40 PM by christina-66
reply to post by VI0811



It's not a matter of opinion it's a matter of fact. When you, or your child, sit in from of the tv watching your fave programme and someone calls your name, sometimes several times, and you don't hear it - that's because you're in the alpha brain wave state. A state of hypnosis.

All children, under the age of 10, spend most of their waking time in that state.

That's why they're such fast learners at that age - they abosorb everything they see and hear like a sponge. It's part of the human condition. And that's why we have a duty of care to recognise that fact and protect them from seeing 1500 deaths (via tv and games) by the time they reach 12 years of age.

Are you telling me your child isn't human?


reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 02:02 PM by Whereweheaded
reply to post by angelwrangler



Allow me to clarify, many response's are suggesting that Im cruel, and haven't identified this this kid has issues ( ADD). As I have stated on a earlier page:


And btw, ADD is a psychological disorder, just curious what else may be compounding that issue~



Take note in the last part of that sentence; " just curious what else may be compounding that issue".
that would further suggest that I believe that there might be some deeper issue, that has yet to be identified.

Further, I firmly disagree that the police had any grounds to intervene. Its not a crime to draw a picture, this is granted to us by the First Amendment, which I stated earlier.


This child has a diagnosis of ADHD


I clearly identified that I acknowledged the pre-existing condition of the child. I'm not saying, nor have I said that he didnt have this condition.


Nobody said this child was normal in the sense that you are proposing. However, he is not abnormal in the sense that you are proposing either.



I haven't noted anything in regards to this child being normal or abnormal. I suggested that his behavior, which is entirely different as being questionable at best. Further, I suggested that maybe there were some deep routed issues, that may require his " sanity " tested. But I never specifically called this kid out, or labeled him a "retard".


believe you may be conflicted.



Not all, I have been stating the same thing repeatedly. If you must, please feel free to review my posts.


ecause of your comments I do not think you are not an educator and have never worked with students with diagnoses, IEP's, shadows and the therapeutic/ psychiatric community or CPS. If I am wrong, forgive me.


Actually, I taught children from ages 5-9 for many years. Not as a teacher in a classroom, but a side program for about 6 years. And currently, my g/friends youngest son whom is 5, and clinically diagnosed with ADHD, I think with actual hands on experience on a daily basis, would suggest I have knowledge in this category. ( No offense taken, I appreciate your insight )


but also cruelty



Not cruelty, by any means......as I have said over and over, i hope the parents can identify the child in questions issues, and he can live a long and happy life, but I don't believe this child should have been arrested. It wasn't the place of the LEO's to take " command ", nor was it the place of the educators to pose their " will " either.

As a side note, reflecting back in my younger years, I honestly don't recall drawing pictures of this type...I was too busy chasing girls~


reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 02:06 PM by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Afterl1fe



if any one wants a clearer picture of who might have talked.... check out the comments section at this link www.kdvr.com... "Justine at 1:02 PM February 23, 2011

I'm quite certain this kid is in my son's class. He is NO Beaver Cleaver. He is EXTREMELY disruptive on a daily basis. There are 32 other kids in that class, and they are suffering on a daily basis. My son comes home every single day with stories about him, and it is not a good situation for all of the other kids trying to learn in that class. The reason I was tipped off is because Julie Hayden relayed the story of him slapping another kid across the face in PE class.........this was just ONE of the many colorful stories my son came home with.

The authorities are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We cannot get angry that they weren't proactive enough before Columbine, but at the same time get angry that they are being proactive toward this kid. He didn't draw a hunting picture; he drew a picture of him shooting four teachers and wrote "teachers should die". Obviously signs of a problem child. An 11 year old is perfectly capable of taking a gun or knife to school and using it.......MY KID has to deal with him every day, and would be in that class if the kid brought a weapon. Would you want your kid in that same place?? Try to think outside the box here." seems like it might have been a concerned parent who told the police after her kid came home with anohter one of his "stories"(how many kids talk smack about other kids its what we did when we were little) so that might shed some light on who might have informed the police more on topic the last line of the same link says it all for me
"And if they had known that their son’s cooperation would be used as evidence against him, they would have hired a lawyer at the beginning and exercised his right to remain silent." so seems like the nice little police department did what it could to erode his and parents rights and rail roaded him....



madmadmad at 1:34 PM February 23, 2011

People, the point some of you are missing is the fact that this boy was arrested because of the possibility of a future crime. What does that mean for all of us? Instead of walzing into court and getting a restraining order couldn't your ex wife, under these rules just have you arrested because you MIGHT harm her in the future? Who gets to decide what you might do in the future? Your ex, a cop, some judge that doesn't know you or her?

In this country they are not supposed to be able to arrest you until you actually commit a crime. Arresting people because they might commit a crime in the future puts all of us at risk regardless of age. this threatens every single person in this country. We have laws, we have rights. this arrest flies in the face of our rights. Should we just quit calling them the police right now and call them the Gestapo?
that i think sums up how dangerous a precedent this is setting.....
edit on 23-2-2011 by KilrathiLG because: found something farly more intelegent then i could come up with on my own

Pages: <<  10    11    12    13  >>    ^^TOP^^